User talk:Equazcion/2013 5 9 october oct

Backlog Drive - A few notes.
Just a little heads up before the backlog drive starts. Due to the changes to the scoring system for the drive a relatively large amount of changes have been made to AFC Buddy in order to accommodate this change. Nothing world-shattering, but i suppose a warning in advance is always convenient.


 * The Re-review format was changed to a new format. As a direct result AFCBuddy can now automatically count reviews and generate the reviewers section (Including ing people over 25 reviews and a review count).
 * Any review re-reviewed using the template will be moved to a subsection on the reviewers page (Similar to what we used to have, though due to the template the accuracy should be a lot higher).
 * A new scoring system was implemented:
 * +1 score if a user marked a page as a copyvio, and the next deletion was marked as a copyvio by the deleting admin.
 * +1 score for every re-review an editor makes, tied to the template.
 * -3 score for every review that two other editors mark as failed. The editor still receives 1 point for the review itself so effectively this will result in the agreed-on -2 score. Why i use -3? Since it was a lot faster to implement then excluding failed reviews from the score count.

Those are the main changes, though these also resulted in a few auxiliary changes:
 * The leaderboard now lists "Total score", defined as "Total reviews" + "Adjustment", with adjustment being the total value calculated by the score system.
 * The User Totals List now contains some extra text in the header, listing the users review count, their positive and negative score adjustments. (Below example would normally be a header under the user totals section).
 * Example: Anne Delong (250 / 29 / 0) would mean that Anne did 250 reviews, earned 29 bonus points and received no penalty points.


 * The "250 / 29 / 0" part is a wikilink that will point to a page detailing the adjustment(s) themselves. An example of this page can be seen here. Note that the data on this page is partially bogus - the entries marked COPYVIO should be accurate for the July drive, but the ones marked REREVIEW and FAILEDREVIEW are based on a test run i executed on one of the old reviewers pages.

Please note
The above changes caused quite some changes throughout the entire codebase, so it is quite possible that a bug or two might have slipped in, or that i might have overlooked something. If possible, keep an eye out for anything odd in the results AFCBuddy generates, and please do let me know if anything seems off. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 18:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, that sounds like a lot of work, Excirial. One good thing is that since only the reviewers will see this, if a bug should appear it won't affect the submitters. Thanks again for taking this on.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * After squashing a few minor issues the drive results have now been uploaded. If anyone notices anything odd, please let me know. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 19:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Sock notification
I'm dubious regarding what this will achieve but there was a request at Sockpuppet_investigations/Reema_Welling for the AfC project to be notified if a sock was found. There were loads of them and the master will certainly return in due course: they are promoting a connected group of movie actors/producers/directors etc. - Sitush (talk) 08:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I made that request because at least some of the now-blocked accounts participated in AFC, either as submitters or reviewers. Their edit histories will need to be checked for submissions and reviews.  Unfortunately, there has been at least one un-related new editor doing some poor-quality reviews so some of the submissions by this sockpuppet made it through.  I've tagged those that I've seen for notability or PROD but not necessarily WP:CSD (block-evasion new articles).  Please help if tag-and-bag if you can.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  21:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

G13 template: Suggest adding a 24-hour clock
There seems to be a problem with the G13's being deleted as soon as they are templated.

How about replacing the existing template the bot uses with a dated template, like dated prod. This would immediately put templated submissions in a "about to go to csd" category so the rescue team could look through them and de-template them, then they would go to an "active" csd category where admins could delete them.

If 24 hours isn't enough, I have no objection to a longer time period, but let's keep it no more than a week, to be consistent with other "slow" speedy-deletions. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  04:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe that Hasteur already has figured out a process for letting people know which ones will be next to be nominated. However, if we can get organized to the point where we are working on the month ahead of the bot, it won't matter exactly which ones will be next, because the whole month that the bot is doing will have been checked. The bot already gives the submitters a 30 day notification. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 04:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * He is on about people tagging it manually. I support this idea - lets just put a 30 day delay on all G13 nominations, so people have time to trawl through the manual tags too. -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  06:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I may be wrong, but my understanding is that this is already the process. We'd have a month to look through each month's new "eligibles". But because of the two year and more backlog, a huge number were tagged at once.  The oldest ones were checked out by several reviewers, but these are gone now.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 11:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Anything that is in the Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions has had at least 1 notification made to the creator that the submission is in danger of being deleted. As new children (and sub-children of Category:AfC_submissions_by_date become eligible, the bot checks the category membership and does a null edit on the page (to ensure it picks up the most up to date version of the template), drops a notification on the page creator's talk page warning them, and adds it to an internal list of what page has been notified on (with who was notified). The bot checks the list and picks up the oldest notifications first so as to follow a procedural order. There's 30 days between when the new submission lands in the Eligible pile to when the bot nominates.  This does not disclude an editor of getting antsy and nominating before the bot would process it. Hasteur (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Roll Call - Backlog drive score changes
A quick notification for people who might have missed it: There have been some proposed rule changes for the AFC backlog drive in regards to its scoring system. Summarized the changes are:


 * Users will receive 1 point for every review or re-review of an article.
 * Inaccurate reviews (Reviews marked as "Fail" by two re-reviewers) will result in a 2 point deduction.
 * Submissions accurately marked and deleted as copyright violations will result in 1 bonus point. (1 for the review, another 1 for the copyvio detection).

Right now there changes seem to have universal support so i am planning to add these to AFCBuddy for the next drive (Changes still dependent on technical feasibility). This section is mostly a roll call for people who might have missed this change and disagree, or might want to voice alternatives / agreement to these changes. Also note that i've altered the re-review instructions to accommodate these score changes. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 20:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Sounds fine to the me. The only other (possibly controversial) thing I'd throw in, more to see what people think than anything else, is some penalties towards "son of Arctic Kangaroo" for accepting submissions that subsequently get deleted, which causes untold aggravation for the user. Something like :
 * Articles reviewed and subsequently closed as "Delete" at AfD will result in a 5 point deduction
 * Articles reviewed, passed, and subsequently deleted by a CSD criteria will result in a 20 point deduction Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   13:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There's been a fair amount of discussion about this at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/October 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive. You may want to repeat your comment there so all of the suggestions are in one place. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 16:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I want to thank you, Excirial for taking this on with short notice. I know it wasn't likely what you had planned to do this week. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:AfC submissions with missing AfC template
This category is now empty. Are there really no AfC submissions with missing AfC template, or is the process for finding them inactive? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * , this was still unresolved from the last time that the question was asked Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2013 6. Can we agree not to fragment conversations?  In fact the bot runner responded less than 10 hours ago to the previous discussion. Hasteur (talk) 16:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Hasteur. Shall I delete this thread and ask questions at the previous one? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission
This Rfc is well over the 30 days. Is it scheduled to be closed soon? And will a more specific proposal follow? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It's already in  the pipeline and the regulars here will  be invited to  comment  on  the proposal  before it  goes live to  the community. See below. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

HasteurBot Task 1 suspension
To allow editors more time to review, I'm going to be suspending the 2 triggers that the bot uses to nominate submissions. The bot will still notify users with respect to pages that just became eligible for G13, but won't make any nominations until October 31st. Hasteur (talk) 21:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Marking an article for copyright violation.
Hi all, I'm new to reviewing but I have experienced some problems with marking Afc's for decline and deletion because of a copyright violation. I provide the URL from which the information is taken and I check all the boxes (blanking, CSD parameter, notifying author and teahouse) When I press Decline only the author is notified but nothing changes on the Afc talk page. Have I missed something which I should have done? Crispulop (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello . According to my testing, this issue seems to have already been resolved in an upcoming version of the script.  I'll try to get  pushed through to the version you are using as soon as possible due to the high importance of such a thing working. Thanks for your report. Technical 13 (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at the October Backlog elimination with for example user Aggie80 I see that other reviewers are able to file Afc's for Speedy deletion CSD G12 with AFCH. For me it does not (yet) work how it should. Is there a way to circumvent the problem I mentioned before? Except for just adding the CSD tags manually, which I am doing currently. Crispulop (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hayat Akbar
Hayat Akbar (Urdu: حیات اکبر) (also called Babar Bacha was born on Thursday, March 5, 1987 in a small village Dandoqa where he grow up in a family of having his parents 4 sisters and a brother. He started his basic education in the year 1992 from his village. He was graduated in law and economics from University of Peshawar and Later got Degree in Master of Economics of the same university. Later in the year 2012 he devoted his life for Social Welfare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.47.218.146 (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting info.svg This page is for users involved in this project's administration. If you would like to start writing a new article, please use the Article wizard. If you have an idea for a new article, but would like to request that someone else write it, please see: Requested articles.  the  one  sean  15:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Articles about subjects that don't meet notability guidelines
Dear reviewers: This point has been brought up before during the last backlog drive, but it is archived now, so with the drive possibly attracting some new reviewers I thought I'd mention it again:  If an article is about a subject that doesn't meet notability guidelines (for example, aspiring musicians and actors, the local diner, someone's favourite cat, a self-published and unreviewed book), we should be letting the submitter know this right away rather than asking them spend their time fixing up an article that will never be accepted. The "notability" decline templates all mention the need for reliable sources, so if this is also a problem you get two-for-one. The "improperly sourced" reason should only be used alone if the subject is obviously notable, either from the contents of the article ("she won the Pulitzer prize"; "he's a university professor") or from a quick search of the internet. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 08:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The trouble is, you can never be absolutely certain that a subject is non-notable in cases. Historical figures might well be notable through offline sources. Bands formed in the last decade, however, probably haven't got a chance. If they're neutral enough to avoid G11, they just tend to get left until a G13 picks them up. Nevertheless, that does give them a grace period to understand our guidelines, which A7 just doesn't do. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   11:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * , that may be true that there are off-line sources or that there may be sources in another language that a Google doesn't easily pick up without some hint of it being that language; however, I agree with that in those cases it is more appropriate to at least point the submitter to the proper N guideline so that they can know exactly what the criteria are to add the appropriate sources to establish notability.  If in the decline logs below it's obvious that they have been shown that but aren't following it, then it is perfectly acceptable to top it with a "sources" tag.  To be honest, I'm not entirely impressed with our current system for tagging and such and when I have some more time (I'm dealing with my lease running out in a few days and being homeless), I'll update it to something more comprehensive and helpful to the submitter.
 * I envision a tiered decline reason that allows for multiple decline reasons in an orderly fashion. I'm aware "similar" things have been proposed, and the only way for me to differentiate from those will be to throw together a couple examples which, again, I've not the time at the moment. Technical 13 (talk) 12:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've seen the odd example where somebody cites yet another Twitter, Facebook or Tumblr post before the reviewer declining it the sixth or seventh time says "just forget about it and edit something else" - but those examples are pretty much in the minority. Most people either "get it" by the second or third try, or give up in despair. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   12:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The decline reason doesn't say that the subject is not notable. It says that the references don't show that the subject is notable, and then the template suggests how more sources could be added to show it, and pointing the submitter to the information about notability requirements.  This allows the submitter to decide for him/herself if enough references can be gathered to show notability.  The idea is to prevent this type of sequence:
 * A submits and article about his favourite teacher
 * B declines the article as too promotional
 * A rewrites the text in a more neutral tone
 * C declines the article as having no references
 * A finds and adds some links to facebook, a school staff list, teacher's web page, etc.
 * D declines the article as needing more reliable references
 * A adds a link to the school yearbook and two news articles with one sentence about the teacher
 * E declines the article as having no inline citations
 * A after much difficulty figures out how to make the references be inline
 * F finally declines the article as about a non-notable person
 * A decides everyone at Wikipedia is insane and never returns
 * This type of thing really did happen last time. If the last decline reason had been given first, and it turned out that the teacher was notable, having written a new national curriculum and been voted teacher of the year and rescued a child from drowning, etc., the submitter, after reading about notability of people, would likely have added this to the article and then cited some sources. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I like to priorize some templates over other templates while declining an article:
 * (1) Anything that had legal implications (Copyvio, BLP violation, attack pages)
 * (2) Anything that permanently disqualifies the article's subject due to external issues (Duplicate submission, Already exists in mainspace)
 * (3) Anything that permanently disqualifies the article's subject (Notability, Joke pages, WP:Not, WP:DICDEF an so on)
 * (4) Anything that is related to the article's content (Promotional text, formatting).


 * Some exceptions apply though. If an editor submits a 10 page promotional article i prefer to decline it for advertising while adding a comment that they might want to read the notability policy, rather then reading trough those 10 pages to guess if might be a notable topic. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 12:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The review procedure flowchart does run through the decline reasons in order of priority, so the sequence is already established. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This canned pre-decline template may prove helpful: User:Davidwr/afc comment - nn


 * davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  18:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * On a similar note, sometimes the formatting is so bad that the reviewer really can't tell if they can meet notability or not. If they say something that could make the individual notable if they can back it up, I try to tell them so.  If I'm not sure if they can make it or not, I try to let them know it.  I wish there was a "May make notability requirements if statements can be backed up with proper references" template.The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 01:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Luckily, the script gives an option to leave a comment, and I use this quite a bit, especially if a submission has more than one problem. I frequently encourage users to submit again if the article is likely notable. Also, you can always contact a useron their talk page and start an encouraging dialogue.  Sometimes I suggest that they contact an appropriate Wikiproject for help.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 02:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm really big on the Teahouse. If I recommend it in my comments, I believe the subject is notable or it is at least a good possibility. If I don't put any comments, it is because it is so obviously not going to make it to a good article anytime soon.The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk)

YangSlique (rapper)
Eddie Anoziva Sosera jrII also known as YangSlique born: 2002 2 august. Is the youngest artist to sign to tienic tee reetad s record label TOP $WAG REEGADZ RECORDS. He signed to the label early in 2013 and then he realesed his first single titled  motive and then made a remix with the TSR's and it was a hit. yangslique and tienic tee reetad are brothers and yangslique is also in the TSR and yangslique started rapping in 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.111.255.224 (talk) 09:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This page is for discussing the administration of the Articles for Creation project. Please use the Article wizard to create new articles. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   10:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Problems with article review buttons
Not sure if this is just a glitch for me, but struggling to decline an article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zang Nawar Lake Noshki. Get halfway down so it notifies the author the page has been declined, but doesn't complete the process and reload page showing it as declined. Article is a copyright violation and I've managed to get a note on the page to that effect but nothing more.Libby norman (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Now working again. Libby norman (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Header bug
The template for the countdown ("The backlog elimination drive ended on October 31, 2013 (UTC).(refresh)") is incorrect.  Theopolisme ( talk )  10:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * , I'm aware of that. I was getting frustrated with working on that template so took a few days away from it.  I'll fix that today. Technical 13 (talk) 11:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It's fixed. Adding a count-down to the end of the drive "is" on the todo list but not a top priority for me. Technical 13 (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Submissions tab overhaul
I've revisited the way that our "Submissions" tab up top works and added some stuff. Most of the stuff that was on the "List" page has moved to the main "Submissions" page and I've added a new feature that will allow you to search through all AfC submissions/drafts for keywords. I'm more than happy to move more stuff around, so don't feel like you shouldn't tell me if you don't like it or if you want it rearranged or whatnot... :) Technical 13 (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Technical 13: Before, the submissions tab was divided into two logical sections: the first was for pending submissions only, with various options for viewing them, for the reviewers to work on.  The other, called somewhat cryptically "list", dealt with all of the submissions, whether accepted, declined, draft, missing template or pending, which was useful for those who were trying to keep the project organized, fix up problems, find older submissions and create statistics.   Now they are all mixed together. The "List" is the section that I use the most and you have gutted it.  Instead of moving the list stuff, all that was needed was to change the two little words to "pending" and "all" to make the distinction clear.  I hope you will put everything that's not about pending submissions back where it was.  That way everyone won't have to relearn where to find the items they need, and the people who just like to review won't have to wade through options that don't apply to them.


 * The search feature sounds useful, because when there are over 200 submissions a browser search will only search the current page, so thanks - I will use this. Does is search all submissions, or just the pending ones? That would determine which page it would be on.  A small search box which didn't cause the header to be so long would be an improvement; with the 16:9 screen shape that many new computer monitors have, if the header is too big, the submissions don't show on the screen at all.


 * I don't see the purpose of the "Pending by age" item in the header. There's already a perfectly good "Afc pending submissions by age" which has more detailed information.  Also I clicked on one of the entries and it went away the the servers for over a minute and then did nothing.  Am I missing something?

How to handle an IP attempt to create an article in Talk space
I saw two more examples today of IPs attempting to contribute an article, but not appreciating that they should use the AfC template. The problem is, if an IP starts an article on a talk page, it often gets deleted as a G8. Because legitimate G8s are common, and occur when someone deletes an article, but not the associated talk page, it is not standard procedure to notify the creator when deleting a page as a G8 (the assumption is they were notified when the article was about to be deleted.). This means than an IP is attempting to contribute to Wikipedia, has their contribution wiped out, and gets zero notice. We claim that we welcome edits by IPs, but this is a rude introduction to Wikipedia (let me emphasized, it will be viewed as rude by the recipient; those deleting are not intending to be rude, but perceptions matter.)

I asked before for a solution, but got no answer. I will ask it a different way.

If I see such a page, can I move page "talk:foo" to "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/foo" and that will move it into the AfC universe, where someone will take a look at it, welcome the editor and provide feedback? Is it that simple, or does something else need to happen.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  16:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm interested in this one too. At the moment, I just leave alone G8s that I think might be of use because I have assumed someone else would know what to do. (Not many, by the way - they're usually junk.) Peridon (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that a large percentage of such submissions are useless. However, I think it is polite to have a brief conversation with the creator, so they know why it was not acceptable. If I can move it to AfC "space" then that discussion will happen naturally. If not, they'll get no notice.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  16:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If there is an AFC submission template, then I would say absolutely.  Otherwise, it's a case-by case:  If it's clearly got a real shot at acceptance, go ahead.  If it's clearly never going to be accepted, I'd be tempted to "find a way" to speedy it that is less POINTY than G8.  If it's in the middle ground I'm not sure what I would do.  I would bear in mind that every minute I spend agonizing over this is a minute that I'm not spending reviewing articles that are already in WT:AFC/...-space.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  17:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think SP's query is how to get something to AfC (I know that's what I don't know...). Peridon (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It isn't simply that a CSD G8 is "pointy". It is that the contributor gets no notice whatsoever. If a contributor writes a draft article, and someone feels it deserves a speedy for many reasons, the editor placing the speedy tag will also inform the contributor. For obvious reasons, a G7 is an exception. For acceptable reasons, a G10 or G6 doesn't get a notification. But in other cases, even G3, it is usual practice to notify the creator.


 * However, it is not usual practice to notify the creator in the case of a G8. The problem isn't that the creator is getting a pointy G8 notice, the problem is that a submission is deleted with absolutely no notice whatsoever.
 * Ah, well, perhaps that should change so that if the talk page were created after the date that the corresponding non-talk page was deleted (or if the non-talk page never existed) the editor would receive notice. The larger issue of IP-users whose IP address changes and therefore they don't see the notice is a much larger problem.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  18:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * For example Talk:La Prensa Hispana was an attempt by 98.150.105.58 to create an article. Not much of one, to be sure, but User talk:98.150.105.58 is a red link, meaning that IP tried to create an article, cannot now find it, and has no idea what happened. I don't think it is unreasonable to let the editor know why it was deleted.


 * My proposed process is to move the draft to an AfC page, and let it be handled by AfC. (But I haven't heard yet whether this is workable) I'm open to alternatives, but I think out current process is rude. And if moving to an AfC page is an option, I'd like to alter taggers, so that they move it, rather than mistagging as G8.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  17:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is my not necessarily completely informed opinion: If it looks like the IP is trying to create an article, I wouldn't feel guilty about moving an article into Afc, and putting a draft template on it, as long as a redirect is left so that the IP can find it to improve it. I am assuming (correctly?) that as long as the redirect actually points at something, it won't be deleted.  Then if later the Afc article is deleted, the redirect would go too.  If an IP has created a talk page that is clearly not an article, and is using it for useful discussion about Wikipedia topics, I think it should be okay, but I couldn't find anything definitive written about that.  I did find that to prevent a talk page from being deleted with G8, you can add a  on it.  If you can't tell if it's an article or not, and can't contact the user, you could always post a message at the top if the page asking the page's creator to contact you and explain.  If nothing happens, it's probably abandoned .  One thing to remember is that a deleted page cal always be brought back if it has a purpose.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I tried, as an experiment to move the title list above. I fully expected the move to work, then I was going to ask which template to add, as I do not see a list of draft templates identified. However, the move failed, so like Peridon, I'll ask, how do we do the move?
 * If I see one of these, even if tagged with G8, I will move it to article space with the appropriate name, decline the G8 and let the taggers discover it again and treat it in the proper way. THough we should be warning prople who tag article attempts with G8, that don't make any effort to treat it as the contributer wanted (as an article). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to Anne - but I still want to know HOW to move a G8 to AfC. OK, I know how to detag it, but what is the procedure. <8-( Peridon (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Move the page without leaving a redirect to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Article name (if it's a deleted page you will obviously need to restore it first). Once moved, add  to the top of the page and save. Then, re-edit the page and change the 'submitter' field of the AfC template to the name of the original author. If you don't do this the AfC template will think you are the original submitter and you may get unexpected messages on your user talk page.  Pol430   talk to me  15:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * At last - someone who answers the question we ask instead of the question we don't. Thanks for this. Peridon (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Copy-and-paste fork of an earlier, inferior version
An editor created Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/LogosQuiz then a different editor copied it to LogosQuiz and continued working on it. Meanwhile, the first editor kept working on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/LogosQuiz, creating a content fork.

This would've been easy to handle if the version in the main article space was superior to the version remaining at AFD, I would've just declined the AFD and made any necessary changes to the main-article version, including nominating it for deletion if appropriate.

But the version in AFC was significantly better, so I nominated the "main" article for deletion to make room for the eventual movement of the AFC version into the main encyclopedia. I also turned down (for now) the AFC version as it's clearly not ready for prime time.

I've never run into this before and I hope I never run into it again, but I figured I'd share my experience in case it happens to any of you. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  20:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, this can be tricky. If it's caught early enough, and one of the editors has made only trivial edits such as spacing and format changes, the articles can be merged, but it doesn't work if there is substantial development of both forks.  Usually the older article gets precedence, and the person who did the copy-paste is asked to move their new content into the older article, a bit at a time, keeping as much of the older article as is feasible.  In most cases, it should work, because the person wouldn't have copied the older article in the first place if he or she was going to write something totally different.  Not always, though, especially if as in your example the original has been substantially changed.  I've seen cases where the new article was moved to mainspace with a slightly different title, the text hidden under a redirect to the older article, and then a discussion started on the talk pages of the two articles about how best to combine them.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I have something similar, where there are advatanges on both legs of the fork. Can someone walk me through the process? The article is 2013 Valencia Open 500 (dif link below to make this easier, you can click through to the versions there if you like). -- the fork into main space used the last version prior to the request for review in the AfC version. The AfC version was last edited September 20 (request for review, prior real edit Sept 13). The fork in main space was started Oct 5 and completed Oct 8. The fork contains some added info (a table of seed players, a few other minor touches), but the editor dropped the few references that there were in the AfC. (The AfC would probably fail for lack of references, BTW). So, please walk me through this.
 * Overview of what to do -- speedy delete main space and decline AfC? Some other approach?
 * Sequence of steps to take, assuming they are not obvious, to accomplish this.
 * For your convenience, if you want to look at them, the dif: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2013_Valencia_Open_500&diff=576364089&oldid=573809010 Dovid (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The best thing in this case is to tag the mainspace one with db-move, and once it is complete, ensure the good version is answered
 * I must be misunderstanding. db-move on the mainspace page would mean that I'm requesting that the "illegal" namespace page (fork of the AfC creation) should be deleted, and something else moved in its place. But what would I move in its place? The AfC? That doesn't make sense unless it is approved... which is still pending a review decision. Were you assuming the AfC version was ready to publish? Dovid (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I realise now that my marking your follow up question as done was not very informative. As far as I can see, there is no real issue here. Editor A created an AfC about the subject and then editor B created an almost identical page in the mainspace!? Editor A and B could well be the same person as one is an IP address, but even if they are not the content of the articles are almost identical, so I don't see a merge issue here; without a merge issue there is no attribution issue. The only problem is that the AfC submission has two references that are not present in the mainspace. Simply adding these two references to the main space page with a conventional edit is fine, if the references still support the content. If you really want to ensure that proper attribution is maintained then you can mention the IP address as the originator in the edit summary or link to the AfC page in the edit summary. The AfC has been declined as 'exists' and therefore there is no reason that should ever appear in the pending review queue again. For clarity, the answer above about db-move was not me. Whoever is was obviously forgot to sign there post. Simply because a main space article lacks references is not a reason to delete it. Pol430   talk to me  16:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Declined → Not ready
TL;DR: Could we not-ready submissions instead of declining them, please? The intent is to have the newcomers work more on them, not to give up.

One name for status ”assumes” the submission would not ever be eligible, while the other name ”assumes” it could be possible to get it published with additional work. I like the spirit of the latter more. (This is another instance of similar thought process.) At Wikinews, there is a need in urgent work, while news is still fresh; at Wikipedia, the need is smaller, and the change could be merely friendly. I suspect that the newcomers' reaction would be less frustrating and more collaborative, were the change made; it would be nice to many, while we would barely see a difference in our workflow.

Such change may require community discussion. I would like to encourage your feedback here. Thanks! Gryllida (talk) 09:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The 'declines' already offer advice to  the creator as well  as the opportunity  to  resubmit. IMO, adding  a 'not  ready' category  would be simply  to  add more bureaucracy  to  the process and/or instruction  creep  for the reviewers whose task  is already  complicated enough. Stay  tuned however, because there are new proposals coming  up  that  will  simply the system  even further. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that for "some" of the decline reasons, this is actually a very good proposal. We would have to make a list of stuff that should say "not-ready" as opposed to "declined".  Stuff that is clearly notable, but just hasn't had enough sources put into the draft would be good not-ready candidates where-as copyvios and spam and blank would be better as declined.  Those cases we want the writer to give up and walk away because it could never be appropriate and would be CSDable if in article space. Technical 13 (talk) 12:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * And they'll be 'CSDable' when we get  the draft  namespace for AfC submissions. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * In the meantime, it's good to leave a supplementary message along with the decline template. If I am worried that a user might be discouraged, I sometimes add "Please submit this article again after (whatever fix needs to be done)", or "Wikipedia needs an article on this topic;, I hope you will resubmit", or something like that.   One problem, which has been pointed out in previous discussions, is that it isn't always possible to tell from the initial submission which subjects will turn out to be notable and which will not, so we end up encouraging people at first and then discouraging them only after a lot of wasted work has been put into improvements. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 13:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Aye, there's the rub! I hope that  what  is now cooking  in  tha back  kitchen will address some of these issues. 'Sigh' -  if only  we could get  some of the regulars to  collaborate here as a small software development team instead of each  of them  going  off at  half-tack  on their own ideas, otherwise we'll  be getting  another top-down  solution  forced upon  us by  the well-meaning  WMF. Next think-tank  RfC coming  very  soon. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

As an alternative, may it be reasonable to change the color and icon of the existing declined templates (AFC submission|d, and whatever is added to users' talk pages) from red to blue, and from a cross mark to a brush and a pen, with the same intentions in mind as I described in my first message? Gryllida (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission - closed
The RfC is now closed. As proposer, I didn't  vote on  it  myself, but  I  left  plenty  of comments that  demonstrated where my  opinion and above all,  experience, lay. It would have been interesting to  mention  in  the close that  a large number of the opposers completely  misunderstood what  was a very  clear, succinct  proposal: there was no  suggestion  that  the permission  should be a MediaWiki based software tweak. If there are no  objections, I  will  now go  ahead with  a draft  for an RfC on  how to  set the threshold for permission  and how it  can be implemented without treading  on  anyone's toes or bothering  the server gatekeepers. When I have something  ready, I  will  invite this project  to  comment  on  its wording -  experience has shown that  a straight forward  well-worded proposal  works best when prepared before it  is launched to  the community. That said, if the programmers here could envisage some kind  of script  that  could deny  access to  the helper script with  a 'var' for the threshold (edit count/tenure) for  the time being, we may  be saving  some time. I'm thinking  of  something  on  the lines of the applications for permissions to  use Stiki, AWB, and Huggle which  are not  collectible trophies. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Kudpung, for working on this. One thing that will be needed in any script-based selection process is a way to override it, since sometimes for one reason or another a new account may be an experienced user. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, it's planned to  grandfather in  any  of the listed active participants who  meet the criteria.  We'll  be setting  the criteria first, and you'll  all have your say  in  that, and then we'll  decide how to  implement. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The obvious way to do this is by actually creating a new "real" permission, like rollback, that is either automatically granted by the system -- similar to how autoconfirmed is granted -- when a user meets certain edit count/time since registration criteria ($wgAutopromote on MediaWiki for how to do this), or by some dedicated admins. Then, the script could simply check if a user has the "afc-review" permission or whatever. The problems with this are numerous: a) the "auto-grant" version would result in users being granted this permission without necessarily being involved in the AfC project, b) clutter up Special:UserRights/etc, c) be very hat-collectly, etc. Here's an alternate proposal:


 * Kind of similar to the above but less intrusive for users is for my bot to have a page in userspace (for example, User:Theo's Little Bot/afch-users.js) that would be a list of users who meet the AfC reviewer permission and have edited in the past 30 days (the 30 days requirement is to keep the list from becoming insanely large initially -- once added, a user wouldn't be removed by the bot but could of course be removed by a sysop). The list would be automatically generated and frequently updated by my bot; admins could also add "special-case" users to this list by simply editing the js page.  Theopolisme  ( talk )  14:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Two points: First,  the threshold for permission  needs to  be set, and this will  be done by  consensus of the community (RfC coming  soon), and secondly, it  is probably  unlikely  that  the Foundation (according  to one WMF employee) will  entertain  a MediaWiki  tweak  to  enable any  permission system for AfC reviewing. Once the criteria for permission have been set, the community will  then discuss the various realistic option  for according it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What I proposed was hardly a MediaWiki tweak. Regardless, my post here was a reply to your message, "if the programmers here could envisage some kind of script that  could deny  access to  the helper script[..], we may  be saving  some time", and I hope my rambling was beneficial to your drafting ;)  Theopolisme  ( talk )  00:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The WMF has no say. The community can develop an extension and request a developer to enable it per community consensus. The developers have final say on the software, not the WMF. They usually operate closely with the WMF (ACTRIAL), but they manage the servers themselves. Thus, if the community develops an extension to add userrights (which would probably be not tooooo difficult, but not also the most easy), the developers would, imo, likely enable it. ~ Charmlet -talk- 01:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I did indeed read it, perhaps wrongly,   as suggesting  that  a MediaWiki  tweak  might  be involved. There are however some employees who are vehemently  opposed to  this and who may  possibly  offer strong  resistance to  such  a solution, so  I was just  being  cautious. 'Envisage' sure, and that  is what  I  hope they  will  do, but  it falls short of going  ahead and using  a lot  of valuable personal  time to  develop  a script or tweaking  a bot before we know what  the params for edit count/tenure, etc will  be, and who will accord the permissions and how. I  think  it's highly  unlikely  that  permission  will  be granted by  an automated process -  there is an important  factor of human judgement involved in  reviewing  AfC submissions, and of preventing  users abusing the AfC system  in  order to  pass their own submissions (which  is a very  real issue); a mistake was made a couple of years ago  by  distributing  the 'reviewer' right  to  thousands of users based purely  on  edit count/tenure. Very  few of them  are actually  active. PC reviewer however, has a deliberately  low entry level  permission (the lowest  of all)  while AfC requires a knowledge akin to  that  at  least of NPP -  which, ironically,  still  does not  have any  experience requirements and in  spite of the creation  of the Page Curation  Toolbar still  suffers from  significant  problems of quality.  FWIW, I'm  thinking  on  the lines of Stiki and AWB, etc. -  just  for example of course -   that  do  not  carry  a visible permission  for the hat-collectors to chase, but  which  unlock  the access to  3rd party  software or scripts. When the 'draft'  namespace gets created, a lot  of things will  change again, and possibly  a lot  of code and bots that  dedicated AfC participants have developed will  become redundant  and/or obsolete, but  such  is progress. I am  not  a computer programmer so I am  ill placed to  define what  kind of scripts or code can be used, but  of course your suggestions are most  welcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * . Unfortunately, the Foundation has every say  in  what  is done at  server level, as they  made abundantly  clear at  WP:ACTRIAL and through  the PA they  used at  Bugzilla  to   decline what  was a massive community  consensus. As mentioned in  my  post  above, one employee has spoken out (albeit using  their normal  Wikipedia account - but  it's the same person) vehemently  against  the possibility  of a MedWiki  solution  being  entertained for AfC permission. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ACTRIAL, if you read it, was declined by the developers, based on the foundation and developers opinions. The devs make the changes, they have final say on them and they can overrule the foundation if they so wanted. A MediaWiki solution would be easier than JS/etc, so all we have to do is like VE - put in a shitty JS hack and then they'll do what we say b/c OMG THE SERVERS! ~ Charmlet -talk- 01:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't  need to  read ACTRIAL, I  was its main  author and proponent! The project  was ultimately declined by one of  the Foundation's most  senior staff  members (I  also  had a meeting  with  him  very  recently). Please familiarise yourself ;)  Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Moving article back to AfC?
A reviewer moved Access Control Technology to main article space, but I can't see any evidence of notability (certainly not WP:NCORP). Can this be moved back to AfC, or should I nominate for AfD (it claims it is the first of its type in Ireland, which may mean it doesn't meet speedy criteria)? Sionk (talk) 10:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The referencing certainly seems weak. I think an Afd is the usual process at this point, but others may disagree.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 10:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought this article sounded familiar, then realised I'd declined it myself earlier. I would first ping and ask him to comment on this thread, as it might just be a mistake. (One of my first AfC reviews got dinged because I mistakenly thought clearing CSD was good enough for a submission to pass - it isn't!) If it is, Zach needs to draft an explanation / apology to the article's creator and get an admin to put it back in AfC. If none of that's acceptable, then Sionk (or indeed anyone) is free to take the article as it is to AfD at any time, which won't go down well with the creator.  Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   11:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, my bad. It appeared to be notable because of its collaboration with the Office of Public Works, however considering that's not in any of the sources, it doesn't pass. Zach Vega  ( talk to me ) 14:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Inexperienced users (again)
With only  67 edits to  mainspace, I  think  this is demonstrative of what  we are up  against. Perhaps someone can review his/her reviews (if any) and drop them  an appropriate line. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC).
 * Moved from WT:AFCH Theopolisme ( talk )  01:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I checked the last few reviews. They seem fine.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Have you checked his other edits and his talk  page? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it looks like he lost patience and jumped the gun on his own submission. Well, it will be a learning experience. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 05:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * For whom? For him or for us? ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikiproject Articles for creation/Reviewer FAQ
A discussion above reminded me of this page that I started because of a discussion some time ago. No one has worked on it for some time, not even me. It can't be given a tab (or subtab) until it's in useful shape, but maybe there isn't enough interest in it. There are so many other things to do. Should I (1) request deletion, or (2) leave it in case someone wants to work on it later? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Many things have conspired against people filling this out. I took the liberty of dashing off some answers to the remaining outstanding questions.  I strongly suggest that others also take a crack the questions/answers. Hasteur (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've blanked the section on who can participate as the latest RfC shows a consensus that there must be standard for users to meet before they begin reviewing. Pol430   talk to me  16:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've undid the blanking because untill the new permissions/guidelines are in place, no guidelines at all is not helpful. We can edit to change the meaning, but blanking outright is not helpful. Hasteur (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Per Hasteur, until the criteria for persmission have been set by  the community (RfC coming  soon), I  agree that  any  previous or current  recommendations for experience should be kept. Thanks also  to  Hasteur for continuing  to  monitor  the additions to  the  list of participants. Let's not  lose sight  of the fact  that  the permissions system has two  clear objectives: To  ensure that  reviewers are applying  the same standards for review and editor  help, and to  prevent  more users from abusing  the system  in  order to  review their own submissions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

A10 is not for copy-and-paste moves from AFC to main space
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ytech International was copied-and-pasted to Ytech International and nominated for WP:CSD, "A recently created article with no relevant page history that duplicates an existing English Wikipedia topic, and that does not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article(s) on the subject, and where the title is not a plausible redirect."

While this was a plausible application of WP:Ignore all rules the criteria as written does not apply to cases like this. I did leave it alone though, if an admin deletes it, it won't be a big loss.

The "official" way to handle these where the AFC submission hasn't been further developed is to either decline the AFC submission as "already exists" or, if necessary for attribution reasons (i.e. more than one author with non-trivial edits to actual content), do a WP:HISTMERGE, then nominate the page for deletion if appropriate. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  20:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It hadn't been nominated when I checked it. Rankersbo (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Geeky project self-notability?
I conducted a review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Influenza A Segment 7 Splice Site (2). If you aren't a microbiologist, you'll have a great deal of difficulty going through the article. In addition, the subject didn't seem like it was notable. The main reference twas to journal article written by the author of the AfC WP article himself, so it lacked independent verification.

I declined it for non-notability, and sent a message explaining both the notability issue and the fact that a WP article needs to be approachable.

The author's response was:
 * 1) Journal: It is documented in journals, so notable
 * 2) Rfam database: It is part of a project where all entries to the Rfam RNA database have matching WP entries, per the WP:RNA project
 * 3) Partnership: This linking of Rfam and WP was announced as a partnership on RNA journal submits articles to Wikipedia

I'm not sure what to do with this.
 * Does the partnership override notability concerns? Does the Rfam database provide notability?
 * If the database provides notability, then there's hardly a scientific subject, no matter how obscure and inactive, that would fail notability, since almost all science is in a collection somewhere -- is that policy? Do we want it to be policy?
 * Finally, if the above fails to satisfy notability, is independence an issue when the article is published is a noted journal

Really, all the above is about notability of a very technical subject. Do we need to be punctilious about notability when there is deep question like this just for creation? Or do we sometimes give a pass if it might be notable but hard to tell without subject expertise, and let the community shake it out later once published?

- Dovid (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If the average reader isn't going to understand the page, I would say go with your judgement. The Parthnership does not overrride notability.  It's only a directive to the external site's membership that in order to publish on their site, a summary must be submitted to wikipedia.  We are under no obligation to accept the submission.
 * The database confers some notability but how does this one particular subject merit a inclusion nod over diseases?
 * Without having looked at the merits of the submission I'd also probably call out Original Research. Hasteur (talk) 16:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I'm not comfortable making the decision on this one. ANyone care to take it over? Be sure to read the existing AfC review comment on the article page, author Walternmoss's response on my talk page, and a response I placed on Walter's talk page. Dovid (talk) 04:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Try asking for expert help at one of the medicine- or microbiology-related WikiProjects. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  04:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I would like to point out that there was already an article about this topic,Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Influenza A Segment 7 Splice Site, and it was moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ebv-sisRNA by U|Walternmoss, after being reviewed by FoCuSandLeArN. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a particular case. I've had a chat with said user, and gave him some tips on how to address these issues (e.g. secondary sourcing, lay encyclopaedic tone, notability, etc.). I lean on accept for these specific articles, as those pieces of RNA are notable in the field. There's extensive research on them and there's a WikiProject currently looking after them, so they have more potential than many of the other articles coming from AfC. I'd also like to point out that the B-Class criteria states "but a serious student or researcher trying to use the material may find it incomplete or perhaps too high-level"; so the key here is language and how to approach the topic for it to be suitable for all audiences. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I would again suggest asking at a specific WikiProject. As far as I know a page being too advanced for an average reader is not a reason to decline, on its own, although it is something to tell the submission author for him to introduce the subject properly. Gryllida (talk) 20:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅. The problems with this article are somewhat outside this project's remit. If the notability is highly questionable then AfD is the proper community discussion venue. If the technicality of the article is too high, then it needs attention from a subject-matter expert; that is not a barrier to its mainspace creation. Pol430   talk to me  16:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

G13 template: Suggest adding a 24-hour clock
There seems to be a problem with the G13's being deleted as soon as they are templated.

How about replacing the existing template the bot uses with a dated template, like dated prod. This would immediately put templated submissions in a "about to go to csd" category so the rescue team could look through them and de-template them, then they would go to an "active" csd category where admins could delete them.

If 24 hours isn't enough, I have no objection to a longer time period, but let's keep it no more than a week, to be consistent with other "slow" speedy-deletions. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  04:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe that Hasteur already has figured out a process for letting people know which ones will be next to be nominated. However, if we can get organized to the point where we are working on the month ahead of the bot, it won't matter exactly which ones will be next, because the whole month that the bot is doing will have been checked. The bot already gives the submitters a 30 day notification. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 04:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * He is on about people tagging it manually. I support this idea - lets just put a 30 day delay on all G13 nominations, so people have time to trawl through the manual tags too. -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  06:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I may be wrong, but my understanding is that this is already the process. We'd have a month to look through each month's new "eligibles". But because of the two year and more backlog, a huge number were tagged at once.  The oldest ones were checked out by several reviewers, but these are gone now.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 11:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Anything that is in the Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions has had at least 1 notification made to the creator that the submission is in danger of being deleted. As new children (and sub-children of Category:AfC_submissions_by_date become eligible, the bot checks the category membership and does a null edit on the page (to ensure it picks up the most up to date version of the template), drops a notification on the page creator's talk page warning them, and adds it to an internal list of what page has been notified on (with who was notified). The bot checks the list and picks up the oldest notifications first so as to follow a procedural order. There's 30 days between when the new submission lands in the Eligible pile to when the bot nominates.  This does not disclude an editor of getting antsy and nominating before the bot would process it. Hasteur (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

HasteurBot Task 1 suspension
To allow editors more time to review, I'm going to be suspending the 2 triggers that the bot uses to nominate submissions. The bot will still notify users with respect to pages that just became eligible for G13, but won't make any nominations until October 31st. Hasteur (talk) 21:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

AfC sorting
After some discussion, I have become enthausiastic about the idea of categorising AfC submissions. I think it is a good idea, as it might encourage reviwers to select articles for review that they are interested in, which could help with the backlog, and also maybe get wikiprojects more involved in reviewing new articles. I would propose to add categories for: and an additional category for the author having a COI. I could imagine the categories first being created, and than the following supporting actions can be taken in any order, independently of eachoter: What do you folks think? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * History
 * Geography
 * Biographies of living people
 * Other biographies
 * Organisations
 * Products
 * Music
 * Support in the helper script to add and remove these categories
 * Support in the article wizard to let the creator mark these categories
 * Support in Earwig bot to order AFC statistics
 * Make different pages/links in the wikiproject for reviewers.
 * Before everybody blames for for this being a terrible idea, I have to note that it originally came from User:FireflySixtySeven. Unless of course you like it, then I came up with it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a very good idea to me. Unfortunately I lack the technical skills to help with implementation beyond creation of the categories themselves. The only drawback I can see is that we'd end up with even more of a backlog in the "boring" categories. Huon (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Add this to the article Wizard instead. Even if we asked the submitter to select "one or more" of the broad notability sub-categories listed at Template:Notability guide and Notability (people), that would be a big start.  For articles that used the Wizard but bypassed AFC, it would also allow the Wizard to suggest WikiProjects and Categories and it would allow New-Page Patrollers to hone in on specific notability guidelines quickly.   As far as the huge list of old submissions, in 6 months most of them will be G13'd anyways.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  21:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The article Wizard should definitely be adding a category or other indicator to submissions and new articles that bypass AFC that are self-reported to be conflicts of interest. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  21:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC) Update: It should also tag BLPs and biographies of possibly-living people and insist that the submitter tag all biographies as living, dead, or maybe-living.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  21:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I would be rather appalled if G13 would stretch to articles that are still pending review. But apart from that, yes, using the article wizard is indeed one of the ways to do this (it's already mentioned as the second item in the implementation list). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Anything still pending review 7-8 months from now would likely either be a "delayed/rescued from G13" submission or it would have been created with an updated Article Wizard. Yes, there would be a few non-Wizard submissions, but the point is that by then the number of active submissions that weren't categorized by the submitter using the Article Wizard will be small.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  21:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose until there is factual data evidence that this won't be a waste of reviewer time. Currently, we have a backlog of  submissions waiting for review.  Of these, there is a high probability that 75%-80% are blank, copyvios, promospam, or strong COI issues that that submitter lied about so they could try to push their idea on us.  Reviewers shouldn't be wasting their time to "re-categorize" these properly, and they should be just reviewing them.  I don't see how it adds any value to the project for reviewers to limit themselves to "only reviewing" certain kinds of drafts, and I actually think it would be detrimental.  Having this categorized type of reviewing creates an opportunity for reviewer COI where they are accepting things based on a like of the topic or declining them because of a dislike of the topic.  Anonymity offers the ability to review based on the facts.  Is it copyvio?  No, move on.  Are there enough RS? Yes, move on... There's no "ohh.. but I really like history articles" or "I really like sports articles"... Now, I'm not saying all (or even most) reviewers would do this, but there have been some that have done this, and this just makes it easier for them and makes more of a mess for us to clean up. Technical 13 (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that it'll take more than a second of a reviewers time to fix a mis-categorised submission after review. If 80% of COI articles don't get tagged as such by the author, that is already 20% of the COI articles properly identified without any extra work for the reviewer. In the 80% case there is no change: they don't get categorized now either. If the self-categorisation turns out to be problematic after a run, then we can always decide not to do it. Also, it is a-priory impossible to get factual data about this before we attempt this. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Before we add more instructions to the already complicated reviewing instructions, let's try to keep the Pending Review articles backlog under 2 weeks for 3 months. We shouldn't be in a perpetual state of backlog, yet we can never seem to get enough people to review... Hasteur (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The only way that categorizing would be helpful in reducing the backlog would be if Wikiprojects were automatically notified of something in their area of interest. That might draw in new reviewers from the Wikiprojects.  I asked about this some time ago and was told that there are over 2000 of these, so it wouldn't be practical. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 23:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I still  think  that  AfC doesn't  get  enough  reviewers (like NPP) because there is not  an interesting  hat  to  collect. This is the conundrum  however, because the although I  have proposed a 'permission' (which  still  needs to  be worked out  now that  the RfC is headed for a consensus), it  is unlikely  that  the WMF will  agree to  a MediaWiki  'user right'  that  may  not  be of cross-Wiki interest. I  still  see it  a protected script  of some kind  in  the way  that  permission  has to  be sought  for using  Stiki  or AWB. This might  nevertheless attract more people to  reviewing. I  know I  keep  dragging  NPP  into  the topic, but  after having  worked on  NPP  issues for over 3 years, there are clearly  some parallels in  the problems and even some sharing/overlappiing  of the tasks.
 * Where (in my  experience)  up to  80% of submissions are uncategorizable junk - except  as possible immediate cases for CSD -  I  do  not  believe that  an appeal  to  the various Wikipedia projects would be forthcoming. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Modifying Article Wizard to pre-sort new submissions and articles
This is a "split" form the section above, AFC Sorting.

The WP:Article Wizard can create both AFC submissions and articles without going through AFC.

In order to assist those dealing with new afc submissions and new articles created with the Article Wizard, the Article Wizard should be changed so it STRONGLY SUGGESTS common broad categories that the editor can choose (he can choose more than one, or none, if he wants).

Among the categories that may be offered are:

As listed in WP:Notability Additional categories suggested in the original proposal above
 * Academics
 * Astronomical objects
 * Books
 * Events
 * Film
 * Music
 * Numbers
 * Organizations and companies
 * People
 * Sports and athletes
 * Web content
 * Other People
 * History
 * Geography
 * Products

In addition, the submitter will have to answer these questions:
 * [mandatory BLP certification]: This page DOES mention a living, real, person / This page does NOT mention a living, real, person / I do not know if this page mentions a living, real person.
 * [mandatory COI selection]: The submitter DOES have a conflict of interest / The submitter does NOT have a conflict of interest / The submitter is NOT SURE if he has a conflict of interest. Yes, people may lie about the COI.  See WP:ROPE.

Based on these information provided, the Article Wizard will
 * Add "real" encyclopedia categories (e.g. Category:Living people) as appropriate,
 * Add "project maintenance" categories (e.g. "Articles created with the Article Wizard submitted as biographies") as appropriate, and
 * Add talk page templates (e.g. BLP) as appropriate, or add an "afc comment" with recommended wikicode if the article is being submitted to AFC.

This will all be done by the Article Wizard, not the AFC Helper Script. Later, once most of the non-deleted AFC submissions have gone through this process and almost all future ones will go through it as well, we can start taking advantage of the categories that the Article Wizard adds to AFC submissions. WP:New page patrol can also take advantage of these categories as they are added to new articles that are not submitted through AFC.

Thoughts? davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  00:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Roll Call - Backlog drive score changes
A quick notification for people who might have missed it: There have been some proposed rule changes for the AFC backlog drive in regards to its scoring system. Summarized the changes are:


 * Users will receive 1 point for every review or re-review of an article.
 * Inaccurate reviews (Reviews marked as "Fail" by two re-reviewers) will result in a 2 point deduction.
 * Submissions accurately marked and deleted as copyright violations will result in 1 bonus point. (1 for the review, another 1 for the copyvio detection).

Right now there changes seem to have universal support so i am planning to add these to AFCBuddy for the next drive (Changes still dependent on technical feasibility). This section is mostly a roll call for people who might have missed this change and disagree, or might want to voice alternatives / agreement to these changes. Also note that i've altered the re-review instructions to accommodate these score changes. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 20:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Sounds fine to the me. The only other (possibly controversial) thing I'd throw in, more to see what people think than anything else, is some penalties towards "son of Arctic Kangaroo" for accepting submissions that subsequently get deleted, which causes untold aggravation for the user. Something like :
 * Articles reviewed and subsequently closed as "Delete" at AfD will result in a 5 point deduction
 * Articles reviewed, passed, and subsequently deleted by a CSD criteria will result in a 20 point deduction Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   13:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There's been a fair amount of discussion about this at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/October 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive. You may want to repeat your comment there so all of the suggestions are in one place. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 16:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I want to thank you, Excirial for taking this on with short notice. I know it wasn't likely what you had planned to do this week. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

AfC sorting
After some discussion, I have become enthausiastic about the idea of categorising AfC submissions. I think it is a good idea, as it might encourage reviwers to select articles for review that they are interested in, which could help with the backlog, and also maybe get wikiprojects more involved in reviewing new articles. I would propose to add categories for: and an additional category for the author having a COI. I could imagine the categories first being created, and than the following supporting actions can be taken in any order, independently of eachoter: What do you folks think? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * History
 * Geography
 * Biographies of living people
 * Other biographies
 * Organisations
 * Products
 * Music
 * Support in the helper script to add and remove these categories
 * Support in the article wizard to let the creator mark these categories
 * Support in Earwig bot to order AFC statistics
 * Make different pages/links in the wikiproject for reviewers.
 * Before everybody blames for for this being a terrible idea, I have to note that it originally came from User:FireflySixtySeven. Unless of course you like it, then I came up with it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a very good idea to me. Unfortunately I lack the technical skills to help with implementation beyond creation of the categories themselves. The only drawback I can see is that we'd end up with even more of a backlog in the "boring" categories. Huon (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Add this to the article Wizard instead. Even if we asked the submitter to select "one or more" of the broad notability sub-categories listed at Template:Notability guide and Notability (people), that would be a big start.  For articles that used the Wizard but bypassed AFC, it would also allow the Wizard to suggest WikiProjects and Categories and it would allow New-Page Patrollers to hone in on specific notability guidelines quickly.   As far as the huge list of old submissions, in 6 months most of them will be G13'd anyways.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  21:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The article Wizard should definitely be adding a category or other indicator to submissions and new articles that bypass AFC that are self-reported to be conflicts of interest. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  21:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC) Update: It should also tag BLPs and biographies of possibly-living people and insist that the submitter tag all biographies as living, dead, or maybe-living.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  21:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I would be rather appalled if G13 would stretch to articles that are still pending review. But apart from that, yes, using the article wizard is indeed one of the ways to do this (it's already mentioned as the second item in the implementation list). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Anything still pending review 7-8 months from now would likely either be a "delayed/rescued from G13" submission or it would have been created with an updated Article Wizard. Yes, there would be a few non-Wizard submissions, but the point is that by then the number of active submissions that weren't categorized by the submitter using the Article Wizard will be small.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  21:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose until there is factual data evidence that this won't be a waste of reviewer time. Currently, we have a backlog of  submissions waiting for review.  Of these, there is a high probability that 75%-80% are blank, copyvios, promospam, or strong COI issues that that submitter lied about so they could try to push their idea on us.  Reviewers shouldn't be wasting their time to "re-categorize" these properly, and they should be just reviewing them.  I don't see how it adds any value to the project for reviewers to limit themselves to "only reviewing" certain kinds of drafts, and I actually think it would be detrimental.  Having this categorized type of reviewing creates an opportunity for reviewer COI where they are accepting things based on a like of the topic or declining them because of a dislike of the topic.  Anonymity offers the ability to review based on the facts.  Is it copyvio?  No, move on.  Are there enough RS? Yes, move on... There's no "ohh.. but I really like history articles" or "I really like sports articles"... Now, I'm not saying all (or even most) reviewers would do this, but there have been some that have done this, and this just makes it easier for them and makes more of a mess for us to clean up. Technical 13 (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that it'll take more than a second of a reviewers time to fix a mis-categorised submission after review. If 80% of COI articles don't get tagged as such by the author, that is already 20% of the COI articles properly identified without any extra work for the reviewer. In the 80% case there is no change: they don't get categorized now either. If the self-categorisation turns out to be problematic after a run, then we can always decide not to do it. Also, it is a-priory impossible to get factual data about this before we attempt this. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Before we add more instructions to the already complicated reviewing instructions, let's try to keep the Pending Review articles backlog under 2 weeks for 3 months. We shouldn't be in a perpetual state of backlog, yet we can never seem to get enough people to review... Hasteur (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The only way that categorizing would be helpful in reducing the backlog would be if Wikiprojects were automatically notified of something in their area of interest. That might draw in new reviewers from the Wikiprojects.  I asked about this some time ago and was told that there are over 2000 of these, so it wouldn't be practical. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 23:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I still  think  that  AfC doesn't  get  enough  reviewers (like NPP) because there is not  an interesting  hat  to  collect. This is the conundrum  however, because the although I  have proposed a 'permission' (which  still  needs to  be worked out  now that  the RfC is headed for a consensus), it  is unlikely  that  the WMF will  agree to  a MediaWiki  'user right'  that  may  not  be of cross-Wiki interest. I  still  see it  a protected script  of some kind  in  the way  that  permission  has to  be sought  for using  Stiki  or AWB. This might  nevertheless attract more people to  reviewing. I  know I  keep  dragging  NPP  into  the topic, but  after having  worked on  NPP  issues for over 3 years, there are clearly  some parallels in  the problems and even some sharing/overlappiing  of the tasks.
 * Where (in my  experience)  up to  80% of submissions are uncategorizable junk - except  as possible immediate cases for CSD -  I  do  not  believe that  an appeal  to  the various Wikipedia projects would be forthcoming. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Modifying Article Wizard to pre-sort new submissions and articles
This is a "split" form the section above, AFC Sorting.

The WP:Article Wizard can create both AFC submissions and articles without going through AFC.

In order to assist those dealing with new afc submissions and new articles created with the Article Wizard, the Article Wizard should be changed so it STRONGLY SUGGESTS common broad categories that the editor can choose (he can choose more than one, or none, if he wants).

Among the categories that may be offered are:

As listed in WP:Notability Additional categories suggested in the original proposal above
 * Academics
 * Astronomical objects
 * Books
 * Events
 * Film
 * Music
 * Numbers
 * Organizations and companies
 * People
 * Sports and athletes
 * Web content
 * Other People
 * History
 * Geography
 * Products

In addition, the submitter will have to answer these questions:
 * [mandatory BLP certification]: This page DOES mention a living, real, person / This page does NOT mention a living, real, person / I do not know if this page mentions a living, real person.
 * [mandatory COI selection]: The submitter DOES have a conflict of interest / The submitter does NOT have a conflict of interest / The submitter is NOT SURE if he has a conflict of interest. Yes, people may lie about the COI.  See WP:ROPE.

Based on these information provided, the Article Wizard will
 * Add "real" encyclopedia categories (e.g. Category:Living people) as appropriate,
 * Add "project maintenance" categories (e.g. "Articles created with the Article Wizard submitted as biographies") as appropriate, and
 * Add talk page templates (e.g. BLP) as appropriate, or add an "afc comment" with recommended wikicode if the article is being submitted to AFC.

This will all be done by the Article Wizard, not the AFC Helper Script. Later, once most of the non-deleted AFC submissions have gone through this process and almost all future ones will go through it as well, we can start taking advantage of the categories that the Article Wizard adds to AFC submissions. WP:New page patrol can also take advantage of these categories as they are added to new articles that are not submitted through AFC.

Thoughts? davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  00:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

HasteurBot Task 1 suspension
To allow editors more time to review, I'm going to be suspending the 2 triggers that the bot uses to nominate submissions. The bot will still notify users with respect to pages that just became eligible for G13, but won't make any nominations until October 31st. Hasteur (talk) 21:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Copy-and-paste fork of an earlier, inferior version
An editor created Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/LogosQuiz then a different editor copied it to LogosQuiz and continued working on it. Meanwhile, the first editor kept working on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/LogosQuiz, creating a content fork.

This would've been easy to handle if the version in the main article space was superior to the version remaining at AFD, I would've just declined the AFD and made any necessary changes to the main-article version, including nominating it for deletion if appropriate.

But the version in AFC was significantly better, so I nominated the "main" article for deletion to make room for the eventual movement of the AFC version into the main encyclopedia. I also turned down (for now) the AFC version as it's clearly not ready for prime time.

I've never run into this before and I hope I never run into it again, but I figured I'd share my experience in case it happens to any of you. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  20:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, this can be tricky. If it's caught early enough, and one of the editors has made only trivial edits such as spacing and format changes, the articles can be merged, but it doesn't work if there is substantial development of both forks.  Usually the older article gets precedence, and the person who did the copy-paste is asked to move their new content into the older article, a bit at a time, keeping as much of the older article as is feasible.  In most cases, it should work, because the person wouldn't have copied the older article in the first place if he or she was going to write something totally different.  Not always, though, especially if as in your example the original has been substantially changed.  I've seen cases where the new article was moved to mainspace with a slightly different title, the text hidden under a redirect to the older article, and then a discussion started on the talk pages of the two articles about how best to combine them.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I have something similar, where there are advatanges on both legs of the fork. Can someone walk me through the process? The article is 2013 Valencia Open 500 (dif link below to make this easier, you can click through to the versions there if you like). -- the fork into main space used the last version prior to the request for review in the AfC version. The AfC version was last edited September 20 (request for review, prior real edit Sept 13). The fork in main space was started Oct 5 and completed Oct 8. The fork contains some added info (a table of seed players, a few other minor touches), but the editor dropped the few references that there were in the AfC. (The AfC would probably fail for lack of references, BTW). So, please walk me through this.
 * Overview of what to do -- speedy delete main space and decline AfC? Some other approach?
 * Sequence of steps to take, assuming they are not obvious, to accomplish this.
 * For your convenience, if you want to look at them, the dif: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2013_Valencia_Open_500&diff=576364089&oldid=573809010 Dovid (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The best thing in this case is to tag the mainspace one with db-move, and once it is complete, ensure the good version is answered
 * I must be misunderstanding. db-move on the mainspace page would mean that I'm requesting that the "illegal" namespace page (fork of the AfC creation) should be deleted, and something else moved in its place. But what would I move in its place? The AfC? That doesn't make sense unless it is approved... which is still pending a review decision. Were you assuming the AfC version was ready to publish? Dovid (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I realise now that my marking your follow up question as done was not very informative. As far as I can see, there is no real issue here. Editor A created an AfC about the subject and then editor B created an almost identical page in the mainspace!? Editor A and B could well be the same person as one is an IP address, but even if they are not the content of the articles are almost identical, so I don't see a merge issue here; without a merge issue there is no attribution issue. The only problem is that the AfC submission has two references that are not present in the mainspace. Simply adding these two references to the main space page with a conventional edit is fine, if the references still support the content. If you really want to ensure that proper attribution is maintained then you can mention the IP address as the originator in the edit summary or link to the AfC page in the edit summary. The AfC has been declined as 'exists' and therefore there is no reason that should ever appear in the pending review queue again. For clarity, the answer above about db-move was not me. Whoever is was obviously forgot to sign there post. Simply because a main space article lacks references is not a reason to delete it. Pol430   talk to me  16:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Inexperienced users (again)
With only  67 edits to  mainspace, I  think  this is demonstrative of what  we are up  against. Perhaps someone can review his/her reviews (if any) and drop them  an appropriate line. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC).
 * Moved from WT:AFCH Theopolisme ( talk )  01:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I checked the last few reviews. They seem fine.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Have you checked his other edits and his talk  page? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it looks like he lost patience and jumped the gun on his own submission. Well, it will be a learning experience. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 05:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * For whom? For him or for us? ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Declined → Not ready
TL;DR: Could we not-ready submissions instead of declining them, please? The intent is to have the newcomers work more on them, not to give up.

One name for status ”assumes” the submission would not ever be eligible, while the other name ”assumes” it could be possible to get it published with additional work. I like the spirit of the latter more. (This is another instance of similar thought process.) At Wikinews, there is a need in urgent work, while news is still fresh; at Wikipedia, the need is smaller, and the change could be merely friendly. I suspect that the newcomers' reaction would be less frustrating and more collaborative, were the change made; it would be nice to many, while we would barely see a difference in our workflow.

Such change may require community discussion. I would like to encourage your feedback here. Thanks! Gryllida (talk) 09:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The 'declines' already offer advice to  the creator as well  as the opportunity  to  resubmit. IMO, adding  a 'not  ready' category  would be simply  to  add more bureaucracy  to  the process and/or instruction  creep  for the reviewers whose task  is already  complicated enough. Stay  tuned however, because there are new proposals coming  up  that  will  simply the system  even further. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that for "some" of the decline reasons, this is actually a very good proposal. We would have to make a list of stuff that should say "not-ready" as opposed to "declined".  Stuff that is clearly notable, but just hasn't had enough sources put into the draft would be good not-ready candidates where-as copyvios and spam and blank would be better as declined.  Those cases we want the writer to give up and walk away because it could never be appropriate and would be CSDable if in article space. Technical 13 (talk) 12:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * And they'll be 'CSDable' when we get  the draft  namespace for AfC submissions. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * In the meantime, it's good to leave a supplementary message along with the decline template. If I am worried that a user might be discouraged, I sometimes add "Please submit this article again after (whatever fix needs to be done)", or "Wikipedia needs an article on this topic;, I hope you will resubmit", or something like that.   One problem, which has been pointed out in previous discussions, is that it isn't always possible to tell from the initial submission which subjects will turn out to be notable and which will not, so we end up encouraging people at first and then discouraging them only after a lot of wasted work has been put into improvements. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 13:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Aye, there's the rub! I hope that  what  is now cooking  in  tha back  kitchen will address some of these issues. 'Sigh' -  if only  we could get  some of the regulars to  collaborate here as a small software development team instead of each  of them  going  off at  half-tack  on their own ideas, otherwise we'll  be getting  another top-down  solution  forced upon  us by  the well-meaning  WMF. Next think-tank  RfC coming  very  soon. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

As an alternative, may it be reasonable to change the color and icon of the existing declined templates (AFC submission|d, and whatever is added to users' talk pages) from red to blue, and from a cross mark to a brush and a pen, with the same intentions in mind as I described in my first message? Gryllida (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

HasteurBot Task 1 suspension
To allow editors more time to review, I'm going to be suspending the 2 triggers that the bot uses to nominate submissions. The bot will still notify users with respect to pages that just became eligible for G13, but won't make any nominations until October 31st. Hasteur (talk) 21:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

G13 template: Suggest adding a 24-hour clock
There seems to be a problem with the G13's being deleted as soon as they are templated.

How about replacing the existing template the bot uses with a dated template, like dated prod. This would immediately put templated submissions in a "about to go to csd" category so the rescue team could look through them and de-template them, then they would go to an "active" csd category where admins could delete them.

If 24 hours isn't enough, I have no objection to a longer time period, but let's keep it no more than a week, to be consistent with other "slow" speedy-deletions. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  04:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe that Hasteur already has figured out a process for letting people know which ones will be next to be nominated. However, if we can get organized to the point where we are working on the month ahead of the bot, it won't matter exactly which ones will be next, because the whole month that the bot is doing will have been checked. The bot already gives the submitters a 30 day notification. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 04:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * He is on about people tagging it manually. I support this idea - lets just put a 30 day delay on all G13 nominations, so people have time to trawl through the manual tags too. -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  06:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I may be wrong, but my understanding is that this is already the process. We'd have a month to look through each month's new "eligibles". But because of the two year and more backlog, a huge number were tagged at once.  The oldest ones were checked out by several reviewers, but these are gone now.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 11:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Anything that is in the Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions has had at least 1 notification made to the creator that the submission is in danger of being deleted. As new children (and sub-children of Category:AfC_submissions_by_date become eligible, the bot checks the category membership and does a null edit on the page (to ensure it picks up the most up to date version of the template), drops a notification on the page creator's talk page warning them, and adds it to an internal list of what page has been notified on (with who was notified). The bot checks the list and picks up the oldest notifications first so as to follow a procedural order. There's 30 days between when the new submission lands in the Eligible pile to when the bot nominates.  This does not disclude an editor of getting antsy and nominating before the bot would process it. Hasteur (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

AfC sorting
After some discussion, I have become enthausiastic about the idea of categorising AfC submissions. I think it is a good idea, as it might encourage reviwers to select articles for review that they are interested in, which could help with the backlog, and also maybe get wikiprojects more involved in reviewing new articles. I would propose to add categories for: and an additional category for the author having a COI. I could imagine the categories first being created, and than the following supporting actions can be taken in any order, independently of eachoter: What do you folks think? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * History
 * Geography
 * Biographies of living people
 * Other biographies
 * Organisations
 * Products
 * Music
 * Support in the helper script to add and remove these categories
 * Support in the article wizard to let the creator mark these categories
 * Support in Earwig bot to order AFC statistics
 * Make different pages/links in the wikiproject for reviewers.
 * Before everybody blames for for this being a terrible idea, I have to note that it originally came from User:FireflySixtySeven. Unless of course you like it, then I came up with it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a very good idea to me. Unfortunately I lack the technical skills to help with implementation beyond creation of the categories themselves. The only drawback I can see is that we'd end up with even more of a backlog in the "boring" categories. Huon (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Add this to the article Wizard instead. Even if we asked the submitter to select "one or more" of the broad notability sub-categories listed at Template:Notability guide and Notability (people), that would be a big start.  For articles that used the Wizard but bypassed AFC, it would also allow the Wizard to suggest WikiProjects and Categories and it would allow New-Page Patrollers to hone in on specific notability guidelines quickly.   As far as the huge list of old submissions, in 6 months most of them will be G13'd anyways.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  21:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The article Wizard should definitely be adding a category or other indicator to submissions and new articles that bypass AFC that are self-reported to be conflicts of interest. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  21:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC) Update: It should also tag BLPs and biographies of possibly-living people and insist that the submitter tag all biographies as living, dead, or maybe-living.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  21:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I would be rather appalled if G13 would stretch to articles that are still pending review. But apart from that, yes, using the article wizard is indeed one of the ways to do this (it's already mentioned as the second item in the implementation list). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Anything still pending review 7-8 months from now would likely either be a "delayed/rescued from G13" submission or it would have been created with an updated Article Wizard. Yes, there would be a few non-Wizard submissions, but the point is that by then the number of active submissions that weren't categorized by the submitter using the Article Wizard will be small.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  21:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose until there is factual data evidence that this won't be a waste of reviewer time. Currently, we have a backlog of  submissions waiting for review.  Of these, there is a high probability that 75%-80% are blank, copyvios, promospam, or strong COI issues that that submitter lied about so they could try to push their idea on us.  Reviewers shouldn't be wasting their time to "re-categorize" these properly, and they should be just reviewing them.  I don't see how it adds any value to the project for reviewers to limit themselves to "only reviewing" certain kinds of drafts, and I actually think it would be detrimental.  Having this categorized type of reviewing creates an opportunity for reviewer COI where they are accepting things based on a like of the topic or declining them because of a dislike of the topic.  Anonymity offers the ability to review based on the facts.  Is it copyvio?  No, move on.  Are there enough RS? Yes, move on... There's no "ohh.. but I really like history articles" or "I really like sports articles"... Now, I'm not saying all (or even most) reviewers would do this, but there have been some that have done this, and this just makes it easier for them and makes more of a mess for us to clean up. Technical 13 (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that it'll take more than a second of a reviewers time to fix a mis-categorised submission after review. If 80% of COI articles don't get tagged as such by the author, that is already 20% of the COI articles properly identified without any extra work for the reviewer. In the 80% case there is no change: they don't get categorized now either. If the self-categorisation turns out to be problematic after a run, then we can always decide not to do it. Also, it is a-priory impossible to get factual data about this before we attempt this. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Before we add more instructions to the already complicated reviewing instructions, let's try to keep the Pending Review articles backlog under 2 weeks for 3 months. We shouldn't be in a perpetual state of backlog, yet we can never seem to get enough people to review... Hasteur (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The only way that categorizing would be helpful in reducing the backlog would be if Wikiprojects were automatically notified of something in their area of interest. That might draw in new reviewers from the Wikiprojects.  I asked about this some time ago and was told that there are over 2000 of these, so it wouldn't be practical. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 23:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I still  think  that  AfC doesn't  get  enough  reviewers (like NPP) because there is not  an interesting  hat  to  collect. This is the conundrum  however, because the although I  have proposed a 'permission' (which  still  needs to  be worked out  now that  the RfC is headed for a consensus), it  is unlikely  that  the WMF will  agree to  a MediaWiki  'user right'  that  may  not  be of cross-Wiki interest. I  still  see it  a protected script  of some kind  in  the way  that  permission  has to  be sought  for using  Stiki  or AWB. This might  nevertheless attract more people to  reviewing. I  know I  keep  dragging  NPP  into  the topic, but  after having  worked on  NPP  issues for over 3 years, there are clearly  some parallels in  the problems and even some sharing/overlappiing  of the tasks.
 * Where (in my  experience)  up to  80% of submissions are uncategorizable junk - except  as possible immediate cases for CSD -  I  do  not  believe that  an appeal  to  the various Wikipedia projects would be forthcoming. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Modifying Article Wizard to pre-sort new submissions and articles
This is a "split" form the section above, AFC Sorting.

The WP:Article Wizard can create both AFC submissions and articles without going through AFC.

In order to assist those dealing with new afc submissions and new articles created with the Article Wizard, the Article Wizard should be changed so it STRONGLY SUGGESTS common broad categories that the editor can choose (he can choose more than one, or none, if he wants).

Among the categories that may be offered are:

As listed in WP:Notability Additional categories suggested in the original proposal above
 * Academics
 * Astronomical objects
 * Books
 * Events
 * Film
 * Music
 * Numbers
 * Organizations and companies
 * People
 * Sports and athletes
 * Web content
 * Other People
 * History
 * Geography
 * Products

In addition, the submitter will have to answer these questions:
 * [mandatory BLP certification]: This page DOES mention a living, real, person / This page does NOT mention a living, real, person / I do not know if this page mentions a living, real person.
 * [mandatory COI selection]: The submitter DOES have a conflict of interest / The submitter does NOT have a conflict of interest / The submitter is NOT SURE if he has a conflict of interest. Yes, people may lie about the COI.  See WP:ROPE.

Based on these information provided, the Article Wizard will
 * Add "real" encyclopedia categories (e.g. Category:Living people) as appropriate,
 * Add "project maintenance" categories (e.g. "Articles created with the Article Wizard submitted as biographies") as appropriate, and
 * Add talk page templates (e.g. BLP) as appropriate, or add an "afc comment" with recommended wikicode if the article is being submitted to AFC.

This will all be done by the Article Wizard, not the AFC Helper Script. Later, once most of the non-deleted AFC submissions have gone through this process and almost all future ones will go through it as well, we can start taking advantage of the categories that the Article Wizard adds to AFC submissions. WP:New page patrol can also take advantage of these categories as they are added to new articles that are not submitted through AFC.

Thoughts? davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  00:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Header bug
The template for the countdown ("The backlog elimination drive ended on October 31, 2013 (UTC).(refresh)") is incorrect.  Theopolisme ( talk )  10:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * , I'm aware of that. I was getting frustrated with working on that template so took a few days away from it.  I'll fix that today. Technical 13 (talk) 11:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It's fixed. Adding a count-down to the end of the drive "is" on the todo list but not a top priority for me. Technical 13 (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Articles about subjects that don't meet notability guidelines
Dear reviewers: This point has been brought up before during the last backlog drive, but it is archived now, so with the drive possibly attracting some new reviewers I thought I'd mention it again:  If an article is about a subject that doesn't meet notability guidelines (for example, aspiring musicians and actors, the local diner, someone's favourite cat, a self-published and unreviewed book), we should be letting the submitter know this right away rather than asking them spend their time fixing up an article that will never be accepted. The "notability" decline templates all mention the need for reliable sources, so if this is also a problem you get two-for-one. The "improperly sourced" reason should only be used alone if the subject is obviously notable, either from the contents of the article ("she won the Pulitzer prize"; "he's a university professor") or from a quick search of the internet. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 08:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The trouble is, you can never be absolutely certain that a subject is non-notable in cases. Historical figures might well be notable through offline sources. Bands formed in the last decade, however, probably haven't got a chance. If they're neutral enough to avoid G11, they just tend to get left until a G13 picks them up. Nevertheless, that does give them a grace period to understand our guidelines, which A7 just doesn't do. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   11:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * , that may be true that there are off-line sources or that there may be sources in another language that a Google doesn't easily pick up without some hint of it being that language; however, I agree with that in those cases it is more appropriate to at least point the submitter to the proper N guideline so that they can know exactly what the criteria are to add the appropriate sources to establish notability.  If in the decline logs below it's obvious that they have been shown that but aren't following it, then it is perfectly acceptable to top it with a "sources" tag.  To be honest, I'm not entirely impressed with our current system for tagging and such and when I have some more time (I'm dealing with my lease running out in a few days and being homeless), I'll update it to something more comprehensive and helpful to the submitter.
 * I envision a tiered decline reason that allows for multiple decline reasons in an orderly fashion. I'm aware "similar" things have been proposed, and the only way for me to differentiate from those will be to throw together a couple examples which, again, I've not the time at the moment. Technical 13 (talk) 12:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've seen the odd example where somebody cites yet another Twitter, Facebook or Tumblr post before the reviewer declining it the sixth or seventh time says "just forget about it and edit something else" - but those examples are pretty much in the minority. Most people either "get it" by the second or third try, or give up in despair. Ritchie333  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   12:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The decline reason doesn't say that the subject is not notable. It says that the references don't show that the subject is notable, and then the template suggests how more sources could be added to show it, and pointing the submitter to the information about notability requirements.  This allows the submitter to decide for him/herself if enough references can be gathered to show notability.  The idea is to prevent this type of sequence:
 * A submits and article about his favourite teacher
 * B declines the article as too promotional
 * A rewrites the text in a more neutral tone
 * C declines the article as having no references
 * A finds and adds some links to facebook, a school staff list, teacher's web page, etc.
 * D declines the article as needing more reliable references
 * A adds a link to the school yearbook and two news articles with one sentence about the teacher
 * E declines the article as having no inline citations
 * A after much difficulty figures out how to make the references be inline
 * F finally declines the article as about a non-notable person
 * A decides everyone at Wikipedia is insane and never returns
 * This type of thing really did happen last time. If the last decline reason had been given first, and it turned out that the teacher was notable, having written a new national curriculum and been voted teacher of the year and rescued a child from drowning, etc., the submitter, after reading about notability of people, would likely have added this to the article and then cited some sources. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I like to priorize some templates over other templates while declining an article:
 * (1) Anything that had legal implications (Copyvio, BLP violation, attack pages)
 * (2) Anything that permanently disqualifies the article's subject due to external issues (Duplicate submission, Already exists in mainspace)
 * (3) Anything that permanently disqualifies the article's subject (Notability, Joke pages, WP:Not, WP:DICDEF an so on)
 * (4) Anything that is related to the article's content (Promotional text, formatting).


 * Some exceptions apply though. If an editor submits a 10 page promotional article i prefer to decline it for advertising while adding a comment that they might want to read the notability policy, rather then reading trough those 10 pages to guess if might be a notable topic. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 12:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The review procedure flowchart does run through the decline reasons in order of priority, so the sequence is already established. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This canned pre-decline template may prove helpful: User:Davidwr/afc comment - nn


 * davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  18:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * On a similar note, sometimes the formatting is so bad that the reviewer really can't tell if they can meet notability or not. If they say something that could make the individual notable if they can back it up, I try to tell them so.  If I'm not sure if they can make it or not, I try to let them know it.  I wish there was a "May make notability requirements if statements can be backed up with proper references" template.The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 01:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Luckily, the script gives an option to leave a comment, and I use this quite a bit, especially if a submission has more than one problem. I frequently encourage users to submit again if the article is likely notable. Also, you can always contact a useron their talk page and start an encouraging dialogue.  Sometimes I suggest that they contact an appropriate Wikiproject for help.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 02:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm really big on the Teahouse. If I recommend it in my comments, I believe the subject is notable or it is at least a good possibility. If I don't put any comments, it is because it is so obviously not going to make it to a good article anytime soon.The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk)

AfC sorting
After some discussion, I have become enthausiastic about the idea of categorising AfC submissions. I think it is a good idea, as it might encourage reviwers to select articles for review that they are interested in, which could help with the backlog, and also maybe get wikiprojects more involved in reviewing new articles. I would propose to add categories for: and an additional category for the author having a COI. I could imagine the categories first being created, and than the following supporting actions can be taken in any order, independently of eachoter: What do you folks think? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * History
 * Geography
 * Biographies of living people
 * Other biographies
 * Organisations
 * Products
 * Music
 * Support in the helper script to add and remove these categories
 * Support in the article wizard to let the creator mark these categories
 * Support in Earwig bot to order AFC statistics
 * Make different pages/links in the wikiproject for reviewers.
 * Before everybody blames for for this being a terrible idea, I have to note that it originally came from User:FireflySixtySeven. Unless of course you like it, then I came up with it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a very good idea to me. Unfortunately I lack the technical skills to help with implementation beyond creation of the categories themselves. The only drawback I can see is that we'd end up with even more of a backlog in the "boring" categories. Huon (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Add this to the article Wizard instead. Even if we asked the submitter to select "one or more" of the broad notability sub-categories listed at Template:Notability guide and Notability (people), that would be a big start.  For articles that used the Wizard but bypassed AFC, it would also allow the Wizard to suggest WikiProjects and Categories and it would allow New-Page Patrollers to hone in on specific notability guidelines quickly.   As far as the huge list of old submissions, in 6 months most of them will be G13'd anyways.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  21:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The article Wizard should definitely be adding a category or other indicator to submissions and new articles that bypass AFC that are self-reported to be conflicts of interest. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  21:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC) Update: It should also tag BLPs and biographies of possibly-living people and insist that the submitter tag all biographies as living, dead, or maybe-living.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  21:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I would be rather appalled if G13 would stretch to articles that are still pending review. But apart from that, yes, using the article wizard is indeed one of the ways to do this (it's already mentioned as the second item in the implementation list). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Anything still pending review 7-8 months from now would likely either be a "delayed/rescued from G13" submission or it would have been created with an updated Article Wizard. Yes, there would be a few non-Wizard submissions, but the point is that by then the number of active submissions that weren't categorized by the submitter using the Article Wizard will be small.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  21:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose until there is factual data evidence that this won't be a waste of reviewer time. Currently, we have a backlog of  submissions waiting for review.  Of these, there is a high probability that 75%-80% are blank, copyvios, promospam, or strong COI issues that that submitter lied about so they could try to push their idea on us.  Reviewers shouldn't be wasting their time to "re-categorize" these properly, and they should be just reviewing them.  I don't see how it adds any value to the project for reviewers to limit themselves to "only reviewing" certain kinds of drafts, and I actually think it would be detrimental.  Having this categorized type of reviewing creates an opportunity for reviewer COI where they are accepting things based on a like of the topic or declining them because of a dislike of the topic.  Anonymity offers the ability to review based on the facts.  Is it copyvio?  No, move on.  Are there enough RS? Yes, move on... There's no "ohh.. but I really like history articles" or "I really like sports articles"... Now, I'm not saying all (or even most) reviewers would do this, but there have been some that have done this, and this just makes it easier for them and makes more of a mess for us to clean up. Technical 13 (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that it'll take more than a second of a reviewers time to fix a mis-categorised submission after review. If 80% of COI articles don't get tagged as such by the author, that is already 20% of the COI articles properly identified without any extra work for the reviewer. In the 80% case there is no change: they don't get categorized now either. If the self-categorisation turns out to be problematic after a run, then we can always decide not to do it. Also, it is a-priory impossible to get factual data about this before we attempt this. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Before we add more instructions to the already complicated reviewing instructions, let's try to keep the Pending Review articles backlog under 2 weeks for 3 months. We shouldn't be in a perpetual state of backlog, yet we can never seem to get enough people to review... Hasteur (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The only way that categorizing would be helpful in reducing the backlog would be if Wikiprojects were automatically notified of something in their area of interest. That might draw in new reviewers from the Wikiprojects.  I asked about this some time ago and was told that there are over 2000 of these, so it wouldn't be practical. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 23:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I still  think  that  AfC doesn't  get  enough  reviewers (like NPP) because there is not  an interesting  hat  to  collect. This is the conundrum  however, because the although I  have proposed a 'permission' (which  still  needs to  be worked out  now that  the RfC is headed for a consensus), it  is unlikely  that  the WMF will  agree to  a MediaWiki  'user right'  that  may  not  be of cross-Wiki interest. I  still  see it  a protected script  of some kind  in  the way  that  permission  has to  be sought  for using  Stiki  or AWB. This might  nevertheless attract more people to  reviewing. I  know I  keep  dragging  NPP  into  the topic, but  after having  worked on  NPP  issues for over 3 years, there are clearly  some parallels in  the problems and even some sharing/overlappiing  of the tasks.
 * Where (in my  experience)  up to  80% of submissions are uncategorizable junk - except  as possible immediate cases for CSD -  I  do  not  believe that  an appeal  to  the various Wikipedia projects would be forthcoming. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Modifying Article Wizard to pre-sort new submissions and articles
This is a "split" form the section above, AFC Sorting.

The WP:Article Wizard can create both AFC submissions and articles without going through AFC.

In order to assist those dealing with new afc submissions and new articles created with the Article Wizard, the Article Wizard should be changed so it STRONGLY SUGGESTS common broad categories that the editor can choose (he can choose more than one, or none, if he wants).

Among the categories that may be offered are:

As listed in WP:Notability Additional categories suggested in the original proposal above
 * Academics
 * Astronomical objects
 * Books
 * Events
 * Film
 * Music
 * Numbers
 * Organizations and companies
 * People
 * Sports and athletes
 * Web content
 * Other People
 * History
 * Geography
 * Products

In addition, the submitter will have to answer these questions:
 * [mandatory BLP certification]: This page DOES mention a living, real, person / This page does NOT mention a living, real, person / I do not know if this page mentions a living, real person.
 * [mandatory COI selection]: The submitter DOES have a conflict of interest / The submitter does NOT have a conflict of interest / The submitter is NOT SURE if he has a conflict of interest. Yes, people may lie about the COI.  See WP:ROPE.

Based on these information provided, the Article Wizard will
 * Add "real" encyclopedia categories (e.g. Category:Living people) as appropriate,
 * Add "project maintenance" categories (e.g. "Articles created with the Article Wizard submitted as biographies") as appropriate, and
 * Add talk page templates (e.g. BLP) as appropriate, or add an "afc comment" with recommended wikicode if the article is being submitted to AFC.

This will all be done by the Article Wizard, not the AFC Helper Script. Later, once most of the non-deleted AFC submissions have gone through this process and almost all future ones will go through it as well, we can start taking advantage of the categories that the Article Wizard adds to AFC submissions. WP:New page patrol can also take advantage of these categories as they are added to new articles that are not submitted through AFC.

Thoughts? davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  00:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission - closed
The RfC is now closed. As proposer, I didn't  vote on  it  myself, but  I  left  plenty  of comments that  demonstrated where my  opinion and above all,  experience, lay. It would have been interesting to  mention  in  the close that  a large number of the opposers completely  misunderstood what  was a very  clear, succinct  proposal: there was no  suggestion  that  the permission  should be a MediaWiki based software tweak. If there are no  objections, I  will  now go  ahead with  a draft  for an RfC on  how to  set the threshold for permission  and how it  can be implemented without treading  on  anyone's toes or bothering  the server gatekeepers. When I have something  ready, I  will  invite this project  to  comment  on  its wording -  experience has shown that  a straight forward  well-worded proposal  works best when prepared before it  is launched to  the community. That said, if the programmers here could envisage some kind  of script  that  could deny  access to  the helper script with  a 'var' for the threshold (edit count/tenure) for  the time being, we may  be saving  some time. I'm thinking  of  something  on  the lines of the applications for permissions to  use Stiki, AWB, and Huggle which  are not  collectible trophies. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Kudpung, for working on this. One thing that will be needed in any script-based selection process is a way to override it, since sometimes for one reason or another a new account may be an experienced user. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, it's planned to  grandfather in  any  of the listed active participants who  meet the criteria.  We'll  be setting  the criteria first, and you'll  all have your say  in  that, and then we'll  decide how to  implement. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The obvious way to do this is by actually creating a new "real" permission, like rollback, that is either automatically granted by the system -- similar to how autoconfirmed is granted -- when a user meets certain edit count/time since registration criteria ($wgAutopromote on MediaWiki for how to do this), or by some dedicated admins. Then, the script could simply check if a user has the "afc-review" permission or whatever. The problems with this are numerous: a) the "auto-grant" version would result in users being granted this permission without necessarily being involved in the AfC project, b) clutter up Special:UserRights/etc, c) be very hat-collectly, etc. Here's an alternate proposal:


 * Kind of similar to the above but less intrusive for users is for my bot to have a page in userspace (for example, User:Theo's Little Bot/afch-users.js) that would be a list of users who meet the AfC reviewer permission and have edited in the past 30 days (the 30 days requirement is to keep the list from becoming insanely large initially -- once added, a user wouldn't be removed by the bot but could of course be removed by a sysop). The list would be automatically generated and frequently updated by my bot; admins could also add "special-case" users to this list by simply editing the js page.  Theopolisme  ( talk )  14:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Two points: First,  the threshold for permission  needs to  be set, and this will  be done by  consensus of the community (RfC coming  soon), and secondly, it  is probably  unlikely  that  the Foundation (according  to one WMF employee) will  entertain  a MediaWiki  tweak  to  enable any  permission system for AfC reviewing. Once the criteria for permission have been set, the community will  then discuss the various realistic option  for according it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What I proposed was hardly a MediaWiki tweak. Regardless, my post here was a reply to your message, "if the programmers here could envisage some kind of script that  could deny  access to  the helper script[..], we may  be saving  some time", and I hope my rambling was beneficial to your drafting ;)  Theopolisme  ( talk )  00:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The WMF has no say. The community can develop an extension and request a developer to enable it per community consensus. The developers have final say on the software, not the WMF. They usually operate closely with the WMF (ACTRIAL), but they manage the servers themselves. Thus, if the community develops an extension to add userrights (which would probably be not tooooo difficult, but not also the most easy), the developers would, imo, likely enable it. ~ Charmlet -talk- 01:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I did indeed read it, perhaps wrongly,   as suggesting  that  a MediaWiki  tweak  might  be involved. There are however some employees who are vehemently  opposed to  this and who may  possibly  offer strong  resistance to  such  a solution, so  I was just  being  cautious. 'Envisage' sure, and that  is what  I  hope they  will  do, but  it falls short of going  ahead and using  a lot  of valuable personal  time to  develop  a script or tweaking  a bot before we know what  the params for edit count/tenure, etc will  be, and who will accord the permissions and how. I  think  it's highly  unlikely  that  permission  will  be granted by  an automated process -  there is an important  factor of human judgement involved in  reviewing  AfC submissions, and of preventing  users abusing the AfC system  in  order to  pass their own submissions (which  is a very  real issue); a mistake was made a couple of years ago  by  distributing  the 'reviewer' right  to  thousands of users based purely  on  edit count/tenure. Very  few of them  are actually  active. PC reviewer however, has a deliberately  low entry level  permission (the lowest  of all)  while AfC requires a knowledge akin to  that  at  least of NPP -  which, ironically,  still  does not  have any  experience requirements and in  spite of the creation  of the Page Curation  Toolbar still  suffers from  significant  problems of quality.  FWIW, I'm  thinking  on  the lines of Stiki and AWB, etc. -  just  for example of course -   that  do  not  carry  a visible permission  for the hat-collectors to chase, but  which  unlock  the access to  3rd party  software or scripts. When the 'draft'  namespace gets created, a lot  of things will  change again, and possibly  a lot  of code and bots that  dedicated AfC participants have developed will  become redundant  and/or obsolete, but  such  is progress. I am  not  a computer programmer so I am  ill placed to  define what  kind of scripts or code can be used, but  of course your suggestions are most  welcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * . Unfortunately, the Foundation has every say  in  what  is done at  server level, as they  made abundantly  clear at  WP:ACTRIAL and through  the PA they  used at  Bugzilla  to   decline what  was a massive community  consensus. As mentioned in  my  post  above, one employee has spoken out (albeit using  their normal  Wikipedia account - but  it's the same person) vehemently  against  the possibility  of a MedWiki  solution  being  entertained for AfC permission. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ACTRIAL, if you read it, was declined by the developers, based on the foundation and developers opinions. The devs make the changes, they have final say on them and they can overrule the foundation if they so wanted. A MediaWiki solution would be easier than JS/etc, so all we have to do is like VE - put in a shitty JS hack and then they'll do what we say b/c OMG THE SERVERS! ~ Charmlet -talk- 01:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't  need to  read ACTRIAL, I  was its main  author and proponent! The project  was ultimately declined by one of  the Foundation's most  senior staff  members (I  also  had a meeting  with  him  very  recently). Please familiarise yourself ;)  Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Moving article back to AfC?
A reviewer moved Access Control Technology to main article space, but I can't see any evidence of notability (certainly not WP:NCORP). Can this be moved back to AfC, or should I nominate for AfD (it claims it is the first of its type in Ireland, which may mean it doesn't meet speedy criteria)? Sionk (talk) 10:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The referencing certainly seems weak. I think an Afd is the usual process at this point, but others may disagree.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 10:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought this article sounded familiar, then realised I'd declined it myself earlier. I would first ping and ask him to comment on this thread, as it might just be a mistake. (One of my first AfC reviews got dinged because I mistakenly thought clearing CSD was good enough for a submission to pass - it isn't!) If it is, Zach needs to draft an explanation / apology to the article's creator and get an admin to put it back in AfC. If none of that's acceptable, then Sionk (or indeed anyone) is free to take the article as it is to AfD at any time, which won't go down well with the creator.  Ritchie333  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   11:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, my bad. It appeared to be notable because of its collaboration with the Office of Public Works, however considering that's not in any of the sources, it doesn't pass. Zach Vega  ( talk to me ) 14:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Header bug
The template for the countdown ("The backlog elimination drive ended on October 31, 2013 (UTC).(refresh)") is incorrect.  Theopolisme ( talk )  10:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * , I'm aware of that. I was getting frustrated with working on that template so took a few days away from it.  I'll fix that today. Technical 13 (talk) 11:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It's fixed. Adding a count-down to the end of the drive "is" on the todo list but not a top priority for me. Technical 13 (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

G13 template: Suggest adding a 24-hour clock
There seems to be a problem with the G13's being deleted as soon as they are templated.

How about replacing the existing template the bot uses with a dated template, like dated prod. This would immediately put templated submissions in a "about to go to csd" category so the rescue team could look through them and de-template them, then they would go to an "active" csd category where admins could delete them.

If 24 hours isn't enough, I have no objection to a longer time period, but let's keep it no more than a week, to be consistent with other "slow" speedy-deletions. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  04:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe that Hasteur already has figured out a process for letting people know which ones will be next to be nominated. However, if we can get organized to the point where we are working on the month ahead of the bot, it won't matter exactly which ones will be next, because the whole month that the bot is doing will have been checked. The bot already gives the submitters a 30 day notification. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 04:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * He is on about people tagging it manually. I support this idea - lets just put a 30 day delay on all G13 nominations, so people have time to trawl through the manual tags too. -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  06:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I may be wrong, but my understanding is that this is already the process. We'd have a month to look through each month's new "eligibles". But because of the two year and more backlog, a huge number were tagged at once.  The oldest ones were checked out by several reviewers, but these are gone now.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 11:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Anything that is in the Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions has had at least 1 notification made to the creator that the submission is in danger of being deleted. As new children (and sub-children of Category:AfC_submissions_by_date become eligible, the bot checks the category membership and does a null edit on the page (to ensure it picks up the most up to date version of the template), drops a notification on the page creator's talk page warning them, and adds it to an internal list of what page has been notified on (with who was notified). The bot checks the list and picks up the oldest notifications first so as to follow a procedural order. There's 30 days between when the new submission lands in the Eligible pile to when the bot nominates.  This does not disclude an editor of getting antsy and nominating before the bot would process it. Hasteur (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Marking an article for copyright violation.
Hi all, I'm new to reviewing but I have experienced some problems with marking Afc's for decline and deletion because of a copyright violation. I provide the URL from which the information is taken and I check all the boxes (blanking, CSD parameter, notifying author and teahouse) When I press Decline only the author is notified but nothing changes on the Afc talk page. Have I missed something which I should have done? Crispulop (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello . According to my testing, this issue seems to have already been resolved in an upcoming version of the script.  I'll try to get  pushed through to the version you are using as soon as possible due to the high importance of such a thing working. Thanks for your report. Technical 13 (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at the October Backlog elimination with for example user Aggie80 I see that other reviewers are able to file Afc's for Speedy deletion CSD G12 with AFCH. For me it does not (yet) work how it should. Is there a way to circumvent the problem I mentioned before? Except for just adding the CSD tags manually, which I am doing currently. Crispulop (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Submissions tab overhaul
I've revisited the way that our "Submissions" tab up top works and added some stuff. Most of the stuff that was on the "List" page has moved to the main "Submissions" page and I've added a new feature that will allow you to search through all AfC submissions/drafts for keywords. I'm more than happy to move more stuff around, so don't feel like you shouldn't tell me if you don't like it or if you want it rearranged or whatnot... :) Technical 13 (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Technical 13: Before, the submissions tab was divided into two logical sections: the first was for pending submissions only, with various options for viewing them, for the reviewers to work on.  The other, called somewhat cryptically "list", dealt with all of the submissions, whether accepted, declined, draft, missing template or pending, which was useful for those who were trying to keep the project organized, fix up problems, find older submissions and create statistics.   Now they are all mixed together. The "List" is the section that I use the most and you have gutted it.  Instead of moving the list stuff, all that was needed was to change the two little words to "pending" and "all" to make the distinction clear.  I hope you will put everything that's not about pending submissions back where it was.  That way everyone won't have to relearn where to find the items they need, and the people who just like to review won't have to wade through options that don't apply to them.


 * The search feature sounds useful, because when there are over 200 submissions a browser search will only search the current page, so thanks - I will use this. Does is search all submissions, or just the pending ones? That would determine which page it would be on.  A small search box which didn't cause the header to be so long would be an improvement; with the 16:9 screen shape that many new computer monitors have, if the header is too big, the submissions don't show on the screen at all.


 * I don't see the purpose of the "Pending by age" item in the header. There's already a perfectly good "Afc pending submissions by age" which has more detailed information.  Also I clicked on one of the entries and it went away the the servers for over a minute and then did nothing.  Am I missing something?

Hayat Akbar
Hayat Akbar (Urdu: حیات اکبر) (also called Babar Bacha was born on Thursday, March 5, 1987 in a small village Dandoqa where he grow up in a family of having his parents 4 sisters and a brother. He started his basic education in the year 1992 from his village. He was graduated in law and economics from University of Peshawar and Later got Degree in Master of Economics of the same university. Later in the year 2012 he devoted his life for Social Welfare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.47.218.146 (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting info.svg This page is for users involved in this project's administration. If you would like to start writing a new article, please use the Article wizard. If you have an idea for a new article, but would like to request that someone else write it, please see: Requested articles.  the  one  sean  15:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

HasteurBot Task 1 suspension
To allow editors more time to review, I'm going to be suspending the 2 triggers that the bot uses to nominate submissions. The bot will still notify users with respect to pages that just became eligible for G13, but won't make any nominations until October 31st. Hasteur (talk) 21:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Roll Call - Backlog drive score changes
A quick notification for people who might have missed it: There have been some proposed rule changes for the AFC backlog drive in regards to its scoring system. Summarized the changes are:


 * Users will receive 1 point for every review or re-review of an article.
 * Inaccurate reviews (Reviews marked as "Fail" by two re-reviewers) will result in a 2 point deduction.
 * Submissions accurately marked and deleted as copyright violations will result in 1 bonus point. (1 for the review, another 1 for the copyvio detection).

Right now there changes seem to have universal support so i am planning to add these to AFCBuddy for the next drive (Changes still dependent on technical feasibility). This section is mostly a roll call for people who might have missed this change and disagree, or might want to voice alternatives / agreement to these changes. Also note that i've altered the re-review instructions to accommodate these score changes. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 20:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Sounds fine to the me. The only other (possibly controversial) thing I'd throw in, more to see what people think than anything else, is some penalties towards "son of Arctic Kangaroo" for accepting submissions that subsequently get deleted, which causes untold aggravation for the user. Something like :
 * Articles reviewed and subsequently closed as "Delete" at AfD will result in a 5 point deduction
 * Articles reviewed, passed, and subsequently deleted by a CSD criteria will result in a 20 point deduction Ritchie333  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   13:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There's been a fair amount of discussion about this at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/October 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive. You may want to repeat your comment there so all of the suggestions are in one place. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 16:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I want to thank you, Excirial for taking this on with short notice. I know it wasn't likely what you had planned to do this week. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

YangSlique (rapper)
Eddie Anoziva Sosera jrII also known as YangSlique born: 2002 2 august. Is the youngest artist to sign to tienic tee reetad s record label TOP $WAG REEGADZ RECORDS. He signed to the label early in 2013 and then he realesed his first single titled  motive and then made a remix with the TSR's and it was a hit. yangslique and tienic tee reetad are brothers and yangslique is also in the TSR and yangslique started rapping in 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.111.255.224 (talk) 09:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This page is for discussing the administration of the Articles for Creation project. Please use the Article wizard to create new articles. Ritchie333  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   10:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

How to handle an IP attempt to create an article in Talk space
I saw two more examples today of IPs attempting to contribute an article, but not appreciating that they should use the AfC template. The problem is, if an IP starts an article on a talk page, it often gets deleted as a G8. Because legitimate G8s are common, and occur when someone deletes an article, but not the associated talk page, it is not standard procedure to notify the creator when deleting a page as a G8 (the assumption is they were notified when the article was about to be deleted.). This means than an IP is attempting to contribute to Wikipedia, has their contribution wiped out, and gets zero notice. We claim that we welcome edits by IPs, but this is a rude introduction to Wikipedia (let me emphasized, it will be viewed as rude by the recipient; those deleting are not intending to be rude, but perceptions matter.)

I asked before for a solution, but got no answer. I will ask it a different way.

If I see such a page, can I move page "talk:foo" to "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/foo" and that will move it into the AfC universe, where someone will take a look at it, welcome the editor and provide feedback? Is it that simple, or does something else need to happen.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  16:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm interested in this one too. At the moment, I just leave alone G8s that I think might be of use because I have assumed someone else would know what to do. (Not many, by the way - they're usually junk.) Peridon (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that a large percentage of such submissions are useless. However, I think it is polite to have a brief conversation with the creator, so they know why it was not acceptable. If I can move it to AfC "space" then that discussion will happen naturally. If not, they'll get no notice.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  16:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If there is an AFC submission template, then I would say absolutely.  Otherwise, it's a case-by case:  If it's clearly got a real shot at acceptance, go ahead.  If it's clearly never going to be accepted, I'd be tempted to "find a way" to speedy it that is less POINTY than G8.  If it's in the middle ground I'm not sure what I would do.  I would bear in mind that every minute I spend agonizing over this is a minute that I'm not spending reviewing articles that are already in WT:AFC/...-space.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  17:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think SP's query is how to get something to AfC (I know that's what I don't know...). Peridon (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It isn't simply that a CSD G8 is "pointy". It is that the contributor gets no notice whatsoever. If a contributor writes a draft article, and someone feels it deserves a speedy for many reasons, the editor placing the speedy tag will also inform the contributor. For obvious reasons, a G7 is an exception. For acceptable reasons, a G10 or G6 doesn't get a notification. But in other cases, even G3, it is usual practice to notify the creator.


 * However, it is not usual practice to notify the creator in the case of a G8. The problem isn't that the creator is getting a pointy G8 notice, the problem is that a submission is deleted with absolutely no notice whatsoever.
 * Ah, well, perhaps that should change so that if the talk page were created after the date that the corresponding non-talk page was deleted (or if the non-talk page never existed) the editor would receive notice. The larger issue of IP-users whose IP address changes and therefore they don't see the notice is a much larger problem.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  18:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * For example Talk:La Prensa Hispana was an attempt by 98.150.105.58 to create an article. Not much of one, to be sure, but User talk:98.150.105.58 is a red link, meaning that IP tried to create an article, cannot now find it, and has no idea what happened. I don't think it is unreasonable to let the editor know why it was deleted.


 * My proposed process is to move the draft to an AfC page, and let it be handled by AfC. (But I haven't heard yet whether this is workable) I'm open to alternatives, but I think out current process is rude. And if moving to an AfC page is an option, I'd like to alter taggers, so that they move it, rather than mistagging as G8.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  17:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is my not necessarily completely informed opinion: If it looks like the IP is trying to create an article, I wouldn't feel guilty about moving an article into Afc, and putting a draft template on it, as long as a redirect is left so that the IP can find it to improve it. I am assuming (correctly?) that as long as the redirect actually points at something, it won't be deleted.  Then if later the Afc article is deleted, the redirect would go too.  If an IP has created a talk page that is clearly not an article, and is using it for useful discussion about Wikipedia topics, I think it should be okay, but I couldn't find anything definitive written about that.  I did find that to prevent a talk page from being deleted with G8, you can add a <NOWIKI></NOWIKI> on it.  If you can't tell if it's an article or not, and can't contact the user, you could always post a message at the top if the page asking the page's creator to contact you and explain.  If nothing happens, it's probably abandoned .  One thing to remember is that a deleted page cal always be brought back if it has a purpose.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I tried, as an experiment to move the title list above. I fully expected the move to work, then I was going to ask which template to add, as I do not see a list of draft templates identified. However, the move failed, so like Peridon, I'll ask, how do we do the move?
 * If I see one of these, even if tagged with G8, I will move it to article space with the appropriate name, decline the G8 and let the taggers discover it again and treat it in the proper way. THough we should be warning prople who tag article attempts with G8, that don't make any effort to treat it as the contributer wanted (as an article). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to Anne - but I still want to know HOW to move a G8 to AfC. OK, I know how to detag it, but what is the procedure. <8-( Peridon (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Move the page without leaving a redirect to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Article name (if it's a deleted page you will obviously need to restore it first). Once moved, add  to the top of the page and save. Then, re-edit the page and change the 'submitter' field of the AfC template to the name of the original author. If you don't do this the AfC template will think you are the original submitter and you may get unexpected messages on your user talk page.  Pol430   talk to me  15:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * At last - someone who answers the question we ask instead of the question we don't. Thanks for this. Peridon (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Copy-and-paste fork of an earlier, inferior version
An editor created Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/LogosQuiz then a different editor copied it to LogosQuiz and continued working on it. Meanwhile, the first editor kept working on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/LogosQuiz, creating a content fork.

This would've been easy to handle if the version in the main article space was superior to the version remaining at AFD, I would've just declined the AFD and made any necessary changes to the main-article version, including nominating it for deletion if appropriate.

But the version in AFC was significantly better, so I nominated the "main" article for deletion to make room for the eventual movement of the AFC version into the main encyclopedia. I also turned down (for now) the AFC version as it's clearly not ready for prime time.

I've never run into this before and I hope I never run into it again, but I figured I'd share my experience in case it happens to any of you. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  20:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, this can be tricky. If it's caught early enough, and one of the editors has made only trivial edits such as spacing and format changes, the articles can be merged, but it doesn't work if there is substantial development of both forks.  Usually the older article gets precedence, and the person who did the copy-paste is asked to move their new content into the older article, a bit at a time, keeping as much of the older article as is feasible.  In most cases, it should work, because the person wouldn't have copied the older article in the first place if he or she was going to write something totally different.  Not always, though, especially if as in your example the original has been substantially changed.  I've seen cases where the new article was moved to mainspace with a slightly different title, the text hidden under a redirect to the older article, and then a discussion started on the talk pages of the two articles about how best to combine them.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I have something similar, where there are advatanges on both legs of the fork. Can someone walk me through the process? The article is 2013 Valencia Open 500 (dif link below to make this easier, you can click through to the versions there if you like). -- the fork into main space used the last version prior to the request for review in the AfC version. The AfC version was last edited September 20 (request for review, prior real edit Sept 13). The fork in main space was started Oct 5 and completed Oct 8. The fork contains some added info (a table of seed players, a few other minor touches), but the editor dropped the few references that there were in the AfC. (The AfC would probably fail for lack of references, BTW). So, please walk me through this.
 * Overview of what to do -- speedy delete main space and decline AfC? Some other approach?
 * Sequence of steps to take, assuming they are not obvious, to accomplish this.
 * For your convenience, if you want to look at them, the dif: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2013_Valencia_Open_500&diff=576364089&oldid=573809010 Dovid (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The best thing in this case is to tag the mainspace one with db-move, and once it is complete, ensure the good version is answered
 * I must be misunderstanding. db-move on the mainspace page would mean that I'm requesting that the "illegal" namespace page (fork of the AfC creation) should be deleted, and something else moved in its place. But what would I move in its place? The AfC? That doesn't make sense unless it is approved... which is still pending a review decision. Were you assuming the AfC version was ready to publish? Dovid (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I realise now that my marking your follow up question as done was not very informative. As far as I can see, there is no real issue here. Editor A created an AfC about the subject and then editor B created an almost identical page in the mainspace!? Editor A and B could well be the same person as one is an IP address, but even if they are not the content of the articles are almost identical, so I don't see a merge issue here; without a merge issue there is no attribution issue. The only problem is that the AfC submission has two references that are not present in the mainspace. Simply adding these two references to the main space page with a conventional edit is fine, if the references still support the content. If you really want to ensure that proper attribution is maintained then you can mention the IP address as the originator in the edit summary or link to the AfC page in the edit summary. The AfC has been declined as 'exists' and therefore there is no reason that should ever appear in the pending review queue again. For clarity, the answer above about db-move was not me. Whoever is was obviously forgot to sign there post. Simply because a main space article lacks references is not a reason to delete it. Pol430   talk to me  16:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Articles about subjects that don't meet notability guidelines
Dear reviewers: This point has been brought up before during the last backlog drive, but it is archived now, so with the drive possibly attracting some new reviewers I thought I'd mention it again:  If an article is about a subject that doesn't meet notability guidelines (for example, aspiring musicians and actors, the local diner, someone's favourite cat, a self-published and unreviewed book), we should be letting the submitter know this right away rather than asking them spend their time fixing up an article that will never be accepted. The "notability" decline templates all mention the need for reliable sources, so if this is also a problem you get two-for-one. The "improperly sourced" reason should only be used alone if the subject is obviously notable, either from the contents of the article ("she won the Pulitzer prize"; "he's a university professor") or from a quick search of the internet. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 08:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The trouble is, you can never be absolutely certain that a subject is non-notable in cases. Historical figures might well be notable through offline sources. Bands formed in the last decade, however, probably haven't got a chance. If they're neutral enough to avoid G11, they just tend to get left until a G13 picks them up. Nevertheless, that does give them a grace period to understand our guidelines, which A7 just doesn't do. Ritchie333  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   11:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * , that may be true that there are off-line sources or that there may be sources in another language that a Google doesn't easily pick up without some hint of it being that language; however, I agree with that in those cases it is more appropriate to at least point the submitter to the proper N guideline so that they can know exactly what the criteria are to add the appropriate sources to establish notability.  If in the decline logs below it's obvious that they have been shown that but aren't following it, then it is perfectly acceptable to top it with a "sources" tag.  To be honest, I'm not entirely impressed with our current system for tagging and such and when I have some more time (I'm dealing with my lease running out in a few days and being homeless), I'll update it to something more comprehensive and helpful to the submitter.
 * I envision a tiered decline reason that allows for multiple decline reasons in an orderly fashion. I'm aware "similar" things have been proposed, and the only way for me to differentiate from those will be to throw together a couple examples which, again, I've not the time at the moment. Technical 13 (talk) 12:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've seen the odd example where somebody cites yet another Twitter, Facebook or Tumblr post before the reviewer declining it the sixth or seventh time says "just forget about it and edit something else" - but those examples are pretty much in the minority. Most people either "get it" by the second or third try, or give up in despair. Ritchie333  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   12:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The decline reason doesn't say that the subject is not notable. It says that the references don't show that the subject is notable, and then the template suggests how more sources could be added to show it, and pointing the submitter to the information about notability requirements.  This allows the submitter to decide for him/herself if enough references can be gathered to show notability.  The idea is to prevent this type of sequence:
 * A submits and article about his favourite teacher
 * B declines the article as too promotional
 * A rewrites the text in a more neutral tone
 * C declines the article as having no references
 * A finds and adds some links to facebook, a school staff list, teacher's web page, etc.
 * D declines the article as needing more reliable references
 * A adds a link to the school yearbook and two news articles with one sentence about the teacher
 * E declines the article as having no inline citations
 * A after much difficulty figures out how to make the references be inline
 * F finally declines the article as about a non-notable person
 * A decides everyone at Wikipedia is insane and never returns
 * This type of thing really did happen last time. If the last decline reason had been given first, and it turned out that the teacher was notable, having written a new national curriculum and been voted teacher of the year and rescued a child from drowning, etc., the submitter, after reading about notability of people, would likely have added this to the article and then cited some sources. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I like to priorize some templates over other templates while declining an article:
 * (1) Anything that had legal implications (Copyvio, BLP violation, attack pages)
 * (2) Anything that permanently disqualifies the article's subject due to external issues (Duplicate submission, Already exists in mainspace)
 * (3) Anything that permanently disqualifies the article's subject (Notability, Joke pages, WP:Not, WP:DICDEF an so on)
 * (4) Anything that is related to the article's content (Promotional text, formatting).


 * Some exceptions apply though. If an editor submits a 10 page promotional article i prefer to decline it for advertising while adding a comment that they might want to read the notability policy, rather then reading trough those 10 pages to guess if might be a notable topic. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 12:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The review procedure flowchart does run through the decline reasons in order of priority, so the sequence is already established. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This canned pre-decline template may prove helpful: User:Davidwr/afc comment - nn


 * davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  18:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * On a similar note, sometimes the formatting is so bad that the reviewer really can't tell if they can meet notability or not. If they say something that could make the individual notable if they can back it up, I try to tell them so.  If I'm not sure if they can make it or not, I try to let them know it.  I wish there was a "May make notability requirements if statements can be backed up with proper references" template.The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 01:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Luckily, the script gives an option to leave a comment, and I use this quite a bit, especially if a submission has more than one problem. I frequently encourage users to submit again if the article is likely notable. Also, you can always contact a useron their talk page and start an encouraging dialogue.  Sometimes I suggest that they contact an appropriate Wikiproject for help.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 02:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm really big on the Teahouse. If I recommend it in my comments, I believe the subject is notable or it is at least a good possibility. If I don't put any comments, it is because it is so obviously not going to make it to a good article anytime soon.The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk)