Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:AFC)
    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
    ~6 weeks
    1,138 pending submissions
    Purge to update
    Shortcut


    Skip to top
    Skip to bottom

    AFC backlog

    [edit]
    AFC unreviewed article statistics as of October 21, 2024


    AfC-tailored Welcome template

    [edit]

    Hey folks - I'm looking to get some feedback on potentially introducing a new welcome template specifically tailored to AfC submitters who have already begun creating draft articles. I created User:Liance/s/afcwelcome around 3-4 months ago after noticing the lack of a welcome message suitable for users who have already gone through the process of creating a draft, but still may need help with getting it suitable for mainspace. I've been reviewing drafts at AfC for several years now and included links to resources which I've found have been most helpful to submitters from experience.

    AfC welcome message
    Thanks for creating a draft!

    Hello WELCOMEUSER, welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Liance, and I've been editing here for a while. I wanted to thank you for submitting Draft:Sample to WikiProject Articles for Creation and helping to grow the encyclopedia! We appreciate your contributions and hope you stick around. I can see you've already started writing draft articles, so here are a few more resources that might be helpful:

    I highly recommend visiting The Teahouse if you are unsure about anything Wiki related. It's a place where experienced editors answer questions and assist newcomers in the editing process. In addition, please do not hesitate to reach out on my talk page if you have any specific questions. Once again, welcome! I hope you enjoy your time here.

    In using this template over the past several months I've seen very good rates of engagement from recipients (far above what I usually get with welcome templates) and users have let me know that the resources have been helpful. I've started leaving the welcome message almost always prior to declining with AFCH in hopes that submitters don't get discouraged.

    With encouragement from S0091 I wanted to post the template here to gather any feedback other reviewers might have regarding the template, and am hoping that it could be more widely adopted by AfC reviewers. Eventually I'd also like to see an option added to AFCH to leave the welcome message prior to a decline to soften the blow new editors might get after their hard work is denied. Any feedback or suggestions are appreciated! Best, ~Liancetalk 20:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Another wonderful idea - unfortunately I'm not entirely sure how the process for that works, likely we'd have to contact a Twinkle maintainer? ~Liancetalk 20:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liance Once we have a consensus, that is the route. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When you're ready to have it added to Twinkle, you can make a ticket on GitHub or post at WT:TWINKLE to start the process. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconding. -- asilvering (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thirding that looks really friendly and useful. Theroadislong (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I like the template also and will prefer that it'd be navigated easily through the AFC accept and decline buttons just as the TeaHouse invitation check box, which can be auto-unchecked if it already exist. It's good especially when we usually have new unwelcomed users submit drafts daily. Cheers! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 21:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's kind of what I was thinking, Safari. Either replace the current 'hook on' that invites the User to the Teahouse or an additional one. One step at a time, though. Thanks for creating it @Liance! S0091 (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, also seconding the replace the Teahouse template idea. -- asilvering (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely a +1 from me, this is pretty much what I envisioned as well. If it'd be possible to slip the welcome message in before the draft accept/decline one is left, that would be best. ~Liancetalk 16:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I like the template, it's friendly and welcoming, and conveys many important points succinctly. The one thing I would like to see is making it even clearer when to go to the Teahouse vs. the AfC help desk (general editing questions vs. questions specifically about the review process). We don't get so many general questions at the HD (although we do get some occasionally), but I often see questions at the Teahouse which (I think) would be better asked at the HD. And perhaps also make in this context the point that they should ask at either one venue or the other, not that they post the same question in quick succession at both (and then the general help desk, and the reviewer's talk page, and...). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe take out the manual of style link to reduce information overload, or replace it with a link to MoS/Layout, which might be more immediately useful to a new user (to know what the bones and structure of a Wikipedia article is supposed to look like) –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's probably more confusing to be directed to a specific part of the MOS than the main MOS page. -- asilvering (talk) 22:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think many Welcome messages use WP:Simplified Manual of Style for a starter. S0091 (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That does not look good... it has over 10 links too "read more ..." on the actual MOS that are broken. KylieTastic (talk) 14:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a mess! It looks like at some point the shortcuts used were deleted. And what's worse is according to this edit summary it is also being used in the Growth Help panel. The other option is Help:Introduction to the Manual of Style/1. S0091 (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have fixed it. MOS: recently became a namespace, which broke all the MOS:#section links. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Qwerfjkl! I didn't know MOS had not been a namespace. S0091 (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a pseudo namespace before, like CAT:. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're curious why it was changed, see m:Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Mooré. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Revised version

    [edit]

    I got around to making a revised version of the template (User:Liance/s/afcwelcomerevision2), specifically implementing the suggestions about making it clearer where to ask questions and linking to the simplified MOS. This version also has a named parameter for the linked article to conform to other welcome templates (hopefully making Twinkle implementation easier).

    Revised ver.
    Thanks for creating a draft!

    Hello Example, welcome to Wikipedia! I wanted to thank you for submitting Draft:Example to Articles for creation and helping to grow the encyclopedia. We appreciate your contributions and hope you stick around. I can see you've already started writing draft articles, so here are a few more resources that might be helpful:

    If you have general editing questions, the Teahouse is where you can seek help from experienced editors. Questions about the draft creation and publishing process should be directed to the Articles for creation Help Desk instead, where you can get assistance directly from reviewers. Don't hesitate to reach out on my talk page if you have any specific questions. Once again, welcome - I hope you enjoy your time here! ~Liancetalk 17:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If we think this is a good starting point I can go ahead and move it to the Template namespace and submit requests for AFCH/Twinkle integration. Thanks all!! ~Liancetalk 17:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks again for creating this! -- asilvering (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Published as Template:Welcome draft and submitted a request at WT:TWINKLE to add it to the welcome menu. @Novem Linguae, apologies for the ping, but I'd like to move forward with getting this added to AFCH (with implementation as proposed above), would appreciate some next steps as I don't have a Github account right now! Thanks, ~Liancetalk 16:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liance. What's the exact change being requested in AFCH here? –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As suggested by SafariScribe and seconded by some other editors, a checkbox with functionality similar to the Teahouse invite option currently implemented in AFCH that would leave the welcome template above the AfC accept/decline message would be fantastic. Welcome message should only be left if the user has not been welcomed by another editor yet. ~Liancetalk 16:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Tracked in github.com
    Issue #386
    Should User:Liance/s/afcwelcomerevision2 be moved to template space and use the standard welcome template format, e.g. Template:Welcome-afc or similar? –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This was already done – it's now at {{welcome draft}}. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for making this, Liance. I think it's a good idea; it seems likely to improve editor retention. My one concern is "We appreciate your contributions"; if the AfC then gets declined, I'm worried it could come off as insincere ("we appreciate the contribs we rejected"). Perhaps something similar like "We're glad you've decided to contribute" instead?
    A param for human-written or at least human-chosen comments about their contributions would be good, because personal responses are always nicer than bot messages and also seem to get a better response from new users. New users actually seem to respond well to negative personal feedback, as long as it's constructive; they take it as praise ("they wouldn't want me to improve them if my edits weren't somewhat useful") and are more likely to stick around. Yes, I wrote a lot of that essay I linked. HLHJ (talk) 02:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers § Authentication is now required for search engine checks on Earwig's Copyvio Tool

    [edit]

     You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers § Authentication is now required for search engine checks on Earwig's Copyvio Tool. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Student projects

    [edit]

    I've just reviewed three drafts (Draft:Dependence of Thermal and Hydrodynamic Boundary Layers on Prandtl Number, Draft:Scale Analysis of Air and Water Interaction in Urban Drainage Systems, and User:Vinny0001/sandbox), all written as research papers. Two of them gave the names of the editors, in both cases a group of students from IIT (BHU) Varanasi; I assume the third was likewise.

    I rejected all as OR. Anyone have contrary views? And should I do something about these? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Another few: Draft:Scale Analysis on Phase Change Process., User:Im chirag18/sandbox, User:CognifyEdits/sandbox; again, all are from teams at IIT Varanasi. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Same with four of my recent declines: Draft:Dependence of Boundary Layer on Rayleigh Number, Draft:Scale analysis for Couette Flow and between one fixed and one moving plate, User:Sahilsingh0/sandbox and Draft:Scale Analysis of Viscous Rotational Flow. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've brought this discussion to the attention of Wikipedia:Education noticeboard. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a few {{subst:Welcome student}} templates to user talk pages. Will see if I get any response. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheers. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a few more of these, if you search drafts for "article prepared by". Wikishovel (talk) 14:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Draft:Scale analysis of natural convection in tall enclosures
    Draft:Scale Analysis of External Natural Convection
    Draft:Scale Analysis of Flow Through a Woven Mesh
    User:Mk21134018/sandbox
    -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are these actually presenting new ideas that have never been previously published? If not, then it's not OR. OR==no source has ever published that before. In my experience, that is very uncommon for undergraduates to come up with completely novel ideas. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SYN is a form of original research, though.
    I've just rejected User:Transport phenomenon 45/sandbox and User:AnjaliChaudhary2/sandbox. --bonadea contributions talk 18:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think what I'm going to do is ping them all at Wikipedia:Education noticeboard#IIT Varanasi and see if one of them will explain what they're doing. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Curb Safe Charmer Please add User:Aditya gupta456/sandbox to your list 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOTESSAY is policy. SerialNumber54129 09:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      WAID is correct that undergraduates rarely make an original cntribution—it's effectively impossible for them to do so—but the converse of this is that most of what they write is summarising/picked out from established academic authors on a reading list. these, we usually call reliable secondary sources. So if it's possible, they should be able to go back and source most of what they have written, or insert inline citations where they have listed sources. In fact it's odd that they are allowed to submit unsourced papers, but maybe that reflects the philosphy (ahem) of their institution. SerialNumber54129

    Invitation to WikiProject Council

    [edit]

    The Wikipedia:WikiProject Council is a group that talks about how to organize and support WikiProjects. If you are interested in helping WikiProjects, please put that page on your watchlist and join the discussions there. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wizard puts banners outside the banner shell

    [edit]
    Tracked in github.com
    Issue #1

    I've noticed quite a few edits like this where the AfC wizard is putting project banners outside the banner shell — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    SD0001, I think you'll be best to troubleshoot this, since you wrote it originally (also noting this is the submission wizard and not AFCH). Primefac (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    AfC wizard always puts banners outside the shell (issue #1). The fix for it is rather complicated. – SD0001 (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is problematic if a script is editing outside of expected norms. It should really be fixed or withdrawn — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a minor format issue, on talk pages, in draft space that would be fixed if accepted via AFCH. Also if I remember correctly a bot will get around to fixing any issues. If you junked the wizard you get more problems including more people putting what they want on the talk page which is very unlikely to follow your "expected norms". Hopefully someone will fix, but as far as I can see it has almost zero affect on main-space articles and then only on talk pages, so to suggest it should be withdrawn and remove the benefits of the wizard for the sake of a rare, temporary issue only in draft makes no sense. KylieTastic (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It should not be possible for an IP or a newly-created account to make a drive-by submission of a draft that they have never worked on.

    [edit]

    I have seen this happen on several occasions, almost always with drafts that are clearly not ready (sometimes my own drafts in progress), and it is irritating. When new accounts do this, it often seems from their later edits that they are here to do paid editing and just getting a little artificial credibility under their belts by submitting drafts, as if they have some authority to do so. It is also irritating to me that as the creator of a draft, I get no notification when such a submission takes place, as I would for the deletion of the draft. BD2412 T 15:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    So revert it when you see it? There's nothing that says submitted drafts must be reviewed or that pointy draft submissions cannot be un-submitted. As far as notifications go, put the page on your watchlist? Primefac (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My drafts are on my watchlist—but so are 8,000 other pages. A talk page notice would have provided a nice and immediate yellow flag. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I quite agree. This hardly ever happens bona fide, so it's usually a red flag for something dodgy going on. In fact, some sock farms routinely do it (eg. Isuzu.tf), so I guess on a positive note it helps to identify them. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately a lot of these I've seen do not use the wizard to submit but add the template themselves, so it would need a friendly bot operator to look for these and revert. However I also see that those that defend the anyone can edit mantra would strongly disagree. If a bot operator wanted to see if they could get approval why not give it a go. A backup option is reverting such submissions is to unpalatable for some would maybe to post an alert on the creators talk page that it had happened pointing out they can just revert if they are still working on it and disagree. KylieTastic (talk) 21:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Submitting involves changing template values, so would need to be detected with a bot, which is a little complicated. Also the consequences of submitting something early is pretty much zero, since the worst that happens is it gets declined and can be resubmitted again when ready. Seems like something that is annoying but might be a lot of effort to "fix". –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    Nominating Drafts for MFD

    [edit]

    I would like to verify that we, the AFC reviewers, are aware that drafts should only be nominated for deletion at MFD when there is tendentious resubmission or other conduct issues. Drafts are sometimes nominated for deletion at MFD for lack of notability. They are usually Kept, and the regular editors at MFD cite drafts are not reviewed for notability. I sometimes wonder who is looking at drafts and nominating them for deletion, because AFC reviewers should know that nominating the draft for MFD should only be done for reasons of conduct. Within the past 48 hours, a draft was nominated for deletion at MFD by an AFC reviewer. The nomination was then withdrawn as a mistake by the reviewer, but I would like to verify that the instructions for AFC reviewers are clear that drafts should only be nominated for deletion under rare circumstances, not including a lack of notability.

    Having just reread the AFC Reviewing Instructions, I see that they do not mention nominating the draft for deletion, which is all right, but maybe they should list the extraordinary circumstances in which a reviewer should either nominate the draft for deletion or consult with other reviewers about nominating it for deletion. I also see that the reviewing instructions do not refer to rejection. Perhaps that was not included in the reviewing instructions when the option to reject was added. Maybe it should be added. Reviewers should know, and most of them do, that rejection is available but should only be used in rare circumstances, and that nomination for deletion should only be used in even rarer circumstances. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a small note before I head out for the night: rejection is mentioned at the bottom of the page (see here). I do agree it might be worth adding a sentence, pointer, or brief mention (with section link) in the "Workflow" section to increase the chances of it being read. Probably worth mentioning MfD in there somewhere as well. Primefac (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    AFCH tags

    [edit]
    Tracked in github.com
    Issue #320

    How much work would it be to make AFCH use tags instead of just appending "(AFCH)" to the edit summary? I recently came across this where a sock used a fake edit summary imitating AFCH's when moving a draft to mainspace. It might be more obvious when this happens if tags are used. Or maybe an edit filter could prevent this altogether? C F A 💬 01:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You beat me to it, I was going to suggest the same thing. I thought we had tried this before, good to see I wasn't going crazy. Primefac (talk) 10:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Rolling sleeves up. I was wondering about it too, but it wasnt urgent... – robertsky (talk) 12:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. I cross-posted to Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested § New tag for WP:AFCH as I was hitting a wall (and had to, you know, do some real-life work). Primefac (talk) 12:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Blacklisted or Salted Titles

    [edit]

    In re-reviewing the AFC Reviewing Instructions, there are two paragraphs in a collapsed section with which I disagree. They are almost correct, but they omit an important detail, and so are problematic. Most of Step 4, on Accepting a Submission, is collapsed. It includes a section on If you cannot publish the draft. The case of a blocking redirect is correctly described, in that the reviewer should tag the blocking redirect with {{db-afc-move}}, which is a specialized G6. Yes.

    However, the other two cases listed are where the title is on the Title blacklist, or if the title is fully protected (salted) against re-creation. It says, in the first case, to request a Technical Move, and, in the second case, to request Page Unprotection. No. Those are sometimes the right next steps, but the reviewer should first research the history of the title, and determine why it has been either blacklisted or salted. If the reviewer is not sure of the reasons or the history, the reviewer should consult with other reviewers, here, at this AFC talk page, and ask why the title is blacklisted or salted. It is true that the admin who is reviewing the page move request or the unprotection request should also research the history, but it is best not to waste their time, and possibly annoy them if the reviewing admin is one who expects requesters to have done the research. If, after research or consultation, you are reasonably sure that the draft has addressed the issues that resulted in the blacklisting or salting, then you should request a technical move or an unprotection.

    The reviewing instructions should say to research the reasons why the title was salted or blacklisted, and only request action if you have reason to think that the draft addresses the previous issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sounds reasonable. Primefac (talk) 10:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Misleading decline message

    [edit]

    @Maproom has commented on a post at the Teahouse:

    This happens so often. A reviewer declines a draft with the words "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources" or the like, intended to mean "there aren't enough good references". But the submitter reads it as "there aren't enough references", and adds many more references, often of even lower quality than the ones that were there already. I used to think that the submitters were trying to disguise the lack of good references by putting up a smokescreen of garbage. I now realise that the submitter is acting in good faith, but the templates "not adequately supported" are misleading, and should be rewritten

    .

    @Nick Moyes has agreed, and I also agree strongly; but I think this is a better place for the discussion, so I'm moving it here. I see a further issue beside the one Maproom pointed out: that the message mentions "reliable sources", but doesn't mention "independent" sources. Often, as Maproom says, people add poor references to reliable sources and feel justifiably aggrieved when those aren't successful. I realise that the message has to have a degree of concision, but I think we would reduce the pain for both submitters and reviewers if we find a way to improve the message. ColinFine (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree, and have raised this here before, that the decline reason v - Submission is improperly sourced (= "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources...") can be ambiguous. It can mean the sources are not reliable, or the draft isn't adequately supported by them (as in, a lot of unreferenced content), or even that the sources don't actually verify the information they're cited against. That's why I try to (not always succeeding) remember to include a clarifying comment with the decline, if declining only for this reason.
    Mind you, sometimes it's pretty clear-cut, eg. when the draft is completely unreferenced, or only cites Twitter etc. as its sources.
    Feel free to suggest a better wording. ;) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Context note: this is about Draft:John James (businessman and philanthropist) and both times the reviewers did not rely on the template but added that "claims are unsourced". The first decline also used 'bio' so included the need for "significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". I think it's an assumption that the submitter read "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources" and read it as "there aren't enough references", they may have just read "Most claims are unsourced" and "Many claims are still unsourced" and thought they had to add more as that is what was requested. As has come up many times articles should not be declined if notable just for having parts unsourced - those issues should be tagged or removed as appropriate. Also ColinFine and Maproom feel free suggest any changes to Template:AfC submission/comments to make them better - especially 'v' that has been discussed before as bad to use alone and often used incorrectly. Lots of those decline reasons can/should be improved, the best improvements I think have been to 'nn' and 'org' when we added clear bullet lists of the requirements but still many never read and ask the reviewer, the AfC Help desk, Teahouse etc. I've never liked that wording, but no one has yet suggested wording that has got agreement... maybe this time.... KylieTastic (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If people get a boilerplate decline and further comments indicating issues that clarify the boilerplate, and are still somehow confused, we can't really help that or fix stupid... (this is not to say we shouldn't work to make our decline 'plates as clear as possible, this is just snark about people who don't pay attention) Primefac (talk) 10:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a bit more charitable than that. The concept of getting significant coverage in reliable sources doesn't appear to be intuitive, and is a result of trying to write a new article before improving an existing one. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I hardly ever use v on it's own as a decline, but maybe merge it with ilc now that that doesn't mention BLP any more? Or I suppose just explicitly mention something like however, excessive citations (for example, more than 2 or 3 in a single place) is rarely helpful. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think ilc still mentions BLP – see Special:Diff/1252918105, for example. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In the edit summary, true, but I'm not sure how many of the people we'd complain about would be reading that. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The template language should mention that the quality of the sources is vastly more important than the quantity, and that the only sources that help establish notability are those that are reliable and that are independent of the topic, and that devote significant coverage to the topic. If I had a dime for every time I have explained those basic concepts at the Teahouse or the Help Desk or at WP:AFCHD, I could take my wife out to dinner at a Michelin-starred restaurant. Cullen328 (talk) 08:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    What's the matter with major internet personalities rarely meeting notability?

    [edit]

    Consider e.g. the fairly well-known Draft:Patrick Bet-David, Draft:Brandon Herrera or Draft:J.J. McCullough.

    If you compare this to the requirements under WP:ACADEMIC - remembering that millions of people watch these peoples' channels - the standards here, frankly, seem laughable. What could be done to fast-track such cases? Biohistorian15 (talk) 08:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, Herrera would have been accepted had he actually won the election, but otherwise? Find three good sources. They would be reviewed faster if they are absolutely unimpeachable on all four of the criteria. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ACADEMIC is purposefully very generous. I think the goal when creating that was to make sure that we squeezed in some academics into the encyclopedia, instead of just all soccer players. Internet personalities do seem to have a lot of trouble meeting WP:GNG. The fairness of the various WP:SNG notability guidelines might better be discussed at WT:N. Although the trend lately has been to get stricter, not looser. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Subscriber figures/viewership aren't accurate indicators of notability and can be gamed. That's at least part of why those aren't hard notability criteria. It's possible for someone with 5 viewers to be notable, and someone with 5 million to not be notable. It depends on the coverage in independent sources. Someone with 5 million viewers may be more likely to draw coverage, but it's not a guarantee. 331dot (talk) 09:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Back in 2007 as a new AfC reviewer who came across a lot of articles about social media personalities I felt there should be guidance on notability of such people. I started an essay to document my findings on policy and consensus around YouTubers, having trawled through hundreds of AfDs. I later moved it to WP:NYOUTUBE. I didn't keep the list up to date, but I suspect the pattern still holds. Given the impact of YouTube on how many people access entertainment, I think the Wikipedia community's distaste for YouTuber bios seems out of step. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Oldest unreviewed draft is 6 weeks old

    [edit]

    I noticed an unusual yellow color at the top of this page, and when I went to investigate, I notice our "oldest draft" color scale had turned from red to yellow, indicating the oldest unreviewed draft is only 6 weeks old. Nice work team :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Only five drafts left in Category:AfC pending submissions by age/6 weeks ago today :) Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation&oldid=1253256526"