Eurovision Wiki talk:WikiProject Articles for creation

File:AFC unreviewed draft statistics.svg

AfC unreviewed draft statistics as of March 16, 2026

Overhaul of the AfC templates

I've been working on a comprehensive rewrite of the AfC decline notices. I've felt for a long while that the current templates are pretty bureaucratic, jargon-heavy, and can be confusing for new users. Some of them are also inconsistent in formatting, tone, and language.

The goal of the rewrites are:

• Decodes jargon and simplifies the language into plain-English.
• Removes some of the walls of text (replacing with bullet points as much as possible).
• Limits the use of links to policy so as not to overwhelm users.
• Provides actionable criteria for improvement.
• Standardises tone, language, and formatting.
• Hopefully cuts down on newbie confusion and questions at the AFCHD.

Feedback on specific wording or anything missing would be appreciated.

Is there appetite, if there is consensus, to re-write the decline notices with something like what I have proposed? qcne (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

• Broadly supportive - particularly simplifying the language and making it more friendly. I'm not sure what difference it will make, but that is perhaps coloured by the revolving door articles, when actually most articles are not on a revolving door. I take the point about overwhelming contributors with a policy wall, but if we decline on policy / guidance grounds then it may make it more difficult to see the issue, though of course the text box can help there. One idea that may get around this is to have for each decline option there is a link to a friendly Essay, explaining the issue a bit more, and hints to next steps. This could then allow shorter messaging on the decline template, so the LLM one won't need to explain the hallucination point. ChrysGalley (talk) 11:30, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Clear improvement, especially the ai notice, which were starting to become outdated. It achieves all goals stated in the Rationale. I have no qualms with replacing the current set with this one.

I do think the notices on SNGs needs to be differentiated. Lasting coverage is typically required for WP:NEVENT, and WP:NCORP could use expansion on what counts as routine coverage. Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:29, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Good point - I've expanded slightly on the EVENT and CORP ones. qcne (talk) 13:03, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I also created three new decline templates, which I think neatly round out our list:

1. list for declining stand-alone lists.
2. med for drafts with medical, health, or psychological claims sourced to unreliable sources.
3. contentious for drafts on contentious topics where the editor is not permitted to create drafts due to a lack of user permissions.

qcne (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

A general improvement over the current AfC decline notices. The only thing I found questionable is the addition of the "contentious" decline, which would be the most subjective reason to decline something. Blocking the creation of new "contentious" drafts, just because its editor doesn't have some "specific experience" (a very vague term by the way) instead of because of the content of the draft seems rather arbitrary and restrictive to me. NeoGaze (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Not a huge fan of that either, but it's born out of Wikipedia:Contentious topics/South Asia where if a new editor creates a caste-related draft (which happens more often than you think) it's getting speedily deleted under WP:G5, which doesn't feel ideal from a new-user experience point of view. I had trouble with the wording on this decline template, trying to keep it user friendly for often ESL editors. Any ideas? qcne (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@NeoGaze I've checked all the CTs and all the ones with editing restrictions require EC status. I've updated the decline notice accordingly to be clearer. Hopefully that removes the subjectiveness. qcne (talk) 21:20, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

That's certainly better. I still disagree with the concept, but now at least now the issue is more clearly presented. I think that in these cases you mention, the draft could be declined/rejected under the reason of "What Wikipedia is not" instead of through a restriction that can cause issues of subjectivity and maybe even being abused by some who may want to control the discourse over certain controversial topics. NeoGaze (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of the rewritten notability declines, especially mentioning the relevant criteria in the first sentence. I support implementing these changes to the template. Nil🥝 23:20, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Now that I have read qcne's proposed updates I want to express my enthusiastic support and thanks for the work he's done here. I really think the bulleted lists have a better chance at being noticed by new editors who may find the walls of prose overwhelming. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 23:26, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I've added four new decline templates, to round-out all the specific criteria for notability:

• User:Qcne/AfC_decline#geo
• User:Qcne/AfC_decline#species
• User:Qcne/AfC_decline#astro
• User:Qcne/AfC_decline#number

I've also added a new decline template for creative professionals. We get a lot of authors etc coming through AfC, and I felt a more targeted template towards creative professionals would be good, giving actionable advice plus the tip that it's often easier to prove notability of their work than the person.

• User:Qcne/AfC_decline#creative

qcne (talk) 13:56, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Looks good—agree with all guidance given. I suggest adding wikilinks to the medicine template. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:49, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@Qcne I welcome these changes, good work! NeoGaze (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Support. They are still 'information dense', but I can;t see how to overcome that.

Template:Question re ecr: might it be possible to auto-check editors status regarding EC, and thus ask that AFCH pre-populates that decline once being reviewed actively?

Great work. Thank you. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:01, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Since we're on a roll, I've updated the text for:

• the accept notice, which gives some actionable next steps: User:Qcne/AfC_decline#AfC accept. This is pretty complicated as it has some OR IF conditions in the code, so I've just given the plain-text version.
• the Teahouse invite, which hopefully makes it clearer users can go to the AFCHD for draft-questions and the Teahouse for more general-questions: User:Qcne/AfC_decline#Teahouse invite

qcne (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

The AfC accept changes are a notable improvement, you certainly are on a roll. NeoGaze (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Given the discussion has been open for over a week, and there is a clear consensus for the overhaul, I think it is ready for implementation. Ca ^{talk to me!} 02:51, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I think we are not that many in the discussion right now, and further feedback might improve things further. Can I suggest sending messages for the rest of the members of the AFC wikiproject to invite them to the discussion, in case they haven't seen it? NeoGaze (talk) 11:35, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Not a bad idea—is there an easy way to do this? Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:36, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I was hoping this discussion would alert AfC members! I also want to work on re-writing the unsubmitted and pending templates, so will try and work on that this week. qcne (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I can make a post mentioning all current members and requesting their feedback. If there is a better way to do something like this, then please tell me. If not, I will make the post later today. NeoGaze (talk) 12:26, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

You can't mention all current members as mentions are limited to 50. So you would have to use another method. Maybe a mass message sender, but probably not to every possible reviewer as that would be every admin, npp rights holder and the AfC participant list. Maybe to everyone who has done at least one review in the last month (use Quarry to get)? KylieTastic (talk) 12:37, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

How about the December 2025 Backlog Drive participants? Its readily available list of people who are engaged with AfC. Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:45, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I see @GoldRomean: has massmesage sender rights, perhaps he could do something like that? NeoGaze (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

For some reason it never actually went through, but I was skimming through the discussions here and just happened to catch this ping :). Unfortunately, I've got the right for other reasons, not because I'm actually very familiar with the tool, so another AfC-minded admin/MMS or WT:MMS is probably the better bet here than I. Since I'm here though, I'll see if I can't comment on this proposal in a bit; looks super promising at a glance! GoldRomean (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Please don't ping everyone; we have hundreds of project participants. Those that are (or will be) interested in the discussion will (eventually) see it. This post was made barely a week ago, and there is no rush to get this implemented. The last time we did this sort of thing the discussion was open for almost a month. Primefac (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

@Qcne: Given that "Merge/Redirect" is the most common result at Song/Album AfDs ^{(based purely on the unscientific survey method that is my AFD stats)}, I wonder if adding the below to the bottom of the #music may be useful (similar to what's added to #creative)?

In many cases, subjects not notable enough for a standalone article could be incorporated into existing articles instead, such as an album page (for non-noteable songs), or an artist page (for non-notable songs, albums, or band members). Nil🥝 01:23, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Added. qcne (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I think these are all fantastic, especially given that they explain notability requirements better. This is a problem that I've been thinking about every time I submit a notice to users. AfC, Twinkle warnings, and speedy deletions are the most common ways that new editors are introduced to the community, but they can often sound condescending, be confusing, or be full of jargon.

I do have one more thought that I have had in the back of my head for a bit of time now _{(it might just be wishful thinking)}. Regarding the lang decline message, what if we had translations that appear depending on what language the article is in? So for example, if someone wrote a draft in Slovenian and the reviewer marked it as such in the decline message, both messages will appear:

Example message

This draft is written in Slovenian. This is the English Wikipedia and we can only accept articles written in the English language.

• Please provide a high-quality English translation, avoiding machine translation tools (like Google Translate).
• If you prefer to write in your own language, look for the Wikipedia project in your language on the Wikipedia home page.

(some kind of divider)

Ta osnutek je napisan v jeziku. To je angleška Wikipedija in sprejemamo lahko samo članke, napisane v angleškem jeziku.

• Prosimo, da zagotovite visokokakovosten angleški prevod in se izogibate orodjem za strojno prevajanje (kot je Google Translate).
• Če raje pišete v svojem jeziku, poiščite projekt Wikipedia v svojem jeziku na domači strani Wikipedije.

If an unrecognized language/code is inputted, then it'll print out only the English message. It would likely require human translators because I don't think using translation tools for these messages are the best idea. Because translating this message into 300+ languages is honestly infeasable, we write up messages for the 10 most common languages in which people do it. Hell, we could even raise this as a possible test case for the Abstract Wiki.

If this is too much work, a complete pipe dream, and/or solving a problem that doesn't exist, at least having the ability to input ISO language codes in the language field would be nice :-) EatingCarBatteries _{(contribs | talk)} 07:33, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I think that's a really cool idea, though no idea if the templates can do that. @Primefac, any thoughts? qcne (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Alternative suggestion could be to have AFCH post one of the WP:WELCOME-FOREIGN templates to the user's talk page along with the decline notices (if that's possible)? Nil🥝 22:09, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I didn't know that existed, that would be a great way. While this wouldn't fit as a decline reason, it would good to paste that automatically in their talk pages. EatingCarBatteries _{(contribs | talk)} 22:34, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

We give the option to invite the user to the Teahouse if the welcome has not already been given, so it's not terribly far out of the realm of possibility to add in the option for a welcome template, however much like with the "give them a custom message in their home language" we would need to code in every template and either have a big dropdown to allow selection or hard-code a matching algorithm into the AFCH backend. As with the custom message issue, it's not so much a "can we" as much of a "how long is it going to sit in the request queue because no one wants to actually do it". Primefac (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

"Can" do it? Most likely. I'm not entirely sold on the idea, though, primarily from a maintenance perspective but also because in this day and age everything is automatically translated anyway so us going through and going to the trouble of writing up a dozen different translations is likely a waste of effort. Primefac (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Update as of 2026/01/08

I think that's done, now: User:Qcne/AfC template rewrites.

I've re-written the unsubmitted and pending templates, so that's every single AfC template now re-written in a consistent style. I've also expanded the rationale to give some critical feedback of the re-writes.

What next?

I think it would be good to get some more eyes on this and some specific feedback. I would be open to moving this to a subpage of the Wikiproject. I've also included some Feedback subheadings so anyone can comment on any of the individual re-write blocks.

Happy for this to remain open for a while longer.

Let me know what you think. qcne (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Again, basically an almost complete improvement over the original. Ironically, I think the main issue isn't the template messages, but that people don't actually bother to read these messages (or only superficially), and then go around asking why their draft was declined and what can be done so it gets accepted. That has happened me a few times as a reviewer. NeoGaze (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Templated messages tend to get glossed over in general. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 22:30, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Just read the revised unsubmitted and pending template messages. Much more friendly and readable. No concerns on my end. Ca ^{talk to me!} 09:38, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Really like the gist of it, although the "bullet points with headers" structure doesn't read as naturally, and removing the bullet point headers or rewording them into the sentences could definitely convince me. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:37, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm also not especially convinced by the standardization of the subject-specific decline templates. Granted, having the main points (such as the need for independent reliable sources) is absolutely an improvement, but you lose important aspects that are relevant to each individual template. To take the very first one as an example, the current "neologism" decline specifically mentions that links to sites specifically intended to promote the neologism itself do not establish its notability, which is an applicable concern, while the new one talks about less specific aspects like press releases, the subject’s own website, or sponsored content, as that wording is shared between templates. It also gives the impression that Wikipedia has a specific notability guideline for neologisms, which isn't actually the case. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:43, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

My thoughts on bullet points + headers is that it's easier to scan for new and ESL editors and gives them clear actions on what to do. I think bullets and headers are the only way to do this? Putting them back into sentences sort of defeats the point of the re-write, I think.

As for unstandardizing: yeah I can do that and make the templates more bespoke. Some of them already are (i.e. NSCHOOL). qcne (talk) 09:43, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

+1 – For me, the bullet points & headers are part of the reason why it's an improvement, as it breaks up the wall of text that contributes to banner blindness whilst allowing for more information to be added. There's already a lot of sentences in the decline templates (a lot of which will go unread by submitters), so bullet pointing the salient points makes them harder to miss. Nil🥝 05:28, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

The bullet points are good, I'm just a bit worried about the headers at the beginning of each. They can be a bit convoluted or even inaccurate (e.g. "Tone" for neutral point of view), and that's not necessarily an impression we want to give. Breaking the list into broader headers is fine though! Here's an example of what I have in mind:

Side-by-side comparison

Current proposal

Slightly rewritten proposal

Before you submit for review For the draft to be accepted, its topic must meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and: Sources: cite multiple published sources that are reliable (with editorial oversight); independent (not connected to the subject); and provide significant coverage. Tone: be written from a neutral point of view. Copyright: be written in your own words. Conflict of interest: if you have a conflict of interest (e.g. you are the subject, an employee, or a relative) or are being paid to edit, you must disclose this to comply with Wikipedia's Terms of Use. Useful guides Your first article: a plain and simple overview of creating a new article. Referencing for beginners: how to add the required citations. Writing better articles: a guide to encyclopedic tone and structure. See examples: browse Featured and Good articles to find high-quality writing on similar topics. Need help? Read our policies: for an overview of our policies and guidelines, see Everything you need to know. About the process: for specific questions on the Articles for creation submission process, ask at the Articles for creation Help desk. General help: for friendly peer support regarding editing, sourcing, or policies, visit the Teahouse, a question and answer hub for new editors. Next steps Edit the draft: click on the Edit tab at the top of the window to add content to your draft. Submit for review: click the Submit the draft for review! button at the bottom of this box. Abandoned drafts: if you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted. Scam warning If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Learn about scams on Wikipedia. Submit the draft for review!

Before you submit for review For the draft to be accepted, its topic must meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and: Cite multiple published sources that are reliable (with editorial oversight); independent (not connected to the subject); and provide significant coverage. Be written from a neutral point of view. Be written in your own words, without copyrighted material. If you have a conflict of interest (e.g. you are the subject, an employee, or a relative) or are being paid to edit, you must disclose this to comply with Wikipedia's Terms of Use. Useful guides Your first article: a plain and simple overview of creating a new article. Referencing for beginners: how to add the required citations. Writing better articles: a guide to encyclopedic tone and structure. Browse Featured and Good articles to find examples of high-quality writing on similar topics. Need help? For an overview of our policies and guidelines, see Everything you need to know. For specific questions on the Articles for creation submission process, ask at the Articles for creation Help desk. For friendly peer support regarding editing, sourcing, or policies, visit the Teahouse, a question and answer hub for new editors. Next steps To edit the draft, click on the Edit tab at the top of the window to add content to your draft. Then, click the Submit the draft for review! button at the bottom of this box. If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted. Scam warning If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Learn about scams on Wikipedia. Submit the draft for review!

I might also want to link Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide in the "Useful guides" category, or maybe in the bullet point about COI? Otherwise, Qcne's version looks pretty good and is definitely an improvement over the original! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 06:06, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby I've removed the italicised prefixes and adjusted the neologism template. Better? qcne (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Looks great now, strong support! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:58, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

It's missing the criteria for secondary sources, which is important. S0091 (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Any suggested wording? qcne (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

To keep it from getting wordy, maybe just qualify "multiple published sources" with "multiple published secondary sources? S0091 (talk) 19:11, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Done. I think it still keeps it not too wordy. qcne (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Another though (sorry!), for the Need Help section, I think we should focus on pointing people to WP:YFA as much as possible because it provides more detail about the sources requirements and how to build and article. To the end, I would nix the Referencing for beginners as that is covered at YFA. I would change the wording to: Your first article: a simplified overview of the sourcing requirements and how to build new article. S0091 (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I'd also nix the "For an overview of our policies and guidelines..." bullet. I think we should focus only on the article/draft creation process and the vast majority of new editors submitting draft are only here to try to get their draft published. Also keep in all new editors now get the Growth Features information and tools. S0091 (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't think removing that is a good idea, the process creating an article goes under those guidelines same a when just making regular edits (no matter how big or small), talking to other editors, etc. It also discusses things not mentioned in other bullets/links such as proper etiquette or sockpuppetry. NeoGaze (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Now that I have followed the link, it's not that bad. I was thinking WP:Policies and guidelines or similar. S0091 (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Update as of 2026/01/20

I have added one more decline comment, when a draft is totally unsourced. I often see people use "reliable sources" decline template when they mean "no sources" and hopefully this will clear up some confusion.

User:Qcne/AfC_template_rewrites#nosource

I have re-created the AfC template styles, so you can see what the re-writes would look like in the real world:

User:Qcne/AfC_template_rewrites/sandbox

qcne (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Greatly appreciated this new nosource decline, as I had to decline many draft for basically being wholly unsourced. NeoGaze (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

(I've already mentioned this off-wiki, but thought it best to share here as well.)

My first thoughts were "yes, great & def useful!", but the more I've thought about it, the more I've come to oppose the addition of a "no sources" decline. A draft without any sources will never* meet our notability criteria, so should always* be given a notability decline. All of the proposed rewrites for the notability declines include some variation of Please add references that meet these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia. which should sufficiently cover unsourced drafts.

The addition of a no sources decline risks reviewers only giving drafts an unsourced decline, when they should also be given a notability decline; this will just mean submitters will continue to work on articles that – even with sources – could still fail our notability criteria. It's an issue that I occasionally see now with drafts receiving LLM declines, when notability should be in play from the get go.

^{*noting that the verifiability decline exists for the very, very rare occasions where a subject would meet notability criteria, but is not supported by reliable sources.} Nil🥝 22:48, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@Nil NZ I might be a little late (and I don't review articles), but you seem to be saying that a reviewer can tell if the subject is notable (or not) when the draft has no sources. I might be all wrong here, but I thought it was the job of the sources to demonstrate notability.

In your view, does a notability decline come only after the reviewer has determined that no good sources exist to prove notability? (The reviewer might not be able to find all the sources.) The subject of a no-sources draft might, or might not, be notable. We might not know which is the case until we see a well-sourced draft on the same subject.

I think the reviewer can't declare that a subject is not notable, just that notability has not been demonstrated. And thus, "no sources" alone would be a useful decline. David10244 (talk) 08:16, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

@David10244: I thought it was the job of the sources to demonstrate notability – 100% this! Hence, a draft without sources doesn't demonstrate notability, so the current decline templates are still the most appropriate.

In your view, does a notability decline come only after the reviewer has determined that no good sources exist to prove notability? Not quite – when I say "notability decline", I'm using that as shorthand for declining a draft with the template that says notability hasn't been established yet.

A draft without sources may (or may not) be notable, in the exact same way a draft with poor sources may (or may not) be notable; neither are acceptable until they have reliable sources demonstrating their notability.Nil🥝 08:41, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I do think these are great.

The one sticking point I have is that they are a bit long vertically. While I don't think we should remove any content from them, it would be nice to have a [collapse] button at the top right corner. Of course, it would be expanded by default. EatingCarBatteries _{(contribs | talk)} 04:01, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I haven't been aware that this discussion was going on until today. I haven't read the discussion ... uh, actually I haven't even skimread it. I looked at what I take to be the proposed revision (within User:Qcne/AfC template rewrites) of "Draft article not currently submitted for review" (but for all I know might have since been superseded). Some comments:

"Uncollapse" only if interested.

It is not currently pending review.

Here and elsewhere, rather than the curiously formal verb pend, how about await?

While there are no deadlines, abandoned drafts may be deleted after six months.

While here of course has no temporal sense. But readers for whom English is a second language may think that it does. Here and elsewhere, although?

by using multiple sources that meet four criteria

"by using three or more sources that each meet all four of these criteria"

independent of the subject

"... and of each other"

To be accepted, a draft should: [...] do not plagiarize. Do not copy-paste.

It's rather odd to talk of a draft, rather than a person, copy-pasting; but it's more straightforwardly odd to say that "[something] should do not [whatever]".

It is strongly discouraged to write about either yourself or your business or employer.

The passive voice is a wonderful component of English grammar -- but who or what is doing the discouraging here? "Wikipedia strongly discourages you from writing..."

If you need help editing or submitting your draft, please ask us a question at the AfC Help Desk or get live help from experienced editors.

This pattern of bold alternating with not bold becomes rather percussive and exhausting.

These venues are only for help....

"Venues"? They're pages.

Some WikiProjects are more active than others so a speedy reply is not guaranteed.

"Some WikiProjects have few (or no) active participants, so...."

Wikipedia:Verifiability – make sure your article includes reliable third-party sources

Please, no. Asking people to "include" good sources is inviting them to sprinkle them in. Instead:

"Wikipedia:Verifiability – make sure your article is entirely based on reliable sources (which for almost all purposes must also be independent of the subject)."

You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article.

You can indeed. But that's as if somebody thinking of erecting a shed for garden tools is invited to learn from a Palladian villa. How about instead sending people to the list of articles recently created via AfC?

Improving your odds of a speedy review

Talk of "improving odds" is likely to baffle those for whom English is a second language. "Making a speedy review more likely"?

. . . and then I ran out of energy to continue.

(If this doesn't belong here, feel free to move it. Or indeed to delete it.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Hoary, thanks for the valuable feedback. But I wanted to point out you seem to be reading the original templates and not my rewrites? I had them next to each other in a table so readers could compare. Indeed, the existing grammar and style which you've highlighted was difficult to parse was one of the reasons I wanted to rewrite the templates!

I would really appreciate your feedback to the rewrites column? qcne (talk) 09:57, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Qcne, "the valuable feedback" is a delightful way to express "the feedback, utterly worthless other than for giving me a presumably intended laugh". I plead sleepiness. -- Hoary (talk) 10:31, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Second try:

Peruse only if interested.

independent (not connected to the subject)

"independent (connected neither to the subject nor to each other)"

not contain original research

"not contain your own findings or synthesis"

Browse Featured and Good articles to find high-quality example articles.

My previous comment still stands. Another problem with this advice is that it might encourage a non-trivial percentage of readers to bulk up their submissions towards GA or even FA levels -- of quantity, but certainly not of quality.

If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam.

Phrase it this way, and it may well sound like a scam even before its scamminess is explicitly pointed out. How about the slightly more innocuous-sounding "If anyone offers to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft for a fee, this is a scam"?

-- Hoary (talk) 11:02, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, @Hoary - I never replied as I went on Wikibreak soon after you commented this. qcne (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Qcne, I'd quite forgotten about this. It may not be much more than a month old, but it's as unfamiliar as if a couple of years old. I'll be quiet and let you (or others) get on with the job. -- Hoary (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Rejection vs decline

This came up on discord but thought I'd raise here as part of the overhaul. Should the joke/hoax template be moved from the "Decline" list to the "Reject" list of options? I don't think there's ever an instance where we'd want an editor to continue working on or resubmitting an obvious hoax? Nil🥝 05:45, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with this. Surprised this isn’t under here already. EatingCarBatteries _{(contribs | talk)} 07:23, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

@Nil NZ I think I have wanted to use Decline where it's obvious that it's a kid doing something like a profile on their cat or similar. Just to try and gently steer them to a more sensible use of their time rather than an angry red Stop sign popping up. Probably wishful thinking on my part and it isn't an issue if that option goes (I guess I could pragmatically call it a test page). ChrysGalley (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Why not have both options? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:30, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

+1 Both would be a good; there are probably times when a decline is better than rejection (such as a draft that's probably a hoax, but not 100% obvious). Looking through the list, there are a few other declines which are also CSD-able; both the van and adv templates are good potentials for both as well imho. Nil🥝 01:28, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

+1 to moving hoax from decline to reject. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I've added a joke/hoax and an attack page reject to Template:AfC submission/reject reasons/sandbox for review nil ^nz 22:25, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Implementation

It has been 3 weeks since the last comment. Should this be put to a formal RfC? EatingCarBatteries _{(contribs | talk)} 07:37, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I doubt a formal RfC would attract much more participants unless we advertise it in CENT (although this is a local matter). Sixteen editors have voiced their approval of the overhaul and all concerns raised were addressed, so I believe we can skip the RfC imo. Ca ^{talk to me!} 08:44, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

• I agree that there is consensus where it matters most. I think this would fall into the area about which to be bold, and if there is any pushback then it can go to RfC. ChrysGalley (talk) 08:57, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

We are our own project, an RFC does nothing we cannot do ourselves. Primefac (talk) 09:43, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Given there seems to be broad consensus in-project from the discussion above, what are the next steps for implementing the changes? nil ^nz 00:23, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Implement the changes. Primefac (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

The changes would need a template editor or an admin since most AfC templates are protected. Would you like to implement the changes? If not, we should make a post at WP:AN. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:33, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Going to do a few of them. Very late here and I have to sleep soon so can't promise I'll do them all. Best to post it at WP:AN. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:42, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

thank you! Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:44, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, nevermind, looks like the code is quite complicated (not just a copy-paste of the text) and I'm afraid to mess it up. I'll post it at AN. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:45, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Fantastic. Thanks a lot. EatingCarBatteries _{(contribs | talk)} 02:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, appreciate it. I've been on Wikibreak and not really paying attention to this. qcne (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@Qcne: Looking at the existing existing CV declines, there's three different variations. I'm assuming that we want to keep the and This submission has now been clean [...] fields?

And if a reviewer includes a URL in the decline, it adds This submission appears to be taken from URL to the top, which would then make the first line of the proposed rewrite repetitive.

Instead, should the rewrite be made conditional as below?

−

This draft appears to contain copyrighted material which has been removed.

+

This draft appears to contain copyrighted material, taken from [URL], which has been removed.

-- nil ^nz 01:14, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, missed the further discussion. Not sure if I'll have time to code things up this weekend, but if folk want to put all the changes into the sandbox I can pretty easily implement things. As far as the cv declines go, yes we absolutely need to keep the notices about not leaving copyvio text in the draft. Primefac (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Primefac! I've updated the comments sandbox with all of the proposed changes and additions; for anyone interested in how they look, they can be viewed on the testcases page here.

I've also updated the following:

• Template:AfC submission/reviewing/sandbox
• Template:AfC accept/sandbox
• Template:AfC decline/sandbox
• Template:AfC reject/sandbox
• Template:AfC submission/reject reasons/sandbox

I think I've done the conditionals correctly, but someone who is smarted than myself should definitely double check.

Wrt the remaining templates, we have hit a small bump for the wraparounds, which I've laid out at User:Qcne/AfC template rewrites#Feedback 16 for anyone who has any thoughts or feedback. nil ^nz 00:44, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Super. I'll try to get to this in the next day or three. Primefac (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Sandboxes copied over. Primefac (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks a ton. EatingCarBatteries _{(contribs | talk)} 00:12, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Amazing, thanks Primefac! I've just submitted an edit request over at MediaWiki talk:Gadget-afchelper.js/tpl-submissions.js, which should hopefully be the final step before they appear in the script. nil ^nz 00:25, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

nosource

Why did we add "nosource"? Isn't it the same thing as "v"? I'd recommend removing "nosource", to reduce duplication. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. If I had to guess it's the difference between "inadequately sourced" and "not sourced", which is a distinction without any real difference. Primefac (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I was personally against it, as our notability decline templates already states The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that..., but was in the minority. I think merging "v" and "nosource" could be a good option? nil ^nz 21:42, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

3 bullets is too many

I notice a lot of the new decline reasons have 3 bullets:

• evidence that the subject meets the general criteria for inclusion;
• or evidence that the subject meets any of the specific criteria for creative professionals;
• or multiple published secondary sources that cover the subject or their work and:

In my opinion, this is incorrect. This roughly translates to...

• must meet WP:N
• must meet an SNG
• must meet GNG

I think the first bullet is redundant and can be removed. To be notable, something must pass either an SNG or GNG. There is no situation where WP:N passes something that an SNG or GNG hasn't already passed. WP:N adds no new passing criteria that isn't already covered by an SNG or GNG. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

or multiple published secondary sources that cover the subject or their work

Additionally, this might not be ideal if these sources focus on individual works and do not have biographical elements. Maybe it should be made a bit more specific, like that cover the subject or their body of work. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:01, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I think it's only #Creative that's set out like this, with all the others only saying "must pass SNG or GNG". I believe the third point was added to the Creative decline, because it's one of the rare instances where coverage of the subject's work can lend notability to the subject themself. nil ^nz 00:45, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah OK. I saw that and assumed they were all like that. If it's just that one, not as big of an issue. However I would still suggest removing the first bullet. WP:CREATIVE is an SNG, so the second bullet covers that, in my opinion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:30, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Rights for the AFC/R script

It looks as if any user may install this script and run it without meeting the threshold to be a reviewer. This is the redirects and categories helper script.

Is this intentional?

@Eejit43 If this is a bug, and it is not intended that non reviewer qualified folk may run it, I think it's within your power to solve. Special:Contributions/ArnavSharma602 shows one instance of this. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:16, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@Timtrent I intentionally did not implement a threshold when creating this script, one reason being because Enterprisey's old AFCRHS script did not (and does not) have a check to see if the user is on the checkpage. Additionally, I recall seeing non-AfC reviewers accepting redirect and category requests back in the day.

It is also never specifically mentioned anywhere that one must be an AfC reviewer (or have the NPR right) to accept these requests. That may be implied, due to it being under AfC, but it is also true that accepting redirects is definitely not on the scale of accepting new articles. If it is the case that you need the same level of permissions, we should outline that in far better detail, and I would be happy to implement that check. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I went through and checked all of the users who have installed afcrc-helper. You can see the full data in my sandbox, but out of 102 known installers, only 60 would actually be eligible (i.e. are on the checkpage, have NPR, or are a sysop). Most of the 42 without any of the above permissions have still been trusted with other permissions (rollbacker, page mover, etc.) though, but some do indeed have no higher permission levels, not even EC. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@Eejit43 this makes sense. I did not know that the original AFCH script did not make such a check. I was 'alerted' today by a very new editor using the script to accept redirects.

This means we need a more general question: "Should there be restritcions?" though I am not sure who should answer it! 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:41, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. I think there definitely should be some form of restriction, whether that be requiring AfC/NPR or even just EC. I also don't know the best way to get that question answered, I hope someone else watching this talk page can provide a bit more insight here. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I would lean towards having the same requirements for processing AFC redirects as for processing AFC drafts. That is, unless there are folks active there that don't meet the criteria and are doing good work. Do any such folks come to mind?

Simply checking old data may not yield accurate results, since AFC/NPR folks can get removed for inactivity, making it look like someone who wasn't an AFC/NPR was doing AFC redirect accepts/declines, when in fact they were an AFC/NPR at the time. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:04, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Just looking through some very recent edits, I see contributions from Nil NZ and S0091 (who do not fit the criteria) to WP:AFC/R. I imagine there are other users as well, those are two I just happened to spot immediately. While we could try to get editors like them to become AfC reviewers or NPRs. I think it would make sense to have a lower criteria for handling redirects and categories (don't forget about WP:AFC/C too!). ~ Eejit43 (talk) 04:09, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Both S0091 and I are AFC reviewers (listed here), we're just not NPRs. Nil🥝 04:13, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Template:Facepalm Whoops, sorry about that. Thanks for mentioning it. You'd have thought I'd remember after literally writing down both of your names a few hours ago in my sandbox. In that case, Novem, I don't know how many currently active editors there are, but I still see a possible argument against having such high restrictions on AfC redirect/category acceptance. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 04:20, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

This is like getting busted for driving without a license...but look officer I have a permit! :) S0091 (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't reviewing without permission, rather exercising my right to click buttons on my own screen. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm leaning a bit in the other direction; the whole point of restricting access to the review tool is to make sure those doing the reviewing understand the notability, reliability, and verifiability criteria. Redirects have a much less stringent set of requirements for creation, which correlates in my mind to therefore needing a less stringent set of rules for who can create them (based on requests). Primefac (talk) 12:25, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

@Primefac Understanding your point, perhaps a simple restriction to EC editors re redirects and categories, thus seeking to ensure understanding. AFCH is necessarily requiring more knowledge. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:31, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I think EC is sufficient. I am pretty sure I have seen folks who were not AFC/NPR reviewing redirects/cats but they were probably EC. S0091 (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps a silently introduced pilot scheme, but with a notice eon the script page to the AFC/R (etc) helper script is an appropriate move. We c a then use the results of the pilot to create consensus. Results might be the number of talk page questions expressing negative thoughts/ 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 05:10, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm fine with implementing an EC requirement, though I think we should clarify whether or not we would implement that for script handling only, or if it would apply to manual request handling as well. That wouldn't be technologically possible to enforce of course, but it is something to consider. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 05:47, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I suggest script handling only, at least for the present. I have no issue with lower rights level editors doing it manually because they are entitled to so do, but the script allows decisions even less perfect than my own to be made in bulk, so EC as a threshold sees wholly appropriate. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:37, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done I've implemented the EC (or sysop) requirement for both of my scripts, afcrc-helper and AFCRHS (a fork of Enterprisey's script), pointing them to this talk page with any concerns.

I see Enterprisey is on an indefinite Wikibreak, but their their AFCRHS script will need updated as well. It is only installed by three users from what I can see (two of which are blocked and one who is an admin), but if we leave it without permission requirements it could allow non-EC editors to avoid this requirement. Unless anyone seeing this wants to handle it, I can make an edit request later down the line. If someone here does want to handle it, feel free to use the simple logic I implemented in this commit. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Problem with AFCH

I've been having problems with the AFCH script that I don't know how to fix.

For several months now, I have been persistently unable to use the script to post a comment to a draft at all — the comment window comes up and lets me type a comment, but I have no button with which to save my comment to the draft so that anybody else can see it, and I have to manually post my comment in the edit window if I feel sufficiently attached to it to bother.

And if I try to decline a draft, meanwhile, the "decline submission" button is present, but the first time I hit it it just disappears and the decline fails to save at all — I can let it sit for 10 or 15 minutes, and still nothing further happens, and if I try to reload the page it still has the pending submission template on it. If I try to redecline it a second time, then it will work properly, but it consistently fails to work the first time and inevitably requires me to decline the draft twice.

Both of these have been consistent problems, every time I've tried to comment on or decline any draft at all, for several months now. But I'm not really seeing reports above that this is happening for other people, so it may possibly only be affecting me, and thus I don't know what to do to fix it. (Trying to uninstall and reinstall the script didn't work, and it doesn't make a difference whether I'm using Firefox or Chrome, and still happens the same either way.) Bearcat (talk) 14:46, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

@Bearcat, do you keep an AFC log? If so, that's almost certainly your problem - archive the old one and start a new one. -- asilvering (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not seeing one, nor is there anything jumping out at me in the common/monobook .js files. Primefac (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

@Bearcat - is the second issue seems similar to this problem from last year? which is something that I get fairly regularly, if I add a comment or put the draft under review. I just open a new tab, copy over the comment and that tab then saves OK. There was some solution in there but beyond my curiosity radar. ChrysGalley (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

• I didn't have a log at all, and didn't even know I actually had a choice in the matter. Starting one does seem to have resolved my problem for the moment, as I have now been able to reject a draft on my first try, although I haven't yet found a draft I felt a need to comment on for the purposes of testing whether it fixed that problem or not. So I'll keep y'all updated if and when I know what happens in a comment situation. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I tried creating a placeholder testing draft so I could "comment" on it myself — and while I did get the "post comment" button back, it didn't appear right away, and instead appeared only when I used the backspace key to correct a typo in my comment. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Any relevant WP:CONSOLEERRORs when performing either of those actions? Look at console errors that are typical on non afch pages, then see which new ones jump out for this afch bug and please post them here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:55, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Nope, that gave me nothing. Didn't report a single JS error from any website besides Freepik. Bearcat (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

User:Bearcat - If I understand your problem, I was one of the reviewers who previously reported the problem. I was advised that I should refresh the screen, by clicking the browser refresh or by clicking the * (star) tab at the top of the draft window. I have never experienced the hang-up if I have remembered to refresh the screen before issuing the AFCH command (any of accept, decline, or comment). I do sometimes experience the hang if I forget to refresh the screen before issuing the command. Also, if the screen gets part-way through the sequence that you expect, rather than all the way through, you know that it hung, and you need to press the star tab and repeat the command. Is that clear? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

A lot of drafts missing from date categories

I noticed that yesterday there were a couple hundred drafts in Category:AfC pending submissions by age/4 weeks ago and now there's just two. The same for Category:AfC pending submissions by age/5 weeks ago and others. I know there's a lot of drafts tagged as being in those cats but they're not showing up. Just wondering if there is any maintenance or anything currently. --Voello _talk 11:07, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I was worried someone has mass declined, moved or deleted but I see that Category:Pending AfC submissions still says it contains 2,606 so must be a parsing issue. I checked the templates and can't see that anyone has changed anything, but I'll keep digging. KylieTastic (talk) 12:27, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I found some and did null edits on them and they appeared. Unfortunately the program I had to do a null edit on a complete category is currently broken after a backend update. If no one resolves it before I'll try to look at tonight after work. KylieTastic (talk) 12:42, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Processing..... KylieTastic (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Null edit sweep on Category:Pending AfC submissions complete. Hopefully it was a temporary glitch and all is fine now. KylieTastic (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Request for help with review of changes to: Draft:Pietro Deiro Presents the Accordion Orchestra

Hello Fellow Wikipedia Editors: Perhaps someone could assist with the review of Draft:Pietro Deiro Presents the Accordion Orchestra? It has been submitted several times and I have recently completed a new update to the submission, but it has not received attention from a reviewer even though most of the objections appear to have been resolved. The article describes and documents noteworthy and historic performances of classical music compositions by one of the very few modern symphonic orchestras in the USA (during the mid 20th Century) consisting entirely of customized accordions on a major record label. It features orchestral performances by several leading jazz and classical music accordionists of that era including: Carmen Carrozza, Angelo Di Pippo, Charles Magnante, John Serry and Joe Biviano (the "father of the accordion symphony movement in the United States") which helped to establish the young accordion as a legitimate orchestral instrument in the USA, and is listed on the Discography of American Historical Recordings (DAHR) database. These performances ere also critically reviewed in The Billboard (magazine)," High Fidelity (magazine), Catholic Digest and in several major newspapers in the USA (as shown on Newspaperarchve.com) which described it as a "tour de force". It was also reviewed internationally in the Swedish journal Accordion Journalen. I have provided additional reference citations, incorporated a more neutral tone in the text, wikified the structure of the draft and attempted to limit the use of references as much as possible without detracting from the verification of the noteworthy nature of the orchestra's members.Feel free to make any additional deletions or modifications which you might deem necessary,. It someone has time, perhaps you could start a formal move request discussion after completing a final review of the text. I've listed a few references below which are relevant. Thanks in advance for your help and Happy Editing! With best regards ~2026-10873-46 (talk) 19:31, 18 February 2026 (UTC)NHPL

References

~2026-10873-46 ~2026-10873-46 (talk) 19:31, 18 February 2026 (UTC)NHPL

Just noting the draft has been moved to the article space. Primefac (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Archive Today update - 20 and 21 February 2026

Just a courtesy link of the new guidance for any AfC reviewers who may have missed this. I guess it is our job now to remove archive.today from any drafts that we come across. Use of archive-url for any provider isn't that common, at least in the drafts that I review.
 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Archive.today guidance
I don't know if it can be added to one the scripts such as CiteHighlighter.js ? ChrysGalley (talk) 12:27, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

How to handle declined drafts that have been unilaterally moved into mainspace?

I'm not sure how this should be handled (if at all). This page was unilaterally moved into mainspace after being declined for not meeting NBIO:

• Nobuhisa Ishizuka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The same editor has since then also created a two other biographies, directly in mainspace, that might not meet NBIO either:

• William A. Donius (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Diane Joseph-McCarthy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Moved: Draft:Diane Joseph-McCarthy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Mostly cites papers that the subject has authored herself.

Could (or should) these be draftified? I also have a sneaking suspicion that these could maybe be WP:NEWLLM, but I don't have any concrete proof of that and I don't want to make that "accusation". --Gurkubondinn (talk) 13:15, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

If they have a COI, they shouldn't be moving these drafts to mainspace, and that should be reversed. 331dot (talk) 13:21, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

AFC is not mandatory, so there is no prohibition on the creator moving the page, but if it's not ready for article space then it can be moved (once) back to the draft space for further work. Otherwise, to WP:AFD it goes. As a minor point, having a COI does not mean it must be moved back to the draft space. Primefac (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Exactly, that's why I didn't just go an unilaterally move it back myself. But it always feels weird to me when editors take it upon themselves to move their own drafts into mainspace after they were declined at AfC for valid reasons.

As far as I can tell, the haven't declared a COI. I meant that the Diane Joseph-McCarthy article Draft:Diane Joseph-McCarthy draft cites a lot of papers that Joseph-McCarthy has written, not papers that the editor has written. Sorry if I was unclear on that, I wasn't implying that the editor was citing themself. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 13:28, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

There are some source-to-text issues as well For example Radcliffe Bunting Institute Fellow, 1994-1995 is listed under Diane Joseph-McCarthy § Awards and honours Draft:Diane Joseph-McCarthy § Awards and honours and sourced to a post on the Boston University College of Engineering website, which does not support this. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

If it's an LLM that is hallucinating refs, then absolutely yes it should be moved back to draft space, nominated for WP:G15 deletion, or at the very least pruned to remove the offending content. Primefac (talk)

The problem is that I can't conclusively reason that this was hallucinated by an LLM, it could justifiably be said to be a human mistake. In my experience, G15 is very difficult unless the page has strings that can only reasonably have been generated by an LLM, for example WP:OAICITE or the byte-sequences described in the WP:AISIGNS § turn0search0. Just some smallish bits of information that is probably hallucinated by an LLM doesn't cut it, unless there are also wildly unrelated or outright fabricated references. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Joseph‑McCarthy earned her Bachelor of Arts in Chemistry with a minor in Computer Science from Boston University. She completed her Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), working with Gregory A. Petsko and Martin Karplus

This is cited to a paper that she wrote in 1998. While the paper cites Gregory Petsko and Martin Karplus (and has a closing note thanking Karplus), it does not mention MIT or detail her educational history. This seems like the typical kind of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to me. Would I be fine to draftity this page? --Gurkubondinn (talk) 13:50, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I have asked the editor about the source-to-text issues: Talk:Diane Joseph-McCarthy § Text-to-source issues Draft talk:Diane Joseph-McCarthy § Text-to-source issues. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 14:02, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Unilaterally moving a draft into article space after it has been declined is common. What we, the AFC reviewers, must remember is that an article can only be unilaterally draftified once, because move-warring is not permitted. If a draft that has not previously been in article space is moved to article space after being declined, it may be moved back to draft space, or tagged for AFD. The reviewer should use their judgment as to which action to take. If a draft is moved into article space a second time after being draftified, then it should be sent to AFD if it does not belong in article space. I am aware that some reviewers would prefer to avoid AFD because it consumes volunteer time, but in such cases the editor who is causing the timesink is the author, in moving the page into article space against the judgment of the reviewers, and not the reviewer who writes the AFD rationale. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Robert McClenon: what if an (machine-generated) article was created in article space, then draftified and then promptly moved back to article space? The specific page that I am thinking about has at least two direct quotes that are not supported by the sources they're referenced to, and a handful of references with URL parameters showing that Copilot was used. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 11:44, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn, you can tag something that obvious for WP:G15. -- asilvering (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, asilvering. Done: Diff/1339813522/1339840850. It's not the most egrigous quotes to be falsely attributed, but still. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

In addition to what others have said, you as an AFC reviewer don't have to take any action here, because once it's in mainspace it's NPP's problem. You can take action if you want, but if you're the one who has previously declined the draft, in my opinion it's best to leave it for someone else to handle, so you get a second opinion. You don't need to worry about it being missed, because every article must be patrolled by NPP. -- asilvering (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Even if a draft gets accepted, it still gets in the hands for NPPs to do unless the AFC reviewer also has the NPP/Autopatrolled right. JuniperChill (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I have those rights, but I choose to mark my borderline decisions as unpatrolled because I feel the need to further eyes. NPP has a tighter brief than AFC.

As an AFC reviewer I have some clear options:

• If WP:DRAFTOBJECT does not apply, I may choose to return to draft
• When WP:DRAFTOBJECT applies I may:

• Edit the article if I feel able to improve it sufficiently to make it acceptable
• Send it to AfD, remembering to state that it is a disputed draftification if it is

• Leave it alone and move on, whether it is acceptable for mainspace or not
• There is always the option simply to flag the deficiencies for improvement, though not worthwhile if choosing the AfD route
• Send it to AfD anyway

What I do depends on many things, not least of which is my then level of enthusiasm to take action. If I act then others will likely involve themselves and decisions will be made, some of which I will agree with. If I do not then someone else will, at some point, if they feel the need. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 11:56, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

User:Timtrent refers to his level of enthusiasm to take action. Perhaps a reverse (mirror image) to that is one's level of disgust at the article. Their list gives a reviewer six different choices, depending on various things. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Duplicate drafts and backstory

Can I have some advice on how to handle the following. Yesterday I declined a draft due mainly to lack of a key source area (recognition) but there was also an unseemly set of undeclared paid editing going on with multiple UPE editors blocked, including the submitter. Previously a third version was deleted, due to a sock (presumably UPE). Draft:Thomas M. Schmidt
Today there is a new draft, different name layout, very similar content, this time the relevant area has reasonable sourcing Draft:Thomas Mitchell Schmidt
It is declared as an autobiography. It seems presumed notability would apply due to fellowships, and h index, and I can't see it failing AFD. Should the early draft be used / amended, in order to maintain the longer history, or should that early draft now be deleted? The new article also needs some quick copy edits on layout and promotional tone, 2 minute task which I am willing to do. ChrysGalley (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

What you do is call your friendly neighbourhood checkuser, who will block. Cheers. -- asilvering (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @Asilvering. I'll try to remember the form next time. ChrysGalley (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

To answer the question with the assumption that the users are not socking, if a new draft pops up that is on the same topic as an existing draft, then doing as you did at the second draft and declining as dup is perfectly acceptable. If the new draft is substantially better than the old draft, though, I would probably review the better draft and point the old draft to the new draft. Of course, the third option is that it's a copy/paste pagemove which requires a histmerge to sort out, but while there are definitely a lot of similarities it looks more like "I used this as a jumping off point" over "I copied it directly".

As a minor note, declining that first draft as ilc is problematic mainly because the draft has almost everything sourced; having an awards section be unsourced is a simple fix of "remove it" if that is the only thing holding up acceptance. Primefac (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks for that @Primefac. The ilc was a means to an end, given the newly blocked sock, otherwise I'd have done as you suggested or searched for the fellowship myself. ChrysGalley (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. Primefac (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

State of the backlog

It may be a bit early to ask this but it seems relevant. The latest backlog drive was just two months ago. However, the number of submissions skyrocketed right after and is inching towards being the same as before. When should the next one be? There is an open spot in April, although the current NPP drive ends before March. I'm not a reviewer, but I believe this is worth bringing up. NewAccount7295 (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

That's way too close - when backlog drives get lined up like that everyone just burns out. -- asilvering (talk) 23:22, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

As long as we're <8wk I think we're okay. Primefac (talk) 00:29, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Agreed with this. I repeated my concern a few times during the last drive that the bigger concern was review time, not quantity. • Quinn (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

We have had "silent drives" on the oldest submissions sometimes, where someone has a solid go, others notice and quietly leap in, and before one knows it the oldest are processed. No rewards, nothing except feel good moments, no publicity, zcch. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:45, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Weird draft

I found this. I'm not sure what to do with it, so can anyone help me? CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 18:18, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

The instructions are "To submit an article, use the Article wizard; for redirects and categories, use the Redirect wizard and Category wizard respectively. If you would like to request a media file be uploaded to Wikipedia, use the Files for upload wizard. If you simply want to suggest a topic for someone else to write, use Requested articles." Templates aren't included, but I have no problems with it being placed here. Right now there is a Template:Marcus Aurelius which is a sidebar with a lot fewer links. I'd say it could be handled in the standard way.Naraht (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Should I accept it or decline it? CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 18:42, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Redlinks don't belong in a template and Gaius Julius Sohaemus is a redirect to a to a dab page which doesn't belong in a template. But it is fairly clear which one in the dab is meant. I'm going to fix that. If you don't want to do the approval, then I'll handle it.Naraht (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

inline comments

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:InlineComments

Could this be installed and enabled -- in draft namespace only? It would help with draft review I believe. The comments could be discarded before approving draft, the extension is reasonably easy to use and integrates with article history. Gryllida 20:34, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

It would become another task to do during a review. When I wish to make text specific comments I refer to the text as an AFC comment. I am interested in the thoughts of others, may be persuadable, but am not in favour at present of taking this forward. I do thank you for bringing it in front of us, and not in a dismissive way. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:49, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Timtrent, I thought it could be up to reviewer if to do such inline comment or not and it would not be required. The request is just the feature could be made available. They could be all removed when submitting draft for review, so you wouldn't have to see them even if I used them at time of my previous review. Gryllida 23:55, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

@Gryllida All that we do is up to the reviewer. I'm not saying it's a poor idea, I just don't yet find value in it for me. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 02:19, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok Gryllida 02:20, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

This seems like it could plausibly be useful, however is there a WMF team willing to provide basic support for the extension? Tenshi! (Talk page) 00:44, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

No, I think it would be volunteer supported. One of the maintainers listed on it, Bawolff, is WMF staff and might agree. I think first question is whether a consensus is here to install. Gryllida 02:20, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I think Bawolff is former WMF staff. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:08, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok Gryllida 12:01, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, i left about six years ago Bawolff (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

mw:Extension:InlineComments doesn't have the "deployed to Wikimedia" template at the bottom, which means that it would probably need to go through a bunch of arduous approvals on the tech side to get deployed. Then we'd also need a consensus on the enwiki side, at somewhere like WP:VPT. This combination of things would not be an easy task. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:07, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh, consensus on this page is not sufficient? As it would be for usage in drafts only. Think of that paperwork as separate, just let me know if you would like to have it. Gryllida 12:02, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

consensus on this page is not sufficient? Probably not for installing a MediaWiki extension, which is a big deal and probably needs a wider discussion. No comment on if we should install it or not (undecided). –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I opened a discussion there. Gryllida 23:23, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Proposed addition: 1697 Assam (Sadiya) earthquake

I would like to propose adding information about the 1697 Assam (Sadiya) earthquake, which is currently not mentioned in this article.

Recent peer-reviewed geological research has provided physical evidence confirming a major seismic event in 1697 CE in the eastern Himalaya/Upper Assam region. Trench investigations at Himebasti village (Assam–Arunachal Pradesh border) document surface rupture consistent with a large earthquake dated to 1697 CE. Historical Ahom chronicles (Buranjis) also describe severe shaking and damage during that period.

The event is estimated to have had a magnitude of approximately Mw 8.5–8.7 and significantly affected the Brahmaputra valley region.

Given the availability of peer-reviewed geological evidence and historical documentation, this event appears to meet Wikipedia’s notability and verifiability standards and may warrant inclusion. Borkotoky1 (talk) 15:33, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

@Borkotoky1. currently not mentioned in this article. Which article are you referring to? Sadiya? If you want to add text to that article, go ahead. If you want to create a new draft, you can use WP:AW. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Lack of sourcing

Please could you not pass articles where sources are missing? I mean where a short form of reference (like "Smith 1999") is used but there is no such source listed. They end up in Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

• Hello @DuncanHill - I can understand your frustration. Speaking only for myself, I do release articles with imperfect sourcing, we aren't the GA/FA police, and I think my understanding is supported by the Reviewing Instructions. Even on BLP we can allow a few gaps if notability is rock solid. The logic being that AFC is generally not compulsory for many editors, and if AFC has a higher threshold than direct inserts into mainspace then our utility gets eroded. For the Sfn Target page, this is typically a scenario when there are 60+ references, only 3 needed for notability, and somewhere buried are four Sfn going to dead-ends. These are typically lengthy translation drafts, since OKA branded translations must go via AFC. I can't see it realistic to trap these at AfC, let alone decline, any more than direct mainspace editing. Clearly if the whole draft is "Smith 1999" then we won't be able to assess notability, and they will get declined or rejected. ChrysGalley (talk) 10:03, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Article pending review

Hi, The article on my page have been submitted for a while. I am wondering what exactly is taking this long and if there is a timeline expected for an update regarding the submission status. Appreciate the prompt response. ShalhoubM (talk) 17:04, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

ShalhoubM, drafts are reviewed in no particular order, but there are ~2800 submissions, so sometimes one takes a while to get looked at (the oldest is about seven weeks old). Please be patient. Primefac (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Title with Long History of Deletion

I reviewed Draft:FatPipe Networks and was about to decline it as -corp-. When I selected the AFCH tab, it said that the title had been deleted 6 times in article space, of which 4 were G11, one was A3, and one was copyvio. I went ahead and declined it as -corp-. But my question is whether there is anything in particular that I should do as a reviewer when I encounter a title with a long history of deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

There's also at least one G5 amid the draft space deletions. All of these discussions and deletions are 5+ years ago so I'd say review it on its own merits given there's info in it that's newer than the deletions. Star Mississippi 18:13, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Agreed; just because something was deleted a lot in the past does not necessarily mean that it needs to be declined again. If those actions were all a number of years ago, it's probably worth viewing it as a new submission. That being said, if the "long history of deletion" is recent, then chances are good it's a "decline because the previous issues weren't fixed" case. Primefac (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

As an additional suggestion (if it's a bit borderline) you can always ask an admin to take a look at the most recent deleted version to see how similar it is to the newer one. Primefac (talk) 19:35, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Obnoxiously Anglo-sounding names like "William Stuart" with numbers after them are a real UPE trend right now, by the by. -- asilvering (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

thanks, too, for digging up the alternate title they'd been using. They're certainly persistent. Star Mississippi 19:41, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Village pump proposal for changing AFC’s name

Hi everyone, just wanted to drop a courtesy link here and make you aware of the current proposal that’s been submitted to rename AFC at the village pump (proposals). Note any discussion should take place over there and not here. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Just noting this doesn't seem at all like a serious proposal or one that is going to get off the ground. Primefac (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Afc reviewer that changed their username

Hi there, I am an AfC reviewer, but had my username changed from "jcgaylor" to "bravelake".

How would I go about having my name updated on the list so that I can access the AFC helper tool? Bravelake (talk) 05:41, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done asilvering (talk) 06:42, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Category Errors in Draft

I reviewed Draft:SiteScan. I was planning to decline it as -corp-, and looked at the categories at the bottom of the draft page. I saw that the draft was in a category that is for articles, Category:Technology companies (and is mostly supposed to consist of subcategories), and two red-linked categories, that is, categories that have not bee defined. I wrote a comment template, {{caterror}}, and declined the draft with -corp- and -custom- with the caterror template. I am asking other experienced reviewers to check whether what I have said in the template is correct, or whether the template should be reworded. Am I correct that a draft should not have article categories unless there has been some error in how the draft was composed?

Should I, as the reviewer, remove the erroneous categories from a draft that has category errors? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

One red category, I remove the red category, maybe a typo, misunderstanding, wishful thinking, who knows? Two red cats, it gets declined for AI, which applies to this article. It's not the sort of thing a novice human would do, and the templates processes such as WP:YFA won't naturally create it. ChrysGalley (talk) 08:42, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Stub Sort Tag on Start-Class Article

I accepted an article, David Gray (university administrator), and assigned it Start-Class, which is also what the Rater thing thought it should be. A view of the article shows the Stub Sort tab at the top of the page. It isn't a stub. Why does it display the Stub Sort tab? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:32, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Semi-automatic source verification user script

I'm not a member of the project but as a mentor I get asked lots of questions about the AFC process and often direct new editors to AFC. When I review drafts one of the more time-consuming tasks is checking whether claims are supported by RS. U:Polygnotus and I built a tool that checks whether a source supports the claim it's attached to using LLMs, including open-source ones hosted by publicai. I've found it quite useful, in spite of its many limitations.

Do you think that this is indeed a major problem in the AFC process (or maybe there are other ones that cause more pain?). Would be grateful for the feedback on the tool, both the user experience and the verification quality. Alaexis_¿question? 21:59, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Proposal: The AFCH to handle large AfC reviewer log pages auto

I asked this in the NPP Discord server and @Asilvering suggested that the place to ask this would be on WT:AFC, WOHO I am here.

In March 2026 I declined, the draft Draft Benjamin using the AfC Helper Script, the script notified the submitter but the draft still showed the draft under review template. Also the draft history did not show my decline action.

I visited Github and checked AFCH core.js found out the script logs review actions like accept, decline and reject to a single page which is User/AfC log and that over time the page can become very big for active reviewers ( I don't know the User AfC log limit tho) the core.js did not include any limit size just single page.

For example, the script dif shows append a new log entry like

1. Declined draft:example
2. Accepted draft:example
3. Declined draft:example

lets say when the dif reaches 500 then the AFCH breaks (errors). That because the script always appends to the same page log and does not appear to check the page size, the log page could eventually become very large and potentially cause AFCH function failures.

• Improvement

One possible improvement would be for the script to do automatically continue logging to additional pages once the main log becomes too large.

For example If User:Username/AfC log is full the AFCH must automatically create User:Username/AfC log1 or User:Username/AfC log/1.

like this

1. User:Username/AfC log (Old)
2. User:Username/AfC log/1 (new)
3. User:Username/AfC log/2 (new) etc.

The script could check the log page size and switch to the next page when necessary.

I am not proposing to implement this myself but I am raising the issue here in case others think this would be a useful improvement. Cheers. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 17:22, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

This is a pretty common problem for prolific reviewers, who usually notice that their AFCH script is slowing waaaaaay down long before any outright failures occur. The problem is instantly fixed by archiving the log, but you're only going to find this out if you complain about it in earshot of another AFC reviewer who has already had the same problem. If it's at all feasible to add a function to the script that creates a new subpage if the original one gets too large, it would be a huge help. -- asilvering (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that Enterprisey's "Articles for Creation Review History" tool doesn't show the creator. That's the only thing the AFCH log has that the ACRH tool doesn't. SocDoneLeft (talk) 17:43, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Probably the easiest thing to do would be to have AFCH, when it first creates a user's review log, to top it with Template:Tlxu to archive every six months (or possibly just "keep 6 headers"); this will allow for the creation of automatic archives without the user needing to remember that they need to be archiving these things semi-regularly.

(update) that being said I just noticed that the logs are third-level headers, which the bot wouldn't automatically scrape as being distinct groups. Could probably tweak that as well I suppose. Primefac (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

That's a fascinating idea too but I don't think it will work well with how the configuration of the bot will be in AFCH. For example if the bot archives the User AfC log every three months lemme say, we know some reviewers can complete more than 300 reviews in two months and when they reach the limit, boom, AFCH may start causing errors.

At the same time, we know there are reviewers who complete around 100 or 50 reviews in three months, which is fine for the bot to archive but they could also still reach the limit earlier, like within one, two or three months.

The most efficient solution would be to implement function in AFCH script that automatically creates a new subpage when the original mediawiki User AfC log becomes too large. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 17:39, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Draft:FAB (web browser)

I would like a second or third or fourth opinion on whether I took a reasonable action with regard to a draft title that needed disambiguation. I looked at Draft:FAB briefly, and that title in article space is a redirect to the disambiguation page Fab, which is a well-populated disambiguation page both as an acronym and as an abbreviation. I tried to move it to Draft:FAB (web browser), and was told that there was already a page there. I looked at the page, and saw that it was a draft about the same thing, but that it had been declined 6 times and then rejected. I then checked the histories to see if this was a resubmission of the rejected draft, and concluded that this is a submission by a different editor in good standing, and that the rejection was not really of the topic but of the specific draft. After some thought, I moved the rejected draft to Draft:FAB (web browser) (2) to leave it in limbo so that the new draft can be reviewed on its merits, rather than on the demerits of the rejected draft. My question is whether other reviewers think that I took a reasonable action. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't see why this looks any less likely to be rejected, to you? -- asilvering (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

To answer Robert's question, yes, that seems reasonable, given that it's a new editor making a new attempt. To answer asilvering's question (not directed at me of course, but w/e), not really; at the end of the day it probably doesn't matter where it is, was, or ever shall be, it will likely declined and/or rejected within a few attempts. Primefac (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't reviewing it, but was just trying to move it into draft space, which is the usual place where drafts are reviewed. I wanted it to be at least possible for another unrelated draft to be reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:34, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Restricting page creation

Hello. I've seen a ton of trash drafts and AI garbage throughout my tenure at AfC, and I have a new idea. Temporary accounts and unconfirmed accounts can't create articles in any way whatsoever. Autoconfirmed users can only submit through AfC, and extended confirmed users can either use AfC or make a userspace draft. It may not do much, but a decent chunk of trash I've seen is created by unregistered users or temporary accounts. Please tell me if this is a bad idea or if I should move this to WP:VPIL. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 16:32, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it's a very good idea.

No, it's never going to happen (more's the pity). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing A real shame, I say. So much garbage and we can't do much to prevent it. May I ask why it wouldn't happen? CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 17:08, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Tell me about it, I've just deleted a dozen or so hoax articles by a TA, each of which had been reviewed at least once – so much collective time and effort wasted just because someone gets a kick out of inventing fictitious TV series and bands and what-not.

I think the right of anyone to edit, mostly without any restrictions, is seen as so sacrosanct, so much a philosophical cornerstone of the whole movement, that the community (which may be just en.wiki, or all WMF projects, I dunno) simply wouldn't accept curtailing it. Just see the amount of effort they went into coming up with the whole TA system to allow anon editing while protecting IP info, when all they needed to do was to say that anyone can still edit but account registration is mandatory. But by all means, feel free to propose this, I for one will come and !vote Support! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I will post this to WP:VPIL and see what happens. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 17:26, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Convenience link: Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Restricting page creation. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:36, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

This is what we're here for. It takes very little time to reject stuff that's trash. Just reject it. -- asilvering (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Alligation

I reviewed Draft:Alligation, and its short description is correct that it is a partial rewrite of the existing article, Alligation. I have occasionally seen AFC drafts that are attempts to rework or rewrite an existing article. Does anyone have any advice on how to deal with such drafts without biting the submitter? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I tend to decline, as you've done, and then follow up on their talk page to let them know that having the draft declined is actually a good thing - that is, that they can simply work on the article directly in mainspace without requiring approval that can take weeks and weeks, and so they should take that opportunity. -- asilvering (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. Primefac (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Newer reviewer comment gobbling up older reviewer comment

• 10 March 01:15: I post a reviewer comment to Draft:This Is Your Mind On Plants. In terms of layout and markup, the comment is more than averagely elaborate. (I make no claim for the quality of its content.)
• 10 March 10:22: Craighead2123 edits the article. The edit doesn't affect the reviewer comment.
• 10 March 10:55: JustARandomSquid declines the submission and adds a reviewer comment, thereby zapping much of my earlier comment.
• 10 March 23:08: I restore my earlier comment.
• 10 March 23:27: I add a reviewer comment, thereby zapping much of my earlier comment (the same chunk of it as before).
• 10 March 23:32: I restore my earlier comment.

I realize that My Mind Is on a Plant (specifically, coffee) ... but am I making more than one obvious blunder here? (The first blunder, or at best pigheadedness, is to restore the earlier comment a second time, when it's rather obviously doomed to a third unintended deletion.) Or am I stupidly triggering a known bug? -- Hoary (talk) 23:58, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

AFCH doesn't really like multi-paragraph {{AFC comment}} content. It's a known issue. Primefac (talk) 00:03, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

At a wild guess, about half of my AFC comments have two or more paragraphs. Or rather, had when I posted them. Oopsie.... -- Hoary (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I an sort of puzzled by the statement that AFCH doesn't like multi-paragraph AFC comments. I frequently enter multiple templated comments on separate lines, like {{perssays}} and {{tl|praise]], and I don't think I have had any problems. Maybe the issue that Primefac refers to is more specific. Is there a writeup that I can review? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

What I am doing is a template within a template, which seems to work. So I am interested in when multi-paragraph comments don't work. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I also often write multi-paragraph comments (mostly as add-on to decline/rejection, but sometimes stand-alone), and I can't recall ever having had a problem. Although whether any of them later got 'zapped' by the next reviewer's actions, I don't know. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

My apologies, I was thinking of the duplicate comments bug that causes things to get multiplied when malformed rather than removed. Primefac (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

AFCH script extension for 1-click declines

In my ongoing effort to rectify the imbalance between the vast amounts of LLM slop flooding the draft queue and the time it takes to review said slop, I wrote a script that adds a "Decline AI" button below the regular AFCH menu. Clicking the button immediately declines the draft with the ai tag and notifies the submitter, exactly the same way the official script would, except it takes 1 clicks instead of 4 ("3 clicks and 4 keystrokes" or "4 clicks and some scrolling" if ai weren't my #1 decline reason). I just created it yesterday so it's very much in a rudimentary state right now, but I will probably update it in the future (for example, to add a second button for notability declines).

I have no idea if this'll be useful to anyone else, but I figured I should post it here in the interest of transparency, on the off-chance that there's some sort of security hole or policy violation caused by it that I'm not aware of. To be clear, you need to have access to AFCH to use this script, as it calls several of AFCH's functions.

Source link: User:Pythoncoder/Scripts/OneClickAFCH.js —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 18:51, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you!! --bonadea contributions talk 20:21, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@Pythoncoder: Hmm, it looks like there is a bug in the script – look at the "ts" and "declinets" timestamps in this decline. In another draft that I declined twice within 20 minutes, the first decline shows the same issue, while the second decline removed the first one and again has messed-up timestamps. --bonadea contributions talk 10:33, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Uh oh. I’ll take a look at it later today. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 10:36, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

@Bonadea Found the source of the bug: I hardcoded the decline timestamp while testing the code and forgot to change it back for release. Should be fixed now Special:Diff/1343284868 —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 10:52, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

AfC Reviewer Blocked as Sock (TheObsidianGriffon)

TheObsidianGriffon (talk⧼dot-separator⧽contribs⧼dot-separator⧽deleted contribs⧼dot-separator⧽logs⧼dot-separator⧽filter log⧼dot-separator⧽block user⧼dot-separator⧽block log) has just been blocked as a sock. They have a number of AfC reviews in their contributions. Flagging in the event someone thinks these reviews need a second look. No opinion as of yet, just recognized the name as a reviewer. Star Mississippi 19:59, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Also AllWeKnowOfHeaven, MightyRanger, MelbourneIdentity, OrangeWaylon and a few others in that SPI. They need removing from WP:AFC/P and mainly their accepts should be scrutinized. HurricaneZeta^C 01:04, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think there's any particular action that needs to be done here regarding their reviews, or I'd have brought it up here myself. It's a socking case, but not one that leads me to think it is worth the effort to re-review. -- asilvering (talk) 03:09, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Noah Rinker

The subject seems to pass WP:MUSICBIO#C5, however there are multiple sentences such as [...] which went viral on streaming services and became his real breakout, which are unsourced and I'd consider NPOV violations. Does this warrant declining the submission as NPOV, or should I just remove those few sentences myself and accept it? 🍅 fx (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Please read WP:AFCPURPOSE. Also, why does the review template even have a decline for NPOV? Seems in violation of aforementioned AFCPURPOSE, as that has nothing to do with notability. Silverseren^C 01:01, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

The reviewing instructions explicitly say that NPOV is a valid reason to decline a draft, even if notability has been established. Now you should read the submission in detail and decide whether it is suitable for Wikipedia. To be suitable, the article must be about a notable subject and be written in an encyclopedic style from a neutral point of view. 🍅 fx (talk) 01:16, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Neutrality, especially in regards to promotional language and not something like negative disparagement of a BLP which would be a different problem altogether, is an editing issue, not a notability issue. It should not be under the purview of AfC whatsoever. The article should be passed and tagged with appropriate tags like Template:Promotional. The reviewing instructions appear to directly conflict with the purpose of AfC. Silverseren^C 01:29, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I've seen many AfCs rejected for being LLM-generated, even though that is also an editing issue. So I'd say it's the "purpose" section that is inaccurate, not the reviewing instructions, at least judging by how AfCs are reviewed today. 🍅 fx (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Drafts should be accepted if the article is notable (and encyclopedic) even if it requires some cleanup. If there are problems with the article that can be solved by editing, either do it, add relevant tags, or add a comment to the articles talk page. JuniperChill (talk) 01:52, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@Flexagoon, the npov violations we're worried about are the kind that are so bad it would get G11'd. If it's not that bad, you can simply tag it for npov and accept, or fix it yourself. Please don't decline for minor npov issues that can be fixed by regular editing without much trouble. -- asilvering (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@Asilvering - Can I run this example through then: User:Tarun2095/sandbox. I have zero SPI evidence, so I can't submit to that. I've made a COI request of the editor though. It's not AI. But the tone is very promotional, there are references in section headers, it's longwinded, it's not an easy read, so very much NPOV territory. And of course I assume good faith. But in all conscience I can't accept this article, and I suspect AFD would take a dim view too. Rather than accept or decline, given the above, I am tempted to just leave it to another reviewer, which doesn't feel right either. ChrysGalley (talk) 10:32, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@ChrysGalley, I've removed the giant chunk of primary-sourced stuff at the end, so it should look less daunting now. Looks like a reasonable nbio decline to me. -- asilvering (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

In case anyone is interested, I spent some good 40 minutes and fixed the draft. Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 12:02, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Review request: Draft:Anna U Davis

Hello,

Would someone be willing to take a look at Draft:Anna U Davis?

The draft has been revised following two previous declines to remove promotional language and shorten the exhibition list. It now relies primarily on independent sources including The Washington Post and Feminist Studies.

Thank you for any feedback. ~2026-16078-96 (talk) 18:30, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

This page is for coordination of the AFC WikiProject and its editors; we do not do reviews on-demand. If you have a question about a draft, please ask at WP:AFCHD. Primefac (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Class C draft in place of existing stub

We recently discussed the situation where an editor submits a draft that is a partial rewrite of an article, and the agreement is that the draft should be declined and there can be normal discussion and normal editing. However, I would like to know if I can make an exception. There is an existing stub article, and a Class C draft has been submitted. I would like to swap the existing article and the existing draft. Is that a valid exercise of reviewer judgment in some cases? The specific case is the article Viola fuscoviolacea and Draft:Viola fuscoviolacea. Yes, I do know how to do a swap. I am not asking for assistance with the swap, but for advice on whether to do it. I would like to move the existing article into draft space and point it at the article. Is that permitted as a judgment call? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:06, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

You do what you feel is best; there are reasonable arguments to be made for either option. Primefac (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Links to Foreign Wikipedia

I reviewed a draft which had links to the Polish Wikipedia in the lede paragraph. I thought that this was strange enough that I declined the draft with a -custom- explanation. I could have checked whether articles with the same titles existed in the English Wikipedia, but thought that the author should review and fix the links themselves. Was this a reasonable action? Has anyone else encountered this in drafts? By the way, it was Draft:Moi-même-Moitié. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:11, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

A reasonable action, Robert McClenon. I'm pretty sure that several do exist in en:Wikipedia, but I lack the stomach to investigate. If it is helpful to the reader to link to pl:Wikipedia, then I don't see why linking should be done in this way rather than by Template:Ill. But I doubt that it is helpful. And if it were helpful, then why the need to link in the lead? -- Hoary (talk) 05:27, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

But this is the very definition of "easy to fix, nothing to do with notability". Please don't decline drafts for this kind of reason. -- asilvering (talk) 06:42, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Indeed. Could have just been fixed. There's certainly good reasons sometimes to have links to pages in other Wikipedias if they don't exist natively (they did in this case), and it being in the lede is not important. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:44, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. While interlanguage links are not ideal, there is no prohibition from having them, and a decline for just that is inappropriate. That's a ten-second fix for a reviewer to change the direct link to an {{ill}}. Primefac (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Indeed. In this case we did have a link in the English Wikipedia for this item. The ill template will even fix that for you (I think there's a bot that goes round main space and removes Ill templates for items that do exist). Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:56, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay. In the future, if I encounter this, I will leave a comment about the interlanguage link for another reviewer to fix. I didn't feel like trying to fix it, and this is a volunteer project. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

LLM declines

It looks like we've created a new defacto quick fail for LLM content. The apparent justification is WP:NEWLLM. I don't know if this has been discussed here but it has not made it to our reviewer instructions. ~Kvng (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Are you talking about pythoncoder's optional script or something else? ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 22:14, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

That's part of it and there's the LLM decline reason added to AFCH at some point and there's a pattern of rapid-fire declines using that reason by Pythoncoder and others. Reviewer instructions don't make any mention this, I don't know if authors are given fair warning, and yet it seems to be widespread practice. ~Kvng (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

• In line 6 of WP:YFA authors are indeed told not to use LLM. It's also in the "Don't" section. ChrysGalley (talk) 13:08, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I've been reviewing AfC since around the middle of last year and I feel like the LLM decline was already present or may have been introduced at around the same time. It definitely predates NEWLLM. The WP:G15 speedy deletion criterion was added... I think after the LLM decline was introduced, but before NEWLLM. It probably makes sense to align the AfC quick-fail criteria with CSDs.

Reviewers are declining a lot of drafts for this reason because we see a lot of LLM drafts, but there is the danger that the more actual slop you see, the more predisposed you might be to see it everywhere. I haven't installed the one-click decline script because I don't want it to be so easy to make that call. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 22:47, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I can confirm that the LLM decline reason predates the introduction of G15, which in turn predates NEWLLM. The reason why I decline so many drafts for being LLM-generated is because there really are that many LLM-generated drafts. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the last two AFC backlog drives have been just 6 months apart — and we’re already back up to about as many unreviewed drafts now as there were when the last drive started. As for the reviewer instructions, LLMs are fairly new in the grand scheme of things, so it’s only mildly surprising to me that that page hasn’t been updated yet. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:53, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I’ve seen some reviewers outright reject LLM drafts, but I tend to go for a regular decline first because the submitter may not have been aware of the guideline. I recall that not too long ago I read through the instructions users are given before either creating or submitting their draft, and then suggested adding some guidance against using LLMs, but I don’t know what came of that. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 23:00, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

• I don't reject for AI, since the Reviewer Instructions states that is just for irredeemable scenarios. I decline a very high proportion based on AI authorship, because there is a lot of it presented here. But at least in theory the editor can simply re-write their draft themselves, though that is clearly wishful thinking in some cases. I don't also reject AI in borderline cases, or where just one section seems to be LLM. A key problem here is "Subject X was mentioned by A, B and C media outlets", so WP:AIATTR. That isn't summarising and arguably contrary to this project's purpose. This could be argued as a reject basis, but I've not done that.ChrysGalley (talk) 13:04, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

  Whether AI generated or not, WP:AIATTR is basically the advice I've been giving authors. I tell them that establishing notability in a NPOV manner with a short article is where we need to start especially if there is a COI in play. Have I been giving bad advice?

  Per the current reviewer instruction, we're not supposed to decline articles because they are stubby, don't have the right encyclopedic voice or have too many references. Improving these things is something that can get sorted out in mainspace and these flaws do not reflect particularly badly on Wikipedia and do not prevent readers from getting value from an article. ~Kvng (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Kvng, I don't think you're giving bad advice per se. Really, you're giving the most important advice. But the community is so hostile to AI of any kind right now, I would be warning people that they really shouldn't be using it at all, right up front. It takes learning to understand how we implement NPOV. "For the love of god don't use AI until you already have a lot of experience with editing" is a simple and usually immediately comprehensible message.

  I agree that we should be adding some explicit guidelines regarding the AI decline on the reviewer instructions page. I would say that AI is a perfectly fine single-reason decline at the same level that npov is: that is, when the article needs so much work it simply should not be accepted and tagged. Someone who used AI to generate an article spent very little time on it. I don't want to ask reviewers to spend any more time than they have to on shovelling those out of the queue. -- asilvering (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

  The most frustrating thing with AI drafts is that even if it seems fine, the sources refer to the subject, etc, there's about a 75% chance of any given source not actually verifying the information it's attached to. That means AI drafts have to be gone over with a fine tooth comb and every single statement needs to be checked, which is a huge amount of work for the reviewer (and compounds the more times it goes through review). Human-generated drafts can be spot-checked, and if they've done it correctly in those places we can be pretty confident they know how to source. Plus of course humans frequently understand what needs to be fixed, and AIs...well, they do their best, and often offer some really fun new policies as justification just in case we like those better, so I guess at least there's amusement value. Meadowlark (talk) 08:28, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

  Actually, would it be worthwhile proposing something along the lines of this: if a draft is AI-generated, the first review gets declined with instructions that a human needs to rewrite it; if it's resubmitted and is still clearly AI-generated, it gets rejected. That might balance fairness to draft creators with fairness to reviewers. Meadowlark (talk) 08:34, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

  Apparently because I'm a robot, I personally am not good at distinguishing AI from human prose so I would be at a loss for how to rewrite so that it looks like it was written by a human. ~Kvng (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I hope no one's actually accused you of being a robot! Learning to identify LLM text is just another skill that can be practised. See what other AfC reviewers have declined for this reason at Category:AfC submissions declined as a large language model output and try the AI or not quiz for practice. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 23:08, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

No, I made the comment because other editors have made comments that LLM text is obvious and they are certain, based on the text alone, of it's providence. I'm skeptical of these claims because 1/ that is not my experience and, more importantly, 2/ AI is improving very quickly and I don't see any reason any obviousness won't soon be overcome and every reason to believe the certainty experienced by these human editors will likely linger. ~Kvng (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2026 (UTC)