Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Archive 47

Archive 40

←

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

I propose a formal Backlog Drive

It is clear that consensus is in favour. What is not yet clear is how the consensus will be implemented. I have taken the decision to mark the discussion elements while reaching consensus as closed to allow us to concentrate on the implementation. I have left that element open. If you disagree with my marking a discussion element which I started as closed please revert my closure. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 07:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

The last formal backlog drive was in 2014 Different reviewers will tell us that it had different results, but it was a period that turned a high backlog into a low one. Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/June 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive speaks for itself. It is irrelevant that I topped the leader board. I have a life today and could not do that again. There were checks and balances. Points were subtracted for poor reviews, added for reviewing other folk and their reviews. I view it over-all as a good thing. Today we have a high backlog. It is in danger of exceeding the five months category. I think we have a worse problem, though, which is drafts that have not even had a first review in that five month period. How disheartening to create a draft and not even have anyone look at it. I have no idea what it takes to administer a backlog drive.There is obviously some software element to it. Assumjkng it to be technically feasible I believe we should reinstate this scheme, for more than one reason: the backlog is high we are hardly making inroads into it new drafts are being created at a prodigious rate new reviewers need a stimulus to really get going solidly this will give new reviewers almost immediate feedback in the checks and balances we have a good pool of new reviewers it's fun! I'm creating a discussion section where I will make my own note of support FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 11:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC) I am unsure how long this discussion should run before we reach a conclusion. May I suggest seven days as the usual discussion duration? FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 14:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC) We are coming up to the end of a week of discussion. That happens in a few hours. Indications below suggest that this is likely to be in favour. If that happens, which I hope it will, the next thing to discuss will be that start day and the duration. I doubt it could be immediate. Thanks to @Enterprisey the script is available, but will need testing. That would become the gating factor to starting this process, and we would be very much in their hands for a start day. If anyone wishes to: close this tomorrow, or extend the discussion period either of those things is fine. As is reaching a conclusion on consensus without a formal closure. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 07:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC) For things such as these, it takes someone to "just do it", not necessarily to close. Primefac (talk) 10:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC) @Primefac My own concern with a JDI approach is that I have no idea how, myself, to do it. Add to that the slight uncertainty over the script and I am not at all sure how to kick one off. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 15:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC) My point was more that I could very well close this today and say "consensus says to do it", but if no one actually does it, then it's rather pointless as it will not get done (a corollary is WP:TFDH where templates-to-be-deleted can sometimes languish for months). Clearly, the consensus is here, so now we need someone (one or multiple individuals) to start the actually process rolling. Primefac (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC) I figure we should also discuss scoring and other rules at some point; now's a fine time. I can dust off AFCBuddy and start looking at the templates again while that happens. Enterprisey (talk!) 17:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC) Just noting on-wiki that I'm happy to help with both technical and policy aspects of the administration of the drive. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 18:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC) @Enterprisey I am not sure how many current folk came to play in the 2014 drive, but the scoring scheme seemed to work well enough. Unless folk disagree, why not continue with that until it proves that a better scheme can be proposed and implemented? @Firefly Thank you for throwing your hat into the ring All: With various technical aspects to solve, should we suggest a one calendar month drive staring on 1 June? Or is that too soon? FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 20:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC) In favour Support for the reasons in my nomination FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 11:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC) Support because it can only be of benefit, I review between 10-30 drafts a day, but could always do more! Theroadislong (talk) 11:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC) Support I'd certainly contribute to a potential drive. I'm not particularly fussed about the details as long as it gives editors a motivation to help reduce the backlog. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC) Support not that it would make any difference to my editing, other than if the backlog was less I'd feel less pressure to do just one more... If we mass-message active, non-active, NPP patrolers about it then just that could encourage a bit more activity. KylieTastic (talk) 11:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC) Support We need all the help we can get. We keep talking about bringing in new blood and the burnout faced by prolific reviewers. Let's fix it!Bkissin (talk) 20:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC) Additional Comment of support I believe that when quarantine started, we were able to bring the backlog down to under 2000 articles, so it can be done. (Hopefully it doesn't take something as bad as a pandemic to do it again) Bkissin (talk) 12:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC) Support - I'm not a very consistent reviewer (or editor), but I came back from a bit of a break as of last night-ish and it doesn't look like the backlog's improved while I've been away. I've seen backlog drives proposed a number of times and considering the size of the backlog and the success of drives in other projects (eg WP:GOCE) I think it's a good idea. LittlePuppers (talk) 01:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC) Support, given the ever-expanding backlog, something like this is clearly a good option in order to reduce it. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC) Support. On the one hand, when we used to do AfC backlog drives, they tended to get over-eager reviewers throwing the baby out with the bathwater and declining rescuable drafts. On the other hand, since WP:ACPERM, AfC has filled up with a ton of crap that previously would get deleted via A7 / G11, so blasting through it all with a wiki-shotgun is likely to be less destructive as it was 7 years ago. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC) Support, as I always do. Might as well. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC) Support - I've been open to giving this another try for a few years now. A drive will definitely increase my level of AfC participation. ~Kvng (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC) Support - unlikely to do any harm and may help get the backlog down. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 07:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC) Support Its going to be very hard. scope_creepTalk 11:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC) Strong support, not that the suggestion seems to need my support. I've thought we should run one of these for the last couple of years, but never had the time to offer to run one. But we need this and we need to reduce that backlog. — Bilorv (talk) 11:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC) Support, although it may have already been approved. I won't mediate any new content disputes for a while, so that I can focus on reviews. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC) Against Other opinions Quality issue — In the past one of the main reasons for not having one was possibly lower quality, but even if this happens to a degree I think it's worth it for a period just to get things back to a manageable level, and stop discouraging new editors facing months of waiting. KylieTastic (talk) 11:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC) @KylieTastic You make an important point. The prior drives had substantial incentives to reviewers to double check other reviews, with points subtracted if a review failed two different reviewers' opinions. They relied on the competitive nature many of us have, though I acknowledge that many of us are not competitive. Peer pressure not to make stupid reviews is important whether in a Backlog Drive or outside one. I view a drive as an important trigger to accept drafts that are "not quite perfect" because the ideal outcome is a massive influx of decent quality articles that are susceptible to improvement by the community as a whole, coupled with a genuine reduction in the backlog. Declining a borderline draft does not truly reduce the backlog, it just moves that draft into a future backlog. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 14:23, 10 May 2021 (UTC) I definitely see your point KylieTastic. It would probably mean that many of the PAID and COI articles in the backlog would probably go through. I think as Timtrent mentioned double-checking and tagging articles with COI or UPE tags makes it easier to put them on NPP and AfD's radar. If our role (as some have suggested) is to accept articles with at least a 50/50 chance of surviving AfD, then I don't see an issue with reviewers opening those floodgates. Additionally, I think we were all a little green quality-wise when we started. We shouldn't close the door or gatekeep because someone makes a couple mistakes. It's just difficult to correct those mistakes without being BITEy when edits are moving so fast during a drive. (Though to be fair, Wikipedia editors seem to have no problem telling others when they screw up, lol) Bkissin (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC) Technical issues Question Does Excirial's script User:Excirial/AFCBuddy work with the current releases of MediaWIki software (etc). I note that they have not been actively editing since October 2020. The script was fundamental in making this easy to participate in FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 11:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC) Timtrent they may not have mention email notifications on, so probably worth leaving a talk-page message or direct email. KylieTastic (talk) 12:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC) @KylieTastic I have left them a talk page message, linked to this discussion FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 12:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC) I have also emailed them, though email is not my favourite means of editor to editor communication. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 07:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC) I have not had any response so far. Assuming we commit running a drive this is a hurdle that we must discover how to leap FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 06:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC) I asked them for the code a while ago and got it. I would be happy to take a look and perhaps run it if there's another backlog drive coming up. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC) @Enterprisey This is extremely good news. Obviously the discussion has to reach a conclusion, and it would be wrong to pre-judge that conclusion FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 19:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC) Some numbers Out of curiosity I looked at some of the numbers and both last month and this month average to almost exactly 300 submissions per day. So that means that if we want to maintain the backlog we need to do: 9500 per month 300 per day If we want to remove the backlog we need to do: 14250 over one month 475 per day (slightly fewer if it's a 31 day month) Previous backlog drives appeared to reach 5000-7000 drafts reviewed in one month with 50 reviewers in one drive; I'm not sure how the number of members in AfC has changed since then, or if they ever ran out of drafts. (If we can have 60 reviews averaging 8 drafts per day, that'll completely empty the backlog; if one person does 1500, that'll drop to 7, so a few people can bring up the average a lot.) Tools (AfCH) have probably also improved since then. It might also help that it's been so long since we've had them (it appears that they used to be pretty regular/frequent). Unfortunately I'm not coming up with any good numbers for how quickly we're reviewing them as-is. See more accurate numbers below. LittlePuppers (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC) I sometimes manage to review 50 in a day, but it gets rather wearing having to contantly respond to outraged users of declined or rejected drafts. Theroadislong (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC) I think the numbers we're achieving at present can be deduced from your analysis of the actual backlog number. It is semi-stable at present, but it has stabilised at far too high. If one reviewer currently active goes inactive then it increases. If a new one joins in there is a decrease. With 300 a day being added we appear to be processing 300 a day. While that sounds a goodly number it's insufficient. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 16:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC) I'm also not sure how the length of the backlog affects submission/resubmission rates. I don't think there's a good way to tell that, though, because there are so many variables at play. LittlePuppers (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC) LittlePuppers do the daily numbers come from Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions because recently I have us doing ~210 reviews per day and the backlog has been reducing. Two problems here is that Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions includes submitted redirects to WP:AFC/R that appear to be tagged with the created via AfC template. However worse is there is a bug where non submitted drafts such as Draft:吴冕 and Draft:Who is winning the race for brands? (at random) are not submitted but have the "AfC submissions by date/..." category added. This looks like a bug in Template:AfC submission calling Template:AfC date category when the first argument is T (aka non submitted draft). I'd delve deeper but I don't have the perms to fix... So pinging the last couple of template editors in 6 years Primefac and Enterprisey. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC) KylieTastic, it is from that page, so going off what you're saying the numbers may actually be a good bit lower (which is encouraging). I was also wondering if they fail to count the same draft submitted twice in one day (but I assume that's a good bit less common). Do you know of a better place to take numbers from? LittlePuppers (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC) I have fixed the issue in the sandbox version with this and I've put in an edit request. KylieTastic (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC) Looks like the change went through, so I'll be curious what the numbers look like in the next couple of days. LittlePuppers (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC) I've run a purge on May - down to 211 per day but that still includes a lot of redirects - should those be in these cats? KylieTastic (talk) 19:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC) I'm not sure; I suppose it depends on whether dates are meant to track articles specifically, and if they're for tracking submissions or pages created. I've updated the figures based on your numbers. LittlePuppers (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC) Better Numbers Updated figures (still slightly high - it counts redirects, but not articles submitted multiple times in one day - but it should be much closer). To maintain the current level of submissions: 6660 per month 222 per day If we want to remove the backlog we need to do: 11860 over one month 395 per day (slightly fewer if it's a 31 day month) These queries show a total of 6596 reviews over the last month (220/day), which is encouraging and shows that the backlog is no longer growing on us as it once was (and actually seems to be decreasing by a good bit in the past couple days). The last week had a total of 1681 reviews (240/day), which would corroborate a recent (or continuing) increase. To do similar calculations to above for completely clearing the backlog in a month (assuming an unchanged level of submissions) could be done by: 50 editors doing 8 reviews a day Convincing 50 reviewers to do 3 more reviews per day than they do currently Convincing every non-blocked user listed at WP:AFC/P to do 20 reviews over the month (or 8 reviews more than they do now) An unrelated tidbit I noticed is that there is a significantly lower submission rate on weekends, especially on Saturdays (although how much time zones affect that I'm not sure - as it's UTC (I think), evening in the US counts as the next day). LittlePuppers (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC) Your observation is correct, generally Saturday is "easy-going" day here. Question: How many editors do 8 AfC Reviews per day in average? I do see always the same 8-10 reviewers every day, @KylieTastic what are the numbers of the top 20 reviewers currently? I personally also reduced my engagement because I seem to be more busy with handling talk page requests of frustrated editors then really being able to do reviews in depth. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC) CommanderWaterford I've just run all my main SQL queries. Last week 9 people hit 8 a day, 13 did 5 a day (you've cut back to 30 a day). Last month 5 hit 8 a day, 10 5 a day, 21 2 a day. Doing 6598 in a mounth or 212/day, and all this work for only 18% acceptable :/ - Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 11:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC) I feel like I should emphasize: we're at a pretty steady level already. Even a small increase could have a decent impact on the backlog. And, averages can be misleading - we don't know how many people will participate, and there's going to be (already is) a wide range of reviews/person already; a few people tend to bring up the average a lot. LittlePuppers (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC) Consensus and Implementation It seems clear to me that we have a consensus. We need to move forwards to implementation. There seem to me to be three outstanding areas: Start date and duration Scoring system Techncial aspects Start date and duration I would like to propose a start date of 1 June. With regard to duration I am not sure whether a short sharp drive of one month, or a longer drive of two months will be more effective in motivating reviewers to review more, and in motivating new reviewers to get a solid base of reviews under their belts. Arguing for two months, we will make a bigger inroad into the backlog, but arguing agaist it, keeping up motivation at drive level for more than a month can be hard. I would prefer to argue for a pair of narrowly spaced single month duration drives, perhaps a month apart. As always, opinions are welcome FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 09:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC) Start date I have added headings for Start Date and Duration. The first opinions expressed on duration suggest a single month, perhaps followed after an interval by another. But no-one apart from me has offered opinions so far about start date. This date may be limited by technical issues, but opinions are important. We need not start at the start of a calendar month, for example. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 13:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC) I favour 1 June if this is possible technically FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 13:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC) We are unlikely to be able to hit 1 June without a stupendous effort. What should the start date be? FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 07:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC) July 1 might make sense. Or any month that you're available, since you're providing good leadership. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC) @Novem Linguae I am flattered, and I thank you for the compliment. While I don't mind leading in spirit I am not sure at all that I have the technical grasp to "take charge" so to speak. I think I must defer to someone else, unless the task came be shown to me to be non technical. Even then there is a risk that, even should I be in a position to lead this one, I would not be in a position to lead the next one, or the one after that. Equally, one person should not become indispensable. I have a vision of a small pool of folk where some fall away over time and new folk leap in to replace them. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 22:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC) The tech stuff probably won't be ready by tomorrow. July 1 sounds fine to me. I'm hoping to run at least a couple of single-day "test drives" - or maybe one over a weekend - to make sure all the moving parts are fine. I'd also like to squash a few of the worse helper script bugs (e.g. decline/reject comment handling). It's been a while, after all. I'm also sitting on some proposals for rule changes from last time (mostly about scoring and quality control) that I'd like to polish and have discussed before the drive starts, as well. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC) To my mind this is a good course of action. 1 July is a decent aiming point. My proposal for 1 June was to crystallise thinking. Rushing will simply cause grief all round. I like the idea of a test day or two, presumably with limited participation, to prove that all works as intended. I am in favour of anything that enhances quality control. The last drive was ok(ish) but there is always scope for improvement. As long as the scoring allows those with a competitive nature to fight to be at the top of the heap that will also be good. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 15:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC) Duration I think a one-month drive would be preferable. I participated in the March GAN Backlog drive and felt that motivation petered out towards the end of the month. Anything longer than that might be inefficient. I would support your idea of a second, month-long drive though we would have to think about the spacing. We should allow at least two weeks, if not a month, between individual drives. If we go for 1 June to 30 June, the second drive could start, say, on 1 August. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC) I agree that it would be better if the drive didn't go for more than a month consecutively. LittlePuppers (talk) 13:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC) To be clear, in case I was not, I also support a single month at any given time. I was simply setting out some arguments previously FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 13:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC) Two month-long drives a month apart might be nice, especially for anyone who wants to participate but is busy in real life during one particular month. — Bilorv (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC) Scoring system I had not envisaged a different scoring system from the 2014 drive, but this is a good opportunity to make adjustments. Whatever scoring scheme is chosen I hope we retain the checks and balances of points to review other reviewers' reviews and negative points for poor reviews. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 09:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC) User:Timtrent or anybody - Is there a link to the 2014 scoring system? How does a scoring system work? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC) @Robert McClenon Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Backlog elimination drives where there is a section on it. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 10:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC) User:Timtrent - I will look at and comment on AFCBuddy in the near future. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC) Here are my ideas; all numbers subject to debate and revision: Double points (so, 2 instead of 1) for "old" reviews. "old" could be "waiting for more than 2 weeks". However, what I prefer is "waiting for more than 75% of all drafts", i.e. has a 75th-percentile wait time Each participant must have had at least 10% of their reviews re-reviewed for the drive to end and the awards to be distributed. Each participant must have conducted a number of re-reviews greater than 10% of their number of reviews. That is, if I've made 30 reviews, I need to conduct 3 re-reviews. We could wait for this requirement before ending the drive and distributing the awards. Or, we could cap your number of points to 10 times the number of re-reviews you've done. For example, if I've done 40 reviews and only conducted 3 re-reviews, I only get 30 points. Not scoring, but while we're talking about them, re-reviews should be escalated to WT:WPAFC or the backlog drive talk page. Extra prize (cookie?) given to each week's winner (i.e. looking only at the numbers/leaderboard from that week - cumulative? maybe not?). Not too sure about this one. One-time (per person, applied manually) bonus points for being extra helpful to a draft author, or perhaps for participating at the IRC help desk? Again, highly speculative. Thoughts welcome. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC) I'm not sure I like the idea of re-reviews being done by everybody. If you're not hugely confident at AFC but you want to help then you shouldn't be compelled to be the final "yes" on someone else; in contrast, sometimes competitions like these attract over-eager people who do quantity over quality and getting them to re-review to an equally hasty standard can escalate chaos. I might also set a minimum number that must be re-reviewed per person e.g. 3. If you do 10 reviews and only one is checked then that's a bit high variance—it may not pick up on the fact that you've forgotten copyvio checks (because that one was copyvio-free) or been too generous in acceptances (because that one was a decline). If we have a set of judges or "the regulars" doing re-reviews then this may actually catch the most issues, though it's also most burdensome on organisers. I'd be happy to play a fairly big part in this (if others trust me to do so). The most objective measurement for "bonus points" could be that you take a draft which was a decline and add sources or perform other content-based improvements to turn it into an accept. — Bilorv (talk) 23:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC) Bilorv, great observations. GIGO will indeed be a large design consideration. Maybe instead of (or in addition to) the 10% thing, we could pick a random 1% of all reviews, collect them on a page for easy reading, and have the whole group of drive participants (& AfC regulars) vote on whether anything sticks out or could be indicative of wider problems. Maybe some re-reviews could also be collected. The minimum re-review count of 3 sounds good. Judges/regulars doing extra/all reviews could be formalized, although I would guess some of that would happen organically either way. And yeah, that bonus point criterion sounds good (potentially with higher points for higher article quality grades). Enterprisey (talk!) 04:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC) It would be great if the scoring system also acknowledged comments, I've done a few for drafts where all the sources were in non-English languages. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC) Technical aspects These are beyond me, but we have two excellent volunteers to look at these with care FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 09:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC) We will need an invitation to all current reviewers togethher with whomsoever is deemed suitable i addition. I am not sure how to handle that except by labour. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 13:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC) We should give some thought to how we are going to market this. Should we mass message all existing AFC reviewers? Mass messaging is simple enough, we just need somebody with the mass message perm to send the message out for us. We should also give some thought to if we want to try to recruit people that don't normally AFC review. I think we definitely should. New blood will be important for crushing the backlog both short-term and long-term. Should we mass message every NPP that isn't an AFC reviewer? I could provide this list, if needed. Maybe we should even give some thought to configuring the AFCH script to auto allow admins and people with the NPP perm, without the normal AFC approval process. If a person is qualified, the less obstacles to reviewing, the better. From a technical side, I have a bot that keeps a list of people with these perms and updates it daily, that data file could be loaded by AFCH. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC) Even though it's kind of not a discussion, maybe we can put it on WP:CENT. A watchlist notice is probably too much as we do only want people comfortable with notability standards. A load of {{Please see}} notices on every village pump, at AN and ANI and anywhere else that primarily experienced editors frequent. Maybe even go around some major active WikiProjects and mention it. This to get some new people on board, and also send a mess message to existing AfC reviewers so we're aware of it. If this is to work, it needs to get fresh blood reviewing and not just the usual people doubling their efforts and then burning out. (I don't consider myself one of these people so I'll do my part in upping my reviewing as much as I can.) — Bilorv (talk) 11:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC) We have almost 600 reviewers, a post to CENT isn't necessary so much as an MMS. Primefac (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC) I incline to @Primefac's view. With 600 reviewers we surely just need a spur. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC) We have 560 on the 'active' list, but in the last month we have only had 189 with 1 reviews - so lots to encourage to do some/more. We also have 572 Inactive reviewers that maybe some could be encouraged to re-join. And the NPP who should be qualified and end up reviewing a lot of the accepted so hopefully we could get some to join in. The only thing to avoid is spamming people with multiple messages. KylieTastic (talk) 22:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC) Special Considerations I will, first, urge reviewers to err on the side of acceptance, with certain exceptions. Remember that the guideline says to accept if there is more than a 50% chance (subjectively judged) of being kept at AFD. If the backlog drive results in a lot of AFDs, that is what will happen. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC) I agree. We should have no concerns about accepting borderline cases FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 10:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC) Yes. But at present, reviewers may prefer to ignore borderline cases, especially because it is very much a Wikipedia practice for one group of volunteers to dump on another group of volunteers, including about uncertain acceptances. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC) I will urge reviewers to be quick to decline any draft where there is a question about conflict of interest. If there is any question about conflict of interest, whether paid editing or anything else, it is better to send it back with a question to the submitter, who is then expected to answer the question before resubmitting. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC) This is, or ought to be, a general practice unless the draft is ready for acceptance, when I see no obstacle to accepting it and flagging the nature of the COI FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 10:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC) Is there a script, or can one be developed, to copy AFC comments to a draft talk page? If there are previous comments, it will facilitate any subsequent reviews (or AFDs) if the comments are on the article talk page after acceptance, rather than having to find them in the history. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC) I see this as a more general item, and not one that should be a gating factor on initiating a drive. @Robert McClenon would you object to splitting this off as a separate proposal? FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 10:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC) User:Timtrent - If you are referring to the copying of the comments to the draft talk page, then I say "both of the above" to it being a more general item, and to it being a gating factor on initiating a drive. I have previously written about copying the comments to the talk page, and the usual response has been 'apathetic agreement' that it would be a good idea but that no one cares that much, along with the question of whether new editors know what talk pages are. No one disagrees, and no one cares. It is relevant to initiating a drive because some drafts have notability issues or other issues that really should be addressed at AFD. Doing nothing with such drafts is all right as long as the backlog can build up. If we really want to work the backlog off, and we agree that we do want to work the backlog off, then we should make it easier to deal with identified issues in AFD. That is the link. I have raised the issue before, and it gets agreement, and is ignored. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC) User:Timtrent - Of course I have no objection to splitting off the copying of AFC comments to the draft or article talk page as a separate proposal. I have been proposing that for an extended period of time. As I noted, it gets 'apathetic agreement'. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC) @Robert McClenon I think the issue is not so much that folk support it, and I do think it would be better as a separate formal proposal to avoid diluting or delaying a much needed reduction in backlog, but that it needs to claim the attention of our script guru. I recall your speaking or it previously, but I cannot for the life of me recall the conclusion, nor whether I participated. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 06:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC) I agree that the loss of old AfC comments addressing COI concerns is a bigger problem. I wish that all comments would be copied to the talk page, perhaps to a section titled “Pre-acceptance comments”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC) Consensus says yes, so what now? Are we aiming for 1 June? Who will run it? Does the script work? I can't run this. I am travelling or otherewise incapacitated for the next few weeks, and we have far better folk than me to do it. Please let us not allow this to wither on the vine. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 22:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC) It's also unfortunate timing for me, so I can't run this. It looks like the previous script used was User:Excirial/AFCBuddy but the user is no longer active. I don't know if anyone knows how to run the script. Worse comes to worst, could we run it with everyone keeping track of their own contributions periodically, and a judge (spot)checking them? I'd be happy to be a judge, at least during the second half of the drive. Pinging some users from the discussion who might be technical-inclined, @Primefac, Enterprisey, Ritchie333, and Firefly: any ideas? — Bilorv (talk) 11:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC) We know that Enterprisey has the script and may be checking ity and the templates currently. We know that Firefly is happy to do things. For myself I'd rather do it well and 'soon' than not as well and fast. We're very much in technical hands to know when we can start. What we need to do is to formalise who is willing and happy to do what in order to get drives working again FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 19:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC) The WP:GA folks are working on a July backlog drive, and have set up a nice page for it. We could probably use that as inspiration for a similar page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC) you're correct, though looking at the backlog drive pages here (tab, top right), the heavy lifting is done already, bar any tweaks. I think our gating factors are twofold: Technical go ahead Whether we need someone to be figurehead. (not sure if we do or not) I think we can press the go button any time the tech stuff is ready. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 06:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Implementation

