Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WhiteStar2000 (talk | contribs) at 03:38, 19 December 2021 (→Hello). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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
~6 weeks
1,244 pending submissions
Purge 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 project pagesWikiProject icon
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Chart: Pending AfC submissions

Backlog chart daily Backlog chart weekly

G13

I see some drafts with what appear to be notable titles go through the G13 sieve, and I wonder whose 'fault' it is. I think, sometimes, what did I do wrong?

Do we have any figures, indeed are figures useful, on:

  • What proportion are near misses, might have been approved as >50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process?
  • What proportion are simply 'fire and forget' submissions?
  • What proportion are hopeless?

I recognise that these are intersection sets. I think the information may be useful to inform our thinking on the acceptance threshold. When I was a new reviewer I thought I was doing Wikipedia a service by raising the bar. I see now, that I was doing the reverse, probably putting useful new editors off.

I think we all need to consider our personal thinking on this. I'm not looking to reach any form of consensus. I'm looking, instead, at getting us to look at our own thinking, and becoming even better at what we do. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 17:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's such a silly problem. All it needs is admins checking the drafts before deleting. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It ought to be a silly problem. Unfortunately it's a significant problem. There are only a few admins who do the deletion who even occasionally check. Doing a proper check takes several minutes, and a look at the deletion log will see most admins going much faster than that. There are to the best of my knowledge fewer than 5 people checking the forthcoming G13s to rescue them --I'm one, and I try to check every one that looks like an academic, but I cannot keep up even with those at one hour /day. And then there's the much more difficult problem--once these are spotted, since most need major fixing, who's going to do that. I try to do one or two a week. I will not send to mainspace something that has only 51%, because that's taking a chance with the erratic decisions at afd. If I think the subject is notable, I want to be reasonably confident it stays in wikipedia. �� DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I spent a few months reviewing/tagging G13 eligible drafts. Many are not submitted therefore they do even go through AfC so keep that in mind. My experience was you had to wade through a lot a crap before you found something that had some potential. For ones I did not have the knowledge or tools to improve (generally sourcing), I tagged promising, which puts it in Category:Promising draft articles and sometimes even posted notes at a relevant Wikiproject or editors that I knew likely had an interest in the subject but my experience is they end up deleted anyway. However, I agree with DGG it is worrisome, especially for the ones not submitted. Pinging @Liz: as she is one the admins that handles the G13 CSD category for input about her experience. S0091 (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple drafts with multiple names, from multiple creating editors. UPE (0.9 probability) See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnx4566789. Please add evidence as you find it FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 07:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:The Mac Observer and WP:WEBCRIT

I was hoping for another set of eyes on this, because I'm not sure that my reading of WP:WEBCRIT is correct. I was reviewing this draft and while only one-source meets WP:GNG in my eyes, I'm wondering about some of the other referencing. Many of the references are other sites (mostly reliable sources) reporting on stories broken or originally reported in The Mac Observer. WP:WEBCRIT says that the subject might be notable if "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works". Do those type stories fall under this category? If not, what is that section of WP:WEBCRIT referring to? ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 02:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Don't know

Template:Don't know has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. This is a file license template. -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 03:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | December 2021, Volume 7, Issue 12, Numbers 184, 188, 210, 214, 215, 216


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Innisfree987 (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Editors placing their own AFC Acceptance templates on their own talk page

