Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

Draft:Cyberjustice

I just declined a submission because it appears to be a copyright violation taken from a large number of sources. Since it is a copyright violation, how do I make it disappear without messing up the administrative system that seems to be part of the Afc process? OR, if someone already knows how this should be handled, please feel free to make the page disappear. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  12:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Bfpage - When you use the AfC review tool, click the "CV" option. When you use that, it automatically chooses the option to "blank the submission". You have to manually unclick that option if the CV isn't egregious enough to blank the entire submission. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the info. I am still amazed at how much that I don't know. The Very Best of Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  20:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

A possibly useful template for editathon redlink lists

Hi all, I've made what I hope is a useful template, and here seems a sensible place to share the idea.

The {{preloaddraft}} template creates a link that preloads text into a newly created draft page. The idea is that it can be for redlink lists at editathons, which typically have a high proportion of inexperienced editors creating new pages (for example click here → , or see WP:Meetup/SCAR_2016). Having an appropriate skeleton draft text preloaded onto the new page can help make formatting easier for new editors.

*[[Person A]]
*[[Person B]]
vs
*{{preloaddraft | Person A | Scientist}}
*{{preloaddraft | Person B | Scientist}}

Hopefully it's a useful way to use the draft space as the default location for redlink list articles whilst they are in progress during an editathon. I thought perhaps that members of this wikiproject may have some suggestions for it! I'm keen on is ensuring that the majority of drafts (as long as they have no major problems) get to move to mainspace as a focal point at the end of an editathon event. Do drafts moved into mainspace still get looked at by new page patrol? Conversation has so far largely been based at the Women in Red Wikiproject. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 08:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Trying to decline

Draft:James Swartz (Ramji) on notability grounds yet every time I've tried doing so Chrome crashes. Is it just me? Thanks for the help, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

It worked for me. What's interesting is that it gave me a message that there's an HTML tag greater than 50 characters but I guess that wasn't an issue. I tried with Firefox. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

There was an extra brace within an {{afc comment}} that might have been causing the issue, perhaps? I removed it right before Sir Joseph reviewed the draft. /wia🎄/tlk 02:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Go figure...thanks! Chrome freezing seems a bit drastic over such a tiny thing, no? FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Some types of errors in the AFC comments cause a script to freeze behind the scenes, which hangs all web browsers. Internet Explorer eventually detects the long-running script and asks the submitter whether to abort the script. Google Chrome just hangs. The script is too fragile. Unfortunately, given the bug reporting mistechnique for the script, it is nearly impossible to report script bugs. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Multiple reasons for decline?

I have asked this at the Help Desk for the AFCH script, but I think that this is of general interest to reviewers and is not just a script issue. Would it be possible to give reviewers the option of specifying more than one reason for a decline? On speedy delete requests, an editor can select multiple reasons for a deletion request. It is common for a draft to be submitted that should be declined for two or more reasons. In particular, if a BLP lacks proper in-line citations, it also typically does not satisfy biographical notability. If a draft reads like an advertisement, it often does not satisfy corporate notability. I think that it would facilitate the review process if a reviewer could specify more than one reason. (As it is, if an article has multiple problems, the reviewer either selects one, which doesn't tell the author enough, or the reviewer has to type in additional comments manually.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

IIRC, the way to decline for multiple reasons is to go to the Custom decline, and list the various reasons as bullet points. Hasteur (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but that is more work for the reviewer, because I have to write out all of the reasons. What I do at present is to select the most obvious reason and list the rest in the comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

There's a counter school (that suggests you follow the reviewing ruberic) which prevents multiple decline reasons at once. Personally I think that's cowardly and if it fails for multiple reasons, I need to take the time to explain why I'm failing it even if it takes me longer to complete the review. Hasteur (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. It is not just cowardly but genuinely harmful to the overall review process. Most articles with multiple decline reasons come from enthusiastic inexperienced editors, who genuinely believe that if they correct the one cited problem, their article will be accepted. So they try to correct that, and they don't address other problems that a reviewer sees, and go back through review again. Since the reviewer sees a combination of related problems, the reviewer is just prolonging the struggle and wasting the time of the reviewers if they only cite one reason. (Unfortunately, some inexperienced enthusiastic editors only address the decline reason and not the comments, or only the comments and not the decline reason. Unfortunately, there is no way that a reviewer can force the author to read and respond to the comments. Also, there is no good way that a reviewer can deal with persistent editors who want to game the system. (If they think AFC is a painful process, they haven't tried AFD.)) I agree that saying "only one reason at a time" is genuinely harmful to the overall review process. It stretches it out for no good reason.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I think more harm is done to new editors by the "one reason at a time approach," because it gives the wrong expectations about what new articles require. If there's a perspective that listing all the identified issues at once may overwhelm new editors, I can understand where that is coming from, but I think the more compelling problem here is misleading new editors. I'm not familiar with script writing, but I imagine something similar to how editors can report multiple speedy deletion criteria for pages using Twinkle. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 21:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm in total agreement that the "one reason at a time approach," is harmful. While I certainly don't hear from every draft I decline, frequently, after I'm the second (or third or more) decline, I hear, "but so and so said I needed to fix this, and I did, now you're declining it for that?". It's one thing when an article gets declined over and over again for a single reason, but often I could decline an article for more than one reason. On blp's, it might be that the sources don't show notability, and there are no inline citations (that's a pretty common combination). Or on a company it might be a lack of notability, and it's an advertisement (another pretty common one). I think that if the script was programmed to have a message of encouragement, despite multiple reasons for being declined, that would offset some of the discouragement. It's never going to be perfect, but I think being able to cite multiple reasons will be better. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I concur. Giving only one decline reason for a draft with multiple issues can lead on an author. Incidentally, I've come across the copyright/corporate non-notability/NPOV language trifecta before. Usually I decline for cv (so that it can be changed to cv-cleaned post-revdel) and leave an {{Afc comment}} enumerating the issues. However, I'm not sure how many draft authors actually look at those comments. Maybe they just check their user talk page and see the single reason given in the boilerplate AfC notification. For that reason, multiple declines could be useful. /wiae /tlk 23:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Allowing only one reason ends up both confusing and angering the new editors. I get a lot of talk page comments about the "inconsistency" of decline reasons at AfC. When there are multiple reasons to decline, different editors make different choices, and it ends up being nonsense to the poor editor. I also agree that many editors do not read the comments, especially when the distance between the latest decline and the comments is two long scrolls away. I've started using the "custom reason" option more often because then the message is right in the box that the user sees, and it allows me to give multiple reasons. So I agree that being able to list multiple reasons would be very helpful. I envision it looking somewhat like the multiple tag boxes at the top of articles. However, I don't know what to do about all of the boilerplate that the script adds LaMona (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support multiple reasons to decline, with the caveat that we should all use the opportunity to leave comments wherever possible when we decline something anyway. Fiddle Faddle 13:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Requests

I have a few questions and comments about speedy deletion requests of AFC drafts. First, I occasionally encounter a random AF submission that has been tagged for speedy deletion, but is still submitted to AFC review. (The most common reason for this action is that the draft is unambiguous advertising.I assume that that is being done by a New Page Patroller who is not an AFC reviewer. If you are an AFC reviewer, please don't tag a draft for speedy deletion without also declining it (and so saving work for the next reviewer). Second, is this the right place to request guidance on when a reviewer should not only decline a draft, but tag it for speedy deletion, or should I take that question to the main Wikipedia Help Desk? I often see AFC drafts that should certainly be tagged for speedy deletion if they were in article space, such as unreferenced two-paragraph autobiographies, or drafts that are just hash, but I have generally worked on the idea that AFC is supposed to be tolerant of the creation of bad drafts because it permits the reviewer to say tactfully that the draft isn't up to Wikipedia standards. Are there any guidelines as to when a draft should be tagged for speedy deletion rather than just declined? I did once tag a draft for speedy deletion because it was an attack page, but I think that some of the usual reasons, such as no plausible claim for notability, should not apply to AFC. That is especially true because it seems to be relatively easy for an author to submit an very incomplete draft by accident, and it should be declined as blank, or a test edit, or non-notable, but should not be speedy-deleted. Are there any general guidelines for when a draft should be speedied? Should I discuss this here, or at the better-watched Help Desk? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

IIRC, short of a personal attack/BLP violation/hate speech, decline it and cite what it would have been speeded under if the page was in articlespace. The lower threshold for triggering the speedy rules when we're in AFC/Draftspace is so that marginal pages can improve. The only exception to this is repeated submissions that have precisely zero possibility ("Tommy Smith is the best Minecraft player of all time") that haven't made forward progress to being something that can be accepted and put into mainspace. Before I use the MFD/CSD on them I'll make a "zero possibility of doubt" warning about what will happen if the next submission doesn't show improvement. Hasteur (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. That is my attitude also. I have never CSD'd a draft because of zero possibility of doubt. I have MFD's a number of drafts if it was obvious that the author was not trying to improve the draft, but was perhaps trying to game the system by getting an easier reviewer. (My thought there is that if you think AFC is a painful process that you want to game, you haven't tried AFD, and, if you get through AFC by lottery, you will get into AFD.) I have sometimes put into the MFD a comment that if any experienced editor wants to improve the draft within seven days, I will withdraw the MFD. I do see a fair number of drafts that are nominated as blatantly promotional (G11). I won't nominate a draft for that reason, only decline it. Also, if an author resubmits a draft with no changes at all, I have usually given them a Level 2 template for disruptive editing, in particular citing tendentious editing. Thank you. I haven't CSD'd drafts except for personal attack or hate speech. No content and no context are reasons to CSD a page in anything except draft space, but in draft space, I see a blank or very incomplete draft as a mistaken submission. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I've G11ed a number of drafts over the past months, but I try to restrict it to cases where the draft is so clearly an advertisement that it needs WP:TNTing (my litmus test is usually the presence of "our"/"us" or the inclusion of overtly promotional content followed by "for more information about our great company, call us at") and where the author's username violates WP:U. I believe this practice is consistent with the reviewing guidelines, but I'd be curious to see whether other reviewers G11 drafts. /wiae /tlk 23:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the above on working with even highly mis-guided initial drafts -- sometimes there's a real gem there once we work (laboriously) with the new editor. However, there is the issue of folks who do not take the hints given them at AfC and continue to resubmit totally unacceptable drafts repeatedly, sometimes submitting unchanged drafts (obviously hoping for a more liberal reviewer). I've MfD'd a few of those, but some of the more egregious ones really deserve a speedy. This becomes a matter of self-preservation for the volunteers at AfC because those folks are wasting our time. We've discussed this briefly before, but there does need to be a mechanism for us to say "ENOUGH!" so that we have time to work with the actual good faith folks. Speedy? MfD? What are our options, and can we develop at least an informal agreement on when this is appropriate. LaMona (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a lot of personal discretion. Hasteur (talk) 12:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I only G11 speedy drafts when they have already been declined multiple times without getting any less promotional, although even then I've been known to send them to AfD instead. Other admins, however, appear to disagree and nuke promotional drafts on sight. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I treat each submission on its merits. I will send some brand new blatant and hopeless COI adverts straight for deletion, and review others without suggesting deletion. I base it on instinct. Since I am not an admin someone else has a dual key on the deletion trigger. I make sure, unless I forget, that I decline anything I send for CSD to remove it form the queue anyway. Fiddle Faddle 13:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that we seem to be in agreement, except about completely promotional drafts. Some of us G11 them, and others decline them, and send them to MFD if they don't improve. Other than that, I think we are in agreement. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

We have two purposes here: (1) advising and encouraging new editors and (2) improving the content of Wikipedia. As is pointed out above, some editors have no interest in creating neutral content, so once that's clear, we are down to what's best for the encyclopedia. Some promotional submissions can be improved by editing, provided that the topic is notable; if so, I try to improve them myself or find a willing editor. However, others may have no useful content because of the focus on promotion/opinion instead of fact, and should go, using G11 for the most blatant cases or MfD to gain a consensus. One more point: As I check through the abandoned, declined drafts, I am finding a lot of copyright violations that have made it past the reviewers, especially among the promotional submissions. A copyright check may make the G11/MfD decision moot. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Teahouse talk

AFC contributors may be interested in this discussion at Teahouse talk. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk page archive in G13 eligible AfC submissions

Would someone please edit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2013 5 so that it no longer appears in Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@JMHamo: I think I fixed the problem by un-transcluding any of the transclusions of the AFC submission template. We'll see if that makes it work better. Hasteur (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm back

Hey guys. I don't know if you guys remember me, but I was very active around these parts back in 2013. I'm coming back now after a pretty decent retirement as a 15th birthday gift to Wikipedia (and because the WordPad article is a trainwreck). I'm not sure how active I'll be, but I'm here and I may go back to reviewing articles again like the old days. It looks like a decent amount has changed since I left ({{ping}} is a thing now, which is nice) so bear with me if I accidentally do things the "old way" for a little while. Thanks, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 01:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Nice to have you back, mate! FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Nathan2055: It's nice to meet you! I look forward to working alongside you. /wiae ★ /tlk 02:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back Nathan2055, it's good to have an experienced "old hand" back on board. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Missing WikiProject banner

We were told that {{WikiProject U.S. Roads}} had to be moved to that name a year and a half ago so that the AfC scripts could pick up our banner template for inclusion, yet the script still does not have the banner as an option. Can someone finally add it? The list is at User:Theo's Little Bot/afchwikiproject.js. (Also, it might be prudent to see if the list needs to be updated since it's been nearly two years since it was last edited, and it may be even more prudent to move the list out of a single user's JavaScript pages so that it can be edited as needed.) Imzadi 1979 → 21:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I strongly agree with your last two points; an admin should move the list to a subpage under Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation. That way, we can update the list whenever it's necessary, instead of requesting edits. APerson (talk!) 00:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

You would like it moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation/afchwikiproject.js? I'm not sure what the "h" in afchwikiproject is for though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it's supposed to stand for Articles For Creation Helper. afch-wikiproject-list.js might be better, by the way. APerson (talk!) 01:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

These javascripts must remain protected so that only admins (Or perhaps template editors can edit them). But being out of date is a problem, sometimes I have noted that the project I want is no there. I suspect if someone moves the script, whatever calls it will not find it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Request to use AFCH from WMF staff member

Hi. I'm a WMF product manager investigating workflows (though this is my private account). I'd like to see how AFCH works. I don't have the required 500 edits, but do have good knowledge of policies and procedures generally, and I probably won't be saving any of my reviews. Please let me know if you can accommodate this request. Thanks. Jmatazzoni 01:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmatazzoni (talk • contribs)

If you are part of WMF think you can have access, but if you follow the procedure you will not get a chance to "save" or "not save". But why doesn't your user have (WMF) on it? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

"Hi. I'm a WMF product manager investigating workflows" - in which case, per this policy, please log into your WMF account which must specifically end "(WMF)", and re-request. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Draftify gadget

In light of the discussion above, is User:Mr. Stradivarius/gadgets/Draftify in line with what AFC wants then? It moves userspace pages to draftspace and tags them with the AFC submission banner but it does notify them at the time of the move. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Can it verify that the user of the userspace has been inactive for 2 years or more? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Why two years? Is there a policy for that? A discussion about WP:STALEDRAFT seems inclined to go for one year before WP:STALEDRAFT supports a move to draftspace. I believe it's also used for editors who expressly ask for their pages to be moved to draftspace (sometimes to get more views) so a verification doesn't make sense. Plus it's a bit complicated since pages often have bots or other editors come in to fix templates or other changes but not the substance of the article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Please check if I understand the effect of the templates correctly. The AFC submission banner does not notify the page creator, it does not place the draft in the queue to be reviewed, it does start the G13 clock. The AFC submit banner does not notify the page creator, it does place the draft into the queue to be reviewed, it does start the G13 clock. A review would normally take place anytime from a few minutes to about two weeks after submitting. The G13 clock is reset to zero by any non-bot edit to the draft. Once a draft has been submitted for review the "registered" submitter is the only user who will receive review notifications and G13 warnings, thus the submitter actually takes responsibility for the draft. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It does notify the page creator with the move. However the original submitter is then tagged with the notice in AFC. I'll use an example. User:Lucinda Ryan/Ivy Paige was created in June 2010. In January 2016, I used the script which then moved the page to draftspace, tagged it under AFC with the Lucinda as the creator and placed a notice on her page. It does not put it as review, just as not under submission. It's the same as above, I'm not flooding the submission queue, I am however adding to the G13 queue down in six months. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there is a problem with the script, but the problems arise from inappropriate use. The pages should only be moved to the draft space from a non-afc submission if they are indeed abandoned and the mover wants to take some responsibility for improvement. Otherwise intereste people should be notified to see if anyone is interested improving the drafts. It is just as useless having an unsubmitted afc page in draft space as it is in userspace if no one knows about it. The whole purpose is to generate articles. If the page is hopeless or useless then MFD is appropriate. If the page is barely acceptable then it could go to an article and see how it survives. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you want to propose a restriction on the gadget? I vaguely recall people being brought to ANI or other places if they are misusing other scripts (Twinkle is a common one) so it's possible to do the same here. However, I think we need to actually harmonize the views of what AFC allows for with what's going on elsewhere. And the method for that isn't simply a WP:Local consensus built on this project alone and demands that other policies conform to what is determined here. The first step is for a discussion at WT:UP about WP:STALEDRAFT policy; honestly that's the easiest thing to work out and change. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The main problem is the tagging for AFC project, if the tagger does not intend to take responsibility for the draft. We can certainly discuss AFC tagging here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Should we be draftifying new, viable, userpage drafts? I asked for this script to be created for that purpose. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

If the creator want them to be made a draft, then yes. If the creator adds the AFC project tag, then yes. If it is in userspace that does not belong to any user then perhaps move to the correct user, or draft space. Another case is from article to draft, where someone asks for an undelete, but it is not ready to be an article, but has some potential. Or perhaps instead of deletion of something by a COI editor it can be draftified, with a compulsory AFC process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graeme Bartlett (talk • contribs) 02:35, 2016 January 23

• We do draftifying old viable userspace drafts. New ones and ones with active users I disagree with. An active user should not have to edit their own pages every six months to avoid G13 issues. That's their pages for as long as they remain here. If they fall into WP:STALE timeline (the editor stops for at least a year), I think it's fair if someone else takes the draft and draftify it for the project. There's enough very good quality pages that are five/six/seven years old that's it not worth chasing down the new stuff. I'd say at least tag them with userspace draft and the relevant month so we can find them later. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand. I wanted this script mainly for this scenario: The draft is at the userpage and about a notable person or company. The user is that person or company owner. They are looking to build a profile at the userpage and keep it there forever. No/few/bad refs. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

You want that moved to draftspace? The script would do that and even include a username warning and the like option. Otherwise, WP:MFD is always an option and there are time the voting supported putting it in draftspace anyways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Ricky81682, yes. And why MfD? Isn't it best to move it to draft. Then, the clock starts ticking. The user sees it in an undesirable place, i.e. not at userpage where it is a profile and not in mainspace. The user is prompted to move it forward. If he doesn't it ends up evaluated when stale to be either speedy tagged or moved to the mainspace. Is that not the best plan for it? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

{A} See above. It seems like there's a number of views about timelines for drafts and who is authorized to add drafts to AFC. Just a movement but no AFC will leave it with no prompt. (B) MFD will delete it in a week; we aren't waiting on six months. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ricky81682. Ah okay, I will let everyone else decide and then follow the new way. :) I'm happy with whatever happens. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Fresh eyes

