Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:41, 9 June 2020 editHasteur (talk | contribs)31,857 edits →"New" reviewer?: Alternative solution← Previous edit Latest revision as of 06:41, 19 January 2025 edit undoMusikBot II (talk | contribs)Bots, Interface administrators, Administrators104,099 editsm removing {{pp-sock}} as page is not edit-protected (more info) 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{/header}} {{/header}}
{{skip to top and bottom}}
{{WPAFC/project}}
{{Banner holder |collapsed=yes |{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used|link=Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2018-12-24/WikiProject report|day=24|month=December|year=2018}}
{{WikiProject Articles for creation (admin)}}}}
{{auto archiving notice|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|age=3|units=weeks}}
{{central|Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Templates/Signpost article link for WikiProjects|link=Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2018-12-24/WikiProject report|day=24|month=December|year=2018}}}}

{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation/ArchiveBox}} {{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation/ArchiveBox}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo=old(15d) | algo=old(20d)
| archive=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/%(year)d %(counter)d | archive=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Archive %(counter)d
| counter=2 | counter=59
| maxarchivesize=300K | maxarchivesize=300K
| archiveheader={{Talk archive navigation|prefix=2019 }}{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation/ArchiveBox}} | archiveheader={{Talk archive navigation}}{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation/ArchiveBox}}
| minthreadsleft=6 | minthreadsleft=6
}}<!-- }}
{{Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/stats}}
<!--


DO NOT EDIT ABOVE THIS LINE --><!-- DO NOT EDIT ABOVE THIS LINE --><!-- DO NOT EDIT ABOVE THIS LINE --><!-- DO NOT EDIT ABOVE THIS LINE --><!-- DO NOT EDIT ABOVE THIS LINE --><!-- DO NOT EDIT ABOVE THIS LINE --><!--


NEW SECTIONS GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NEW SECTIONS GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE


--> -->


== Bots/scripts that detect that a submission has not changed (much) since the last time it was submitted ==
== Article start request template ==
{{closed rfc top
Hi ], ], maybe also ]
| result = There is a consensus against option 1 and no consensus for options 3 or 4. The former was roundly rejected, and the latter two received minimal support. Option 2 received about 7 !votes and option 5 around 10 !votes. The main arguments in favor of option 5 were the stigma of being flagged by a bot and the fact that reviewers sometimes make mistakes, but editors in favor of option 2 pointed out that some editors see value in having such a list, that the list wouldn't alert the submitter, and that being on the list does nothing to indicate whether the original review was correct. Thus, I find a rough consensus for option 2. ] (]/]) 21:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

}}
Drawing from ], I've created ]. Is it suitable for public use? Could it possibly be included in the article creation wizard, or otherwise made more discoverable to others? The purpose is to position the new article requests in personal talk space, as

* often the article is started by a single author (particularly in cases of conflict of interest)
* often the helpee will be interested in discussion where questions can be asked and answers can be given
* helpers have the opportunity to give feedback on sources alone -- without needing to analyze article text which can be a wasted effort -- before giving feedback on an article
* authors will understand how to write better, improving their writing performance
* {{tl|helpme}} seems to work well
* ] can be monitored for new submissions *(there are established notification and monitoring tools for this for the helpme requests) - can be monitored by volunteers who are experienced in "notability pass or not?" phase of the draft review process
* This may be a more user friendly system than ], and in comparison with it, in this system a non-zero amount of feedback will be available.
* (This is also a bit similar to {{tl|edit request}} which also seems to work effectively.)
Regards, --] (]) 10:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:I think there's some merit to this, especially if we can have it be a ''sort of'' prerequisite to the article wizard. I think it could help to limit the amount of terrible drafts we get at AfC. There's craptons of new users who write drafts that have no chance of ever being accepted and it's a waste of people's time to review, re-review, argue about sources/notability/etc., then the resulting recrimination... It would be nice to reduce that a bit. ] (]) 02:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

:I will need a few days to look at it--there's too much else going on, and I am not working at very high efficiency.The easiest way to use it will be a a pre-screen for the article wizard, but I think it would be much better to incorporate it. In deciding where to put it, we need to think about catching all incoming requests, especially those from paid editors, who may avoid the usual routes. Further comment later this week. ''']''' (]) 03:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
::Ta. (After 1-2 months of work from home my focus started to drop, I'm finding ] a bit helpful.) ] (]) 04:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
::News? ] (]) 05:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
:::I think the first step is to put it into the article wizard, because we already have that, and it will be relatively easy o do the necessary rewriting, maybe without any programming at all. After that we can figure out how to deal with the new ones that do not go through the wizard. (I'm not sure if we have a tag for the ones that do go through--if not it should be possible to add one) .
:::the simplest way of checking compliance is manual. we can check either at aformal submission, or hen the draft is started. We seem to have about 100 formal submissions a day, so we might try on that first. ,
:::I'm going to try a rewrite tf the wizard template text part by part tomorrow and see where we get. Watch this space. I already look at some zero day submissionsevery day, soI'lllmake apoint of doing thisat the same time. Perhaps we need a subpage for the work on this? ''']''' (]) 05:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
::::Thank you. I think wherever this process is mentioned, it perhaps should be clear that
::::* an article start request is significantly quicker than draft review (should say how quicker - I hope 1-2 days but this will be seen after this process begins)
::::* is staffed by volunteers who specialize in how to start articles
::::* be clear what happens after the start, i.e. "Article start request only involves search of references and their description. It does not involve writing any part of the article. Upon successful article start request, you will have completed references search and will be ready to start writing content that will highly likely be notable and thus qualify for inclusion, with you only needing to be mindful of ] and ]" -- this is important I think so that the author will understand better the next step
::::
::::Maybe if the 'article start request' template which I linked is possibly going to be used, discussions could be placed on its talk page, or subpages of it could be created? ] (]) 21:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
::::{{u|DGG}}, news, please? :-) ] (]) 23:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::{{U|Gryllida}}., even were this normal times, I don't work this fast--there are already more things than I can handle.-- or even think about. I agree with your 3 points; but it is always easier to know what to do than to figure out how to do it. There are 3 potential places--adding it into article requests, making it a part of the Article Wizard, and integrating it into afch. Adding the requirement to article requests should not prevent someone from just asking for an article without saying anything more ,because sometimes the slightest information is enough--and as it is, the procedure its mostly ignored; The article wizard is agood way also but then the problem is how to divert everything through hte article wizard--the AW will need to be streamlined, also;. What I really want to figure out is how to add it as a first step in afch but then the difficulty is separating it from asking for the whole article. It is already a problem at afch when people write very incomplete drafts and never follow them up. In short, we should not add an additional step or procedure---we already have too many, but rather strengthen the existing ones. Probably we should try working on them all and seeing what will happen (In the past I've been more successful in first suggesting & encouraging things at one end--and clarifying & fixing out the problems at the other, but not doing the work in the middle. I've learned to be realistic about what I will accomplish, & I know I get easily diverted by immediate quick things that need doing. Keep reminding me, and I'll keep thinking. ''']''' (]) 03:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::Wouldn't expect a need to insert it in "all places", just a passing mention in article wizard should be good as a start? To see a small number of people use this new system and perhaps measure their success rates? I suspect that waiting to insert it everywhere and in afch and so on might cause an unnecessary delay. ] (]) 04:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
::::I apologize for a delayed response, but the amount and nature of police activity in my area of brooklyn is not conducive to rational thought. ''']''' (]) 05:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
:
::

== Intellectually independent drafts ==

Suppose User:A created a draft ] and works from there. Around the same time, User:B created an article ]. The two creations are completely independent of each other, and use different sources etc. What should be done in this hypothetical case? Who should be given attribution for the creation of the page? Thanks, ] (]) 02:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
:{{u|Eumat114}}, Is user B creating a mainspace article in this instance? You didn't put draft in front of that one so it's a bit unclear. If there's already an article in mainspace (no matter if it is a newer creation) I would just decline it and request a merge if there's something of substance to be copied over. If it's two competing drafts, then there's typically a UPE or UCOI at play. However, there are some exceptions, particularly in instances of a person/event recently in the news. In that case, I go with the older draft. The exception being if the older draft is still in someones userspace or sandbox and the newer draft already occupies the correct draft title, then I go with the newer one for convenience. E.g. User A creates Draft:Eumat in Jan 2020 and User B created User:Sulfurboy/sandbox/Eumat in Dec 2019.
:
:However, this is just what I do, I don't know if there's some set policy or guideline in place. I imagine it's mostly an at your best discretion type of thing. ] (]) 03:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
::{{u|Sulfurboy}}, User B is creating a mainspace article, and the content is pretty intellectually independent of the draft A created. I guess a histmerge is to be done, but the question is that who should be attributed. ] (]) 03:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
:::{{u|Eumat114}}, Oh you mean like how to attribute where the information that was added into the mainspace article from the draft came from? I would just add it and format the edit summary as: <code>Copied content from <nowiki>]</nowiki>; see that page's history for attribution</code> ] (]) 03:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
::::{{u|Sulfurboy}}, I guess you're not getting the key of the problem. Under what circumstances should User A be credited with the creation of the article, and under when should User B be? If the draft was a really well-written article while the mainspace one was pretty stubby (but still independent) I think it's unkind to User:A to credit the creation of the article to User:B. ] (]) 03:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Eumat114}}, It would be User B by default. As they are the creator of the mainspace article. Properly attributing who truly created the article is irrelevant (unless something's changed since my hiatus). I think you can have the same debate if someone takes an article from being a stub to B-Class or above. Who then is truly the creator of that page? The person who actually first created the stub, or the person who to turned the stub into an actual article? ] (]) 03:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::Indeed, it all depends on circumstance. If User:A creates an Article and User:B creates a Draft, then the Article has priority. If the Draft is better than the Article, then it can be copy/pasted (using ]) or just tell User:B to improve the Article. If the Article is better, then leave the Draft and tell User:B to switch their focus to the Article. Folks sometimes get too hung up on "who created the page" but that's why we have edit histories. ] (]) 00:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
:::No, no, and for a third time no. Two pages that are {{tq|intellectually independent}} (i.e. they're nothing alike) should '''''never''''' be histmerged. Ever. Full stop. There is an admin in particular who will histmerge without even looking, and it drives me nuts. ] (]) 00:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
:I'd defininitely just merge the draft and the mainspace page, and redirect from draftspace. ] (]) 17:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

== WMF Growth team ==

Hi all -- I'm Marshall Miller; I'm the product manager for the ], which works on features to increase the retention of new editors. I last worked with AfC reviewers in 2018, on improvements to the New Pages Feed, and I'm back because I know this group knows a lot about new editors and how to help them. I'll keep this brief so as not to take up too much of your talk page with something not directly related to AfC.
]
Over the last year or so, the Growth team has been piloting features in small Wikipedias meant to increase productive edits from newcomers (such as the "suggested edits module" shown here). As our features become more developed, we're planning on expanding to larger wikis, and so I created ] on English Misplaced Pages, looking to gather thoughts from English Wikipedians who think about new editors. I hope some of you can check out that page and leave any of your thoughts on ], so that as we think about deploying features to bigger wikis, we'll take your ideas and concerns into account.

