Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation

(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:AFCRC)
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, Sorting, Feed
ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject
Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives

Welcome—discuss matters concerning this project!
AfC submissions
Random submission
2+ months
2,396 pending submissions
Purge to update


Skip to top
Skip to bottom

AfC unreviewed draft statistics as of February 17, 2025


Discussion at WP:VPI § Adding a TLDR section for AFC submissions

edit

  You are invited to join the discussion at WP:VPI § Adding a TLDR section for AFC submissions, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Sohom (talk) 02:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

ilc decline

edit

Just a gentle note/reminder to reviewers that ilc as a decline, by itself, should be used exceedingly rarely. I have seen it now multiple times in the last few days, one of which I outright reverted because there were two unsourced sentences. I know that BLPs require sources and proper referencing, but unless it's a huge draft with no inline citations (i.e. it's not trivial to match source to content) ilc should be used sparingly, or in combination with other "bigger" decline reasons. Primefac (talk) 11:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

WikiProject templates.json

edit

Hi there! I have a quick concern regarding the WikiProjects listed at WikiProject templates.json. At present, this list includes WP:Indigenous peoples of North America/Anishinaabe, which appears to be creating redlinked templates. WP:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Anishinaabe exists, but it seems that the WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America template has a checkbox for Anishinaabe. I hope that's clear. Let me know if you have any follow questions. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Significa liberdade, If there is a project listed that is incorrect you need to edit (or file an edit request) to add it to the blocklist in the config Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/WikiProject templates.json/config.json. Then the bot will remove it next run. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 11:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Will do. Thanks, KylieTastic. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Medtronic

edit

Product Name/ Model No. med. LAD M721123B001 Rev 1B 3576 Unocal Place Santa Rosa. CA> 95405 USA 2601:5C3:300:9D0:ED26:C24C:4A81:1C25 (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, this is not the correct place to submit new drafts. For that purpose, follow the steps listed at WP:AfC. Ca talk to me! 23:52, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Draft:House of Roche

edit

Anyone interested in reviewing Draft:House of Roche? It's sat in the draft space, possibly abandoned, for a few months, until an IP came and submitted it. Guliolopez has been wrangling with it, discovering a lot of silly claims and bogus sources, and seems to think it a hoax; I tend to agree. G3 speedy was declined, though, and probably rightly so, because it's not entirely obvious. Could indeed be an elaborate hoax, could also be AI-generated pile of hallucinated garbage but with a modicum of truth mixed in, could be fish, could be fowl. Either way, with 70K bytes (down from 93K!) and 100 cites, there's a lot to sift through to get to the bottom of it! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the ping @DoubleGrazing. I've gone through the sources. And removed the most obvious nonsense. Including that which sought to connect the named family to characters The Matrix movies, King Arthur, Mary Magdalene, etc. (where the "sources" used did not come even remotely close to supporting the text. Like this article in the "Film-Philosophy" journal which doesn't even mention the fictional character named in the section - not to mind the Roche family or its supposed lines of ancestry.)
Same goes for the bizarre claim that "United Nations [..] support aids in ensuring that [..the cultural history of..] the House of Roche, remains preserved, respected, and understood on a global level". When there are no sources at all (and certainly not the page of the book linked in that section) to support this OR/SYNTH nonsense.
The content in the sections towards the end (which appear to cover members of the "House of Roche" in the 13th to 20th centuries) is very clearly the output of a ChatGPT/LLM prompt. It couldn't be more obvious if was labelled as such.
Anyway - Yes, there were several "landed" families in Ireland named Roche. Of Norman descent. As covered in the Roche (surname) and Roche baronets and Roche family articles/cats. However, the text of the proposed draft (which seeks to tie them all together and connect them with everyone from Mary Magdalene through to the Wachowskis) is almost all just LLM-generated nonsense. Much of which copies/pastes/replicates content from other articles on people who happen to be named "Roche".
I was planning to open an WP:MFD thread (so that mine would be the only time wasted, and members of the AfC community wouldn't also spend time reviewing such a silly draft). But I didn't get around to it yesterday....
Suffice to say that, at best, that draft is beyond fixing and, if such a title is to be created, it would be better to do so from scratch. Guliolopez (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Israel Palestine drafts discussion

edit

The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee#What are the rules on article creation through AfC for Israel/Palestine articles? goes over the rules for accepting drafts about Israel Palestine by editors with less than 500 edits, and may be good to learn more about. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Bluey (TV series)

edit

I think I know the answer, but I will ask to see if anyone has any other comments. I declined Draft:Bluey series 1 and Draft:Bluey series 3 because they are portions of List of Bluey episodes, and said that there should be discussion at Talk:List of Bluey episodes about whether to split the list of episodes into articles for each series. I said that there had been discussion, but that there had not been consensus to split, or to create sub-articles. I also advised the requesting IP that it is difficult to communicate with a shifting IP address, and that they should register an account. Does anyone have anything to add or subtract? The IP has now asked me: When will there be consensus that separate season pages of Bluey are needed?. I think that I should suggest that they read the guideline on consensus. Do other editors here agree that I can reasonably decline the season articles until there is some sort of discussion and rough consensus? Do other editors here agree that in this case silence at the talk page is not consensus? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

WP:TV has some really specific guidelines about this so you should cross-post there to get their opinion on the matter. Primefac (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, User:Primefac - You have also provided guidance on a question that I wasn't asking, which has to do with a dispute at DRN about the formatting of a table listing episodes of a TV series. I have posted queries to the television project about both matters. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Deny potentially CTOP enforcement-violating material and nominate it for G5 speedy deletion?

edit

I initially came across Draft:Higher Education Scholarships for Palestinians, thought nothing of it and moved on. However, when the article got draftified and was re-submitted at AfC, I took a second look and found out that the page creator isn't EC. Should I, as proposed above, deny the submission and nominate it for speedy deletion? — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/it/other neostalkedits) 20:08, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Under what criteria? This seems entirely related to Palestine and education; PIA is not "anything related to Palestine" it is "anything related to the Arab/Israel conflict". Primefac (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Primefac, makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/it/other neostalkedits) 23:21, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Discussion about move protecting articles at AfD

edit

Thought folks here may be interesrested in the above, which I started and please feel free to fix this formatting, I got stuck in templates Star Mississippi 14:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Extended-confirmed restriction as an AfC decline reason?, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:18, 17 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

This talk page might be a better spot for this. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Good point, I put it at VPI as I still felt it should be workshopped rather than discussed as a finished proposal, but it can go here too! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
 – Per request here, more appropriate venue.

