| Revision as of 01:23, 5 July 2013 view sourceAnne Delong (talk | contribs)Administrators83,789 edits →Strange submission: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:21, 14 January 2025 view source Primefac (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators209,868 edits →Accepting when the mainspace title is create-protected (SALTed): lots of commas! | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{pp-sock|small=yes}} | |||
| {{/header}} | {{/header}} | ||
| {{skip to top and bottom}} | |||
| {{Banner holder |collapsed=yes |{{WikiProject banner shell| | |||
| {{WikiProject Articles for creation (admin)}}}} | |||
| {{central|Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Templates/Signpost article link for WikiProjects|link=Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2018-12-24/WikiProject report|day=24|month=December|year=2018}}}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation/ArchiveBox}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| | algo=old(20d) | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 350000 | |||
| | archive=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| |counter = 4 | |||
| | counter=59 | |||
| |algo = old(7d) | |||
| | maxarchivesize=300K | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/%(year)d %(counter)d | |||
| | archiveheader={{Talk archive navigation}}{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation/ArchiveBox}} | |||
| | minthreadsleft=6 | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/stats}} | |||
| <!-- DO NOT EDIT ABOVE THIS LINE --><!-- DO NOT EDIT ABOVE THIS LINE --><!-- DO NOT EDIT ABOVE THIS LINE --> | |||
| <!-- | |||
| DO NOT EDIT ABOVE THIS LINE --><!-- DO NOT EDIT ABOVE THIS LINE --><!-- DO NOT EDIT ABOVE THIS LINE --><!-- | |||
| == New version of the article reviewing instructions == | |||
| NEW SECTIONS GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE | |||
| {{resolved}} | |||
| Ok, so I've been beavering away for a while on some revised article reviewing instructions and I now feel that the draft is ready for me to share with the project. These changes have been motivated by recent criticism of the reviewing instructions' lack of clarity, difficulty of navigation and lack of actual instruction on certain points. Following some lengthy, constructive feedback from {{user|DGG}}, I have drafted the following substantial changes: | |||
| #I've removed the instructions for reviewing manually: Template {{tlx|Afc submission}} now has so much functionality built into it that it has become very complex to manipulate manually. Also, the AfC Helper Script is now more stable than ever and can be installed even more easily since it became a gadget. I do not know of anyone who reviews manually and in the unlikely event that anyone wishes to contribute without using the script they should be sufficiently clueful to figure it out from ]. | |||
| #I've added more precise instruction about what buttons to click and when. I have also added more info/clarity about how best to deal with problematic submissions such and CV violations, attack pages and BLP issues. | |||
| #I've reordered the instructions to provide better flow. | |||
| #I've added additional information about what to do with submissions in userspace and dealing with 'other' types of submission such as DAB pages and templates. | |||
| #I've added information about dealing with duplicate submissions and cleaning submissions using the script. | |||
| --> | |||
| You can find the draft at ]. Please note that this only covers the ''article'' reviewing instructions and the instructions for redirects/cats and file will be unaffected. | |||
| Any feedback or additional suggestions/comments are welcome at this stage. Please also feel free to correct any spelling or grammar errors you find. ] ] 12:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Bots/scripts that detect that a submission has not changed (much) since the last time it was submitted == | |||
| ===Discussion=== | |||
| {{closed rfc top | |||
| *Seems fine - I think you can just ] and update them. ] (]) 12:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| | result = There is a consensus against option 1 and no consensus for options 3 or 4. The former was roundly rejected, and the latter two received minimal support. Option 2 received about 7 !votes and option 5 around 10 !votes. The main arguments in favor of option 5 were the stigma of being flagged by a bot and the fact that reviewers sometimes make mistakes, but editors in favor of option 2 pointed out that some editors see value in having such a list, that the list wouldn't alert the submitter, and that being on the list does nothing to indicate whether the original review was correct. Thus, I find a rough consensus for option 2. ] (]/]) 21:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I normally do, but I would generally ask for input on more substantial changes to give people a chance to raise concerns or objections. ] ] 13:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| *Can we select multiple decline reasons? That has been a major topic here recently. We also had a process flowchart here somewhere, that I can't find now. ] (]) 15:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *:The ability to select multiple decline reasons is beyond the scope of the reviewing instructions and my abilities. If it were possible, it would require a fundamental recoding of template {{tlx|Afc submission}} by an expert in parser functions; then the devs would need to totally rewrite AfC Helper Script to accommodate the new template. The flowchart is buried somewhere in this talkpage's archive and I would love to include it, if someone is able to fix it so everything flows to the right place. ] ] 16:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *: {{U|Dodger67|Roger}}, this is just for the reviewing instructions page and the {{Tl|AFC submission}} series of templates, it is not a replacement for the ] itself. As far as the "''If it were possible, it would require a fundamental recoding of template {{tlx|Afc submission}} by an expert in parser functions; then the devs would need to totally rewrite AfC Helper Script to accommodate the new template.''" speculation goes, I'm actually working on such a project in my spare time and it has much more to do than even "an expert in parser functions" could accommodate and is requiring me to expand my language library to include ]. ] (]) 16:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{U|Dodger67|Roger}} There is a way to do it - just type in something into the AFC comment box,and don't touch the reason box. ] (]) 20:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *Thanks for updating these instructions. They are quite clear and and have extra helpful detail over the older ones. Here's a link to the flow chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/2013_2 —] (]) 19:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks Anne! | |||
| *The manual instructions are still useful for those seeking a technical understanding of the process. '''Such an understanding is critical when the scripts break.''' It is sufficient to have a one-liner pointing to an old entry in the revision history. ]/<small><small>(])/(])/(])</small></small> 00:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *:Fair point, now included ] ] 19:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| **Good work on the templates, whoever's responsible. New wording and buttons look great! ] (]) 15:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} This discussion seems to have gone stale now, and the new instructions seem to be considered an improvement, so I'll mark this as resolved and ask for the page move in the next 48 hours, unless there are any objections registered here. ] ] | |||
| === Flowchart === | |||
| Please refer to the previous discussion for unresolved issues - ]. ] (]) 08:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| :I think a major problem in AFC processes is the the "Communication" component is not properly integrated. Comments, reviewer input, help desk, AFC Help page, and Teahouse are all used rather haphazardly. Each draft should have a Talk page where all discussion about it happens - then it will be clear to everyone involved what has been said by whom about what aspect of the drafting process. ] (]) 15:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Afc reviewers list == | |||
| {{resolved}} | |||
| ] brought up an interesting point. There are a lot of names on the reviewing list, but are all of these really active reviewers? The first name on the list (alphabetically) is someone who retired from Misplaced Pages last year. Should names like that be removed? Kudpung's point about the experience needed for reviewing is also valid. Does anyone check out new names that are added to the list? Would it help if the names had (contribs) after them so that we could warn off users who hadn't used Misplaced Pages before? Or is this desirable? —] (]) 14:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I just joined the list and editors mentioning how inexperienced editors are reviewing articles bugs me. This is such an important project that I'm surprised. ] (]) 14:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am guessing we are talking about ], to which I seem not to have added myself? | |||
| ::Perhaps someone could use some offline automation to prepare a revised version of it with the following changes: | |||
| ::First, remove all usernames that have not edited for more than one year. (I think there will be plenty.) | |||
| ::Second, format each entry to be the equivalant of {{userlinks|Arthur goes shopping}} (or maybe some slightly shorter option) instead of ]. | |||
| ::You will probably find that new people adding themselves to the list will then add themselves in the same format, which will make it easier for interested parties to check various details of the people adding themselves. ] (]) 15:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::In response to ]'s comment above, I should make it clear that I wasn't referring to people who were new to the list and were inexperienced at reviewing - we all had to start that way, and it's great to have more help with the backlog. I was talking about reviewers who hadn't been around Misplaced Pages long enough to understand what an acceptable article looks like (for example, someone who just joined WP this week). Also, believe it or not, we have had brand new users create articles that don't follow any of Misplaced Pages's policies, then review and approve the articles themselves! —] (]) 15:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I was talking about that myself. ] (]) 15:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Whew! Thought I'd accidentally insulted someone...again...—] (]) 16:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::] has had a policy of removing project participants if they haven't contributed to it in the last six months. That sounds difficult, until you realise that one vandalism revert counts, which isn't actually too hard to do. I wouldn't object to a similar policy here. ] ] ] 15:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Hey, I know I have not reviewed any AfC articles for more than a month, but please don't remove me from that list. I'm still and will be active here, especially the backlog drive next month. ] <small>(</small><big>]</big> • ]<small>)</small> 15:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :No worries, we are just talking here, nothing has been decided and a month would be 'way too short a time anyway. If it was decided to remove inactive members, anyone who came back after a long absence can always re-add themselves. And as ] pointed out, not having your name on the list doesn't restrict you anyway. It's a handy list, though, if someone needs to contact reviewers for notifications or queries. —] (]) 15:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Anne, I think your {{tp|userlinks}} suggestion is a very good idea. A simple script could convert the list of 273 to that format very quickly - and remove inactive users to an 'inactive' list at the same time. The problems have been caused by aggressive recruitment drives to find reviewers in order to reduce the backlog. What we have at AfC is the same kind of problem that is endemic at NPP - also severely backlogged (not quite as bad as it was before we had the Curation tool though), but we haven't dared to recruit because we know what would happen. AfC and NPP demand far more clue than is needed for the Rollbacker and Reviewer hats, but don't require any demonstration of experience. ] (]) 16:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::I like your idea of moving the inactive reviewers to a list underneath the active list, because if the list of names needs a specific format, it is much easier to reactivate yourself by moving your name up than by figuring out how to create the format from scratch. —] (]) 16:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That's the way most projects do it. If someone could organise those lists as suggested, with the userlinks template, once and for all, it would be easy to keep tabs on any new additions, and offer them help and advice if they appear to have insufficient experience for the task. Perhaps the info banner on the instructions page also needs some stronger wording. ] (]) 17:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'm willing to do this - for now, anyone not active for a year (or indeffed) gets moved to another list. ] (]) 10:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}wow, that's just a mess of links now. Do we really need all of those links. Surely just using the following would be enough: {{tl|User}} > {{User|Happysailor}} - ] ] 10:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The list looks great, and I like the fact that my browser's visited links colouring on the "talk" part make it easy to see which editors I've previously left messages for. The next step is to separate out the inactive reviewers - a little trickier. —] (]) 16:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}} | |||
| {{done}} - I had more time than good, so the list should now be up to date! ] (]) 08:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Backlog drive == | |||
| {{FYI}} | |||
| Dear reviewers: I would like to thank in advance those who are working to set up the backlog drive. Shortening the review list is so important to the new editors! I remember last year when my first article, ], was in the queue. I had just joined Misplaced Pages and I didn't know anything about watchlists, so I probably checked the list 50 times before my article got to the top of the list of about 800 entries. I didn't realize that it was actually a good thing that it wasn't rejected right away. I am easily bored, so while I was waiting I started checking out and fixing up other people's submissions, which was more helpful after someone pointed out the value of edit summaries... anyway, a short list is important so that the new editors aren't discouraged, especially if they have to go through the queue several times before acceptance. Backup drives (oops, I meant backlog drives) seem to help, so bravo! —] (]) 16:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::....and it looks like the drive page is all set up now, at ]. —] (]) 15:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Imbalance between NPP and AfC processes == | |||
| I feel there is a imbalance between these two process. During NPP, a huge percentage of new articles, which doesn't look good but also doesn't qualify for CSD are tagged for multiple problems. But finally those articles stand as published, until some of those ( a small number) are either PRODed or AfDed. However those same articles will be easily rejected at AfC. In such a case, what is the motivation for going to AfC, when you can publish your article directly. --<font size="3" face="Corsiva Hebrew" color="green">Vigyani</font><sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 02:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, there are a couple of benefits to the Afc process: | |||
| ::(1)If you've never made an article before, by the time your first article is accepted you will have learned a lot and your article will be better for the advice from the reviewers. You'll know about reliable sources. Many editors make their first article here and then go on to make articles directly. | |||
| ::(2)If you have a conflict of interest with the article, it is quite likely to be deleted as advertising in mainspace. In the Afc, you get several chances to rewrite in a neutral tone, add references that aren't self-serving, etc. I've put a couple of these through myself about organizations with which I'm connected. | |||
| ::(3)Because new editors are directed to the Afc, we screen out thousands of articles that shouldn't be in mainspace even for the three months that NPP covers: Blank pages, test edits with just a few words, jokes, nasty comments, unfounded rumour and misinformation, love notes, deliberate deception, pornography, etc. This results in Misplaced Pages having a better reputation for reliability on the Internet than if these were created directly and deleted sometime later after Google had picked them up. | |||
| ::It seems that the Afc editors reject a lot of articles, but that is because of the kinds of submissions that we get. Quite a few new editors join Misplaced Pages because they have something to promote or an axe to grind, so we get a lot of articles about private companies, unknown musical groups, small organizations, etc. If these articles were made directly into mainspace, it's not likely anyone would take the time to fix them up and find sources. They would either be deleted or would sit around for years with tags on them. We take the time to explain the policies to them, and help them to improve their articles, so we end up with a lot of acceptable articles that may never have happened. Here's the result: ] —] (]) 06:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Thanks Anne, for detailed reply. I think I knew most of it already. Maybe I didn't paraphrase my concern properly. The points you mentioned apply to good faith editors. I am talking about editors who are just interested in creating their article in anyway possible (doesn't matter if it looks very good). It is a fact that there is significant portion of articles which are not deleted in NPP but will be rejected in AfC. I am talking about having a balance in both the process. Either by making NPP more strict or by making AfC a bit relaxed. Or we send non-CSD-able NewPages to AfC.--<font size="3" face="Corsiva Hebrew" color="green">Vigyani</font><sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 15:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Opining here. The best solution would be to bring NPP up to the level of AfC. I have a reputation of being one of the most hardass AfC reviewers, but that's because I don't want to be passing submissions into article space only to have it immediately jumped upon and nominated for deletion. The stated goal is to only pass articles that have better than a 50% chance of surviving a AfD discussion. Personally I try to get up to 75 to 80%. This means that I pass very few articles (because that wastes other editors time with requiring fixes to survive deletion). I then comb over the article looking for many issues (copyright violation, locating categories, sections, reviewing the references for relevance and content, inline citations, infobox, etc.) so that the article has the highest chance at surviving and not a 50% chance. Other reviewers have been more accepting than me, but at the same time I have not had a submission that I promoted into article space be up for deletion discussion. ] (]) 16:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Well, in most cases people really do want to have a good article, even the ones who are promoting inappropriate topics, if only so that other editors won't significantly change it. There has been the occasional case when editors who weren't following policy have been limited to only making articles through Afc, and we have had some articles taken out of mainspace and put into Afc, instead of being deleted, until they are improved. So there is some crosstalk between the two projects. —] (]) 17:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The guidelines for patrolling new pages (see ]) are strict enough already (I co-rewrote them a couple of years ago). The problem is that there are 1,000 new pages going through NPP every 24 hours buut there are never more than about 6 patrollers working at any one time (if we're lucky), many of them are newbies themselves, and they generally only go for the low-hanging fruit. I'm one of the very few (perhaps the only one) who patrolls the work of the patrollers - tagging errors otherwise only show up at CSD when an admin comes across a poorly tagged article and has to decline the speedy. NPP and AfC should both be held to the same standards which should be much higher than those required for Rollbacker and PC Reviewer rights. The ideal situation would be to creat a software controlled user right for AfC reviewer and NPPer, but paradoxically, that would cause a stampede to PERM by the hat collectors. Hence there is some truth in Jorm's WMF statement two-and-ahalf years ago that ''We don't need a whole priesthood of gatekeepers'' - and that was why he proposed the Article Creation Flow which has ]. Where the ] we proposed would have solved most of these problems, and where there was a large quorum and a healthy consensus for it, it wasn't ''really'' what we wanted though it did give the Foundation a knee jerk, but they gave us Page Curation instead. Admittedly an excellent piece of software, but only of any real use in the hands of those who know their policies, and who have read at ] what to do with it. ] (]) 17:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I check both the AfC reviewers and the NPPatrollers.. Much of the work at NPP is pretty awful in both directions: not marking things that need deletion, or tagging excessively for what are only very minor problems. But a great many of the articles there do not really need much interaction--they're basically formulaic articles. The utter junk we used to see 5 years ago is now either prevented by the edit filter or diverted into AfC. The reviewing at AfC is like the NPPatrolling--either articles are rejected for minor fixable problems, or they are accepted despite arrant promotionalism and copyvio. The standards of the two are different and intended to be--for NPP, whether it will pass speedy, for AfC, whether it will pass AfD. I don;t keep counts of how many AfCs are reviewed wrong, because it would be too discouraging--at least 3/4 of them are reviewed less carefully than they deserve: if the articles are hopeless the editor needs to be told so in sufficiently clear terms that they will recognize it; if promising, the specific problems of the particular article need to be explained--which usually takes me several custom paragraphs to do right, not a click on a prebuilt message. If there are just easily fixable problems, on the other hand, I simply fix them and accept the article--if they are sent back to the editor, they may never return to do it. I don't try to get quality beyond just acceptability--if it's a matter of badly needed improvements, that applies to 90% of the existing content also. | |||
