Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:42, 13 December 2018 editScope creep (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers143,474 edits fixes← Previous edit Revision as of 14:00, 13 December 2018 edit undoHasteur (talk | contribs)31,857 edits →Reviewer Failures: Pointing out your fallacy.Next edit →
Line 319: Line 319:
:: It is promotional, most of the business articles are promotional, due to the nature of the people who are writing it, and the budget constraints of the companies employing branding outfits. All of them are like that with exceptions as they are in the business of generating profit. For example looking at this one, ''Jason McCarthy founded the company to serve as-as voice for good'', weasel words, ''launching a series of events to give back to the communities''. What does that mean? It soft marketing meant to elicit an emotional response so you can buy their kit. The whole article is rank and is completely unencyclopedic. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 13:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC) :: It is promotional, most of the business articles are promotional, due to the nature of the people who are writing it, and the budget constraints of the companies employing branding outfits. All of them are like that with exceptions as they are in the business of generating profit. For example looking at this one, ''Jason McCarthy founded the company to serve as-as voice for good'', weasel words, ''launching a series of events to give back to the communities''. What does that mean? It soft marketing meant to elicit an emotional response so you can buy their kit. The whole article is rank and is completely unencyclopedic. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 13:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
:: And true to class, all the references are blogs, press release and general churnalism. It is really not that decent. Not a single one passes ], and its fair shot at asserting ]. I don't think it would be entirely true that no business articles are passing, there is quite a few articles that pass muster when they are written in an entirely neutral and factual manner. My experience is there is a genuine core of folk who really care about the businesses they are writing about and it is these that tend to be very well written and stand the test of time. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 13:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC) :: And true to class, all the references are blogs, press release and general churnalism. It is really not that decent. Not a single one passes ], and its fair shot at asserting ]. I don't think it would be entirely true that no business articles are passing, there is quite a few articles that pass muster when they are written in an entirely neutral and factual manner. My experience is there is a genuine core of folk who really care about the businesses they are writing about and it is these that tend to be very well written and stand the test of time. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 13:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
:::{{rto|scope_creep}} You're the kind of person I was referring to in my initial post as "with half a brain". You're quoting the policies without understanding them. You're looking for specific quoting without actually reading the references to see that (while yes some are overly promotional) others are completely neutral or independent people writing about their experiences. Surely you can accept that ''The Art of Manliness'' is an independent source of various rugged/outdoors/unique descriptions/experiences? What I'm trying to communicate (and you've chosen to paint over with broad brush strokes) is that in the whole it's already well above the ] ruleset. ] (]) 14:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:00, 13 December 2018

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, List, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Welcome—discuss matters concerning this project!
AfC submissions
Random submission
~8 weeks
1,841 pending submissionsPurge to update
Shortcut


WikiProject iconArticles for creation Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is used for the administration of the Articles for Creation or Files for Upload processes and is therefore within the scope of WikiProject Articles for Creation. Please direct any queries to the discussion page.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creation (admin)AfC projectWikiProject icon
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used

    Centralized discussion
    Village pumps
    policy
    tech
    proposals
    idea lab
    WMF
    misc
    For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

    Archives
    Articles for Creation (search)

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

    Reviewer help

    Helper script

    Participants

    Old AFCH requests


    This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 8 sections are present.

    RfC: Future of Category:Articles created via the Article Wizard?

    Please consider joining the feedback request service.
    An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

    I would like to propose that we delete Category:Articles created via the Article Wizard because this is useless tracking and it already has over 40,000 pages which don't need to be tracked. ArticleWizard is the process that many new editors use to create new articles or new drafts for articles and it is pointless to track this. Two years ago, Commons got rid of a similar category that tracked images uploaded with UploadWizard. It is just useless to track pages created with the ArticleWizard. I recently got rid of Category:Unreviewed new articles created via the Article Wizard over two weeks ago and that was useless tracking as well. There was a CfD at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 February 4#Category:Articles_created_via_the_Article_Wizard over four and half years ago and at that time, AfC wasn't that stabilised but now it is. There are over 40,000 pages which don't need to be tracked with this category and 109 useless monthly subcategories of this category that are being tracked at Category:Userspace drafts created via the Article Wizard that don't need to be tracked. A lot has change in the last four and a half years and Category:Articles created via the Article Wizard as well as Category:Userspace drafts created via the Article Wizard is at a very unmanageable size. We don't need tracking for every single page that is created through the ArticleWizard and that category is just indefinitely growing. Instead of taking it straight to CfD, I decided to open a RfC here and it is big and has been there for over nine years. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

    I have come up with some options:

    Pkbwcgs (talk) 07:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

    Survey

    Threaded Discussion

    Leave it alone and stop looking at it. It has uses that you don’t imagine or don’t value. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
    User:Pkbwcgs - Is there any harm in keeping it? This is a serious question. There seems to be sometimes an attitude in Misplaced Pages that getting rid of something because we don't know what it does or don't think it does anything is a step forward. Is it a step forward? Does an unused category do any harm? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
    • In userspace the tracking helps in cleanup (deleting problematic pages) and users looking for useful pages to send to mainspace. These are the only categories that some of these pages are even in so should be retained. I don't know the use of the mainspace cat for created by the article wizard. Seems pretty useless to me. Legacypac (talk) 02:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
      • I have used it for random spot checking of old AfC articles. I'm sure others can do more rigorous surveys. Tracking information is useful, even if tracking is not for everyone. The category is appropriately a hidden category, there is nothing to fix. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

