Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Articles for creation: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:55, 3 February 2012 view sourceChzz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users115,894 edits reply← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:05, 17 January 2025 view source Primefac (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators210,000 edits →Aram Mala Nuri, Requesting Review: patience is a virtue 
(1,000 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-sock|small=yes}}
{{Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/header}}
{{/header}}
{{skip to top and bottom}}
{{Banner holder |collapsed=yes |{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{WikiProject Articles for creation (admin)}}}}
{{central|Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Templates/Signpost article link for WikiProjects|link=Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2018-12-24/WikiProject report|day=24|month=December|year=2018}}}}


{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation/ArchiveBox}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(7d) | algo=old(20d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2012 | archive=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Archive %(counter)d
| counter=59
| maxarchivesize=300K
| archiveheader={{Talk archive navigation}}{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation/ArchiveBox}}
| minthreadsleft=6
}} }}
{{Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/stats}}
<!--


DO NOT EDIT ABOVE THIS LINE --><!-- DO NOT EDIT ABOVE THIS LINE --><!-- DO NOT EDIT ABOVE THIS LINE --><!--
== Hiccups again? ==


NEW SECTIONS GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE
The ] is no longer updating itself, hasn't done so for 8 hours or so. Is something being tweaked? It's difficult to know at the moment what the current status is. ] (]) 19:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
:It appears that the IRC feed is down also. ] 19:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


-->
:When this happens, 99% of the time it's because the ] was restarted or had an outage. For future reference, just give me a ping, either on my talk page or on IRC in {{irc|#earwig}}, and I'll fix it ASAP (takes about half a minute). &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 04:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


== Bots/scripts that detect that a submission has not changed (much) since the last time it was submitted ==
::Submissions page has not been updating/clearing itself for almost 48 hours now. It's difficult to know what has been reviewed and what hasn't. Rather discouraging. Or maybe I'm just being negative :( ] (]) 23:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
{{closed rfc top

| result = There is a consensus against option 1 and no consensus for options 3 or 4. The former was roundly rejected, and the latter two received minimal support. Option 2 received about 7 !votes and option 5 around 10 !votes. The main arguments in favor of option 5 were the stigma of being flagged by a bot and the fact that reviewers sometimes make mistakes, but editors in favor of option 2 pointed out that some editors see value in having such a list, that the list wouldn't alert the submitter, and that being on the list does nothing to indicate whether the original review was correct. Thus, I find a rough consensus for option 2. ] (]/]) 21:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{tl|Toolserver}} replication lag is really high right now, as you can see from that template (~7 hours; check the documentation to see what that means). The bot doesn't run when replag is really high, so we'll have to wait until the servers calm down and catch up. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 02:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
}}
::::Replication lag is 26 seconds as of this time. ] 09:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::Hoorah! I notice we've been receiving over 400 articles a day, much more than any day in the early weeks of January! ] (]) 10:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

== New decline categories? ==

We need some new decline categories, because there are some that don't fit in any of the standard decline messages (in my opinion):
*ATTACK, a subcategory of NPOV, because the current NPOV decline message is for positive NPOV, we need a negative one.
*BOOK, (does not pass ]), the current decline reason for books is just NN.
*NONSENSE, (]), for the completely random and illogical submissions
*HOAX (another shortcut for JOKE, which already exists)
*OR (])- Currently can be tagged as essay (not always correct) or no refs (not always true)

I'll write the decline messages for these if everybody thinks they're good ideas.

<font color="green">]</font> (] * ]) 02:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

:I'm a bit bemused by the existing 'Does not conform to BLP' category too. It currently states that all biographical info has been deleted from the article. But because the article isn't yet in mainspace there is no reason to delete the uncited information. Instead the message should point out the article doesn't conform to WP:BLP and demand reliable citations. Does anyone else agree? ] (]) 02:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
::I'll be willing to write these in the coming days, although my only concern is what would become of the "JOKE" decline reason, as it would never be used, and could be absorbed into "NOT". Sionk, it is supposed to be for attacks on people and whatnot, as those can come up in search results. ] (]) 04:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
:::I'm for leaving the text in '''BLP''', but default a wipe for a page that is '''ATTACK'''. &nbsp;If the '''BLP''' is derogatory, mark it '''ATTACK''' and wipe it. That being said, if the '''BLP''' was written about me, and not sourced and the article said something '''I''' did not like, I might call my lawyer. &nbsp;So, I can see some rational for wiping '''BLP's'''. &nbsp;Even if they are not in '''Main''' space, people could post a link to their user page on Facebook for example. &nbsp;I'm also in favor default wiping of '''NONSENSE''' and '''HOAX'''. &nbsp;Why waste space, get them SPD'd. &nbsp;--] 05:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Attacks don't get declined (and therefore preserved), they get placed for speedy deletion. That solves one problem. No comment on the rest. ] ] 06:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
:I agree with Sven on the attack front if it meets CSDG10 then tag it for speedy deletion. As for BLP articles that are unsourced: how about a blanking template? Like we have for copyright violations; saying something like: "The content of this submission has been blanked as a courtesy because it contains unreferenced material ]. Please add references, from ], to this submission before removing this template." ] ] 13:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
::Is Speedy Deletion appropriate for AfC? After all, they are not in mainspace. Speedy deletion would also apply to non-notable unsourced articles, and there are plenty of those in AfC! I understood only admins could speedy delete, which rules me and several other AfC participants out of the running. ] (]) 14:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
::: Attack pages fall under CSDG10. The 'G' category applies 'Generally' to Misplaced Pages pages. The 'A' category pages apply only to article namespace. An attack page is an attack page anywhere in Misplaced Pages. Non-notability falls under 'A7' which applies only to the article mainspace. ] ] 14:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
::I have certainly declined on the JOKE criteria in the past. Some HOAXes may not be Jokes so that sounds OK. The NONSENSE sounds reasonable too as a decline reason as it would replicate a speedy delete reason. It is probably some one just testing the function that will never return to find out what happened. There used to be an attack decline reason, which included blanking the content. OR could also be a possible reason to decline if obvious enough. It would useually be matched by a lack of Verifyability. My only concern with adding some of these in is that it is more to remember for the people here! ] (]) 20:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
How about NON-NOTABLE SOFTWARE also? ] 04:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

We could also use one for "lack of formatting": I've rejected several for lacking any paragraphing, for instance. ] (]) 05:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

:A '''NSOFT''' decline reason would be useful, although we easily can use NN (not notable) or mostly WEB. '''And again: declining because of "lack of formatting" is not a reason!''' I overruled a few minutes ago a reviewer who stated that the submitter should following WP:MOS. Sry, but there are a) simply to many MOS pages and secondly it is not a valid decline reason! We have enough editors who doing gnomisch work and can wikify and fix such "minor" issues! <small style="font:bold 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">]</font></small> 14:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
::Agreed, this ''is'' Articles for Creation, not ''Featured'' Articles for Creation. The articles we accept just need to be capable of reasonably surviving deletion. They don't need to be able to pass the featured article criteria in order to be accepted. Unless the MoS violation would likely result in deletion (i.e. failing to use inline citations on contentious BLP information), then there is no reason to decline it. ] ] 16:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
:::I've never rejected an article for ''poor'' formatting. I have rejected several which consisted of twenty or thirty lines (which on my screen runs to a couple thousand characters) of solid text. It's ''not'' a minor issue to have to read through such an indigestible lump to determine whether it contains BLP issues or other such content faults. ] (]) 15:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I've created some drafts of messages at ]. Feel free to edit it. On the topic of attacks, shouldn't it be declined (to remove it from the submission list) and ''also'' CSD'ed? <font color="green">]</font> (] * ]) 00:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
:Can you make up a mockup of the actual template? &nbsp;The surrounding text could make a big difference in the way the wording reads. ] 15:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

::Why is it we make reference to ] 'A' criteria (I'm referring mostly to notability under A7) in the decline templates? AfC is aimed, primarily, at anon users who cannot create pages in the article namespace. 'A' criteria are invalid in the AfC namespace, and so it seems without merit to point to that criteria in the decline templates. It just seems like extra text, and more Wikilinks, for already confused new editors to have to follow. ] ] 17:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

:::Although you are correct that the A criteria is for mainspace and not for AFC pages, we cannot move them if they fail the ''A''. But indeed, even experienced users don't understand what #A7 is correctly and thus should be removed from the decline reason and explaining it better. <small style="font:bold 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">]</font></small> 17:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

::How exactly do I make a mockup of the actual template? I can't find a way to. <font color="green">]</font> (] * ]) 17:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

:::I have no idea I'm afraid, it's a complicated template. On a slightly related matter ] ] ] 17:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

::::I'm working on a impotent mockup. &nbsp;Hopefully you will be able to copy, paste, then redisplay. &nbsp;] 18:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

::::Ok, I have made the current Decline template more or less impotent. &nbsp;Clicking will take you somewhere, but it will not change or submit anything: &nbsp;<nowiki>{{Dcshank|Your decline text goes here}}</nowiki>. &nbsp;Let me know if it has problems. &nbsp;] 19:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

{{od}} Can we keep this in one thread or the other? I would suggest the thread below is the better venue. ] ] 15:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

*This Section is closed. &nbsp;All further discussion shall take place in the section Decline Templates, ]. ] 15:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

== Decline Templates ==

{{resolved}}
While were are talking about decline templates. &nbsp;Can we copy the reviewer's name to the template? &nbsp;It's really not very useful to have ArticlesForCreationBot on 4 decline templates. --] 00:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
:This is simply not possible since the template is checking who has done the last edit on that page. CHeck ] and you will see the old revision by somebody. Regards, <small style="font:bold 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">]</font></small> 00:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
::Understood, but that is not useful information. &nbsp;Especially when 4 templates say they were edited by ArticlesForCreationBot 2 hours ago. I don't see any reason the last reviewer and the time could not be copied into the template. &nbsp;That would be useful information. ] 04:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
:::The media wiki software does not have that feature in it, to insert the user of the person editing. Perhaps we can request that feature. I would also like to see the ability to template the article creator. But using the javascript tools should make that possible. ] (]) 08:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
::::Yes, I tried it myself, and there is no variable. &nbsp;However I did find out that using <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> in the template does copy the review's signature and the time. &nbsp;Not optimum, but usable and much better than what we have. ] 23:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::If you want to develop a JS tool, I can give you the API code to get the latest (or the rev before) revision user. Simply ping me in IRC or on my talk. <small style="font:bold 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">]</font></small> 11:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::The only change needed is a change to the decline templates. &nbsp;We are already talking about those. &nbsp;I have not tried it outside of the sandbox, however. &nbsp;Is there an easy way for a real test? ] 15:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I updated ], ], and Tims script (didn't recognized his message down there) and we have now two new parameters: decliner and declinets: really simply: the script adds the information who and when the submission was declined. Feel free to report any bugs to me! <small style="font:bold 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">]</font></small> 19:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we need a page to discuss templates. &nbsp;One tag in Twinkle says article contains insufficient content, but the tag says "introduction provides insufficient context". &nbsp;I'm not sure which should be kept or if we need both. &nbsp;I'm a big advocate of ], and I would put a counter in Twinkle to see which tags are never used and get rid of them. &nbsp;It's a great tool, but there are so many tags to choose from. &nbsp;Just thinkin' out loud. &nbsp;] 07:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

:I have been copy editing the text of the decline templates in my sandbox. You can see the results at ]. Any feedback would be appreciated ] ] 17:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

::Before everyone('''A412 & Pol430'''] starts rewriting decline reasons, why don't we make a copy of the ''']''' somewhere, and modify '''IT'''. &nbsp;That is what we are going to have to put back into Template space if we want to update the wording. &nbsp;I will volunteer to copy & paste the text into dummy templates in my sandbox(or where ever) for review. &nbsp;] 21:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

:Too Late!! &nbsp;I have made a page ''']''' with all the decline templates, the existing codes, and the existing text. &nbsp;You may go ahead and edit these templates if you like for review or testing. &nbsp;When everyone is happy, we can copy the wording out to the real templates. &nbsp;] 23:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

:::] is a copy and paste of the wordings at ] with modifications. It simply requires copy and pasting into the relevant template if the wording is agreed upon... ] ] 15:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

::::I'm working on it, Pol430. &nbsp;I faked the 2nd template parameter in mine. &nbsp;Trying to get it working in yours and mine now. &nbsp;Any template experts out there, I'm always on AfC IRC. ] 17:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

:::::I am at a complete loss to understand why you are trying to make a working mock-up... The decline templates already exist, and work, they are all identical except for the text of the decline reason. The only issue is the wording of the individual decline reasons&mdash;at least, that is the only issue I am working to address. ] ] 17:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

::::::Simply to have a sandbox to play in, especially if we are considering adding new templates, or we can work out the appearance and wording using the live templates. &nbsp;In any case the old and new decline templates using the wording from Pol430's page are ] for reference.