| ::::::::Like Kudpung, I think the first step in solving the problem is to require a degree of article writing knowledge from the reviewers at both processes. The question is whether we have sufficient qualified people willing to do the work properly. We might, if we didn't have to do the even larger amount of work correcting the errors of those doing it ignorantly. As a model for what we need, I'd suggest something like new admin school. | |||
| ::::::::Of course, it would help if we had a realistic system guiding people to give the needed advice--at the very least, giving as many reasons as apply, and editing the message before submitting it. I admit I've given up asking for improvements here, since essentially everything really important I've suggested has been rejected (that's not all that usual in WP, and I deal with it as I do elsewhere here, by working in detail with as many individual editors and articles as I can reach, bypassing however it seems best all non-functional aspects of the system.) (fwiw, I also agree with Kudpung that page curation is a much better system than afc-- I find I can work faster without it, but if I were starting out, I would use it-- and I would much more easily have learned to do things adequately) ''']''' (]) 01:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| Concurring with you, DGG, it would be nice if the Foundation would/could come up with a software solution to AfC as they did for NPP. However, it still wouldn't address the problem of the users' knowledge of policies and powers of assessment. Some years ago, I started to code up a completely revamped New Article Wizard, but I dropped that work on the Foundation's promise of the . Again, like Page Curation, it had the promise of being a brilliant piece of software and was offered by The Foundation as a consolation to their blunt rejection of ]. But we are still waiting for news of further development, the project was quietly archived in October last year, and no further concrete comments from the developer who appears to be charged with it appear to be forthcoming. If we had it now - and there has been plenty of time to develop it in the meantime - it would have practically solved ''all'' the problems with NPP and AfC. ] (]) 03:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :{{reply to|Kudpung}} - The WMF has officially stated that they refuse to implement ACTRIAL. They believed that it was a proposal caused by rage at the NPP systems. In reality, we proposed some very good points as to how it would help people in multiple systems including AfC. I honestly don't believe the WMF is going to do anything about an AfC software solution, but if you would like better support, hack onto . </rant> --]<sup>] - ]</sup> 13:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I ''know'' the ACTRIAL was rejected by the WMF - I was one of the major initiators of the ACTRIAL project ''and'' of improvement to New Page Patrolling. I and others are still smarting however, from the brutal manner in which it was rejected - it was after all only to be a trial, and would have provided some very valuable stats and feedback. My main concern is the promise of the development of the Article Creation Work Flow, a proper landing page for new users/new article creators, which has seen no further development since Brandon's mock-up. I consider that, and/or the development of a genuine software system for AfC to be of significant concern for it to be recognised as a Foundation development, in the same way as they developed the page curation tool. In my opinion, the WMF seems too procupied with the pure stats and efforts to increase user registrations and page creations rather than insist on measures for quality which would obviously have a negative impact on those raw stats which they consider to be of foremost importance. The community views these issues the other way round: quality rather than quantity - and that goes not only for the creation of new pages, but also the quality in the way they are processed. ] (]) 14:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == wonkiness for AFC submitters == | |||
| First let me say that i am a great fan of AFC and of the persons who are contributing reviewers and other participants here. I am an experienced Misplaced Pages editor yet a direct user of AFC services for some articles that I create. I appreciate recent efforts here that I have observed about improving the wizard system for creation of new articles. As a user, however, I notice that currently, the AFC system is a bit wonky, and must seem even a bit crazy to new users, in a few ways that undermine its success. | |||
| Specifically: | |||
| ]]] | |||
| 1) A user has to deal with ] about contradictory messages in the wizard system, in order to get to the end of the wizard. The wizard repeatedly asks questions that can't be answered. E.g. "Does your proposed article have good sources?" and "Does your article submission meet the content requirements?" Well, you haven't let me write an article yet, so how could it do that? Hmm, maybe the designers of this wizard want me to understand that as meaning "Will the article you intend to write meet the content requirements?" (I personally think that is what you the designers mean.) Or, hmm, maybe this means I have to write out my article in a Word document on my PC, before I submit anything? Why did they bring me along this far, I dunno if I ever want to deal with this stupid Misplaced Pages... (Yikes, I personally think this is not what you designers want, and the PC version that a user goes off to draft is very much less likely to ever get finished or submitted. It would be much better to bring the user forward to the editing window in wikipedia.) These cause doubts and the only way forward is to suspend your disbelief about what the wizard wants. That is raising unnecessary hurdles that could be avoided by some rewriting. | |||
| 2) When the new user finally gets to the article creation page, ], they get to submit their new article draft. Now (i think this recently changed), when they do, it is not actually "submitted", it is merely started by them as a draft that will not be looked at by anyone. The article that they draft, possibly contrary to their expectations of what will happen, gets a big banner "<b>Article not currently submitted for review</b>....This is a draft Articles for creation submission. It is not currently pending review. There is no deadline, you can take your time writing this draft." Note, the name of the page they started the draft from is named "Ready for submission". Many users will have thought they already submitted. I see the detail within "Ready for submission" page is pretty clear that this is just a draft, but those instructions contradict the name of the page, and I think some users are disappointed. The new system just gets them to a drafting point, and actually acts as if whatever they submit is NOT ready for submission. I think the language in page-naming and instructions needs to be reworked, perhaps in terms of "ready to draft" perhaps rather than "ready to submit". | |||
| 3) Truly bizarre for me is the experience of what happens when you do "submit". You click on the nice green button "Submit your draft when you are ready for it to be reviewed!", and oddly, the page is blanked and you are instructed to ignore that reality but click "Save" anyhow. Okay, i do that (and hope that I will be rewarded with a confirming message that I did the right thing). And... what I get is a restored page, with prominent banner: <b>Article not currently submitted for review</b>. WTF!!! Oh, at the very bottom, probably out of view, there is another banner, with "<b>Review waiting</b>". Even if I see that, i don't know which to believe. Hmm, maybe this whole Wizard system is completely broken. Hmm, will I ever get a "review"? Hmm, should I wait for weeks now, when it appears obvious that my submission was not properly received (that is in fact what the designers want, i personally think). This is putting further unnecessary bewilderment onto the user. The wizard system absolutely must be changed, IMHO, to take out or revise the "This has not been submitted" message for articles that have been submitted. And probably the latest banner should be put in on top, above any others, and should perhaps statement that this message overrides any previous, lower banners. | |||
| 4) This is a lesser point. The new user who arrives at ] may find their way to the article wizard. It's good, but is a longish sequence to go through, and after a few times they would probably like a shortcut to an article starting point further in. I've had trouble finding what entry point to bookmark for my own use. Maybe for users who are repeatedly creating articles of a similar type, with similar sources, etc., there could be a named shortcut that they could be advised that they could use, or a specific suggested page that could be identified as the one they should usefully bookmark? Probably that is ], i.e. ? It could be mentioned at the bottom of that short page, that this is a good page to bookmark and start from, if you've arrived here several times already. Otherwise for new users I expect it is unclear whether the entire wizard must be gone through each time. Who knows how these computer software things work? Is this a temporary page that cannot be bookmarked? (I personally believe that is a hard url that can be bookmarked, but that is not obvious. And, again, its name is a misnomer--it is not a page for "ready for submission"--it is, rather, a page for "ready to draft".) | |||
| I hope these comments are helpful. :) Again, I really like what you're all doing here, and that is why I take the time to try to give helpful feedback. Sincerely, --]]] 17:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Your comments are certainly helpful. Most of these things have been brought up before and will gradually be improved, but it's good to see a sequential list of them all in one spot. Often the people who are making the templates and scripts are not the ones who use them, and what may seem like an improvement in one step may have unexpected effects the next. —] (]) 19:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :: {{Thank you}} {{U|Doncram}}. I have been mulling around here for awhile and have noticed many of the same things. I actually started trying to put together a "task force" of sorts about a week or two ago to go through and create an "'''Article creation wizard 3.0'''" which will be much more intuitive for the end use and improve the submitters' chances of getting their article approved the first or second time instead of deleted as copyright violation or declined multiple times for being un-sourced or lacking reliable sources. I expect this project of mine to take a few months, and would love to have an editor such as yourself try it out when it is nearing completion as an alpha-tester if you are interested. ] (]) 20:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::See the thread above at ], it directly addresses the Article Wizard but you'll need to follow the various links, and it might save you some work - in the assumption that the Foundation will someday keep their promise. ] (]) 03:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I saw that. One thing at a time though. I want to try and get AfC a little more streamlined and less confusing. After that, I'll work on the Teahouse some more. I also want to improve TAFI and RA some as well. I'd be happy to contribute to NPP simplification as well, but one step at a time. ] (]) 12:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I was indeed trying to give a fresh "outside"-type view of the current AFC process, as feedback for fine-tuning purposes, and I am again aware of good efforts mentioned here to improve the process. I am sure there are good reasons for why/how the system has been changed to where it is now (such as limitations of the templating and "subst" programming technology), and surely when some priorities are addressed other small issues may be created. It would be impossible to satisfy all the explicit or implicit goals--some are mutually exclusive--like keeping the system in plain simple English and simultaneously addressing all likely possibilities for user confusion. I'd be happy to try to give a new fresh view upon request to my Talk page at any later time. Cheers, --]]] 16:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===AfC School=== | |||
| Has anyone ever thought of doing anything on ]? Perhaps the two could be combined. ] (]) 05:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :{{User|Theonesean}} is working on a mentoring program in their userspace, but I'm not sure how near to completion it is. A combined school would be a sensible efficiency measure and a good example of cross-project cooperation. ] ] 09:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am working steadily on it. I've got it all planned out. I will need some volunteers to write sample articles, but I should be done in the near future. My time (and all of yours, I'm sure) will be preoccupied with the backlog elimination drive during July, but that will still leave me time to work on the program. The first section is in the final stages, and I'll be asking for help proofreading, copyediting, and testing in a few days. Thanks, <span style="font-variant: small-caps; font:1.25em,Geneva; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af; font-color:teal;">TheOneSean <sup>] | ] | ] ]</sup></span> 10:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Old comment broken by script == | |||
| {{unresolved|https://github.com/WPAFC/afch/issues/20}} | |||
| I submitted a second comment and reloaded the page; the script broke the previous comment as such: ]. ] (]) 17:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| : {{Ping|Mabdul|Nathan2055}} Could you guys look into this? I'd look myself and have a feeling it is something stupid simple, but my daughter had a medical emergency come up the other-day so I've no time for the next week or so for much of anything that doesn't directly relax me (which isn't much right now). ] (]) 18:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{BugFixed|NAB}}, see the edit before yours: added a comment without using a script and with a wrong "format". | |||
| ::Instead of | |||
| <nowiki>{{afc comment}} A good start, but removing "Installation" per ].</nowiki> | |||
| ::it should be | |||
| <nowiki>{{afc comment|1= A good start, but removing "Installation" per ].}}</nowiki> | |||
| ::Regards, <small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">]</small> 18:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::PS: That kind of pings are very good; I'm very busy and tired at the moment ... sadly! | |||
| ::: {{Reply to|Mabdul}} There are a lot of such templates that are used like that (when not using a script that correctly formats it for the user), is there anyway that the script could look for the eol instead of the closing }} and fix improperly formatted such comments? ] (]) 18:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::mmh, Of course we could add another check for an empty afc comment template and add the rest of the line into the template... but what happens for following variants | |||
| <nowiki>{{afc comment}} | |||
| A good start, but removing "Installation" per ].</nowiki> | |||
| or | |||
| <nowiki>{{afc comment}} | |||
| A good start, but removing "Installation" per ]. Starting a list: | |||
| * la | |||
| *li | |||
| *lo | |||
| Signature (or not)</nowiki> | |||
| ? How should I detect that? I believe a better education how to use such templates is better with less false positives... <small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">]</small> 18:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * {{Reply to|Mabdul}} I understand where you are coming from. A majority of them would be caught and fixed using EOL instead of }} for the end. We could modify {{param|1}} to be more like {{param|1{{!}}There is no comment here! Please use this template correctly!}} so that the template fails to work if they don't use the proper format. Just ideas... ] (]) 19:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *Tracked at https://github.com/WPAFC/afch/issues/20 <small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">]</small> 22:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Rating articles on quality scale == | |||
| I was told on my talk page that rating articles on the quality scale should be done for every article. The review tool says that the rating is optional. How can someone be expected to know how to rate every article on the quality scale if they are not familiar with that Wikiproject? Knowing if something is notable and has good citations is different from understanding the quality scale for every single Wikiproject. What is better - getting good articles accepted or having a bigger backlog? ] (]) 17:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :The reviewing instructions do currently state it should be reviewed; But we have a backlog of over '''2000''' which are not. I am currently looking into ways to semi-automatically resolve this. ] (]) 18:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Then I'm not the problem with over 2000. ] (]) 18:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't think it is necessary to understand all of the Wikiprojects to rate an article. These projects can place their own banners and do their own rating; the one for the Afc banner should be a general rating. When I rate a project I give it a Stub if it's very short, a Start if it has the basic information that a reader would want to know but not much detail, and if it is a complicated topic or one needing knowledge I don't have, I either leave if for someone more knowledgeable to accept, or I put a note on a Wikiproject page asking them to review it. If it's an area where I feel I have some expertise (for me that's traditional music, genealogy, education, computer applications) I will decide by the general criteria if it rates a higher letter rating. The ratings are always changing anyway as people add to the articles. This means I may be rating some articles too low, but I think it's better to have someone come along and bump it up than the other way around. Please someone let me know if this isn't the right way to do it. —] (]) 20:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I tend to use the "Is it something that I could completely read in 2 minutes: Stub. Is it something that is a good start, but needs some more help: Start. Does it seem fairly good and well written: C-Class". I don't award anything above a C-Class directly from AfC. If I happen to be well versed in the topic I'll add importance but I prefer to let active members of the recieving project evaluate beyond a certain level. ] (]) 20:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Myself, I'll start doing this when we clear up the backlog & start reviewing articles intelligently. At the moment my priority is to offer help to the editors, especially those whose articles are rejected for incorrect or uninformative reasons, something which requires personal attention. (But I agree with Hasteur that I have essentially never seen one that would qualify for more than C class, and even that only rarely)''']''' (]) 01:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::I always try to give a rating to any article I approve. After all, it's an approximation so it only need take a few seconds (the review itself should take much longer!) But I don't rate it for any additional WikiProjects that I add it to, ''unless'' it's clear to me that it's a fairly peripheral topic for a WikiProject, in which case I rate it to Low for that WikiProject. I sometimes see WikiProject members adding or changing ratings for their WikiProject on articles I've accepted, and on more rare occasions I've seen one remove their WikiProject from an article they felt did not belong in it. My presumption is that it's mainly the responsibility of WikiProject members to make those decisions. | |||
| Are there any bots/scripts that detect that a submission has not changed (much) since the last time it was submitted? Ideally they would be able to autoreject or at least put them on a list. It might be possible to look at the previous reason for rejection, e.g. not meeting GNG, and if no new refs are added it is highly unlikely it will pass this time. ] (]) 15:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Interestingly I too have found that rating any submission above "C" class is so rarely appropriate as to be basically unheard-of. Unlike DGG, I have received a complaint about this on my talk page :) DGG, you may have an opinion on whether this was B-class at the time of submission. (If so, it would be our one exception!) As I replied ], I don't object to its later having being re-rated as B-class by its creator. ] (]) 15:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :No, and if I remember correctly we decided not to have any sort of bot that does this. ] (]) 15:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I too have rated approx. 3 articles as B-class, and if I remember correctly they were all medicine or species-related. But following general guidelines, it's quite intuitive to do so. The general criteria are quite clear on how to do it, and one shouldn't be scared to give a fair approximation. In most cases, WikiProjects eventually review the articles themselves, so the AfC-class is no more than a historical reference. On the other hand, I don't see why forgetting to classify articles is such a big deal, regardless of it being classified by a WikiProject or not. I don't think articles are ] to be classified anyhow. ] (]) 15:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I think having a bot that does this would be a bad idea. One poor decline could easily lead to a series of them. -- ] (]) 16:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::For clarity, given @]'s comment below, my comment is about putting them on a list. (Obviously, I think an autoreject bot would be even worse.) -- ] (]) 19:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, bad idea. Sometimes it's reasonable to resubmit without changes if the decline was incorrect or the submitter has clarified something. <span style=white-space:nowrap;>] <span style="background-color:#e6e6fa;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black">]</span></span> 16:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::How about a bot that could add a Comment to the submission to let the submitter know that the submission has not changed and that they could continue working on it? ] (]) 16:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree having any kind of auto-decline bot is a bad idea. However, simply putting them in a list, like ], sounds reasonable. It would be useful for finding easy declines/accepts, provided that the reviewers check the circumstances behind the resubmission. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 16:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * I like the idea of a bot that can at least note the absence of material change to a resubmitted article. ] ] 21:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == AfC and Editor Retention == | |||
| *:{{ping|BD2412}} Let's say software detects that a submission has not changed (much) since the last time it was submitted. What should it do? Message the submitter? Stick a template on the submission? Stick it on a list similar to ]? Notify the previous reviewer? Something else? You can choose more than one option. ] (]) 10:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:: Notify the submitter and put a note on the submission to the effect that the submission was previously rejected, and that the reasons for the previous rejection should be reviewed prior to acceptance of the submission. Creating a list of little-changed re-submissions is also not a bad idea. ] ] 14:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===RfC: Should a bot be created to handle AfC submissions that haven't changed since the last time they were submitted?=== | |||
| There's an interesting discussion about how the AfC process is potentially alienating newcomers at ]. ] ] ] 09:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Should a bot be created to handle AfC submissions that haven't changed since the last time they were submitted? | |||
| * '''Option 1''': Yes. The bot should automatically <s>reject</s> <ins>decline</ins> any such submissions. | |||
| * '''Option 2''': Yes. The bot should add such submissions to a list, similar to the ]. | |||
| * '''Option 3''': Yes. The bot should notify the submitter and comment on the submission. | |||
| * '''Option 4''': Yes. The bot should add such submissions to a list '''and''' notify the submitter and comment on the submission. | |||
| * '''Option 5''': No. | |||
| ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 18:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Note that I changed Option 1 to decline rather than reject, as reject is a very specific term in AFC and I don't think that is what was meant here. Reject means the draft can never be resubmitted, due to violating ] or having extremely obvious and egregious non-notability. –] <small>(])</small> 22:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :If you have been following the discussion mentioned above, you will see that there is a great deal of concern among the Editor Retention people that some reviewers are accepting articles too soon, leading to them being subsequently deleted or totally changed, and other reviewers are being too strict, discouraging new editors. This is bound to happen sometimes, but I'm sure that everyone would like to minimize it. (And or course there will always be people who think a particular review is wrong no matter what we do.) For my own part, if I'm not sure I sometimes post on this page asking for a second opinion. I've seen others do this too. Would it help if there was a formal process for this - for example, what if there were a new list or category or flag or something to which editors could post article titles that they feel are ready for promotion, but would like a second opinion? Inexperienced reviewers could use this routinely, and more experienced editors could gradually stop using it as more and more cases that they came to were similar to ones that they had reviewed before. But maybe this is just a new complication in an already messy procedure. —] (]) 14:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have just realized that there is already a process worked out for use in the backlog drives. It's not quite what I was suggesting, but you can see it at the bottom of the ] page (while you are signing up!). —] (]) 16:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ----- | |||
| == Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/José Rafael Cordero Sánchez == | |||
| *'''Oppose option 1''', per the discussion above this is a very bad idea. '''Support option 2''', this seems harmless and seems worth tracking - as long as it is made absolutely clear that being rejected previously is not a reason to reject - if the original reason was correct and still applies then it can be rejected again for that reason. '''Neutral''' on the other options, but any comment/notification ''must'' make it clear that it is informational only and not a rejection. ] (]) 19:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{resolved}} | |||
| *'''Option 5'''. AfC reviewers make mistakes. We should not be prejudicing someone's future AfC chances based on those mistakes any more than we already do - namely, that there is already a gigantic decline message on the draft. AfC is frequently a dispiriting, demoralizing, and baffling experience for new editors, mostly one of waiting and then receiving templated replies they do not fully understand. I oppose this, and I oppose any other efforts that would further increase new editor alienation in this way. -- ] (]) 19:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *Option 4, but as with Thryduulf, the comment on submission should be marked as informational and a reviewer will come by to assess the submission. ] (]) 19:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support option 2'''. Whether any changes have been made since the last decline is often something I look for when reviewing an article with declines, as it helps to see if the concerns from that last decline were addressed (if I feel like they are appropriate to the article as I see it), and this would be a benefit to a reviewer without being additionally "punishing" to a new editor. ]] 19:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *Speaking as someone who doesn't review drafts but very occasionally comments on them, I think an {{tl|AfC comment}}-like mention at the top would be easiest to work with, so I guess I'm at Option 3 or 4. Very dubious that a bot could reasonably handle the "(much)" in the preceding section header without unacceptable false positives ''and'' negatives, but detecting ''completely unchanged'' submissions would be both feasible and useful. —] 20:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support Option 5''' - No. '''Oppose Options 1, 2, 3, 4'''. Support based on ]'s comment. Opposes are my own, doubtless with others. As a reviewer I declare myself capable of checking, and I do. 🇺🇦 ] ] 🇺🇦 20:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| While taking a look at this submission: ] I did a Google search checking for copyright violations and found this: | |||
| *'''Option 4''' but instead of adding to a list, add to a category (preferably a hidden one). Yes, definitely notify the submitter and comment on it, but having a list may discourage the submitter if they see that their draft is listed on a list. Having a hidden category would be better (at least imho) where a parameter of ] can add the draft into the category. ] <big>(]</big> · <small>])</small> 20:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Though with all options, the reviewer would still do the same work... ] <big>(]</big> · <small>])</small> 20:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * I suppose I wouldn't oppose a bot that automatically leaves a comment, but I don't really see the point either. Reviewers should be evaluating based on the current state of the draft — previous declines really shouldn't matter in most cases. I think this would encourage summary "no change" declines without actually looking at the content of the draft. <span style=white-space:nowrap;>] <span style="background-color:#e6e6fa;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black">]</span></span> 20:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:You're right. It would encourage reviewers to "decline" the draft just because it hasn't changed since last review. However, thinking now, it ''might'' encourage editors to keep working on the draft because they see that "it hasn't changed since last review". If that's the case, reviewers should "wait". So perhaps after the bot leaves a comment, reviewers should wait at least a couple minute before reviewing in case the editor wants to add content? ] <big>(]</big> · <small>])</small> 21:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::My position is that if they did not see ''being declined'' as reason to keep working on the draft, they are unlikely to have a positive view of an automated message telling them that the draft hasn't changed. -- ] (]) 21:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''No''' too easy to game. The simplest bot would just compare revisions. A submitter would then just have to add like a space or a few words to change it. A more complicated bot would flag changes that were too small or simple, but then that just encourages submitters to ramble. A bot can't assess the quality of a change, only editors can. ] <sup>]</sup>] 21:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Strongest Oppose to 1''' as bad reviews do exist. Also, sometimes submitters have discussed it with the reviewer and been told to resubmit for a second opinion etc. | |||
| :'''Weak Oppose 2, 3 & 4''' as I'm not convinced a bot will accurately determine what no substantive change is and I see little value in just flagging straight re-submits | |||
| :'''Support 5''' as de-facto option left ] (]) 21:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2 or 4''' especially with several disruptors (and one dynamic IP so block doesn't help) who just do drive by submissions. Frustrating to the editor to receive another decline through no fault of their own. Having them in the queue is a waste of reviewers' time though when it's a quick decline because the improvements haven't been made. I think it's less wrong decline and more no discussion about why the feedback was wrong that's the red flag. ] ] 23:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I lean towards '''Option 5''', but for those pages/editors engaged in a problematic level of drive-by submissions, I wonder whether a completely different approach might work better. For example: If you think the previous decline was correct, and you also think it's a drive-by re-nom, then move the article to the mainspace and send it straight to AFD. If it's kept, then the submitter was correct, and the previous decline was wrong. Also, it's now out of the AFC queues. However, if it's deleted, ] the page name(s) in both Draft: and mainspace for the next year (or two?), so that AFC can be done with it. Either way, it's no longer AFC's problem. ] (]) 05:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Strongly oppose Option 1'''. Frankly, trusting fellow reviewers to check how much a draft has changed since a previous decline is reasonable to do. Letting a Bot do something creates an option to game the system. We don't need that. --] (]) <small>(]) (])</small> 00:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Should the article just be declined as non-notable, or should more be done? I have no way of knowing what was previously said to this person when the first two renditions were deleted. —] (]) 17:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Support '''Option 2''', neutral on Option 4, and oppose the rest. I do not see the point in notifying submitters when they already are aware they did not make any changes. Perhaps they wanted another review. Putting unchanged drafts in a hidden list like the copyvio one seems optimal as it reduces complexity and unnecessary messages to submitters. It would make finding easy declines and disruptive drive by submissions easier to find. I also support adding a verbiage that being unchanged should not be the sole reason to decline again. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 00:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Deleted 3 times already...obviously non-notable, plagued with errors due to poor Spanish-English translation. The user's an IP, so I don't think you'll get a response whatever you choose to do. ] (]) 17:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' - Reviewers should be instructed, more clearly if necessary, to check whether the draft has been revised since the last decline, and to use human judgment in deciding what is enough improvement. There is no need for automated aid, which could make mistakes and could be gamed. ] (]) 06:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 2''', at least, '''option 4''', at best. Yes, reviewers make mistakes, but they make mistakes in both directions, and should also consider the guidance inherent in a previous rejection. ] ] 15:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Option 4''' preferably, but I'm okay with '''option 5''' as well (TBH, I don't think this is a major problem in the bigger scheme of things, and the details could be tricky). Also '''oppose option 1''', regardless of whether it was intended to say 'reject', or merely 'decline'. -- ] (]) 15:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Looks like they came to AfC after their efforts in the mainspace were deleted. Nothing particularly egregious about the submission, he's just not important enough... I have tried to communicate this in short simple English. ] ] 18:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::PS: When I say details could be tricky, I didn't mean in a technical sense, but rather in defining what the trigger condition of "changed (much)" actually means. Size change doesn't always tell us much: only a few kb might have changed, yet the draft was completely rewritten; conversely, a large kb change could mean that the author simply deleted the earlier AfC templates. Number of sources, ditto: adding ten new rubbish sources to the earlier rubbish sources still adds up to only rubbish; whereas using the same sources but citing them correctly might have resolved the decline reason. -- ] (]) 15:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5'''. AfC reviewers sometimes make mistakes, particularly when dealing with areas that they are not familiar with. (I can't count how many drafts on academics have been rejected and told to supply GNG, and I've also seen rejections of drafts on politicians that clearly passed NPOL.) Creators should always be allowed to ask for a second opinion. ] <small>(])</small> 18:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' Per asilvering and Espresso Addict. I would further that; reviewers ''often'' make mistakes....specifically declining articles for reasons that are not decline criteria. Also some reviewers tend to pass only unusually safe passes. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 18:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' per Asilvering. If a reviewer makes a mistake (which often happens), the submitter shouldn't be even more penalized for it. Same if they just want another opinion on their draft. ] (] · ]) 18:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2 or 4''' per Star Mississippi. I'll add: Resubmitting an unchanged draft is a sign of a problem even if the declining reviewer had made a mistake. And it will rarely be the case that they have made a mistake given a creator who resubmits an identical draft, which very strongly correlates with the draft being poor in the first place and not deserving of acceptance.—] 13:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' (do nothing). Like Primefac below, I'm surprised this got the RfC stage given the overwhelmingly negative reception in the original discussion, and hope the closer of this discussion will take that into account. AfC reviewers make mistakes but, more to the point, people can have good faith disagreements about the suitability of an article. If the submitter disagrees with a reviewer, they have every right to ask for a second opinion without edit warring with a bot or making pointless changes. – ] <small>(])</small> 08:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2 or 5''' - Given the unevenness of reviews, authors have legitimate reasons for seeking a second, third or fourth review. ~] (]) 15:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===RFC discussion=== | |||
| {{resolved}} | |||