As we move towards the middle of June, with a putative start date on 1 July, I felt that those who will implement the drive could do with a section to use to ask us questiuions and receive questions from us on the implementation, as well as briefing us on the tasks they are facing. It's obvious to us all that they cannot just wave a magic wand. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 16:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Yep, feel free to ping me to any questions. 1 July would be a great time to start this. — Bilorv (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I haven't followed this talk page much during the last couple of weeks so I was going to ask about the current state of affairs. Are we still going ahead with the 1 July date? Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 07:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Modussiccandi I am rather hoping for a briefing from the tech gurus on what is possible Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 21:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• I'm very much hoping this does not wither on the vine. I'm aware that our technical gurus have real lives and are genuinely busy in them and here, so I'm not in any way criticising anyone. This post is to keep this accepted proposal on the page and to prevent its auto-archival. While the backlog is receding from the good work everyone is doing we should not become complacent. THis drive will set us up for the future so that we can run one whenever it is required. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 07:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Fingers crossed that this drive is made possible. Very excited to see it happen and sad that I'm not a technical guru to chip in on the development. nearlyevil665 12:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• The GAN backlog drive folks are getting a Watchlist message for their backlog drive. Something to keep in mind when we move into the marketing/advertising phase. Also, maybe we should split off this section, and let the hatted sections get archived. Also, what is our main blocker at the moment? Something technical? –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/July 2021 Backlog Drive. I'm still working on the score-tabulation part, but I can count retroactively, so that's no big deal. I've also made an actual proposal for a new scoring system on the talk page. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Enterprisey: I assume that moving the page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive would fix info note calling {{AfC backlog elimination drive}} on the main Backlog Drive page that says none are scheduled, but I'm not positive (I'm no template code expert). Seems like the easier solution, but if that won't work, the template if statements would need an update. -2pou (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

    I've updated the main backlog drive page; the templates are a little too tricky to immediately figure out. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Advertising / getting the message out

• If there is going to be a backlog drive shouldn't people be informed, or has it not started yet? Such as messaging the active and inactive AfC participant list and maybe even new page patrollers? I notice the "July 2021 good article nomination backlog drive" has been advertised at the top of the watchlist. KylieTastic (talk) 10:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, a mass message would be nice if someone could do it; I'm a bit busy with the scoring system. I also should've left a message in a new level-2 section on this talk page, which I'll do now. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• Looks like the backlog drive has officially started. Excellent. Thank you Enterprisey, TimTrent, and others who made this possible. We should give some thought to how we can help spread the word to folks. Here are some ideas:
  • The GAN folks got a watchlist message for their backlog drive recently. Would just need to post on the linked talk page.
  • Mass message existing AFC folks.
  • Mass message NPRs (and perhaps give them an expedited approval process for getting AFC perm)
  • Post on certain noticeboards
  • Post at certain WikiProjects (WT:NPPR)
  • Post at the village pump
  • Other ideas?

–Novem Linguae (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I was going to just post a request to get this on the watchlist at least but thought I better run the text I was going to suggest through here first...

• "Want to reduce backlog, get good articles out of purgatory, plus barnstars? Then sign up for the July 2021 Articles for creation backlog drive"

Is it OK? At this point we dont have the time for long discussions so sooner than later is best, also anyone know now to mass message (I was going to write a prog to do it but thought there are probably rules to exclude people etc)? KylieTastic (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

How about Want to reduce backlog, get good articles out of purgatory, and earn barnstars? Then sign up for the July 2021 Articles for creation backlog drive? –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking maybe {{subst:WPAFCDrive}}, if anyone wanted to update the wording on that, and then send it out to everyone on the AfC participants list, perhaps in addition to your proposed watchlist message? We would be making the request at WT:MMS (or to any friendly mass-message sender who happens to be stopping by this talk page). Enterprisey (talk!) 07:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I had a quick look at WP:MMS (while on a company conference call snooze fest) but we need an admin or template editor to setup a page for a proper list. KylieTastic (talk) 11:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

After a hunt I found we had a couple we can use Wikipedia:Wikiproject articles for creation/active users mailing list or Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Mass Message List. I'll update the list as its out of date later when I get home. KylieTastic (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

• OK I have updated Wikipedia:Wikiproject articles for creation/active users mailing list for all the current listed active participants probationary and I've updated Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Mass Message List for all the inactive. I'm not sure if we need to parse out for blocked users, etc but if not good to go for MM. KylieTastic (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
• I have requested the first one to the active participants list. KylieTastic (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
• I have requested the watchlist message as well.... basically I'm taking the fact that no one said we shouldn't do this that no one had an issue. I'll hold off on inactive in hope of some feedback if that is a good idea? Also anyone else is welcome to post at the other noticeboards. KylieTastic (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

  One thing I've noticed is that folk seem to miss the "JOIN" button, but they will not miss Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/July 2021 Backlog Drive/Participants quite so easily Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 20:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

• Watchlist request denied as participants need to sign up and we have the mass message. I half expected it and was unsure myself if it was the right thing, so alls good. KylieTastic (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

• Mass message worked. Curbon7 (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Other

I only learnt this morning that the drive had started, so my many reviews of the last 5 days won't count, could we not have been messaged before it started? Theroadislong (talk) 09:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

They'll count; if you sign up in the first week, all your reviews from the beginning of the month count. I'm thinking about extending that forwards - i.e. all your reviews for a week before you signed up (during July, of course) will count. I'd extend it further, but I figure that would be too much to re-review - very much open to more opinions, though. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

We could count all participant's reviews from July 1 to July 31 automatically once they sign up. That might simplify things. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree they sign up is surely so those that don't want to participate don't get auto included just for reviewing, but if your on the list at the end all your reviews for the month should count. Otherwise those that didn't already sign up may be discouraged for no reason. The key things is to get as many reviewers to do as many reviews and clear the backlog. KylieTastic (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

• There are five six more volunteers asking to help over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Participants if any passing admin wants to review? KylieTastic (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Jose Morey

I'm a bit on the fence about tagging Draft:Jose Morey with CSD G12. Acoording to earwig, it's a 71% copy of [1]. However, there is some salvageable material in there, although admittedly not a whole lot. WP:G12 says that G12 should only apply when there is no salvageable material. I've already declined it on cv grounds. Thoughts?--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 16:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Trim and request {{revdel}}. To be honest, I would rather have something marked for G12 deletion that only needs some trimming than have something that needs trimming not get marked. In this particular case, though, there were direct copies from about six different locations, and once that information was removed the only thing left was the first sentence of the lead. Primefac (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Locomotive207 and for easy rev deletion requests add this to your common.js (aka "Custom JavaScript" from Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering KylieTastic (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

importScript('User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js' ); // Backlink: User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js - Revision deletion request under 'Move'

If it's more than half copyvio, I usually G12 it. If less than half, I use cv-revdel.js to mark for revdel. And if I delete text and it makes the article look weird, I'll drop a {{section-expand}} placeholder in. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Four Months Cleared

The four-month backlog has been cleared! It had been at a few hundred drafts a few days ago, so obviously there has been a lot of work done it, probably both by a lot of reviewers and a few very busy hard-working reviewers. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• Well done all involved - Another good milestone reached! I had seen it coming down fast the last couple of days, I've just been too busy to join in much. On to the next goal.... KylieTastic (talk) 08:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Joan A. Lambert

This draft is borderline and has two potential problems: the two sources are primary, and some BLP stuff such as birthdate is uncited. However this is a notability pass because they are a state legislator. Out of curiosity, if you ran across this article in the AFC queue, would you accept or decline? If decline, which reason would you give? Personally I'm leaning accept, but I would like to calibrate by hearing your answers. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• Novem Linguae well the BLP was in one of the sources, so I would (and have) fixed the cites to make clear. If not I would have removed the DOB and family names. Passes WP:NPOL but I do hate these utter minimalist stubs, so I would not decline, but I would either look to see if I could add another sentence & ref, or I would leave a comment encouraging the submitter to add a bit more and leave for a bit. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 12:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
• I think it's always good to accept these clear notability passes (after removing unsourced BLP information as necessary), even if they're micro-stubs. A proper stub tag allows anyone interested in (for example) Nevada politicians to find and expand the article, whereas in draftspace the only person likely to work on it is the original draft creator. DanCherek (talk) 12:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
• Novem Linguae actually just noticed the second ref is padding as it does not appear to mention her, and a quick google showed nothing. So this falls into the hole that some will think WP:NPOL is enough and others will say still requires WP:GNG and it fails on that one. As WP:NPOL is currently worded though she passes. KylieTastic (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
• I’ve accepted the draft, I think it likely needs to be expanded but is certainly notable. Eternal Shadow Talk 19:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
• I’ve also added Template:Nevada-politician-stub. Eternal Shadow Talk 19:18, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

2000 \o/

Another fine milestone to check off - and another pat on the back for all those involved - be that 1 review or hundreds.... all count, all help. KylieTastic (talk) 22:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Really wish this hadn't happened during the busiest part of summer for me, but needs must and I'm genuinely happy to see things going as well as they are. Primefac (talk) 01:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Rejected drafts and the AfC help desk

I occasionally answer questions at the AfC help desk. Whenever I do so, I always find "questions" like, for example, this one. These "questions" are blank, and they always stem from drafts that have been rejected outright. Some patient AfC reviewer inevitably replies, but the responses are always ignored. It seems clear to me what is happening. The authors of these questions are used to seeing this template, which tells them that their draft was declined. They know that they're supposed to push the big blue button, resubmitting the draft. This regularly happens several times. So when they see this template, telling them that their draft has been rejected, they intuitively push the big blue button again, creating a blank question at the help desk. (In many cases, this is probably due to a lack of English-language proficiency.) They likely don't even know what they've done, so they certainly can't be expected to see any responses to their questions. Perhaps it would be better to get rid of the big blue button in the rejection template and replace it with a smaller link. Most people don't need to inquire at the help desk at all, and those that do will be able to find their way with a smaller link as well. I'd appreciate thoughts: it seems that minimizing accidental inquiries is a good way to ensure that the scarce time of our reviewers is directed toward people who are actually looking for help. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Happy to make changes if folks agree with you. Primefac (talk) 22:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Extraordinary Writ, I agree that it should probably be changed with the link to help desk being inline in the template instead of a big blue button. I literally made a template (Template:AFCHD/r) because of how often we repeat the phrase "The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further." Curbon7 (talk) 01:31, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I support getting rid of the button as well if it is both causing nuisance entries at the help desk and giving false hope indicated below at #rejection template. -2pou (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

rejection template

I don’t know if this has been bought up before, I can't find anything in the archives. When we reject a draft, the pretty pink box has a blue button which says “Ask for advice” when the user does this they are invariably told by us that “The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further” wouldn’t it be simpler for the pink rejection box to say this, rather than building up hopes of a different outcome? Theroadislong (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I think this same thing came up above in #Rejected drafts and the AfC help desk. Looks like additional consensus is building to update the template. I agree, so I will post there as well. -2pou (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh well spotted how did I miss that! Sorry, too hot here to even think. Theroadislong (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

A Thread at WP:ANI

There is a thread at WP:ANI that should not and probably will not amount to anything. A paid editor has complained that User:Timtrent is hounding them. This appears to me to be one of those cases where a paid editor thinks that they are a manager and that they have the privilege of supervising volunteer employees, and that they can report us to our bosses if we do not support them. There are at least two possible responses to the thread. Ignore it, or pile on the Original Poster. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that we do not need to pile on for the sake of piling on. Please evaluate the thread if that's your interest and comment honestly. This is the specific thread if you want to more easily find it. Primefac (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

As the reviewer complained about please do not participate for the sake of (eg) supporting me. I'm old enough and ugly enough to be able to support myself. If you have a genuine interest in the thread please follow Primefac's excellent advice Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

G5 thoughts?

So, I encountered a draft that I now suspect is coming from a Sock IP, and I'll open an investigation, but I was curious what people's thoughts were on potential G5 articles being submitted through AFC. Looking at WP:G5, a key phrase is "and that have no substantial edits by others". Before I realized that this might be a G5, it seemed ready to accept, but only when I dug pretty deep into the previous G5 deletions and similar Drafts, did I actually think it might be a sock IP. Had I not dug into it and accepted the draft, that would have been a fairly "substantial edit" by someone else, making it G5 ineligible. The question now is do I pursue a G5 deletion of a topic that I feel meets the criteria of having an article just because of who created it, or should it be evaluated as if I had never known? Thoughts? -2pou (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@2pou: WP:SOCKSTRIKE says, "It isn't necessary or desirable to try to revert every single article edit the sock puppet has ever made ... If they have recently created articles and the master account was previously blocked, you can tag them for speedy deletion with criterion G5 ... The goal isn't to punish the sock puppet, it is to take away the reward for violating policy. At the same time, we aren't trying to be pointy about it and there is no simple set of rules telling us when to and when not to delete, so experience and good judgement are required."

I would weigh how disruptive the sock has been, in what way they've been disruptive, and the probability that someone else soon will create just as good a draft on the topic. If they created an acceptable draft about an obscure topic, their block has nothing to do with creating articles, and they got caught up in sockpuppetry in ignorance or a moment of passion, I'd be more likely to accept it. If they created an article about, say, an upcoming major motion picture, are blocked for persistent problems related to the creation of such articles, and have a long history of attempting to evade their block with full knowledge that doing so is a policy violation, then I'd likely G5 it. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Moon Tae-il

Will another reviewer please either take a look at this draft or decide that it can wait until we deal with the three-month-old drafts? There is an odd special case that is the fault of the submitter. The submitter registered with a username that was almost identical to the name of the subject of the draft, a member of a K-pop boy band. Their draft was tagged as an autobiography, and I then declined it twice as not showing that the subject is individually notable separate from the group. The author then changed their username. I don't know whether they objected to the autobiography tag, or what preceded the name change. They have now resubmitted the draft a third time. I will sit this submission cycle out. Will someone please review it? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, according to the user's talk page, they are a fan of him. AGF-ing on that. I have rejected the draft as I feel that he has yet to achieve individual notability, unless being featured in others' songs multiple times is counted. – robertsky (talk) 09:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. This was an odd case that I occasionally encounter, which is an editor who has taken the name of a celebrity, and then takes issue with the tagging of a draft as an autobiography. Sometimes, as in this case, they are a fan, and they didn't realize that taking the name of a celebrity is only permitted if you are the celebrity. Sometimes the editor seems to be genuinely confused as to the difference between username and article name. In this case, their error was initially a contributing factor in having the article declined, and they changed their name, and the article was still declined due to lack of individual notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

A point as to terminology, User:Robertsky. You declined the article. You did not reject it. I agree with the decline and think that rejection would have been incorrect, because the subject might be individually notable in the future, e.g., by making a solo recording that charts. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, oh yeah. i mixed up the terms. haha. – robertsky (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Error while saving Draft:Alpha Morgan: "spamblacklist"

I've tried multiple times to use AFCH to decline Draft:Alpha Morgan but each time the save errors with the message Error while saving Draft:Alpha Morgan: "spamblacklist" - has anyone had a similar issue on other drafts? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:51, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Curb Safe Charmer, check out the spam blacklist log. Seems like there are some references being blacklisted. – robertsky (talk) 11:37, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Published an article which already existed

Hi all, I just improved and accepted the draft for Raina Llewellyn and then noticed that her first name as spelt in the article is actually "Rania". I tried to move the newly published article to the correct spelling but there's already an article there. Ideally I'd like to have Rania Llewellyn replaced with the article I've just improved and accepted, and the page I've published named "Raina" should be deleted. Can anyone here help with this? TIA! MurielMary (talk) 07:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@MurielMary May I suggest flagging it as a Requested Move? Of course a page mover or an admin may come to your aid first. I am not sure whether some form of history merge might be required. @Primefac is a great editor to ask about that Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I haven't looked into the matter, but it was listed for histmerge and then declined by another admin (and I really don't feel like dealing with him this weekend), so it sounds like a merge is what's required. Primefac (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Nalas Mandir

Draft:Nalas Mandir appears notable due to its historical significances as mentioned in sources, however it is created by a sock and I am not sure how to deal with this AfC submission. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The master was not blocked when the draft was created, so WP:G5 is not valid. Primefac (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Primefac, Thanks TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

1500 \o/

Getting the backlog down even further! Onward and downward! Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Keeping COI/AUTO/PAID tags on articles post-acceptance

Howdy everybody! Special congrats to everybody doing all the hard work in the trenches here. I had a bit of a question. As we continue our slog, we are going to run into some of our more prolific PAID users' entries (Ovedc, Quaenuncabibis, etc.). If an article is accepted into mainspace, and was either previously or post-facto tagged as COI or AUTO (problems I've run into from time to time myself), should the tags remain when the article is in mainspace? I would say "yes, of course", but I had a user come to my talk page and argued otherwise:

Hi. You left a COI template on Draft:John Vogelstein. I have removed it because prior to your posting this template I had already declared my COI on the Talk page at: [2] and on my user profile at User:Fvogelstein, thus fully complying with WP:COIEDIT. In addition, I have submitted this article on AfC rather than publishing it directly - and one the main purpose of AfC is for editors with a COI to get an independent review. This article has been very thoroughly researched. If you have any suggestions, I’d be glad to work with you. Many thanks. Fvogelstein (talk) 23:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe it's pettiness (having those articles wear a Scarlet Letter that they were done for motives contrary to the volunteer-nature of the project) or maybe it's a CYA attempt just in case a different editor (perhaps NPP) sees something POV I don't in the text. I'd love to get people's thoughts on the matter, including @Onel5969:, who sees things from the NPP end of the spectrum. Bkissin (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bkissin: I think I have left some on in the past (especially when it wasn't declared), but more recently, if I truly feel that it has been written in a neutral tone, I will remove and add a {{Connected contributor (paid)}} or {{Connected contributor}} template to the Talk page and fill in the information stating when I reviewed it and that I felt it was neutral (e.g. Talk:Fu Xiaotian and Talk:Varjo - some other editor disagreed with me and tagged the former as sounding like an ad still, but that's all in the eye of the beholder, so I did not remove their tag). I'd actually argue that the main page tag should not be removed unless a similar talk page template replaces it. -2pou (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• If there are still issues with the articles neutrality keep the tag, if not remove (and tag talk page). If there are no issues with the article having the tag has a negative impact on the reader. If an subject is deemed notable but the article has some problems (but not enough to decline) I would rather take a scythe to the content and have a smaller non-tagged article than accept and keep content requiring the tag to remain. I would also say that I would also keep the article on my watchlist for longer. KylieTastic (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Autobiographical articles

I have encountered a number of cases where the main author turned out to have a conflict of interests, and in two cases, they were writing a biographical article about themselves. I know that this is generally deprecated, but if a person with a conflict of interests declares it and can show notability, my understaning is that it is not forbidden. However, I think if there is a CoI you have to be doubly scrupulous about notability issues and sourcing. This afternoon I declined Draft:Linda Waite on these grounds: she declared on her userpage that she was Linda Waite, but not on the article talk page. I would probably have declined it due to sourcing anyway. Now I encounter exactly the same thing with Draft:Joseph Rogers (neuroscientist). I was inclined to accept this one, until I noticed. How critical do you think this is? --Doric Loon (talk) 21:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

BTW, I meant to add: I notice that CoI is not one of the options we can choose as an explanation for declining an article. Is that an indication that we shouldn't be worrying about this in AfC, or is this something that needs to be added to the helper script? --Doric Loon (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Doric Loon, COI mainspace articles are shunted to draftspace generally by NPP reviewers, usually with a message along the lines that COI articles have to be checked by AfC reviewers first. If the draft passes the general review workflow, albeit with greater scrutiny/stricter checks (after all, they have to work for their worth, especially if they are paid to write), personally I will accept the submission. I usually would add the declaration on the article's talk page as well if it is missing. – robertsky (talk) 01:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:COIEDIT, COI editors are only supposed to create articles via AFC. So AFC is actually the natural place for these articles. It's fully allowed and within policy. But yes, these articles tend to have issues. My most common decline reason for COI articles is "npov". There are often big WP:UNDUE issues, with a bunch of unimportant, uncited details in these articles. When an insider writes about something, they have a tendency to include details that reliable sources such as newspapers and books would not care about. Declining for npov is how I like to handle it. I'm happy to hear how others tend to handle COI. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with User:Novem Linguae that 'npov' is usually the best way to deal with COI (if the subject is notable). Robert McClenon (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, yes, COI is not a valid reason to decline, NPOV is. Keep in mind that these contributors, due to their COI, will have a hard time fixing NPOV issues. If the subject is notable, the most productive way forward may be to WP:STUBIFY then accept the draft. ~Kvng (talk) 02:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Just to pile on with the above, COI by itself is not a reason to decline a draft; if an autobiography is well-written, well-sourced, and generally meets our guidelines, then good on the author for writing such a good article! Primefac (talk) 11:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Primefac, No, I don't think Wikipedia should ever encourage or congratulate an autobiographer WP:AUTOBIO ~Kvng (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Primefac, User:Kvng - I think that I have only ever once seen what I thought was a decent autobiography, and, on further thinking, it probably was not exactly an autobiography. It was about and by a senior US government official. On further thinking about it, it had very likely been written by his technical writer for the government web site. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

It's definitely not often it occurs, I will give you that. Primefac (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

It's a very rare thing, but I have personally worked with and accepted the drafts of at least two subjects writing their own article, and it is something we should applaud because it is so difficult to do properly. Shitting on someone just because they accomplished something difficult is a bad philosophy. Primefac (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Defunct Malaysian electoral constituency articles

The following discussion 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.