'''Calm down please'''! I really think we need two major changes: one of the ''style'' of the templates (and the general wording) and on the other side a complete rewording of the decline ''reasons''! The WMF started/want to do an ] on the existing ones (link in archives).<br>
@Pol430: I think we have to reword even more the decline reasons - the average/new user needs a wording which could be used on the ]. As an example: third party references is "useless" for non-academic users: explain better that they should include newspaper articles. I would also get rid of the ''A7'' - even experienced users have problems to determine what ''A7'' is (and I really thing that many, maybe even most, declines are incorrectly declined as A7!).<br>
Related to the general rewording: I think adding the decliner and the contact link highly improves the understanding for the normal user who aren't aware of their talkpages (or if they are IP editors, they can have a new IP!) <small style="font:bold 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">]</font></small> 19:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
:Oh and before I forget: if anybody needs help with a template change or/and the JS helper, feel free to ask here or on my talkpage (or in the IRC channel) and I will try to do it! <small style="font:bold 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">]</font></small> 19:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

:: Agreed, I am currently away from a decent computer but will continue to try and improve the text of the decline reasons on my return, on Friday. I'm not even going to attempt it on an iPhone... ] ] 22:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

::: I have done some more copy editing of the decline templates wordings&mdash;See: ] for the results. I have tried to standardize terminology and write them in plain language. I was cautious about making the wordings ''too'' simple because 1) this is not ] and 2) editing Misplaced Pages requires ] and the ability to understand complex issues. I have also been cautious to avoid TLDR issues and encourage editors to actually follow the links... ] ] 21:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

== A stupid question ==

When a editor submits an Article for creation, it is moved to '''Misplaced Pages Talk:Articles for creation/Article'''. &nbsp;Why can it not be moved to '''Misplaced Pages:Articles for creation/Article''' with a '''Talk''' page? &nbsp;Then we don't have to clutter up the article page or various '''User Talk''' pages with discussions. &nbsp;As we are rejecting more and more articles, discussions are ending up everywhere. &nbsp;I believe I even saw a decline template that said to discuss it on the Article's Talk page. &nbsp;] 07:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

:Why aren't you able to move the talkpage to the WP namespace? It is totally legit and the "tools" section in the submission template even has a button to do this with a notice for a discussion - although this is really seldom done. <small style="font:bold 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">]</font></small> 11:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

::Yeap, you're right. I noticed it being done more and more. &nbsp;Maybe we could make it the default action and remove the option? &nbsp;I suppose the submission script and any reviewer scripts(e.g. Twinkle) might have to be modified? &nbsp;That could be a draw back now that it is so busy. ] 15:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

:They start there because unregistered users can only create pages in talk namespaces. ''']'''<sup>''']'''&bull;''']'''</sup> 18:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
::Thanks for the explanation Joe. &nbsp; ] 22:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Now for the Soap Box again. &nbsp;I just saw an urgent request for help with "New Pages". &nbsp;They are like a zillion days behind. &nbsp;I know I keep bringing up the fact that I don't think it is wise to just let anyone move pages to '''Main''' space. &nbsp;But, IMHO, the Misplaced Pages is becoming to big to stay with the old ideas until we drown. &nbsp;I looked at the first 10 pages in the "New Pages" list, and was the best article. &nbsp;If it takes a month to get an article through AfC, then that's just the way it's going to have to be. &nbsp;In the time it takes NPP to clean out the chaf, twice as much will have flowed in. &nbsp; ] 22:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
:::That article was not ''moved'' to mainspace, it was ''created'' in namespace. Please see ], it has been proposed, and the Wikimedia Foundation rejected it. It doesn't matter how many ''editors'' you convince, it isn't going to happen unless the Wikimedia Foundation is convinced. ] ] 23:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
::::The result is the same. &nbsp;I read about Dead Horses and sticks in the Misplaced Pages, so I will be quiet. &nbsp;Not happy but quiet. ] 23:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
:Totally agree; see ]. Grr. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">]]</span></small> 16:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

== ] ==

I'm glad to see that after so many years of inactivity (a single edit in over six years), ] is now submitting articles for creation. A pity they are all getting rejected. ] (]) 10:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

== new relevant bot task ==

see ] and comment there ;) <small style="font:bold 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">]</font></small> 15:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

== Article ==

Hi, I submitted a stub for publication days ago but nothing seems to be happening with it. It hasn't been posted and I've had no feedback. Can someone let me know what's happening please. There seems to be some massive backlog or its gone AWOL somehow.

Why did the procedures get changed? It used to be relatively straightforward to post an article but now it's become very difficult. I dont understand the reasons. Overall the new procedures seem to be working against the aims of the whole Misplaced Pages project.

Can someone get back to me please.

Thanks, ] (]) 09:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

:As far as I understand, the new procedures were introduced to stop the large amount of inappropriate new articles being created without review. I agree, there is quite a backlog at the moment. This a partly to do with the recent significant increase in submissions and partly because some of the more prolific AfC reviewers are not around temporarily. <br/>
:Articles are still getting reviewed, but it's taking 5 or six days, rather than 2 or 3. I see someone has reviewed your article but forgot to inform you! ] (]) 13:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
::Checking his contributions, I recognized that his draft was already reviewed, but the reviewer missed to inform him. I will leave a message on the reviewers talk page that he/she should use the helper script ;) <small style="font:bold 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">]</font></small> 13:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
:::On a serious note, when it comes to a backlog of near two weeks, please let me know. ] (]) 19:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

== Things have changed a bit? ==

Hey guys. I decided to come back to AFC after being gone for about a year. Things have changed a bit? Wondering if someone could kindly give me a quick rundown of how things are going, and how the process changed, if at all. Thanks. ] (]) 11:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


Are there any bots/scripts that detect that a submission has not changed (much) since the last time it was submitted? Ideally they would be able to autoreject or at least put them on a list. It might be possible to look at the previous reason for rejection, e.g. not meeting GNG, and if no new refs are added it is highly unlikely it will pass this time. ] (]) 15:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
:It depends. Yes, it changed dramatically in some ways, some didn't changed.
:No, and if I remember correctly we decided not to have any sort of bot that does this. ] (]) 15:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
*The wizard as it is didn't really changed:
:I think having a bot that does this would be a bad idea. One poor decline could easily lead to a series of them. -- ] (]) 16:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
**The userspace option was replaced with a ''pending draft'' system which creates "a userspace draft at WT:AFC/ space"
::For clarity, given @]'s comment below, my comment is about putting them on a list. (Obviously, I think an autoreject bot would be even worse.) -- ] (]) 19:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
**The option to create directly a mainspace article was removed
:Yes, bad idea. Sometimes it's reasonable to resubmit without changes if the decline was incorrect or the submitter has clarified something. <span style=white-space:nowrap;>] <span style="background-color:#e6e6fa;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black">]</span></span> 16:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
*The design and wording of the templates/comment were improved and we added feedback links and contact links to the reviewer
::How about a bot that could add a Comment to the submission to let the submitter know that the submission has not changed and that they could continue working on it? ] (]) 16:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
*Tim's AFC helper script was updated (the best to use that one ;) ); feel free to report feature requests/bugs
:I agree having any kind of auto-decline bot is a bad idea. However, simply putting them in a list, like ], sounds reasonable. It would be useful for finding easy declines/accepts, provided that the reviewers check the circumstances behind the resubmission. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 16:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
*the {{tl|userspacedraft}} template was "improved" - the move button was replaced with a "request a review" button
*because of the above mentioned changes we have now ~200 submissions a day (])
:<small style="font:bold 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">]</font></small> 12:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


* I like the idea of a bot that can at least note the absence of material change to a resubmitted article. ] ] 21:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
== EditFilter ==
*:{{ping|BD2412}} Let's say software detects that a submission has not changed (much) since the last time it was submitted. What should it do? Message the submitter? Stick a template on the submission? Stick it on a list similar to ]? Notify the previous reviewer? Something else? You can choose more than one option. ] (]) 10:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
*:: Notify the submitter and put a note on the submission to the effect that the submission was previously rejected, and that the reasons for the previous rejection should be reviewed prior to acceptance of the submission. Creating a list of little-changed re-submissions is also not a bad idea. ] ] 14:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)


===RfC: Should a bot be created to handle AfC submissions that haven't changed since the last time they were submitted?===
I don't know how many people are aware of this, but I created ] quite some time ago to catch malformed submissions to AFC. I used to peruse through the hits manually to uncover AFC submissions that did not show up in the category, but I guess I was the only one doing that. So anyway, there's probably now a years worth of uncategorized submissions in there. Is it possible for one of the AFC bots to go through the hits and tag the articles? I'll be doing so myself in the meantime. Thanks. ] (]) 02:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Should a bot be created to handle AfC submissions that haven't changed since the last time they were submitted?
* '''Option 1''': Yes. The bot should automatically <s>reject</s> <ins>decline</ins> any such submissions.
* '''Option 2''': Yes. The bot should add such submissions to a list, similar to the ].
* '''Option 3''': Yes. The bot should notify the submitter and comment on the submission.
* '''Option 4''': Yes. The bot should add such submissions to a list '''and''' notify the submitter and comment on the submission.
* '''Option 5''': No.
]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 18:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)


Note that I changed Option 1 to decline rather than reject, as reject is a very specific term in AFC and I don't think that is what was meant here. Reject means the draft can never be resubmitted, due to violating ] or having extremely obvious and egregious non-notability. –] <small>(])</small> 22:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
:I'm also following that filter and luckily I was aware that Chzz changed our preform to subst:userspacedraft :( (and a second problem.) Now the filter should not catch that many. Our AFC bot also runs every month (?) and filling a cat containing articles without any submission template (which was cleared a few days ago)... <small style="font:bold 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">]</font></small> 15:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


-----
::Oh, I guess I was worried about nothing then. Thanks! ] (]) 23:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


*'''Oppose option 1''', per the discussion above this is a very bad idea. '''Support option 2''', this seems harmless and seems worth tracking - as long as it is made absolutely clear that being rejected previously is not a reason to reject - if the original reason was correct and still applies then it can be rejected again for that reason. '''Neutral''' on the other options, but any comment/notification ''must'' make it clear that it is informational only and not a rejection. ] (]) 19:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
== Strong suggestion we change submission template. ==
*'''Option 5'''. AfC reviewers make mistakes. We should not be prejudicing someone's future AfC chances based on those mistakes any more than we already do - namely, that there is already a gigantic decline message on the draft. AfC is frequently a dispiriting, demoralizing, and baffling experience for new editors, mostly one of waiting and then receiving templated replies they do not fully understand. I oppose this, and I oppose any other efforts that would further increase new editor alienation in this way. -- ] (]) 19:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
*Option 4, but as with Thryduulf, the comment on submission should be marked as informational and a reviewer will come by to assess the submission. ] (]) 19:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support option 2'''. Whether any changes have been made since the last decline is often something I look for when reviewing an article with declines, as it helps to see if the concerns from that last decline were addressed (if I feel like they are appropriate to the article as I see it), and this would be a benefit to a reviewer without being additionally "punishing" to a new editor. ]] 19:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
*Speaking as someone who doesn't review drafts but very occasionally comments on them, I think an {{tl|AfC comment}}-like mention at the top would be easiest to work with, so I guess I'm at Option 3 or 4. Very dubious that a bot could reasonably handle the "(much)" in the preceding section header without unacceptable false positives ''and'' negatives, but detecting ''completely unchanged'' submissions would be both feasible and useful. —] 20:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)


*'''Support Option 5''' - No. '''Oppose Options 1, 2, 3, 4'''. Support based on ]'s comment. Opposes are my own, doubtless with others. As a reviewer I declare myself capable of checking, and I do. 🇺🇦&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;🇺🇦 20:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
The Submission Template now says, "This might take several hours, or even days, at busy times." &nbsp;The articles we care about are taking several days, minimum. &nbsp;The editors of articles we don't care about are getting upset if it takes 2 hours. &nbsp;I suggest it says "several days", because that looks like the future. &nbsp;Reasonable people will be reasonably accepting of the change, unreasonable people will never be reasonable. ] 04:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Option 4''' but instead of adding to a list, add to a category (preferably a hidden one). Yes, definitely notify the submitter and comment on it, but having a list may discourage the submitter if they see that their draft is listed on a list. Having a hidden category would be better (at least imho) where a parameter of ] can add the draft into the category. ] <big>(]</big> · <small>])</small> 20:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
*:Though with all options, the reviewer would still do the same work... ] <big>(]</big> · <small>])</small> 20:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
* I suppose I wouldn't oppose a bot that automatically leaves a comment, but I don't really see the point either. Reviewers should be evaluating based on the current state of the draft — previous declines really shouldn't matter in most cases. I think this would encourage summary "no change" declines without actually looking at the content of the draft. <span style=white-space:nowrap;>] <span style="background-color:#e6e6fa;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black">]</span></span> 20:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
*:You're right. It would encourage reviewers to "decline" the draft just because it hasn't changed since last review. However, thinking now, it ''might'' encourage editors to keep working on the draft because they see that "it hasn't changed since last review". If that's the case, reviewers should "wait". So perhaps after the bot leaves a comment, reviewers should wait at least a couple minute before reviewing in case the editor wants to add content? ] <big>(]</big> · <small>])</small> 21:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
*::My position is that if they did not see ''being declined'' as reason to keep working on the draft, they are unlikely to have a positive view of an automated message telling them that the draft hasn't changed. -- ] (]) 21:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''No''' too easy to game. The simplest bot would just compare revisions. A submitter would then just have to add like a space or a few words to change it. A more complicated bot would flag changes that were too small or simple, but then that just encourages submitters to ramble. A bot can't assess the quality of a change, only editors can. ] <sup>]</sup>] 21:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
* '''Strongest Oppose to 1''' as bad reviews do exist. Also, sometimes submitters have discussed it with the reviewer and been told to resubmit for a second opinion etc.
:'''Weak Oppose 2, 3 & 4''' as I'm not convinced a bot will accurately determine what no substantive change is and I see little value in just flagging straight re-submits
:'''Support 5''' as de-facto option left ] (]) 21:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2 or 4''' especially with several disruptors (and one dynamic IP so block doesn't help) who just do drive by submissions. Frustrating to the editor to receive another decline through no fault of their own. Having them in the queue is a waste of reviewers' time though when it's a quick decline because the improvements haven't been made. I think it's less wrong decline and more no discussion about why the feedback was wrong that's the red flag. ] ] 23:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
*:I lean towards '''Option 5''', but for those pages/editors engaged in a problematic level of drive-by submissions, I wonder whether a completely different approach might work better. For example: If you think the previous decline was correct, and you also think it's a drive-by re-nom, then move the article to the mainspace and send it straight to AFD. If it's kept, then the submitter was correct, and the previous decline was wrong. Also, it's now out of the AFC queues. However, if it's deleted, ] the page name(s) in both Draft: and mainspace for the next year (or two?), so that AFC can be done with it. Either way, it's no longer AFC's problem. ] (]) 05:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)