| Um... didn't this get fairly roundly shot down in the original discussion? Why does it need a full RFC to work out any further details? ] (]) 19:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I think that only Option 1 was outright rejected in the above discussion. The rest were counterproposals that seemed to have at least some support. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 19:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == What's this template? == | |||
| ::Meh, RFC just seems like a lot of bureaucracy for something that didn't really have a lot of discussion and could have probably been dealt with in-house. Carry on I suppose. ] (]) 19:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I second your 'meh'. Why are we going through this extra layer. ''If it ain't broke don't fix it!'' 🇺🇦 ] ] 🇺🇦 20:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hate to be Devil's Advocate for an RFC I've opposed, but I think we've got more, clearer answers to the question in the few hours since this RfC opened than we had in the entire earlier discussion, so there's that. And I do think AfC is pretty broke and needs some fixing. I just think this is tinkering in the wrong direction. -- ] (]) 20:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| While we're here and talking about reviewers making mistakes, let me make my perennial plea that, if you see, this, you go ask the reviewer about it on their talk page. We all have to learn somehow! And if the reviewer is making lots of mistakes, it will be easier for any single editor to figure this out later if there's a track record of them on their talk page. By the way, for those who haven't learned this trick yet: the AFCH script will allow you to resubmit drafts ''as though you were the original submitter''. If you think something was inappropriately declined, you can resubmit it to the queue yourself and then immediately accept it, or resubmit it and leave a comment explaining why you did so. -- ] (]) 21:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Dear reviewers: This article ] has a template that I haven't seen before. Shouldn't people work on their new articles in their user space? Which of Misplaced Pages's spaces is it intended for? The documentation isn't specific about this. At any rate, it says it's not for biographies of living people, and should only be used during one editing session, so I think it should be removed. —] (]) 14:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Or if you want to resubmit a draft on behalf of another user so they get the AfC communications rather than you, such as the Accept notification, you can use <nowiki>{{subst:submit|Creator's username}}</nowiki>. The other option is to click the Resubmit button then change the User (u=) from your name to theirs. ] (]) 22:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * I've seen the template intermittently in the past - it was created around the time of ], where a bunch of editors were fed up with overzealous new page patrollers falling over themselves to tag an article as a speedy the very second it appeared in ]. It's not required for this submission, which I've declined for fairly typical reasons. ] ] ] 15:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :: |
::The AFCH script will do this for you automatically. -- ] (]) 22:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :::Ahh..ok, I see now. You review on an already declined draft. I had never clicked the Submit button because I assumed it worked the same way as the Resubmit button in the decline message but the AFCH script gives you options to assign the submitter. I can't tell you how many times I have resubmitted drafts using the manual methods I outline above. ]! :) ] (]) 23:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{closed rfc bottom}} | |||
| == Indian state symbols == | |||
| == Connecting to the the backlog drive == | |||
| It seems we have a new instalment in the series of bogus Indian state symbols, this time with ]. Different IP from the previous ones, but probably the same user. Just flagging this here to avoid a repeat of the earlier sich. -- ] (]) 12:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| When I select the "Backlog drives" tab at the top of this page it has instructions on how to take part in the drive. It says to go to the relevant backup drive page, but no where that I can find on the page does it say how to find this page except a barely noticeable link in the green invitation template at the bottom of the page. Is this an oversight, or is the drive by invitation only? —] (]) 21:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I have cleared up the rest of the related junk edits from ]. ] (]) 12:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Backup drive? Or Backlog drive Anne? :-p At the top of the page is an info box with a link to the next drive (which will soon become the current drive). Drives are certainly not by invitation only, all qualified editors are welcome and encouraged to take part. ] ] 08:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::This time, it's ]. Curious to see what's coming next? -- ] (]) 16:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Nope. They should be warned then blocked for making hoaxes. ] (]) 17:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Deleted as hoaxes and blocked for block evasion. ] (]) 18:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Class assessment and the Banner Shell == | |||
| Is the class assessment within the {{tl|WikiProject Articles for creation}} template meant to be a snapshot of the class at creation, or, is it meant to "grow" with the article. I ask this, as now class allocation is set in the {{tl|WikiProject banner shell}}, which reports a ] if the class in the banner shell is different from any other class assignment. If the "class=" parameter from AfC is meant to be a snapshot at creation, then the Banner Shell code should ignore it if it's not the same as the overall "class=" setting. If it's meant to change as the article improves over time, then we can just remove it from the AfC template and just use the Banner shell assignment. Ping ] & ] as the banner shell experts. ] (]) 07:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've added a section with an obvious link as well. ] ] 09:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sorry - I've been having a lot of trouble with my backup drive lately..... yes, I meant backlog drive. —] (]) 14:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks, guys, I didn't want to be trying to reduce the backLOG alone; I see several more people have signed up now. —] (]) 14:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{unindent}} | |||
| Can we please see an example of what the "#" text looks like with actual content, or else explain in detail what "URL_TO_DIFF" is required and the exact format required for "name_of_submission"? ] (]) 16:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I am pretty sure that if you sign up for the "AFC Buddy" you don't have to put in the "URL_TO_DIFF"s. It will do it for you. —] (]) 23:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{replyto|Dodger67}} you'd do it something like this - <nowiki></nowiki>, producing . ] (]) 08:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks ], the example is a lot easier to grok than the "template". ] (]) 09:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't know why it would be a snapshot. '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 07:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| BTW do we get more ] for an accept, which takes several minutes to complete, compared to a decline that can be done and dusted in just a few seconds? ] (]) 10:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think it ''could'' be a snapshot, if it's meant to track the 'quality' of articles coming out of the AfC process at the time of acceptance/publication. | |||
| ::Conversely, it ''could'' evolve over time, if it's meant to track the quality of AfC-created articles at some future time of such tracking or analysis. | |||
| ::FWIW, I had assumed the former, which is why I give it the rating suggested by the rating tool, even if the other projects take theirs from the shell. Perfectly happy to be proven wrong on this, obvs. -- ] (]) 08:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::The template should probably state which one it is. '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 08:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Agreed. Reviewers obviously need to know which way to apply this, and ideally all do it the same way. But future readers (under the 'snapshot' model, that is) would also need to know why the AfC rating is potentially different from the others. (''"Hey, my article is rated A, why is AfC still marking it down as Start?!"'') -- ] (]) 08:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I thought this was changed some time ago so that the AFCH tool only puts a single assessment in the shell like all other projects. Do you have a case to illustrate the issue? ] (]) 09:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::It was, see ] ] (]) 09:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think that settles it - putting a single assessment in the shell is the opposite of a permanent snapshot. My thinking is similar to DoubleGrazing's, except that I assumed the latter (evolving over time in the shell), mostly because {{tl|WikiProject Articles for creation}} is not in {{cat|Custom class masks of WikiProject banners}}, which it would have to be for snapshotting to be a thing. Since that and several other things would have to change for the snapshot model to be operational, there doesn't seem to be an impetus for it. <b>~</b> <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span> 12:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yeah, this gets brought up every once in a while. The assessment is more for tracking current status. Personally I would advocate for removing quality rankings for our project - ''we'' do not improve articles to a higher standard, so saying that it is a "GA-class AFC article" is somewhat misleading since we're really only tracking how far its come since creation. ] (]) 13:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I am not aware of any wikiproject banners that take a snapshot. That would be complicated to code, and counterintuitive to how wikiproject banners normally work. –] <small>(])</small> 17:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Arguably, the GA/FA Template has a piece on timestamps as to which was the review version. '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 17:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I was thinking more along the lines of WikiProject banners, which inherit their class from the banner shell. –] <small>(])</small> 21:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm starting to think I may have misunderstood... I thought each project's rating can be either set to take it from the banner shell, or set to a particular rating value. I had assumed that if it's set to take it from the shell, it will change as the shell rating changes. Whereas (again, I had ''assumed'') if it's set to a particular value, it would remain fixed, unless/until it's manually changed. (This is what I was referring to as 'snapshot'.) -- ] (]) 18:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::That can be done, yes, but only for projects (like MILHIST) that opt in to that functionality. ] (]) 21:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Help == | ||
| {{moved to|] (]}} | |||
| ] is redirected to ] instead of the other way around (no, it wasn't me this time!) How can that be fixed up so that the article to be reviewed is in Afc space? —] (]) 01:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 16:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Disable AFCH if there is an ongoing AfD == | |||
| :Since there was no relevant history at the redirect, I simply moved the draft back into the Misplaced Pages talk namespace. ] (]) 01:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| The AFCH tool should be disabled if there is an ongoing AfD at the corresponding mainspace title, as with ] and ], for example. ] (]) 16:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Reviewing a disambiguation page == | |||
| :Why? A draft like that should be declined as <code>exists</code> anyway, so disabling AFCH would mean that we wouldn't be able to do that. ] (]) 16:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::In fairness, that (decline as 'exists') is what GTrang did with this draft, but it was reverted as {{tq|just extra administration for no reason}} (I think). Which then put the draft back in the pool. -- ] (]) 16:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have undone that edit as the AFD is clearly trending towards the article being kept. ] (]) 17:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I went ahead and redirected the draft to the mainspace article, which is what I like to do in these situations to avoid duplication. I think editors should be encouraged to work on the mainspace article and not the draft, so that everyone is using their time efficiently. –] <small>(])</small> 22:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I was reverted. {{u|NatGertler}}, can you please elaborate on how you plan to move a draft over an existing mainspace page? Did you perhaps mean that you plan to manually copy paste merge some pieces of the draft instead? In which case, the draft would be fine as a redirect, since the page history can easily be checked. –] <small>(])</small> 23:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::If you look at the AfD, there is reasonable support for (if the article survives AfD) deleting the version that is currently in mainspace and moving this draft one into mainspace at the same address. This version is in much better shape, and there is nothing substantial in the mainspace one that needs to be merged into this. If folks are to work on either of them, we want them working on this one, which is likely to be the surviving version in some form (whether it survives as a draft or in mainspace depends on the outcome of the AfD, but even at the most complicated take it will be merged into the mainspace one, so may as well have it here.) -- ] (]) 01:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Got it. I think this should be de-duplicated at some point, but with your comment in mind, I suppose it's OK to wait until after the AFD is over. –] <small>(])</small> 01:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ] is live! == | |||
| Dear editors: | |||
| Per the outcome of ], which is shown above, and a request filed at ] by ], the above page is now live and ready for reviewers to use, maintained by ]. It's actually caught 1 already in only the couple hours its been live, see ]. :) | |||
| I came across this unusual article ]. I was going to decline it as non-notable, since none of the variations of "thoughtform" have an article in Misplaced Pages, but the editor has gone to some trouble to find references for some of the uses. I am presuming that the list of possible spellings is not needed, but what about the rest? —] (]) 14:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| There's also a hosted on Toolforge to look up an article and see if it's resubmitted without changes, if that's more your thing. | |||
| :A ] should serve to to disambiguate variations of the same page title. This is certainly not a standard example of that and I question its usefulness. It looks like something that would be more at home in ]. ] ] 15:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, I agree - but what decline reason should I use? There doesn't seem to be one designed for disambiguation pages. Is "non-notable" suitable? Or how about "not written in an encyclopedia tone?" Neither of these is quite right. We need a decline reason that says "not appropriate for a disambiguation page" or something. —] (]) 15:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I came across a similar article: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Wildflower_magazine ] <sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 16:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've declined the "original" one using the custom decline 'hack' I've come across. ] (]) 16:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks. It would be nice to use the script, though, so perhaps in the future there will be a decline reason for disambiguation pages. —] (]) 17:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If you want to give an "off the menu" decline reason simply write in the comment box, if you have not seleceted one of the menu options the comment is posted as the decline reason instead. ] (]) 06:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| For adding an item to the list, the requirement is that it has an AFC submission wizard edit, directly after an AFCH decline. | |||
| == COI submissions page similar to AfC == | |||
| For removing an item from the list, the requirement is that it has a edit that is not done with AFCH or the AFC submission wizard (note: it's been very kindly suggested by ] that it should maybe do some detecting to see if a edit is meaningful or not, any suggestions for when/when not a edit counts as meaningful are most welcome!) | |||
| I was up until about 3 a.m. whipping up an for COIs to request corrections, contest unsourced material and (after reading some disclosures) offer content for consideration. It comes to mind that I've seen posts several years old where editors have pondered why this doesn't already exist and it seems like a no-brainer. | |||
| Please don't hesitate to reach out to me if you have any feedback for this bot task, or would like anything changed about it. Thanks! :) ] <sup>]]</sup> 06:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| It needs some coding work before the forms would actually "work" but I would be interested in (a) anyone who can help code the forms and (b) any thoughts generally. Most of the templates and coding I used so far has been copy/pasted from AfC. ] (]) 16:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Also btw an API is also available by sending a GET request to https://molecularbot2.toolforge.org/resubAPI.php?pageName=test, replacing test with the name of the page, excluding "Draft:"! :) ] <sup>]]</sup> 06:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Good work on trying to centralize this process. I'm not really sure it fits into WikiProject AfC, though I could be wrong. Some suggestions: | |||
| :Thanks for implementing the bot—on the new year nonetheless! ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 13:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| # The disclaimers ] should include one about ]. | |||
| # The reviewing instructions should really only instruct reviewers and the guidance for submitter would be better built into a preload edit-intro template. | |||
| # ] could do with simplifying. ] ] 20:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Trying out using Microsoft Copilot to discuss notability of a particular topic == | |||
| ::Thanks. I just took out the submission instructions, since this is already handled by the wizard, and added the OWN disclaimer. Probably not relevant to AfC, except that it has a very similar process/templates/code etc. Considering some feedback already and the relative ghost town of Request Edit anyway, I'll keep it around and see if it gets interest. I can't really complete it on my own anyway. But if is applied more broadly, it might help to have a system like this in place. ] (]) 23:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I'm not sure if people have tried this out or not. I searched AfC talk archives for , , , and I saw that people have been talking about AI generated submissions, but I haven't seen any discussion on doing something like this. | |||
| :::I was worried that there might be a rather negative reaction to this idea, but didn't want to discourage your efforts. Personally, I think trying to educate COI contributers is a better option than ignoring them. If education fails, and COI editing crosses the line into tendentious spamming, blocks generally succeed. Sadly, there is a lack of editors who are willing to (try to) work with COI contributers. ] ] 22:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| So, anyway, I'll seek to share the dialog: | |||
| == Can't seem to accept article == | |||
| https://github.com/davidkitfriedman/general/blob/main/2025_01_02_dialog_with_Copilot_on_notability_of_GlobalProtect.md | |||
| An editor told me that I wrongly declined ] for the reason that it already exists. I declined it because the review tool said that it already exists. Now I see that it is just a redirect and I keep on getting an error each time that I try to approve it. ] (]) 21:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I had to delete ] for the automated process to work. ] (]) 21:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I asked Copilot to argue against notability for ], and then also to argue for notability. | |||
| == The disambiguation page has come back == | |||
| Initially I just asked it what are some of the major consortia that Google is a part of. | |||
| The ] page, declined by ] has been resubmitted, with only two entries this time, so I decided to look a little further. The author of the page has included two links. One is to the ] page, which he has recently updated and to which he has added his own theory of thought with a reference to the book he has written about it. Now, is this what is meant by spam? —] (]) 21:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :It is not quite spam, which is indiscriminate bulk adding of links or promotion, but you can still decline it as promotion if that is what it is, or just use the "not" reason, (]), and you can usually decline based on lack of verifyability for fringe theory. ] (]) 21:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I decline it and left a message about conflict of interest and the need for independent sources. —] (]) 00:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Copilot responsed and then also prompted with, "Is there a specific area of Google's partnerships you're particularly interested in?". | |||
| == Question about the scope of AfCBuddy == | |||
| And so I told it why I had asked the question initially, and it cited Misplaced Pages's policies, and then asked, "Do you have a specific consortium in mind that you're researching?" | |||
| I signed up for AfC Buddy on the user subpage of {{User|Excirial}}. Just wondering, will it (in addition to tracking the diffs of submissions, many thanks) also generate the running totals? <span style="face:Geneva;text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7AF;">]]]</span> 22:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I could mention that I did see this mentioned in ], so perhaps editors don't feel that it's necessarily worth discussing with LLMs whether a particular topic meets notability or not. | |||
| : In it current form AFCBuddy generated all three sections used on the backlog drive page (Have a look at ] for an example.) The sections it generates are: | |||
| :* The Leaderboard | |||
| :* The Totals list | |||
| :* The individual user overview of diffs for each revision. | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| : It will also try to move any reviews another user reviewed to the "Checked reviews" section though that code is a bit wonky at times (Works fine if added as described in the "Reviewing Reviews" section, but any variations might cause it to stumble). ]</font><sup> (],])</sup> 22:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| When exploring AI techniques and systems, the community consensus is to prefer human decisions over machine-generated outcomes until the implications are better understood. | |||
| ::Thank you, you're wonderful! <span style="face:Geneva;text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7AF;">]]]</span> 23:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| ] (] · ]) 05:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Yes, thank you! --]] 17:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Meh... what people choose to do on their own time to not think for themselves is their own concern; if an LLM tells someone that a subject is notable, but the subject is not notable, we're no worse off than the Fiver writers that get paid to write shitty prose about non-notable grocery store owners. If the LLM tells the editor that a subject is notable, and they ''are'', then all they've really done is waste their own time, since the subject would pass our criteria anyway. ] (]) 07:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :LLMs do not think in the traditional human way because that's not what they're trained to do. Their job is to provide compelling output. The problem with that is that LLMs don't know what truth or factual accuracy is, i. e., they don't know if what they've just made up makes any sense. In a nutshell, discussing with an LLM is like talking to a parrot on steroids. --] (]) <small>(]) (])</small> 08:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I've seen several editors assuring us that their obviously LLM-generated draft has been painstakingly written to comply with all Misplaced Pages requirements for notability, verifiability, and other core policies yada yada... and then it turns out the said draft doesn't cite a single source. So if the editor hasn't the first clue about our requirements, then the LLM clearly won't impose one on them. -- ] (]) 08:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :LLM and Misplaced Pages don't mix very well. In my opinion, in almost all cases, it's just a timesink. LLM is useful for certain non-Misplaced Pages things, but is not a great fit here. –] <small>(])</small> 17:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== African legislators == | ||
| Just found out why we're seeing so many new drafts (mostly very short stubs) on legislators, esp. Nigerian ones, lately: https://meta.wikimedia.org/Event:African_Legislators_in_Red This runs until the end of the month, and one of the rules is that the articles must get into the main space by then, so expect to see some fast track requests at the help desk as the deadline approaches... -- ] (]) 08:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ], called <s>Cultural</s> Culinary Diplomacy, defines and outlines a new kind of diplomacy via food. It's a reasonably well written article, but I can't help but question the premise as a neologism. It doesn't seem to be created in an "attempt to use Misplaced Pages to increase usage of the term" (]), but I'm reluctant to accept it because of the non-prevalence of the term. Any second opinions? Thanks, <span style="face:Geneva;text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7AF;">]]]</span> 02:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Ugh. People can wait. We don't expedite for contests. ] (]) 13:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::hmm... I guess we do. Vanderwaalforces (intentionally not pinged) seems to be participating and reviewing drafts from this thing. ] (]) 15:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::So long as it's individual reviewers making the offer to do it, seems fine to me. Not really different from someone, say, going through and reviewing all the OKA drafts (I've done this) or volunteering to help out with an editathon as a reviewer (I've done this, too). But I vote we ping Vanderwaalforces to each and every help desk request, if they arise. :P -- ] (]) 16:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Please do ping me if need arise! ] (]) 16:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Oh, sure, I don't have any issue with them (or anyone else) making it a personal priority to help out, I'm just saying we-as-a-Project should not be expediting things. ] (]) 16:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I've been accepting a lot of these as inherently notable since I tend to camp out on the recently submitted feed but, yeah, I don't see why these endless stubs need to go through AfC..? <span style="background-color: RoyalBlue; border-radius: 1em; padding: 3px 3px 3px 3px;">''']''' <small>]</small></span> 15:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Wait, they get money for this? I didn't think that was permitted? <span style="background-color: RoyalBlue; border-radius: 1em; padding: 3px 3px 3px 3px;">''']''' <small>]</small></span> 15:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Based on what I could find (which was little more than ]) it appears above-board, since they're not being paid to edit anything specific. ] (]) 15:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's probably their way of having a check/balance for the stubs so that they don't have the issue that some other editathons have had where people spam utter garbage and ''maybe'' it gets reverted. ] (]) 16:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::@] Correct! ] (]) 16:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] They actually need to go through AfC as a "damage control" both for English Misplaced Pages and the project itself. Also, these editors are mostly new, so yeah! ] (]) 16:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Makes sense :) <span style="background-color: RoyalBlue; border-radius: 1em; padding: 3px 3px 3px 3px;">''']''' <small>]</small></span> 16:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Most of them are easy to accept. I haven't come across too many issues (which is uncommon for contests with rewards), though some of the longer drafts do tend to lean on the promotional side. I've also found at least 3 copyvios stemming from this event from unrelated Copypatrol work, so be on the lookout for that I guess. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 17:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] Oh yes! I, in fact, ] for copyvio. I am especially not taking that lightly. By the way, I cannot thank you enough for keeping an eye on the article and tagging them with the WikiProject template, kudos! ] (]) 18:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Draft nominated for ] as not notable after decline == | |||
| P.S: The AfC Mentoring program is well under development. I will be posting requests for help after the backlog drive is over. Thanks. | |||
| A draft ] on a politician who does not meet ] was declined, and then nominated for deletion by the reviewer who declined it. It was my understanding that AFC reviewers should know that ]. Either an AFC reviewer has been given access to the script who hasn't been adequately briefed as to how drafts are reviewed, including that they are only nominated for deletion in rare circumstances, or an editor who is not an AFC reviewer is reviewing drafts. Do the guidelines for reviewers need clarifying? We know that sometimes New Page reviewers mistakenly review new drafts with the same standards as they use to review new articles, but apparently some AFC reviewers also don't know when t not to send drafts to XFD. ] (]) 06:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :The term is "Cullinary diplomacy", not "Cultural diplomacy" - the sources cited in the draft are good high quality sources, IMHO there is no problem here. ] (]) 07:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Or it could just be that the reviewer didn't know, and they could be gently told how to do it correctly. ] <sup>]</sup>] 07:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree. Regardless of what terms are used to describe it, this article is about a well-documented and notable phenomenon as opposed to a simple ] about a neologism, . It's well written and referenced to high quality sources and should be moved into mainspace. ] (]) 08:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I wouldn't necessarily call this a "hidden" rule or anything but I agree with Eek that "they didn't know" is probably the most likely scenario, and they should politely be a) informed, and b) asked to withdraw the MFD. ] (]) 07:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Context: ]. –] <small>(])</small> 11:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I left the MFDer a message at their user talk about not MFDing drafts like this one in the future. They were receptive to the feedback. –] <small>(])</small> 11:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | == ] == | ||
| is linked on the header, but I believe serves no purpose. This vaguely-named page doesn't have any "list" of submission by itself but links to two other lists. One of them, ], is already linked to by the header. | |||
| Note to potential reviewers of this page. I have blanked it per ]. Please see ] and ] for background. ] (]) 07:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I propose it to be merged to its parent page /Submissions to reduce confusion and the clutter in the header. Only thing that really needs to be merged is the mention of ]. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 14:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Submissions about "life coaches", management gurus, books about management techniques == | |||
| :Hasn't worked since ]; you're just the second person to notice. Feel free to pull whatever you need from the history and plonk it elsewhere if that makes sense. ] (]) 14:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==A little merging issue== | |||
| Next time one is reviewing, or discussing, an article submission about a "life coach" or a management guru or a book about management techniques, or any similar topic, it may be useful to have this in mind: | |||
| http://www.dilbert.com/2013-06-30/ | |||
| ] (]) 10:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Hello. Following a personal request for an AFC, I thought I would give it a try in spite of an article already existing as a redirect (never did). I over estimated my skills and need a little help :) | |||
| :Thanks for the LOLs! ] (]) 11:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| So the old article was a redirection (]). I removed the redirection. Could not "Yes" the draft article under the right name (]) becase of the already existing article. Thought I could approve it under a different spelling ] and then merge their histories. | |||
| == Categories == | |||
| Ok, histories are not . What am I missing ? ] (]) 14:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't even understand, maybe because I am thinking about a lot of things. It does appear that Primefac <s>has done something like that</s> cleared the issue. Cheers!<span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span><sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 08:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::<s>Anthere, there are a couple of other things you should have done.</s> <ins>For anyone who isn't an admin, this is what should have been done</ins> | |||
| ::*Request a {{t|db-afc-move}} on the redirect {{small|(this might have been declined given the old article's history, but then I -- as an admin -- would have probably just done a page swap)}} | |||
| ::*Request a page swap at ] | |||
| ::<ins>For an admin, the options are:</ins> | |||
| ::*<ins>Pageswap the draft and article</ins> | |||
| ::*<ins>Move the old page (without redirect) to a disambiguated title</ins> | |||
| ::Copy/pasting a page to another location is not a good way to get a page to a specific title. Just to clear up SafariScribe's confusion, I just did a page swap on the two pages to put the new article at the correct title, while preserving the history of the old page. | |||
| ::<s>As a minor note, ] is only available to admins, which is why you couldn't use it.</s> ] (]) 13:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC) {{small|Struck, updated, and inserted: 14:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| :::I think Anthere is an admin. Is showing blue in my user highlighter script. –] <small>(])</small> 13:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I was just going to say. And on multiple projects, it seems. -- ] (]) 13:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::''le sigh'' Forgive me for not having special admin-script glasses on. | |||
| :::::A histmerge wasn't possible because there are (effectively) parallel histories; there was nothing that could be merged from the new page into the old page because of diffs from 2010 at the old page blocking the 2025 edits from the new. ] (]) 14:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::This explains that... I felt vastly stupid :) Indeed, I could have swapped the two versions to have the new article history sitting at the right title. But I was trying hard to maintain both histories, which in fact was not really needed. Hmmm. | |||
| ::::::Situation is perfect now. Real author of current version is credited. All good. Thanks a lot for fixing. ] (]) 20:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Always happy to help, feel free to drop me a line any time you have histmerge questions, there are some who would say I'm an authority on the matter :-) ] (]) 20:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Non-English drafts == | |||
| :It's a separate issue not related to VE. Hotcat was made on by default for all users afer a hopelessly inadequatly discussed proposal and that caused major problems so it was turned off. Unfortunately deactivating the on-by-default did not recognize those who turned it on by choice so it got turned of for everyone. See ]. You need to switch it back on in your Preferences > Gadgets menu. ] (]) 16:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh, what a mess. Thanks for the update! ] (]) 19:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::This happened to me, too, but it only took a moment to get it working again. —] (]) 21:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I've just declined yet another non-English draft (not the 1st one of the day, not even the 3rd, and that's just me!). In the ] there are nearly 1,000 such declines. Would it be a good idea to put something in the wizard to warn authors that this is the English-language Misplaced Pages, and if they want to submit content in another language they should head to the relevant language version instead? It's mildly annoying to review these drafts, but I can imagine it's much more frustrating to put in all that effort, only to be told ''afterwards'' that it was all for nothing. -- ] (]) 17:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Duplicate article == | |||
| :Probably, but if they're non-English-speaking then what are the realistic chances that they're going to read yet another banner telling them they shouldn't create pages in languages other than English? I'd rather avoid banner bloat if possible, and if the subject is notable it's a quick thing to decline as non-Eng and let them (or G13) sort it out. ] (]) 18:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::In my experience they're not all (or even most?) "non-English-speaking"; many do subsequently communicate in English at the help desk and/or talk pages, and some even resubmit an English-translated draft. It's just that many seem genuinely surprised that the different language versions are in fact separate projects, and that submitting a Bulgarian (say) draft here doesn't help get it into the Bulgarian Misplaced Pages. | |||
| ::But yes, I take the point about banner bloat. Also, just because we warn them, doesn't mean they won't go against the warning regardless – after all, we get plenty of undisclosed COI/PAID submissions although the wizard clearly warns against these. -- ] (]) 18:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Fair enough. As usual, I'm not strictly ''opposed'' to adding something, just that my knee-jerk reaction is to wonder whether it's worth doing so... ] (]) 18:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : I am wondering how feasible it may be to have a bot detect the language being used, and send a note to that editor in that language. ] ] 16:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::We have a number of non-English welcome templates, not sure a bot is needed, just a reviewer that doesn't mind taking an extra minute or two to leave one. ] (]) 17:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Often, when I decline a non English draft, I use machine translation to provide a message to the creating editor about it. I suppose it depends on how often it happens regrind a bot. I somehow doubt a bot is needed. 🇺🇦 ] ] 🇺🇦 20:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==Notified Jimbo instead of the user who submitted the draft== | |||
| Dear editors: The following submission ] has been declined and resubmitted without much in the way of sources. I started to improve it, but soon realized that there is already a similar article in the encyclopedia at ]. This second one has not been edited since the cut-and-paste was made. Which article should be improved? What should be done with the other one? —] (]) 17:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I accepted a draft created and submitted by an IP user, but the script actually Jimbo Wales instead of the IP user, I wonder what caused this? - ] (]) 09:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Personally, I would decline it as 'exists' and ask the author to work on the main space submission. Both articles are broadly similar. ] ] 21:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :: Additionally, it is not necessary for geographic locations to establish their notability, only that they have received governmental recognition of their existence. ] ] 21:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::The issue isn't notability. The issue is not being referenced. ] (]) 21:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, and I'm not sure where to find the evidence of government recognition in India. There's a postal code, but that's a bit lame. I'll add it to the main space article and decline the other. —] (]) 22:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::IMHO a postal code, a named dot on an official map, existence of a government school, clinic, or evidence of municipal level elections/structures is all acceptable evidence of existence, not lame at all. ] (]) 07:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Agreed, a postal code is a fairly certain source for governmental recognition proving it verifies the existence of the subject under its own terms of reference (rather than lumping together, as merely part of a nearby place that is larger). ] ] 18:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :@]: the submitting user the draft !ownership to Jimbo. | |||