    Pending AfC submissions without a section

    Category:Pending AfC submissions without a section can be populated by pending submissions that do not have any sections. It may be helpful for reviewers to quickly find one-liner or nonsensical drafts because most of the time sectionless submissions are likely of poor quality and thus non-approvable. Consensus is needed to implement. Flooded with them hundreds 20:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

    The full discussion is here. Primefac (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
    What is the definition of the number of sections? Is that the number of headings marked off with equal signs? If so, I agree that a submission that has no sections is problematic. If so, it may be a valid stub where the submitter didn't enter the title as a heading, in which case it can be fixed, but, as noted by Flooded, is likely to be a one-liner or nonsense. If I understand it, it is a reasonable supplement to the category of less than 450 characters, and is not a substitute for that category, because they are two categories of usually useless submissions. So is it what I think it is? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
    It's also worth noting that, due to MediaWiki technical limitations, the default process of submitting a draft adds a new section to the end (it's generally silently deleted by AFCH during the review/cleanup process). Therefore, a category indicating drafts without sections is going to almost always be empty, and even if you configure it to populate with drafts with less than two headers it's not going to have much value considering the number of stubs we process (and stubs aren't inherently a bad thing). I think the existing "drafts with less than 450 characters" is a much more useful category that already accomplishes what Flooded with them hundreds is trying to do here. Nathan2055 04:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
    The difference of this and the 450 one is that the latter can only find pages with less than 450 bytes but the former finds any pages without a section. This is helpful because sometimes a sectionless submission can be bigger than 450 bytes (i.e 5,000, 10,000) and problematic (i.e. copyvio, hoax, etc). Finding sectionless submissions can help in identifying, although subtly, users who know the proper formatting and novice editors who are likely not here. The number of sections can be adjusted to suit the technical limitations. Flooded with them hundreds 07:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
    I still haven't gotten an answer. Are sections what are delimited by headers with equal signs? Also, is it correct that the submission process creates a section? If so, should there be a category that selects drafts with zero or one sections? If one is written, I am willing to alpha test it. (Between 2004 and 2014, I was primarily a software tester.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
    If Article Wizard is used, only the references section is added to the submission. With the regular {{subst:submit}}, no section is added. Setting it to <2 might solve this as only pages with one or zero section are added to the category. I'm not sure what you mean by "sections what are delimited by headers with equal signs". Flooded with them hundreds 04:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
    What is a section and how is it delimited? This is a serious question, because I thought I knew, but maybe I don't know. I am inferring that a section is created by the wiki software by having a heading that is delimited with "=" or "==" or "===" or "====" or "=====" (and presumably with turtles all the way down - I've never tried "======"). If that isn't what a section is, will someone please tell me what a section is? When I know what a section is, I will have a better idea of what the query does. I know how the 450 query works. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
    According to Help:Section#Creation and numbering of sections, section is the level two heading (==S==) and this implementation means only pages without the level two heading are shown ({{NUMBEROFSECTIONS}}). Flooded with them hundreds 07:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

    Draft:Diotima's Ladder of Love

    Why is this draft listed? It appears to have sections. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

    User:Flooded with them hundreds - Please advise. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
    I don't know! Maybe more needs to be done to fix the issue. Flooded with them hundreds 11:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

    Not Useful Category

    I have seen the result of listing the submissions that are in the category. It isn't useful. Most of them appear to have content, and some have lengthy content and detail and will require a detailed assessment. It isn't a useful category for getting a short list of submissions that need deleting. Was it meant to have some other use? Robert McClenon (talk) 09:18, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

    It is an experiement. It is picking up short pages but they get actioned quickly so what is left in the category are longer pages with more substantive content. Legacypac (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
    It may be a reasonable experiment that does not need to be pursued further. It does pick up a lot of crud, but it also picks up drafts by authors who don't use sections. It also has at least one bug, and it isn't clear to me that it is worth pursuing the experiment aggressively. That is my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
    This category is helpful because it finds promotional pages like User:Machint/sandbox (2,000+ bytes) that aren't tracked in the 450 bytes category. Flooded with them hundreds 13:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

    Location for Category:AfC submissions with the same name as existing articles

    Flooded with them hundreds has moved our guidance for dealing with items in this category from Category:AfC submissions with the same name as existing articles to Category talk:AfC submissions with the same name as existing articles. I could be convinced that Category:AfC submissions with the same name as existing articles is not the bast place for this information but I don't see Category talk:AfC submissions with the same name as existing articles as being a better place. I have not yet reverted this change in case someone has a better suggestion as to where to put this material. ~Kvng (talk) 14:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