:'''Strongly oppose Option 1'''. Frankly, trusting fellow reviewers to check how much a draft has changed since a previous decline is reasonable to do. Letting a Bot do something creates an option to game the system. We don't need that. --] (]) <small>(]) (])</small> 00:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
:How about we go with "This might take some time", to save us changing it back and forth in future? ''']'''<sup>''']'''&bull;''']'''</sup> 18:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
:Support '''Option 2''', neutral on Option 4, and oppose the rest. I do not see the point in notifying submitters when they already are aware they did not make any changes. Perhaps they wanted another review. Putting unchanged drafts in a hidden list like the copyvio one seems optimal as it reduces complexity and unnecessary messages to submitters. It would make finding easy declines and disruptive drive by submissions easier to find. I also support adding a verbiage that being unchanged should not be the sole reason to decline again. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 00:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 5''' - Reviewers should be instructed, more clearly if necessary, to check whether the draft has been revised since the last decline, and to use human judgment in deciding what is enough improvement. There is no need for automated aid, which could make mistakes and could be gamed. ] (]) 06:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
* '''Option 2''', at least, '''option 4''', at best. Yes, reviewers make mistakes, but they make mistakes in both directions, and should also consider the guidance inherent in a previous rejection. ] ] 15:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)


:'''Option 4''' preferably, but I'm okay with '''option 5''' as well (TBH, I don't think this is a major problem in the bigger scheme of things, and the details could be tricky). Also '''oppose option 1''', regardless of whether it was intended to say 'reject', or merely 'decline'. -- ] (]) 15:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
::Sounds reasonable. &nbsp;Several hours is most unlikely at this time. ] 20:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
::PS: When I say details could be tricky, I didn't mean in a technical sense, but rather in defining what the trigger condition of "changed (much)" actually means. Size change doesn't always tell us much: only a few kb might have changed, yet the draft was completely rewritten; conversely, a large kb change could mean that the author simply deleted the earlier AfC templates. Number of sources, ditto: adding ten new rubbish sources to the earlier rubbish sources still adds up to only rubbish; whereas using the same sources but citing them correctly might have resolved the decline reason. -- ] (]) 15:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 5'''. AfC reviewers sometimes make mistakes, particularly when dealing with areas that they are not familiar with. (I can't count how many drafts on academics have been rejected and told to supply GNG, and I've also seen rejections of drafts on politicians that clearly passed NPOL.) Creators should always be allowed to ask for a second opinion. ] <small>(])</small> 18:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 5''' Per asilvering and Espresso Addict. I would further that; reviewers ''often'' make mistakes....specifically declining articles for reasons that are not decline criteria. Also some reviewers tend to pass only unusually safe passes. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 18:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 5''' per Asilvering. If a reviewer makes a mistake (which often happens), the submitter shouldn't be even more penalized for it. Same if they just want another opinion on their draft. ] (] · ]) 18:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2 or 4''' per Star Mississippi. I'll add: Resubmitting an unchanged draft is a sign of a problem even if the declining reviewer had made a mistake. And it will rarely be the case that they have made a mistake given a creator who resubmits an identical draft, which very strongly correlates with the draft being poor in the first place and not deserving of acceptance.—] 13:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 5''' (do nothing). Like Primefac below, I'm surprised this got the RfC stage given the overwhelmingly negative reception in the original discussion, and hope the closer of this discussion will take that into account. AfC reviewers make mistakes but, more to the point, people can have good faith disagreements about the suitability of an article. If the submitter disagrees with a reviewer, they have every right to ask for a second opinion without edit warring with a bot or making pointless changes. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 08:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2 or 5''' - Given the unevenness of reviews, authors have legitimate reasons for seeking a second, third or fourth review. ~] (]) 15:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)


===RFC discussion===
I also saw an interesting thing in my Watch List, someone CSD's an article that was in the AfC directory. &nbsp;Maybe there is a way we can stop the template from doing that. &nbsp;Just another saved headache. &nbsp;] 15:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Um... didn't this get fairly roundly shot down in the original discussion? Why does it need a full RFC to work out any further details? ] (]) 19:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)


:I think that only Option 1 was outright rejected in the above discussion. The rest were counterproposals that seemed to have at least some support. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 19:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
:"someone CSD's an article that was in the AfC directory. &nbsp;Maybe there is a way we can stop the template from doing that." '''?''' All "CSD criteria" of G (for General) apply also to the AFC stuff and ''really'' should be deleted. dunno what you are talking about a template, maybe you are talking about {{tl|afc clear}}? if so, this is the only correct thing! <small style="font:bold 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">]</font></small> 16:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
::Meh, RFC just seems like a lot of bureaucracy for something that didn't really have a lot of discussion and could have probably been dealt with in-house. Carry on I suppose. ] (]) 19:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I second your 'meh'. Why are we going through this extra layer. ''If it ain't broke don't fix it!'' 🇺🇦&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;🇺🇦 20:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Hate to be Devil's Advocate for an RFC I've opposed, but I think we've got more, clearer answers to the question in the few hours since this RfC opened than we had in the entire earlier discussion, so there's that. And I do think AfC is pretty broke and needs some fixing. I just think this is tinkering in the wrong direction. -- ] (]) 20:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)


While we're here and talking about reviewers making mistakes, let me make my perennial plea that, if you see, this, you go ask the reviewer about it on their talk page. We all have to learn somehow! And if the reviewer is making lots of mistakes, it will be easier for any single editor to figure this out later if there's a track record of them on their talk page. By the way, for those who haven't learned this trick yet: the AFCH script will allow you to resubmit drafts ''as though you were the original submitter''. If you think something was inappropriately declined, you can resubmit it to the queue yourself and then immediately accept it, or resubmit it and leave a comment explaining why you did so. -- ] (]) 21:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
::It was a <nowiki>{{db-spam}}</nowiki> template. ] 16:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
:::Which is actually a redirect to {{tl|db-g11}}, one of the general templates that can validly be added to spam in whatever namespace. So what? ] (]) 17:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
::::If the article is in AFC space awaiting review, isnt's it our decision? &nbsp;But, it might be a good clandestine idea to reduce our backlog. ] 20:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::We have been CSDing submissions under the general criteria since mid 2010 after a discussion. Not all reviewers use CSD though. ] ] 23:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::I do get upset myself when I see people tagging AfC stuff with db-spam, but ] applies to projects as well as to articles. Attack pages, vandalism, and copyright violations should of course be blanked or deleted, but not spam. And I say that because even in the case of spam, the author actually came to our project to ask us if the content is OK, and possibly expecting feedback on how the article can be improved. Slapping the submission with db-g11 just looks bitey in that regard. ] (]) 23:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::Yeah, I just reverted one of Alpha's speedy's, as it could possibly be improved. Please do not bite the new users! ] (]) 03:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree that 'routine' spam AFCs don't need CSD, but if something simply says e.g. <span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS, comic sans;text-decoration:blink; border: 4px solid; background-color:yellow; color:red; cursor: hand; " class="plainlinks">BUY VIAGARA {{colour|blue|HERE}}!!11eleven!</span> then I tend to use CSD. BTW I cleared the backlog. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">]]</span></small> 03:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
:(Pokes Chzz) Hey buddy, are you alive? ] (]) 03:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


:Or if you want to resubmit a draft on behalf of another user so they get the AfC communications rather than you, such as the Accept notification, you can use <nowiki>{{subst:submit|Creator's username}}</nowiki>. The other option is to click the Resubmit button then change the User (u=) from your name to theirs. ] (]) 22:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
== Copyediting ==
::The AFCH script will do this for you automatically. -- ] (]) 22:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Ahh..ok, I see now. You review on an already declined draft. I had never clicked the Submit button because I assumed it worked the same way as the Resubmit button in the decline message but the AFCH script gives you options to assign the submitter. I can't tell you how many times I have resubmitted drafts using the manual methods I outline above. ]! :) ] (]) 23:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
{{closed rfc bottom}}


== Indian state symbols ==
A bit of a concern here. If you accept a submission, at least make sure that it complies with the ] and doesn't have some common errors. Many of these fixes are trivial- I've fixed quite a few.
#'''Bold''' the title the first time it appears in text.
#Correct the headline hierarchy. (2 equal signs, then 3, etc.)
#Make sure headlines are not double-bolded.
#etc.
Would help everybody out a lot! <font color="green">]</font> (] * ]) 00:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


It seems we have a new instalment in the series of bogus Indian state symbols, this time with ]. Different IP from the previous ones, but probably the same user. Just flagging this here to avoid a repeat of the earlier sich. -- ] (]) 12:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:Indeed, I tend to run newly accepted articles through ] for a spot of clean up (but some stuff you have to do manually). ] ] 21:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


:I have cleared up the rest of the related junk edits from ]. ] (]) 12:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
== Question about the icons at ]... ==
::This time, it's ]. Curious to see what's coming next? -- ] (]) 16:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Nope. They should be warned then blocked for making hoaxes. ] (]) 17:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Deleted as hoaxes and blocked for block evasion. ] (]) 18:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
== Disable AFCH if there is an ongoing AfD ==


What exactly do the various icons mean? Is there any way to perhaps have a caption appear when one hovers the cursor on top of them or maybe have a link to "These icons mean/A key to these icons..."? ], ] (]) 14:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC) The AFCH tool should be disabled if there is an ongoing AfD at the corresponding mainspace title, as with ] and ], for example. ] (]) 16:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:Why? A draft like that should be declined as <code>exists</code> anyway, so disabling AFCH would mean that we wouldn't be able to do that. ] (]) 16:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:<s>Unless someone wants to have a go at {{tl|AfC contribution}}</s>, a key would be an excellent idea, IMO. ] ]<sup>·</sup>] 14:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
::In fairness, that (decline as 'exists') is what GTrang did with this draft, but it was reverted as {{tq|just extra administration for no reason}} (I think). Which then put the draft back in the pool. -- ] (]) 16:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:They're from {{tl|Class/icon}} and denote the article's class, if it's been assessed. I've raised adding a tooltip at the template talk, because I think they're intended to have them but they got lost at some point. ''']'''<sup>''']'''&bull;''']'''</sup> 18:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
:::I have undone that edit as the AFD is clearly trending towards the article being kept. ] (]) 17:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::I have looked into this, and the capability to add alternate text has to be done at the point of HTML generation, which is a few levels lower than templates. &nbsp;I don't think we have access to those programs. ] 18:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
::::I went ahead and redirected the draft to the mainspace article, which is what I like to do in these situations to avoid duplication. I think editors should be encouraged to work on the mainspace article and not the draft, so that everyone is using their time efficiently. –] <small>(])</small> 22:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::No, you can do it quite easily: <span title="AFC">]</span> ''']'''<sup>''']'''&bull;''']'''</sup> 18:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::I was reverted. {{u|NatGertler}}, can you please elaborate on how you plan to move a draft over an existing mainspace page? Did you perhaps mean that you plan to manually copy paste merge some pieces of the draft instead? In which case, the draft would be fine as a redirect, since the page history can easily be checked. –] <small>(])</small> 23:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::If you look at the AfD, there is reasonable support for (if the article survives AfD) deleting the version that is currently in mainspace and moving this draft one into mainspace at the same address. This version is in much better shape, and there is nothing substantial in the mainspace one that needs to be merged into this. If folks are to work on either of them, we want them working on this one, which is likely to be the surviving version in some form (whether it survives as a draft or in mainspace depends on the outcome of the AfD, but even at the most complicated take it will be merged into the mainspace one, so may as well have it here.) -- ] (]) 01:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Got it. I think this should be de-duplicated at some point, but with your comment in mind, I suppose it's OK to wait until after the AFD is over. –] <small>(])</small> 01:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] is live! ==
== Help with AFC's ==


Per the outcome of ], which is shown above, and a request filed at ] by ], the above page is now live and ready for reviewers to use, maintained by ]. It's actually caught 1 already in only the couple hours its been live, see ]. :)
After I reviewed about 650 AFC's yesterday, I've had lots of queries on my user talk page. Not too surprising, I suppose...there have been about 40 to date. And I've tried to answer them all. But, any and all help would be appreciated; see my talk from 1-Feb onward, ie from ] down. Ta. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">]]</span></small> 20:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


There's also a hosted on Toolforge to look up an article and see if it's resubmitted without changes, if that's more your thing.
:I think a lot of that is the prominent link added to {{tl|AFC submission/declined}} to contact the reviewer directly. I must have missed when that was changed (I'd appreciate it if someone could point me to the discussion) but it seems seriously ill thought out. One or two every now and again is fine, but I don't want to become the single point of contact for every one of the people whose articles I decline. ''']'''<sup>''']'''&bull;''']'''</sup> 21:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


For adding an item to the list, the requirement is that it has an AFC submission wizard edit, directly after an AFCH decline.
::I was looking for a discussion as well, I get the impression it may have taken place on IRC. I think the box is a good idea, to increase the visibility of the decline reason, but I'm not sure about the prominent contact link that open a new section for your talk page. It will cause all questions to circumvent the info banner at the top of my talk page that directs people with questions to ] ] ] 21:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
::{{ec}} Really? I would think it would be better, as there are times when another reviewer would disagree and you are the only one who can explain exactly why you felt a certain way. Regardless, I don't think that the "single point of contact" is really a problem...-en-help gets far more angry AfC'ers then I think I ever will. <small>As a side note, my thanks to Chzz for his work as a one-man wrecking ball yesterday. Incredible.</small> ] ]<sup>·</sup>] 22:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
:::Wait a second...I just realized that what you're referring to. This must have happened in the last couple days, no? Urg...dunno if I like that... ] ]<sup>·</sup>] 22:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
:::: of the template being changed. Take it up with Mabdul, I guess. ] ]<sup>·</sup>] 22:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