I have noticed this self aggrandising trend, which I see as deceptive. Is there a way of modifying the user talk page acceptance template to detect whether the signature is from a genuine AFC reviewer? It might then state some form of red error message instead of a deceptive "My article has been accepted" template FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 10:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent: It really looks deceptive, but I don't think there's any policy or law that states that reviewers shouldn't review their own articles. Until there's a policy like that, I don't think there's anything anyone can do...Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 10:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I agree, I think all you can do is call them out on it. I've done that in the past and it has stopped them. If they sign as themselves it should stand out as self aggrandising if they sign as another I'm sure there must be a policy about that? Also even if technically possible, and would be an intensive task on some users talk pages (FA for instance). If there was a policy to cover this deception the best option would be to have a bot remove and warn when added not have the template check every time viewed. KylieTastic (talk) 10:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, both. Perhaps we should discuss, first, whether there should be a policy? I have a view that AFC templates ought to be deployed only by AFC reviewers with the exception of the AFC Comment template for the drafts. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 10:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's technically possible to restrict the template from being substed by users who aren't AFC reviewers (store list of reviewers in a more easily parsable form such as JSON, and check if {{REVISIONUSER}} is in that list) but I don't really see why this is necessary. – SD0001 (talk) 13:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Television Articles

I reviewed Draft:Big Mouse (2022 tvN), and declined it as too soon. The submitter replied to me, on their talk page: "There are a lot of Korean series pages and they have not been deleted!! Some of them may be released after 10 months !!!" I haven't researched the number of future Korean television programs, so I don't know whether the programs to which the submitter refers are in draft space or in article space. If they are in article space, which would not surprise me, then they are cases where Other Stuff Exists that will probably be deleted if nominated for deletion. I am guessing that they are in article space, were created directly in article space (which is the privilege of any autoconfirmed editor), and either are waiting for New Page Review, were sloppily accepted by New Page Review, or were put in by an editor who has the autopatrolled privilege, and so should know better. I am not asking for advice, but I am calling this matter to the attention of AFC reviewers, many of whom are also New Page reviewers. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: I have replied to the editor on his editor page, and gave him advice on the NFF guidelines. – robertsky (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts on Ankit Yadav

Please all be aware of the determination to get this online. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ankit yadav 529 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 12:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is one extensive SPI... -2pou (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Saw sam sai

This draft illustrates a situation that I occasionally see, which is a good-faith error about Articles for Creation by an editor who is working to improve the encyclopedia (which is what we are here for). The draft appears to be a substantial expansion of the existing Start-class article. Saw sam sai. I had to decline the draft because AFC is not a mechanism to submit improved articles, only new ones. Does anyone have any ideas on what advice to give to the submitter of the draft to simplify the job of improving the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon All I can suggest is that they edit the main space article, and also consider consensus building on the talk page for large edits IF they are likely to be controversial. Mentioning WP:BRD an be helpful FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 17:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can't be arsed finding the essay/guideline at the moment, but "improve the article in draft space and then review before merging in" is a perfectly acceptable way of improving a page. As mentioned, though, it's not something that goes through AfC. If it's a relatively good improvement just have them edit the page directly, otherwise as Timtrent says, have them start a talk page discussion to discuss the draft. Primefac (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It's a good-faith incorrect assumption that AFC can be used in this way. I've seen this good-faith incorrect use of AFC before. In this case, it's a major improvement. If it hadn't been an improvement, I would have redirected the draft to the article after declining it. If it had been a minor improvement, I wouldn't have mentioned it here. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Bob says, there are multiple ways of handling the merge . I have a few times accepted under a variant title that would be a useful redirect, and then merged the articles. It's a particularly clear way of preserving attribution. Anotherfactor is thatif the user is no longer here, which I see in the majority of cases, there's no point asking them to help. DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This draft in particular appears to be one from a recurring class assignment from Thailand, which remains undocumented. I haven't checked this one yet, but I've found significant problems with some of this year's recent batch of drafts, so please keep your eye out for image copyvios and close paraphrasing (though I've found several to be close paraphrasing of Google Translated Thai sources—these will be rather tricky to catch). --Paul_012 (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where to Discuss a Decline

I am not really asking for advice in this thread, and am not really providing advice in this thread. The main question here is what we should tell submitters about how to discuss a decline that they disagree with, and I am mentioning it here because I provided one answer as to what is not the place to discuss an AFC decline. A draft, Draft:Chris Barrett (interior designer), was submitted, and was declined. The submitter then went to DRN, the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I declined the DRN case request because there hadn't been discussion between the originator IntDesign and the AFC reviewer Loksmythe, and also because the Teahouse and the AFC Help Desk are forums for discussion of AFC declines. Does anyone have any other comments on how an originator should try to discuss with a reviewer? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I would have declined the draft if I had been the reviewer, but that is not the question. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft talk page? – robertsky (talk) 04:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The draft_talk page. Ping the author and submitter(s) to the draft_talk page. The reviewer should post the decline on the draft_talk page. Responses then go naturally threaded after, on the draft_talk page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:58, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have advised here the user on how they can object, and how it will lead to a resolution at AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:07, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Onel5969 Draftified this page. If I was reviewing this page in New Page Patrol, I would have AfD-ed it. User:Onel5969 SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping SmokeyJoe - while many people would disagree, I made every attempt not to AfD an article when I used to review. I thought draftification might enable the editor to work on it and get help from AfC reviewers on direction on how to show notability. Of course, if they didn't contact me directly on my talk page (which many editors did). I not only have a question of notability on this article, but I have a strong suspicion of UPE (which I mentioned on their talk page when I draftified it). Regarding discussion of the AfC decline, the article's talk page is definitely the best forum to discuss an AfC decline. Like SJ said, I would ping the author and submitters. Another option, which when I used to do AfC and found helpful, is to have the discussion on the article itself, through the use of the "comment" feature of the review tool. And in this instance I definitely wouldn't even discuss the article until the UPE concern is addressed. Onel5969 TT me 12:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And the UPE concern is a reason not to encourage the author to move it into article space, although it can and probably will be taken to AFD if moved into article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Onel5969, draftifying when you think there is some chance, I agree with.User:Onel5969 SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draft talk, Teahouse, AFCHD, the decliner's talk page (though some would argue against that). Plenty of venues to choose from, with varying levels of response times and results. While the Draft talk is probably the most ideal place, who other than the page creator is (reasonably speaking) actually watching it? Primefac (talk) 14:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And therefore, when it is question that might be of general interest, someothrvenue is best; if it's just arguing about details, then the draft talk page. DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC) �[reply]
In any case, it appears that we have agreement that DRN, which is for article content disputes, is not a forum to discuss draft declines. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Snyk

I created a page for Snyk It was earmarked for speedy deletion but this has since been removed and now has a tag on it that it reads like an advertisement. I'd like someone to take a look at the page and let me know their opinion. Is it notable enough? Does it read like an advertisement? The reason I put the funding in there is that its valuation as a 8 billion dollar company is what makes it notable. I didn't want to include other stuff for fear of it reading like an advertisement. So if someone could please advise, I appreciate it. Thank you MaskedSinger (talk) 15:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MaskedSinger: Neither WP:N nor WP:NCORP say that valuation has anything to do with notability and the sourcing is weak. It does read like an advertisement because it says everything a firm would want to say about itself and nothing it wouldn't. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris troutman: The valuation generated enough articles on it to generate the notability ie significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I'm not sure what they would/nt want to say about itself. My plan was just to start the page and then whomever wanted to add whatever they wanted to it, could do so. MaskedSinger (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that articles that regurgitate company factoids and present no original analysis fail the "independent" part of WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. Newspaper articles that were obviously written based on press releases look like they pass on the surface, but the de facto standard at AFD is that they are not independent and in-depth enough. I haven't checked them all, but I spot checked this Reuters article, and this is in my opinion a classic example of a newspaper article written based on a press release. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MaskedSinger Regrettably your references embrace churnalism, and the lack of substantial references calls the article into question. It feels that the ratio of references to words of text is unreasonably high. It needs a great deal of surgery to show that it passes WP:NCORP FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 18:58, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MaskedSinger Please now see Draft:Snyk. I see it as having no hope of passing an AfD at present, and it was either go that route or draftify it in my view. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 19:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent Thanks for your feedback. I will go again. MaskedSinger (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Start by finding references that pass WP:42. Do not write another word until you have at least three solid references and then write what they say. All other material in the draft including references that are useless should be cut out with a scalpel FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 22:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MaskedSinger ping FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 22:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent Understood. Thank you. MaskedSinger (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent Hope you're having a good week. I tried again. I'm not sure if it's perfect and up to your standards but I tried my best. As I said, my aim was to start it very small/basic and for the wider community to do the rest. Regards MaskedSinger (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MaskedSinger no Declined Smaller would have been better. I have pushed it back to you with advice. Further work is required FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 20:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Words in URLs that indicate unreliable sources