| == Notability of a town == | |||
| :Or possibly Jimbo created it himself. In which case, you should go and warn him against editing logged-out. ;) ] (]) 09:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == 2026 United States Senate election in ... == | |||
| Dear editors: I have been told several times that towns are considered notable as long as there is evidence that they are actual towns. However, I'm having difficulty in finding this in the notability guidelines. In fact, I found this: "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists." Can someone point me to the correct info page? Thanks. —] (]) 02:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Heads up: we've got five of these so far (see e.g. ]) and I suspect more are coming. I dunno if it's ] or not, but they look similar enough they can likely be accepted or declined as a group. ] (]) 00:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :]? ] (]) 03:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks, that's what I needed. However, I notice that this page is absent from the category of notability guidelines. It seems that it is an essay rather than policy, and that there hasn't been a consensus about exactly what's needed to make a town notable. —] (]) 17:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I'd decline all unless if there are secondary sources actually discussing the state-level senate elections. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 11:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Yeah, you may also want to check out ], which is more or less the derived wisdom of AfD results as part of ]. Certainly not as binding as a policy or guideline, but a pretty good indication of how a case will usually go at AfD, so I give it significantly higher weight than a random essay.. --]] 17:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| == Revamp of Article Wizard == | |||
| Should I nominate this draft for speedy deletion? Earwig turns a '''''' similarity rate, but I fear this might be a false positive.<span id="LunaEclipse:1736769057670:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNWikiProject_Articles_for_creation" class="FTTCmt"> — 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 11:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)</span> | |||
| So, I have quite a few ideas for how to revamp the Article Wizard, and I'm testing them on the labs cluster (NOT SUL enabled with enwp). | |||
| :It is a false positive. You can see what's triggering the high percentage by clicking the "Compare" buttons to the left. It's detecting the award recipient list, which you can't really paraphrase. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 11:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| If anyone wants to help, I'd love it if some people with good knowledge of either ] or javascript in general could pop over, as that's the first idea I'd like to test. I can probably manage without anyone, but it'd help tremendously. Thanks ~] <sup>]</sup> 04:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Always, always, ''always'' do a check to see if the % actually means deletion is required. I declined a G12 earlier today where the ''second'' half of the draft was copied verbatim (and thus threw a 95% match) but after removal it didn't show any matches other than the random phrases like facility names. While the number is lower today than it used to, there are still some trigger-happy admins who will nuke anything G12 with a high % match without actually checking, and that does no favours to the user who submitted the draft if it's a "false positive" (at least as far as G12 goes). ] (]) 12:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Accepting when the mainspace title is create-protected (SALTed) == | |||
| == Copyright violations in the references, not the article == | |||
| {{Tracked in|https://github.com/wikimedia-gadgets/afc-helper/issues/401}} | |||
| Eg, trying to accept ] gives: | |||
| :: Darn it, "]" is create-protected. You will need to request unprotection before accepting. | |||
| Dear reviewers: This article: ] has quite a few references, all properly cited, but only three are to the original sites ( one of which is not about the subject). The others are two screen shots of newpaper articles about the subject which have been added to the subject's web site. Isn't this a copyright violation? Since it's not on Misplaced Pages, should the screen shots be accepted as references? Or would the references be acceptable if the URLs to the screen shots were removed by the references left? (The article has other problems.) —] (]) 18:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Can we have the script modified to cover these cases? It should prompt to request the deleting admin unprotect, or prompt to submit a request to unprotect at ], or here at ] where ] reliably does it? | |||
| == Strange submission == | |||
| Reviewers should not be sending the problem straight to DRV. DRV is for addressing deletion process problems or overturning a bad decision. —] (]) 02:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Dear reviewers: This article: ] has been deleted three times in 2007. Now a new page has been submitted with this name, but it isn't in English. When I tried to decline it, the list of deletions comes up, but not the Afc script. Is this a bug? —] (]) 01:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I am puzzled as to what ] says is wrong with the AFC script. The script did not say to go to ]. The script said to request unprotection. If SmokeyJoe is recommending that the script provide more detailed instructions, then that is a good idea, but the current instruction is not wrong. ] (]) 03:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::The comment a reviewer posted on the draft “The author must take it to ] for review” was wrong. ] (]) 06:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Not to get picky, but JoJo did say in their AFD close that any new drafts would need DRV to be accepted. Is this a proclamation they're allowed to make? I don't know, but that is why the reviewer said it. ] (]) 07:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Good nitpick. I hadn’t seen that. I presumed it was a general belief that DRV is generally required to reverse SALTing, as we see from time to time at DRV. | |||
| ::::] did say that in their close, in August 2017. I’m not wanting to try to solve this here, but the proclamation came from the closer, not the discussion, which is an issue. Also, time matters. I’ve seen elsewhere concerns about the huge number of protected pages, where most, but not all, never warranted permanent protection. I think JoJo’s proclamation should definitely be respected for six months, should probably be respected for two years, and after that I’m not sure. ] (]) 09:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Can't really argue with that; salting really is a slightly longer way of dealing with disruption, but I agree it shouldn't really ever be indef. ] (]) 09:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I am not personally sure myself, but my sense is that if a page keeps getting deleted at AfD, at some point folks need to challenge the AfD closes first (i.e DRV) before recreating yet again. That said, it's been eight years and I haven't worked in AfD for a long time. ] (]) 10:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :If y'all want to pick which of those actions you want AFCH to do, I can make a ticket for it. We should focus on one action. So the workflow might be something like "Darn it, "Callum Reynolds" is create-protected. Do you want AFCH to file a request for unprotection at ]? ". Then the RFUP could be something like "I am an AFC reviewer and I would like to formally accept "Callum Reynolds" and move it to mainspace, but it is ]ed. I would like to request unprotection. Please ping me with the outcome so I remember to move the draft. Thanks." –] <small>(])</small> 06:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::The simplest option I think is for AFCH to advise how to request unprotection. | |||
| ::It might be good for AFCH to offer a post a canned request, to the protecting admin, or to RFUP, or to here at WT:AfC. ] (]) 06:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Indeed. It would be fairly trivial to add something along the lines of "at RFUP or WT:AFC" after "unprotection". ] (]) 07:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I with the "at RFUP or WT:AFC" addition. Let me know if anyone wants it adjusted. –] <small>(])</small> 09:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I suggest that it should say: "You will need to request unprotection from the protecting admin on their talk page or at ]." So +admin -WT:AfC. I don't think that WT:AfC should be recommended because RFUP ''should'' work, and if it isn't working, we should see why it isn't, instead of bypassing the problem by directing requests here. —] 15:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That's fair, I mainly was parroting Joe's suggestion since my advice here (when someone asks about a salted page) is to just ping me, well, here, and I'll take care of it. ] (]) 16:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 16:21, 14 January 2025
| Main page | Talk page | Submissions Category, Sorting, Feed | Showcase | Participants Apply, By subject | Reviewing instructions | Help desk | Backlog drives |
| AfC submissions Random submission |
| 2+ months |
| 1,754 pending submissionsPurge to update |
- Are you in the right place?
- If you want to ask a question about your draft submission, use the AfC Help desk.
- For questions on how to use or edit Misplaced Pages, use the Teahouse.
- Create an article using Article wizard or request an article at requested articles.
- Put new text under old text. Start a new topic.
- In addition to this page, you can give feedback about the AFCH helper script by creating a new ticket on GitHub.
- New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.
 | Other talk page banners | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
 Archives |
|
Articles for Creation (search)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Reviewer help Helper script |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present. |
Bots/scripts that detect that a submission has not changed (much) since the last time it was submitted
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Are there any bots/scripts that detect that a submission has not changed (much) since the last time it was submitted? Ideally they would be able to autoreject or at least put them on a list. It might be possible to look at the previous reason for rejection, e.g. not meeting GNG, and if no new refs are added it is highly unlikely it will pass this time. Polygnotus (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- No, and if I remember correctly we decided not to have any sort of bot that does this. Primefac (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think having a bot that does this would be a bad idea. One poor decline could easily lead to a series of them. -- asilvering (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- For clarity, given @Ca's comment below, my comment is about putting them on a list. (Obviously, I think an autoreject bot would be even worse.) -- asilvering (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, bad idea. Sometimes it's reasonable to resubmit without changes if the decline was incorrect or the submitter has clarified something. C F A 💬 16:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- How about a bot that could add a Comment to the submission to let the submitter know that the submission has not changed and that they could continue working on it? Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 16:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- I agree having any kind of auto-decline bot is a bad idea. However, simply putting them in a list, like this one, sounds reasonable. It would be useful for finding easy declines/accepts, provided that the reviewers check the circumstances behind the resubmission. Ca 16:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- I like the idea of a bot that can at least note the absence of material change to a resubmitted article. BD2412 T 21:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- @BD2412: Let's say software detects that a submission has not changed (much) since the last time it was submitted. What should it do? Message the submitter? Stick a template on the submission? Stick it on a list similar to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Submissions#List:_Copyvios? Notify the previous reviewer? Something else? You can choose more than one option. Polygnotus (talk) 10:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- Notify the submitter and put a note on the submission to the effect that the submission was previously rejected, and that the reasons for the previous rejection should be reviewed prior to acceptance of the submission. Creating a list of little-changed re-submissions is also not a bad idea. BD2412 T 14:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- @BD2412: Let's say software detects that a submission has not changed (much) since the last time it was submitted. What should it do? Message the submitter? Stick a template on the submission? Stick it on a list similar to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Submissions#List:_Copyvios? Notify the previous reviewer? Something else? You can choose more than one option. Polygnotus (talk) 10:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
RfC: Should a bot be created to handle AfC submissions that haven't changed since the last time they were submitted?
Should a bot be created to handle AfC submissions that haven't changed since the last time they were submitted?
- Option 1: Yes. The bot should automatically
rejectdecline any such submissions. - Option 2: Yes. The bot should add such submissions to a list, similar to the list of possible copyvios.
- Option 3: Yes. The bot should notify the submitter and comment on the submission.
- Option 4: Yes. The bot should add such submissions to a list and notify the submitter and comment on the submission.
- Option 5: No.
JJPMaster (she/they) 18:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Note that I changed Option 1 to decline rather than reject, as reject is a very specific term in AFC and I don't think that is what was meant here. Reject means the draft can never be resubmitted, due to violating WP:NOT or having extremely obvious and egregious non-notability. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose option 1, per the discussion above this is a very bad idea. Support option 2, this seems harmless and seems worth tracking - as long as it is made absolutely clear that being rejected previously is not a reason to reject - if the original reason was correct and still applies then it can be rejected again for that reason. Neutral on the other options, but any comment/notification must make it clear that it is informational only and not a rejection. Thryduulf (talk) 19:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Option 5. AfC reviewers make mistakes. We should not be prejudicing someone's future AfC chances based on those mistakes any more than we already do - namely, that there is already a gigantic decline message on the draft. AfC is frequently a dispiriting, demoralizing, and baffling experience for new editors, mostly one of waiting and then receiving templated replies they do not fully understand. I oppose this, and I oppose any other efforts that would further increase new editor alienation in this way. -- asilvering (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Option 4, but as with Thryduulf, the comment on submission should be marked as informational and a reviewer will come by to assess the submission. – robertsky (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support option 2. Whether any changes have been made since the last decline is often something I look for when reviewing an article with declines, as it helps to see if the concerns from that last decline were addressed (if I feel like they are appropriate to the article as I see it), and this would be a benefit to a reviewer without being additionally "punishing" to a new editor. Reconrabbit 19:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Speaking as someone who doesn't review drafts but very occasionally comments on them, I think an {{AfC comment}}-like mention at the top would be easiest to work with, so I guess I'm at Option 3 or 4. Very dubious that a bot could reasonably handle the "(much)" in the preceding section header without unacceptable false positives and negatives, but detecting completely unchanged submissions would be both feasible and useful. —Cryptic 20:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Option 5 - No. Oppose Options 1, 2, 3, 4. Support based on Asilvering's comment. Opposes are my own, doubtless with others. As a reviewer I declare myself capable of checking, and I do. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Faddle 🇺🇦 20:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Option 4 but instead of adding to a list, add to a category (preferably a hidden one). Yes, definitely notify the submitter and comment on it, but having a list may discourage the submitter if they see that their draft is listed on a list. Having a hidden category would be better (at least imho) where a parameter of Template:AFC submission can add the draft into the category. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 20:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Though with all options, the reviewer would still do the same work... Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 20:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- I suppose I wouldn't oppose a bot that automatically leaves a comment, but I don't really see the point either. Reviewers should be evaluating based on the current state of the draft — previous declines really shouldn't matter in most cases. I think this would encourage summary "no change" declines without actually looking at the content of the draft. C F A 💬 20:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- You're right. It would encourage reviewers to "decline" the draft just because it hasn't changed since last review. However, thinking now, it might encourage editors to keep working on the draft because they see that "it hasn't changed since last review". If that's the case, reviewers should "wait". So perhaps after the bot leaves a comment, reviewers should wait at least a couple minute before reviewing in case the editor wants to add content? Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 21:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- My position is that if they did not see being declined as reason to keep working on the draft, they are unlikely to have a positive view of an automated message telling them that the draft hasn't changed. -- asilvering (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- You're right. It would encourage reviewers to "decline" the draft just because it hasn't changed since last review. However, thinking now, it might encourage editors to keep working on the draft because they see that "it hasn't changed since last review". If that's the case, reviewers should "wait". So perhaps after the bot leaves a comment, reviewers should wait at least a couple minute before reviewing in case the editor wants to add content? Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 21:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- No too easy to game. The simplest bot would just compare revisions. A submitter would then just have to add like a space or a few words to change it. A more complicated bot would flag changes that were too small or simple, but then that just encourages submitters to ramble. A bot can't assess the quality of a change, only editors can. CaptainEek ⚓ 21:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Strongest Oppose to 1 as bad reviews do exist. Also, sometimes submitters have discussed it with the reviewer and been told to resubmit for a second opinion etc.
- Weak Oppose 2, 3 & 4 as I'm not convinced a bot will accurately determine what no substantive change is and I see little value in just flagging straight re-submits
- Support 5 as de-facto option left KylieTastic (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2 or 4 especially with several disruptors (and one dynamic IP so block doesn't help) who just do drive by submissions. Frustrating to the editor to receive another decline through no fault of their own. Having them in the queue is a waste of reviewers' time though when it's a quick decline because the improvements haven't been made. I think it's less wrong decline and more no discussion about why the feedback was wrong that's the red flag. Star Mississippi 23:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- I lean towards Option 5, but for those pages/editors engaged in a problematic level of drive-by submissions, I wonder whether a completely different approach might work better. For example: If you think the previous decline was correct, and you also think it's a drive-by re-nom, then move the article to the mainspace and send it straight to AFD. If it's kept, then the submitter was correct, and the previous decline was wrong. Also, it's now out of the AFC queues. However, if it's deleted, salt the page name(s) in both Draft: and mainspace for the next year (or two?), so that AFC can be done with it. Either way, it's no longer AFC's problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose Option 1. Frankly, trusting fellow reviewers to check how much a draft has changed since a previous decline is reasonable to do. Letting a Bot do something creates an option to game the system. We don't need that. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 00:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Option 2, neutral on Option 4, and oppose the rest. I do not see the point in notifying submitters when they already are aware they did not make any changes. Perhaps they wanted another review. Putting unchanged drafts in a hidden list like the copyvio one seems optimal as it reduces complexity and unnecessary messages to submitters. It would make finding easy declines and disruptive drive by submissions easier to find. I also support adding a verbiage that being unchanged should not be the sole reason to decline again. Ca 00:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Option 5 - Reviewers should be instructed, more clearly if necessary, to check whether the draft has been revised since the last decline, and to use human judgment in deciding what is enough improvement. There is no need for automated aid, which could make mistakes and could be gamed. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2, at least, option 4, at best. Yes, reviewers make mistakes, but they make mistakes in both directions, and should also consider the guidance inherent in a previous rejection. BD2412 T 15:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Option 4 preferably, but I'm okay with option 5 as well (TBH, I don't think this is a major problem in the bigger scheme of things, and the details could be tricky). Also oppose option 1, regardless of whether it was intended to say 'reject', or merely 'decline'. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- PS: When I say details could be tricky, I didn't mean in a technical sense, but rather in defining what the trigger condition of "changed (much)" actually means. Size change doesn't always tell us much: only a few kb might have changed, yet the draft was completely rewritten; conversely, a large kb change could mean that the author simply deleted the earlier AfC templates. Number of sources, ditto: adding ten new rubbish sources to the earlier rubbish sources still adds up to only rubbish; whereas using the same sources but citing them correctly might have resolved the decline reason. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Option 5. AfC reviewers sometimes make mistakes, particularly when dealing with areas that they are not familiar with. (I can't count how many drafts on academics have been rejected and told to supply GNG, and I've also seen rejections of drafts on politicians that clearly passed NPOL.) Creators should always be allowed to ask for a second opinion. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Option 5 Per asilvering and Espresso Addict. I would further that; reviewers often make mistakes....specifically declining articles for reasons that are not decline criteria. Also some reviewers tend to pass only unusually safe passes. North8000 (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Option 5 per Asilvering. If a reviewer makes a mistake (which often happens), the submitter shouldn't be even more penalized for it. Same if they just want another opinion on their draft. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2 or 4 per Star Mississippi. I'll add: Resubmitting an unchanged draft is a sign of a problem even if the declining reviewer had made a mistake. And it will rarely be the case that they have made a mistake given a creator who resubmits an identical draft, which very strongly correlates with the draft being poor in the first place and not deserving of acceptance.—Alalch E. 13:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- Option 5 (do nothing). Like Primefac below, I'm surprised this got the RfC stage given the overwhelmingly negative reception in the original discussion, and hope the closer of this discussion will take that into account. AfC reviewers make mistakes but, more to the point, people can have good faith disagreements about the suitability of an article. If the submitter disagrees with a reviewer, they have every right to ask for a second opinion without edit warring with a bot or making pointless changes. – Joe (talk) 08:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2 or 5 - Given the unevenness of reviews, authors have legitimate reasons for seeking a second, third or fourth review. ~Kvng (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
RFC discussion
Um... didn't this get fairly roundly shot down in the original discussion? Why does it need a full RFC to work out any further details? Primefac (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think that only Option 1 was outright rejected in the above discussion. The rest were counterproposals that seemed to have at least some support. JJPMaster (she/they) 19:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Meh, RFC just seems like a lot of bureaucracy for something that didn't really have a lot of discussion and could have probably been dealt with in-house. Carry on I suppose. Primefac (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- I second your 'meh'. Why are we going through this extra layer. If it ain't broke don't fix it! 🇺🇦 Fiddle Faddle 🇺🇦 20:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hate to be Devil's Advocate for an RFC I've opposed, but I think we've got more, clearer answers to the question in the few hours since this RfC opened than we had in the entire earlier discussion, so there's that. And I do think AfC is pretty broke and needs some fixing. I just think this is tinkering in the wrong direction. -- asilvering (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- I second your 'meh'. Why are we going through this extra layer. If it ain't broke don't fix it! 🇺🇦 Fiddle Faddle 🇺🇦 20:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Meh, RFC just seems like a lot of bureaucracy for something that didn't really have a lot of discussion and could have probably been dealt with in-house. Carry on I suppose. Primefac (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
While we're here and talking about reviewers making mistakes, let me make my perennial plea that, if you see, this, you go ask the reviewer about it on their talk page. We all have to learn somehow! And if the reviewer is making lots of mistakes, it will be easier for any single editor to figure this out later if there's a track record of them on their talk page. By the way, for those who haven't learned this trick yet: the AFCH script will allow you to resubmit drafts as though you were the original submitter. If you think something was inappropriately declined, you can resubmit it to the queue yourself and then immediately accept it, or resubmit it and leave a comment explaining why you did so. -- asilvering (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Or if you want to resubmit a draft on behalf of another user so they get the AfC communications rather than you, such as the Accept notification, you can use {{subst:submit|Creator's username}}. The other option is to click the Resubmit button then change the User (u=) from your name to theirs. S0091 (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- The AFCH script will do this for you automatically. -- asilvering (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Ahh..ok, I see now. You review on an already declined draft. I had never clicked the Submit button because I assumed it worked the same way as the Resubmit button in the decline message but the AFCH script gives you options to assign the submitter. I can't tell you how many times I have resubmitted drafts using the manual methods I outline above. The more you know! :) S0091 (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- The AFCH script will do this for you automatically. -- asilvering (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Indian state symbols
It seems we have a new instalment in the series of bogus Indian state symbols, this time with Draft:List of Indian state vegetables. Different IP from the previous ones, but probably the same user. Just flagging this here to avoid a repeat of the earlier sich. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have cleared up the rest of the related junk edits from them. KylieTastic (talk) 12:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- This time, it's Draft:List of Indian state cuisines. Curious to see what's coming next? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Nope. They should be warned then blocked for making hoaxes. KylieTastic (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Deleted as hoaxes and blocked for block evasion. KylieTastic (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Nope. They should be warned then blocked for making hoaxes. KylieTastic (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- This time, it's Draft:List of Indian state cuisines. Curious to see what's coming next? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Class assessment and the Banner Shell
Is the class assessment within the {{WikiProject Articles for creation}} template meant to be a snapshot of the class at creation, or, is it meant to "grow" with the article. I ask this, as now class allocation is set in the {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which reports a conflict if the class in the banner shell is different from any other class assignment. If the "class=" parameter from AfC is meant to be a snapshot at creation, then the Banner Shell code should ignore it if it's not the same as the overall "class=" setting. If it's meant to change as the article improves over time, then we can just remove it from the AfC template and just use the Banner shell assignment. Ping User: Tom.Reding & User:MSGJ as the banner shell experts. The-Pope (talk) 07:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know why it would be a snapshot. Lee Vilenski 07:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think it could be a snapshot, if it's meant to track the 'quality' of articles coming out of the AfC process at the time of acceptance/publication.
- Conversely, it could evolve over time, if it's meant to track the quality of AfC-created articles at some future time of such tracking or analysis.
- FWIW, I had assumed the former, which is why I give it the rating suggested by the rating tool, even if the other projects take theirs from the shell. Perfectly happy to be proven wrong on this, obvs. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- The template should probably state which one it is. Lee Vilenski 08:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. Reviewers obviously need to know which way to apply this, and ideally all do it the same way. But future readers (under the 'snapshot' model, that is) would also need to know why the AfC rating is potentially different from the others. ("Hey, my article is rated A, why is AfC still marking it down as Start?!") -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- The template should probably state which one it is. Lee Vilenski 08:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I thought this was changed some time ago so that the AFCH tool only puts a single assessment in the shell like all other projects. Do you have a case to illustrate the issue? KylieTastic (talk) 09:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- It was, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Archive_58#Assigning_WikiProjects_to_Articles KylieTastic (talk) 09:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think that settles it - putting a single assessment in the shell is the opposite of a permanent snapshot. My thinking is similar to DoubleGrazing's, except that I assumed the latter (evolving over time in the shell), mostly because {{WikiProject Articles for creation}} is not in Category:Custom class masks of WikiProject banners, which it would have to be for snapshotting to be a thing. Since that and several other things would have to change for the snapshot model to be operational, there doesn't seem to be an impetus for it. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 12:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, this gets brought up every once in a while. The assessment is more for tracking current status. Personally I would advocate for removing quality rankings for our project - we do not improve articles to a higher standard, so saying that it is a "GA-class AFC article" is somewhat misleading since we're really only tracking how far its come since creation. Primefac (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think that settles it - putting a single assessment in the shell is the opposite of a permanent snapshot. My thinking is similar to DoubleGrazing's, except that I assumed the latter (evolving over time in the shell), mostly because {{WikiProject Articles for creation}} is not in Category:Custom class masks of WikiProject banners, which it would have to be for snapshotting to be a thing. Since that and several other things would have to change for the snapshot model to be operational, there doesn't seem to be an impetus for it. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 12:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- It was, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Archive_58#Assigning_WikiProjects_to_Articles KylieTastic (talk) 09:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am not aware of any wikiproject banners that take a snapshot. That would be complicated to code, and counterintuitive to how wikiproject banners normally work. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Arguably, the GA/FA Template has a piece on timestamps as to which was the review version. Lee Vilenski 17:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was thinking more along the lines of WikiProject banners, which inherit their class from the banner shell. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm starting to think I may have misunderstood... I thought each project's rating can be either set to take it from the banner shell, or set to a particular rating value. I had assumed that if it's set to take it from the shell, it will change as the shell rating changes. Whereas (again, I had assumed) if it's set to a particular value, it would remain fixed, unless/until it's manually changed. (This is what I was referring to as 'snapshot'.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- That can be done, yes, but only for projects (like MILHIST) that opt in to that functionality. Primefac (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Arguably, the GA/FA Template has a piece on timestamps as to which was the review version. Lee Vilenski 17:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Help
Moved to WP:TEA#Help (diff
Primefac (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Disable AFCH if there is an ongoing AfD
The AFCH tool should be disabled if there is an ongoing AfD at the corresponding mainspace title, as with Draft:Raegan Revord and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Raegan Revord (2nd nomination), for example. GTrang (talk) 16:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Why? A draft like that should be declined as
existsanyway, so disabling AFCH would mean that we wouldn't be able to do that. Primefac (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)- In fairness, that (decline as 'exists') is what GTrang did with this draft, but it was reverted as
just extra administration for no reason
(I think). Which then put the draft back in the pool. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)- I have undone that edit as the AFD is clearly trending towards the article being kept. Primefac (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I went ahead and redirected the draft to the mainspace article, which is what I like to do in these situations to avoid duplication. I think editors should be encouraged to work on the mainspace article and not the draft, so that everyone is using their time efficiently. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was reverted. NatGertler, can you please elaborate on how you plan to move a draft over an existing mainspace page? Did you perhaps mean that you plan to manually copy paste merge some pieces of the draft instead? In which case, the draft would be fine as a redirect, since the page history can easily be checked. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you look at the AfD, there is reasonable support for (if the article survives AfD) deleting the version that is currently in mainspace and moving this draft one into mainspace at the same address. This version is in much better shape, and there is nothing substantial in the mainspace one that needs to be merged into this. If folks are to work on either of them, we want them working on this one, which is likely to be the surviving version in some form (whether it survives as a draft or in mainspace depends on the outcome of the AfD, but even at the most complicated take it will be merged into the mainspace one, so may as well have it here.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Got it. I think this should be de-duplicated at some point, but with your comment in mind, I suppose it's OK to wait until after the AFD is over. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you look at the AfD, there is reasonable support for (if the article survives AfD) deleting the version that is currently in mainspace and moving this draft one into mainspace at the same address. This version is in much better shape, and there is nothing substantial in the mainspace one that needs to be merged into this. If folks are to work on either of them, we want them working on this one, which is likely to be the surviving version in some form (whether it survives as a draft or in mainspace depends on the outcome of the AfD, but even at the most complicated take it will be merged into the mainspace one, so may as well have it here.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was reverted. NatGertler, can you please elaborate on how you plan to move a draft over an existing mainspace page? Did you perhaps mean that you plan to manually copy paste merge some pieces of the draft instead? In which case, the draft would be fine as a redirect, since the page history can easily be checked. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I went ahead and redirected the draft to the mainspace article, which is what I like to do in these situations to avoid duplication. I think editors should be encouraged to work on the mainspace article and not the draft, so that everyone is using their time efficiently. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have undone that edit as the AFD is clearly trending towards the article being kept. Primefac (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- In fairness, that (decline as 'exists') is what GTrang did with this draft, but it was reverted as
Misplaced Pages:Declined AfC submissions resubmitted without any changes is live!
Per the outcome of this RfC, which is shown above, and a request filed at WP:BOTREQ by User:JJPMaster, the above page is now live and ready for reviewers to use, maintained by User:MolecularBot. It's actually caught 1 already in only the couple hours its been live, see Draft:M S Narasimha Murthy. :)
There's also a website I've made hosted on Toolforge to look up an article and see if it's resubmitted without changes, if that's more your thing.
For adding an item to the list, the requirement is that it has an AFC submission wizard edit, directly after an AFCH decline.
For removing an item from the list, the requirement is that it has a edit that is not done with AFCH or the AFC submission wizard (note: it's been very kindly suggested by Bunnypranav that it should maybe do some detecting to see if a edit is meaningful or not, any suggestions for when/when not a edit counts as meaningful are most welcome!)
Please don't hesitate to reach out to me if you have any feedback for this bot task, or would like anything changed about it. Thanks! :) MolecularPilot 06:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also btw an API is also available by sending a GET request to https://molecularbot2.toolforge.org/resubAPI.php?pageName=test, replacing test with the name of the page, excluding "Draft:"! :) MolecularPilot 06:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for implementing the bot—on the new year nonetheless! Ca 13:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Trying out using Microsoft Copilot to discuss notability of a particular topic
I'm not sure if people have tried this out or not. I searched AfC talk archives for "AI", "Gemini", "Copilot", and I saw that people have been talking about AI generated submissions, but I haven't seen any discussion on doing something like this.
So, anyway, I'll seek to share the dialog:
I asked Copilot to argue against notability for GlobalPlatform, and then also to argue for notability.
Initially I just asked it what are some of the major consortia that Google is a part of.
Copilot responsed and then also prompted with, "Is there a specific area of Google's partnerships you're particularly interested in?".
And so I told it why I had asked the question initially, and it cited Misplaced Pages's policies, and then asked, "Do you have a specific consortium in mind that you're researching?"
I could mention that I did see this mentioned in Misplaced Pages:Artificial Intelligence, so perhaps editors don't feel that it's necessarily worth discussing with LLMs whether a particular topic meets notability or not.
When exploring AI techniques and systems, the community consensus is to prefer human decisions over machine-generated outcomes until the implications are better understood.