For removing an item from the list, the requirement is that it has a edit that is not done with AFCH or the AFC submission wizard (note: it's been very kindly suggested by ] that it should maybe do some detecting to see if a edit is meaningful or not, any suggestions for when/when not a edit counts as meaningful are most welcome!)
Yeah, I'm the bad! We did last week change the template (earlier diff) and the script to add the reviewer to the template so that the "submitter" (normally unexperienced) doesn't have to click on the history - and later I get the "idea" to add a direct contact link since IPs doen't have any real talkpage and thus not gettting the decline template with this contact link (which the registered already getting on their talkpage). And through the feedback (I'm "stalking" some reviewers, I realize that this a really good addition since mostly the workding of the decline messages are simply bad! Most (even experienced) editors don't know what #A7 means and other phrases... So to get less messages, simply change the wording :/ <small style="font:bold 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">]</font></small> 22:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
BTW: I have to fight with the same problem, although this is not that dramatically as in Chzz case (of course) because I'm not reviewing that much! <small style="font:bold 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">]</font></small> 22:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
:An amazing effort by Chzz! My computer's too sluggish to do more than a dozen reviews in one session! The contact link is no problem for me either. If it creates a new section on my Talk page that is all the better, much preferable to having random comments scattered about by new authors who don't understand WP page formatting. In any case, when we notify the authors on ''their'' page, the link to ''our'' page was already part of the message. ] (]) 23:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
::Yes...it's a little...garish, but I think it will be for the better. I'd prefer that they ask someone to it just sitting there, and if I can take the time to review it I can take the time to answer their question. ] ]<sup>·</sup>] 23:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


Please don't hesitate to reach out to me if you have any feedback for this bot task, or would like anything changed about it. Thanks! :) ] <sup>]]</sup> 06:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
: Just my personal preference but I would prefer it if it was just a link to the reviewers talk page rather than a new section edit link -- for the reasons I mentioned above. On a related note I have been further copy editing the decline reasons (text) at ] feel free to edit them or make suggestions. ] ] 23:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::'''Thanks''' -to Nolelover, Joey Roe, Pol430 and anyone I've missed who helped respond to some of them. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">]]</span></small> 15:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


:Also btw an API is also available by sending a GET request to https://molecularbot2.toolforge.org/resubAPI.php?pageName=test, replacing test with the name of the page, excluding "Draft:"! :) ] <sup>]]</sup> 06:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't necessarily think the link is a bad idea. In fact, I think it's good - ''despite'' the fact that I've had about 70 messages on my talk, in the last 2 days, beginning with "Your review at Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/...". That's kinda my own fault, for reviewing so many. It's better that they have a 'real person' to ask.
:Thanks for implementing the bot—on the new year nonetheless! ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 13:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


== Trying out using Microsoft Copilot to discuss notability of a particular topic ==
I think we're addressing the wrong problem, in worrying about that.


I'm not sure if people have tried this out or not. I searched AfC talk archives for , , , and I saw that people have been talking about AI generated submissions, but I haven't seen any discussion on doing something like this.
The real problem is, there's not enough people to offer genuine help to the new users seeking it. ] was another fantastic system, but failed due to lack-of-helpers, and now redirects to helpdesk. Unless there's a paradigm shift on Misplaced Pages from template-warning/blocks to help/guidance, then I fear AFC could go the same way; it could quickly end up so backlogged that it's unusable.


So, anyway, I'll seek to share the dialog:
And I'm disappointed by the WMF take on this - which seems to be focused on attracting/keeping new editors. We do, of course, need new editors. But we need GOOD editors. Thousands of new editors who are not going to help each other can drive off some good ones. Adding 'social networking' bollocks can attract lots of new people - as can sugar-sweet messages instead of warnings, and not ''clearly'' stomping down on spam...however, that can attract users who are "more trouble than they are worth". But, I digress...


https://github.com/davidkitfriedman/general/blob/main/2025_01_02_dialog_with_Copilot_on_notability_of_GlobalProtect.md
But this is a generic, core problem with the project. Too many people need help, not enough to give it. I feel it's because the focus of the project is incorrect; there's massive efforts go into the 'bad side' of Misplaced Pages; we've kinda forgotten that the goal is to create quality content, and not to play a ]. I hope/wish we could move to a more academic atmosphere, where people help each other to write articles. I don't know if/when that will happen. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">]]</span></small> 16:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
:Members of this project might be interested in watching the progress of the ], which I'm sure many of you received invites to. If it succeeds, well, I hope it will fill the large hole the FEED left, although I'm doubtful. ] ]<sup>·</sup>] 16:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
::I object to that project; I find it sexist and patronising. The solution to a gender-bias is not to condescend and offer quaint, stereotypical assistance; it's simply to treat people equally - which that singly fails to do. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">]]</span></small> 18:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
:::I'd be interested to hear to expand on your concerns, wherever you would like (my talk or email). I do agree that there will be some problems off the bat, but how the outside of the project looks can easily be changed, if the basic premise works. Either way, we'll find out very soon. ] ]<sup>·</sup>] 20:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Continued help at ] would be appreciated. There's now over 100 requests for help on there, and I've only got three pairs of hands... <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">]]</span></small> 18:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
:No good deed goes unpunished. &nbsp;The new decline templates are too high vertically. &nbsp;Is there any way to remove some of the white space(in this case pink space)? ] 20:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I want to help new people add to the "sum of all human knowledge". And I do my best - see my talk.


I asked Copilot to argue against notability for ], and then also to argue for notability.
I want to tell them "you can get live help, here".


Initially I just asked it what are some of the major consortia that Google is a part of.
But, that place is not in control of the community. In the past, I've been 'admonished' there for such things as saying "crap" and posting 6 lines ('flooding'). I can't accept that, when the people who 'tell me off' are not chosen through consensus.


Copilot responsed and then also prompted with, "Is there a specific area of Google's partnerships you're particularly interested in?".
When the people who 'tell me off' don't actually participate in helping the new users.


And so I told it why I had asked the question initially, and it cited Misplaced Pages's policies, and then asked, "Do you have a specific consortium in mind that you're researching?"
When the community has no say in what is, and is not, acceptable.


I could mention that I did see this mentioned in ], so perhaps editors don't feel that it's necessarily worth discussing with LLMs whether a particular topic meets notability or not.
] the community of helpers told me I couldn't say "crap", I wouldn't say "crap". If I then did, and they admonished me, or banned me, I'd actually accept it. And I could appeal.


<blockquote>
But, I will NOT tolerate a wikipedian service where I have no right to appeal; where decisions are made by an oligarchy. And if that is the only "live help", I will give up; I can't in good faith tell new users how wonderfully fair we are, in an environment where the rules do not apply. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">]]</span></small> 21:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
When exploring AI techniques and systems, the community consensus is to prefer human decisions over machine-generated outcomes until the implications are better understood.
</blockquote>


] (] · ]) 05:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
== IRC ==
:Meh... what people choose to do on their own time to not think for themselves is their own concern; if an LLM tells someone that a subject is notable, but the subject is not notable, we're no worse off than the Fiver writers that get paid to write shitty prose about non-notable grocery store owners. If the LLM tells the editor that a subject is notable, and they ''are'', then all they've really done is waste their own time, since the subject would pass our criteria anyway. ] (]) 07:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:LLMs do not think in the traditional human way because that's not what they're trained to do. Their job is to provide compelling output. The problem with that is that LLMs don't know what truth or factual accuracy is, i. e., they don't know if what they've just made up makes any sense. In a nutshell, discussing with an LLM is like talking to a parrot on steroids. --] (]) <small>(]) (])</small> 08:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:I've seen several editors assuring us that their obviously LLM-generated draft has been painstakingly written to comply with all Misplaced Pages requirements for notability, verifiability, and other core policies yada yada... and then it turns out the said draft doesn't cite a single source. So if the editor hasn't the first clue about our requirements, then the LLM clearly won't impose one on them. -- ] (]) 08:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:LLM and Misplaced Pages don't mix very well. In my opinion, in almost all cases, it's just a timesink. LLM is useful for certain non-Misplaced Pages things, but is not a great fit here. –] <small>(])</small> 17:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


== African legislators ==
A sincere, and I believe important, complaint from Chzz. Please read; I'll try and keep it short.


Just found out why we're seeing so many new drafts (mostly very short stubs) on legislators, esp. Nigerian ones, lately: https://meta.wikimedia.org/Event:African_Legislators_in_Red This runs until the end of the month, and one of the rules is that the articles must get into the main space by then, so expect to see some fast track requests at the help desk as the deadline approaches... -- ] (]) 08:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Many Wikipedians offer help, especially to new users, via ]. We use ], and a channel called #wikipedia-en-help. You can visit it via http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=wikipedia-en-help
:Ugh. People can wait. We don't expedite for contests. ] (]) 13:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::hmm... I guess we do. Vanderwaalforces (intentionally not pinged) seems to be participating and reviewing drafts from this thing. ] (]) 15:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::So long as it's individual reviewers making the offer to do it, seems fine to me. Not really different from someone, say, going through and reviewing all the OKA drafts (I've done this) or volunteering to help out with an editathon as a reviewer (I've done this, too). But I vote we ping Vanderwaalforces to each and every help desk request, if they arise. :P -- ] (]) 16:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Please do ping me if need arise! ] (]) 16:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Oh, sure, I don't have any issue with them (or anyone else) making it a personal priority to help out, I'm just saying we-as-a-Project should not be expediting things. ] (]) 16:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:I've been accepting a lot of these as inherently notable since I tend to camp out on the recently submitted feed but, yeah, I don't see why these endless stubs need to go through AfC..? <span style="background-color: RoyalBlue; border-radius: 1em; padding: 3px 3px 3px 3px;">''']''' <small>]</small></span> 15:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::Wait, they get money for this? I didn't think that was permitted? <span style="background-color: RoyalBlue; border-radius: 1em; padding: 3px 3px 3px 3px;">''']''' <small>]</small></span> 15:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Based on what I could find (which was little more than ]) it appears above-board, since they're not being paid to edit anything specific. ] (]) 15:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::It's probably their way of having a check/balance for the stubs so that they don't have the issue that some other editathons have had where people spam utter garbage and ''maybe'' it gets reverted. ] (]) 16:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::@] Correct! ] (]) 16:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::@] They actually need to go through AfC as a "damage control" both for English Misplaced Pages and the project itself. Also, these editors are mostly new, so yeah! ] (]) 16:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Makes sense :) <span style="background-color: RoyalBlue; border-radius: 1em; padding: 3px 3px 3px 3px;">''']''' <small>]</small></span> 16:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:Most of them are easy to accept. I haven't come across too many issues (which is uncommon for contests with rewards), though some of the longer drafts do tend to lean on the promotional side. I've also found at least 3 copyvios stemming from this event from unrelated Copypatrol work, so be on the lookout for that I guess. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 17:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::@] Oh yes! I, in fact, ] for copyvio. I am especially not taking that lightly. By the way, I cannot thank you enough for keeping an eye on the article and tagging them with the WikiProject template, kudos! ] (]) 18:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


== Draft nominated for ] as not notable after decline ==
That channel is linked from templates including {{tn|helpme}}, and AFC templates. That's great.


A draft ] on a politician who does not meet ] was declined, and then nominated for deletion by the reviewer who declined it. It was my understanding that AFC reviewers should know that ]. Either an AFC reviewer has been given access to the script who hasn't been adequately briefed as to how drafts are reviewed, including that they are only nominated for deletion in rare circumstances, or an editor who is not an AFC reviewer is reviewing drafts. Do the guidelines for reviewers need clarifying? We know that sometimes New Page reviewers mistakenly review new drafts with the same standards as they use to review new articles, but apparently some AFC reviewers also don't know when t not to send drafts to XFD. ] (]) 06:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
'''However''', the channel is not controlled via the community, or consensus.


:Or it could just be that the reviewer didn't know, and they could be gently told how to do it correctly. ] <sup>]</sup>] 07:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
The people "in charge" of the channel are called "Founders". As of right now, there are two; {{user|Thehelpfulone}} and {{user|Deskana}}.
::I wouldn't necessarily call this a "hidden" rule or anything but I agree with Eek that "they didn't know" is probably the most likely scenario, and they should politely be a) informed, and b) asked to withdraw the MFD. ] (]) 07:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:Context: ]. –] <small>(])</small> 11:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::I left the MFDer a message at their user talk about not MFDing drafts like this one in the future. They were receptive to the feedback. –] <small>(])</small> 11:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] ==
They were not chosen through cosnensus; they weren't "elected". It's hard (impossible?) to know where to challenge any decisions they may make, or where to apply for the position.


is linked on the header, but I believe serves no purpose. This vaguely-named page doesn't have any "list" of submission by itself but links to two other lists. One of them, ], is already linked to by the header.
There are 'group contacts' between Wiki?edia and Freenode; ]. They haven't been chosen by the community that ''use'' the thing, either. They're chosen by the previous GC's...who were chosen by the previous...who were people who 'happened to be around' in the early days.


I propose it to be merged to its parent page /Submissions to reduce confusion and the clutter in the header. Only thing that really needs to be merged is the mention of ]. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 14:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
It's an oligarchy. It's "non-wiki". People who have ultimate control over the way things are run, for helping new users.
:Hasn't worked since ]; you're just the second person to notice. Feel free to pull whatever you need from the history and plonk it elsewhere if that makes sense. ] (]) 14:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


==A little merging issue==
'''This affects AFC''' - why? Because, I find it hard to give advice about how important 'consensus' is here, on a medium which does not abide by consensus.


Hello. Following a personal request for an AFC, I thought I would give it a try in spite of an article already existing as a redirect (never did). I over estimated my skills and need a little help :)
I apologize - I've grumbled about this in the past. For years. I've tried to address the issue. For example, in ] - which resulted in a change of "F", but unfortunately, those new "F" were unable to fulfil the role.