I've recently declined Draft:The Special Operations Division (Mem-Mem) at Wikipedia:Articles for creation, and I realized that there isn't yet a decline reason for "this topic is under an extended-confirmed restriction". Since it's been recently made explicit that drafts in relevant contentious topics did also fall under EC restrictions, should there be one? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:26, 17 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't oppose adding one, but there's also the "EC'd users may take responsibility for publishing an article/edits under the EC restriction" thing which reviewers could use to accept such drafts, if that's the only reason preventing things. One could accept and immediately move for EC protection. The EC restriction is to prevent clueless editors from voluminous disruption, and if a draft is good enough to be accepted and run under the EC'd scrutiny of a reviewer, methinks it should be accepted. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Agreed. I think if a reviewer is willing to accept responsibility for the draft, they can do so; declining a draft purely because the creator isn't ExCon is not something I would support. Primefac (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
True, I'm not saying drafts should be declined purely for this reason. But there is definitely a category of drafts that would not be endorsed by an EC editor in part due to the higher standards in CTOPs, but yet might not directly fall under one of the other decline criteria, which is where pointing out the EC restriction might be a good thing.
I see a lot of drafts which are not perfect, but would definitely survive AfD, so I'm okay with publishing them. But, in a CTOP area, I don't think I'd want to take responsibility for them, and that's where this decline reason comes into play. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Also agree. In that sense it's not that different from a paid editor situation. They aren't allowed to publish directly because of their COI, but are allowed to create a draft and put it through AfC. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
It's quite different, as ArbCom explicitly clarified not long ago that creating drafts and sending them to AfC was an ECR violation. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:49, 18 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Script issue with AfC headers?

edit

Hi! I noticed a few like this where AfC Helper didn't fully remove all of the headers. It was only when I saw it happen again that I realized it wasn't a one off glitch. @SafariScribe has seen it too and asked me to raise. Any thoughts? Thanks! Star Mississippi 13:32, 19 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Search the archives, it's a known issue, most likely client-side from someone switching away/closing the window too soon (DGG was notoriously bad for having this issue). We've never found a server-side reason for it to be happening. Primefac (talk) 13:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
thank you! Not sure why it didn't come up. Star Mississippi 14:03, 21 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

AfC submissions by date category/archive - some strangeness

edit

Hi there! Sorry about the lack of a descriptive title, I couldn't figure out how to describe this briefly enough.

I was looking through some older AfC submissions by date (for example Category:AfC submissions by date/06 July 2022) and noticed that the Category talk article for a date 3 days afterwards was included in the list (Category_talk:AfC_submissions_by_date/09_July_2022). Finding the date mismatch strange, I clicked on that page (for 9th July 2022) and sure enough it has the category for 6th July 2022. In a reverse fashion to the previous example, I tried a bunch of Category talk: AfC submissions by date pages and a lot of them had the same, for example Category_talk:AfC_submissions_by_date/05_February_2022 is part of category Category:AfC submissions by date/02 February 2022. Category:AfC submissions by date/06 July 2022 Category:AfC submissions by date/02 February 2022

In other words:

- for a significant period of time (perhaps years? I'm not sure how many pages are affected or for what period exactly, maybe someone can identify them with some scripting/automation), but at least the chunks of 2022 and 2021 I checked

- for any specific date (day + month + year) which I shall refer to as X

- the "Category_talk:AfC_submissions_by_date/<X>" page is a member of "Category:AfC_submissions_by_date/<X minus 3 days>"

- I am assuming that the page should actually be a member of "Category_talk:AfC_submissions_by_date/<X>"


I'm asking here in case there's some reason for this that I was unaware of, or maybe it's actually incorrect. Either way, perhaps someone would like to investigate it, and if it's definitely a mistake, maybe an editor who runs automated stuff could fix it. Admittedly, it is very minor, but it confused me.

Kind regards and I hope everyone has a wonderful Friday! :) B4shful (talk) 07:45, 21 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

The short answer is that the wrong banner was added, it should be {{WikiProject Articles for creation (admin)}}, and when the wrong banner was added the bot (correctly) added a timestamp per its rules (cats are created three days in advance). I'll spin through and see about updating them all. Primefac (talk) 14:34, 21 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
After thinking about it (and prepping to clean up the 4k+ categories where this is an issue) I think deletion is more appropriate for these talk pages; they are already in the category tree and I'm not really sure that we need the talk pages cluttering up the (admin) category (Category:Category-Class AfC project pages). I'll leave this for comment/review but if not I'll delete these talk pages at the end of the day. Primefac (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Glitch in Template:AfC statistics/accepted

edit

Template:AfC statistics/accepted seems to have the 5-year-old article "Sam Orlando Miller" permanently listed. Is that just a glitch? Is it ok to delete it manually? (There is a caution in a hidden comment at the top of the page.) I have already asked at User talk:The Earwig#Template:AfC statistics/accepted without getting a response. Nurg (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)Reply