---

Onel5969 moved all these to draft space for lack of sourcing [3]. The creator resubmitted them with no changes; I had rejected them as still lacking sourcing [4]. The article creator has blanked their talk page [5] where the rejections were displayed and recreated the articles in main space while placing redirects on the draft space articles (eg [6]). They still lack sourcing and the single source in each article does not match the information claimed. The articles have all been reviewed as accepted at NPP (albeit tagged for sourcing). Suggestions? Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I've left a message for the involved NPP-er on their talk page and directed them to this discussion. --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I reviewed these because my sense was that defunct constituencies in any parliamentary system are considered notable. The single source was to an official government website which I looked at too quickly and clearly it doesn’t support the article content. Since the topics were inherently notable and further sources would certainly be findable eg.in local press I thought it made sense to pass them. I don’t think they can go back to draft over the objection of the creator. If they are left in the queue they will eventually be indexed anyway. If they go to AfD a BEFORE will be necessary which will of course turn up sources so the NPP reviewer will end up doing the creator’s work. I’m happy to unreview them all if that’s the view of what is appropriate. Mccapra (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mccapra - I thought the same thing, but when I did a BEFORE on about half a dozen of them, I could find no indication they actually ever existed. For example, I just rechecked the first two still in the NPP queue, Wellesley North (federal constituency) and Penang Island (federal constituency). Unfortunately I agree with you and the only step left is to take them all to AfD. If I have an hour or so today, I'll do a multiple AfD on them. The other potential alternative is to take the editor to ANI, which I hate doing, because they seem unwilling to engage in useful discourse. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

ok I’ll do some checks myself this evening. Sorry to make work for everyone. Mccapra (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

“ and recreated the articles in main space” implies that the editor declines to use draftspace and AfC. Draftspace and AfC are optional, and you must not edit war or move war to force them to use draftspace or AfC. The answer is WP:AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I just checked for Wellesley North and found these (they don’t show properly in snippet view):

• The United Malays National Organization and the 1959 ...

books.google.co.uk › books

Daniel Eldredge Moore · 1960 · ‎Snippet view ... critical constituencies , where Chinese and Malay voters were nearly balanced , shows a scrupulous concern for fairness of division . Examples include : 9Loc . cit . 1 1955 Constituency 1959 Division Wellesley North Malay Voters 5,678 375.

And

• His Majesty's government gazette - Page 333

books.google.co.uk › books

Malaya · 1958 · ‎Snippet view · ‎More editions Malaya. L.N. 280 , ELECTIONS ORDINANCE , 1958 ORDER UNDER SECTION 6 - PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES In exercise of the powers conferred by section 6 of the ... Ordinance , 1958 , the Election Commission hereby makes the following order : 1 . ... WELLESLEY NORTH Parliamentary Constituency No.

I’ll check on others but my guess is they did exist and there are sources. Mccapra (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I also just picked Trengganu Selatan from the list and found this. So it’s pretty clear they existed and there are sources, mostly not easily discoverable online. In some cases the names will overlap with more recent constituencies or local government units which makes searching less easy. But I think if these go to AfD the result will be to keep them. Mccapra (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Mccapra, I'll take another look at all of them. Thanks for the effort. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Just back at the desk and checked another couple randomly - Kinta Utara and Ipoh-Menglembu. Both check out - they're kosher and there are sources. Mccapra (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Mccapra, Onel5969 thank you for all the follow up here. My sense was these were not hoax articles and agree that they are notable; just unfortunately lacking sources and the one that was there was false, which made me stop at returning them to main space. Fully agree with your approaches here (especially not going to ANI - the editor may not be collaborative, but they are not (as yet) creating false information). Feel free to ping me if I can help any further. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

PPP001

I have started a thread at WP:ANI. The thread is not about the former electoral districts. The electoral districts are notable if verified. The lack of verification is the issue with the articles. The WP:ANI thread is about the banner that the author had on their user talk page, which said not to put any communication on their talk page. I of course became aware of the strange banner on their talk page because I was looking at the drafts and articles, but this is a case of I didn't hear that (because I have cotton in my ears). Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with User:Onel5969 that the editor seems unwilling to engage in discourse, and so I have taken them to WP:ANI, not about the articles, but because they won't engage in discourse. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The user has been blocked for 72 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

and there actions since make it look like that will become permanent soon enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KylieTastic (talk • contribs)

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.

Draft:Ed Schilling

Not sure what to do with this one. I lean towards accepting, though the notability isn’t a sure thing. Would like consensus before making a review. Eternal Shadow Talk 18:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Looks like it was accepted (oddly) by Rikster2. Primefac (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes - I did make (and correct) a mistake when accepting. Thanks for pointing it out ;-). The subject meets WP:NCOLLATH as an NCAA division I head basketball coach (Wright State). I can add more references but don't see a notability concern. Rikster2 (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

We cleared the THREE MONTHS Category just now \0/

Well done everyone.

How low can we get it? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 07:50, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think I've ever seen it this low - new territory indeed. KylieTastic (talk) 08:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

  I will be handing out a cookie to the editor who is first to drive the backlog to 666. nearlyevil665 08:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Fantastic achievement, truly. — Bilorv (talk) 11:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

August Editathons at Women in Red

Women in Red | August 2021, Volume 7, Issue 8, Numbers 184, 188, 204, 205, 206, 207 Online events: New: Indigenous women | Women's leadership & empowerment Contest (Jul/Aug/Sep): Latin America contest Continuing: Olympic & Paralympic Games | Women's rights | #1day1woman See also: Interwiki Women Collaboration Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help plan and coordinate future events. Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Passes GNG but I just don't think it belongs

Draft:Robot Robin is about a robot built by a teenager in Bangladesh. He has certainly garnered the attention of the media - while probably half are churnalism I reckon there are probably WP:THREE. I want to decline as NN but is that valid if GNG is met? I can't see it surviving AfD. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I have had the same concerns Curb Safe Charmer. I think the two options are: Decline as NN and risk a resubmission, or accept it and immediately send it to AfD for their judgement. Bkissin (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bkissin and Curb Safe Charmer: for what reason(s) do you think this would be deleted? ~Kvng (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kvng: In western countries a kid's school science project would not be news. This is not the development of a serious robot. As I understand it, he has not pioneered any new techniques, just followed instructions available on the web. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Shuvo Karmaker is even worse in that it's WP:BLP1E for it. SPA, with suspicious username? DMacks (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Curb Safe Charmer, But it's not a western kid from a wealthy school with a state of the art robotics lab. The press coverage to satisfy GNG exists. Systemic bias is not a valid decline reason. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Curb Safe Charmer, I'm pretty sure an argument like that would not fly at AfD ~Kvng (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Just on a practical note, there are massive CITEKILL and tone issues that need dealing with, even if it were to be accepted. I would decline as adv because it's too "oh look at that, isn't it amazing!".Primefac (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Primefac, in my judgment neither of these issues are likely to get the article deleted at WP:AFD - both can be fixed in such a short article with reasonable effort. Do you disagree? Shouldn't drafts WP:LIKELY to survive AfD be accepted by AfC reviewers? ~Kvng (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

My concern is more G11, actually. Primefac (talk) 19:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• At first I thought it was just a single piece of news doing the rounds on a slow news week so WP:BLP1E, but the refs cover several months and have some diversity in reporting. However it does seem nout more than a school project and the video ref makes it look even more so. However maybe as Dodger67 suggests this is viewing from western eyes and being biased which we should be conscious of. I would personally not accept it, but only because I choose not to accept articles I find not encyclopedic worthy to my own standards, but I also would not decline or vote delete in a AfD if Kvng, Dodger67 or whoever accepted. KylieTastic (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Vagueness of GNG

The title of this thread is "Passes GNG but I just don't think it belongs". Am I correct that the real concern is that GNG is both a subjective guideline and the all-encompassing guideline for almost all subjects? So is the concern really that the draft appears to pass GNG, but that the reviewer has doubts about whether it should be in the encyclopedia? GNG says, basically, that there should be significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The problem with GNG is that significant coverage is itself vague. So is the real question one of how to construe SIGCOV?

The issue in many contentious AFDs, including some that go to Deletion Review, is how to interpret significant coverage.

If so, I think that one of the main little-recognized content issues in Wikipedia is how to interpret significant coverage. I am inclined to demand a high standard of significant coverage for twenty-first century subjects where there may be either promotionalism or recentism, and to accept a lot of stuff from the nineteenth and earlier centuries. If we agree that the real issue is what is significant coverage, then we at least agree on what the real issue is, and can continue the discussion at Village Pump or Deletion Review. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that the GNG is "vague", that is not quite the right word. The GNG is mostly objective, albeit with buried subjectivity. If you don't like the subjectivity of "significant coverage", I encourage you to adopt a low level objective measure, for example Wikipedia:One hundred words. Don't ever tell a new person that 100 words is enough, but I think it is acceptable to say that if multiple sources give over 100 words each of coverage, then it is worth an AfD discussion.

I think the "vague" thing about the GNG is that it doesn't always apply. It does not apply to WP:PROF passes. It is not actively demanded to apply to ancient historical topics, or to topics in the natural sciences, like a plant variant found only on one South Pacific island, where a single reliable verification is sufficient for the WP:Stub to live forever. It does most certainly apply to currently trading commercial companies and their products and CEOs. It applies to FRINGE science topics, but not natural science topics, which sounds like there will be vagueness boundary, but I think there never is.

In the end, the GNG is just a predictor of whether the topic will be kept if challenged and taken to AfD. I have studied it intently for 15 years, and I think it is robust and accurate, but with more nuances and caveats than you might believe. When there is uncertainty about the meaning of the GNG to a particular article, the answer is WP:AfD. Wait for someone with a strong negative opinion on the article to nominate it at AfD and then participate in the discussion with the objective of learning what other people think. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Subjectivity of GNG and AFD

I have read what User:SmokeyJoe has written about how he partly disagrees with me in complaining that the general notability guideline is vague. I have read it at least three times, and I still think either that I don't understand what he has written, or that what he has written has a good-faith circular aspect to it. He writes: "In the end, the GNG is just a predictor of whether the topic will be kept if challenged and taken to AfD." Yes. I agree, and that is what is wrong with GNG. It is a predictor of whether the topic will be kept if taken to AFD. It should be a criterion for whether the topic will be kept if taken to AFD. As a reviewer at AFC, I am asked to guess whether there is at least a 50% chance that the draft will be kept at AFD. As a participant at AFD, I am being asked to base my judgment on: What? An AFC reviewer with enough experience at AFD can usually guess what will be kept at AFD. But that means that the editors at AFD are applying a subjective standard.

SmokeyJoe says that GNG doesn't always apply. That is true, and those cases are not vague, and are sufficiently clear, but are not involved in the issue I am discussing. The vagueness about which I was complaining does not have to do with the exceptions to GNG, but with when GNG is the only guideline. Perhaps User:SmokeyJoe is saying that there are sort of unwritten rules that characterize outcomes at AFD. In fact, often these rules are recorded after the fact as outcome essays. Maybe that is a reason why some of the outcome essays should be upgraded to notability guidelines.

Have I missed something in what SmokeyJoe has written, or am I mostly correct that GNG often isn't self-explanatory because the AFD criteria are not self-explanatory and are themselves often subjective? Perhaps SmokeyJoe can re-explain what he is saying and why it does not constitute circular reasoning, or perhaps he can acknowledge that we do have a degree of circularity, which is another way of saying that the general notability criterion and significant coverage are subjective or vague. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Robert,

Is the GNG "vague"? I think, sort of, not exactly. It is complicated.

The GNG is just a predictor of the AfD result. However, many at AfD try to take the GNG as gospel. However, AfD is where the decision is made.

The GNG should be a criterion? Well, it is. Does the topic have two independent secondary sources that discuss the topic directly and in depth? That's a "yes" or a "no". If "no", then merge or delete.

"An AFC reviewer with enough experience at AFD can usually guess" AfC reviewers should get enough experience at AfD before trying AfC. If you have some misconceptions, AfD is much better for you receiving correction from your peers. AfD is a group actvity, but AfC is mostly about the reviewer exercising judgement unilaterally.

The vagueness, that Robert wants to talk about, is when GNG is the only guideline. OK. I am very happy to talk about this. I have views, view with which many have agreed, and some have disagreed. I have made effort to refine my views to be both self-consistent, and to be aligned with the typical results at AfD. I note, importantly, that the typical results of AfD do not align with the most frequent comments, as unhappy people make more talk page posts.

Are there unwritten rules that characterize outcomes at AFD. I think "no", in that there are not rules. Unless you mean "rules of thumb", and in this case still "no", because so much has been written about AfD that I think every plausible rule of thumb about AfD exists in at least one essay. Eg the outcome essays. Eg Category:Wikipedia deletion essays.

Have you missed something? I don't think so. Maybe there is indeed flawed and circular logic integral in Wikipedia notability. Another rationalisation I have tried is: There has to be a limit to what is allowed to be included as an article, and wherever that limit is, there will be difficult cases near the edge that can't be well explained.

Perhaps SmokeyJoe can re-explain what he is saying? Perhaps Robert can ask a simpler question?

I mentioned "self consistent" as something I try for. A feature of when you try for self consistency is that you can settle into circular reasoning. I think circular reasoning should be avoided, and if you can identify a case, please point it out.

I think the GNG is well enough explained, and that the difficulty comes from people trying to Wikilawyer out of it, or by enthusiastic selective blindness.

I think that AFD does not really depend on criteria, but instead depends on that nebulous concept of WP:Consensus, and on decisions being made by the people who choose to turn up.

It has often been said that the GNG does not have to rigorously logical, because it is only a guideline. However, it is peculiar as a guideline in that it is explicitly listed at WP:DEL as something to be enforced by deletion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

AfC -> NPP

Hoping someone can enlighten me: what's the protocol for an NPP review following acceptance at AfC? Assuming one has the tools, can the editor who has accepted an AfC also complete the NPP review? I'm guessing there have been debates over whether this should be streamlined and it was decided against? Apologies for asking questions probably already answered elsewhere, but I tried searching the archives for answers, but to no avail. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

There's definitely no mention of it at the WP:NPP page, which I studied thoroughly in NPP school. I assume it is not against the rules. I tend to both AFC accept and NPP mark as reviewed 1) if I have time (takes a good 20-30 mins sometimes to properly do both) and 2) if I'm am 100% sure it's notable. If notability is borderline, sometimes I'll AFC accept and then leave it NPP unreviewed for a 2nd opinion. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Having both NPP and autopatrolled rights, my universal practice is to mark pages as unreviewed once I've moved them to the mainspace. In addition to the obvious conflict of interest (protecting one's AfC decision etc.), I think it's always good to run new articles by the NPP people just to get a second pair of eyes. I think it's absolutely necessary to do this in borderline cases as described by Novel Linguae. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 04:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I used to not do the NPP checks and tick when I AfC accepted, but then one day someone complained about AfC-accepted articles left sitting in the unreviewed queue. I wasn't named, but felt chastised, and every since I try to remember to the the NPP things on every accept. I had worried about the NPP bias of being the AfC acceptor, of course you are going to approve because you just approved. However, this is not about independent review, but having an experienced person cast a cursory check to keep junk out of mainspace. The AfC check is actually more effort in my experience, and having put in the effort to understand the article and its references, I think I am obviously qualified to judge the page as acceptable for mainspace. I decided that leaving the new article for an independent review is not an efficient practice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses ... they all express my initial senses in different ways... I had proceeded on the basis as SmokeyJoe described ... but after a couple I did wonder should there be a second set of eyes? I'm wondering could a piece of code be added to AFCH which would allow an editor, who is also an NPPer, to check as patrolled as well? This way it wouldn't be automatic and anytime an editor wanted a second set of eyes they could always leave the box unchecked to go in the queue .... just thinking about this drive alone, we've probably added 700-800 to the NPP queue... it does seem a rare case of going through AfC but failing at NPP. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 07:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Goldsztajn if you have the "autopatrolled" permission then accepted articles are automatically marked patrolled. We have discussed that before and some said they always unmark for a second set of eyes, and others just sometimes. I take the mixed approach and leave as patrolled if I'm confident its good so as not to burden NPP, but for some I unmark to get a second look-over. It also depends on your review style, I tend to do a fair amount of tidy-up, tagging etc but some prefer to just get notable articles moved out and leave to the gnomes and NPP to tidy up. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 10:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi KylieTastic, yes, very good point, I should have realised autopatrol status would solve exactly the problem I'm mentioning ... so very much a case of nothing broken, don't fix it. Anyway, appreciate everyone's comments. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I always un-mark my accepts so that there are a second set of eyes. I do this primarily because I deal with the back-of-the-queue and/or slightly-questionable accepts, so I want a second set of eyes more than any sort of formal "we should do it X way" way. Primefac (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

If I review something at AfC that I would not accept at NPP, I often silently pass it over, or just make an AfC comment. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:56, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

What We Didn't Do

The plan for the backlog drive, based on previous backlog drives more than five years ago, included a provision for re-reviews. To the best of my knowledge, we haven't done re-reviews. We have instead did very very many many reviews. Am I correct that we didn't do re-reviews? If so, we did all right without re-reviews. If we have another backlog drive, will we fill in the provision for re-reviews, or will we decide that we did all right without them? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

We have done some re-reviews, though not as many as was probably intended. The procedure is described at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/July 2021 Backlog Drive#Reviewing Reviews. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon I have done many re-reviews and been very pleasantly surprised with the high quality. I have found very few indeed that I would have reviewed differently (still a pass), and fewer still that I classed "fail"

This drive has had many teething troubles. @Enterprisey has been working at reducing them all. I imagine some are more tractable than others. Had they been able to get the points based leaderboard up and running in the early stages as well as the re-reviews tables, we would be in a different place. I think, though, that this depends on bot approval, which is a process that takes time.

So many years had elapsed that I find it amazing that they were able to pick up someone else's system, make it work again and get us as far as they have.

