View source for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation

{{/header}}
{{central|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation}}
{{WPAFC/project}}
{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Signpost article link for WikiProjects|link=Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-12-24/WikiProject report|day=24|month=December|year=2018}}
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/ArchiveBox}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo=old(20d)
| archive=Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Archive %(counter)d
| counter=54
| maxarchivesize=300K
| archiveheader={{Talk archive navigation}}{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/ArchiveBox}}
| minthreadsleft=6
}}<!--

DO NOT EDIT ABOVE THIS LINE --><!-- DO NOT EDIT ABOVE THIS LINE --><!-- DO NOT EDIT ABOVE THIS LINE --><!--

NEW SECTIONS GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE 

-->

== Chart: Pending AfC submissions ==
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 17:34, 4 July 2031 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1940952868}}
{{Page tabs
 | NOTOC = true
 | [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Backlog chart daily|Backlog chart daily]]
 | [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Backlog chart weekly|Backlog chart weekly]]
}}
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Backlog chart daily}}
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Backlog chart|height=200|granularity=weekly}}

== List: Copyvios ==
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 13:42, 28 May 2033 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2000900547}}
Please see below the detected copyvios which have a 30%+ probability from [https://copyvios.toolforge.org/ Earwigs]. Updated every 12 hours at midday and midnight UK time (and sometimes manually run by me). Each run a random 200 drafts are checked + the existing detected copyvios (to see if they have been fixed)
EDIT: I have adjusted RichBot to remove a check from any article which has been declined/rejected for whatever reason, but was still in the existing copyvios list. If the draft is re-submitted, it will be rechecked
{{User:RichBot/copyvios}}

== Mistaken Draftify ==

I mistakenly draftified an article that had already been draftified once before.  It is [[Draft:Shaka Ilembe]].  Since it had already been moved from article space to draft space and back to article space, I should have [[WP:AFD|nominated it for deletion]] and specified draftification as the preferred action.  I am assuming that I should leave it in draft space, and it will probably be moved back into article space yet again?  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 18:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
:I believe there are no issues in leaving it there. And as you mentioned, I don't quite think that nominating an article for ''deletion'' and then suggesting ''draftification'' is a good idea. If an article has been draftified once, it shouldn't stop anyone from draftifying it again if it's appropriate. This is different from [[WP:PROD|PROD]], where second time it must go to [[WP:AFD|AFD]]. <b><span style="background:#444;padding:2px 12px;font-size:12px"><span style="color:#FC0">❯❯❯</span>[[User:Raydann|<span style="color:#fff"> Raydann</span>]][[User talk:Raydann|<sup><i><span style="color:#D3D3D3">(Talk)</span></i></sup>]]</span></b> 04:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

== Women in Red July 2023 ==

{| style="border: 5px solid #ABCDEF ; background-color: #FFFFFF;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | 
|rowspan="2" |
|style="padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | [[File:WiR8anniversary.png|right|100px]]''' <big>[[:en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red|Women in Red]]</big>''' <small>June 2023, Vol 9, Iss 7, Nos 251, 252, 274, 275, 276</small>
<br />
'''Online events:'''
* New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/274|Women in Red's 8th anniversary]] '''|''' [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/275|Alphabet run A & B]]  '''|''' [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/276|Sports]] '''

* Continuing: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/251|Peace and Diplomacy]] <small>(year-long initiative)</small>  '''|''' [[:en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/252|#1day1woman]] ''

'''Tip of the month:'''
* ''Look out for contributors interested in writing about women and <br/> [[:Template:WikiProject Women in Red invite|invite them to join Women in Red]]''

'''Other ways to participate:'''
* [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/New members|Become a member]]. You can always [[:en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Outreach/List|opt-out of notifications]].
* [[:en: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red|Join the conversations on our talkpage]].
* [[:en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Ideas|Help us plan future events]].
* Follow us on social media:
[[File:Facebook icon.jpg|frameless|15px]] [https://www.facebook.com/wikiwomeninred Facebook] '''|''' 
[[File:Instagram.svg|frameless|15px]] [https://instagram.com/wikiwomeninred Instagram] '''|''' 
[[File:Pinterest Shiny Icon.svg|frameless|15px]] [https://www.pinterest.com/wikiwomeninred/boards/ Pinterest] '''|'''
[[File:Twitter icon.png|frameless|15px]] [https://twitter.com/WikiWomenInRed Twitter]
|}
--[[User:Lajmmoore|Lajmmoore]] ([[User talk:Lajmmoore|talk]]) 07:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
<!-- Message sent by User:Lajmmoore@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Outreach/A-F&oldid=1160393258 -->

== Replacing a redirect ==

[[Slay Anything]], in article namespace, is a TV series episode, currently a redirect to the series' season. [[Draft:Slay Anything]] is a draft about the episode, and it seems fine. But I can't approve it because the name is taken by the redirect. I tagged the redirect with <nowiki>{{Db-afc-move|Draft:Slay Anything}}</nowiki> to make way for the article, but it was declined because "Removing CSD tag, this draft hasn't been reviewed yet, much less approved". So how do I deal with it? [[User:Cambalachero|Cambalachero]] ([[User talk:Cambalachero|talk]]) 13:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

:I don't know what the right answer is, but I would mark the pending draft as under review (as it suggests in the speedy tag), and maybe also post a comment in it saying 'ready to accept, awaiting title clearance' (or words to that effect) so the admin knows you're on the case. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 13:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
::Yes, ideally the draft should have been marked as under review, but otherwise there was nothing done "wrong" here on the part of Cambalachero. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 17:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
:::No, and I wasn't suggesting there was (anything wrong). Just saying that's what one might do, to help avoid such misunderstandings. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 18:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
:Pinging {{u|Liz}} as said admin [[User:Mattdaviesfsic|Mattdaviesfsic]] ([[User talk:Mattdaviesfsic|talk]]) 14:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
:Unfortunately every other admin does appear to understand this process - if a reviewer puts this tag on they have clearly reviewed it - so saying "this draft hasn't been reviewed yet, much less approved" is just assuming bad faith. In fact I had not had an issue with just using a standard G6 with any other admin. {{tl|Db-afc-move}} was created just to get around this issue, yet still the issue persists. Oh and pinging Liz probably won't help as I believe she turned notifications off. [[User:KylieTastic|KylieTastic]] ([[User talk:KylieTastic|talk]]) 14:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
::I left Liz a note.  [[User:S0091|S0091]] ([[User talk:S0091|talk]]) 15:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
::: I thought I had then just realised I had got distracted and not published :/ [[User:KylieTastic|KylieTastic]] ([[User talk:KylieTastic|talk]]) 15:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
::::Sorry, I just check to make the draft is actually ready for main space before doing a redirect deletion and page move. There have been times when an editor who isn't an AFC reviewer asks for a main space page deletion so their draft can be moved and it often has not only not been reviewed by an AFC reviewer, it hasn't been approved! I actually check to see that the editor who posts the CSD tag is an AFC reviewer because it's not always the case that they are. 
::::I guess I'm unusual among admins in that I want the draft to be main space ready before I move it into the main space of the project. Otherwise, I have no idea when the AFC reviewer will be back on the project to remove AFC tags and comments from AFC reviewers and clean up the page. This is usually not a problem as most AFC reviewers have drafts prepared for main space and our readers. But maybe in the future, I'll just skip these tagged redirects and leave them for someone else to deal with. My guess is that they will sit around for hours until someone gets to them but maybe that would cause less confusion. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 01:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|and it often has not only not been reviewed by an AFC reviewer, it hasn't been approved!}} - as has been noted before, a reviewer ''cannot'' accept a draft in any way '''until''' the mainspace redirect has been deleted by an admin. If the user is not an AfC reviewer, that is a different matter, and I'm personally happy with said CSDs being declined in that instance. [[User:Mattdaviesfsic|Mattdaviesfsic]] ([[User talk:Mattdaviesfsic|talk]]) 05:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
:::::Thank you for offering to skip these entirely. I would rather have a "speedy" deletion notice sit around for a few hours over having to do <''waves hand at thread''> this whole thing every time a valid deletion request is declined. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 07:47, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|I actually check to see that the editor who posts the CSD tag is an AFC reviewer a reviewer is}} - so what happened this time? Cambalachero is listed at [[WP:AFC/P]] and also they are ''Autopatrolled'' have ''Pending changes reviewers'', they also have 21 GAs and 2 FAs so it's difficult to see how the request could not have been taken as being from a trusted reviewer.
