Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, Sorting, FeedShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subjectReviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives

Welcome—discuss matters concerning this project!

AfC submissions Random submission

2+ months

2,838 pending submissions

• Are you in the right place?
  • If you want to ask a question about your draft submission, use the AfC Help desk.
  • For questions on how to use or edit Wikipedia, use the Teahouse.
  • Create an article using Article wizard or request an article at requested articles.
• Put new text under old text. Start a new topic.
• In addition to this page, you can give feedback about the AFCH helper script by creating a new ticket on GitHub.
• New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.

AfC unreviewed draft statistics as of November 04, 2025

RFC: Declined, or Not Accepted

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

By a wide margin, the status quo is preferred. Note that there were put forth some good suggestions in the discussion section about how to potentially increase the knowledge of users when they see the terminology the Project uses, so I will leave that section open for further comment. Primefac (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

---

This question is about the terminology to be used when a draft is not accepted but may be reworked or improved and resubmitted. This action is currently referred to in the AFC Helper script and at the messages provided to the author as being Declined. There has been discussion at the Village Pump at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Declined_vs_rejected_at_AfC. Should the terminology for the three possible actions by a reviewer be:

• A - Accepted, Declined, and Rejected? (The present options)
• B - Accepted, Not Accepted, and Rejected? (The rough consensus at VPM)
• C - Something else, please specify.

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Please answer with A, B, or C, and a brief optional explanation in the Survey. Discuss in the Discussion section.

Survey (decline terminology)

• B - Change Declined to Not Accepted in the Teahouse invite and in the template on the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
• B – "Declined" is too similar in meaning to "Rejected", and might give an impression of definitiveness which is harsher than what "Not Accepted" gives off. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:30, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
• C (with "needs changes") with second choice B, per my prior rationale. Either will be an improvement over the status quo, but I still think that "not accepted" is more bitey/too similar to "rejected" than optimal, and that it's the responsibility of AfC reviewers to reject a draft without hope of acceptance to avoid giving false hope. "Needs changes" would be more likely to encourage editors to continue working on their draft. Sdkb ^talk 22:07, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
• B with second choice A if no clear consensus is reached. I have checked multiple dictionaries searching for better terms, and nearly none seem acceptable either by being innappropiate (abjured, avoided, desisted, refrained) or too harsh (denied, dismissed, refused, turned down). As said in the village pump discussion, phrasing such as "needs work" or "changes needed" will easily lead editors to believe their draft may be accepted if it is "good enough", even if the topic is not notable or has any other issue editing can't save. NeoGaze (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

  As Qcne noted in the earlier discussion, The actual AfC script has the labels "Decline (for later improvement & resubmission)" and "Reject (unsuitable topic; no option to resubmit)". The reviewer instructions and linked essay discuss the differences between them in similar terms. Perhaps it should be more formally documented, but all this gives me the impression that, if there is an issue editing can't fix, the rejection option should be used instead of the decline option. Since there is a third category of drafts where the reviewer isn't sure whether or not the issue would be fixable with further editing, perhaps we need a third option. Sdkb ^talk 23:35, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

• A - The messaging apparent on a declined draft (and left on the user's talk page) imo is already quite clear about the potential for resubmission. I don't think 'declined' is particularly more bitey than 'not accepted' - either way the draft has been deemed not acceptable for mainspace, and there's some inherent bite in the feeling of rejection that can't be smoothed away with nomenclature. I also don't think we can prevent confusion by changing the wording - two flavors of 'no' will inevitably produce questions from people who want to understand how to delineate between the two. Zzz plant (talk) 01:29, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
• Option A. One downside of terms like "not accepted" is it cannot be used as a verb easily (i.e. "I declined the draft" vs "I marked the draft as not accepted"). This means it is likely to morph into an acronym such as NA ("I NA'd the draft"), which is also unreadable to newbies, leading us back to square one.
  Also, as the main software engineer / maintainer of AFC's tools right now, this has the potential to create a lot of work for me. This kind of change could require updates to WP:AFCH, https://apersonbot.toolforge.org/afchistory/, quarry queries, database reports, and templates.
  Finally, Wikipedians frequently use jargony but precise words to differentiate between wiki-concepts. For example blocked vs banned and infinite vs indefinite. There is plenty of precedent for having a word pair such as declined vs rejected.
  The amount of work being proposed here vs the size of the problem is concerning. And I also think it likely that the newly proposed terms would not be an improvement. For these reasons I oppose any changes and prefer the status quo.–Novem Linguae (talk) 05:38, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
• A (with second choice C): I'd say leave things as they are. I know there is some confusion, but as long as we want to retain the two distinct options of 'no, for now' vs. 'no, for good', the confusion is likely to be there no matter what words we use; the relevant difference still won't be obvious to many, and will require explanation. If something must be changed, then add more contrast to the wording, eg.: Accepted – Not yet accepted – Rejected outright (italics for emphasis only here): the 'yet' implies leaving the door open for possible future acceptance, whereas the 'outright' firmly closes it. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:54, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
• A. Firstly, Not accepted doesn't necessarily mean the draft was declined, it could also be interpreted as including rejection, so it would be ambiguous. Secondly, I think Robert summarized it well at VPM: Wikipedia, like many activities, has terminology that is used in specialized ways. Any scientific activity has its own vocabulary, including many words that are in everyday use, but have very precise meanings when used by scientists. [...] the specialized person should be able to discuss without making an issue about the correctness of terminology. If someone says that their draft was rejected, even though it was declined, we can simply clarify that. Thirdly, the decline and rejection templates already clearly state whether the draft can or cannot be resubmitted. Fourthly, these terms have been used since 2018 and the project evidently hasn't exploded because of it. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 08:11, 8 August 2025 (UTC) P.S. Fifthly, as Novem has said above, it would would require lots of time-consuming changes for negligible results. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 13:19, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
• A - I'm sure whether the draft is either not accepted or rejected the author is still going to interpret both as "rejection", so it is probably just unnecessary to put a bunch of work on Novem because of it. I also don't think changing the terminology is any less harsher than saying "declined" because again it's still saying no and a lot of people will still be disappointed by it. Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 15:49, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
• C per Sdkb. But see also LEvalyn's comment below. I continue to believe the jargon is not the issue here. -- asilvering (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
• A: per Kovcszaln6, and having read the lengthy thread at the VP. See comments below. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
• C: I wonder if there's any merit to copying the GA language of pass (accept), on hold (decline), and quick-fail (reject). It would have the side effect of making declines effectively communicate that they can be in an acceptable state if only a few corrections were to be made, and it would probably make us reviewers check in after some time, so we're less incentivized to spam template declines. Food for thought. LR.127 (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
• A. I don't see a meaningful difference between "Declined" and "Not accepted". Neither one implies that the draft can be resubmitted any more than the other does. If anything, the "Not accepted" is a worse option because it cannot be verbed like "Declined" can be. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 12:30, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
• A - keep as is, but maybe a clarification next to it what they mean.Darkm777 (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion (decline terminology)

Hi Robert, can you please clarify which message as there are three: the talk page message which does not use the term "decline", the Teahouse invite and the decline on the draft. S0091 (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

User:S0091 - Yes. The talk page message already uses the words "Not Accepted" and would not be changed by options A (which is no change) or B (which is the rough consensus at VPM). Option B would change the Teahouse invite and the message on the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Ok, so I am fine with changing the Teahouse one but not the one on the draft so would I do C? S0091 (talk) 19:17, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

And actually now that look at an example (User talk:207.38.139.252), the Teahouse message is the same for declines and rejects so that is another consideration. Do we want to use "not accepted" for both rejects and declines? S0091 (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

• This RfC is premature, as discussion is continuing elsewhere. The false binary choice offered in A/B is between two synonyms, which does not address the problem at hand: "The use of these synonyms to mean two very different things is the cause of frequent confusion among the novice editors who are AfC's main users." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:41, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

  I'll say that I don't think it's entirely optimal that an active participant in the VPM discussion (which, at 83 comments, many participants might have assumed had the potential for an actionable outcome, not just an RFCBEFORE preamble) declared a "local" consensus there and began this, effectively making an involved close of that discussion. That said, Robert signaled his intentions and Primefac/Qcne signed on to them, so I don't find the process issue egregious. Sdkb ^talk 21:59, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

  No, Andy Mabbett, the RFC is not premature, and the discussion at VPM had reached a rough consensus that an RFC was in order. It is true that you disagree. You didn't present an alternative after there was a rough consensus for "Not Accepted". You are welcome to present an alternative within the scope of the RFC. You are also welcome to vote A if you think that Not Accepted is just as bad as Declined. Do you have an alternative, or are you just asking for someone else to come up with an answer that satisfies youj? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

  You say "You didn't present an alternative after there was a rough consensus for 'Not Accepted'". You earlier claimed there was consensus. Which is it?

  Regardless, I presented an alternative, and made clear that your proposed solution would not address the issue, before you declared a supposed "rough consensus". I am not—no-one is—required to refute the same points repeatedly, no matter how often you repeat them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:27, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

  The RfC as presented does not even clearly state the issue as identified on VPM. What a farce. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:34, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

• I didn't want to suggest this in my vote, because it's a bit of a tangent, but part of the confusion might be because the users don't know there are two different 'no' options, and if we made that clearer, the confusion could be alleviated. Maybe we could add to the decline and rejection templates a box showing all three options, for example (exact wording and look TBD, obvs):

Your draft has been:

Accepted for publication – congratulations!

Declined for now, for reasons given below. You are welcome to resubmit your draft for another review, once you have addressed these reasons.

Rejected outright. This topic is unsuitable for publication in Wikipedia.

Might something like this make things clearer? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:20, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

+1 to putting this in the user talk templates. Seems to be a simple way to solve the problem. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:00, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

+1 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

+1, this sounds like a good idea, although the specifics of the wording can of course be worked out. It looks like it can be implemented directly in {{AfC decline}}, etc. without needing to substantially make changes to AFCH, although I trust Novem on this one. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:37, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

• I have no objections to the proposed rewording (I doubt it'll hurt anything), but the more this is debated the more I think it's mis-diagnosing a problem. I'm not convinced that newbies actually need to know this jargon; few newbies encounter both a decline and a rejection, so in most cases they can pick up the vocabulary non-urgently through exposure. If someone asks "Why was my wiki rejected??" we can just say "Your article was declined because...". Because of cognitive overload, I suspect that asking them to learn the difference between "declined/not accepted" vs "rejected" can too easily come at the expense of helping them learn a concept like "reliable source". ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:37, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

  Endorsing this, which is basically my position from the previous discussion. -- asilvering (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

• The quote frame is excellent. Here are some edits to it.

A WP:AfC reviewer has:

Accepted your draft for publication – thank you!

Declined your draft as not ready. See detailed reasons below. Please review these reasons, get help if required, and resubmit the draft for another review, once you have addressed these reasons.

Rejected outright. This draft is unsuitable for Wikipedia.

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:03, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

One thing we should be careful of is drafts declined for notability. Some/many aren't notable and maybe should technically be "rejected", but no one can be sure without a lot of research, and even then there may be a small chance of there being offline sources or something. So the reviewer tosses the ball back into the author's court to find more good sources. In this situation, "declined" could give false hope that the article is approvable with more work, but actually it is not. I'm not sure if there's a good fix, but just pointing this out. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:53, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree, care is needed.

