Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, List, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Welcome—discuss matters concerning this project!
AfC submissions
Random submission
~8 weeks
1,831 pending submissions
Purge to update
Shortcut


Skip to top
Skip to bottom

AFC backlog

[edit]
AfC unreviewed draft statistics as of December 23, 2024


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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

RFC discussion

[edit]

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

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

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

Or if you want to resubmit a draft on behalf of another user so they get the AfC communications rather than you, such as the Accept notification, you can use {{subst:submit|Creator's username}}. The other option is to click the Resubmit button then change the User (u=) from your name to theirs. S0091 (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The AFCH script will do this for you automatically. -- asilvering (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh..ok, I see now. You review on an already declined draft. I had never clicked the Submit button because I assumed it worked the same way as the Resubmit button in the decline message but the AFCH script gives you options to assign the submitter. I can't tell you how many times I have resubmitted drafts using the manual methods I outline above. The more you know! :) S0091 (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Razorpay

[edit]

I need some help with this review. I'm having a hard time establishing whether the sources make this subject notable. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTechie no Declined, with a full rationale. Some might, but I sample checked a significant number and each, chosen as randomly as I was able, failed as a reference.
Good call asking for other eyes. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 05:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help desk new question page

[edit]

I often see the same editor asking multiple questions @ the help desk and they are often told not too by others, sometimes in a bitty way. I wondered why so may did this and I think the reason is the userpage decline template links to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/New question with the draft title filled in but it seems non-obvious, for new editors, how to get from this page to the help desk without posting a new question. Should we add a something like "If you have already asked a question about this draft recently please continue that discussion at the help desk here" to the top? KylieTastic (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that could indeed explain this. (I always assumed it was because users didn't realise it's a threaded forum, and not a chat stream etc.) That seems a good suggestion; worth a try.
And one of my new year's resolutions will be to make an effort to be less "bitty" to those opening multiple threads, now that I know why they do it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I fully understand what's happening here, could someone provide a diff/example of this happening? Primefac (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some editors keep opening new questions on the help desk rather than continuing with one that's ongoing, often one after another. So I'm proposing that these may be the editor coming back to the help desk from the link on the decline on the users talk page. That goes to a page like this and I'm saying that it encourages asking a new question everytime and many would not see or understand using the breadcrumb link to the help desk at the top. KylieTastic (talk) 09:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we adopt the pragmatic solution of not worrying, and answering questions as they arise, but tidying up sweetly prior to answering?
Unless, of course, someone writes a gadget so we can highlight threads to merge, and we do that? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have ignored for years but after seeing it again a couple of times recently I engaged brain to wonder why it was happening. Updating the gadget to work out if there is an active question is a nice ideal solution but too much work for the problem. Is it not better to tell editors they can continue a discussion rather than open a new question rather than give give them an interface that encourages it then tell them they are wrong. Just adding a simple explanatory sentence and link seemed like a quick, simple easy solution..... KylieTastic (talk) 10:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, something like this. I see two (maybe three) options here. First, we change nothing and politely merge/combine duplicate sections. Second, we make the decline link a direct link to the HD and hope that editors use the "Ask a new question" link at the top if they have a question (which, if I recall, did not work, and the whole reason we have the script in the first place). Third, we could add an additional line as proposed, saying that existing questions will be answered without a new question not needing to be filed. Primefac (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is the sort of thing that happens most, but I failed to find a diff for one of the cases of more than 2 or the sometimes bitty remarks not do do it. Not that I hang about the HelpDesk much. On the current page GwnftLight and Sukdev Mahapatra also had two back to back posts. KylieTastic (talk) 13:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added a variant of that text to the top - feel free to copyedit. – SD0001 (talk) 13:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. It seems the script replaces it altogether. Will need a script update as well. – SD0001 (talk) 13:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed – SD0001 (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SD0001 KylieTastic (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

drafts are too long

[edit]

Please see discussion: link. -- Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 00:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Fluoride Action Network

[edit]

This draft seems on the edge of violating NPOV to me, especially since its author has a 16-year history of anti-water fluoridation POV-pushing, but I'd like another pair of eyes to determine if this article may be acceptable. JJPMaster (she/they) 21:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, I'm not seeing any evidence of notability there. And for the coverage that does exist outside of the very recent court case, it's certainly not positive coverage. Which isn't reflected in the article as it is currently. And that does seem like an NPOV problem. SilverserenC 21:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fluoride Action Network. The draft doesn't persuade me that anything has changed in twelve years except the government in Washington. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indian state symbols

[edit]