Howdy. I'm working on my CiteHighlighter user script. I added a feature today that highlights URLs orange if they contain suspicious words, such as "blog" and "preprint". Are there any other words I should add? I think AFC could offer some good ideas from the PR/self promotion angle, e.g. "innovative". –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't have anything specific to note on this subject at the moment (busy in real life), I suppose now is a good a time as any to share this lovely tool I found and occasionally use for (somewhat jokingly) spot-checking spam cruft... [1] Perryprog (talk) 03:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Novem Linguae
  • news
  • wire
  • about
  • release
  • announce
  • acquire
There will be more FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 20:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent. Thanks for the suggestions. News, about, and release had too many false positives, but I went ahead and added newswire, press-release, pressrelease, announce, and acquire. Please do let me know if you think of more. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Novem Linguae
aboutus or about-us may refine the false positives
  • businesswire
  • prnews
  • contactus
  • contact-us
I'll keep thinking. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 08:23, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

iNaturalist

I was reviewing Draft:Automoliini and I noticed that it was autogenerated from iNaturalist's "Create this page on Wikipedia!" template. It's a great outreach effort in theory but it's encouraging people to create drafts citing only iNaturalist, which is a user-generated source. Is there anything that can be done about that? I've declined the draft for now but I've seen one or two others made from this same template already. Rusalkii (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weather article ping request

Hello members of the AfC WikiProject. I cannot speak for the entire WP Weather, but some common themes have been noticed recently, so I have a request for AfC reviews. If you stumble across a weather-related draft, please ping me or alert the WikiProject Weather talk page since weather related articles are harder to tell notability on. For instance, a tornado that caused 0 deaths and 0 injuries might actually be notable for an article, while a different tornado that killed over a dozen people might not be notable for an article. I have been working with the WP Weather community for over 8 months now, so I have learned some about what weather event is notable for an article. So, if you stumble across a weather draft, please ping me and I can help assess the draft and/or expand it to make it notable. Thanks, Elijahandskip (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elijahandskip Would you consider writing a notability essay on Weather and place your observations and suggested guidelines for editors? Something like WP:NWEATHER? --Whiteguru (talk) 00:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Wikipedia:Notability (weather) has been started. I put a note down in the WP Weather talk page as well. The plan I see for it would be to let WP Weather create it, then maybe propose that it become the official notability guidelines for weather events instead of an essay. But either way, the draft is started, but until it is out of draft state, I would recommend pinging someone from WP weather to help judge a weather AfC submission. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some newbie questions

1. What's the procedure for accepting a article if a redirect already exists? I tagged a couple redirect pages for CSD and the deleting editor moved the entire page over, AfC banners and all, so that I had to do the accepting process manually and there was (briefly) a messy article in mainspace. On the other hand, Liz said not to request drafts be moved to mainspace until they've been cleaned up, and directed me here when I had further questions. It seems like the easiest way to do this would be to have the redirect deleted and then use the AfC script to do the actual move - is there a reason that isn't done?

2. There isn't a clear reject option in the script for cases like Draft:Mir Mohammad Alikhan where the page already exists in mainspace. The reviewer instructions aren't clear on what to do here after I've determined I should reject it.