    Kvng, the way it's written it looks like a talk page discussion which was why I moved the content to the talk page. Also, categories don't usually hold information such as this, maybe an information page in the project space will be a better idea. Flooded with them hundreds 15:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
    It was developed here on this very talk page so maybe that's why it looks like talk page content. These are reviewer instructions or suggestions. One clear problem with having them on the talk page is that then there's nowhere to discussed proposed changes to these instructions. I have some sympathy for your, we don't usually... justification. We also don't usually put instructional stuff on talk pages. Somewhere in Misplaced Pages: space would be appropriate for this sort of material. Maybe a subpage of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation or Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions. In either case we'd want to link to it from Category:AfC submissions with the same name as existing articles and so I thought it would simpler to just put it there in the first place. ~Kvng (talk) 17:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
    Should I revert it? Flooded with them hundreds 07:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
    As User:Kvng says, those instructions were developed on this talk page, that is, WT:AFC, ,mostly by me, to discuss how to deal with them, not in a category page or a category talk page. When they were copied from here to the category page as instructions from the reviewer, that was fine with me. Moving them to the category talk page is also fine, but it would then be helpful for the category to say to look to the talk page. The best answer, it seems to me, would be to create a project help subpage for them, and to have the category say to see them. As a project help subpage, they would have their own talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
    I don't have a strong opinion about where this content lives. What I do have a strong opinion about is edits that change stuff but regress or make no clear net improvement. So either revert it or implement one of the other suggestions discussed here - presuming you can justify why that is better than what we had. Also, know that you've committed no foul in any of this. My moving that content to the category page was a clear net improvement over having it roll into the archive of this talk page but it was not a beautiful thing. I support WP:BOLD edits and we're just doing a healthy WP:BRD cycle here. ~Kvng (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
    I've created the help page - Misplaced Pages:Processing drafts with duplicate titles. Flooded with them hundreds 08:03, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

    Brushless DC three phase motors

    I have a three phase brushless dc motor on my bicycle. yet I cannot find any information about them. I now that it is new technology because three phase motors are only possible in AC power. so I am hoping that someone will write an article about them. ......I have no idea how to use this.....Nhoj Yesdnil — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.63.205.243 (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

    You're probably looking for Brushless DC electric motor. ~Kvng (talk) 18:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
    If that doesn't help, you could ask at the WP:Reference desk. ProgrammingGeek 19:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

    Please be on the lookout at new drafts for Pavan Kumar N R or similar, and notify an admin

    An IP is asking for the FP to be removed from the multiple deleted Pavan Kumar N R. My answer was 'No', because the article, a highly promotional piece masquerading as a BLP, is the subject of persistent socking by a large sock farm and attempts to create/re-create the article by hijacking other articles. The master account, the eponymous SPI, is globally locked across all Wikimedia projects. I have blocked this IP, and in any case, IPs (and new users) can't create articles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

    The Signpost WikiProject Report

    Hello everyone,

    I'm going to be writing the WikiProject Report for the next issue of the Signpost. I'm really in need of a WikiProject that I know is active, like this one (ironically, I got no replies at WikiProject Editor Retention). If you'd be okay with answering a few general questions about reviewing (this won't be an interrogation), please reply or ping me and I'll get you set up. visit this page and click the link at top(20:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)) Thanks a lot! programmingGeek(talk, contribs) 16:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

    I have one participant already, but there's no limit as to how many editors can be interviewed. If you'd like to answer questions, just visit this page and click the big friendly link at the top. Thanks. programmingGeek(talk, contribs) 20:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

    Were the Submissions really that low?

    User:Primefac/AFCStats which I look at each month to see the reason for our backlog going up or down, seems to be indicating that the submission total was vastly smaller - 3400 in November vs 9000 in October. It's not yet fully been updated, so it's possible that was a half-way count or such, but I was wondering whether that might tally with what other people might have seen?

    Nosebagbear (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

    We were moving towards a backlog drive and then reviewers were able to widdle things down to about 1000-1200 entries in queue where it has remained steady for the last week or so. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
    I can't confirm the numbers but a good way to reduce submissions is to CSD, MfD, and reject more aggressively. It really cuts down the resubmissions. Legacypac (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
    I'll echo that. I try to clear out as many recently submitted ones that I can (no references, promotional tone, etc.) to try to keep the queue manageable. I've seen a lot of deletion requests from your end for the same (advertorial, etc.). --CNMall41 (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I think that the rejection feature is helping; I'm not seeing drafts that have been resubmitted two, three, four times any more. Fewer resubmissions mean fewer total submissions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Honestly, I stopped keeping track about ten days into November (hence the lower total count, but per-day is actually higher). If you look at the October numbers, you'll see that reviewers did about 2k more reviews than there were submissions, and this trend held in November as well until the numbers dropped back to the 1k range. Primefac (talk) 12:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

    Rejection is now in the main script

    The rejection feature is now in the gadget, so you don't need User:Enterprisey/afch-dev.js installed anymore. I also put the guidance for rejection discussed earlier into the reviewing instructions, reproduced below for convenience:

    Drafts on topics entirely unsuitable for Misplaced Pages should be rejected. Rejection is a good choice when the page would be uncontroversially deleted if it were an article, for example if the page would be an overwhelming "delete" at AfD. If a draft meets one of the CSD criteria that aren't for articles, an appropriate CSD tag should be added in addition to rejecting.

