Hi S Marshall, I noticed you draftified Draft:Jalal Jalal Shokouhi, an article which was created in 2016 and whose author is no longer active. You referenced a consensus decision about this, but I don't think I'm familiar with the context. Who is planning to work on this article? If it's just going to languish in draftspace for six months and then be deleted as a G13, wouldn't an AfD be more appropriate? Thanks. – bradv🍁 17:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there are about 10 such articles, and I have similar questions for all of them. If you could provide some context here I would appreciate it. – bradv🍁 17:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure. It's all a bit outside the norm, I'm afraid. This is the ongoing cleanup effort in relation to the content translation tool's first launch, which raised some concerns. The community expressed those concerns in this discussion. You'll note from that discussion that the community decided to create a special speedy deletion criterion, called WP:CSD/X2, to enable the defective translations to be deleted with less process. There were at that stage 3,613 articles in scope. After more than a year of ongoing cleanup effort, in 2017 the community reached a consensus to mass-draftify the disputed content. I had a wikibreak in 2018, and came back in 2019 to find that the community had reached the decisions but hadn't done the work. So I'm doing it. Last month I deprecated the speedy deletion criterion and set about draftifying the content that's in this list. In practice I'm giving each bit of content a quick glance over, and where I think it's a no-brainer for leaving in mainspace, I'm deciding not to draftify. You can see a list of the articles I haven't examined yet in my sandbox.
  I wish to finish this cleanup work, but as you can see, it's only me doing it and there are still about 1200 to go. The community has already rejected the idea that the cleanup volunteers should have to AfD each one and I definitely won't be doing that.—S Marshall T/C 18:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there a more recent discussion about this somewhere? If deletion is authorized for these articles based on admin discretion, we should just go ahead and delete them. If not, there should be a discussion for each one. But I don't see the point of using draftspace for this - that's just discretionary deletion with extra steps. – bradv🍁 18:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I should add that I'm not at all unappreciative of your efforts at cleaning this up – it looks like quite the unexciting mess. I'm just wondering why the community chose the route of using draftspace to clean these up when there are so few people interested in working on them. Perhaps in 2017 we were a bit more optimistic about people working on random drafts... – bradv🍁 18:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict)There isn't a more recent discussion to the best of my knowledge, just an old backlog that I'm working through.
  As you can see, in that 2016 discussion I said several times that dumping all these translations into draftspace in the hope that someone would clean them up and fix them was a forlorn hope at best, but the community subsequently decided to use draftspace anyway. The speedy deletion criterion has been deprecated, so actually, deletion is not currently authorized for all of them based on admin discretion, although there might be a policy basis to speedy all the ones created by our socky chum User:Duckduckstop.
  If you're still thinking that we need an AfD for each one, then I suppose you could revisit the issue at WP:AN, but before you do anything so soul-destroyingly demotivating to me, please could you read all of the discussions that I linked carefully and reflectively (and I know they're really long).—S Marshall T/C 18:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think that we necessarily need an AfD for each one, but it doesn't sound like it was a good idea to deprecate the speedy deletion criteria that allowed us to bypass that process. What about using WP:PROD instead? That is another route for uncontroversial deletions where a full discussion isn't necessary.

  At any rate, I am opposed to using draftspace as a backdoor to deletion, especially in its current form. – bradv🍁 19:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Nope, I've tried PROD. The PROD patrollers see what superficially looks like a plausible article and dig their heels in. They haven't read AN/CXT, and they won't, because it's much too long and complicated. If you're opposed to using the draftspace, then I'm cornered and helpless. Would you mind opening a fresh discussion on the administrator's noticeboard and getting community consensus on how to proceed? I'm quite tired of the whole problem.—S Marshall T/C 20:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough. I'll see if I can put together a request for more opinions at AN. This is complicated by the fact that the decision to draftify all these articles was made in July 2017, and in August 2017 the community decided to extend G13 to all draft articles and not just the ones that go through AfC. Without that change, these articles would have sat in draft space indefinitely, but now they will get automatically deleted after six months. – bradv🍁 20:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Draftifying old unmaintained content translation tool articles". Thank you. – bradv🍁 13:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello S Marshall, first of all, thank you for your help and concern about the safe area of the Wikipedia information, I am writing you about the moved page Talk: Daniel Horvath (actor) to Draft talk: Daniel Horvath (actor) the page has been created many years ago in order to maintain the work of the international actor that has been performed in many series and films worldwide, therefore we have Spanish, Russian and Catalan Wikipedia pages because of the appearance of the actor in different countries and speaking languages, please let me know what would you like me to do to have the page from your point of you being litigable and approved by you, also it would be very helpful if you can help me with it by giving me your advice. Here is his management agency in London with his previous films and series http://www.diamondmanagement.co.uk/daniel-horvath^[1] I really want to have the best page I can do for this actor because I love his work and really think he deserves to have it with your help I am sure I will do a great job. Looking forward to hearing back from you.--Anonimoushh (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, Daniel. I suggest you try submitting your draft for review by clicking the blue button on it; a user from AfD will either move it back to mainspace, or else give you some advice on how to improve it. Alternatively, you could try asking the Article Rescue Squadron for advice here. Hope this helps and all the best—S Marshall T/C 22:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (talk page watcher) Anonimoushh, your phrase from your point of you being litigable leads me to suggest that you read the Wikipedia:No legal threats policy. Whilst your statement isn't a legal threat, as a Wikipedia editor you should be aware of this policy, and be careful to follow it. I've also left a note about Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline on your talk page for your information. Happy editing! BlackcurrantTea (talk) 01:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive323#Draftifying old unmaintained content translation tool articles being discussed now? I haven't forgotten. Pinging @Bradv. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 04:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The discussion was archived without result, and isn't currently taking place anywhere. I intend to resume my old workflow and indeed I have started to.—S Marshall T/C 07:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Well then, it looks like we'll need to go back to AN and talk about this some more. – bradv🍁 13:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  It's tiring to be asked to stop work yet again while the community fails to decide what to do. It would certainly help me feel a bit better about this if either of you actually helped to work through the backlog, rather than focusing on making rules about how others should do it.—S Marshall T/C 15:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  For example, you could usefully deal with the de-prodding noted below? Make the required edits to the article, educate the contributor, enquire about the possibility of a COI? I don't wish to deal with it.—S Marshall T/C 21:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I want to get all this stuff categorized by source language, at which point User:Bradv suggested {{Cleanup translation}}, which can take a language parameter. Should have been bold I guess. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually before doing 1000+ edits I probably need some sort of.. not-objection, you know. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Planning to add Template:Cleanup translation to 1000+ pages — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi S Marshall, Thank you for your suggestions about this article. I tried to improve he text of this page as suggested by you. I hope it's good now. Please let me know if there is any other improvement I may do. Thank you very much Paolippe (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Paolippe (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quick reminder for you and any talk-page stalkers: Please don't change the initial list marker types (colons, asterisks or hash signs) when replying. In a discussion, do Y this best practice:

* Support.  I like this idea.  [[User:Example]] 
** Question:  What do you like about it?  [[User:Example 2]]

or Y this acceptable practice:

* Support.  I like this idea.  [[User:Example]] 
*: Question:  What do you like about it?  [[User:Example 2]] 

but N don't do this (switch type from bullet list to description list):

* Support.  I like this idea.  [[User:Example]] 
:* Question:  What do you like about it?  [[User:Example 2]] 

Changing the initial (leftmost) list markers makes bad HTML and noise for people who are using screen readers. The rightmost one is the marker that you get to choose. The first ones should match the previous line's markers exactly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly not sure where you will come out on this, but you may care about [1]. I'm a little hot about it, but maybe I'm overreacting (it's been a long week). Hobit (talk) 17:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, mate! I certainly do care about it. In response to that incident, I've amended WP:NAC to clarify that the "sysop unilaterally overturning" clause only applies to deletion debates. I've also opined at considerable length on WT:RFC. I don't want to edit the arbcom case because I think this is about RFC closes rather than about Guy.—S Marshall T/C 17:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this article was worth submitting for review. Saw you moved it to a live page, thanks! Metromemo (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An unregistered user left a message on my talk page about an issue they had trying to add a logo to this page. I checked it out myself and see that Checkmarx.com is blacklisted. Not all that surprising given the history of the page. However, adding the logo to the page seems like a reasonable request. Is the blacklist something that should have been removed with the page lock? Or if those are unrelated, is there a workaround for adding a logo? Seems if the page could be published, a logo would be allowed. Reaching out to you since you had been the one to publish the page. Thanks, Metromemo (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd give very long odds that the IP user on your talk page represents the company and wants to add their logo for promotional reasons. I'm disinclined to get involved and if I were you I'd consider directing them to the Teahouse for advice. All the best—S Marshall T/C 23:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great point and great advice. Appreciate the input! Metromemo (talk) 02:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If a page from User:S Marshall/sandbox has been merged into another article, can it just be removed from the list? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure. Please don't forget the {{translated}} template.—S Marshall T/C 15:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was too much bother to add those one by one btw, though for merges it'll still have to be done by hand.. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In cases where the original article is barely more than a list or I don't recognize the contents in the merged article, I'm skipping the {{Translated page}} addition. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you see eswiki editors removing tags you'll know you can take them off the list: es:Wikipedia:Café/Archivo/Noticias/Actual#Ayuda solicitada para verificar traducciones del español. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Do you know how the original list was compiled, ie how do you get a list of articles tagged with "contenttranslation"? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a script. Of course, articles translated after 27 July 2016 are outside the scope of this project. All the best—S Marshall T/C 23:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! I was asking because eswiki might want to start something similar. (not sure if they're serious though) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hi. are you an admin? how you closed this.. did you read all messages?which guideline or policy did you use to decide that?--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 11:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the admin who deleted my article last sentences was here for drafting..he was one of 3 Afd commentors! the article meet wp:SNG and wp:GNG.your action wasn't correct. do you have access for seeing history of articles? this topic needs that for deciding--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't decide anything. The community decided to endorse the deletion, and it did so by a colossal majority.—S Marshall T/C 12:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

that was not true and not wp:CON. in these case you must read the topic and discussions then close something.please change your action and let one admin do that (Because of the sensitivity of the issue).it's not a simple topic.many others see that earlier than you but no action was done.--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 12:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you that that close was well within my competence, lol.—S Marshall T/C 12:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You had to look at the arguments, not just the number of votes.I will follow that in wp:AN--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 12:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A listing on the administrator's noticeboard has absolutely no prospect whatsoever of changing the outcome, because administrators do not make binding content decisions. Nevertheless, you're welcome to take it there if you wish.—S Marshall T/C 14:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you know I had tagged nearly everything from User:S Marshall/sandbox. Now I just noticed you check and remove items from the list without removing the tag I added.

I did not anticipate that and am not sure how to deal with that. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:11, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Surely when they're all checked we can just TFD the template?—S Marshall T/C 12:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is only a new parameter argument for {{Cleanup translation}} and it has already been adopted by some other editors. (though the vast majority of entries in the categories is still from User:S Marshall/sandbox)

Your sandbox list is nearly impossible to work with on its own, I have cleared out Category:Wikipedia articles to be checked after translation from Dutch but I could have never done that using only your list. But for example, I just checked Marjan Schwegman not knowing you already had, and frankly you could have saved yourself the time as I understand Dutch. It would probably be more efficient if you would focus on Category:Wikipedia articles to be checked after translation from German and Category:Wikipedia articles to be checked after translation from French as you understand those, and hope that translations from other languages get checked by others while you focus on German and French. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, so the problem is that we've now got two ways of working. I'm working from my sandbox as I always have, but you're working from the category of articles with the template on. Is that right?

It's unfortunate that the template isn't unique to this project and is being used by other editors. This means that the template doesn't coincide with the authoritative list of the 3,613 articles to which the summary draftification provisions apply.—S Marshall T/C 16:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3613? Where does this number come from? And why should it coincide with yet another list? It wouldn't be impossible to make the template unique, but why? I have been working from the categories, but I also removed articles from your list after checking.

As you noticed, it's hard to find people to help with your sandbox list, while several people have worked on the categories. I think I could remove all entries from your list that are listed on Category:Wikipedia articles to be checked after translation, leaving only those that weren't tagged for whatever reason. (probably not many) That would mean, essentially, the end of your list. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 08:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I refer to the 3,613 articles discussed at WP:AN/CXT and the consensus that the same may be speedily draftified (despite Bradv's wish to change that consensus it still exists). The original list of 3,613 articles is kept at WP:AN/CXT/PTR and my sandbox contains the ones that haven't been checked yet. I'm now realising that what I'm doing is only tangentially related to what you're doing. —S Marshall T/C 11:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure now what either one of us is doing? Why do articles that have already been checked matter at all? The 3613 number has no relevance whatsoever? And articles on your sandbox list/in the category are also irrelevant after they have been checked?

As was discussed, relying on consensus from 2017 before G13 was extended is a bit dubious, to put it lightly. Everything you move to draftspace is just scheduling it for deletion in 6 months. IMHO these articles should either remain in article space (potentially with added problem tags), or go to AfD if not notable or truly impossible to salvage. And that recent discussion does have a consensus that draftifying as a backdoor to deletion is bad, thus the previously existing consensus is now void.

@Bradv, Mz7, JzG, and Joe Roe: what do you think? As I see it:

• Stop draftifying, either keep (with problem tags where needed) or send to AfD.
• Work from the categories. I cleared out the Dutch category, you guys know German, Danish, Russian (ru-1 but still) and possibly more that I don't know.
• Write a "guide" with some pointers on how to check articles (I can help with that) and advertise the project a bit better.

Any comment? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could provide a bounty maybe. Something like a photoshop for every 25 properly checked articles. You say what you want to see, optionally specify the source material (must be freely licensed of course) and I make it. A fisherman reeling in a car? You got it. Your favorite celebrity riding a monkey? No problem. Or something actually useful, like the digital restoration of an old photo? Would this motivate anyone? (it's the best I can think of that I could offer) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, what I'm doing is cleaning up a mess made by the WMF when they enabled the content translation tool and encouraged users to drop raw machine translations into the mainspace. They stopped doing that in summer 2016 leaving a specific, defined, identifiable set of problem articles which I am now working through. The list of unchecked articles is in my sandbox and I'm removing them when done. I have about a thousand left to work through so at this rate I should be finished in early 2023. Thank you for your help, even though I am confused about what exactly you are doing.

I regret that you're pinging people who aren't helping with the cleanup. Unless they intend to do actual work on this backlog I would prefer that they not make rules about how I should do it. —S Marshall T/C 22:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am pinging them because some of them have expressed interest in helping, but this was not easy with the list which was the only option at the time. Why is it such a problem to send articles to AfD (or adding problem tags and leaving them in mainspace) instead of using a draftify-deletion-backdoor? Why is draftification the only acceptable solution to you? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because AfD is a colossal time-sink and I shall not spend my volunteering time on it. The alternative to draftification is for S Marshall to stop working on this completely and overwrite his sandbox with something less urgent but more fun.—S Marshall T/C 23:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Create the AfD, unwatch and leave it? Don't engage in discussions if you don't want to? You don't want to continue doing checks unless you have a deletion method at your disposal that others effectively can't (or are highly unlikely to) comment on? Your work depends on the availability of a deletion backdoor? Do I understand that right?

You complain about nobody helping you, but at the same time you seem to want to dictate exactly how that help is offered, and any compromise seems impossible. I tried to help by tagging articles, adding attribution to talk pages and clearing out the category for Dutch articles. But if you wanted this to be your monolith, I only got in your way. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you would tell me why you want to draftify an article (as you now seem to be moving them without comment, so I have no idea) I guess I could start the AfD. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 09:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I do welcome help; what I resist is changing my workflow. I've tried a lot of the things people are suggesting, and my experience has been that they're very unsuccessful. AfD is purely a forum for deciding notability. If the article looks plausible and has sources, it decides to keep; the AfD-focused editors will tell me that it's notable so I need to fix it. They don't know or care about WP: MACHINETRANSLATION and will ignore it completely unless I, personally, sit in the discussion repeatedly reminding them of it, and even if I do, they still decide to keep a bunch of stuff for someone else to fix (you will almost never see an AFD inclusionist repairing the translation, they're only there to vote). And once you've AFD'd something, that's it: it's unremovable. IMV it's always to be avoided. You can, if you like, accuse me of dodging community scrutiny of my actions, but the intent is to review and decide about each article in a proportionate amount of time. The process you're suggesting is disproportionate because you could machine-generate these articles at the rate of several per minute, and some users did. We need efficient means of dealing with them.—S Marshall T/C 10:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  That is precisely the issue SMarshall. If there is a consensus at AfD to keep something, we keep it, whether that's your preferred outcome or not. It's extremely inappropriate to use this as a reason to avoid the established deletion process. Your workflow has to fit the community's consensus, not the other way around. I think I've said this before but if you are finding working on this backlog alone too burdensome, then the solution is to stop working on it. The encyclopaedia will survive having a few thousand bad translations. – Joe (talk) 13:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I will be the judge of what I should do, Joe Roe. And considering that we've now had defective translations of BLPs in the mainspace for upwards of four years, I think what's extremely inappropriate is to be lackadaisical about it. If you think they should be AfD'ed rather than dealt with summarily, Joe Roe, then you are welcome to AfD them.

  If a community consensus exists that I should not work in this way, then I will be delighted to stop; but this means me downing tools and abandoning the work. I will not AfD them.—S Marshall T/C 14:09, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• These articles are all draftified out of process, and the redirects suppressed inappropriately. These pages all need to be restored to mainspace. If you don't want to AfD them, that's fine, the encyclopedia will survive with these articles. But no one can move these to draft simply because they don't want to go through the AfD process. As has been pointed out to you many times, the consensus that you claim to move these to draftspace was not a consensus to delete them, which is now done automatically after 6 months. That change makes the consensus you continue to quote irrelevant. Please just follow the usual deletion process, or find something else to work on. – bradv🍁 15:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  But that's not true, though, is it, Bradv. Community consensus to mass-draftify all those articles does exist and has not been repealed. I cite it on every draftification I perform.—S Marshall T/C 15:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  That was not a consensus to delete. – bradv🍁 15:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  But then, I'm not deleting them. Instead of restoring these articles to mainspace, you could also tag them with something that says "do not delete after six months".—S Marshall T/C 15:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  That won't work, as no one reads the drafts after six months. They get tagged by a bot, and then mass-deleted via Twinkle. – bradv🍁 15:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  In my view, you are displaying poor editorial judgment in restoring what are, obviously, defective translations of BLPs into the mainspace. Please consider desisting.—S Marshall T/C 16:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  If you don't think these articles belong in the encyclopedia, you may take them to AfD, per the deletion policy. That is what everyone has been trying to tell you. Unilateral decisions about whether these belong are inappropriate. – bradv🍁 16:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  If "everyone" had been trying to tell me that, then my actions would have been significantly different. With all due respect, it's very far from "everyone" who's telling me that, in the discussions on the administrator's noticeboard which were archived without result or the one Alexis Jazz has just started on VPP. I think it's self-evident that the community is not of one mind on how to deal with these articles and in my view, the draftification process does still enjoy widespread support.

  I still believe that you are being unwise and you should reconsider your decision to restore those defective translations into the mainspace, even if only the BLPs. It is not urgent to restore them and it is open to you to repair the translation before you do so.—S Marshall T/C 16:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I've commented at the Village Pump. We just had a discussion about this that resulted in a clear consensus against unilaterally moving old articles to draft space. – bradv🍁 16:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]