Oh, I've reviewed one of yours. It was a pass. Not unexpected 🎂 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 06:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure where they are logged/counted, but I have done about 60 re-reviews so far almost all were passes. Theroadislong (talk) 07:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

We’re down to nearly 1,000 submissions remaining

Congratulations and great job everyone! Further downward! Eternal Shadow Talk 01:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• And now under the line (983 as of time of writing)! When was the last time it was this low? I've been reviewing here in dribs and drabs since 2015, and more actively since 2018/2019, and the lowest I remember it being is just shy of 2000. Once this drive is over, there'll be new work in fighting to keep it under 1000, but that's so much better than when we hit 5500 reviews and were growing without limit. An incredible achievement on the part of everybody who's come through in this backlog drive. Surpassed my greatest expectations—but let's keep pushing in this last week of it. — Bilorv (talk) 11:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

  June 2018 we had 1100 submissions pending. Primefac (talk) 12:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

  Yup, if I remember correctly we nearly got it down to 1000, then it bounced back hard and was already double that by August. I remember as I took a break for a few months then after abusive submitters just wore me down. KylieTastic (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

  Looking at it, I'm not sure the historical data is there, but you might have to go a while back before June 2018 to hit 3 digits properly. And, though this is a little silly, Category:Pending AfC submissions has the {{Backlog}} template set to report us as backlogged when there are at least 1000 submissions, so we're finally no longer backlogged by that metric. — Bilorv (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  You are correct that there isn't any historical data (at least that I know of or can find), but looking at my records and some of the discussions I had around the time with folks, I believe we were sub-1000 in early 2017; I started keeping track of such things in Oct 2017 when we were at ~1300 pending and I vaguely remember it's because our numbers started getting that large. Primefac (talk) 11:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for the info, good to know. — Bilorv (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Eternal Shadow, yay!!! Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• First time I've seen over 10000 reviews in a month (plus an an estimated 1500 deleted ones) KylieTastic (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

  Nice! The all-time record (that I know of) was 10618 in October 2018, so there are still a few days left to beat it! Primefac (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

  • User:KylieTastic - What are deleted reviews? Does that mean reviews of a draft that itself was then deleted? If so, I would assume that by far the most common reason for deletion would be G11, when the reviewer both declines the draft as 'adv' or rejects it, and tags it for speedy? If so, 1500 deleted reviews means that we had a lot of spam in the queue. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Hey Robert McClenon it's based on this query that looks at the number of times a user page has a 'declined' message (by edit comment) compared with the number of articles with AfC decline or reject edit summaries. It is rough, but unless someone is adding user talk page messages with edit summaries starting 'declined (' it should be a good bottom limit do the number deleted. I don't have data, as admin level is required, but from my experience its a mix of G11 (spam) and G12 (copy vio). In my case the ones I flag for G11/G12 are probably less than half of my deleted reviews, most come form others CSDing after or before review. Cheers KylieTastic (talk)

Way to go everybody! We've all done great work. I feel like early in the pandemic we got down to about 1400, but then it went back up. Hopefully as we continue to go down, we are also able to keep the number of articles under control. Bkissin (talk) 01:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Amazing job everyone!

I have to honestly say since I started looking at the backlog a year-ish so ago I never thought the outstanding submissions would ever fall below 2,000. Many of of you have been plugging away for months (years perhaps?) just watching the numbers rise with no resolution in sight. Great teamwork and an amazing job everyone!!! S0091 (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

We hit 800 \o/

Not many days to go, but a backlog of 800 (as I write) is excellent. Everyone has done a great job so far. Let's not let up. New submissions arrive all the time

Can we empty the 2 months section? 121 as I write. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 07:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

It’s possible, if not likely. Down to 85 now. Eternal Shadow Talk 17:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Down to 24 but a lot of "Translated from Serbian Wikipedia" ones KylieTastic (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I will take a look at the Serbian articles if someone will look at FA's articles. Bkissin (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Bkissin I have been going through their politician ones and fixed up till acceptable, but I avoid most the rest especially the film related. At least they are down from 150 to 23 - nearly even within there mandated max again. KylieTastic (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

KylieTastic you are a saint going through all that work to make these quality articles! They (the politician articles) are for the most part presumed notable, but verifiability and sourcing are key concerns (on top of the spelling/grammar errors and their length, of course). I have been burned before with accepting hoax articles early in my AfC life, so I warn because I care. LOL

What I worry about with the Serbian articles is, given the contentiousness of that region, especially around issues of ethnicity and history that some of the articles on generals and soldiers may have a nationalist POV. I'll go in and try and fix the lion's share of the bare link issues and many of the articles should be good to accept. I'll tag those that may need a closer look for POV. Bkissin (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bkissin User:BrandonXLF/ReferenceExpander is great for fixing bare links. ―Qwerfjkltalk 17:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Teetering on the brink of crushing the 500 Draft backlog

It gets close, but keeps bouncing back. ~200 per day arrive. Whac-A-Mole gets most of them fast, some persist as being hard, but we're used to hard.

The 2 months category had 7 left last time I checked. We have to be able to clear seven. I've done about seven of those this morning, but am getting jaded. Who'll accept or decline the remaining ones in this category. Remember, >50% chance of survival means we accept. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 07:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

just done the last 5. Theroadislong (talk) 10:07, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Theroadislong I bow in supplication! Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 10:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Now 497 reviews, so officially sub-500. Incredible! — Bilorv (talk) 12:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Only 8 left i the oldest cat now.

Who's up for it? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Since you guys are running out of work to do, you might want to lend a hand at WP:SPI. We're no stranger to backlogs ourselves :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 17:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@RoySmith don't you need to be reasonably grown up to play at SPI? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Depends which side you're playing on :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes it's hard to not let some editors get you down...

When someone writes a two sentence/three source meh article you expect to just decline and move on. But no, apparently from their user page and comments they are a much published person and a writer of "real" encyclopedia content, but they are too important to improve themselves or leave, but have the time to rant about how they don't have the time!. Now we've had days of rants and lies first on my user page, then AfC help desk, then the Teahouse and several others user pages. Even after having someone else do the work for them and improve the article and get it moved to main-space they still blame everyone else. But we should be scared because they have been editing for 15 years and threaten to stop... or as others would put it 878 edits including promoting yourself who cares! I have held off from responding to their blatant lies, but still it's takes time for me to shrug such things off. Which is partially why I haven't been reviewing as much recently, and don't feel inclined to do much more. Sorry to those that got dragged down into this, sorry for not helping push to 'cleared' and thanks to those than stood up for me. Cheers KylieTastic (talk)

I sympathise, their belligerent behaviour has been appalling, chin up! Theroadislong (talk) 20:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@KylieTastic: I missed all the funshitstorm. But never, not ever, let folk who behave like this get you down. Walk away with dignity and enjoy doing somethingh else, anything else. Nil illegitimi carborundum. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 20:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

8 Weeks Cleared

The 8-weeks backlog category has now been cleared. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

7 Week Backlog Category Cleared

The 7-week backlog has been cleared. I didn't do it. I was working on it, and then went to work out, and then it was gone. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I snuck in there and did the last 7 Theroadislong (talk) 07:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Eyes on Draft:Herald.Wales please

The creating editor (PembsBoi69) is discussing my decline with me on my talk page, and I see they and I will not agree. Please will other eyes look at this draft with a view to assisting the editor Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Timtrent I would rather get it into a shape where you can agree and the article can be published, unfortunately I am unable to provide you with more references than I have without resorting to in-house articles which would be counter-productive. Thank you for requesting assistance for me though, I appreciate all feedback you have offered so far.PembsBoi69 (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@PembsBoi69 I think we are at a point where other eyes are needed. There is no deadline. My role is to accept drafts where I believe there to be a better than 50% chance of their surviving an immediate deletion decision. My call is that it has a worse than 50% chance. Other reviewers may well disagree with me, which is why I try very hard indeed never to review more than once. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@PembsBoi69: I think Timtrent's decline is reasonable. The draft isn't showing that there's much to talk about with regards to the subject—a long quote from the political editor is not good (we're not a press release platform) and I'm not seeing some basic facts like circulation figures or the concrete steps that led to its founding. If there aren't more sources that are about Herald.Wales then it may just be that the topic is not notable, in which case no amount of discussion and no amount of work on your behalf can change that. Wikipedia has a specific and limited goal. — Bilorv (talk) 15:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv Hello, I have taken your feedback onboard and "beefed-up" the section that talks about the founding of the news service with relevant, external sources. We cannot provide circulation figures as we do not create a physical product. I know you don't particularly welcome comparison's to other articles, however in comparison with competing welsh news services, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_National_(Wales), we feel that ours is now as in-depth as theirs, a page that has been up and running for months with little issue.... PembsBoi69 (talk) 10:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

a Backlog of 392 - IMPRESSIVE \o/

That is as I post this.

7 weeks current maximum to get a review or a re-review.

A shedload of reviewers all dooming what they can, when they can

Teething troubles have not put us off, though have confused a few of us

Unsung hero - @Enterprisey who gets too little public acknowledgement for their behind the scenes work and is being voted a Gold Wiki Award, a mere token of our gratitude (See drive talk page)

Heavy lifters? Have a look at the drive page. Boy have some folk worked hard!

Only done a couple? That's fine, too. Your work helps.

Will we get public accolades? Not on your life we won't. This is Wikignome stuff.

Today is the 27th. This ends on 31st. We're not going up! How low can we go?

Want to nominate a background task hero? Heck do so now, ideally on the drive talk page.

Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I thought I'd jump in and do a few, and by Jimbo's beard this is difficult. How on earth did you all get through thousands of these?? Enterprisey (talk!) 03:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Enterprisey some are easy, some require you to get your eye in, and others are evilly hard. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 06:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Timtrent: re "will we get public accolades?" you might be surprised. I have brought the backlog drive to the attention of The Signpost. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Curb Safe Charmer I like surprises

Everyone has done, is doing, a stupendous job. I thought we might get down to a 1,500 backlog. Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine below 1,000.

I'm inclined to suggest that even the 'least of us', if I may use that phrase, receives the Teamwork Barnstar. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 10:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Timtrent Doesn't that conflict with If you do more than 25 Re-reviews, you get the Teamwork Barnstar here? ―Qwerfjkltalk 10:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl Have two! Different reasons! Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 11:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The New York Times Access

I've just found an interesting little hack for reading nytimes.com articles - just turn off Javascript!

Now you probably don't wont to do this browser wide, but on Chrome you can set on a per site basis: go to the site, click the padlock to the left of the address, select site settings, set Javascript to block. KylieTastic (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

If you're quick on the trigger, you can also try hitting Esc a bunch of times after the article loads but before the paywall pops up. That usually does the trick for me. DanCherek (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@KylieTastic, DanCherek, I have found another option to read paywalled sources including NYtimes. Click source link and choose "open in new tab/group". Stay on active tab and don't go to paywalled tab until you believe page loading is completed (partially completed). Turn off data and go to paywalled tab and read content. Cheers. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 06:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@KylieTastic @DanCherek @TheBirdsShedTears You can also try reader mode (the chrome flag or the extension) ―Qwerfjkltalk 15:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

US media & GDPR

I've just tried to review a draft, where out of the two dozen refs (way OTT, borderline bombing) half were primary, the rest were nearly all unavailable to me because of GDPR rules. What's a reviewer to do? (For those not based in Europe who don't know what I'm talking about: the EU decided to implement something called GDPR — the P stands for pain, not sure about the rest — and many US news websites responded not by complying but simply by blocking access to European visitors.) None of which has anything to do with the price of tea in China, let alone AfC backlog drives; just needed to vent. :) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Hey DoubleGrazing I use a free VPN, but because you cant edit over them I just have it browser locked rather than the OS. I have FireFox as my main browser for editing on my main screen, but use Chrome set to use https://windscribe.com/ VPN usually set to Miami on my second for region block avoidance, google translation, general reference on my second screen. I do hate that after all these times so many sites say the EU is important to them but they still block. Also even before that some sites block or redirect. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 13:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@KylieTastic: oh yeah, VPN, should look into it I guess. Still, easier to just moan and play the victim. :) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Sitting on problematic drafts

I currently have Draft:Trafalgar Entertainment and Draft:'96 (soundtrack) marked as under review. For the former, the creator has not complied with four requests to disclose their status as a paid editor, and I don't think us volunteers should spend any more time reviewing the draft until they do. On the second, there is an SPI underway and I am expecting it (and other drafts by the same IP) to be deleted as G5. Am I OK using 'under review' in this way? It looks like they no longer show up in a 'AfC pending submissions by age' category once they've been marked as such. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Curb Safe Charmer it's a close decision between that and declining. I think each should be viewed on its individual merits Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 10:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I've declined Trafalgar Entertainment as being written from the company's own point of view. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: fair enough; if they resubmit it again, I will take it to MfD. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Polish

Hi all. I was inclined to decline Draft:Rafał Brzoska, but all the references are in Polish, so they may be a better quality than I suspect. Does anyone here read Polish? --Doric Loon (talk) 10:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Doric Loon just use google translate, I use it built into Chrome, it's not perfect but good enough. KylieTastic (talk) 10:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Doric Loon What KT said! I use it all the time. It's good enough Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 10:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Piotrus: perhaps you could provide some advice if the above draft is still marked under review? -2pou (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  2pou, I don't like it. Promotional vanity piece stretching a few facts - the coverage rests on few minor celebrity awards, being one of the Top 100 Richest Poles, and some tabloid coverage. I am considering AfDing this on pl wiki (pl:Rafał Brzoska) and may do so if this is mainspaced here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Invalid ILC declines

Hi, I'm not really active as a reviewer these days but I do occasionally pop in. Earlier today I dealt with an enquiry at the help desk where I found that a reviewer had declined a draft as not complying with the minimum inline citation rule. It was an incorrect decline because all the references in the draft were proper inline citations. A while ago I took a look at more recent ILC declines and found quite a few that were clearly invald. Reviewers must ensure that they are familiar with the workflow and follow it. Of course an occasional lapse is acceptable, particularly when editorial judgement is a factor. However an inline reference is a blindingly obvious thing, and the ILC decline absolutely does not apply if there is even just one inline cite anywhere in the draft, and it applies only to BLPs. <end of rant, sorry to be a wet blanket> Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dodger67: one follow-up question: isn't it our rule that all claims made about living people need to be referenced with a inline citation to a reliable source ("all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation")? My (apparently wrong) perception was that ILC is used in cases where a BLP subject is notable but the author has failed to provide inline citations for all material likely to be challenged. According to your comment, a single inline citation anywhere would prevent reviewers from declining such a draft with an ILC rationale. What would be the correct rationale in these cases, given that "BLP" is for possibly defamatory material? Modussiccandi (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Modussiccandi, Oh yes, the WP:MINREF exceptions: only contentious claims, not all claims about living people, have to be referenced inline, and direct quotes, if there are any. The other two mentioned in MINREF will rarely if ever occur in a draft. See also General standards and invalid reasons for declining a submission. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for this. Having reread MINREF, I think that I have been at times a bit too strict in enforcing ILCs in BLPs. (Not the worst thing, of course, but it's good to reexamine the proper use of these rationales.) Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• I agree Dodger67 ILC is probably one of the worse miss-understood/miss-used of the declines, its late and my brain is dead but I think nn "bad formatting/referencing" is probably the worst invalid decline (it's a valid comment, but not a decline). However I disagree with the "absolutely does not apply if there is even just one inline cite anywhere in the draft", but I think that's what you meant with your reply above. However there is always the issue what is "Contentious material" as many seem to include only negative when it's actually "negative, positive, or neutral". However, often if generally acceptable it should not be declined just comment, or fix/reference, or remove the "Contentious material" and accept. Now assuming that made sense...time to go have some unproductive horizontal time (sleep). KylieTastic (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  KylieTastic, It's past my bedtime too, my cat is already asleep leaning against my hip. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

nice KylieTastic (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if this comment was aimed at me, but it could have been. "Hi everyone, my name is DoubleGrazing, and I'm an undercited BLP decliner." I struggle with the definition of 'contentious' (especially 'neutral contentious') — one person's defamation can probably be another person's badge-of-pride. I also err on the side of caution, because I'd rather be admonished for being too careful than too careless. Therefore I have declined (not necessarily on ilc basis, although I may have used that as well a few times) BLPs where there are substantive statements that are unsupported, whether they are overtly contentious in nature or not. If someone is said to hold a Harvard MBA or have run a marathon in under 2½ hrs, and there's no indication of where that info has come from, or where entire paragraphs or even sections are completely unsupported, I tend to decline (well, used to — currently trying to kick that habit). So yeah, mea culpa, and I'll be having words with myself. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• DoubleGrazing I don't know who the original comment was aimed at but mine was more in general from cases I've seen when it's unclear what the WP:MINREF issue was. I think most the time for both the submitter and other reviewers a comment explaining helps, or add to show which points. I used to use it more when I started but hardly at all now because of similar comments like this before. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Notability Tag

I reviewed a draft that had a {{notability}} tag. I think that my question was whether I should pay any attention to the tag, whether I should remove the tag, and whether the tag should have been there in the first place. Generally, I think that the notability tag should not be on a draft, because doubtful notability is a reason to decline a draft, and questions about notability while the draft is still in draft space should be either in AFC comments or on the draft talk page. (If the draft satisfies notability, verifiability, and neutrality, it should be accepted. What an AFC reviewer does is to decide whether the draft passes those tests.) One possible explanation would be that the page had been in article space, and then was tagged, and then was moved to draft space. I checked the history. That wasn't the case. It appears that an editor applied the tag in draft space, perhaps in place of declining the draft; it also appears that the author then improved the draft.

By the way, I accepted the draft and removed the tag, but I wonder whether there are any general rules. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Ignore the notability tags - they are indications of others opinions of probably an old version and probably left over from a pre-draftify. Draft is supposed to be a 'safe space' for reasonable article development, and those tags really don't belong. I would generally remove tags that are only suitable for main-space. KylieTastic (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
  • User:KylieTastic - In the case in point, first, the draft had never been in article space, and I am not really sure why the editor applied the tag. Second, in the case in point, I accepted the draft, and so removed the tag. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
  • So it appears that the thinking is that a notability tag on a draft that is not being accepted is useless and harmless. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Yup, I have seen the odd case of someone tagging directly in draft and always found it odd. I take it as just expressing an opinion, but no as clear as a comment with reason, and not as confident as a decline. We are here to judge the content as presented and nout more. KylieTastic (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
      • I assume that what User:KylieTastic finds to be odd in tagging a draft is tagging it for notability. There are other tags that can reasonably be applied directly to a draft, such as a COI tag, or an underlinked tag, or an incomprehensibility tag. Usually the draft should be declined, but not always. The COI tag can be a request for the next reviewer to be extra careful. Underlinking may make it difficult to assess a draft. If a reason for declining a draft is also a maintenance tag, why not tag it for the information of the next reviewer? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
        • Yup mainly the notability one, but some others like "needs categories", but certainly not COI KylieTastic (talk) 08:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
• Maintenance tags should be removed from drafts, as there is no point to them; if a draft is accepted, it will more than likely meet any of the "maintenance issues" presented by the tag(s). Primefac (talk) 00:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Question About Person Dates

If a reviewer accepts a draft that is a biography, that is, an article about a person, a subscreen is displayed for the entry of information about the dates and places of birth and death of the person. My primary question is what is done with this information. That is, where is the information saved? If I realize that I have forgotten to enter something or entered something incorrectly, is there a way that I can correct it? Where does it go?

I know that this also adds {{WikiProject Biography}}, and I can add that either manually or using the Rater gadget. That isn't the question. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon I think it adds the relevant categories e.g. Category:1935 births. ―Qwerfjkltalk 18:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon it's been on my list of things to check out as I think half the information is not used. The name "Last, First" the YOB and YOD are used to add DEFAULTSORT and cats, possibly the birth and death place are used for cats, but I think the description and Day/Month of the DOB/DOD are not used. KylieTastic (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I can see it using the year of birth and death for categories, because those have a well-defined format as 4-digit years. But I would think that using the place of birth and death for categories would be problematic, because of complications such as whether to include the country name and/or state, unless there is intelligence that I haven't seen. Entering the years is easy enough, but entering the places can be tedious, and I am inclined to enter nothing if it is doing nothing with the information. Is there a maintenance programmer who can answer what it does? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Aiui besides seeding categories the info is also collected by Wikidata. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I just checked the script. The birth/death years are used on the page itself through subst-ing {{L}}. The other entries such as specific dates and locations are not utilised yet. I suspect that it might have been a feature to sort into location categories in the past, and the work to include this feature is not done on the rewritten script. That being said, if anyone wants such a feature, it will be a major piece of work, to match the location inputs to "person from X" categories. – robertsky (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

It was discussed a year ago (and Robert M, you were the one who asked!). Primefac (talk) 00:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Maybe it is my mistake that I actually am trying to use those fields correctly, and so am asking what is correct for those fields. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Backlog Drives going forwards

I think there can be no-omne who disagrees that thsi has been (is still being) a spectacular success. This means that we can and should continue to perform drives in the future when we consider iyt necessary.

What we have discovered is that the rules, in prices of being reinvented, are a little too open to interpretation. Before we run the next drive we need to reach consensus on the areas we have identified so far. I'll kick off with one that has the scope for contention.