So the old article was a redirection (]). I removed the redirection. Could not "Yes" the draft article under the right name (]) becase of the already existing article. Thought I could approve it under a different spelling ] and then merge their histories.
I want our help to improve. I want it to be ''excellent''. But, this issue continues to frustrate me greatly.


Ok, histories are not . What am I missing ? ] (]) 14:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Why is this important aspect of helping new users under control of an oligarchy? And why can't I seem to do anything about it? I've tried - I've asked everyone I can think of, for years.
:I don't even understand, maybe because I am thinking about a lot of things. It does appear that Primefac <s>has done something like that</s> cleared the issue. Cheers!<span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span><sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 08:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::<s>Anthere, there are a couple of other things you should have done.</s> <ins>For anyone who isn't an admin, this is what should have been done</ins>
::*Request a {{t|db-afc-move}} on the redirect {{small|(this might have been declined given the old article's history, but then I -- as an admin -- would have probably just done a page swap)}}
::*Request a page swap at ]
::<ins>For an admin, the options are:</ins>
::*<ins>Pageswap the draft and article</ins>
::*<ins>Move the old page (without redirect) to a disambiguated title</ins>
::Copy/pasting a page to another location is not a good way to get a page to a specific title. Just to clear up SafariScribe's confusion, I just did a page swap on the two pages to put the new article at the correct title, while preserving the history of the old page.
::<s>As a minor note, ] is only available to admins, which is why you couldn't use it.</s> ] (]) 13:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC) {{small|Struck, updated, and inserted: 14:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}}
:::I think Anthere is an admin. Is showing blue in my user highlighter script. –] <small>(])</small> 13:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I was just going to say. And on multiple projects, it seems. -- ] (]) 13:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::''le sigh'' Forgive me for not having special admin-script glasses on.
:::::A histmerge wasn't possible because there are (effectively) parallel histories; there was nothing that could be merged from the new page into the old page because of diffs from 2010 at the old page blocking the 2025 edits from the new. ] (]) 14:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::This explains that... I felt vastly stupid :) Indeed, I could have swapped the two versions to have the new article history sitting at the right title. But I was trying hard to maintain both histories, which in fact was not really needed. Hmmm.
::::::Situation is perfect now. Real author of current version is credited. All good. Thanks a lot for fixing. ] (]) 20:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Always happy to help, feel free to drop me a line any time you have histmerge questions, there are some who would say I'm an authority on the matter :-) ] (]) 20:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


== Non-English drafts ==
I've "indefinitely stopped editing" several times, out of frustration about this. I'm close to doing that again. It's simply "wrong" that a process for helping new users is outside the control of people who help new users.


I've just declined yet another non-English draft (not the 1st one of the day, not even the 3rd, and that's just me!). In the ] there are nearly 1,000 such declines. Would it be a good idea to put something in the wizard to warn authors that this is the English-language Misplaced Pages, and if they want to submit content in another language they should head to the relevant language version instead? It's mildly annoying to review these drafts, but I can imagine it's much more frustrating to put in all that effort, only to be told ''afterwards'' that it was all for nothing. -- ] (]) 17:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Some - lots - think it's a non-problem; that "if it isn't broke, don't fix it". Well, it's broke. Without wishing to be alarmist, if it can't be fixed, I'm outta here.
:Probably, but if they're non-English-speaking then what are the realistic chances that they're going to read yet another banner telling them they shouldn't create pages in languages other than English? I'd rather avoid banner bloat if possible, and if the subject is notable it's a quick thing to decline as non-Eng and let them (or G13) sort it out. ] (]) 18:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::In my experience they're not all (or even most?) "non-English-speaking"; many do subsequently communicate in English at the help desk and/or talk pages, and some even resubmit an English-translated draft. It's just that many seem genuinely surprised that the different language versions are in fact separate projects, and that submitting a Bulgarian (say) draft here doesn't help get it into the Bulgarian Misplaced Pages.
::But yes, I take the point about banner bloat. Also, just because we warn them, doesn't mean they won't go against the warning regardless – after all, we get plenty of undisclosed COI/PAID submissions although the wizard clearly warns against these. -- ] (]) 18:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Fair enough. As usual, I'm not strictly ''opposed'' to adding something, just that my knee-jerk reaction is to wonder whether it's worth doing so... ] (]) 18:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
: I am wondering how feasible it may be to have a bot detect the language being used, and send a note to that editor in that language. ] ] 16:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::We have a number of non-English welcome templates, not sure a bot is needed, just a reviewer that doesn't mind taking an extra minute or two to leave one. ] (]) 17:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Often, when I decline a non English draft, I use machine translation to provide a message to the creating editor about it. I suppose it depends on how often it happens regrind a bot. I somehow doubt a bot is needed. 🇺🇦&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;🇺🇦 20:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


==Notified Jimbo instead of the user who submitted the draft==
Some say, it's not part of Misplaced Pages - it's separate. Well, the clue is in the name - '''#wikipedia'''-en-help. And the links from our many templates. Either it is, or is not, part of our help service. If it is...hey, great; let's decide how best to use it (through discussion/consensus). If it's not - hey, great, I'll set up my own channel on another network, and change links.
I accepted a draft created and submitted by an IP user, but the script actually Jimbo Wales instead of the IP user, I wonder what caused this? - ] (]) 09:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


:@]: the submitting user the draft !ownership to Jimbo.
I believe deeply in the core values of this project, and I want us to help new users appropriately. The people who can decide ''how'' we can best help them, are those that help them - '''not''' people selected by their friends, off-wiki, with no onus.
:Or possibly Jimbo created it himself. In which case, you should go and warn him against editing logged-out. ;) ] (]) 09:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


== 2026 United States Senate election in ... ==
I don't know if this message will help, or not. I don't know if it's the right place. I'm posting it here, because I think/hope some readers here will recognize that it needs action. What can we do? How can we challenge it? I really don't know. I've tried. Tried 'moving' the help service elsewhere - to have an admin threaten me with a block. Tried asking WMF - who say it's not them. Tried asking Freenode, who say it's WMF. Tried asking GC's, who say it's not a problem. Tried asking F's, who either say it's not a problem, or pass F to someone else who does, or give up.


Heads up: we've got five of these so far (see e.g. ]) and I suspect more are coming. I dunno if it's ] or not, but they look similar enough they can likely be accepted or declined as a group. ] (]) 00:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm frustrated by it; enough to quit the project until it's resolved.


:I'd decline all unless if there are secondary sources actually discussing the state-level senate elections. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 11:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
</rant> - thanks to anyone who listened. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">]]</span></small> 20:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
:What can a poor peon like me do exactly, Chzz? &nbsp;I've worked help a bit when I needed a break, it was fun. ] 20:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
::I believe the best course of action might be to start a ]. This is a problem, and it is long past the time since we should have addressed it. ] ] 20:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
:::I'm also somewhat active on en-help and various other wikipedia IRC channels. I agree with Chzz – it's about time that things changed so that the systems for running the IRC channels fit with those for running Misplaced Pages. We say that IRC is a separate beast, but when we link to it from help pages, etc., it becomes part of Misplaced Pages's responsibility. <span style="font-family: Georgia">– ] <small>]</small></span> 20:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
:::{{ec}} I'm extremely new (both to AfC and to -en-help), so I really can't make any contributions to this discussion, but I have a couple questions. After reading ], I see multiple references to "IRC rules", including what seems to be a "IRC is censored" thing. Can I get some elaboration on that? In my little time there, I haven't any major bowdlerizing; I once helped a person with an article about a transvestite whose claim to fame was "taking it 10 inches", if I recall right. Also, what is the role of the Founder/channel contact, and do they have any relation to the founders in other channels (-en, other languages, etc)? ] ]<sup>·</sup>] 20:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
::::In brief - I can't say too much, without it getting long - but, in the past, I've had disagreements over the way the channel is run, between myself and F and/or GC. I don't want to be elusive, so I'll be clear as I can - example - at one time, an F who had not edited >10 times on enwiki and had said almost nothing in the channel for >year, challenged me when I a) told a friend to 'remove that crap' and b) posted 6 lines (he said it was 'spamming'. As you may imagine, I was indignant, and wanted to appeal; however, due to the aforesaid, there's no way to appeal. Hope that helps clarify; I'd show diffs and stuff, but that's hard 'coz of IRC not logged, and so forth. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">]]</span></small> 21:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::Understood...but that leads to another question. Why aren't the channels (at least the main ones) publicly logged? I can understand the reasoning for smaller groups, but for heaven's sake this is Misplaced Pages. Everything done on IRC immediately becomes shadowy because, as you point out above, no one can provide real "diffs". I'm sure there's a very obvious reason I've missed...? ] ]<sup>·</sup>] 21:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::'''Great''' question - because it illustrates this whole issue. Should they be logged? Or not? I don't know...'''but''' that '''decision''' belongs in the hands of the '''community'''. Ie, we should discuss it; weigh up pro/con, and decide what WE - the users of the channel - think is best. Whether most of us want it logged (good for new users), or most don't (it's informal; we want to give help without being too accountable for every word we type without necessarily thinking) - well, that's up for ''discussion'' through that magical ''consensus'' - or, it SHOULD be.
::::::But right now, it is not; it's an arbitrary decision, taken by a person who has never been chosen, in an important role which the community cannot challenge. And that's just shit. <small>Oh - can I say 'shit' here? who decides? see? </small> <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">]]</span></small> 21:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
:Could you please explain a list of exactly what you have seen go wrong in the past month in-channel, that you would like to have changed, and what you would change it to? ] (]) 21:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
::With respect, specifics do not matter. Example, {{xt|is it OK to say "fuck"}} - well, clearly, depends on context. Hard to help improve ] without. This is mostly covered by things like ] but, we could adapt things for 'live'. That's not the major concern right now; we could discuss that; however,
::'''The community should decide''' - not some arbitrarily appointed oligarchy. I'll accept the choice of the community, no worries; if consensus is that I cannot say "shit" in the channel, I won't - and if I do, ban me; that's fine. But I will '''not''' accept the decision of someone who is not answerable to the community, and can make decisions that I cannnot appeal.
::Indeed, I feel so strongly about that principle, that if it cannot be done, I will retire. Not threat, not DIVA, not blackmail; I cannot in good faith support a project where the community may be over-ridden by a person who the community has not chosen. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">]]</span></small> 21:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
:::I think specifics do matter. "If it works, don't fix it" is very applicable here. Are there specific problems that arise out of the way it is run, or are you just unhappy about the way it is run, without regard to the fact that the end result is perfectly acceptable? ] (]) 21:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


== ] ==
Hi. This seems to be a fairly ongoing issue and I would like to make a few things clear.


Should I nominate this draft for speedy deletion? Earwig turns a '''''' similarity rate, but I fear this might be a false positive.<span id="LunaEclipse:1736769057670:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNWikiProject_Articles_for_creation" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 11:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)</span>
All Wikimedia channels are under the jurisdiction of the Wikimedia IRC group contacts, but each channel effectively runs themselves, with its own team of operators. #wikipedia-en-help has active channel management, with trusted Wikimedia users and admins serving as operators.


:It is a false positive. You can see what's triggering the high percentage by clicking the "Compare" buttons to the left. It's detecting the award recipient list, which you can't really paraphrase. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 11:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
freenode channels run separately to Wikimedia. Operators are selected for their knowledge of IRC, not solely for their Wikimedia experience. I absolutely welcome offers to improve the channel, but there are no current plans to change the management system. The current system works. Requests are dealt with fairly and properly, and in a timely manner. The management of the channel does not and should not distract anybody from the help offered to new users.
::Always, always, ''always'' do a check to see if the % actually means deletion is required. I declined a G12 earlier today where the ''second'' half of the draft was copied verbatim (and thus threw a 95% match) but after removal it didn't show any matches other than the random phrases like facility names. While the number is lower today than it used to, there are still some trigger-happy admins who will nuke anything G12 with a high % match without actually checking, and that does no favours to the user who submitted the draft if it's a "false positive" (at least as far as G12 goes). ] (]) 12:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


== Accepting when the mainspace title is create-protected (SALTed) ==
We are always open to suggestions for improving the current channel management. However, the above post does not adequately explain what needs to change; if there are genuine suggestions for improvement, we are happy to hear them.
{{Tracked in|https://github.com/wikimedia-gadgets/afc-helper/issues/401}}
Eg, trying to accept ] gives:


:: Darn it, "]" is create-protected. You will need to request unprotection before accepting.
It has always been common practice to resolve issues related to IRC on IRC, and off Misplaced Pages. The management is very different, and as such, discussing it on-wiki does not always work out. However, in my role as a Wikimedia group contact, I have discussed this issue with the #wikipedia-en-help management team, and they would not like to pursue a different approach to how the channel is managed. The IRC group contacts will support their decision. --<font face="Arial"> ]&nbsp;(])</font> 21:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
:I'll bet the -en-help management team doesn't want to change the management. </dry> Could/should that be rephrased, or do you mean it like how it sounds? ] ]<sup>·</sup>] 21:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
:I believe the irc help channel plays a vital role in the Misplaced Pages ecosystem and we should use it (or another integrated live chat module) more and not less. In order to do that, I agree with Chzz that governance needs to be transparent and responsive to the community. I have no idea what actual problems Chzz thinks we need to fix once that change happens, but I guess I'd support it on principle alone. It would be particularly important as AfC and links to live-help are expanded, which I anticipate and support. Chzz, I think you should draft an RfC, figure out the best place for it, and see what happens. ]<sup> ]|]</sup> 21:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I don't really understand why this has been posted on a totally unrelated page instead of the discussion page for the channel, which is at ].


Can we have the script modified to cover these cases? It should prompt to request the deleting admin unprotect, or prompt to submit a request to unprotect at ], or here at ] where ] reliably does it?
In any case, let's try to address the issues that have been raised here.


Reviewers should not be sending the problem straight to DRV. DRV is for addressing deletion process problems or overturning a bad decision. —] (]) 02:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
First, I see complaints about the channel contacts. The current channel contacts are an Arbitrator Emeritus and respected user of great experience, Deskana, and Thehelpfulone, a very experienced irc operator and administrator. Both are, in my opinion and based on my experience, doing a fine job, and I don't see why you're here complaining about them.
:I am puzzled as to what ] says is wrong with the AFC script. The script did not say to go to ]. The script said to request unprotection. If SmokeyJoe is recommending that the script provide more detailed instructions, then that is a good idea, but the current instruction is not wrong. ] (]) 03:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::The comment a reviewer posted on the draft “The author must take it to ] for review” was wrong. ] (]) 06:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Not to get picky, but JoJo did say in their AFD close that any new drafts would need DRV to be accepted. Is this a proclamation they're allowed to make? I don't know, but that is why the reviewer said it. ] (]) 07:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Good nitpick. I hadn’t seen that. I presumed it was a general belief that DRV is generally required to reverse SALTing, as we see from time to time at DRV.
::::] did say that in their close, in August 2017. I’m not wanting to try to solve this here, but the proclamation came from the closer, not the discussion, which is an issue. Also, time matters. I’ve seen elsewhere concerns about the huge number of protected pages, where most, but not all, never warranted permanent protection. I think JoJo’s proclamation should definitely be respected for six months, should probably be respected for two years, and after that I’m not sure. ] (]) 09:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Can't really argue with that; salting really is a slightly longer way of dealing with disruption, but I agree it shouldn't really ever be indef. ] (]) 09:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I am not personally sure myself, but my sense is that if a page keeps getting deleted at AfD, at some point folks need to challenge the AfD closes first (i.e DRV) before recreating yet again. That said, it's been eight years and I haven't worked in AfD for a long time. ] (]) 10:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:If y'all want to pick which of those actions you want AFCH to do, I can make a ticket for it. We should focus on one action. So the workflow might be something like "Darn it, "Callum Reynolds" is create-protected. Do you want AFCH to file a request for unprotection at ]? ". Then the RFUP could be something like "I am an AFC reviewer and I would like to formally accept "Callum Reynolds" and move it to mainspace, but it is ]ed. I would like to request unprotection. Please ping me with the outcome so I remember to move the draft. Thanks." –] <small>(])</small> 06:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::The simplest option I think is for AFCH to advise how to request unprotection.
::It might be good for AFCH to offer a post a canned request, to the protecting admin, or to RFUP, or to here at WT:AfC. ] (]) 06:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Indeed. It would be fairly trivial to add something along the lines of "at RFUP or WT:AFC" after "unprotection". ] (]) 07:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I with the "at RFUP or WT:AFC" addition. Let me know if anyone wants it adjusted. –] <small>(])</small> 09:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I suggest that it should say: "You will need to request unprotection from the protecting admin on their talk page or at ]." So +admin -WT:AfC. I don't think that WT:AfC should be recommended because RFUP ''should'' work, and if it isn't working, we should see why it isn't, instead of bypassing the problem by directing requests here. —] 15:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::That's fair, I mainly was parroting Joe's suggestion since my advice here (when someone asks about a salted page) is to just ping me, well, here, and I'll take care of it. ] (]) 16:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I updated the ticket to incorporate Alalch E's changes. –] <small>(])</small> 05:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


== Draft when article already exists ==
If there is an issue with the behaviour of the current contacts, please contact the rest of the ops thru the appropriate channels and we'll gladly help mediate the dispute :) As far as I know, please correct me if I am mistaken, you have never raised issues regarding the current contacts with the rest of the ops regarding the contacts' decisions, inactivity, behavior or the like.


I just reviewed a draft that had been declined by two previous reviewers, both experienced editors, one of them an admin. On the one hand, I agreed that the draft, as submitted, did not establish ]. However, there was already an article on the subject. My question is why is it apparently easy for editors not to notice that there already is an article? The question was not whether the draft should be accepted, which is not possible if there is already an article. The questions were whether the draft should be declined as ''exists' or for notability, and whether the draft should be tagged for merging into the article. There is a notice in the yellow banner saying that there is already an article. Should it be made more prominent, or should reviewers be reminded to pay attention to it?
If you have a specific problem with how the channel is run, please do come forward and tell us, and I'm sure a reasonable discussion can be had about it between all of the moderation team.


I had been planning not to name the draft, because I want a general response, not focused only on the specific draft, but then I realized that some reviewers will do their homework and look at my contribution history and see that it was ], and there already is an article on ], and the article, unlike the draft, does establish ]. So that is the specific. The fact that there already was an article was apparently missed by two reviewers. Do we need to make it easier for the reviewers?
So far, no issues have been raised, you only brought up some old story that is completely irrelevant and really pointless, for you know very well that if you got an issue with the founder you can discuss it with the rest of the ops and come to a solution.
] (]) 22:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:Well, well. That sort of answers that. They are two different people. In that case, my only complaint is that it would have been helpful if the reviewers who declined the draft had noticed that disambiguation might be in order. ] (]) 22:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::To answer the general question you asked (because the specifics just boil down to "reviewers need to take their damn time when they're reviewing"), it probably depends on how much more useful content there is in the draft. If it's an improvement, then a <code>merge</code> decline is probably more appropriate than the <code>exists</code> decline, which is really just more for saying "hey, don't waste your time on this, work on the article." Hell, we have the option to have multiple decline reasons, so just use both if it's borderline.
::I think the main reason we get duplicate submissions (based on a quick look through cats ] and ]) is disambiguation, whether a spelling difference or with parentheticals. I don't know how we can necessarily stop people from creating these pages, though. ] (]) 08:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


== Aram Mala Nuri, Requesting Review ==
I've been in this channel since its founding back in 2007, and have been an op in it for almost two years now. My interactions with the channel contacts, from werdan7 times to the current set of contacts have always been positive and professional, and I've never had an issue with how the channel was run. In any case, as with all wikimedia channels, the main decision body, if you want to call it that way, regarding channel rules are not the contacts, but the consensus of ops. In any case, I find this point moot as really the current founders are both excellent and clearly well suited for the job.


Hello. It has been more than a month that I edited the last version and am waiting for response. If anyone could take a look and check it, it would be highly appreciated.
Regards, <i><b>] <sup><small>]</small></sup></b></i> 21:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Here is the link of the draft:https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Zhewar_H._Ali/sandbox ] (]) 14:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
{{ec|2}}
:{{u|Zhewar H. Ali}}, please be patient; drafts are not reviewed in any particular order but it will be seen in due time. ] (]) 15:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:Who chooses GC?
:Who chooses the people who run channels (F)?
:How can a wikipedian appeal a decision by them, or choose who they are?
:If it's separate from Wiki?edia, why is it called "#wiki?edia..." - and linked from our common templates for helping? That seems to confer authority. Can we redirect them?
:"Operators are selected for their knowledge of IRC" - by who? Who decides if they know about IRC? I know of selections of ops who have little/no knowledge of IRC, and have demonstrated incompetence with its commands - how do I appeal those?
:"The current system works" - no, it does not. Often, new users are ignored or abused. Logs available from me - except, I can't publish them here...due to rules set by yourself?
:"Requests are dealt with fairly and properly, and in a timely manner." - refs, please. I know that, many times, new users are ignored. That could be improved. It ''should'' be improved. The community could/should improve it. But, how can we, when the decisions over control are outside their remit?
:"The management of the channel does not and should not distract anybody from the help offered to new users." - yes, it absolutely DOES. It distracts ME. That's why I've stopped using it for several protracted periods. If this cannot be solved, I won't be able to use it - for reasons stated.
:"We are always open to suggestions for improving the current channel management." - great; so; where/how can I suggest who should be in charge of it, or challenge this oligarchy?
:"However, the above post does not adequately explain what needs to change; if there are genuine suggestions for improvement, we are happy to hear them." - Sure. OK. So; the #wikipedia-en-help channel "F" are TheHelpfulOne and Deskana; I do not believe that adequately reflects the users of the channel, and I ask that the control be put to the community'; ditto GC.
:"We are always open to suggestions for improving the current channel management. However, the above post does not adequately explain what needs to change; if there are genuine suggestions for improvement, we are happy to hear them." - who is that then? who chose it?
:"they would not like to pursue a different approach to how the channel is managed. The IRC group contacts will support their decision" - according to whom?
:'''SURELY''', helping new users is ''vital'', and the community should decide how it is best approached - not just "you"? <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">]]</span></small> 21:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:05, 17 January 2025

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Welcome—discuss matters concerning this project!
AfC submissions
Random submission
2+ months
1,748 pending submissionsPurge to update
Shortcut


Skip to top Skip to bottom
          Other talk page banners
This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconArticles for creation
WikiProject iconThis page is used for the administration of the Articles for Creation or Files for Upload processes and is therefore within the scope of WikiProject Articles for Creation. Please direct any queries to the discussion page.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creation (admin)AfC projectWikiProject icon
To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation redirects here.
WikiProject Articles for creation was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 24 December 2018.
Archiving icon
Archives
Articles for Creation (search)

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59

Reviewer help

Helper script

Participants

Old AFCH requests


This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present.

AfC unreviewed draft statistics as of January 13, 2025


Bots/scripts that detect that a submission has not changed (much) since the last time it was submitted

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a consensus against option 1 and no consensus for options 3 or 4. The former was roundly rejected, and the latter two received minimal support. Option 2 received about 7 !votes and option 5 around 10 !votes. The main arguments in favor of option 5 were the stigma of being flagged by a bot and the fact that reviewers sometimes make mistakes, but editors in favor of option 2 pointed out that some editors see value in having such a list, that the list wouldn't alert the submitter, and that being on the list does nothing to indicate whether the original review was correct. Thus, I find a rough consensus for option 2. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Are there any bots/scripts that detect that a submission has not changed (much) since the last time it was submitted? Ideally they would be able to autoreject or at least put them on a list. It might be possible to look at the previous reason for rejection, e.g. not meeting GNG, and if no new refs are added it is highly unlikely it will pass this time. Polygnotus (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

No, and if I remember correctly we decided not to have any sort of bot that does this. Primefac (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
I think having a bot that does this would be a bad idea. One poor decline could easily lead to a series of them. -- asilvering (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
For clarity, given @Ca's comment below, my comment is about putting them on a list. (Obviously, I think an autoreject bot would be even worse.) -- asilvering (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes, bad idea. Sometimes it's reasonable to resubmit without changes if the decline was incorrect or the submitter has clarified something. C F A 💬 16:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
How about a bot that could add a Comment to the submission to let the submitter know that the submission has not changed and that they could continue working on it? Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 16:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
I agree having any kind of auto-decline bot is a bad idea. However, simply putting them in a list, like this one, sounds reasonable. It would be useful for finding easy declines/accepts, provided that the reviewers check the circumstances behind the resubmission. Ca 16:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Should a bot be created to handle AfC submissions that haven't changed since the last time they were submitted?

Should a bot be created to handle AfC submissions that haven't changed since the last time they were submitted?

  • Option 1: Yes. The bot should automatically reject decline any such submissions.
  • Option 2: Yes. The bot should add such submissions to a list, similar to the list of possible copyvios.
  • Option 3: Yes. The bot should notify the submitter and comment on the submission.
  • Option 4: Yes. The bot should add such submissions to a list and notify the submitter and comment on the submission.
  • Option 5: No.

JJPMaster (she/they) 18:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Note that I changed Option 1 to decline rather than reject, as reject is a very specific term in AFC and I don't think that is what was meant here. Reject means the draft can never be resubmitted, due to violating WP:NOT or having extremely obvious and egregious non-notability. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Oppose option 1, per the discussion above this is a very bad idea. Support option 2, this seems harmless and seems worth tracking - as long as it is made absolutely clear that being rejected previously is not a reason to reject - if the original reason was correct and still applies then it can be rejected again for that reason. Neutral on the other options, but any comment/notification must make it clear that it is informational only and not a rejection. Thryduulf (talk) 19:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 5. AfC reviewers make mistakes. We should not be prejudicing someone's future AfC chances based on those mistakes any more than we already do - namely, that there is already a gigantic decline message on the draft. AfC is frequently a dispiriting, demoralizing, and baffling experience for new editors, mostly one of waiting and then receiving templated replies they do not fully understand. I oppose this, and I oppose any other efforts that would further increase new editor alienation in this way. -- asilvering (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 4, but as with Thryduulf, the comment on submission should be marked as informational and a reviewer will come by to assess the submission. – robertsky (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Support option 2. Whether any changes have been made since the last decline is often something I look for when reviewing an article with declines, as it helps to see if the concerns from that last decline were addressed (if I feel like they are appropriate to the article as I see it), and this would be a benefit to a reviewer without being additionally "punishing" to a new editor. Reconrabbit 19:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Speaking as someone who doesn't review drafts but very occasionally comments on them, I think an {{AfC comment}}-like mention at the top would be easiest to work with, so I guess I'm at Option 3 or 4. Very dubious that a bot could reasonably handle the "(much)" in the preceding section header without unacceptable false positives and negatives, but detecting completely unchanged submissions would be both feasible and useful. —Cryptic 20:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Support Option 5 - No. Oppose Options 1, 2, 3, 4. Support based on Asilvering's comment. Opposes are my own, doubtless with others. As a reviewer I declare myself capable of checking, and I do. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Faddle 🇺🇦 20:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 4 but instead of adding to a list, add to a category (preferably a hidden one). Yes, definitely notify the submitter and comment on it, but having a list may discourage the submitter if they see that their draft is listed on a list. Having a hidden category would be better (at least imho) where a parameter of Template:AFC submission can add the draft into the category. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 20:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
    Though with all options, the reviewer would still do the same work... Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 20:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I suppose I wouldn't oppose a bot that automatically leaves a comment, but I don't really see the point either. Reviewers should be evaluating based on the current state of the draft — previous declines really shouldn't matter in most cases. I think this would encourage summary "no change" declines without actually looking at the content of the draft. C F A 💬 20:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
    You're right. It would encourage reviewers to "decline" the draft just because it hasn't changed since last review. However, thinking now, it might encourage editors to keep working on the draft because they see that "it hasn't changed since last review". If that's the case, reviewers should "wait". So perhaps after the bot leaves a comment, reviewers should wait at least a couple minute before reviewing in case the editor wants to add content? Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 21:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
    My position is that if they did not see being declined as reason to keep working on the draft, they are unlikely to have a positive view of an automated message telling them that the draft hasn't changed. -- asilvering (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  • No too easy to game. The simplest bot would just compare revisions. A submitter would then just have to add like a space or a few words to change it. A more complicated bot would flag changes that were too small or simple, but then that just encourages submitters to ramble. A bot can't assess the quality of a change, only editors can. CaptainEek ⚓ 21:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Strongest Oppose to 1 as bad reviews do exist. Also, sometimes submitters have discussed it with the reviewer and been told to resubmit for a second opinion etc.
Weak Oppose 2, 3 & 4 as I'm not convinced a bot will accurately determine what no substantive change is and I see little value in just flagging straight re-submits
Support 5 as de-facto option left KylieTastic (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 or 4 especially with several disruptors (and one dynamic IP so block doesn't help) who just do drive by submissions. Frustrating to the editor to receive another decline through no fault of their own. Having them in the queue is a waste of reviewers' time though when it's a quick decline because the improvements haven't been made. I think it's less wrong decline and more no discussion about why the feedback was wrong that's the red flag. Star Mississippi 23:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
    I lean towards Option 5, but for those pages/editors engaged in a problematic level of drive-by submissions, I wonder whether a completely different approach might work better. For example: If you think the previous decline was correct, and you also think it's a drive-by re-nom, then move the article to the mainspace and send it straight to AFD. If it's kept, then the submitter was correct, and the previous decline was wrong. Also, it's now out of the AFC queues. However, if it's deleted, salt the page name(s) in both Draft: and mainspace for the next year (or two?), so that AFC can be done with it. Either way, it's no longer AFC's problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Strongly oppose Option 1. Frankly, trusting fellow reviewers to check how much a draft has changed since a previous decline is reasonable to do. Letting a Bot do something creates an option to game the system. We don't need that. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 00:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Support Option 2, neutral on Option 4, and oppose the rest. I do not see the point in notifying submitters when they already are aware they did not make any changes. Perhaps they wanted another review. Putting unchanged drafts in a hidden list like the copyvio one seems optimal as it reduces complexity and unnecessary messages to submitters. It would make finding easy declines and disruptive drive by submissions easier to find. I also support adding a verbiage that being unchanged should not be the sole reason to decline again. Ca 00:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 5 - Reviewers should be instructed, more clearly if necessary, to check whether the draft has been revised since the last decline, and to use human judgment in deciding what is enough improvement. There is no need for automated aid, which could make mistakes and could be gamed. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2, at least, option 4, at best. Yes, reviewers make mistakes, but they make mistakes in both directions, and should also consider the guidance inherent in a previous rejection. BD2412 T 15:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Option 4 preferably, but I'm okay with option 5 as well (TBH, I don't think this is a major problem in the bigger scheme of things, and the details could be tricky). Also oppose option 1, regardless of whether it was intended to say 'reject', or merely 'decline'. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
PS: When I say details could be tricky, I didn't mean in a technical sense, but rather in defining what the trigger condition of "changed (much)" actually means. Size change doesn't always tell us much: only a few kb might have changed, yet the draft was completely rewritten; conversely, a large kb change could mean that the author simply deleted the earlier AfC templates. Number of sources, ditto: adding ten new rubbish sources to the earlier rubbish sources still adds up to only rubbish; whereas using the same sources but citing them correctly might have resolved the decline reason. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 5. AfC reviewers sometimes make mistakes, particularly when dealing with areas that they are not familiar with. (I can't count how many drafts on academics have been rejected and told to supply GNG, and I've also seen rejections of drafts on politicians that clearly passed NPOL.) Creators should always be allowed to ask for a second opinion. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 5 Per asilvering and Espresso Addict. I would further that; reviewers often make mistakes....specifically declining articles for reasons that are not decline criteria. Also some reviewers tend to pass only unusually safe passes. North8000 (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 5 per Asilvering. If a reviewer makes a mistake (which often happens), the submitter shouldn't be even more penalized for it. Same if they just want another opinion on their draft. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 or 4 per Star Mississippi. I'll add: Resubmitting an unchanged draft is a sign of a problem even if the declining reviewer had made a mistake. And it will rarely be the case that they have made a mistake given a creator who resubmits an identical draft, which very strongly correlates with the draft being poor in the first place and not deserving of acceptance.—Alalch E. 13:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 5 (do nothing). Like Primefac below, I'm surprised this got the RfC stage given the overwhelmingly negative reception in the original discussion, and hope the closer of this discussion will take that into account. AfC reviewers make mistakes but, more to the point, people can have good faith disagreements about the suitability of an article. If the submitter disagrees with a reviewer, they have every right to ask for a second opinion without edit warring with a bot or making pointless changes. – Joe (talk) 08:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 or 5 - Given the unevenness of reviews, authors have legitimate reasons for seeking a second, third or fourth review. ~Kvng (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

RFC discussion

Um... didn't this get fairly roundly shot down in the original discussion? Why does it need a full RFC to work out any further details? Primefac (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that only Option 1 was outright rejected in the above discussion. The rest were counterproposals that seemed to have at least some support. JJPMaster (she/they) 19:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Meh, RFC just seems like a lot of bureaucracy for something that didn't really have a lot of discussion and could have probably been dealt with in-house. Carry on I suppose. Primefac (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
I second your 'meh'. Why are we going through this extra layer. If it ain't broke don't fix it! 🇺🇦 Fiddle Faddle 🇺🇦 20:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Hate to be Devil's Advocate for an RFC I've opposed, but I think we've got more, clearer answers to the question in the few hours since this RfC opened than we had in the entire earlier discussion, so there's that. And I do think AfC is pretty broke and needs some fixing. I just think this is tinkering in the wrong direction. -- asilvering (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

While we're here and talking about reviewers making mistakes, let me make my perennial plea that, if you see, this, you go ask the reviewer about it on their talk page. We all have to learn somehow! And if the reviewer is making lots of mistakes, it will be easier for any single editor to figure this out later if there's a track record of them on their talk page. By the way, for those who haven't learned this trick yet: the AFCH script will allow you to resubmit drafts as though you were the original submitter. If you think something was inappropriately declined, you can resubmit it to the queue yourself and then immediately accept it, or resubmit it and leave a comment explaining why you did so. -- asilvering (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Or if you want to resubmit a draft on behalf of another user so they get the AfC communications rather than you, such as the Accept notification, you can use {{subst:submit|Creator's username}}. The other option is to click the Resubmit button then change the User (u=) from your name to theirs. S0091 (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
The AFCH script will do this for you automatically. -- asilvering (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Ahh..ok, I see now. You review on an already declined draft. I had never clicked the Submit button because I assumed it worked the same way as the Resubmit button in the decline message but the AFCH script gives you options to assign the submitter. I can't tell you how many times I have resubmitted drafts using the manual methods I outline above. The more you know! :) S0091 (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Indian state symbols

It seems we have a new instalment in the series of bogus Indian state symbols, this time with Draft:List of Indian state vegetables. Different IP from the previous ones, but probably the same user. Just flagging this here to avoid a repeat of the earlier sich. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I have cleared up the rest of the related junk edits from them. KylieTastic (talk) 12:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
This time, it's Draft:List of Indian state cuisines. Curious to see what's coming next? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Nope. They should be warned then blocked for making hoaxes. KylieTastic (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Deleted as hoaxes and blocked for block evasion. KylieTastic (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Disable AFCH if there is an ongoing AfD

The AFCH tool should be disabled if there is an ongoing AfD at the corresponding mainspace title, as with Draft:Raegan Revord and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Raegan Revord (2nd nomination), for example. GTrang (talk) 16:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Why? A draft like that should be declined as exists anyway, so disabling AFCH would mean that we wouldn't be able to do that. Primefac (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
In fairness, that (decline as 'exists') is what GTrang did with this draft, but it was reverted as just extra administration for no reason (I think). Which then put the draft back in the pool. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
I have undone that edit as the AFD is clearly trending towards the article being kept. Primefac (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
I went ahead and redirected the draft to the mainspace article, which is what I like to do in these situations to avoid duplication. I think editors should be encouraged to work on the mainspace article and not the draft, so that everyone is using their time efficiently. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
I was reverted. NatGertler, can you please elaborate on how you plan to move a draft over an existing mainspace page? Did you perhaps mean that you plan to manually copy paste merge some pieces of the draft instead? In which case, the draft would be fine as a redirect, since the page history can easily be checked. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
If you look at the AfD, there is reasonable support for (if the article survives AfD) deleting the version that is currently in mainspace and moving this draft one into mainspace at the same address. This version is in much better shape, and there is nothing substantial in the mainspace one that needs to be merged into this. If folks are to work on either of them, we want them working on this one, which is likely to be the surviving version in some form (whether it survives as a draft or in mainspace depends on the outcome of the AfD, but even at the most complicated take it will be merged into the mainspace one, so may as well have it here.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Got it. I think this should be de-duplicated at some point, but with your comment in mind, I suppose it's OK to wait until after the AFD is over. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Declined AfC submissions resubmitted without any changes is live!

Per the outcome of this RfC, which is shown above, and a request filed at WP:BOTREQ by User:JJPMaster, the above page is now live and ready for reviewers to use, maintained by User:MolecularBot. It's actually caught 1 already in only the couple hours its been live, see Draft:M S Narasimha Murthy. :)

There's also a website I've made hosted on Toolforge to look up an article and see if it's resubmitted without changes, if that's more your thing.

For adding an item to the list, the requirement is that it has an AFC submission wizard edit, directly after an AFCH decline.

For removing an item from the list, the requirement is that it has a edit that is not done with AFCH or the AFC submission wizard (note: it's been very kindly suggested by Bunnypranav that it should maybe do some detecting to see if a edit is meaningful or not, any suggestions for when/when not a edit counts as meaningful are most welcome!)

Please don't hesitate to reach out to me if you have any feedback for this bot task, or would like anything changed about it. Thanks! :) MolecularPilot 06:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Also btw an API is also available by sending a GET request to https://molecularbot2.toolforge.org/resubAPI.php?pageName=test, replacing test with the name of the page, excluding "Draft:"! :) MolecularPilot 06:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for implementing the bot—on the new year nonetheless! Ca 13:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Trying out using Microsoft Copilot to discuss notability of a particular topic

I'm not sure if people have tried this out or not. I searched AfC talk archives for "AI", "Gemini", "Copilot", and I saw that people have been talking about AI generated submissions, but I haven't seen any discussion on doing something like this.

So, anyway, I'll seek to share the dialog:

https://github.com/davidkitfriedman/general/blob/main/2025_01_02_dialog_with_Copilot_on_notability_of_GlobalProtect.md

I asked Copilot to argue against notability for GlobalPlatform, and then also to argue for notability.

Initially I just asked it what are some of the major consortia that Google is a part of.

Copilot responsed and then also prompted with, "Is there a specific area of Google's partnerships you're particularly interested in?".

And so I told it why I had asked the question initially, and it cited Misplaced Pages's policies, and then asked, "Do you have a specific consortium in mind that you're researching?"

I could mention that I did see this mentioned in Misplaced Pages:Artificial Intelligence, so perhaps editors don't feel that it's necessarily worth discussing with LLMs whether a particular topic meets notability or not.

When exploring AI techniques and systems, the community consensus is to prefer human decisions over machine-generated outcomes until the implications are better understood.

Jjjjjjjjjj (talk · contribs) 05:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Meh... what people choose to do on their own time to not think for themselves is their own concern; if an LLM tells someone that a subject is notable, but the subject is not notable, we're no worse off than the Fiver writers that get paid to write shitty prose about non-notable grocery store owners. If the LLM tells the editor that a subject is notable, and they are, then all they've really done is waste their own time, since the subject would pass our criteria anyway. Primefac (talk) 07:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
LLMs do not think in the traditional human way because that's not what they're trained to do. Their job is to provide compelling output. The problem with that is that LLMs don't know what truth or factual accuracy is, i. e., they don't know if what they've just made up makes any sense. In a nutshell, discussing with an LLM is like talking to a parrot on steroids. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 08:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I've seen several editors assuring us that their obviously LLM-generated draft has been painstakingly written to comply with all Misplaced Pages requirements for notability, verifiability, and other core policies yada yada... and then it turns out the said draft doesn't cite a single source. So if the editor hasn't the first clue about our requirements, then the LLM clearly won't impose one on them. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
LLM and Misplaced Pages don't mix very well. In my opinion, in almost all cases, it's just a timesink. LLM is useful for certain non-Misplaced Pages things, but is not a great fit here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