Please, please do a review of this draft in this state. It is somewhat urgent. I would like to know if I was unreasonable in mainspacing it. Do not hesitate to tell me I was wrong. Tell me anything you can. What percentage of reviewers would have mainspaced or declined it? Would you have declined it? Why? Would you have approved it? Why? Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why Viriditas would do that without a valid rationale. It's a perfectly notable topic with ample referencing and encyclopaedic value. It could do with a bit of cleaning up and formatting improvements, but nothing that would prevent me from accepting it. AfC isn't page curation - if it meets the criteria (notability, npov, etc) and is decent (no copyvios, etc), it's accepted. There seems to be a redirect issue as well, although I'm unaware as to who's responsible. Cannabis dispensaries are different to Medical marijuana dispensaries (although some fulfill both roles). This draft is actually trying to provide a world-view on the topic and as such needs to be moved back into mainspace, and the redirects fixed. Hope this helps. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Update: an uninvolved admin opened an AfD here to try and get consensus as to whether the article should be deleted or not. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 18:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@FoCuSandLeArN: I strongly disagree with your assessment. I have reviewed the article, including all 28 sources. There isn't a single source that discusses the actual topic of cannabis dispensaries—they either discuss aspects of the topic or none at at all. That's not how we write articles on Wikipedia. Further, half of the article is unsourced, while the other half either misuses sources or uses them poorly. There is a huge difference between a notable topic (this is one of them) and writing a cited article about the subject (this is not one). It seems that people are easily fooled and misled by the appearance of sources and the appearance of content, but aren't willing to actually look at the article and see what's there. To write an article about the subject of a cannabis dispensary, you have to use reliable secondary sources about the general subject. There are none used here. Viriditas (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you make your points at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cannabis dispensary? There is also nothing to stop you improving the article and its sourcing, if you believe there is a problem there — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I already did, and I don't need you to nanny me. Viriditas (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• And I've !voted to "Speedy close and incubate" due to an inappropriate nomination that is interfering with this discussion.  AfD is for decisions needing admin tools.  AfD is not binding over editorial disputes, just as the closing administrator is not bound to mediate any subsequent editorial consequences of an AfD close that did not use admin tools.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, FoCuSandLeArN. Your feedback is appreciated. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Viriditas: That is precisely my point. We review articles, we do not copy edit them significantly, although we might be inclinded to do so with promising drafts on occasion. I would have reviewed this article and accepted it, then tagging it for copy edit and referencing issues appropriately. Nobody here can possibly deny dispensaries are a notable topic for a stand-alone article. In any case, what you did is inappropriate. If you believe a mainspace article is unsuited for Wikipedia, then submit it for deletion discussion. Do not override a reviewer's judgement and draftify an article due to your own personal concerns about the way it's written, which by the way are not valid deletion rationales. There is no policy availing your course of action. Dissenting with a fellow reviewer is perfectly fine, but let them know via talk page, not by undoing their work. An apology is in order. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree as I already explained up above. Articles should never be created just because the subject is notable, they should be created because the source is reliable and supports it. That was not the case and the earlier reviewer noted this. If you think an article should be created simply because the topic is notable, then we have a major disconnect with AfC and the policies and guidelines. Viriditas (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• As far as I know, moving an article to draftspace is accepted practice as per WP:BOLD.  If there is more to this, please cite from reference material.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• It is common courtesy to let a fellow reviewer know about apparent mistakes, not trampling over perfectly acceptable moves to mainspace. Be aware that this isn't merely a draftspace issue - this is an AfC issue. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Wow. I rejected the article when it looked like this. To me this looks like an AfC success story -- editor made significant changes, and article went to main space. Since then, lots of others folks have worked on it, which is one of the reasons to move an even imperfect article to main space. I don't think it should have been moved back to draft. In response to FoCuS, I actually do make significant edits on many AfC articles, but that's my choice -- I agree that isn't anything that AfC'rs are required to do. I just find it more satisfying than hitting "decline." LaMona (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you, LaMona. Some of us choose to adopt articles, if you will. I am just pointing to the fact Anna Frodesiak didn't do anything wrong. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there have been no significant edits, only significant deletions by other editors. There has been no "success" per se — the article still lacks a significant reliable secondary source about the subject. The only reason there has been any attention paid to this article at all, is because I moved it back to draft space. In that case, perhaps there should be a new process that codifies a "return to draft". Viriditas (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

There are ample sources available on dispensaries, as a perfunctory search would show you (about 80 thousand results right off the bat, both online and in print). If you were familiar with AfD, you'd know a lack of sources in-article is not a valid decline rationale - verifiability and notability concerns are (nominating criteria B and C), which in this case are not present. As I noted before, the subject counts with extensive coverage in independent and reliable sources (all of this has been discussed in the AfD discussion). You were "bold" and made a mess, and you were called to answer for that mess. Now you're pretending someone should magically solve all the article's issues or it should be deleted otherwise. Are you aware of the absurdity behind all this? Do you have a cannabis phobia? Let it go. The article will grow on Wikipedia; let it run its course. Cheers, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, and I find your comments uninformed. I have written extensively about cannabis in the last decade on Wikipedia, and I know quite a bit about the subject and the sources used to write and create articles about it. If words have meaning, and I hope you agree that they do, then my contributions on this subject reflect the opposite of a "phobia". More to the point, the original draft of the cannabis dispensary article did not contain any reliable secondary sources about the subject. That is required to write an article. Instead, it contained unreliable sources, primary sources about state policies, and links to websites that didn't support the content. Your appeal to 80 thousand websites you found by Googling misses the entire point by a mile and ignores everything I've written in this thread. At least one user has come to his senses and has realized that while we certainly don't have an article about cannnabis dispensaries, it might be salvaged by writing about cannabis dispensaries in the US instead; as a result, the scope has been successfully changed to reflect what the sources actually say and the original research has been deleted. This is called article development and I suggest you look into it. It is not "absurd" as you claim. Viriditas (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Look, I don't want to start a controversy here. I know you meant well. I believe, however, that those issues are mainspace concerns. That's why we have NPP, and a myriad other cleanup endeavours. We seem to disagree on the quality threshold for acceptance, and that's OK. We can work on that; that's what we do at AfC. We indeed have acquired a sort of sixth sense about potential articles, that's why I was so harsh before. We see many such drafts that are abandoned by inexperienced editors, so when I see such a setback, it really gets me going. We know how submissions such as this one can improve once in mainspace - we've seen it hundreds of times. I certainly look forward to improving this article, as I have a few Cannabis-related articles on my to-do list as well. State policies, etc are topics which definitely need to be touched on, we just need quality sources to do that. I look forward to doing the research. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The AfD at this point is all but certainly a keep, which resolves the issue of mainspace worthiness and notability. The naming issue has been opened as an RfC over here. Once all this is finally resolved, we really need to hammer out a policy on whether it's okay to draftify already approved mainspace articles and, if so, what situations it would be okay to do that in. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 00:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Precisely. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, we do have "Articles are incubated as a result of...iv) a bold move from article space..."

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I think what Nathan2055 means is what happens when a user moves back an article that was accepted at AfC, to draftspace. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

All I see here is that this is just another version of an editorial decision, just like any other editorial decision.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, we like to cover all our bases so that we have no problems in the future. We're having one other discussion right now about moving drafts, which you can see above. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

If "...I think what Nathan2055 means..." was for me, then: Yes, but that article's history could have been draft --> article. Then someone comes along and draftifies it again. That bit of guildeline or whatever actually gives permission to send an AfC-approved draft back to draft from whence it came. Am I reading that right? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you are saying, but no one has shown me that an "AfC reviewer" has any special status other than "editor".  So one editor (you) makes an edit, and another editor (Viriditas) reverses the edit.  Time for discussion.  Since there is no value in rushing the article to mainspace, an editor has expressed a concern, and in this case the article creator now would have preferred that the article be in his user space (as per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Cannabis dispensary); it wouldn't have hurt to leave the article back in its protected space in draftspace for a few more days while development continued.  I still don't see a problem.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Unscintillating. What I was saying above is that there is a guideline that allows moving back to draft space. That's all I was saying. I have no comment on if that is a good or bad thing.

As for the cannibis thing, yes, maybe I should have left it in draft space. The problem with the move back to draft space was not with me. I had no objections per se. It was the author, a newcomer. He was furious. He felt his work had be destroyed. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

From a distance, I think your good-faith decision to move the page to mainspace is fine.  A bold move is one of the ways to find out that someone doesn't agree with an editorial decision.  Next, I don't see that the reversing editor (Viriditas) did each of the steps needed to return an article to draftspace.  Has anyone shown him how he could technically do it better?  From a distance, I think that the move is within accepted practice.  The authority to do so does not come directly from incubation option #4, but from the fundamental principle that all editors have the authority to edit without getting permission.  The reversing editor reasonably started a discussion on the talk page (see a version of Talk:Cannabis_dispensaries_in_the_United_States in the Section #Not_ready_for_mainspace), and WP:BRD (Bold, Revert, Discuss) is accepted practice.

The guideline proposal that seems to be in the air is, "Moves out of draftspace by AfC reviewers shall be a one-way move to mainspace."  Why should one editor's edit restrict an article's location to mainspace, even if another editor thinks that the decision needs broader community consensus?  See WP:CREEP. 

From my viewpoint, a more relevant point is that we (including non-AfC draftspace) could use a more formal process to be available when decisions about draftspace articles need a group decision.  Neither MfD nor AfD work for this purpose.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you here. Keep in mind AfC is a special little place too. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Redirect request requires admin attention

Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Redirects#Redirect_request:_Feels_good_man is a now quite old request for a redirect on a salted page. Could an admin please have a look at that and accept or refuse as they see fit. Cheers, --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I accepted it, can't think of a reason not to. I was involved (but not involved) with a related AfD discussion about 6 months ago. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you--LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Huh, if the AfD got closed as a redirect to List of Internet phenomena, how come this article exists? --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

As Facebook says, "it's complicated". It was recreated with a different title (lower case f), nominated for DYK, then moved to the current title via a history merge. It seems some celebrities picked up on the meme since the AfD. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Draftification

There's a relevant RfC going on at Wikipedia_talk:Drafts#Clarification_over_main-space_to_draft-space_moves. Just a heads-up. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 15:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Need further assistance

Our submitted article about our company was not approved. I am looking for assistance to help me get it approved. Below is the info so far. We are new to Wikipedia so any help would be greatly appreciated.

other editor's comments copied from another page

I reviewed Draft:HighVolMusic and declined it as needing more references to the subject’s notability. User:WRC3 then asked me the following: “Hi Robert, My article submission for my company was not approved citing my references do not adequately show the subject's notability. I am not sure I fully understand then what type of references are needed to provide significant coverage about the subject COI(HighVolMusic) in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I have looked at 3 of our competitors Wiki pages and essentially mirrored what they have done using our own data and press that is on the internet about it. Are you able to assist me so that I can get our article approved? Thank you, Bill Chavis” I hadn’t understood, until this question was asked, that this is a conflict of interest article. The real problem that I have now is that it is clear that the author doesn’t understand Wikipedia, because he refers to “our competitors”. The author doesn’t seem to understand that Wikipedia takes a very dim view of any mindset that articles about a corporation belong to the corporation. Can someone either give the author friendly advice on how to write a COI draft that is properly sourced and doesn’t look COI, up to our standards, or not to write a COI draft at all? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC) Have you tried asking your questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation? I think there might be more expertise about AfC procedures and processes there. Of course, if anyone here wants to respond, that's great! I just noticed that you have a lot of questions about AFC matters and not general editing. Liz Read! Talk! 21:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC) We did read the COI info. And to clarify the article was written by the publicist of our company I posted it under my account. Secondly, to again clarify, we looked at some competitors that have published pages to see what specific information was included and then we did the same. Who would know more about a successful company then the person who built it? The references used is info published by other sources to verify what was stated. I am looking for help to get the article posted. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WRC3 (talk • contribs) For reference you are talking about Draft:HighVolMusic. We need independent reliable sources that talk about the company. The entire history section is completely without sources and the only sources are about the awards that the artists in the label won. That may show that the artists or the albums could have an article but we need evidence that the record label itself is separately important. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC) @WRC3: To put a finer point on it: what you think you know doesn't matter. That's original research and not allowed. We need to base our encyclopedic content on what journalists have said about your company. While it's totally understandable that you based your entry around other pages that's not a reasonable argument here because most of the stuff you find on Wikipedia is utter crap. We're working everyday to fix those eyesores. Rather than have your PR person write the article you should have found a Wikipedian to help you, instead. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC) @Chris troutman: Thanks for the additional points Chris. We've rewritten the article since this post and resubmitted. wondering if you might have read it now? also finding resources that are still around when we first started the company has been challenging. We did find one and added it in the history. Where do I find Wikipedians/ We found a company they wanted $2000 to write the article. @WRC3: I've declined the draft and left comments. To boil it down, I need to see sources like Revolver or The Wall Street Journal talking about your company. The sources you cited don't impress and you've misused sources, too. While a source like this is reliable (San Diego Reader) it's only a mere mention of the label. If journalists aren't talking about the label then I really have to question your company's notability. As for finding Wikipedians, you can always try our reward board where you might find help for free. Websites like Upwork have Wikipedians for hire but of course you need to stay clear of hiring undisclosed paid-editors. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC) @Chris troutman: Chris thanks for the feedback. We will continue to locate sources to validate the notability. I have 2 questions: 1) What specifically does "talking about" mean? What kind of information/validation is being looked for to warrant an approval or be a worthy source? 2) The sources you list are print sources Revolver/Wall Street are these the only sources that is deemed reliable or valid? Many outlets speak about our company that may not be "print" sources however they are very viable in our line of business i.e. Bravewords,Blabbermouth,Hard Rock Daddy and various others. I am trying narrow down what it is exactly would get our article approved. I do understand the COI issue, "what I think I know" about our company may not matter to Wiki, does indeed matter and has relevance to our growth as an independent label over the years.; Many labels at our level haven't even come close to what Chavis Records/HighVolMusic has accomplished. However I'm beginning to understand the end game here and want our article to be notable with reliable sources to backup what has been written. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WRC3 (talk • contribs) @WRC3: I'm not into metal so I don't have a positive impression about those sources. We have a similar problem with mixed martial arts articles; big-time outlets like ESPN don't provide much coverage but a lot of reportage comes out of websites like mixedmartialarts.com which isn't widely considered a reliable source. WikiProject MMA polices this stuff. For your niche interest, you might inquire with WikiProject Music. They might have editors that have a better idea of which sources are acceptable in your world. For most of what I work on I stick to journalism and academic press. The point I was trying to make is that the cited source should be addressing Chavis Records/HighVolMusic as a subject. If the source only says "artist X signed with HighVolMusic" it provides a fact but doesn't speak to your company's notability as much as it addresses the artist and their notability. You need to find sources that discuss the company, not just the musicians that are signed to the label to make a claim of notability along the lines of general notability. It doesn't matter how many fighters are signed with Don King. He has to have media talking about him as a promoter in order for him to be notable. I notice, for example, the article about Megaforce Records is pathetic. Yes, they signed Metallica but notability is not inherited. That article is essentially unsourced and it ought to be deleted. Meanwhile, the article about Avalanche Recordings has at least a couple sources which themselves have Wikipedia articles. This again is where the Wikipedian comes in. You're trying to climb up the hill of notability in the draft namespace while a Wikipedian could just create this article in the main namespace and it would still be unsatisfactory but it would be published for your SEO needs until it gets deleted. I encourage you to find better sources. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC) @Chris troutman: Thanks Chris. This is the kind of answer/info I was looking for, this helps alot.

Should categories and redirects be requested on the same page?

Currently Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects is the submission page for both redirects and new categories. This latter role, which is only a minority of the requests to the page, seems odd:

• Redirects and categories are quite different entities.
• The title of the page does not indicate that this is the place for categories.
• Redirects are relatively straightforward, and do not require much, if any discussion. In my experience category requests are often complex:
  • This is evidenced by the fact that category requests remain on the page for weeks, as reviewers are uncertain what to do with them.
  • Occasionally a proposal will suggest a "mid-level" category, the creation of which would necessitate re-organising a few articles. This feels out of the remit of a page which is mostly approving or declining simple requests.

I therefore propose that an Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Categories be created (this link currently redirects), a page specifically for Category requests. This page could get the discussion and specialised editor attention it needs, while Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects would be clear to fulfil its primary role. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 17:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion below is a prime example of why Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects is inadequate for discussion of new categories. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I support this proposal in theory. (I know nothing about implementing it so I won't comment on that.) I have been working at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and I have no idea what to do with the category requests that appear. Some have been sitting there for nearly two months now. Might it be helpful to codify a set of category reviewing instructions? /wia /tlk 15:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Support: It does make sense to create a separate category request page as it reduces confusion for new IP editors and new users. Vincent60030 (talk) 12:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Btw, we should really quickly create a category page as category requests are clogging up the page. =p Vincent60030 (talk) 08:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• I've bitten the bullet and cleared out the very old category requests. Weren't easy choices, I'm expecting a bunch of talk page messages tomorrow :( --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

  @LukeSurl: Good job there! At least it clears out depressing stuff over there for now. Like Vincent60030 (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support – It does seem rather counterintuitive that categories and redirects are requested on the same page whose title is Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects. Also, huge thanks to LukeSurl for stepping up to the challenge of clearing out those really old category requests. Mz7 (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Implementation

The discussion above seemed positive, so I guess we should think about how we'd implement this.
We'd need to do the following things:

• Remove mention of categories at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects, including in the editnotice.
• Create a new page at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Categories and write some new top-of-page text and an editnotice for that.
• Change Wikipedia:Article_wizard/Category to work with the new page rather than the old one.
• Change instructions found elsewhere that direct category questions to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects
• Update the AFCH scripts used to review redirects+categories to also work on Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Categories.

Some of these things will need to be done near-simultaneously at a chosen switchover point.
Thoughts? --LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I've created some draft front matter at User:Mz7/sandbox/AFC/C front matter for the new category page and User:Mz7/sandbox/AFC/R front matter for the new redirect page. Feel free to edit it as you see fit. Mz7 (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

G13 eligibility notices

Recently HasteurBot, in the service of notifying editors of G13 eligiblity, notified Ritchie333 on their talk page that an article that they created was going to become eligible for G13. The bot goes to the edit history and picks the page creator for determining to notify about the upcoming eligibility. Ritchie333 suggested that the bot instead parse the AFC submission templates and grab the user parameter and notify each unique submitter that the page is becoming eligible for G13.

I think this is a bad idea because

1. Page creator is a matter of record and cannot be removed from the page (unlike AFC submission tempaltes)
2. AFC volunteer reviewers could accidentally submit the page for review, but forget to take themselves out of the submitter column thereby adding a great many false positive notifications for volunteers who only clerked a request (and thereby generating a great many more complaints).

Therefore I put the question: Should the G13 eligibility process be changed to consider AFC submssion templates instead of just the page creator when determining who to notify about soon to be eligible pages

Hasteur (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. For the reasons stated above. Hasteur (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
2. Sorry, I just saw this. Notifying the new users who create these drafts is a good idea, because they may not be familiar with Wikipedia's operations and policies. However, others who edit these drafts has the choice of having them on their watchlists, so what would end up to be thousands of notifications are likely not needed. Also, I believe that the HasteurBot already has an optional "notice to interested editors" function.—Anne Delong (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions

Why do we have Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions? Would it be possible for a bot to automatically tag it for CSDG13 after 6 months, by patrolling that category? Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

People want it reviewed by hand before people decide on whether to extend it or send to G13 formerly. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Anarchyte, there is a bot such as the one you describe, operated by Hasteur, but it waits a while before tagging to give interested editors a chance to look over the drafts. It takes time to look for references and remove promotional text, and once nominated the drafts are often deleted within minutes.—Anne Delong (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Few points:

1. Previously the bot did a null edit so that the AFC submission header will show the "This draft has not been edited for 6 months and is eligible for G13", give the warning notice to the page creator, and put the page into it's store of "Pages that the author has currently been warned about". 30 days after the warning, the bot can take up the cause of the page again to see if the page is still eligible for G13. If so it would perform the procedural G13 nomination.
2. Now that the bot does the warning edit at 5 months unedited, it goes over the list in the database 30 days later to see if the page has become eligible for G13.
3. While it's preferred that the bot run the nominations (to remove any possibility of unfairness by obeying the rules), any editor who sees that the page is free to nominate for G13, it just makes the deleting admin's jobs harder when trying to determine if the page truly meets all the requirements, or if a user is not obeying the rules with respect to nominations.

Going back to "not here" again. Hasteur (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambig option for wizard

In the wizard it gives an option if you want to propose a new redirect for review but there is no option for proposing a new disambig page.