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

I have cleared up the rest of the related junk edits from them. KylieTastic (talk) 12:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

question

[edit]

Hi I was just curious, I have done (alot, as I know other editors have as well) of AFC https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Ozzie10aaaa/AfC_log, I was wondering when the end of year awards (or recognition) for AFC are given?, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ozzie10aaaa, what end-of-year awards are you talking about? I can't remember any, and I just checked the archives for December 2022 and 2023 and didn't see anything (but could have missed it). -- asilvering (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed(hoped) that similar to NPP [1] there would be some sort of award/barnstar for 2024,since the year is practically over, for all the AFC's done over the past year(for the editors)...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if there is a list of the top 20 AFC editors I would be happy to hand them out(below is a example)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume the NPP ones rely on the patrol logs. AfC does not have any central logging so there is no good data, especially for > 6 months when a lot of the declined drafts are deleted. KylieTastic (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Top_AfC_reviewers? qcne (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it had been running for a year I guess you could check the data from the last day of each month and add together but it's only been running since 12 November 2024. KylieTastic (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this is better than nothing...Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Top AfC reviewers#Last 1 year...I could leave the barnstar for all 100 ?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's an approximation but not sure how it's getting its data but its a bit short. It says SafariScribe has 5418 reviews, but there log User:SafariScribe/AfC_log has 6846 entries. For myself it says 2889 reviews but my logs User:KylieTastic/AfC log show 6200. I guess it does not count deleted items and I do a lot of 0 day junk bashing. KylieTastic (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
well if there are no outright objections, I can do it Monday/Tuesday...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see no harm and it's a bit of positive feedback which in the current world seems needed. So as far as I'm concerned go for it and thanks Ozzie for thinking of something positive. KylieTastic (talk) 19:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
done,Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting, Ozzie10aaaa, that your edits missed the closing |} and thus broke the pages you added it to. I believe someone else is cleaning it up, but for next time please make sure you do one or two, check things are working, and then blast through the list. Primefac (talk) 13:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for pointing it out (I had zero idea about |} ), will take your advice,,,Merry Christmas--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

for example ...

The Articles for Creation Barnstar 2024 Top Editor
message

Perhaps add to reviewing instructions?

[edit]

Twice in the last week I've seen two AfCs passed which had previously AfD'd versions. Both of these AfC approvals were quickly tagged for G4. One of them had just been deleted at AfD and was under deletion review when the filer created a new draft which was miraculously reviewed in two days and quickly passed. This really screwed up the active DRV, which I was forced to close procedurally even though the filer had almost no support from commenters. What instructions do we give AfC reviewers about checking deleted edits and deleted versions from two days previously? Passing submissions which are currently at DRV? I'm aware that Articles for Creation is one approved way to recreate a deleted page, however this project surely has some guidance on the matter. Seems this should be on a checklist somewhere ("Is this namespace currently at a deletion process? Quickfail if yes."), checking a new draft against deleted versions. BusterD (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is of the same name then the AFCH tool says if it was previously deleted and so that should lead reviewers to look at the previous reasons. Since the core purpose of AfC is to determine if it would be deleted at AfD checking the previous deletions should be a key point of any review. Personally I have always thought the previously deleted warning should be a bit larger and remind people to check. KylieTastic (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some reviewers might be concerned about readily being able to view previous deleted versions. As an admin, I'd be happy to spend a few minutes helping reviewers with temporarily undeleting such material. If I didn't possess the tools, I'd go to WP:Requests for undeletion and ask to see the page temporarily before I approved the draft. I'd likely approve such a request 99% of the time. BusterD (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with KylieTastic about previous deletions needing be to more prominent than what they are already (well, I say I disagree but KylieTastic is usually right, thus their Tasticness, so likely I am missing something). When a reviewer clicks "Review", there is a popup that lists all the deletions of an article of the same title and the logged reason/notes (G11, AfD, etc.), which to me is very clear. I think this particular scenario is a one-off. Outside if extenuating circumstances or a mistake/miss, I cannot think of reason a reviewer would ever accept a draft that had just been deleted via an AfD discussion (much less one that had been deleted multiple times such as this one if my guess of which article this is about is correct). Also, I have never seen a need to see deleted versions. If I think it might meet G4, I just nominate it and an admin can make to decision but G4 should be very rare for drafts as one of the uses for AfC is to get an independent review of previously deleted articles. S0091 (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it often but I thought AFCH just said "The page xxxxx has been deleted Y time(s). View deletion log". That was the only part I was thinking could be a tad larger font as it gets lost compared to the big Accept/Decline/Comment buttons. If you then click on "View deletion log" (I think) it then shows the details but no auto show. SO actually if that was true rather than larger, it should just show the full details. However, I'm very tired I may just be remembering it wrong and can't find an example. KylieTastic (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think your memory is correct, Kylie. I don't think I've ever had any trouble noticing it but I'm sympathetic to the idea that it's easy to miss. @BusterD, were these AfC accepts both from the same reviewer? -- asilvering (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two different reviewers, both worthy wikipedians. The latest example, the one which I spoke about above is 15.ai, reviewed by User:Pokelego999. The other one was Nicolás Atanes, but I found out later the reviewer (User:Qcne) was presented with Nicolas Atanes and in the moment didn't see the previous deletions. IMHO, both reviewers made calls I might have made myself. BusterD (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On my end, I didn't see anything related to deletion logs. I don't know if I missed it or if it just wasn't present, but I had no indication it had previously gone through anything since I hadn't noticed any logs. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
S0091 is correct the text is big enough as I have just seen it again on Draft:Toula Gordillo. However, I do think the default state of the history should be expanded as it is important information that all reviewers should be aware of. KylieTastic (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now with fresh example, I agree the default should show the log info so you don't have to click on "view deletion log". It would actually be great to know it upfront but I'm not sure that's possible because the draft/sandbox title might change before a review which introduces various complications. However, it is aggravating to conduct an assessment then find out the deletion history after clicking Review. S0091 (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Class assessment and the Banner Shell

[edit]

Is the class assessment within the {{WikiProject Articles for creation}} template meant to be a snapshot of the class at creation, or, is it meant to "grow" with the article. I ask this, as now class allocation is set in the {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which reports a if the class in the banner shell is different from any other class assignment. If the "class=" parameter from AfC is meant to be a snapshot at creation, then the Banner Shell code should ignore it if it's not the same as the overall "class=" setting. If it's meant to change as the article improves over time, then we can just remove it from the AfC template and just use the Banner shell assignment. Ping User: Tom.Reding & User:MSGJ as the banner shell experts. The-Pope (talk) 07:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why it would be a snapshot. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it could be a snapshot, if it's meant to track the 'quality' of articles coming out of the AfC process at the time of acceptance/publication.
Conversely, it could evolve over time, if it's meant to track the quality of AfC-created articles at some future time of such tracking or analysis.
FWIW, I had assumed the former, which is why I give it the rating suggested by the rating tool, even if the other projects take theirs from the shell. Perfectly happy to be proven wrong on this, obvs. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The template should probably state which one it is. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Reviewers obviously need to know which way to apply this, and ideally all do it the same way. But future readers (under the 'snapshot' model, that is) would also need to know why the AfC rating is potentially different from the others. ("Hey, my article is rated A, why is AfC still marking it down as Start?!") -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this was changed some time ago so that the AFCH tool only puts a single assessment in the shell like all other projects. Do you have a case to illustrate the issue? KylieTastic (talk) 09:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Archive_58#Assigning_WikiProjects_to_Articles KylieTastic (talk) 09:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that settles it - putting a single assessment in the shell is the opposite of a permanent snapshot. My thinking is similar to DoubleGrazing's, except that I assumed the latter (evolving over time in the shell), mostly because {{WikiProject Articles for creation}} is not in Category:Custom class masks of WikiProject banners, which it would have to be for snapshotting to be a thing. Since that and several other things would have to change for the snapshot model to be operational, there doesn't seem to be an impetus for it.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this gets brought up every once in a while. The assessment is more for tracking current status. Personally I would advocate for removing quality rankings for our project - we do not improve articles to a higher standard, so saying that it is a "GA-class AFC article" is somewhat misleading since we're really only tracking how far its come since creation. Primefac (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of any wikiproject banners that take a snapshot. That would be complicated to code, and counterintuitive to how wikiproject banners normally work. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably, the GA/FA Template has a piece on timestamps as to which was the review version. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking more along the lines of WikiProject banners, which inherit their class from the banner shell. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to think I may have misunderstood... I thought each project's rating can be either set to take it from the banner shell, or set to a particular rating value. I had assumed that if it's set to take it from the shell, it will change as the shell rating changes. Whereas (again, I had assumed) if it's set to a particular value, it would remain fixed, unless/until it's manually changed. (This is what I was referring to as 'snapshot'.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That can be done, yes, but only for projects (like MILHIST) that opt in to that functionality. Primefac (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation&oldid=1265059142"