African legislators

Just found out why we're seeing so many new drafts (mostly very short stubs) on legislators, esp. Nigerian ones, lately: https://meta.wikimedia.org/Event:African_Legislators_in_Red This runs until the end of the month, and one of the rules is that the articles must get into the main space by then, so expect to see some fast track requests at the help desk as the deadline approaches... -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Ugh. People can wait. We don't expedite for contests. Primefac (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
hmm... I guess we do. Vanderwaalforces (intentionally not pinged) seems to be participating and reviewing drafts from this thing. Primefac (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
So long as it's individual reviewers making the offer to do it, seems fine to me. Not really different from someone, say, going through and reviewing all the OKA drafts (I've done this) or volunteering to help out with an editathon as a reviewer (I've done this, too). But I vote we ping Vanderwaalforces to each and every help desk request, if they arise. :P -- asilvering (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Please do ping me if need arise! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Oh, sure, I don't have any issue with them (or anyone else) making it a personal priority to help out, I'm just saying we-as-a-Project should not be expediting things. Primefac (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
I've been accepting a lot of these as inherently notable since I tend to camp out on the recently submitted feed but, yeah, I don't see why these endless stubs need to go through AfC..? qcne (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Wait, they get money for this? I didn't think that was permitted? qcne (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Based on what I could find (which was little more than this) it appears above-board, since they're not being paid to edit anything specific. Primefac (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
It's probably their way of having a check/balance for the stubs so that they don't have the issue that some other editathons have had where people spam utter garbage and maybe it gets reverted. Primefac (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
@Primefac Correct! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
@Qcne They actually need to go through AfC as a "damage control" both for English Misplaced Pages and the project itself. Also, these editors are mostly new, so yeah! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Makes sense :) qcne (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Most of them are easy to accept. I haven't come across too many issues (which is uncommon for contests with rewards), though some of the longer drafts do tend to lean on the promotional side. I've also found at least 3 copyvios stemming from this event from unrelated Copypatrol work, so be on the lookout for that I guess. C F A 17:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
@CFA Oh yes! I, in fact, disqualified one of the contestants for copyvio. I am especially not taking that lightly. By the way, I cannot thank you enough for keeping an eye on the article and tagging them with the WikiProject template, kudos! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Draft nominated for MFD as not notable after decline

A draft BLP on a politician who does not meet political notability was declined, and then nominated for deletion by the reviewer who declined it. It was my understanding that AFC reviewers should know that drafts are not reviewed for notability or sanity. Either an AFC reviewer has been given access to the script who hasn't been adequately briefed as to how drafts are reviewed, including that they are only nominated for deletion in rare circumstances, or an editor who is not an AFC reviewer is reviewing drafts. Do the guidelines for reviewers need clarifying? We know that sometimes New Page reviewers mistakenly review new drafts with the same standards as they use to review new articles, but apparently some AFC reviewers also don't know when t not to send drafts to XFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Or it could just be that the reviewer didn't know, and they could be gently told how to do it correctly. CaptainEek ⚓ 07:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I wouldn't necessarily call this a "hidden" rule or anything but I agree with Eek that "they didn't know" is probably the most likely scenario, and they should politely be a) informed, and b) asked to withdraw the MFD. Primefac (talk) 07:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Context: Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Bashir Muhammad Hussari Galadanchi. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I left the MFDer a message at their user talk about not MFDing drafts like this one in the future. They were receptive to the feedback. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions/List

is linked on the header, but I believe serves no purpose. This vaguely-named page doesn't have any "list" of submission by itself but links to two other lists. One of them, Misplaced Pages:AfC sorting, is already linked to by the header.

I propose it to be merged to its parent page /Submissions to reduce confusion and the clutter in the header. Only thing that really needs to be merged is the mention of Template:AfC statistics. Ca 14:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Hasn't worked since at least 2022; you're just the second person to notice. Feel free to pull whatever you need from the history and plonk it elsewhere if that makes sense. Primefac (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

A little merging issue

Hello. Following a personal request for an AFC, I thought I would give it a try in spite of an article already existing as a redirect (never did). I over estimated my skills and need a little help :)

So the old article was a redirection (Lahcen Ahansal). I removed the redirection. Could not "Yes" the draft article under the right name (Draft:Lahcen Ahansal) becase of the already existing article. Thought I could approve it under a different spelling Lacen Ahansal and then merge their histories.

Ok, histories are not merging. What am I missing ? Anthere (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't even understand, maybe because I am thinking about a lot of things. It does appear that Primefac has done something like that cleared the issue. Cheers!Safari Scribe 08:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Anthere, there are a couple of other things you should have done. For anyone who isn't an admin, this is what should have been done
  • Request a {{db-afc-move}} on the redirect (this might have been declined given the old article's history, but then I -- as an admin -- would have probably just done a page swap)
  • Request a page swap at WP:RM/TR
For an admin, the options are:
  • Pageswap the draft and article
  • Move the old page (without redirect) to a disambiguated title
Copy/pasting a page to another location is not a good way to get a page to a specific title. Just to clear up SafariScribe's confusion, I just did a page swap on the two pages to put the new article at the correct title, while preserving the history of the old page.
As a minor note, Special:MergeHistory is only available to admins, which is why you couldn't use it. Primefac (talk) 13:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC) Struck, updated, and inserted: 14:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I think Anthere is an admin. Is showing blue in my user highlighter script. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I was just going to say. And on multiple projects, it seems. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
le sigh Forgive me for not having special admin-script glasses on.
A histmerge wasn't possible because there are (effectively) parallel histories; there was nothing that could be merged from the new page into the old page because of diffs from 2010 at the old page blocking the 2025 edits from the new. Primefac (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
This explains that... I felt vastly stupid :) Indeed, I could have swapped the two versions to have the new article history sitting at the right title. But I was trying hard to maintain both histories, which in fact was not really needed. Hmmm.
Situation is perfect now. Real author of current version is credited. All good. Thanks a lot for fixing. Anthere (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Always happy to help, feel free to drop me a line any time you have histmerge questions, there are some who would say I'm an authority on the matter :-) Primefac (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Non-English drafts

I've just declined yet another non-English draft (not the 1st one of the day, not even the 3rd, and that's just me!). In the Category:AfC submissions declined as not in English there are nearly 1,000 such declines. Would it be a good idea to put something in the wizard to warn authors that this is the English-language Misplaced Pages, and if they want to submit content in another language they should head to the relevant language version instead? It's mildly annoying to review these drafts, but I can imagine it's much more frustrating to put in all that effort, only to be told afterwards that it was all for nothing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Probably, but if they're non-English-speaking then what are the realistic chances that they're going to read yet another banner telling them they shouldn't create pages in languages other than English? I'd rather avoid banner bloat if possible, and if the subject is notable it's a quick thing to decline as non-Eng and let them (or G13) sort it out. Primefac (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
In my experience they're not all (or even most?) "non-English-speaking"; many do subsequently communicate in English at the help desk and/or talk pages, and some even resubmit an English-translated draft. It's just that many seem genuinely surprised that the different language versions are in fact separate projects, and that submitting a Bulgarian (say) draft here doesn't help get it into the Bulgarian Misplaced Pages.
But yes, I take the point about banner bloat. Also, just because we warn them, doesn't mean they won't go against the warning regardless – after all, we get plenty of undisclosed COI/PAID submissions although the wizard clearly warns against these. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Fair enough. As usual, I'm not strictly opposed to adding something, just that my knee-jerk reaction is to wonder whether it's worth doing so... Primefac (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I am wondering how feasible it may be to have a bot detect the language being used, and send a note to that editor in that language. BD2412 T 16:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
We have a number of non-English welcome templates, not sure a bot is needed, just a reviewer that doesn't mind taking an extra minute or two to leave one. Primefac (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Often, when I decline a non English draft, I use machine translation to provide a message to the creating editor about it. I suppose it depends on how often it happens regrind a bot. I somehow doubt a bot is needed. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Faddle 🇺🇦 20:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Notified Jimbo instead of the user who submitted the draft

I accepted a draft created and submitted by an IP user, but the script actually notified Jimbo Wales instead of the IP user, I wonder what caused this? - Ratnahastin (talk) 09:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ratnahastin: the submitting user changed the draft !ownership to Jimbo.
Or possibly Jimbo created it himself. In which case, you should go and warn him against editing logged-out. ;) DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

2026 United States Senate election in ...

Heads up: we've got five of these so far (see e.g. Draft:2026 United States Senate election in Arkansas) and I suspect more are coming. I dunno if it's WP:TOOSOON or not, but they look similar enough they can likely be accepted or declined as a group. Rusalkii (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd decline all unless if there are secondary sources actually discussing the state-level senate elections. Ca 11:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Clifford Prize

Should I nominate this draft for speedy deletion? Earwig turns a 93% similarity rate, but I fear this might be a false positive. — 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 11:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

It is a false positive. You can see what's triggering the high percentage by clicking the "Compare" buttons to the left. It's detecting the award recipient list, which you can't really paraphrase. Ca 11:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Always, always, always do a check to see if the % actually means deletion is required. I declined a G12 earlier today where the second half of the draft was copied verbatim (and thus threw a 95% match) but after removal it didn't show any matches other than the random phrases like facility names. While the number is lower today than it used to, there are still some trigger-happy admins who will nuke anything G12 with a high % match without actually checking, and that does no favours to the user who submitted the draft if it's a "false positive" (at least as far as G12 goes). Primefac (talk) 12:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Accepting when the mainspace title is create-protected (SALTed)

Tracked in github.com
Issue #401

Eg, trying to accept Draft:Callum_Reynolds gives:

Darn it, "Callum Reynolds" is create-protected. You will need to request unprotection before accepting.

Can we have the script modified to cover these cases? It should prompt to request the deleting admin unprotect, or prompt to submit a request to unprotect at WP:RFUP, or here at WT:AfC where User:Primefac reliably does it?

Reviewers should not be sending the problem straight to DRV. DRV is for addressing deletion process problems or overturning a bad decision. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I am puzzled as to what User:SmokeyJoe says is wrong with the AFC script. The script did not say to go to DRV. The script said to request unprotection. If SmokeyJoe is recommending that the script provide more detailed instructions, then that is a good idea, but the current instruction is not wrong. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
The comment a reviewer posted on the draft “The author must take it to WP:DRV for review” was wrong. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Not to get picky, but JoJo did say in their AFD close that any new drafts would need DRV to be accepted. Is this a proclamation they're allowed to make? I don't know, but that is why the reviewer said it. Primefac (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Good nitpick. I hadn’t seen that. I presumed it was a general belief that DRV is generally required to reverse SALTing, as we see from time to time at DRV.
User:Jo-Jo Eumerus did say that in their close, in August 2017. I’m not wanting to try to solve this here, but the proclamation came from the closer, not the discussion, which is an issue. Also, time matters. I’ve seen elsewhere concerns about the huge number of protected pages, where most, but not all, never warranted permanent protection. I think JoJo’s proclamation should definitely be respected for six months, should probably be respected for two years, and after that I’m not sure. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Can't really argue with that; salting really is a slightly longer way of dealing with disruption, but I agree it shouldn't really ever be indef. Primefac (talk) 09:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
I am not personally sure myself, but my sense is that if a page keeps getting deleted at AfD, at some point folks need to challenge the AfD closes first (i.e DRV) before recreating yet again. That said, it's been eight years and I haven't worked in AfD for a long time. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
If y'all want to pick which of those actions you want AFCH to do, I can make a ticket for it. We should focus on one action. So the workflow might be something like "Darn it, "Callum Reynolds" is create-protected. Do you want AFCH to file a request for unprotection at WP:RFUP? ". Then the RFUP could be something like "I am an AFC reviewer and I would like to formally accept "Callum Reynolds" and move it to mainspace, but it is WP:SALTed. I would like to request unprotection. Please ping me with the outcome so I remember to move the draft. Thanks." –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
The simplest option I think is for AFCH to advise how to request unprotection.
It might be good for AFCH to offer a post a canned request, to the protecting admin, or to RFUP, or to here at WT:AfC. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Indeed. It would be fairly trivial to add something along the lines of "at RFUP or WT:AFC" after "unprotection". Primefac (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
I made a ticket with the "at RFUP or WT:AFC" addition. Let me know if anyone wants it adjusted. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
I suggest that it should say: "You will need to request unprotection from the protecting admin on their talk page or at WP:RFUP." So +admin -WT:AfC. I don't think that WT:AfC should be recommended because RFUP should work, and if it isn't working, we should see why it isn't, instead of bypassing the problem by directing requests here. —Alalch E. 15:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
That's fair, I mainly was parroting Joe's suggestion since my advice here (when someone asks about a salted page) is to just ping me, well, here, and I'll take care of it. Primefac (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
I updated the ticket to incorporate Alalch E's changes. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Draft when article already exists

I just reviewed a draft that had been declined by two previous reviewers, both experienced editors, one of them an admin. On the one hand, I agreed that the draft, as submitted, did not establish biographical notability. However, there was already an article on the subject. My question is why is it apparently easy for editors not to notice that there already is an article? The question was not whether the draft should be accepted, which is not possible if there is already an article. The questions were whether the draft should be declined as exists' or for notability, and whether the draft should be tagged for merging into the article. There is a notice in the yellow banner saying that there is already an article. Should it be made more prominent, or should reviewers be reminded to pay attention to it?

I had been planning not to name the draft, because I want a general response, not focused only on the specific draft, but then I realized that some reviewers will do their homework and look at my contribution history and see that it was Draft:Caitlin McCarthy, and there already is an article on Caitlin McCarthy, and the article, unlike the draft, does establish acting notability. So that is the specific. The fact that there already was an article was apparently missed by two reviewers. Do we need to make it easier for the reviewers? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, well. That sort of answers that. They are two different people. In that case, my only complaint is that it would have been helpful if the reviewers who declined the draft had noticed that disambiguation might be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
To answer the general question you asked (because the specifics just boil down to "reviewers need to take their damn time when they're reviewing"), it probably depends on how much more useful content there is in the draft. If it's an improvement, then a merge decline is probably more appropriate than the exists decline, which is really just more for saying "hey, don't waste your time on this, work on the article." Hell, we have the option to have multiple decline reasons, so just use both if it's borderline.
I think the main reason we get duplicate submissions (based on a quick look through cats this and that) is disambiguation, whether a spelling difference or with parentheticals. I don't know how we can necessarily stop people from creating these pages, though. Primefac (talk) 08:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Aram Mala Nuri, Requesting Review

Hello. It has been more than a month that I edited the last version and am waiting for response. If anyone could take a look and check it, it would be highly appreciated. Here is the link of the draft:https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Zhewar_H._Ali/sandbox Zhewar H. Ali (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Zhewar H. Ali, please be patient; drafts are not reviewed in any particular order but it will be seen in due time. Primefac (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation: Difference between revisions Add topic