The latest idea we're thinking about is called "]". The idea builds on our previous work of task recommendations for newcomers, but is geared toward breaking down simple editing workflows (like copyediting or adding wikilinks) into steps that are easy for newcomers to accomplish, potentially assisted by algorithms. We are asking for thoughts and opinions on the project ]. I hope to see some of you in the conversation! -- ] (]) 01:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
:Editor retention is a huge concern in the English Misplaced Pages, particularly in AFC. COI or not, one of the most satisfying things for a new editor (like me :)) was a new article. Unfortunately, as article reviewing typically takes 6 weeks (up to now) and frankly speaking, I've been through a wait and a 1-month wait honestly isn't the most editor-retaining thing. Hence, I believe that a potential editor retaining way is to review newbie drafts before drafts from experienced users. And of course, the newbie homepage is a terrific idea, and perhaps when faced with a draft, the newbie can ask the mentor to review it? Anyone good enough to be a mentor should also be good enough to review at AFC. Thanks for the great idea, ] (]) 01:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
::Thanks, {{u|Eumat114}}. I'm glad to hear you like the concept of the newcomer homepage, and I think it's a great idea to use it to provide more hooks for mentors to be involved with their mentees. We've thought about whether we can encourage mentors to review the suggested edits that their newcomers do via the homepage, or whether the newcomers could proactively request that mentors review their work. Adding new page creations there would make a lot of sense. Please stay in touch with any other thoughts or ideas! -- ] (]) 23:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
:I like the idea! Keep up the good work, we've had a long-time problem with editor retention. ] (]) 17:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

== Drafts for pages that already exist ==

Is there a "speedy" option similar to Speedy Deletion or PROD to address Drafts younger than 6 months that are for articles that already exist? I have ] (]) and ] (]) that are no longer being edited because the real articles now exist. Is protocol to just wait out the 6 months until they are automatically deleted or are there housekeeping options? ] (]) 13:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
:Two options, the first being to leave it and let G13 take over, the second being to redirect the draft to the main page. The latter is really only necessary if there was more than one (or two) people editing the draft (for attribution issues etc). ] (]) 15:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

::As always, merge and redirect if you ask me. ] (]) 17:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
===Another Question About Drafts for Articles That Exist===
I have another question about drafts on topics where the article already exists. These are declined with the 'exists' reason. My question is what should be done if the submitter resubmits the stub draft anyway, in particular when a Class C article already exists. (Well, the article was rated Stub class and should have been Class C, and, in the absence of any rule saying that I can't re-rate an article, I re-reated it Class C.) The specific question is about ]. The more general question is what to do in a similar situation. Either there is something that I don't understand, or there is something that the submitter doesn't understand, or there may be a language problem, that the submitter may not understand the advice that we are giving. Thoughts? ] (]) 15:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
* ] they are two places with the same name in the same state but different district. I've seen a few declines for exists where the subject was different, or in one case just a redirect. I was just about it would be nice if submitters told us why, but then i realised I had not checked - see the talk page they did. Cheers ] (]) 16:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
::] - In that case, we need to disambiguate, and reviewers understand disambiguation better than new editors. That answers that. ] (]) 16:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

== Draft and Article at Same Time ==

A situation that I have seen repeatedly in the past week or two is where the submitter has created two nearly identical pages on the same topic, one in draft space and one in article space. Obviously the one in article space was created after they had been registered for four days and made ten edits. The problem is that in these cases it typically isn't clear whether the article should be an article. The draft can be declined because there is already an article. But there are really three possible outcomes. The first is that the article should be kept in article space. It was promoted by the author without review, but AFC review is optional, except for COI editors. If so, the draft can be redirected to the article. The second is that the page should be in draft space, a reasonable topic, but not ready for article space. The author has made draftifying impossible, so the choices are: ] or ]; ]; or ]. The third outcome occasionally is that it doesn't belong anywhere.

Are there any more thoughts on what to do when an editor has created a draft and an article at the same time, and the page isn't ready for mainspace?
] (]) 16:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

:I've usually redirected the article to the draft with a summary of "one copy is enough" (or "one copy is more than enough" if it's particularly poor quality) then tagged the draft with <nowiki>{{subst:AFC draft| username}}</nowiki> and the article (now a redir) as ]. I've not encountered any objection thus far. ] (]) 16:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
:{{reply|Robert McClenon}} See the discussion at ]. ] (]) 17:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

== ] ==

Will a script developer or someone please look at this draft? I thought that I had declined it properly to indicate the language that it is in. However, the decline only says that it isn't in English. Looking inside the AFC submit stuff, I see that it did capture my input of Spanish, but it isn't reporting it as Spanish, only as not English.

Should I be reporting this to ] or to the developers or to somewhere in particular?
] (]) 23:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
:It's trying to put "Spanish" as {{param|3}}, seemingly regardless of the order in which the decline rationale are selected. If {{para|reason2|lang}}, then it ''should'' put {{para|details2|Spanish}}, not <code>|d|v|Spanish|</code>. Can't tell if it's a bug on our end or on AFCH's end, though. ] (]) 00:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
::{{u|Primefac}} and {{u|Robert McClenon}}, looks like a bug to report to Enterprisey. ] (]) 03:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
:::*it should be reported here according to the AFCH github page. ] (]) 03:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 May 2020 ==

{{edit extended-protected|Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation|answered=yes}}
] (]) 10:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
:We cannot consider blank requests. ] (]) 10:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
::] - Why not? Spoilsport. ] (]) 04:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

== ] ==

Per ], a transit hub in a major metro area would almost certainly be kept at AfD. But what if it doesn't actually exist yet? Am I right in thinking this draft is ]? ] (]) 16:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
:There are a lot of things that could happen between now and 2030. If I remember back when I was doing a bunch of maintenance work with the Shanghai and other Chinese metro lines, generally any new expansion would get a paragraph or two on the main "line" page until it had actually been built or was close enough to merit a spinoff. In other words, yes, it's a case of TOOSOON. ] (]) 20:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

== Turkish military intervention in the Second Libyan Civil War ==

As I write this, ] appears to being nearing the end of the AfC process. I came across the article with the ] and considered it to be incomplete, so I (in good faith) moved it to draft space with a full explanation to the article's creator. This resulted in me being accused by someone else of censorship on the article's talk page and at my own talk page. I can deal with the accuser myself. But AfC reviewers here should be aware that the article has several empty sections, as was also noted by someone else at the article's talk page. My assessment is that it should remain in draft form until it is much closer to the point where interested members of the community have something concrete to work with. That is merely my opinion, but I do hope that the folks here will consider how an article full of holes makes Misplaced Pages look. ---<span style="font-family: Calibri">] (]&#124;])</span> 14:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
:{{reply-to|Doomsdayer520}} Moving it to draft and trying to persuade the author to develop it further is fine, but bear in mind that the terms of ] say that if anyone objects (and, if you're being accused of censorship, it sounds like someone has), you're obliged to move the page back to article space. An article full of holes makes Misplaced Pages look like what it is, a work perpetually in progress. It isn't pretty, but that's the nature of the beast. --] (]) 18:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
::No real arguments here, but I received no requests to reverse my draftify move. ] brought the article back to namespace, and ''then'' accused me of deleting the article (which I might add would have made his/her own move impossible), and went on to accuse me of censorship at my own talk page. The responses in this thread agree that I should not have draftified, and I will accept that. But allow me to add that the article's talk page, and the personal talk pages of its two main editors, indicate that others have notice a misuse of procedures and WP terminology. ---<span style="font-family: Calibri">] (]&#124;])</span> 20:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
:{{u|Doomsdayer520}}, I don't think draftifying was the right move here. Yes it needs expansion, but it would not be unequivocally deleted in mainspace, and it is getting about 5,000 views a month, which is far more than the average approved draft. It has the necessary cleanup tags, and now it will hopefully be seen by a wider audience who would be willing to improve it. ] <sup>]</sup>] 18:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
:I have at least two comments. ] (]) 04:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
===Censorship===
The policy that ] is probably unfortunately titled, because for every dispute that is really about censorship, in the sense intended by the author of the policy, there are several cases where someone is ] in order to "win" a content dispute, as my essay, ], explains. Usually when someone yells "Censorship", the dispute is really either ] or ]. ] (]) 04:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
===Move Wars===
I do not know why some reviewers are willing to engage in move wars over pages that are not ready for article space, and why they insist on moving them back into draft space more than once. If the author of a page insists that they want to publish the page in mainspace and it isn't ready for mainspace, that can be resolved by ]. Move wars are at least as disruptive as regular edit wars. Don't move war. Use a dispute resolution process in place of a war. I don't know why some reviewers think that AFD is more harmful than a move war. ] (]) 04:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
:{{u|Robert McClenon}}, well I see a reason why sending an ''accepted'' draft to AFD soon after the acceptance is harmful, especially for GF content creators. An AFD is one of the most off-putting things that can ever happen to a new user, which is why I left the and joined the English Misplaced Pages. I also know, from my experience, that having an article declined is better than having it sent to AFD, even if the response takes some time. AFC is meant to ''serve'' new users, and neither a move war nor sending borderline cases to AFD achieve that. That is, unfortunately, one reason why Misplaced Pages isn't too editor-retaining. But as you mentioned, disputes over suitability (AFD) are best served at the right place (]). When the right place defeats the purpose of AFC, we'll have to break out.
:
:In this case, I have a potential idea: set up a "draft discussion area" ''inside AFC'' invisible to new users. This behind-the-scene activity can comprise AFC reviewers or otherwise non-AFC-reviewing experienced users; their job is to take some time to "simulate" an AFD ''as if the draft were in article space''. Drafts accepted this way is supposed to be immune from AFD, since the draft discussion ''acts'' as an AFD. It might take 1 week or less, but the wait won't be particularly large as compared to the mean AFC waiting time. Is this a good idea? Thanks, ] (]) 06:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
::] - I agree that sending an accepted article from AFC to AFD is harmful, and sending an article from NPP to AFD is also undesirable. Sending an article from NPP to draft is less undesirable. (All ways of dealing with a good-faith new editor who has written a page that is completely unready for article space are undesirable. We just have to do the least undesirable thing.) However, my concern about move-warring has to do with the case where the author of an article moves it back into article space after it was already draftified once. This is probably a good-faith editor anyway, but a stubborn good-faith editor. The choices are to leave the bad article in article space the second time, or to move it back to draft space a second time, which is a move-war, or to tag it for ]. AFD is less harmful than a move-war. We can't "win" the move-war without using admin tools to move-protect the page, and that isn't what admin tools were meant for. The community "wins" the AFD. The AFD does result in some hard feelings, but the move-war also results in hard feelings, and is disruptive. Just conceding and leaving the bad article in article space isn't an option, because someone will either ] it or ] it or ] it. My point is that draftifying an article a second or third time is disruptive and stubborn. Some reviewers seem to think that draftifying it repeatedly is less bad than AFD. Some reviewers apparently think that AFD must be avoided at all costs. I disagree. ] (]) 19:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
:::{{u|Robert McClenon}}, I understand that a move war is undesirable. And I concur with you. And given that a move war represents a ''disagreement'' between editors, which must be resolved, an AFD is the standard avenue for resolving this disagreement. But the key point of my argument is that an AFD is ''so'' off-putting to editors that this is to be avoided (that's the point of AFC).
:::
:::Therefore, my suggestion is holding an "invisible AFC" that discusses a draft in "backstage" and ends with a decision to accept/decline, and is seen as a full substitute of an AFD. There can be a user script that shows the "draft for discussion" notice for sufficiently experienced users. I hope this substitute successfully solves the problem. Cheers, ] (]) 00:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
::::] - I agree that some procedure for discussion by other experienced editors of whether a draft can be accepted would be a good idea. I think that suggestions on how to do this would be useful. ] (]) 00:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Robert McClenon}}, I'm gonna get ] in creating a start-up of a Drafts for Consideration page at ]. Please feel free to work on a basic structure, and then we can bring it to the Village Pump. ] (]) 04:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::Maybe I'm misreading the discussion, but there is ''zero'' reason to have any sort of "pre-AFD" via AFC, because that's essentially what AFC ''is''. If a draft is moved to the article space, then draftified, then moved back to the article space, it needs to then go through AFD. It is the epitome of pointless to war over the location of a page; if the creator ''insists'' that it be an article, and someone else disagrees, then AFD is the way to go. ] (]) 14:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::{{replyto|Eumat114}} You have no consensus for your proposal and you can expect to be rebuked at Village Pump. I agree with Primefac that AfD is the process. I'm sorry but I cannot empathize with your hurt feelings. AfD is a discussion to see if an article meets notability criteria. It is not a referendum on the editor who created the article. It is not a ] where the community punishes unpopular people. It's not even a discussion about the subject of the article! It is simply a matter of finding consensus regarding notability. That's it. As for retention, we have editors active on this platform who started 15 years ago. That you, personally, have heartburn does not mean there is something wrong with AfD. <span class="nowrap" style="font-family:copperplate gothic light;">] (])</span> 14:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::Well then forget what I have been talking about. Thanks for your input; you may delete any page I have created for this mess. Cheers, ] (]) 15:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

===Too far away from the original discussion===
I started this whole mess by (in good faith) moving the article to draft space because I thought it was incomplete, and sent a message to the article creator to that effect, which by the way is an accepted procedure at ]. I have already admitted above that this was an inappropriate step for this particular article so there is no need for additional argument about that, but I wonder if anybody in this thread actually inspected the history of the article, in which there were calls for more info followed by inaccurate condemnations, long before I came along. Did such accusations spook the AfC process?
:
I would have reversed the draftify move per reasonable request, which did not happen. Instead, a different user named Biomax20 reversed the move, then used two talk pages to accuse me of two things inaccurately: deleting the article (procedurally inaccurate) and censorship (possibly "yelling censorship" as discussed above). And now I may or may not have been accused here of engaging a "move war", when all I did was read the article as someone who knew nothing about the topic and found that it still taught me very little in its incomplete form. I started the discussion here with the contention that an incomplete article may not be ready to graduate the AfC process, so perhaps that is worth exploring. But THIS article has issues of its own. Oh well, perhaps someday I will learn from a much more informative version, after whatever it is that you guys do to encourage editors to help get it ]. ---<span style="font-family: Calibri">] (]&#124;])</span> 17:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

== June 2020 at Women in Red ==

{| style="border: 5px solid #ABCDEF ; background-color: #FFFFFF;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" |
|rowspan="2" |
|style="padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" |]''']'''<br>
<small>June 2020, Volume 6, Issue 6, Numbers 150, 151, 167, 168, 169</small>
<br /><br />

'''Online events:'''
* New: ] '''/''' ] '''/''' ]'''
* Continuing initiatives: ] '''/''' ]
* Help us plan future events: ]
<br />
'''Join the conversation:''' ]
<br /><br />
'''Social media:'''
] '''/'''
] '''/'''
] '''/'''
]
<br /><br />
'''Stay in touch:'''
] '''/''' ]
|}--] (]) 17:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
<!-- Message sent by User:Rosiestep@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Outreach/A-F&oldid=958180162 -->

== One-time notice to reviewers ==


Are there any bots/scripts that detect that a submission has not changed (much) since the last time it was submitted? Ideally they would be able to autoreject or at least put them on a list. It might be possible to look at the previous reason for rejection, e.g. not meeting GNG, and if no new refs are added it is highly unlikely it will pass this time. ] (]) 15:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
It was discussed a while ago about sending out a one time notice to active AfC participants about the existence of the list of active reviewers. The discussion kind of died out, but I still think it's a good idea. I created a draft here of what I was thinking should be sent out: ]. Pinging {{u|Sulfurboy}} as I mainly had the discussion with them. Please look at the draft message I created and think if it would be a good idea to send out. If so, I can organize the mass message list/request the mass message. Regards, ] (]) 21:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
::] - I say yes. ] (]) 00:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC) :No, and if I remember correctly we decided not to have any sort of bot that does this. ] (]) 15:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
:::{{u|Sam-2727}}, Looks great. {{u|Primefac}}, what would need to be done to get this sent out? ] (]) 02:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC) :I think having a bot that does this would be a bad idea. One poor decline could easily lead to a series of them. -- ] (]) 16:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
::For clarity, given @]'s comment below, my comment is about putting them on a list. (Obviously, I think an autoreject bot would be even worse.) -- ] (]) 19:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Looks good to me. ] (]) 02:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
:Yes, bad idea. Sometimes it's reasonable to resubmit without changes if the decline was incorrect or the submitter has clarified something. <span style=white-space:nowrap;>] <span style="background-color:#e6e6fa;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black">]</span></span> 16:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
::::{{u|Sulfurboy}}, what I need to do is format the participants into a list that is parsable by the mass message sender special page. I'm doing this now. As an administrator, Primefac can send it, although it's probably quicker to just request at ], it seems requests are answered within hours there. ] (]) 02:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::The list has been created at ]. Now all that needs to be done is send it to the mass messagers. I'll send it in 12 hours or so just to solicit other input here. ] (]) 03:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC) ::How about a bot that could add a Comment to the submission to let the submitter know that the submission has not changed and that they could continue working on it? ] (]) 16:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:I agree having any kind of auto-decline bot is a bad idea. However, simply putting them in a list, like ], sounds reasonable. It would be useful for finding easy declines/accepts, provided that the reviewers check the circumstances behind the resubmission. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 16:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{u|Sam-2727}}, you have my support. I've just done a few tweaks so it looks better. ] (]) 06:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::{{u|Eumat114}}, thanks. One quick question: When you change the signature to four tildes, how would it just leave the signature of the mass message delivery vs. my signature? ] (]) 15:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::{{u|Sam-2727}}, when it is substituted I guess the signature of the mass message sender is generated instead of your signature. ] (]) 15:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
:{{od|:::::::}}{{u|Eumat114}}, is that desirable? Perhaps change it to noping so there isn't a ping but it stlil has my signature. ] (]) 15:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
::I changed it, and it seems to be working now. ] (]) 15:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
* Just a thought, I have been thinking that we have a lot of "active" and inactive reviewers that probably don't review because they they were only interested in some subjects, or articles that have a chance rather than just swat the junk. I've ben thinking we need to send a note to all reviewers to inform them to try get more actually reviewing. So maybe add a note that we now have ] so reviewers can pick by subject and proposed class. Also I quoted "active" because the list has 442 entries + 12 probation but in the approx only 156 reviewed at least one. Then if that encouraged people back we could message the 563 inactive. Regards ] (]) 16:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
*:{{u|KylieTastic}}, Well it was just sent... But maybe in the future we can send out something for that (perhaps a bi-yearly newsletter). ] (]) 16:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
::* Yes worst timing ever... hit publish and it says I have a message....guess what. DOH! ] (])
:::And to be honest, if anything people should be encouraged to switch their attention to NPP. The AfC backlog is at least decreasing in size. ] (]) 18:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
:::* I'd strongly disagree with that - most complete crap in article space still gets caught quickly, so all it means is some low/no notability stuff takes a while to be caught and deleted (and vast amounts of historic junk lives on anyway). The poor suckers submitting to AfC had to wait up to 5+ months to get a first response, even now 5 weeks is way to long and will just put off so many good editors. If I had tactually started with article writing as i intended, and had even had to wait 5 weeks there is no way I would have bothered to continue. AfC is a new editor retention killer in it's current state. The backlog is already creeping up again, and in all the years I've been doing this we've never got it below ~800 and people waiting weeks. This project has never worked as intended (IMHO), yet it seams more people are willing to just draftify over AfD just adding more load, or force editors to use AfC who spam us with 50 poor articles at a time. Most WikiProjects don't care (like we have 50+ football articles). If it's got to the point that even AfC people say don't bother do something else then maybe it's time to just give up on Draft/AfC as a failed idea. ] (]) 19:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
::]- On the one hand, I agree that AFC is not working well and has never been working well. But if we give up on it, what do we replace it with? Three types of drafts mostly go into Draft space, drafts that are submitted by the author, ] drafts, and articles that are draftified. Would we be telling the new editors to submit their work into article space, and are we willing to send it to AFD? Would we be telling the NPP reviewers that, without draftify as an option, they should send crud to AFD? And what would we do about the ] submissions? Would we tell them to use ] instead? That is a black hole that takes not a few months but a few '''years'''. I agree that AFC and Drafts are not working well. But what is the alternative? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)</small>
:::{{u|KylieTastic}}, While I agree with your point that AfC could certainly be improved a lot, I review NPP from the back occasionally, and still find articles that are blatantly paid for or obvious COI. ] (]) 15:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


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


===RfC: Should a bot be created to handle AfC submissions that haven't changed since the last time they were submitted?===
I would like the thoughts of other reviewers on what to do with this draft. It appears to me that it passes ], and that would be the basis of any AFD. However, the history is that there was an article, and it has been stubbed down to a redirect. I can't find a deletion discussion or merge discussion that was the basis of a consensus to merge, so my first thought and second thought is to accept the draft, but that would seem to involve a history merge. So my third thought is to ask for other opinions before asking for a history merge, and my fourth thought is that asking for other opinions is usually either a good idea or a neutral idea.
Should a bot be created to handle AfC submissions that haven't changed since the last time they were submitted?
* '''Option 1''': Yes. The bot should automatically <s>reject</s> <ins>decline</ins> any such submissions.
* '''Option 2''': Yes. The bot should add such submissions to a list, similar to the ].
* '''Option 3''': Yes. The bot should notify the submitter and comment on the submission.
* '''Option 4''': Yes. The bot should add such submissions to a list '''and''' notify the submitter and comment on the submission.
* '''Option 5''': No.
]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 18:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)


Note that I changed Option 1 to decline rather than reject, as reject is a very specific term in AFC and I don't think that is what was meant here. Reject means the draft can never be resubmitted, due to violating ] or having extremely obvious and egregious non-notability. –] <small>(])</small> 22:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
What should we do about this draft? ] (]) 03:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
:{{u|Robert McClenon}}, that's a lot of thoughts. What you're proposing seems to be the correct course of action here as this version has more content the verison pre-redirect, and redirects are one editor's opinion on a topic. If someone truly wants to turn this into a redirect again, they can bring it to AfD. ] (]) 03:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
:{{u|Robert McClenon}} as it was ] that redirected ] to ] and merged into ] stating "Merging per discussion" you could ask for their input as they are still active. ( I have fixed the redirect). Cheers ] (]) 11:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
:: See ] for discussion ] (]) 11:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
:::], ] - On thinking about it, since there was discussion, I am inclined to think that the redirect needs to be re-discussed, and so my thinking is that I will nominate the redirect at ]. ] (]) 22:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
===]===
This is a similar history and the same question. ] (]) 03:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
:Was this one discussed? It isn't obvious to me on first look. ] (]) 22:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


-----
== Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice ==


*'''Oppose option 1''', per the discussion above this is a very bad idea. '''Support option 2''', this seems harmless and seems worth tracking - as long as it is made absolutely clear that being rejected previously is not a reason to reject - if the original reason was correct and still applies then it can be rejected again for that reason. '''Neutral''' on the other options, but any comment/notification ''must'' make it clear that it is informational only and not a rejection. ] (]) 19:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
<div style="border:2px solid #006400; background:#ecfcf4; width:99%; padding:4px">
*'''Option 5'''. AfC reviewers make mistakes. We should not be prejudicing someone's future AfC chances based on those mistakes any more than we already do - namely, that there is already a gigantic decline message on the draft. AfC is frequently a dispiriting, demoralizing, and baffling experience for new editors, mostly one of waiting and then receiving templated replies they do not fully understand. I oppose this, and I oppose any other efforts that would further increase new editor alienation in this way. -- ] (]) 19:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
]
*Option 4, but as with Thryduulf, the comment on submission should be marked as informational and a reviewer will come by to assess the submission. ] (]) 19:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Hi {{safesubst:<noinclude />BASEPAGENAME}}, you are receiving this notice because you are ] as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.
*'''Support option 2'''. Whether any changes have been made since the last decline is often something I look for when reviewing an article with declines, as it helps to see if the concerns from that last decline were addressed (if I feel like they are appropriate to the article as I see it), and this would be a benefit to a reviewer without being additionally "punishing" to a new editor. ]] 19:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
*Speaking as someone who doesn't review drafts but very occasionally comments on them, I think an {{tl|AfC comment}}-like mention at the top would be easiest to work with, so I guess I'm at Option 3 or 4. Very dubious that a bot could reasonably handle the "(much)" in the preceding section header without unacceptable false positives ''and'' negatives, but detecting ''completely unchanged'' submissions would be both feasible and useful. —] 20:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)


*'''Support Option 5''' - No. '''Oppose Options 1, 2, 3, 4'''. Support based on ]'s comment. Opposes are my own, doubtless with others. As a reviewer I declare myself capable of checking, and I do. 🇺🇦&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;🇺🇦 20:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Recently ''']''' was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.
*'''Option 4''' but instead of adding to a list, add to a category (preferably a hidden one). Yes, definitely notify the submitter and comment on it, but having a list may discourage the submitter if they see that their draft is listed on a list. Having a hidden category would be better (at least imho) where a parameter of ] can add the draft into the category. ] <big>(]</big> · <small>])</small> 20:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
*:Though with all options, the reviewer would still do the same work... ] <big>(]</big> · <small>])</small> 20:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
* I suppose I wouldn't oppose a bot that automatically leaves a comment, but I don't really see the point either. Reviewers should be evaluating based on the current state of the draft — previous declines really shouldn't matter in most cases. I think this would encourage summary "no change" declines without actually looking at the content of the draft. <span style=white-space:nowrap;>] <span style="background-color:#e6e6fa;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black">]</span></span> 20:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
*:You're right. It would encourage reviewers to "decline" the draft just because it hasn't changed since last review. However, thinking now, it ''might'' encourage editors to keep working on the draft because they see that "it hasn't changed since last review". If that's the case, reviewers should "wait". So perhaps after the bot leaves a comment, reviewers should wait at least a couple minute before reviewing in case the editor wants to add content? ] <big>(]</big> · <small>])</small> 21:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
*::My position is that if they did not see ''being declined'' as reason to keep working on the draft, they are unlikely to have a positive view of an automated message telling them that the draft hasn't changed. -- ] (]) 21:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''No''' too easy to game. The simplest bot would just compare revisions. A submitter would then just have to add like a space or a few words to change it. A more complicated bot would flag changes that were too small or simple, but then that just encourages submitters to ramble. A bot can't assess the quality of a change, only editors can. ] <sup>]</sup>] 21:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
* '''Strongest Oppose to 1''' as bad reviews do exist. Also, sometimes submitters have discussed it with the reviewer and been told to resubmit for a second opinion etc.
:'''Weak Oppose 2, 3 & 4''' as I'm not convinced a bot will accurately determine what no substantive change is and I see little value in just flagging straight re-submits
:'''Support 5''' as de-facto option left ] (]) 21:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2 or 4''' especially with several disruptors (and one dynamic IP so block doesn't help) who just do drive by submissions. Frustrating to the editor to receive another decline through no fault of their own. Having them in the queue is a waste of reviewers' time though when it's a quick decline because the improvements haven't been made. I think it's less wrong decline and more no discussion about why the feedback was wrong that's the red flag. ] ] 23:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
*:I lean towards '''Option 5''', but for those pages/editors engaged in a problematic level of drive-by submissions, I wonder whether a completely different approach might work better. For example: If you think the previous decline was correct, and you also think it's a drive-by re-nom, then move the article to the mainspace and send it straight to AFD. If it's kept, then the submitter was correct, and the previous decline was wrong. Also, it's now out of the AFC queues. However, if it's deleted, ] the page name(s) in both Draft: and mainspace for the next year (or two?), so that AFC can be done with it. Either way, it's no longer AFC's problem. ] (]) 05:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)