3. What to do about drafts that are clearly notable along some criteria other than coverage, but are otherwise very badly sourced? For example, an area that's notable according to WP:NGEO and has the claim to notability sourced, but is a stub/has no other sources/otherwise a very poor article. According to the "will this be accepted at AfD?" criteria it passes, but I'd like to confirm that these kinds of articles should be accepted. Rusalkii (talk) 17:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As an answer to #1, and a reply to Liz, if a page is marked as {{db-move}} or similar, and that page is in the draft space, then the Article/redirect should just be deleted; there is no mandate that the deleting admin move the page, and in this sort of situation it's probably better that they don't (assuming, of course, they are not themselves an AFC reviewer that can Accept the page with AFCH).
Answer #2: yes there is, it's exists - you might have to manually input the article title (as clearly Mir Mohammad Alikhan doesn't exist) but that's how you do it (which I've now done since I was there). For the record, I would not reject a draft like that, but decline.
Answer #3: you have two options. The first is to decline as v (improperly sourced) and have the draft creator improve it further. Option two is to remove anything that isn't sourced (assuming what's left still gives a "clearly notable" indication) and then accept it as a stub.
Hope this helps! Primefac (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re 2: Huh, why is that decline instead of reject? I've been interpreting decline as "possible to improve" and reject as "definitely not going to be accepted", and a page that already exists seems to fit the latter. Rusalkii (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rusalkii reject is rather a new thing and was added to deal with problematic resubmission mostly to stop offering the easy re-submit button. However for this reason it is quite abrupt/rude, so to not be WP:BITEY a decline should be enough in most cases. No one likes rejection so I use only when needed, and almost never on the first submit. So rather than see decline as "possible to improve" I would say use decline unless you want/need to reject outright. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it. Thank you Primefac and Kylie for the explanations! Rusalkii (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Rusalkii - I will expand somewhat on the comments by User:Primefac and User:KylieTastic about what to do if the title is already taken in mainspace, either by a redirect or by an article.
In the case where there is a redirect, as was said, the redirect can be tagged with G6 - Move, listing the draft as the page to replace the article, with a reason of Accept Draft. Although User:Primefac is right that it is best if the admin merely deletes the redirect, they will normally interpret the G6 as a technical move request, and will move the draft. That means that the reviewer should perform the same cleanup, such as removing the AFC template, that they would if the accept script failed. However, before tagging a redirect as G6, check whether the redirect has a non-trivial history. If it does, then the acceptance is more complicated, and you will need the help of either an admin or a page mover.
In the case where there already is an article, the reason for the decline is 'exists', and in that case, the template adds a message saying that the draft may be merged into the article. The reviewer should check whether the draft is the same as the article, is a subset of the article, or contains information that is not in the article. If the draft contains information that is not in the article, please tag the draft to be merged into the article, or tag the article to have the draft merged into it. (It doesn't matter which you tag, because the tagging is applied at both ends.) If the draft is the same as the article, or is a subset of the article, then it is helpful for the reviewer to replace the draft with a redirect to the article.
As User:KylieTastic says, only use Reject if you want to be biting the submitter. The only times that I will use Reject on a first submission are if I am also tagging it for speedy deletion as spam, vandalism, or something else. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that clarifies, in particular about the case where there already is an article, which either can be improved, or can be redirected to. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As an additional thought re: G6'ing the article to be deleted, there is a "reason" field as the second parameter, so if you put {{db-move|Draft:XYZ|Accepting a draft article, please let the reviewer move it!}} or something similar, it will (hopefully) alert the patrolling admin that you are well capable of moving the page yourself, there's just that pesky extant article in the way. Primefac (talk) 08:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I tried this and got told that redirects are not preemptively deleted before an article is accepted. Rusalkii (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zipolopolo

Thoughts on Draft:Zipolopolo? The draft's creator has acknowledged their COI; they assert the content is licenced under CC BY-SA 4.0, though I can't see reference to such a declaration on the company's website; while it is written carefully to not advertise, the overall aim is surely to publicise his stove design. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese food articles - Ed project or sockfarm?

Over the past couple days, I have seen a couple decent drafts on Chinese dishes (Draft:Shanghai-style Salad and Draft:Sampan Congee (Boat Congee)). Valereee, who I defer to on the notability of such articles, brought up an interesting point. Both articles have been edited by multiple users of whom the draft is their only edit. I'm starting to hear quacking, but it very well could be a WikiEd project. Could a couple of you take a look at the drafts and see if we're being crazy or not? Thanks in advance. Bkissin (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's an educational project. The IP registers to Shanghai New York University. And this is a very typical educational project in an ESL class. Food items in non-English countries don't get nearly the media attention that they do in English-speaking countries and Europe. I'm about ready to open an RfC on notability of food items from outside Europe and the English-speaking world. —valereee (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it seems legit to you @Valereee:, I'm fine with it on my end! Notability was never my issue with it. Bkissin (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good afternoon, I'm a librarian at NYU Shanghai. This is my first year beyond individual workshops on Wikipedia. This group of articles is not in WikiEd officially. The course is an English for Academic Purposes class (a first-year experience course on academic writing). Thank you for letting these drafts continue. I am incorporating this WikiProject page into my notes to share with other NYU librarians.JenniferNM (talk) 04:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm the lecturer for this course; it's not an ESL course but a sophomore course on academic writing for the humanities. I am new to Wikipedia; I have only participated in group edit-a-thons when I lived in Chicago. In my class at NYU Shanghai, students each created their own accounts (which is why you see several edits in a short period of time from various accounts with our university's IP address), but worked in teams together, in person, to create or refine Wiki pages as the culmination of their work this semester. We used Wikipedia articles about policies, notability, neutrality, Manual of Style, etc as class readings. Thanks for spending time on these drafts; the students are thrilled to see their work in the world. Humanmerelybeing (talk) 07:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)humanmerelybeing[reply]

Please fix the link tagged portal as it links to a non-existent page in the grading scheme. That page was moved and deleted. Username006 (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ Username006 Which portal, where? Where is this link you refer to? --Whiteguru (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've corrected it with this edit; let us know if you see any similar redlinks. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The last few days I have come across so many essay or academic paper style articles all on health/nurse/patient data/covid related topics I'm starting to wonder if there is a reason behind these? Usually just just a pure essay style or start with an abstract, usually badly sourced. Such as:

They are all different but I get a feeling there is a link. Have other noticed? Am I missing something notable with these? KylieTastic (talk) 20:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@KylieTastic Looks like a school assignment to post an article on Wikipedia. See User talk:Deyshawilliams. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah thanks Deyshawilliams... I still don't understand how teachers can think asking students to do this without even understanding the basic themselves is appropriate. The teacher scores an F. KylieTastic (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some kind of consistent message we should be sending them? If their teacher told them to submit it I feel kind of bad just declining with the "essay" template. Rusalkii (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've been declining them with the essay template and "If this is for a school assignment, please tell your instructor that Wikipedia is not a good place for these kinds of essays, and if they want to incorporate Wikipedia into their curriculum they should reach out to https://wikiedu.org/." so far. Rusalkii (talk) 04:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good comment to add to the decline notice. Unfortunately there's nothing we can really do about a teacher not knowing how we operate, and sometimes you just have to do what's necessary. As a related anecdote, we've had helpees on IRC tell us that unless they get a draft approved they'll be fired; our advice is always to quit first because that's an impossible standard to have. Primefac (talk) 08:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Primefac - Ugh. That is even worse than editors who say that they will fail a course unless they get a draft approved in Wikipedia. In the educational case, the instructor means well and is ignorant and should not be giving such an assignment. In the commercial case, the employer does not mean well (at least not from the standpoint of the values of Wikipedia) and is ignorant and should not be giving such a task. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moving userspace drafts

Quite a few times now I've noticed cases where:

  1. A user makes test edits in their user sandbox, e.g. "Hello World. My name is Lisa. I like strawberries."
  2. The user converts their user sandbox page to a userspace draft.
  3. The user submits the draft for AfC.
  4. The draft is moved into draftspace (per "Preferred location for AfC submissions"), and eventually gets accepted.