    Happy reviewing! Enterprisey (talk!) 00:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

    Thank-sou so much. I was never able to make the patch work anyway so this is much better. Legacypac (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

    @Enterprisey: I'm finding that, even if I select "decline", that it's marking the articles as "rejected" instead. I've tried three times to "decline" Draft:David M. Graziano for being written like an advertisement, but each time, despite checking the "declined" option, it's showing up as rejected. Is the intention that certain "decline" rationales automatically get promoted to "reject"? --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 23:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
    Ahecht, which steps are you taking that result in the draft being incorrectly rejected? Enterprisey (talk!) 00:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
    @Enterprisey: I hit Decline/Reject, I made sure the "decline" radio button was selected, I choose the reason from the drop-down, and I hit "decline submission". I tried it again now with another article from another computer and it seemed to work, so it may be a browser incompatibility (I was using a computer that only had IE11 on it earlier today). I'll give the other computer another shot tomorrow. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 04:11, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
    I think it's an IE issue too. Unfortunately some of us are forced to use Microsoft browsers (not to mention Sharepoint and all the other things Microsoft badly stealscreates) at work, due to deals Microsoft does with many workplaces. Iffy★Chat -- 09:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
    @Enterprisey: I just tried those same steps again on the IE11 computer and it resulted in a reject, not a decline, on Draft:Toni Crichton. If you can't identify a workaround, you might want to at least have the script disable the decline/reject function on IE11 (similar to how editProtectedHelper does). I wouldn't be using IE11 on this computer if I had a choice, but alas, I don't. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 15:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
    Ahecht, I'll test this out when I can get my hands on an IE setup, probably sometime over the weekend. For now, a version without rejection has been uploaded at User:Enterprisey/afch-old.js. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
    @Ahecht: Fixed it for you, no bug on my side. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
    I agree with Legacypac, thanks! PrussianOwl (talk) 02:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

    A question.

    What should we, as reviewers, do when we disagree with a rejection and plus the user requested help on the Help Desk/there was some improvement? Should rejections be reverted, rejections turned to declines be removing the reject=yes line, articles resubmitted over the rejections, just leave it be regardless? Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

    I have removed a couple rejections already. I urge caution in rejecting too heavily. An early version was a template I started called "not suitable for Misplaced Pages" and the thought behind it was applying to pages that are total unnotable crap but not CSD eligible. Legacypac (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
    Exactly my opinion there. I also tend to shut down tendentious resubmissions with bare improvement (after 3-4 times). For example this one was rejected instantly at first, despite showing slight notability (not strong, but for sure not beyond saving) Draft:The Legend of Hallowaiian, the reject I demoted to a decline so it could be submitted. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

    May I ask who the author / editor is of the St Stephen's College, Balla Balla wikipedia content is. I am the Honorary President and Chairman of the St Stephen's College Old Boys Association based in Pinetown, KZN, Rep South Africa and would like to enter into diaogue with the author. Peter Morrissey (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

    Test Edits

    Should test edits be Declined or Rejected?

    I think that blank submissions should be declined, because they might have been submitted by mistake. Offensive submissions should be rejected and then tagged for speedy deletion as G3. My question is about test edits. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

    Robert McClenon, Depends on what kind of test. For the kind of test that was a mistake, it is unlikely that they will submit again anyway. — Insertcleverphrasehere 10:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
    User:Insertcleverphrasehere - Usually they are obviously meant as tests, such as entering random text, or entering "Hello", or entering the name of a soft drink, or whatever. Should they be declined or rejected?
    Also, what about attempts to communicate with someone about some issue in Misplaced Pages? (Communicating with the world about some real-world issue is
    My question basically has to do with stupid stuff that isn't clearly against the purpose of Misplaced Pages and doesn't even involve notability, because there are at present only two main reasons to reject. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
    Robert McClenon, I don't think it matters, but when the title is something plausible I'd lean toward 'decline' as they might come back and actually write an article, and if they don't, they are unlikely to re-submit. — Insertcleverphrasehere (click me!) 16:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
    User:Insertcleverphrasehere - I agree as to the title, which can be either the title of the subpage or the dummy title line at the bottom of the page. If the title is plausible, then allow resubmission if it is clearly not a real submission. If the title is plausible and it is a real submission and a case of no credible claim of significance, reject for notability. The converse seems to be that if there is nothing that can be construed as a title, it doesn't matter unless it needs rejecting for G3, G10, or G11. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

    Almost all the "tests" I find are blank or nearly blank. If in a samdbox I don't even decline I just remove the AfC template. If a Draft page I tag speedy as a test edit Legacypac (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

    AFC Submissions Without Sections - False Positives

    The category of AFC submissions without sections has occasional false positives, that is, it includes AFC submissions that have sections. I think that these are bugs. I don't know whether the bugs are in the category itself or in the software behind the category, although I think in the software behind the category. To whom should these bugs be reported? The developer of the category? Is that User:Flooded with them hundreds? They may then need to be reported to the WMF developers. What is the procedure?

    Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

    See Draft:Domestic & General.
    See Draft:Ken O'Rourke (hair stylist).
    See Draft:2017 General Assembly election for New Jersey's 24th District.
    These are showing up in the list of drafts without sections, but they have sections. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
    {{NUMBEROFSECTIONS}} is broken, according to Primefac. Something needs to be fixed in the module and a Phabricator report should be filed to get someone to do something about it. Flooded with them hundreds 07:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
    Looks like it was a parser function error, actually; this edit seems to have fixed the issue. Primefac (talk) 12:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
    Is Phabricator the bug tracking system? Can editors use it to file reports (or is limited to editors with certain privileges)? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
    The category is now empty. Is that a correct result of the bug fix? Were all of the listings in it incorrect? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
    I believe so. The platform is used for making bug reports and feature requests. Anyone can use it but an account is needed either via SUL or manual registration. Fred Gandt seemed to have been working on this in the past few days but said he's unable to find a solution. Flooded with them hundreds 09:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

    Still a False Positive

    See Draft:Omaha We Don't Coast.
    See Draft:Hugo "Juice" Tandron Jr.
    See Draft:Department of Classics, King's College London

    Robert McClenon (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

     Fixed by this adition of a function to unescape certain character entities with inspiration from Johnuniq during this conversation. Bear in mind though, that its current usage will categorize pages with improper sections like a bunch of <h1>...</h1>s or <h3>...</h3>s. If it's prefered that only pages with absolutely no sections are categorized, the specificity of |levels= will be required. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 09:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

    Sectionless Category - Again

    I have a few more comments on the category of submissions without sections.

    First, it is now coming up with three templates in the list. Perhaps the query should be tweaked so that it doesn't include anything that is in template space.

    Second, it is returning some submissions that do not have a second-level header (a section) but may have one or more third-level headers (subsections). Am I correct that they should be improved by inserting a second-level heading, unless they call for straight-off rejection anyway? I haven't yet seen any submissions that do not have any sections but that do have a first-level heading, but I have seen those in the past. I assume that the proper action then is to downgrade that heading to second-level.

    Third, there are also some submissions where the author doesn't know how to use wikimarkup for headings, and has used some sort of manual formatting, such as manual bold face. I comment on them {{subst:seemark}} to give instructions on improving the formatting.

    Fourth, one could in theory find a submission that doesn't show any sections but is otherwise ready for acceptance either as a stub or otherwise. In that case, fix the formatting as required and accept it. I haven't seen that, but it could happen, at least with a stub.

    Robert McClenon (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

    Obviously lack of sections is not a decline reason. Working correctly this should just flag pages that may be problematic. Legacypac (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

    A draft may be categorized as not having sections for at least two reasons. First, it doesn't have sections. Second, it is erroneously tagged as not having sections. The latter is not a reason to do anything to it, positive or negative. The former may either indicate a very incomplete draft that should be rejected, or may simply mean that the draft needs editing for proper mark-up. I think that is what User:Legacypac has said. If it works correctly, it flags pages that may be problematic, but may or may not need to be declined or rejected. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
    It has 35 pages in the category now. The number of pages in the category fluctuates wildly. Maybe it should be used for gambling. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
    Now it is at 23. Are they really being worked off, or does the nature of the test vary? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
    I'm targeting them as part of a process to understand how this tagging works or does not work. Legacypac (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
    User:Legacypac - If that means that you are doing semi-systematic testing, then thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

    Templates being included is also (see thread above)  Fixed as of this edit. See note in thread above for details regarding only a lack of <h2>...</h2> sections being a trigger for categorization; this could be addressed by specifying which |levels= {{NUMBEROFSECTIONS}} looks for if desired. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 09:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

    Draft Diff Issues

    The fairly recent helpful "Draft Diff" addition seems to have been playing up recently - frequently not detecting a past review of a draft, despite between 1 to 3 prior reviews. I don't think it happens on every draft but on most.

    I was hoping to check a) Whether other people are having the same issue b) If someone with the knowhow can see if the script is playing up?

    Cheers Nosebagbear (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

    Rejection - Which reason ?

    Have any reviewers encountered any submission that they wanted to Reject, but were not sure whether they could fit it in under Not Notable or Contrary to the Purpose of Misplaced Pages? I have sometimes encountered completely stupid submissions and, perhaps because I take both Not Notable and Contrary to the Purpose literally, had trouble assigning a reason to Reject. I don't want to say Not Notable for something that isn't an encyclopedic draft at all, and I don't want to say Contrary to the Purpose for something that isn't actually vandalism or spam. Is it easier for other reviewers, or does someone have advice? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

    But how can rejecting a submission as completely stupid be reconciled with the commandment, which has come to exceed the status of Misplaced Pages policies, that one must not bite the newcomers? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
    It is kinder to subject the page and the creator to a week at MfD. Legacypac (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I don't think anybody would put "this submission is stupid" in the comment window. The rejection notice is worded neutrally; I don't see a rejection in this case as biting the newcomers. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
      • No. Rejection is not biting the newcomer. It is saying that the submission is stupid that is biting the newcomer. But I, for one, won't reject a submission without entering any comment, because I don't think either Not Notable or Contrary to Purpose of Misplaced Pages is self-explanatory in itself. On notability, in the rare case that I reject a draft, I cite the notability guideline that it doesn't meet, and that it doesn't make a credible claim of significance. On Contrary to the Purpose, I want to cite one of the Not guidelines. That was my whole point. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
    • @Robert McClenon: Ah, I see. I think either of these three could work, depending on the circumstances:
    For behavioural issues, Misplaced Pages:Here to build an encyclopedia probably works. In some extreme cases, Misplaced Pages:Competence is required may be applicable, but I would reserve it for ppl who are being disruptive. I've not had to use NOTHERE and CIR yet; these issues can be generally handled via CSD / MFD, because NOTHERE editors typically create drafts that suffer from both promotionalism and lack of notability. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

    "Exists" seems like a very good third reason to reject. Legacypac (talk) 06:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

    No, "Exists" is a very good reason to speedy redirect with "exists" as the edit summary. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
    Disagree with both. "Exists" is already a perfectly good reason to decline a draft. It may or may not be a redirect. It is only a redirect if the reviewer has determined that either the draft duplicates the article, or the draft contains nothing that isn't in the article. In those cases, it is a redirect. In some cases, the draft either is better than the article, or contains some information that is not in the article. In those cases, the existing decline advises the submitter to edit the article, and in those cases, I add a comment asking the submitter to review and improve the article. I have also occasionally added a comment to the article talk page asking to review the draft and see if it contains information that should be added. To Reject a draft because the article exists is really pointlessly harsh. I would say that it is bitey except that I dislike the rule against biting the newcomers, because it has been carried out of proportion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
    I prefer Contrary to the Purpose. Some things that are simply Not Suitable can be declined and improved. Rejection should be for crud, not for flawed submissions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

    A reject for Exists need not be harsh, but if it exists there is no reason to improve and resubmit the page. That was my point. Legacypac (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

    My point is that any Reject is harsh. The Decline reason of 'exists' provides an explanation saying that the user can improve the existing page. It is sort of a rejection because it is not suggesting a resubmit, but it doesn't just tell the editor to go away. Reject does tell the editor to drop the subject, which is correct for something that is inherently non-notable or is contrary to the purpose of Misplaced Pages. If we were to make Exists be a reason for Rejection, it would be necessary to make other changes to the the dialog to encourage editing the article, etc. If we are looking to incremental changes to the Decline/Reject interface, rather than another rewrite, 'exists' should continue to be handled as a Decline. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
    It's a little harsh, but what else can we do? MfD is harsh, CSD is harsh, in the end they aren't that different. A reject with a nicely-worded comment and advice for future improvement is the best of bad options, in my opinion. PrussianOwl (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
    User:PrussianOwl - I don't understand the context. MFD and CSD and Reject are harsh. MFD and CSD are meant to be harsh. Reject for notability or for inconsistency with Misplaced Pages should be harsh. Since the Decline option for 'Exists' works fine, I don't see why we need to change to using a Reject for 'Exists'. If we have decided, over the past months, that the wording of Decline is unacceptably saccharine, why not change the wording of Decline rather than shifting things to Reject? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    If we get Draft:Foo and Foo exists why give new editor the option to resubmit? It does not need tk be a harsh reject, but a clear one. Legacypac (talk) 02:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

    Edit summary for decline and reject notifications

    Previously, when declining a submission, the edit summary for the user talk page notification says "Notification: Your Articles for Creation submission has been declined (AFCH 0.9)". Now it simply says "declined (AFCH 0.9.1)" regardless of whether one chooses to decline or reject the submission (Example: Special:Diff/872514127). This edit summary bug should be fixed. In particular, the edit summary should say "Notification: Your Articles for Creation submission has been declined (AFCH 0.9.1)" or "Notification: Your Articles for Creation submission has been rejected (AFCH 0.9.1)" instead, exactly as it did in version 0.9. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

    I am aware of this bug; I looked into it for an hour or so recently but got nowhere, but will try and fix it in the next few days. It's not too terrible of a bug, but it is an inconvenience. My bad. Enterprisey (talk!) 23:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

    Changed user name

    My user name changed from JaconaFrere to simply Jacona, and now the AFC helper script doesn't work..What do I need to do? Thanks! Jacona (talk) 14:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

    Your name needs updating on the protected userlist by an Admon which can be requested here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Participants Legacypac (talk) 14:16, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

    Technical issue -- reject vs decline

    With the new beta version of this script, when I decline a submission, the "reject=yes" parameter is being added to the AFC template, which I would expect only if I choose the "decline" option. This seems like a bug in the script. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 12:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

    WikiDan61, which browser are you using? Enterprisey (talk!) 22:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
    @Enterprisey: I use IE11 at work (not my choice!). I understand there is a bug in the script related to IE11. Hoping it can be fixed. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 01:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

    Is this process broken?

    Here is a draft that is clearly notable and encyclopedic, has 22 high quality citations, and is better than 99.9% of the articles in Misplaced Pages, yet it failed AfC review and has been rotting in Draft namespace for a year and a half. Something is seriously broken with this process if drafts that are obviously notable and high quality (and would be snowball kept at AfD) can't be moved to mainspace. Is this example just an anomaly or a symptom of a larger problem? Kaldari (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