:'''Strongly oppose Option 1'''. Frankly, trusting fellow reviewers to check how much a draft has changed since a previous decline is reasonable to do. Letting a Bot do something creates an option to game the system. We don't need that. --] (]) <small>(]) (])</small> 00:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!
:Support '''Option 2''', neutral on Option 4, and oppose the rest. I do not see the point in notifying submitters when they already are aware they did not make any changes. Perhaps they wanted another review. Putting unchanged drafts in a hidden list like the copyvio one seems optimal as it reduces complexity and unnecessary messages to submitters. It would make finding easy declines and disruptive drive by submissions easier to find. I also support adding a verbiage that being unchanged should not be the sole reason to decline again. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 00:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 5''' - Reviewers should be instructed, more clearly if necessary, to check whether the draft has been revised since the last decline, and to use human judgment in deciding what is enough improvement. There is no need for automated aid, which could make mistakes and could be gamed. ] (]) 06:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
* '''Option 2''', at least, '''option 4''', at best. Yes, reviewers make mistakes, but they make mistakes in both directions, and should also consider the guidance inherent in a previous rejection. ] ] 15:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)


:'''Option 4''' preferably, but I'm okay with '''option 5''' as well (TBH, I don't think this is a major problem in the bigger scheme of things, and the details could be tricky). Also '''oppose option 1''', regardless of whether it was intended to say 'reject', or merely 'decline'. -- ] (]) 15:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
<small>Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all ], you may add ] to your user talk page. Regards, {{no ping|Sam-2727}} (])
::PS: When I say details could be tricky, I didn't mean in a technical sense, but rather in defining what the trigger condition of "changed (much)" actually means. Size change doesn't always tell us much: only a few kb might have changed, yet the draft was completely rewritten; conversely, a large kb change could mean that the author simply deleted the earlier AfC templates. Number of sources, ditto: adding ten new rubbish sources to the earlier rubbish sources still adds up to only rubbish; whereas using the same sources but citing them correctly might have resolved the decline reason. -- ] (]) 15:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
</small></div>
*'''Option 5'''. AfC reviewers sometimes make mistakes, particularly when dealing with areas that they are not familiar with. (I can't count how many drafts on academics have been rejected and told to supply GNG, and I've also seen rejections of drafts on politicians that clearly passed NPOL.) Creators should always be allowed to ask for a second opinion. ] <small>(])</small> 18:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
] (]) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Option 5''' Per asilvering and Espresso Addict. I would further that; reviewers ''often'' make mistakes....specifically declining articles for reasons that are not decline criteria. Also some reviewers tend to pass only unusually safe passes. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 18:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:CAPTAIN MEDUSA@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Mass_Message_List&oldid=959195445 -->
*'''Option 5''' per Asilvering. If a reviewer makes a mistake (which often happens), the submitter shouldn't be even more penalized for it. Same if they just want another opinion on their draft. ] (] · ]) 18:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2 or 4''' per Star Mississippi. I'll add: Resubmitting an unchanged draft is a sign of a problem even if the declining reviewer had made a mistake. And it will rarely be the case that they have made a mistake given a creator who resubmits an identical draft, which very strongly correlates with the draft being poor in the first place and not deserving of acceptance.—] 13:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 5''' (do nothing). Like Primefac below, I'm surprised this got the RfC stage given the overwhelmingly negative reception in the original discussion, and hope the closer of this discussion will take that into account. AfC reviewers make mistakes but, more to the point, people can have good faith disagreements about the suitability of an article. If the submitter disagrees with a reviewer, they have every right to ask for a second opinion without edit warring with a bot or making pointless changes. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 08:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2 or 5''' - Given the unevenness of reviews, authors have legitimate reasons for seeking a second, third or fourth review. ~] (]) 15:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)


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


:I think that only Option 1 was outright rejected in the above discussion. The rest were counterproposals that seemed to have at least some support. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 19:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Most of the sources of ] are in Ukrainian,so I'm unable to evaluate them. The acceptance or rejection of this draft depends on the ] of the sources. ] (]) 18:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
::Meh, RFC just seems like a lot of bureaucracy for something that didn't really have a lot of discussion and could have probably been dealt with in-house. Carry on I suppose. ] (]) 19:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
::] - Is it an ]?  ] (]) 21:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
:::I second your 'meh'. Why are we going through this extra layer. ''If it ain't broke don't fix it!'' 🇺🇦&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;🇺🇦 20:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I don't think so. ] (]) 21:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
::::Hate to be Devil's Advocate for an RFC I've opposed, but I think we've got more, clearer answers to the question in the few hours since this RfC opened than we had in the entire earlier discussion, so there's that. And I do think AfC is pretty broke and needs some fixing. I just think this is tinkering in the wrong direction. -- ] (]) 20:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
::::{{u|Dodger67}} and {{u|Robert McClenon}}, we can use the new list of reviewers by expertise.
::::
::::'''Analysis'''
::::
::::There are no reviewers good at Ukrainian, and Russian is the closest possible language. {{u|GRuban}} is the best man for the job, since {{noping|Hellknowz}} is not willing to review biographies. In the future, this process may be automated. ] (]) 06:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
::::: Will review, thanks for asking. --] (]) 12:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
{{unindent}} Reviewed, as per ]. In short,
* the subject is notable, so I am pushing the article to main space,
* but the article needs expansion, the Ukrainian Misplaced Pages article could be a big help for that
* and the main image is possibly a copyright violation, and needs an email to OTRS to confirm it is freely released by the copyright owner. --] (]) 14:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


While we're here and talking about reviewers making mistakes, let me make my perennial plea that, if you see, this, you go ask the reviewer about it on their talk page. We all have to learn somehow! And if the reviewer is making lots of mistakes, it will be easier for any single editor to figure this out later if there's a track record of them on their talk page. By the way, for those who haven't learned this trick yet: the AFCH script will allow you to resubmit drafts ''as though you were the original submitter''. If you think something was inappropriately declined, you can resubmit it to the queue yourself and then immediately accept it, or resubmit it and leave a comment explaining why you did so. -- ] (]) 21:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
==]==
Will someone please look at this draft? What is the role of Rebecca Harris on ]? ] (]) 13:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
::Hi {{ping|Robert McClenon}} She was there when the Oscar was picked up. There is a story with a pic of her holding it. Definitely part of the core team that brought the film to fruition. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 16:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


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


== Indian state symbols ==
I noticed that 37% of the ] for the past two months have been re-activation requests. That signals to me that our inactive thresholds may be too strict and we are de-activating lots of people who still want to participate. I realize that we want to make sure reviewers are up on current guidelines and practices, but I don't think taking a 2-month break from editing (or a 6-month break from reviewing) is going to cause people to be significantly out of touch with current practices. ] (]) 15:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
:Agree. ] (]) 16:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
::This is a little bit of a false dichotomy, actually; no one has actually been ''added'' to the inactive list for quite a while<ref>I think I stopped pruning back in early 2019</ref>, and the only major change is the ''location'' of said list. AFCH has (for a while now) been pulling any name on the page (inactive section or not) and allowed them access. I moved the inactives to their own page both to combat this issue and to keep the size of ] down to a reasonable level. The reactivations are (as near as I can tell) folks who "went inactive" years ago, then came back and started reviewing (despite being on the inactive list) and are only now being restricted because of the changes I made in February. ] (]) 17:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


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


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


The AFCH tool should be disabled if there is an ongoing AfD at the corresponding mainspace title, as with ] and ], for example. ] (]) 16:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
I had previously draftified ] and that article was accepted, the user then created a new draft in their sandbox and moved to draft ]. They then asked me how to submit which I did for them. However I then noticed the original draftify has left me as the creator of that article which does not seam fair or correct. I've also noticed this has happened before crediting me with creating ] and ] (''now deleted''). This is a consequence I hadn't considered and had not seen mentioned before. Not sure what should be done. Cheers ] (]) 08:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:Nothing? It's clear by the page history that you weren't the creator of the ''content'', just the redirect, and even if an admin were to delete the page for the sole purpose of restoring it without that initial creation, from a MW standpoint they wouldn't "get credit" on anything like xtools etc. ] (]) 14:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC) :Why? A draft like that should be declined as <code>exists</code> anyway, so disabling AFCH would mean that we wouldn't be able to do that. ] (]) 16:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::In fairness, that (decline as 'exists') is what GTrang did with this draft, but it was reverted as {{tq|just extra administration for no reason}} (I think). Which then put the draft back in the pool. -- ] (]) 16:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I have undone that edit as the AFD is clearly trending towards the article being kept. ] (]) 17:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I went ahead and redirected the draft to the mainspace article, which is what I like to do in these situations to avoid duplication. I think editors should be encouraged to work on the mainspace article and not the draft, so that everyone is using their time efficiently. –] <small>(])</small> 22:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I was reverted. {{u|NatGertler}}, can you please elaborate on how you plan to move a draft over an existing mainspace page? Did you perhaps mean that you plan to manually copy paste merge some pieces of the draft instead? In which case, the draft would be fine as a redirect, since the page history can easily be checked. –] <small>(])</small> 23:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::If you look at the AfD, there is reasonable support for (if the article survives AfD) deleting the version that is currently in mainspace and moving this draft one into mainspace at the same address. This version is in much better shape, and there is nothing substantial in the mainspace one that needs to be merged into this. If folks are to work on either of them, we want them working on this one, which is likely to be the surviving version in some form (whether it survives as a draft or in mainspace depends on the outcome of the AfD, but even at the most complicated take it will be merged into the mainspace one, so may as well have it here.) -- ] (]) 01:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Got it. I think this should be de-duplicated at some point, but with your comment in mind, I suppose it's OK to wait until after the AFD is over. –] <small>(])</small> 01:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] is live! ==
== Automation of list of reviewers by subject ==


Per the outcome of ], which is shown above, and a request filed at ] by ], the above page is now live and ready for reviewers to use, maintained by ]. It's actually caught 1 already in only the couple hours its been live, see ]. :)
{{u|Eumat114}}, {{u|Sdkb}} and I were discussing potential automation of the list of reviewers by subject, even extending a request for review to be automatic. Feedback and advice would be appreciated at ] or here. Thanks, ] (]) 20:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


There's also a hosted on Toolforge to look up an article and see if it's resubmitted without changes, if that's more your thing.
== Transwiki-ing drafts ==


For adding an item to the list, the requirement is that it has an AFC submission wizard edit, directly after an AFCH decline.
I was wondering, do you think it'd be a good idea to transwiki pages from the Draft: namespace to other wikis, to see if they pass muster there? Specifically in this case ] and ]. ] (]) 01:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
:{{u|PrussianOwl}}, If you're familiar with other wiki's notability guidelines, then go for it. Just keep in mind each wiki has different standards for notability. ] (]) 05:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