Could that be added? For example I wanted to make DDDA for Dublin Docklands Development Authority and Dodecanedioic acid but was not sure which to use. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Why would you want/need to use a wizard to create a simple redirect? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The easiest way to propose a disambiguation page is to make a new draft with the wizard, format it like a typical disambiguation page, add {{Disambiguation}} to the page, and submit it for review just like a regular draft. /wiae /tlk 16:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Quite frankly if an editor is experienced enough to understand the purpose of a disambiguation page, they should also be sufficiently competent to create one without needing AFC to hold their hand through the process. AFC exists to help newbies, when experienced editors submit drafts all they do is waste time and add to backlogs. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Artist bio

Dear Sirs:

How come after I insert my Aritst BIO here on the page. I save the page and then it disappears and is lost. What happened to all of my text and BIO?

Email: sunsettwilightbaran@yahoo.com

Thank you,

Baran — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baran USA (talk • contribs) 08:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Because based on your user name it appears that you are creating a page for yourself, so it has been deleted. If you are not the subject of the article, then your username is causing confusion. Your username should be a name you have chosen to represent yourself, not the same of the subject of the article you are creating. However, if you are indeed the Baran USA that is the subject of the article, then you should know that you should not create an article for yourself. See conflict of interest and autobiography for the relevant policies. LaMona (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

We have a bit of a mess that needs attention

An editor has been unilaterally moving other editors' userspace drafts into draftspace and then adding AFC submission templates. Please see User talk:Ricky81682#Adding AFC submission templates to drafts that you did not create. This has been going on for at least 5 months as I received a G13 warning from Hasteurbot today about one of my drafts that I never even intended to submit to AFC. (It's several years old but nowhere near even an acceptable stub yet, I'm in no hurry.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree, Roger, I find that quite unacceptable on a number of points. The guidelines at WikiProject Abandoned Drafts state:

1. Only move article drafts that have not been edited for a considerable period of time. They can be moved into the article namespace if they are worthy of publication, into the draft namespace or to your userspace if you intend to adopt them.
2. Do not take drafts from active users. If the draft has been stale for an exceptional amount of time, however, feel free to leave a note on their talk page asking if they plan on finishing the draft.

Nowhere does it state to submit them for acceptance at AfC, and the clear implication is that by moving them into draft space, the mover intends to "adopt" the draft and get it to a point where it will be accepted. What on earth is the point of reducing a backlog at that WikiProject simply to create one at AfC? Voceditenore (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

A couple things

1. I apologize for your first notice being one of HasteurBot's "stale notices"
2. I concur that abandonded userspace drafts where it is clear the user isn't going to come back should be transfered to the Draft namespace. (2 years no edits by the user at all). I'm not sure if the draft should be enrolled in the AfC process or if the draft should be moved without the template.
3. I am reminded of the unilateral behavior of another long standing admin who thought it would be a good idea to summarily start deleting pages with respect to the AfC.

For these resasons, I strongly suggest that Ricky71682 undo as many of these as he can and work proactively with each editor's draft he's absconded with otherwise there might be cause for sanctions for willfully abusing established procedures. Hasteur (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, fine I shouldn't have done that. I don't see the great point as I'd instead have taken the pages to MFD where I'm certain they'd be deleted the same way. I haven't taken a draft from a single "active" user. If the user dumps the draft into draftspace, it shouldn't just stay there forever as long as the first person who put it there is actively editing. If they wanted that, they should keep it in their userspace. Draftspace isn't exempt from WP:WEBHOST and other concerns. Your logic (A) literally adds a mountain of extra nonsense to deal with and (B) drafts are regularly taken to MFD based on the inactivity of the draft, not on the inactivity of the editor so there's zero support for that. I also haven't deleted the articles myself but if need be, I'll restore them all and take them to MFD. I'll let people decide how useful this is. To clarify and make this explicit, I'm only taking about articles that were already in draftspace without an AFC banner tag. Articles that I moved to draftspace because it was formerly in an inactive user's userspace and then I added the AFC submission banner aren't an issue. If people want to argue that's wrong, then you'll have to take it further with me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Ricky81682 I had a hand in creating the Draft namespace, so I tell you with great authority there was no mandate for any form of Stale Deletion. If they're being deleted at MFD for only because stale, those MFDs are wrong. If they're being MFDed for Valid Reason + Stale then it's in order. Frankly your doubling down on the indefensable position only reinforces my comparison. Hasteur (talk) 03:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Well then, I guess you should take discussions like Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:JTa Comics for review. If you think that draftspace = free reign to create whatever, for whatever, no one else has heard that. Feel free to oppose the deletions here, here and plenty of others as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Wait, I'd like a diff or something. Where did Ricky81682 "unilaterally mov[e] other editors' userspace drafts into draftspace and then adding AFC submission templates"? The example he mentions on his talk page (Draft:Afrikaner identity politics) doesn't match this description. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • These are all the moves made by Ricky81682. I haven't looked through any of them, so I make no comment on whether they were good or bad. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Is anyone checking the moves for drafts that belong to active users? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Explanation

Ok there are two, really three, separate issues going on here.

1. First, there are some users who created and placed things in draftspace with no AFC tag. They sit stagnant for a long time. I made a bot request and had User:MusikBot/StaleDrafts/Report created. Some of those old pages (at least one year of inactivity) I took to MFD. Roger isn't the first editor to come yelling and screaming that just because he dumped a page in draftspace years ago, it shouldn't be subject to deletion because he is still editing. As everyone has pointed out before, then he can userify the thing because people are going to presume that you dumped it there because you dumped it there and if no one touches it, it's fair game to consider for deletion. Draftspace isn't just a dumping ground for drafts for all eternity which even in userspace would be subject to deletion. Otherwise, I suggest the people above move to bar MFD from deleting drafts or create some policy exception.
2. Second, for some of those drafts, rather than take it to MFD right away for whatever reason, I place the draft under the AFC submission banner and then if it wasn't edited for another six months, it would be tagged as G13, the editor notified about it and then if still no action, then deleted. So, now as stated above, I'm restoring these articles, noting that I had found the article at least six months ago and it has not been edited for a minimum of the 18 months from when I found then one year inactive plus six months further inactive plus whatever time it's been deleted, it's going to go through a week at MFD again because god knows why people are offended but they are.
3. Third, none of those moves are for active users. I know this because I have done it twice on accident and immediately reversed the whole thing. These are all pulled from Category:Stale userspace drafts which is down to 41k now (from a high over 46.5k). Those moves were done after having taken plausible drafts to MFD, everyone votes that it should go to draftspace and then puts it in draftspace under the AFC banner. Rather than waste time at MFD, I'd prefer doing what I've done with say Milton Kohn or Order of the Sons of America, e.g., find a good potential article that was dormant for four years, move it to draftspace as an adoption (rather than moving it to my userspace then routing it back with an AFC banner), tagging the original author so he would be notified as well, notifying the original editor, cleaning up the article and publishing it. There's at least a few others where others editors as part of the AFC process have cleaned up and/or published the article following up.

If these actions are so highly offensive to the AFC project, then this project is cutting off its nose to spite its face and need to move to have Abandoned drafts project and MFD and whatever else they want to scream about changed immediately. As noted above, I will restore and full MFD with item 2 here which was wrong but I doubt anyone will find a single one of these things useful. Each one of those pages were seen by multiple editors including at least one admin who found not a single one useful. Clearing out the junk here is entirely a thankless task. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Pinging @Dodger67, Voceditenore, Hasteur, Floquenbeam, and Graeme Bartlett: to see if there's anything else I've done that's so offensive. I also note that not a single action here involved my use of my tools so I'm not sure what's the admin offense I'm supposed to have committed. Feel free to yell at me as an editor but I never even G13 deleted an article I moved as I thought that would be best for more eyes to review. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm a fan of no deadlines as much as the next editor, but if it's evident that stuff has been clearly abandoned in the Draft namespace, it strikes me as fairly reasonable to send it off to MfD if the editor is inactive or otherwise doesn't move it to their userspace. Drafts are meant to be works in progress. If some other deletion procedure makes better sense, I think a discussion and a possible RfC at WP:Drafts is in order. I can't say I support moving stuff to AfC with hope for potential improvements, but I get where Ricky81682 is coming from with that. I mean, WP:Drafts reads, An article created in draftspace does not belong to the editor who created it, and any other registered user can decide that it is done and can be published. Editors then should have the discretion to add the AfC submission banner to things in the Draft space, though they should monitor and respond to feedback if that is the case. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 09:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I can accept that criticism. I am adding a lot of pages and not always doing the work on improving them which isn't fair at all. The alternative to dealing with the backlog is to focus solely on removing the junk userspace drafts, leaving the workable/semi-quality pages in userspace I guess. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Changing the goalposts? Here are the things you must commit to:

1. You commit to not moving any more Userspace Drafts to the Draft namespace. Multiple RFCs related to Drafts, Abandoned Drafts, and Userspace have consistently affirmed that Userspace drafts are not to be deleted short of the bright line causes (BLP, CV, blatant WP:NOTWEBHOST (ex: ranting at other editors, clearly not a article), unreformable ADVERT, etc).
2. You commit to not abusing policy by submitting for AFC review (or AFC draft) any draft that has never had a AFC submission banner on it. Ideally the user who created the draft, or one who has extensively worked on improving the draft for promotion to articlespace should be the one that submits it.
3. You commit to not abusing procedure by simply nominating for MFD because "stale". Draft namespace is the incubator for articles that weren't quite ready for mainspace and therefore aren't 100% notability ready. The MFD is supposed to be used for hopelessly unredeemable pages that are clearly never going to work.

If you can commit to doing these things, then we can start unwinding your giant mess of work. Also you should have known better when digging into a space you clearly aren't as familiar with. Hasteur (talk) 13:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't have to do anything. Take your demands to AN if you want. Better yet, have the guts to actually take it to ARBCOM rather than snide insinuations. As I stated before, I never once used a tool here. Going in reverse, you're in a one man island with (3). There's no policy that supports that, those pages are regularly discussed and deleted at MFD. If you're serious about it, take the whole lot to DRV, change MFD or whatever but I'm still going to get rid of old drafts here. If you want to oppose them all, go join in and become a new MFD regular, we could use more eyes there. As to (2), I don't see it as an abuse of policy. Given that there's already a script for moving these pages used by numerous editors, it's expressly in WP:STALE policy after one year's inactivity and that this is something that's been done by numerous editors by many years, I'm not listening to your nonsense. As for (1), you are clearly and intentionally mixing up userspace deletion parameters, draftspace parameters and the actions for active and inactive users, none of which present whatever picture you have of AFC. I've been involved in enough of the disputes to know the exact lines of each one. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

This is getting a bit confrontational here. We should not have to use Arbcom. But we should gain a consensus about what we want, and then ask Ricky81682 to follow it. I think we can turn Hasteur's demands into clear statements of policy or practice that we expect all to follow. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, it seems like the policy changes are needed elsewhere not here necessarily. The concern is creating a WP:Local consensus that is not in line with the larger one. The best place is probably to change WP:STALEDRAFT policy as that affects multiple projects and is actually quite vague. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

If anything those old pages should have been MFD'ed, not sent to AFC. Once sent to MFD, the user would have had the opportunity to decide to let it lapse or fix up and send to AFC. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Which they now have been and have since been deleted again. I think a few remain at MFD though but they'll looking towards deletion. Even then, I personally would restore any of them if asked to. There's been suggestions for a proposed deletion of drafts of sort, similar to mainspace ones. Perhaps if we allowed for a proposed deletion of any draft that hadn't been edited in six months (with one year or more of lack of editing from the user if in userspace) with a delay of another month, we could almost eliminate the G13 AFC set-up as redundant. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, there should be some sort of auto-system in place, in a utopia that would auto-tag and then delete after a certain time period. There's no reason to keep a page for more than a year with no movement. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

In regards to the spamming IP

There's been a rather persistent IP who has been spamming personal attacks in this discussion over the past 24 hours. I grabbed all the relevant info and made a post on ANI. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 05:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, I'll say WP:RBI and perhaps a 3-day protection should do it. He'll move on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, a semiprotect would probably deal with it. Since we have the help desk there's almost no reason an anon should be posting on here anyway. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 06:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm probably the last admin who should do it but I semi-protected this for 3 days. That should be the end of the disruption for now. If people want it extended, they should go to WP:RFPP and ask someone else. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Should we watchlist newly created user talk pages?

During a brief discussion on the helper script's talk page, there was a difference of opinion on whether newly created user talk pages should be added to reviewers' watchlists. By default, pages you create are added to your watchlist, but pages you edit aren't. The script follows this behavior: sending authors messages about their drafts doesn't add the authors' talk pages to your watchlist, unless you're creating the talk pages yourself. In the discussion, some of us thought that author talk pages should never be added to your watchlist; however, others opposed this change on the grounds that the current behavior is intuitive and useful (specifically, you may want to be notified about other warnings that the user gets). Another solution is to make it a preference, so that reviewers can select whether to watchlist author talk pages. What do you all think? (Pinging Bearcat, LaMona, and Hasteur from the original discussion.) APerson (talk!) 18:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

My response is no, do not add it. I'm neutral to a "tick box" at time of review as long as default is "no". At AfC it seems like a majority of the entries are from first-time editors, so whoever of us picks up the draft the first time ends up creating the user's talk page as a by-product of reviewing. For me, there isn't a difference between a being the first reviewer and being a later reviewer in terms of how I see my relationship to the talk page. The user talk pages I follow are mostly the ones I've sent COI notices to (and I now have a nice list of about 30 of those), and they get on my watchlist because I've made a conscious edit. I'd rather not have the AfC review itself put any pages on my watchlist. LaMona (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

There certainly may be some cases where I do want to monitor what else is being added to a user's talk page after my initial edit — e.g. if something about the user's behaviour or editing patterns is implying to me that they may be cruising for a temporary or permanent editblock — but to me those are pretty rare compared to the cases where I don't have any further interest. Given the choice, I would much rather have the page not automatically added to my watchlist, and choose to manually watchlist the rare occasion where I do want to do that, rather than having them all automatically added and then having to take the extra step of manually deselecting them all after the fact. I'd support having it as a preference option, if some users find it valuable, but I do want and need to have the option of turning it off. Bearcat (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

My ideal implementation would be to not change this functionality, because that's the default for pages you create, but I'm willing to give a concession to other users: Some sort of configuration that is queried from AFCH to determine if we do/do-not watchlist pages that we create (with the default absent the configuration defaulted to whatever the majority of people who speak up here want). No checkbox that you have to click/unclick every time. Hasteur (talk) 14:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't work either, though. If I'm creating a new page in articlespace, then I obviously want that added to my watchlist by default — but if I'm creating a new page in userspace, I don't. At least if I'm creating a new userpage by conventional edit, I can uncheck the "watch this page" box that's present between the edit summary and the save button, so that's not nearly as big a burden — but if I end up creating a new userpage via the AFC review script, then I have no way to do that and instead have to go back to the page again to manually deselect it after the fact. But that's an excessive burden which is, in and of itself, enough to make me seriously reconsider whether I want to contribute to the AFC queue at all anymore if it doesn't change. And if the only way I can turn that off entirely is to turn off my own "watchlist pages you create" setting, then the pages I'm creating in articlespace, which I do want automatically added to my watchlist, aren't getting added anymore either. So the only way I'm willing to settle for "whatever you have as your own default setting" would if the default settings were reprogrammed so that I can set different defaults for articlespace and userspace. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Since you're more interested in brandishing the stick, I'll make it painfully obvious what I'm indicating: If you're using the AFCH tool and you're rejecting a user's talk page, the tool will look at a standardized configuration file in your userspace to determine if when it creates a user talk page when delivering the notice to the user, it adds that talk page to your watch list. If the configuration is not present, the AFCH tool will use whatever the majority consensus is. This allows those of us who wish to retain the same behavior in the AFCH tool and allows others who want this feature to get their option too. What you are asking is a deviation from the standard Wikipedia confiruation which is controlled in the user preferences. Hasteur (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

And I'll make it painfully obvious what I'm indicating: I did not fail to understand what you were saying. I was talking about the consequences of what you were saying, which are that if that's the way it works, my choices are limited to leaving my default setting entirely on (thus automatically adding user talk pages to my watchlist whether I have a reason to watch them or not, and forcing me to take the extra step of manually deselecting them after the fact), or turning my default setting entirely off (thus meaning that even my articlespace creations, which I do want watchlisted, aren't getting watchlisted, thus forcing me to take the extra step of manually adding them after the fact). There's no way for me to set different defaults for different namespaces in my user preferences, so my own default setting isn't the answer here — I need my "defaults" to be different for mainspace and usertalkspace, without having to take extra steps after the fact to change the watchlisting status after the page is created. And I'm not asking to take away that functionality for other users who want it, either — I'm just asking for the option to make my own choice about whether I want a user talk page on my watchlist or not, without having to turn off my ability to add my own mainspace creations to my watchlist. Also, I think you're conflating my comments with LaMona's a bit — I didn't even ask for the default setting on such a feature to be "off", I'm just asking for the option to turn it off. Bearcat (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

No, by your repeated foaming at the mouth rants you have misunderstood the point. So we'll do Kindergartner story time for you: The code will be set up so that independently of your overall wikipedia preferences, the AFCH tool (on rejection) will look at a configuration file in your (Bearcat's) user space. If the file isn't there, the AFCH tool will do whatever the majority consensus ends up as. If the Configuration file is present, then look in it to see if the user has made a decision explicitly as to what they want with respect to watchlisting talk pages. If the user didn't make a decision about watchlisting, use the same default as if the configuration file was not there. If the configuration for watchlisting is present, use that instead of the default. The only reason why you would have to change your actions is either this proposal gets rejected as the default (and then you would have to set up the configuration setting once to reap the benefits), or this proposal gets accepted as the default in which case you do nothing. So please don't tell me you understand when you have fundamental misunderstandings about this project what others are trying to explain to you. Hasteur (talk) 02:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Nothing about my posts in this discussion has constituted "foaming at the mouth" or "ranting" — I used a completely measured and polite tone throughout, and the only rudeness or anger expressed here has come from you, not me. That said, if what you're talking about is a configuration file that would be separate from the user's basic "watchlist pages that you create" checkbox that's already present in the basic user preferences, that's one thing, and a thing I'd be perfectly okay with if it solves my issue — but you weren't clear enough that you were talking about a separate file the first two times. A perfectly reasonable person with no reading comprehension deficiencies at all could easily read either of your first two posts and come away with the impression that you were just talking about querying the default preference settings that already exist, rather than adding a separate configuration file to fine-tune them further — you clarified the distinction much better this time, so I no longer have an issue, but my "misunderstanding" was a perfectly logical and reasonable reading of your first two posts. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Hasteur has a funny way of communicating. You need to put your hyperbole glasses on. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Hasteur, would you be okay with a checkbox that loaded its value from a configuration file in your userspace, since then you wouldn't have to manually toggle it? APerson (talk!) 02:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

APerson NO Please read above when I said No checkbox that you have to click/unclick every time.. The AFCH accept/reject interface is already far too busy and uses too many non-standard form elements (try tabbing around to see the faux Buttons) Hasteur (talk) 02:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I misunderstood your comment. APerson (talk!) 02:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Right now, the implementation I'm thinking about involves a config-file option, watchlist_talk_pages, with two options:

• never, which never adds user talk pages to your watchlist
• ask, which adds a checkbox (unselected by default) for whether to add the talk page to your watchlist
• always, which always adds user talk pages to your watchlist

Any suggestions? APerson (talk!) 02:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I see one more option new that only adds the user talk page to your watchlist if you are creating it so as to maintains the behavior we currently have as the description of always suggests (at least in my mind) that any time you review a draft and drop a talkpage comment via the tool it goes on your watchlist (which I could see certain volunteers who like being extra involved after a review like Anne Delong wanting) Hasteur (talk) 02:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Cleanup bot

Would anyone object to a bot that automatically cleans up new submissions using the same regular expressions that AFCH uses? We haven't had a cleanup bot since ArticlesForCreationBot (talk · contribs) went down in 2013 and I feel like it would make readability of new submissions easier. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 19:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea! FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Would the bot be triggered by the "submit" template, so that cleanup runs as adraft is submitted? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't around for the previous version -- can you give a couple of words on what the bot would do? thanks, LaMona (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@Dodger67: At the moment, I was thinking the bot would process the previous day's submissions at the end of each day so as to avoid edit conflicts as much as possible.