:::::The real issue is {{tq|I want the draft to be main space ready before I move it into the main space of the project}} - {{tl|Db-afc-move}} is asking for the admin to ''Please delete this page and '''allow the draft reviewer to move the draft'''''. As has been explained before this is so the AFCH tool we use can do everything else in one go: remove the junk AfC tags etc, check the short description, add/check projects and categories, add AfC project template to the articles talk page, leave an approved message for the submitter, log at [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation/recent]] (which other I know use as a place to check on new approvals), log to the reviewers "AfC log" is set. By wanting to move yourself you are skipping all these processes. Maybe if you did a few reviews (at least one accept and one decline) to see how AFCH works for yourself?
:::::As the AFHC tool does all these things I really find it hard to believe {{tq|most AFC reviewers have drafts prepared for main space}}, if you are seeing that I would assume it was non AfC reviewers. Also if someone does this and removed the AfC tags etc and the admin just deletes the redirect as the request says then we have a big issue if the requester forgets as it has been removed for the pending submission and may not be picked up for 6 months.
:::::Maybe we need to change the {{tl|Db-afc-move}} text to: ''Please '''ONLY''' delete this page and '''LEAVE''' the draft reviewer to move the draft''?  [[User:KylieTastic|KylieTastic]] ([[User talk:KylieTastic|talk]]) 11:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
::::::{{u|KylieTastic}} - just edited it now with a little more emphasis, but by all means if you think it needs to be stronger as you say, [[WP:BRD|feel free to be bold]]. [[User:Mattdaviesfsic|Mattdaviesfsic]] ([[User talk:Mattdaviesfsic|talk]]) 12:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
: FYI: this issue has been discussed before several times, such as [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Archive_49#Some_newbie_questions|AfC: Some newbie questions]],   [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Archive_49#A_plea_to_Draft_reviewers|AfC: A plea to Draft reviewers]] and [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive339#db-move_and_drafts|AN: db-move and drafts]]. [[User:KylieTastic|KylieTastic]] ([[User talk:KylieTastic|talk]]) 15:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
::Is it worth adding a note about this to [[:Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion]], given that this has happened to me a few times and it can be a continual problem? It may also be worth adding that non-AfC admins shouldn't accept the draft if they aren't going to do the clean-up after...? [[User:Mattdaviesfsic|Mattdaviesfsic]] ([[User talk:Mattdaviesfsic|talk]]) 15:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
::: The trouble is {{tl|Db-afc-move}} also puts it in [[:Category:Candidates for speedy deletion]] which I believe is the one Liz probably picks them up from. [[User:KylieTastic|KylieTastic]] ([[User talk:KylieTastic|talk]]) 16:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
::::Fair enough, although I don't see an issue with plonking one there as well/instead...? [[User:Mattdaviesfsic|Mattdaviesfsic]] ([[User talk:Mattdaviesfsic|talk]]) 16:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
:::::The deletion tag was written specifically ''because'' of Liz, and the fact that she still ignores it says something... I don't think extra notes in other places are going to do anything. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 17:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
::Adding [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=1093639639#AfC_and_G6 this discussion] I had with Liz on her talk page.  [[User:S0091|S0091]] ([[User talk:S0091|talk]]) 19:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
:{{u|Cambalachero}}, I have deleted the redirect, so please feel free to accept the draft as you have indicated it is appropriate to do so. I will save my words to Liz for if/when she turns up to the conversation. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 17:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
===Reviewing instructions update===
{{Done}}. If this issue shows up so frequently, perhaps we should have something about it in [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions#Known issues]] [[User:Cambalachero|Cambalachero]] ([[User talk:Cambalachero|talk]]) 19:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
:I am a little surprised that we have no mention of {{t|db-afc-move}} on the reviewing instructions; not sure if it needs to go in that section specifically but it should probably be somewhere. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 19:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
::I think there should be an "If the title already exists" sub-section there to cover disambiguation and handling redirects.  Thoughts? [[User:S0091|S0091]] ([[User talk:S0091|talk]]) 19:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
:::Yes. I hesitate to suggest a "step 0" to the box, but I think putting it under ''§ Step 4: Accepting a submission'' is probably the best place; renumbering would obviously be automatic so "Click the Accept button" would be Step 2... but yes, a quick "what to do if you can't accept straight away" is a good idea. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 19:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