Please add any areas where you believe consensus is required for going forwards. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 08:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Re-Review Requirement

This is in two parts: How many to give and what should happen if insufficient are given:

How many re-reviews to give

We started with a putative 10% of reviews given is required to be the re-review target. Opinions, please:

• Without reason to believe there are any major issues it seems like thankless work with no real gain. We do need to do some for every reviewer, but I for one do not have the energy when so far all indications I have seen indicate no drop in normal quality. The percentage of accepts this month (22%) has gone up a bit from the previous month ~20% so people are not declining more and the “Checks of accepted articles” section above indicates no big issues in accepts. Theroadislong has currently has 1251 reviews, so if I understood the proposal they would need people to review 125 of theirs and they would need to do 125 of others. I suggest a maximum is needed on the 10%. KylieTastic (talk) 08:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  @KylieTastic According to the proposal, they would not need people to review 125 of theirs (but they would need to review 125 reviews). ―Qwerfjkltalk 08:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  @KylieTastic Oops, I'm completely wrong there. ―Qwerfjkltalk 09:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Is there a running total of re-reviews somewhere? I think I have done about 70 so far they are a bit of a distraction from the job in hand. Theroadislong (talk) 09:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Theroadislong it has just appeared on the current drive page Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@ Theroadislong see Points leaderboard KylieTastic (talk) 09:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I need to re-review about 50 more then, phew! I'm off on holiday next week with limited interweb so better crack on. Theroadislong (talk) 09:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Theroadislong: nah mate, you need to cancel your holiday plans. First things first, come on! Your family/friends/etc. will understand. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I suggest that newer reviewers, such as those on probation, should require more re-reviews (done on their reviews). ―Qwerfjkltalk 09:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl while this sounds great as a concept, I think we should allow the probation process to run independently of a backlog drive. There is a danger of folk feeling singled out for attention instead of being part of the team Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 10:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there is that danger, but also the suggestion does make a lot of sense. I for one would be quite happy to be audited more than my fair share, as this is the first time I've done anything of this ilk (in fact, had this drive not come along, not sure when I would have got around to my first review!) and would welcome the feedback. While saying that new = risky / old hand = infallible seems an exaggeration, there must at least exist some degree of correlation. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing I think we all reserve the right to make monumental errors! (I probably qualify as an old hand) Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 15:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh yes, don't think that we don't all make mistakes. You just hopefully make less as you go on. My recent annoying too frequent error is not spotting double words, i.e. the the, my brain just doesn't see them, but luckily the gnomes do. KylieTastic (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

What happens when insufficient re-reviews are given

We started with the concept, not agreed by consensnus, that points in the points based leaderboard would be capped if insufficient re-reviews were given. The end period for re-reviews was not specified. Opinions, please:

• Conditional Support. Re-reviews are part of our quality control. Instead of capping iveralkl I woudl like to see

• a penalty (to be discussed) if zero re-reviews are performed,
• possibly with an extra element if fewer than a minimum nuimber (five, maybe?) are not performed.
• Then, instead of a cap, I'd like to see enhanced points per review over a certain (to be discussed) threshold.

Ok, complicated, but here as a start point for discussion. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Do I understand that to mean that we are ALL obliged to do rereviews? I had assumed that since I am new here, it would be better to leave those to more experienced reviewers, but I can start that if I am supposed to. --Doric Loon (talk) 10:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Doric Loon this is what we are discussing, and your input is valuable. Note that one gains expertise by reading and reviewing other people's reviews. Perhaps there ought to be a re-review category of "''novice reviewer opinion''"? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 10:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Can someone clarify whether the re-review requirement is active for this drive rather than future drives, and if so when do they need to be completed by? I don't really want to shift focus from the backlog. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Curb Safe Charmer Currently it's looking like a few weeks after the drive ends, because it was implemented late. ―Qwerfjkltalk 11:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Should the re-review period extend past the end of the drive itself? If so by how much?

• Support, because we need not to lose focus on the prime objective, backlog reductoin. I suggest two calenbdar weeks after whcih the leaserboard is formalised and awards given. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 11:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• at least week after July ends, at most two. At the very least, to allow us all time to catch up on the newer reviews. – robertsky (talk) 11:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support I'm not particularly wedded to one week to two, but I do think an extension purely for this purpose is a good idea. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support for one or two weeks because it was only available halfway through the drive. ―Qwerfjkltalk 12:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Should credit be given for drafts in main space handled?

Sometimes we draftify, sometimes we AfD, sometimes we just remove the AFC artefacts. This is Backlog Drive work. Should Drive Credit be given here?

• Oppose. Leaning no. Would add complexity to Enterprisey's bot. Doesn't seem super related to AFC (isn't draftifying and AFD an NPP thing?). –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I Agree with @Novem Linguae. ―Qwerfjkltalk 09:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support credit for these processes if done by AFC reviewers who have signed up for the drive. In each case it is a review and changes the backlog total (sometimes negatively!). Whether it is technically feasible is another matter. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support. In this example I carried out my review and went to accept but the move was being blocked by a redirect which I tagged as G6 with the comment 'I will be accepting the draft once the redirect has been deleted'. An admin deleted the redirect but also moved the draft. I went on to remove the AfC tags and performed other cleanup. As Tim says, 'Whether it is technically feasible is another matter'. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose what do you mean by drafts in main-space? Do you mean new pages if so leave it to the NPP backlog drives. Most/all do other work than AfC - I say keep the AfC backlog drive just to the backlog drive - keep things focused and simple. KylieTastic (talk) 10:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  @KylieTastic we have a category Category:Pending AfC submissions in article space that affects the backlog total. I think I have sorted out 20 of tose during the drive. I'm not grasping for credit for myself, but it seems to me that it is part off the backlog Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 11:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  AhTimtrent if that's what you mean it makes much more sense. However unless there is an easy metric to track I still think simple is best. There are lots of extras that could be added that are associated to AfC work. For instance people who spend time looking into suspected socks posting to AfC, or people was spend time expanding/fixing/re-writing articles to be acceptable, or people who fix up submissions so bad formatting/ref-format etc aren't a block to reviews etc. I've seen too many good things killed off with adding complexity over the decades and a lot of people just like simple goal, simple instructions. KylieTastic (talk) 11:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  @KylieTastic I think rewarded work should be confined to AFC tasks that reduce the backlog directly. I happen to do SPI, Commons copyvios etc as well, but I have not expectation nor desire to be rewarded for that. I agree with simple. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 11:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose in accord with Novem Linguae and KylieTastic. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Should credit be given for Redirects and categories

Should credit be given for Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories? ―Qwerfjkltalk 09:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Since this does not seem to be part of the backlog, I suggest not Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose not part of the backlog - keep things simple. KylieTastic (talk) 10:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Deleted drafts

I note the leaderboard on the backlog drive page says 'does not include drafts that have since been deleted'. Do we have / should we have a mechanism for recognising reviews of drafts that end in deletion? Personally I've done about 17 of those this month. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I've just spotted that there's a whole lot of conversation about the drive at its talk page which I hadn't spotted or watchlisted. Should we move all this drive-related discussion there? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Curb Safe Charmer That is the talk page of the existing, current drive. This is the discussion for subsequent drives, placed her to ensure the maximum participation Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 12:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Curb Safe Charmer that leaderboard does not included deleted but the "Points leaderboard" does and the re-reviews does. KylieTastic (talk) 12:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Curb Safe Charmer, the first table was a indicative one while waiting for Enterprisey to come up with his points leaderboard. I think we can safely retire the table given that the points leaderboard is now in place. – robertsky (talk) 03:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Robertsky I agree that it should be moved to below the other leaderboards, but it contains information about accepted/declined/rejected reviews. ―Qwerfjkltalk 12:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@Robertsky See this comment by Enterprisey and the surrounding discussion. ―Qwerfjkltalk 12:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

220 pending submissions \o/, just over TWO WEEKS backlog

I guess that just isn't news any more! 😂

Newsflash. Zero will not be achieved... will it? New submissions arrive all the time, after all.

This is, again, a huge THANK YOU to all who have been reviewing this month, whether signed up to the Backlog Drive or not Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 06:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I think we'll achieve 0. We're on pace to achieve it on July 30 or July 31. We're reducing the backlog over 100 drafts a day. Even if submissions are constantly trickling in, there are gaps every once in awhile, and also "front of queue" easy declines. Great job everyone. And when we hit 0, take a screenshot! –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Maybe someone could screengrab that fleeting 'zero moment' for those of us who happen to be blinking when it happens. :) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

The counter should be live-streamed for all to watch :) KylieTastic (talk) 08:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

What is the purpose of life after we've reached 0? nearlyevil665 09:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

There are 200-300 submissions a day so the work will never be finished, I just hope enough people keep doing a couple a day so that it does not just rebound. Personally I would like to get back to writing some articles, and probably spend much less time on Wikipedia and not spend 12 hours a day at a computer. KylieTastic (talk) 10:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Same! I'm a bit burnt out as we reach the home-stretch here, but I'm hoping we can get to zero or at the very least keep the backlog under 200. There's certainly some articles I could translate or write, and Articles needing categories or Articles needing coordinates are also good projects for people looking for the next big adventure. Bkissin (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Only 7 that are more than a week old... — Bilorv (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately we may be hitting the limit as to how low we can go - for the last few hours even with reviews being done the outstanding count has just been going up again. :/ KylieTastic (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Thinking aloud: would it help to have a means of real-time collaboration between reviewers, so that when a draft is submitted that has a lot of references to go through or where a second opinion would be useful we could quickly draft in (pun intended) a second person to tackle the article together? While we could use WP:IRC, as an established channel, there are more modern, free alternatives. But there's no point exploring further if nobody thinks it is a good idea and might help. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Curb Safe Charmer I'm sure it's something some would like and others not for various reasons. I've never used it but I would have thought the Wikipedia:Discord would be a better bet than IRC, assuming a AfC reviewer channel can be setup. KylieTastic (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Congratulations to everyone! Indeed a happy moment when you see the backlog reduces so heavily! Honestly, I never thought it was practically even possible! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

double digits! \o/

Down to double digits and max just 7 days, when we are also getting nearly 300 submissions a day!

And no surprise that FA is 9% of all outstanding submissions :/

Thanks to Theroadislong who i believe just cleared the over the week stuff including one I just didn't do myself as I had already declined twice.

Good work all, be it 1 or 1000 reviews. KylieTastic (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Somebody else can handle FA's edits. KylieTastic, if you have some drafts you want me to take a look at, ping me. Bkissin (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Bkissin, and I've still got that Senate Bill to look at... just too tired. I'm about to try to walk away and have a 'normal' Friday night with a curry, beers, and maybe play a game... but on the up side don't those graphs at the top look damn fine tonight :) KylieTastic (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• KylieTastic, The fact is that when i joined AfC backlog drive, i was keeping an eye on declines and accepts of Theroadislong to learn more about AfC. I feel Theroadislong is my master who taught me how to identify a topic and how to determine its position within short period than taking hours. TRIL, thank you for all your great work. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The graphs are looking AMAZING! I just did a couple more FAs now time for a glass of wine, tomorrow I have quite a few re-reviews to do! Theroadislong (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Double digits is incredible! We're at 62 now... if we can hit 55 then the backlog will have been reduced by 99% from what it was just a couple of months ago (we had 5500 in April). Saturdays generally have fewer submissions, right? — Bilorv (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

There's Next-to-Nothing (In Theory) at AFC!

AfC Backlog

Level 8

Healthy number of Pending Articles at AFC.
There are currently 1,771 pending submissions.
[view • purge • update]

---

―Qwerfjkltalk 22:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Down to 36 as I post this Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 07:48, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

22, max 0 days :) --Cerebellum (talk) 09:37, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

16m max 2 days Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 10:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

12. Today only left Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 10:34, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Single digits!

I've just brought it down to seven! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• I honestly did not think this was even possible when we started! KylieTastic (talk) 11:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• Congrats all! Is zero possible? Pahunkat (talk) 11:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• Hovering around 3, drafts keep coming in. Pahunkat (talk) 11:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Amazing job everyone!

Well, I for one would deem this backlog drive a MASSIVE success. With everyone’s help, we were able to take a backlog that had been continuing to grow for who knows how long all the way down to 0 at times in just 1 month. Personally, since this backlog drive worked so effectively, I wouldn’t mind seeing another one of these implemented in the future if the backlog ever gets that big again. But again, I have to acknowledge the effort that everyone involved has put in.

ProClasher97 would like to propose a toast to everyone who worked hard to eliminate the Articles for Creation backlog.

Amazing job everyone! ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 04:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Category:Pending AfC submissions

Could someone address the problems with Category:Pending AfC submissions (discussed here): that it doesn't always contain pending AfC submissions. ―Qwerfjkltalk 13:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Curb Safe Charmer @DoubleGrazing @KylieTastic @Novem Linguae @Robertsky @Theroadislong @Timtrent ―Qwerfjkltalk 20:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl regrettably I do not understand this at all. Please pretend I am 13 and explain it to me at that age Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 22:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@Timtrent The category contains Wikipedia project pages and pages being reviewed, which are not pending AfC submissions. ―Qwerfjkltalk 07:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl I am wondering why that is important? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 07:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@Timtrent I think that the Pending AfC submissions category should only have pending AfC submissions, and it would make the template simpler (currently it calls {{PAGESINCATEGORY}} 30 times. ―Qwerfjkltalk 07:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl All that is required, with consensus, is to recategorise the pages you find difficult to see in that category Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 07:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Qwerfjkl, Sorry! I am figuring out the helper script at the moment. There is a backlog of issues at github at the moment. (thanks Novem Linguae!) :3 – robertsky (talk) 22:33, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Qwerfjkl I'm also not sure what the issue is, in fact this seems to be multiple issues The linked discussion seams to be about pluralisation in {{AfC status}} and for the rare times the count is 1 it just seems unnecessary. Then you seem to say that Category:Pending AfC submissions "doesn't always contain pending AfC submissions"? Can you give an example of pending articles not being listed or did you mean "doesn't only"? Then you say "The category contains Wikipedia project pages and pages being reviewed, which are not pending AfC submissions" - Yes it links to subcategories of interest, this is by design so Category:Pending AfC submissions gives a root place to see all related issues, but it does not affect the pages listed in the main category section. It's useful to have a place to show pages being reviewed and in article space (although I've never been sure why Category:Pending AfC submissions without a section was helpful). You then say Category:Pending AfC submissions calls {{PAGESINCATEGORY}} 30 times, which I don't see apart from the fact that all pages that show {{AfC status}} call {{AfC status/level}} that does call {{PAGESINCATEGORY}} 24 times. This does it this way because of the 3 non pending article pages which is the only problem I see - i.e. the three in subcat *. So these count be removed for the category and just linked in the header section whcih seams more logical, and then {{AfC status/level}} could be simplified to just {{PAGESINCATEGORY:Pending AfC submissions}}. KylieTastic (talk) 10:15, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@KylieTastic I think I was talking about {{AfC status/backlog}}, but I agree with your solution. ―Qwerfjkltalk 10:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes {{AfC status/backlog}} calls PAGESINCATEGORY 32 times, {{AfC status/age}} calls it 23 times and {{AfC status/level}} 24. So yes calling {{AfC status}} in normal mode calls {{AfC status/level}} and {{AfC status/backlog}} so 55 times. However it is optimised so {{AfC status}} only call it 32 times. Now yes mw:Help:Magic words#Parser functions describes PAGESINCATEGORY as Expensive, but the limit is set to max $wgExpensiveParserFunctionLimit = 100 and I think EN:WP has it set to 500 so 32 should be fine. KylieTastic (talk) 13:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

The other issue here, and the reason why we make as many calls as we do, is that drafts marked "under review" are still listed in the category, but not in the individual day/week/month subcats. Thus, we could (in theory) have 100 pages in the "Pending AfC submissions" category, but zero "open" reviews in the "0 day" etc categories if they were all being actively reviewed.

On a personal note, this is a huge amount of discussion for an almost non-existent issue, and is more of a WP:BIKESHED issue than anything worth wasting this much effort. Primefac (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Personal logging through AFCH script

I am poking around on the helper script (now that the backlog here is done, and there's a backlog of issues on github. heh) and am taken to the idea of personal review logging, similarly to what we have of the review logs for the recent backlog drive, and CSD/AfD logs. I am open to suggestions on how we want the information to be presented in the AfC logs. Just a note, I don't have a set timeline on the development work as I am currently poking at a duplicated wikiproject banners issue. – robertsky (talk) 04:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I support this idea. Here's the ticket for it. I think it'd be good to eventually add this feature, and make it optional. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Since you are talking about AFCH, I had a question. After the review, there's options for next random submissions but I can't find one before I do. So, if I skip, I have to get back to the index. Does anyone have a solution they use? Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool You can try Special:RandomInCategory/AfC pending submissions by age/0 days ago and Special:RandomInCategory/Pending AfC submissions.―Qwerfjkltalk 09:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Leader Board

Where is there a leader board that covers the period of 1 July - 31 July? Everyone seems to know where it is, but maybe everyone is looking at their own versions of it.

So where can we see who the leaders were? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/July 2021 Backlog Drive#Points leaderboard? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

So, what happens about the barn stars? Do we have to claim them, or just wait for them? I know they really aren't important, but actually, they did provide motivation! Doric Loon (talk) 08:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Yup, they're very important. I'll post them after re-reviews are done, which is another either one or two weeks depending on what people prefer (although I haven't seen anyone express a preference yet). I certainly aim to post them faster than last time (which took about two months, but they had a good excuse). Enterprisey (talk!) 08:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I had finished all my 146 re-views by 31st July, do we really need much longer? Theroadislong (talk) 08:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I see a lot or rereviews still due. I'll try to take some today. Would help to know if the numbers are up to date, or as of when. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool You can check from the edit history at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/July 2021 Backlog Drive/Leaderboard.―Qwerfjkltalk 15:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Of course, thanks! Silly me! Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Redirect articles

I frequently create redirects at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories, and occasionally, users use this to create articles without first drafting them, as at Zoom Cat Lawyer. Should I drafti by them, leave them, etc.?―Qwerfjkltalk 12:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Qwerfjkl, it looks like these users are trying to sidestep the restrictions placed in for anon editors. I would do a quick glance to see if the new articles satisfy the AfC review flow. If it does not, draftification is logical. – robertsky (talk) 15:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

If a known editor is doing this as a pattern, bring it up with the admins, I guess. Otherwise, I'd leave it for NPP to handle. Redirects get expanded into articles routinely, no matter the age, and they are reviewed by NPP just the same. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Any time an article flips from redirect to non-redirect, it gets marked as unreviewed and put in the NPP queue. So that's good, can't game the system that way, it will eventually get caught. If you have the time to look over the article and it has big problems, I'd say sure, feel free to draftify. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Now that your example is tagged with a {{histmerge}} from a Draft by the same IP, it looks like some fishy block evasion is happening, but I wouldn't know where to look to start. I should probably WP:AFG though... -2pou (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Apparently getting hismerged by an admin gets the article out of NPP queue. So, neat little trick! I have added it back. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@2pou @Novem Linguae @Robertsky @Usedtobecool Thank you for your advice. They have also changed the talk page banner to make appear as though I had approved the article... accidentally?―Qwerfjkltalk 21:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Now the drive is over there is some time to relax

But not a lot.

New entries are coming in fast, and we have our foot off the throttle - unsurprising, last month was tiring. Even so, please can we at least eat the low hanging fruit? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 21:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, I've cleared out the "1 days ago" pile (there was only one draft there...). Seriously, yes we will need to keep on going and not rest on our laurels, but hopefully we've whetted the appetite of at least a few people who were estranged from AfC and even a few new reviewers, so we'll have more hands on deck and it won't be down to just the same five people to handle almost all of the submissions. — Bilorv (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

For me, this gave a good kickstart, and I will now try to make reviewing part of my regular routine. BTW, I saw on someone's user page a userbox which said they'd pledged to review two new articles a day (at NPP) — perhaps there could be (or maybe already is?) something similar for AfC? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

One major benefit is that skills have been honed during July. Practice makes reviewing the difficult candidates easier. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 07:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm off on holiday shortly so won't be doing as much here for a few days apart from the odd low hanging fruit, I see the numbers are rising again, not helped by re-submissions being made within seconds of declines, good wishes everyone. Theroadislong (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I've been doing over a thousand a month for the last three months and need to focus on other things for a while that I've been putting on the back burner. We do really need to get in the state of the many doing a few, rather than the few doing many. I really hope that now it's a more controlled state that enough will continue.... time will tell. I will still be doing some though. KylieTastic (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with KylieTastic that I am burnt out. I did not expect the sewage lines to fill back up so fast! I think I've done at least 20 today, but it's not making any difference. Bkissin (talk) 01:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Just reviewed 10 before breakfast, only one accept, the rest were appallingly bad, the floodgates are truly open, I'm packing for my holiday. Theroadislong (talk) 07:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Bkissin, I would expect that we get higher than normal numbers for a while as the resubmissions from the reject pile come in. Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Agashe Cluster

Two brother-sister duo dtafts have emerged Draft:Mandar Agashe & Draft:Sheetal Agashe. Their company page also seems a bit problematic Brihans Natural Products. COI is clear because of the timing of the two drafts. Need more opinions on how to deal with all of them. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 10:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Zero! \o/

We've done it! There are ZERO pending submissions! Pahunkat (talk) 11:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Hurraaaah! Theroadislong (talk) 11:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

New submissions are coming :) TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 11:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@TheBirdsShedTears: well aren't you the eternal optimist! :)

A propos of nothing in particular, what do you see here? (Just checking.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:37, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Now, who's drafting an article for The Signpost? xD – robertsky (talk) 11:48, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Can someone please re-fill the pipeline? We're now falling over each other doing simultaneous multiple reviews on the few precious pending drafts! :) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• I could nit pit and say while Category:Pending AfC submissions being reviewed now is not zero it is not a true zero. but who the fook cares its still a damn miracle KylieTastic (talk) 12:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

  It's a magnificent achievement, absolutely magnificent Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 12:07, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• @DoubleGrazing We'll have to get more drafts so we can do another drive! ―Qwerfjkltalk 12:09, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl: already at 12 and rising... --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• And good one Timtrent on the screenshot (pity about the tooltip) I was going to do that (have a note on my desk) - I had taken one last night in case it all went wrong. KylieTastic (talk) 12:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

  Look at this!

  

  Zero pending AFC reviews

• Well done everyone. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

This is a time when even those us who wondered, yet still supported the concept, all pulled in the right direction and made it work. I appreciate the doubts folk had when I proposed it. The previous one, while successful, was tainted by an editor whose reviews were less than stellar. The re-reviews process caught them half way through.

This drive shows we are all pretty goshdarned grownup. It shows that we can run another one, ideally before we hit the three months level, maybe run for a week at a time so we don't get jaded

I have too many heroes to mention. Not just the tech team, not just the heavy lifters with the big numbers, I want to mention everyone. I propose a special "We Hit Zero" barnstar for every registered Drive editor, however few or many they reviewed. Who will design it?