Jjjjjjjjjj (talk · contribs) 05:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Meh... what people choose to do on their own time to not think for themselves is their own concern; if an LLM tells someone that a subject is notable, but the subject is not notable, we're no worse off than the Fiver writers that get paid to write shitty prose about non-notable grocery store owners. If the LLM tells the editor that a subject is notable, and they are, then all they've really done is waste their own time, since the subject would pass our criteria anyway. Primefac (talk) 07:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- LLMs do not think in the traditional human way because that's not what they're trained to do. Their job is to provide compelling output. The problem with that is that LLMs don't know what truth or factual accuracy is, i. e., they don't know if what they've just made up makes any sense. In a nutshell, discussing with an LLM is like talking to a parrot on steroids. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 08:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've seen several editors assuring us that their obviously LLM-generated draft has been painstakingly written to comply with all Misplaced Pages requirements for notability, verifiability, and other core policies yada yada... and then it turns out the said draft doesn't cite a single source. So if the editor hasn't the first clue about our requirements, then the LLM clearly won't impose one on them. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- LLM and Misplaced Pages don't mix very well. In my opinion, in almost all cases, it's just a timesink. LLM is useful for certain non-Misplaced Pages things, but is not a great fit here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
African legislators
Just found out why we're seeing so many new drafts (mostly very short stubs) on legislators, esp. Nigerian ones, lately: https://meta.wikimedia.org/Event:African_Legislators_in_Red This runs until the end of the month, and one of the rules is that the articles must get into the main space by then, so expect to see some fast track requests at the help desk as the deadline approaches... -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ugh. People can wait. We don't expedite for contests. Primefac (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- hmm... I guess we do. Vanderwaalforces (intentionally not pinged) seems to be participating and reviewing drafts from this thing. Primefac (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- So long as it's individual reviewers making the offer to do it, seems fine to me. Not really different from someone, say, going through and reviewing all the OKA drafts (I've done this) or volunteering to help out with an editathon as a reviewer (I've done this, too). But I vote we ping Vanderwaalforces to each and every help desk request, if they arise. :P -- asilvering (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please do ping me if need arise! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, sure, I don't have any issue with them (or anyone else) making it a personal priority to help out, I'm just saying we-as-a-Project should not be expediting things. Primefac (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- So long as it's individual reviewers making the offer to do it, seems fine to me. Not really different from someone, say, going through and reviewing all the OKA drafts (I've done this) or volunteering to help out with an editathon as a reviewer (I've done this, too). But I vote we ping Vanderwaalforces to each and every help desk request, if they arise. :P -- asilvering (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- hmm... I guess we do. Vanderwaalforces (intentionally not pinged) seems to be participating and reviewing drafts from this thing. Primefac (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've been accepting a lot of these as inherently notable since I tend to camp out on the recently submitted feed but, yeah, I don't see why these endless stubs need to go through AfC..? qcne (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wait, they get money for this? I didn't think that was permitted? qcne (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Based on what I could find (which was little more than this) it appears above-board, since they're not being paid to edit anything specific. Primefac (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's probably their way of having a check/balance for the stubs so that they don't have the issue that some other editathons have had where people spam utter garbage and maybe it gets reverted. Primefac (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Primefac Correct! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Qcne They actually need to go through AfC as a "damage control" both for English Misplaced Pages and the project itself. Also, these editors are mostly new, so yeah! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Makes sense :) qcne (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wait, they get money for this? I didn't think that was permitted? qcne (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Most of them are easy to accept. I haven't come across too many issues (which is uncommon for contests with rewards), though some of the longer drafts do tend to lean on the promotional side. I've also found at least 3 copyvios stemming from this event from unrelated Copypatrol work, so be on the lookout for that I guess. C F A 17:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @CFA Oh yes! I, in fact, disqualified one of the contestants for copyvio. I am especially not taking that lightly. By the way, I cannot thank you enough for keeping an eye on the article and tagging them with the WikiProject template, kudos! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Draft nominated for MFD as not notable after decline
A draft BLP on a politician who does not meet political notability was declined, and then nominated for deletion by the reviewer who declined it. It was my understanding that AFC reviewers should know that drafts are not reviewed for notability or sanity. Either an AFC reviewer has been given access to the script who hasn't been adequately briefed as to how drafts are reviewed, including that they are only nominated for deletion in rare circumstances, or an editor who is not an AFC reviewer is reviewing drafts. Do the guidelines for reviewers need clarifying? We know that sometimes New Page reviewers mistakenly review new drafts with the same standards as they use to review new articles, but apparently some AFC reviewers also don't know when t not to send drafts to XFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Or it could just be that the reviewer didn't know, and they could be gently told how to do it correctly. CaptainEek ⚓ 07:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I wouldn't necessarily call this a "hidden" rule or anything but I agree with Eek that "they didn't know" is probably the most likely scenario, and they should politely be a) informed, and b) asked to withdraw the MFD. Primefac (talk) 07:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Context: Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Bashir Muhammad Hussari Galadanchi. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I left the MFDer a message at their user talk about not MFDing drafts like this one in the future. They were receptive to the feedback. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions/List
is linked on the header, but I believe serves no purpose. This vaguely-named page doesn't have any "list" of submission by itself but links to two other lists. One of them, Misplaced Pages:AfC sorting, is already linked to by the header.
I propose it to be merged to its parent page /Submissions to reduce confusion and the clutter in the header. Only thing that really needs to be merged is the mention of Template:AfC statistics. Ca 14:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hasn't worked since at least 2022; you're just the second person to notice. Feel free to pull whatever you need from the history and plonk it elsewhere if that makes sense. Primefac (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
A little merging issue
Hello. Following a personal request for an AFC, I thought I would give it a try in spite of an article already existing as a redirect (never did). I over estimated my skills and need a little help :)
So the old article was a redirection (Lahcen Ahansal). I removed the redirection. Could not "Yes" the draft article under the right name (Draft:Lahcen Ahansal) becase of the already existing article. Thought I could approve it under a different spelling Lacen Ahansal and then merge their histories.
Ok, histories are not merging. What am I missing ? Anthere (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't even understand, maybe because I am thinking about a lot of things. It does appear that Primefac
has done something like thatcleared the issue. Cheers!Safari Scribe 08:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)Anthere, there are a couple of other things you should have done.For anyone who isn't an admin, this is what should have been done- Request a {{db-afc-move}} on the redirect (this might have been declined given the old article's history, but then I -- as an admin -- would have probably just done a page swap)
- Request a page swap at WP:RM/TR
- For an admin, the options are:
- Pageswap the draft and article
- Move the old page (without redirect) to a disambiguated title
- Copy/pasting a page to another location is not a good way to get a page to a specific title. Just to clear up SafariScribe's confusion, I just did a page swap on the two pages to put the new article at the correct title, while preserving the history of the old page.
As a minor note, Special:MergeHistory is only available to admins, which is why you couldn't use it.Primefac (talk) 13:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC) Struck, updated, and inserted: 14:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)- I think Anthere is an admin. Is showing blue in my user highlighter script. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was just going to say. And on multiple projects, it seems. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- le sigh Forgive me for not having special admin-script glasses on.
- A histmerge wasn't possible because there are (effectively) parallel histories; there was nothing that could be merged from the new page into the old page because of diffs from 2010 at the old page blocking the 2025 edits from the new. Primefac (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- This explains that... I felt vastly stupid :) Indeed, I could have swapped the two versions to have the new article history sitting at the right title. But I was trying hard to maintain both histories, which in fact was not really needed. Hmmm.
- Situation is perfect now. Real author of current version is credited. All good. Thanks a lot for fixing. Anthere (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Always happy to help, feel free to drop me a line any time you have histmerge questions, there are some who would say I'm an authority on the matter :-) Primefac (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was just going to say. And on multiple projects, it seems. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think Anthere is an admin. Is showing blue in my user highlighter script. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Non-English drafts
I've just declined yet another non-English draft (not the 1st one of the day, not even the 3rd, and that's just me!). In the Category:AfC submissions declined as not in English there are nearly 1,000 such declines. Would it be a good idea to put something in the wizard to warn authors that this is the English-language Misplaced Pages, and if they want to submit content in another language they should head to the relevant language version instead? It's mildly annoying to review these drafts, but I can imagine it's much more frustrating to put in all that effort, only to be told afterwards that it was all for nothing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Probably, but if they're non-English-speaking then what are the realistic chances that they're going to read yet another banner telling them they shouldn't create pages in languages other than English? I'd rather avoid banner bloat if possible, and if the subject is notable it's a quick thing to decline as non-Eng and let them (or G13) sort it out. Primefac (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- In my experience they're not all (or even most?) "non-English-speaking"; many do subsequently communicate in English at the help desk and/or talk pages, and some even resubmit an English-translated draft. It's just that many seem genuinely surprised that the different language versions are in fact separate projects, and that submitting a Bulgarian (say) draft here doesn't help get it into the Bulgarian Misplaced Pages.
- But yes, I take the point about banner bloat. Also, just because we warn them, doesn't mean they won't go against the warning regardless – after all, we get plenty of undisclosed COI/PAID submissions although the wizard clearly warns against these. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Fair enough. As usual, I'm not strictly opposed to adding something, just that my knee-jerk reaction is to wonder whether it's worth doing so... Primefac (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am wondering how feasible it may be to have a bot detect the language being used, and send a note to that editor in that language. BD2412 T 16:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- We have a number of non-English welcome templates, not sure a bot is needed, just a reviewer that doesn't mind taking an extra minute or two to leave one. Primefac (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Often, when I decline a non English draft, I use machine translation to provide a message to the creating editor about it. I suppose it depends on how often it happens regrind a bot. I somehow doubt a bot is needed. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Faddle 🇺🇦 20:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- We have a number of non-English welcome templates, not sure a bot is needed, just a reviewer that doesn't mind taking an extra minute or two to leave one. Primefac (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Notified Jimbo instead of the user who submitted the draft
I accepted a draft created and submitted by an IP user, but the script actually notified Jimbo Wales instead of the IP user, I wonder what caused this? - Ratnahastin (talk) 09:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Ratnahastin: the submitting user changed the draft !ownership to Jimbo.
- Or possibly Jimbo created it himself. In which case, you should go and warn him against editing logged-out. ;) DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
2026 United States Senate election in ...
Heads up: we've got five of these so far (see e.g. Draft:2026 United States Senate election in Arkansas) and I suspect more are coming. I dunno if it's WP:TOOSOON or not, but they look similar enough they can likely be accepted or declined as a group. Rusalkii (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd decline all unless if there are secondary sources actually discussing the state-level senate elections. Ca 11:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Draft:Clifford Prize
Should I nominate this draft for speedy deletion? Earwig turns a 93% similarity rate, but I fear this might be a false positive. — 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 11:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is a false positive. You can see what's triggering the high percentage by clicking the "Compare" buttons to the left. It's detecting the award recipient list, which you can't really paraphrase. Ca 11:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Always, always, always do a check to see if the % actually means deletion is required. I declined a G12 earlier today where the second half of the draft was copied verbatim (and thus threw a 95% match) but after removal it didn't show any matches other than the random phrases like facility names. While the number is lower today than it used to, there are still some trigger-happy admins who will nuke anything G12 with a high % match without actually checking, and that does no favours to the user who submitted the draft if it's a "false positive" (at least as far as G12 goes). Primefac (talk) 12:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Accepting when the mainspace title is create-protected (SALTed)
Tracked in github.comIssue #401
Eg, trying to accept Draft:Callum_Reynolds gives:
- Darn it, "Callum Reynolds" is create-protected. You will need to request unprotection before accepting.
Can we have the script modified to cover these cases? It should prompt to request the deleting admin unprotect, or prompt to submit a request to unprotect at WP:RFUP, or here at WT:AfC where User:Primefac reliably does it?
Reviewers should not be sending the problem straight to DRV. DRV is for addressing deletion process problems or overturning a bad decision. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am puzzled as to what User:SmokeyJoe says is wrong with the AFC script. The script did not say to go to DRV. The script said to request unprotection. If SmokeyJoe is recommending that the script provide more detailed instructions, then that is a good idea, but the current instruction is not wrong. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- The comment a reviewer posted on the draft “The author must take it to WP:DRV for review” was wrong. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not to get picky, but JoJo did say in their AFD close that any new drafts would need DRV to be accepted. Is this a proclamation they're allowed to make? I don't know, but that is why the reviewer said it. Primefac (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Good nitpick. I hadn’t seen that. I presumed it was a general belief that DRV is generally required to reverse SALTing, as we see from time to time at DRV.
- User:Jo-Jo Eumerus did say that in their close, in August 2017. I’m not wanting to try to solve this here, but the proclamation came from the closer, not the discussion, which is an issue. Also, time matters. I’ve seen elsewhere concerns about the huge number of protected pages, where most, but not all, never warranted permanent protection. I think JoJo’s proclamation should definitely be respected for six months, should probably be respected for two years, and after that I’m not sure. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can't really argue with that; salting really is a slightly longer way of dealing with disruption, but I agree it shouldn't really ever be indef. Primefac (talk) 09:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am not personally sure myself, but my sense is that if a page keeps getting deleted at AfD, at some point folks need to challenge the AfD closes first (i.e DRV) before recreating yet again. That said, it's been eight years and I haven't worked in AfD for a long time. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can't really argue with that; salting really is a slightly longer way of dealing with disruption, but I agree it shouldn't really ever be indef. Primefac (talk) 09:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not to get picky, but JoJo did say in their AFD close that any new drafts would need DRV to be accepted. Is this a proclamation they're allowed to make? I don't know, but that is why the reviewer said it. Primefac (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- The comment a reviewer posted on the draft “The author must take it to WP:DRV for review” was wrong. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- If y'all want to pick which of those actions you want AFCH to do, I can make a ticket for it. We should focus on one action. So the workflow might be something like "Darn it, "Callum Reynolds" is create-protected. Do you want AFCH to file a request for unprotection at WP:RFUP? ". Then the RFUP could be something like "I am an AFC reviewer and I would like to formally accept "Callum Reynolds" and move it to mainspace, but it is WP:SALTed. I would like to request unprotection. Please ping me with the outcome so I remember to move the draft. Thanks." –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- The simplest option I think is for AFCH to advise how to request unprotection.
- It might be good for AFCH to offer a post a canned request, to the protecting admin, or to RFUP, or to here at WT:AfC. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed. It would be fairly trivial to add something along the lines of "at RFUP or WT:AFC" after "unprotection". Primefac (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I made a ticket with the "at RFUP or WT:AFC" addition. Let me know if anyone wants it adjusted. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I suggest that it should say: "You will need to request unprotection from the protecting admin on their talk page or at WP:RFUP." So +admin -WT:AfC. I don't think that WT:AfC should be recommended because RFUP should work, and if it isn't working, we should see why it isn't, instead of bypassing the problem by directing requests here. —Alalch E. 15:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's fair, I mainly was parroting Joe's suggestion since my advice here (when someone asks about a salted page) is to just ping me, well, here, and I'll take care of it. Primefac (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I suggest that it should say: "You will need to request unprotection from the protecting admin on their talk page or at WP:RFUP." So +admin -WT:AfC. I don't think that WT:AfC should be recommended because RFUP should work, and if it isn't working, we should see why it isn't, instead of bypassing the problem by directing requests here. —Alalch E. 15:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I made a ticket with the "at RFUP or WT:AFC" addition. Let me know if anyone wants it adjusted. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed. It would be fairly trivial to add something along the lines of "at RFUP or WT:AFC" after "unprotection". Primefac (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)