The result of this is that Lisa's test post describing her like of strawberries is now included in the earliest version of the article, which it shouldn't be. In bad cases more personal information may end up in article histories this way. I've had to request history splits for several instances of this happening. Is there a better way to address this?

PS It might be worth mentioning that all cases I've come across seem to be from the same class of students working on an assignment, so one venue of addressing the issue would be to get in touch with the instructor and make sure the students aren't being given instructions to do this. But I think discussion is also warranted concerning the general case. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:52, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, we could always adopt the "who cares?" mentality. I'm not being cheeky, genuinely don't think it's worth wasting time over. Primefac (talk) 12:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's similar to multiple uses of the same sandbox by the same user. Sometimes I find I'm credited as the article creator by weird MW software accident. I have chosen not to worry about it. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 12:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I wouldn't worry either, but these cases I mentioned have included personal private information like real names, real-life affiliations, dates of birth, etc. While, yes, in any case the information is still somewhere on Wikipedia, keeping it in Userspace seems much less bad than including it in the history of an article, which is much more likely to be reproduced by forks and mirrors. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In your hypothetical just now, that sounds like pii that would be suppressed (regardless of where it was located). Primefac (talk) 13:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK such information posted by the user is deleted/oversighted without their asking only if they are minors, though... --Paul_012 (talk) 07:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We're getting a little off-topic here, but for the sake of clarity (since it's something I'm quite familiar with), there are varying levels of "personal" depending on the user's age. If the user is <16, we assume they shouldn't be posting anything about themselves (socials, contact info, location, school, parents, etc); older folk we drop a few of those from the list (e.g. socials are okay, but a personal phone number or home address is not). It's really a case-by-case evaluation, and if you're ever in doubt please feel free to email the OS team; we'd much rather decline a borderline case than have something slip through the cracks. Primefac (talk) 10:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is confusing and think it should count for revdel as housekeeping under WP:CRD#6 (though I'm fairly confident it currently doesn't). An edit before a move to mainspace is only worth keeping in the page history if it adds or removes some information related to the subject. I don't think we need a systematic purge of these edits, just the ability to revdel them when coming across them. A histmerge is a better technical solution (not sure under what policy this usage would be justified under though), but a waste of time when there's nothing of value to put back in userspace, assuming histmerges are as much of a pain as they look like from the instructions. — Bilorv (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Selective deletion and restoration is probably a better option, as technically speaking RD doesn't fit for "hiding old versions of a page that aren't related". Primefac (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weird duplication of comments

Tracked in github.com
Issue #206

A draft with several AfC comments had multiple copies of each comment (see this old version; thanks David notMD for noticing and pointing it out). It turned out that I'd unwittingly caused this by using the AFCH helper for this decline and this comment. As far as I can make out, the fact that the draft creator had added their own comments to the AfC comments, inside the curly brackets (e.g. here), caused the script to copy the comments. Text shouldn't be added inside an existing AfC comment, but we can't really expect brand-new editors to understand that when they create a new draft... I've asked this draft creator to use the draft talk page, but I wanted to post this heads-up about the script's unexpected behaviour. --bonadea contributions talk 11:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had AFCH duplicate a comment too. Diff. I think if the comment is malformed in any way (in my case the respondee added a |2= to it), this duplication issue occurs. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's good to know. Thanks! --bonadea contributions talk 11:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it rude of me to publish an article waiting for re-review

Hi, I'm an experienced wikipedian who has been asked to help with encyclopedic tone in Draft:Hom Nguyen (painter), which was rejected in the Articles for Creation process on 27 Sept 2021. The inexperienced editor has improved the article since it was rejected, and I've worked on the article as well. I think its ready for mainspace. Should I just move it, or is that rude? Newystats (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Newystats, i don’t believe it is rude, as opting to use AFC or direct publishing is an editors prerogative, the article was declined and not rejected. If the problems have been resolved then resubmitting instead of direct publishing should be the better route as there are no deadlines. To expound on what I said, if the article has been resubmitted for review, then it is best to just wait it out. Celestina007 (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've accepted the article in any case, he's obviously notable. Rusalkii (talk) 00:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Newystats (talk) 04:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no obligation for any page that has been submitted to AFC to "stay the course" - if someone (even a non-AFC reviewer) comes across a perfectly acceptable draft, they are welcome to move it to the article space (provided they do the necessary checks and cleanup). Primefac (talk) 08:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possible COI

Although the creator of the draft titled Draft:Ugochukwu Aronu by Jefak007 (They aren’t pinged) has denied any form of COI, I am finding that implausible, I believe they are a WP:SLEEPER (10 years with only 91 edits) who recently “woke up” to create a blatant promotional article on a Nigerian business man, see first revision, I stripped it of all promotional content which they put back see here & here. Most importantly take a look at this. I have told them to use AFC to submit the draft, I thought it wise to give you all a heads up on this one, as I believe this to be possible undeclared paid editing. Celestina007 (talk) 13:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That editor is blocked for undisclosed paid editing but is appealing. McClenon mobile (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two Invisible Templates

Sometimes, if I am editing a draft, I see one or both of the templates, {{AFC topic}} or {{Draft topics}}. It appears that these templates populate categories, but that they only populate categories while the draft is still in draft space. That is, if the draft is moved to article space by the acceptance script (or manually), they then do nothing. Is that correct? If so, the only use that the reviewer makes of the templates would be as information for what categories and projects to populate when accepting the draft. (Am I also correct that if I don't populate any categories and projects, it is likely that gnomes will do this afterward?) Are there any issues about these templates that reviewers should be aware of? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why did my article about terrance ruffin got declined?

Everything was good with the article, i checked it, i dont know why it didn't got accepted, can y'all see what the problem was if there was a problem in the first place? ClassicPhysiqueGuy (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ClassicPhysiqueGuy, the reason is in the big pink box at the top of your draft: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources." You're welcome to resubmit the draft (by clicking the big blue button that says "resubmit") once you've added some reliable sources. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Can you review these draft pages, Draft:2022 Bacolod local elections, Draft:2022 Bulacan local elections and Draft:2022 Muntinlupa local elections? Thanks. NewManila2000 (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NewManila2000 As noted on your drafts, "This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,824 pending submissions waiting for review." Reviews are conducted by volunteers working on their own time, please be patient. For further inquiries, please use the AFC Help Desk; this page is for discussing the operation of AFC only. 331dot (talk) 14:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I will instead refer to help desk, if needed. NewManila2000 (talk) 14:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NewManila2000: I think the point being made here is that you need to wait. It is not our intent for you to bother someone else to review these drafts because you don't want to wait. Instead, post your request on the reward board. While we're on the subject, why did you made these drafts in draftspace? Do you have a conflict of interest? Chris Troutman (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I created some of those because I want to contribute and some were first created by other users so I don't have any problem. I don't have any conflict of interest for now, while editing these pages, and others, since I don't have any relation with the individuals that are mentioned in those pages. Will also improve and not always rely on the primary and secondary sources while editing, but will add supporting sources too. By the way, I apologise for the inconvenience and will wait instead for the pages that will be transferred to article space in the right time. NewManila2000 (talk) 03:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation&oldid=1061018911"