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


Please don't hesitate to reach out to me if you have any feedback for this bot task, or would like anything changed about it. Thanks! :) ] <sup>]]</sup> 06:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
For those unaware the reason FloridaArmy spams AfC is due to ] &mdash; offloading the strain on AfD and other areas onto AfC. However their ongoing behaviour does not seem fair to the other submitters or on the reviewers. According to ] they currently have 68 open submissions (4.6% of all submission), also they just resubmit with little or no changes causing much more load. I just noticed they recently submitted multiple articles with only 1 source such as ], ], ] and ] which they clearly know is not good enough. Yesterday I rejected ] with no independent sources, just the single schools own link. In the past they have added non references such just a film name as a ref for the same film and other such things that they clearly know are not valid. They clearly do understand how things work and the guidelines, but persist of submitting the junk with the good and have a more combative than collaborative attitude to editing. They appear to be getting worse (from what I've seen), maybe due to virus lockdown.... is it not time to take some action? They continue to expect others to do work for them, never submitting properly (just with <nowiki>{{submit}}</nowiki> so AFCH does not work until fixed up), rarely formatting references, first submits that have no chance of acceptance without others improving first etc. Their behaviour was not considered good enough for AfD, why should it be OK to continue in AfC? Should this go back to ANI? Should they be restricted to the number of current open submissions, and not allowed to just resubmit? I'm sure if they focused on fewer articles at once, and worked more collaboratively they would be an big positive to the project, but they way they choose to work is not fair on others (submitters and/or reviewers). Thoughts? ] (]) 20:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
:This needs to go back to ANI. I will point out that the drafts you listed (except the school) were legislators and per ] are presumed notable. Theoretically, those drafts ought to be approved ''now'', as is. I agree, this sort of nonsense is not the optimal way to build an encyclopedia but I recall {{noping|Jayen466}} saying {{tq|"Whatever Misplaced Pages as a community is doing, it is more of a vehicle for contributors' self-indulgence than it is a concerted endeavour to bring free knowledge to the world."}} FloridaArmy is just being self-indulgent, like most editors are. Don't be surprised when the cohort at ANI defends one of their own. <span class="nowrap" style="font-family:copperplate gothic light;">] (])</span> 21:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
:: {{re|Chris troutman}} "just being self-indulgent, like most editors are" - damn, that's a depressing view on people! ] (]) 10:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
:I've started rejecting the articles that they resubmit with serious improvements as ] the system and contrary to the purpose of Misplaced Pages. I also decline when they submit articles that have multiple explict grammar/spelling issues or have issues with improperly formatted references. If they're not going to take the time to put together a proper article, then I'm not going to waste my time with deep diving the references.
:
:I've noticed that the problematic articles are typically the ones about actors from the silent film era. I've started decline those unless there's a clear sourcing demonstrating they've had major roles in wiki-notable films.
:
:I would support any further action in an ANI, just ping me to it. I think limiting the amount of pending drafts is probably the best solution. ] (]) 05:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
::::] - Do you mean that you are "rejecting the articles that they resubmit with serious improvements" or that you are rejecting the articles that they submit '''''without''''' serious improvements? ] (]) 20:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
:::I don't think it is bad as that from personal experience of going through several dozens of FloridaArmy's stuff in the past. I think certainly some articles that came through are rank. This draft article, ] I think is notable, although it needs some work certainly. It has not been given a fair shake, due to to the blizzard of rank coming through. The ideal solution would be to encourage the editor on the larger articles, to try and improve them, and reject all the rank one liners outright, that are no use to man nor god. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 09:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
:::This is the worst draft i've seen: ]. The minimum amount of effort expended here, is mind boggling. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 09:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
:Thank you, ], for showing us why FloridaArmy is using AFC. I must not have been following ] at the time. I sometimes do and sometimes don't (and may have been sick at the time). They are an "interesting" case as one of the largest stub-creators we have, and many of their stubs are marginally good enough. I have dealt with some of their silent-film stubs, and with legislator stubs. I may comment more shortly. ] (]) 19:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
::If the question is whether to go back to ], my question is what we would ask from the community, and whether we, a subcommunity, can simply impose our own quasi-sanctions. I agree that a lot of their submissions are crud, but the thing about ] is that they are easy enough to decline or reject without the reviewer doing a lot of work. Maybe we are just trying too hard to do more than our share of the work. FA is, overall, a small net positive to the encyclopedia, which is more than can be said of the submitter of ], but perhaps in both cases we as a subcommunity just need to push back. Is there anything that ANI can do that we can't do by just pushing back? ] (]) 20:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
::What if we, the AFC reviewers, make a rule that anything that isn't right on the second submission goes into the Rejection bin? What if we, the reviewers, make a rule that anything coming from anyone that isn't right on the third submission goes into the Rejection bin? ] (]) 20:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I feel that I should mention under this header that, in my opinion, FloridaArmy has done some good work in getting drafts on state supreme court justices (of which there are ]) in shape to be moved to mainspace. ] ] 20:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
: I agree ] they have and continue to do so much good for the project, which is why it's so frustrating to have the other side of their work. It's a real Jekyll and Hyde that is baffling. I guess many articles they submit are just with what they believe is the minimum to get accepted by the guidelines, rather than what most would do and try to add more to make notability clear. ] (]) 20:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
* It appears that they believe that it's racism rather than poor sourcing that is the issue... see ]. That's an angle I had not even considered..... but then I care not one iota of the race, gender, age of either the subject or the submitter. I agree that it sucks really bad that history has failed both women, minorities (and others) but I will treat them the same as subjects I'm interested in but don't have sources.... individuals desires don't matter squat. Show me sources and I'm happy to accept anyone. Sources do exist for some, and with a brief scan I added 2 to ] and ]. There is a ton load of racism in the world, but I see no evidence that it has played any part in AfC declines against FA. ] (]) 20:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
*We all see a lot of of Florida's submissions. I think there are two issues here. One: Florida has a very different view on notability than most of us, and has been pushing it for some time. Two: They are not very careful. Florida's approach is scattershot, they throw a lot at the wall, and some of it sticks. Certainly, Florida is a prolific creator, and has gotten a great many articles approved. But every day a great many are declined too, which sucks up our time. Perhaps what is needed is some sort of submission limit for Florida? Such as a three strikes system, where two declines and the third is always a rejection? Or perhaps auto-rejecting non-improved drafts? Florida has been at this for years and should know better. But that sort of thing may need to happen at ANI, not here. ] <sup>]</sup>] 20:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
**I agree with ] that we should follow a three-strike system. I am inclined to think that we should employ a three-strike system on any editor who resubmits without actively asking for advice. I agree that two strikes should be enough sometimes. ] (]) 22:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
* Sigh. I've been following Florida Army for a long time, and now that I've gotten involved with AfC reviews, I'm seeing him a lot more. Here's my take on things. As I've told him many times (and I'm sure others have too), he should concentrate on writing fewer articles of higher quality. And he should be more open to accepting constructive criticism from his fellow editors. And he should learn how to research topics beyond doing a google search and mindlessly copying the top 3 or 4 ghits. And he should absolutely stop wasting reviewers' time by resubmitting garbage drafts with no substantial improvements. But, the bottom line is he keeps finding interesting and important (if not necessarily notable by our standards) historical topics to write about. Damn, I'd rather have an encyclopedia full of badly written silent film stubs than one full of perfectly written UPE biography, corporate, and struggling entertainer spam. If wading through piles of FloridaArmy's sub-stubs is the price for that, then I say, bring it on. -- ] ] 20:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
**I agree with ] that FloridaArmy is much to be preferred over spam, and that FloridaArmy is a net positive and the spammers are negative (without providing any counterbalancing positive). I think it is silly to expect that FloridaArmy will ever focus on creating fewer better articles. We have to recognize that they are a prolific stub-creator, and that we would rather curse about them than not have them. ] (]) 22:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
***I think we'd be better off for requesting ANI implement a rate limit. In fact, usually in cases like this, a rate limit is automatically applied. 1 a week, with resubmits counting as 1, would seem fine, and mean comparatively little disruption overall, and potentially encourage FA into prioritising a few. He is better than a spammer. I'm somewhat reticent to implement a strikes system generally - i do actually see a few that improve despite an avalanche of declines. In response to one suggestion above, how would we know if they'd actively sought help? That can be done at AFCHD, or to any of the reviewers. ] (]) 14:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
*To follow up on my own comment above, I was just reminded of ]. People should go read it. It sums up the entire situation here; badly written draft, inexcusable blugdeoning of the AfC process, but a historically important subject which is infinitely more encyclopedic than, say, ], which I attended. There's so many things I wish had gone better with the path that draft traveled, but the bottom line is the encyclopedia is better for that article having been written. The various people who declined the draft and tried to delete it from mainspace were undoubtedly following the letter of some guideline/policy/whatever, but clearly didn't understand why we're here. -- ] ] 00:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
*I believe there is enough consensus here to take this to ANI, I'm going to use Kylie's OP in the ANI and tag those of you that agree there needs to be some sort of action. ] (]) 04:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


:Also btw an API is also available by sending a GET request to https://molecularbot2.toolforge.org/resubAPI.php?pageName=test, replacing test with the name of the page, excluding "Draft:"! :) ] <sup>]]</sup> 06:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
== Football ==
:Thanks for implementing the bot—on the new year nonetheless! ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 13:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


== Trying out using Microsoft Copilot to discuss notability of a particular topic ==
I notice we have a lot of football submission... I have been tagging them so they appear on ] but the list now shows 56 so I guess the project is not very active (at least in draft). So from ] pinging {{ping|Drat8sub}} {{ping|Eagleash}} {{ping|HitroMilanese}} {{ping|Number 57}} {{ping|SK2242}} as interested reviewers. Cheers ] (]) 14:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
:{{u|KylieTastic}}, the majority of the drafts seem to be from the same user, who used to be under some discretionary sanctions which seemed to be lifted. Given that most of the drafts are of good quality, I don't see a lot of huge problems. ] (]) 03:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
::This user is also aware of the notability policy around ], which puts reviewers in a bind for declining. ] (]) 16:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
:::Yeah, but many footballers who fail ] end up being notable. And most footballers passing ] already have articles written by fans. So there really is no need to decline, if the player is sufficiently close to notability. ] (]) 03:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


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


So, anyway, I'll seek to share the dialog:
Hey, ] currently only updates once a day, but for those that work at the other end it's already quite out of date (in parts). I'm not sure every hour is needed as ] does (at least when replag is not too high), but maybe updating a bit more often would be helpful now it's gained some traction. Unless there is a technical reason, or restriction I think it would be helpful due to the amount of submissions each day. Was/is there a reason for daily {{ping|SD0001}}? &mdash; Cheers ] (]) 18:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
:I also think that would be nice - I noticed that yesterday (I don't know if this is usually a problem or if it was a one-off) it was at least a couple hours behind. Looking at a couple histories it might have been as much as 18 hours, so I'm going to assume that was a one-off issue. ] (]) 22:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
:Sure. It takes the bot just about 15 minutes to generate the updates. Would it make sense to update it every 6 hours? ] (]) 11:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
:: {{ping|SD0001}} 6 hours sounds good to me, if people want to see newer ones they can just trawl through the latest submits in the ] and ignore those not of interest. Cheers ] (]) 12:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
:::Done. By the way, if any developer is interested, some further work related to the various sortlists is planned. See ]. ] (]) 17:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


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


I asked Copilot to argue against notability for ], and then also to argue for notability.
I am calling the attention of reviewers to ] and ] as what may be a new game by submitters. The submitter is saying, "Please revise this draft for me so that you don't think that it is promotional". If a topic is clearly notable and doesn't have an article, it is the job of neutral editors to develop a neutral article. However, in this case, there are both notability issues and tone issues. This is the sort of page where, in article space, an editor can !vote Delete because, if the ] content is stripped out, not much is left. As you can see, I Rejected both versions of the draft, and that will probably be the end of that, but it may be a new annoying game that we should be ready for. (I would have declined the drafts, except that asking us to do the work of writing the article annoyed me.)


