Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mahir24 (talk | contribs) at 12:19, 28 April 2020 (→Vhora Mahir: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, List, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Welcome—discuss matters concerning this project!
AfC submissions
Random submission
~8 weeks
1,843 pending submissions
Purge to update
Shortcut


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

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Should AFCH have a button to auto-post a "please add an image/logo" message for creators of approved articles?

Keeping well in mind the risk of feature bloat, does anyone think it would be useful to add an option to suggest the creator add an image? I've been manually encouraging folks to upload a Fair Use logo for Notable companies, and if a topic seems cool and likely to have an image (like a battle that was probably covered in pre-1923 media) to encourage them to upload an image to Wikimedia Commons.

Does anyone thing this could be a useful AFCH feature, or as an interim solution we could make an "addlogo" template to quickly type onto the creator's Talk page? MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Actually I think we need a "tag problems"dropbox like the decline reason box for the "approval" AFCH option. We can use this to tag problems or message the author, as well as autopatrolling them. WikiAviator (talk) 03:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. It is a good suggestion, but optional. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvios tool

Is anybody else having trouble with the copyvios tool on the AFC submitted template? It's giving me a 504 gateway time-out. Sam-2727 (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reducing the oldest drafts in the backlog

It is great to see Category:AfC pending submissions by age/3 months ago with under 300 drafts now. Maybe we can all tackle a dozen or so from it and see if we can get it down to zero? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mostly happy to see it closer to 2k than 3k. But yes, I think that we can clear both of those hurdles (sub-2k being my "goal line"). Primefac (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way to find drafts which meet multiple selection criteria. Say. 3 months old and in a specific WikiProject? That would narrow down the field, so I wouldn't be tempted to just reject all band articles :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: User:SDZeroBot/AfC sorting sorts by topic, and Special:NewPagesFeed lets you filter AfC submissions by date range and various other criteria, but there's no tool that combines these facilities yet, sadly. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Curb Safe Charmer, Cool. User:SDZeroBot/AfC sorting/STEM/Computing pretty much does what I was looking for, thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Curb Safe Charmer, Hmm, this is confusing. For Draft:Collibra, the Class column says "GA". Surely that's not supposed to mean Good Article? -- RoySmith (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith, I wouldn't read too much into the article class predictions. Focus more on topics. The ORES predictions for article class are mostly inaccurate in my opinion. The only reason it rates the article as GA is because the classification is based off of other GA articles. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith, As I asked Evad on WT:RATER, sometimes ORES gives ridiculous ratings, like predicting a GA class for the article Newman's conjecture that has just 800 words of prose and 10 refs. If it says stub, then it's usually a stub; if it says Start or C, choose from either Start or Stub. Just take ORES with a grain of salt. TLOM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 09:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Lord of Math, Ah, I see this (and more) is explained at the top of Wikipedia:AfC sorting. Perhaps that could also be included in the various User:SDZeroBot/AfC sorting sub-pages? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Curb Safe Charmer, User:SDZeroBot/AfC sorting/STEM is currently a redirect to Wikipedia:AfC sorting/STEM, which is a redlink as of this edit by User:SDZeroBot. Is something broken, or have I just caught it in a transiently inconsistent state? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Curb Safe Charmer, I've been beating on this for the past two weeks (along with a lot of other folks, I'm sure). /3 months ago is down to 9 pages. The ones that are left, I've looked at so many times, I can't look at them any more. Surely somebody can knock off the last 9. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith  Done. Theroadislong (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Theroadislong, Woot! -- RoySmith (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Too young?

I would like to join this project, but I cannot due to the reason that my account is only 86 days old and there are only four days left. Do I have to wait or can I still be accepted? 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 04:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Koridas, I'm not a reviewer (so don't take my words TOO seriously) but from my very limited experience of working with you and AFC and checking your stats, I see some major problems that, unfortunately, might make you unsuitable for AFC. Yet.
  1. You made 17 articles, a good thing. The not-so-good thing is that 5 of them were deleted, 2 through AFD. The deletion discussions reveal that the entries weren't notable. Determining notability is a major factor at AFC, and perhaps more good enough articles would be better.
  2. Your AFD stats show that, excluding Fools noms, you only had an AFD accuracy (hit rate) of ~70%. AFC is about predicting if an article passes AFD (see reviewing instructions) and unfortunately, that's not good enough. Yet.
To be honest, if you nommed yourself after 4 days, you'd probably be turned down. I suggest that you gather more experience, esp. in deletion discussions. Keep up the good work, and stay healthy and safe! TLOM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 05:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Koridas, There's a lot of useful and important work to be done at AfC other than conducting reviews. I often see drafts which are on notable topics, but are badly formatted, out of compliance with WP:MOS, need better referencing, need wikilinks, etc. You might want to dive into doing some of that. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ISO Standards

I have recently reviewed several drafts on standards of the International Standards Organization (ISO). What I would like to know is whether there is a notability guideline or some similar guideline about articles on standards. Sometimes the article essentially states that the standard exists, and I think that probably isn't sufficient to accept the draft, but I don't have anything in particular to refer the author to. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, I've so far ignored them, so glad someone else brought it up. To me, if they don't provide some sort of context as to why they are notable, then it shouldn't have an article. There are tens of thousands (if not more) ISO standards and Wikipedia is not a directory. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We have a lot of articles about ISO standards (not to mention dozens of other standards organizations). My general reaction is that many (if not most) of them don't demonstrate notability. As a random example, ISO/IEC 7812 has only two sources, both of which are WP:PRIMARY ISO documents. An article such as this one would almost certainly not pass AfD today, and thus if it were a draft, I would not accept it. I don't know of any WP:SNG, so the fallback is WP:GNG. What I would tell the author is that we need WP:SECONDARY sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All drafts should contain an assertion of notability - a statement in the lead or body that explains why the topic is important. Without this context, accepted drafts are much more likely to be listed for deletion. ~Kvng (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

< 2000 and 200 in 3 months+ hit

To everyone who's been pushing at the backlog give yourselves a pat on the back we've finally got it down to a semi-reasonable level again. Onwards to < 1000 and none over 2 months. Stay safe KylieTastic (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there somewhere these stats are charted vs. time? -- RoySmith (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There used to be a chart that tracked submissions and the "very old" cat, but since then more cats have been added and the chart creator has retired. So as of this moment, no. Primefac (talk) 23:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • RoySmith this is the old counter, but only the blue line is correct.
KylieTastic, backlog reduction may be accelerated if edit filter 964 hits are tagged so we can speedily decline unreferenced drafts. Pls join the discussion at the EF notice board. Stay healthy and stay safe! TLOM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 09:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Lord of Math I can't say that I come across that many with no references (lots with no RS), also I'm not sure how accurate it can determine no references? Since I tend to do though all new submissions for quick decline/accepts, or to watchlist those I I want to come back too, it wouldn't help how I work, but if it helps others I see no harm in it. Keep safe KylieTastic (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:IOTA (technology)

IOTA (technology) is creation protected. I think that Draft:IOTA (technology) could finally be moved to the mainspace as there is demonstrated notability, and although there are some parts that are written promotionally, I think the article has a good amount of "criticism" (i.e. hacks) in it as well that makes it neutral enough to be suitable for the mainspace. Could an administrator perform the move? Sam-2727 (talk) 22:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sam-2727, It was DGG who page protected it and policy would be to reach out to the original admin who PP'd it (me pinging them here should be enough) to request unprotection. My personal exceptions would be a couple of times that I've requested unprotection directly at WP:RFP or via twinkle when I see that the protecting admin is inactive and/or it was salted years ago. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I shall take a look at it this week, though I'm a little behind at getting to things the last few weeks. DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: Just a gentle nudge on this. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've also reviewed and think it is ready for mainspace. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The draft has a reference error. Those can be fixed in article space, but I think it should be fixed in submitting it to article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
things get done slowly these days. thanks for reminding me. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Lance Dodes

This draft has been submitted again. When it was previously submitted, it was declined for tone reasons. He is a controversial figure, and the draft appears to present his views rather than a neutral point of view. The current draft appears to me to be less non-neutral but still non-neutral. However, here is the consideration. I have no doubt that he passes both academic notability and general notability. The principal question at Articles for creation should be whether the draft, if an article, will be kept on Articles for Deletion. The draft, in its current state, could be taken to AFD with a request to blow it up and start over. The result of an AFD should not be Delete, because he passes notability. It could be to blow it up and start over, but what is in the current page that would be left on trimming would be a Start-Class article (not a stub). Therefore I think that it should be tagged heavily and accepted.

What does anyone else think?

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, I am no authority but in my humble opinion, if it is less non-neutral now then perhaps you should change the tone yourself? Newbies aren't expected to know everything about Wikipedia tone. NPOV is a rule hard to follow, from a certain point of view. If a proponent or opponent of AA is writing about Dodes, there is no COI, but the tone will no doubt be a bit biased. My prediction is that, if put on AFD, it would be rather heavily reworked and eventually the tone problem would be solved. Therefore, my take is to accept it, fix the tone problems and possibly tag the article. Cheers, and stay safe! Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math (Message) 08:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Eumat114 - I don't feel qualified to rewrite the article to neutralize its tone. My choices are to decline it for tone reasons, to try to fix the tone and make a mess of it, or to tag the tone and accept it. I think that the third option has the fewest disadvantages. I don't think that I should be expected to be able to do everything that another reviewer says should be done, even if I agree that things should be done. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon, agreed. Please do accept and tag it. Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math (Message) 12:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptance

I have accepted the draft with a tag. Also, the draft had comments that were introduced in the review process but were not removed by the AFC script. I have moved the comments to the talk page. (As some reviewers know, this is a common matter that comments get into an article and should either be removed or moved. My thinking is that, if in doubt, they can go to the talk page.) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Chinu Kala

Some days ago, I had reviewed this draft and moved it to mainspace as the Notability was assured by a number of references provided in the article. Later, it was draftified by an admin noting that there was a case of undisclosed payment and that 3 different users were working on the same subject at Commons, Wikidata and here on English Wikipedia; whether they were sucks or three different paid editors.

As far as, I could see, the COI issue of paid editing is clear as the editing user has disclosed this. I think that the draft should be moved to mainspace, but what should be done for the suck case — as the editing user has denied of being suck of the other two users.