Most if all I want to thank everyone who had sufficient faith in my proposal for this a few months back to vote in favour. You have proved yourselves to be correct. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 12:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Are these drives controversial, somehow? If so, why? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:32, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

DoubleGrazing quality has always been a concern for some, without checks too many bad articles could be approved, or good ones rejected just to clear the queue. However the checks so far (and I will do more post event) have show a low accepted article issue rate, a higher acceptance rate, and no indication of an increase in bad declines. KylieTastic (talk) 12:40, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing, KT has it right. Prior experience showed a small set of reviewers who probably ought not to have been reviewers. Since then we have probationary status for new reviewers, and that has helped. Thank you @Primefac becvause I think you police this category.

I've been doing my own checking by re-review. I think I have a couple of fails against me. One I disagree with (more out of amusement), the other is more technical and I will not argue it because they are correct. But that is the percentage of errors that will happen however well we work. Examining others while re-reviewing I have found a few failures, a few differences of opinion, and almost all passes. That was not the case in June 2014.

We have a low error rate (pre analysis) and I don't expect that to alter much upon detailed analysis. But errors are seen as controversial when they affect other people, and rightly. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 12:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• I think we should not forget those who decided not to sign up but still made this happen. There are 219 I count as doing reviews (not counting those that only did reviews that were deleted) and only 86 are on the leader-board. Too many to names to mention and the majority just helping with a few reviews, however Bkissin with 446 reviews, Tamingimpala with 160, Nomadicghumakkad with 134, Cerebellum with 125, AngusWOOF with 106, Gpkp with 103, Mcmatter with 102 i think are worth a name check as being in the 3 digit club (although I think we have other with deletions). There is still time to add yourselves to the list to be remembered in pixels that you were part of this. Thank to you all KylieTastic (talk) 12:34, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

  Full agreement with any recognition award proposed here. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 12:46, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

  Really thrilled to see the achievement, and full agreement for any barnstars or recognitions. -- Tame (talk) 14:06, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

  What a way to end a successful backlog drive! Congrats to everybody involved, we literally couldn't have done it without you! Bkissin (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, it seems that as always the real progress gets made while I'm asleep. Congrats everyone! LittlePuppers (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

LittlePuppers, progress is always made even with you going through submissions at your time. :3 – robertsky (talk) 22:34, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• Definitely, a grand achievement. Lets have a party y'all. It is time to enjoy. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 02:36, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
• WOW. Wow, wow, wow. A massive accomplishment. Hats off to each of you. Amazing stuff. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
• I only noticed my name here now. Such a joy. I didn't think I had enough expertise at that moment to engage in something like this. Was a bit shy. But would love to take part in other such collaborative projects. Thank you so much for mention! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 10:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Previously rejected resubmission

What's the best way of handling this one Draft:Cowrywise? I was going to decline it on the basis that the sourcing seems rather on the weak side, but then noticed that it was already rejected earlier, that just wasn't immediately obvious because the submitter removed the previous AfC templates. Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

DoubleGrazing, I usually restore the previous declines (copy them from the history) and then (assuming it's not significantly improved) decline it again. I'm not sure specifically if it was rejected; I've seen drafts resubmitted and declined again after being rejected, but I don't think there's much of any formal aspect to rejection preventing it from being submitted again. LittlePuppers (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@LittlePuppers: thanks, that was my intention also (copypaste the templates back, and then do a fresh review), just wanted to double check. And thanks for also clarifying the point about previous rejection not preventing new submission. Best, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

If I ran across this situation (rejection template, not decline template), I'd probably restore the rejection template and elect not to review it again. No biggie either way though. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I was about to advise that it is my opinion that a draft that is resubmitted after rejection without discussion should be nominated for deletion. However, I then realized that any editor can nominate a draft for deletion. It would have been eligible for G13 in two weeks if the originator had left it alone. Now it is eligible for deletion in one week if other editors concur with my nomination. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Hey DoubleGrazing, this is of course very common. What I usually do is - write a polite comment to not resubmit again and discuss the issues on AFC page or talk page first. Most of the time, I have found people respectful enough to stop. Those who don't and resubmit, I choose not to engage more and leave it on discretion of other fellow reviewers. Those who do and initiate a discussion, I guide them to various guidelines like WP:THREE for notability, WP:NPOV or WP:VER - as suitable to the issues it is being rejected for. During the course of discussion, if it is established that the subject is notable, I accept the article. If no, we leave it there with hope that in future, more sources will emerge to establish notability. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@ Robert McClenon , I thought G13 was for 6 months? I didn't know one could G13 if original creator has left it alone for two weeks! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Nomadicghumakkad - Yes. The draft had been Rejected on 17 February 2021. It would have been six months old in two weeks. To be sure, the originator restarted the calendar by diddling with it on 1 August. Of course, that means that any originator can repeatedly restart the G13 calendar after 24 weeks, but that is (in my opinion) a valid reason for MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Checks of accepted articles

Week 1 (1st - 7th)

Thought I would do a check on accepted articles to see if we have any 'issues'....

Checked from Wikipedia:Articles for creation/recent for first week, checking for deleted artciles, @AfD, tagged for {{notability}}

Checked 591 accepts and only found 15 'issues' so 2.5%

• Sydney IMAX Theatre deleted - accepted by Bkissin @ 01/07/2021 - "G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (Cadeken)"
• Brian David Gilbert deleted - accepted by Mcguy15 @ 01/07/2021 - "G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion"
• Dwarf water cobra deleted - accepted by Laplorfill @ 02/07/2021 - "G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (VeronicaPR)"
• Miriam Beloglovsky deleted - accepted by Theroadislong @ 02/07/2021 - AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miriam Beloglovsky
• Kumlienia Cooleyae deleted - accepted by KylieTastic @ 03/07/2021 - "G6: Obviously created in error" was moved to Arcteranthis cooleyae now redirected to Arcteranthis
• Lewis Bernard Golden tagged for notability - accepted by Yeeno @ 03/07/2021 fixed
• Sean C. Ewing @ AfD - accepted by Clearfrienda @ 04/07/2021 - @AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean C. Ewing
• Lorenzo Córdova Vianello tagged for notability - accepted by Doric Loon @ 04/07/2021
• Samvel Mkrtchyan tagged for notability - accepted by Clearfrienda @ 04/07/2021
• List of gangs in Australia @ AfD - accepted by Clearfrienda @ 05/07/2021 - AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gangs in Australia
• Sangita Srivastava deleted - accepted by Clearfrienda @ 05/07/2021 - "G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (University of Allahabad)"
• Amirhossein Mahmoodi deleted - accepted by Greenman @ 05/07/2021 - "G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban"
• Roman Perez deleted - accepted by Theroadislong @ 06/07/2021 - Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman Perez - Nominated by acceptor
• Lillian Culver deleted - accepted by Bkissin @ 06/07/2021 - "G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban"
• Richard Muma deleted - accepted by Locomotive207 @ 07/07/2021 - "80% copied. G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement"
• Johannesburg Roads Agency deleted - accepted by Bkissin @ 07/07/2021 - "G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement" - Now recreated no copy vio

Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

2.5% is not too bad an 'issues' rate overall. we can't be perfect in this anyway. good job, everyone. :3 – robertsky (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Also good to see a variety of reviewers, with no single individual appearing more than a few times. Primefac (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I removed the notability tag from Lewis Bernard Golden as he has an entry in the ODNB and passes WP:ANYBIO #3. Spicy (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't the first on the list be ineligible for a Speedy G5 since an AfC acceptance inherently involves edits from an AfC reviewer that is not the blocked user? -2pou (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@2pou per WP:G5 only if it had "substantial edits by others". So unless the reviewer did a lot of rework it will still get deleted. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Pretty much this. "I didn't notice they weren't a sock" isn't an exemption from G5. Primefac (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Enabling the gizmo that highlights blocked users helps a lot here. Blocked socks show up as blocked Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 22:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Checked 1 List of gangs in Australia @ AfD KylieTastic (talk) 15:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Week 2 (8th - 14th)

Same as above checked from Wikipedia:Articles for creation/recent for first week, checking for deleted artciles, @AfD, tagged for {{notability}}

620 checked and 11 'issues' 1.8%

• Manoharpur, Jharkhand deleted - accepted by Nirmaljoshi @ 08/07/2021 - Re-draftify Draft:Manoharpur, Jharkhand
• Khetwadi deleted - accepted by Nirmaljoshi @ 08/07/2021 - Re-draftify Draft:Khetwadi
• Ayodele Okundalaiye deleted - accepted by Kaizenify @ 08/07/2021 - Re-draftify Draft:Ayodele Okundalaiye
• 1992 Brazilian protests deleted - accepted by Davisonio @ 08/07/2021 -- Re-draftify Draft:1992 Brazilian protests
• Du Yaxiong tagged for notability - accepted by Clearfrienda @ 08/07/2021 - notability
• Maro (singer) @ AfD - accepted by Yeeno @ 08/07/2021 - @AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maro (singer) - AfD Keep!
• On Our Team deleted - accepted by Qwerfjkl @ 09/07/2021 - "A7: Article about a company, corporation or organization"
• WAVEBOY tagged for notability - accepted by Clearfrienda @ 10/07/2021 - notability
• Dricus du Plessis deleted - accepted by 333-blue @ 11/07/2021 - Re-draftity Draft:Dricus du Plessis
• Klime Kovaceski deleted - accepted by Qwerfjkl @ 11/07/2021 - Re-Draftify Draft:Klime Kovaceski
• Ali mansour (Actor) deleted - accepted by Locomotive207 @ 12/07/2021 - Moved to Ali Mansour (actor) - "A7: No credible indication of importance"
• Trevor Wallace (disambiguation) deleted - accepted by Timtrent @ 13/07/2021 - "G14: Unnecessary disambiguation page"
• Corina Apostol @ AfD - accepted by Modussiccandi @ 13/07/2021 @AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corina Apostol AfD was Keep

So a lot of re-draftitying which considering an AfC reviewer has accepted seems wrong and should be either just tagged or AfDed for a full discussion.

Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 16:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• Checked July 31, 2021 - Another one survives AfD and no new additions. KylieTastic (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Week 3 (15th - 21st)

482 checked and 7 issues 1.5%

• Kaleem Ahmad Khursheed @ AfD - accepted by TheAafi @ 15/07/2021 - @AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaleem Ahmad Khursheed - nominated by acceptor
• Aliza Kelly @ AfD - accepted by JSFarman @ 15/07/2021 - @AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aliza Kelly
• Kirkegaard v Smith @ AfD - accepted by Qwerfjkl @ 18/07/2021 - @AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirkegaard v Smith
• List of programmes broadcast by Cartoon Network (Southeast Asia) @AfD - accepted by Kvng @ 19/07/2021 - @AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by Cartoon Network (Southeast Asia) (4th nomination)
• Marc Gruber deleted - accepted by Scorpions13256 @ 20/07/2021 - Re-draftifiy Draft:Marc Gruber
• Dignity Taking deleted - accepted by Doric Loon @ 20/07/2021 - "G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page" so not counting as an issue
• FICD deleted - accepted by Calliopejen1 @ 20/07/2021 - G7 so not counting as an issue then refunded to Draft:FICD
• International Federation of Pickleball tagged for notability - accepted by AntanO @ 20/07/2021 - notability
• Cheman Shaik deleted - accepted by Qwerfjkl @ 20/07/2021 - "G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion"

Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I think this shows that we are doing what we should be doing. If we believe it has a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process, then we accept. Logic suggests that one opinion, the reviewer, vs multiple opinions, community consensus, will be at variance form time to time. Even seeming errors with prior AfDs are acceptable. Those of us without admin goggles cannot see any similarity wit the deleted item, so have a 90% excuse/ But we may believe genuinely, that the draft is acceptable and still fall foul of the AfD trap.

The re-draftifying is poor community practice, but we will never cure that. That is human nature, "being kind" and is acceptable in that spirit. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 21:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• Checked July 31, 2021 add another new at AfD, plus one moved from notability tagged to AfD, KylieTastic (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Week 4 (22nd - 28th)

Obviously a big caveat that these are all fairly recent, but I think it's still a worthwhile indication. Maybe I'll do a rescan latter in the year for a fully check.

538 checked and 9 issues %1.7%

• Zillur Rahman (professor) deleted - accepted by Novem Linguae @ 22/07/2021 - G11/promo
• Discover Life deleted - accepted by DGG @ 22/07/2021 - self deleted so not counting as an issue
• Cyprus Special Forces deleted - accepted by Cerebellum @ 23/07/2021 - "G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban" so not counting as an issue
• Gogo Salt Lick, Kenya tagged for notability - accepted by Timtrent @ 24/07/2021
• 20x20 (women in sport) deleted - accepted by Curb Safe Charmer @ 24/07/2021 - moved to 20x20 no redirect so not counting as an issue
• Trevance Salmon @ AfD - accepted by Nearlyevil665 @ 26/07/2021 - @AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trevance Salmon
• Roman Feral @ AfD - accepted by Chris troutman @ 26/07/2021 - @AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman Feral nominated by acceptor
• R.K Chowdhury @ AfD - accepted by Qwerfjkl @ 27/07/2021 - @AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R.K Chowdhury
• Milosh Zezelj @ AfD - accepted by Nathan2055 @ 27/07/2021 - @AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milosh Zezelj
• Adrian Țofei deleted - accepted by M-Mustapha @ 27/07/2021 - G4 which is dubious as the last AfD was 2017, but depends on how similar it was I guess
• The Early Journey of Life @ AfD - accepted by Qwerfjkl @ 28/07/2021 - @AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Early Journey of Life
• James Blue (politician) @ AfD - accepted by Devonian Wombat @ 28/07/2021 - @AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Blue (politician)

Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Week 5 (29th - 31st)

Very preliminary data as its not even the end of the 31st but for completeness... and I will update

171 checked and 4 issues %2.3%

• Illinois Bicentennial - 200 Great Places Favorite Architecture deleted - accepted by DGG @ 29/07/2021 - self re-draft so not counting as an issue
• The Days of Abandonment (film) deleted - accepted by Bkissin @ 30/07/2021 - Another Re-Draftify Draft:The Days of Abandonment (film)
• Chiyoarashi Yoshinobu deleted - accepted by Bkissin @ 31/07/2021 -re-draftify Draft:Chiyoarashi Yoshinobu
• Mara Karlin tagged for notability - accepted by Cerebellum @ 31/07/2021
• Vikram Agnihotri deleted - accepted by Dodger67 @ 31/07/2021 - G11/Promo salted

Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

All of these preliminary stats show that the error rate is acceptable and overall personal quality control is high.

We need to remember that we are giving an opinion. "With all of our experience and ability to analyse this draft, do we believe it has a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion discussion?"

If we do, we accept it.

Another editor, later, may disagree, as is their right, and propose a deletion mechanism. If they are correct it gets deleted. If we are correct it gets kept. Each of these acts, from acceptance to being kept or deleted improves Wikipedia Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:38, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• Add 1 more re-draftify KylieTastic (talk) 07:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Belarusian chess

I declined this one a couple weeks ago as lacking secondary sources, however the editor was unsure of the decline and queried me on my talk page, so I decided to bring this here for a peer review from a second opinion. Eternal Shadow Talk 20:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I saw this one in the queue a couple weeks ago. I remember being really interested by it and wanting to approve it. But I dug a little deeper and I got "advertisement for a new online game" vibes from it, and left it in the queue. At first glance, it does look quite a lot like a variant of chess that has a lot of coverage, but at its core it appears to be a business that invented a game in 2010. In my opinion, a thorough GNG analysis is needed before approving this one. I do see some secondary sources, but there are some problems with some of them, such as using a lot of quotes so not independent. It also has a small amount of cut and paste copyvio starting around "2) under the conditions a) Draw:". [7]. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

It's a commercial product of relatively recent origin. It is notable if it satisfies product notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Yep, I'd be very careful with this one. Chess variants are ten a penny and this one seems cookie cutter in its rule changes, particularly recent and obscure. — Bilorv (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Second opinion on minor actors

Someone draftified these three minor actors: Draft:Brynley Stent, Draft:Thomás Aquino (actor), Draft:Thaia Perez. One of them was an AFC accept of mine. I'd like a second opinion before I move these back to mainspace and insist on AFD, in case I am way off. I personally judge them notable because in their IMDBs, they have multi-episode roles on at least 2 TV shows, which I believe passes WP:NACTOR. Also, are there any other deal breaking problems I'm missing such as sourcing that would justify draftifying these? Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• For a start i would revert the copy-paste recreation of Brynley Stent let it be deleted and then move back the draft properly for the correct accreditation. I haven't looked at the others. KylieTastic (talk) 11:34, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
• NenChemist (talk · contribs) has made a rash of unilateral draftifications today, including the three mentioned by User:Novem Linguae, and I would like to see the draftifications investigated. On first looks, I think they are unjustified and are disruption. Unilateral draftification is a serious matter, at risk of being "back door deletion" and should not be done outside the guidelines at WP:Draftify. Is NenChemist an accredited New Page Patroller? If not, they should not be draftifying. Even if they are, the page was mainspaced by an AfC reviewer, and subsequent draftifying, unilateral, without even a hello, is move warring. If NenChemist really thinks the pages should be draftified, they should use AfD with a proposal to "draftify". It should then be a serious discussion with, at least, the AfC approver, and somebody should be learning something. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

  from User:NenChemist/Draftify log we have:

  1. John Flint (journalist) moved to Draft:John Flint (journalist) at 10:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  2. Dream Garden moved to Draft:Dream Garden at 10:34, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  3. Tega Dominic moved to Draft:Tega Dominic at 10:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  4. Peter Jagers moved to Draft:Peter Jagers at 10:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  5. Tigé moved to Draft:Tigé at 10:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  6. Brynley Stent moved to Draft:Brynley Stent at 10:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  7. The Daily Cpec moved to Draft:The Daily Cpec at 10:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  8. Thomás Aquino (actor) moved to Draft:Thomás Aquino (actor) at 10:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  9. Thaia Perez moved to Draft:Thaia Perez at 10:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  10. Olowo Korodo moved to Draft:Olowo Korodo at 10:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  11. Timothy W. Schwab moved to Draft:Timothy W. Schwab at 10:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  12. Relative Race moved to Draft:Relative Race at 10:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

  User:Explicit has been deleting the residual redirects. Explicit, did you check that the page move was justified? SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

  @SmokeyJoe: Please see the references Draft:Peter Jagers. They include a staff page, a list of fellows, an picture of signatures, etc. It's shocking that such a draft would be accepted and moved into mainspace. The others don't fair much better. ✗plicit 12:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, Peter Jager was a bad accept. Accepted by user:Nomadicghumakkad. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

  SmokeyJoe, I disagree, in this case a staff page is acceptable to source Jagers as a fellow of the Swedish Academy of Sciences, which is an easy pass of NRPOF (and it's not hard to verify this elsewhere). This is not an academic of borderline notability. Tagging for better sourcing might have been useful. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Stent, Aquino and Perez are reasonable AFC accepts and it is not reasonable to re-draftify them. They should be moved back into mainspace. Before starting an AFD on any of these, you'd need to do a good BEFORE because there's doubtless more to say on each of these figures than in these current drafts/article. — Bilorv (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
• If AfC accepted article do not pass relevant notability criteria, it should be taken to AfD than moving to draftspace. I feel this a move warring as well as a serious concern. @Novem Linguae, I feel you should ping Primefac for a consensus. Also, Explicit has provided a reasonable rationale. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
• Alright, I got some sleep, and I reviewed the 3 drafts I mentioned in more detail. I went ahead and moved my AFC accept, Draft:Brynley Stent, to mainspace just now since that has 3 secondary sources, so that one is a strong accept. The other two were actually not AFC related, they were never AFC accepted, they were just draftifications I was concerned about. Draft:Thomás Aquino (actor) has 1 secondary source, Draft:Thaia Perez has 0 secondary sources. I am not comfortable moving those back yet until I get some clarity on what our minimum sourcing requirements are for SNG passes, although any of you are welcome to move those back if you think they pass our guidelines. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
• Despite contrary views above, the original acceptance and tagging of Peter Jagers, leaving it like this, was thoughtful and appropriate. It should not have been considered bad or shocking. I hope when this backlog drive completes AFC performance will improve. Thincat (talk) 09:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Thincat Please define the term 'improve'. The error rate is extremely low and the backlog has reduced to astoundingly low numbers. All reviewers are as entitled to make mistakes as any other editor here. You would be very welcome to review at AFC to help us improve, since all improvements t is always welcome. Indeed reviews improved, kn my view, during the drive. This is because a great deal of practice was had. Not all reviewers participated, of course. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 18:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

  I'm confused Thincat you say that "It should not have been considered bad or shocking" (I agree) and the acceptance/tagging was "thoughtful and appropriate" so what is the issue that you believe was wrong here with the AfC process? Regards KylieTastic (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for your questions. I think I need to row back on my last "improve" sentence. My involvement with AFC has been slight – all I have done is an occsional comment when I have found something dreadful going on. I remember objecting on one occasion to an unconscionable "inherent non-notability" decline and got considerable support but I now see at the time the reviewer's editing was in a sad state anyway, they then stopped being an AFC participant, and a while later gave up on WP. Should I have shut up? On another occasion I took issue with someone who wanted high standards for every accepted article and was proud to be unilaterally applying those personal standards when reviewing. There seemed to be no action on this problem. However, I see the reviewer's name here again, this time accepting and sending to AFD an article they disapprove of but which they think the community might accept. That seems like a good change to me. Of the comments I criticised above, one seems not to be from an AFC participant (at least not listed as such) and the other from someone I have a high opinion of generally so I shall put it down to a one-off aberration. The draftification was not an AFC responsibility. So yes, both those Peter Jagers acceptances were good AFC performance and the criticisms, if of any relevance, were not. I was pleased to see the analyses of AFC acceptances above. They are very worthwhile even though difficult to interpret. There is the 50/50 matter anyway and AFD can reach wrong conclusions either by irrational argument or unsatisfactory closing.