@LaMona: When you review a submission with AFCH, it runs a set of regular expressions which move the new submission template to the top, sorts any comments and previous declines by date, and runs a few other general cleanup tasks (such as removing leftover article wizard and resubmission HTML comments). This bot would automatically run these on new submissions to make them more readable for reviewers.

If there is consensus to make this, I think I'm going to email Petrb (talk · contribs) and try and get ArticlesForCreationBot (talk · contribs) so I at least have something to start with, if there are no objects to that. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 06:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Nathan2055: What do you mean by "end of each day"? There is no such thing on WP, activities run 24/7. I think batch processing could potentially cause more edit conflicts than simply running cleanup at the moment of submitting. All it means is that the submitter will wait a second or two to get back to the edit screen. I rather doubt that many submissions are actually reviewed within a second or two after submission, so there's basically no risk of disruption to trigger the cleanup routine at submit, no bot needed, it's simply a script action. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Roger, so you want a bot to frequently scan for newly-submitted drafts and then clean them? APerson (talk!) 23:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@APerson: No, I actually don't see a need for a bot as such. My thinking is that the cleanup routine, which is already built into the AFC script, can simply be executed as part of the submit process, the same way it currently runs after a decline. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@Petrb: Petr, didn't you run the old bot? Or am I confused? ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Drop me a note} 23:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I tried building one that did several of the the AFCH cleanup routines, but I could not get it to correctly fix all of them, and I grew tired of it. Hasteur (talk) 12:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Templates and comments

I'm finding that many draft submitters see only the decline template and are unaware of or do not immediately discover the reviewers' comments. As the templates are generic, many of us add helpful comments. I've also discovered that some users find the template messages to be brusk and off-putting. I've been experimenting with using the general category for declines, which then places the reviewer comment in the template, and the response has been very positive from some users. Since the template is sent to the user's talk page, but the comment is not, I would like to suggest:

1. include the reviewer's comment on the user talk page
2. or, find a way to embed the reviewer's comment at the top of the template so the user is sure to see it

Comments? thoughts? (Yes, I'm aware that the change may not be technically easy, although I know little about templates.) LaMona (talk) 15:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• I vehemently support the idea to "include the reviewer's comment on the user talk page". FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 16:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support: putting the comments on the user talk page is a good idea. I try to write a comment on every draft reviewed (they're often boilerplate-ish, but hopefully they are at least moderately helpful). To be honest, I don't think authors look at them very frequently if they're stuck on the draft page itself. /wiae /tlk 16:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - I can see a few different ways to implement this in the helper script. I think what you all want is for the comment to appear in the same box as the reason like this, right? (We could also use {{AFC notification|comment}} as a separate box, which looks like this.) APerson (talk!) 18:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for these examples. Am I correct that the second one looks like what users get when we comment via the yellow "Comment" option in the script? And that they don't get that with any of the decline options? I much prefer the first one. I might even like to see the reviewer's comment before the canned message, but I'd like to hear what others think about that. LaMona (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

    Yes, the second one is what goes on the author's talk page when the "Notify submitter" option is checked as you add a comment with the script. For what it's worth, I prefer the first one, too; I'll start trying to implement this soon. APerson (talk!) 17:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Reviewers should consider only commenting and not declining when they find a draft that they feel isn't quite ready. I know that people submit far too early sometimes, but it gets ridiculous when one has to scroll past three or four pink boxes only to find a pretty decent article that might as well have been posted directly in main space, but where the author has clearly given up after too many scripted and templated decline messages. Human interaction is better than templates. --Hegvald (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Hegvald, I'm not sure what you are suggesting here. If a draft isn't ready, just commenting leaves it in the AfC space and so it will be reviewed by other AFC'rs. There is a value to getting drafts marked as reviewed so they don't get re-reviewed unnecessarily. I think what you are concerned about is reviewers being overly picky. I will say that there are times when I both want to move a draft to mainspace but also give the editor a heads up about some editing that still needs to be done. But since comments on the draft are not carried over to mainspace, what I end up doing is accepting the draft then leaving a note on the user's talk page, since they probably do not know to look at the article talk page. It's awkward, and I wish that comments went to the user page, but then we'd have to duplicate them on the draft page. LaMona (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• This feature request is now being tracked on GitHub as #75, for those who want to follow its progress. APerson (talk!) 03:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Done! I declined a draft while leaving a comment in this edit. Now, Theopolisme needs to push a version to his userspace, or else a friendly admin needs to change MediaWiki:Gadget-afchelper.js to point to my userspace copy of the script instead. APerson (talk!) 20:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

  Heck, I'll just put in a request at MediaWiki talk:Gadget-afchelper.js. APerson (talk!) 20:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

  Just an update: the request was completed yesterday, so everybody using the gadget should be using the latest version. APerson (talk!) 17:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Re-assessing a Start-Class article after work on it?

Is there way to get a start-class article re-assessed to see whether it meets a better grading? --Iantresman (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it can always be re-assessed. The initial assessment is done by the AFC reviewer. Once done, the project parameters kick in. Unless I'm not understanding you correctly?? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: Iantresman was referring to Andy Scott (saxophonist and composer). I took a look at it and bumped it up to a C class article. I flagged down the BLP/Musicians/Jazz projects to do a more in depth review to determine if it can be moved up even higher. Hasteur (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I usually do if I have no clue. I add projects and let them sort it out. If you click on the assessment, they usually have the rules for the projects assessment scale. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Help desk backlog

The Help desk has a backlog of several days of unanswered requests for assistance. Can we try to at least answer everything that's more than one day old. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Nitasha Kaul‎

This is not my draft, but I worked on it after it was declined for the first time, and nominated it yesterday - I guess it would not have been a good idea if I moved it myself to the article space. Now, it got declined again. Could somebody pls explain what the fuck is going on. The draft is cited better than most of 500+ articles I created myself. It has five sources, all of them reliable, none of them dependent on the subject, two of them going quite in depth. The subject was shortlisted for a major literary prize. You know, I am a regular AfD closer, and would be able to defend this article at AfD. How many sources do you need? There are more sources available, but I am not sure it is a good style to add to the article everything I have. Thanks for providing guidance. I am seriously disappointed at this point.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Just reading the article and then looking at the sources, I am tempted to approve, but then I say, why? Nothing there asserts notability. Being a professor is not notable enough, being an author is not notable enough. It's just a sentence or two and then it says she was born and then moved and now she lives and teaches and lectures. OK, now what? The references don't say anything about why she's notable. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:GNG? The notability as an author is debatable (I believe it is there, but I understand that people can think differently), but general notability should be fine.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see clear GNG. The sources are not all that strong. She was shortlisted for the Man Asian prize (which is no longer given, and is not the same as a Man or Booker prize), and the article there is nice but it's fairly short (4 short paragraphs). The Al Jazeera says that she was at a debate, but doesn't say much about her. The kulturaustausch article is four sentences. I have no idea the reach of Kashmir Life, although that's a nice article. Ditto "Catch." So to me it's on the margins. Unfortunately, she is not a full professor, is not widely cited (as per Gscholar) and thus does not meet WP:ACADEMIC, and I think we agree that she doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR. So to me this is iffy, although putting out in main space may mean that it gets attention from editors who have better access to South Asian sources. At the same time, one could wait until she clearly achieves notability, since she may well have that ahead of her. LaMona (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Fine. Not my business anyway, but now I know that AfC is just a loss of time. It is way easier to recreate this article in the main space and to defend it at AfD than to get it from AfC anywhere. Happy editing.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's pretty bitey. Plus, the article is now back for review, and it may be passed on since you've added more refs. It's one of those edge cases. You could go ahead and put it in main space if you wish to defend it there. No one is going to stop you. I think it's a toss-up whether facing an AfD is preferable to doing more work at AfC or waiting a while, and some people may prefer one or the other, but you shouldn't snap at those of us trying to help people create a viable article that we think has a good chance of surviving a deletion challenge. It's none of your business, but you seem to be taking it pretty personally. LaMona (talk) 03:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Ymblanter, the fact that you worked on it does not prevent you from moving the draft to article space. Many of us find promising drafts, fix them up and then move them to article space. Voceditenore (talk) 06:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I managed to solve it already, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:49, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to eliminate G13

Just a note but there's currently at discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Remove_G13_completely to remove G13 entirely. I figured the people at AFC would have an opinion about that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

72.67.245.191

72.67.245.191 (talk · contribs) deleted a whole bunch of Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) requests filed by 173.51.118.23 (talk · contribs) without archiving them on 9 March 2016 in many separate edits.

-- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I think I've restored the deleted requests here and here. I completely missed that last night since there have been so many edits to the page. It is tough to handle all the requests when there are so many frequent edits in such a short timespan. /wiae /tlk 12:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Question about the location of WP:AFC/R

Is there any compelling reason to keep WP:AFC/R and related pages as a subpage of WP:AFC? I was poking around and realized that there's little connection right now between AFC/R and the AfC project. APerson (talk!) 02:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Anonymous users are not allowed to create pages directly in the mainspace, so AFC was created as a venue to allow them to do so. Making AFC/R an independent request board seems unnecessary to me, since AFC/R is also based on the idea of enabling anonymous users to contribute pages (in this case, redirects) they can't create on their own. The concepts are the same. Mz7 (talk) 03:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

FFU is also based on the idea of enabling anonymous users to contribute pages, yet it doesn't share a page hierarchy. However, I get what you're saying about similar concepts: all I'm proposing is a rename of AFC/R to something like WP:Redirects for creation. APerson (talk!) 03:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Mainspace pages such as articles or redirects to articles are imho quite distinct from files (usually images) for upload. They required different handling particularly in terms of copyright law and rules. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Art+Feminism drafts

Drafts are coming through from the recent Art and Feminism Edit-a-thon. Some may be marked with {{ArtAndFeminism2016}} on their talk page, some may not. Many are by novice editors who received minimal instruction on how to write for Wikipedia. Some will not pass all of the checks AfC performs. If you can help fix any problems you find, please do so. If a draft must be declined, bear in mind that Wikipedia expends considerable effort to attract these new editors. Anything you can do to make the experience as non-bitey as possible will help retain them, help them become better editors, and advance the interests of the community. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Worldbruce have the edit-a-thon organizers/leaders reviewed the drafts before the newbies submitted them to AFC? That would help to filter out at least the most obvious problems in a non-bitey way as the draft writers already have a working relationship with the edit-a-thon leaders. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Although not all the drafts are currently submitted to AfC, there are over 100 that are linked to one of the two templates. This lot carries {{ArtAndFeminism2016 article}} on their talk pages and this lot carries {{ArtAndFeminism2016 draft}} on the draft itself. According to that second template the drafts "will be revisited by the Art+Feminism organizing team at the end of the March 2016 campaign". Voceditenore (talk) 11:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Dodger67 I don't have a good answer to your good question. I'm in no way an organizer/leader of A+F, but participated in a local event. No organizer reviewed the drafts we worked on (none of which, by the way, were tagged with an event template). Being familiar with AfC, I took it upon myself to clean up the drafts that local participants submitted, and those drafts were subsequently accepted by uninvolved editors here at AfC. My understanding is that organizers plan to review A+F drafts that are not accepted, to see if they can rescue them - a good thing to do, but maybe not ideal. Worldbruce (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Acceptance templates

It would occur to me that {{AFC submission}} should accept an "a" parameter for "accepted, pending processing to move into mainspace" for the template, due to cases like that outlined at Draft talk:Amy-Leigh Hickman. Additionally an {{subst:AFC accepted}} talkpage summary template should be available to detail that a submission has been accepted by an AfC processor, to go along with a Move Request, to show the admin processing the move request than an AfC check has been done, with instructions to the closing admin on how to process AfC accepted drafts requiring admin assisted moves (and an "answered=yes" parameter to close off the instructions when moved; similar to the edit request template) -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

That's the wrong way to do it. The editor should have done a G6 tag on the mainspace version to be deleted and stated that it was holding up the AFC move. That speedy deletion would have been faster than this method. That or request the removal of five-year old protection. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Ricky81682, a {{db-move}} is the correct and quickest way to deal with this situation. Accept is not separate from moving into mainspace, the move is the acceptance. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I would say that for pages that are create-protected, db-move is inapplicable, so there would still be a case for something like I outlined. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be easier to ask for a reduction at WP:RFPP than that. You'd have the template, probably a category from that and then you would still need an admin to do the technical stuff. The change in template didn't actually do anything. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

{{New unreviewed article}}

Template:New unreviewed article has been nominated for WP:Templates for discussion on March 10 by someone. As this template is used by the ARTICLE WIZARD, I thought I'd let you know. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Collapsing at the Help Desk

When a user pastes their draft into their query at the AfC Help Desk, please remove it entirely and replace it with a link to the draft (if it's not already in the query). There is absolutely no need to preserve the draft copy on the Help Desk and collapsed material on a page means that direct links to a specific section on user talk pages, etc. are no longer possible, e.g try getting to 08:33:30, 10 March 2016 review of submission by Davitashvilli via this direct link and see what happens. Some sort of addition to the edit notices when asking a question to the effect of "Do not paste your draft here, just provide a link to it" might help too. Voceditenore (talk) 11:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

For some reason that direct link works for me, but I didn't know collapsing messes up the linking for others! Apologies; I'll remove the text entirely next time. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 12:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Mark "Backlog drives" as historical and fully protect the relevant page(s)

Seeing as backlog drives have fallen into disuse, and back when we did do them they resulted in serious problems, I think it's time to shut down that part of the project's activities. It's been almost two years since the last one. Perhaps in future we might have to come up with a new way to deal with "overload", but I really doubt we'll ever go back to backlog drives the way they were done. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support. They were good when they worked well, but I agree with Roger's reasoning that they won't really see much use in the future. APerson (talk!) 20:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Bug in AFCH script?

I've noticed when I select the "Plot" option in the AFCH script it asks for "Title of existing related article, if one exists" with the box. I think that's intended for a different template selection, the one for "duplicates an existing article." ? LaMona (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

LaMona, looking at the decline reason itself, I think the script is asking you for an article that the plot summary (that takes up most of your draft) should be merged into. APerson (talk!) 21:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

That's an interesting interpretation, but I really can't see it. LaMona (talk) 03:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Article alerts

Is there any need for the article alerts on the front page? The only direct project use I can think of would be for the various "resubmitted so many times we should delete the damn thing" MFD discussions. I used to manually put the WikiProject tag on the talk page of various AFC pages but should we encourage people who are taking the page to MFD to do that as well so they show up on the page here? I think we can also slice it so only MFD shows up which seems like the only actual relevant section. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I work the AfD, PROD, and GA sections. It doesn't matter to me what page they're on, but I find them useful. Worldbruce (talk) 09:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, just curious. It didn't seem to make sense to me since the project only tagged them when they went into mainspace. I can see where AfD and Prod make sense from there though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts

I've started a few proposal to revive WP:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Abandoned_Drafts#Proposed_reorganization_of_project. It's not necessarily AFC-related but I think AFC could do better if there was a split between the actual promote/not promote review process here and the greater "improve on drafts" process to that project. My idea would be that Abandoned drafts would something that can be tagged for the kind of repeated Category:AfC postponed G13 pages that are just at the edge of being useful but no one person has volunteered to take them on. The mass of AFC/draftspace/userspace does not belong there or else that page will lose control. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

During Review

Hi, during a review can a reviewer contact the author to ask for more RS, or to question a source, before making a decision ? Also, is it correct that once a reviewer has refused an article they should not review it again if it is resubmitted? Thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

You can use the comment function of the AFCH script to place a message on the submitter's talk page. Of course, you can also just go directly to the talk page. As for not reviewing again, I haven't heard of that as a rule, although it is my personal preference to allow another reviewer to weigh in so it doesn't end up feeling like a personal back and forth between me and the submitter. However, there are times when I have reviewed an article twice in a row because it felt ok in that circumstance. LaMona (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

ThanksAtlantic306 (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Multiple decline reasons update!

Check it out. I've been working on this for the past few hours, and all I have left is correctly handling copyvios, page blanking, and custom decline reasons. The feature should be arriving to AFCH beta in a few days; I'll post here when it's available for testing. APerson (talk!) 20:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Jolly good! FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 23:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
• This is great, thanks. Would it be possible to introduce each additional reason with something like "Additional reason:" in bold above the reason? That would tie them together. LaMona (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

  LaMona, you think it should support more than two reasons? So far, I've been implementing it for two; it'll be a little bit more work for three. I figured that beyond two, custom comments would be more useful. APerson (talk!) 01:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

  • APerson, I wasn't actually thinking about the number, just that it might not be clear to the recipient that there are different distinct reasons being given. Depending on which ones are combined, the wording of them might seem odd if they were read as a single comment. So prefacing the 2nd one with "Additional comment" makes it clear that they are separate. I can well imagine wanting to give more than two reasons - heck, there are times when I'd like to give ALL of the reasons - but if it's a lot of work to go beyond two, let's start with two and see how that goes. Thanks again! LaMona (talk) 03:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
• Looks good to me. I like LaMona's suggestion about differentiating the reasons. Perhaps something as simple as "Rationale #1" and "Rationale #2" (or Reason #1, Reason #2)? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Reason 1; Reason 2 ... should be good enough. It's simpler than anything else. DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Could Draft:Pocket Gangsters be put on a fastrack ???

It was created and sent to incubator in 2013 as TOO SOON, sent to draftspace in 2014, and I only was pinged when it was sent to MFD as a (then) stale draft. The article was improved after being sent up for deletion, and may be deleted before receiving a review. I'd do it myself, but as the editor doing the improvements, I must step back and allow others to do it. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done. I moved it to the article space since I believe it has good chances to survive an AfD; however, there is no prejudice against actually opening an AfD.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• I don't mind but was this really necessary? Michael, if you had offered to userify it into your own userspace, I suspect the others and possibly the closer would have gone with that rather than wait for you to request restoration or DRV or waste more time on this. Then you could have just moved it yourself. This is already the third page I can recall where the "MFD is moot now because I moved it" strategy was done, with one still deleted after an AFD, another moved to draftspace and the third returned to the original userspace (before it was U5 deleted). MFD is still dealing with the fact that people are now starting to pay attention to these pages. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• I wished to avoid further drama. Had I been pinged and asked to address issues after it was moved to Draft Space and subsequently released, the Mfd might not have even been created. My thanks to both you and Ymblanter. These recent events tells that I really need to look for incubated "articles with potential" sent to draftspace... and add myself to a delsort notification list as I have done for films. Is there one?? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

  MichaelQSchmidt I'm working on User:MusikBot/StaleDrafts/Report from oldest to newest to address pages that are stale in draft space that aren't in AFC tracking tools. Hasteur (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Hasteur:THAT is extremely useful, thank you very much. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• As I said, just wondering. See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Abandoned_Drafts#Proposed_reorganization_of_project and the attempt with that project. I think AFC has enough on its plate and the other method I use is to check the 3-4 times ones at Category:AfC postponed G13 since those are usually better quality. I need to get a better idea of how the Abandoned Drafts project can work out without becoming a giant storehouse of pure junk. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Ricky81682: Perhaps Mfd templates could set up an automatic "Find sources" link similar to the one created by the template for AFd? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

We could I guess but to be honest, that is rarely the issue. Most of the place is portal/wikipedia/talk/other spaces where it doesn't matter and even then I think most people agree that GNG isn't a criteria when considering drafts but it's more of a "if someone willing to work on it" absent the real problem ones. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Whether notability is possible is in my opinion a key factor, much more important than whether someone is willing to work on it. There is no harm in complete drafts with potential for an article and I will usually vote to keep them. That's quite different from when there isn't. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2016

Hushqvarna is a maker of chainsaws. their chain saw color is often orange 198.52.13.15 (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned (for example, Husqvarna Group). /wiae /tlk 15:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Checking draft talk pages during review

I've stumbled upon an issue about our reviewing workflow that has caused unhappiness among members of a WikiProject. Apparently they have been posting notes for AFC reviewers on the talk pages of drafts for quite some time. They've beeen discussing among themselves about their unhappiness that AFC reviewers never respond to those notes. I've explained to one of the prominent participants in the issue that in the normal course of AFC reviewing we never actually look at talk pages of drafts, and that they should post a note on the draft page itself to alert us about relevant content on the talk page. However, notwithstanding this perhaps we need to add "Take a look at the draft's talk page, if it exists" to our workflow. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

There are many times when I would love to hear from project members, and I had no idea that there were any who were commenting on AfC drafts. It's great to know this, and I agree that adding a notice of some kind to the draft would be the best reminder, while making a (probably unreliable) note to self to check talk pages. Also, does anyone know of active projects that would be likely to reply to requests? There are topics I avoid (sports, mostly) and others where I feel like I'm pretty much in the dark (indie music, for one). I have occasionally posted to a project talk page asking for help, but not all projects are "live." Didn't we discuss here adding categories to the drafts, similar to AfD? Then at least projects that wish to could find drafts to comment on. LaMona (talk) 05:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@LaMona I find that Medicine, Physics, Mathematics, Chemistry, Disability, Military History, Football, Engineering and some country WikiProjects are pretty quick to respond, but dead (or nearly dead) projects are a problem. We should add project banners with the "class=Draft" parameter, but Draft-class support is still very unevenly implemented in WikiProject banners and the project's class sorting systems. However our own Accept script also ignores any existing banners and posts duplicate banners instead of recognizing existing banners and just changing the class parameter. I'm afraid apathy is a real barrier to getting the system properly implemented, and with some WikiProjects even actual hostility to AFC. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Yalghaar

If someone moves a page from articlespace into DRAFTspace, does AfC-submit need to be used to dispute/reverse the move? Doesn't this fall under WP:BRD reversal of an undiscussed bold move? See Draft talk:Yalghaar -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 04:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

No, AFC is only interested in new article drafts submitted by the original author, we don't review articles that have been pulled from Mainspace to Draftspace for utterly spurious reasons. The RM close was dead wrong. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Mega-RFC that may interest folks here; AfCs only in draft space, or userspace too?