Requesting some experienced AfC reviewer to sort this. Regards - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have declined the draft, not because of the paid editing, but because in my opinion it is a well-sourced run-of-the-mill directory entry for a non-notable businesswoman. The subject may be notable, but the text of the draft does not establish that. The issue is not sources; it is that the body of the article does not establish notability. There is a myth in Wikipedia that, because reliable sources are so important, any draft should be accepted if it has the right sources, and finding the right sources is always enough. No. Sources are a necessary but not sufficient condition for notability. In this case, the sources are good, but the text of the biography doesn't make the case. I have declined it. The paid editor, or a neutral editor, can expand the body of the draft if there is more to say. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Categorize all AfC drafts with ORES topics using a bot

WP:AfC sorting presently lists all pending drafts grouped by ORES-predicted topics. However, once an article is declined, there is no way to know the topics associated with it. This method of using lists does not scale generally — there are 23,000 declined AfC drafts and another 12,000 unsubmitted ones with AfC templates. It's better to use categories rather than lists, as that's what the category system is built for.

Rationale:

  • Recently, there has been a massive discussion at WP:VPP about the inefficiencies of draft namespace. See in particular the section WP:VPP#The real problem is biographies and lack of classification.
  • Having all drafts sorted would greatly improve the productivity of anyone wanting to improve abandoned drafts. It would facilitate using Petscan to find articles older than n days AND belonging to a certain topic, and other such combinations.

Implementation notes:

  • Drafts being edited from now onwards only will be touched, so that the G13 clock of older drafts is not disrupted.
  • Drafts in userspace, and ones declined as as blank or as test, will be skipped (ORES will probably be unable to do it anyway). Drafts not associated with AfC are also skipped.
  • A template called {{draft topics}} will be used. The topics will be passed to it as parameters, and it will cause the categorisation. This is better than adding the raw categories to the page, because it will make it easier for tools like the AFC Helper script to remove the categories when accepting (just the template has to be removed). I can also write the patch for the AFC helper script.

I will develop the bot if there is consensus for this. SD0001 (talk) 10:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • support - sounds good to me. KylieTastic (talk) 11:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I'd rather WikiProject Banners are used than {{draft topics}} Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • One doesn't preclude the other though. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think it precludes the other, but OTOH this would end up creating maintenance categories that basically duplicate the ones that WikiProjects provide in the context of drafts that would need to be another thing to remove when the page is moved out of draft space (in addition to any scoring by the WikiProjects of interest). I agree with Headbomb here that WikiProject banners would be much preferred for me. --Izno (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • The ORES topics don't exactly co-relate with WikiProjects. See User:SD0001/sandbox for the anomalies. For geographical topics, ORES classifications are continents or sub-continents (like "Eastern Europe", "Western Asia"), not countries. Many of these sub-continental projects are marked as inactive, or they don't exist at all. Even where they exist and they're not marked as inactive, I don't think there's benefit in tagging with those project tags as these are rarely used for mainspace articles. It is nonsense for an article about a street in Moscow to tagged with WikiProject Eastern Europe (anyway an inactive project), rather than WikiProject Russia.
For the many ORES topics which do co-relate with a single WikiProject, like Food & drink, linguistics, literature, physics, chemistry, computing, engineering, technology, biography, women, architecture and possibly others, I can also have the bot add the WikiProject tags. While this is redundancy, I believe it is worth it. The advantage of WikiProject tagging is primarily for AALERTS, which is I guess what Headbomb and Hellknowz are concerned about. I don't think draft categories duplicate the ones WikiProjects provide -- because the WikiProject categories contain the talk pages. Categories anyway aren't a neat navigation tool, their utility is exponentially reduced (for the browsing usecase) if they contain the talk pages rather than the actual drafts. Even a sophisticated tool like PetScan doesn't let you list pages on the basis of categories/templates on their talk pages. Does this sound like a fruitful compromise?

... would need to be another thing to remove when the page is moved out of draft space (in addition to any scoring by the WikiProjects of interest)

No the wikiproject tags don't need to be removed when moving out of draft space. Only the draft cats need to be removed, which is easy as they would all be applied by a single {{draft topics}} template -- which the AFCH script can be coded to remove. I am aware that AFCH presently duplicates project tags if the reviewer chooses to add them but they already existed -- this is also fairly easy to fix in the script. SD0001 (talk) 06:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is ORES? What are the categories in question? McClenon mobile (talk) 14:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Note: {{Draft article}} has |subject=, which adds similar categories to those proposed here. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Anything that helps potential collaborators find drafts of interest to them makes sense. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, it is an excellent substitute for WikiProject tagging. At the same time, remove WikiProject taggings from the AfC and NPP processes. Only WikiProject members should be tagging pages with their WikiProject. The force-feeding of dying WikiProjects with masses of new pages only chokes them. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm curious how WikiProjects (active or inactive) are supposed to find new pages if someone (NPR or AFC) are not tagging them. Are we going to have a bot post on the project page Article Alert-style that there might be an article that is in their purview? As someone who regularly assesses WP:AST pages, I can tell you that I would much rather remove an invalid talk page template than have to keep an eye on Recent Articles to try and find new articles to assess (especially for AST-related articles about people or non-obvious places/orgs/etc). Primefac (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Primefac. How are active WikiProjects going find new pages? By following wikilinks, navigation templates, and the category system. What is a WikiProject doing if not monitoring pages in their subject area?
      My question for you: What is the point of tagging a page with a WikiProject banner?
      --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The point of tagging a page with a WikiProject banner is so that the project knows there's a page in their purview and can improve it if necessary. That being said, why wouldn't it make sense to tag a page with its related WikiProjects? I've seen inactive WikiProjects become active again, and I've seen inactive WikiProjects be absorbed as task forces of a larger/more active WikiProject. There is zero harm done by adding these tags at the acceptance stage of AFC. Primefac (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any opposition to doing both the categorization (for all of them) and WikiProject tagging (for pages in topics which have a matching WikiProject), as mentioned in my comment above? SD0001 (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • SD0001, no, certainly not from me. Bot categorization sounds excellent if you can do it, and it sounds excellent regardless of what happens with WikiProject banners. It sounds like a very good use of the category system. Can a bot really do this? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      It certainly is possible, though it isn't easy and it will take many hours to write the bot. That's why I wanted to make sure a consensus exists before I start on it, lest it be wasted effort. SD0001 (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Before a bot gets programed, I'd like to ask a few questions.

  1. Which WikiProjects/Groups have been approached about having their "organization" be tagged in for these notices?
  2. What is the logic being applied for how to determine if a page is in scope for one or more projects?
  3. What is the process of review to ensure the tagging by the bot is correct and not overly agressive? (i.e. ARS asks to be tagged into everything to save everything)
  4. What is the process of "tagging" a draft in?
  5. Will the tag in being present be allowed to include "Soon to be G13 eligible" notices to the groups that consider the draft in scope?

I ask all of these questions as I've seen this "We should categorize/Tag for WikiProject/Deliver notices" idea at least 3 previous times, and each time the "This sounds like a good idea" gets trumpeted with great fanfare, but never amounts to any real changes. I do not think tagging projects that are moribund or inactive is going to ever net us any benefit, so that is why I would like to see a "positive opt in" by the project (preferably by a 30 day RFC by the project terminable under WP:SNOW) Hasteur (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding #3: no such process is required as ORES is generally quite accurate (see WP:AFCSORT). #4: for the categorisation, it'll be done by adding something like {{draft topics|Literature|Western Europe}} to the page. The template will apply the categories (but otherwise will have no visible output). The WikiProject tagging will be done the usual way on the talk page, as a secondary task. #5: I don't understand - none of this will impact anything related to G13. The bot will only edit recently-edited pages, so that there are no concerns over the bot edit changing the G13 eligibility of a page.
Regarding the question of how wikiproject tagging takes place, the taxonomy between ORES topics and WikiProjects is defined here. Based on that, the projects for which WikiProject tagging seem to be appropriate are: Food and drink, Linguistics, Literature, Biography, Women?, Books, Film, Radio, Software, Television, Video games, Visual arts, Architecture, Fashion, Business?, Education, History, Military history, Transport, Biology?, Chemistry, Computing, Engineering, Libraries, Mathematics, Medicine?, Physics, Spaceflight, Technology. (The ones I'm unsure of are marked with a "?") The geographical topics used by ORES are continents, which have inactive or non-existing wikiprojects. Other topics such as "Politics and government" have too many diverse projects in scope so it isn't possible to select one. I don't it is necessary at all to seek pre-approval from the projects as wikiproject tagging of drafts isn't a radical new idea - it's already being done by humans on a smaller scale. If a project does not want the taggings, they can choose to opt out. SD0001 (talk) 14:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You mention "spaceflight" but I think that this should be changed to "astronomy." Many of the categorizations under the space sorting (going off of your current bot) are more astronomy related than spaceflight. The only reason they aren't there anymore is because I've already reviewed them. Anyway, this is a minor comment. Sam-2727 (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SD0001: you keep saying ORES like it's some magic panacea, but I have to see how it actually works. For my edification, please take Draft:Andrea Gobbi and tell the community what Wikiprojects ORES spits out for this. #5 is a personal ask because I've been requested on multiple occasions to send out notices to "potentially interested" projects that might be wanting to safe a page. Let me present a scenario so you can see how it could work:
As part of it's regular remit of looking for pages that are at least 5 months unedited, HasteurBot can parse the Wikitext, and if it sees the {{draft topics}} template, it'll note which categories/projects are enumerated and up to 1x a day send out a notice to the Wikiproject talk page that one or more drafts are nearing G13 eligibility to give the project an opportunity to review prior to being eligible for G13. Now obviously we don't want to spam wikiprojects, so opting into the categorization (why bother tagging/categorizing if the project isn't intrested/active) is required by consensus. We shouldn't be doing Opt-Out (violation of Consensus). Hasteur (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The ongoing failures of AfC, and blaming the newcomers

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Abhibedi999 and Draft:Pauline Johnson and Draft:Pauline Johnson is yet another example of how WP:AfC does not serve genuine newcomers, and the AfC culture is WP:BITEy.

