Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Archive 28

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

The article is about the CEO of a $4.5+ billion company. He was recently interviewed in Fortune Magazine and in the technology press. There were several press articles about his appointment and plans with the company written by professional journalists.[1][2][3] I was a little surprised an article on the CEO of a large public company, that is based on quality, reliable sources, would be turned down as not notable, but I know our standards are changing, especially in regards to business topics. So I just thought I would double-check. @Guy Macon: actually suggested moving it to article-space months ago, but I felt it would be better to wait a little while, as more sources would inevitably come out a little later into his term as CEO. Happy to leave it in user space if there's not enough sources - was just surprised is all. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 22:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@CorporateM: This is my own viewpoint, but almost all the coverage is of him stepping into CEO because of the November 2014 issue to the point of being a WP:BLP1E issue. Being that we don't have a deadline to hit a press date, there's nothing wrong with leaving this in draft space until a second or third point independent of the CEO cutover happens. Also, for the readership here, would you care to explain Please note my COI disclosure in regards to his employer. Finally is it wise for a semi-retired editor with a questionable COI to be pushing this after it has been declined twice in the past few days? Hasteur (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

In any case it's best he do so here. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 23:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I said something to a similar effect when it was raised originally, but more recent sources have been published now that are about Rahim and only briefly mention, or don't mention at all, the prior CEO and his controversial departure.[4][5][6] Thanks for taking a look. Didn't mean to upset anyone... David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 01:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello all,

If you find yourself regularly moving user drafts from userspace to the draft namespace, you might be interested to know that the script mentioned here is now finished. You can find the documentation at User:Mr. Stradivarius/gadgets/Draftify. In one click, it allows you to move a user page to the draft namespace, tag it with {{subst:AFC draft}}, and notify the user of the page move. You can also optionally soft-block the user or inform them about changing their username if they have a username that looks like it represents a group or company. Try it out and let me know what you think. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 01:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

It is very, very good and I highly recommend it and declare that Mr. Stradivarius is a very, very clever bunny! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you so much! There's literally tens of thousands of pages out there and a few have actually gone live from all the moves. It'll help a ton! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 November 8, where someone's added a deletion nomination for Category:AfC submissions with missing AfC template. The rationale is basically "I don't think this is being used anymore". I'm not familiar with it, and the same is probably true of most people not involved in this project, so opinions from people here would be quite helpful.

I see that "We have a system....so please do not leave deletion notices on this page", but the "Article Alerts" section of WP:AFC appears to be about AFC-created articles, not project maintenance categories. Nyttend (talk) 23:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I forgot to notify people here. I think its used to be used but the consensus seems to be that draftspace does allow for pages without the AFC template so the category seems counter-productive and useless. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I have recently been getting this notice box, when I sign in. "AFCH error: user not listed AFCH could not be loaded because "EditorASC" is not listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants."

I am not sure what it means or why I keep getting this notice. Can someone explain what it is all about? Thank you, EditorASC (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@EditorASC: Your Username is not listed in the list of Participants, deactivate the script in Preferences > Gadgets, or on your .js page. JMHamo (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know who went on a spree, but nice job folks. A few weeks ago the backlog had crept back up to over 600. Congrats! Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I wonder who does this every month or so... FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed: great work from all the AFCers. Keep it up! —Tom Morris (talk) 10:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It was indeed great work for the person or the group who went on a spree, but actually it was actually still triple digits today. I just 'helped' to make it double digits. =p But anyways, cheers! Vincent60030 (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I need to create a page for velynews.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.58.215.58 (talk) 08:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@41.58.215.58: You can request an article be created at Wikipedia:Requested articles or submit your own draft at Wikipedia:Articles for creation, however I must warn you it'll likely be rejected due to notability reasons. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

So this popped up as my random AFC site and the first thing I notice is the multiple declines and I see it was edited after the most recent decline, but with no addition. I am declining again, but what are we to do with stuff like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Credible_%28website%29# Yossiea ^(talk) 20:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Even worse, the editor left this message at the bottom of the page (as the only edit since the last decline: "Again, the content lays out the facts about the Credible website. I think my initial versions of copyrighted material (which I had not known were copyright under the laws of Wikipedia until CultOfGreen helpfully sent documents to me), has caused a strong bias over getting this article submitted. I am re-submitting, and will continue to do so until it is accepted. Thank you." I think it's legit to leave a comment saying that 1) we are not biased 2) they are wasting our time re-submitting without making the necessary changes 3) continuing to re-submit does not guarantee that the article will be accepted because not all topics are suitable WP articles and 4) this is a final notice -- any more resubmits without substantial changes and the article will be proposed for deletion. LaMona (talk) 02:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps a community AFC ban is appropriate? Do we even have something like that? Yossiea ^(talk) 03:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Else, take it to MFD. If they recreate the article, then it can be salted. I've seen older drafts where people do these kinds of things to get enough edits to post it directly on main and then move on. It's about the behavior, not the content so much. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

MfD for Draft:Kenneth Mahood needs comments from other AfC reviewers. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

This happens when drafts aren't in the AFC WikiProject template on their talk page. There's a number of draft pages at MFD for that reason. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I recently CSDd Draft:The Lost Son (novel) for copyvio of http://www.alibi-books.com/tlsauthorfilm.htm%7Coldid=685220669. The deletion was temporarily deactivated by DragonflySixtyseven, I assume because of requests from the submitter. The creating user has now been harassing me for the past week, after I repeatedly told them why that happened and what their options were. Is there some way of blocking them from my talk page? Thanks for your help, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think you could have handled it better. Yes, there are times when users get angry at us at AfC. But in your first reply to the person, you said: "Do not direct your ignorant claims at me." I would say that was a mistake. From then on, it became name-calling between you. It's hard to hear the anger of others, but the only way to meet it is to give good explanations of what has happened and why. Sometimes users can be really thick. I can, however, understand how someone who has worked hard on an article feels to find it blanked and gone! For copyright violations, what I've seen others do at AfC is to click on the "copyright violation" reason for rejecting the article. If you include an explanation of what site it is copied from, then you and the user can look at it. Given that we don't expect users at AfC to understand the rules (and that often enough they are copying something they themselves wrote because they don't understand COI), the AfC decline acts as a learning point. I'm not even sure that we are obliged to blank copyvios in draft articles -- someone else can speak to that. To de-fuse this, it might be best for the user to take the issue to the AfC help page or the TeaHouse, since the two of you have gotten off on the wrong foot. LaMona (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

If you read the decline template carefully (plus the proper talk page archive), it clearly states where the content was copied from, something which I repeated 5 times consecutively to the user. Also, the degree of harshness was simply responding to his initial aggressive rant posted in my talk page. I've diligently handed over all the explanations and guidance I possibly could, including referrals to the copyright problems talk page, as well as the AfC help desk, obviously providing the links. He/she was also provided with a stay on the article's deletion, after which he was shown how he could access the appropriate diff in order to copy the draft and continue working. However, he resorted to continue his ranting. I simply want them to desist. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@FoCuSandLeArN: You are entitled, should you wish, to express assertively to any editor the fact that they are prohibited from using your talk page. May I please counsel you against it at present? I urge a "walk quietly away from the editor trying not to disturb them" approach for the moment, and I suggest you simply ignore anything they place on your talk page or suggest as a reply that you are asking other editors to handle it.

I do not say this to suggest in any way you have any blame attached to you over this. You offered clarity of explanation, but they were unable to hear you. I say it simply to defuse the situation, and to allow it to become unimportant in your eyes. I've offered the editor my help (on their talk page) and they may accept it. Others have helped in their draft article. Sometimes it takes many different approaches to reach someone. All we can say with any certainty is that, this time, your approach has not reached them. Mine may not, either. If I fail I will not worry. Someone else will succeed, probably. I hope I do, or someone else does. Fiddle Faddle 23:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Tim. I won't interact with them any longer. I leave you with a mind-boggling idea: [7]. Cheers, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 23:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I honestly tried to listen to the man in the video. But I failed. As I said, not everyone can reach everyone else. What a wonderful and unintentional example!

The trick with Wikipedia is to be able to walk away from , or to shed, silliness as though it were rainwater off duck feathers. If more folk walked away from silliness the drama boards would be increasingly empty. I have often wondered if Wikipedia is really about creating an encyclopaedia, or if that is a pleasant byproduct of a great social experiment. Who can say, now? Fiddle Faddle 09:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I have been following this conversation with interest, hoping to learn a few things from other people's experiences, and I have been gladly surprised. I particularly appreciate (@Timtrent:) Fiddle Faddle's colloquy on WP metaphysics. I have wondered the same.Historiador (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

This is becoming clearer on the editor's talk page. I'm not going to rehash it here. Fiddle Faddle 22:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I am now of no further use with this editor. Others are welcome to do better. I am taking my own advice. Fiddle Faddle 21:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Would someone please create this category already? A couple of editors are following me around reverting my valid additions to this category on the grounds it does not exist. 67.0.98.166 (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello 67.0.98.166. As was mentioned when your category request was declined, Category:People diagnosed with dissociative identity disorder already exists and should be sufficient for the articles you are editing. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 21:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Dissociative disorder is a broader concept than dissociative identity disorder, as reflected by the contents of these two categories:

• Category:People diagnosed with dissociative disorder
• Category:People diagnosed with dissociative identity disorder

Also, although the category does not exist it has pre-existing content: pages about people diagnosed with a dissociative disorder other than DID (people such as Agatha Christie and Suzanne Segal). I request that it be created so these pages can be located properly by traversing categories. 67.0.98.166 (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello 67.0.98.166. A concern I had about the proposed Category:People with dissociative disorder category is the lack of the word "diagnosed" in there - we generally want to be precise about the category to avoid editors "assigning" conditions to people (often historical figures) on the basis of something other than a definitive diagnosis. For this reason I have moved entries from Category:People with dissociative identity disorder to Category:People diagnosed with dissociative identity disorder and nominated the former for deletion.

You make a good point about the distinction between dissociative identity disorder and the broader range of Dissociative disorders. I think a category Category:People diagnosed with dissociative disorders, a catch-all category for all persons diagnosed with one of the recognized dissociative disorders would be OK. Would that be satisfactory for you? --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you proposing to make this change systematically? You will be changing all categories "People with..." to "People diagnosed with..."? 67.0.98.166 (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

No. As discussed at Dissociative_identity_disorder#Controversy, there is a lot of controversy regarding DID and how the label should or should not be applied. Such issues do not apply to most other "People with..." categories. Note a category regarding a mental health condition, Category:People with bipolar disorder, is restricted to persons with "documented histories of being diagnosed". In this case, it is my opinion that such a distinction should be made in the category title, though others may disagree. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 17:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

It is the "diagnosed with" that is POV, actually. HIV/AIDS has the same issues, with denialists writing books about how AIDS does not exist, AIDS is not due to a virus, etc. 67.0.98.166 (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

AIDS denialism comes under WP:FRINGE. The controversy regarding traumagenic, iatrogenic and pseudogenic DID (which I, personally, have no opinion on) is discussed in mainstream scientific literature (see Dissociative identity disorder article and e.g. [8]). A medical diagnosis, while quite possibly incorrect, is at least unambiguous that it occurred. Non-medical diagnoses, such as cases of "those who have published books and given interviews on TV" (as you mention in the CfD) are more problematic and declaring such persons to definitely have DID would, to me, appear to be taking a POV on a debate that occurs within mainstream science.

I will add a link to this discussion in the CfD, which will hopefully attract other voices. This'll be my last post on this discussion, at least for a couple of days. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 17:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#People_with_VS_People_diagnosed_with. 67.0.98.166 (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality#Disability, medical, or psychological conditions and Wikipedia:WikiProject Disability/Style guide#Invisible disabilities is also relevant. Basically we need a MEDRS published statement confirming a proper diagnosis before any such category can be applied. Roger (Dodger67) (talk)

What is a sandbox? Can anyone explain me please!BOTFIGHTER (talk) 09:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 21 about Draft:Transactive Energy . There's a question there about what I think is our standard practice. DGG ( talk ) 07:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@DGG: It is our standard practice, and thus we leave a trail of redirects in Draft: space. My first question is whether this matters. My second is to wonder which venue os the correct one to discuss it. AFC does not "control" Draft: space, so it is (probably) not ours to rule on. Those looking at CSD may be the best venue.

The script also notifies the contributing editor about the success of the submission, so, presumably, the redirect loses all importance. The audit trail of attribution travels with the draft to the article, so we do not lose that. Thus, in my view, the redirect is not necessary, except perhaps for a couple of months for courtesy reasons.

I don't think RfD is necessarily the place to discuss it. So where do we take it? Fiddle Faddle 22:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

If the draft creator is an IP the redirect is the only locatable trail from the former draft to the mainspace article - the notification to the IP's talk page effectively disappears if the draft-writer's IP changes. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

39.54.53.40 (talk) 09:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

You didn't make a request. What can we help with? — Earwig ^talk 09:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I feel like I'm wasting a lot of time on articles about companies that will never make the cut -- basically, a lot of promo of small, insignificant companies. However, when declined they keep coming back, since they are motivated. Can we come to some consensus about PRODing these early on? I'm not an admin, or I'd probably just delete many of them out of frustration (maybe that's why it's best I'm not an admin). I'd much rather spend time on articles that have a chance and actually contribute something. So, what do others think? Thanks, LaMona (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

PROD fails in Draft: space (I think!). CSD works as does MFD. I think the existing consensus is that we each use god judgement and decide when to propose a deletion mechanism and which mechanism to propose.

I think we need to give ever better advice that Draft:Crapster.org will never make it as an article because it is unlikely ever to pass WP:CORP in our comments. Fiddle Faddle 16:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Timtrent. I realize now that this fits in with the discussion above on repeated re-submissions. I have given folks the DO NOT RESUBMIT WITHOUT MAKING CHANGES warning, but I have no idea how effective it has been. How plausible is it to add "Submission has not be sufficiently edited since last review" as a reason in the list, and perhaps "Topic unlikely to meet GNG" or something like that, with a couple of those on a draft being a clue to MFD it? I'd like to leave some visible and easy-to-find sign that a draft is coming back uselessly. Plus, I get tired typing this same message repeatedly. LaMona (talk) 02:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The thing to do is to have a set of standard phrases such as those at User:Timtrent/Reviewing which you modify to suit every occasion, and then to pretend that each draft you review is the only task you have done that day. Fiddle Faddle 09:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I can type faster than I can pull up a page, copy, go back to page, paste. So I'd much rather have something right on the page. LaMona (talk) 15:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I've set up a few as keyboard macros. (I use the "text" system preferences panel in OSX, which is faster than any separate macro program I've tried, tho it doesn't do anything fancy) DGG ( talk ) 20:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

If you're using a Mac, TextExpander and the built-in OS X text shortcuts within System Preferences are super convenient. I've got about 7 or 8 form messages set up for reviewing drafts. Makes things a breeze. /wia /tlk 18:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@LaMona: Organizing boilerplates as suggested by Timtrent can be helpful for the situations that you don't encounter every day and tend to forget, as well as those much too common cases of poor layout/bad sourcing/promotional language. Have a look at the examples found at User:Sam Sailor/Boilerplates/AFCreplies. --Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I think we (WPAFC) need to have a substantial conversation with WP:Education program about student drafts being submitted for review as part of class project workflows. Student editors are asking us for help as they are understandably anxious to see their drafts approved quickly as their grade depends on it. However, at AFC we cannot work to deadlines. The time it takes a draft from first submission to acceptance in mainspace is indefinite - if it even happens at all. IMHO submission of student drafts to AFC should not be a requirement of any class projects. AFC submission should only occur after the student's work has already been graded - effectively that means after the class project has ended. To that end I think it would be a good idea if the Educational project banner, that is supposed to be placed on all such drafts, has a parameter to indicate whether the project is active or has ended (active=yes/no). This parameter could possibly be used to inhibit or suspend AFC submission. Setting/clearing the parameter would be the responsibility of the teacher/professor, to indicate that the draft is free to be edited, and even deleted, by the normal WP processes. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

That conversation is happening about a particular project here, but the scope has already widened to be wider that that individual project. We have tripped up recently over several drafts and mainspace articles returned to Draft:. The course instructor is new, though that should not be an issue. There are new instructors all the time. We do need to try to ensure that Wikipedia quality is kept up and that students have a decent experience. Fiddle Faddle 08:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

We have ourselves a bit of a fine mess. Draft:Factors associated with aviation accidents has now twice been moved from draft space to the main space. I've moved it back both times. However the draft was also renamed via copy-paste (edit: Draft:Gender and pilot performance is the old page, the content of which I think was copied into the new draft at issue.) and thus will probably require a histmerge as well. I'm on my phone so it's hard to pull up all the pages/diffs to make a detailed chronology, but most of it should be accessible through the user's contribution history. I'd appreciate some guidance here as the user seems very intent on moving this to the namespace. Timtrent, Dodger67: any ideas? /wia /tlk 13:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Wikiisawesome: If we feel this is urgent and treat it as urgent it will only cause us stress. The students are stressed, too. They are not the bad guys, nor is their course leader, and nor is Wiki Edu. There just seems to be no coherent mechanism that we can see as onlookers for Wiki Edu to guide the paths of the students.

My quiet advice to me and all of us is to treat drafts as drafts,articles as articles, and pay the student status no heed at all.

What we can do is to give input at the education noticeboard Fiddle Faddle 13:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Timtrent This is good advice. On reflection I am probably too involved with this draft, having reviewed it once and moved it twice, so I will allow other reviewers to move forward with the draft. If you feel any of my actions involving the draft were in error, the floor is yours to undo or move the draft back to the article space. Thanks as always, /wia /tlk 13:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikiisawesome I am taking my own advice. I have flagged one for deletion as a copy and paste move and warned the editor, while declining it. I am ignoring the other, since it is labelled "Under review" The students who move items to main namespace must now learn about Wikipedia in the raw. They have a free choice to do so. Fiddle Faddle 13:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Timtrent,Wikiisawesome - I put Draft:Aviation automation into "Under review" limbo in an attempt to put the brakes on while we try to clarify the issue - I have just "released" it, please feel free to deal with it as a "normal" AFC submission per Timtrent's advice above, I'm recusing myself from reviewing it. I believe the root of this issue is that someone at WikiEd has been giving course instructors poorly considered advice - one of the instructors has stated somewhere that WikiEd advised him that getting student work into mainspace early in the process is a "good thing". One of the currently active course workflow/schedules I've seen specifically instructs students to submit their drafts to AFC. I'm afraid folks at WikiEd are misinformed about how AFC works, and doesn't. I propose that, as soon as there is a suitable break in the US academic calendar (of which I'm entirely ignorant) AFC and WikiEd have a concentrated discussion about these issues to resolve them properly - (perhaps with the help of a WMF facilitator?). Meanwhile we need to try to push the student submissions through the system ASAP. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Dodger67: I try very hard not to review a draft more than once. If you have not already may I suggest you remove your comment there about not reviewing it?

I think we are starting to have this conversation now. "We" are WP:AFC. What we need is the folk here in Wiki Edu to understand l a little more about what we do, and then to work out with us how AFC and Edu work best in harmony. Neither of us can work isn isolation

I think their forum, the eEducation Noticeboard, is probably the best one to use since it is a specialist area and meds, really, to be held by interested parties. What we need is a proposal (Ideally from Wiki Edu), a discussion, and, if necessary, supports and opposes, but I hope it will be solved at discussion level. Wiki Edu knows what the course leaders need and what the students nee, and they are volunteers in their own right, too. Fiddle Faddle 18:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey, AFC folks,
I regularly tag empty categories with a CSD C1 tag which causes them to sit around for 4 days, and if they are still empty then, the empty categories are subject to deletion. And I assume I'm not the only editor who checks the database list of empty categories to tag them.
I often see AFC categories that are empty and I have left them alone. But I'd like to ask some editor who is familiar with the AFC process to go through the categories and tag them with {{empty category}} which leaves this message on the category page:

Administrators: Please do not delete this category as empty! This category may be empty occasionally or even most of the time.

Then, editors will know not to tag these categories even if they are empty because they serve an ongoing purpose. If they are categories that you no longer use, I encourage you to tag them {{db-catempty}} and then they will be cleared out from your parent categories. For an editor who is familiar with the AFC process and AFC categories, this task should take a matter of minutes. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Liz - Just went through the categories, and as far as I can tell, they all already have that tag. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Liz None of AFC's "submission sorting" categories are eligible for {{db-catempty}}, AFAIK all that may at times be empty are already tagged with {{empty category}}. Can you give us an example of an empty category that is/was not tagged? There may be such categories "orphaned" from the early days of AFC when the system was still under development. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Miracle in Motown and Draft:Miracle in Motown (2) are both about an American football match. The drafts appear to have been created independently by unconnected editors and both are quite well developed. It would be a shame to accept one and reject the other simply because there are two. In such cases the rejected draft usually simply disappears down the G13 drain - merges of drafts into existing articles seldom actually happen. Would it make sense to contact both authors, inform them about the respective other drafts and ask them to try to merge their drafts into a single submission? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It seems only prudent to do so! I fixed one of the wikilinks in the second draft; I doubt Richard Rodgers would be making many touchdowns these days. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The wording of the template that appears on a draft after it's declined, {{Template:AFC submission/declined}}, is being discussed at Template talk:AFC submission#Wording of Decline Template. APerson (talk!) 16:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I have started editing this page. I hope I am not treading on any one's toes. KardinalCypher (talk) 11:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I am currently working on the Oberea Tripunctata page and would welcome criticism from experienced editors. I hope I am not messing up someone else's work. I will try and find a usable illustration. At the moment I am just working on sharpening up the text. (frass) bothers me slightly and I would appreciate input on the way I have introduced this word in this context.KardinalCypher (talk) 11:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

KardinalCypher, even though this wikiproject is listed on the draft's talk page, for help with the content of the page you probably should ask one of the other two wikiprojects listed there. (Of the two, the Insects wikiproject seems to be marginally more active.) This wikiproject is more of an administrative project, and it deals primarily with the processes of AfC, AFCRD, and FFU. APerson (talk!) 15:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@KardinalCypher: Is there anything in particular you need help with? Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 16:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Back in March 2014, I proposed here that the declining statement for non-notable submissions should be adjusted to more firmly clarify that if no additional third-party, reliable sources can be found, it is likely that the topic may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time, and further editing might be futile. The proposed adjustment was something along the lines of:

This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the general guideline on notability and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If no reliable sources can be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

The proposal, I felt, had consensus to proceed with some form of change along these lines, but interest was lost and apparently this was never carried out. I feel that this is important for editor retention as well—nothing is more discouraging than spending hours drafting and continuing to submit something that can never be accepted, at least without additional real-life coverage. Mz7 (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm in an unstable connection and my lengthy reply just got deleted, but I think we need to ramp up the language for instances where the topic will never reach the notability threshold. We need firm yet flexible language, something along the lines of "No, we'll never accept this draft, but here's a guide on how to edit Wikipedia, we particularly need help with bla bla bla". At present, editors are freely resubmitting 3-8 drafts because the current wording encourages them to do so, given they think simply adding dozens of low-quality citations will move their submission along. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Treat the text I proposed as a starting point for further modification. The goal is to convey the message that no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. And I hate it when that happens—losing your entire edit. Mz7 (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I think I am content with individual reviewers and their use of comments. I use wording such as this:

"We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today."

It's formulaic, and seems to work better than not using it. If folk think it is worth adapting for use then please go ahead. Fiddle Faddle 22:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Right, I've observed quite a few reviewers here make comments clarifying this, which is certainly helpful. However, I've also observed reviews without the additional comment, and this leads to the editor devoting more time to a fruitless endeavor. Thus, I think it should be standardized across all non-notability declines. If I could make a small adjustment though—it is typically more helpful to expand wiki-shorthands (e.g. from WP:RS to "reliable sources") when communicating with newer editors. Mz7 (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, Mz7. I'm not sure my own messages always get that point across. It would certainly be a welcome addition. /wia /tlk 23:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be support to implement stronger wording, so here's an alternative proposal.