  Suggestions. If in any doubt please involve the community at AFD (from which there is an effective appeal mechanism at DRV) rather than decide matters within AFC. I think there needs to be better awareness here of varied community-accepted notability guidelines: in particular academics, sports people, companies, ancient history. It is not adequate just to look for two or three "in-depth" references. Please try to avoid giving the impression that more references will necessarily improve a weak draft. Sometimes cutting out the gush, dross and feeble references is more effective and the AFC reviewer can help rather than hinder. Finally, it is great that the elimination of the backlog will help the process in future. Best wishes. Thincat (talk) 09:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Thincat Thank you. We try very hard to get it right, and we do make mistakes. I think every reviewer is aware of different community acceptance guidelines, some of which are bizarrely lenient others weirdly stringent - Sportspeople vs Academics, for example. Some of the templates still suggest "More" references instead of "better" references, which is a thing we need to achieve consensus on.

  The "Better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process" thing means we ought always to accept borderline cases, but 'ought' is not a compulsion, and it is still a reviewer's opinion. Reviewers have weird days in the same way that AfD has weird ways.

  I re-issue my invitation to come and play in this pond Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 15:08, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Level of sourcing needed for AFC accept

Peter Jaggers qualifies multiple WP:Academic criterias and is clearly notable. Highly cited work at Google Scholar [8], elected fellow and editor of a peer reviewed journal. From the history, it seemed it was moved to draft because it didn't cite any sources. The current sources are indeed primary sources but it is not uncommon to use primary sources in case of academics to verify information and evaluate notability. So I won't say it was a bad move in context of notability at least. More sources? Yes, why not! And hence the tags of primary sources after accept. Also, should have been brought to AFD and not re-draftified. Happy to discuss more. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I've run into this issue before. SNG passes such as NPROF and NPOL that have poor sourcing (bios on university or parliament websites), and whether they should be draftified, TNT'd, deleted, ignored, etc. NPP does appear to draftify some of these, and accept some of these. There's some threads about it right now, such as Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Articles with poor sourcing and Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Olympic Stubs. I was really hoping to extract a clear rule out of that, such as "article must have X reliable sources even if it passes SNG", or "article must have X secondary sources even if it passes SNG", but there does not seem to be much of a consensus. What NPPs think and what the wider community is willing to tolerate may also be out of alignment, as this change I tried to make to WP:DRAFT was reverted. I'd be interested in hearing the AFC perspective on this... we do have the "v" rejection criteria, so we appear to have our own minimum sourcing requirements too. For SNGs with poor sourcing... Where is the line for AFC to accept? Where is the line for NPP to draftify? –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• I think this is all complicated. There are lots of subtle complications. However, I propose one simple rule: If an AfC reviewer has accepted, do not simply re-draftify the article. You might talk to the AfC acceptor, on their user_talk page, or on the article talk page, first, but if an AfC reviewer has accepted, use AfD, do not re-draftify unilaterally.

Several of User:NenChemist's were of pages written straight into mainspace. None of the draftifications are terrible. I urge NenChemist (talk · contribs) to seek the WP:NPR user right, as only NPR-qualified editors should be allowed to unilaterally draftify other's articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

• • As I see it, WP:ACADEMIC exists entirely separately from WP:GNG and any biography that meets the academic guideline should be accepted, even if the sources are primary. The other SNGs function more as "handy tools" or "rules of thumb" for determining quickly that a topic is highly likely to meet the GNG. As for WP:NPOL, if an editor goes to the best public libraries in the cities that the legislator represented and the city where the legislature met, it is highly likely that notability could be established quite easily. Such articles are good candidates for improvement by editors with an interest in those legislatures, and should be in the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Basically , I agree with Cullen328 , as would be expected. For academics, while the evidence fo being a leader in their field is enough and, though not actually essential, I think there should be some reliable source for the basic biographical information, because it is relevant for general readers to know where the person comes from and went to school, and the different positions he occupied. At least this much is usually possible, and it has been held many times that any reliable source will do and the person's page at the university website is sufficiently reliable. (I have encountered only one error here in the 15 years I've worked on them.).

Politicians are another matter,. Their own bio notices are often exaggerated, but secondary sources, even generally reliable secondary sources do not necessarily help, because they are almost always based upon the person's press releases--it is not unusual to omit unsuccessful parts of their career. The curious thing, is that the same information can be found for losing candidate in a two party system. We don't make the presumption of notability there, but the evidence for GNG is usually available from the sources Cullen specifies.

In general, though, there's a misunderstanding. The only criterion for passing AfC is that it will probably hold up at AfD if challenged. There's no separate level of notability, because there is no purpose in passing a draft that will be deleted when it reaches mainspace, and it very inappropriate for a single AfC reviewer to decline to to pass a draft when the community would accept it. This holds true no matter what we think of the mainspace conditions for notability. AfC is just a screening device. If an experienced revier feels that a draft passed by another reviewer will nonetheless fail in mainspace, there are two options--send the article back to draft for further work, or list it for an AfD discussion. DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with everything DGG said apart form the last part. We have had too many articles accepted at AfC the re-draftified and then they are just left to atrophy, often exacerbated because the creator/submitter is not even told of the re-draftify. I believe if any experienced editor has accepted a draft then it should not be sent back to draft as clearly the draft has already reached 50/50 so AfD is the only option.... with the only caveat being if the AfC reviewer is contacted and consents. Draftify can save bad first attempts but is used too much as a unilateral kill where there is clear disagreement. KylieTastic (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I intended to add, but there was an edit conflict:

If the original editor is still around and would notice, and there is any chance at all of showing notability, then it makes sense to send back to draft, If the original editor is no longer editing, as is often the case for school assignments or coi editors, there's no use sending it to draft, for it is very unlikely anyone will work on it. If you do not want to fix it yourself, then the article should have a community discussion at AfD. I have often re-draftified articles, and if I think the reviewer should know about it, I ping them, since the automatic ping goes only to the original contributor. It wouldbe nice if that could be made automatic also.

I consider this to match what KylieTastic said just above DGG ( talk ) 19:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Manscaped - eyes please

I have left an unusual (for me) second review, in some detail. I woudl like other eyes on this in case I am being unnecessarily picky, please. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I listed it for to deletion at WP:MfD. There were 6 previous declines. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@DGG Thank you for looking at this draft. I have left a comment at the MfD but am not yet able (willing?) to form an opinion to keep or delete. MfD discussions for drafts have always seemed to me to have unusual outcomes. Something that is an obvious AfD failure is often kept at MfD. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 21:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

MfD for draftspace is different to AfD for articles. Draftspace exists for things not suitable for mainspace. The unsuitability for mainspace is not a deletion reason for draftspace. In particular, non-notability, and COI, are reasons for it to be in draftspace, not for it to be deleted from draftspace. See WP:NDRAFT. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes. User:SmokeyJoe is completely correct about how and why MFD has results that can surprise an editor who is more familiar with AFD. But repeated resubmission in draft space is a reason for deletion of a draft, and this draft has been declined 7 times by 6 reviewers. I would add that COI sometimes poses a special problem at MFD, in that the topic is probably notable, but the author, who has a COI, is incapable of achieving NPOV, and is making a hash by repeated resubmission. What should be done then? I think that maybe a partial block may be in order, but MFD is a content forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Pending submissions

I just had a small shock when I happened to read how few there were. Applauds and much respect to all who worked on that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Especially to the few who each individually cleared hundreds of AfCs. David notMD (talk) 11:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Padma Rao Sundarji

The previous editor User:ShravanthiRK has disclosed paid editing on their userpage, however they requested WP:U1 on 1 August. Now a new user has recreated Draft:Padma Rao Sundarji and it seems possible sockpuppetry. Can anyone please compare deleted draft[9] with recreated draft? TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 12:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The encyclopedia is complete.

With 0 pending AfC submissions, we have now covered all possible topics and subjects in the known universe. Please feel free to disable this WikiProject at your earliest convenience. Thank you. nearlyevil665 19:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

And Alexander wept, for there were no more worlds left to write stubs about... Bkissin (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

And Alexander wept, for there were no more Indian villages left to write stubs about... Fixed that for you :D –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Nearlyevil665, please proceed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Requested articles to expand on the known universe. ^.^ Thank you. – robertsky (talk) 22:38, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Don’t worry a trillion more are coming tomorrow.CycoMa (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

When this backlog drive started, I just hoped it'd be a proof of concept and a way to keep the backlog from surpassing 5000 again, in preparation for future backlogs that could maybe scrape 10% off the backlog at a time if we were lucky. It's surpassed my expectations inordinately. 0 is unbelievable. Incredible work by so many people. Now let's see how long we can keep the 7 days categories empty! — Bilorv (talk) 01:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

10 days, it seems (we're at 5 in the 7 days category). I think we mostly just need a few people who helped out in the backlog (not the regulars—you're doing enough already!) patrolling the back of the queue. Much harder work than watching the front of the queue, but just 1 or 2 reviews make a dent. — Bilorv (talk) 13:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Request for draft review & move

Hi all,

Links:

• Draft:Kamla Nath Sharma
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 July 13 (note discussion & close)
• Talk page message

Can I please ask an experienced reviewer check over the draft, wikify it as required, and then assess it for potential move back to articlespace?

The reason why I haven't popped this in the normal queue using the template, is I felt it was important that the wider context (the DRV discussion, especially) was considered in how it was handled, and I saw no way to confidently call that out using the normal process.

Let me know if any questions or issues. Thanks in advance, Daniel (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@Daniel my go to reviewer for anything professorial is @DGG because they have a breadth and depth of expertise in this area. This ping is to ask them to have a look Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 22:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Timtrent, appreciate the guidance. Daniel (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I shall take a look in a day or two. DGG ( talk ) 08:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

There is no notability on the basis of WP:PROF: no significantly cited articles, and joint author of one introductory textbook. I don't think any other of his activites make a basis for notability either, A great majority of his references come from his own writings, and the entire draft is promotional , with sentences like: " He travelled extensively throughout the world during his service tenure engaging in international dialogues, initiatives and specialised programs and contributing to the knowhow in the fields of hydrology, irrigation and drainage, food security, flood management, etc." DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Not primarily an academic, and as an academic he fails my rules of thumb test for a pass, although he doesn’t fail the low “definitely no” threshold either. It is generally hard for an Engineer to pass WP:PROF. PROF works easier for scientists, educators, sociologist, and economists.

The article is, like the references, overly promotional. There is a lack of independent commentary, but it is hard to explain this as the article is reference bombed.

I recommend asking the author to remove all non-independent sources, likely stubifying the article, and then presenting WP:THREE good sources. I would review three sources, but I will not review 28 references. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

DGG & SmokeyJoe, thanks for your time looking at this. I will ping the author, below. Daniel (talk) 01:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Ping @Aaditya.Bahuguna: please see above comments from AFC reviewers. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Daniel and other Reviewers. I will see how the article can be improved on suggested guidelines. Aaditya.Bahuguna (talk) 06:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Draft:2036 Summer Olympics

I am not really asking for advice, but am reporting on what I have done and what may happen. This draft was submitted and declined twice as being too soon. It has a long history of creation and deletion, but is a lot closer to reality than a decade ago. This is a case where I would rather let the community make the decision if there is disagreement, rather than have the more stubborn editor "win". The consensus process that is "least unsuitable" is AFD. I have declined the draft again, but have said that if they want to let the community decide, I am willing to accept it so that AFD can run. I am guessing that there is a less-than-50% of surviving AFD, but I think that this is a case where the submitter should be allowed to decide that they are ready for AFD.

I think that this may be the right way to handle some other contentious submissions where the notability is not about to change within the next one or two months. (On unreleased films and unreleased albums, I am willing to keep on declining until the work is released.)

Thoughts? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

we shouldn't try to prevent the community from making the decision. DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

User:DGG - Do you mean that we should let the community make the decision via AFD, and that we should accept the draft and see how it fares in article space? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with DGG. I don't do a lot of AfC work, but when I do, I go by the "Reviewing workflow" at WP:AFCR. As far as I can tell, this draft passes that, or at least comes close. It's certainly more encyclopedic than a lot of the crud that comes out of AfC. As you noted, if AFD doesn't like it, they can say so. There's certainly precedent for articles about events far in the future. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

User:RoySmith - That is in the human far future, but that is an astronomical event, and astronomers have better crystal balls than the rest of us, and their crystal balls got even better in the 1950s. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

With the preceding one just announced/assigned, 2032 Summer Olympics, there will be sure interest in 2036 Summer Olympics, and this interest will only increase. I think it belongs in mainspace. I am sure it could pass WP:STUB. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Olympics are planned many years in advance. Even the competition for a site is notable, and covered by multiple articles in the general and special press. This is, after all, only two Olympics after the present one, which is not the far future. Far future would be 2076. Even if the games are never held due to war or pestilence or the total collapse of human society, the decision not to holdl them will be written about and notable. In any case, it's not our role to decide. It has I would guess between a 50 to 79% chance of being accepted at AfD, and that's enough reason. I am going to accept it. I'm not a great fan of our overcoverage of sports ,but if we should cover it at all, we should include this.. (I'll copy this discussion to the article talk p.) DGG ( talk ) 08:15, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

AFCRC talk page messages

It has been brought to my attention that the WP:AFCRC (AfC/Redirects & categories) process doesn't actually leave any user talk page messages when reviews are done. I'm not sure how we made it to this point without any, but one imagines we probably want some. I propose some simple ones (the text "Your redirect request" is a link to the request):

• Accept: "Your redirect request for ___ has been accepted. Thanks for suggesting it!"
• Decline: "Your redirect request for ___ has been declined. The reason left by the reviewer was ___."
• Comment: "I have left a comment on your redirect request for ___. The comment was ___." with an option for the reviewer to add the text "Please respond with additional information on the request page."

Thoughts? (CC Qwerfjkl) Enterprisey (talk!) 06:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

This migh be a god time to reconsider whether we really need a separate process for redirects. At least, if someone should happen to place a request for a redirect in the main queue, why should we decline it and tell them to re-enter itt elsewhere? When I encounter this, if the redirect makes sense, I just accept it. . DGG ( talk ) 08:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

That would probably simplify things, but then I'd need to add the ability to do redirect category tagging in the script. Would probably be a strong net benefit anyway, though. Enterprisey (talk!) 09:05, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Indeed! I create redirects with attribution even if someone simply says "create [this redirect] to [that article] in an AFC submission. I would only suggest someone to go to the proper venue if someone asked me in a conversation, such as at the Teahouse. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Enterprisey @DGG @Usedtobecool One possible problem about using the normal AfC process is that it would be harder to request multiple redirects, such as here ― Qwerfjkltalk 10:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I like the process as is for the reason of multiple redirects, and that categories are a little different. It would be good to get this done with a script somehow, though. Talk page notification should be done, though for IPs they may not have much chance of seeing them anyway (particularly as the WMF is mostly hiding them from mobile users). When I see a redirect request as a draft, I create the redirect and reject the draft (assuming no more complex history in the draft)—bit of a silly procedure but can't see any deficiencies to it. — Bilorv (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Enterprisey @Bilorv @DGG @Usedtobecool I would be great if you simply accept it if it is a normal AfC draft, with a note directing them to Wikipedia:AFCRCR if they want to create more redirects. ― Qwerfjkltalk 20:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

accepting it as a normal draft is exactly what I have been doing for years. I've not yet encountered someone doing it repeatedly. DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Is there a problem of draftifying being used instead of tagging or taking to AfD?

I've noticed much more prominently over the past few days as the AfC draft counter has gotten so low that one of the major components of new AfC drafts are mainspace articles being moved to draftspace. It seems like this is being done a lot more often than it was in the past, rather than tagging with notability or improved sources tags or simply taking an article to AfD if notability is questioned. Should we have more of a push for editors to not just draftify dozens of mainspace articles, an action that essentially makes actually dealing with the articles a "someone else's problem" problem? Silverseren^C 16:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

We should. AFC has become the parking space of choice for those who cannot make their minds up. I would prefer the repeal of draftification Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I would not repeal draftification but I would support no re-draftification. Giving people one chance to go via AfC/Draft is good but one chance is enough. KylieTastic (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it points to the larger debate about what AfC is for. Is it the quarantine area for Spam/COI/PAID drafts and those articles where too much work is needed to make them ready for primetime, or is it a space for newer editors to learn the ropes in a supportive environment (LMAO). Bkissin (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

IMO there's a complete mismatch between the leniency of NPP and the harshness of AFC, which if anything should be the opposite way around. If a complete newbie submits an AFC draft without putting any serious work in, it gets declined. If a complete newbie makes 10 low-quality edits, waits 4 days and writes the same thing in mainspace, it's not eligible for CSD and often not for draftifying. The burden is on the NPP reviewer to prove that no appropriate sources exist (WP:BEFORE) and then make argument at an AFD discussion that lasts a week, and all the while the article is live.

NPP reviewers should be following current protocol even if they (like me) disagree with it, and draftification is very frequently misused (including as a "not my problem" button). However, we should think about why it's such an appealing button for an NPP reviewer to click, and find some way to solve the underlying problem. — Bilorv (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

to say it again, the only criterion at AfC is whether the article would survive AfD. But the 50% is too low a standard for this. The recent standard used by most reviewers is more like 66  %. Myself, I use at least 80%. But I'm willing to fix the draft myself is many circumstance, when it's easy enough and the subject is in my primary areas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

I draftify quite a lot at NPP but never articles I think aren’t about at least potentially notable topics. There are tines when it’s very hard to tell, if the topic is unfamiliar and the sourcing in the article is scant. I’m not going to go on a big hunt through Korean, Thai or Burmese sources to try and come to a final view on it. Sending it to draft isn’t intended to make it “someone else’s” job, but to get the creator to source it properly. Just as I can’t tell from the sources provided whether it’s a clear NPP pass, I equally can’t be sure enough it isn’t to send it to AfD. Having more reviewers speaking Asian languages would definitely help. Mccapra (talk) 13:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Review by non-AfC reviewer

I came across this edit made by a non-AfC reviewer adding a AfC comment (which I think is ok, especially if it is to help establish the notability of the subject), but removing the submission template at the same time. What's the general approach to us engaging non-AfC reviewers? – robertsky (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@Robertsky I think it's okay for non-approved users to review AfC submissions, it's just very hard to do correctly (with the |ts= parameter), and should be discouraged. I would check if they qualify for becoming a reviewer, and if not advise them how to improve. ― Qwerfjkltalk 18:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Mostly agreed - if it's a good/reasonable decline, no point in rolling back just for the sake of bureaucracy. If they keep at it, of course, they should be invited to "officially" join us. (and of course, if they're naff at it, then they should be told to knock it off) Primefac (talk) 20:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree they can and should add comments, and we might even provide an interface for it. . DGG ( talk ) 21:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@DGG I don't think adding {{AfC comment|}} is too much to ask. ― Qwerfjkltalk 21:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

right, and I sometimes do it manually. But an ordinary user who has a relevant comment to make wouldn't realize. DGG ( talk ) 23:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

If a draft is formally submitted to AFC then it should generally be formally declined. On the other hand, I don't think this is so important when a draft has been resubmitted (for the umpteenth time) without a proper attempt to address all of the reviewers' concerns. The comment gives enough explanation that I see this non-AFC review as appropriate. — Bilorv (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

For the draft mentioned, it's on a mayor of Raozan, a city of 300,000 people, for which it should be possible to show a mayor notable in the normal course of things. I don't want to comment on references I cannot read, but if someone who does read the language can comment on them, it would most likely be helpful. This is very different from the practice sometimes encountered of a non-AfC reviewer moving an article from draft to mainspace. DGG ( talk ) 23:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Don't conflate Raozan Paurashava (municipality), population 59,148 (2011), with Raozan Upazila (a much larger area, something like a county), population 322,840 (2011). An inclusionist might argue that a stub could be created based mainly on Draft:Jomir Uddin Parvez's only cited source of real substance and quality, banglanews24.com. Having worked at WikiProject Bangladesh with আফতাবুজ্জামান, who declined the draft, for several years, I trust their judgement in this case. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with the points above. In fact, I was wondering if we can invite them to be a reviewer, essentially to work on Bangladesh related drafts. – robertsky (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Bishwa Prakash Sharma

This draft has been resubmitted after rejection multiple times now and clearly is not notable. I am going to submit it for deletion. Eternal Shadow Talk 15:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Bishwa Prakash Sharma. Eternal Shadow Talk 15:43, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

That's a textbook case of what should be sent to MFD for multiple reasons including insulting the reviewers by resubmitting after rejection. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Use MfD for any active dispute like that. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Mon Phagun

The article was moved back to draft-space due to lack of proper sourcing and WP:COI concerns. I did a search and have added WP:RS like Anandabazar Patrika, Hindustan Times, Ei Samay, Aaj Tak, ABP Ananda and Times of India now that WP:VERIFY the WP:TVCAST and WP:TVPLOT of the daily soap. Also, I have added the latest TRP ratings released by Broadcast Audience Research Council. I also tried to trim long-character descriptions as a part of clean up. I hope its ready for main-space. Thank you. 2409:4061:4E90:6621:F1AB:221D:58D8:8F2F (talk) 20:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

 Remark: I do not have a WP:COI or been WP:PAID. I did it because I found the article missing in main-space, while browsing current Indian Bengali TV shows. Thank you. 2409:4061:4E90:6621:F1AB:221D:58D8:8F2F (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Beta test: stub sorting