The age old problems:

  • The newcomer is not treated as a human;
  • There are no normal Wikipedia-style talk posts, whether on the draft talk page Draft talk:Pauline Johnson or the user talk page User talk:Abhibedi999;
  • Messages are templated, template heavy, which makes it unclear to the newcomer on how to respond;
  • Messages are on the draft itself, completely unlike how discussion is done anywhere at Wikipedia, thus confusing the newcomer;
  • Draftspace editing separates the newcomer from the community. Solutions to this are: (a) tell the newcomer to add mentions of their new topic in mainspace; (b) put the draft in mainspace as soon as it is recognized that the topic meets a notability guideline.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's sort of unclear exactly what you are suggesting is wrong here as a lot of the statements are pretty vague and a bit of an exaggeration.
  • The newcomer is not treated as a human;
This is just patently absurd. What does it even mean that we don't treat them as a human? Are you suggesting we are being inhumane or that we treat them like a robot? What specifically do you feel was an action or statement that treated them inhumanely?
They are labvelled, eg as a COI editor, or a UPE editor. As a result of the labelling, there are no human-style introdutory statements, like "hello". Largely this is my impression that AfC does not treat newcomers as humans, and it is a major systemic failing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You might need to clarify what you mean by "Wikipedia-style talk posts" and what doesn't conform to that seemingly vague standard.
Start with WP:Talk. Use of talk pages, as opposed to draft page header templates. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Messages are templated, template heavy, which makes it unclear to the newcomer on how to respond;
I assume you mean the boilerplate decline messages? Much of that is for efficiency. If we did an individualized statement after each decline on a talk page, it would be incredibly inefficient and likely lead to mistakes. And as to the claim that the newcomer wouldn't know how to respond, each decline message provides not one, not two, but three links to outlets for help.
Yes. Efficiency is ranked above newcomer interaction. And how much more efficient is it? How hard is it to post a pinging message on the talk page? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Messages are on the draft itself, completely unlike how discussion is done anywhere at Wikipedia, thus confusing the newcomer;
Just because it's done different doesn't mean it is incorrect. And how exactly is it confusing? Do you have a solution you'd like to suggest?
It was done in 2001. It was obviously a cludge. Talk pages were invented for a reason. Solution: comments go on the talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk)
  • Draftspace editing separates the newcomer from the community. Solutions to this are: (a) tell the newcomer to add mentions of their new topic in mainspace; (b) put the draft in mainspace as soon as it is recognized that the topic meets a notability guideline.
I imagine this is quite intentional. Newcomers should face some buffer, particularly in terms of creating new pages. Newcomers very likely do not know even the basic policies of Wikipedia. There is also the issue of separating UPEs and UCOI editors from mainspace. Statement B) is ideal, but not always true. In this case, multiple editors per WP:QUACK had the very reasonable suspicion that this user was a UPE. It was finally sussed out that the user instead had a undisclosed WP:COI. Anytime an article is clearly created and edited by a new user who has a WP:COI or is a UPE, then the article should be held back and declined if it has glaring neutrality issues and/or issues with lacking inline citations.
Yes, draftspace was invented to quarantine inept spammers from mainspace. They were easily detected anyway, and genuine newcomers are the collateral damage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know you mean well in all the things you are pointing out here. However, this is a situation where you are bringing a bunch of problems, but no solutions. And I'm not even really seeing a call for action or proposed solutions. As such, this sort of just feels like a rant about a situationally abnormal draft. Edit courtesty ping of Robert McClenon an involved editor who may wish to commentSulfurboy (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You must be new around here(To clarify: I have been on this talk page posting observations and suggested solutions for years. By "here", I mean this talk page SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)). First solutions: Stop draftpage-templated-messaging, go back to template-free draft_talk or user_talk posts. Second: talk to the newcomer before talking about them. Bigger proposal: Stop encouraging newcomers to start their Wikipedia career with a new page creation. Tell them to edit around their new topic idea in mainspace first. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given the conflict of interest/paid editing going on, and the inadequacy of their submission, you won't see me cry much for them getting boilerplated. AFC functioned exactly as intended. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the founding intentions of AfC are flawed. Your reference to COI and UPE suggests your haven’t looked into this case. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the submitter has declared a COI, I fail to see how I haven't "looked into this case". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, so now you've attacked two experienced editors. Just for reference, I've reviewed upwards of 10,000 or so AfC submissions over the off and on time I've spent on AfC over the past six or seven years. It's now becoming abundantly clear you have zero interest in actually trying to improve something and instead just have some weird vendetta going on. As such, I have zero interest in replying to this any further. Maybe as you suggested to Robert McClenon, you should have a cup of tea and take a break? Or I don't know, maybe fuck off to another wikiproject? Sulfurboy (talk) 13:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It’s you who is talking people.
When reviewing a draft, remember that it might be a human newcomer, and you are their first interaction.
AfC needs to stop doing comments on the draftpage-proper. Again and again, for years, it is abundantly obvious that this form of communication often does not work, and in general does not work well. It is incongruous with now editing works in mainspace and nearly everywhere else (excepting notice boards and other forum pages), and is another factor that is a barrier in keeping newcomers separated from the community of editors. Comments about the draft belong on the draft talk page. An AfC script writer needs to engage on this point. AfC is over-burdened with scripting, it makes AfC nearly impossible to modify for mere mortals.
Newcomers should be DISCOURAGED from making a new page as their first edit. They should be ENCOURAGED to edit around their topic of interest in existing mainspace pages. This will help them learn what Wikipedia is, expose them to how Wikipedia works, and connect them to existing editors who have overlapping topic interests.
None of the above three things will make it easier for spammers/UPEditors. AfC does do a good job of catching many of them, and of serving honest COI editors, but in its current form it is burning genuine newcomers. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The age old problem with AfC is the work load is too much for the number of reviewers for the job to be done as it ideally should. Too often complaints just look at the situation from the single article they came across, when in the last month for instance ~6567 reviews were done, and we have hundreds more each day. If we didn't use templates on mass and wrote personal messages, etc the backlog would be back to growing daily making AfC less functional by the day.
  • I do agree that sometimes the spam/workload fatigue sets in and i think WP:AGF is forgotten. I usually leave a welcome message after reviewing, because what may seam like spam could just be jumping in feet first and assuming because anyone can edit it's like social media. The welcome not only makes things less bitey, but also gives links for those interested to learn. However I know many don't welcome people, and some don't even post a decline note to the users page which I think should always happen. Also I almost never use a reject for the first review as I think it's too bitey.
  • If we had more reviewers, got the backlog down, and had the time then yes I would agree with needing more individual anf friendlier help. We currently have ~430 "active" participants (569 inactive) but in the last month only ~130 (30%) have done a single review; only 47 (11%) have done 10+; and only 29 (7%) have done 30+ (~ 1 a day)
  • If all the 'active' reviewers did on average 1 review a day the backlog would be cleared in a week, and we could spend more time helping, encouraging, and improving. If we got more of the inactive, active and got the mainspace AfC/Draft bashers to come help then people would probably only have to do a review every 3 days.
  • I think we need to encourage 'active' reviewers to review, such as other projects do (NPP, women in red, etc) - make more editors aware of Wikipedia:AfC sorting so they can find and review subjects they are interested in. If we have more review effort than submissions, we can then improve the friendliness and helpfulness of AfC KylieTastic (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks KylieTastic. Referring to some of your dot points:
(1) "The age old problem with AfC is the work load is too much" Yes, that is a very good another way to put it. I take the point completely that AfC reviewing is exhausting, and that is a root problem of reviewers getting exhausted/grumpy/annoyed. What the the options? I see two only: (1a) Get more reviewers; or (1b) decrease the amount of AfC work. Work on (1a) is great, and easily used scripts really help with 1a, and with keeping reviewers. My attention is repeatedly drawn to 1b. There is an awfully large fraction of drafts that should not have been attempted. Even amongst submitted drafts that are not REJECTED, I think an awful lot of them should have begin on the WP:SPINOUT pathway, which I would describe as:

New editor adds information to their topic of interest on an existing article. This new information comes large, and survives the critiques of watchers of that article. The new editor (now autoconfirmed), spins out a new article, wikilinked from the beginning from the mainspace article, thus tempting watchers to have a look.

The newcomer has thus engaged with existing editors, and with their watching at least silent consent have written a new article straight into mainspace, the way most articles started. What do you think of encouraging this "WP:SPINOUT pathway" at the top of the article wizard pathway?
(2). Fatigue dampens AGF. Absolutely. On the whole, I think there is very little AGF-problems by the reviewers, not like a few years ago. What I think I mean is that the template-heavy comments make the reviewer look like automation. I too try to welcome anyone I suspect of being a good faith intending contributor. Every few years I return to re-proposing auto-welcoming, but the response I get is of lethargy, with a few references to the very old and illogical PERFORMANCE counter-argument. It takes so much effort to register, I can't believe that anyone could reasonably think that completion of the registration process doesn't justify a welcome on their user_talk, pointing them to WP:5P and a few other things, and demonstrating the existence and use of their user_talk page.
(5) You think we need to encourage 'active' reviewers to review? OK. I think we need newcomers to engage with the community. They do this by editing mainspace. AfC and the "mainspace may not link to draftspace" rule hinders them by sending them to draftspace, where they cannot introduce incoming wikilinks. A variation of the WP:SPINOUT pathway would see them post a link to their draft from an article talk page. Wikipedia has a lot of editors, and I think some of them would help newcomers if they saw the newcomer with overlapping interests.
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • SmokeyJoe I agree that new editors should not be encouraged to submit a new articles without experience, in fact they should be discouraged. I personally think new editors should have at least a minimal number of edits before they can submit. I also find it baffling that Welcomes are not automatic - I joined 18 November 2006 thinking I would like to write articles - then the tumbleweed of what now? meant I didn't do my first edit until 14 September 2013 - and I never found time since to write articles just fix and help. I agree with "an awfully large fraction of drafts that should not have been attempted" and think that maybe even a process new users have to go though would help - they should have to confirm step by step things like they have some independent references, that they have read the basics of what "notabilty" means, they have no COI or understand what it means, they aren't just trying to use Wikipeida to promote, etc. I also agree that a number of submissions could/should start as additional sections to existing articles. However I long ago realised that getting anything to change arround here is a nightmare of fighting all the editors who dont like change, or think "anyone can edit" is the number one rule with no caveats, or frankly those that like the politics, arguing and disagreeing rather than working on improving content. If I see any solid proposals for change I agree with I'll happily give support - but for now I doubt anything will change and I have too many real life issues (as do many of us). Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Reviewers