Initially I just asked it what are some of the major consortia that Google is a part of.
Does anyone have any suggestions on how to deal with this, other than Decline or Reject? ] (]) 19:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
:Highlight the entire article in blue, then link ]. Nothing other than that.
:More seriously, I think rejecting it's appropriate. ] (]) 22:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


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


And so I told it why I had asked the question initially, and it cited Misplaced Pages's policies, and then asked, "Do you have a specific consortium in mind that you're researching?"
I've been meaning to ask about this for a bit and the discussion about a certain editor prolific at AfC above reminded me to do so: what do you guys do when you come across an unchanged resubmission (and do you check for this)? If the article has been previously declined I usually at least glance through the history to see what's changed, and it's not super uncommon to find resubmissions without changes (although it's not so common that it's a major issue, either). Is there any good response to this other than rejecting it with a custom reason along the lines of "no changes since last submission, previous comments still valid"? ] (]) 23:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
:A lot of people do just that, decline with the reason "unchanged since last submission". I think some people who don't know how the review system works will resubmit a draft without changes in hopes of getting a more lenient reviewer to see it, and they don't think reviewers can see previous submissions. Basically they're trying to game the system. ] (]) 23:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
::Ditto that. While there is the occasional new reviewer (or someone ''not'' part of this project) declining drafts incorrectly, I have found over the years many times over that in resubmit-without-change drafts the original decline was justified. These days, I don't even look at the draft if no changes have been made. ] (]) 00:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
:::I have a few comments. First, I always check on a resubmission what has changed. Second, I recommend checking the draft talk page to see if the submitter has said something. That is really a better place for comments than AFC comments, because it survives acceptance. Third, if the submitter-author wants to discuss something, we should discuss something. I assume that the question is about resubmissions where it is clear the submitter-author is not discussing. Fourth, sometimes the resubmitter is an IP. IPs have a right to use AFC, because they are required to use AFC, but they should follow the same rules as registered editors of being reasonable and constructive. Fifth, I have a template to insert when there has been no improvement, {{tl|noimprove}}. It is a little harsh, so I try to use judgment as to whether it is in order. ] (]) 17:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


I could mention that I did see this mentioned in ], so perhaps editors don't feel that it's necessarily worth discussing with LLMs whether a particular topic meets notability or not.
== Template merger discussion ==


<blockquote>
] has been nominated for merging. Please see ] and comment there if desired. Thanks. ] (]) 23:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
When exploring AI techniques and systems, the community consensus is to prefer human decisions over machine-generated outcomes until the implications are better understood.
</blockquote>


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


== African legislators ==
It seems like the problem with the "Random Draft" buttons being anything but random has been getting worse and worse. I ran a test by clicking it 25 times, and I got the following:
* Draft:Ahsan Mohsin Ikram
* Draft:Ahsan Mohsin Ikram
* Draft:North Tipperary intermediate hurling championship
* Draft:Francisco Fernández de Xátiva
* Draft:Martin Burt
* Draft:Chetan Singh Solanki
* Draft:North Tipperary intermediate hurling championship
* Misplaced Pages:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories
* Draft:Picnic Kibun
* Draft:Beirut Yacht Club
* Draft:Krav Boca
* Draft:Beirut Yacht Club
* Draft:Just d'Urgell
* Draft:Mahamari
* Category:Pending AfC submissions in userspace
* Draft:Chetan Singh Solanki
* Draft:Just d'Urgell
* Draft:Krav Boca
* Misplaced Pages:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories
* Draft:2014 Wigan Warriors season
* Draft:Joaquín de Santiyán y Valdivieso
* Draft:Ahsan Mohsin Ikram
* Category:Pending AfC submissions in userspace
* Draft:Juraj Malevac
* Draft:Martin Burt
That's only 15 unique values out of 25 tries (or to put it another way, 60% of the unique pages I saw were duplicated or tripled). If it were a truely random draw of 25 pages from a category of 1,350, there would only be a 20% chance of getting any duplicates, and the odds of 10 duplicates is something like 10^-18. To make it worse, of those 25 drafts, only two were pages that I hadn't seen in the last few days of browsing through random items in that category, making it essentially useless.


Just found out why we're seeing so many new drafts (mostly very short stubs) on legislators, esp. Nigerian ones, lately: https://meta.wikimedia.org/Event:African_Legislators_in_Red This runs until the end of the month, and one of the rules is that the articles must get into the main space by then, so expect to see some fast track requests at the help desk as the deadline approaches... -- ] (]) 08:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
To that end, I wrote ] to actually do a random draw. It has the added advantage of being able to filter by namespace and to avoid hitting category pages. You can read the documentation ], but you can essentially just substitute ] with ] and it will work. To only show pages in the User: and Draft: namespaces, use ]. It will be a little slower to load initially as it accesses the API, but it caches data for 10 minutes so subsequent uses should be fast.
:Ugh. People can wait. We don't expedite for contests. ] (]) 13:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::hmm... I guess we do. Vanderwaalforces (intentionally not pinged) seems to be participating and reviewing drafts from this thing. ] (]) 15:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::So long as it's individual reviewers making the offer to do it, seems fine to me. Not really different from someone, say, going through and reviewing all the OKA drafts (I've done this) or volunteering to help out with an editathon as a reviewer (I've done this, too). But I vote we ping Vanderwaalforces to each and every help desk request, if they arise. :P -- ] (]) 16:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Please do ping me if need arise! ] (]) 16:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Oh, sure, I don't have any issue with them (or anyone else) making it a personal priority to help out, I'm just saying we-as-a-Project should not be expediting things. ] (]) 16:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:I've been accepting a lot of these as inherently notable since I tend to camp out on the recently submitted feed but, yeah, I don't see why these endless stubs need to go through AfC..? <span style="background-color: RoyalBlue; border-radius: 1em; padding: 3px 3px 3px 3px;">''']''' <small>]</small></span> 15:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::Wait, they get money for this? I didn't think that was permitted? <span style="background-color: RoyalBlue; border-radius: 1em; padding: 3px 3px 3px 3px;">''']''' <small>]</small></span> 15:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Based on what I could find (which was little more than ]) it appears above-board, since they're not being paid to edit anything specific. ] (]) 15:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::It's probably their way of having a check/balance for the stubs so that they don't have the issue that some other editathons have had where people spam utter garbage and ''maybe'' it gets reverted. ] (]) 16:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::@] Correct! ] (]) 16:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::@] They actually need to go through AfC as a "damage control" both for English Misplaced Pages and the project itself. Also, these editors are mostly new, so yeah! ] (]) 16:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Makes sense :) <span style="background-color: RoyalBlue; border-radius: 1em; padding: 3px 3px 3px 3px;">''']''' <small>]</small></span> 16:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:Most of them are easy to accept. I haven't come across too many issues (which is uncommon for contests with rewards), though some of the longer drafts do tend to lean on the promotional side. I've also found at least 3 copyvios stemming from this event from unrelated Copypatrol work, so be on the lookout for that I guess. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 17:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::@] Oh yes! I, in fact, ] for copyvio. I am especially not taking that lightly. By the way, I cannot thank you enough for keeping an eye on the article and tagging them with the WikiProject template, kudos! ] (]) 18:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


== Draft nominated for ] as not notable after decline ==
Try it out, let me know if there are any issues that come up, and if it works, we can open a discussion about using it on the various AfC templates and tools. --] (]) 21:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
::When I was a teenage computer programmer 55 years ago, I remember discussing some of the tests of the quality of pseudo-random number generation algorithms, and the algorithms were not very good, and resulted in oddities like those. There is no excuse for that sort of non-random behavior of pseudo-random numbers in this century. Thank you, ]. ] (]) 05:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
:::{{u|Robert McClenon}} and {{u|Ahecht}}, I have implemented a user script that uses the new RandomInCategory: ], as an alternative to ]. Please feel free to test it out and give feedback. Thanks! ] (]) 13:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


A draft ] on a politician who does not meet ] was declined, and then nominated for deletion by the reviewer who declined it. It was my understanding that AFC reviewers should know that ]. Either an AFC reviewer has been given access to the script who hasn't been adequately briefed as to how drafts are reviewed, including that they are only nominated for deletion in rare circumstances, or an editor who is not an AFC reviewer is reviewing drafts. Do the guidelines for reviewers need clarifying? We know that sometimes New Page reviewers mistakenly review new drafts with the same standards as they use to review new articles, but apparently some AFC reviewers also don't know when t not to send drafts to XFD. ] (]) 06:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] ==
{{archivetop|NAC:Draft went to ] neverneverland. ] (]) 03:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)}}
I'm going to be entirely honest, I've probably handled this poorly, but would someone mind looking at ] and ] and providing feedback/advice, as the author seems a bit... confrontational? (Pinging {{U|Amkgp}} and {{U|Sulfurboy}} because why not, and also for having previous involvement with the draft (and user) but being smart enough to not reply too many times.) Should I just ignore it at this point (or rather... a long time ago)?


:Or it could just be that the reviewer didn't know, and they could be gently told how to do it correctly. ] <sup>]</sup>] 07:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Also... is it bad that I came back to Misplaced Pages (after a bit of a break) last week and I already feel like I need to take a break again? ] (]) 01:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
::I wouldn't necessarily call this a "hidden" rule or anything but I agree with Eek that "they didn't know" is probably the most likely scenario, and they should politely be a) informed, and b) asked to withdraw the MFD. ] (]) 07:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{u|LittlePuppers}}, unfortunately many new editors are quite toxic (and to be honest, some parts of Misplaced Pages in general) when you decline their draft. In the future for situations like these, I would just say "please direct further comments to the AfC help desk" or something amongst those lines. Editors there have good practice in toning down an argument, and once the conversation is archived, that's the end of it!. Clearly the editor doesn't get what you're saying so at this point I would de-escalate the situation by giving shorter and shorter responses. ] (]) 02:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
:Context: ]. –] <small>(])</small> 11:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::I agree that it is best not to try to engage in discussion on one's talk page. I usually say that I will request the advice of other experienced editors at ]; the AFC help desk is another reasonable option. It is hard to say how much of the problem here is a linguistic disconnect. I would also add that in the past some editors have insisted on trying to provide me with the sources or the explanation rather than putting it in the article, which implies that they don't understand the concept that the encyclopedia should speak for itself. That is, they are in good faith confused as to how the encyclopedia works, and we have to keep them straight. ] (]) 05:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
::I left the MFDer a message at their user talk about not MFDing drafts like this one in the future. They were receptive to the feedback. –] <small>(])</small> 11:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I had tried to explain the same when asked via my talk page. I highlighted the problems with that version. But the creator was in a constant denial mode. I also asked to post further queries and assistance at ]. Thank you. ] ] 05:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
::::Thanks for all of your guys' ideas, I'll point them in that direction. I guess I'm just frustrated because I ''think'' there's good intent in there somewhere, plus the language barrier. ] (]) 06:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
:::::I've rejected it this time, and have told them not to try to resubmit it without discussion. ] (]) 14:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
:::::They have responded both at the AFC Help Desk and on some of our talk pages with insults. I said that the subject probably was notable but the draft did not establish notability. I have said that in the past. I think that it means that you need to write a better draft. They said that has a double meaning, which is that the content is not welcome in Misplaced Pages. That's a really bizarre reply. At this point I am willing to leave them alone and see if they go away. If they do, it is unfortunate that they were a net negative, but have gone away. If they continue to insult us, then either an uninvolved administrator will give them a block, or an editor will report them at ], where an uninvolved administrator will give them a block. Oh well. ] (]) 21:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
::::::I told them that they are an auto-confirmed editor and can move the article into article space. ] (]) 23:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
:::::::I reported them at ] with diffs of insults to reviewers, and of their strange diatribe at the Help Desk. We shall see. ] (]) 03:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
{{archivebottom}}


== ] ==
== Copy-Paste Question (Draft into Article Space) ==


is linked on the header, but I believe serves no purpose. This vaguely-named page doesn't have any "list" of submission by itself but links to two other lists. One of them, ], is already linked to by the header.
I have a question about a situation that seems to be occurring at least daily. I probably have only been noticing it daily in recent days, because it probably has long been happening. A draft has been sitting in draft space waiting to be reviewed. Maybe it has been reviewed and declined at least once and resubmitted; that is not important. Then an editor, often a newly auto-confirmed editor, not one of the previous contributors to the draft, comes along and does a copy-paste of the draft into article space. In that case, attribution has been lost. It is my understanding that a history merge from the draft into the article is required. Twinkle can be used to tag the article as needing a history merge. The draft must be declined for 'exists', and an explanation should be made that the draft was copy-pasted into article space and a history merge is required. Sometimes editors get annoyed about having credit or awards or whatever stolen, but this really is a case where there is a mechanism for restoring credit. Is that correct so far? The copy-pasting editor who put the article in article space can be given a Twinkle template. However, here is the complication. The draft may have been declined for notability or verifiability or tone reasons. I have concerns about the article. The article cannot be draftified. I tag the article as having notability issues. Is there something else that can be done? The article cannot be draftified.


