Template talk:AfC submission/Archive 2

Template-protected edit request on 22 December 2019
Summary: Automatically add draft to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned drafts or AfC submissions after six months as originally intended. ~ riley  ( talk  ) 20:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Same change needed for Template:AFC submission/declined, who's talk page redirects here. ~ riley  ( talk  ) 20:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose That's not the purpose of this switch.  The purpose of this to alert editors that it qualifies to be nomianted for G13, not to Nominate for G13 directly simply because it moved over the magic date.  An editor (or bot) reviews to verify that the G13 criteria still applies at nomination time.  In the case of an editor, they may decide to postpone the G13 eligibility date. Hasteur (talk) 00:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What human verification is being performed to verify the G13 criteria still applies? The G13 criteria, specific to AFC, is time specific. This does not remove the ability for it to be postponed and these pages are not being blindly deleted, they are reviewed by an administrator prior to deletion (if appropriate). ~ riley  ( talk  ) 01:45, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose – deletion of drafts should not be automatic. Many of these have potential, and we're already barely looking at what we're throwing away. We need to fix this, not make it worse. – bradv  🍁  02:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. DannyS712 (talk) 02:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 24 March 2020
Please review and submit following two pages for approval. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Danish_Renzu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Illegal Cinephile786 (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template . Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 30 March 2020
Change "Edit this page" to just "Edit" in the line: To edit the draft click on the "Edit this page" tab at the top of the window.

The text has been "Edit" for the majority of viewers (ie those using the default Vector skin) for almost ten years now. It's still "Edit this page" on MonoBook, but those users are a minority. Unless there's some fancy technology to change the text based on the user's skin, it should show what's seen by the majority. Zerbu Talk 13:37, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 02:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 6 April 2020
It appears that  doesn't do anything, so get rid of the two occurrences of it. (If it's intended to serve as, which I doubt, that markup should be used explicitly to convey its explicit meaning.)

And to resolve a missing end tag every time it's used, to

please append

— Anomalocaris (talk) 06:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Jonesey95: Thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 April 2020
I had to decline an AfC submission due to improper sourcing for a user who is experienced with creating articles. They have had many successful and unsuccessful submissions, and are definitely not a "beginner" editor. With that being said, I feel like saying "Please see 'referencing for beginners'" in the declination reasoning could be potentially condescending for users who do know what they are doing. For "ilc", I suppose that linking WP:REFB is understandable, and there isn't a better alternate, especially by saying "for instructions on how to". However for "source", "v", and "rs", I feel like WP:FOOTNOTES should be linked instead of WP:REFB, because the current wording could be condescending. Even if it says "If you need help", its safe to assume that people who have their submissions declined, regardless of their experience, are going to reach out for help to get their submission accepted. Being told that the first place to look is at a page for beginners may not be the best thing to do. As for exact wordings, I don't have any preference. I would just rather link WP:FOOTNOTES as an alternative to WP:REFB. WP:REFB is already a hatnote at the top of WP:REF, which is also linked. True beginners should be able to find this just fine. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * First thing, it would really help to draft out an idea of what should replace the text you're referring to. Second thing, while I do somewhat agree with you, I've occasionally found myself at "beginner" links like REFB simply because they're the easiest/simplest way to remind me of what I've apparently forgotten to do. Primefac (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. Alternatively, place the changes you want to make here with an indication of what is being changed from the original. Primefac (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Add a line, ask a reviewer for help
I would like to add a line to this template: "Ask a reviewer for help? For a list of reviewers, see WikiProject Articles for creation/List of reviewers by subject"

Don’t make it push-button or automated. Don’t template the request for them. Let the human be a human, choose a reviewer with expertise or interests matching the need, and let them ask in free text at the reviewers user talk page.

I for one would welcome questions related to my interests.

I believe this line would go well under Where to get help. I think it could replace entirely the text: “If you need feedback on your draft, or if the review is taking a lot of time, you can try asking for help on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject. Some WikiProjects are more active than others so a speedy reply is not guaranteed.” WikiProjects are mostly inactive.

—SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , the correct template is Template:AFC submission/helptools. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 12:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Template talk:AFC submission/helptools redirects here. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it can be added without removing the WikiProjects line. Something along the lines of a "if you need help, try..." with a bulleted list with the current options plus the list of reviewers by subject. Primefac (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. Please add it, independently of removing the WikiProjects line.  I’d like to see what happens if drafters start asking questions, and whether they choose subject-matching reviewers.  If they do, this could be quite good.  If they don’t, we can go back. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Also see the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/List of reviewers by subject concerning potential (semi-)automation of searching for an appropriate reviewer. We may have to sort out the details soon. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 04:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Idea credit goes to . —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll wait for a few more opinions. Primefac (talk) 23:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would highly discourage this. My idea for implementing the page for searching for reviewers by subject was for other reviewers to seek out input or help. I worry that allowing drafters to easily see a list of reviewers by subject will lead to people's talk pages getting spammed and would create a chilling effect of people wanting to add themselves to the list. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I disagree back. Very strongly.  Newcomer drafters *should not* be corralled separate from the community.  Discouraging drafters from asking for help from people here to help is absurd.  AfC should not build further on the current hierarchical model.  If your concern has merit, we can make separate lists.   —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur with Sulfurboy here. The intention of that page was for other reviewers to ask for intra-AFC help. A sufficiently motivated newbie can look for the "reviewers by subject" and search for the right guy, so not leaving a link ensures that only users sufficiently worried about their drafts (in good faith, as bad-faith users won't go this far anyway) and reviewers will be able to use it, which would avoid spamming reviewers with corporate junk. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 03:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was the intention. You are right, a sufficiently motivated newbie can do many things, but I think that the AfC system tends to decrease newbie ingenuity, so many seem to confine themselves to the draft.  I think pointing drafters to a list of reviewers by subject area could be a good idea.
 * As I posted at WT:WikiProject Articles for creation/List of reviewers by subject, I am raising the idea of a separate list for those brave enough for a more drafter-visible list. I wouldn't want the utility of this list destroyed by making is a spam magnet.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 6 June 2020
At Template:AFC status/age, change  to   to better handle times (like right now) when there is a single very old article (for whatever reason) but all the rest are much newer; this would deal with spikes better and prevent possible confusion when review time suddenly spikes from four weeks to four months. Something similar could be done for more/all categories, but I'm not sure if that's as necessary. Pinging for previous involvement/expertise; something similar would have to be done at Template:AFC status/level as well (but I can do that if everyone is fine with this change, that's only autoconfirmed protected). LittlePuppers (talk) 17:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable. I'll get to working on this. Primefac (talk) 17:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 25 June 2020
Template:AFC submission/comments has several piped links. However "Inserting a reference" is no longer a section of Help:Referencing for beginners. Therefore, could someone please change the links to  ? Thanks!

(I'm not watching this page –&#32;please use&#32; on reply) GoingBatty (talk) 02:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

nowikied categories
For some reason, the category and similar is appearing on some drafts (eg ). I'm not sure what has happened.-- Auric   talk  20:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking into it. For what it's worth, none of the AFC templates have been edited recently (or at least, not in a manner that would cause this to happen). Also happening on Draft:Skoposology. Primefac (talk) 20:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like your edit done it :) - Rich T&#124;C&#124;E-Mail 12:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Improving your odds of a speedy review
Can we get rid of (or at least heavily amend) that was added to Template:AFC submission/helptools in March by. Since that time, the number of problems reported at Database reports/Broken WikiProject templates has gone up from 5-6 per week to several dozen - well over 100 on the last run of the report. See also Village pump (technical)/Archive 180.

It is clear that people are (i) guessing the names of the templates to use; (ii) taking the capitalisation of "TOPIC" literally; and (iii) failing to WP:PREVIEW their edits. They occasionally put them on the draft itself, not on the talk page. I'm getting fed up of [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Redrose64?offset=20200615182200&limit=19 clearing up all this mess]. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Amending would be better than removing. Newbies will always screw some things up though. That's to be expected. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have a funny feeling this will sound like I'm contradicting something I've said in the past (elsewhere), but I think telling people to post on the WikiProject's talk page will be more effective for garnering views. Are we telling people to put the templates on the draft talk so that the sortlist will work more efficiently? Primefac (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That specific section is telling put the WikiProject banner on the talk page so things get picked up by the Wikiproject's Article Alerts so the WikiProject gets notified that a new draft has been submitted. There's also general advice to ask at a WikiProject talk page for feedback in general in the "Where to get help" section. Of course, it'd be pretty easy to add "You can also directly ask for a review if it's been a few days." or something too. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Is this going to get fixed, or shall I remove it entirely? that was reported just yesterday. People are not following instructions, they are not previewing - indeed they are simply guessing which is always bad practice. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 12:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and remove it for now. Clearly the existing advice isn't working as intended. Primefac (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The advice is working, what's happening is a minority of people are screwing up when trying to follow it. If you have a way to refine the advice, refine it. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think Redrose's concern is that no one has put forth that refinement. My concern is thus that such a refinement may not exist, and I haven't really given it enough thought as to how that refinement would read. Primefac (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * is ridiculous. Since nobody here is willing to fix that bad "advice", I'm taking it out right now. Please do not reinstate it unless a significantly less harmful format can be worked out. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 12:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Tweak the wording (like this) if you want, but this is good advice that really does help in most situations. That 30 mistakes or so mistakes were made is inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. Compare that to the hundreds and thousands of correct tagging that were done. If you want to cut down on those, the easiest fix is creating the relevant redirects. Or, again, to improve the wording. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * BOTREQ made, too, btw. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * See also EF request &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've already asked you to improve the wording, but you have not done so. You left it alone, and it seems as if you are ignoring the problem entirely: hence my drastic action, for which I gave you fair warning. The present wording is yours, not mine: hence, you are responsible for all the crap that comes out of it. I have not seen any evidence of these "hundreds and thousands of correct tagging that were done" at all. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And I already did, since you were apparently unwilling to do so after you were repeatedly being asked to improve it or make suggestions &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC).
 * You did that while I was typing my post; we'll see what effect that has. But again, if you write advice, you must be prepared to both clean up any undesirable effects, and also amend that advice in light of experience. Don't leave it for the rest of us to sort.
 * Earlier, you wrote the easiest fix is creating the relevant redirects - how would redirects have helped to fix cases where there is no direct match, e.g. ? How would redirects have sorted the issue of WikiProject tags being placed in the draft itself, as ? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's AFC, there's going to be newbie problems no matter what. The advice works. I'm giving you better, redirects will fix many problem cases. You want perfect, which doesn't exist. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you prepared to patrol Database reports/Broken WikiProject templates weekly and clear up the mess that your advice is causing? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Flipping this on you, are you prepared to patrol AfC daily to ensure that drafts have WikiProject banners and get reported in WP:AALERTS for each project? Preventing ~30ish broken banners a week (which takes at most 10-15 minutes to cleanup) do not outweight the benefits of hundreds drafts being correctly tagged and reported in Article Alerts so that WikiProjects are aware of new submissions, ensuring better and speedier reviews from the people that are the most familiar with those topics. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 August 2020
Please replace the following line at Template:AFC submission/declined:

|by (talk)

with this line:

|by (talk)

Also, please replace the following line at Template:AFC submission/rejected:

|by (talk)

with this line:

|by (talk)

These changes are simply to avoid using redirects on this template and on the other pages transcluding it.

(See WP:NOTBROKEN, which includes the following: "In other namespaces, particularly the template and portal namespaces in which subpages are common, any link or transclusion to a former page title that has become a redirect following a page move should be updated to the new title for naming consistency.") Jdaloner (talk) 12:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Perfectly valid to use as a template redirect; let's save some server kittens by not forcing this update on almost 25k pages. If another (substantial) edit comes along, then this can be lumped in with that. Primefac (talk) 01:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Sameer Yasin
Sameer Yasin (born 2005) is an Indian Environmentalist,Youth leader and climate Activist who campaigns for action on Climate change, Air pollution,Water pollution and has also called for a complete ban on Plastic.He recently joined Catarina lorenzo to start a environmental movement called "green kingdom" which later turned into an organisation where he is the current President. He has also founded many Club's such as Eco club, DMC and has also played a active role in Sanctuary Asia's program called kids for tiger's.

He is also also increasing his Activism for fridaysforfuture as a coordinater. And he has also been featured in International teen article wonkedition as a Changemaker and Young Founder.

"ClimateSign.org's Instagram post: "@__sameer__yasin__ is a Young Climate Activist from Kanpur along River Ganga in India, he started activism to save the environment as a…"". Instagram. Retrieved 2020-08-14.

"Change Makers: Sameer Yasin started Green Kingdom to help people hurt by climate change". wonkedition.se. Retrieved 2020-08-13. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roshan parveen (talk • contribs) 06:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , you'll probably want to post this in the Draft space (not on the template talk), likely at Draft:Sameer Yasin. Primefac (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Documentation
I disagree with this reversion. I was aware at the time I made my edit that it was also listed below, but the existing documentation was not sufficient for me (a sophisticated Wikipedia veteran) to find it before I knew it was there. I ended up going through the article wizard to figure out what it was because it was so non-obvious to me. I think there needs to be something in the usage section indicating how it is to be used as a banner pre-submission. Perhaps others can think of better ways to achieve that. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "code for new draft submissions" is pretty clear, no? &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I would also mention that the only place where this is used is Template:Afc preload/draft, which is the pre-load given by the Article wizard when someone auto-generates a base page; AFC submission/draft works just as well for putting up the generic "draft" template (sans, of course, fancy date/timestamps, but those are irrelevant for the /draft template). It's basically one of those "should not be used directly" templates. Primefac (talk) 23:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Having thought about this more, I propose a different set of edits to make this clearer: . Thoughts? Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't mind the new order, but the instructions (now that I read them through the lens of an unsure individual) were terrible so I rewrote them. Also, AFC submission itself should never be subst (also clarified in the /doc). Primefac (talk) 00:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

reject reasons: WP:PROF
This one is my specialty, and..... in progress  DGG ( talk ) 20:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I hate looking at professor articles and skip them as I encounter them. Is there something I should do to make sure they end up in your queue? Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * just leave them, I will look at them all unless someone gets there first. I am currently primarily making sure none fall of the 6 moth time limit, and after that I divide my work between the 0 and 1 day group, and the oldest. If there's anything in the middle I should look at, for example where the author is bothering us for a decision, just tell me on my talk page. As limitations: The ones I find hardest to judge are those where the people are not in the Western academic system, but in other traditions; I try to guess, but I simply do not know what counts for notability in some geographic areas or in some religious fields. I also have difficult with some of the Russian-related ones: I know which are the important universities and research centers,  but I'm less confident about the actual significance of their plethora of impressive titles. And when a public servant or businessperson bio mentions they're an adjunct instructor somewhere, it's usually safe to ignore the academic aspect. And in the performing or fine arts, ( & as WP:PROF specifies), it's usually better to judge those who also hold academic titles as a performer or artist using the. criteria in those fields.  DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 26 September 2020
The markup includes Obsolete HTML tags:. Please replace the obsolete HTML markup with

— Anomalocaris (talk) 04:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * or other suitable HTML5-compliant markup.
 * or other suitable HTML5-compliant markup.
 * or other suitable HTML5-compliant markup.
 * Yes check.svg Done – SD0001  (talk) 04:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

revisions
I am trying to shorten the various portions of the template. My experience is that people only read the first sentence, and one short example is enough. Beginners are not usually stupid, but they are impatient. It is impossible to write instructions for all contingencies at WP; it's enough to give the most likely case.  DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Improving the odds of a speedy review:
At the moment we have

all that is really needed is

If anyone thinks more is needed, I'd like to know why.  DGG ( talk ) 20:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe the reason why the "red template" bit got added was because of the discussion above, in which users weren't checking to see if the template was valid, leading to a large number of redlinked transclusions. Primefac (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The mere existence of the section is what has caused the large number of entries in this report., do you want to help clean that lot up every week? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 11:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I dont think this approach is likely to work. Picking a random person from a wikiproject list is likely to turn up someone long-retired.... and explaining how to find a recently active user is not short. Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I know something about education. One thing is that too much information, overexplaining things, it causes people to act stupid.  Tell them how to suck eggs, and they'll wait for an instruction before doing anything.  Intelligent beginners who have not been trained to be stupid, they will work out how to determine whether the Wikipedian is active.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * A day back I wrote User:SD0001/AFC-add-project-tags.js which if moved to MediaWiki:AFC-add-project-tags.js can be used by a new editor without installing anything on their end. It adds the project templates to the draft talk page *without possibility of errors*, and also without them having to figure how to do it using wikicode. (also pinging as the initial author of this part of the template). SD0001 (talk) 12:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Currently, that requires having a custom JavaScript installed, and we cannot require that of newbies. If the page is moved, we can update the guidance accordingly. The list User:SD0001/wikiproject-list.js should also be externalized, because we want others to be able to do maintenance on the list, because there is a lot of maintenance that would be needed for it after page moves, project closures, project mergers, etc... &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We can use User:Theo's Little Bot/afchwikiproject.js, which is used by other scripts as well. But I would first like to have my improvements in the list ported over there, see editreq. SD0001 (talk) 18:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hence the need to externalize the list to somewhere that's not a userpage. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I saw your earlier objections, and I agree with them. I would much rather have the section out entirely. I have almost never given such advice; it looks too much like an attempt for special treatment. We do need subject people to review subject drafts, but this should be handled with a program of our own, not left to the submitters initiative. (not that I like the ORES list particularly helpful or accurate). I have been going systematically through all the G13 -soon deletion for several months, (except popular music/arts, and sports) and I am finding a number that were reasonably OK, but were simply never reviewed.


 * tag your draft's talk page with the relevant WikiProject tags I think random editors, AfC reviewers, new pages reviewers, if they are not members of the said WikiProject, tagging pages with WikiProject banners are contributing to the death of the WikiProjects. The tagging itself decreases the likelihood of an active WikiProject member engaging with the new article.  I think WikiProject tagging efforts are misdirected, and should be retasked as categorizations.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm pretty sure that's a minority viewpoint... I have no idea how you can blame "the death of WikiProjects" on editors placing WikiProject tags on articles that seem to fit within the WikiProject's ambit... Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The tagging itself decreases the likelihood of an active WikiProject member engaging with the new article. That is utter nonsense. If a draft pops in WikiProject Academic Journals/Article alerts, then editors from WP:JOURNALS are immensely more likely to engage with the draft. Being notified of new articles entering various workflows (PROD, AFD, AFC...) is the very reason for the existence of Article Alerts and why the system is so widely used. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That would be the exception, the relatively few active WikiProjects will be an exception. Consider instead a semi-active WikiProject.  After you tag the new page talk page, what happens next from the WikiProject perspective?  I suggesting posting the question on WikiProject talk pages, "do you want me to continue tag these pages".  If no answer, I think you should stop.
 * Calliopejen1, it is not the primary blame, but it contributes. It contributes by removing the easy but important job from the few WikiProject members, and it creates a misaligned illusion of WikiProject activity.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Active WikiProjects are a dime a dozen, and are far from the exception. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's continue at WT:WikiProject Council. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Summary (advice for speedier review)

 * It looks like we have a rough consensus to remove the section, and a probable consensus not to replace it by anything automatic. Only a very few projects are effective enough for this to work. It will then require no maintenance or javascript.   DGG ( talk ) 18:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Headbomb, it looks like you may be in a minority.  DGG ( talk ) 18:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see that at all. The advice works, and should be there. We want WP:AALERTS to pick up new drafts. If and when a better method is implemented (e.g. SD0001's script thing), we can go with that and update the guidance to something accordingly simpler. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well I am with Headbomb on this. We may not be entirely honest when we say it "improves the odds of a speedy review". But anyhow we want the drafts to be tagged with project tags (for the sake of Article Alerts etc). If we can get the newbies to do it for us, then that's less work for us. I don't see what other objection had other than the red-linked templates being left behind, which will be eliminated using the javascript solution. SD0001 (talk) 18:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well it does improves the odds. Having better odds doesn't mean you are guaranteed speedier review. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * To the extent it will atrract the newbies, it would possibly increase the odds of a speedier but lower quality review.  DGG ( talk ) 22:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Really doubt that notifying WP:VG of a new submission for a video game related draft, or WP:CHEMISTRY of a new chemistry-related draft, would somehow lead to a lower quality review. In my experiences, many drafts are wrongly declined by AFC regulars that are simply unfamiliar with the subject matter. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's also a good way to just get more people interested in AFC and AFC reviews in general. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have just noticed what I should have seen earlier, that the essential contents of this section is also present in an earlier section of the template: Where to get help . It says it better and briefer there:

''If you need feedback on your draft, or if the review is taking a lot of time, you can try asking for help on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject. Some WikiProjects are more active than others so a speedy reply is not guaranteed.'' DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

JS-based tags
Thanks to User:SD0001 for their new JS-based solution that works for everyone! Hopefully can update the reviewing script to handle better handle of banners that are already present on talk pages. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I wonder if this could be integrated into the 'Submit your draft' button to have it part of the submission process. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes! You just gave me the idea to revolutionise the draft submission process using javascript. What we have now is a crude and unsophisticated process involving a preload form that asks the user to scroll past the editbox without changing anything and hit the publish button. Instead, we could have a JS-powered form with a simple submit button that will directly make the edit, before which using the form we can get them to tell what project tags to add, and also if the page is about a BLP or company (few ppl want to review these - so that we can discreetly classify the draft as such). Also the JS can check if the draft has references: if not found, it could display some warning urging the user to add them before submitting. All in all, it opens up a ton of possibilities. – SD0001  (talk) 16:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That would be a dream come true if you can achieve it! &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I am excited about this! Can't wait to code this up. – SD0001  (talk) 12:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation – SD0001  (talk) 07:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposed change under discussion
A proposed change to Template:AFC submission/tools is under discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation (permalink).

This change will visibly affect Template:AFC submission/pending, Template:AFC submission/reviewing, and Template:AFC submission. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  19:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Borked template with recent page move
FYI, your recent pagemove of has broken the base usage case of {{subst:submit}} ; which no longer will provide the proper substituted template, since it accesses a double-redirect. This would I expect need cleanup if anyone substed submits during the period this is broken. -- 65.92.244.147 (talk) 05:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I fixed the caps in that template. But looks like this isn't the cause of the bug? Still isn't working. – SD0001  (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, silly me, that wasn't the bug at all. now. . –  SD0001  (talk) 06:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia needs an "A-B" test environment for complex change sets like this, so once the kinks are worked out, the entire change set can "go live" at one time. Not gonna happen any time soon, but a man can dream, can't he? davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  13:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks all. I tried to fix as many of the double-redirects as I could find, and I feel like a bit of a numpty for forgetting the most obvious one. Primefac (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Right after we get code review for gadgets. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * it isn't fixed completely yet. You still need to fix the URL of all submit buttons. For example, in Template:AfC submission/draft, preload=Template:AFC_submission/Subst needs to be replaced with the new spelling. The same goes for Template:AfC submission/declined. This needs to be done ASAP, as otherwise every submit attempt generates invaild code. Therefore: Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have fixed it for now by altering the redirect target at the old submit code location, Template:AFC submission/Subst but the buttons should be altered as soon as possible to prevent full breakage if the pages are moved again. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 January 2021
Remove An automated robot will update the page later and remove the draft article box. Because this is not true, a bot does not do this, the template does this itself. Dylsss(talk contribs) 01:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you asking for a change to Template:AfC submission/Subst/Editintro? davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  01:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can see the subpage in the template, the talk page redirects here. Dylsss(talk contribs) 01:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Doh. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  02:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ * Pppery * it has begun... 15:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 March 2021
Hi I recently created two articles with proper citation from big newspaper's websitess.The articles still not live.Take a look and review it - Draft : Kothadi ,

Draft : Jalgaon housing scam. Thank you. 106.220.85.12 (talk) 09:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Template:AfC submission. For your purposes, that template has been placed on the first Draftspace article page. Just follow the instructions in the submission box. The second page is already under review. Please be patient. Thank you very much for your input!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 11:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 26 March 2021
Please de-capitalize "Language" in all the instances of "English Language". JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 22:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅, and thank you very much!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 23:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Why specific websites are prioritized to search web?
Isn't specifying Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) .. etc which are a for profit companies violets non-nutrality? I propose removing such links. nirmal (talk) 10:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Please review my Wikipedia
Please review my Wikipedia draft Draft: Rashtriya Secular Majlis Party Iamamjad03 (talk) 07:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template . Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Primefac (talk) 11:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 May 2021
There is a bug in that unsubmitted drafts (first argument T) are being included incorrectly in the "AfC submissions by date/dd MMM yyyy" categories thus making the number of daily submits inflated. I have fixed in the sandbox with this edit and ask for this to be changed in the template. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Primefac (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

unneeded 'then'
I have zero idea how to edit this, but neither


 * If the submission is accepted, then this page will be moved into the article space.
 * If the submission is declined, then the reason will be posted here.

Need the "then", and I think many people might say it makes the writing sound a bit amateurish. —valereee (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure I agree, though I'm coming at it from a programming standpoint, where an "if" is followed by a "then". Primefac (talk) 12:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you heard of a programming language called FORTH? This has constructs like
 * See Starting FORTH. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * See Starting FORTH. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Edit request, update Template:AfC submission/created to match reality
See this comment as background. Please modified the current text in Template:AfC submission/created to  The present text is misleading and implies that the article was actually reviewed by a "reviewer". In the vast majority of of instances this tag appears in mainspace it is due to the article creator either jumping the gun (and copy-pasting a draft to main space without a review) or ignoring the review and copy pasting the draft (or an old version thereof) to main space. The existence of this tag is a red flag that merits attention. The present text "endorses" and "protects" the article from further review (as most experienced editors AGF vs. AfC reviewers regarding article notability and vetting), misleading readers.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 06:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC) I submitted this following your comment.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 06:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * From what I can see at Template:AfC submission/created, it's supposed to give a warning if the draft has non-redirect content on it. So this would only be an issue in cut-and-paste moves, right? Or is that not working as intended? I have other thoughts, but first I want to make sure I understand the problem here. Also, where you see created, that's just the template copying its own mw:Help:Magic words; in an article, "created" would be replaced with whatever the article's name is. -- Tamzin  (she/they) &#124; o toki tawa mi. 07:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "created" doesn't appear in draft space (at least according to the template documentation, it shows in mainspace only). Look at this page version (article up for deletion...) in main space. It has "AfC submission|t||ts=20210219001314|u=Camrybrown|ns=118|demo=" on the top, with the "T" parameter, which in draft appears as Template:AfC submission/draft. However in mainspace this appears with Template:AfC submission/created in accordance with the template documentation of this showing up in mainspace. The current text is misleading in that it says this was checked by an accredited reviewer, whereas in 99% of the cases this tag is still on an article in mainspace it has hijacked the AfC process, bypassing reviewers or ignoring reviewers' rejections.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 07:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think what Eostrix is getting at is that the current wording implies that the submission has been "reviewed", whereas if an autoconfirmed user 'jumps the gun' and moves a submission to mainspace themselves that won't have happened. Agreed with regard to your other comments. firefly  ( t · c ) 07:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I understand the rationale here. My point is that the code at Template:AfC submission/created looks like it's already supposed to address this:
 * I'm gonna try to figure this out, but thought I'd reply real quick to explain what I'm talking about. -- Tamzin  (she/they) &#124; o toki tawa mi. 08:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is the text saying it was "blessed" by the AfC team. The typical flow here now is that a non-autoconfirmed user submits a draft to AfC, in the process gains more than 10 edits (userpage, draft), and after some time (>4 days) when he is auto-confirmed (after going through the motions of AfC, even if unreviewed or rejected) posts it into main space. The requirement for auto-confirmed for creation has increased this type of flow, because users who were "forced" into AfC due to not being AC typically becoming AC just by submitting one article and waiting for the review... I don't see the ""copy and paste" in the one I pointed at (so that's something else here that's buggy maybe), but that wouldn't solve the problem of the text implying that the article was "blessed" by the AfC review team.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 08:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , ah right, sorry, I'll butt out and leave you to it! :) firefly  ( t · c ) 08:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see the issue here: The code there is working as intended; the issue is that the article's creator put it under a different title than the draft. I went to the redirect  and previewed adding AfC submission/created, and it behaved as expected.
 * I can't think of any way that we could check for drafts with different titles short of getting a bot to do it, so with that out of the way, yeah, I agree that the message shouldn't imply AfC approval where none exists. My only remaining question, then, is coming up with wording that makes sense to:
 * An AfC reviewer who isn't done with the move (the original use case)
 * A user who's just done a copy-paste move (but without implying they've definitely done something wrong, since there are good-faith reasons this could happen)
 * A passing new page patroller
 * A random editor who happens to stumble on the page
 * I feel like your second sentence would only take care of #3 there. Radical thought here, but does group #2 need to know that they've done this? If it's a good way to spot copy-paste moves, I'd think we wouldn't want to bring it to their attention that they've done so. What about taking advantage of user-right-specific  classes? Wrap the whole ambox in   (given that most of these users won't have XC, and all AfC reviewers must have it), and then:  Thoughts?  -- Tamzin  (she/they) &#124; o toki tawa mi. 08:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC) c/e 19:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You are correct that vs. #2 we don't want to spill the WP:BEANS too much (as we do not want them removing it, if they did it, as we want this to flag other editors), I suggest we just tweak it so it won't imply to #3 and #4 that the AfC crew blessed it (which makes deletion/draftification less likely). The typical editors doing this are less experienced (the more experienced COI operations either shepherd this through AfC the whole way, or alternatively game AC accounts and post to main space directly). You could check the user right's of the mover/creator, but all that is really required for #1 is some message implying that the tag is transitory and should be removed eventually by experienced editors of some sort - without implying a "blessed" status (which acts as a shield vs. review by others).-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 08:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Just as a side point, I've done two things in the interim: first, I've pointed WT:AFC to this discussion to get more input, and I've disabled the edit request. The reason for the second is that there are plenty of folks watching the page now, and I'm happy to implement the change once a consensus is reached. Feel free to continue the thread of discussion above mine, or continue below. Primefac (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Updating I cross-posted at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, as in my mind this is a new article patrol issue.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 14:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * support I agree it should be changed. If reviewed by an AfC reviewer the AFCH tool should remove very quickly or in the rare case doing it manually it should be removed quite quickly so having it as stands has no practical use for AfC and is misleading suggesting it has been reviewed for cut-paste or regular moves. As some editors move or add a redirect manually the template should not try to autodetect a redirect to assume any reviewing was done. Also I agree with adding "class=extendedconfirm-show". Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 13:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I've come across this a few times during NPP. The message seems to occur when a page is moved from draft without going through AfC, for example here. When it is a copy and paste move the message is  such as here. When I come across the former I assume that an AfC reviewer hasn't been involved as it's unlikely they would have moved it to mainspace before completing their review. I would suggest both messages are replaced with  --John B123 (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I mostly agree, but in the many cases in which this is a cut and paste move or other duplication (newer/older revision) of an existing draft then moving it back to draft is not really an option, this would result in multiple drafts of the same page. Draftifying is less likely than a non-AfC new page by a newbie.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 16:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If it was a straight copy and paste from draft, I'd redirect it draft and tag the redirect db-r2. If it had been "improved" in mainspace but draftification was still appropriate it gets more complicated, as does the situation where the draft has been created by one editor and the article in mainspace was a copy from a different editor's sandbox. If an inexperienced editor tried to move it to draft and a draft already existed they'd probably give up when it didn't work. A more experienced editor would probably know how to get round this. The AfC error message needs to be simple not an essay covering every possibility. --John B123 (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * : what is the "vetting" you're referring to in this text? Why would we need to vet (and presumably consider moving back to draft)? Why wouldn't this appropriately just stay in mainspace (with the tag removed) and get processed by NPP? Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Vetting as in review, and particular reviewing the AfC history, article creator history (in particular declines and / or speedy deletions of the draft), and in some cases other accounts (AfC tags like maintenance tags with old dates coming from a new account with no history on the article are often signs that there is another account involved). Certainly some such articles are appropriate for main space, but very often these articles (with AfC tags) are created by newbies who either are tired of waiting for an AfC review or worse are main spacing the article after it was rejected at AfC or even speedy deleted in draft. Assuming the article, including copy-pasted versions of it, had a history in draft space then that history is often relevant for the mainspace review.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 17:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, User:Eostrix, for placing this request in response to my complaint. I have making this complaint from time to time for more than a year.  As the other editors have noted, that message in particular means that the AFC submission template is present in an article in article space.  It is accurate in one situation, if the AFC reviewer closes the window while the accept script is still running, which can happen by accident, or due to impatience by the reviewer.  It is almost accurate in another situation, if acceptance of a draft was blocked by a redirect, and a reviewer tags the redirect for G6, and an admin deletes the redirect, and moves the draft to article space.  If the admin is not an AFC reviewer, they may not know about the cleanup that is done by the accept script.  However, it usually means that the article was moved from draft space to article space by a Move by the author.  In that case, the article should be reviewed in the same manner as any other new article, and may be good, and may not be ready for article space.  As other reviewers have noted, sometimes the article was declined or rejected by AFC, or was in article space and was draftified, and the author may be move-warring.  The message that is displayed is usually wrong, and is confusing because it is wrong.  Sometimes there are reasons why messages should be accurate.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I think John B123's third option above is the closest to what we really want to say. To me, the main thing this template should tell is us that the article, at some point, was in the draft space, and is now in the Article space, and it should be evaluated. It should check the status of the draft-of-the-same-name and give relevant possibilities:
 * Draft is a redirect, which indicates either an accept-that-didn't-complete or a move out-of-process by the creator or a non-reviewer, and the template can likely can just be removed (or the page returned to draft space).
 * Draft is not a redirect, in which case there should be a warning that it might be a copy/paste pagemove and should be evaluated based on that fact.
 * Draft does not exist, which means it should be evaluated as normal (and maybe indicate a check for a copy/paste pagemove from somewhere).
 * John's language fits reasonably well with option #1, with a few tweaks. Keep in mind we don't want to have too much text in the banner. Primefac (talk) 13:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I mostly agree. I also think Tamzin's suggestion to wrap this with "class=extendedconfirmed-show" is worthwhile as AfC and NPP reviewers will have this flags and this avoids spilling the beans vs. those who do out of process moves / copy-pastes.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 07:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Relatedly, I'm mostly happy with John's wording, but I do think it's good to avoid bothering our readers with admin stuff when possible. Might I suggest something like this? And that's with the whole template wrapped in , as Eostrix and I have discussed. Also, I would reïterate that "recently created" is not actually part of the template's language; in articles it will say the article's name there. In this proposal I'm changing  to  to make that more clear to users looking at the template page (where it would now say This article, Template:AfC submission/created, given that the two magic words always have the same output in mainspace (and this template cannot display in any other namespace).  -- Tamzin  (she/they) &#124; o toki tawa mi. 19:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 July 2021
Hello, I edited an article that was not updated and contained incorrect information about this artist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kasra_Abbaszadeh Nedzelico (talk) 13:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template . Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. The help desk for AfC-related questions is at WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

A link to go to the next article?
Just putting this here for thoughts, but I think it would be greatly useful for reviewers if there was a link at the bottom of this template to go to the next unreviewed submission. — Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 06:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I assume you're defining "next" in a timestamp-of-submission-related way? I'm genuinely not sure that's possible. Primefac (talk) 10:07, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Primefac, apologies, I mean linking to https://iw.toolforge.org/randomincategory/Pending_AfC_submissions%26server%3Den.wikipedia.org%26namespace%3D2!118%26type%3Dpage which chooses a random unreviewed AfC draft. It's what's linked from AfC status. — Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 14:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You want a link provided to a random submission on the /pending template? Genuinely curious, how would this be "greatly useful"? Not necessarily opposed, just do not see the point at the mo. Primefac (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

PAGE ]]) 18:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * (As far as I know) most AfC reviewers review drafts by going to a random one via that link, and the only time you get that link on an AfC submission is when you either accept or decline it. If you don't want to review a submission, you have to open the WPAFC page again then press the random link (which adds up over time). — Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 07:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, so I assume you'd want this somewhere reasonably hidden, such as in the "Reviewer tools" section? Primefac (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If your goal is to have that link for reviewers, it would make more sense to request to add it to the AFCH gadget, not the pending template. In the meantime, you can use the "> Skip" button in my Draft sorter script. You can also add the following code to your Special:Mypage/common.js to add a "Random draft" link above the "Random page" link on the left toolbar:
 * --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|TALK
 * --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|TALK

Template-protected edit request on 16 August 2021
Change up to 4 weeks to up to 6 months as this is the new, correct amount. 100.2.238.109 (talk) 11:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  firefly  ( t · c ) 11:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 August 2021 (1)
Change line 2 of template from:

to:

Specific change: to add a css class.

Purpose: The intention is to force open the reviewer tool box in the submission template through the acfh.js script. i.e. when the acfh script is loaded,  is invoked. At the very least, this should reduce one mouse click for reviewers.

Change line 76/77(?) of template from:

to:

Specific change: changing the first article link in the sentence to use No redirect template.

Purpose: If it is a redirect, the redirected article is already displayed and linked. The first link then can be the un-redirected version for the convenience of reviewers to follow through for evaluation. – robertsky (talk) 13:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 16:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion to change background color on declined template
Hi there! When a draft is rejected, this template (and divbox) shows a gray box with an explanation of why the draft was rejected. The text in the gray box has many blue wikilinks that we expect the draft author to click on and read. However, the blue-on-gray color choices makes it hard to notice the wikilinks. How would you feel about lightening the gray color be lightened or replacing it with white or yellow? How would you feel about emphasizing the wikilinks in blue? I'm hoping that making some minor changes will reduce the number of editors posting to the Help desk and Teahouse asking us to explain why their drafts were rejected. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 17:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Lightening up the grey would probably fix most of the issues. Any particular colour in mind? Primefac (talk) 11:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The bold wikilinks on yellow in the page notice on this page looks better than the blue-on-gray. Is there a sandbox where we could try a few combinations to get consensus?  Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * yes? 15:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC) NO! Primefac (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes! It will take someone whose template coding prowess is better than mine.  GoingBatty (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Good thing I looked, as I didn't have all of it absolutely correct. Template:AfC_submission/declined/sandbox is the sandbox for the decline notice itself, but I think we're looking for the Template:AfC submission/declinedivbox itself, which (now) has a sandbox at Template:AfC submission/declinedivbox/sandbox.
 * The relevant template call from the /decline notice is, so when  is done in the divbox sandbox, I would suggest using that template call in the /testcases to see how well they work.
 * For now, might even want to just play around with different calls to AfC submission/declinedivbox. For example, change   to   or other color value and see if the "easy fix" does what you want. I've set up those two examples at Template:AfC_submission/declined/testcases. Primefac (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering how to set up a page similar to Template:AfC_submission/declined/testcases, where we could see different color backgrounds and bold wikilinks vs normal wikilinks. Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 18:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You cannot automatically bold links; if you want to set up bolded links, you'd need to edit the comments in Template:AfC submission/comments (which conveniently has its own sandbox as well!). Primefac (talk) 19:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion: Use WP:ERB instead of WP:REFB
Somebody has taken the time to put together a much more useful beginner's guide to referencing. I think WP:ERB covers the problems that new users tend to have with references, than WP:REFB. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Bot proposal (AFC submission templates)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Bot proposal (AFC submission templates). &#x0020;There is a proposal to have a bot add AfC submission/draft to all new pages in the draft namespace. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE ) 18:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit request
Template:AfC submission/comments

Change the notability decline text (and changing the sng declines' texts can't be that far fetched) to what is mentioned below.

This submission's referencing does not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. See an explanation for our inclusion guidelines here.

In summary: the sourcing in this article does not demonstrate significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Make sure you add additional references that meet these criteria before resubmitting (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

VPR: Village pump (proposals)/Archive 189 – AssumeGoodWraith  (talk &#124; contribs) 04:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: The WP:VPR proposal has only been open for 26 hours at this point. Please wait a week and reopen to allow for any and all editors who have an opinion on the matter to give their thoughts. Thanks, Terasail [✉️] 04:19, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Reopening to request the bullet point proposal be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AssumeGoodWraith (talk • contribs) 00:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Re-closed. I don't see a clear consensus for it in that discussion. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

compact-ambox
is a class that is used principally by multiple issues which makes amboxes "collapse" to their primary text and date (judicious hiding of specific elements, etc.). There are two uses in subpages, one added to /declined a decade ago and one in /rejected copy-pasted from there. Is this template actually used in the way that multiple issues is used, and if so, can someone provide an example?

My motivation is TemplateStyling the *mbox system; right now, these two subpages and multiple issues are the only uses of this class, so that's an opportunity to limit the use of the class only to where multiple issues is used rather than putting it in the core ambox styles. (I'll limit it regardless, so this is more me trying to get ahead of a much later curve.) Izno (talk) 02:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Um... neither of these templates currently uses compact-ambox... am I missing something? Primefac (talk) 11:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC) Ignore me, I asked the question right after Izno removed the class... Primefac (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Heh, yeah. Basically, the question is whether you put any kind of ambox inside afc submission. From a super brief purview of uses, I think the answer is no, but I could be wrong. Izno (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

RFC to Change Wording in Article Space
Should the text that is displayed when the AFC submission template is on an article in article space be changed? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

The text that is displayed on an article that has the AFC submission template on it while in article space currently reads:

Should it be changed to:

?

Explanation: There are several reasons why the page may have been moved to article space. An incompletely closed review is the least likely explanation.

The most likely reason is that the page was moved from draft space by the originator, rather than by a reviewer, either without AFC review, or ignoring AFC review. If so, the action may be to determine whether the page should be in article space, and, if necessary, to write an AFD nomination.

This wording has been discussed at length for years and has not been changed.

Survey

 * Support. Seems fine to change it. Another reason this message sometimes appears is when a UPE copy pastes wikicode from an offline save location, as part of a shady re-creation attempt. – Novem Linguae (talk) 10:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. The existing wording is unhelpful and misleading. The proposed wording is more accurate. Inspecting the history of the page would help an editor assess whether the tag should (together with other AfC tags remaining in the markup) should simply be removed, or whether it might need to be draftified / speedily deleted etc. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support as proposer. As Curb Safe Charmer says, the existing wording is confusing, and is usually not correct.  Since there are several possible reasons, it is a good idea to look at the history.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * OOjs UI icon add-constructive.svg Support. &#8213; Qwerfjkl  talk  19:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - constructive uncontrversial change which removes the apparent "blessing" of a reviewer when a unilateral decision to move to mainspace is made. History inspection can show an incomplete AFCH process, a valid unilateral move, move warring, and other salient matters. While it should be done in these circumstances anyway it is well to have the prompt 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose the new phrasing because of issues mentioned below, but I support the general idea. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 09:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose this particular text change. I have no objection to improving the text. —¿philoserf? (talk) 17:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support Support idea, would like to see a more concise phrasing, though. — PerfectSoundWhatever  (t; c) 23:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support 100% support the idea - the current wording is so wrong for non AfC reviewer moves and when properly reviewed you almost never see, so the wording has always been very misleading. Not so sure about the new wording, but better than the existing. KylieTastic (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion
, two questions: first, why is this being discussed here instead of the much-more-viewed WT:AFC, and second, why is this an RFC? I'm pretty sure the AFC crew can make an informed decision to update the wording without needing a full RFC. Primefac (talk) 07:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It has been discussed many times, although not recently, in various places including AFC, and it never gets fixed. This, or one of the templates that this template transcludes, is what needs to be changed, and it gets discussed, and there is agreement that the message is usually wrong, and nothing happens.  If the AFC crew will change the wording, then I will be glad to withdraw the RFC.  It has been confusing some people for years.  Robert McClenon (talk) 09:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough (and for the record, this wasn't meant to be any sort of chastisement, just genuine questions). I'll cross-post to WT:AFC for more feedback. Primefac (talk) 09:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

"and take appropriate action"? Is there any case in which the template should not be removed if it is in article space? &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If the page was created directly in the article space (e.g. a copy/paste from a deleted draft) it could be moved to the Draft space, wherein the template would no longer need to be removed. Primefac (talk) 09:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In that case it doesn't need to go through AfC anyway because that editor can clearly create pages by themself. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I support some similar change in principle, but "There are several reasons why this may have been done." seems hopelessly vague. Maybe "This may be an attempt to circumvent the AfC process." might be a better version of the first sentence? Rusalkii (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The statement that there "are several reasons why this may have been done" (the page could have been moved to article space) is intentionally vague because a list would be too long for a template (and might not be all-inclusive anyway). The instruction to take appropriate action after checking the history is intentionally vague because appropriate action depends on what the reason was, and a more complete explanation would be much too long for a template.
 * User:Rusalkii I avoided saying that the editor might be bypassing AFC review, both because that is only one reason why the page was moved, and because I didn't want to restart the arguments about when AFC review should be required, strongly encouraged, encouraged, or permitted. One possible action would be to write an information page explaining what some of the reasons may be and what the actions are.
 * At this point, the question is whether the template should continue to say that the article has been accepted and the reviewer will soon remove the template, or to make the intentionally vague statement. In my opinion, the intentionally vague statement is better because it is accurate, even if vague, while the current wording is usually wrong.
 * User:Jochem van Hees asks whether there is any case when the template should not be removed when the article is in article space. In my opinion, it should be left on until the history is reviewed by a reviewer who takes appropriate action.  Depending on the circumstances, the appropriate action might be:
 * Remove the template because the article was accepted but the script did not finish the acceptance (what it now implies).
 * Remove the template because the article was moved into article space by a non-reviewer, and should be in article space.
 * Push the article back into draft space, leaving the template(s) on as a review record.
 * Nominate the article for deletion.
 * Tag the article for speedy deletion.
 * See, I told you that it was too long a list to go in a template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs)
 * Yeah I guess it makes sense to wait for someone who knows what they are doing to remove the template. But those people then also don't need any instruction from this template anyway right? Maybe at most a link to the policy. The "take appropriate action" part might as well be removed then I think. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment - Does anyone want to propose a second alternate wording? Since there are several possible reasons, I don't want to see anything that oversimplifies.  Taking no action will leave the current oversimplification in use, which has been confusing reviewers for a few years.  (The current wording, that a reviewer has not finished the review action, is occasionally true, but much more often it is something else.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * How about something along the lines of: "This page is a draft in article space. Attention from a reviewer is needed to take appropriate action." It's not vague and still keeps options open for what to do. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 10:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit request
Looks like the above RFC passed. Would a template editor please make the appropriate changes to Template:AfC submission/created? Feel free to formally close the RFC if you want too, I think the outcome is clear. Thank you. – Novem Linguae (talk) 10:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done See Special:Diff//1089722114. Primefac (talk) 10:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 4 July 2022
Change line:


 * Warning: The user who submitted this draft may have been renamed. Please verify this and adjust the submission template if necessary before reviewing.

to:


 * Warning: The user who submitted this draft may have been renamed. Please verify this and adjust the submission template if necessary before reviewing.