This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the general guideline on notability and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If no additional reliable sources can be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

I've taken out the words "What you can do", because there may be cases where there is nothing the editor can do (WP:OVERCOME), and elaborated upon WP:42 as User:Timtrent does in his standard additional comment. Links to WP:SELFPUB and WP:PRIMARY can still be provided on a case-by-case basis. Mz7 (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I added the primary and self pub elements over time to my own portfolio of comments because I had faced criticism for not mentioning them. I simply feel "something should be done" and soon . I support any proposal that achieves that. Fiddle Faddle 23:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I like the removal of the "What you can do" bit; I've seen many instances of draft authors adding way too many absolutely unreliable sources in an attempt to make the article seem notable. Otherwise, the new wording sounds great. APerson (talk!) 23:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks good! I like it too. /wia /tlk 00:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Me too. Like Vincent60030 (talk) 06:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• C Okay, since there appears to be support for this, I have submitted a request at Template talk:AFC submission#Template-protected edit request on 10 December 2015 that the text I suggested here be implemented. Could a passing template editor do this? Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 21:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

It appears the proposed text has been  implemented by Ahecht (talk · contribs). Many thanks to them and all others involved. Mz7 (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Participants here have to know what is notable what what is not. They have to check sources and often help newcomers. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Whether we should tell drafts' authors that the references don't "show" or that they don't "evidence" notability is being discussed at Template talk:AFC submission#Notability decline message wording. APerson (talk!) 17:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

It seems that Scsbot has failed to properly archive the 17 and 18 December sections of the Help Desk. I don't know how to fix it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

WHY? Because you "wikipedia.org" and everyone in the UK, would be offended if "people" (elsewhere around the world: Simply called all of "YOUR titled people, by THEIR commoner's names.?

How's about "we" start with the biggest title that you (UK) people have.?

WHO IS/WAS: LIZ SPENCER

(If no-one actually bothered to use her "official title".. of? THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND).

Thus: USE the correct title, of "other" people of public noteriety .. from elswehere in the world. Re:

[quote] Search results Jump to: navigation, search Result 1 of 1 Everything Advanced

The page "Lieutenant Colonel David Cossgrove - DSO (NZ)" does not exist. You can ask for it to be created, but consider checking the search result below to see whether the topic is already covered.

David Cossgrove [unquote]

Unfortunately --THAT NAME (of: David Cossgrove).. is the: WRONG NAME.

The page which you "DO HAVE" (shown above) is factually and thus totally: INCORRECTLY TITLED:

THAT IS NOT THE CORRECT TITLE FOR THAT VERY RESPECTED PUBLIC FIGURE. USE THE CORRECT FULL TITLE OF:

Lieutenant Colonel David Cossgrove - DSO (NZ)

Or you could potentially lose the copyright &/or moral righ: To display MY fully copyright protected "picture" of my own RIGHT (maternal = "direct blood line lineage descendant"): To have the entity known as MY GREAT GRAND-DAD "correctly" NAMED.

Re: https://www.facebook.com/Lieutenant-Colonel-David-Cossgrove-DSO-NZ-165956883481479/

115.188.63.11 (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Article titles. We use the official names and not titles. If President Bill Clinton is good enough to be Bill Clinton, then your great grand-dad should be good enough for his own name alone. If his descendant demands no less than the article go against the core principles behind the 5 million other articles here to allow us to talk about him, then we're better off without the copyrighted picture. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

As you clearly did not take the photograph yourself, you do not own the copyright to it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe File:Lieutenant Colonel David Cossgrove DSO (with his medals) 1910.jpg is the photograph is discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Please note that this IP user has been blocked as a self-confessed sockpuppet. BMK (talk) 02:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

There's been an influx of redirect requests at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects as of late. If you are interested in helping out there, there are two scripts—PhantomTech's AFC script and the AFCH beta script—that you can use to semi-automate the process. Thanks, /wia🎄/tlk 14:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Those with an interest in the topic, especially those who have reviewed this in the past, may be interested in reading or commenting at this discussion. Fiddle Faddle 13:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)