I think that a reviewer who with confidence thinks the topic is not notable should REJECT the draft for this reason. But what if they are wrong? That’s why I suggest “A WP:AfC reviewer”, singular. They’ve made an individual judgement, not in the voice of Wikipedia. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

• Would replacing the word "declined" with the term "returned" satisfy any of those unhappy with the present and proposed options? It is not a close synonym of "rejected", is arguably less bitey, and doesn't sound either too encouraging or too discouraging. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:35, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

  Good thought. I support it over the status quo. Sdkb ^talk 14:07, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I didn't provide a second choice, but my second choice would be A, and I do not feel strongly that a change is needed. I am strongly opposed to any of the other proposals, C, because the alternate proposals that I have seen, such as Needs Work or Needs Changes, can reasonably be read as implying that the draft will be accepted if the changes are made. There will be far more disconnects between users and reviewers than we currently have if we start giving authors false hope. I am aware that there are some editor, including some experienced editors, who would like the reviewer to give a clearer opinion after reviewing a draft as to whether there is likelihood of a draft being accepted. That isn't plausible. A reviewer, on seeing a draft that makes a credible claim of significance but has no sources, cannot be expected to look for sources, and so has no idea whether the sources exist. Many drafts are like that. There is no way that a reviewer can tell whether most of the drafts that they currently Decline will ever be accepted. So I strongly oppose any change in the wording that might give authors false hope. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I am not impressed about the stated need to replace a single verb form with another verb form. A reviewer who is asked about why they rejected a draft (when they didn't reject it) can say: "I did not accept the draft because the sources are not reliable", or "I did not accept the draft because the draft does not show that the band satisfies any of the musical notability criteria". Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I think that "Returned" is fine. I am sure that some editors will think that it does not make an adequate distinction from "Rejected", but it does satisfy the objective of having a single verb form. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I think Returned works as wording that absolutely has no connotations with either Rejected or Declined. O' mighty judicator of language @Pigsonthewing, does that work for you? qcne (talk) 14:16, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree returned has no "connotations with either Rejected or Declined" but as a new editor I think I would just be confused. Also unlike work submitted to a publisher etc it is not returned, as it has already been released publicly under CC-BY-SA etc. Just expect the help desks to just get "My draft was returned what does that mean?" questions as well as the same "my draft was rejected" comments and people will reply with "it was returned not rejected" instead of "it was declined not rejected". KylieTastic (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I like SmokeyJoe's proposal. Darkm777 (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Would we be able to ping the participants in the prior discussion? Sdkb ^talk 04:17, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Sdkb - If I understand the question, pinging all of the participants in a previous discussion is not considered canvassing and is permitted. Wat that the question? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:28, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

It was less a question and more a suggestion that you or someone else may want to do it. Sdkb ^talk 10:22, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

• The VP thread was a long read and while the OP's concern is relevant it comes a little late in the day. I haven't done any AfC reviewing in a long while but for several years I was heavily engaged with it and its improvement and and while UX (for all audiences) is always predominant in my thoughts, such a linguistic issue never crossed my mind. I don't believe it's too much of a burden to provide a short manual explanation to the creator if the default decline/rejection rationales occasionally don't suffice. What is needed however is a holistic approach to educating new users who register with the sole intention of creating an article but who won't read the PaG's before they start. This would reduce the number of inappropriate creations in the New Page Feed (which also has a feed for new drafts) and the number of articles moved to draft by Page Curation (there is a solution waiting in the wings). What data has any research provided to show that a problem really exists in the current use of AfC that needs Novem's dev time? Or, more simply: 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it' Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

draft about a caste

A brand-new account has submitted a draft about a caste which falls under WP:CT/SA restrictions. There's some indication of previous sock activity at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pawansharma04/Archive. What's the appropriate action here, and more generally about drafts in this CT? ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 09:46, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Now I see that @331dot addressed this at AFCHELP. So a new editor can create and submit the draft but if it's accepted then they can't edit it again until they reach EC... this feels like something I would have trouble explaining to a brand-new editor. (Assuming they created this in good faith.) ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 10:11, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

So I have heard varying interpretations on this, ranging from mine to no, they can't even do that. I leaned towards my decision because they hadn't been notified of the restrictions. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

My general reading of it is no, they can't edit or create articles on the topic. See also WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive339#Zatinya. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 23:39, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@331dot @Jéské Couriano is correct. I thought the same until SFR kindly let me know I was incorrect. Per WP:ARBECR, non-ECR editors can only make edit requests on 'Talk:" pages. S0091 (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano and S0091:, thanks for this clarification. 331dot (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano and S0091: thanks, that makes sense and doesn't create a catch-22 for the new editor. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 22:36, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I hadn't realised all South Asian content is contentious now. Does that mean we can't accept any draft about anything related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka etc? Unless I suppose it's submitted by an ECR editor? Sorry if this has all been explained, I've been less active in the last few weeks. Lijil (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

@Lijil: No - only articles, discussions, and edits related to what was formerly WP:GSCASTE and Indian military history are under the 500/30 rule. Any other topic in the South Asia area is fair game for non-XC editors. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:24, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. So any articles related to caste or Indian military history we just decline with a note referencing WP:CT/SA? Lijil (talk) 08:20, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Tracked in github.com
Issue #264

Yes, and a CTOP alert to the draft creator. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 08:25, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Would folks like this added as a decline reason to AFCH? That might make this less confusing. Something like... ctop - Unfortunately Israel/Palestine, Indian castes, and Indian military history have been designated contentious topics on Wikipedia, which means they are subject to special rules. One of those rules is that new editors (less than 500 edits and 30 days account age) may not create aritcles on these topics, so we cannot accept this. However we would be delighted to have you contribute to less controversial areas of the encyclopedia. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:32, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

That would probably be prudent. Primefac (talk) 08:40, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good, it might save well-intentioned newbies some pain. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 12:30, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree. A couple suggested changes: Israel/Palestine to Arab–Israeli conflict and for the last sentence I would change it "However you are welcome to contribute in less controversial areas....." or something like that though because I think "delighted" is a bit strong.

Also, fyi, I have a list of the Arab-Israel and South Asian CTOP notice templates on my User page folks might find useful. I always have hard time finding them. S0091 (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Filed a complaint against NeoGaze

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

To NeoGaze, I have sent a complaint letter to Wiki corporate Office. You Wikipedia was listed as a source on Duck Duck GO Search Assist for the following: 1). Barry Equality Field Equation 2). Barry Infinity Equality Field Equation

I created a page what Duck Duck Go search assist stated because there are some of your talk editors who like to reject or Delete pages created everytime showing bias and discrimination because of conservative views. The actions of Wikipedia are unacceptable along with NeoGaze. The Barry Equality Field Equation uses Physics, Mathematics, and Computer Sciences along with M String Theory. If you do have personal issues than quit listing yourself as a source on my copyrighted and trademarked work. In the Martial Arts, We are taught to walk away from conflict but you have decided to pursue conflict. Barry Lee Crouse (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Why on earth are you trusting a Knowledge Panel-esque AI tool and blaming us for said tool that we have zero control over? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 22:55, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Because your security is ?? All over the Internet you promoted AI tech companies from San Francisco now you are changing your tune all of a sudden because it no longer serves your purpose. When you are being caught as a listed source and now you are trying to clean up your mess that you created. Yes, I do blame Wikipedia like I said if you do not like someone with different views conservative than perhaps you should stop trying to pursue conflict. The fact of the matter is I have 155 Copyrights world wide with 15 plus trademarks some listed with the WIPO and it must really bother you so much.I haver also told wikipedia a few months ago that since you delete all of my pages I must demand that you have no more access into my copyrights based on Science and Technology and of course you dismissed this. Barry Lee Crouse (talk) 23:11, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

We are only volunteers, we have no control over what search engines promote. Whether you have 155 copyrights and 15 trademarks is irrelevant. What actual problem do you have with NeoGaze and their review of your draft? Tenshi! (Talk page) 23:22, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@Bcrouse2025g Wikipedia, as far as I know, has not actively approached third party sites like DuckDuckGo or Google to use Wikipedia as a source. If Wikipedia is a source, it is that platform's response that you are seeking. I have gone through the draft you have created and the responses that @NeoGaze had given to you on your talk page. First, the draft is sorely lacking as explained by NeoGaze. Please improve the draft as indicated by NeoGaze. Third party platforms use Wikipedia as a source partly is because the notability standards that we have for inclusion of new content. We will not lower the standards just at your say-so. Adhere to it, and we will have next to no issue with you. No freedom of speech is impacted here. You are free to say or do whatever you want, as long as you adhere to the rules of the house. If anything NeoGaze had not asked for outright deletion of the content yet, which in almost many other instances would be requested speedily for and deleted accordingly. – robertsky (talk) 23:12, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

This is from Duck Duck Go Search assist "Barry Equality Field Equation"

The Barry Equality Field Equation is a theoretical framework in physics that aims to unify concepts from M String Theory and Intelligent Design, exploring higher dimensions and the dynamics of physical fields. It is part of a broader set of equations that seek to explain complex phenomena in science and technology. bcrouse2025.vivaldi.net Pinterest

Overview of the Barry Equality Field Equation

The Barry Equality Field Equation is a theoretical framework in physics that aims to unify various concepts, including M String Theory and Intelligent Design. It is designed to explore higher dimensions, particularly the 6th and 7th dimensions, and proposes new insights into subatomic particles that traditional equations may overlook.

Key Features

Dimensions Explored

Dimension

Description

6th

Recognizes subatomic particles often ignored by other theories.

7th

Allows for higher-dimensional exploration and unification with M String Theory.

8th

Introduces complex issues regarding the existence of physical worlds.

Applications

Scientific Innovations: The equation is part of a broader portfolio of scientific products and theories, holding numerous copyrights and trademarks.

Theoretical Physics: It challenges conventional models, such as the Big Bang Theory, by advocating for non-singularity and dynamic parallel universes.

Conclusion

The Barry Equality Field Equation represents a significant attempt to advance scientific understanding by integrating various theoretical frameworks and exploring higher dimensions. Its implications could reshape how we view fundamental physics and the universe.

Wikipediabarryleecrouse.me

Please explain why Wikipedia is listed as a source ??? 73.140.178.255 (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I invite you to read the URL of this page and then compare it to the obviously-not-Wikipedia URL at the end of that obvious AI post. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 23:21, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia was listed as a source from the following below:

The Barry Equality Field Equation is a theoretical framework in physics that aims to unify concepts from M String Theory and Intelligent Design, exploring higher dimensions and the dynamics of physical fields. It is part of a broader set of equations that seek to explain complex phenomena in science and technology. bcrouse2025.vivaldi.net Pinterest

Overview of the Barry Equality Field Equation

The Barry Equality Field Equation is a theoretical framework in physics that aims to unify various concepts, including M String Theory and Intelligent Design. It is designed to explore higher dimensions, particularly the 6th and 7th dimensions, and proposes new insights into subatomic particles that traditional equations may overlook.

Key Features

Dimensions Explored

Dimension

Description

6th

Recognizes subatomic particles often ignored by other theories.

7th

Allows for higher-dimensional exploration and unification with M String Theory.

8th

Introduces complex issues regarding the existence of physical worlds.

Applications

Scientific Innovations: The equation is part of a broader portfolio of scientific products and theories, holding numerous copyrights and trademarks.

Theoretical Physics: It challenges conventional models, such as the Big Bang Theory, by advocating for non-singularity and dynamic parallel universes.

Conclusion

The Barry Equality Field Equation represents a significant attempt to advance scientific understanding by integrating various theoretical frameworks and exploring higher dimensions. Its implications could reshape how we view fundamental physics and the universe.

Wikipediabarryleecrouse.me

This was from Duck Duck GO search assist for the "Barry Equality Field Equation" please explain why wikipedia is listed as a source and yet when I come out here it does not exist are you having IT Security Issues ? perhaps IP piracy ? I don't know but it is obvious you have a lot of explaining to do not recognizing the copyrights or trademarks is a sure sign that you need to be looked at closely. 73.140.178.255 (talk) 23:26, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Ask DuckDuckGo, not Wikipedia. It is DuckDuckGo's prerogative to select what sites they display as results for their search tools. – robertsky (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I have told Wikipedia if you are going to engage in content deletion than you should not have access into my copyrights in Switzerland. You do not wish to acknowledge the author than you must cease and desist. 73.140.178.255 (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

And, once again, wikipediabarryleecrouse.me is not en.wikipedia.org. If anything, wikipediabarryleecrouse.me seems more like a scammer's website address. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 23:30, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

This was copied and pasted from what the text from Duck Duck Go stated. I must insist that you or anybody from Wikipedia cease and Desist for not acknowledging the copyrights and trademarks. 73.140.178.255 (talk) 23:33, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if a scammer is trying to take advantage of you or if a large language model AI severely misled you into thinking you've made a major mathematical breakthrough (you wouldn't be the first, it's been known to happen), but something has gone seriously wrong here and I don't know how we can help you. Mathematical equations cannot be patented, the name of an equation cannot be trademarked, wikipediabarryleecrouse.me is not a real website (neither is barryleecrouse.me), having a ProtonMail account does not mean every idea you've ever typed is registered intellectual property in Switzerland, and Wikipedia did not magically insert itself into your citations section.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 02:18, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano, it is not wikipediabarryleecrouse.me. the formatting from DuckDuckGo is lost when @Bcrouse2025g copied over the content of the AI Assist output. They are two separate links, with the Wikipedia link going to Field equation article in my search. – robertsky (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

not buying your story please cease and desist. 73.140.178.255 (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Then buy this: we aren't interested in an utterly unsourced draft about a novel field equation, which is why NeoGaze rejected the draft out-of-hand. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 23:42, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

And the wikipediabarryleecrouse.me as a domain isn't registered. – robertsky (talk) 23:39, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3) Linking to a website domain is not copyrightable or trademarkable. Tenshi! (Talk page) 23:35, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I must demand that wikipedia cease and desist it's Intellectual Property violations if it does not wish to acknowledge the author or the trademark for Barry Equality Field Equation. 73.140.178.255 (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

You are being taken in by a scam website. We have nothing to do with this. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 23:32, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

not buying your story 73.140.178.255 (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

And when i did the same search，the Wikipedia link was to Field equation article, which was probably used to give context as to what the search term was about. – robertsky (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I checked for myself and the "Search Assist" lists our article on Field equation as a source. This is bizarre, since our article says nothing about the "Barry Equality Field Equation" or anything even remotely similar. Wikipedia has done nothing here; I suggest you take this up with DuckDuckGo. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:00, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

templates

I had a user submit Draft:Template:Railway accidents and incidents in the 1840s and it looks reasonable (1850s and 1860s already exist), but the AFCH tools acceptance gets stuck. Is there anything that should be done other than reminding the user that the A in AFC stands for Article? I'm going to move to templatespace and strip off the AFC templates. (and given that they have successfully created a template, and I have no idea how this could be COI, I'm going to suggest they stop using AFC for this type of thing. Comments? Naraht (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Templates are allowed per the reviewing instructions. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 14:14, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

OK, I see that now, but I'm pretty sure the AFCH software got stuck in trying to approve it. I don't know where to report something in that regard.Naraht (talk) 14:16, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I have accepted two templates (last one in July) and had no problems with it. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 14:50, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Huh, not sure what I did wrong then. :(Naraht (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't know where to report something. Bugs with WP:AFCH can be reported here on this talk page. Will need more details for a good bug report though, such as WP:DIFFS and error messages. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

A Locked Title in Draft Space

I have encountered an unusual situation, in that I looked at a sandbox that was tagged for review, at User:মোহাম্মদ জনি হোসেন/sandbox, and tried to move it to Draft:Tawhid Afridi. The draft title is locked. The history shows that it is locked due to repeated creation of drafts by sockpuppets. The history of the article title shows that an article was deleted in 2019, but the article title is not locked. I have asked the protecting administrator of the draft title to unprotect it down to ECP. Does anyone else have any other advice? I think that we agree that protection in draft space should be rare, and should be kept to a minimum. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm sure Johnuniq would be willing to unprotect it when he sees your message and it will be fine to move it to draftspace then. In other cases it would also likely be helpful to check the account creating it to try to find out if it is another sock, but it doesn't look like it in this case so I think it's fine. (Side-note I do think template protection was a rather odd choice for it.) Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 22:43, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Done. Johnuniq (talk) 00:21, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I was sufficiently uncertain about this that I did a detailed source analysis, and was surprised to find that there is significant coverage, and I accepted the draft. I filed my source analysis on the talk page of the draft (now the talk page of the article). Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games § Draft:Steal a Brainrot now wikinotable?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games § Draft:Steal a Brainrot now wikinotable?. Ca ^{talk to me!} 04:35, 7 September 2025 (UTC) Ca ^{talk to me!} 04:35, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Post-finasteride syndrome

I would appreciate having another reviewer review Draft:Post-finasteride syndrome. This is a controversial topic, and has been locked down to an admin-only redirect for four years. My own opinion is that we should have a separate article on the syndrome, but that the decision on whether we should have a separate article should be made by the community by an AFD discussion.

The complication is that there is disagreement within the medical community as to whether this is actually a a defined syndrome with defined criteria, and it is not listed in the ICD, so that its status should be clearly explained in the article.

I have posted a request to the locking administrator asking to downgrade the redirect from admin-protected to EC-protected. In my opinion, the long-term locking of redirects should be minimized, because it interferes with the improvement of the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:30, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Verfication for draft

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello sir, actually i have created a draft on Indian actor Sanjay Dutt's Artistry and public image section. Since I have discovered many indian actors have this section, he is very popular even now. So i made it. I have the reliable references. I tried to keep it neutral. I have also go through the policies of living persons which many editors suggested me. So i followed it and designed this.

Please check, also if you find any error, let me know

Dutt has been described by critics as a versatile actor, with performances spanning dramas, thrillers, comedies and historical films. ANI News called him “an actor who has given some memorable characters to and wowed the audiences time and again.” Bollywood Hungama wrote, “He pulls off the characters effortlessly and he is closely involved with his team in deciding a character’s look.” Dutt has also been described as a fashion icon, Hindustan Times noted that his films popularised various styles such as mullets, leather jackets and distressed jeans. NDTV wrote that his strong screen presence and stylised villainy made him “South’s favourite villain". The New Indian Express compared him to Arnold Schwarzenegger, noting the range of his roles—from the poet in Saajan to the comic in Thanedaar, the lovable rogue in Munna Bhai and the police officer in Shootout at Lokhandwala. Eastern Eye noted that Dutt had “a rollercoaster life and career filled with high drama” but continues to be heavily in demand 40 years after making his debut as a lead and has a huge number of high-profile films on the way. Rediff.com described him as “a charmer and a terrific actor” and observed that he could bounce back after setbacks. Dutt was featured in Box Office India's "Top Actors" list three times in 1991-1993 and topped the list two times in 1992 and 1993. From 2012, 2013 and 2018, he was also featured on Forbes India's Celebrity 100, a list based on the income and popularity of India's celebrities. In 2022, he was placed in Outlook India's "75 Best Bollywood Actors" and "Actors Who Wear the Gangster Aura with Flair" list.

In media, Dutt is also regarded as the most controversial figure in Indian Cinema and often been referred as “Bollywood’s Bad Boy”. Despite his many controversies, he successfully established himself as an leading actor. Gooshh (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

More eyes please

on Draft:Thomas G. O'Neill; does it smack of WP:PAID to anyone else? —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:16, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Its certainly promotional in the career section, I would probably decline it for that reason alone. NeoGaze (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Declined. I have written comment templates {{praise}} and {{perssays}} for cases like this. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:23, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

By the way, I never subst those templates. I don't get paid to do that sort of work, and the bot does get paid for it. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

AFC Comment in Existing Article

An AFC comment has been inserted into a mainspace article that has been in mainspace since 2011. This causes it to appear in the category of AFC articles in article space, which is usually populated by pages that have been moved from draft space to article space after being declined. So my first question is whether the AFC helper script does this, because I don't see an option to invoke the AFCH script when I am viewing an article. If the script does permit that, then maybe permitting that is a misfeature. If the script doesn't work on articles that have been in article space for a decade, then maybe an editor simply did a mistaken addition. The article is Pakistan Business Council.

The category of AFC articles in article space is usually drafts that were moved to article space, and a reviewer can evaluate whether they should be moved back to draft space, nominated for deletion, or allowed to stay in article space. In this case, I think that I will take out the comment and replace it with a tag. But can someone tell me whether they added the comment with the script, or whether they added it with a mistaken manual edit? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

The comment was added in manually, and the page has been deleted for copyvios. Primefac (talk) 17:18, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Notability

Hi there, I am new(ish) to Wikipedia but have taken a recent interest in the rapid development of technology and wanted to take a stab at my first tech/business related article. Would you recommend I start with a draft or is there anywhere where I can guage the notability before creating the article? I am exploring a few topics at the moment from new businesses to relevant entrepreneurs and am following the Notability guidelines as I'm doing my research, but would definitely love any guidance. Thank you in advance. SimonMubarak (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @SimonMubarak, I suggest asking this at the Teahouse as this page is for the administration of the WP:AFC process. S0091 (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi SimonMubarak, starting with a draft would be a good choice and submitting via AfC to get feedback. If your first draft sails through then you know your understanding of the policies and guidelines is correct. However, if you have missed something draft is more tolerant where if you try to create directly you could end with a quick deletion which can be discouraging. Starting by thinking about notability is the best way to start, if you have 3+ independent reliable sources to show notability for a subject then as long as you're not running into copyright issues you should be good. As S0091 said, the Teahouse is the best place for new editors to ask questions, this is for reviewers and project administration. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

WP:YFA is a good read for new article-writers. Primefac (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

@S0091, KylieTastic, and Primefac: thank you all for the guidance. I will read the articles you sent me and begin working on my draft. And moving forward, I will ask my questions in the Teahouse. Thank you. SimonMubarak (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Duplicated draft and COI

Hello, I recently reviewed and declined Draft:Buyankhishig unurbayar, then I realized the user bears the same name, which seems to be the subject of the draft herself. Then after I saw the editor made an almost exact draft before (Draft:Buyankhishig Unurbayar). Should one be nominated for deletion or something? NeoGaze (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

In these cases, I like to redirect the worse one to the better one, to reduce duplicate work. If they're identical, I guess you can flip a coin :) In this particular case, I'd probably go with the one that is capitalized correctly in the title. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:28, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Primefac (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I created a redirect towards that draft, and since the user discloses the COI in the user page, it seems this is enough. NeoGaze (talk) 06:51, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Indian Military History

I just declined a dispute at DRN that was in the area of Indian military history because neither of the editors was extended-confirmed. However, this is about drafts in the area of Indian military history. If you are reviewing a draft in that topic area, please check whether the editor is extended-confirmed. It appears that some editors may be trying to use AFC as a way around the restriction. Please do not accept a draft that the originator will not be able to edit. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

The same applies to articles in the former WP:GSCASTE topic area and in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:04, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes.

The filing editor asked me what he was supposed to do after his DRN was cancelled. I said that they should leave the article alone, and that if they want advice, the Teahouse would probably give the same advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:51, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

It might also be a good idea to request ECP at RFPP so you don't have to worry about non-ECP editors editing the draft or article. Twinkle has an option for WP:ARBECR. S0091 (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

https://github.com/NovemLinguae/UserScripts/issues/264 should help with this once it gets done. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Street Legal (band)

I reviewed this draft. On viewing it, a page-wide image of the band pops up, followed by some introductory information that should probably be in an infobox. Is there some guideline that I have forgotten about that says that an article should not begin with an oversized image? I assume that the rules about images in drafts are consistent with the rules about images in articles, because a draft is meant to be accepted as an article. It wasn't clear to me whether I should say something about the image. I have declined the draft as not meeting musical notability criteria, but I would like to know whether the image is an issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Pretty easy mistake for newbies to make – infobox markup should have Example.jpg rather than [[File:Example.jpg]] for the "image =" parameter. Using the full [[File:]] is what causes it to be massive.

Easiest just to fix it on review, and leave a note (or direct them to MOS:INFOBOXIMAGE) so they know for next time. Nil🥝 04:42, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Blank drafts?

Periodic reminder to check if there is hidden content in a seemingly blank draft, before declining it. I've just seen one which was declined twice as blank, although there was content hidden by a comment tag. I then discovered that the same author earlier had another draft also falsely declined as blank. Fortunately, both drafts were speedy fodder, so no great loss to the cause, but still. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:53, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

AFCH warns for this sometimes. The next time you see this issue, can you check if AFCH is emitting any warnings? If not, then perhaps you can give me a diff and I can figure out how to add it. If so, then perhaps we can enlarge the warning to make it more visible. The warning is emitted in the same place in AFCH as things like previous deletion notices. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:56, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Really? I'm not sure if I've ever seen such a warning. What is the warning about – that the draft may appear blank but has hidden content? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:13, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

This warning, I think: addWarning( 'The page contains ' + ( oneComment ? 'an' : ) + ' HTML comment' + ( oneComment ?  : 's' ) + ' longer than 30 characters.', 'View comment'. If you've never seen it before, perhaps it's broken and needs fixing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:59, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

It works for me in the sandbox. Draft:Sandbox –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:02, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I may have seen that, but probably just couldn't connect the dots. I'll keep an eye on it. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:38, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Yep, sure enough, now that I know what to look for and where, that warning ("The page contains an HTML comment longer than 30 characters. (View comment)") did just come up. And yes, I must have seen that a hundred times, I just never realised it meant this. But as long as I'm the only one too thick to make that connection, we don't have a problem. :) DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:42, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Both of these are good reminders/notices for new folks and/or ones who might have forgotten! Primefac (talk) 20:49, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Feedback Request for Draft:Sam Bayat Makoo

Hello, I have created a draft article for Sam Bayat Makoo (Draft:Sam Bayat Makoo) about a Quebec-licensed attorney and author specializing in immigration law and citizenship by investment programs. The draft uses independent, reliable sources such as *Gulf News*, *Caribbean News Global*, *The Corporate Immigration Review*, and *Le Barreau du Québec* to establish notability per WP:NBIO. No self-published sources (e.g., LinkedIn or Bayat Group website) are used. I am seeking feedback on the draft’s content, sourcing, and neutrality to improve it before submitting to Articles for Creation. Please advise if additional sources, clarifications, or changes are needed to meet Wikipedia’s standards. Thank you!

InsightAdventurer (talk) 13:43, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @InsightAdventurer. Submitting the draft for review is how you get feedback - you're asking for a pre-review which we don't really do. That said, you should have a read of WP:42 which outlines the sources you need in a basic way. qcne (talk) 13:50, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, @qcne, for your response and for pointing me to WP:42. I understand that pre-reviews are not common, and I appreciate the guidance. I’ve reviewed WP:42 and ensured that the draft (Draft:Sam Bayat Makoo) uses independent, reliable sources like Gulf News, Caribbean News Global, The Corporate Immigration Review, and Le Barreau du Québec to establish notability. Since I’m not ready to submit to AfC yet, I’d greatly appreciate any specific feedback on the draft’s content, sourcing, or neutrality from you or other editors to help improve it further. For example, are the current sources sufficient for WP:NBIO, or should I add more? Thank you for your time! InsightAdventurer (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

If you would like a review, you need to submit the draft for review. Rambley ^{(talk / contribs)} 14:12, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, @Rambley, for your suggestion. I understand that submitting to AfC is the best way for a formal review. I'll work on addressing the concerns raised by other editors (like sourcing) first and then submit the draft (Draft:Sam Bayat Makoo) once it's improved. If you have any quick feedback on the current version, I'd appreciate it, but I respect the process. Thanks again! InsightAdventurer (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Can I just add, since it hasn't been mentioned yet, that this page is for discussing the administration and operation of the AfC project, not for discussing the progress or otherwise of individual drafts. You should put such questions to the AfC Help Desk... except that also there you will be advised that we don't provide pre-reviews. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, @DoubleGrazing, for clarifying the purpose of this page. I apologize for posting in the wrong place. I understand that pre-reviews are not provided, and I’ll move my questions to the AfC Help Desk or submit the draft (Draft:Sam Bayat Makoo) formally via AfC once I’ve addressed all feedback. I’ve already revised the draft to remove non-independent sources based on other editors’ input and will seek further guidance at the appropriate venues, like Teahouse or WikiProjects. Thanks for your help! InsightAdventurer (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Adding a "Mark page as reviewed" checkbox to the AfC Helper script

For those of us who are both AfC reviewers and New Page Patrollers, I thought it might be helpful to add a "Mark page as reviewed" checkbox to the AfC Helper script. It would be unchecked by default. This way, if one intends to mark the page as reviewed immediately after accepting, one can do this from the AfC Helper script and doesn't need to leave the AfC workflow. It might save a little time. Thoughts? Toadspike [Talk] 17:19, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Not opposed to the idea but I don't think it should be checked by default. S0091 (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not opposed necessarily, but I also don't think it's necessary; if one wants to patrol the page, there's already a "mark page as patrolled" hover text (or maybe it's just my settings?), and the patrolling of a page follows the page, so if I were wanting to patrol it and accept (which I don't, because I always prefer a second set of eyes) I would mark as patrolled and then review with AFCH. Primefac (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

the patrolling of a page follows the page. I don't think it does with PageTriage. I think a move from non-mainspace to mainspace sets the patrol status to unpatrolled, unless the mover is autopatrolled, in which case it sets the status to patrolled. I think the old patrol status when it was in draftspace is ignored/overridden.

Will watch this discussion and see which way the consensus goes. A patrol checkbox is certainly doable from a programming perspective. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I always prefer a second set of eyes – while I agree that in borderline cases another check is helpful, I'm surprised you always leave it unreviewed. I'm not sure this is what's best for the project, given the state of the NPP backlog. Toadspike [Talk] 21:43, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I always leave it because the drafts I review are almost always borderline cases. Primefac (talk) 22:19, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Request for AfC Reviewer Rights

Hello,

I would like to request AfC reviewer rights. I have been an active contributor on Wikipedia, focusing on creating and improving articles with proper citations from reliable sources. I am familiar with key content policies, including:

Notability – ensuring that subjects meet Wikipedia’s general and specific notability guidelines.

Reliable sourcing – using high-quality, verifiable sources and avoiding self-published or promotional material.

Neutral point of view – keeping articles free from bias and promotional tone.

I have experience working with drafts, cleaning up articles to meet Wikipedia standards, and I understand the AfC reviewing process, including when to accept, decline, or reject drafts. My goal is to help reduce the backlog at Articles for Creation by giving constructive feedback and approving articles that meet the criteria for inclusion.

Thank you for considering my request. Iamnilesh0321 (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Iamnilesh0321. I hope you're doing well. Thank you for your contribution and interest in this right. This is not a right place for this request. You can request it here. Currently, you do not meet minimum criteria for this right. As you must have 500 undeleted edits and your account must have 90 days old. I request you to gain more editing experience and participate in AfD discussion and then come back with request. Did you use AI to write this request? Best Regards! Fade258 (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Replace main space stub with submitted draft?

We have one of these unfortunate but unavoidable situations at help desk where a draft author is less than happy about having waited for a month to have their draft (Draft:National Christian Union (Romania)) reviewed, only to find that someone has meanwhile published an article in the main space on the same subject (National Christian Union (Romania)). Normally I'd say first-to-publish has dibs, but on this occasion the main space article is a very short stub, and only cites two sources so arguably fails (within the confines of the article) WP:ORG, whereas the draft is much better developed. I'd argue it is clearly in the interests of the 'pedia to have the latter content published. Therefore, two possibilities come to mind: 1) move the stub into drafts on notability grounds, and accept the pending draft instead; or 2) simply copypaste the contents of the draft into the published article, and then merge the histories. Does either of these make any sense (and are they ethical)? If so, which is better? Or is there another approach? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:36, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I'd say this is a good WP:IAR case, and I would support just replacing the mainspace version with the better one in draftspace, then merging the histories. I wouldn't see how this could be any less ethical than say, replacing an article with a better copy you made in your userspace or something. Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 15:41, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

@Cristian9343, the draft's creator, merged it and redirected the draft to the article so I think this is good now. S0091 (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate your intervention on this matter. I thought nothing else could be done other than merging, given the responses at the help desk, and so I rushed to carry out the merger. Nonetheless, I thank you once again for your intervention. Cristian9343 (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Draft with text copied from a CC BY-SA 3.0 source

I was just checking the following draft Draft:Andrew Peterson (farmer) and the Copyvio tool showed me that most of the text has a 82.6% similarity with the material of this source. The thing is that source goes under the license CC BY-SA 3.0, so I am unsure about how to proceed. Is this fine or should the text be removed? NeoGaze (talk) 13:24, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

@NeoGaze It is permitted, and all that is needed is a {{Free-content attribution}} at the bottom of the draft and maybe a {{Uw-unattribcc}} on the submitter's talk page. Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 13:30, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @NeoGaze, here's a simplified explainer: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

It looks like the reference includes " Material was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported. License" so this is adequate. Alternatively, you may see a template at the bottom of the referencing section as well, for example {{Free-content attribution}}. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

@Bobby Cohn @Sophisticatedevening Allright. Thanks for your quick replies! NeoGaze (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I would recommend using {{CCBYSASource}} in this case since the attribution wasn't added in the same edit as the copied content. That way it's more clear that there is a span of revisions which erroneously imply that they are GFDL compatible. Perryprog (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Draftification of accepted AfC submissions

This might be a discussion that's occurred already, but is there any generally agreed on position for whether draftification of already-accepted AfC submissions is acceptable? WP:DRAFTNO in point 6 states that an article should generally avoid draftifying when another editor has asserted the article should exist in mainspace, which I think draft acceptance pretty clearly demonstrates. (I would also argue that even the creator unilaterally moving a declined or rejected draft, unless they have a COI, also meets this criteria, but it's probably better to discuss the case where the draft has been properly accepted first.) That being said, WP:DRAFTOBJECT states an article should only be moved to draftspace a single time.

Despite this, it's not at all uncommon to see draftifications of previously accepted AfC articles, and this is often not contested (I just accepted an eight-week old draft with no declines that was a draftified-accepted-draft!) So, should we care about this more strongly than we have? Should we just "procedurally" accept drafts that are like this? I'm especially curious to see what any NPPers have to say. Perryprog (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Unless there are very major problems with it and it really should not have been accepted then it shouldn't be draftified again, but it does happen and is fine for them to do so. It's also perfectly fine to push against and move it back if you object to it. If it's a deletion-worthy problem then they can send it to AfD, if not then it should be tagged or fixed then. As far as reviewing previously draftified articles you should not "procedurally" accept them, they should be reviewed the same as any other draft. Accepting and draftifying are typically unilateral decisions and there is always going to be disagreements, especially on borderline drafts, but if it is accepted a second time then that's when WP:DRAFTOBJECT applies and it shouldn't be moved back again and then it's an AfD matter. Now subjectively I think the reason people don't care about this more strongly is that it really isn't that huge of a deal unless your accepts are frequently being undone. It's almost guaranteed to happen to one of your reviews eventually, so don't stress and take it hard when it does. Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 16:34, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I don't mean to imply that this is something that really matters—it's just a small pattern I've noticed that I feel goes against the wording of DRAFTNO. (Not that that's even a guideline, of course!) And I do agree that there will be times when something gets accepted when it really shouldn't have and drafticiation can definitely be the best course of action. What I'm not sure about is they should be reviewed the same as any other draft—essentially, the draft has been accepted, and was asserted by that acceptor to belong in articlespace. I don't feel strongly about this, of course.

While this hasn't happened to drafts I've reviewed, though I appreciate your advice regarding if it does, I'm actually more concerned about the impact it has on the original draft author. AfC is infamously a pretty harsh process, with a much higher bar than passing NPP. Being able to pass that process only to have sudden whiplash as the page gets thrown back in your face being told "no, actually, this isn't good enough for Wikipedia" has got to be pretty disheartening. Not to mention, there's also no guarantee that the person is even willing to further refine the draft (example), in which case the borderline-acceptable draft is then more or less guaranteed to end up falling into the bin of G13. Perryprog (talk) 16:48, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

AFC accepts usually shouldn't be draftified. However, the specific case you mentioned (Synthetic organelles) seems reasonable. An NPP reviewer judged it was wholly AI-generated, and sent it to draftspace for cleanup. It was cleaned up, then moved back. The two "failed verification" tags are the WP:AITELL here. The NPP reviewer checked the sources and found they didn't support the cited text. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

It should not matter if the article was accepted via AfC. I accept drafts I think are borderline or make mistakes/miss something so I depend on NPP for a second check. We also have new reviewers who are learning and sometimes UPE/sock reviewers. NPP should review AfC accepts just like they would any other article. S0091 (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Accepted AFC submissions should be in a state where the article is very unlikely to be nominated for deletion (or be draftified), and should have a very good chance of surviving a deletion nomination. Of course, mistakes do happen. When it comes to moving articles to draft space, it may be necessary to only do so for when the article creator is or was active in the last month. Articles can be in draftspace twice, but only moved to draftspace once from mainspace. JuniperChill (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

very unlikely to be nominated for deletion, very good chance of surviving a deletion nomination. I hear "50% chance of surviving a deletion discussion" more often than I hear "very good chance of surviving a deletion discussion". –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

It's an interesting dichotomy, because while I agree the common wisdom is the 50/50 chance as you state (and has been discussed here many a time), going back to at least 2015 the reviewer instructions state that Articles that will probably survive a listing at [AFD] should be accepted. Articles that will probably not survive should be declined. I think the whole 50/50 thing comes from the "Maybe, but I'm not sure" part of the yes/no/maybe trio; if you're not sure, and it might survive AFD, then it's probably worth accepting. Primefac (talk) 00:43, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Because AFC is designed for new users and I wouldn't want a new user to be congratulated, only for the article to then be nominated for deletion. AFC reviewers may not have the NPP/autopatrolled right, which is why the article may need a second review after being accepted. Of course, nothing is stopping anyone to nominate a reviewed article/redirect (whether directly or via AFC) for deletion. No to mention other avenues exist before deletion, as outlined at WP:ATD. JuniperChill (talk) 09:46, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

On the flip side they get an article accepted then it just being returned to draft with no clear explanation to them or the AfC reviewers is also very confusing and negative. At least at AfD they can argue their point, draftification is still used too often as backdoor deletion. As AfC reviewers can miss things dratification needs to be allowed but it should be explained. It should also be made clear that if the submitter or reviewer disagree they can use WP:DRAFTOBJECT move back and not be re-draftified. KylieTastic (talk) 11:00, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there are any hard rules about this, nor should there be. If a reviewer misses something like an LLM post or copyvio issues, the page should be returned to the draft without reservation. On the other hand, if the NPR just thinks it's not acceptable, then it should be sent to AFD because DRAFTOBJECT has technically been met (two editors believe the draft is acceptable, i.e. the submitter and the reviewer).

As far as the effect on the draft writer/submitter, that is somewhat of a concern (and if it were me I would rather my draft be re-draftified than nominated for deletion, where there is most definitely a shorter clock to contend with) and I'm not really sure how best to deal with that. Primefac (talk) 00:43, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I think all of this is on the reviewer's shoulders. If you're not up for it, ask for help on this talk page. Review work should be checked and if sound, use WP:DRAFTOBJECT. If not, apologize to the author. If it ends up in AfD, the reviewer gets some new experience to calibrate their reviewing going forward. IME we lose more promising articles to G13 (and PROD) than we do to AfD. ~Kvng (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Sandbox subpages

Recently there have been a lot of drafts submitted as sandbox subpages (username/sandbox/draft-title), wonder if some AI tool is responsible for that? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:14, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Eh... I'd suspect more it's a "monkey see monkey do" related to either a class assignment or some new WikiHow page. Primefac (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:GS/KURD

Hi everybody, this is just a reminder that under WP:GS/KURD is under extended-confirmed restriction, which means that if you come across drafts written about Kurds and/or Kurdistan, you can CSD them as WP:G5 if their creator is not yet XC. Please also leave {{subst:Gs/alert|topic=kurd}} on the talk pages of editors who haven't received it yet. I'm bringing this up because a single (non-NPP/AFC) editor has been doing most of the sock-wrangling and tagging in this topic area, which isn't sustainable. Thanks. -- asilvering (talk) 03:02, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

AFCH Script Hangs

Sometimes the AFCH script hangs when I am trying to decline a draft. It starts after I have viewed the draft in Firefox. I click the review (afch) tab, and the screen provides the green button to accept, the red button to decline or reject, and the yellow button for a comment. I click the red button. I then select one or two decline codes, and enter text in the text window, and press the red Decline button. It says DECLINING, and then nothing visible happens. It doesn't indicate that it wrote on the talk page of the originator, and it doesn't finish redisplaying the draft. If I click on the history tab, it doesn't list the action that I tried to take, but shows that nothing has happened. So I start over, by pressing the red button again, and the problem often recurs, sometimes three or four times. Sometimes I have had to deal with the problem by viewing the draft in Microsoft Edge.

Is this a known problem? If so, what is known about it? If not, is there a way that I can help collect information about the problem? Robert McClenon (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I have also been experiencing this for a few months, but I use Microsoft Edge. Refreshing the page tends to resolve it. I know that a very large AfC log can lag the script - I was advised by @Asilvering to keep my log fairly small with archiving. qcne (talk) 10:59, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

If large AFC logs are to blame, that is probably fixable. Someone should feel free to make a github ticket. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:35, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Although I did have some problems when the logs got very big that is not Roberts issue as he does not have them enabled. KylieTastic (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I think @Rusalkii was looking into it, but she might have gotten sidetracked. -- asilvering (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

What is the AFC log? I thank User:KylieTastic for saying that I do not have this feature enabled, because that clarifies that this is a feature that I have not enabled. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Robert use the (preferences) link at the top of the AFCH tool: there is a "Log acceptances, declines, and rejects" option. If enabled it created logs like on User:KylieTastic/AfC log _{(which shows how little reviewing I have got done since being an admin!)}. KylieTastic (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

And we already agreed that you had done more reviewing than was necessary. You were one of two admin candidates whose edit count was so high that I asked what tools you had been using, and your answer had mostly been about AFCH. So maybe your amount of reviewing now is reasonable rather than excessive. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I will try refreshing the page and purging the cache the next time that this happens. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback that this is a known problem for some reviewers. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon, it may also be that you have some scripts conflicting with each other. More likely to happen if you have a lot of different scripts all trying to run at the same time. For anyone having this kind of problem, I suggest writing some conditions into your common.js to cut down on potential loading conflicts. Mine's not fully sorted, but there are some annotations in there to get you started: User:Asilvering/common.js. -- asilvering (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering I looked at it, concluded it was not doing the absolutely trivial to fix thing I was worried it was, and dropped it because I didn't have the energy to look further. This isn't to say that whichever idiot wrote that didn't do some other stupidly inefficient trivial to fix thing, if anyone with more experience than me with mediawiki code wants to take a look. Rusalkii (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I have had this problem again several times in the last few days, and have purged the cache each time, and have found that that solves the problem each time. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:34, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Is AfC for re-drafting articles deleted at AfD?

on the topic of drafts seeking to recreate articles deleted at AfD, where the AfD is not contested, but the editor believes that new sources overcome the reason for delete, User WAID asks:

Does AFC want such articles? If we won't ask DRV to address this because they're volunteers and we speculate that most of them don't want these requests, then we should by the same token be wary of pushing these onto a different group of editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:36, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:05, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Is the question whether AfC will consider a draft on a subject, after an article on the same has been deleted following AfD? If so, then in practical terms I don't see that AfC has much choice but to consider what is submitted to it. (Whether it "wants" to, may be a different thing.)

If the draft is substantially identical to the deleted version, WP:G4 might (or might not; there seem to be different views on this) apply, but unless the reviewer is an admin they won't be able to see the deleted version to make the comparison, so that point is largely academic. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I am wiling to review any AFC draft on its merits, whether previously deleted, even if salted. Use of AFC shows good faith to me, certainly in this regard. Dr is intended only to look at the deletion process, not content.

I choose extra care when I see a deletion record, but it does not prejudice me against what is in front of me. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 07:41, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Just noting that G4 does not apply to a draft if the deleted page is an article. Primefac (talk) 08:37, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

"because they're volunteers" — do they think AfC is paid? If so I'm due a lot of back pay! On the actual point AfC should be happy to review amended drafts that are significant improvements and it already does with some that are draftified from WP:REFUND. However, if every deleted AfD could just be refunded here at request it could overload an already failing system. Also with some creators I can see that turning into tedious re-submission. So I would propose two safeguards: [1] to be refunded to draft the request (to the deleting admin, REFUND or DRV) must present new sources; [2] if a AfDed draft is resubmitted after refund with little to no improvement we need a quicker way to re-delete. KylieTastic (talk) 09:09, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

If it's a REFUND, that's shown in the history, which makes it relatively easy for also a non-admin reviewer to figure out whether the draft is essentially the same as the deleted article. It's when the submitter recreates the content that one needs admin goggles. (And now that I've said that, some AI tool out there has picked up on it and will be recommending this approach to anyone wanting to cover their tracks...) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:21, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

If it's deleted, you don't necessarily need admin goggles, just compare the draft to the AFD itself; if the issues causing the page to be deleted are still in the draft, decline. Primefac (talk) 09:23, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I have zero problem with an AfD-deleted subject being restarted as a draft, unless it was a hoax or attack page in the first place. BD2412 T 20:23, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

If a reviewer is reviewing a draft and the title was previously deleted, the reviewer can ask Requests for Undeletion to provide a temporary copy of the deleted article so that they can compare the new draft with the deleted article. If they are the same or almost the same, the reviewer should either decline or reject the draft as not notable, because the community has already decided on whether it is notable. If the draft is an improvement, the reviewer can assess whether they think that the new article is likely to be kept in AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Second opinion requested: Draft:Andrew Brettler

A second opinion on this one would be useful. Ignoring for the purposes of this message the fact that the author's username is inappropriate, the subject is definitely notable, but the existing referencing seems rather on the line about whether it satisfies "significant coverage" or not. The actual content seems to be a bit skimpy too, but I'm hesitant to outright decline a submission on a clearly notable topic if the issues could be easily addressed/fixed via maintenance tagging. But I also don't want to accept something that will just get AFD'd shortly thereafter. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

@Taking Out The Trash why you think they are notable? Did you find better sources? S0091 (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

IMO he's notable solely for being involved in such high-profile cases and with high-profile individuals. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 15:22, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@Taking Out The Trash I disagree. An attorney plies for hire, like a taxi. Their involvement with cases does not create notability. The sole thing which creates notability is not their case profile, but what is said about them in multiple reliable independent secondary sources.

No coverage of that nature? Then they are a WP:ROTM attorney.

I have not checked the references. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:36, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Timtrent; notability is not inherited. According to the April 2022 Variety interview and Hollywood Reporter's 2022 Top Power Attorneys, he was a partner at Martin Singer's firm (Lavely & Singer). It's odd that's not mentioned in the draft but that seems to be where he was working when he was representing most, if not all, the high-profile clients listed. He's not a 'nobody' but I don't see notability. S0091 (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Out-of-process mass moving of drafts to mainspace

...by a newcomer account, Korushomar (talk · contribs), at this writing--one of which happens to be a recent submission of mine. Just to inform the AFC team for now; I was wondering if reminding WP:AN/I would also be a given. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 09:14, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I've made an inquiry to them. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Just to ward off any potential pitchforks, a mild reminder that unless the moves are disruptive (e.g. moving a ton of drafts that are clearly not acceptable) the default assumption should not be something is "wrong". Thanks to 331dot for taking the initial step of seeing what their plans are. Has anyone looked at the moves to see if they're not unreasonable? Primefac (talk) 09:27, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I've looked at a few and just as a very light spotcheck (like, 30 second look-over) none of them seem blatantly problematic. Perryprog (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Second opinion: Neoweberianism

I have spent a while on one of the oldest items in the backlog: Draft:Neoweberianism - I was all set to approve but there were two doubts in my mind - it was an odd subject to come from a single post IP address in this amount of detail, and secondly the early use of the word "encompasses" when 99% of native speakers would say "includes" since it's shorter and easier to spell correctly. So I checked the item in GPTZero and it says 100% LLM.

The sources do check out, it really is a thing and the sources are RS. However some of the citations needed correction, one journal is actually a book, and one missed URL (which I now think is odd, since other citations did get filled in correctly).

Can someone check my checks? Since if I'm wrong the implications are awkward. ChrysGalley (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Page was nuked. Primefac (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Question About an AFC Category

I have some questions about Category:Pending AfC submissions in article space. As of about 0500Z, 14 October 2025, the category is displaying User talk:Job oeri onguti. That isn't in article space. First, maybe this is the wrong place to ask, because this is a question about how categories work, where can I view the logic that populates the category? Second, and related, why is a user talk page showing up in a category that is meant to display articles with an AFC template? Is the category displaying pages with AFC templates that are neither in draft space nor in user space?

If I am now successful, you will no longer be able to observe this behavior, because I will remove the autobiographical information and the AFC template, so that this page will be restored to its user as a user talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:22, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Logic is at {{AfC submission/created}}. – DreamRimmer ■ 04:55, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

"Logic" is a bit generous. The category is applied by that template unequivocally. (Unless in a sandbox/testcase subpage.) It's just a poor category name, in my opinion. Perryprog (talk) 05:00, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

It's not a poor category name; there is zero reason that the /created template should be anywhere other than in the article space, because the only place that {{AfC submission}} calls the /created template is in the article namespace. In other words, a direct transclusion of the /created template is likely to be wrong anyway because the template should not be transcluded directly. Primefac (talk) 01:09, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Sure, but I think the "in article space" part of the category can be a bit misleading if it's meant to include any pages that have the /created template transcluded. Though, "Pending AfC submissions" is obviously not any better as that just sounds like a category of submitted drafts. Perryprog (talk) 01:13, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Drafts created by AI

Am I alone in being very depressed about the vast quantity of junk draft articles created by AI? Do we warn users about using LLM anywhere beforehand? Theroadislong (talk) 09:26, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I am also very depressed and the fact that AfC accepts seem to be trending downwards I think posits that a lot of reviewers are encountering this. The Article Wizard does contain a warning. Maybe it could be stronger? qcne (talk) 10:11, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

(I'll also note reviewers discuss this quite a lot and share examples and vent on the NPP Discord) qcne (talk) 10:22, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Nope, I found it depressing. LLMs have just meant that people can overload AfC with junk at a faster rate. It's one reason I have mostly stopped reviewing (but also after 10+ years of grinding through reviews just had enough and needed a break). KylieTastic (talk) 10:48, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

A few years ago I thought that the greatest threat to the integrity of Wikipedia was paid editing. I still think that, a few years ago, the greatest threat to the integrity of Wikipedia was paid editing. Now I think that the greatest threat to the integrity of Wikipedia is artificial intelligence. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

It's rough, yeah. What only makes it worse is that false accusations of LLM usage (which I think happen far more often than people expect) are also incredibly damaging to people's morale. I also often feel that an AI-based decline on its own feels like it's sometimes a poor reason to deny a draft, as it doesn't necessarily point towards any specific issue or give any actionable item to the submitter besides "just, like, redo it". I don't disagree that it's a necessary decline reason, but I sometimes wish it was more often paired with a secondary decline reason, or a comment explaining what needs to be done. (E.g., check citations verify each statement, clean-up flowery prose, fix markdown-styled formatting...) Perryprog (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree, much as I hate the AI slop infecting every part of society I think G15s are slapped on in a very bitey way a lot of the time. I hope the process gets some tuning going forward. KylieTastic (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

(I am definitely more willing to AI decline/G15 if it's a paid editor... if you're getting paid to edit, at least put the work in.) Perryprog (talk) 00:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I have seen a number of drafts rejected for AI even though I can not find any smoking guns or strong evidence. Aside from obvious signs of meta-commentary, emojis, ChatGPT citations, lots of em-dashes, and nonsensical bolding, are there other ways of identifying AI that I miss? GGOTCC 03:09, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, at this point I am doubtful. WP:AISIGNS lists a good few but... they're all so circumstantial and many of them are just things that people will do when first contributing to Wikipedia. Like, capital letters in headings? Really? That's something that you learn in middle school to do and we're treating that as a sign of AI writing—it just happens to be that we don't title case our section headers. And I mean, if you think someone is using LLMs, just... ask? It's a world of difference to be unsure and ask versus just accuse someone who has English as an L2 and has an odd writing style or whatever.

(And I will forever resent anyone who claims em dashes are a sign of AI writing. I was there first.) Perryprog (talk) 03:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I certainly agree, and I have never rejected an article for AI unless ChatGPT metacommentary still remains. While em-dashes are not a sign of AI writing on its own, my point is that an excessive and unnatural amount tend to be a visual hint of AI use, especially if the rest of the article reads like another person wrote it. I am a student and I am VERY AWARE about the risks and personal insult false accusations of AI use carry. GGOTCC 03:25, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree that a single "sign" of LLM writing is never sufficient, nor even a few together. I always try to be aware that some people do use LLMs as a first shot at getting the language right...if I had to start writing paragraphs in German for my work, I'm sure I'd be doing the same thing.

That said, hallucinated references are a 100% nonstarter, especially in scientific subjects where I do much of my editing. If you can't check your references, why should I trust anything you say, no matter how well-meaning you might be? That's not a matter of writing style or language proficiency, but laziness.

But I think we are probably safe declining edits/articles where the AI signs are pervasive and repeated throughout the article (not just one part). I've noticed a huge uptick lately in scientific articles that have a very specific format: Several very short sections (sometimes a single sentence gets a subsection heading), each with one citation at the very end; few to no wikilinks; abbreviations defined at the beginning but used inconsistently thereafter; prose that meanders and goes off onto tangents on peripheral topics before coming back to the main topic (almost as if someone doesn't know what is the main topic and what is peripheral!); a "summary" or "implications for..." section at the end; references that are technically valid but whose main focus is off-topic; and of course bulleted lists aplenty. I feel comfortable rejecting these because they were clearly cranked out with little human oversight for how effectively they get the information across. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:41, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

My working hypothesis is that the internet has been inundated with human-crafted slop over the last couple of decades and this forms part of the training datasets. It can be difficult to distinguish between AI slop and artisanal handmade marketing filler, which is why it's important that AI isn't the only reason for declining – the primary reason is usually some kind of notability issue. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 03:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I certainly agree, and it good to see others who are not that gun-ho on denying articles for AI use without direct evidence. GGOTCC 03:27, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes. It's incredibly disheartening, it makes Wikipedia editing depressing and frustrating, and and I am convinced that in the long run, LLMs are making Wikipedia worse than useless. It's great that you are discussing it on Discord (unfortunately I don't believe there is a way to use Wikipedia's Discord server while remaining anonymous so I can't participate there) but I really wish that reviewers were not so reluctant to decline drafts on AI grounds when they are not 100% sure a draft is AI generated. --bonadea contributions talk 12:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

@Bonadea What do you mean by remain anonymous? There is a username, same as here, so there is similar anonymity on the public-facing front. CMD (talk) 15:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: I am not completely sure, but I think that it is impossible to hide or cloak one's user name and profile information, even when there is an option to change the display name. I already have a Discord account and am active in a few servers, and I'm not prepared to remove all my profile information (besides, at Discord I have a user name that is traceable to myself, unlike the name Bonadea which I only use at Wikipedia). It's not that I am worried about my safety, because the people who threaten you are pretty unlikely to do anything if you live very very far away, but I just don't want to deal with the harassment outside Wikipedia. It would be nice not to have to deal with it at Wikipedia either, but that's never going to be an option for any of us, I fear. --bonadea contributions talk 20:36, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your response I don't know what the solution is but it's only going to get worse, I am declining at least 10 AI created drafts a day, always with a secondary reason. Theroadislong (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I refuse to be depressed. I am perturbed by some of the slop, AI or otherwise, submitted to us. I find automated slop to be offensive, but, and this is key, some AI material is not slop, and can be reviewed to encourage improvement. Much is slop that has spilled out of the slop bucket onto the carpet, and G15 is wholly appropriate.

What truly is insulting is a nascent paid editor using AI to generate ordure, and then whining about it. They should be embarrassed about it. I'm not sure whether that is an observation or an exhortation! 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:44, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Both. The other day I had to read the riot act to a (disclosed) paid editor who submitted an utter abortion of an LLM-written article on a technical topic. I said I was doing them a favor by rejecting, because anyone who paid them would have torn them to shreds upon seeing the product. I don't like to be a WP:DICK but the insult plus the carpet stain was too much for me. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Riot act? GGOTCC 22:34, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Riot Act, @GGOTCC, the reading of which was a precursor to enforcement action. "Reading [someone] the Riot Act" is akin to delivering a serious verbal chastisement. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:37, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thank you, I have never heard of that saying before! GGOTCC 22:42, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Some of the worst offenders are those employed by AI companies who believe in their own superiority and that of their product. Disabusing them of such notions in tandem can be hard work, all the while assuming their good faith until proven otherwise 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:43, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Twenty drafts declined this morning before breakfast, the vast majority included poor quality AI created content. Theroadislong (talk) 11:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Quizquiz Chiefdom

There is only one draft that has been submitted two months ago. Can someone review it? I am not very interested in the topic. Earth605^talk 13:38, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I dunno about you, but my AfC topic interests are "not BLPs (or most biographies to be honest), companies, organizations, (most) buildings, music, and television or films. Unfortunately that's 99% of drafts... Perryprog (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

The majority of the time I don't review blp drafts (Nate sib) or television drafts too.

I like reviewing drafts about miscelanous important topics (Junk journal), buildings and places. Earth605^talk 05:05, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

My only focus (for now) is the 2 months+ list and I've tried to get them zapped by midnight UK time. I can see I'm not the only one doing this, though I'm not sure who the others are.... Anyway I've processed Quizquiz. Which was an odd one because there is some sourcing but it overlapped with another article to a large degree. ChrysGalley (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

It good to see the downturn in both the total number and oldest submits. Good job to those who are involved. KylieTastic (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Rejection Options

Should there be more options for Rejecting a submission besides Notability and Contrary to Purpose of Wikipedia? Sometimes I think that rejecting a submission as contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia is bitey, but I don't want to decline it. In particular, I just reviewed Draft:The Silvana Effect, and I think that it is a hoax, but I didn't want to say it was contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. I had to say that, because I thought that it should be rejected. Can there be other options, or am I overthinking this? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I think that newcomer, given their username, was probably expecting at least a nibble. Wiki doesn't host obvious hoaxes so your labelling was spot on. Personally I would have had fewer scruples at using the H word. ChrysGalley (talk) 07:59, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

"Contrary to Purpose of Wikipedia" to me serves as a catch all for everything from a blank page that was resubmitted thrice to keyboard smashes or personal essays. GGOTCC 03:06, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, no, there probably shouldn't be more options. Rejection should be as a last of last resorts when it's plainly obvious that there's no other option—either it's borderline CSDable (or is being CSD'd), the editor is performing IDHT submissions, or it's been increasingly clear that there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that the topic is notable, and the editor didn't pick up previous hints that that may be the case. (That is, they continued to essentially waste their time trying to write an article about a non-notable topic despite comments saying they're likely not notable.)

Keep in mind that to any newcomer—young or old—a reject will feel like you've just done something truly awful, and is probably a nearly guaranteed way to make sure someone never returns to Wikipedia. Because of this it's really important I think to avoid using rejects on good-faith editors unless it's blindingly obvious why it's needed, and even in those cases I don't think there's any other reason to warrant a rejection. Perryprog (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree with User:Perryprog that Rejection should be kept to a minimum because it is likely to be taken personally, and the submitter has reason to take it personally. That is why I may seem to overthink about Rejection. Use it seldom. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Not included on list

Hello! I've noticed that I'm not included on the participants list (while also not on the inactive list) - this may be due to me having a gap of two years between 2023 and 2025 (as you can see here). Does this mean I need to re-apply for access to the script? As I've been steadily reviewing drafts again for the past couple of months and have had no issue. I don't want to miss out on any upcoming backlog drives/informative talk page messages about the project/script. – Meena • 23:04, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

As a new page patroller, you automatically have access and don't need to be on the list. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:09, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Collica/sandbox would acceptance or a decline be controversial?

It appears from the draft that the subject of this is in some form of legal dispute with WMF. I would normally say "Archbishop (broadly) equals notability" but I am hesitant. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:03, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

In general the rule of thumb is doing whatever is fine unless WMF legal explicitly says it's not. (I haven't looked at the article.) Perryprog (talk) 13:51, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I have not examined it in forensic detail. I agree, Perryprog, with your comment. I wonder, though, if taking either action upon this would prejudice any putative legal action for either party, thus I wonder what might be fine to do.

For the present I think that it is fine to choose to ignore this one, certainly for me. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 14:20, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Well the so called "formal appeal" links to their deleted meta userpage. There only other post is to ask for a meta sysop or bureaucrat for intervene and was told nope. An Archbishop may be broadly notable but this is a self important, puffy, high unsourced, non-neutral auto-bio. KylieTastic (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

If archbishops being notable refers to the common outcomes WP:CLERGY section, all that says is arch-/bishops are "typically found to be notable", which I read as a statement of historical fact from past AfDs, not a policy or any sort of binding precedent. They still need to establish their notability like anyone else, it's just that often by the time you get that high up in the hierarchy, chances are you've managed to get yourself noted. (I could also add my own views on the religious types getting any sort of special treatment here, but perhaps I'd better not.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing Hence "broadly" 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:46, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry @Timtrent, I wasn't having a go at you, but at the clergy. DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing I rate them similar to pro footballers who get an article if they have been on the pitch for 3 seconds. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:58, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Note that this is one of the many Catholic Apostolic denominations (I'm not CathAp but I've got some family background in this, and I wrote much of the Gavin Maxwell article). So the second and third sentences in CLERGY needs to be considered, since there is a big Venn diagram between CathAp, Pentecostal, trad charismatic and assorted premillennialist churches, which then results in some cases with a lot of bishops ("angels" in some denominations) administering to tiny flocks. There is a longer rationale I could write up on this, but I'll spare you. ChrysGalley (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes. User:ChrysGalley and I posted at the same time and are saying almost the same thing. The notability of bishops may depend on the size of their congregations, which may be small churches or large dioceses. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@KylieTastic under those circumstances this all sounds very much a breach of WP:NOLEGALTHREATS. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:45, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Honestly if you got named as a defendant for declining a draft it'd be pretty much a guarantee that m:Legal/Legal Policies § Defense of Contributors would apply. Perryprog (talk) 14:33, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

The presumed notability of bishops and archbishops refers primarily to bishops and archbishops of major denominations that are organized into dioceses. Those include the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Churches and Oriental Orthodox Churches, and the Anglican Communion. They also include Protestant denominations that are organized into dioceses, including Lutheran, and Methodist or Wesleyan. The ordination of bishops of well-established dioceses will normally have been reported on by reliable sources. In the United States, some independent Protestant churches use the title of Bishop for their senior pastor, but are churches, not dioceses. I am aware of at least one clergyman who uses the title of Archbishop, but the Roman Catholic Church considers him to be an excommunicated priest. So whether an archbishop is automatically notable should depend on who considers him to be an archbishop and whether he has a real archdiocese. I am not commenting on the legal issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

By the way, the excommunicated priest is notable, not because he uses the title of Archbishop, but because the controversy has been discussed by newspapers. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

A Good Faith Mistaken Submission

I would like to mention a good faith mistaken submission. I reviewed a sandbox that was marked as submitted, moved it to Draft:USL Super League Player of the Month, and declined it as not having any independent sources. The submitter commented on their talk page that it had only been a draft and they wanted someone to look at it, and they planned to add independent sources as they continued work. I was puzzled, and asked. It appears that the submitter thought that submission was a request for informal comments rather than a request for review.

This seems to be a case of no harm, no foul. We, as the reviewing community, may do well to be aware that there will be such submissions occasionally. The author and the reviewer in this case treated each other with respect, and that may be what matters. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Dargah Ustad E Zaman Trust

Hello, Earlier this Draft:Dargah Ustad E Zaman Trust have been rejected and deleted. Draft has been restored upon my request. Now I have added some more reliable references and tried to improve this draft. I want it to submit it for review. Could you please help me because submit for review option is not appearing. Thank you. BrownCanary61 (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

It appears that when you requested that this draft be refunded, User:KylieTastic restored it exactly as it had been before it was deleted, including the record of resubmissions and the rejection. This raises a question of how much of that history should be in a draft that is undeleted after rejection and deletion. However, I saw the submit for review option, and have submitted it for review as the author. Is the submit for review option only seen by AFC reviewers? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

An editor User:Meadowlark removed the review from that draft and left this message, "Rejected is the end of the line; you must appeal to the rejecting reviewer if you have significantly improved the draft". I have already sent a message to the editor who had rejected it but did not receive any response. I have now added independent and reliable sources to this draft. But even now people are commenting on this draft that the sources are not reliable and independent. Please help me. All the sources I have added are from Indian independent news agencies. BrownCanary61 (talk) 05:36, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@BrownCanary61: the sources may be independent etc., but none of them provide significant coverage of the subject, and therefore contribute nothing towards notability per WP:ORG. If these are the best sources you can find, then this organisation is not notable enough to justify an article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:28, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

What to do if the nominator is blocked from editing?

A draft I am reviewing was submitted by a nominator that was later indefinitely blocked from editing. I'd publish the draft otherwise, but wanted to know if there is a best practice in this situation. Jcgaylor (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

@Jcgaylor why were they blocked and can you please provide a link to the draft/article title? S0091 (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Here is the article. The user was blocked for disruptive editing, mainly involving alleged and undisclosed AI usage. I've checked the draft across multiple AI checkers, and did not find anything. Jcgaylor (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

shrugs If the draft is decent, as long as it's not a sock block I'd accept. The current status of an editor doesn't really factor in to a draft they wrote in the past. Primefac (talk) 00:13, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good; thank you. Jcgaylor (talk) 00:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree, but this was an edge case, and asking for advice was a good idea. In this case, there was reason to be cautious about any submission by that editor, who was banned for various reasons including using artificial intelligence. This meant that it was important to review the draft, and in particular to compare the text of the draft to the references. The current status of an editor doesn't affect a draft except sometimes to require a more careful review, which was done. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:52, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Draft and Extended-Confirmed Restriction

I am reviewing a draft, Draft:Rebwar Taha, which I think has been submitted in violation of Kurds and Kurdistan sanctions, which are a topic subject to extended-confirmed restrictions. The submitter is a completely new editor, and so probably does not know that they are not permitted to edit in this area. Is there anything in particular that I should or should not do about this draft? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

{{db-gs}} typically applies to these from my understanding. Other people can make the article/draft if they meet criteria (EC). – {{u|hekatlys}} ^WOOF 03:38, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

A "new" AI cheattrick for early reviews

It has started creating review requests with very old dates in the template, way before the draft was first created! 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:18, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. This doesn't have to be the work of artificial intelligence, and sounds like the result of human deviousness. I have a question about how reviewers should deal with this trick. Should we issue a warning to the submitter, nominate the draft for MFD because of bad faith, or both? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I just change the date! I might review it if the fancy takes me. Looking at the content, it appears usually to be AI generated, thus I presume the template is as well.

MFD and drafts is doomed to failure (0.99 probability). Warning the submitter is almost certainly without value. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 14:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Request for review: Draft:Optical Perspectives Group, LLC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello reviewers,

I would appreciate a review of my draft article Draft:Optical Perspectives Group, LLC. The draft has been revised for neutrality and now includes independent, reliable sources demonstrating notability, such as:

• Peer-reviewed NASA JATIS paper (Roman Space Telescope, 2025) referencing OPG’s CaliBall calibration tool.
• Harvard University research (Beck Lab, 2023) citing the Point Source Microscope in metalens characterization.
• Independent commercial listings from Edmund Optics and Armstrong Optical.
• Industry references from Optics.org and Opli.net.

The article follows WP:ORG and WP:GNG, and all sources are third-party and verifiable. If an optics-knowledgeable reviewer is available, I would be grateful for feedback or acceptance.

Thank you very much for your time and for your volunteer efforts in maintaining the AfC process!

~~~~ Reparks42 (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@Reparks42 This is not the correct venue. Also reviews are not performed on request. If oyu have a question about thye draft unrelated to requesting an early review please use WP:AFCHD where reviews are also not done on request 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 14:15, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Submission template seems broken

Hello, a few hours I ago I submitted the following draft Draft:/v/ but it seems the template is broken for some reason (perhaps the title is the cause?), as it doesn't resgister properly within the AFC submissions. Thanks in advance for the help! NeoGaze (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

{{AfC submission}} categorizes the draft using [[Category:{{AfC date category|ts={{{ts|}}}}}|{{SUBPAGENAME}}]]. The problem is that when the draft's title ends with a slash, {{SUBPAGENAME}} is the empty string, which is not a valid sortkey. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank for the explanation. I assume there's nothing that can be done, right? NeoGaze (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

We could move the draft to just v and put a not eon it if accepted it should be accepted to /v/ KylieTastic (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

The draft can be still seen through the other categories, so I don't think that's needed, but thanks for the suggestion! NeoGaze (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I just put in an edit request that'll fall back to the full {{PAGENAME}} if the subpage name is empty. It'll be a little silly for drafts that end with a slash in userspace, but it's just the sort key, so it's not a big deal. Perryprog (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Greatly appreciated NeoGaze (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

This is a use for the {{correct title}} template as a hatnote. I have inserted the hatnote. However, I can't the draft to Draft:v because that title has been salted in draft space due to previous misconduct. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the help too! I have moved the draft to Draft:V (imageboard) for the time being NeoGaze (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

CSD U5 has been repealed

"CSD U5 has been repealed. It has been replaced with U6 (procedural deletion of some previously U5-eligible pages) and U7 (a much narrower reworking of U5). Please see those criteria to determine if either applies." 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:07, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy link to discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Speedy_deletion#RfC: Replacing U5 with a primarily procedural mechanism qcne (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. I have left a request for Twinkle to be updated to reflect this. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:37, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Request for review – Draft:Eagle Star Films

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi! Could someone please review my draft Draft:Eagle Star Films

The text has been carefully edited for a neutral tone. Thanks so much for your time! — User:Andrealvesnyc Andrealvesnyc (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done Reviews are not done on request. Your draft is in the queue to be reviewed. IAmChaos 19:22, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On WP:AFCREVIEW

Attempting to bypass the process by moving the page, or cutting and pasting it into a new mainspace article, may lead to the page being moved back into draftspace again, speedily-deleted or listed for Articles for Deletion, and repeated attempts may lead to consequences

The second paragraph of AFCREVIEW reads paraphrased as once you submit your draft you may not move it to mainspace and must wait until a review is conducted. I don't think this reflects current consensus and is actually counterproductive. It may keep the AfC backlog high and sometimes an article would be better of being discussed at AfD than being stuck in a decline loop. Therefore I propose that that second paragraph should be removed. Squawk7700 (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

• I was under the impression that AFC had the merit to keep cases away from AFD, given that is one of the core process questions. If that is the consensus (and I don't know if it is) then the current text is well worded. Some of the AFD squad comments may be somewhat harsh for a new editor who fails to understand the system. The problem is that AFC has a backlog mechanism and AFD does not have a backlog mechanism (but should in my view). As a one-off anecdote, earlier today I was doing AFC on Directorate of National Markets of El Salvador - this was submitted for AFC quite correctly, and seemingly another editor, other than the submitting editor, moved it to mainspace, who also seems to have put a random and unrelated source in. So it was rightly reverted back to awaiting AFC. Now this was 2-step vandalism, so somewhat separate to your point. :ChrysGalley (talk) 10:58, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  There's definitely a point to be made, I haven't thought about. So perhaps a rewording would be more suitable, I agree that just relocate our backlog to AfD would not be sensible at all. I'm not sure yet how it should look, perhaps we could add it as an instruction that being taken out of the AfC queue should not be the only reason for a draftification? If a user feels bold and sure enough about their article, and it won't land right at AfD but rather pass NPP, there's no reason to hold them back in my opinion. But of course I've seen the quality of some drafts and they should definitely not be moved into mainspace as that would cost just more reviewer minutes. Kind Regards Squawk7700 (talk) 11:30, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  I imagine there isn't a perfect answer. One scenario, though, is that if an editor takes on the "be bold" mantle, they would perhaps know what they are doing, and therefore won't read the wording you highlighted, or won't regard it as an impediment. NPP will (eventually) catch out the exceptions. ChrysGalley (talk) 12:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  I agree, the current wording is probably preventing frivolous moves, and people who are knowledgeable will be aware that they can circumvent it. Do you think that there is an issue worth addressing of people (not even necessarily reviewers) moving drafts back, when they would not really be in need of it? I've seen a few cases (the drafts could probably have been draftified anyways) but not enough to say whether it's an issue? Squawk7700 (talk) 12:30, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  To be honest I've not really tracked this one way or the other, so I don't have a feel on whether this a problem or not. I will watch for this more, from now on. I guess getting the backlog down is the best way forward overall. Greetings to you and yours. ChrysGalley (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• I would argue against that interpretation. As a note I have put in in quotes at the top of this thread. The text says moving the draft prematurely may lead to a page having things done to it, not that it will have those things done to it. It is meant to discourage rather than prohibit, and thus I see no reason to change the wording. Primefac (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed and thanks for adding the quote. I don't think I considered the actual aim of the section enough, before creating the thread. Based on your reply I take it you don't experience it being used as the sole reason for possibly unneeded draftifications to an extent that would require an info to other editors (I don't have enough experience to tell, just saw it and thought I'd ask around here). Rgds Squawk7700 (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  In a word, correct. Primefac (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  thanks for the explanation and insight, that sorts it for me :) ~ Squawk7700 (talk) 23:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

FYI: A bug meaning new editors are unable to create pages with external links in them

Per this Phabricator ticket, new users are unable to create new pages directly which contain external links due to a bug with CAPTCHA. They will get no error on clicking Publish page... but it will refresh and nothing will happen.

The workaround is to use Visual Editor or publish a blank draft and then make edits onto it.

I've had two users come into #wikipedia-en-help with this issue when trying to make new Drafts, and there's been a couple of posts at the Teahouse about it. qcne (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I was going to make an (extremely funny) comment about what a crying shame that would be before I realized that that also includes external links in references.

Unhelpful memeing aside, can we put up a namespace editnotice in the meantime? If edit filters are still triggering, that could work too, but that's a bit harder to set up quickly and test. Perryprog (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

G15 speedy notices on user talk pages

Sorry, I know this isn't an AfC matter as such, but I'm hoping someone can signpost me.

I've noticed a few times recently that when speedying a draft with multiple reasons, one of which is G15, the notice that gets posted to the user's talk omits the G15. For example, I deleted User:Douglasoda/sandbox for G11 + G15, but the notice at User_talk:Douglasoda#Speedy_deletion_of_User:Douglasoda/sandbox only mentions G11.

And just now, I witnessed a different but possibly related issue: I speedied User:Mitwaly/sandbox also for G11 + G15, but the notice at User_talk:Mitwaly#Speedy_deletion_of_User:Mitwaly/sandbox is instead for G11 + U5.

Any idea where I should report this, and/or what the problem might be? Or am I just missing something obvious? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

WHich script are you performing speedy deletions with? CoconutOctopus talk 09:47, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Twinkle. You reckon that's where the gremlin lurks? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Most likely. This thread seems to indicate it was implemented, but with the new U6/U7 split from U5 something might have gotten mixed up on the backend. Primefac (talk) 10:27, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Seems to be already WIP: Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle#G15_doesn't_tag_article_creator? and [1] -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Shows you what I get for stopping at the first relevant section... Primefac (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing. Please try doing 1) Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences -> Notify page creator when tagging with these criteria -> tick checkbox -> save and 2) Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences -> Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria -> tick checkbox -> save, and see if that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I've got everything (except R2/R4/X3) ticked in both sections already. But I'll try the old 'turn it off, and back on again' trick with the G15 box. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:36, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't look like that helped. I've just deleted Draft:BrioGolf.ca as G11 + G15, and the talk page notice says G11 + U5. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Long waiting AFC drafts (>2 months) 2 November 2025

There are a few drafts that have now gone past the 2 month waiting time, which I would normally process but they are on topics that I best not review (celebs and cricket basically) - so could another reviewer kindly consider them?:

Draft:Kerala Cricket League

Draft:James E. Kenward (actor)  Done hat tip: Qcne

Draft:Imran Khwaja (cricket admin)  Done hat tip: Taking Out The Trash

Draft:Jenna Didier (I made some edits to this article, artist)  Done Theroadislong (talk) 09:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Jonnel Policarpio (basketball player)  Done Theroadislong (talk) 09:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

(I had a bruising experience recently with an article going from AFC to AFD in under a week, due at least in part to the shifting sands of GNG and multiple SNGs, so I'd rather not handle any more sports personalities unless it's rock solid ANYBIO or a very obvious decline).

ChrysGalley (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@ChrysGalley When we accept borderline drafts we can expect some of them to be sent to AfD. The key to this is to remain neutral at the AfD, or, if we have made a real error, to say so quietly and briefly. Please never let it affect you. AfD on borderline cases shows we are doing our job.

I have not delved into the history of this draft you mention, nor will I. You know what was in your mind when you accepted it, and I refuse to second guess you.

If called upon to comment at the AfD I use this style of wording:

I have a firm personal policy of steadfast neutrality at articles I accepted at AFC. I follow the guidance that a draft must, in my view, have a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. This is an immediate deletion process and I await the community's view. If kept, I will be pleased. If deleted, I will correct anything I feel needs to be corrected in my reviewing. Reviewers get better when their work is sent to AfD, which allows the community to decide as opposed to a single reviewer.

I hope this helps your bruises. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:15, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Timtrent and I certainly enjoyed your supportive words. There were a heap of complexities outside my control on this article, so it wasn't any one person's "fault", let alone mine, but it was annoying to spend a long time on the issue and then 3 days later it's in AFD, but I guess it goes with the parish. It was more to do with what I see as inconsistencies on sports notability and within sports notability. ChrysGalley (talk) 10:15, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@ChrysGalley I think if a footballs spends under 3 seconds on the pitch in a qualifying game they get an article. I choose to let another reviewer make ot so, though! 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Problem submitting draft: Club HKT Limited on english page

Hello, I'm a new editor. I have prepared a draft for Draft:Your Draft Title but I'm encountering a technical issue. When I click "Publish changes", the page just returns to the edit mode with no error message. I've tried previewing, waiting, and different browsers without success.

Could a patroller or experienced editor please help me by:

• Either checking if there's a technical block on my account/IP,
• Or directly importing the draft text from my user page (if I place it there)?

Thank you for your assistance! 可樂走冰12345 (talk) 02:43, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

可樂走冰12345, it's not your fault—it's a known issue that just started recently. If you create it as initially blank, it should work, and you should be able to edit it from there. Perryprog (talk) 03:09, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! It's works! 可樂走冰12345 (talk) 03:36, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Note added to Wizard

Just a note on the above, I've added an ombox to WP:WIZARD which will hopefully cut down on the number of times people struggle with this. Primefac (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Requesting review assistance: Draft:Curtis Matsko

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello! I would like to kindly request assistance regarding Draft:Curtis Matsko. I have submitted the draft for AfC review and left multiple notes on the draft talk page (October 13, 20, and 27), but it appears that the draft has not yet been picked up or tagged for review.

The article is supported by multiple independent and reliable sources (Forbes, ValiantCEO, Growth Think Tank Podcast, Startups with Stu, etc.) and follows neutrality and notability guidelines under WP:BIO and WP:ORGCRIT. There is no promotional language, and no COI.

Could someone please help with placing the AfC review tag or reviewing the draft? Thank you very much for your time and help!

Draft link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Curtis_Matsko Servinemilio (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@Servinemilio Submitted for review. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 18:41, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Marriott promo campaign

Must be some sort of corporate edit-athon going on, a lot of drafts coming through on SE Asian (mainly Indonesian, some Malaysian) hotels from the Marriott group (Marriott, Westin, Sheraton). They're all promotional, so far I've not seen any that demonstrated notability, and at least some are AI-generated. The problem is, they've all been created by different users, and they all make the same mistakes, so we're having to decline for the same reasons over and over. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)