Please see Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring. One thing under discussion, is whether all articles in the AfC process should go through Draft space or if they can also be in Userspace.

I don't work in your workflow, so I don't know if one thing or the other would make your work easier or harder, or would just be irrelevant. But please chime in there. It is question "D1", away down at the bottom. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Please give valid information about operating systems e.g 32-bit operating system,64-bit operating system — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.45.251.217 (talk) 09:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Qapital

Is this app company/software notable? It is covered in PC Magazine and Fast Company among others. Entrepreneur Magazine and The Atlantic covered how they have a behavioral scientist using their data to research and analyze spending and saving habits. However, our notability requirements are always increasing especially against commercial topics and every page about a phone app product/company I have ever seen has been pretty non-notable. I didn't want to waste my time/effort submitting an article not knowing if the topic would be allowed. I have a COI. CorporateM (Talk) 13:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Just to verify

But government agencies would fall under the notability guidelines for organizations and companies right? Feinoha ^Talk 02:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I believe so. Government agencies count as institutions, which are explicitly included in the second paragraph of the lead. APerson (talk!) 01:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Indeed "organization" covers everything from the UN to a village book club. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Rayukk/Madison Ivy

Is the submission to AFC of User:Rayukk/Madison Ivy appropriate? Madison Ivy was deleted and userified to User:Rayukk/Madison Ivy in January 2015. After very, very minimal improvements, another editor submitted the draft to AFC. It was promptly rejected, time was wasted it as it was moved around and so on. Now, assuming no one touches it, it will be G13 deleted in a number of months but I always understood that mainspacing a draft for content that had already been deleted was more of a DRV function than an AFC function so will this never be accepted through AFC because of the deletion? It seems like more of a candidate to MFD for the failure to actually improve the draft during the userification process. I'm curious in part because I've seen a lot of old userification drafts both through AFC and through MFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ricky81682 - First, I don't think there's consensus on this. Personally, I don't believe that when the result of an AfD is "userfy" or "draftify", that DRV is appropriate (to me, DRV is for when articles are deleted inappropriately). I think drafts of those type should be required to go through the AfC process, so that editors can get help with any potential issues before moving it to the mainspace. You are correct, though, this should never have been submitted to AfC with such minimal corrections, that does waste time. Wasting reviewers time (in that we all feel pretty hard-pressed as it is) is never a good way to get help in improving a draft. Former mainspace articles which have been draftified, imho, do have a chance at improvement, and eventual return to the mainspace. If they didn't, why draftify? Why not simply delete? Draftifying is supposed to give interested editors an opportunity to improve the article, away from mainspace, until it is ready for mainspace. All that being said, I'd like to see a template created so that reviewers can know that a draft is of an article which has been through the AfD process. That way, if there is no indication the editor is willing to learn and listen to the weaknesses of the article, than it can go to MFD. I know I've worked on a few articles in AfC like this. I can think of two examples where I eventually felt the article had reached a level where it could be moved back to mainspace. In one of those instances, within a day the article was back at AfD (which says to me that the nom had an agenda, rather than looking at the article). I wish I can remember the name of the article, but it escapes me. My remembrance is that it passed the AfD (I don't remember many of my acceptances going through AfD, less than a handful). Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's required either. I'm just wondering if it's appropriate for me to be bold basically and remove the AFC notice in cases like this. I think a case at MFD could be made on the same issues (perhaps in six month or a year or whenever). The creator (well editor's who's space the draft is in) also wasn't notified of the AFC rejection (User:FiendYT who tagged it was) so that's also concerning. Should it be changed so at least the person who's namespace it is in is notified about the potential G13 deletion down the line? Would a G13 in this situation (or similar ones) be in line with the intent behind the AFC process? I've fixed a few cases where the person mis-typed submit or something and changed the header to the person who actually created the draft but I don't recall any discussion or actual rule about this. I know this is forest from the trees-procedural wonkery here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm keeping it on my user page since i'm fairly certain it will eventually become notable (once she wins a few awards) and I don't want the work to go to waste. -rayukk | talk 07:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Ricky81682 - didn't see your reply. The auto notification of the creator, rather than the submitter does put a bit of a sticky wicket on it. However, I don't see it as that much of a problem. It was userfied as a result of an AfD, which means that the editor exhibited an interest in working on the article. If he abandons it, so be it. He'll get a notification if he doesn't work on it in 5 months, at which point he'll have an option of saving it from or letting it go the G13 route. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not just that. A non-AFC draft is never be subject to CSD deletion, regardless of its age. Believe me, I don't enjoy it but that's policy. The issue is, what should be done if someone else submits a drafts who is not the creator? By doing that, they subject the page to a potential G13 scenario when the draft would just sit there for a decade even if that never occurred. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• Rayukk I pointed it out because the AFC tag means that the page is now subject to automatic WP:G13 deletion if you don't work on the draft for at least six months. Without the AFC notice, it would just sit there dormant unless you or someone else actively takes it or brings it to WP:MFD. Just be aware of the difference. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

OK thanks. If I work on it a little, it won't get G13'd, right? -rayukk | talk

• Update: Ok, I decided to be bold and removed it from AFC entirely. It was a userification from an AFD, added by some other editor and entirely unsuited for AFC in the first place. As such, it's not going to be eligible for G13 in the future but MFD is always available if someone feels like it's not been improved (which is hasn't been in two months but that's minor). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Broken copyvio detector

The copyvio detection tool used by the AFCH script has stopped working - what can we do about this? Checking for copyvio is one of the most important steps in an AFC review, not being able to do so is a very serious problem that needs an urgent solution. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

It appears they are trying to resolve the issue. I believe you can "repeat the check without using the search engine" once it fails, but I am unsure if this alters the results in any way. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 15:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

My understanding is that running Earwig's tool without the search engine searches for copying from external links present in the article, which is fairly useful. However, it can't catch copying from a source that hasn't been used as a reference/external link. In those cases, I've resorted to Googling sentences at random, but that is obviously not a very efficient system. At any rate, it's a fairly serious problem that will affect everybody here (and at NPP too). /wiae /tlk 22:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Best Article

I'm considering tagging this for deletion because it's unclear what the page is supposed to be about. Feinoha ^Talk 16:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Is there any reason a draft less than a week old that hasn't been submitted for review should make it clear what it's about? It looks like a draft about a 2016 baseketball series in the Philippines. The dates suggest it starts next month, so perhaps at this stage the author is simply experimenting with editing and structure. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Worldbruce, it is clearly the beginning of an article about an upcoming tournament, a perfectly legitimate use of draft-space. It also has no AFC template so quite frankly it's none of our business. If you cannot make a positive contribution to the draft just leave alone. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, but do keep an eye on it in the coming months if possible. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

No need to even worry about it. It's in draft space, which is appropriate. If it doesn't get worked on for 5 months, the creator will be notified, if nothing is on, it will be queued for G13 deletion, at which point an editor, followed by an admin will take a look. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Well it wasn't really that clear when I looked at it. All I saw was a bunch of (seemingly) random stats and wasn't sure what to do with it. Anyway sorry for bringing this up. Feinoha ^Talk 22:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Onel5969 I'm not sure where you got that idea but regardless of the space it is in, if there is no AFC tag on it, there is no automated notification and no G13 deletion. See the many, many examples of this. The attempts to expand G13 to include all of draftspace has repeatedly failed. The only solution is to take the page to MFD. Now, from some of the names in this draft, this looks to be related to the Philippine Basketball Association but it's not clear if this is real or a hoax. As such, I see no issue with taking it to MFD today if you don't get a satisfactory answer from the IP editor. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• Ricky81682 - Sorry, didn't get the "ping". My misunderstanding, I thought the G13 included all draftspace. I agree, though, if no good answer is received, than MfD would be the way to go. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Responding to queries

Perhaps this has been asked before, but if a reviewer declines an article and the author asks a question on the reviewer's talk page, is there any obligation for the reviewer to respond? I know there can never be an "obligation" per se, but is there some sort of guidance on this point? The reason for me asking this question is due to watchlisting the talk page of an active reviewer. The reviewer is not a native English speaker, so their initial review is always brief, often vague, sometimes incomprehensible and sometimes plain wrong. Over the last couple of months they have received innumerous questions at their talk page in response to their reviews, but rarely respond. On the rare occasion they do reply, the response is equally vague or a complete non sequitur.
This perhaps leads to a separate and more serious question, namely where is the line drawn regarding competence to perform reviews? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

@AtHomeIn神戸 currently the qualification to be a reviewer is purely technical based on the age of the user account and edit count, but we can/should remove incompetent reviewers per WP:COMPETENCE. AFC is more than just a "gatekeeping" action (like NPP), it's also a help service for inexperienced editors, so yes, reviewers are required to be willing and able to assist editors. We should probably expand the criteria for reviewers to explicitly state the help role of AFC. But the first action should be to remove the incompetent reviewer to stop the ongoing harm to WP. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Possible AfC review scam?

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_AfC_review_scam?. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Draft prod

This discussion about draft space deletion is probably of interest to some AfC participants. ~Kvng (talk) 13:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• The proposal is about non-AFC draftspace drafts. The solutions proposed at Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion#Draft_prod seems to be to let AFC handle them. In the past, I believe AFC has shown a severe disinterest in getting pages just dumped into it when it is not by the creator but that's just my recollection. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I've instead started a formal RFC at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_Proposed_draftspace_deletion. Again this is for non-AFC draftspace drafts. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

User pages RfC follow-up

At this RFC, discussion D1 was that all drafts marked for AFC should be moved to draftspace and out of userspace. We still have Wikipedia:Requested moves/Old AFC submissions and I can't tell but it seems like there's still new pages popping up there. The question is, is it better to just move those now, knowing it will reset the six month ticker or only move the ones with any semblance of a chance and let those go to G13? Same with userspace ones. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I would have thought that a move would not disqualify an article for a six month no edit G13 nomination. But you may as well save the effort of moving the hopeless cases. If the editor submits the page, that would be the time to move it to draft. (so just let the hopeless cases slip into G13 state). The non-hopeless cases you can rescue! An move to article space instead. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't mean it in the real sense but I think the bot does count it that way. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

HasteurBot shutting down

After repeated attacks of stress, I have decided to permanantly retire from Wikipedia. The following tasks of interest to the AFC Project need to be taken over:

1. AFC "Soon to be G13 eligible notifications"
2. AFC pages procedurally nominated for CSD:G13
3. Notifying interested users of AFC pages that are soon to be eligible

I will be willing to let annother user run (or reimplement the functionality, but I am done with Wikipedia. Hasteur (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Should this also be at WP:BOTREQUEST? One of the other bot operators can either take over the bot or work it into their own or another bot. - Ricky81682 (talk) 22:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Good to know. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

New source of submissions

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Ability_to_Move_Questionable_New_Pages_to_Draft_Space for a discussion of an alternative to deletion of new articles not meeting Wikipedia standards at WP:NPP. The idea is that instead of promptly nominating these for deletion to move these in to draft: space and allow authors to continue to work on them here in AFC. ~Kvng (talk) 02:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

This is the result of discussions at the New Page Patrol talk page, and seems to some of us to be a compromise between allowing the articles to remain in article space (where they don't really belong) and deleting them, which is seen as "biting" new editors. To clarify, if accepted, this will simply be a new source of draft articles into AFC space for review, not a source of new articles (in fact, a way of diverting articles out of article space). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I can't believe people are actually trying to move this forward. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why they have to be new AFC drafts. I think it would be a good idea but I don't know if that has to be the default position. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it all stems from the fact they have no clue what AfC's about. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 16:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

First they should be sent back to the user's space. Then, if the user decides to pursue it, the use can send them on to AFC. I think making them AFC drafts is less logical than returning them to user space. However, I'm not sure what that means - do they become pages under the user's name, or sandboxes, or what? LaMona (talk) 19:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The proposal as stated appears to be to move them into draft space. In that case, they will have the names that they had as articles. I would similarly agree with moving them to user space, with the same names as they had as articles (which is not sandboxes, but a sandbox is simply a page in user space with sandbox in its name). Robert McClenon (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Who have no clue what AFC is about? New users, or editors making this proposal? It is true that many new editors have no clue what AFC is about, but that is irrelevant; many new editors have no clue about anything. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I am agreeable to having the inadequate new articles moved into user space rather than marked for deletion, as long as they are not eligible for speedy deletion, or are only eligible for speedy deletion under A7. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I meant the proposers, given tagging them for AfC doesn't solve anything. Userspace seems like a sane alternative, although I believe none of this is necessary. There seem to be two camps: one that establishes there has to be some way of deleting often useless drafts, and one that alleges these drafts can remain on Wikipedia for an unlimited amount of time, given their subjects are potential candidates for mainspace and there is always a chance the creating users would return. We should be debating whether Wikipedia should be a repository of nonsense, and if not then how these pages should be handled with convenience and other pertinent issues at hand. If their move to AfC is for the purpose of making them eligible for G13, then that would be a nice compromise. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The original question wasn't whether to put the junk in draft space or in user space. What started this discussion was a comment at the New Page Patrol talk page about junk entered in mainspace. One editor criticized other editors for being too quick to propose for deletion such pages, and preferred to tag the pages with smiley faces and to offer gentle encouragement to the new editors. The original alternatives were deleting the junk from user space or moving it somewhere else, such as draft space. The concern was that tagging the junk for proposed deletion was bitey. This raises the question of how to weigh maintaining the quality of the encyclopedia in the short to medium run against the potential benefit of welcoming new editors who don't yet know what to submit. So the first question is whether there is to be an "escape hatch" for very inadequate articles, or whether they should be either deleted, or kept in order to keep their submitters as happy new editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I have a hard time accepting the proposition that PROD is too BITEy. PROD is a community process and it's not driven by malice. If new editors feel hurt by a deletion nom then staying in Wikipedia long-term isn't a proposition for them, anyway. Too often, the articles from new users rob our experienced contributors of the potential for a Four Award. Ultimately, I don't care about contributors that can't lurk moar and understand the rules of this website before participating. Most other online forums will block users for even smaller violations of community norms. I don't think reading WP:V and WP:GNG is too much to expect. Finally, I wholeheartedly support WP:USERFY as an option at AfD so a new user can improve their work and take a second crack at crating an article. AfD isn't an excommunication. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I understand all of these concerns; the proposal to send them to AfC, however, is somewhat troubling. My general thoughts go along the line of Chris troutman's. In all fairness, this accept crap vs delete everything dilema has been going on for years and lies at the root of what Wikipedia is and wants to be. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 20:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the question is how to do it. We shouldn't be unilaterally userifying and sending pages to AFC if the person who started the page doesn't even respond. All that's doing is creating more busywork for other people on a bet that they will come back and historically speaking, the vast majority of those people don't. Most if not all of our main editors started off to me doing little edits to pages currently here; people don't regularly come here, see there's 5 million pages to edit and decide that they have a brand new topic they need to write and then start going off and working elsewhere. It's just a different mentality. I think we should just continue as it: prod the page if needed (it's been policy for years, why is now BITEy?) and as part of the prod review, an admin is going to, as required, look at the talk page. A sensible admin (virtually every one but I'm won't go too far) will see if there's someone there asking for help or a chance and can then userify the page. I would, at least, suggest that they consider AFC if they think they could use some guidance and tell them what to do for that but otherwise let's see if the person actually cares to improve their page or it's just a "this is what I want to post, let me post it" routine. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Precisely. As always, common sense seems to be trumped by a need for more bureaucracy on Wikipedia. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no such thing as nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.228.19 (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this is. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Usage of WP:RMTR for AfC submissions from draft space?

Recently Draft:Walshy Fire was submitted for moving to main space at WP:RMTR. The move has now been performed and the draft was found acceptable, but can anyone tell me how drafts normally get promoted to mainspace in the AfC process? I assume usage of RMTR isn't how it is normally done. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

RMTR is definitely not how it's usually done. Reviewers should usually use the AfC helper script, which handles updating a lot of things when an article is created. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 22:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Car-Free Living

Car-Free Living

Car Free Living system is one where pedestrians dominate cars and cars are kept underground, away from the living space. The principle is based on one ring road that serves the whole Village and leads cars directly to the underground parking area. No cars are allowed to park in open spaces in the Village, but drop-offs and emergency parking is permitted in the widened spaces between landscaped pots. Regular parking goes unseen underground.

For larger underground parking areas, the road leads underground and is completely integrated into the parking area. This is especially the case with the Lifestyle Center where the portion of road that is above ground is purely for deliveries and lifestyle purpose. All other driving is done underground. Blue Rock Village (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 14:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

NPP / AfC

Just a reminder that in just over a week at Wikimania there's going to be a discussion about the systems of control of new pages. Anyone ho is going to Italy and would like to take part, please check out the conference schedule, and I look forward to seeing you there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Kudpung. Unfortunately I didn't get a scholarship so I won't be able to attend. I hope you guys make some headway! Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

New template idea

Hi, I've got an idea for a template. I've created a sandbox to work on it, located at User:Anarchyte/sandbox/AFCTemplateIdea. Would it be a good idea to implement this template into the administration of AfC or am I overthinking this all? Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

It looks like it would be a useful template to me, and I could've used this in several situations I've been in in the past. I did fix a typo on your draft template, hope you don't mind that, but other than that I would support us using this template. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 09:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

If this were to be implemented, we could also develop a template which notifies users if their article is just plain moved from mainspace to draft namespace. That'd be more controverisal though, because of all the recent debates about whether or not editors should be allowed to just "move" articles to draft namespace. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Definitely a good idea. Presumably it would do the move? This seems to me to be of use to new article patrol, since the articles that are here are already in draft space. LaMona (talk) 05:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I like this idea a lot! Good idea. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 22:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. I've moved the first draft idea to Template:Uw-afcaddition. Feel free to fix any errors I may have made. User:Anarchyte/sandbox/AFCTemplateIdea now contains the other template idea. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• I think the template is a good idea, but can I propose a more concise version?

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've moved your recently created article to [[:{{{1}}}]] because the article does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Please continue to work on it at its new location. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you.

I made a similar template that I use when moving articles to draft space: User:MrX/DraftMoved.- MrX 10:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I like yours a lot more. . (The one on your /DraftMoved page).Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• The wording "the article does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines" is a bit problematic. To be specific, it's not articles that meet or don't meet GNG, it's their subjects. Wording suggestion: "…the content of the article does not indicate that the subject meets Wikipedia's general notability guidelines." Use of this template needs to be careful, as there are many cases where no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability and inviting an editor to edit more may not be helpful. --LukeSurl ^{t c}

Done. Moved to Template:Uw-articletodraft. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Move Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories?

I don't want to move it by myself because I know there are templates, scripts, links, etc that all go to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects.
It's obvious that /Redirects contains both redirect and category requests, and at the moment, /Categories redirects to /Redirects. How about /Redirects is moved and both /Redirects and /Categories redirect to /Redirects and categories? Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support, since the new name would better reflect the page's purpose. APerson (talk!) 19:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support, obviously. And a shortcut from WP:AFCRC maybe? The shortcut WP:AFCRD (created in 2015, and assumably named so because WP:AFCR had been in use for Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions since 2007) lacks logic, since WP:RD is the Reference Desk. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 20:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Sounds good to me, and it might make things a little less confusing to the editors who post requests there. (It is a little weird to leave category requests on a page called "Redirects".) /wiae /tlk 19:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support The proposed name appears to be more useful to editors and people in general. Feinoha ^Talk 03:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Alright, now that consensus supports the move, how will it be done without breaking scripts? Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Anarchyte, we'll need PhantomTech to update his script for the new location - oh wait, he hasn't edited in almost a year. That means an administrator is going to need to edit line 277 of the script and change 'Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Redirects' to 'Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Redirects_and_categories'. The other script is the AFCH beta. (I can't believe people still use that.) An administrator will need to make the same change to line 19 of MediaWiki:Gadget-afchelper-beta.js/core.js. That's all for scripts, I think. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 00:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you know of anyone who would be able to make the required edits? Also, could you link the script? I can't find it. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

User:PhantomTech/scripts/AFCRHS.js. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 02:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

WikiAfrica articles

Ok, seeing the backlog discussion above, I'm going to hate to ask this but would AFC consider adopting or at least having the drafts at Category:WikiAfrica new articles fall into the AFC project? The Wikipedia:WikiAfrica project (not WikiProject Africa) used to have an article incubator that prepared new stubs and drafts but the project kind of died around 2014. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiAfrica/Stubs/Abel Tilahun already deleted all the empty skeleton pages so there's just 97 drafts left. I was proposing, since they probably fall as stale drafts, moving those to draftspace and tagging them as AFC unreviewed. I do plan on reviewing them and moving the good ones to mainspace (some are ready) but I would prefer more eyes and just wanted others to be aware. If people don't want the project to take these on, I'll just ask for people to review on their own time then. I will take on the responsibility as the submitter here so I will get the notices and the like and copy those off to the original creators. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ricky81682 How about you review them using AFC's criteria - at your own pace - and then feed only the repairable fails into the formal AFC system? For the purposes of the system you will be the "registered submitter" so don't let yourself get overwelmed, or how about proposing at WikiProject Africa that the participants there "adopt" some of the drafts to share the workload? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

That works. If anyone else is interested, feel free to join in. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Backlog

Where'd all these drafts come from? A few weeks ago it was at ~700 and before that it was barely scraping 500. It's now at over 900. Is it time for a new backlog drive? Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The history of backlog drives is not a good one, the bad review rate goes way up as reviewers become competitive. We need to redesign the incentive system of backlog drives, a bad review does more damage than no review - the cure is worse than the disease. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

We did have a re-review system in place for previous backlog drives, but the scope of it evidently wasn't big enough. I guess we could have harsher penalties for failing re-reviews? Dodger67, I don't see why we can't simply increase the penalty and otherwise strengthen the re-review system in order to have another backlog drive. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 03:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

What actual penalties are available? The only incentives are merely "Noddy badges" but competition for them became quite fierce. When ego becomes a factor the quality of work suffers, in my view WP works best when process and rules dominate and personality takes a (distant) second place; "please leave your ego on the hat rack when entering here". So how do we motivate an increase in work rate without sacrificing quality? I have no idea. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

If someone screws around, I'd say be aggressive and suggest that they be topic banned from AFC review. That'd be embarrassing as all hell but also because AFC often is working with the newest users, WP:BITE is an important consideration. WP:BITE matters more than users' egos and we can find other reviewers even with a slightly longer backlog. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Help desk is backlogged

Please help answer the requests for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk, some requests have been waiting several days. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

New tool to identify copyright violations in Draftspace

Per Jmorgan (WMF)'s recommendation here:

The new CopyPatrol provides a means to identify possible copyright violations in recent changes, including the those in the draft namespace. As we understand, the AfC backlog can get quite high, and much of your work involves checking for copyright violations. So we've added a filtering option to show only potential copyright violations in the draftspace, in hopes this might expedite your work. Try it out here. Note the drafts you see are not necessarily AfC submissions, but it appears the majority are.

To use CopyPatrol, first login with your WMF account (no password needed). Use the "Page fixed" button if you've corrected the copyright violation, either by removing it or tagging it for speedy deletion. Use "No action needed" if there is no violation, such as properly attributed quotes, general false positives, etc.

We welcome your feedback here. Hope you find this tool useful! With regards, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I can't access it. Am I pressing something wrong? FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you tell us which link you're trying to access and what error do you get? -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 03:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

HTTP Error 500. "tools.wmflabs.org is currently unable to handle this request." FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 12:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Just worked for me; new cases and draft selected. LaMona (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Combining NPP and AFC ?

I have seen a mention of a plan to combine New Page Patrol (NPP) and Articles for Creation (AFC). Is that correct, or is there some other plan involving some degree of combining of two types of review, or have I misunderstood, or what? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Where's that? FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Some more info at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol#Combining_of_NPP_and_AFC. ~Kvng (talk) 23:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Redirects for creation

There should be a link somewhere on the 'Project page' for Articles for creation/redirect -- Since that is a redlink, there should be a link to wherever it is that one goes to request creation of redirects. Thank you. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:F501:1A09:1431:2F25 (talk) 00:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

New decline reason: No lead

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script § No Lede Section

 – Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 01:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

With or without the revision of the AFCH script to allow multiple decline reasons, I would like to see the lack of a lede section as a reason for a decline. This is relatively common, and I have to write it up either as a Custom decline, if nothing else is obviously wrong, or if, without the lede, the draft is so confused that I don't know what it is about, or in addition to a notability issue, if I can figure out what the topic is. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if this really needs a new reason, but hey, if you want it and nobody objects for a few days, I don't see why not. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 01:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support. It'd be a lot easier to use this than write out the whole thing every time. Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Upon second thought, declining an article for ONLY not having a lead is wrong. The times I normally write out "needs a lead" is when there are other errors too, such as notability or context issues. Swapping to Oppose. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support generally. Is there an exact proposed wording? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

  Not right now - pinging Robert McClenon to see if he has any preference. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 01:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

"The submission lacks a proper lede section, stating what the scope of the proposed article is. An encyclopedia article should begin with a lede section that summarizes the subject matter." That is the beginning of the decline. There should probably be one or two more sentences. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

As stated below, is that really a reason to reject a page outright? I was assuming there was more than just the lede, like the article could use a lede or something? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - when did you last !vote "delete" on an AfD without a lead. If a draft can survive in mainspace and be improved by anyone, it should be accepted. If you know of anyone doing these sorts of declines on a regular basis, perhaps an AfC topic ban is in order. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 02:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • To be fair, it sounds like they already do reject for lack of a lede so that horse may already be out of the barn door. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

If I can work out who "they" is, they need to read up on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions ASAP, which also clearly says that persistent mistakes can result in a block. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose If nothing else is obviously wrong, shouldn't we accept the draft and slap a {{lead missing}} on it? The existing decline reason "context" covers cases where the draft is so poor that we can't tell what it's about. The "context" decline points them to Wikipedia:Writing better articles, which has a section about leads that links to WP:LEDE. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose (but I'm not excited either way). I don't think I've ever rejected an article because it didn't have a lede. In fact, I often create a minimal one if I'm otherwise going to accept the article. That's usually quicker than writing out a reject reason. LaMona (talk) 03:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose The lack of a lead is not a valid reason to decline a draft. Reviewers need to stick more strictly to the workflow instructions. Spurious declines are a significant contributor to backlogs - a draft should not be declined for a reason that is not also a valid argument for deletion if it were a mainspace article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Dodger67. Nothing a little nudge to the creator, WP:BOLD or a simple tag won't fix. I do understand where nom's coming from, but we need to be more involved in the AfC process instead of declining as our main resort.FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 12:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
• Weak oppose It might be a bit unreasonable to reject an article based on the lack of a lede section, unless it causes a major problem to understanding what's in the article's main section. Since lack of context usually comes with lack of a lede section, why not rewrite the context declining reason and suggest the author to write (or improve) a lead section for the article? This seems to satisfy both viewpoints in this discussion. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 02:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
• Definite oppose the acceptor can write it themselves, or put up with not having it to start with. Remember our job here is to create articles not to find more excuses to decline. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
• Strong oppose It is not a reason to decline an article, nor is it a reason todecline at AfD. Itisjust a matter of style. DGG ( talk ) 09:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Leads are a style issue only. Style issue have no bearing on notability or verifiability, which are the main criteria for accepts or declines. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - No lead is not a valid reason to delete so it is also not a valid reason to reject. Please add {{No lead}} and accept these submissions. ~Kvng (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - I think that there is consensus here. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Handling COI

There seems to be a contradiction between Wikipedia:Articles for creation and Wikipedia:Article wizard/Subject. The former allows COI but requests disclosure:

Note that if you are being paid to contribute to Wikipedia, under the Terms of Use and WP:Paid, you must disclose your employer, client and affiliations. If you have another type of conflict of interest, you should disclose the conflict of interest, per WP:COI.

Wikipedia:Article wizard/Subject says don't submit if there are certain types of COI, but then suggests seeking advice "before proposing an article," as if COI is indeed okay:

Please do not submit articles that are about:

• yourself, your company or organization. (Conflict of Interest)
• your friend, your band, or your website. (Notability)
• your vendettas or campaigns. (Neutrality)

If you feel you, your organization, your friend, band, or site are notable, please consider asking a neutral third party (ideally an uninvolved Wikipedia editor who has edited similar articles) for their opinion before proposing an article on the subject.

So which is it? Don't make COI submissions, or do make them but disclose? SarahSV ^(talk) 20:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, the conflict of interest guideline says: "COI editing is strongly discouraged." It doesn't say it is forbidden. The usual thinking at AFC has been that, because AFC submissions are reviewed, COI submissions are discouraged and must be disclosed, but are not forbidden, and it is up to reviewers to determine whether a COI submission meets neutral point of view. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

In defense of the Wizard, I will point out that it is saying not to submit articles that are about yourself, your company, or your organization because we will get too many of them even with that disclaimer. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Quite a large portion of the articles that come to AfC are the product of COI - which isn't surprising, because after all what brings a new user to Wikipedia to create an article but some kind of personal interest? I liberally notify users of coi by adding the {{subst:Uw-coi}} template to their talk pages. (I also notify those that are possibly in violation of the wp:Username policy, which is separate but in the case of AfC almost always accompanied by COI.) Since most AfC editors are new and unfamiliar with WP, I suspect that the COI notice that I give them is information they did not have before. I have alerted about 200 users about COI, and of those nearly all simply cease editing without any response. Occasionally someone follows up and wishes to continue editing, and does so with appropriate COI declaration. Less than a handful have gone on to edit in a way that I would consider to be in violation of COI policies (and I have taken them to WP:COIN.) I actually think that there needs to be more information given to new users about COI, possibly as part of the welcome greeting. It's in WP:YFA, but my experience is proof that no one reads that. This is an aspect of WP policy that isn't obvious from the outside, and so many people think that this is yet another social medium where they need to create a page for their company/product/band in order to be noticed. LaMona (talk) 02:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon and LaMona, thanks for the replies. The issue is that the pages contradict each other, and one page contradicts itself. That has to be fixed.

The main page says "if you have a COI, you must disclose it." But then people proceed to the article wizard, and find a contradiction: "Please do not submit articles that are about yourself, your company or organization." But then that immediately contradicts itself too: "If you feel your organization, etc, is notable, ask a neutral person before proposing it."

I've referred people with a COI to this process, and they end up confused. I don't know how to advise them because I'm not involved in this process, and I don't know what you want. I'm hoping that someone who is involved is willing to fix the contradiction. Does the sentence that says: "Do not submit" etc need to be removed? Or is that the sentence you stand by, and it's the rest that needs to be changed? SarahSV ^(talk) 03:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Sarah, I fixed the link to the first page you mentioned—the bit about paid editing is at Wikipedia:Articles for creation not Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation. Anyhow, I agree with you, there needs to to be more consistency between the two pages. They are currently very confusing. Note that many people end up directly at Wikipedia:Article wizard without first going to Wikipedia:Articles for creation, creating even more confusion. Minimally, the bit about paid editing needs to go on the first page of the Article Wizard too. My other suggestions are:

1. On the first page of Wikipedia:Article wizard this following segment needs rewriting:

Please do not submit articles that are about:

• yourself, your company or organization. (Conflict of Interest)
• your friend, your band, or your website. (Notability)
• your vendettas or campaigns. (Neutrality)

If you feel you, your organization, your friend, band, or site are notable, please consider asking a neutral third party (ideally an uninvolved Wikipedia editor who has edited similar articles) for their opinion before proposing an article on the subject. If you are unsure of the notability of your article, please feel free to ask at the help channel on Wikipedia's Live Help Channel.

Minimally, replace Please do not submit with something like We strongly urge you not to submit

2. The Article Wizard literally prevents you from creating an article if you hit the buttons: I'm writing about a new phrase/word (directs you to Wiktionary), I'm writing about a recent event (directs you to Wikinews), or I'm writing about myself (sends you to Wikipedia:Article wizard/Conflict of interest). This latter one is quite problematic as it explicitly states Pages that introduce a conflict of interest are not being accepted by the Article Wizard at this time. But if you're a paid editor writing an advertorial for some obscure start-up, that's OK? This doesn't make sense. If you click on I'm writing about a company, organisation or foundation, you are sent to Wikipedia:Article wizard/Company notability, which doesn't state that company/organizations articles written with a COI (paid or otherwise) are not allowed. It mainly talks about notability and advertising and tells you that it's hard to write a proper article if you have a COI but allows you the option of continuing with the Article Wizard anyway. This serious inconsistency really needs to be addressed. Why are autobiographies not accepted by the Wizard but paid-for biographies are? You either accept both or none. And if the Wizard won't accept biographies written with a COI, why will it accept articles about bands, products, companies, etc. written with a COI?

Voceditenore (talk) 07:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I will suggest that the inconsistency, in which the Article Wizard is harder on autobiographies than on paid editors, arises because the Article Wizard is old, and the problem of paid editors, while always present, has become more serious in recent years, while the problem of autobiographies has not changed. I will also comment that clueless editors, whether of articles about themselves or their garage bands or anything else, may pay attention to the wording of the Article Wizard. However, paid editors can be devious, and often ignore the instructions on the first effort. (On the second or third effort, after multiple declines, they desperately write that their client needs "their Wiki page", and we aren't friendly.) While consistency is highly desirable, I don't think it is as important to be consistent with paid editors, as long as we stop them, as it is to be consistent with clueless well-meaning editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with being more consistent and with making the wording clearer about conflict of interest editing. I would also comment that I think it is even more important to stop paid editors at New Page Patrol when they come in through the front door than it is to stop them when they come in the side door of Articles for Creation. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

If we change the wording, as I think we should, I would say that we should have it say, rather than advising them to check with a third party, to say in some way that conflict of interest editing must be disclosed at the risk of a block. The real problem isn't conflict of interest editing, as much as we want to minimize that; it is undisclosed conflict of interest editing, and especially undisclosed paid editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

removing thumbnails from infoboxes per WP:INFOBOXIMAGE

So I have been working on a maintenance project to clean up Category:Pages using infoboxes with thumbnail images. I wanted to see if I could add something to the checklist that AfC Reviewers run through. That is to check that images in an infobox are NOT thumbnails. So instead of doing it like this: |image=[[File:SomeImage.jpg|thumb|Some image caption]], just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do: |image=SomeImage.jpg. There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as |caption=Some image caption. Would love any feedback! --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Mitra Mustafi

Please do not put entire draft articles on this page. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Mustafi definition: Mustafi is a noble title and not a surname. Originally Mustaufi latter anglicized to Mustafi. According to Wilson’s Glossary Page 358: Mustaufi is an examiner and auditor of accounts – the principal officer of the department which under the Mohammedan Government the accounts of the ex-collectors or farmers of the Revenue were examined. Mughal emperors would sometimes award the noble title Mustaufi to extra ordinary Auditors of Revenue Accounts. Mitras of Ula,Duttas of Senhati and Mukhejee's of Cooch bihar received mustafi title. Early History: It is speculated that more than 1000 years back King Adhisura of Rarh region (Chotanagpur Plateau region) brought five Brahmin and five Kayastha families from Kanauj (central UP). They were Mukhopadhyay, Bandopadhay, Chottopadhay, Gangopadhay, Sanyal, Ghosh, Bose, Mitra, Datta and Guha families[1a]. The name of Adhisura has no strong historical records hence this migration theory from Kanuaj has several skeptics. However it has been recorded in Sandhyakar Nandi's poem Ramacharitam about existence of Sur dynasty in southern Rarh in first quarter of 11th century [1b,c,d]. Lakshmishura was a vassal of Ramapala(1077-1133 AD), the ruler of Pal dynasty in Bengal. The second ruler of Sen dynasty Vijay Sen married Vilasdevi the princess of Sur dynasty[1b]. The 1st generation of Mitras in Bengal being Kalidas Mitra (A Kanyakubja Kayastha from UP). Interestingly the Mitra clan of Kalidas is refered as Dashik Rarh, belonging to southern region of Rarh. 8th generation from Kalidas's Dashik Rarh clan, two brothers Dhui and Gui kumar got Kulin title from Ballal Sen (1160-1179 AD) the 3rd ruler of Sen dynasty[1d]. Dhui went ahead and formed Barisha Somaj of Mitra's while Gui created Teka Somaj. Rajeev Mitra, 17th generation Mitra from Kalidas and belonging to Teka Somaj, had five sons – Kandarpa, Mohan, Kashiswar, Ramkrishna and Ramdev. Mohan Mitra and his brothers migrated to Ula, a village in Nadia district of West Bengal,India, from Teka. Mohan Mitra’s youngest brother Kashiswar’s family is known as ‘Choto Mitra’ family of Ula. A magnificent Vishnu Temple was built by Kashiswar just outside north-east corner of Mitra Mustafi Complex of Ula. Mohan Mitra was a highly acclaimed teacher and just before settling in Ula (around 1657 AD) he took up a teaching job in Beldanga near Shantipur and came to be known as ‘Gurumahashay’. His son Rameswar founded the Mitra Mustafi family in Ula. Mustaufi/Mustafi Title to Rameswar Mitra[1]:Rameswar Mitra was highly educated and an authority in auditing of revenue accounts evenue accounts. He worked under Bengal Governor Shaista Khan as a Revenue Officer and was appointed as ‘Mustaufi’ (auditor) of the Revenue Collection department of Bengal by Nawab Murshid Kuli Khan. The Nawab sent Rameswar to Emperor Aurangzeb in Delhi to explain the Revenue Accounts of Bengal. Emperor was so pleased with Rameswar’s expertise that he awarded Rameswar the noble title “Mustaufi” and his Panja (Royal Seal – an impression of the entire palm) in 1704 AD. Emperor also wrote a letter to Nawab of Bengal that Rameswar is a person of worth and must be entrusted with very important jobs. Rameswar also worked as Deputy to the Chief Revenue Officer of Bengal Collector Harinarayan Roy. Thereafter, he invested his income from Revenue Services in acquiring zamindari estates in the districts of Burdwan, Hooghly, 24- Pargonas, Murshidabad, Nadia and Birbhum.Thus started the building of Mitra Mustafi family empire which expanded and lasted for a few generations.Rameswar and his descendants enjoyed good relationship with Maharajas of Nadia. Both Maharaja Ramkrishna and Krishnachandra bestowed huge areas of land to Mitra Mustafi family. Branching of the family: Rameswar had 10 sons. His eldest son Raghunandan and his 4th son Anantaram shifted to Sripur and Sukharia respectively. He had one daughter Mahamaya who was married to Gokul Basu of Andul, Howrah. The eldest son Raghunandan was a very religious man and scholar. He used to pass his time in meditation. Being impressed with Raghunandan's divinity, Raja Raghudev Roy of Bansberia, gifted him Zamindari of 75 Bighas land in Antiseora Village. Being influenced by Baishnabism, Raghunandan renamed Antiseora as Sripur. He established the Sripur branch of the family. He and member of his lineage build several temples in and around Sripur. Anantaram also left Ula after his second marriage. His first wife and his two sons from his first wife, Ghanashyam and Brajaram did not move to Sukharia and stayed back in Ula. There has been several reasons cited for Anantaram's departure from Ula. Many of Anantaram's descendants worked as “Dewans” for Mughal and British Governments. That is why the family in Sukhria is called family of Dewans. He and his sons and grandsons are responsible for construction of several temples in and around Sukhria. There has been historical records that cousins from Ula,Sripur and Sukharia were in touch with each other long after the branching, mostly co-operating and sometimes fighting. Family history (a) Ula[1] Ula line of mustafi family has a number of distinguished members and were involved in events which changed the course of history in Nadia district in particular and Bengal in general. One of notable person was Anadinath Mitra Mustafi. He around 1835 AD captured and killed the notorious dacoit Shibesani. After this incident the name of the town “Ula” was changed into “ Birnagar” or the town of the brave. The reference about this incident is mentioned in Nadia District Gazette and also in historical records of bengal zamidars by Lalit Ghosh pulbished in 1888. Anantaram’s other brother from Ula, Mukundaram became extremely rich and famous zaminder. His landholding spread over many districts of West and East Bengal. Mukundaram and his descendants build many temples in different districts (some of which are still there albeit in ruinous condition). Mukundaram descendants Shovaram and Chandramani was great zamindars .Chandramani’s son Shiromani worked as Chief Revenue Officer in the Collector offices of Rajsahi and Berilly under East India Company’s Governor Generals Warren Hastings and Lord Cornwalis. He expired in his Natore zamindari estate in the year 1805 AD. Chandramani’s son Iswarchandra was the most talked about Zamindar in our family. Iswarchandra was most colorful zamindar in mustafi family. He ended up marrying 9 times. He spent his money like water, lived in a lavish lifestyle and let his people loot his wealth. He died almost penny less. Some of the temples built by Iswarchandra still stands at Birnagar. (b) Sripur [1] Raghunandan Mitra Mustafi and eldest son of Rameswar left the original zamindari estate of Ula-Birnagar and settled in Sripur, Balagarh. Before settling in Sripur-Balagarh, Raghunandan spent some time in Murshidabad Nawab Estate with his father Rameswar Mitra. Raghunandan was devoted religious person and had obtained divinely power. He was also highly educated and well versed in different languages like Arabic, Farsi & Sanskrit. Raja Raghudev Roy of Bansberia, gifted him Zamindari of 75 Bighas land in Antiseora Village which was renamed to Sripur. Apart from this, he purchased the maujas of Tentulia and Panchpara from the ruler of Bansberia. His close friend Maharaj Krishnachandra of Nadiya gifted him 30 Bighas of tax exempted lands in Palashi, Belga, Kolkata and Habeli. Raghunandan settled in Sripur for being closer to Ganges River and being close to his friend Maharaj Krishnachandra of Krishnangar, Nadiya. So that his family does not feel out of place coming from the then wealthy village of Ula-Birnagar, he built residences and temple complex fortified around by lakes (just like Ula-Birnagar). Artisans came from Ula-Birnagar to supervise construction at Sripur-Balagarh. He was responsible for construction of various temples around Sripur-Balagarph. Raghunandan Mitra Mustafi spent long hours in meditation and could predict future and distant incidents with utmost accuracy. He built two idols of Lord Krishna for Gibandajew temple complex of Sripur-Balagarh. His friend Maharaj Krishnachandra came over for the inauguration of the temples and fancied one of the Krishna idol and wanted to take the same to Krishnagar. So it was decided that both the idols will be kept submerged in the Lake next to Buroshib Temple (also built by Rahghunandan) and whichever idol be recovered first will be installed in Sripur and other to be taken to Krishnagar. Since then one idol being worshiped in Sripur and the other in Krishnanagr Rajbari. The Lake is now known as Krisnasagar. Descendant of Ragunandan, Durgacharan Mitra Mustafi constructed twin temples of Shiva in Sripur which still stands to this day. The 300 years old family Durgapuja at Sripur is a big show at the Thakurdalan and Chandimandap of Mitra Mustafi temple complex. (c) Sukhria[1] Anantaram went to Sukharia and founded the family of dewans . They were rightly called so because in Sukhria branch of our family we get a large number of dewans. Anantaram and his sons built moat fortified family residences, temples, raasmancha and chandimandapa all exactly the same way it was in Ula. All the seven sons of Anantaram became Dewan. Most famous among them Ramnarayan, Shambhuram, Tilakram and Shreenarayan used to be in touch with their step brothers Ghanshyam, Brojaram and cousin Padmalochan (all famous zamindars from the Mustaufi family of Ula).The next generation from Sukharia Mitra Mustaufi family were famous Dewans, Jogeswar, Bireswar, Gobindachandra, Kripamoy, Naranarayan, Padmanarayan, Ramnidhi & Taranidhi. In early 1800's Mitra Mustaufi family from Sukharia - Ratneswar, Kashigati, Baranasigati and Haranarayan faced the first sign of a waning Zamindari income along with their cousins from Ula. In late 19th century, generations from Sukharia, Ashutoshgati, Jogindragati, Dharmadas, Bhujogendra, Jitendra, Satyendranarayan and their cousins from Ula-Birnagar alll suffered from the effect of dwindling income from zamindari estates and the epidemic of malaria and then started abandoning their palaces and temples and left for greener pastures of Calcutta or elsewhere. However it is worth mentioning, that recently mustafi family temples are being renovated by members of mitra mustafi family for sukhria. The renovation work is being conducted by the trust of Mitra Mustaufi temples, Harasundari and Nistarini thakurani. This venture is supported by all the descendants of Tilakram Mustafi and Taranidhi Mustafi, with no help from government . The trust has successfully renovated two ancestral temples namely Harasundari Temple built by Dewan Ramnidhi Mitra Mustaufi in 1814 and Nistarini Temple built by Kashigati Mitra Mustafi in 1847. Temple(s) built by Mitra Mustafi family (a) Ulo The number of Temples and Pujadalans in Ula by mitra mustafi family exceeded even the similar properties of King of Nadiya. Our family in Ula had 7 different Thakurdalans with 21 Shiva, Durga, Kali and Radhakrishna Temples and a Chandimandapa (community hall).In the good old days the whole village use to get involved in the different Pujas of these temples and thakurdalans giving temporary employment to hundreds of artisans, traders, Brahmins and workers. Mitra Mustafi family residential complex of Ula was also moat fortified on all 4 sides with a huge lake on the north with main entrance singhaduar on South. Lord Krishna’s Jor Bangla Temple, Radha-Krishna Jor Bangla Temple are some of the famous temples. On the west of singhaduar and to the south of the courtyard was the Durga Dalan and to the eastern side of this Durgadalan courtyard was the famous Chandimandap of Mustafi family. The 365 years old Durga Puja started by Rameswar Mitra Mustafi is still held at Ula. This Durga puja has been covered my various newspapers and electronic media. It has been named among one of the oldest Durga Pujas in bengal. (b) Sukhria. Famous family temple of Haransundari, Anandamoyee and Nistarini Kali at Sukharia are now 197, 198 and 164 years old respectively. On entering the temple complex one will find 7 shiva temples each on the east and west side with both ends having 2x2 = 4 of five pinnacle and 5x2 = 10 of single pinnacle (atchala) type with black stone shiva lingas. This temple was damaged in 1897 earthquake but was recently renovated.Nistarini Kali Temple with Nistarini Pond built by Ramnidhi's nephew Kashigati Mitra Mustaufi. Years of neglect had almost destroyed this temple. Nistarini Temple Complex originally had two parts. West side outer section of the temple had a west side guest house and a south side Durga Puja Dalan. In the center of this outhouse of the temple used to have a small chandni. There used to be another wall and and entrance gate between this west side temple outhouse and east side temple inner section. In the center and south side of the inner section had a 48 x 40 feet Natmandir (dancing hall). The original Chandni roof of this Natmandir sttod over 32 octagonal pillars. The main temple is on the north-east of the plot and facing south used to be about 50' high. In the center of main temple Shiva made of white marble lying on a stone built lotus and black stone Nistarini Kali standing on Shiva. Overhead there used to be silver chandratap canopy supported by four silver rods. Nistarini temple has also been recently renovated and was reconstructed to its original dimensions. (c) Sripur Gibandajew temple complex of Sripur-Balagarh was famous for its Lord Krishna idol. The Lake around the complex is now known as Krisnasagar. The temple complex was build by Ragunandan Mitra Mustafi. Around the complex twin temples of Shiva in Sripur by Durgacharan Mitra Mustafi stands till this day. Since 1956 after after abolition of Zamindari system the whole temple complex including Gobindomandir, Chandimandap, Rashmancha, Dolmancha, Thakurdalan, Shiva Temple etc. came under the Deottar Trust managed by Mitra Mustafi family descendants Traditions [1] Mitra family of Ula/Birnagar the recipient of Mustafi title were the second most influential family in Nadia District. The zamindari income of the family at times exceeded the income of Maharajas. Yet Mitra Mustafis were most humble, polite, kind and down to earth religious people. This family was famous for charitable work and social services. Being staunch Hindus they organised Durga Puja, Kali Puja, Jagadhatri Puja, Chandi Puja with extreme sincerely and built temples of Shiva/Kali/Narayan and Chandimandapa (a community hall) at the drop of a hat. The family maintained Horse Stable in Ula and Sukharia and a private elephant for family members at Ula. Employing hundreds of servants, dozens of durwans (guards) , private barbers, washermen, etc. were part of family culture. The family looked after their servants and subjects well and distributed Rice, Ghee, Honey, Medicine, Clothes free of cost. Subjects were also obligated and ran errands willingly for this highly respected family. On any given day hundreds of guests would eat lunch or dinner at the family house, which used to be kind of open door for guests and subjects. The family would have a in house jeweler, washermen, tailors, primary school, doctor and dispensary. The doctor and dispensary would also give free service to the villagers and subjects at the instance of the family. For uncertain reason the family never uses Conch Shell for Pujas or marriages in our family. Some say conch shell sound used to be reserved to alert dacoit attacks only. Again for unknown reason the family maintained a tradition of welcoming the newly wed brides with brass and iron bangles but never with gold. Some notable members of the family: The Mitra Mustafi family has given a number of notable people to the society. Starting from Rameswar Mitra Mustafi to Anadinath Mitra Mustafi of Ula, family to dewans of Sukhria (starting from Anantaram) and family of scholars and divine people in sripur (starting from Ragunandan). Recent notable people include Monmothonath Mitra Mustafi (great scholar), Ashoke Mustafi [2](bengal ranji player and coach of Sourav Ganguly), Sisir Mustafi ( bengal ranji cricketer and soccer player), Provat mustafi (represented bengal in soccer and hockey), Alok Mustafi (famous physician) Kalyan mustaphi (renowned engineer) and Rita mustaphi ( famous dancer)[3]. Great grand daughter of Monmothonath Mitra Mustafi, Mrs Semonti Stephens Mustaphi is the Deputy Communications Director to Michelle Obama [4].Chandragati mitra mustafi was a famous lawyer after whose name a high school is named in Seuri. Mr Syamal Mitra (mustafi) of Sukhria branch of Mitra Mustafi family tree has dedicated his life to seek the history of mitra family. This posting wouldn't be possible without his work,support and inspiration. He also has lead the renovation work of Mustafi temple complex at Sukhria. Mr Kalyan Mustaphi also provided a complete family tree dating from 1000AD to 1930's. The family tree proved to an important source of information for many of the dates regarding Ula family line. Lastly I acknowledge all the Mitra Mustafi family members for all there help and support .

References

References

[1a.]http://www.facebook.com/groups/mustafi/?ref=ts#!/groups/mustafi/[1b.]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vijay_Sen [1c.]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramacharitam [1d.]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballal_Sena[1e.]http://www.facebook.com/groups/mustafi/?ref=ts#!/pages/Mitra-Mustafi-Family-History/111203825606672 [2]http://www.espncricinfo.com/india/content/player/31720.html [3] http://www.facebook.com/pages/Katha-Dance-Theatre/105445529493450 [4]http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/18/meet-the-secret-powerbrokers-of-d-c-five-top-women-in-communications.html

|}

Participants

I have removed User:Getcharstar from the list. They simply made 500 blank edits(and no others) to arrive at the basic requirement. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

This is not the first time they have tried something like this. In February, they added themselves to the participants' list. After I removed their name, they deliberately re-added their name so they could "review" and accept the now-deleted article on the non-notable BookNU. /wiae /tlk 17:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

A topic-ban is probably justified, how do we go about requesting it? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't need to. He hasn't edited now for two days and already knows that if he does anything wrong again he'll be blocked without warning or prior discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Does AFC creation invalidate WP:G7?

Are articles created into mainspace through AFC automatically exempt from WP:G7 speedy deletion? Also, could and AFC acceptance be "revoked" after the fact in order to support a G7?--Prisencolin (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

No, an article accepted at AfC is not automatically exempt from WP:G7. In my experience, however, an author usually only requests deletion after acceptance if they're an WP:SPA who has discovered that they can't control the content of an article they originally authored (WP:LUC). In such cases, some substantial content has typically been added by someone else, making the article ineligible for G7. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

FYI, ANI notice about AFC decline issue and user

FYI, a user has submitted an ANI notice about an AFC user who declined a submission. Not taking any sides here, but figured a notice here should be appropriate: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Damage_done_by_declining_AFC Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Having read that entire thread, I believe we have yet another example where, except for a tiny minority of truly dedicated reviewers, AfC is a broken process and which also the controls I introduced and which were adopted by the community are not working. Around 10% of new enrollments to the reviewer list are reverted following scrutiny, not tto metion the others on that list who are blocked, banned, or while hovering until they scrape through the numeric requirements have quickly demonstrated that they nevertheless do not possess the required knowledge or skills. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Let's be bold and eliminate AfC, whaddya reckon? I honestly cannot understand why all these drafts can't be handled by NPP. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, that was the original plan in 2011 when a group of us was directly collaborating with the WMF on the development of the excellent suite of tools they built for us for NPP. When I say 'for us' I really mean for the entire 260 Wikipedias because the WMF's focus in not on providing solutions for the individual Wikis, but they will take interest in an initiative that can have a cross-Wiki application. In fact there are some non-released features built-in to the software in readiness. However, due to internal staff politics that actually had less to do with our requirements and more to do with inter-departmental issues in San Francisco, Brandon Harris, the senior engineer, was forced to abandon the parallel project he was working on to replace the Article Wizard by creating a proper landing page for new uses who want to create their first article (see a short summary of the long and complex back-story here where Jorm, who has moved on from the WMF, kindly responded explaining why he was vague the last time we met).

The good news is that thanks to the frst-hand oportunities that arise for discussion during Wikimania this year, we have finally been able to get the newly structured Foundation to understand just how even more critical this issue is today than it was 5 years ago, especially in view of the exponential concerted abuse by PR individuals and firms à la Orangemoody, and some of us are already in talks with them towards examining potential engineering solutions. This is not something that can be addressed through ad hoc local solutions such as the AfC Helper Script that has (more or less) served us so well, at least (just like NPP) when in the hands of truly competent operators. While some of the more dedicated members of AfC might eventually regret the passing of this project, they will find all their favourite features of AfC in a new release of NPP and it is naturally hoped that with their enthusiasm and collaboration, NPP will become run by the same vibrant core community that currently takes care of AfC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

The last time I made a concerted effort to do some NPP work (some years ago) I found it to be very unsatisfactory - barely-organized tag-bombing. I had real difficulty with the lack of a clear workflow procedure and no systematic way to communicate with the article author and other interested editors. The AFC script has its flaws but it does give the author (and subsequent reviewers) clear information about the issues in the draft - better than "Twinkle tags".

If we abolish AFC we will still need some way to deal with the thousands of "junk" drafts that are currently quickly euthanized by AFC. If the GFOO stream of blanks, spam and "Ashish from Mumbai, I'm in the 9th grade and interested in Pokemon" submissions were to flow directly into mainspace, the kneejerk AFC hater brigade will at last learn how much work we do here to protect the integrity of en.WP.

Last, but not least, what about the original reason why AFC was created - stopping blatant libel from getting in undetected? AFC was imposed on us by command of the WMF, surely we would need their approval to shut it down. We would still need a "Help newbies create viable articles" system - perhaps by integrating the Teahouse into Draft-space? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Dodger67Organgmoody is just one reason why AfC fails in it mission. For the last 4 years NPP has had a new system that addresses all the points you criticise. It's geared up for doing everything AfC does and all it needs, just like AfC, is some truly competent reviewers. You seem to have misread my post - I apologise if it was TL;DR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing preventing an NPP patroller from getting in touch with an article creator. Also, AfC handles a tiny portion of all articles created. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 11:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

With an 11,000 backlog at NPP, I don't think NPPers are ikely to come here and help out. It should bethe other way round. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

That's precisely my point. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 12:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'm with Kudpung, kill this thing. The AfC reviewers can move to NPP. This doesn't work and is broken beyond repair. All it does is discourage good-faith new users who follow the rules. The cruft gets in anyway through other means. Merge with NPP. Montanabw^(talk) 00:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

The point is that the the GFOO stream of blanks, spam and "Ashish from Mumbai, I'm in the 9th grade and interested in Pokemon" submissions do flow directly into mainspace and at ten-fold the rate of AfC. The Seigenthaler incident, which nevertheless remains an important milestone, was probably not the reason why AfC was created. AFAICS AfC didn't come into being until mid 2007. What Wales did in January 2005 was to restrict the creation of articles to registered users - hence demonstrating clearly once and for all, that Wikipedia is organic. Special:Newpages has existed as part of the core MediaWiki software probably since the beginning and NPP as a project to manage it was introduced by Seth Ilys in March 2004.

AfC can never compete with or significantly contribute to the huge load that NPP has to contend with. AfC's task is supposed to augment or complement the work that is supposed to be assumed by NPP and it probably gets things wrong just as often as NPP does (although that claim may be inaccurate because it can't be supported out by stats). There is no knee jerk' about AfC and no one disputes the enormous engagement by a few of its users, but it remains a hybrid between the essential firewall of NPP, the WP:ARS, and the Tea House, providing help to IPs who were disallowed in January 2006, and for registered users who create through the Article Wizard which was supposed to have been replaced by the Article Creation Flow dashboard, see

• mw:Article Creation Workflow/Landing System/Archive 1
• mw:Article_Creation_Workflow/Design
• mw:Article Creation Workflow/Landing System
• mw:Extension:ArticleCreationWorkflow

which began development parallel to Page Creation Curation to work hand-in-hand with it. That was 5 years ago when it was suggesting hat a merge of AfC and NPP would be the logical approach to addressing the increasing problems of serious BLP hoaxes, COPYVIOS, and organised paid editors using the encyclopedia for profit and advertising. Again, what is needed is a marriage between the vibrant AfC community with the stricter controls at NPP, and for those who still fail to grasp how this looks, at the end of the day, it's a buy-out by AfC to use the better technology of NPP and run it with the better skills of the AfC operators. It happens in business all the time such as foe example when Adobe bought Macromedia and replaced their own GoLive with Macromedia's Dreamweaver; the result was a better product (some would argue). Orangemoody, to recap, was the August 2015 discovery of 381 sockpuppets operating a secret paid editing ring. Were still doing the clean up.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

At Wikipedia, we may be open source and voluntary, but as Seigenthaler demonstrated, Wikipedia has a reputation to repair and maintain and if efficiency means NPP and AfC joining forces under a slightly amended concept, so be it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@Montanabw:. A debate over it isn't really going to be necessary. The WNF isn't going to support AfC because it's not a cross-Wiki critical issue, whereas NPP is. That's why there was no debate to create the page curation system beyond an in-depth survey followed by close collaboration between a community task force and the developers. It was a 'take it or leave it offering' allowing the use of the old system to continue, and in fact a few experienced users, such as DGG, still find it occasionally has its uses. From the Foundation we'll probably get the features of the Hleper SCript and its templates embedded into the New Pages Feed and the Curation toolbar, some new display prefs so that patrollers/reviewers can narrow down their area of work (e,g. dedicated AfCers could select 'Drafts') and the new Article creation landing page that will channel all first articles by new users through it, and perhaps while letting them be live in mainspace, not allowing Google to index and cache them in seconds flat until they have been reviewed by members of an accredited user group. The current AfC system might well be left in place for those who do not wish to migrate.

I hasten to add however, that it is still very early stages, and everyone is still very critically aware of costly recent WMF top-down 'innovations' that have been clearly rejected by various Wikipedia communities. I now prefer to wait and see what they come up with. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I strongly support a single "point of entry" into mainspace for all new articles. The "newbie help" element of AFC/Teahouse referrals should still be available for those who need it and returning a newly arrived article to draft-space must be an option in the "merged NPP/AFC" system. For NPP it would mean that "kill it" is no longer the only way to deal with unacceptable new articles and AFC folks would have to get used to allowing "flawed" articles to stay in mainspace, with just "issue tags" instead of declines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dodger67 (talk • contribs) 12:29, August 14, 2016 (UTC)

Whatever happens, I hope they don't get rid of Draftspace – that would be a huge mistake. And I don't agree that "flawed" articles should necessarily stay in Mainspace – that's exactly what Draftspace should be for. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

All these points have already been listed as udates to be included in a new release of Page Curation. In fact some of them are aready there but can't be unlocked just yet. There is little chance of us losing the 'Draft' namespce - we only recently got the Foundation to create it for us and it's an integral feature of what's in store. Most importantly, we should be considering ways of attracting more experienced regular users to it, improving the way they perceive their task, and at least aim for some consistency. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Acceptance of article by author

I don't work in AfC, except for hauling out tagged garbage at times. This could be why I can't seem to find the rules for acceptance of articles, but I would be interested to know if the acceptance of an draft at AfC by its author is specifically against the rules. To me, common sense would say that it is against the spirit of AfC, but is it in there, and if not, should it be? This arises from the case of User:Reuben1995, who seems to have done it. Peridon (talk) 10:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Authors, if they are autoconfirmed can manually move their page to article space anyway. If they are only registered they can copy and paste their work anyway. I don't think there is a rule against it, but it's just a waste of time. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

The rules are hard to find and harder to apply if you aren't a regular. When I occasionally review an article that I think meets the criteria, I just move it myself and then go in and remove all the AfC templates. I know that's probably not the proper way, but no one's called me on it yet. Montanabw^(talk) 00:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The basic rule is whether or not an article would survive at AfD. That's vague because AfD itslef is quirky due to the fact that consensus is often made up from voters who include the creator and his socks and meats, and good faith 'maintenence' enthusiasts who know little or nothing about our guidelines. What every AfC reviewer should see and declare as read and fully understood, is the page at WP:NPP which Scottywong and I re-sculpted several years ago. It's long - it has to be - but it's concise and it's easy enough to read by anyone who is a very near native speaker. It doesn't look as pretty as the layout of the AfC instruction page, but that's a minor issue that could be fixed by someone with a bit of time on their hands. Perhaps it would induce more patrollers to read it.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

AfD, where I've been spending some time lately, is beyond quirky, it's a cesspit mixed with islands of some good work tossing cruft, but also a lot of systemic bias toward things not of interest to the first world tech community. I know the guidelines, but a lot of folks there have a bunch of made-up rules that are claimed to be "consensus," except they only point to WP:N and what has been done in the walled garden recently. It's rough neighborhood... Montanabw^(talk) 04:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

AfD has always been quirky,and always will be. just like all WP processes. The reason is very fundamental: we go by consensus, and only those people join in a consensus discussion who wish to do so. We make our own rules, subject only to some extremely basic constraints, and we interpret them however we please, we decide on exceptions however we please, and we ignore them altogether whenever we please--"we" always meaning, whoever happens to see the question and is interested in discussing it. There are almost no rules where we are all agreed on the interpretations, and never make exceptions. Even copyvio is interpreted differently here for text and images, and quite differently here than at Commons.

In some other world than WP it could be different. We could decide by a panel of experts as in Citizendium, or a hierarchy of experts as in conventional publishing, or by a single arbiter, or by a lottery, or by a required vote from everyone who's wants to be considered active. Even within our system, we could decide consensus by numerical voting, instead of by the AfD rough consensus of policy based arguments judged by whatever admin happens to want to make the decision. Or we could decide by arguing each case until one side gives up. But while we have our way of deciding, we cannot expect consistency. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I just tried it, created a draft, submitted it and accepted it myself. Best takeaway: The AFC helper script makes it very easy to quickly add wikiprojects and categories. That is very cool and helpful. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Poor message in a script

There's apparently an AFC-related script that says "After listing your sources please cite them using inline citations" as part of one of the comments. This unfortunately tells users that sources should be listed twice: once in a regular list ("after listing your sources") and again using WP:Inline citations ("using inline citations").

I don't know if this is part of AFCH (APerson will know) or if it's something else; I can see that it's present in a lot of local .js files as well as a handful of articles.

Could someone please figure out where this is coming from and fix it? It ought to say something like "Every article should name its sources, ideally by using inline citations. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Inline_citation for more information." (ping me if you need my attention) WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

This wording is included in the draft template provided when you go through the Article wizard. I agree it needs changing, as I do see new articles with duplicate reference lists more often than might be expected: Noyster (talk), 10:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The actual text lives at Template:Afc preload/draft so it isn't difficult to change. Joe Roe (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing and Noyster: I changed it to Please use inline citations to add your sources, placing them after the information they cite. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:REFB for instructions on how to add citations. Feel free to reword it at {{Afc preload/draft}}. I think referring to WP:REFB is better than WP:IC. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. I hope that will reduce the number of pages with duplicate lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Questions on user talk page

I've come across a large number of questions about declined drafts on Gbawden's talk page, none of which he's replied to. Can anyone help answer them and/or direct them to the help desk?

(Also a reminder that an AfC review doesn't end when you click "decline"!) --Joe Roe (talk) 11:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I've taken a look at some of them, many have been reviewed again by someone else after the post, so it's probably no longer relevant. Some submitters appear to think they are "bound" to whoever reviews their draft first - as if there is only one reviewer. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

A strange unexplained edit has removed many recent Help desk posts

This edit has removed many recent Help desk posts, unfortunately subsequent posts mean that a simple revert will cause more damage. Someone with the neccessary tools should fix it asap. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeash, how did he manage that? Still, it's not so hard to fix: just revert to the last good version and manually re-add the later edits. I've just done that. Joe Roe (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Adding "second opinion" as an option in AFCH

The AFC project has the page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewer help where reviewers can request a second opinion on AfC reviews. This page works fine when it is used, but it doesn't seem to be used very often. To increase the quality of reviews, would it be viable to add a "second opinion" option next to the "accept" and "decline" options in the AFCH script?

The concept is similar to what Wikipedia:Good article nominations does. When the "second opinion" is pressed, the reviewer would be presented with a text box where they would express what they feel outcome of the submission should be, but are not 100% sure about. The {{AFC submission}} template would then change to read "A reviewer has requested a second opinion on this submission." and categorize the draft into something like Category:Pending AfC submissions awaiting second opinion. I think this would help new reviewers who don't quite know the ropes – experienced reviewers would patrol the category and offer help. But then again, the aforementioned reviewer help subpage is already available for this. Am I on the right track here? Mz7 (talk) 02:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the reason WP:AFCR isn't used very often is that people don't have a use for it? There are already a few ways to seek a second opinion on drafts you aren't sure about: AFCR, leaving a comment on the draft, the help desk, user talk pages. It seems like you're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist (and adding to the backlog and bureaucracy in the process). AfC is not difficult, if new reviewers don't know what to do, they should probably just not do it... Joe Roe (talk) 09:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

When I need a second opinion it's usually because I'm not familiar with the subject of the draft, then I ask for the second opinion from a relevant WikiProject - some such as Medicine, Mathematics, Physics - basically the hard sciences - are very responsive, but some others might as well not exist. It's very rare to need a second opinion from a fellow AFC reviewer, usually the best way to get that is to not review the draft, instead just leave a comment on the draft itself for the next reviewer. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah okay, thanks for both of your responses. I think you're right that in the wide, wide majority of cases, second opinions are unnecessary. I didn't imagine such a second opinion process to be widely used, but I did think that this would actually simplify, not complicate, the process of asking for a second opinion when there is a borderline case that you're not sure about. However, it does seem that alternative methods currently exist that work well. Leaving a comment for the next reviewer is something I have employed myself occasionally. Consider the proposal withdrawn. Mz7 (talk) 23:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: New Page Reviewer user right

It is proposed to ensure that New Page Patrollers be suitably experienced for patrolling new pages. This user right would bring new page patrolls inline with the requirements for the reviewers at Articles for creation, and the systems for according minor user rights such as rollbacker, template editor, page mover, etc. (see: Requests for permissions). The discussion is taking place at: New pages patrol/RfC for patroller right.

Note: This is not a proposal to disband AfC or to merge it with any other processes.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

How to respond to users with COIs

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Teahouse#How to respond to users with COIs, which is of relevance to editors reviewing AfCs and answering questions at the help desk. Joe Roe (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

While I'm sure you mean well, those proposals are not in line with current guidelines and policies regarding COI work. Yes, it is annoying seeing so many bad company articles in the feed, just like it's annoying seeing so many bad music band articles in the feed, just like it's annoying to see so many bad {insert-your-own-pet-peeve-here} articles in the feed. Kicking COI editors out of AFC is not the solution. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 07:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, and have quoted guidelines and policy extensively to back it up. In particular, this frequently repeated assertion that COI editors should be directed to AfC is concerning, because as far as I know it isn't mentioned in any policy or guideline. Where is the consensus that the policies on COI editing don't apply to draft space? It leads to a lot of extra work for AfC reviewers and frequent disappointment for new editors, and the ridiculous situation where if their draft beats the odds and is accepted, they're then barred from editing it further.

COI doesn't just affect articles about companies, of course. Joe Roe (talk) 13:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

COI is COI, sending them to AfC doesn't solve the problem; the problem is 1) undisclosed paid editing (and those folks won't bother with AfC), 2) Well-meaning but COI newbies who don't understand WP editing (and I'm running into stuff like "I'm an intern and my boss told me to work on our company's wikipedia article") and need to go to the teahouse for lessons, and 3) Self-promoting idiots (whose articles usually need to go straight to AfD). Montanabw^(talk) 03:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Imminent change with implications for AFC

Please see here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2016

27.106.89.170 (talk) 14:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC) This Is The Best Side For The Popular Person Information.

Not done: This is not an edit request. Topher385 (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

AFC/R - obscure words

Yesterday and today have seen 300+ requests at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects for words all sourced to Dictionary of Obscure Words, a site where the owner introduces the dictionary as the "International House of Logorrhea" where logorrhea = an excessive flow of words, prolixity.

These requests first and foremost raise the question where the line between plausible and obscure should be drawn. I'm inclined to say that this looks more like an exercise, rather than an honest request for creation of something that was found missing, and I'd say they fall under both obscure terms as mentioned in WP:COSTLY, and under WP:CHEAP#2 "However, this does not mean we should preemptively create redirects for their own sake."

But I'm posting here in order to hear for a start what other editors think about the matter. Pinging latest reviewers/editors (Clpo13—Woodstop45—Zzuuzz—Eagleash—Wiae—Nyttend—Music1201—Godsy—Gap9551—Krishna Chaitanya Velaga) ... and a few more (Rcsprinter123—DrKay—Huon—Paine Ellsworth—MSJapan—Steel1943). — Sam Sailor 23:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The large number of these requests, together with what you've shown to be a potentially nonserious rationale, means that I'd suggest that they be mass-declined without prejudice toward rerequesting on a more manageable scale, i.e. one or a few at a time. Nyttend (talk) 23:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Nyttend. Quite a few of those requests might even be misleading. Huon (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In addition to WP:NOTMIRROR and WP:NOTDICTIONARY, I'm going to go further than Nyttend and say that we should delete en masse with prejudice, and blacklist the site. Here's why: it's clearly a personal site [1], and the guy states in the FAQ that he's got fake words in there (Q1 in the FAQ) to thwart copying, but won't say which they are. Therefore, it's not going to meet RS, because we have to rely on the source to be truthful, and we can't do that in good faith.MSJapan (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Good point; I hadn't checked the site. But there's no reason to decline redirects with prejudice; probably most of the words are legitimate, and if derived from a reliable dictionary, it would be absurd to say " Declined. Someone suggested this word ten weeks ago as part of a series of bad-faith requests". If someone brings requests for a reasonable number of these words in the future, treat them like any other request: that's what I mean by "without prejudice". Nyttend (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• We shouldn't decline them because there are too many requests, but rather because the source appears to be self-published (from looking at the notice on the bottom of the page).— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 00:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Certainly feel no reqs. should be accepted on the evidence only of that site. Eagleash (talk) 01:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• I'm with MSJapan. Why would we, an encyclopedia, create a redirect for a so-called obscure term no one will be looking for anyway to get to a tangentially-related article where no explanation of the archaic word would be found? We create redirects where it makes sense. Take for example a redirect for accourt, which has an entry at Wiktionary. Why create a redirect to Entertainment for no good reason when the term seems to imply the romantic entertainment, especially? Why create a redirect for accoy pointing to Pacification, a disambig page? This is exactly backwards. I wouldn't attach prejudice but I'd definitely reject the whole batch, warn the requester, and put the site on blacklist. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Creating a redirect might seem innocent but it opens the door to IPs and new editors adding inappropriate content replacing the redirect and effectively circumventing AfC. Several times patrolling at WP:NPP I've found exactly that, where new content was added by a non-editor to a redirect created years ago. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Noting that this is a real, demonstrated issue. There was a case earlier this year where a user requested redirects relating to Formula One at WP:AFC/R, and when the redirects were created, they would turn them into substandard articles a few days later, effectively circumventing AFC. There was an ANI thread here that discussed the incident briefly. Ultimately, it's difficult to combat beyond reverting. Mz7 (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• As Nyttend said, there is no reason to decline redirects with prejudice, or because there are too many requests. The site http://phrontistery.info/, that was mentioned as source for all the requests is of course a self published site, and cannot be treated as a reliable source. But I made an individual google search for each word, and found some of them are correct, some are fake /word doesn't exist. So IMO, it better to accept the requests which are close to the target subject. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Reject them because the site is self-published, because of Q1 in the FAQ, which means the website is not a reliable source for English words. Also, perhaps it should be mentioned right on the page in the box at the TOP that redirects without mention in the target articles should not be submitted for creation.  Paine  ^u/c 12:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• They should be rejected because no one would search for terms such as those, this is not a Dictionary or Thesaurus, the source is self-published and unreliable, and some of the terms don't even exist. As far as what Krishna Chaitanya Velaga said, it would take too long to go through all of them and see if they are real or not, when most people wouldn't even search for those terms. Woodstop45 • Talk ^(Contribs) 17:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
• Thanks for the ping, Sam Sailor. I tend to find these requests mostly useless. I find it hard to imagine that anyone would ever look up most of these words in an encyclopedia, and there's also the point mentioned above about the website not being an WP:RS due to the mountweazels. Then again, I'm by no means an expert on redirects and usually just handle the obvious/easy requests at WP:AFC/R, so take my opinion with a suitably large number of grains of salt. /wiae /tlk 14:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
• Due to the self-published issue, I would also mass-decline the redirects, but the specific names can be re-requested as long as the submitter provides sources that are more reliable (i.e. not self-published). A useful code for mass-declining is {{AfC-c|md}}, which collapses multiple requests with a message "These requests have been mass-moderated and declined, unless otherwise marked. Please do not modify them." Mz7 (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• So, given the discussion above, I have gone ahead and mass  Declined all of the requests, allowing users to re-submit individuals ones on the condition that they provide better sourcing. I have no strong opinion about blacklisting http://phrontistery.info/, but since it has been shown to be unreliable, I would not be opposed to it. Mz7 (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Gaming the system

I am curious to know what the community thinks of this scenario. Suppose an editor submits an article to AfC. The article is rejected. The editor then creates an article with the same content directly in mainspace. Does this violate any policy/guidelines? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I can't see why this would violate any rule - AfC is not a requirement and a user is free to write in mainspace at any stage of an AfC submission. Sam Walton (talk) 09:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

No problem, AFC is not compulsory. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

It rarely does them any good, anyway. If it wouldn't have passed AfC then it will probably just get CSDed or PRODed, with none of the feedback we'd have provided. Joe Roe (talk) 11:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The only real hassle it produces is if the article is decent then you'd have to MfD the draft given it already exists. Nothing is violated, even though it does irk one if they do it because they see their article wouldn't leave AfC. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 16:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

AfC is not mandatory and should never be mandatory. It isn't gaming the system to abandon a draft that's languished without a review for months or one that has been caught up with an idiot reviewer who declined the article for inappropriate reasons. Frankly, I tell people to NEVER use AfD because it's where good ideas go to die. Montanabw^(talk) 03:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Montanabw, you probably mean "AfC" in that last sentence, right? Enterprisey (talk!) 04:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

There are plenty of examples of articles which were (unreasonably) rejected at AfC, then published, and which have either passed a nomination for deletion, or never attracted one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The only issue would be lack of attribution if the person creating the article did cut'n'paste copy of someone else's draft. Comments made by AfC reviewers are merely the views of a single editor, and carry no more authority than those of any other editor, including a draft's author. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Instead of deleting the draft in the circumstances of a cut and past move, we can redirect it to the article, as it was used in the prep for it. The writer probably would have used the move function themselves if they understood it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment on User:SwisterTwister AfC behavior

I have proposed a 30-day ban on SwisterTwister's declines here at AfC as as part of a remedy for a pattern of WP:DISRUPTIVE editing in deletion-related activities. Some of the comments on this proposal claim that there is no issue with SwisterTwister here at AfC. I'd like to get additional feedback about this. I am happy to modify my proposal if there is no AfC issue. ~Kvng (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Bloody hell, not again... FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 15:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see an AFC issue, at least not an AFC issue that is of sufficient magnitude that the drastic remedy of banning a reviewer from declines at AFC, when most articles at AFC are crap but some are good. I am aware that the original poster of this thread has a view on crap drafts that is honorably different from those of most of the community, that most of the authors who write crap simply need handholding and encouragement to become good editors. However, banning a reviewer from declines is not an answer, in my opinion, to any real or perceived problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I hope that Northamerica1000's WP:AGF is not actually something that is "honorably different...from most of the community." Do others here share this prejudice that most of the submissions here are crap? Your post at ANI also suggests that the WP:TEAHOUSE, not AfC reviewers should be helping AfC authors (and that somehow authors should know this without being told). ~Kvng (talk) 14:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2016

182.182.74.156 (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: No change made. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 15:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)