I will respond to some of the other points made by User:SmokeyJoe later today. I will comment at this time about his criticisms of the reviewers that I know it is very much the custom in Wikipedia to identify a group of (volunteer) editors that the author does not belong to, and criticize them either for not doing enough, or for doing their jobs wrong. or being bitey. or for not being sufficiently effusive in welcoming new editors. SmokeyJoe's comments are typical in saying that the AFC reviewers are not doing enough (not writing long enough declines, etc.), using templates, being bitey, and not being sufficiently effusive. Such criticisms are very much the Wikipedia way. That doesn't make them useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When I'm active, I generally review drafts from the back of the queue and I frequently run across work from previous reviewers that strike me as not particularly helpful or even bitey. Some reviewers appear to approach drafts looking for reasons to decline or reject. It takes a bit more effort and courage to look for reasons to accept. Deletionist culture is well established on Wikipedia now and so I expect this treatment will continue. ~Kvng (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will agree with RMC's viewpoint and challenge @SmokeyJoe: to put in 500 AFC reviews and report back on their effort to provide a fully researched and indvidualized reason for each submission that meets their ruberic intially posted The newcomer is not treated as a human; There are no normal Wikipedia-style talk posts, whether on the draft talk page or the user talk page ; Messages are templated, template heavy, which makes it unclear to the newcomer on how to respond well researched providing links to all the relevant Rules/Policies/Guidelines/Suggestions; Messages are on the draft talkpage itself, completely unlike how discussion is done anywhere at Wikipedia...;. If it's such a good policy, demonstrate it for us first rather than saying "You're doing it wrong" without giving us any demonstration of doing it right Hasteur (talk) 00:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also acknowledge RMC’s viewpoint as valid. It is not my intention to criticise reviewers, but to make the observation that what is happening in AfC fails to draw newcomers into the community of editors, and burns them. The solution is not to have individual reviewers abandon the AfC existing infrastructure, but to thoroughly review and revamp AfC.
I have attempts runs of AfC reviewing. It is not easy, it is depressing, and hard work. The more I do, the more it annoys me. Many of the drafts should not be written, and none of the drafts should have been written in isolation from the related mainspace articles, and in isolation from other editors with overlapping interests. AfC is slightly flawed, but the slight flaw is foundational, entrenched in the scripting and instructions to newcomers. It can’t be fixed by individual reviewers trying hard to smile. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a psuedo-new-user, I still recall how my first draft was declined: I was told that my draft provided "not enough context". The reviewer gave me good instructions -- to add some "history" section for more background. This "comment" worked well for me; thumbs up to that. My second draft was declined for lack of Reliable Sources; I was given a comment that "unfortunately almost all sources are unreliable blog sources". That comment made me understand that I need more papers, journals and the like to make the sources reliable. If the comments were more vague, like "Please add more reliable sources", even providing a link to WP:RS, that wouldn't have massively helped. There are a few reasons why good, helpful, useful comments are needed; the most significant one, newbies would need examples to see certain problems in their draft. Currently, going through some of the declines, it appears that reviewers are trying to give less specific comments (or even omit them) to speed up the review process and cut backlogs from 3,800 then to <2,000 now. In many ways, reviewers would have to slow down, in my POV, especially when dealing with drafts that have a certain prospect. Newcomers need more helpful instructions than 10-page-long policy pages; that's why so many newbies go to the Teahouse for help. Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math (Message) 02:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, reviewer comments to draft submitters are useful. Good helpful useful comments are good helpful and useful. Does putting the review comments on the draft_talk page in any way limit the comments from being good or helpful or useful? "Newcomers need more helpful instructions"? I disagree. That is the Nupedia model. It was tried again at Citizendium. The Wikipedia model that worked is to let newcomers get straight into editing the mainspace article they are reading, no instructions. WP:AFC is not the successful Wikipedia model that converts readers into editors my minimizing the barrier. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some further edits based on adequate sources. DGG ( talk ) 21:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Front and Back

User:SmokeyJoe criticizes the AFC reviewers for commenting on the front side, the draft page, rather than the back side, the talk page. If he is criticizing the scripts rather than the reviewers, I agree, and some although not most of the reviewers agree. The scripts are designed to be convenient for new editors to see comments, even before they have learned how talk pages work, and are designed to remove the comments when an article is accepted. This is an interesting concept. It has the disadvantage that it doesn't get new editors accustomed to using talk pages. It also results in the new editors putting comments on the front of the draft with an editor rather than with AFC, which means that the comments are not removed when a draft is accepted, and have to be removed by a reviewer with an editor (as they were applied). Also, in many cases, the AFC comments that are removed when a draft is accepted are useful as thoughts about later expansion of the article, and should be kept on the article talk page. So if he is suggesting that AFC comments be on the talk page (the back side) of a draft, I agree, and maybe some other reviewers agree. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agreed I think this would be very useful, as at the moment all reviewers comments are lost once the draft is accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree in part. They should be archived to the talk page by the script upon acceptance. But I still feel the comments should be on the main draft page until then for easy visibility for other reviewers, and also because as Robert mentioned, most new editors don't understand the concept of the talk page. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An editor who doesn’t understand the concept of a talk page (I agree this is usual), is not ready to be writing a new article. The solution is to expect them to understand the talk page, and to cause them to engage in discussion on the talk page. This will happen naturally in mainspace, unlike DraftSpace, but it would happen better in draftspace if Talk was on the talk page. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An editor who doesn’t understand the concept of a talk page, is not ready to be writing a new article. And yet WikiMedia and en.WP want to allow anybody to create and edit articles. Unregistered users can't do it in the main namespace due to WP:ACTRIAL and out of all the options a newish user creating an article in Draft namespace will be infinitely less Bitey than being tagbombed/CSDed/PRODed/XFDed into oblivion by New Page Patrollers. In fact one of the strongly suggested outcomes from NPP is to send the page to Draft namespace to improve. And what better way to help get a new editor assitance with what needs to be improved? Articles for Creation. Hasteur (talk) 00:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t agree that AfC is infinitely less bitey, if you include being completely ignored as a class of biting. Too many newcomers are directed to afc and draftspace, where they invest considerable time, research and writing, and then nothing happens. We can blame the newcomer for not even pressing the submit button, but in the end the system is burning newcomers. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And if we restrict editor impressions regarding AFC to only users named SmokeyJoe we get a statistically significant view that AFC is the worst thing ever to happen to Wikipedia. Doesn't mean it's even close to being right. I just re-read, and I don't see any behavior on the essay that includes "ignoring users who have made a request", so please feel free to correct my impression. Hasteur (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are right, as you usually are. AfC hurts wikipedia by sending newcomers into draftspace where they are isolated from the community of editors, until the newcomer goes away. This is out of scope of WP:BITE. No, I am not ready to say that AfC is the worth thing to hit Wikipedia, but I think it could be improved by encouraging newcomers to get editing experience before creating new topics. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From my own point of view, keeping the draft comments on the "front" (i.e. on the Draft: page) is better than on the "back" (i.e. talk page). Not everyone is aware that talk page hosts these comments. But yes, one may feel that no one is there to help them, except for those decliners. We need 1) a lot more volunteers; 2) quicker review process (but still high-quality as I mentioned); and 3) tell them to comment on at least a fixed place to address any concerns. Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math (Message) 02:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eumat114, for any change, there are pros and cons. In favour of talk posts being on the talk page, there is: It's how Wikipedia works elsewhere, mainspace especially, and it is good to acclimatize newcomers to how Wikipedia works; Post-acceptance, the comments can stay where they are; Talk page posts don't need heavy wikimarkup, like being in templates,and they are easier to answer, and easier answering means better discussion. If a con is that the newcomer might no know to look at the talk page, the answer is to have the script link to the new talk page comment. If the newcomer is clever enough to research and write, they will be able to work out the talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ACTRIAL was important. I added my voice to it strongly. I think it should be extended to draftspace. Newcomers should not be able to write new pages, with the possible exception of their userpage under special guidance, until they have mainspace edits. WikiMedia and en.WP are wrong to want anybody to create articles. Most of the arguments for this are identical to those that drove ACTRIAL. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comment on front and back is definitely about the script. The fix is to fix the script, two changes are suggested: (1) The comments end up on the back page, the talk page, called “discussion”. Probably, the script should leave a from page note pointing to the comment on the talk page; (2) cut the wiki markup on the posted script, make it look like standard beginner talk posts. Heavy markup intimidates the responder from responding. Include an example WP:Ping to the author, or submitter, or both if different, because I am sure we’d want the newcomer to ping the reviewer when responding. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two Proposals for Front and Back

I see that there are two proposals for how to change the scripts with regard to draft talk pages. Either of them would in my opinion be desirable. The first would be to have AFC comments, by both editors and reviewers, and decline messages, continue to go on the front, until the draft is accepted. At that point, the acceptance script should copy the comments all of the draft talk page as a visible record. (If the talk page becomes active, they could later go into Talk Page Archive 1.) The second would be to revise the script significantly and put the AFC comments on the talk page. It is true that many new editors do not understand talk pages yet. This would force them to learn about talk pages. The script could display guidance to the new editor telling where the talk page is. (There are a few editors, not many, who can't learn to use talk pages. Unfortunately, they are editors who can't learn to collaborate effectively.) Either change would be a good idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While yes, I know, "this is how we've always done it" is not a good reason to change anything, being able to immediately see the comments left by other reviewers, immediately under the previous decline messages, is extremely helpful for me when reviewing. It gives me an instant read of what the issues have been, if they've been worked on, and what I should probably be focusing on when I review the draft. While yes, I can go to the talk page to see if there are any comments, it is just one more thing I have to click and would likely make me not want to check them.
As an additional note regarding the "copy every {{AFC comment}} to the talk page" idea - I would say 90% of the comments left are not worth keeping. If I tell an editor they need to add more sources to demonstrate notability, and they add more sources that demonstrate notability, I see zero reason to put that comment on the talk page; it offers no useful content from a "going forward" perspective. There is no way for a bot (or script) to recognize what is an "important" comment and what is just the reviewer leaving a note. In other words, I see little to no benefit to automatically moving the comments to the talk page. Primefac (talk) 17:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, "copy every {{AFC comment}} to the talk page" sounds like a pointless redundancy. Comments go on talk pages. Notes go on front pages. Maintenance tags, discuss tags, merge and rename tags, they go on the front page with a link to the discussion on the talk page. Comment and review tags should be the same. Harmonize draftspace practice with mainspace practice.
Old dealt-with comments aren't needed? I hope you don't think that across the many talk namespaces, the talk archives should be cleaned of such things. Such history-obscuring ideas are not the wiki way. The talk page history should contain a chronological history of every comment, subject to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Inclined to proposal 1 (Keep the current AFC process with procedure on "front" until accepted). Introducing annother complication to new page creators (having to deal with main/talk pages) will only cause problems. I think having the script move (on acceptance) over all the AFC submission contents to the talk page and then redirect the editor who accepted the article to the talk page to prune items (and exercise editor discretion) that are no longer relevant would be ideal. Hasteur (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support duplication of comments when the draft was accepted to the talk page, I'm not sure that decline notices and such would need to go - presumably they no longer reply. I find it easier to have everything on the draft itself when reviewing. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nosebagbear. When reviewing a draft, do you load and read at least a few of the references? Do you do some google searches? Do you do a Wikipedia internal search for the topic, for duplication, for an obvious merge target, or for a previous AfD discussion? Do you review the history of the draft, the contribution history of the main author, and the submitter if different? That's quite a lot of tabs per draft reviewed, and you say having the talk at the top of page makes things easier? More easier than it hard for the authors to engage in discussion with the reviewers comments? If it really is easier to have comments on the top of the draft article, then how about consider having the talk page transcluded above the draft as a personal option? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever I'm doing multi-tab work I have a single core page on a separate opening to allow a smoother flicking between them. Thus, getting as much info onto that page is fundamental to increasing efficiency. Beyond that, I measure work in absolute figures (time spent, almost always) rather than a proportional consideration of the current setup. I don't know what the comparative level of effort gained/lost between reviewers & authors in total by moving comments and notices, but that's not the relevant metric - there's not many reviewers and some are doing a lot of draft reviews; whereas an author would only be writing one or two. You want to minimise work where the backlog is. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The comments are usually worth keeping as a record of the work that's been done. (The problem is that the over-wordy) templates detract from seeing the significant comments). Users do not understand talk pages. I've seen good editors, with a substantial number of articles, who still don't realize there's a talk page.I work with multiple windows and multiple tabs, but I want to see the comments in context . In reviewing, I particularly want to see comments I dont quite agree with. It always helps to keep everything together. DGG ( talk ) 22:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Starting with Articles

User:SmokeyJoe says that new editors should get their experience doing something other than trying to write articles. I agree, and every experienced editor agrees. Does he have an idea for how to try to steer new editors in a more constructive direction? Also, does he realize that not all new editors are here to contribute to the encyclopedia? Does he realize that many new editors come here either for self-serving reasons, to publicize themselves or their companies, or because they were sent here on misguided quests by instructors? The editor in question turns out to have sent here on a misguided quest, assigning students to write articles. The fact that a satisfactory article came out of it is a strange result of a strange misguided quest. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but steering new users to edit existing articles first is a front end problem that Wikipedia would have to deal with as a whole, either via a introductory message for new users or some other splash template that new users see before attempting to create an article. The burden of steering new users to edit before creating isn't the responsibility of AfC and it coming from us would be entering the game too late. If they're in the AfC process, it's because they've already created an article. We can't put the cat back in the bag. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One starting point is the text at Wikipedia:Articles for creation (and note, this is its talk page). It’s got the old bad blue button that discourages thinking and encourages “push this”. There is minimal advice on getting mainspace experience. Does everyone agree in changing this text? There are copied versions of this text in other places, but the WP:AfC page would be a good place to start. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edge Cases and Corner Cases

I would advise User:SmokeyJoe to look at edge case and corner case to put this particular situation in perspective. An edge case in engineering, and AFC is information engineering, consists of pushing one operating parameter to a limit. A corner case consists of pushing two or more operating parameters to the limits. By extension, an edge case is a situation in which one aspect is unusual, and a corner case is a situation in which two or more aspects are unusual. The typical range of operating parameters are that the editor has some degree of clue ranging from zero to moderate, and some degree of self-interest ranging from zero to high. A conflict of interest other than commercial interest is in itself unusual, an edge case.

Typically, either the draft is clearly not worth considering, or the topic appears to be notable. Interestingly, it is the middle between a non-notable topic and a notable topic that is an edge case, because those cases are the ones that require more than minimal evaluation. Typical examples of topics that are easy to accept are species, and legally recognized named places. It is the middle that requires work by the reviewer, or a decision to leave it to another reviewer.

The example given in the edge case and corner case articles is audio speakers. An edge case that should always be addressed is high volume, because it is well known that some users will stupidly or obsessively crank the volume way up, and a system should be able to deal with stupid or obsessive users. In AFC, cranking the volume up is done by repeated submission. That is an edge case, and it is an edge case that reviewers have to be ready to deal with, although it annoys the reviewers.

This was a corner case because it was abnormal in three different respects. First, the subject fell in the middle of notability. She was found to be notable, but not obviously so. Second, the editor had a highly unusual conflict of interest because they had been sent on a bizarre quest. The editor was not misusing Wikipedia, but the instructor was misusing Wikipedia. Third, the editor cranked up the volume by repeated submission with what was already an unusual signal, and the editor blew out the speaker. The test engineer then responded by cursing at the user.

User:Sulfurboy says: "As such, this sort of just feels like a rant about a situationally abnormal draft." Exactly. This was an abnormal situation, and SmokeyJoe is drawing conclusions about the whole process.

I would also advise User:SmokeyJoe to look up scalability. If SmokeyJoe is proposing that AFC reviewers compose individual welcome messages and guidance to new editors, that would increase the amount of work to be done by the AFC reviewers significantly, and so would not scale properly.

Perhaps User:SmokeyJoe is saying that the system responded sub-optimally. If so, response of the system to a corner case is almost always sub-optimal. SmokeyJoe is also saying that the engineer responded sub-optimally by cursing.

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert, you are way off the mark. The solution is not to have reviewers try to compose similar things differently, but to redesign the system. The AfC system is flawed, the process is flawed, and it’s not reviewers fault the system is flawed, it’s the system designers, both in the detail of the system they built, and the difficulty of making changes to the system. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:SmokeyJoe - How am I way off the mark about what? If I am way off the mark in responding to your criticism of the system, it is probably because you have provided a harsh non-constructive criticism of the system, based on a highly unusual case, and have not said anything constructive about what you would do to improve the system. If you didn't intend to be attacking the reviewers, but only offering comments about the system, it certainly came across more as a criticism of the reviewers than a criticism of the system. Suggest something constructive, unless you either are just venting or really just intended to dump on the reviewers. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon, "anything constructive about what you would do to improve the system". How about: Have the tools put reviewer comments on the draft_talk page, with minimal wikimarkup, with a ping to the submitter, to encourage the submitter to engage in talk posts, as is normal elsewhere. How about: Alter WP:AfC and WP:Article wizard instructions to decrease the effect of sending newcomers ill-advisedly to doing their first edits on a new page, and instead tell the newcomers to do their first edits editing around their topic of interest in existing mainspace articles. I made some edits to Wikipedia:Articles for creation, and am pleased to see them edited not reverted. I'm sorry that I don't know all the answers, but there are elephants in the room. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe:, while there certainly might be some low hanging fruit, that would only be in the case of implementation not success - those thoughts will only generate minor benefits. Your comments, here and above, give an outright litany of features and desire massive alterations to the system - and while not knowing all the answers is okay, your solutions don't begin to approach even a significant suggested resolution. Perhaps more relevantly, if you were aware you didn't have a good set of preliminary answers, why did you not start with neutral questions and research, which would be the only logical thing to do? Nosebagbear (talk) 13:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, OK.
What proportion of editors who begin editing via AfC/Draftspace go on to continue as contributing Wikipedians?
What proportion of editors who begin editing mainspace go on to continue as contributing Wikipedians?
For a simple starting point for counting contributions, use the following two measures: (1) mainspace edits; (2) bytes added to mainspace. If I remember reading stats correctly, some time ago, registered editors do well on (1) and IPs do much better, better than registered editors, on (2).
Perhaps I am mistaken, but I was quite sure that editors who begin with AfC do not tend to continue, and editors who begin by editing mainspace do tend to continue.
I am also speaking from real world knowledge of people who have attended wikithons: They began with excitement. Their creation of new pages via AfC in draftspace consumed their initial enthusiastic energy, left them with no meaningful reward or connection to the project. The AfC experienced burned them. Their contributions are now deleted, they have not edited since.
What, Nosebagbear, makes you think I was not sure I had a fair preliminary answer? It is: Stop pushing newcomers into going straight to writing a new page, but instead tell them to edit mainspace, edit around their topic of interest, add content to existing related articles on their topic of interest. I see some recurring agreement on this, but also a lot of silence.
The stuff about comments on talk pages, that should be trivial. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SmokeyJoe: We do little pushing editors into writing a new page, and I don't think there'd be much resilience to a change in text at each of the usual draft creation points to encourage that. It's that the reviewers on this page don't think that would make much of a drop - the writers of AfC drafts are generally here because their topic (including an avalanche of not immediately clear non-notable companies, bands, and biographies) is not already in Wikipedia, or more rarely, have been unable to do so. In terms of ongoing editing capability, the best numbers for that would be from the report made during ACTRIAL. They indicated that those who joined before the newer rules weren't any more or less likely to stick around - the trip point isn't NPP vs AfC, it's that editors almost never join without a specific action they want to carry out. That might be fixing a typo or sentence, at which point they can be encouraged into various areas because their goal is complete. But many, many, join with the plan to create an article, and diverting from that goal without losing the editor is really tough. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nosebagbear, your earlier edit summary suggested I should go to the VP? What is your reading of Wikipedia:Village_pump_(all)#Rethinking_draft_space? Mine is that AfC is broadly recognised as disappointing, if not a failure. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • We do little pushing of editors into writing a new page? We reviewers? We Wikipedians? We the script and template writers? I agree they are not pushed, but a slippery dip into the Article Wizard is out in front of them, and, despite me wanting to never blame a newcomer for having misconceptions, I think they arrive thinking they should write a new page. Or maybe you mean the WMF, because yes, they are obsessed with the new articles metric.
I don’t review nearly as many submitted drafts as you, but when I do it is my impression most of the time that this author should have attempted editing a related article first. I think you are quite mistaken about newcomers. I have done spot checks over the years. Productive Wikipedians never began in the AfC pathway. Draft writers very often edited for a while the stopped. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I could be mistaken about people’s early editing, if draftspace edits are either deleted, or moved to mainspace. However, most Wikipedians have newcomer style edits to mainspace as their first edits. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Author definitely should edit a related article first (though there's a few where that would be something we'd want to discourage doing a related one), I just said that it would be difficult to significantly increase the percentage that do without losing them through a different means "I'm here because I want to make an article, and they're stopping me". That draft discussion is a little blurry since it's on the namespace itself, for which we're most known part of, but other things happen with it (e.g. NPP moving new articles to it etc). Certainly I'd love AfC to be something different - I suspect if we ever did get it to 0 (or 50 or whatever) and held it there, the behaviour might change. However even in that discussion, or elsewhere here, we see suggestions that are unlikely to have much of an impact, or suggestions that would cause an impact, but (variably either certainly or probably) a negative one. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply and Thanks to User:Nosebagbear

I am a few days late in responding to the comments by User:Nosebagbear with regard to a discussion that has fizzled out, which is probably just as well, because it was really a dump on the AFC reviewers for no good reason. However, thank you for replying and getting the discussion back on track to fizzle out. You, Nosebagbear, refer to editors who come to Wikipedia in order to provide an article. The good-faith error by User:SmokeyJoe seems to be in thinking that we, Wikipedia, encourage new editors to provide an article. We don't. We have AFC and related processes because some new editors want to provide an article. It is true that some of them get discouraged and go away. That is unfortunate, but I don't think that they came in order to contribute to the encyclopedia. They came in order to write an article. If we can be more aggressive in discouraging new editors from attempting an article as their first effort, maybe we should. but the problem certainly isn't that we encourage new editors to attempt an article. Thank you for providing that perspective again. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A big problem is most certainly that new people think they should start a new article, first. It is not encouraged by the AfC or NPP reviewers. It is encouraged by some of the welcome pages that point too prominently to starting your first article. It is encouraged by the WMF. It is encouraged, at least sometimes, by wikithons. It is encouraged by the ease with which someone can start a new page. It is a consequence of all that that AfC is overloaded. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent Editor, Clueless Comments

A critic once said of Marshall McLuhan that one read his writings with the strange feeling that here was an intelligent man who for some reason chose to masquerade as a charlatan. After looking over the comments of User:SmokeyJoe twice, I have the strange feeling that this is an intelligent experienced editor who is commenting as if he were clueless. He writes to User:Sulfurboy: 

You must be new around here. … Bigger proposal: Stop encouraging newcomers to start their Wikipedia career with a new page creation. Tell them to edit around their new topic idea in mainspace first.

Since when does having edited since 2007 give an editor a right to talk down to an editor who has been here since 2012, and has far more experience at AFC than SmokeyJoe, and say that they must be new around here? And wouldn't telling newcomers that they shouldn't have submitted an article for review be even more bitey than declining it?

SmokeyJoe complains about templated messages. The templates have been developed because there are two reasons why they are appropriate, not just one. First, one or another standard decline message is appropriate in maybe 90% of the quick decline cases, especially those with clueless submitters. An experienced reviewer can construct additional templates, and then they will handle 97% of the cases, especially with clueless submitters. Second, many of the submitters are clueless, and it is unlikely that personalized replies would change anything. If SmokeyJoe doesn't think that many of the submitters are clueless, I invite him to visit the AFC Help Desk, which has a combination of reasonable questions, and entries that do not even ask a question in English.

A corner case was handled sub-optimally, and an experienced editor comes in and talks like a clueless visitor saying that we are doing everything wrong. Maybe they have caught a case of cluelessness from the subpar editors that we deal with in order to look for and find good submissions. We didn't say that the system didn't need improvement.

User:SmokeyJoe already stated his concerns in a more reasonable place, where they could be ignored with a minimum amount of additional cursing at the speakers. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sulfurboy must be new here, I said, because I have said nothing new here that I have not said several times previously over the years. Sulfurboy appears to be new to this talk page.
Sulfurbody is one of the (if not the) most active AfC reviewer I am aware of. If they are new, then everybody is. Sam-2727 (talk) 03:26, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant is that Sulphurboy must be new to this talk page, because I have voiced these points previously. I have been seeing a lot of Sulphurboy this year, and he is a high quality experienced Wikipedian. His comments at MfD, where I have mostly seen him, are all very good. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It did come from frustration with the intransigence of the responders here, now, and over the years. In comparison, the occasional Village Pump proposals to delete DraftSpace wholesale, citing the same issues, gets more traction. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Robert wrote SmokeyJoe complains about templated messages.
This is an example of being at cross points. I myself have no problems with understand templated messages, and I can see why they came to be. This is not a “complaint”. This is an observation: Templated messages fail to get newcomers to engage in discussion. Learning requires discussion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You invite me to visit the AfC Helpdesk? I am long familiar with the help desk. It is a prime feature of a flaw system. I would have thought an “AfC Helpdesk” was for helping with problems with the AfC system, process, functions or template, not that it would be a “Newcomer Helpdesk”. It is a place where newcomers ask questions about their new draft page. The question almost invariably begs another question “should this page have been written”, and the answer to the begged questions is “no”, and the question should have been posed on the parent topic article talk page, and the answer should come from a parent topic article page watcher. What proportion of questioners at the AfC Helpdesk continue on as Wikipedia contributors? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Sulfurboy must be new around here (this talk page). On checking, I see he has been posting here longer than me, July 2015 versus November 2016, so that was wrong. However, I am the 18th most frequent poster here, he is the 85th, and I don't recall talking to him before this year. I was a fan of the Article Incubator at its proposal, but it failed. I have been skeptical ever since. AfC has some problems, and they are entrenched, they are the same ongoing problems, and my proposed solutions are unchanged. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First review

I just declined a blank draft, my first review ever, without the script. Please check if I've done it correctly. Cheers, Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math (Message) 06:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me! Thanks for checking in here. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added a link (since you asked it to be checked). Primefac (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rough draft for page of reviewers area of expertise

So per a previous message I posted, I have created a rough draft for a page that we can add ourselves to as a directory for areas of expertise. I welcome anyone to edit it to make it look nicer/fancier/better; 40k edits and I still pretty much suck at formatting pages.

The draft can be found in my sandbox here

Few points of input I'm seeking:

1) Should we sort the page by subject and list editors under it? Or keep it how I formatted it where it's a list of editors with their individual area of expertise?

2) How should we get the word out for people to add themselves? Can we send out a notice to people who are subscribed to the AfC newsletter or is that inactive?

3) Where should the link for it be placed? I was thinking about a link under the 'Participants' tab, similar to how 'category' and 'list' is under 'Submissions', but I can't think of a concise one or two word title for it. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since the purpose of the list would be to find users by subject area (and not the subject area of users), I think it would be useful to organize by subject area. Under each subject area, people could list how experienced they are in that specific area. This would also allow other editors to see where more experience is needed (perhaps reach out to certain wikiprojects to ask for editors to join the list). Once the list has some participants on it, I think a one time notice to everybody on the AfC contributors list would be appropriate. I've seen this in the past for certain wikiprojects where a one time notice of a new newsletter is sent to all contributors, regardless of whether they are subscribed to a certain newsletter or not. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an opinion on where to place the list, but for titles, perhaps "Reviewer Expertise," or even better "By expertise" (if it's under the participants tab, then "participants" is implied). Sam-2727 (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awesome idea! If this could get newcomers to approach Wikipedians inviting them to approach, I think that would be a massive improvement over waiting for them to press the submit button before getting a random volunteer. I have added myself. I don’t really like the word “expertise”, it brings back User:Jimbo Wales/Credential Verification and Wikipedia:Credentials (proposal), and so I have used different words. I think dating one’s addition to the list is better than not. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    SmokeyJoe, You bring up a valid point, however, since everyone else added themselves on with the verbiage "experience" then I'm not going to change it. If you want to be bold and go in and change them all though, I won't stand in your way. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Sulfurboy. I don't object to others claiming an "expertise". I'm happy to see how this develops. One thought is that is of a drafter were to ask me a question on their draft that fits my interests, I am likely to not just answer their question, but to edit the draft, and to submit and accept draft. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is now live Between no one above being opposed to the idea and multiple editors now having added themselves to my rough draft, I'm going to take that as all the needed consensus. I've added to the tabs with the title "by subject". That seems to be about as concise and neutral as I could come up with, but feel free to change it. I've also added a note to the top of the page inviting anyone to edit or format the page as they see fit, again, it's not one of my strong points. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sulfurboy, thanks. I have some suggestions at the talk page. Thanks! Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math (Message) 03:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please modify the Submit script routine to add edit summary data

Can someone please modify the script that responds to the pressing of the draft “Submit” button to make it include more information on the edit summary.

An example submit edit: [1]

My wishes:

1. The Submit edit should produce in the edit summary
1. a. the text “Submit draft for review”
1. b. a linked name of the submitter, whether a username or IP.
2. The submit edit should write meta data to the draft talk page including:
2. a. The draft creator, and date of creation (Ping them)
2. b. The draft submitter, and date of submission (Ping them).

This will make it much easier to review the history of submissions of the same draft. This will make it easier for reviewers of MfDs citing “tendentious resubmission” at MfD, but also, and more importantly, draw the draft creator, submitter, and other page watchers to the fact that it has been submitted and the record of submissions. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe, Just FYI, if this can't be implemented or there is a delay in the implementation you can look to the edit size. If the edit is in the +60 to +90 range, it's almost always a resubmission. Typically, particularly with newer editors, the submission will be an edit separate from any additions or subtractions they make to a page. So in the history it'll typically look like:
Draft:Smokeyjoe‎ 21:16 +63‎ ‎. . randomeditor12
Draft:Smokeyjoe 21:14 +2342 . . randomeditor12 (if they actually made edits before the resub)
Also, since the submission is typically the most recent edit, looking for that 60-90 range makes it easy to notice a resubmission of a page on your Watchlist. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sulfurboy. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: Are you talking about the AFC Helper Script Gadget or about the code that is invoked when you click Submit/Resbubmit? I'm going to make the assumption you're referring to the Submit/Resubmit click link and not the Gadget. Because the link only opens a edit window to create a new section on the page, the functionality you describe in request 2 is technically impossible (editing a Draft page can't also edit a Draft Talk). A bot script could be created to splice over that metadata to the talk page, but for the current functionality of multiple AFC declines on the page is already a very good indicator if it's being tendentiously resubmitted (something I would think an editor who is putting a page up at MFD for that reason would have done their BEFORE on, but what do I know). As to who submitted the draft, there is nothing preventing a malicious editor from submitting a bunch of drafts on behalf of someone else to ensure that they declines go somewhere else. Obviously once the declines start rolling in, people will look to figure out why they're recieving so many messages and then the entire game will be up (and the malicious editor will be corrected). Hasteur (talk) 01:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hasteur thanks for the response. If request 2 is difficult, but request 1 easy, then doing request 1 alone would be awesome. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 isn't an option either because when you click the Submit/Resubmit link it opens a New section page which doesn't let you put in an edit Summary (MediaWiki bug perhaps) but well outside the scope of WikiProject AFC or en.Wikipedia. Hasteur (talk) 01:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Allowing a non-default edit summary was declined: phab:T10341. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, the submit routine needs to be a bot? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To implement this, it would need to use JavaScript. It's possible that a script passed using a link and the &withJS= could do it, which would be ideal. Otherwise, a default gadget enabled for all draft and user pages would be necessary, which is...less than ideal. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an burning problem, it is from my wishlist. Thanks for any time you put into it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Sergio Diaz (sound editor)

I was about to ask whether a nomination for an Academy Award was in itself sufficient to accept Draft:Sergio Diaz (sound editor). It has been my recollection that in some cases a nomination for an Academy Award is considered of sufficient standing to be on a par with some major awards. Then I looked further at the draft, and I will still ask the question in general about Academy Award nominations. However, he was the recipient of the Ariel Award in the same year, and the Ariel Award is considered by some to be the Mexican equivalent of the Academy Award. Whether or not it has the same standing as the Oscar, it is a major award of the sort within the scope of biographical notability criterion 1. So I will be accepting the draft, but would still like comments on nominations for the Academy Award. If I should ask this question at a WikiProject, please tell me where. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, I've always held that nominations mean virtually nothing, it's the win that counts. I do this because WP:ANYBIO and virtually every SSG that mentions awards always state it's the win that counts (at least as far as I can remember). Musicians have to win the award. Academics have to win the award. Films have to win their award, etc. So no, they don't pass for just getting a nomination.
However, I do think winning the Ariel Award is at least enough to pass the "likely to pass an AfC" standard. This is because a nation's top award should be considered "well-known" and a "significant award". Not doing so would show bias towards countries who have smaller scenes and/or less globally recognized awards. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I accepted the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcut for viewing changes since last decline?

When I review something that's been resubmitted, the first thing I usually do is pull up the history and get a diff of the changes since the last time it was declined. Would it be possible to add a button or link next to where it says, "This draft has been resubmitted and is currently awaiting re-review" which goes directly to that diff? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith, definitely a good idea, but probably needs a user script. Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math (Message) 14:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith, done a quick script, User:SD0001/edits-since-decline.js. SD0001 (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SD0001, Cool, thanks! Looks it it works, but maybe some better markup to make the link more visible? I couldn't find it until I checked the js source :-) Maybe a new <p> before the <a>? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notes for accepter?

Is there a way to leave a note for whoever accepts a draft? For example, this comment notes the need to edit a DAB page upon acceptance. I often leave such comments myself, but I suspect they're mostly lost in the noise. Other useful comments might be suggestions for redirects that would point to the accepted article. It would be good if, rather than just getting lost in the comments section, they could pop up in the Accept dialog as suggestions for the accepting reviewer to consider. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith, I personally always read the comments before accepting an AfC. In fact, it's typically the first thing I look for when opening a page. I also typically utilize the comments like Robert does, but for pointing out heavily suspected UPEs. I imagine most reviewers are the same as comments I leave are either responded to or otherwise indirectly noticed. Sulfurboy (talk) 01:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would also be surprised if reviewers didn't read them. Comments that I feel are particularly applicable (and important) to a reviewer instead of the editor I add a nice bold REVIEWER: at the start. How would you make it more obvious? Something to trigger when someone clicked accept on the script? Nosebagbear (talk) 09:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nosebagbear, At one end of the feeping creature spectrum, I could imagine the accept dialog including a bunch of checkboxes like:
and the reviewer would just have to check which ones they wanted to happen. Some, like the first two, could be handled totally by the automation. Others, like the last, might be nothing more than a reminder of an action that needed to be carried out manually. I'm not seriously suggesting we go that far, but it would be convenient.
More rationally, I think just a simple but standardized way for a reviewer to make a short note which would then be brought to the accepter's attention would be good enough. Maybe the REVIEWER convention would be sufficient, if it was socialized to the point where most people adopted it. Just like the Keep / Delete shorthand used at AfD; not enforced by anything, but widely enough done by convention, that we've got software which takes advantage of it for providing summaries and statistics. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of integration is not a mandatory task for reviewers so even if the note is noticed by the reviewer, it is not necessarily going to get done. This is another justification for moving our review comments to the draft's talk page so these to-do items don't get lost. If it were on the talk page, a mainspace editor may notice and do the work if no one else has. ~Kvng (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:RoySmith that this is a good idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:Kvng that this is another reason either to move the review comments to the talk page when the draft is accepted or to keep the comments on the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is of course a straightforward way to make comments on a draft that will survive its acceptance, and that is tagging, so that any note that can be made with a tag probably should be. Tags that I sometimes use are {{COI}}, {{copy edit}}, and {{cleanup}}. There are certain tags that should never be used on drafts; in particular, the notability tags should never be used on drafts, which should instead be declined with a notability reason. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon, do you mean that you will never accept a draft with a notability concern? This would mean that you standard for acceptance is higher than for New Page Patrol, which is too high. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. I am not sure whether to appreciate having this opportunity to explain, or whether to appreciate having this discussion so that other reviewers can help clarify what the standards should be, or whether to be annoyed that I am being argued with before I have a chance to explain. No. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the other regular (as opposed to intermittent) editors here may recall that sometimes I have asked this page about drafts where I had notability concerns, and have accepted them anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is very much the Wikipedia way to dump on other volunteers, I am sure that someone will tell me that I am completely wrong, but ... I have sometimes had the idea that the default action by a reviewer is to do nothing. This means that a reviewer can reasonably do nothing when they are in doubt, and so not accept a draft at AFC and not tag a draft at NPP. What this means at AFC that I normally will not accept a draft about which I have notability concerns, unless I have thought those concerns through and have decided that I am prepared to !vote Keep at AFD. If I continue to be in doubt about a draft at AFC, I will leave it alone, which leaves it in draft space waiting for a reviewer. I haven't reviewed at NPP much recently, but if I am in doubt at NPP, I will leave the page alone, neither check it off nor tag it. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
However, what I originally meant, and I recognize that my comment in passing was not clear, was that, in my opinion, the notability tags should not be used on drafts, because I don't see them as having a useful purpose on drafts. I see their purpose on articles as starting a discussion about whether to nominate the article for deletion. If one has doubts about the notability of a draft, it is a draft, and can be left alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Robert McClenon for your answer and your patience. I guess my question, unstated was grasping with the following: Do you think it unhelpful to put a notability tag on a draft? Or, as I think I assumed, it is not appropriate to accept a draft, and then in mainspace to put notability tags on it? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. No. User:SmokeyJoe - I think that it is unhelpful to put a notability tag on a draft, unless one is about to accept it anyway. As I concluded with Jane Daly (actress), there are times when a reviewer can accept a draft while tagging it for notability, and it is not important which is done first if they are done within minutes of each other. In the case of accepting a draft while tagging it for notability, it would be especially helpful to explain on the talk page what the issue is, either as a guide to improving the article or for discussion in a deletion debate, and such comments clearly should go on the talk page and not in AFC comments that will be deleted by the acceptance. It is unhelpful to put a notability tag on a draft that is being left in draft space, because notability does not apply to drafts. It is unhelpful to put a notability tag on a draft that is being declined, because notability is a reason for the decline, and is a reason that may sometimes be addressed by reworking and resubmitting. Does that answer the question? I think that it does. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. Sometimes I think I should accept a draft, tag it for dubious notability, and tag it for a proposed merge. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon, regarding I have sometimes had the idea that the default action by a reviewer is to do nothing, my most common reason for doing nothing when reviewing drafts is that I know the thing I want to do is contrary to consensus. For example, I feel that the vast majority of BLPs, articles about bands, articles about startups, etc, (in other words, most drafts) are inappropriate attempts at promotion, even if they meet the letter of our various guidelines and policies. I can't bring myself to accept them, and I know it would be wrong to decline them. So I just move on to something else. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The current instructions "Articles that will probably survive a listing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion should be accepted. Articles that will probably not survive should be declined." aren't just stricter than newpage patrol, they are stricter than AFD. At AFD articles only get deleted for lack of notability if an admin looks at the discussion and considers there is consensus to delete. If I see an article in mainspace that I think would probably be deleted at AFC I can send it to AFC to see if others agree with me. But on current instructions, anyone reviewing a draft is supposed to decline it in effect for meeting the standard that in mainspace would trigger an AFD. Personally I think that one of the anomalies that makes me uncomfortable with the AFC process. ϢereSpielChequers 09:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Me similarly. “Would probably survive at AfD” and “Would probably not survive at AfD” has quite a lot of space between. I have long been aware of the common belief that the AfC acceptance bar is too high, but even while being deliberately conscious of that, I have to fight an involuntary terror that someone will find a reason to AfD a draft I accepted. New page patrol feels a whole lot less stressful. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems people want to be dependent on clever script writers and tools. Why not add a thread to the talk page with the section title "Notes for accepter", and expect accepters to always check the talk page. Sometimes, it might be missed, in which case any normal mainspace editor can fix it later. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noting for the record that the "has a good chance at surviving an AFD nomination" came about due to editors promoting drafts out of AFC and then immediately turning around to CSD/AFD them now that they are in mainspace and thereby gaming the system by abusing Wikipedia process to move things that weren't ready for mainspace into mainspace and then either self nominating for one of the deletion policies or letting one of the helpful WikiJanitors/WikiGnomes be an unwitting accomplice to the deletion process game. I agree with the above in that when I accept a draft I feel as though I'm pledging my WikiHonor in perpituity to defend the page from deletion. My acceptance articles are very limited because mainspace already has a lot of content in it that is of disapointing quality, I don't want to add any more. I'm happy to work with submitters who are improving in good faith to get it above the 50% mark, but a lot is just "Paint thrown against a canvas to see what sticks" and if they're not going to put in effort to encourage me to attach myself to the page (as AFD submitters frequently look at who moved the page to mainspace and at what quality was it at), I'm not willing to enable them. Hasteur (talk) 02:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Jane Daly (actress)

The mention of applying tags to a draft or an article has, however, helped to answer the questions that I was having about Draft:Jane Daly (actress), who appears to be notable, but to have a draft that needs expansion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aramean people

Dear Wikipedia moderators,

At the moment there is a page called Assyrian People, most of the users on the English version of Wikipedia are Assyrians who are trying to Assyrianize the whole Wikipedia. The Arameans are an apart nation, but yet they try to assyrianize all Aramean pages and even persons who identify as Arameans.

So could one of the mods give me the acess to create the page called 'Aramean nation', because there is no page containing information about the Aramean nation, history and culture yet.

Thanks in advance.

MixedButHumann (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MixedButHumann, I'm not sure how you ended up here, but it's the wrong place. I would recommend requesting an article at WP:REQUEST. Cheers Sulfurboy (talk) 00:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NRHP passing WP:ARCHITECT?

Hi folks,

I am in the process of reviewing Draft:John M. Hickman. He has designed some notable buildings, including one added to the NRHP. I am trying to decide if that satisfies WP:ARCHITECT #4 or not. There aren't too many other secondary sources I could find. Hinging on rejecting, but want another opinion before I pull the lever. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 20:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Etzedek24, That's a clear accept. That service station was made an NRHP because of its architecture. If it was made an NRHP for a reason other than architecture it would be a decline. Since a new design "batwing" was derived from that nationally recognized piece of architecture, then the subject easily passes prong two and three of WP:ARCHITECT. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know. I confess I didn't look that deeply because I wanted to get the NRHP thing solved first. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 21:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Etzedek24, Also, that being said, make sure you tag the page with all the appropriate things (like additional cites needed and reference cleanup) Sulfurboy (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Covino ESPN SIRIUS XM

Any update on getting this bio reposted? Thank you

Having trouble posting a pic as main pic from this recent article https://www.tapinto.net/towns/union/sections/arts-and-entertainment/articles/union-native-making-waves-on-daily-sirius-radio-and-espn-tv-shows

Thank you Carl Carlington (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Carl Carlington: Thank you for your inquiry. Please be aware that AFC will review your submission at Draft:Steve Covino (radio) however we are somewhat backlogged, with the oldest submission being 3 months old. We will keep you in the loop. Hasteur (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish the draft author were asked to accept the onus of demonstrating notability, WP:THREE-style. I’ve just read through the draft, and started the references, and I think “probably no”, but the author has made it very difficult to be sure. On the basis of the first three references, definitely not. Am I expected to read through the rest of the references? Usually, their quality for attesting notability decreases as you go down the list, but only usually. I think I should do a AfD style WP:BEFORE search before declaring “REJECT”, not notable, but doing so will take me more than thirty minutes. I can check the best three sources in just a few minutes. I don’t think it would be right to “DECLINE” this draft as “notability not demonstrated”, because I think there is enough evidence available to make the definitive decision, it’s just that it will take so much effort.
This problem is slightly easier at NPP, I think because at NPP the pages are written by at least slightly experienced editors who know to put the best sources first. Alternatively, it could be that slightly experienced editors know to not push a non-notable subject, that at NPP there are less non-notable topics subjected to WP:Reference bombing so as to obfuscate the notability question. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I met this page at New Page Patrol, I would AfD it. I expect it would consume ~5 hours of Wikipedian time, before being deleted. This doesn’t happen because the author is not qualified to make a new page in mainspace, because he has no mainspace editing experience. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review required?

Hello, I am not familiar with this process and have been unable to find the answer to my question in the instructions provided. I am a reasonably experienced editor and am confident with creating new articles, but I have just done some work to a draft that was created by a user who was not and who previously submitted it for AfC review. The article is Draft:The Lord of the Rings (TV series), and usually I would have gone ahead and moved it to the mainspace after my recent changes, but since it says not to remove the review template I wasn't sure if I could do that. Can anyone advise how I should proceed? Do I need to wait for it to be reviewed or can I use my judgement and create the article now? - adamstom97 (talk) 04:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tom,
These instructions, "it says not to remove the review template", are lies-to-children. You can remove them, and move the page to mainspace. This is to remove it entirely from the AfC tracking system. Alternatively, you could sign up as an AfC reviewer (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants), install the Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script, and accept it within the system. I suggest you consider doing the second, AfC needs more article writers like you. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you familiar with Wikipedia:Notability (films)#Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films, aka WP:NFF. It's not clear that principal photography commenced. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe, I think the WP:NFF concerns are put to rest by the fact that it's already been renewed for a season two. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply SmokeyJoe, and thanks for cleaning up / moving the draft Sulfurboy. The show definitely started filming before the pandemic and I have added some sources to support that, and yeah I am familiar with WP:NFF. I will have more of a look at the AfC reviewing system and consider signing up. Thanks again guys, adamstom97 (talk) 06:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More options for "Reject" reasons

It might be a good idea if the "Submission is duplicated by another article already in namespace" and "Submission is a duplicate of another existing submission" decline reasons were also added to the "Reject", as I had to decline a submission that had been declined as a duplicate before, but was submitted again. (the other draft wasn't actually submitted, but it would still reduce the amount of drafts on the same subject) Being able to reject on those reasons could be helpful in reducing AfC load and also encourage people to work on the same page, rather than multiple versions of the same page. SemiHypercube 18:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @SemiHypercube: I believe what you're looking for is {{AFC submission|D|exists|OTHERPAGE}} which According to Template:AFC_submission/comments will render the decline template and the text "Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at OTHERPAGE instead". I'm pretty sure that exists in the AFC Helper tool Hasteur (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think for a draft that duplicates something in mainspace, the best thing to do is to bluntly redirect it to the mainspace title, and post a note on the author's user_talk page. Generally, as a rule, accidental content forks should be fixed by speedy redirection. Compare WP:CSD#A10, note that it only applies where the title is not a plausible redirect. For drafts, this is further established with WP:SRE. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I somewhat agree with User:SemiHypercube the exists reject would be better as a decline as I've had a user recently just immediately just re-submit. Although that only works if it actually the same, and I have seen an exists decline where although the article title existed it was not the same subject. I have felt that a maybe we should have a reject for constant re-submitting with no attempt to prove option that at the moment tend to go to MfD taking up even more time. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 10:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance needed for draft Draft:Peter Stanton

Hi. There's this draft, Draft:Peter Stanton, which says that the academic has won an award from IUCN and "was awarded the Public Service Medal (Australia) in the 1996 Australian Honours ceremony." These claims were sourced. However, there's not much else besides, with the last 11 sources all self-published works. I guess there's also a small tone problem (but not as much as needing a decline) but the academic clearly passes #2 and #7 of WP:NACADEMIC. I guess it should be an accept, a fix it myself and tagging. Am I mistaken? Thanks a lot :-) Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math (Message) 09:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline as advertisement because currently there is quite a bit of promotional phrasing like "individually conducted," "Stanton's research directly lead to," "gain further official recognition for his work." I suppose you could clean this up yourself, but I tend to leave the work to the creator of the article as if you make it your policy to always clean up the language for the creator of the article, you'll find yourself with a lot of requests on your talk page! Sam-2727 (talk) 01:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sam-2727, To get past the marginal peacock language, you could just quote what it says in his award nominations. The IUCN reference backs what is stated in the article and is a source independent of the subject. Sulfurboy (talk) 01:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Meant to ping Eumat there, sorry Sam. Sulfurboy (talk) 01:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sulfurboy, no problem I'm still on the page. Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math (Message) 01:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eumat114, I would accept and tag. The fact that he has a large collection of his work archived in a national library should be enough to establish notability, or at least past the "likely to pass an AfD" threshold. Sulfurboy (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sulfurboy and Sam-2727, have I formatted the "Work" section correctly? Plus, I guess it's pretty hard to fix tone issues for an inexperienced creator (who probably holds a positive opinion towards Stanton). So I guess I should try to fix some of the problems myself (plus 1-2 extra sources), and it should be good to go. I'll let you know when I'm done. Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math (Message) 01:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sulfurboy and Sam-2727, I've fixed a bit of the promo language. Can you pls help me do a review if what I've changed is okay? Thanks. Anyway I believe that for drafts with some actual prospect, I'd rather spend hours working on a review than rush through commenting. I'm more than happy to spend an hour copyediting and sourcing as if it were my work. Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math (Message) 03:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me! Sulfurboy (talk) 04:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance needed for draft Draft:Tiago Ghidotti

Hi, I came across this draft, that was created by user Marcusllehman (CentralOauth). This user is a confirmed sock of Tiago Ghidotti, which isn't blocked on enwiki yet. Hence this draft is obviously an autobiography. While doing random AFC patrolling, I found this draft, and unaware of the situation, I suggested some modifications. Soon after, another user Marcusllehmanbrz gave me a barnstar and heeded my advice. From the use of "we" in the barnstar, I suspected something wrong, launched an investigation and found what I just told you. I then summarily declined it and launched an SPI. Have I done anything wrong, or could I have done better at any point? Thanks Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math (Message) 01:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eumat114, I would've rejected it as "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia" but it probably doesn't matter if the socks are blocked and the page will likely be deleted in six months anyway. Sam-2727 (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sam-2727, well there is a plausible claim of notability (we never need to delete every autobiography in Wikipedia). Besides, this can act as a good indicator of any more socks. Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math (Message) 01:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"unsourced [[WP:AFC|AFC]] submissions" VS "unsourced [[WP:WPAFC|AFC]] submissions"

This edit filter is now set to tag unsourced AFC drafts. The question is: should the former (link to WP:AFC) or the latter (link to WP:WPAFC) be used? Thx Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math (Message) 11:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kendra Spade Article Needed

An article needs to be created about the celibrity Kendra Spade. 2A02:908:183:39F:5491:5580:886:9E18 (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how you ended up here, but it's the wrong place. I would recommend requesting an article at WP:REQUEST. Cheers, Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math (Message) 11:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vhora Mahir

Vhora Mahir is a frist-class cricketer who played for Gujarat and goa in the Ranji Trophy. He was born in Anand,Gujarat,India. Mahir is a left-hand bastman and left-arm offbreak bowler.Wikipedia

Born: 2 August 1987(age 32 years),ANAND Nationality: Indian Batting style: Left-handed Role: Bowler

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation&oldid=953665095"