Add closing tag to prevent lint errors from appearing on draft pages that include this template. Clay (talk) 04:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Applied in sandbox. See . No checks or tests done. -DePiep (talk) 04:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 07:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks all, that did the trick! Clay (talk) 01:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Scholar search
Can we add a Google Scholar search link to the Reviewer tools section? ~Kvng (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Add sigcov wikilink
In regards to Template:AfC submission/comments: Please change line 25 from  to   – Novem Linguae  (talk) 03:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Novem Linguae (talk) 07:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 4 November 2022
Please change the line on Template:AfC_submission/comments from

to

This switches from using to. Pinging as they suggested this change. &mdash; Ingenuity (talk &bull; contribs) 13:59, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Primefac (talk) 14:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

De-capitalize the L in English Language
A tiny thing, but I suggest de-capitalizing the L in English Language. This should affect 3 spots in the template code. I think capitalizing was accidentally done in this series of edits:. – Novem Linguae (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅: Special:Diff/1120061833. —⁠andrybak (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 April 2023
Please change the line

|3=If you need extra help, please at the AfC Help Desk or get live help from experienced editors.

to

|3=If you need extra help, please at the AfC Help Desk or get live help from experienced editors.

This switches from using a preloaded template to a Javascript gadget. Relevant discussion can be found at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 21:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ UtherSRG (talk) 02:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 May 2023
Please change "Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions" to "Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned drafts or AfC submissions" per Categories for discussion/Log/2023 April 11. Also do the same on related templates. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 00:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)


 *  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 10:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * . checked a lot of pages and it seems that any other templates that have had the old category have already been changed to the new one. If you find anymore templates that need this change and are protected, let me know and I'll be glad to update them.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;,  ed.  put'er there 11:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 30 July 2023
Replace:

With:

This is to replace the link to the AfCHD using a preload with a link to the AfCHD Wizard. Template:AfC submission uses the link to the wizard, so it'd only make sense to have them both go to the same place. I've tested this with Template:AfC submission/pending/sandbox and with the script as well, and it seems to work as expected. – Frood (talk) 02:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)


 * .  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 12:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 6 August 2023

 * Add notice to Fix ambiguous links and Fix broken links that the service isn't working.
 * Change from ⋈ to Links or similar. (less ambiguous. What even is that symbol?)
 * Change (talk: + bio) and (talk: D +) &rarr; (talk: + &middot; bio) and (talk: D &middot; +) respectively (more clarity and separation between items) Quick Quokka  [⁠talk • contribs] 23:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I changed '⋈' to "What links here" and added the dots. I'm not too sure about what to do with Dispenser's links. They haven't been active since early 2020, and the last update to their code was in mid-2020. I'm not holding my breath on whether they'll return to fix them. Saying they're broken tells people it's broken, but it's not like we know it'd be fixed eventually. SWinxy (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that all Dispenser links had been removed from active use. I'll be honest I'm surprised I missed one. By all means it should just be removed. Primefac (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Was there a discussion somewhere I could read? SWinxy (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Several, in the archives of WP:VPT going back to about 2014 (Toolserver was taken down on 30 June that year). Basically, the WMF laid down certain rules for all gadgets and scripts intended to be hosted on WMF servers (such as being open-source and freely-licensed), and Dispenser refused to comply. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Dupdet was deleted in December following this TFD. It has the background on the issue. I likely missed the Dispenser link here because it wasn't being funnelled through that template. Primefac (talk) 07:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * My apologies, ignore all of my comments above, I was referring to the copyvio check tool which was deleted/deprecated in December. If the other links don't work, we might as well remove them. Primefac (talk) 08:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The "Fix broken links" tool seems to work fine (example on a random AfD), but the "Fix ambiguous links" tool doesn't. I'll remove the ambiguous links link because I think it'd be wise to remove since there are other tools (User:Qwertyytrewqqwerty/DisamAssist?) to achieve the same purpose. SWinxy (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 28 August 2023
Two instances of:

Per MOS:HYPHEN "Avoid using a hyphen after a standard -ly adverb". Hyphenation Expert (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ SWinxy (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 29 September 2023: Directly link to Toolforge tools
Please apply this sandbox edit to the /tools subtemplate, changing two links to their redirect targets; this should be a tiny bit faster for users and work better with Special:LinkSearch. Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 19:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 October 2023
Add a wikilink to WP:SIGCOV to (4) talk about the subject in some depth in the /draft template. 2603:8001:4542:28FB:C8BB:D31:EF88:3BA2 (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC) (Please place talk page messages here instead)
 * ✅ Primefac (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 November 2023
I propose changing the "empty or blank" reasoning to add the following:

This should clarify that "articles for creation" is not the place to suggest, well, articles for creation. NotAGenious (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've modified your request to make it clear you want an addition, not a replacement. SWinxy (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Do we have data to suggest that people creating blank pages are actually looking for WP:RA? If not, then this is probably not necessary and just extra text to ignore. Primefac (talk) 08:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not "looking for RA", but many people are creating blank articles that have a real useful name, maybe thinking that someone will write it for them. Overall, "articles for creation" might sound like you can suggest, well, articles for creation NotAGenious (talk) 13:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Deactivating edit request as it is still being discussed and hence not ready to implement. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 3 December 2023
In the "not" reason for declining, please change the single quotes to double quotes per MOS:DOUBLE. — python coder (talk &#124; contribs) 02:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC) — python coder  (talk &#124; contribs) 02:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @Pythoncoder. I'm not seeing it in Template:AfC submission/reject reasons. What is the exact string I should search for? If you know the template, feel free to mention that too. – Novem Linguae (talk) 06:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that's the wrong page. Is Template:AfC_submission/comments the right one? — python coder (talk &#124; contribs) 06:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Novem Linguae (talk) 07:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Calculation of time?
Right now, the template says that it will take 2-3 weeks based (apparently) that there are 664 articles currently submitted. Where is the code that does that calculation?Naraht (talk) 01:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)


 * That's at AfC status/age. It's not actually based on the number of submissions, but rather the age of the oldest (or second-oldest) submission. LittlePuppers (talk) 08:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanx. It looks like though if you had exactly one article in each of the age cats, they wouldn't trigger. So the oldest was 20 days, the second oldest was 19, the third oldest was 15 and then everything else was less than 7, it would go with less than a week, but that's still a cool way to do it.Naraht (talk) 12:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * For anyone who is wondering about the minor discrepancy between what the phrase sounds like it's parsing vs what it is parsing: we used to base the backlog "length" by counting submissions, but as submission numbers (and AFC reviewer numbers) rose, they started to diverge from the traditional "X submissions = Y time" metric. So, we shifted to using the actual category counts to figure out how long someone would have to wait. I set the value to change at >1 (rather than =1) because if someone incorrectly submitted a draft giving it a timestamp >6mo suddenly we were in "OMG WE'RE FLOODING" status (and it only took me 7 months to figure that one out...). Anywho, bit of history for ya. Primefac (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think I made a comment or error request somewhere around that time for the >1 thing, hence me actually knowing where to look for it this time... :P LittlePuppers (talk) 03:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)