Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation

message: There is a description above, from a few weeks ago, of a situation where the AFCH script detects an edit conflict with itself.  I consider that situation to be neither a bug nor a feature, but something in between, a harmless oddity.  I have, at least twice recently, encountered a slightly different edit conflict, also the result of the edit conflict detection feature, which is surprising, but is a case of two things working correctly, and so is a feature.  If I view the list of submitted pages in user space, I may see a few user sandboxes that have been submitted for review.  What I do is to see if there is an obvious title, which there will be if the sandbox has a proper lede sentence.  If so, I move the sandbox page to draft space, with the appropriate title.  Then I give the draft a quick review for any obvious fails, such as no references.  If so, I decline, or occasionally reject, the draft, with the appropriate code, and one or more templates, such as .  Sometimes the script gives me an error message saying that there was an edit conflict.  A look at the history may show that a bot, usually , has edited the draft.   has removed a template that is not used in draft space.  This is unexpected, unless one is expecting it, but is entirely correct, because the bot is checking new draft pages, including new draft pages created by moving, and the bot is fast, because it is a bot.  The edit conflict detector is also completely correct, because otherwise the script would be overwriting the edit by the bot, and therefore re-inserting the  template that is not valid in draft space.  
So, if you see this behavior when reviewing a sandbox, it is entirely correct.  Thank you, User:Novem Linguae, or whoever, and thank you, User:Rich Smith.  
Robert McClenon (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the comments , just to add, it doesn't *really* matter if AFCH does overwrite RichBot's edits, as it will just come and do them again next time :) - RichT|C|E-Mail 21:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's true.  Bots can be persistent.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Rich Smith - What you are saying is that the design of the bot causes the race condition to be a non-critical race condition.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  In a fashion, I guess so. All I'm saying is, in that task, RichBot doesn't check if its edited the page before, and will do so again if the template re-appears - RichT|C|E-Mail 21:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Just noting for the record (not that it's entirely on-topic) that if you first mark a draft as under review, and then try to carry out the review (accept/decline/reject), that also counts as two consecutive edits by you, triggering the edit conflict warning. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, User:DoubleGrazing.  It appears that there are at least two situations in which the script detects an edit conflict.  One is an edit conflict with oneself, as you describe, which is sort of a misfeature, because it is not actually a race condition, which is the computer science term for what Wikipedia edit conflicts are a variety of.  The other is an edit conflict with a bot, which really is a race condition,  because the bot has a different starting gun than is used for reviewers.  The edit conflict detection for a bot is correct, while with marking a draft under review and then accepting the draft, there is no real race condition.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The case that I saw was where I saw that the draft should be accepted, but there was a blocking redirect.  So I marked the draft under review and performed other reviews until I was ready to deal with the blocking redirect.  I then checked whether the redirect had significant history, which would require a swap.  On seeing that the redirect had minor history, I moved the redirect to limbo and tagged it as , and tried to accept the draft.  I was able to accept the draft after I refreshed my view of the draft page.  Is that similar to what User:DoubleGrazing is describing?  Is that similar to what was described a few weeks ago?  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Type of Edit Conflict 

message: :Just noting for the record (not that it's entirely on-topic) that if you first mark a draft as under review, and then try to carry out the review (accept/decline/reject), that also counts as two consecutive edits by you, triggering the edit conflict warning. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, User:DoubleGrazing.  It appears that there are at least two situations in which the script detects an edit conflict.  One is an edit conflict with oneself, as you describe, which is sort of a misfeature, because it is not actually a race condition, which is the computer science term for what Wikipedia edit conflicts are a variety of.  The other is an edit conflict with a bot, which really is a race condition,  because the bot has a different starting gun than is used for reviewers.  The edit conflict detection for a bot is correct, while with marking a draft under review and then accepting the draft, there is no real race condition.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The case that I saw was where I saw that the draft should be accepted, but there was a blocking redirect.  So I marked the draft under review and performed other reviews until I was ready to deal with the blocking redirect.  I then checked whether the redirect had significant history, which would require a swap.  On seeing that the redirect had minor history, I moved the redirect to limbo and tagged it as , and tried to accept the draft.  I was able to accept the draft after I refreshed my view of the draft page.  Is that similar to what User:DoubleGrazing is describing?  Is that similar to what was described a few weeks ago?  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit Conflicts with Yourself

message: Please could you modify your helper script to always put the WPAFC banner inside the banner shell (if one is already on the page) or to add a banner shell (if not). Also can you put the  parameter in the banner shell instead of individual project banners? This edit is not current best practice, and needs cleaning up by another editor later. Thanks! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue has been raised almost every month this year (Jan, Feb, Mar). It is a known issue and is being tracked. Primefac (talk) 08:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be traveling for a week. May have some time to work on this after that. I might need to do another burst of work on AFCH to fix some small bugs caused by the last patches, and fix these talk page wikicode bugs. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Are you telling me this issue has been "tracked" since 2016 and is still not fixed? Would be great if Novem Linguae can spend some time on this and get it fixed. But ultimately people have to take responsibility for the edits they make using tools. If the tool cannot be fixed, then you may have to stop using the tool. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't a bot go through and regularly fix WPBS issues in talkspace? This doesn't seem like a big enough problem to effectively shut down AfC over. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is a bot but I can't think which at the mo. Until a helpful coder decides to fix the issue the simple thing is for reviewers to use a tool or manually fix up, personally I always run Rater after any accept. However we also have many Gnomes that will just fix up the issue. The case given is very rare, most have no banner shell, many have no talk page, so it really is not a huge issue and more of a nice to have. It should be remembered that AfC is primarily a notability check (as well as spam, attack, copy vio filter) and has no requirements to do clean up and accepts are they same as if these users could just create in main-space direct. I personally like to so as much tidy-up as I can but I have no desire to make it mandatory when we can't get enough reviewers as it is. KylieTastic (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not placing any wikiproject tags is an option if this problem is severe. But would need consusus. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rating articles in the banner shell 

message: Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheChineseGroundnut, where they are a likley UPE editor, editing in the same area as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tochi Clement 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering if I'd see their name pop up like this when I approved them... Primefac (talk) 07:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never been happy that Johnel was "accepted". The main editors have (now) been sock blocked. I am unsure whether there is any purpose in sending it to AfD, or whether an IAR draftification is appropriate. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Huh. I thought there was something a bit off there, but wouldn't have imagined UPE related to Tochi Clement, esp. given that they started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kourage Beatz. Or was that some sort of nefarious double bluff? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes rivals try to interfere with each other. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sockpuppet probationary reviewer ''TheChineseGroundnut'' 

message: I reviewed and declined Draft:CaptionHub. It had already quite a lot of commentary from earlier reviewers, to which the draft author (presumably) had replied. When I declined it, all these comments somehow became repeated several times over. Anyone know why this happened? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems this repetition happened both when I marked the draft as under review, and then again when I declined it . -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that if an  is malformed, AFCH for some reason duplicates it. See this previous discussion. It's being tracked, but I don't know if it's a super-high priority since it doesn't seem to happen often. Primefac (talk) 07:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks @Primefac, didn't remember the earlier discussion on this. (I'm somewhat relieved to note that I wasn't at least part of it at the time!) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Thanks for tidying it up, ! I meant to but forgot. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Will try to patch this in my next burst of AFCH work. Am travelling this week, so maybe in a week or two. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeated comments 

message: In the section Creating an article, please make the following change:
An article might be notable in the future, so I don't think it is appropriate to say that it will never be accepted. OzzyOlly (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: . JJPMaster (she/they) 19:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: I was interested in that question, and so I designed a user script for it. The results so far can be seen here. JJPMaster (she/they) 19:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  How long does it take to review? 

message: Is another backlog drive being planned? I missed the last two so I'm not sure if there was a set schedule put into place or if they occur whenever. Status has been on 3+ months for a while. C F A 💬 20:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually ad-hoc, and usually when we get towards 5mo. I honestly think that unless we start tickling 4mo we're in a good place, as long as the numbers don't keep creeping up to quickly. Mildly related, it's interesting how we can have 2-4 new reviewers added per week and yet the backlog increase rate never seems to drop... Primefac (talk) 11:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backlog drives 

message: Drafts so far:
* Draft:Denmark's Maritime Security Policy in Greenland
* Draft:Denmark's Maritime Security Strategi in the Arctic (sic)
I have asked both editors if this is an education project. Both appeared within a very short gap of each other, and in Useer space 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Posted at WP:EDUN. Reviewers spotting more, please add commentary there (as well as here) 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

text: I converted the notice discussed above into a template. You can use it by substituting  and it will automatically populate and sign itself. May be useful for future education project bursts like this. C F A 💬 03:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Clearfrienda Thank you 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Clearfrienda Is there any chance you might add a level 2 heading as well, please 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to do it myself, but I can never think of a good header name (Timtrent, you can also do it yourself...). Primefac (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll give it a go! 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Primefac I have given it a title I believe to be appropriate. I am not wedded to it. If folk wish to change it, that is fine, but please keep it as relevant as you can. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me. C F A 💬 20:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another possible student project re Denmark 

message: Draft:Disney Emoji Blitz was recently submitted by a user with no previous involvement with the draft. They turned out to be a sock of someone with a habit of going around submitting other users' drafts. I was going to decline it purely on that basis, but then thought does it matter who submits the draft, if the draft is good enough to be published (and I say that hypothetically, as I've not evaluated this draft in any way). What's the best practice here? Or in the absence of that, at least a not-terrible practice? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: If the only thing the sock did is submit, then I suppose it's fine to review as normal if it would have been accepted otherwise. If the draft would be declined, then I would just revert the submission (i.e. not declining). Primefac (talk) 07:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That (reverting the submission) was my first thought, too. But there were a couple of subsequent edits, so I would have had to do it manually. And lazy as I am... well, I came here instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Procedural decline' question 

message: If anyone wants to know what Wikipedia's notability guidelines really mean and how to interpret them (as opposed to what you may have thought they mean), look no further than Draft talk:El Paso Chamber (with some additional content here). I have been comprehensively schooled, and can wholeheartedly recommend the experience. Now, where do I collect my diploma...? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free masterclasses! 

message: I just ran into a software issue while submitting a draft for review. The issue stems from having to perform the Submit action twice, first without the captcha security check, then with. The problem is that a rate limit starts a timer during the first action, that triggers an error during the second action; and because of the latter, the first action must be repeated before the second is available. As a result, the only way to actually submit for review is to first Submit without captcha, then wait a minute or so before finally submitting with the captcha. This is extremely counter-intuitive. Either the rate limit should allow at least two actions in quick succession, or the captcha step should prevent editors from submitting before the timer ends (e.g. using software or warning text). --Talky Muser (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thoughts, ? Primefac (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

text: The rate limit is 8 edits per minute for unconfirmed accounts, although unfortunately an edit gets counted as 2 if a captcha was required for it (and as 3 if captcha was once entered wrong, and so on). You shouldn't be getting rate limited unless you did 7 edit submits in the minute before opening the form.In any case, once your account becomes autoconfirmed (4 days from creation), the rate limit is 90 per minute so you wouldn't be running into the problem at all.To clarify, WP:AFCSW does not impose any rate limits of its own. The limits are MediaWiki's, and are applicable even when submitting manually by placing  on the draft page. – SD0001 (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

text: I was unable to reproduce this using an alternative account subject to the same rate limits. However, I question the necessity of adding extra links to bing.com and google.com (the toolforge links are exempt) every time someone submits a draft. If those links are useful, they should be in the original template that was added when the page was created, no? I'll admit I have no idea how any of these template work. But requiring yet one more CAPTCHA just to submit a draft seems annoying. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The links comes from the transclusion of  in . I agree if we can remove them, that would be a singnificant improvement to the submit workflow. Metrics collected from the wizard suggest that over 10% of all submit attempts fail due to rate limiting (54 out of 496 per day, averaged over the last 2 weeks). – SD0001 (talk) 03:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  is already shown in the editnotice while editing any draft page. So I have done the bold thing and removed it from the submit template. – SD0001 (talk) 13:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Still getting a CAPTCHA, from the same links, see Special:AbuseFilter/examine/1782527261. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

text: I think those links are actually coming from . Though the removal of the links from  does mean I no longer get a CAPTCHA when creating a draft, which is still an improvement. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah well, the links were coming from both places. I'm less sure about removing it from /tools as this feels like a part of the template that would be getting used (by reviewers). Perhaps we can tweak the AFC helper script to hack in the links instead of having the template generate them. – SD0001 (talk) 04:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

text: A more drastic solution: According to :mw:Extension:ConfirmEdit#Configuration it's possible to exclude an entire namespace with the $wgCaptchaTriggersOnNamespace setting. Might be worth a trial? After all, people are supposed to be adding references. If draftspace is overrun by spambots, we can always go back. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Or why don't we add the search engines to MediaWiki:Captcha-addurl-whitelist? Links to search results can't improve SEO and I can't imagine what other spam potential they hold. It seems like a less drastic interim solution. – SD0001 (talk) 04:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Rate limit issue

message: I didn't notice a discussion about that here. There's pending changes attached to WP:AFC/R right now. 
-- 65.92.244.143 (talk) 07:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Protection was requested at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Archive/2024/06#04_June_2024, which was based on a discussion at WP:EF/R Mach61 11:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  And there's already been one example as to why this is a bad idea on a high traffic page such as this.... Mdann52 (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFC/R pending changes? 

message: I just noticed that this is also activated at WP:AFC/C; though not at WP:FFU ; the reasoning at RFP provided was same as AFC/R, 
but there hasn't really been much persistent activity of non-process requests there... -- 65.92.244.143 (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: AFC/C pending changes

message: Will someone, maybe User:Novem Linguae, please look at
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alpharomeo12&oldid=1227618442?
The message says that they have made at least ten edits over four days, and so can create articles directly. Maybe the script is counting their Commons and Simple edits, but I don't think that those edits count toward the autoconfirmed privilege in English Wikipedia.
Robert McClenon (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The message says for you that they have made ten edits, while they see it as "once you made made 10 edits..." (i.e. it's a user status switch statement). See  for a longer explanation. Primefac (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it has HTML class "autoconfirmed-show", so will show for anybody viewing it that has autoconfirmed. Counter-intuitive, but was probably the easiest way to code it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  The messages that my templates leave either on a user talk page or on a draft really say what they seem to say, but that is because I have the template set so that a bot substitutes it automagically.  That template is transcluded, and shows whatever the transclusion shows, so it might be telling me that I, User:Robert McClenon, have made at least ten edits.  Interesting.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect Message from AFCH Script