::::I would [[WP:BRD|be bold and do it]], but I think I [should probably] 'draft' it here first for a check first:
:::::"If the page title already exists as a ''redirect'', you should add {{t|db-afc-move}} to the mainspace redirect (if it already exists as an ''article'', see Step 1 and what to do if it already exists). After it has been deleted by an administrator, you can then accept the submission. In the event that it is not deleted, please notify reviewers on [[WT:AFC|the Articles for Creation talk page]]."
::::Is that helpful? [[User:Mattdaviesfsic|Mattdaviesfsic]] ([[User talk:Mattdaviesfsic|talk]]) 20:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
:::::I keep bouncing about on this, but if there is a redirect in the way AFCH will let the reviewer know, so I feel like maybe a subsection under "Select an appropriate name"? In other words, choose the right name, then "if the name you have selected already exists, check it is a redirect. If it is..." followed by (maybe a shorter version of) your text. This would be a bullet point or two under that first bullet point. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 20:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
::::::Been bold and edited the wording per your recommendations. I've changed the section heading to be a bit more generic ("Known issues" sounds like bugs, rather than potential problems for the reviewer(s), in my opinion). If there is a better way of showing it, then I don't mind anyone moving it around. {{smily}} [[User:Mattdaviesfsic|Mattdaviesfsic]] ([[User talk:Mattdaviesfsic|talk]]) 07:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Excellent, exactly what I was hoping for. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 07:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
:::::Thanks @[[User:Mattdaviesfsic|Mattdaviesfsic]].  Will take a look tomorrow because there is a least one situation that is a valid decline ([[WP:histmerge]] comes to mind).  Also, is it ok if I refer to you as Matt?  [[User:S0091|S0091]] ([[User talk:S0091|talk]]) 20:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
::::::Absolutely! {{smily}}
::::::I'll be back tomorrow as well, so if any other editors want to drop their thoughts here as well, they're welcome to. [[User:Mattdaviesfsic|Mattdaviesfsic]] ([[User talk:Mattdaviesfsic|talk]]) 20:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
:::::::I made a couple tweaks so please take look.  [[User:S0091|S0091]] ([[User talk:S0091|talk]]) 14:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Thanks. As you'll see in my edit summary, I don't believe all users do mark it as under review (I don't myself, for instance), so I've added a clause that reflects the ability (but not the mandate) to do so. Hope that's okay.
::::::::And thanks all for a lovely discussion about this, great civility all round! {{smily}} [[User:Mattdaviesfsic|Mattdaviesfsic]] ([[User talk:Mattdaviesfsic|talk]]) 15:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::Hi Matt, I added that because @[[User:Primefac|Primefac]] requested we do so (see [[WT:WikiProject Articles for creation/Archive 52#Speaking of db-afc-move]]).  However, there was no actual discussion.  Personally it is not something I normally do either but will in these cases.  I also add a comment stating I am waiting for a redirect to be deleted but that's just me. :)  So is marking it under review be something folks ''should'' do or be optional? [[User:S0091|S0091]] ([[User talk:S0091|talk]]) 16:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::Thanks for the clarification. I would suggest that it be left optional because admins are ''effectively'' duty-bound to just delete it (as per much emphasis on the template, and now on the Cat page), although some reviewers may ''wish'' to mark it as such regardless (for those few "{{tq|super-picky}}" admins).
::::::::::However, I'm not overly bothered about it (and, tbh, I doubt many are so long as the redirect is just deleted), so am not going to shout about it. Hope that helps, and thanks again [[User:Mattdaviesfsic|Mattdaviesfsic]] ([[User talk:Mattdaviesfsic|talk]]) 17:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::I'm not bothered by it either but will SHOUT anyway lol. :)  Just joking.  I agree with you.  Also, technically an editor is not required to be a reviewer to move a pending draft to main space/request Db-6.  [[User:S0091|S0091]] ([[User talk:S0091|talk]]) 17:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::I agree with leaving it optional. I also suggest that we not mention "under review" in the {{t|Db-afc-move}} template, to avoid admin confusion. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 22:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::Yes indeed, thanks for removing that yesterday morning. [[User:Mattdaviesfsic|Mattdaviesfsic]] ([[User talk:Mattdaviesfsic|talk]]) 05:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
If the instructions are clear enough, the "In the event that it is not deleted..." would not be needed. But if we change the wording of a speedy deletion template, shouldn't we notify this somewhere? [[User:Cambalachero|Cambalachero]] ([[User talk:Cambalachero|talk]]) 02:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

:{{u|Cambalachero}} - I've today added some more emphasis to the template which ''should'' clear this up, although we probably won't need to post a mass message about it, as the problems are only with a small number of admins (where they will hopefully see the new emphasis!). Hope that's okay. [[User:Mattdaviesfsic|Mattdaviesfsic]] ([[User talk:Mattdaviesfsic|talk]]) 15:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

== Feedback requested at proposal to drop 'your first article' link from welcome templates ==

The [[Wikipedia:Welcoming committee]]&mdash;among other things&mdash;maintains a set of [[Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates|a set of welcome templates]] aimed at new users. Many of these templates include a list of helpful links. A proposal to drop the link to [[Help:Your first article]] from welcome templates has been opened; your feedback would be welcome at [[WT:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates#Proposal: drop 'first article' link from all templates]]. Thanks, [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 21:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

== Probationary member for one year ==

Hi, I have been a probationary member for AfC reviewing for over a year now. I was wondering if I could get reviewed and put as a regular active reviewer, rather than probationary. I'm putting this on the main talk page rather than the participant requests page because I am not requesting access to the actual AFCH script. Thanks, [[User:Urban Versis 32|<span style="color:grey"><b>Urban</b></span> <span style="color:red"><b>Versis</b></span> <b>32</b>]]<sup><i>KB</i></sup> ⚡ <sup>([[User talk:Urban Versis 32|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Urban Versis 32|contribs]])</sup> 16:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

:{{u|Primefac}} oversees this aspect of AfC, so pinging them. [[User:Mattdaviesfsic|Mattdaviesfsic]] ([[User talk:Mattdaviesfsic|talk]]) 16:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
::{{small|I watch this page and don't necessarily need pings, but not the end of the world}}
::You have made less than 1 review per month pretty much since you got the perm, and still only have 42 reviews even with the stuff you've done in June, so there hasn't really been enough to go on to merit a full review and a "bump" to non-probationary status. That being said, it's not a "status" thing and more of a "we can remove you from the list for any reason" thing, because historically it was notoriously difficult to remove sub-standard reviewers. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 17:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
:::Oh ok, that makes sense. Thanks for the info :) [[User:Urban Versis 32|<span style="color:grey"><b>Urban</b></span> <span style="color:red"><b>Versis</b></span> <b>32</b>]]<sup><i>KB</i></sup> ⚡ <sup>([[User talk:Urban Versis 32|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Urban Versis 32|contribs]])</sup> 17:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

== New pages patrol needs your help! ==

<div style="border:2px solid #90C0FF; background:#F0F0FF; width:99%; padding:4px">
<!-- do not use ;Header to make bold headers per [[H:DL]], causes errors for screen readers -->
[[File:NPP Backlog - June 2023.svg|thumb|New pages awaiting review as of June 30th, 2023.]]
Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}},
{| style="float: right; 
|- style="font-size: 86%;"
|}
The [[WP:NPP|New Page Patrol]] team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting [[Special:NewPagesFeed]]. Thank you very much for your help.

{{refbegin}}
'''Reminders''':
*There is live chat with patrollers on the [https://discordapp.com/invite/heF3xPu New Page Patrol Discord].
*Please add [[Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers|the project discussion page]] to your watchlist.
*To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter list|here]].
{{refend}}{{Clear}}
</div>
<!-- Drafted by Illusion Flame. Reviewed by Zippybonzo. Sent by Zippybonzo. -->

Sent by {{noping|Zippybonzo}} using {{noping|MediaWiki message delivery}} at 06:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Zippybonzo@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter_list&oldid=1162688084 -->

==Discussion at [[:Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested#Prevent non-AfC reviewer from declining or accepting AfC submission|Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested §&nbsp;Prevent non-AfC reviewer from declining or accepting AfC submission]]==
[[File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg|25px|link=|alt=]]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at [[:Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested#Prevent non-AfC reviewer from declining or accepting AfC submission|Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested §&nbsp;Prevent non-AfC reviewer from declining or accepting AfC submission]].  –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 07:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)<!-- [[Template:Please see]] -->

== Can a draft be blocked from being resubmitted? ==

Just curious to know what sanctions are available for drafts that are rapidly resubmitted without improvement. [[Draft:Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2023]] was returned to draft space following an AfD, there still aren't any independent reliable sources about the event being added, but as soon as the draft is declined it is immediately resubmitted. Judging by previous similar articles, this event only attracted any wider notice in the couple of weeks before the event (which is in December 2023). [[User:Sionk|Sionk]] ([[User talk:Sionk|talk]]) 22:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
:It could be deleted and salted, but it would just get recreated with a slightly different title(likely one letter difference). It could be page protected, but the same problem would arise. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 22:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
:Usually if you don't want to just leave it in the queue, I'd say rejecting it and telling the submitters to stop is the first thing to try after repeated declines. Obviously none of the gradually escalating measures can stop someone truly determined but we don't really have to, a few more filtered out after each step is enough. [[User:Alpha3031|Alpha3031]] ([[User talk:Alpha3031|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Alpha3031|c]]) 04:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
: As it is likely to be pass notability later in the year the best would just be to leave it in the !queue. Leave it till it reaches the end in four months and it may be notable. [[User:KylieTastic|KylieTastic]] ([[User talk:KylieTastic|talk]]) 09:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
::If we're going to take the long approach, I'd say mark it as under review and ''then'' wait until it gets closer to time. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 10:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I have a similar problem with [[Draft:Stellina (TV series)]], but this one is not a future event that will happen and get more attention and editors in the future. It's an animated series, the only info is the trivial one (plot, characters, episodes, credits, etc), and the only spurces are IMDB-like databases, pages with user-made content, and youtube clips from the series. There have been 6 rejections for lack of notability, 2 of them today, and each time the user simply resubmits with minimal and inconsequential changes (such as the plot description) or even with no changes at all. [[User:Cambalachero|Cambalachero]] ([[User talk:Cambalachero|talk]]) 13:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

:{{re|Cambalachero}} There's a difference between ''declining'' a draft and ''rejecting'' one. The latter does not provide a button to resubmit; the former does. Looks like things have slowed down there, but if they try resubmitting without changing anything significant again, I'd reject it. <span style="background-color: black">[[User:Skarmory|<span style="color: yellow">Skarmory</span>]] [[User talk:Skarmory|<span style="color: yellow">(talk •</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Skarmory|<span style="color: yellow">contribs)</span>]]</span> 05:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

== Rewriting [[Help:Your first article]] ==

Spurred by [[Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates#Proposal: drop 'first article' link from all templates|the CENT-listed conversation]] linked a few section up, a few of us have been working on a rewrite at [[User:Houseblaster/YFA draft]]. It's not quite ready yet, but as it's geared towards AfC acceptance, I thought the kind volunteers here may have some insights into how it should look at release. [[User:Folly Mox|Folly Mox]] ([[User talk:Folly Mox|talk]]) 13:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

==Discussion at [[:Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC on draftifying a subset of mass-created Cricketer microstubs|Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) §&nbsp;RfC on draftifying a subset of mass-created Cricketer microstubs]]==
[[File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg|25px|link=|alt=]]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at [[:Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC on draftifying a subset of mass-created Cricketer microstubs|Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) §&nbsp;RfC on draftifying a subset of mass-created Cricketer microstubs]].  –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 16:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)<!-- [[Template:Please see]] -->
:Posting this here because this proposal involves draftifying 1000 articles to start (and probably more later), and changing G13 from 6 months to 5 years for these drafts. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 16:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

== [[Draft:18650 battery]] ==

I was in the process of accepting this but there was a redirect in the way and I requested and I assume an admin deleted it but by then I was distracted. Before I could accept, it looks like {{u|jmcgnh}} came through and cleared my ''review in progress'' (without contacting me), declined the draft and suggested the content could be merged into [[List of battery sizes#Cylindrical lithium-ion rechargeable battery]] or [[Lithium-ion battery]] (the former is where [[18650 battery]] previously and currently redirects).

This type of battery is widely used in applications ranging from laptops to electric cars. The subject meets [[WP:GNG]] and there's not a [[WP:NOT]] issue so I don't see policy reason why it should not have its own article. I appreciate that editors who work on [[List of battery sizes#Cylindrical lithium-ion rechargeable battery]] and [[Lithium-ion battery]] may not think that a separate article is the best way to cover a topic. I don't think that's a question we need to get in to at AfC. Let's not make our accept criteria any more complicated than it needs to be. If it turns out separate article is unwanted by consensus, a [[WP:MERGE]] can always be done after the draft is accepted.

Anyone else have thoughts? Is there an administrator willing to delete the [[18650 battery]] redirect so this draft can be accepted? ~[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 19:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
: While yes, there is an article [[AAA Battery]], it's backed up by a much clearer notability story than the draft here in question. Ref 2 and ref 3 are not independent. Ref 1 is probably okay, but is mainly there to support the statement that the size of the cell sometimes varies by a couple of millimeters in length because of a protection circuit, which the draft dilutes to a generic {{tq|These dimensions can vary by a millimeter or more.}}
: I think {{u|Kvng}} does admirable work. But if I had come across this article after acceptance, I'd have sent it back to draft. Finding it in the state of 'under review' and, when I first looked, still waiting for the removal of the redirect, I elected to override the outdated 'under review' status (more than 24 hours) and decline the draft. I expected to decline the speedy on the redirect, but in that short interval, the redirect speedy deletion request was granted, so I recreated the redirect.
: Was I too hasty? I only came to look at this draft because a user had come to the IRC channel #wikipedia-en-help to ask about the status of the review. They left the channel before anyone could respond, but I thought I'd look into it. '''[[user:jmcgnh|<span style="color:#2eb85c">—&nbsp;jmcgnh</span>]]<sup><small>[[user talk:jmcgnh|<span style="color:#1e5213">(talk)</span>]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/jmcgnh|<span style="color:#73b516">(contribs)</span>]]</small></sup>''' 21:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

== Nepalese politicians - block avoidance? ==

I noticed a lot of Nepalese politicians with IPs in the 182.50.66.* range creating many with several accepts. However many of these were previously deleted as created by a sock {{noping|Anup Rajbanshi}} and there puppets. They appear to be notable as real politicians that pass [[WP:NPOL]] but look highly likely to have created by a sock. If they were created by an account I would report as another sock, but not sure what to do and I see we have a few more already in the !queue. [[User:KylieTastic|KylieTastic]] ([[User talk:KylieTastic|talk]]) 15:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

:I agree it's not helpful to file an SPI about an IP. I also noted the sock is globally locked.  I suggest contacting a CU directly, maybe one of the more recent CUs that handled the [[WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Anup Rajbanshi/Archive|SPI]].  Also note Liz mentioned in the last SPI there was an IP involved but since the pages were deleted, those like us without the goggles can't see the history to determine if the IP was in the same range as this one.  [[User:S0091|S0091]] ([[User talk:S0091|talk]]) 17:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
::Clerk here. Filing an SPI about an IP is fine. It's definitely a better idea than contacting a CU, as CUs can't publicly connect IPs to accounts. [[User:Spicy|Spicy]] ([[User talk:Spicy|talk]]) 17:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
:::Thanks for the expert advice Spicy!  I swore I read somewhere from a CU that it was not worth a formal SPI because either way they can't publicly connect IPs but clearly I misremembered or it was a unique situation.  [[User:S0091|S0091]] ([[User talk:S0091|talk]]) 17:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
:::: Thanks {{u|Spicy}}, I didn't think anything could be done at SPI as I thought I had seen similar reports rejected - but I bow to your superior knowledge in this area and have filed [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anup Rajbanshi]] for the 11 IPs involved so far. Currently [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?search=incategory%3A%22Pending+AfC+submissions%22+insource%3A%22u%3D182.50.66.%22&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns118=1 8 more in the !queue]. Cheers [[User:KylieTastic|KylieTastic]] ([[User talk:KylieTastic|talk]]) 16:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
::::: Hello {{U|KylieTastic}}, Hope you're doing well. I don't want to bother you, Apart from this I just want to know that how to overcome from this issues? Does this issue affects the drafted articles of Nepalese politician which was accepted by me and by other reviewers? Cheers! [[User:Fade258|Fade258]] ([[User talk:Fade258|talk]]) 16:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::: Hey {{u|Fade258}}, if the administrators decide that this is a block evasion they would then probably delete all the accepted drafts and awaiting drafts. Unless you happened to come across multiple of these or happened to dig into the old deletion reasons these all looked like easy accepts under [[WP:NPOL]] so not surprising many were accepted. I just happened to notice and decided to do a bit of digging. As you can see from [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anup Rajbanshi/Archive]] they are a prolific sock and I had a vague memory of running into them before. I would just avoid any more of these submissions until the SPI case has been closed. Cheers [[User:KylieTastic|KylieTastic]] ([[User talk:KylieTastic|talk]]) 16:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::::I don't like deleting these, even when they fall under [[WP:G5]]. If they're on notable subjects and they're properly sourced, why should we delete a perfectly acceptable Wikipedia article? It's just a net negative to the project as a whole, in my opinion. <span style="background-color: black">[[User:Skarmory|<span style="color: yellow">Skarmory</span>]] [[User talk:Skarmory|<span style="color: yellow">(talk •</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Skarmory|<span style="color: yellow">contribs)</span>]]</span> 04:26, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::::: I agree it feels wrong to delete notable articles, however on the flip side if we don't then we are saying people can get away with socking and block avoidance. It would have been best if some other editors had created some of these between the socking. [[User:KylieTastic|KylieTastic]] ([[User talk:KylieTastic|talk]]) 08:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::{{U|KylieTastic}}, Inreference to your last comment above, Can I create those drafted articles created by sockppupet, directly into a mainspace? [[User:Fade258|Fade258]] ([[User talk:Fade258|talk]]) 09:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::{{u|Fade258}}, you could obviously create new ones directly, but if you mean direct copies I would thunk that was problematic as that would technically count as [[Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia|Copying within Wikipedia]] so would need attribution which would give credit to the sock again. In the end it will be down to the admins, so probably wait to see what any of the mob cabal think. [[User:KylieTastic|KylieTastic]] ([[User talk:KylieTastic|talk]]) 10:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{U|KylieTastic}}, Sure, I will wait until that spi is closed, which you filled. [[User:Fade258|Fade258]] ([[User talk:Fade258|talk]]) 10:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

== Request for Review of Rejection ==

I reviewed a draft on a title that had previously had an article, but the article was then merged into a parent article as closed in an AFD.  The draft appears to be the same as the merged-deleted version of the article.  I Rejected the draft as Not Notable.  Was this a correct or reasonable action?  I don't normally Reject a draft on the first submission, but it would have been subject to G4 if it were moved into mainspace.  By the way, it is [[Draft:Gideon (Legends of Tomorrow)]].  Was Rejection a reasonable way to deal with what appears to be a submission that will not survive AFD (because it didn't survive AFD)?  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 05:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
* Without seeing the original it's hard to judge, but as it was created in mostly one large edit then no new sources added, I would likely the same. Personally I would have still just declined on first submit but the important thing is you left a full comment to explain. As they appear to have made no attempt to improve there would be a high chance they would have just resubmitted again and got a reject, so the end is probably the same. If they have any new sources they can bring up in another forum [[WP:DRV]], [[WP:TEA]], etc. [[User:KylieTastic|KylieTastic]] ([[User talk:KylieTastic|talk]]) 08:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
**[[User:KylieTastic]] - The original is in the history of the redirect, [[Gideon (Legends of Tomorrow)]].  It has the same sources, and the biography appears to be the same.  I usually leave long comments because I have pre-recorded my comments in the templates.  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 16:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
::* Ah yes! In that case [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert]] I think submitting a no improvement copy and so soon after the AfD means a reject is a proportionate response. As the creator of the original AfDed version they were aware so should not be surprised. So good call. [[User:KylieTastic|KylieTastic]] ([[User talk:KylieTastic|talk]]) 16:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

== Concerns about [[Draft:Example]] ==

I brought up an unrelated concern about this page at [[Wikipedia talk:Drafts#Draft:Example and G13]], and that discussion led to me taking a closer look at the page as a whole, and... well, I don't think it's a good example of what a draft should look like.

The things I immediately pointed out over there was the lack of sections (the only heading it currently has is for References), despite being rather long, and the lack of references (just a single reference after the first sentence). I feel like this gives a bad precedent for any new editor who stumbles upon the page – in general, drafts should have sections, and every paragraph should ideally have a source.

There's also no image, which strikes me as weird, because there's an image on the similar [[User:Example]]; having a (free) image is also useful for your draft.

I also note there's no AFC banner, which feels like it should be included, given the leading text of "''This is an '''example draft''' created via the [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation|Articles for creation]] process.''". We should display how to submit your article to AFC here if this is an example draft for the AFC process (though to prevent accidental submissions, maybe just make it so clicking the "submit your draft for review" button does nothing?).

Does this look problematic to anyone else? <span style="background-color: black">[[User:Skarmory|<span style="color: yellow">Skarmory</span>]] [[User talk:Skarmory|<span style="color: yellow">(talk •</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Skarmory|<span style="color: yellow">contribs)</span>]]</span> 04:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

* I can't see what purpose it serves now. It was created by {{u|Steven (WMF)}} (no longer active) in 2013 "to link to this from a blog post". Looking at the history I can't see the value. Should we just delete? [[User:KylieTastic|KylieTastic]] ([[User talk:KylieTastic|talk]]) 08:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

== Women in Red 8th Anniversary ==

{| style="background-color: #ff97a9; border: 1px solid #ff97a9;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[file:WiR8anniversary.png|100px]]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''Women in Red 8th Anniversary'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | In '''July 2015''' around '''15.5%''' of the English Wikipedia's biographies were about women. As of '''July 2023''',  '''19.61%''' of the English Wikipedia's biographies are about women. That's a lot of biographies created in the effort to close the gender gap. Happy 8th Anniversary! [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/274|Join us for some virtual cake and add comments or memories]] and please keep on editing to close the gap!
|}
--[[User:Lajmmoore|Lajmmoore]] ([[User talk:Lajmmoore|talk]]) 11:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
<!-- Message sent by User:Lajmmoore@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Outreach/A-F&oldid=1165136379 -->

== Dispute resolution over outdated/pov start-class article Juan Branco ==

Hello, I have been trying to translate the French B-class rated article [[:fr:Juan Branco]] towards the English start-class article [[Juan Branco]], which has [[Wikipedia:UNDUE|wp:undue]] problems and is outdated anyway. However, I am encountering significant pushback from contributors who are either SPAs or have never added content to the article, neither of which rely on sources to judge what's relevant, but only on their [[Wikipedia:POV|wp:pov]]. Feel free to come help resolve the dispute and improve the article (which imo is currently a disaster compared to French version). [[User:Imagritte|Imagritte]] ([[User talk:Imagritte|talk]]) 13:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)