I propose it to be merged to its parent page /Submissions to reduce confusion and the clutter in the header. Only thing that really needs to be merged is the mention of ]. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 14:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
] (]) 15:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
:Hasn't worked since ]; you're just the second person to notice. Feel free to pull whatever you need from the history and plonk it elsewhere if that makes sense. ] (]) 14:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{U|Robert McClenon}}, the article could be draftified after the history merge by tagging the redir in draft space for a G6 speedy deletion. This happens all the time for obstructed moves, although not usually to draft space. However, whether a move back to draft is wise is another question. If a good-faith editor thinks it should be in mainspace, move warring is not the best idea. You could: 1) start a discussion on the article talk page about what to do, pinging the original creator and any other interested editors; 2) tag for notability and any other concerns and do nothing further; 3) edit to fix as many concerns as you can; 4) send to AfD. There are drawbacks to each of these. ] ]] 19:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
::] - Yes. Option 2 is the honest lazy way out. Option 1 is a slightly less lazy honest way out. Options 3 and 4 sound like work, and I was already working a queue. ] (]) 19:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
:::Yep, {{U|Robert McClenon}}, 3 and 4 would entail time and effort, and you may not choose to invest them or have them to spare. If you really think re-draftification is the best solution, tag the draft with {{tl|Db-move|}} and I or another admin will address the matter. None of threse is an ideal solution, I'm fresh out of those. ] ]] 19:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
::::I never think that re-draftification is a solution to something that has been already draftified once. I think that ] is sometimes a quick and dirty measure in such cases. If the author de-PRODs it, someone else is likely to do the work of AFD. (Of course, a good PROD requires writing a good PROD reason. Somehow PROD doesn't seem like as much work to me.) ] (]) 23:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
:To answer the first question, as stated, it should be {{t|histmerge}}'d. Whether this is a histmerge to article space or a "histmerge" (i.e G6/move/then restore versions) to the Draft space is up to the reviewer. If it's been draftified before, then it should go to PROD or AFD. ] (]) 00:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


==Problem with submit button== ==A little merging issue==
I'm able to launch the script to review ] , but it will not let me "Accept" this submission . When I click it nothing happens. I can comment though, is there a bug? ] (]) 20:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC).


Hello. Following a personal request for an AFC, I thought I would give it a try in spite of an article already existing as a redirect (never did). I over estimated my skills and need a little help :)
:The accept button worked for me; doesn't seem to be a problem with the script. ]&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">] – ]'']</sup> 20:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
::If it's a FloridaArmy submission, it's because they refuse to {{tls|submit}} and just use {{t|submit}}. Allows AFCH to load but doesn't load any features. ] (]) 00:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


So the old article was a redirection (]). I removed the redirection. Could not "Yes" the draft article under the right name (]) becase of the already existing article. Thought I could approve it under a different spelling ] and then merge their histories.
===Problem with submit button===
I've got the missing and/or submit button not working problem. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 08:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


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


== Non-English drafts ==
Other buttons work but Accept button doesn't work. When I click it nothing happens. What may be the reason? ] ] 06:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
* Same here! It is not working for me? I want to accept ]. --] (]) 07:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
*:I think {{u|enterprisey}} made an update yesterday, but I haven't had a chance to check the logs to verify (just an email giving a blank update notice). Worth a ping. ] (]) 13:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
:::Courtecy ping {{u|Primefac}} and {{u|enterprisey}} Accept button still not working. I see other editors are accepting drafts. What happened with mine. Please help. Thanks! ] ] 01:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
::::Having ongoing problems with "Accept" script not working, when I click accept nothing happens, have tried clearing cache and using different browser with no joy. Tried accepting ] and ] this morning but just not happening. Comment and decline working fine ] (]) 07:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
:::::Update, {{u|enterprisey}} the accept button works for me using Chrome but not on Safari or Firefox browsers. ] (]) 09:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
:::::Works fine for me in Firefox. ] (]) 10:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
::::::Not having any luck from Firefox or Chrome. Decline and Comment works fine but Accept doesn't. Has it been figured out by chance or is it something I need to do on my end? --] (]) 06:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
:::::::It wasn't working for me last week, and have not used it since. I had to manual move, no redirect. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 07:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
::::::::Courtesy ping {{u|Primefac}} and {{u|enterprisey}} Still no luck accepting drafts with Safari for example ].] (]) 10:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


I've just declined yet another non-English draft (not the 1st one of the day, not even the 3rd, and that's just me!). In the ] there are nearly 1,000 such declines. Would it be a good idea to put something in the wizard to warn authors that this is the English-language Misplaced Pages, and if they want to submit content in another language they should head to the relevant language version instead? It's mildly annoying to review these drafts, but I can imagine it's much more frustrating to put in all that effort, only to be told ''afterwards'' that it was all for nothing. -- ] (]) 17:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
== We shouldn't approve articles with deprecated sources ==
:Probably, but if they're non-English-speaking then what are the realistic chances that they're going to read yet another banner telling them they shouldn't create pages in languages other than English? I'd rather avoid banner bloat if possible, and if the subject is notable it's a quick thing to decline as non-Eng and let them (or G13) sort it out. ] (]) 18:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::In my experience they're not all (or even most?) "non-English-speaking"; many do subsequently communicate in English at the help desk and/or talk pages, and some even resubmit an English-translated draft. It's just that many seem genuinely surprised that the different language versions are in fact separate projects, and that submitting a Bulgarian (say) draft here doesn't help get it into the Bulgarian Misplaced Pages.
::But yes, I take the point about banner bloat. Also, just because we warn them, doesn't mean they won't go against the warning regardless – after all, we get plenty of undisclosed COI/PAID submissions although the wizard clearly warns against these. -- ] (]) 18:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Fair enough. As usual, I'm not strictly ''opposed'' to adding something, just that my knee-jerk reaction is to wonder whether it's worth doing so... ] (]) 18:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
: I am wondering how feasible it may be to have a bot detect the language being used, and send a note to that editor in that language. ] ] 16:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::We have a number of non-English welcome templates, not sure a bot is needed, just a reviewer that doesn't mind taking an extra minute or two to leave one. ] (]) 17:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Often, when I decline a non English draft, I use machine translation to provide a message to the creating editor about it. I suppose it depends on how often it happens regrind a bot. I somehow doubt a bot is needed. 🇺🇦&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;🇺🇦 20:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


==Notified Jimbo instead of the user who submitted the draft==
Is there any way to easily spot and not approve the use of deprecated sources, e.g. the Daily Mail or The Sun? They shouldn't be in almost any Misplaced Pages article, but almost all new uses of these sources seem to come in via AFC. (Usually on self-promotional articles.) There's an edit filter for deprecated sources - is there a way to get it to kick in here? - ] (]) 22:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I accepted a draft created and submitted by an IP user, but the script actually Jimbo Wales instead of the IP user, I wonder what caused this? - ] (]) 09:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{reply to|David Gerard}} I don't know the answer to your question about the edit filter, but if unreliable sources is a particular concern for you, you might wish to try ]. It will make some drafts unpleasant to look at, but they're ones that are usually unpleasant to read anyway. --] (]) 23:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
::The mere use of a deprecated source should not be grounds for rejection, and almost all of the deprecated sources have some circumstances in which they may properly be used, so I think the kind of automated reaction that an edit filter gives would be a mistake. Now a script to draw attention to such sources, so that the reviewer can point them out and take them into accou8nt in making review decisions, that might well be useful. ] ]] 23:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
::: The language at ] is currently being strengthened on this point - see ].
::: While you could stretch to find a philosophical reason, there are pretty much no reasons why a user new enough to be going through AFC should be using deprecated sources.
::: In practice, the usages coming through AFC are bad. AFC shouldn't actually be just another inlet for this stuff - ] (]) 08:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
* Let's remember that the ] is to accept any submission that would probably survive an AfD. That's it. There is no way that using deprecated sources alone would get an article deleted. If they turn up in AfC submissions, just remove them, or if you can't spare the time, tag it with {{tl|Unreliable sources}} and wait for someone else to do it. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 09:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
**It would be a very strong argument for it, however. If a BLP shows up cited to nothing but the Daily Mail, it usually gets speedied. If that BLP came through AFC, that's absolutely a failure of AFC - ] (]) 12:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


:@]: the submitting user the draft !ownership to Jimbo.
==Drafts for Discussion==
:Or possibly Jimbo created it himself. In which case, you should go and warn him against editing logged-out. ;) ] (]) 09:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
This may be an idea that has been discussed and dismissed previously, but it may be an attempt to provide detail for an idea that has been dismissed due to lack of detail in the past. From time to time, someone has proposed one of three ideas about ]. The first is that it should be renamed Miscellany for Discussion. The second and third are that drafts should be split out from other miscellany and have their own ], which might be either Drafts for Deletion, the second idea, or Drafts for Discussion, the third idea. The first idea, changing Miscellany for Deletion to Miscellany for Discussion, has been dismissed because it has not been obvious what needs to be considered other than deletion and the usual ] that are implied in any deletion discussion. The second, splitting out Drafts for Deletion, has been dismissed because it has not been obvious why drafts need to be considered separately from other miscellany (user pages, WP pages, portals).


== 2026 United States Senate election in ... ==
However, I have a suggestion that we set up Drafts for Discussion. I am proposing this in response to the reasonable comment that we need some way of discussing whether drafts will survive AFD. So my proposal is in particular that there should be Drafts for Discussion, but that it deal with two almost opposite questions, should a draft be deleted, and should a draft be promoted. Normally the reviewer will either be nominating the draft for deletion, or asking whether the draft should be promoted, and will know which. I can imagine the situation where a draft has been kicking around so long that a reviewer thinks it should be either promoted or deleted, but I am not sure that will happen in the real world. Anyway, the idea is that if a draft is nominated for promotion, there would be rough consensus after seven days either to promote the draft or to keep the draft. If the draft is promoted, then there is rough consensus against deleting, merging, redirecting, or re-draftifying the article.


Heads up: we've got five of these so far (see e.g. ]) and I suspect more are coming. I dunno if it's ] or not, but they look similar enough they can likely be accepted or declined as a group. ] (]) 00:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
If there is a reason why this is a bad idea, or why it won't work, please let me know. Otherwise we can discuss the idea for a while here and then take it to ].
] (]) 00:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
:I think that could be a good idea. Perhaps an even larger benefit would be that it might also be helpful for new reviewers - either by asking about a draft directly, or being able to see real examples of good/bad/borderline drafts and discussion. ] (]) 01:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
::I just feel there would be too much bureaucracy - if people are unsure about whether to kick something on and let AfD have a consideration then just an informal 2nd opinion request here is better. A whole new set-up seems duplicative. And if a DfD is viable to indicate RC against an AfD that's even more problematic, since it would have less participation, and a range of problems if it did then get submitted to AfD. I'd suggest we encourage more reviewers to seek out 2nd opinions rather than leave it in the pile, but not go full formal on it. ] (]) 13:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


:I'd decline all unless if there are secondary sources actually discussing the state-level senate elections. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 11:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
== Renaming Drafts Before Acting on Them ==


== ] ==
I will observe that occasionally giving a draft the name that it will have as an article, even if one is planning to decline it, can be useful, because then the AFC script may find that another article existed with that name. I had that experience with ], and found that, by giving a draft that name, I find that there had been an AFD. This changed my disposition from a decline to a reject. We already knew what the community would say on an AFD.


Should I nominate this draft for speedy deletion? Earwig turns a '''''' similarity rate, but I fear this might be a false positive.<span id="LunaEclipse:1736769057670:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNWikiProject_Articles_for_creation" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 11:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)</span>
Another interesting case where the history is found via the names is more positive and that is ]. The draft didn't get accepted, but it is the same as ], and the IP has been advised to expand the article.


:It is a false positive. You can see what's triggering the high percentage by clicking the "Compare" buttons to the left. It's detecting the award recipient list, which you can't really paraphrase. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 11:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
] (]) 17:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
::Always, always, ''always'' do a check to see if the % actually means deletion is required. I declined a G12 earlier today where the ''second'' half of the draft was copied verbatim (and thus threw a 95% match) but after removal it didn't show any matches other than the random phrases like facility names. While the number is lower today than it used to, there are still some trigger-happy admins who will nuke anything G12 with a high % match without actually checking, and that does no favours to the user who submitted the draft if it's a "false positive" (at least as far as G12 goes). ] (]) 12:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:Interesting idea. I guess I've never thought about this because generally if I'm going to accept I would just change the new name appropriately. I don't think it necessarily needs to be added to the official workflow but it's a good thing to keep in mind. ] (]) 18:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
::If the draft is no good, then the reason to name it is to see whether to reject it rather than to decline it. If the draft is marginal, I have occasionally asked the submitter to obtain a copy of the deleted article so that I can compare the draft against the deleted article. I do not recall that happening, as in I do not recall when the draft has actually been better than the deleted article, but I have found it worth trying, especially since some submitters can be stubborn. ] (]) 18:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
:::I do that in general. ] (]) 10:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


== Accepting when the mainspace title is create-protected (SALTed) ==
== Just a quick note ==
{{Tracked in|https://github.com/wikimedia-gadgets/afc-helper/issues/401}}
Eg, trying to accept ] gives:


:: Darn it, "]" is create-protected. You will need to request unprotection before accepting.
Just a note, I've changed a few of the subtemplates of {{t|AFC status}} so that if a draft gets submitted with the "wrong" timestamp (usually something old that someone submits without changing the dates) it won't throw off the "danger meter". I will note that {{t|AfC category navbar}} will continue working as usual, so if you see a single submission in "Very old" even if you don't want to review it, at least bump it to the right submit date. ] (]) 18:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
:<small>{{rto|Primefac}} but what if I want to be in the ]? ] (]) 19:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)</small>
::{{small|No doubt there's a highway to get there. Careful, though, or you might find yourself in ]. ] (]) 19:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)}}
:::] - What is the Danger Zone? ] (]) 16:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
::::When there are "very old" submissions (i.e. 6-month-old drafts waiting review) the {{t|AFC status}} template displays a white "overloaded" message. ] (]) 16:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


Can we have the script modified to cover these cases? It should prompt to request the deleting admin unprotect, or prompt to submit a request to unprotect at ], or here at ] where ] reliably does it?
== ] Stubs ==


From ]. Another of the occasional reminders that we are letting in good encyclopedic content as well as keeping out crud. ] (]) 02:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Reviewers should not be sending the problem straight to DRV. DRV is for addressing deletion process problems or overturning a bad decision. —] (]) 02:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:I am puzzled as to what ] says is wrong with the AFC script. The script did not say to go to ]. The script said to request unprotection. If SmokeyJoe is recommending that the script provide more detailed instructions, then that is a good idea, but the current instruction is not wrong. ] (]) 03:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::The comment a reviewer posted on the draft “The author must take it to ] for review” was wrong. ] (]) 06:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Not to get picky, but JoJo did say in their AFD close that any new drafts would need DRV to be accepted. Is this a proclamation they're allowed to make? I don't know, but that is why the reviewer said it. ] (]) 07:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Good nitpick. I hadn’t seen that. I presumed it was a general belief that DRV is generally required to reverse SALTing, as we see from time to time at DRV.
::::] did say that in their close, in August 2017. I’m not wanting to try to solve this here, but the proclamation came from the closer, not the discussion, which is an issue. Also, time matters. I’ve seen elsewhere concerns about the huge number of protected pages, where most, but not all, never warranted permanent protection. I think JoJo’s proclamation should definitely be respected for six months, should probably be respected for two years, and after that I’m not sure. ] (]) 09:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Can't really argue with that; salting really is a slightly longer way of dealing with disruption, but I agree it shouldn't really ever be indef. ] (]) 09:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I am not personally sure myself, but my sense is that if a page keeps getting deleted at AfD, at some point folks need to challenge the AfD closes first (i.e DRV) before recreating yet again. That said, it's been eight years and I haven't worked in AfD for a long time. ] (]) 10:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:If y'all want to pick which of those actions you want AFCH to do, I can make a ticket for it. We should focus on one action. So the workflow might be something like "Darn it, "Callum Reynolds" is create-protected. Do you want AFCH to file a request for unprotection at ]? ". Then the RFUP could be something like "I am an AFC reviewer and I would like to formally accept "Callum Reynolds" and move it to mainspace, but it is ]ed. I would like to request unprotection. Please ping me with the outcome so I remember to move the draft. Thanks." –] <small>(])</small> 06:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::The simplest option I think is for AFCH to advise how to request unprotection.
::It might be good for AFCH to offer a post a canned request, to the protecting admin, or to RFUP, or to here at WT:AfC. ] (]) 06:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Indeed. It would be fairly trivial to add something along the lines of "at RFUP or WT:AFC" after "unprotection". ] (]) 07:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I with the "at RFUP or WT:AFC" addition. Let me know if anyone wants it adjusted. –] <small>(])</small> 09:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I suggest that it should say: "You will need to request unprotection from the protecting admin on their talk page or at ]." So +admin -WT:AfC. I don't think that WT:AfC should be recommended because RFUP ''should'' work, and if it isn't working, we should see why it isn't, instead of bypassing the problem by directing requests here. —] 15:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::That's fair, I mainly was parroting Joe's suggestion since my advice here (when someone asks about a salted page) is to just ping me, well, here, and I'll take care of it. ] (]) 16:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I updated the ticket to incorporate Alalch E's changes. –] <small>(])</small> 05:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


== Draft when article already exists ==
:hello, yes I've put some effort into creating good plant stubs. ] (]) 02:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
::Thank you. I will comment to the other reviewers that I think species with proper taxonomy are one case where we should be not merely accepting stubs but actively welcoming them, because the stubs represent an expansion of knowledge. ] (]) 16:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
== "New" reviewer? ==


I just reviewed a draft that had been declined by two previous reviewers, both experienced editors, one of them an admin. On the one hand, I agreed that the draft, as submitted, did not establish ]. However, there was already an article on the subject. My question is why is it apparently easy for editors not to notice that there already is an article? The question was not whether the draft should be accepted, which is not possible if there is already an article. The questions were whether the draft should be declined as ''exists' or for notability, and whether the draft should be tagged for merging into the article. There is a notice in the yellow banner saying that there is already an article. Should it be made more prominent, or should reviewers be reminded to pay attention to it?
I didn't think {{noping|RedRiver660}} would be able to ? (''Cf.'' ,,, etc.) ]]] 08:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
:They've been warned before. It's probably time more a more substantive warning, with templates and all. In the future, would it be useful to have a bot to detect every instance of an editor who is not an AfC reviewer accepting/declining articles and then warn that editor not to do so in the future? ] (]) 13:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
::I've said this a few times on my talk page in as many weeks, but unless the user is performing ''bad'' (or otherwise sub-standard) reviews, there is nothing ''prohibiting'' them from reviewing and/or "accepting" drafts at AFC. If their reviews are fine, invite them to join the Project and get access to AFCH (if only to make things easier). If their reviews are not fine, then I concur that warnings should be left. ] (]) 14:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC) {{small|and... I just realized that ] last time... ] (]) 14:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)}}
:::{{reply|Primefac}} Just so. ] was what prompted me to ask, having, as it has, led to ]. So we see that, will the best will in the world, a "noob error" can result in the wasting of the time and energies of multiple reasons for no sound reason. ]]] 19:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
::My number one concern would be a "reviewer" accepting ] drafts. My number two concern would be a reviewer with ] issues. Other than that, I agree that welcoming them is the right approach. ] (]) 16:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
::::I wouldn't be concerned if this user is declining/rejecting blatantly unacceptable drafts (e.g. blank, test, adverts). I'd be a bit concerned when one ''accepts'' a draft, especially someone with little experience in AFC or deletion (if the user's a regular in AFD then I'm fine with that). Perhaps if an editor who isn't registered as an AFC reviewer and the draft has been previously declined by an AFC reviewer, we can notify the declining reviewer(s) and tell them to have a look? Cheers, ] (]) 11:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
:{{rto|Serial Number 54129}} Is the user submitting anything to AFC? If not we might ask for a partial block "namespace ban" from Draft namespace to keep them from messing with the process. ] (]) 12:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


I had been planning not to name the draft, because I want a general response, not focused only on the specific draft, but then I realized that some reviewers will do their homework and look at my contribution history and see that it was ], and there already is an article on ], and the article, unlike the draft, does establish ]. So that is the specific. The fact that there already was an article was apparently missed by two reviewers. Do we need to make it easier for the reviewers?
== ] ==
] (]) 22:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:Well, well. That sort of answers that. They are two different people. In that case, my only complaint is that it would have been helpful if the reviewers who declined the draft had noticed that disambiguation might be in order. ] (]) 22:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::To answer the general question you asked (because the specifics just boil down to "reviewers need to take their damn time when they're reviewing"), it probably depends on how much more useful content there is in the draft. If it's an improvement, then a <code>merge</code> decline is probably more appropriate than the <code>exists</code> decline, which is really just more for saying "hey, don't waste your time on this, work on the article." Hell, we have the option to have multiple decline reasons, so just use both if it's borderline.
::I think the main reason we get duplicate submissions (based on a quick look through cats ] and ]) is disambiguation, whether a spelling difference or with parentheticals. I don't know how we can necessarily stop people from creating these pages, though. ] (]) 08:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


== Aram Mala Nuri, Requesting Review ==
Will someone please review this draft? I have declined it twice. As a candidate for the ], he does not satisfy ]. The previous two declined drafts were largely about this campaign. The draft has now been trimmed down to where it is focused on ]. My thinking would be to decline it, but maybe I am biased now.
] (]) 17:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


Hello. It has been more than a month that I edited the last version and am waiting for response. If anyone could take a look and check it, it would be highly appreciated.
== Non-English ==
Here is the link of the draft:https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Zhewar_H._Ali/sandbox ] (]) 14:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{u|Zhewar H. Ali}}, please be patient; drafts are not reviewed in any particular order but it will be seen in due time. ] (]) 15:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks. The draft is again reviewed and edited with avoiding peacock terms, writing in a neutral tone and fixing inline citations. As for reliability of the sources I do not understand why they are not reliable. The sources are websites of organizations and presses, they may include no author names due to the lack of freedom of speech that reporters may receive threats on their lives if they show their names on the news and reports. Thanks for considering this. ] (]) 21:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::@], if you would like help understanding a review, the best places to ask are ] and ]. -- ] (]) 05:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)


== BLP=yes, not living=yes ==
I think that, when 'lang' is specified, the option to recognize a language needs to be tested. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't, and I haven't determined when it does and doesn't work. However, I think that if the script allows the reviewer to enter a language (and it does) and the reviewer does enter a language, the script ought to put that into the template rather than throwing it away and just saying that it isn't English. ] (]) 21:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
{{Tracked in|https://github.com/wikimedia-gadgets/afc-helper/issues/400}}
Hi, there is currently a ] running to change the ] that have living=yes to blp=yes. I just noticed that the AFC script if you tick that box. Can this please be changed to "blp=yes"? ] (]) 05:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:Looks like it's in progress. ] (]) 07:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{+1}} Also noticed this. ] (]) 14:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 06:41, 19 January 2025

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Welcome—discuss matters concerning this project!
AfC submissions
Random submission
2+ months
1,756 pending submissionsPurge to update
Shortcut


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

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

Reviewer help

Helper script

Participants

Old AFCH requests


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

AfC unreviewed draft statistics as of January 13, 2025


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RFC discussion

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

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

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

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

Indian state symbols

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

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

Disable AFCH if there is an ongoing AfD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

African legislators

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

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

Draft nominated for MFD as not notable after decline

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

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

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions/List

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

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

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

A little merging issue

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

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

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

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

Non-English drafts

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

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

Notified Jimbo instead of the user who submitted the draft

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

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

2026 United States Senate election in ...

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

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

Draft:Clifford Prize

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

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

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

Tracked in github.com
Issue #401

Eg, trying to accept Draft:Callum_Reynolds gives:

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

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

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

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

Draft when article already exists

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

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

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

Aram Mala Nuri, Requesting Review

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

Zhewar H. Ali, please be patient; drafts are not reviewed in any particular order but it will be seen in due time. Primefac (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. The draft is again reviewed and edited with avoiding peacock terms, writing in a neutral tone and fixing inline citations. As for reliability of the sources I do not understand why they are not reliable. The sources are websites of organizations and presses, they may include no author names due to the lack of freedom of speech that reporters may receive threats on their lives if they show their names on the news and reports. Thanks for considering this. Zhewar H. Ali (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
@Zhewar H. Ali, if you would like help understanding a review, the best places to ask are WP:AFCHELP and WP:TEA. -- asilvering (talk) 05:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

BLP=yes, not living=yes

Tracked in github.com
Issue #400

Hi, there is currently a bot running to change the ~300000 articles that have living=yes to blp=yes. I just noticed that the AFC script creates living=yes if you tick that box. Can this please be changed to "blp=yes"? The-Pope (talk) 05:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks like it's in progress. Primefac (talk) 07:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
+1 Also noticed this. CNC (talk) 14:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation: Difference between revisions Add topic