    Courtesy ping for Eddie891, as they reviewed that draft --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
    Kaldari, as the last external link on the page says, this was a student project in April 2017. The student never came back to edit again after the request that each section have a reference. Student articles are often graded in Draft and never returned to again. We tend to review at AfC as if we are encouraging ongoing editors. The original author is the best person to provide references for their work. The student process is getting better, though this time of year (end of semester) a lot ends up at AfD and a lot will be stranded in Draft. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
    Hi Kaldari,StarryGrandma Most of that seems to be process, and doesn't address the fact that a potentially decent article is sitting in Draft. After reviewing it, it would easy to add additional references in the four sections that don't have any. I dont mind adapting/ adopting the poor thing and cleaning it up once it is mainspace. If somebody could remove the redirect.scope_creep 20:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
    scope_creep, it takes a lot of domain-specific knowledge to add references or do rewrites on articles while reviewing. Years ago I reviewed a lot. Now I review a few old technical articles a month, rewriting and adding references, because it is very time consuming. An editor can either keep up with reviewing or fix articles, but not both. The current goal at AfC is to get articles reviewed and back to editors in a timely manner. We could have an additional goal here of rescuing abandoned articles, but we don't. DGG is the only current rescuer I know of. Anne Delong rescued 1723 before going back to writing articles. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
    @StarryGrandma: Personally, I don't think the function of draft review should be to encourage people to keep working on their draft until it is perfect. The purpose of draft review should be to keep bad content out of Misplaced Pages. If a draft has promise, we should move it to mainspace so that it can be improved by other editors and grow into a healthy article. It seems the standards we using are closer to the Good Article standards than the AfD standards. For example, does a draft really need to have citations for everything? Most articles don't. Kaldari (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
    Kaldari, I agree and we are much better than in 2017 in seeing that reviewers follow the "Avoid the following errors" section of the Reviewing instructions. Basically any form of referencing is acceptable. But we do expect editors to respond to reviews. However we don't have a process for going back over abandoned declined drafts. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
    StarryGrandma, We have a process for that Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Abandoned_Drafts. JC7V (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

    The correct process is: 1. Should this be speedy deleted (G11, G12, G2, G3 usually) 2. Is this topic notable? Does is have some references? 3. If #2 is yes and yes the page should be accepted. Reviewers can not take the time to fix everything and should not be expected to. Legacypac (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

    (edit conflict) @Kaldari: The standard for accepted drafts at AfC is, and always has been, "likely to survive AfD": see the reviewer instructions. But yes, the process is broken. Reviewers are wildly inconsistent and there is little if any quality control. It's been like this for years. We just don't know how to fix it. – Joe (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
    Accepted and tagged, a quick action any of the above participants in this conversation could have easiliy done. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
    I agree that a lot of articles should be passed on sooner. If the article isn't a copyvio and isn't overly promotional, often a quick check with a search engine shows that there are a lot of references available online, so even if a reviewer doesn't want to take the time to add them, the article should be moved to mainspace for others to work on. In the past some AfC reviewers have been hesitant to be too lenient because they are criticized by other editors who check newly created articles. I'm sorry that I haven't been helping much at AfC lately, but I keep getting caught up working on the gazillion poor articles already in the encyclopedia.—Anne Delong (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
    Legacypac, I like your brief list, but I will add another criteria, especially for student work: "Is the material correct?" I've just run into a student who misread the sources. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
    Often an article will have a much better chance of passing afd if some improvements are made. This is especially true in areas where there is a certain degree of suspicion about new articles, such as commercial organizations, schools, community groups, and some types of bios. This often applies to removing promotionalism , but also to highlighting the factors that make for significance, or improving the presentation of the references that show notability , or removing POV material This can even extend to matters of presentation: people at AfD often do make snap judgements based on factors which seem to reflect the quality of the writing . I consider it responsible reviewing in such cases to either fix it somewhat or see that it gets fixed. If the contributor is still around, it is sometimes the best course to return it to them. This is of course more likely when reviewing is very prompt, and there has been a trend lates to do some reviewing as soon as possible , in addition to clearing the backlog. (This draft was not of that nature, and should have been accepted).
    If I am going to make the improvements myself, I sometimes do it before accepting the draft, sometimes afterwards, sometimes both, for I tend to work in incremental steps. I will also sometimes make an obvious improvement in a draft I see but am not going to review because it is our of my field, or because someone else may have clearer opinion about it. I work at AfC, but I also work to improve articles generally. The important thing is not to hold up acceptance of articles over relatively minor points, especially minor points which merely reflect one's personal preferences
    We are getting better. I see only half as much idiosyncratic reviewing as I did 2 years ago . One of the things I do is ry to call repeated errors to the attention of the reviewer, but this is something which if not handled just right can lead to unpleasantness or at least a long discussion--Ido it only for repeated errors by someone still quite active, and I do not have time & energy for this more than once a week or so. The 4 most important errors in reviewing at present, besides holding articles up for minor improvements, are:
    • Using GNG instead of the WP:PROF criterion when applicable,
    • insisting in inline refs for non-bios.
    • not giving promotionalism and notability as reasons when both are applicable
    • not recognizing when something has an article in another WP. It varies by language, but anything that can pass the very high notability standards of the German WP will pass ours, and this is often true for others. It should at least be a warnign against over-hasty rejection. DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
    Another part of the problem is the G13 process itself. Some of the people doing many G13 deletions do not actually check the articles for whether they are rescuable--or even accepable as is. I don't like confrontation here, especially with people I know are unlikely to change, but I do try to persuade them a little sometimes, and have had some successes. DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I don't think that the process is broken; we've recently made big strides in trimming the back of the backlog, so all drafts are reviewed within four weeks, which is a reasonable timeframe. Hopefully, the authors are still around. Many drafts are reviewed much faster than this.
    Where we could use help is to have more reviewers, with experience in a variety of notability guidelines. For example, it's hard for me to judge notability of mathematics or physics topics, etc, while I feel fairly comfortable with ORG and BLP. It probably varies from reviewer to reviewer. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
    • In 2017, I was a very inexperienced editor. I left the project in December 2017 I think, and re joined after becoming a new page patroller , contributing AfD, and having a better handle on notability. AntiCompositeNumber, thanks for the ping. I recognize that several of my declines back in early 2017 were ill-informed, and poorly educated, but I maintain that I have learned from my mistakes and now consider myself much more competent. Eddie891 Work 03:07, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I used to strongly advise student work to avoid going through AFC, mainly because of it being incompatible with the usual college course timelines. I'm not sure if that's still an issue under the current AFC system/rules.
    An issue I still feel strongly about is proper implementation of a draft sorting/tagging system to attract subject specialist reviewers. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:07, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
    Dodger67, First, yes I would still recommend good faith students avoid AfC like the plague. Despite efforts to clean up AfC, there is still a lack of multiple eyes on stuff, which leads to inconsistent treatment (some demand perfection, while others will do search for sources and accept anything that passes GNG based on what they find).
    One of the things we requested for the new page feed improvements wish list was a keyword search function at Special:NewPagesFeed. This should be available to AfC as well once implemented and might serve the function you are requesting. The community Tech team will be working on it in the coming year. — Insertcleverphrasehere (click me!) 08:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
    Insertcleverphrasehere adding "class=Draft" to a Wikiproject banner has in my experience been almost useless, most projects don't notice them. I had in mind something based on the Stub sorting tags. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
    Dodger67, When I say keyword searching, it would work similarly to the New Page Patrol Browser keyword search. It would simply search the articles for key words. Clever thought about keywords can pretty easily find articles or drafts from certain categories without needing people to tag all the drafts (which simply isn't going to happen; it is too much work). — Insertcleverphrasehere (click me!) 09:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
    This draft was rejected basically because of a perceived quality issue. Some reviewers do not want to be responsible for moving rough material into mainspace. It will be difficult to change that. What we should be able to do is convince these quality-oriented reviewers not do decline these and let other reviewers handle flawed drafts. ~Kvng (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

    Students and AfC

    Can we steer students away from AfC? The Wiki Education program's training materials teach students to use sandboxes and move finished articles themselves. Those students are under a fair amount of supervision and have access to help here. But there are definitely student assignments outside of the program. If students don't start the article on the day it is due maybe we can point them to the WikiEd training materials and send them off to their own sandboxes, telling them to come back to AfC after the work is graded. One can't always tell what is student work. It's the end of the semester and we've gotten three drafts on applications of optical coherence tomography - definitely a class. But in other areas it might be hard to tell. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

    Don't all student drafts have a WikiEd template on the talk page? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
    Only those whose courses are being run through WikiEd, and if they follow the training their contributions aren't here. We find that other instructors around the world assign writing Misplaced Pages articles. Sometimes students put something on their user or talk pages, or in the draft itself. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
    Here at the dashboard is a summary of the current Fall 2018 WikiEd students and their edits. Most classes will be over in a few days so this is nearly complete. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

    Reviewer Failures

    Can a reviewer with half a brain please re-review Draft:GoRuck and not blindly quote non-applicable guidelines like HighKing did or hit the "I'm being lazy and decline for Advertising" that K.e.coffman did. Are we really being that lazy that editors are now declining for completely inappropriate reasons? I'm asking as it will help me justify the disbandment of AFC. Hasteur (talk) 01:38, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

    not sure what percentage of a brain I have but I accepted it. Getting pages about businesses approved here is almost impossible. We might as well put up a notice "if this page is about a business just forget it". Legacypac (talk) 02:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    It is promotional, most of the business articles are promotional, due to the nature of the people who are writing it, and the budget constraints of the companies employing branding outfits. All of them are like that with exceptions as they are in the business of generating profit. For example looking at this one, Jason McCarthy founded the company to serve as-as voice for good, weasel words, launching a series of events to give back to the communities. What does that mean? It soft marketing meant to elicit an emotional response so you can buy their kit. The whole article is rank and is completely unencyclopedic. scope_creep 13:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    And true to class, all the references are blogs, press release and general churnalism. It is really not that decent. Not a single one passes WP:SIGCOV, and its fair shot at asserting WP:NCORP. I don't think it would be entirely true that no business articles are passing, there is quite a few articles that pass muster when they are written in an entirely neutral and factual manner. My experience is there is a genuine core of folk who really care about the businesses they are writing about and it is these that tend to be very well written and stand the test of time. scope_creep 13:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    @Scope creep: You're the kind of person I was referring to in my initial post as "with half a brain". You're quoting the policies without understanding them. You're looking for specific quoting without actually reading the references to see that (while yes some are overly promotional) others are completely neutral or independent people writing about their experiences. Surely you can accept that The Art of Manliness is an independent source of various rugged/outdoors/unique descriptions/experiences? What I'm trying to communicate (and you've chosen to paint over with broad brush strokes) is that in the whole it's already well above the WP:AFCR ruleset. Hasteur (talk) 14:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    Categories: