BETA ZEN
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation
Texto da Wikipédia (en), licença CC BY-SA. O BETARUBI mostra o verbete inteiro nesta página — a leitura não continua fora do site.
| Main page | Talk page | Submissions Category, Sorting, Feed | Showcase | Participants Apply, By subject | Reviewing instructions | Help desk | Backlog drives Aug 2026 |
Welcome—discuss matters concerning this project!
| AfC submissions
Random submission |
| ~4 weeks |
- 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.
 | Other talk page banners | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
New field for AI use disclosure at AfC Submit Wizard?
I've been thinking of how the AfC Submit Wizard could use additional field(s) to help submitters disclose their AI usage.
It would only help honest people be honest, but I think it would improve our understanding of how (new) editors use AI and help reviewer feedback be more specific than what we have currently.
I've drafted potential questions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submission wizard/AI use disclosure. I'm interested to see if this is a viable idea. Ca talk to me! 10:27, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks! I think this is worth a try. Newystats (talk) 12:11, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
- I really like this idea! I suggest limiting to a single key question though, whatever the reviewer needs the most - in this case, just the first question. In general, fewer questions increases the chances that people will fill something out. Dreamyshade (talk) 23:12, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
- I agree with knocking a question off or two. However, I don't think keeping only the first is a good idea. From my experience, most editors, when asked about their AI use, claim they used only used AI for copyediting or formatting when its clearly untrue. The latter two question are more evidence-based, rather than self-report-based. Ca talk to me! 13:48, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
- I've reduced the number of question to just one. 👍 Ca talk to me! 10:54, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- mmm, the results would probably be useful, but it might give people the wrong impression that LLM use is allowed, and I'm not really comfortable w using newbies as guinea pigs like that. Idk if there's a way to address that? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:53, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
- The WP:Article Wizard already informs participants that LLM generation is disallowed, so I'm not too worried about giving the wrong impression. Technically, AI use for "basic copyedits and translation" is currently allowed, so I tried to orient the example answers to follow that limitation.
- I agree we shouldn't conduct systematic research with the disclosures without them being informed about it, but that wouldn't be its primary goal. I think its main use case would help reviewers distinguish between cases where drafts were wholly AI-generated and cases where it was just simply rewritten with AI. Both are disallowed by policy, but one is salvageable and one is not, helping reviewers provide more specific feedback.
- I'd also add that frequent exposure to known AI-generated text has been shown to improve AI-detection abilities. Ca talk to me! 13:44, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
Ready for implementation?
Based on on- and off-wiki feedback (much appreciated), I've...
- reduced the question count from three to one
- replaced the request for prompts with one for transcripts (more comprehensive)
- and restyled the field to match rest of the wizard
I'm wondering if the community believes the current proposed field is ready for implementation. Ca talk to me! 09:32, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
- Great! I support it. I'd just move "If you used another AI tool like Grammarly or Google Translate, or no longer have the transcript, simply describe how you used AI." before the input field instead of after, since it helps people understand what to put into the input field. Dreamyshade (talk) 09:55, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
- Good idea—
Done Ca talk to me! 02:56, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
- Good idea—
- This looks good to me! In solidarity, nil nz 03:59, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
- I've opened a pull request on Github. Ca talk to me! 13:15, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
- @SD0001, since you appear to be the maintainer, would you be interested, at your own leisure, in reviewing the PR? I think it would be worth trialing the new disclosure during the August backlog drive. Ca talk to me! 13:42, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
- Hoping to see this PR reviewed and integrated! I'm really curious to see what people's prompts are. I think this will also help us detect LLM-generated articles more effectively as newer models come out, because we can re-run people's prompts with the new models and compare the outcomes. Dreamyshade (talk) 18:38, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think SD0001 is available right now. @Novem Linguae, would like to handle the review? Ca talk to me! 13:49, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- I'm also pretty busy right now. And this is not a repo I normally review so would take effort to get up to speed. Sorry. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- Ditto, and my parents are in town this weekend so I'll try to take a look but no guarantees on if/when I get to it. Primefac (talk) 11:11, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- I'm also pretty busy right now. And this is not a repo I normally review so would take effort to get up to speed. Sorry. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think SD0001 is available right now. @Novem Linguae, would like to handle the review? Ca talk to me! 13:49, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- I would support this proposal. I don't see how this could do any harm, only possible good. Axolitl (talk | contribs) 22:58, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
Proposal for condensing declines
While the TfD for Template:AfC notice holder was ongoing, KylieTastic suggested that, if there was going to be something to contain old declines, it should function like {{WikiProject banner shell}}. Although a banner shell seems rather tricky to pull off, this suggestion gave me a brand new idea that made me support deleting the template so I can start over on the right track.
This new idea involves condensing declines into bullet-point lists (like how {{multiple issues}} handles maintenance banners or {{old XfD multi}} handles historical AfD outcomes) that only show the first sentence of each decline reason.
Rough example
{{prior declines|
{{AFC submission|d|v|u=173.71.213.176|ns=118|decliner=WaddlesJP13|declinets=20241203000101|small=yes|ts=20241202225931}} <!-- Do not remove this line! -->
{{AFC submission|d|v|u=User1SD|ns=118|decliner=DoubleGrazing|declinets=20241201105511|reason2=web|small=yes|ts=20241201103428}} <!-- Do not remove this line! -->
{{AFC submission|d|web|u=49.184.195.198|ns=118|decliner=AlphaBetaGamma|declinets=20240922154515|small=yes|ts=20240922140213}} <!-- Do not remove this line! -->
}} | This draft has been declined multiple times:
|
Example with many declines
{{prior declines|
{{AFC submission|d|n|u=R3adyWrit3s|ns=118|decliner=Theroadislong|declinets=20260502192127|reject=yes|small=yes|ts=20260430000000}} <!-- Do not remove this line! -->
{{AFC submission|d|n|u=R3adyWrit3s|ns=118|decliner=EatingCarBatteries|declinets=20260429234124|reject=yes|small=yes|ts=20260429232832}} <!-- Do not remove this line! -->
{{AFC submission|d|music|u=R3adyWrit3s|ns=118|decliner=EatingCarBatteries|declinets=20260429230652|ts=20260429224712}} <!-- Do not remove this line! -->
{{AFC submission|d|bio|u=ElizabethMarieCamacho|ns=118|decliner=Theroadislong|declinets=20260429191336|small=yes|ts=20260429000000}} <!-- Do not remove this line! -->
{{AFC submission|d|ai|u=R3adyWrit3s|ns=118|decliner=Gurkubondinn|declinets=20260427221314|reason2=v|small=yes|ts=20260427221107}} <!-- Do not remove this line! -->
{{AFC submission|d|music|u=R3adyWrit3s|ns=118|decliner=Tacyarg|declinets=20260427101859|small=yes|ts=20260426154710}} <!-- Do not remove this line! -->
{{AFC submission|d|music|u=R3adyWrit3s|ns=118|decliner=Bonadea|declinets=20260426142824|small=yes|ts=20260426133600}} <!-- Do not remove this line! -->
{{AFC submission|d|v|u=R3adyWrit3s|ns=118|decliner=ChrysGalley|declinets=20260426131949|reason2=music|small=yes|ts=20260426130344}} <!-- Do not remove this line! -->
}} | This draft has been declined multiple times:
|
If a notice-containing template is reintroduced, The AfC helper script may have to be reconfigured to prevent unintended removals of declines within the template. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Must say I like this idea. Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 17:04, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support the idea too, so long as (a) the immediately previous decline is retained in full to assist the current editor, and (b) the old Comments are left in. These previous declines are invaluable for the reviewer but a new editor is unlikely to benefit from the historic chapter-and-verse versions. ChrysGalley (talk) 08:57, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- I pretty much fully agree to this proposal. NeoGaze (talk) 09:33, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- I have a slightly less "let's redesign the entire template structure" way of doing what is being proposed, but in the meantime I have a question - are the old declines for us reviewers, or for the people working on the page? If it's just for us, then yes, this is a perfectly suitable means of showing previous declines. If it is for the writers, trimming it down might remove too much useful information (note that
|small=on old declines removes everything except the decline rationale itself). In other words, does removal of the extra information in old declines hurt the editor more than it helps us (by reducing the amount of scrolling we need to do to review the page)? Primefac (talk) 09:44, 18 July 2026 (UTC)- Are the old declines are for us reviewers, or for the people working on the page?
- I'm sure that both types would appreciate no longer having to scroll as much through declines, and that more of these declines can fit on their screen.
- Does removal of the extra information in old declines hurt the editor?
- I doubt it would. As far as I can tell (and if comments at the AfC help desk are any indication), some editors don't seem to find the lists of tips in the decline notices to be sufficiently helpful, so having the same lists repeated over and over again might not leave any better an impression on them.
- Part of my idea is that the latest decline would be kept at full size above this banner. In that case, two lists of tips could remain up for editors to read, if they even do that at all. If it's necessary to display more reasons at the same time, the AfC decline notice should be designed to be able to display more than two if needed. That way, reviewers can reiterate every point they think is still necessary and won't have to pick just two anymore. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 10:35, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- Just as a minor note about your last point, we have decided many times over the years that two decline reasons is more than sufficient; by the time you hit a third decline reason, you're more than likely reiterating things that were in the other two. Primefac (talk) 11:13, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- If editors only need to see the advice that accompanies two decline reasons, then it may not hurt to condense previous declines in the way demonstrated above, especially if the advice given in them is already reiterated in the latest decline notice. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 12:30, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- Just as a minor note about your last point, we have decided many times over the years that two decline reasons is more than sufficient; by the time you hit a third decline reason, you're more than likely reiterating things that were in the other two. Primefac (talk) 11:13, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- It would be better if like {{WikiProject banner shell}} you could still expand/show any of the individual declines. KylieTastic (talk) 12:36, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- Agreed. In general I like the idea of condensing templates on drafts with loads of declines, but I worry that by removing actual content from the decline message it breaks the chain somewhat and could confuse new editors. Whereas, collapsing them does the same thing but keeps the content. Worth thinking how that would look on mobile view though. qcne (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- It's like how {{multiple issues}} removes content from maintenance banners. For example, if {{cleanup}} or {{AI-generated}} are placed inside it, then only the first sentence of each would be shown, and their corresponding placement reasons (if filled in) wouldn't be viewable to readers. Users who place those cleanup tags likely want readers to be able to see their reasons without going into the source editor. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- As a matter of fact, when I first introduced {{AfC notice holder}}, I originally called it {{AfC notice shell}} and put declines inside the banner, but that caused declines to become narrower because they were {{ombox}}es, so I proposed adding a
wideparameter that would turn {{AfC submission/declined}} into a {{fmbox}}. When that suggestion was turned down (because I didn't realize I needed to get consensus before making an edit request on a template talk page), I later got the idea to put the declines below the banner instead. I thought hiding declines would be okay because that's what {{WikiProject banner shell}} does on some talk pages. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2026 (UTC) - If there is to be an AfC banner shell instead, it could look something like this:
- Agreed. In general I like the idea of condensing templates on drafts with loads of declines, but I worry that by removing actual content from the decline message it breaks the chain somewhat and could confuse new editors. Whereas, collapsing them does the same thing but keeps the content. Worth thinking how that would look on mobile view though. qcne (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
 This draft has been declined multiple times:
 Submission rejected on 32 Octember 2027 by I. Dunno.
Submission declined on 1 Undecimber 2026 by LtCmdrRelativity.This draft is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires that all content be supported by reliable sources.
Reliable sources include: reputable newspapers, magazines, academic journals, and books from respected publishers. Unacceptable sources include: personal blogs, social media, predatory publishers, most tabloids, and websites where anyone can contribute. Replace any unreliable sources with high-quality sources. If you cannot find a reliable source for the material, it should be removed.This draft's references do not show that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for web content. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that:
|
- This is just a rough, improvized demonstration using only the markup I'm familiar with. An actual version (with proportions that better match {{WikiProject banner shell}}) might use Wiki syntax I wouldn't have been able to think of or work with. {{WikiProject banner shell}} relies on a module, and modules are beyond my Wiki skill set. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- As I said, I have ideas. Let's figure out what we want to see before we start throwing things at the wall. Primefac (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Primefac: Are you ready to show us your ideas yet? – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
- This looks beautiful. It will surely help editors out a lot. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 08:40, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
- As I said, I have ideas. Let's figure out what we want to see before we start throwing things at the wall. Primefac (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- This is just a rough, improvized demonstration using only the markup I'm familiar with. An actual version (with proportions that better match {{WikiProject banner shell}}) might use Wiki syntax I wouldn't have been able to think of or work with. {{WikiProject banner shell}} relies on a module, and modules are beyond my Wiki skill set. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- Here's a full list of condensed versions of decline comments as they would appear in a bulleted list of declines below the latest one:
neo– This draft's references do not show that the neologism meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion.web– This draft's references do not show that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for web content.prof/academic– This draft's references do not show that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for academics.athlete/sport– This draft's references do not show that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for sports.music/m/band– This draft's references do not show that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for music.film– This draft's references do not show that the film meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for films.book– This draft's references do not show that the book meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for books.event– This draft's references do not show that the event meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for events.corp/inc/org– This draft's references do not show that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for organizations and companies.bio– This draft's references do not show that the person meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for people.nn– This draft's references do not show that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion.list– This draft's references do not show the list meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for stand-alone lists.med– This draft contains medical, health, or psychological claims. Wikipedia requires a higher standard of sourcing for biomedical content.geo– This draft's references do not show that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for geographic features.species– This draft's references do not show that the species meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for species.astro– This draft's references do not show that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for astronomical objects.number– This draft's references do not show that the number meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for numbers.creative– This draft's references do not show that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for creative professionals.school– This draft's references do not show that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for schools.cat– This is not the correct place to request new categories.empty/blank– This draft appears to be blank.lang|languagenotenglish|language– This draft is written in language.test– This draft appears to be a test edit.redirect– This is not the correct place to request new redirects.van– This draft has been declined because it meets one of the criteria for an attack page, a negative biography, or vandalism.ilc– This draft lacks inline citations.blp– The text of this submission has been removed. Wikipedia has a strict policy regarding biographies of living people.cvcv-n– This draft appears to contain copyrighted material which has been removed.cv|Website/cv-n|Website– This draft appears to contain copyrighted material from Website, which has been removed.source/v/rs– This draft is not adequately supported by reliable sources.not– This draft is not suitable for Wikipedia.news/oneevent– This draft appears to be a news report or about a single event.dict/d– This draft appears to be a dictionary definition.plot– This draft appears to be a plot summary.joke– This draft appears to be a joke or a hoax.ai/llm– This draft appears to contain text generated by a large language model (such as ChatGPT).resume– This draft reads like a resume or curriculum vitae.ecr– This draft covers a contentious topic with an editing restriction.nosource– This draft does not include any sources or inline citations.essay– This draft reads like an essay or opinion piece.npov– This draft is not written from a neutral point of view.advert/spam/adv– This draft reads like an advertisement.exists– This draft appears to be a duplicate of an existing article.duplicate/dup– This draft duplicates another submission currently submitted for review.duplicate|Title/dup|Title– This draft duplicates another submission, Title, currently submitted for review.context– This draft provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject.mergeto/merge– This draft does not have sufficient content to warrant a standalone article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article on the same subject.mergeto|Pagename/merge|Pagename– This draft does not have sufficient content to warrant a standalone article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at '''Pagename'''.reason|Reason– Reason
- If it's only necessary to show the full text of up to two comments about the latest submission, then it may not be necessary to retain the full text of each and every comment about earlier submissions, especially if subsequent reviewers reiterate the same messages, or if old comments no longer apply. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 11:08, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
Proposal for a potential future RfC
|
@Mattdaviesfsic, ChrysGalley, NeoGaze, Primefac, KylieTastic, and Qcne: Would it be okay to start an RfC yet? The options woud be these:
This is just a heads-up. No one has to start !voting on any of these unless
To help clear things up, I've just decided to look through the revisions, identify what Primefac has added to the sandbox version (it's the
Now I know what Primefac had been talking about and can clarify Option C accordingly. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2026 (UTC) Now for the next version of the option list:
I'm just workshopping this in advance of a potential future RfC discussion I'd like to start, and I just want to make sure it's good to go before we begin. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2026 (UTC) |
- Appreciate the clarification on collapsing "(except for the latest one)"and I like including the demonstrate versions as you have here. I think that makes a strong well thought out RfC. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
- I also appreciate the clarification. (I initially read "previous declines" as "declines in the past", i.e., all of them.) MrPersonHumanGuy, are B or C intended to show decline reasons while collapsed? My initial impression is that B doesn't, and C... I don't know why one does and the others don't. LittlePuppers (talk) 20:04, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
- Here's a rundown of what each is supposed to do:
- Option A: Hides part of each decline reason whilst showing them on a bulleted list.
- Option B: Hides all reasons in collapsibles, which can be expanded to show them in their entirety.
- Option C: Hides part of each decline reason whilst keeping them in separate boxes. (I'm not sure why it isn't showing the WP:NBIO-based reason)
- Option D: Hides all declines (except the latest one) in a collapsible that can be expanded to show them all.
- – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
- I also appreciate the clarification. (I initially read "previous declines" as "declines in the past", i.e., all of them.) MrPersonHumanGuy, are B or C intended to show decline reasons while collapsed? My initial impression is that B doesn't, and C... I don't know why one does and the others don't. LittlePuppers (talk) 20:04, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
- Do we need an RFC? Is there a reason we can't just come to a consensus? Primefac (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
- aaaaaand you already started one. Two things: first, if you're going to ask for opinions to get a consensus, wait for the bloody consensus to form. Second, please don't ping people multiple times in the same thread, especially if they've already commented, replied, and (in my case in particular) is one of the primary maintainers of the project. Primefac (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
RfC: Condensing or collapsing decline notices (except for the latest one on each draft)
I've been workshopping an option list for this RfC discussion a moment ago and settled on the version of the list that now appears below. Each of the first four options describes a specific proposal for condensing or collapsing draft decline notices (except for the latest one on each draft), and each of these four entries is accompanied by a collapsible box containing an example of how these proposals may look in action. Although essential, all that content was too much to be displayed at the RfC listing page, so I've expanded the paragraph above it and made it its own comment. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 10:10, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
- Option A: Condense declines (except for the latest one) into a bulleted list below the latest decline like this:
Example of Option A | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Full list of condensed messages
|
- Option B: Collapse declines (except for the latest one) like this:
Example of Option B | |||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Example of Old Option B | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
- Option C: Primefac's idea for condensing declines:
Example of Option C | ||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
How I think it should look if implemented | |||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
- Option D: Put the declines (except for the latest one) below a banner that collapses them: (a template with this exact approach was recently deleted)
Example of Option D | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
- Option E: A different idea. (please try to describe what you would want instead)
- Option F: No changes; maintain the status quo.
Which of these options do you think would be best? – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
- Courteously pinging Mattdaviesfsic, ChrysGalley (who supported B, was okay with A, and said F wasn't so bad either), NeoGaze, Primefac, KylieTastic, and Qcne, all of who I discussed these ideas with. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
- In hindsight, that may not have been necessary.
Self-trout – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
- In hindsight, that may not have been necessary.
Survey
- Support B, this condenses the information but still allows users to go back and find links or prior advice they may find useful, and I think it preserves the message of the original declines the most faithfully. I like that it keeps the icons and stop signs respectively as well. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
- (invited by the bot but I'm a NPP'er and occasionel AFC reviewer) I don't have the detailed knowledge on this minor formatting issue to have an opinion. I'd support anthing that would make even minor improvements. But I'm using this opportunity for a suggestion which addresses a big problem which is declining articles for reasons which are not in the official criteria to decline an article. Which is the official criteria that it is unlikely to survive an AFD. So my proposal is that declines should include an explanation on why the reviewer feels that it would not survive an AFD. (which usually means not meeting wp:notability criteria) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:29, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
- If using
customfor a decline reason becomes problematic, we might have to remove it, but if you see completely invalid decline reasons (and the draft hasn't been edited since) feel free to revert those declines; I do it from time to time when it's brought to my attention. Primefac (talk) 21:59, 24 July 2026 (UTC)- The typical case is rejecting for article quality / development issues rather than projected survibability at AFD. And my quess is that the main two reasons are not knowing the AFC criteria or being afraid to pass an article which has quality/devlopment issues but which would probably survive at AFD. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
- If using
- Just noting that I have updated Option C, and I haven't coded a "reject" small version which is why they're blank. Primefac (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support B-prime (unless you want to call this an 'E', in which case I can mock it up above, based on B). What I mean by B-prime is the look-and-feel of B, but with the sections in chronological order, just as they would be on the user talk page as things are now. That is what users are used to on Talk pages, and B(no prime) might be the sole exception to that, leading to possible confusion, especially for newbies. (summoned by bot) Mathglot (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Mathglot: With the B-prime format, should the latest decline be on the bottom instead of the top? – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 02:03, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
- I don't know what Mathglot intends, personally I think it should be kept on top, in a position most likely to be seen first, as the latest decline would be the most relevant. Mitchsavl (talk) 02:41, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
- I was trying to stay open to both possibilities, but personally, I think the big, expanded, latest status should be on top (the way a Talk header is on top of the talk page, even if recent or modified) and all the previous declines smaller, collapsed, and in chrono order, oldest first. So, agreeing with MMitchsavl. Thank you for requesting that clarification. Mathglot (talk) 03:25, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
- I disagree with having the collapsed order go from oldest first. Reviewers should be able to see the progress made between declines, so having them ordered newest-to-oldest makes sure that the most relevant ones are seen first, and the oldest, less relevant ones are listed last. In many cases, a draft's earliest declines are completely irrelevant (e.g. "blank" or "not english"). In solidarity, nil nz 05:54, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
- Nil NZ, do you also support ordering a Talk page with the most recent section at the top, and older ones below it? Wouldn't the most recent sections on the Talk page also be the most relevant? In B-prime, you'd see the progress made from one decline to another just by reading down, the way we always do in English text. With option B, you have to read upwards from the bottom to see the progress, right? Mathglot (talk) 08:33, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
- It's not a talk page or "discussion" thread though, so I don't think it's entirely comparable as an example. A counter example would be edit histories (or any other change log really), in which we put the most recent revisions at the top.When reviewing, we're wanting to know what's changed since the most recent previous declines, not progress since the draft's creation. Having to read up from the bottom is just an extra inconvenience by burying the lede, so to speak. In solidarity, nil nz 09:37, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
- Nil NZ, do you also support ordering a Talk page with the most recent section at the top, and older ones below it? Wouldn't the most recent sections on the Talk page also be the most relevant? In B-prime, you'd see the progress made from one decline to another just by reading down, the way we always do in English text. With option B, you have to read upwards from the bottom to see the progress, right? Mathglot (talk) 08:33, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
- I disagree with having the collapsed order go from oldest first. Reviewers should be able to see the progress made between declines, so having them ordered newest-to-oldest makes sure that the most relevant ones are seen first, and the oldest, less relevant ones are listed last. In many cases, a draft's earliest declines are completely irrelevant (e.g. "blank" or "not english"). In solidarity, nil nz 05:54, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
- I was trying to stay open to both possibilities, but personally, I think the big, expanded, latest status should be on top (the way a Talk header is on top of the talk page, even if recent or modified) and all the previous declines smaller, collapsed, and in chrono order, oldest first. So, agreeing with MMitchsavl. Thank you for requesting that clarification. Mathglot (talk) 03:25, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
- I don't know what Mathglot intends, personally I think it should be kept on top, in a position most likely to be seen first, as the latest decline would be the most relevant. Mitchsavl (talk) 02:41, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Mathglot: With the B-prime format, should the latest decline be on the bottom instead of the top? – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 02:03, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support A or B (via Feedback request service): These options minimises unnecessary repetition of information. On drafts, I have seen comments left just below the notices about issues where a more detailed explanation is needed, and on the off chance that an editor needs to see the full notices, they can either look up the template or search the draft page history. I think the template could be structured similar to {{multiple issues}}, or have a structure as follows:
{{decline top}}
{{AfC submission|D|reason|multiple=yes}}
{{decline bottom}} - Building it out of multiple templates effectively means that an infinite set of parameters (or a Lua module) is not required to account for every possibility.
- Mitchsavl (talk) 01:37, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support B (summoned by bot) per Bobby Cohn's argument. TarnishedPathtalk 02:53, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support A (first choice), B (second choice). The neater, the better, though there is something to be said for not diminishing attention to numerous previous declines. BD2412 T 03:12, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support B Started from the recent decline up to the previous declines, all are detailed, plus the icons and stop signs when a draft gets rejected and the font size, the style, it has AfC vibe over it. (summoned by bot) CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 04:05, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
Support A or C, but honestly any of these would probably be fine. Making it more compact is nice, but I do like being able to see at a glance (i.e. without pressing buttons) what the previous decline reasons were. LittlePuppers (talk) 08:02, 25 July 2026 (UTC)- Additional thoughts: thanks CaptainEek for making me notice, it would be nice if we had something where there was a short decline reason (as I mentioned initially; selfishly, I just want enough for me to be able to tell the reason at a glance), but it would also be good if it could be expanded. So... kind of option E? I really do like the layout of A, though. Unfortunately, I can't think of a good way to make that design expandable. LittlePuppers (talk) 02:08, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support E, as upon reflection and discussion it's become increasingly clear that this could use more iteration. It appears that short descriptions while collapsed and the ability to expand to the full description are both widely wanted (or perhaps I'm just projectecting my opinions), and no current option has both those features. LittlePuppers (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
- Additional thoughts: thanks CaptainEek for making me notice, it would be nice if we had something where there was a short decline reason (as I mentioned initially; selfishly, I just want enough for me to be able to tell the reason at a glance), but it would also be good if it could be expanded. So... kind of option E? I really do like the layout of A, though. Unfortunately, I can't think of a good way to make that design expandable. LittlePuppers (talk) 02:08, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
- Option A>D>B. I agree with LittlePuppers, that as a reviewer, I'd like to see the previous decline reasons instantly, instead of having to open them manually. I'm fine with option B as long as AFCH automatically opens them. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 08:15, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
- @MrPersonHumanGuy: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over seventeen thousand bytes, the statement above (from the
{{rfc}}tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia proposals. It also contains complex formatting, such as the table, the collapsible sections and other boxes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:53, 25 July 2026 (UTC) - Oppose B and D As a reviewer, it must be possible to instantly see the abbreviated decline reasons. If I have to suddenly click a button to expand previous declines, that makes my life harder. Oppose A and C The drafter needs to be able to see and read full past declines. Support E I would support a modified option B if it showed an abbreviated decline reason without having to click expand. E.g., "Submission declined on 3 August 2025 by MCE89 (talk). Reason: Biographical notability not established." (or some other abbreviation of the reason). CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:17, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
- CaptainEek, out of curiosity, what about Option C doesn't show the decline reason? The decline rationale is exactly the same as when
|small=is not used, the only difference being it cuts out the "what does that mean" text (it literally just noincludes the bullet points). (please do not ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2026 (UTC)- Hmmm, I was wondering how exactly you were truncating it. That's interesting. But I still think that removing the explanation does the drafter a disservice? Like, they're going to ask "where'd that explanation go." Explaining what it means is most important to the drafter. Again, fine with it being collapsed, but the drafter should be able to access it somehow. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:18, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
- CaptainEek, out of curiosity, what about Option C doesn't show the decline reason? The decline rationale is exactly the same as when
- Support A>C>B I too would prefer the previous reasons to be auto-expanded, but at least B gives us a succinct summary without clicking/tapping, which D does not. —ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 01:21, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support A>C>F. Oppose B&D. Per LittlePuppers/Kovcszaln6/Claudine (and also CaptainEek to an extent). In solidarity, nil nz 01:40, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
- comment I object to this RFC as rushed before the options were fully explored. Was Primefac even given chance to agree that was what they were proposing? I think every version has tweaks that could make them better options, so rushing this is just ending up with a pick the least worse option. KylieTastic (talk) 10:00, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
- I was not, though I opined on that matter in the earlier thread. There was no agreement to do anything when this was started. Primefac (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support E (as a B+) which is B where the short reason the same as A gives the basic reason and link. A has the problem that it does not allow the submitter to open and see the fuller reasons. C has removed useful info/links with no show - but kept large icons and too much space. I do think an option just to reduce the small versions we have now exists but not in this form. D needs the show option to be inside the notice and more than just show as it's very un-obvious especially to new editors. KylieTastic (talk) 10:00, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
- The reason Option D shows the show option below the banner is because I don't know how to design it so it would be inside the banner while the content it shows would be below the banner. I can make visual representations of how such a desired template should appear in collapsed and expanded states, but I don't know how to design a working version of such a thing. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 10:33, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
- B or D I personally don't mind clicking a button to show the decline(s) but I want to be able to see the full rationale, which is why I don't really like A (oppose). Furthermore most drafts I come across don't have more than two declines so I don't think it is unreasonable to click to view them. I like B's superior overview which is why I'd prefer B over D but I'm happy with both Squawk7700 (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
- I think I need to add to this: my above comment is what I think about the proposed alternatives. I am not against the proposal I however am not 100% sure we need it given the effort needed. I rarely see a flood of templates on an article, most sit at perhaps two? The time needed to adapt AFCH weighed against the benefit of the improved visibility for that tiny number of articles perhaps does not make too much sense. But given how this discussion evolved I don't want to stay in the way of the improvement if the other reviewers see the proposals merit better. Best, Squawk7700 (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose D because it hides too much. Any other options are acceptable. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
- Support A (first choice) and C (second choice) as the visible nuggets are what's useful to know for the next iteration. A is more concise and faster to read (and also consistent with other article-milestone and afd-history lists) whereas C seems to draw my eye too much to all the parts except the actual decline reason and does not have as parallel a construction among entries. Small change for A, B, D: given these histories can contain reject as well as decline entries, the list intro "This draft has been declined multiple times:" is incorrectly restrictive. DMacks (talk) 12:33, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
- If needed, it can say This draft has been reviewed multiple times instead. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 12:41, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
- (Not supporting any one option.) With the proviso that I'm not sure this 'problem' needs solving in the first place, I like the look of option B, in that it is neat and compact, and distinguishes visually between rejection vs. decline (albeit that they should nearly all be declines, of course). However, I prefer how option A shows the reasons for each decline/rejection. So if the best aspects of those two options could be merged, that would be my preference... in other words, content-wise like option C, but more compact. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:44, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
- PS: Technical question, is there any difference in how past declines would be added to these templates? I restore past declines on a daily basis, when authors delete them (sometimes purposely, sometimes inadvertently by overwriting the entire page with a new draft), and I don't want that task to become any clunkier than it already is. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:48, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
- Options A and D would involve putting notices inside a new template like this:
{{AfC notice/declined}} <!-- Latest decline -->
{{prior declines|
{{AfC notice/declined}}
{{AfC notice/declined}}
{{AfC notice/declined}}
}}
- Per my understanding, all notices should be placed in reverse chronological order regardless of whether or not they had to be restored. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 13:07, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
- Wrapping prior declines in a template that is going to constantly change what templates it has inside of it will require a complex patch to WP:AFCHS. I think at the moment the code is beautifully simple because it just prepends new declines to the top of the page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
- Per my understanding, all notices should be placed in reverse chronological order regardless of whether or not they had to be restored. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 13:07, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
- comment it should be noted that while in a lot of cases A just hides boiler-plate text, in the case of custom declines (I presume) it would hide vital information. In the case in a section below Draft:Chris Coyne uses custom decline to point out the important info that the draft mixes up different people fo the same name. We can't have a solution that hides such info. KylieTastic (talk) 08:53, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
- I think that in that situation, the multiple declines template could be made to accept reasons, or notices with important but not repeated notes left outside the collapsed templates. Having the option to compress it doesn't mean it has to be used, it just needs to be useful enough that it will be maintained and something people can recognise. Mitchsavl (talk) 09:29, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
- My understanding this was proposed for AFCH to automatically put all old declines in the template. Also even if done manually I think the rarity of the custom decline and human nature will mean people would just put it in anyway. It's generally bad practice to have systems were people are expected to know special cases. KylieTastic (talk) 09:39, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
- I think that in that situation, the multiple declines template could be made to accept reasons, or notices with important but not repeated notes left outside the collapsed templates. Having the option to compress it doesn't mean it has to be used, it just needs to be useful enough that it will be maintained and something people can recognise. Mitchsavl (talk) 09:29, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
- Support B as it is the most concise while still providing relevant information cleanly. Side note: @MrPersonHumanGuy, would you be okay with me updating the mockups above to use the same WP:CODEX colors as the AfC decline templates do already? This would make the templates appear consistent with one another on dark mode too. Axolitl (talk | contribs) 19:54, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- I don't mind any attempt to improve upon the ideas that have been presented so far. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- Oops, I phrased this wrong. The correct way to apply the right colors would be to apply class=afc-submission-declined and remove the background color, which would auto style it from TM:AfC submission/styles.css. Axolitl (talk | contribs) 20:03, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- Support D as the only logical option. Drafts like CaseOh's are unable to be edited or improved properly due to the ridiculous number of declines requiring scrolling, which is tedious on computer and purely disruptive on mobile. It takes a second to uncollapse, editors don't need to see smaller versions as proposed in the other options. 11WB 💬 06:36, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose at a brief look the votes are all over the place and requires a non-minimal amount of time to understand the changing options so I think this RfC needs to put out of misery. In addition, it has minimal participation. No objection to more focused new one with a couple straight forward options. S0091 (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
- No objection to closing as no consensus. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
- @MrPersonHumanGuy I've been away from Wiki but I would genuinely like to see a new RfC with some more refined options as I think this could be a good idea qcne (talk) 08:42, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
- No objection to closing as no consensus. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
- Option A (preferred) or B. I like the look of B, but you shouldn't have to click through multiple menus to see the exhaustive decline reasons. EatingCarBatteries (contribs | talk) 01:09, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- Support B as it is the most concise while also showing important stuff like the number of declines and dates as a whim. Also, showing the current-most decline in full is smart. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 08:44, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: If this discussion ends in favor of Option B, I suggest avoiding implementing the "This draft has been reviewed multiple times:" box and just let each notice be separate as always. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 10:47, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
- Update: I've modified Option B so it no longer has the box I was just talking about. The only downside it currently has now is that it has to be expanded to show the decline reasons. (I know some reviewers would find that inconvenient) When it comes to minimizing the vertical space taken up by historical decline notices, Option B appears to now be the best option that doesn't require changes to the AfC helper script. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 10:58, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
- Update 2: I've decided to restore the original version of Option B, but as Old Option B so those who have !voted for Option B may have to explicitly specify that they would want the version that would require changes to the AfC helper script. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 11:10, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
- Update: I've modified Option B so it no longer has the box I was just talking about. The only downside it currently has now is that it has to be expanded to show the decline reasons. (I know some reviewers would find that inconvenient) When it comes to minimizing the vertical space taken up by historical decline notices, Option B appears to now be the best option that doesn't require changes to the AfC helper script. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 10:58, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
Changing the AI decline notice
The current text is as follows;
This draft appears to contain text generated by a large language model (such as ChatGPT). You cannot use LLMs to generate article content.
LLM-generated pages with certain obvious signs of being machine generated may be deleted without notice.
These tools are prone to specific issues that violate our policies:
- hallucinations: they often invent false information and cite non-existent references.
- unencyclopedic tone: they tend to be vague, promotional, or essay-like, rather than neutral and factual.
- copyright issues: they may closely paraphrase existing text, leading to copyright violations.
Instead, only summarize in your own words a range of independent, reliable, published sources that discuss the subject.
See the advice page on large language models for more information.
The section beginning These tools are prone to specific issues that violate our policies
is misleading, as it implies that LLM-generated text which does not contain these issues may be acceptable. In any case it's unnecessary; we don't need to give people a screed on why LLM generated text is bad, the only part which is relevant to their article being declined is that it's not allowed. Let's keep it short and sweet and minimise the room for misinterpretation (especially because AI chatbots love to misinterpret this kind of wiggle-room and whisper like Grima Wormtongue into their users' ears that AI usage is okay if it doesn't have these issues.) Athanelar (talk) 05:59, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
- I agree. I have had pushback on that on my Talk page, since the LLM editor then says "there's nothing hallucinated here, I've checked everything." One editor wrote (paraphrasing), "OK, so yes I used LLM, but you are asking me to do a rewrite for a rewrite's sake, since all the sources and text wording are OK?" The answer is yes. But because the decline focuses on what could go wrong, a mini justification on our stance about LLM, it's actually not the point: the point is LLM is against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, just like many other issues: copyright, non neutral text, unsourced. By all means give a one line link to the justification, but I don't see the point in deflecting off the core point, which is that LLM is not allowed. ChrysGalley (talk) 07:11, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
- I've noticed that most editors who resubmit after an LLM decline just superficially reword the LLM output (random recent example: ). I have been adding a comment to preemptively discourage this (
Please remove all text from the draft and start over from a blank slate without LLMs
) but it would be better if the notice was rewritten to address this. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:36, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
Why aren't rejected drafts deleted?
Since the point of rejection is to completely shut down the idea of creating an article for that topic at all, what's the point of leaving the draft to clog up server space? A lot of them are vandalism/LTAs/UPE, and there are already plenty of abandoned drafts floating around as it is. It seems like that could be a valid CSD criteria, and submitting editors can just be notified on their talk page since that happens anyway. Figured I'd check here before taking it to Pump though, since it seems like something that would have been discussed before. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 11:20, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
- If they are attack pages, vandalism, sheer unadulterated spam, etc., they do normally get speedied (at least that's what I tend to do, can't speak for other admins). But there is no particular urgency to speedy bona fide efforts that simply failed to demonstrate notability. Maybe the author wants to come back to it later, when new sources appear. Maybe others want to chip in. Maybe it needs to be discussed for some reason at some forum, and if it has been deleted then only admins can see the content. Stale drafts get deleted under G13 after six months anyway, so that's the backstop that prevents the servers being 'clogged up'. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:01, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
- And honestly, deleting them by any means other than G13 just increases admin+patroller workload. So if it's not super urgent (eg, an attack page), there really is no reason not to just let things time out by G13. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 13:02, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
- Rejections, NOT denials. The ones that remove the submission button and tell editors to drop it because the subject isn't suitable for Wikipedia at all. I don't see how there's any value in keeping those around, unless there are extenuating circumstances (such as using it as evidence for disciplinary measures), in which case there could be an exemption (or at least delay). I don't understand how waiting for someone to notice and G13 it 6+ months later is less work than the reviewer tagging it when they reject - maybe even baking it into the rejection protocol, with the ability to disable it in said extenuating circumstances? Easy yes/no parameter, and the patrolling admin can of course de-nominate too if they have a reason. Just trying to think of more expedient ways to tidy up some of the pointless cruft I stumble across now and then. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
- Deleting anything that is not egregious enough to merit a speedy deletion would be BITEY. Submitters often have no other copy of their work so you are also denying them from learning. This is also why I believe G11 is way over used in draft space and removes a basis to learn from. The proposal also assumes reviewers never make mistakes and reject things that should have been declined. If the draft is left it can be easily reviewed by non admins: either other reviewers, related project members, or people helping out out help desks the submitter may ask for advice. G13 tagging is automatic so takes no effort. Deleting a G13 is also a lot easier admin task than it would be having to judge that that every rejection was correct before deleting. KylieTastic (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
- Semi automatic. I've seen plenty of drafts that only have bot updates or procedural fixes, with no real changes to content for over 6 months. Maybe it could be done as a PROD instead, so there's a grace period. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
- I know this will be a hot take (though I've said it a few times) but I don't think G11 should be valid in the Draft space. Not going to go into it here because it's not germane to the main topic, but I thought I'd mention it. Primefac (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I would go as far as never, but it sure takes a lot for me to think G11 applies to a draft. Probably less than
1%5% of G11ed drafts I would delete, and I should decline more. KylieTastic (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2026 (UTC) - A heck of a lot of the ones I've seen are UPE that will just keep trying to sneak their preferred version through one way or another. I'd rather see them shut down faster 🤷♀️ ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
- But in those cases though, if an UPE is resubmitting the same pages over and over, wouldn't it be better for reviewers to be able to see existing drafts that have been rejected? Once it's deleted, us non-admins are likely to not even know it ever existed, or that we're therefore dealing with a persistent spammer. In solidarity, nil nz 12:35, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
- Logs exist for a reason - and if the subject is rejectable it shouldn't really matter whether or not it's been submitted before. I understand and agree with retaining drafts if they're just denied.
- I'd also like to see the problematic editors ejected with far more prejudice, but I know that's a pipe dream. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
- But in those cases though, if an UPE is resubmitting the same pages over and over, wouldn't it be better for reviewers to be able to see existing drafts that have been rejected? Once it's deleted, us non-admins are likely to not even know it ever existed, or that we're therefore dealing with a persistent spammer. In solidarity, nil nz 12:35, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I would go as far as never, but it sure takes a lot for me to think G11 applies to a draft. Probably less than
- I have also seen an innocuous draft or two get deleted and even salted just because of tendentious resubmissions, even though I think the best measure for that would simply be to put a draft under editing protection instead, as had been the case for Draft:Battle for Dream Island in October 2025. Preventing inexperienced users from editing a draft also prevents them from submitting it via the AfC process. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- That only works if they haven't made ECP. There are definitely some editors past that who still aren't remotely ready to write a full article. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- Draft is for inexperienced users, and TAs, to try to write articles on notable topics, so should not be blocked. SALTing is for stopping tedious creation of non-notable subjects. If the subject is notable and some editor is re-creating/re-submitting tedious copies then that should be dealt with at the editor level not let one (or a few) editors block all other inexperienced users and TAs (not all are inexperienced) from creating a valid version. In the case of Draft:Battle for Dream Island at least one of the problem editors was EC so editing protection would not have helped. Probably SALTing for just a few months or a year, rather than indef, would have worked best. KylieTastic (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- I've mostly seen it when UPEs keep targeting the same bounties, not so much for a single determined newbie. Often LTA socks so they keep hammering away at it from numerous accounts. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- Deleting anything that is not egregious enough to merit a speedy deletion would be BITEY. Submitters often have no other copy of their work so you are also denying them from learning. This is also why I believe G11 is way over used in draft space and removes a basis to learn from. The proposal also assumes reviewers never make mistakes and reject things that should have been declined. If the draft is left it can be easily reviewed by non admins: either other reviewers, related project members, or people helping out out help desks the submitter may ask for advice. G13 tagging is automatic so takes no effort. Deleting a G13 is also a lot easier admin task than it would be having to judge that that every rejection was correct before deleting. KylieTastic (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
Recently accepted Ramayana (2026 film)...many redirects
The above article was recently accepted and the film had turbulent history that spanned about year and a half with various issues including title gaming so several drafts/sandboxes were redirected the "main" draft. Looking at What links here, there are over 20 Draft/sandbox redirects with many being double redirects. That seems excessive to me, especially the double redirects which are most of them, but not sure it is really an issue. Are the double redirects fine or should they be deleted or re-targeted? S0091 (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
- I believe a bot will fix the double redirects eventually? ScalarFactor (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not sure because they are not mainspace redirects. Also just to note, the only reason I looked is because I redirected a couple more a couple days ago and knew the history so out of curiosity I looked and was surprised by the number. I kind of wish I hadn't lol. S0091 (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
- Well glancing through page histories a bot fixed a draft -> draft double redirect, so maybe. LittlePuppers (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not sure because they are not mainspace redirects. Also just to note, the only reason I looked is because I redirected a couple more a couple days ago and knew the history so out of curiosity I looked and was surprised by the number. I kind of wish I hadn't lol. S0091 (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
Ask (and help) reviewers to check for AI
In Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions#Reviewing workflow, both the "quick fail review" section of the diagram and the list of quick-fail reasons should include "appears to be large language model output", in line with WP:LLM and the existing LLM decline reason.
In Template:AfC submission, under "Reviewer tools", I suggest adding "AI signs (check)". The "check" link goes to https://wikipedia.gptzero.me/, which is free to use. Even though automated checkers are imperfect, they're helpful if used appropriately, in combination with evaluating the article with one's own brain. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
- That's a neat tool. (For what it's worth, while I know AI detectors historically have a terrible reputation, it seems like gptzero has earned its reputation; it's been surprisingly good in the cases I know a text to be one or the other.) I wonder if it'd be possible to create a report automatically, like the copyvios tool? And if so, whether that would be abused?
- Tangentially related: lately if I've been unsure whether something is LLM or not I've gotten into the habit of declining for some other reason (because let's be honest, if you're thinking about declining for LLM there are other valid decline reasons) and leaving a comment asking. That can sometimes clear it up (often by some analogy about giving them rope) and leaves a note of my suspicions for the next reviewer, while being a bit less confrontational/accusatory. I don't know if that's best practice, but I've found it a nice compromise. LittlePuppers (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
- @LittlePuppers, I don't think we'd want to run it automatically (as you note, there are lots of other reasons to decline drafts, and also, think of the tokens), but Paste check is working on something kinda-sorta like this. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 05:09, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
- It would be handy to have a quick way to check if sources are AI-written, but so far I think the best way is still simple judgement. I check the edit history every time, and usually the editor contribs, because some (not all) sloppers are obvious if they put out 30,000 byte edits in 4 minutes, or claim to have "rewritten" an article that previously failed for LLM usage. Edit summaries are usually really obvious if they're AI written. Also, verifying sources say what they're cited for. It's slow and hard but it proves AI quickly if you score a hit.
- Ironically I sometimes paste the text into ChatGPT to ask what it thinks, and it will point out specific bits that seem distinctively AI or human. Its judgment is not reliable but sometimes it points out things/phrases that I missed. RustyOldShip (talk) 07:39, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- @RustyOldShip, https://wikipedia.gptzero.me/ checks if the sources are AI-written as well. There are of course the usual caveats of "don't ever trust AI too much", but it can at least point you in the right direction. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 07:48, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- Sorry if I was unclear, I was trying to say that is helpful and I'd probably use it. (At least to flag potential problems and take a look at them)
- It might not be perfect at checking for AI sources but when some submissions have 30+ sources, who has time to check them all manually? RustyOldShip (talk) 08:31, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- I use the Cite Unseen userscript to help me sort out reliable vs dubious sources more quickly. A bit ironically, I also find this AI-assisted source verification userscript very helpful for a quick spot-check while reviewing drafts: User:Alaexis/AI Source Verification. Of course you can't rely on it, but if I run it on an article and it highlights a whole bunch of potentially failed verifications, that helps me prioritize a few citations to spot-check by hand. The author's summary lines up with my observations: "The tool successfully detects about 70% of citations that don't support the claims they are supposed to support. For 'good' citations, it misfires in <15% of cases." Dreamyshade (talk) 05:15, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
- @RustyOldShip, https://wikipedia.gptzero.me/ checks if the sources are AI-written as well. There are of course the usual caveats of "don't ever trust AI too much", but it can at least point you in the right direction. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 07:48, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
Fictional Characters and Notability
Maybe I should have asked this question several years ago. Is there a notability guideline for fictional characters? If not, what are the common-sense rules that should be used in deciding whether a draft about a fictional character should be accepted as a stand-alone article because the character is notable, rather than redirected to the literary or television work or to a list of characters? Is it necessary for the character to have had significant coverage in the real world? Sometimes drafts and articles about fictional characters can provide lengthy in-universe discussion; is that sufficient?
I think I should decline a draft because it is almost all about the character in-universe, but will there be a policies and guidelines basis for that action? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
- The standard is WP:GNG; articles about fictional characters are expected to have "real-world" coverage. There are other wikis like Fandom that compile in-universe information that would not be acceptable in a general encyclopedia. For examples, look at Pokemon AfDs such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sylveon or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kleavor. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:53, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
- Robert, what's the draft? I'll be glad to put a second set of eyes on it tomorrow. I've dealt with an outsized share of efforts to bring articles on fictional characters up to par in terms of real-world references. BD2412 T 03:00, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
- I often don't like to say what the specific case is, because I know that I will get answers about the specific case and I want to address the general question. However, the draft is Draft:Franklin Clinton. I had accepted a few fictional characters when there were quotes by critics or similar reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:28, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
- I would not be inclined to pass this particular article based on quality of sources provided, which, to the extent they have anything in-depth about the character, are generally pop culture websites known for churning out low-quality coverage. This is not particularly different from the evaluation I would make for a biography of a real person. I don't see anything there quite yet that justifies having anything separate from the original parent media, in this case, Grand Theft Auto V. I would also note, however, that the article on the character's voice actor, Shawn Fonteno, has some substance on this subject that could be added to improve the article to the point where it would likely pass. BD2412 T 18:27, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
- My take has been to compare Grand Theft Auto characters with the "Scottish play" and its characters such as Banquo: it's up against the same GNG as a living person. So do three reliable sources really describe the life and career of the character in sufficient depth to permit critical analysis and sensible summarisation. Mostly they don't, so that's probably why it's best I don't review Grand Theft characters since in reality the traditional metrics here are more observed in the breach. But it's not just Grand Theft that has that issue, whereas Banquo rightly has GA status, King Duncan is borderline AFD territory for poor sourcing. ChrysGalley (talk) 06:53, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
- I would be surprised if sufficient sourcing for King Duncan (or any comparably significant Shakespeare character) could not be found, though. BD2412 T 12:03, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
- Aye, would easily meet BEFORE, he is in Encyclopedia Britannica with a long list of sources, so that's on my list.... ChrysGalley (talk) 12:22, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
- I would be surprised if sufficient sourcing for King Duncan (or any comparably significant Shakespeare character) could not be found, though. BD2412 T 12:03, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
- I often don't like to say what the specific case is, because I know that I will get answers about the specific case and I want to address the general question. However, the draft is Draft:Franklin Clinton. I had accepted a few fictional characters when there were quotes by critics or similar reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:28, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
What are we doing with all the RuPaul drag episode drafts?
I'm sure y'all reviewing have noticed a bunch of these drafts such as Draft:RuPocalypse Now! being created? I feel like I've seen 20 of them. I believe I accepted one or two over a week ago before noticing the flood of them and now passing. From what I understand a lot of these were deleted/redirected via an AfD. So how are we handling these? They all seem to be about equal quality in terms of sourcing, a lot of it cruft. I just feel like we should all be on the same page. If all of these are just cruft declines, should we reach out to the editor and try to get them pointed in a more constructive direction? Should we just accept and let it be sorted in another AfD? I think you can make solid arguments both for and against whether these are notable or cruft. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:35, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
- There's a bit of history behind all these (e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 41#RuPaul's Drag Race franchise episodes and notability), with the concerns at the time being the mass creation of stub articles for episodes. I believe they were all draftified as a result, with the agreement being they would be expanded and improved in draft space and then submitted to AfC for reviewers to approve.
A lot of those who advocated for deletion of the stubs were using WP:NEPISODE as part of their rationale, but it's important to note that that's only an essay, not a guideline. Instead, we should be reviewing them against WP:GNG; in the ones I've reviewed, there's been enough WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources (especially in the "Critical reception" sections) which means that the expanded articles now met our notability criteria, so we shouldn't decline them as cruft unless the article would require a total rewrite. In solidarity, nil nz 04:42, 6 August 2026 (UTC) - ...and now after writing all that, I see that the section header said "episode drafts", but the linked Draft:Read U Wrote U is about a song, not an episode. In this specific instance, WP:NSONG would apply. In solidarity, nil nz 04:46, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
- Haha, it totally is a song not an episode. I was just waiting to come across another instance of one of those episode posts to post as an example, so I just look at it for a second and said "yep that's one of them" without realizing it's a song and not one of the episodes. But I assume everyone knows what I'm talking about. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
Orphaned accepted articles
I suspect there are lots of decent accepted articles that don't get read as much as they should because they have no or few incoming links, so I made database reports with lists of orphaned accepted articles: newest, oldest, least recently updated. I also made a narrower report of lonely accepted articles: no incoming links and no categories - only 33 articles, all accepted in the past few weeks. Might be interesting to embed these kinds of reports somewhere in the WikiProject to encourage people to weave accepted articles into the wiki. Dreamyshade (talk) 07:04, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks. Good opportunity to remind all reviewers to add each new article to at least a couple of categories, one or more projects (besides AfC), and to ensure at least one incoming link, preferably a few. Sometimes this takes a bit of thought, lateral thinking even, but it does help to bind everything together. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:13, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for useful reports. I will mention again that sometimes I don't have a clue what the categories or WikiProjects should be. I know that I can request gnome assistance with categories by tagging a newly accepted article as {{Improve categories}} or {{Uncategorized}}. Do I have some similar option if I don't have a clue about the WikiProjects? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
- I don't know of a template tag like that, but it's easy to make a report for friendly gnomes, like this: Accepted articles without WikiProjects. I also made a report for uncategorized accepted articles, sorted by creation date.
- To me, adding incoming links is the most valuable task of this type (useful for readers), then categories (maybe useful for readers), then WikiProjects (not useful for readers). Still, for WikiProject tagging:
- I try to add the project for the associated country - for example, I'd put Black House (artistic community) in WikiProject Germany, and 2027 Scottish local elections in WikiProject Scotland.
- I click into linked articles and snag WikiProjects from their talk pages. For Black House, I'd click one of the artists, see that his talk page has WikiProject Visual arts, and copy that. For 2027 Scottish local elections I'd click 2027 United Kingdom local elections and see that Talk:2027 United Kingdom local elections includes WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, and copy that.
- Dreamyshade (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
- Could an empty {{WikiProject banner shell}} be made to place the page into a tracking category, like what {{Rcat shell}} does if you provide a blank
|1=parameter? Like the examples here. (Though in the specific case of AfC articles, it'd presumably be best to make it empty or only WPAFC banner.) ScalarFactor (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
- Could an empty {{WikiProject banner shell}} be made to place the page into a tracking category, like what {{Rcat shell}} does if you provide a blank
- Thanks for useful reports. I will mention again that sometimes I don't have a clue what the categories or WikiProjects should be. I know that I can request gnome assistance with categories by tagging a newly accepted article as {{Improve categories}} or {{Uncategorized}}. Do I have some similar option if I don't have a clue about the WikiProjects? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
- I have just tagged 185 articles accepted this last week as orphans and also removed 92 orphan tags (from all articles not just recent accepts). While doing that also tagged 40 as uncategorised. KylieTastic (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you, appreciate that you also noticed the pattern and did something about it! I'm hoping that by surfacing these kinds of lists in an automated way in a visible place, people wouldn't need to do as much manual tagging. Dreamyshade (talk) 14:45, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- The AFCH tool could add these tags, or at least suggest them when accepting. That would be easiest way to improve things. Ideally if the tool reminded reviewers, some would at least look if they could quickly add any obvious inbound-links or otherwise tag. Also I find that tagging these as orphans quickly often means the submitter fixes the issue themselves. KylieTastic (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- Ooh, yes, upon accepting an article, the script can check whether an article is an orphan or uncategorized and automatically apply the templates! I filed a code suggestion for review by the script maintainers. The accepting interface already prompts for category input, so this would just add the uncategorized tag if neither the author nor reviewer added categories. Dreamyshade (talk) 20:17, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- The AFCH tool could add these tags, or at least suggest them when accepting. That would be easiest way to improve things. Ideally if the tool reminded reviewers, some would at least look if they could quickly add any obvious inbound-links or otherwise tag. Also I find that tagging these as orphans quickly often means the submitter fixes the issue themselves. KylieTastic (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you, appreciate that you also noticed the pattern and did something about it! I'm hoping that by surfacing these kinds of lists in an automated way in a visible place, people wouldn't need to do as much manual tagging. Dreamyshade (talk) 14:45, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
Modifying AFCH to automatically add Template:Orphan and Template:Uncategorized
Someone has written a patch to have AFCH automatically add {{Orphan}} and {{Uncategorized}}. The last time this came up in 2024, there was consensus against (at least for the {{Uncategorized}} part). I just want to double check consensus and see if consensus has changed before moving the patch forward. Thoughts? Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- Personally, I would support it. It automates a manual process, saving the AFC reviewer work. And it helps WP:GNOMES. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- support a sensible timesaver In solidarity, nil nz 01:31, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- Is there a courtesy link to the prior discussion? Without being able to think about a reason not to, I would tentatively support. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 01:47, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- As best I can tell tracking ticket #220, I think this is it: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Archive 55 § Acceptance by the script, categories, and a tag check box?. I don't even know if there is consensus against, just fizzled out? I would support, cannot think of a reason not to. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 01:55, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- I see one oppose in 2024 here: "I disagree with this; there is zero reason the reviewer cannot add at least one category. If anything, we should make it a mandatory part of the AFCH process." Dreamyshade (talk) 02:27, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- Indeed, since I seem to be in the minority I won't bother bolding my oppose !vote but I stand by that statement. Even a "wrong" category is better than no category (and I mean this in like putting something into "Category:Companies" when it should really be in "Category:Companies based out of Walla Walla"). Primefac (talk) 11:54, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- I see one oppose in 2024 here: "I disagree with this; there is zero reason the reviewer cannot add at least one category. If anything, we should make it a mandatory part of the AFCH process." Dreamyshade (talk) 02:27, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- As best I can tell tracking ticket #220, I think this is it: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Archive 55 § Acceptance by the script, categories, and a tag check box?. I don't even know if there is consensus against, just fizzled out? I would support, cannot think of a reason not to. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 01:55, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- Support. As patch writer, orphan tagging is most important to me. The backlog of orphaned accepted articles is large: there are about 670 orphaned AfCs that were created in 2026, and the oldest 30 orphaned AfC articles were created in 2007-2011. Based on this report, people already add category tags to almost all accepted articles - the backlog is only 61 articles total - but it's still nice to save the gnomes a step for those that slip through. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:27, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- Support. The NPP tool pops up a little notice about these (and then I either do something or tag it), no reason not to do it a step earlier in the process. LittlePuppers (talk) 04:18, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- Support although I agree with Primefac that it is a very low bar for reviewers to add at least one category the reality is many never do and I don't think there is never going to be support to make it mandatory. The only issue I can see is the code appears to just test for [[Category:... or [[:Category... so will incorrectly tag if categories are added via templates. KylieTastic (talk) 10:32, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- Support as an important fallback and to facilitate eventual resolution. ChrysGalley (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- Support particularly for orphan pages and as a good reminder for uncategorised. Mme Maigret (talk) 14:08, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
Draft:Abhijeet Dipke
This draft has been resubmitted by an uninvolved editor that looks very much like a drive-by submission. In this case, who do I give the credits to if I accept the draft? Thanks, TNM101 (in solidarity · chat) 18:01, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
- The page has a history of edits by various WP:SOCKs. It's very likely that the drive-by submission was just another one. An admin might want to take a look at that page before any sort of move to mainspace, looks like it's been only contributed to by socks. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
- Would it be possible to accept it without giving credits to anyone? TNM101 (in solidarity · chat) 05:17, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- Not if you are using the script. Primefac (talk) 12:03, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- Surely you can just untick "Notify submitter"? KylieTastic (talk) 12:06, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, but "credit" is still given at WP:AFC/Recent. Primefac (talk) 12:22, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- Surely you can just untick "Notify submitter"? KylieTastic (talk) 12:06, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- Not if you are using the script. Primefac (talk) 12:03, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- Would it be possible to accept it without giving credits to anyone? TNM101 (in solidarity · chat) 05:17, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- The script goes off the template values, it is not defined by the reviewer.
In this case it actually looks like the editor put in. I'd probably just revert the drive-by but if it's acceptable then I wouldn't be worried about how or why it got submitted. Primefac (talk) 12:05, 8 August 2026 (UTC)u=WeldingWIPwho isn't even registered- They were WeldingWIP when they did the drive-by, they got renamed after. KylieTastic (talk) 12:08, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
So, um, what exactly should I do? TNM101 (in solidarity · chat) 12:22, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- n this specific case, I see nothing to suggest that they're directly connected to the sock farm in question, so just review it; Toddy1 made some major changes so it's not like we should be gatekeeping just because the submitter didn't do anything other than submit it. Primefac (talk) 12:33, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- I just notice that none of the real credit is in Draft:Abhijeet Dipke as Toddy1 did a cut-and-paste from Abhijeet Dipke (comparison). So maybe just reverting to pre the cut-and-paste is the correct thing to do and if you think the version is notable and overcomes the AfD concerns then you could revert on Abhijeet Dipke and say your reasoning in the edit summary. KylieTastic (talk) 12:34, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
Proposal to remove the join-in message from Template:Draft article
Here is my edit to the sandbox to that effect. I would make an edit request at Template talk:Draft article, but I now know that I need to get consensus for edit requests involving protected templates before I actually make such requests at all.
Here are my reasons for suggesting to remove this parameter:
- The main box says that drafts are "open to editing by anyone", so a second box inviting others to join in may be redundant.
- Template:Join in, which apparently served a similar function, was deleted at a TfD discussion, where !voters unanimously agreed that it was unneeded.
- Template:AfC submission doesn't have this parameter or this message.
– MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 22:44, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
Two Drafts About Same Person
I would appreciate a second set of eyes at what I have done with two accounts of the same person. One was submitted as a draft. The other had been an article, but was then boldly cut down to a redirect. I don't think that either of them gives enough information about this person to warrant a stand-alone article. What we know is that he commanded Abbasid forces at the Battle of Talas, which was significant because it stopped the westward expansion of the Tang empire. The two biographies are now at Draft:Ziyad ibn Salih and Draft:Ziyad ibn Salih al-Khuza'i. I would appreciate if someone could look at the histories and see if they think that I have handled this in a reasonable way. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- They both seem to be LLM-generated anyways. For Draft:Ziyad ibn Salih I checked two of the book sources that are available on archive.org and neither of them mention this person or verify the attached claims. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:09, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you, User:Helpful Raccoon. I think that we should have an article about this person, but only if there is documentation that goes beyond his winning the battle, and if the article is written by H. sapiens. The battle was historically important, and we have an article about the battle. Was leaving the two drafts visible in draft space, with both forms of his name redirected in article space to the battle, a reasonable choice? Would it be useful to tag either of the drafts as a {{promising draft}}, or should we left them go away in February 2027? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:32, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- If they're LLM generated I wouldn't tag as promising drafts, no. The content isn't worth keeping, even if the topic is potentially notable. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you, User:Helpful Raccoon. I think that we should have an article about this person, but only if there is documentation that goes beyond his winning the battle, and if the article is written by H. sapiens. The battle was historically important, and we have an article about the battle. Was leaving the two drafts visible in draft space, with both forms of his name redirected in article space to the battle, a reasonable choice? Would it be useful to tag either of the drafts as a {{promising draft}}, or should we left them go away in February 2027? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:32, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
WikiProjects and Drafts (again)
I just started to accept a draft, and had selected a WikiProject to assign it to because the accept script didn't list any projects. However, the accept script hung, as it sometimes does, and I refreshed the draft. Then I looked at the talk page and saw that there were already three WikiProjects listed on the talk page. My question is why the script didn't recognize that there were already three WikiProjects. So when I accepted the draft the second time, which worked, I looked at the talk page and saw that there were three WikiProjects. So my question is why the accept script didn't list the three projects.
By the way, the article was and is Anemoia. (Yes, I did have to rename an article about an album to Anemoia (album). I don't think that should have affected the WikiProjects.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:23, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- I've seen a similar discrepancy there, and I suspect AI may have something to do with it. If someone has used the correct AFC-submit wizard then the Projects tend to be pre-populated and we are all happy. The real wizard clearly invites submit editors to identify one to five projects before advancing to the submission. If some other process is used, perhaps claiming to be the wizard, perhaps just putting in a few random tags, then there can be a mismatch between that pre-populated field - empty - and the projects shown on Talk. There can be good reasons why someone may have played about with the Talk page after submission, so there are other factors. ChrysGalley (talk) 07:28, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
- Unlike categories (which are on the draft itself) AFCH does not pre-populate WikiProjects (since they're listed on the talk page). However, it is at least smart enough (now) to be able to add the appropriate banners in the appropriate place (seen in Special:Diff/1368551148 for this particular case) if there are already Projects listed on the talk page. Primefac (talk) 09:38, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
Submitting the same draft over and over
Is it possible to include rejecting an article draft because it was submitted several times with zero effort to improve the draft? For now, the reasons to reject do not consider this kind of behaviour. FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:11, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
- You should REJECT if you think that sources don't exist, and will never exist, to get the draft to acceptable status.
- For tendentious resubmissions, which you are describing, nominate it at MfD. The rationale for sending it to MfD is that the author may mean to dispute your DECLINEs, and for an active dispute, MfD serves to make a decision.
- - SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:17, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
- If someone is doing this repeatedly and there isn't any strong sign that the topic could meet notability guidelines, my usual move is to decline with a comment that if there are no further improvements in the next submission, the next reviewer should reject. That gives the submitter a very clear warning. Then the next reviewer can reject as topic unsuitable. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
- The original poster made a point that I think is valid. That is that the rejection codes do not include tendentious resubmission. However, if the draft has been repeatedly submitted, it has presumably been declined for notability reasons, so that the rejection can be for lack of notability, after giving the originator multiple chances to show notability. Repeated declines for verifiability can also be followed with a rejection for notability, because the demonstration of notability depends on the sources. I don't see any sharp distinction between reasons to reject a draft and reasons to send a draft to MFD. A draft that can be rejected is often a draft that can be sent to MFD, and a draft that can be sent to MFD is often a draft that can be, or was, rejected. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:07, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
New publications Analysis
Can someone tell me please if the Dainik Jagran and ZOOM TV are RS or not? Nomadwikiholic1 (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
- Dainik Jagran is a very mainstream newspaper so I would say yes. By "ZOOM TV" do you mean zoomtventertainment.com? If so I'm not sure, but clicking on a few random articles looks OK and I can't see any links advertising that they do paid for promo articles. KylieTastic (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
- Yes zoomtventertainment.com, thank you KylieTastic for the help. Nomadwikiholic1 (talk) 16:54, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
Question About Christopher Forrest
I was reviewing Draft:Christopher Forrest, and would like a confirmation that I handled it reasonably . The title was already in use, and was a redirect to a film Vincent and Me. The subject of the draft is a member of a national academy and otherwise seems notable. In similar cases, I usually disambiguate the draft that I am accepting. I chose to disambiguate the redirect, and moved it to Christopher Forrest (actor), which redirects to the film. A hatnote directs a reader who is looking for the actor to the actor, and then to the film. Was this correct? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:32, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
Copyright questions
Two related questions:
(1) Draft:Freddie and Max (TV Series) copies all its episode synopses from the British Film Institute's archive (links in article). Does anyone know the copyright status here? They don't say anything on their website. It may be somehow related to the UK government. The previous couple reviewers haven't said anything.
(2) When I have general copyright questions, where should I ask? I know of places to report copyvio and whatnot, but haven't found a good general place to ask random stuff like this.
Thanks! LittlePuppers (talk) 20:21, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- Copyright is presumed unless it is indicated that it is compatible with our licence, or it is public domain. I don't believe UK government works are typically in the public domain, though there's the OGL, OJL, etc. (It would have been marked clearly if this was the case)
- WT:CP for text copyright, WP:MCQ for files. Tenshi! (Talk page) 20:32, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
My response to AI questions
Just for everybody's benefit, since I've been having to use it a lot the past couple of days; you may have seen me responding on the AFC helpdesk to AI-generated Qs with a boilerplate statement (Your query appears to have been generated, in whole or in part, by some kind of AI chatbot...
). That boilerplate is at User:Athanelar/AFCHD. I strongly encourage you all to use it; don't spend more time responding to a question than they spent even thinking about it. Athanelar (talk) 13:42, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
- I would add a sentence about us not expecting communication to be in perfect English, merely understandable. I wouldn't be surprised if some of it is non-native readers using it because they think it'll be more understandable to us and not realising we see it as insulting to their own intelligence. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Look out it's Jimothy! 15:11, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, please do add something like this. I would also recommend shortening the first paragraph. Many people use LLMs because they feel overwhelmed, so the less overwhelming we can be in response while still communicating the important things, the better. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
Add mini-reports to support integrating articles
Related to Orphaned accepted articles above, would people support making a WikiProject page with reports that show new accepted articles that are (1) orphaned, (2) uncategorized, (3) have zero interlanguage links, or (4) are not tagged to any WikiProjects other than AfC, or some subset of those? The goal is to encourage integration of the new articles so that readers and editors can find them, which increases the chances that they'll be read, improved, and maintained. Examples: User:Dreamyshade/Reports. The tables can be automatically updated daily and also on demand by clicking the "update" button. For example, I could move the reports to a new subpage called something like "Build the web", listed under the "Showcase" tab (similar to the "Aug 2026" link under the "Backlog drives" tab). Dreamyshade (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2026 (UTC)
- Sounds like a great idea to me. Though I'm not sure about #3 - how often do you find that an article created on en-wiki has no interlanguage links, but ought to have them? In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 23:48, 14 August 2026 (UTC)
- Agree that missing interlanguage links are less common, but I did start finding them when I started looking. Out of the twenty items in the latest report, I just fixed these two: Jay (singer) and Chignecto National Wildlife Area. I also fixed Goetia (magic) yesterday - the Wikidata item (wikidata:Q1540656) was associated with the disambiguation page at Goetia, and I retargeted it to the new article.
- Just added a fifth type of potential mini-report: new articles without short descriptions. Dreamyshade (talk) 00:11, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
- I would just make it a Database report since that's basically what it is already; it puts it in a more centralised location where more people can keep tabs on it (especially since AFC isn't really in the gnoming business). Primefac (talk) 12:13, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
- My thinking is that since these are WikiProject-specific database reports, intended to support the goals of the WikiProject (help new and COI editors create decent articles while reducing inflow of bad articles), they're suitable to embed within this WikiProject, rather than on Wikipedia:Database reports. I do want to have similar reports on the central list (like Wikipedia:Database reports/All uncategorized articles), but not constrained by WikiProject. They're interesting to me as a kind of low-key quality control mechanism as well - while looking at these reports, I've found a few articles that were accepted with major issues and needed to be moved back to draftspace. Dreamyshade (talk) 00:25, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- How major are these major issues, @Dreamyshade? In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- Good-faith accepts, probably just reviewed too quickly (I wrote re-reviews): Belmoney (promo, dependent sources, likely AI); Doughnut Plant (promo, likely AI); Chilli Potato (notability, subtle promo, likely AI). Three others that I recommended moving back to draftspace (or moved myself) had reasonable citations but were likely AI, which is more subtle. Belmoney and Chilli Potato were on the orphan report, and Doughnut Plant was missing a short description. Dreamyshade (talk) 03:23, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- Now also this; I noticed both Draft:Amy Anzel and Draft:MuscleBlaze on the orphan report. Orphaned status seems to have some correlation with promo/COI because questionable notability correlates somewhat with no mentions of the subject in other articles. Not a strong correlation, especially in subject areas with less depth, but it's one of the reasons why I'm thinking about ways to recruit some more attention to orphans (both in AfC and outside AfC). Dreamyshade (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- How major are these major issues, @Dreamyshade? In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- My thinking is that since these are WikiProject-specific database reports, intended to support the goals of the WikiProject (help new and COI editors create decent articles while reducing inflow of bad articles), they're suitable to embed within this WikiProject, rather than on Wikipedia:Database reports. I do want to have similar reports on the central list (like Wikipedia:Database reports/All uncategorized articles), but not constrained by WikiProject. They're interesting to me as a kind of low-key quality control mechanism as well - while looking at these reports, I've found a few articles that were accepted with major issues and needed to be moved back to draftspace. Dreamyshade (talk) 00:25, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
How to handle this situation?
A drafter created an article Draft:Dancalan FC which I ultimately rejected due to it being a poorly sourced AI generated draft that was resubmitted three times without improvement. Since then they created Draft:Dancalan Football Club which is the same draft and attempted to move it to mainspace. It was moved back by @Bungle491. I rejected that draft as a duplicate of an already rejected draft. The editor then continually resubmitted it. I warned them three times that this is considered disruptive. They never responded to any messages. I opened an AIV case, but they declined to act on it and advised I take it to ANI. However, to me an ANI feels a little much, but an MfD feels like not enough. Any ideas? Sulfurboy (talk) 08:43, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
- I think you should take the draft to MfD. If it's recreated after deletion, you can tag those for WP:G4, and a block would be appropriate for WP:IDHT. Primefac's recommendations state that
Tendentious resubmissions should be dealt with through discussion with the user, sanctions, and potentially deletion (if the problem gets bad enough) in that order.
Kovcszaln6 (talk) 09:04, 15 August 2026 (UTC)- @Kovcszaln6My biggest concern with MfD is having to essentially babysit the editor for a week while that plays out. Not just them adding to the AfC queue unnecessarily, but also monitoring whether they try to create more main space articles under different names. Sulfurboy (talk) 09:25, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
Discussion at WP:VPI § Watchlist notice for WP:MAINTENANCE
You are invited to join the discussion at WP:VPI § Watchlist notice for WP:MAINTENANCE. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:05, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
A defect with showing a "Resubmit" button after a reject?
Hi, looking at Draft:Linklay, it was declined twice, then rejected twice but the second decline, for me, still shows a "Resubmit" button, but it shouldn't so appears there is a defect somewhere. S0091 (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- The defect is not with the template but with the absolute clustermunch of a history. Rejection has no effect on a decline template, but
|small=yestakes away the resubmit button. In this case, though, the TA kept removing the old decline/reject messages, a few new ones were added, old ones were copy/pasted from the history, and to make a long story somewhat shorter, AFCH never had a chance to add|small=yesonto the most recent decline. Primefac (talk) 22:00, 17 August 2026 (UTC)- Ah yes, the clustermunch. :) Thanks for taking a look, Primefac. S0091 (talk) 22:35, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- I've tagged it for MFD because the blocked user is likely to come back. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:21, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
- Ah yes, the clustermunch. :) Thanks for taking a look, Primefac. S0091 (talk) 22:35, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
A comment about G6 or {{db-afc-move}}
If you are reviewing a draft and you want to accept the draft, but there is a redirect at the title, please check whether the redirect has substantive history that has been blanked and redirected or whether the redirect has been tagged {{R with history}}. If the blocking redirect has substantive history, such as an earlier version of an article with that title, the history should not be deleted, and G6 is not applicable. In such a case, please accept the draft by doing a round-robin swap of the old redirect and the draft if you have the Page Mover privilege. If you do not have the Page Mover privilege, please request assistance from an admin or page mover. We don't want to delete substantive history by accident. The admin who is reviewing and deleting G6 articles should check whether there is substantive history, but please check that yourself also. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:28, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
AFC reviewer for blocked for socking. Suspected UPE
Editor Girdi45 has been blocked for socking. This probably means have been also using their NPP and AFC rights to approve articles in return for payment. See the relevant discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers titled Suspected UPE NPP and AFC approvals. They have approved many articles so far at AFC and and has marked many articles as reviewed using NPP rights. Most of them might be UPE. One example is Hrishikesh Pawar Even though many of them were moved to draft by MER-C, it would be nice if some experienced reviewers or admin can check and move back the suspected articles which they accepted into draftspace again. Pinging Vanderwaalforces. ~2026-45000-78 (talk) 05:40, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
Timestamps apparently spit out by AFC submission template
Diff – I'm sure I've seen this issue reported here before but my search-fu isn't working. The draft looked fine before I submitted my review. —ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 08:39, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
- Draft templates don't rely on the
|ts=parameter, which was given incorrectly when the draft was created (dates must be in a YYYYMMDDHHMM format), but the script doesn't assume that it was done incorrectly so all of the subsequent revisions simply shifted the text around (i.e. it's a GIGO case). There's nothing in any of our guidelines that say to use a full "sig-like" timestamp in the|ts=param, so my guess is that they hand-typed this either based on someone else's shoddy example or from text generated elsewhere. Primefac (talk) 08:51, 18 August 2026 (UTC)- Thank you! Now I know what to look out for. —ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 08:54, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
Review request for Draft:Alkhariqun
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 everyone,
Could a reviewer take a look at Draft:Alkhariqun when they have a moment? It's been in the queue for a bit over a week after two quick initial review rounds.
I'm an experienced editor and have significantly cleaned up the text, added secondary independent coverage, and trimmed down any promotional language.
Any feedback or a quick review would be greatly appreciated! Thanks. Kurslash (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- Hi Kurslash, as the note at the top of your draft says, "This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order." We've found that taking requests usually ends up making more work for us and being less fair. If you have questions, feel free to ask at the AfC help desk. LittlePuppers (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- I have not reviewed the rest but with a quick glance several issues are clear. You should severely reduce the use of their own website (currently 8 references), especially in the "Notable Works" section: they are only notable if others have said so. Also a randomly checked source was just an interview so again just a primary source and no good for notability, and others just passing mentions. As you say you are an "experienced editor" you should understand the basic requirements for notability and not using excessive primary sources. KylieTastic (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2026 (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.
Article Guidance project - Invitation for a virtual call
Hello, my name is Gerard, and I am the Product Manager for the Language and Product Localisation team.
My team has been developing a new feature called Article Guidance, which wants to help less experienced editors create well-structured, policy-compliant Wikipedia articles that are more likely to survive (project page: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_guidance), and we are currently testing a first version of it on the French, Turkish, and Simple English Wikipedias.
We demoed this feature to some English Wikipedia AFC contributors at Wikimania, and we would like to continue the discussion to understand from you how the feature could best support the AFC process.
We have scheduled a casual conversation on Discord this Friday, 21st August 2026, at 1:00 PM EST through this link: https://discord.gg/wikipedia?event=1538954513803640963. I hope you can join us and, we can also continue this conversation either here or on Discord.
Thank you! GGalofre-WMF (talk) 09:41, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- Hey everyone! Just a reminder that this call is in 15 minutes, if any AfC folks can join and keep us grounded in reality! https://discord.gg/wikipedia?event=1538954513803640963 MMiller (WMF) (talk) 16:46, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
What happened to "edits since this decline"
probably a stupid question, but the title, it used to there, now it isnt. I quite liked it. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 09:12, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
- Could you be more specific please? Where were you seeing this, and when was the last time you remember seeing it? Primefac (talk) 09:18, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
- It still apears on older drafts ive been reviewing, but not on ones that have been rejected recently. I can see it for example on Draft:Rotating coherent scattering microscopy (Submission declined on 9 June 2026 by Grapesurgeon (talk🟢). [edits since this decline]) So youve got that nice "edits since this decline" which is a very helpful tool to quickly get through reviews as you can see if they have attempted to adress the reasons for the decline (and if they have, great! You can continue the review, but otherwise you can avoid wasting time on it). But on other drafts (say: Draft:Joseph E. Buckelew) that "edits since this decline" link is missing. Of course you can just use page history but the button is much more convenient. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 09:25, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
- Apologies if this seems daft, but can you be more specific? I honestly don't remember this sort of code being in the templates (ever?) and there are multiple places in the /declined template that give the draft reviewer's name, and none of the templates in that family have been edited in that way recently. Are you seeing that at the top? The bottom? Inside one of the [show] menus? Primefac (talk) 09:32, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
- Nevermind! Apparently it comes from a script I had forgotten I installed. Anyway Goodnight everyone! Pencilceaser123 (talk) 10:04, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
- you appear to be using User:SD0001/edits-since-decline.js KylieTastic (talk) 09:36, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
- Oh yes thats it! Sorry I must have forgotten I installed that. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 10:03, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
- I just took a quick look as I'm at work.... but it looks like the reason it was broken on Draft:Joseph E. Buckelew was the AFCH cleaning function with this edit changes {{AFC submission}} to {{AfC submission}} but the script looks only for 'AFC submission'. Unfortunately SD0001 is not very active at the moment to fix. KylieTastic (talk) 10:08, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
- I just tested on a copy and changing
-
return t.name === 'AFC submission' && t.parameters[0].value === 'd'; - to
-
return t.name.toLowerCase() === 'afc submission' && t.parameters[0].value === 'd'; - Fixes the issue. KylieTastic (talk) 10:37, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
- I've put in a request with the Int Admins, probably not 100% necessary but it might get done a little bit faster this way. Primefac (talk) 11:15, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- And it's been done. KylieTastic (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you so much @KylieTastic and @Primefac! I really assumed it had been removed or something at first and when I then learnt it was from a script I had forgotten I installed I did not expect you to fix it. But thank you very much both of you! Sorry for the confusion at first though. Again tysm. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
- I've put in a request with the Int Admins, probably not 100% necessary but it might get done a little bit faster this way. Primefac (talk) 11:15, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- I just took a quick look as I'm at work.... but it looks like the reason it was broken on Draft:Joseph E. Buckelew was the AFCH cleaning function with this edit changes {{AFC submission}} to {{AfC submission}} but the script looks only for 'AFC submission'. Unfortunately SD0001 is not very active at the moment to fix. KylieTastic (talk) 10:08, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
- Oh yes thats it! Sorry I must have forgotten I installed that. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 10:03, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
- Apologies if this seems daft, but can you be more specific? I honestly don't remember this sort of code being in the templates (ever?) and there are multiple places in the /declined template that give the draft reviewer's name, and none of the templates in that family have been edited in that way recently. Are you seeing that at the top? The bottom? Inside one of the [show] menus? Primefac (talk) 09:32, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
- It still apears on older drafts ive been reviewing, but not on ones that have been rejected recently. I can see it for example on Draft:Rotating coherent scattering microscopy (Submission declined on 9 June 2026 by Grapesurgeon (talk🟢). [edits since this decline]) So youve got that nice "edits since this decline" which is a very helpful tool to quickly get through reviews as you can see if they have attempted to adress the reasons for the decline (and if they have, great! You can continue the review, but otherwise you can avoid wasting time on it). But on other drafts (say: Draft:Joseph E. Buckelew) that "edits since this decline" link is missing. Of course you can just use page history but the button is much more convenient. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 09:25, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
Sock submission?
Can maybe an admin take a look at Draft:Andrea Giunti? Seems incredibly unlikely a random TA would just find this draft and resubmit it. Last relevant activity on the draft was from a now banned sock. I've put it under review to take it out of the queue. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:54, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- Completely different continent as the sock, never got a formal review so I would just say go for it; we have a lot of drive-by TA submitters these days but I'm generally in the camp of "who cares" (assuming the [re]submission hasn't been done immediately after a decline and it doesn't appear to be part of a pattern of TE submitting). Primefac (talk) 11:21, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- My assumption would be that this resubmission was done on a proxy or by the person who hired the UPE. But if it's just the one, I too am in "who cares" - we can just decline the draft as normal. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
AFCH creating duplicate DEFAULTSORT & sometimes categories
Recent edits by 4 different editors: .
FYI pings: Kovcszaln6, Sulfurboy, EaglesFan37, Lynch44. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 11:13, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- Known issue; I'll put in a specific request for it since the existing request is more about categories. Primefac (talk) 11:31, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
Current backlog drive
Please, please address the oldest as a matter of greater importance than the latest. We still have >2 months of backlog despite the numbers reducing hugely. Older does not mean harder. Older just means many have simply been ignored for 2+ months. I know we want to help the speed of turnaround, so why not do one from the oldest for every three you do of the newest? 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 09:07, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for the reminder. As of now, the 2 months ago category is officially empty! Great work everyone! SomeoneDreaming (talk) 02:43, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
- The oldest entries still need to be prioritised. If we target the oldest we increase new editor satisfaction, leading to better editor retention. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 08:11, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
- Currently two left in the 6 weeks category. Let's whittle that down to zero and then nuke the 5 weeks one! 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 07:35, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
- The oldest entries still need to be prioritised. If we target the oldest we increase new editor satisfaction, leading to better editor retention. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 08:11, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
Filtering submissions by topic
Hello all, I developed a tool that can be used to help filter out AFC submissions (as well as anything else) by what categories they are in. This can be useful in case you want to focus on drafts within a certain topic (e.g. video games, anime, film, etc.) and don't want to deal with a draft in another topic (e.g. nuclear physics). I thought it may be useful for the backlog drive. URL: https://random-article-in-categories.toolforge.org/
You can also set the categories to check right from the URL. In this example, I have it set to give a random article in Category:Pending AfC submissions that is also in Category:Draft articles about video games: Example
Of course, this can be used for any page on-wiki, not just drafts. Please let me know what you think. In solidarity, Gommeh (talk 🎮 sign) 19:40, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Gommeh I like the idea. What do you think about User:Dafootballguy/AfCScript. In solidarity, Dafootballguy (Want to talk?) 19:42, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
- I like the idea too. In solidarity, Gommeh (talk 🎮 sign) 19:47, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
Second opinion requested: Draft:Chubby Daniels
I've declined Draft:Chubby Daniels twice under WP:GNG, but on the second submission I mischaracterized one of the sources, so I don't want to make the call a third time alone.
The subject is a UK based visual artist. Two sources look like genuine independent WP:SIGCOV: a BBC News feature and a staff written Leicester Mercury piece. Everything else in the draft is primary, directory, self published, or from the subject's own university.
Would appreciate a fresh read on whether those two sources clear GNG. Thanks. Balabush (talk) 12:48, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
- The local paper, and the two BBC Leicester source are all from August 2025. Just looks like a local story picked up just because of the world-record attempt. Unless there is more coverage outside of the Leicester/2025 bubble I would say not yet notable. KylieTastic (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
Maritime security drafts
We've had a spate of maritime security-related drafts come up in the last couple of weeks.
Disclosure: I thought I saw a pattern with the first three drafts which I came across in the queue. I used ChatGPT 5.6 Sol on High Effort to ask to find any others that matched the pattern, which found the rest. My prompts were:
We have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Maritime_Freedom_Construct, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Blue_crime, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Blue_Crime. Three drafts recently submitted by different users on similar concepts. Any others you can find?
and
Please find any more in draftspace, either submitted, reviewed, or not submitted that have a high chance of being part of this group.
ChatGPT also surfaced University of Copenhagen Maritime Security Summer 2026 which fits with the time the drafts were submitted, though the course page doesn't mention Wikipedia. However, the username EllenKUsommerskole probably stands for Ellen Københavns Universitet sommerskole. qcne (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
- Unsurprisingly, they are mostly being declined for LLM usage. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:14, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
- This is an under-represented topic area on Wikipedia but it's unfortunate that an untrained university course is trying to write articles. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:21, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
- There's also new drafts Draft:Resurgence of Somali piracy (2023–present) and Draft:M/V Saiga Case. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:27, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
Article Guidance project - Virtual call discussion recap
Thanks to everyone who joined the Discord call about the Article Guidance feature. Here’s a quick recap of what was discussed and where we're headed next.
What we looked at: A walkthrough of the feature in the instance in Simple English Wikipedia -- how it matches an article title to Wikidata entries, asks users to share sources in advance and can provide a starting article structure. We also looked at the outlines system and example outlines, the wiki pages that feed the guidance used by the feature.
Key things that came up in the discussion:
- Connecting to draft space—the question of whether the tool checks if a title already exists in draft space, including inactive drafts from other editors. Pointing people there could be useful, especially for editors who struggle starting from a blank page.
- AFC workflow—there was a lot of discussion here. Being able to add {{draft}} template to the outlines, the submit wizard running independently, and stronger conflict-of-interest detection were flagged as valuable. There was also interest in A/B testing different outline structures and tracking data on which outlines and templates lead to better outcomes.
- Wikidata and crosswiki restrictions—systemic bias concerns around Wikidata usage for notability checks (notable topics not in Wikidata won't surface), and concerns about the “crosswiki” restriction potentially making it easier to create promotional articles on smaller wikis.
- What outlines can contain—templates, headings, the {{draft}} tag
- The importance of supporting sources that don't have URLs, captured in this ticket
- Explore using Citoid to generate references
Next steps:
- We’d encourage you to keep testing the feature on Simple English Wikipedia
- Some supported the possibility of enabling this workflow via a special link—not exposed to editors—that would allow you to create outlines and test how they render in the feature.
UOzurumba (WMF) (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
- Apologies, I couldn't read with all that bold, if you really want it that way feel free to reinstate it, but I suspect I won't be the only one. Primefac (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for resolving that. It seems my screen settings made the difference between bold and regular text less noticeable, so I didn't see bold texts. UOzurumba (WMF) (talk) 00:54, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
- Hi @UOzurumba (WMF), thanks for this recap. I'd also like to add that it will be important for it to work with sources that don't have URLs. And I recall @Sohom Datta wondering why it wasn't using citoid to generate the references. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 02:30, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks @Asilvering for catching that, you're right, both points came up in the meeting. I have updated the recap. UOzurumba (WMF) (talk) 07:42, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
Sandzstone
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.
Sandzstone is a one-man band project by Pittsburgh-based musician Matthew Simak, who writes, records, and performs all the music himself, playing instruments like guitar and drums. The project has released several albums, including Soul Assembly Required, Revvolution, and Tomorrow, and is known for songs like "Rattle My Bones" and "Start a Revvolution". Simak's music is available on platforms like Spotify, Apple Music, and ReverbNation, and he also produces music videos, such as "The Time Traveler".
- Artist: Matthew Simak
- Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
- Style: One-man band, self-taught musician
- Record Label: Matthew Simak Productions
- Notable Releases:
- Albums: Soul Assembly Required, Revvolution, Tomorrow, Lost and Uncut Demos
- Singles: "Rattle My Bones," "Start a Revvolution," "Simple"
- Online Presence: Official website (sandzstone.com), Spotify, Apple Music, YouTube, ReverbNation, IHeartradio, Audiomack, Deezer,Tidal, Boomplay, and Amazon Music.
Neolithic26 (talk) 00:35, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Neolithic26 drafts are generally not reviewed upon request. In solidarity, Dafootballguy (Want to talk?) 00:38, 27 August 2026 (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.
{{Authority control}}
If this is a standard thing to use when there is a Wikidata item, and since Wikidata appears to collect all biographies, might this template be auto-added if not already present by the acceptance script, whether the Wikidata item exists yet or not?
I admit to never quite having known when it was introduced and whether it ought to be added, so I often add it when I remember. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 07:39, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
- I personally would love an ELI5 breakdown of what exactly this template is doing and is for. Specifically, how and when I should be concerned with it in the AfC process. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:46, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
- Sulfurboy, my understanding is that if the subject of an article has a Wikidata entry, and that entry is linked to entries in any of various databases (Library of Congress, Worldcat, Scopus, etc.), then {{authority control}} will automatically add a box at the bottom with links to those. About the extent of my experience with it is that when I'm watching a new biography, usually someone is pretty good about AWB-ing one of those on the bottom. LittlePuppers (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
- That suggests that auto-placing it would be useful. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 21:45, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
- In particular I find them very helpful for writers/academics, as it will have various convenient links like to their ORCID. Authority control has more information on the general concept. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 02:25, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
- That suggests that auto-placing it would be useful. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 21:45, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
- Sulfurboy, my understanding is that if the subject of an article has a Wikidata entry, and that entry is linked to entries in any of various databases (Library of Congress, Worldcat, Scopus, etc.), then {{authority control}} will automatically add a box at the bottom with links to those. About the extent of my experience with it is that when I'm watching a new biography, usually someone is pretty good about AWB-ing one of those on the bottom. LittlePuppers (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
Talk page messages going somewhere else
@Novem Linguae, this is a particularly rare issue to many other editors, but it seems that some talk page messages upon draft acceptances that were meant for me had gone to the usurped account's talk page, User talk:Robertsky (usurped). I didn't realise that this happens until I checked What links here special page and saw the latest accepted draft had been linked to at this talk page.
cc @Brynn Who Likes Editing – robertsky (talk) 09:28, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
- Might be related to https://github.com/wikimedia-gadgets/afc-helper/issues/408 –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:35, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
AI written drafts
There are a number of AI written drafts by @Pablowhite44, should these all be declined one by one or is there a way to mass decline? In solidarity, Dafootballguy (Want to talk?) 02:11, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
- Some admins are working on the articles and instructed me on what to do, Thank you Pablowhite44 (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
- I suppose you could mass-decline with AWB, but I would suggest just declining them individually in a case like this. But if you're looking at something that's all G15-eligible, for example, it will be much easier for an admin to handle this with Special:Nuke, rather than following up on individual CSD tags, so I would suggest hailing an admin in that kind of case. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Asilvering can you take a look to determine if they are G15 eligible. I wasn't 100% sure and didn't want to wrongly tag. In solidarity, Dafootballguy (Want to talk?) 03:48, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
- No, sorry, I'm busy with other things right now. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 03:58, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Asilvering can you take a look to determine if they are G15 eligible. I wasn't 100% sure and didn't want to wrongly tag. In solidarity, Dafootballguy (Want to talk?) 03:48, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
Final Push
Can we get the backlog drive down to empty all categories down to 10 days? All those remaining older than that are low hanging fruit. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 07:49, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy § Knowing and willful submissions of non-notable drafts as grounds for blocking
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy § Knowing and willful submissions of non-notable drafts as grounds for blocking. Z. Patterson (talk) 12:20, 28 August 2026 (UTC)