Stub sorting, as previously requested, has been coded and is ready for beta testing. To test this feature, uninstall the AfC helper script at Preferences → Gadgets and install User:Enterprisey/afch-dev.js (you'll have to undo those steps once the beta test is over - shouldn't be more than a few days). Once it's installed, while accepting an article, select "stub" from the "Article assessment" menu to show the new stub sorting tool, which is just a slightly modified version of User:SD0001/StubSorter. (I am grateful to SD0001 for updating his script to make this possible.) Stub templates added (and removed) there will be applied to the page when you click "Accept & publish". Please let me know if there are any issues; if none are reported, I will put this in the main script in a few days. (Don't worry, I've tested it myself too.) Enterprisey (talk!) 07:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Enterprisey, wow. i like the sideloading method to integrate existing scripts. – robertsky (talk) 08:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Awesome work! Makes this process much easier now. Curbon7 (talk) 08:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, looks good. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

What does this do? Does it permit the reviewer to assign a stub template to the article on accepting a stub draft which nonetheless satisfies a notability guideline (such as a species of insect or a village in Indonesia)? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes. I guess I could somehow show it if you're doing something besides accepting the draft, but in that case it would be simpler to change SD0001's original script to allow it to be used in draft-space. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

If you mean to add stub tags to drafts I don't think that's a good idea. The classifications "class=Draft" and "class=Stub" are mutually exclusive. By stub-tagging drafts we would effectively be polluting the "Article by class" lists that WikiProjects use and we'd also be prematurely judging drafts that might develop beyond stub-class before they get to mainspace. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

This is now in the main script. Enterprisey (talk!) 09:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

DGG, do you have StubSorter.js in your common.js? If so, it is conflicting with the StubSorter invocation in ACFH, which stops the script from cleaning up some articles, such as Nayaks of Vellore. I just found out about it. Enterprisey, I have gotten an Uncaught TypeError: Cannot read property 'map' of undefined at StubSorter.js L322 when mocking at Draft:Deborah Santana. A fix on us user's end is to disable StubSorter.js in common.js for Draft and User spaces. – robertsky (talk) 08:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Hopefully fixed. (Thanks Robertsky for the bug report!) Enterprisey (talk!) 08:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Enterprisey, yep it works now. Thanks! – robertsky (talk) 09:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I already noticed the problem. I'll fix it in the morning. DGG ( talk ) 09:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC) ″

Draft:Arle Court park and ride

Check please on Draft:Arle Court park and ride - I reviewed when too tired and linked to completely the wrong guideline which I then updated 20 minutes later. But I left myself a note to double check myself after sleep. Again this morning it just looks like run of the mill local reporting for a park and ride, price/route/service changes using sections for other temporary purposes, things I could write for all our local P&Rs but I cant see have anything but local interest. However doing due diligence I searched for other "park and ride" articles and found their are a few. Some like York park and ride at least have a claim to be the 'biggest' but others like Bristol park and ride and Preston park and ride look just as run of the mill. So to be fair to the submitter NemesisAT I'm asking for a review of this one and thoughts on the topic in general. I would have thought that a local areas transport infrastructure would be notable such as Transport in Cambridge which just has two sentences for Cambridge Park & Rides 5 sites. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 10:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello KylieTastic thanks for taking the time to consider this. I'm definitely an "inclusionist" so naturally, I would like to see this article published and other park and ride articles kept. Another example of a notable park and ride is Craibstone Park and Ride, which I wrote an article for in May. While I have had an account a long time, I am relatively new to frequent editing and what I find odd is that railway stations are assumed to be notable and almost always survive AfD if nominated, whereas bus stations, routes, and park and rides seem to be scrutinised a lot more and often deleted at AfD. We have practically infinite space here so if we can verify that something exists and have reliable sources to hand, why not make an article? Personally, I'm not a fan of the essay WP:MILL as it is subjective. Public transport is very important to me but could be of no interest to someone who does not use it or live near a railway station or bus route.

Regarding Draft:Arle Court park and ride, I feel it passes WP:GNG which is policy and thus ought to trump WP:MILL. There are multiple sources that while from local papers, I believe they are still reliable, independent, and are significant coverage. Best wishes NemesisAT (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• This may have got missed in the excitement of the final push anyone care to venture an opinion, specifically if anyone has AfD experience for this topic area? Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 11:23, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

  Hi @KylieTastic: seeing as nobody else is interested, would you be happy to approve the article for now? If other editors feel it doesn't meet our guidelines I imagine they'll nominate it for deletion soon enough. Thanks for your help NemesisAT (talk) 08:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• Hey NemesisAT sorry that we've just had tumbleweed. I've got too many real world issues at the moment and have mostly disengaged from Wikipedia as well as other things to deal with the more serious life issues. So all I can suggest is that you could be bold yourself and move to main-space, or just re-submit, or ask at the Wikipedia:Teahouse to try to solicit input. Sorry KylieTastic (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

  No worries, and I'm happy to move to mainspace. I have done that before, but am not sure if it's the "done thing" so to speak, I only did it because in those cases I was really unhappy with the draft comments. I will go ahead and move it to mainspace now. Best wishes, and thanks for your time. NemesisAT (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Future backlog drives

We all did well.

Please can we now set some parameters for the next and subsequent drives.

• What level of backlog should trigger them?
• Should each new one be proposed and discussed, or should they just be run
• Should the duration be, for example, a hot, fast week, not a month?

Let's open this for discussion so that we are not "surprised" by a 5 month backlog again. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I think more frequent, 1 week long blasts would be beneficial and enjoyable, a month seems such a long slog. Theroadislong (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree. While we needed the month, if we set the correct trigger threshold, a week should do it with ease Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 21:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

1000 would probably be reasonable in a week. ― Qwerfjkltalk 20:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Does that equate to the trigger size of the backlog in your thinking? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 21:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Timtrent Yes (considering we did at least 1000/week in the drive). ― Qwerfjkltalk 21:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl A reasonable proposal on which we will need consensus. Thank you Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 21:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I could support that, or something like it. These things shouldn't be allowed to slip too far. --Doric Loon (talk) 08:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Age of the backlog is the primary determiner for me. 100 0-day old drafts probably take as much time as 20 3-month old drafts, because the easy ones always get caught earlier than that. I see AFC as failing if a substantial number of drafts are taking more than a week to be reviewed. The submitters deserve a response no later than that. Week-long drives seem sensible given the scale of what we were able to do in a month, but also the burnout it could cause. — Bilorv (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

The goal is not to need another drive , ever, but to review as a matter of course within the first week. . This is possible. When I joined, there were routinely backlogs of over 100 items at Speedy, which is an especially time-critical process, and now they are almost always done immediately. I think the next step is to routinely audit the pones that get declined, and the ones that get accepted. (My own immediate goal is to get a full month ahead with the G13s--in the last few days I've been able to go from a half day ahead, to a full week. If I can get to the full month, then I can think more about fixing the ones that could be acceptable than just postponing. DGG ( talk ) 20:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the goal; that has always been the goal.

A drive is something that we need when we miss the goal, thus it should be triggered or triggerable at the point we know the goal has escaped us Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 15:17, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I think we should schedule backlog drives as needed but not more frequently than, say, every 6 months - don't want to risk burnout. Backlog drives deal with backlog but create some excitement so probably also help recruit new reviewers and keep older ones from drifting away. I think a 1-month backlog is acceptable. The maximum backlog generally just applies to a small number of marginal or otherwise fraught drafts; Most drafts are reviewed much more quickly. A longer backlog is useful for tempering authors that resubmit with minimal or no improvements. Letting those sit for a couple or few weeks takes the WP:BITE out of the situation. ~Kvng (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Decline language bug

This is relating to the {{AfC submission}} template. However, I am putting here first for a broader discussion. Setting {{AFC submission|d|lang|Malay|u=Mmwth123|ns=118|decliner=Robertsky|declinets=20210818051759|ts=20210818040127}} at Draft:Isham Jalil returns https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Msa:&action=edit&redlink=1 rather than ms.wikipedia.org as the link to 'Malay Wikipedia'. I have checked that it seems to be translating 'Malay' to 'msa' from Module:Language/data/ISO 639 name to code dataset. I propose a switch to a {{AfC submission/languages}} mapping from the tables at List of Wikipedias instead. This will account for non-standard mapping and possibly promoting closed/locked projects through their incubator wikis directly rather than at their wikipedia.org urls. – robertsky (talk) 05:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Hmm... I've run into that issue from time to time myself. Did you try putting Malaysian in and seeing if that correctly routed it to the right spot? Regardless, I would support that change. Bkissin (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Bkissin, 'Malaysian' doesn't route to the right spot. It simply reads The submission appears to be written in Malaysian. This is the English-language Wikipedia; we can only accept articles written in the English language. Please provide a high-quality English-language translation of your submission. Have you visited the Wikipedia home page? You can probably find a version of Wikipedia in your language.. Will a dropdown selector for languages help as well? – robertsky (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Late Reply to User:SmokeyJoe

This is a reply to SmokeyJoe's reply to me on 25 July 2021. I didn't comment at the time because I was more focused, as many of us were, on emptying certain backlog categories, and we succeeded at that better than at addressing my concerns about the general notability guideline. I had concluded: " Perhaps SmokeyJoe can re-explain what he is saying …." SmokeyJoe writes: "Perhaps SmokeyJoe can re-explain what he is saying? Perhaps Robert can ask a simpler question?" Well, sometimes the questions that need to be asked are not simple. However, I will ask one question in response to a comment in SmokeyJoe's post that we may have overlooked, that may or may not be simple, and then I will reply to the more general topic

AFD and AFC

User:SmokeyJoe stated what I thought was a major policy consideration to which no one responded, perhaps because they didn't notice, or perhaps because everyone else was busy, as I was, or perhaps because it has been so obvious to everyone except me that it was seen as a statement that the sky is blue, or perhaps because it was skipped over because it was so unexpected that no one grasped it. He wrote: "AfC reviewers should get enough experience at AfD before trying AfC".

I have never previously seen that experience at AFD is or should be a prerequisite to being an AFC reviewer. So this may be a simple question. Should experience at AFD be a prerequisite to reviewing at AFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

If one accepts that the core WP:AFCPURPOSE is to judge whether a draft would survive an AfD, then clearly it helps to understand how a typical AfD works, warts and all, and I can't think of any other way of understanding that than by having taken part in (including nominating; perhaps especially this) sufficiently many. (I say if one accepts, because surely the AfC process covers wider issues; but that still seems a handy acid test.) So if the current criterion of "reasonable evidence of understanding the deletion policy (experience in areas such as CSD/AfD/PROD or page curation, while not mandatory, are beneficial)" were to be changed to "...is beneficial and therefore mandatory", I'd have no issue with that. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

GNG and AFD

Regardless of whether AFD experience should be a prerequisite to reviewing at MFD, I still think that there is a circular aspect to what SmokeyJoe has written. I will clarify that I think the general notability guideline is subjective because I think that significant coverage is subjective, and some contentious AFDs are contentious because there are disagreements as to what is significant coverage.

SmokeyJoe writes: " The GNG is just a predictor of the AfD result. However, many at AfD try to take the GNG as gospel. However, AfD is where the decision is made." Yes. So how should the editors at AFD make the decision? (Is that a simpler question?)

SmokeyJoe writes: " I think that AFD does not really depend on criteria, but instead depends on that nebulous concept of WP:Consensus, and on decisions being made by the people who choose to turn up." In other words, does that mean that AFD is subjective? If so, does that mean that GNG is subjective, since he says it is a reflection of what will pass AFD? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Do other editors think that experience at AFD should be a prerequisite for reviewing at AFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

My two centimes: "it depends". In general, I don't think AfC is a good place for an editor to start when first joining the Wikpedia back office. But people come to Wikipedia with different skill sets, experiences and world views, and trying to impose black and white strictures ends up creating the need for ever expanding exceptions (hello IAR). I don't particularly see any problems with the current criteria for participation at AfC...and if ever there was a test of how things are run, the July drive seems to show a fairly good system (including participation from "new" comers, like myself). Most of the rereviews show consistency .... even in the case of one rereview I made as a fail and then sent to AfD, it looks to be heading towards a keep or no consensus (it's about ships ... which in wikipedia terms is sort of like cricketers it seems ... if it floats it's notable ... and even then.). That said, I wouldn't have a problem recommending people participate at AfD before engaging here fully ... and for what it's worth, I don't think Smokey Joe proposed this as a *prerequisite*, I would simply read their statement as encouraging new editors to go there first. I think the most important conclusion to draw about AfD is not which guideline or policy is paramount, but that every AfD is judged on a case-by-case basis...and I actually think that is a strength, not a weakness, because we can review and because when things change, so can our decisions. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with User:Goldsztajn. I'd like to take what Robert picked up a bit further:

New Wikipedians should begin by editing mainspace.

After editing mainspace for a while, then consider creating new articles.

After editing mainspace, consider participating at WP:AfD. While participating at WP:AfD, read up on the notability guidelines.

Only after experience at WP:AfD, preferably with experience nominating, and with familiarity with the notability guidelines, consider volunteering at WP:NPR.

Only after a period of success at WP:New Page Patrol, consider volunteering at WP:AfC.

WP:AfC should come after WP:NPP because it is much the same thing, but with much more potential to unilaterally and unfairly bite newcomers and reject worthy content. WP:NPP should come after WP:AfD because NPP requires understanding of AfD and notability, but decisions are made unilaterally. WP:AfD is recommended fairly early, because it is a group activity, which makes learning from others easy and natural.

An oddity of AfC is that the controls and requirements are less than for NPP. I would fix this by making the NPP permission required for AfC.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I find AFC reviewing to be mostly the same skillset as NPP, but a bit easier, for the following reasons: 1) The burden is on the submitter to present sourcing, there is no WP:BEFORE. 2) There's no draftifying. 3) You hardly need to worry about CSD. For example, G12 is built into AFCH. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I find NPP easier. I find rejecting things to be hard work, and NPP has a higher pass rate.

I find AfC frustrating sometimes, with a large number of non-notable promotional topics where the author has tried hard to conceal the problem. Sometimes I feel I am engaging in a training program for paid editors.

I can find AfD depressing, as so often it means the deletion of someone's enthusiasm, for failing a sort of arbitrary fuzzy boundary. I used to be much more inclusionist, but reformed. I wish that newcomers would improve content before trying to create new content, so that they learn expectations on content before putting effort into new content that is doomed for rejection or deletion.

I feel motivation to get quality AfC submissions into mainspace quickly.

At AfC, I often move on without touching it, because it is too hard to explain why it is not good enough. At NPP, I can add a tag related to my concern before moving on. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I personally find AfC to be far easier and less complicated than NPP as well, simply because with NPP it feels like you have to take into consideration a million different possibilities, while with AfC you just have to apply GNG and occassionally the relevant SNG to the sources in the draft. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

AfD experience definitely makes you a better AfC reviewer. I don't want to raise the bar for new AfC reviewers by requiring NPP or AfD experience. We don't always have enough reviewers to comfortable handle the AfC influx so let's not put up any more barriers to recruiting. I'm OK with on-the-job training for new reviewers and the mistakes associated with that. We have enough checks and balances to overcome a few mistakes. ~Kvng (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: In re: a large number of non-notable promotional topics where the author has tried hard to conceal the problem -- that is how I use the Reject option ("topic is not notable"). Before rejecting, I check user contributions for the draft creator, and in almost all cases he/she is a SPA. For the more blatant cases, I use CSD under G11. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

MFD and the Use of Rejection

This is a continuation of a discussion between User:DGG and User:SmokeyJoe about Rejection at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Manscaped. The draft was declined 7 times by 6 reviewers, and was then nominated for deletion by DGG. I !voted to Delete but not Salt, because in my opinion 7 declines by 6 reviewers are more than enough. SmokeyJoe voted to Keep. One of his reasons to Keep was that the draft had never been Rejected, only declined. DGG said that some editors never use Reject, only decline, and that some editors are not aware of the Reject option, and that there is no clear understanding about its proper use. I think that reviewers should be aware of the Reject option, because the button is in plain view, but I agree that there is no clear understanding about its proper use. I think that my own efforts to obtain a clear understanding about its proper use have been ignored.

I think, first, that resubmission after a rejection should be, in itself, a sufficient basis for MFD, although not the only basis. I don't think that there has been a clear statement to that effect. I think, second, that a decline does not necessarily mean that there is hope. It only means that the reviewer has not rejected the draft and thinks that it should be not be in article space. I will only reject a draft if I have a high degree of certainty that either 'n' or 'e', reject for notability, or reject as contrary to the purpose, applies. I won't reject for notability unless there has been a before AFD search, or there has been a previous AFD, or the non-notability is obvious (would be A7 in mainspace), or the submitter is clearly their own worst enemy (all too common). I very seldom reject for contrary to the purpose, because I don't know what that means. So I do sometimes reject, but seldom, and the fact that I decline a draft does not mean that there is hope, only that I did not reject it.

I don't think that Rejection should always be a precondition to MFD. I know that there is not a clear understanding about when Rejection should and should not be used.

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

MfD welcomes any draft nomination that has a deletion reason based on a line at WP:NOT. That’s an awful lot.

MfD does not welcome draft nominations based on notability or COI or TOOSOON, unless it is tendentious resubmission or resubmission after rejection. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I have accepted a few submissions that had previously been reviewed as Rejected; in some cases the draft was in fact improved, in others the rejection was unjustified. I don't think Reject is used so clearly and reproducibly that we should treat it as more than a serious warning. Certainly when I was arguing for adding the Rejection option that's what I thought I was doing--instead of a notice urging improvement and resubmission, adding one discouraging further work. WP does not in general work so well that any procedures should automatically follow anything.

"Contrary to the purpose" means to me any of the reasons for NOT except great unlikelihood of ever showing notability. When I use it it generally means learly and obviously promotional to the level that the contributor should not continue it (but not quite to the level of G11, which is deliberately lenient for drafts.) There have been a few others, for which it would similarly mean something a little less than speedy deletion, but I do not recall specifics. DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

The DECLINE template actively encourages the author to edit and improve and resubmit. If the author does what they are encouraged to do, it is not ok to criticise them for it. The fault is in the message. This is why AfC needed the REJECT option, and it serves. If a reviewer DECLINES, they should not be upset to see further edits and a resubmit. If the reviewer REJECTS, then they are justified to react to small improvements and resubmission, as that is not consistent with the REJECT text.

One thing I oppose is the reviewer using REJECT, and then using MfD next, without any intervening edits. This should not be done. The REJECT notice represents a blunt response to the author, and it should be expected to take them time to digest it. Leave it there, for G13.

When a tendentious resubmission or resubmission offer REJECT comes to MfD, then this is a serious escalation. Either the author is not listening, or the reviewer(s) are not communicating clearly. Or both. Or the reviewer is wrong. MfD is a good forum to resolve this dispute between submitter and reviewer. Don’t abuse MfD by throwing rags into the process. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Robert McClenon for bringing up this situation. I don't know that I agree with DGG's (as told through Robert McClenon) suggestion that users are unaware of the rejection option. I personally use the Reject option sparingly, partially to save myself the hassle of getting innundated on my talk page by users who are either acting in bad faith or are unaware of the AfC process, and partially because many articles have the opportunity of meeting guidelines, and to reject would deprive them of that chance. Those points being said, the issues I see are that: 1. Even when an article is rejected, it often ends up being resubmitted, which makes the reviewer (or at least THIS reviewer) feel like "Well, F--- me, right?" What's the point in saying that something is not going to be addressed any further if the user is going to continue to engage in tendentious submission? 2. Many cases where something is a Reject candidate, it is also an easy CSD candidate, so rather than have something that easily meets WP:NOT, why not just have it speedy'd? I had a third point but now I can't seem to remember it (something about disagreeing with whether COI should be a reject criteria, though I see the other side of that coin given my opining above around not allowing a possibly notable subject to exist). Bkissin (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Bkissin - You say that you often encounter a draft that can either be Rejected or tagged for speedy deletion. While I do see drafts that are candidates for speedy deletion, I don't see them frequently, maybe because I don't tag for speedy deletion in what I think of as doubtful cases. That is, don't tag if you only think that the admin will agree; tag if you are almost sure that the admin will agree. What criteria is User:Bkissin saying can be used? The criterion that I think most commonly applies to drafts is G11, and occasionally G3 or G10. G5 and G12 are special cases because they are not a matter of the content of the draft but of where the draft came from. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

AfC helper script: adding the AfC submission template without submitting the draft

I've created an issue on the AfC helper script's GitHub repository on potentially adding a mechanism for adding {{AfC submission|T}} to a draft that has no AfC-related templates. You can read my suggestion here. Please feel free to respond with any feedback (is this even necessary, what solution would make sense for your workflow, etc.) either here or on the issue itself if you have a GitHub account. Perryprog (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Rewards for Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/July 2021 Backlog Drive

My understanding was that participants in the backlog drive were up for rewards (barnstars, etc) and indeed I kind of used them in promoting the event. I'm not seeing any rewards appearing on people's talkpages, however. Has something been forgotten? Or is COVID rotting my brain? Stuartyeates (talk) 01:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

On a related note, what happened to the re-review tally? I dutifully did my required reviews but they have never showed up. :( Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I understand there are some issues with baked-in dates and an index that only goes back a month. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Stuartyeates, it will take a while longer for the rewards to turn up on our talk pages, but it will be up. Enterprisey is on a holiday this week. – robertsky (talk) 05:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/July 2021 Backlog Drive#Finishing the drive. ― Qwerfjkltalk 06:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

September 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | September 2021, Volume 7, Issue 9, Numbers 184, 188, 204, 205, 207, 208 Online events: New: Women writers & their works Contest (Jul/Aug/Sep): Latin America contest Continuing: Women's leadership & empowerment | Olympic & Paralympic Games Women's rights | #1day1woman See also: Interwiki Women Collaboration Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Learn more about our proposed one-day online recruitment initiative in October. Help plan and coordinate future events. Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Follow Women in Red on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging