![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
I have made a proposal here that the AfC article wizard be merged with the Article wizard 2.0. It would be neater to keep them together and means that any changes only need to happen in one place. I have created a new proposed final page of the wizard at
Please make any comments over there, thanks. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 16:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Just to let you all know that the last page of the article wizard now includes an option for unregistered users to submit to AfC. It seems to be going okay and there haven't been any objections yet. Now there is little to stop us merging the two wizards. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 22:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
See
Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects/2009- 12 and Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects/2010- 1
- these are misnamed... they should be:
Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects/2009-12 and Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects/2010-01
76.66.197.17 ( talk) 08:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Let me start by saying that I have no prior involvement in the Articles for creation project or process, so I will defer to those who actually are involved in the project. Now, on to the substance of my proposal...
I was motivated to initiate this discussion after looking at a few pages in Category:Declined AfC submissions and reading Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#This is why we shouldn't delete old submissions. There appeared to be agreement in that discussion that there would be no drawbacks to deleting old submissions in certain situations.
An AfC submission page may be deleted under speedy deletion criterion G6 (routine housekeeping) iff it meets the following criteria:
The basis for the proposal is the principle, derived from WP:NOT, that non-mainspace should not be used as a permanent repository of de facto articles that are not suited for inclusion in the mainspace. This includes:
Deleting such pages not only upholds that principle but also reduces clutter in Category:Declined AfC submissions, which in turn makes it easier for interested editors to seek out and identify useful content that could be used to write a decent article.
I realize that one could simply begin deleting declined AfC submission pages using the general speedy deletion criteria, without regard for the age of the submission, but I believe such an approach would be counter-productive to the purpose of AfC. There is value in archiving declined submissions for a period of time, even if it is only so that users making submissions can have an opportunity to see reviewers' comments and perhaps use them to write better draft articles. In addition, an uncoordinated approach would involve substantial duplication of efforts, since multiple editors would be checking the same pages again and again.
I realize that there is a significant workload associated with sifting through the nearly 10,000 pages in Category:Declined AfC submissions, but that load can be divided into much smaller parts by using the structure of Category:AfC submissions by date (and since AfC originally used daily logs, we need only to go back to July 2008). Allowing individual editors to volunteer for different months would make the task much easier and avoid needless duplication of efforts. Once the initial backlog is cleared, it becomes a matter of fairly regularly checking a relatively small number of submissions.
I believe that deletion of AfC submission pages which meet all of the criteria laid out above should be fairly uncontroversial, and for now I have deliberately avoided criteria that could result in deletion of useful content. If an additional level of oversight is desired, it would be no problem to create a page where pages can be listed for deletion for a period of time and evaluated by other editors (I am thinking of a process not unlike Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy).
I wish to avoid instruction creep, so I have attempted to offer a proposal which I am confident can be coordinated and carried out from only one subpage (e.g., Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Old submissions) that briefly describes the process and criteria and serves primarily as a space for editors to coordinate.
Please add comments here. – Black Falcon ( talk) 00:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Old submissions to give a better idea of my proposed implementation (if consensus is that the page is premature or unnecessary, then I will not object to its speedy deletion). If there is any way that the process can be made more efficient, or if I've forgotten to mention something, then please revise the page as needed. Please rest assured that I do not intend for the page to be used as justification to delete declined AfC submissions that meet the criteria until it is perfectly clear that doing so is acceptable to the members of this WikiProject.
I have made a few changes from the original proposal based on the suggestions offered in this discussion; the major ones are:
The purpose of linking to the dated categories instead of simply directing editors to use Category:Declined AfC submissions is to ensure that editors do not needlessly check submissions that were declined less than six months ago. That being said, I think it would be possible to replace the section with a bot-generated list of the pages that meet criteria 1, 2, and 3, as suggested by The Earwig. – Black Falcon ( talk) 09:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I take the position that part of the natural cycle of such a user generated corpus is that there must be a mechanism to allow such proposed articles to be reviewed by the greater community, that it is the community's place to decide if the article should be merged with the larger one. Denying the creation of the article on those grounds is counterproductive. TeeTylerToe ( talk) 05:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 02:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I do not know the reason why I can not get this published? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirali1995 ( talk • contribs) 00:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering if this is the section where I can request that the article for the Radio program and the other radio program on Northern Spirit Radio can be done. I find this site not real easy to use.
[Northern Spirit Radio http://northernspiritradio.org/]
Zon Moy 00:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonmoy ( talk • contribs)
As per Martin's edit summary. I've tried, once to move a redirect to the right section, because I didn't know about the {{d|redirect}} thing. Since then I've either used the template or just created the redirect. Is there a better way to do this? It seems just a tad bitey. SS ✞ (Kay) 22:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm online almost every day, and as I last logged off I was freaking because of the "severely backlogged" thing, but was too lazy to help fix it :P. I just logged back on to see like, nine pending submissions. My jaw dropped. Kudos to all you guys. :) SS ✞ (Kay) 09:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations, everyone, the queue is empty! I saw my userpage had a blue box, and was convinced it was a bug, but, nope, it's clear. Great work, everyone. Now, please, IP's... write some new articles! Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 04:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
{{ NA}} has been nominated for deletion again. 70.29.210.242 ( talk) 07:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
My brother is a noted Macintosh programming author, and there are upwards of a quarter-million of his "how-to" books floating around the globe. There are any number of Macintosh applications that, to one extent or another, owe their existence to my brother's efforts. You get my point. My issue is this: He doesn't have a Wikipedia entry, and standard ethics preclude me from submitting an article. What's my next move? Is it unethical of me to initiate this process in any way? For example, I could contact his publisher and bring up the lack of an article, hoping that the publisher will move forward on a researched submission. But is that ethical? Is my only ethical option, as his brother, to sit back and hope that an independent party submits an article? Obviously I want to do this thing, as I truly believe that my brother is a significant part of the history of the Macintosh, but I value ethics above all else, so I ask you, dear reader, for guidance. Thank you. Stumark ( talk) 16:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello all, I've done something rather bold that I think will help reviewers. Lately, I've been perusing the statistics page, looking for submissions that have been "On Hold" for more than 24 hours with no further edits. These submissions, according to our procedures, are to be declined to reduce clogging in the "Pending submissions" category. I figured that it would be more efficient to simply list all of these submissions in a Category so that reviewers could simply navigate to the list, open the submissions, and decline them. Hence, I have created Category:Afc Submissions on hold more than 24 hours, and have modified {{ AFC submission/onhold}} so that submissions that fit this criteria are automatically added to the category.
The pages are added using the {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} magic word, which gives the 14-digit UTC timestamp for the last edit done to the page. This number is then compared to the value of the current timestamp minus 1000000 (the equivalent of subtracting exactly 1 day). If the last edit's timestamp is less than or equal to that number (meaning that the edit occurred more than or exactly 24 hours ago), then the submission is added to the category. If the timestamp is greater (meaning the edit occured less than 24 hours ago), then nothing happens. For those familiar with parsers, this is emulated with the following code:
{{#ifexpr:{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}<=({{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}})-1000000|[[Category:Afc Submissions on hold more than 24 hours]]|}}
Submissions that are not "On Hold" are not added, since they do not use {{ AFC submission/onhold}}. The code is not foolproof, and therefore not complete; it does not (at the moment) take into account who performed the last edit; if the submitter did, then the submission should not be declined in this fashion.
I believe that this addition will increase efficiency, but once it is perfected it also opens the door to semi-automated (and perhaps automated, eventually) elimination of these submissions, which will keep the "Pending" category relatively clean. Of course, I welcome feedback/advice on this addition, and welcome anybody who feels they can improve this system to do so. Thank you for your time. Robert Skyhawk So sue me! ( You'll lose) 04:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
← Works like a charm with that! fetch comms ☛ 04:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
← I like the idea, but I'm afraid I can't help on the coding. Wouldn't {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} work though? fetch comms ☛ 04:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to the excellent feedback I've received, and the help of User:Fetchcomms, the code now works perfectly, and looks like this:
{{#ifexpr:{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}<=({{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}})-1000000|{{#ifeq:{{{user}}}|{{REVISIONUSER}}|[[Category:Pending AfC submissions|H{{#if:{{{submit|}}}|{{#expr:trunc({{{submit}}}/100)}}|3}}]]|[[Category:Afc Submissions on hold more than 24 hours|{{SUBPAGENAME}}]] [[Category:Pending AfC submissions|O]]}}|[[Category:Pending AfC submissions|H{{#if:{{{submit|}}}|{{#expr:trunc({{{submit}}}/100)}}|3}}]]}}
For the ease of those who wish to provide feedback, but find the mess of braces and prefixes above difficult to understand, allow me to summarize:
The author issue was worked out thanks to correction of a missing { character (yes, I made that stupid a mistake) by Fetchcomms, who will be receiving a barnstar shortly. So the code now works perfectly! Robert Skyhawk So sue me! ( You'll lose) 00:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I know that sometimes we like to categorize by 48 hours just to give the editor some more time. could we make a cat for that/does anyone agree? -- / MWOAP| Notify Me\ 03:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes we get some small cvs and stuff, so I created some templates. Let me know on any improvements I can make or more if you want them.
{{afc cleared}} Produces:
Now {{afc cleared|section}}
{{afccopyviocheck|1=~~~|2=~~~~}} Produces:
{{afccopyviocheck|1=-- <font color="green">/[[User:MWOAP|<font color="green">MWOAP</font>]]|</font><font color="blue">[[User_Talk:MWOAP|<font color="blue">Notify Me</font>]]\</font>|2=-- <font color="green">/[[User:MWOAP|<font color="green">MWOAP</font>]]|</font><font color="blue">[[User_Talk:MWOAP|<font color="blue">Notify Me</font>]]\</font> 03:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)}}
{{afccopyvioconfirm|1=~~~}} Produces:
{{afccopyvioconfirm|1=-- <font color="green">/[[User:MWOAP|<font color="green">MWOAP</font>]]|</font><font color="blue">[[User_Talk:MWOAP|<font color="blue">Notify Me</font>]]\</font>}}
That's it. -- /
MWOAP|
Notify Me\ 03:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
{{
Afc cleared|section}}
or something? {{
Afc section cleared}}
could be a handy redirect. Consolidation rocks. ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c) 04:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
←Well, if you have to leave, then no one is going to bother the reviewing template either. And if it's not clear, I would just reword it myself. (And I meant, incorporate your templates into {{ Afc cleared}}.) fetch comms ☛ 23:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I've merged my declined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Timeline of relief efforts after the 2010 Chile earthquake into an article created after I submitted my request (which is why it was declined - it didn't exist when I created the request, but did when it was reviewed), Timeline of relief efforts after the 2010 Chile earthquake. So, this now creates a problem, since I see from this talk page that an automated deletion process is to be implemented. If this were to occur to this particular page, edit history would be lost.
As I can see, it did not come up in discussion, what to do in circumstances such as this?
70.29.210.242 ( talk) 15:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
WP:AFC/R also accepts requests for the creation of categories in addition to redirects. Shouldn't Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects be renamed Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories ( WP:AFC/R&C)? At this point, new users who wish to request a category don't know where to go to do this, thinking that WP:AFC/R is only for redirects. This would help guide them to the right page. -- œ ™ 04:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I would support a change in name, but agree with others that a separate page for category requests would be overkill. A redirect be fine as well. These requests are quite rare. Is there any evidence that editors are getting confused by this? — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 10:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I was working on the review script today. I had an issue with review a category. The script would not show any details about what I could do with the request. At this moment, it is still there, but just an FYI. -- / MWOAP| Notify Me\ 21:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Brian P. I did a cursory search, but is there something I'm missing? Should it be blanked as an attack? SS ✞ (Kay) 04:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm planning to give the wikiproject pages a bit of an overhaul. Anyone want to give a hand? — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 21:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
← I like the idea of a lighter color theme in general. Not too wild about round corners (maybe only on the end tabs?) fetch comms ☛ 01:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Like the curved tabs, but why not curve them all? (For comparison, see this version. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 08:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I've been informed that "templates" are not to be created via AfC. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Template:Ski_areas_and_resorts_in_Alberta&oldid=349920196
This prompts the thought, how many other Templates, dab pages, redirects, categories, etc have been rejected out of hand, if they ended up with the standard AfC page (instead of a redirect or category at /Redirects, it were created as a subpage)...
The edit filter also dumped an error saying that the nomination was improperly formatted, even though the preload template is the one that generated "|type=template" in the first line.
70.29.210.242 ( talk) 03:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
(EC)
!(new_wikitext rlike "{{subst:AFC submission/(submit|submit\|type\=dab)}}|{{WPAFC")
!(new_wikitext rlike "{{subst:AFC submission/(submit|submit\|type\=dab|submit\|type\=template)}}|{{WPAFC")
!(new_wikitext rlike "{{subst:AFC submission/submit(.*?)}}|{{WPAFC")
Now, that is a very interesting question - I will start a new thread below, so that we can discuss it. Chzz ► 09:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Is it common practice for this group to recreate articles that have been deleted through a deletion discussion? Clarification of this issue would be useful at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stan Romanek (2nd nomination). In the future, I recommend that if an article has been deleted, WP:DRV is filed first so that permission can be granted from the community to reverse the decision. ScienceApologist ( talk) 00:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I came across an article draft on Fred Onovwerosuoke submitted by User:Slac324 in the WP:Sandbox: [2]. Flatscan ( talk) 04:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
As of right now, EarwigBot puts all potential copyright violation submissions under the hold heading on Pending AfC submissions. While it's best to always AGF, copyright violations are a serious issue; potential copy vio articles should be resolved with some more expediency. While the hold heading is appropriate other articles, I think a heading specifically intended for EarwigBot violation flags would ensure we see to potential violations in a timely manner. It still assumes good faith on the part of the submitter but allows editors to work more expeditiously to remove any impinging content. To that effect, I propose a new header in Pending AfC submissions, e.g. S for suspected copyright issues. This header would only serve to bring quicker attention to articles flagged by EarwigBot as containing potential copyright issues. avs5221 ( talk) 02:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
"When I said "backlog," I wasn't referring to the 52-submission backlog that is a technical feature. I was referring to the fact that hold submissions often remain unlooked-at by reviewers because they are "on hold". But after looking at the hold criteria, I decided that your probably right, and this is probably a good idea."
{{
AFC submission|H|cv-bot}}
; the bot would have added that template, but would have left {{
AFC submission| | }}
, so a reviewer could come back and hold for another reason. We scrapped it for – something, I can't remember quite why, but I'm pretty sure
MSGJ knows. —
The Earwig
(talk) 20:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Mary E. Byrd, American educator circa 1910 Appears as black text as there is no Mary E. Byrd page. Perhaps it was meant to be created and omitted? Or perhaps she is not notable enough in which case the page should not be on the disambiguation page. I cannot find her in any other article 86.43.110.186 ( talk) 16:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Please do not misunderstand my intentions here; I am not 'taking sides'. I have helped to review many hundreds of AFCs. The title arose in a previous thread on this page, regarding creation of templates via AFC, but I think a new thread is warranted to being discussions.
As I understand it, back in 2005, Mr. Wales decided to stop non-registered users from creating articles ( signpost article here). This was to prevent vandalism. AFC provides an alternative way for non-registered users to create pages, with various assistance and checks that the articles meet standards.
I am all in favour of keeping Wikipedia as open as possible. The questions is - which is it? Can non-registered users create articles, or not? If the community believes that they should be able to, that's fine - we can just enable it again (though whether we could cope with the vandalism is another matter). If not, then should we really be 'bending over backwards' to allow them to create pages via AFC?
OK, so we are helping them to format articles and make them pass the notability criteria, etc, but, why should they receive this special treatment, which is not afforded to people who do create an account - often the latter create a poor article which is speedy deleted, and we hope that we have processes in place to help them. In reality, those processes are poor - but that seems to indicate a general fault, and not a reason for an alternative system to create things via a 'back-door'.
There seems to be rather an overlap, and perhaps excess bureaucracy, by us having requested articles, articles for creation, and the ability to create user-space drafts.
Perhaps we are shooting ourselves in the foot here, by going to all these efforts to fix problems in this way. Perhaps we ought to say 'get an account' and that's the end of it. Surely users who do get an account should receive helpful advice and assistance with their first article - perhaps moreso than those who do not take this step.
I notice that, currently, the messages that a non-registered user will see if they try to create a page are not exactly user-friendly. If they type in a non-existent article name, it goes like this;
1. "There were no results matching the query", "You may create the page "(NAME)", but consider checking the search results below to see whether it is already covered."
(There may or may not actually be any results)
Note, this is a bit wrong already - the anon may not' create it.
2. Clicking on the red link produces; Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for (NAME) in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings.
3. Clicking on the 'Start' link then produces a page entitled 'Unauthorized', which says;
Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact title. Please search for (NAME) in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings.
There are quite a few problems there, and it's certainly not a very 'friendly' start.
Surely, if a non-registered user tries to create an article, they should be seeing some nice, friendly message - suggesting that they sign up, offering alternatives, and certainly highlighting the basic need for reliable sources.
I think that this is an important discussion, and I look forward to hearing opinions. Chzz ► 10:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Surely, if a non-registered user tries to create an article, they should be seeing some nice, friendly message - suggesting that they sign up, offering alternatives, and certainly highlighting the basic need for reliable sources.
But what, exactly, and how? Is there any way to bring this to the attention of the wider community? It's an important issue, especially since it's so up-front. SS ✞ (Kay) 02:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
While surfing as an IP I noticed there's no longer a link via hitting the "Go" or "Search" buttons which (eventually) takes IP editors to AfC for a non-existent article. Log out and see for yourselves. I've X-posted this to the Tech Pump, but I'm not sure they'll understand the problem.... -- Kendrick7 talk 22:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Note: the VPT discussion can now be found be archive 74. I thought we could maybe edit MediaWiki:Search-nonefound as a stop-gap measure, but I don't really understand enough of it to make the edit myself. Tim, is there anything we can do until 20976 is resolved? — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 10:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Is {{ reflist}} banned from AfC articles now? Alpha Quadrant ( talk · contribs) doesn't seem to like its use, while I've tried to make flocculent spiral galaxy like other astronomy articles, and most of the major ones use it, or it's equivalent "div small references /div".
70.29.208.247 ( talk) 05:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I would like to ask the team NOT to move misplaced submissions as I am trying to get approval for my bot and this is the only way, when they come, for my bot to preform. Thank you. -- / MWOAP| Notify Me\ 01:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Question: I just created an article, and instead of the "this article has just been created etc etc" template, I got "this is a misplaced AfC submission". As a result, I had to paste in the talk page template. Does anyone know why? {{ Sonia| talk| simple}} 06:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
{{AFC submission|||ts=20100519061657|u=Semiquaver|ns=5type=dab}}
{{AFC submission|||ts=20100519061657|u=Semiquaver|ns=5|type=dab}}
Is it not logical to have people search for the article in question before doing anything else so they don't waste time starting an article or preparing to do so, only to find it is not necessary? While at first glance the page appears to be short, anyone who needs it will likely also need to avail of numerous links in it; which could amount to a lot of time spent reading. If nobody responds in a week objecting, I'll switch the first two points. A F K When Needed 21:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I have been around #wikipedia-en-afc connect for a few days when few reviewers are on. I have had to turn away some people for help because I am busy or multitask like crazy. I would like to suggest we switch people to en-help and maintain en-afc as for technical means. -- / MWOAP| Notify Me\ 01:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
The {{ move draft}} template was created for new editors (not yet autoconfirmed, thus unable to move a page themselves). They could add the template to a draft article, and an editor would move the page into article space. This good idea suffered from two problems:
As a remedy, the existing requests will be moved to AfC so that the editors helping out the regular request can also handle these draft articles. In addition, future requests will become requests at Wikiproject Articles for Creation, where they can simply be moved to article space if ready, or improved first if not ready. -- SPhilbrick T 22:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Chzz ► 22:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, so, I believe most/all are listed in User:The_Earwig/Sandbox#Pages ? They really all need checking, and users informing as appropriate. Because some have been accepted/declined/oversighted/histmerged etc in the meantime, a 'standard' spammed-out message probably is not appropriate. I've looked through some individually, but in doing so, I found various problems in the ways the AFCs had been processed, so I ended up getting side-tracked in fixing them, etc.
So - they need checking. Then again, that's true of pretty much all AFCs, and I suppose that, for accepted/held/rejected, at least now the users have had some kind of feedback. Chzz ► 03:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I've removed some of the clutter on the main page in the design below. This content (suggestions, notability) is shown during the article wizard, so it is not needed. I wanted to throw this out there; tell me what you think.-- mono 00:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Articles for Creation! If you do not have a Wikipedia user account but have an idea and sources for a new article, you can submit them here. If you have an idea for the title of an article, but no content for the article itself, please see Requested articles. If you have a Wikipedia user account already, you can also use the Registered Users Article Wizard to help you create your article.
This is Wikipedia's page for Articles for Creation; if you do not have a Wikipedia user account but have an idea and sources for a new article, you can submit them here. If you have an idea for the title of an article, but no content for the article itself, please see Requested articles. If you have a Wikipedia user account already, you can also use the Registered Users Article Wizard to help you create your article.
Please follow these directions to submit an article for creation.
- First – read this page: Wikipedia:Starting an article
and then the rest can be removed as it's already covered in the wizard. — fetch · comms 01:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
After an article has been created a redirect is left. An example is Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Johann F. C. Hessel. This came to my attention when that redirect was listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 June 13. As cross-namespace redirects, these are considered undesirable. However, this project may have a use for them? If not, it would be helpful for an instruction to be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions#Accepting an article to suppress the redirect. Also, any redirects created can be tagged, by non-admins, as WP:CSD G6. Bridgeplayer ( talk) 14:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I am an experienced editor (with no knowledge of AfC, although I have browsed what docs I could find). I am trying to help Smithmd2 ( talk · contribs) who has had this declined (I agree that the article needs improvement). The particular case is not so important but I am wondering whether a documentation overview exists to give experienced editors the big picture because I cannot work out what to advise the user. Also, it would be good if an overview could trace what happens to a successful submission and an unsuccessful submission (user completes wizard; page is created at X (a talk page?) with template Y; reviewer modifies Y; what then?).
The message on the user's talk page says "please feel free to request article creation again once the issues have been addressed" but I do not understand what that means: (1) put an improved article (copy/paste) through AfC again? or (2) improve the article on the page where it is declined and ask (how?) again?
I understand that the user (or I) could create a user subpage with the wikitext and work on it there. If that is recommended, would it be a move or a copy/paste? I worry that a move would break some AfC process, and a copy/paste is dubious due to copyright issues. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, maybe I'm just really computer slow but I have been looking for almost an hour and I absolutley can notfind any way to submit my article. I am an unregistered user of wikipedia but it says numerous times that unregistered users can submit ideas for wikipedia. But it doesn't say anywhere how to do this!!! It even says that there are instructions on the main page of this article for unregistered users on how to submit an article, but there are none!!! Where are they!!?? Great thanks to anyone who can help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.248.0.16 ( talk) 03:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone who knows how configure the bot to only archive FFU requests with more than one timestamp? We're getting unfulfilled, perfectly acceptable requests archived simply because there aren't enough people uploading images. I've read through the bot config page, but I'm still not sure what to put--or would one need to switch to Cluebot III? — fetch · comms 23:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
| archivebox =
parameter instead.
Intelligent
sock 01:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Does the redirect request also function in this manner? As there have also been archives of unprocessed category and redirect requests. 76.66.195.196 ( talk) 19:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
This whole process is a bit eclectic and appears very counterintuitive. Why are there no instructions at all on how to submit a page creation request at Wikipedia:Articles for creation and at subpages like Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects? Is that obscurity intentional, to cheese off anons? Because that's almost how it looks. -- 87.79.177.121 ( talk) 02:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what percentage exactly, but a very high percentage of sources are websites. Proposals without sources are almost always declined, by virtue of verifiability. Therefore, I am wondering if there is a way to automatically hold, or at least separate, these pages. They could be quickly skimmed. This could help reduce the backlog and organize the reviewing process considerably. Gosox( 55)( 55) 03:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
It seems like a new user has been using this subpage to work on an article, and the content that should be there has been deleted; and someone else subsequently added a request there. I'm not sure what's the best way to fix this?... B7T ( talk) 17:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed that AfC is often heavily backlogged recently and I wondered why that was. Is it due to an increase in the number of submissions, or perhaps because of fewer reviewers? So I collected some data, did some calculations and produced this graph. My analysis is that there was a sharp increase in early March, which probably corresponds to when the option to use AfC was added to the article wizard. However since then, although there have been peaks and troughs, the number of submissions has been reasonably stable. So it perhaps it is the number of reviewers that has dropped off slightly? — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 20:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
User:Antonu has made us a new barnstar. It's quite different from the existing image though so I thought we should discuss it first. What do people think? It looks nice and after 3 years we may be due for a rebranding. But then we need to update our logo as well ... — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 08:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
There's been a decrease recently in the quality of the articles created. Just because we have a backlog is not an excuse to hurry; many pages are not MOS-compliant and contain inappropriate tone or wording. I am afraid that some reviewers may see a list of sources and accept based purely on that; I've seen articles where there are 20 primary sources and it's been accepted. This is ridiculous and only hurts the project. We need to have a stricter reviewing process. For example, Bruce Donald is a poorly sourced BLP (2 of the 4 sources are from his university's website), Clarisonic contains a list of unreliable and/or primary sources (don't we want footnotes, not a list of random links?), Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited (TNPL) needs its section headers lowercased per the MOS and it is half spam ("A 300 tpd state-of-the-art Hardwood Pulp line", "Amply supported by online process and quality control systems the company ensures uniform and consistent quality without compromising on efficiency", "Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited (TNPL) was formed by the Government of Tamil Nadu, one of the most environmentally compliant paper mills in the world"), Infopro Sdn Bhd has both a list of links and footnotes, Jake Smollett does not seem to have much significant coverage, as evidenced by the included sources being mere mentions as well, etc. Ideally, we want articles like John Nihill; copyedited, MOS-compliant, properly sourced, and ready-to-go. We cannot simply forgo things like copyediting and a full, in-depth review to let these things slide. This problem will only grow worse, and all reviewers must perform solid reviews. — fetch · comms 13:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I think AfC is raising the bar too high, if the initial rejection that Douglas Haig (actor) received here is typical. Many people who come here won't have learned yet how to add sources. Why don't you all help more and reject less? 64.105.65.28 ( talk) 16:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Could someone run a script to gather all the orphaned IFU requests (unclosed requests; some with seemingly nary a query) into a backlog page, instead of having them sit forlornly in the archives?
The Redirect/Category request archives could do with a sweep for orphan requests as well.
Oh, and the current IFU list is getting long.
76.66.195.196 ( talk) 05:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that ClueBot III was archiving requests to Wikipedia:Files for upload/Archives/ (which I've now emptied and tagged for G6 deletion), due to missing parameters on the archiving template. So, I fixed the template so that requests are now properly archived by month. The archived requests at the aforementioned page have been moved to their proper, dated archives. For any who were hoping to work on unclosed requests that were on that page, all of those are now at the Wikipedia:Files for upload/June 2010; the current month's archive only contains closed requests. I hope this fix hasn't caused any undue harm; if not, please let me know. Robert Skyhawk ( T C B) 03:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Fixed by removing the variable completely, replacing it with "2010". The template will have to be changed on January 1, 2011. Robert Skyhawk ( T C B) 03:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Just to let everyone know that our featured picture will be the picture of the day tomorrow. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 13:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
User:CuteMice reviewed some submissions here before being blocked as a sock of the problematic User:Ratinator. A review of his actions here may be in order, he clearly does not have a strong grasp of policy or very sound judgement. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I request a page for acting chairman of national salvation comittee of somalia. He was also a presidential canadite, and a powerful politician in somalia. His name is Abdigani Warsame, alternativly spelled Abdiqani, here is a picture File:Http://www.allsanaag.com/images/DSC00105 1.JPG and a source http://www.hiiraan.com/comments2-news-2008-mar-puntland_presidential_hopeful_campaigns_in_seattle.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.203.211 ( talk) 01:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
left the draft here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Public_viewing 87.162.68.37 ( talk) 09:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I am involved in an AFC related discussion at Wikipedia:Content noticeboard#Is it possible to delete hoax content from articles? over an article I greenlit a few years ago. It turns out that a portion of the article was well-hidden vandalism. Based on the current guidelines of AFC it looks like this situation might repeat itself if we don't examine where we failed. I'd like to ask the project to look at this situation for ways to improve our quick fail criteria. I'm very saddened by this, especially concerning my work on vandalism here at the project. Please take a look at my statements on the linked discussion. Maybe we can add a guideline suggesting stubbing unreferenced material from otherwise good looking candidates? Is that even within the scope of AFC? Thoughts? -- Torchwood Who? ( talk) 12:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I have created an AfC icon, if anyone is interested. Use {{ User:Hi878/AfC Icon}} It uses {{ topicon}} so it can be positioned in the same way. The icon also adds you to the participants category. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 06:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
May I request that a British Mythology page be made? I have been interested in learning about British mythology and was wondering if a page dedicated to British mythology could be made by a user here at Wikipedia. I could even give some of the British myths and put them on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.109.187 ( talk • contribs)
Would someone please look at this article - it was declined a few hours ago on a technicality and there has been some spirited conversation among the creator (me) and the deliner. His reason for deletion is incorrect according to the actual wording of the rules and was entirely subjectively determined. He argues that an article must be "substantially different" from a previous one - the actual rules state "not substantially identical" if I remember correctly. This article has had substantial work put into it. I and another editor were still working on improving the article when it was declined. The trouble is that it is now declined without discussion and coming back through this process again will require me to change more things about the article (can't have significantly similar pages to ones previous deleted) and its now going to be really difficult. Thanks ChildrenOfLight ( talk) 22:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Many article idea submissions have been created outside the right space ( WP:AFC). Quite a few of the entries on this list in the Wikipedia namespace are denied requests that have not been named correctly. Should an administrator bulk-move these into the correct name? Train2104 ( talk) 23:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand the problem. How should I change it? Thanks LVKen7@Gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lvken7 ( talk • contribs) 14:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
This template is used by many newcomers in their subpages of their account; AFC is geared towards those who don't have accounts, and when they use this template, it just populates the category unnecessarily. Some templates are designed to show alternate text when placed in the wrong namespace. Can this one be made to do that, too? — Duncan What I Do / What I Say 06:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi all. I am trying my hand at this. Please check my contribs here and tell me if I am making the right decisions, and writing appropriate edit summaries, etc. Thanks.
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 15:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
What I did so far...
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 15:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
AFC submission|d|prof}}
for Ethan as it is more specific. Also, you can put possibly promising ones like that on hold for a day to give the author a chance to find better sources, etc. PS The duck face had me laughing, especially
this edit. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk) 15:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Is it the intention that AFC be used only by IPs? I thought that while that may have been its origins, it is available to very new registered accounts who may have an outline of an article, with some sources, and are willing to help, but don't have sufficient knowledge of WP Policies and Wikicodes to write an article without help.
The reason I'm asking is that I believe it is often a mistake for a pure newbie to start writing an article as their first edit. Some can do it, but many cannot, so I offer some advice to those who don't quite feel ready to tackle a new article. Right now, I direct them to WP:RA, but that backlog id so long it isn't really a viable alternative, while the backlog at WP:AFC is much more manageable. If new editors other than IPs are welcome here, I'd like to edit the intro to indicate that. Otherwise, if I direct editors here, they will see the intro telling them that this place is for people without an account.-- SPhilbrick T 21:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Doh. My article for creation should be named Douglas Haig (actor). 64.105.65.28 ( talk) 02:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Please make Group Study Room F a redirect to Community (TV series). 207.81.170.99 ( talk) 04:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
All these copyvios are annoying me, I've already found over 8 in the time I've been involved with the project, is there a way for the bots to confirm copyvios or is that a human task? Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Tea and biscuits? 23:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
It looks like it is broken again... Allmightyduck What did I do wrong? 16:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Someone has put John Harmon (disambiguation) on hold, stating that the page contains "broken links". That is incorrect. The page includes entries that are red links, and those red links are in accord with MOS:DABRL. One of the red links is likely to become a blue link, pending action on a request to move the article now at John Harmon. 69.3.72.9 ( talk) 21:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I've come here indirectly; I do not work here regularly, but rather as an admin patrolling speedy and prod, deleting the impossible articles (12,000 so far), and rescuing the few possibly acceptable ones (maybe 2,000) . Except for new BLP articles, not having 3rd party references--indeed, not having references at all--is not a reason for deletion; rather articles are deleted if it is not possible to identify such sources. But on this page, the instruction are to not even consider an article without such sources. I do not think alone is a reason to decline, because if the person were a registered editor, the article--even if a BLP--would not be subject to speedy deletion. The instructions ought therefore to say that the reviewer should either place the article on hold and instruct the applicant to find such sources, or look for such sources themselves. Of course we do not want to ever give advice for making just a very minimal attempt at an article that will just pass speedy deletion, or for people to adopt the irresponsible practice of making articles without references in the hope someone else will reference them. However, it is in my experience usual for beginners to need guidance in finding proper sources, not outright rejection of their work (which is its why it is not a speedy criterion, and even for blp, requires a 10 day period at WP:PROD.) DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Declining a submission is not completely rejection; they are advised to add sources an resubmit when ready. It's not nearly like deletion as the content is not gone or destroyed. One of the main reasons we do that is to keep the backlog down (not working right now) so the pending submissions can be separated from those reviewed but without sources and the like. — fetch · comms 03:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Exactly how long is an AfC candidate supposed to be under review? I'd like to know so I can figure out if the review forgot about a submission or something. 76.66.200.95 ( talk) 04:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't footnote references supposed to be interspersed with inline citations? I had it separated in two different sections, but the reviewer has removed the distinction between the two, by removing the "group" specifier from the ref tag. I have noticed that several articles that use both forms separate them using the group specifier. 76.66.200.95 ( talk) 12:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
There appears to be article poaching going on. I created an article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/French frigate Montréal, the reviewer then created the article HMS Montreal (1761) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). As this article had been redlinked for months, and a new article appears a few hours after I submitted an article about the same ship, coincidence beggars belief, since it is the same editor who created the new article declined my request.
If my request spurred the editor to create the new article, then it should be part of the contribution history to the article, or exist as a redirect with its edit history intact in article space.
I will note that a significant portion of the new HMS Montreal article is verbatim copy to what I submitted.
76.66.200.95 ( talk) 04:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Done. Someguy1221 ( talk) 04:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I've seen a lot of requests pointing to licensing or the actual picture on facebook. Should something be added to the instruction pages about this, considering facebook has no way to properly license it? Allmightyduck What did I do wrong? 02:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
FFU archiving is still broken, just look at August and September where there are alot of requests with no replies that have been archived.
Can someone set up a backlog page, so that unprocessed or unclosed requests can be piled into? 76.66.200.95 ( talk) 06:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Exactly what is wrong with the tone in Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/vertical seat ? 76.66.200.95 ( talk) 06:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I saw this move and subsequent tagging of Edward Lipinski (Belgian scholar) to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Edward Lipinski (Belgian scholar) and I have to say I am confused as to exactly what it means. Nevertheless I added some sources to the submission in rough form. I also posted this note on the contributor's Talk page. I have no idea how Articles for Creation works, but I feel this could survive as a new article with cleanup tags. - 84user ( talk) 23:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
That's the first time I've heard about this bot. I do not understand how someone can program a bot for this project without even discussing it here first. That suggests a complete disregard for other participants' views. Is there agreement that this bot is desired? — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 11:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Someone wanted it:
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/AFC_clerk_bot is a bot clerking the requests. It is currently moving submissions for their correct places. Soon, it will tag duplicate submissions in main space. — I-20 the highway 19:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
There is somebody reviewing their submission. I have moved Imran Channa visual artist back 2 times and the same person has moved it back. As an involved party I'd like to request a 3rd opinion. — I-20 the highway 14:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Following a conversation with Chzz this evening, I've found what I think is an inconsistency in the reviewing guidelines. WP:AFCR says
However, when an article is declined for notability reasons, {{
AFC submission/comments}}
gives this message to the user:
These represent very different standards. Based on the AFC reviewing criteria, a reviewer might decline an article because it is poorly sourced, but what is communicated to the user is that the article simply needs to explain better why the subject is notable.
What is the right thing to do here? If the goal is to make sure the article is not immediately eligible for speedy deletion, I think that the AFC comments template is right and the reviewer instructions need to be revised. Tim Pierce ( talk) 02:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm unfortunately without any experience regarding the Article for creation process, but I would like to move Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Heinrich Scholz into article space, giving two sources for the biography:
I can also check about the applicablity of the three inline references at de:Heinrich Scholz.
Is there any formal process to be observed, other than just moving and editing?
-- Pjacobi ( talk) 14:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
A few months or so ago I requested that DragonFable be made as an redirect to Artix Entertainment#DragonFable. I have been working on an article for it here, and, while it'll probably never make it to Featured, that I can make it pass notability guidelines. However, if I do make it a normal article, should I remove the {{ WPAFC}} template? Or should I change its class? Am I allowed to create it at all? Yes, the article's editable now, but the only reason that is is because I said it would be a reasonable redirect, and that's not really the same as having it allowed to be an article. Harry Blue5 ( talk) 15:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
There's a problem I've seen many times;
An article gets held, for whatever reason, e.g. [5]
...and then after 24 hours+, it is changed to 'decline' with a nice message, e.g. [6]
Unfortunately, that means the new user will look at the page (after 24 hours), and have no idea why it was declined - as happened in that example case.
I'm not quite sure what the answer is.
Chzz ► 18:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, yes; that's exactly what I, personally do - in fact, I have a little thingy in notepad for it;
{{Afc comment|{{Hilite|Note:}} The status of this has been changed from "Hold" to "Declined" because the issues described above were not addressed within 24 hours. This is just procedure, so we can keep the "Articles for creation" queue up to date, so we can help all new users with their articles. '''You can resubmit this at any time''', whenever you think it is ready. Thanks for your understanding.}}
...However, clearly not everyone realises the need to do it that way - it is a bit counter-intuitive. I wonder if we cannot avoid the problem by some technical means.
Another point, however, is - as I discussed in IRC the other day - really, I think we should do away with 'hold' completely; it is the main reason the queue backs up, it causes more confusion than it solves, and...well, I don't think it helps, really. Might as well just say "yay" or "nay" to a submission, and that's it. "hold" for 24 hours kinda goes against the principles re. no deadline, and I'm forever having to explain it to users - that when their AFC changes from 'hold' to 'decline' they shouldn't panic, but instead can resubmit any time, blah blah. If there was no 'hold' at all, that could be made v clear in decline. Chzz ► 14:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I've been going through the backlog of several hundred unrated articles from AfC. Most are easy, stubs, starts, disambigs, and redirects I can do without any difficulty. I did, however, discover one article that was outstanding, and gave it a B rank. That article is Aberdeen Student Show. I'd like someone more experienced than I to go and double check that. I also think that it might be possible to submit it for GA review, but for that I definitely need outside conformation. I'd appreciate it if someone checks up on this (and keeps me in the loop.) If I come across any other articles that I think are B rank, I will post them here as well, just so we can be sure I got them right. Anything less than a C I doubt I'll get wrong, but feel free to come in after me and clean up any messes I make. If there are any, do keep me in the loop please, so I can improve in the future. Sven Manguard Talk 04:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Theatre's out of my area of expertise, but it looks like a really nice article with a very good start. VictorianMutant( Talk) 18:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering if I could create a WikiProject through AfC? I already proposed it at the WikiProject Council back in June, and it has subsequently garnered the necessary level of support to allow for creation of the WikiProject.
The WP:WikiProject Council states that proposals need to garner the support of 5-10 active Wikipedians before the creation of the project. As the proposal has achieved this level of support, creation of the Wikiproject can go ahead.
76.66.199.238 ( talk) 09:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
My time on Wikipedia will be somewhat limited until November 1st, but I check on WP daily, and if I see East Asia in the pipelines, I'll come a-runnin' to help. Don't wait for me though, as I intend on joining regardless. If it isn't already up by the 1st, I will bring it online myself (as I will have the time to do so after the 1st,) but again, don't hold up because of me. Sven Manguard Talk 17:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
hi
i want to start a new article for Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective by Ha-Joon Chang.
It's nearly 10 years old, pretty well know, its on google books and there still doesnt seem to be an article for it!
i'd do it by myslef but im new to editing and the last one i did didnt work out very well
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Chomsky).
Where can i get some help for this project?
I've read the book if that helps at all, but i dont want to bring in any of my own point of view.
I'd really like some help on this cause i dont want to mess up this page like i did the last one.
Ultan42 ( talk) 20:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Ronald Skirth for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dwab3 ( talk) 15:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
How do you request an article? -- 99.255.104.101 ( talk) 20:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
First of all, I'm not sure when the bot is supposed to archive old threads, but based on the bot's edit history, I know it's running as of two days ago.
That being said, about half of the things in the October 2010 archive were not closed. I'm going to go back and review them, (plus the past few months if I don't like what I see in October)
In the meat time, should the bot be archiving FFU submissions that are not closed? We have the {{afc-c|r}} template for languishing submissions, we can use that for the ones that just starve out, but the decision should be a human's decision, not a bot's, I think. Sven Manguard Talk 23:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Is there a way to watch new articles being posted on Wikipedia? Bridgettttttte babble poop 15:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Please see the new page
Wikipedia:Database reports/Talk pages by size (to be updated weekly). This talk page ranks third, with 36578 kilobytes.
Perhaps this will motivate greater efficiency in the use of kilobytes.
—
Wavelength (
talk) 21:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
My proposed article about Appetizer was recently declined as the reviewer felt that the sources were not reliable. However I think they are - in particular LifeHacker, Clubic and DownloadSquad reviews are used as sources in many software articles in Wikipedia. They are notable and (at least in my opinion) reliable websites. So is there a way for me to appeal this decision, or perhaps to get a second opinion? Thank you, Laurent ( talk) 03:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
I have made a proposal here that the AfC article wizard be merged with the Article wizard 2.0. It would be neater to keep them together and means that any changes only need to happen in one place. I have created a new proposed final page of the wizard at
Please make any comments over there, thanks. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 16:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Just to let you all know that the last page of the article wizard now includes an option for unregistered users to submit to AfC. It seems to be going okay and there haven't been any objections yet. Now there is little to stop us merging the two wizards. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 22:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
See
Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects/2009- 12 and Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects/2010- 1
- these are misnamed... they should be:
Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects/2009-12 and Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects/2010-01
76.66.197.17 ( talk) 08:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Let me start by saying that I have no prior involvement in the Articles for creation project or process, so I will defer to those who actually are involved in the project. Now, on to the substance of my proposal...
I was motivated to initiate this discussion after looking at a few pages in Category:Declined AfC submissions and reading Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#This is why we shouldn't delete old submissions. There appeared to be agreement in that discussion that there would be no drawbacks to deleting old submissions in certain situations.
An AfC submission page may be deleted under speedy deletion criterion G6 (routine housekeeping) iff it meets the following criteria:
The basis for the proposal is the principle, derived from WP:NOT, that non-mainspace should not be used as a permanent repository of de facto articles that are not suited for inclusion in the mainspace. This includes:
Deleting such pages not only upholds that principle but also reduces clutter in Category:Declined AfC submissions, which in turn makes it easier for interested editors to seek out and identify useful content that could be used to write a decent article.
I realize that one could simply begin deleting declined AfC submission pages using the general speedy deletion criteria, without regard for the age of the submission, but I believe such an approach would be counter-productive to the purpose of AfC. There is value in archiving declined submissions for a period of time, even if it is only so that users making submissions can have an opportunity to see reviewers' comments and perhaps use them to write better draft articles. In addition, an uncoordinated approach would involve substantial duplication of efforts, since multiple editors would be checking the same pages again and again.
I realize that there is a significant workload associated with sifting through the nearly 10,000 pages in Category:Declined AfC submissions, but that load can be divided into much smaller parts by using the structure of Category:AfC submissions by date (and since AfC originally used daily logs, we need only to go back to July 2008). Allowing individual editors to volunteer for different months would make the task much easier and avoid needless duplication of efforts. Once the initial backlog is cleared, it becomes a matter of fairly regularly checking a relatively small number of submissions.
I believe that deletion of AfC submission pages which meet all of the criteria laid out above should be fairly uncontroversial, and for now I have deliberately avoided criteria that could result in deletion of useful content. If an additional level of oversight is desired, it would be no problem to create a page where pages can be listed for deletion for a period of time and evaluated by other editors (I am thinking of a process not unlike Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy).
I wish to avoid instruction creep, so I have attempted to offer a proposal which I am confident can be coordinated and carried out from only one subpage (e.g., Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Old submissions) that briefly describes the process and criteria and serves primarily as a space for editors to coordinate.
Please add comments here. – Black Falcon ( talk) 00:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Old submissions to give a better idea of my proposed implementation (if consensus is that the page is premature or unnecessary, then I will not object to its speedy deletion). If there is any way that the process can be made more efficient, or if I've forgotten to mention something, then please revise the page as needed. Please rest assured that I do not intend for the page to be used as justification to delete declined AfC submissions that meet the criteria until it is perfectly clear that doing so is acceptable to the members of this WikiProject.
I have made a few changes from the original proposal based on the suggestions offered in this discussion; the major ones are:
The purpose of linking to the dated categories instead of simply directing editors to use Category:Declined AfC submissions is to ensure that editors do not needlessly check submissions that were declined less than six months ago. That being said, I think it would be possible to replace the section with a bot-generated list of the pages that meet criteria 1, 2, and 3, as suggested by The Earwig. – Black Falcon ( talk) 09:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I take the position that part of the natural cycle of such a user generated corpus is that there must be a mechanism to allow such proposed articles to be reviewed by the greater community, that it is the community's place to decide if the article should be merged with the larger one. Denying the creation of the article on those grounds is counterproductive. TeeTylerToe ( talk) 05:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 02:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I do not know the reason why I can not get this published? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirali1995 ( talk • contribs) 00:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering if this is the section where I can request that the article for the Radio program and the other radio program on Northern Spirit Radio can be done. I find this site not real easy to use.
[Northern Spirit Radio http://northernspiritradio.org/]
Zon Moy 00:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonmoy ( talk • contribs)
As per Martin's edit summary. I've tried, once to move a redirect to the right section, because I didn't know about the {{d|redirect}} thing. Since then I've either used the template or just created the redirect. Is there a better way to do this? It seems just a tad bitey. SS ✞ (Kay) 22:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm online almost every day, and as I last logged off I was freaking because of the "severely backlogged" thing, but was too lazy to help fix it :P. I just logged back on to see like, nine pending submissions. My jaw dropped. Kudos to all you guys. :) SS ✞ (Kay) 09:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations, everyone, the queue is empty! I saw my userpage had a blue box, and was convinced it was a bug, but, nope, it's clear. Great work, everyone. Now, please, IP's... write some new articles! Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 04:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
{{ NA}} has been nominated for deletion again. 70.29.210.242 ( talk) 07:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
My brother is a noted Macintosh programming author, and there are upwards of a quarter-million of his "how-to" books floating around the globe. There are any number of Macintosh applications that, to one extent or another, owe their existence to my brother's efforts. You get my point. My issue is this: He doesn't have a Wikipedia entry, and standard ethics preclude me from submitting an article. What's my next move? Is it unethical of me to initiate this process in any way? For example, I could contact his publisher and bring up the lack of an article, hoping that the publisher will move forward on a researched submission. But is that ethical? Is my only ethical option, as his brother, to sit back and hope that an independent party submits an article? Obviously I want to do this thing, as I truly believe that my brother is a significant part of the history of the Macintosh, but I value ethics above all else, so I ask you, dear reader, for guidance. Thank you. Stumark ( talk) 16:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello all, I've done something rather bold that I think will help reviewers. Lately, I've been perusing the statistics page, looking for submissions that have been "On Hold" for more than 24 hours with no further edits. These submissions, according to our procedures, are to be declined to reduce clogging in the "Pending submissions" category. I figured that it would be more efficient to simply list all of these submissions in a Category so that reviewers could simply navigate to the list, open the submissions, and decline them. Hence, I have created Category:Afc Submissions on hold more than 24 hours, and have modified {{ AFC submission/onhold}} so that submissions that fit this criteria are automatically added to the category.
The pages are added using the {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} magic word, which gives the 14-digit UTC timestamp for the last edit done to the page. This number is then compared to the value of the current timestamp minus 1000000 (the equivalent of subtracting exactly 1 day). If the last edit's timestamp is less than or equal to that number (meaning that the edit occurred more than or exactly 24 hours ago), then the submission is added to the category. If the timestamp is greater (meaning the edit occured less than 24 hours ago), then nothing happens. For those familiar with parsers, this is emulated with the following code:
{{#ifexpr:{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}<=({{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}})-1000000|[[Category:Afc Submissions on hold more than 24 hours]]|}}
Submissions that are not "On Hold" are not added, since they do not use {{ AFC submission/onhold}}. The code is not foolproof, and therefore not complete; it does not (at the moment) take into account who performed the last edit; if the submitter did, then the submission should not be declined in this fashion.
I believe that this addition will increase efficiency, but once it is perfected it also opens the door to semi-automated (and perhaps automated, eventually) elimination of these submissions, which will keep the "Pending" category relatively clean. Of course, I welcome feedback/advice on this addition, and welcome anybody who feels they can improve this system to do so. Thank you for your time. Robert Skyhawk So sue me! ( You'll lose) 04:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
← Works like a charm with that! fetch comms ☛ 04:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
← I like the idea, but I'm afraid I can't help on the coding. Wouldn't {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} work though? fetch comms ☛ 04:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to the excellent feedback I've received, and the help of User:Fetchcomms, the code now works perfectly, and looks like this:
{{#ifexpr:{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}<=({{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}})-1000000|{{#ifeq:{{{user}}}|{{REVISIONUSER}}|[[Category:Pending AfC submissions|H{{#if:{{{submit|}}}|{{#expr:trunc({{{submit}}}/100)}}|3}}]]|[[Category:Afc Submissions on hold more than 24 hours|{{SUBPAGENAME}}]] [[Category:Pending AfC submissions|O]]}}|[[Category:Pending AfC submissions|H{{#if:{{{submit|}}}|{{#expr:trunc({{{submit}}}/100)}}|3}}]]}}
For the ease of those who wish to provide feedback, but find the mess of braces and prefixes above difficult to understand, allow me to summarize:
The author issue was worked out thanks to correction of a missing { character (yes, I made that stupid a mistake) by Fetchcomms, who will be receiving a barnstar shortly. So the code now works perfectly! Robert Skyhawk So sue me! ( You'll lose) 00:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I know that sometimes we like to categorize by 48 hours just to give the editor some more time. could we make a cat for that/does anyone agree? -- / MWOAP| Notify Me\ 03:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes we get some small cvs and stuff, so I created some templates. Let me know on any improvements I can make or more if you want them.
{{afc cleared}} Produces:
Now {{afc cleared|section}}
{{afccopyviocheck|1=~~~|2=~~~~}} Produces:
{{afccopyviocheck|1=-- <font color="green">/[[User:MWOAP|<font color="green">MWOAP</font>]]|</font><font color="blue">[[User_Talk:MWOAP|<font color="blue">Notify Me</font>]]\</font>|2=-- <font color="green">/[[User:MWOAP|<font color="green">MWOAP</font>]]|</font><font color="blue">[[User_Talk:MWOAP|<font color="blue">Notify Me</font>]]\</font> 03:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)}}
{{afccopyvioconfirm|1=~~~}} Produces:
{{afccopyvioconfirm|1=-- <font color="green">/[[User:MWOAP|<font color="green">MWOAP</font>]]|</font><font color="blue">[[User_Talk:MWOAP|<font color="blue">Notify Me</font>]]\</font>}}
That's it. -- /
MWOAP|
Notify Me\ 03:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
{{
Afc cleared|section}}
or something? {{
Afc section cleared}}
could be a handy redirect. Consolidation rocks. ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c) 04:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
←Well, if you have to leave, then no one is going to bother the reviewing template either. And if it's not clear, I would just reword it myself. (And I meant, incorporate your templates into {{ Afc cleared}}.) fetch comms ☛ 23:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I've merged my declined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Timeline of relief efforts after the 2010 Chile earthquake into an article created after I submitted my request (which is why it was declined - it didn't exist when I created the request, but did when it was reviewed), Timeline of relief efforts after the 2010 Chile earthquake. So, this now creates a problem, since I see from this talk page that an automated deletion process is to be implemented. If this were to occur to this particular page, edit history would be lost.
As I can see, it did not come up in discussion, what to do in circumstances such as this?
70.29.210.242 ( talk) 15:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
WP:AFC/R also accepts requests for the creation of categories in addition to redirects. Shouldn't Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects be renamed Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories ( WP:AFC/R&C)? At this point, new users who wish to request a category don't know where to go to do this, thinking that WP:AFC/R is only for redirects. This would help guide them to the right page. -- œ ™ 04:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I would support a change in name, but agree with others that a separate page for category requests would be overkill. A redirect be fine as well. These requests are quite rare. Is there any evidence that editors are getting confused by this? — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 10:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I was working on the review script today. I had an issue with review a category. The script would not show any details about what I could do with the request. At this moment, it is still there, but just an FYI. -- / MWOAP| Notify Me\ 21:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Brian P. I did a cursory search, but is there something I'm missing? Should it be blanked as an attack? SS ✞ (Kay) 04:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm planning to give the wikiproject pages a bit of an overhaul. Anyone want to give a hand? — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 21:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
← I like the idea of a lighter color theme in general. Not too wild about round corners (maybe only on the end tabs?) fetch comms ☛ 01:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Like the curved tabs, but why not curve them all? (For comparison, see this version. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 08:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I've been informed that "templates" are not to be created via AfC. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Template:Ski_areas_and_resorts_in_Alberta&oldid=349920196
This prompts the thought, how many other Templates, dab pages, redirects, categories, etc have been rejected out of hand, if they ended up with the standard AfC page (instead of a redirect or category at /Redirects, it were created as a subpage)...
The edit filter also dumped an error saying that the nomination was improperly formatted, even though the preload template is the one that generated "|type=template" in the first line.
70.29.210.242 ( talk) 03:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
(EC)
!(new_wikitext rlike "{{subst:AFC submission/(submit|submit\|type\=dab)}}|{{WPAFC")
!(new_wikitext rlike "{{subst:AFC submission/(submit|submit\|type\=dab|submit\|type\=template)}}|{{WPAFC")
!(new_wikitext rlike "{{subst:AFC submission/submit(.*?)}}|{{WPAFC")
Now, that is a very interesting question - I will start a new thread below, so that we can discuss it. Chzz ► 09:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Is it common practice for this group to recreate articles that have been deleted through a deletion discussion? Clarification of this issue would be useful at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stan Romanek (2nd nomination). In the future, I recommend that if an article has been deleted, WP:DRV is filed first so that permission can be granted from the community to reverse the decision. ScienceApologist ( talk) 00:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I came across an article draft on Fred Onovwerosuoke submitted by User:Slac324 in the WP:Sandbox: [2]. Flatscan ( talk) 04:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
As of right now, EarwigBot puts all potential copyright violation submissions under the hold heading on Pending AfC submissions. While it's best to always AGF, copyright violations are a serious issue; potential copy vio articles should be resolved with some more expediency. While the hold heading is appropriate other articles, I think a heading specifically intended for EarwigBot violation flags would ensure we see to potential violations in a timely manner. It still assumes good faith on the part of the submitter but allows editors to work more expeditiously to remove any impinging content. To that effect, I propose a new header in Pending AfC submissions, e.g. S for suspected copyright issues. This header would only serve to bring quicker attention to articles flagged by EarwigBot as containing potential copyright issues. avs5221 ( talk) 02:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
"When I said "backlog," I wasn't referring to the 52-submission backlog that is a technical feature. I was referring to the fact that hold submissions often remain unlooked-at by reviewers because they are "on hold". But after looking at the hold criteria, I decided that your probably right, and this is probably a good idea."
{{
AFC submission|H|cv-bot}}
; the bot would have added that template, but would have left {{
AFC submission| | }}
, so a reviewer could come back and hold for another reason. We scrapped it for – something, I can't remember quite why, but I'm pretty sure
MSGJ knows. —
The Earwig
(talk) 20:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Mary E. Byrd, American educator circa 1910 Appears as black text as there is no Mary E. Byrd page. Perhaps it was meant to be created and omitted? Or perhaps she is not notable enough in which case the page should not be on the disambiguation page. I cannot find her in any other article 86.43.110.186 ( talk) 16:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Please do not misunderstand my intentions here; I am not 'taking sides'. I have helped to review many hundreds of AFCs. The title arose in a previous thread on this page, regarding creation of templates via AFC, but I think a new thread is warranted to being discussions.
As I understand it, back in 2005, Mr. Wales decided to stop non-registered users from creating articles ( signpost article here). This was to prevent vandalism. AFC provides an alternative way for non-registered users to create pages, with various assistance and checks that the articles meet standards.
I am all in favour of keeping Wikipedia as open as possible. The questions is - which is it? Can non-registered users create articles, or not? If the community believes that they should be able to, that's fine - we can just enable it again (though whether we could cope with the vandalism is another matter). If not, then should we really be 'bending over backwards' to allow them to create pages via AFC?
OK, so we are helping them to format articles and make them pass the notability criteria, etc, but, why should they receive this special treatment, which is not afforded to people who do create an account - often the latter create a poor article which is speedy deleted, and we hope that we have processes in place to help them. In reality, those processes are poor - but that seems to indicate a general fault, and not a reason for an alternative system to create things via a 'back-door'.
There seems to be rather an overlap, and perhaps excess bureaucracy, by us having requested articles, articles for creation, and the ability to create user-space drafts.
Perhaps we are shooting ourselves in the foot here, by going to all these efforts to fix problems in this way. Perhaps we ought to say 'get an account' and that's the end of it. Surely users who do get an account should receive helpful advice and assistance with their first article - perhaps moreso than those who do not take this step.
I notice that, currently, the messages that a non-registered user will see if they try to create a page are not exactly user-friendly. If they type in a non-existent article name, it goes like this;
1. "There were no results matching the query", "You may create the page "(NAME)", but consider checking the search results below to see whether it is already covered."
(There may or may not actually be any results)
Note, this is a bit wrong already - the anon may not' create it.
2. Clicking on the red link produces; Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for (NAME) in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings.
3. Clicking on the 'Start' link then produces a page entitled 'Unauthorized', which says;
Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact title. Please search for (NAME) in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings.
There are quite a few problems there, and it's certainly not a very 'friendly' start.
Surely, if a non-registered user tries to create an article, they should be seeing some nice, friendly message - suggesting that they sign up, offering alternatives, and certainly highlighting the basic need for reliable sources.
I think that this is an important discussion, and I look forward to hearing opinions. Chzz ► 10:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Surely, if a non-registered user tries to create an article, they should be seeing some nice, friendly message - suggesting that they sign up, offering alternatives, and certainly highlighting the basic need for reliable sources.
But what, exactly, and how? Is there any way to bring this to the attention of the wider community? It's an important issue, especially since it's so up-front. SS ✞ (Kay) 02:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
While surfing as an IP I noticed there's no longer a link via hitting the "Go" or "Search" buttons which (eventually) takes IP editors to AfC for a non-existent article. Log out and see for yourselves. I've X-posted this to the Tech Pump, but I'm not sure they'll understand the problem.... -- Kendrick7 talk 22:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Note: the VPT discussion can now be found be archive 74. I thought we could maybe edit MediaWiki:Search-nonefound as a stop-gap measure, but I don't really understand enough of it to make the edit myself. Tim, is there anything we can do until 20976 is resolved? — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 10:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Is {{ reflist}} banned from AfC articles now? Alpha Quadrant ( talk · contribs) doesn't seem to like its use, while I've tried to make flocculent spiral galaxy like other astronomy articles, and most of the major ones use it, or it's equivalent "div small references /div".
70.29.208.247 ( talk) 05:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I would like to ask the team NOT to move misplaced submissions as I am trying to get approval for my bot and this is the only way, when they come, for my bot to preform. Thank you. -- / MWOAP| Notify Me\ 01:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Question: I just created an article, and instead of the "this article has just been created etc etc" template, I got "this is a misplaced AfC submission". As a result, I had to paste in the talk page template. Does anyone know why? {{ Sonia| talk| simple}} 06:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
{{AFC submission|||ts=20100519061657|u=Semiquaver|ns=5type=dab}}
{{AFC submission|||ts=20100519061657|u=Semiquaver|ns=5|type=dab}}
Is it not logical to have people search for the article in question before doing anything else so they don't waste time starting an article or preparing to do so, only to find it is not necessary? While at first glance the page appears to be short, anyone who needs it will likely also need to avail of numerous links in it; which could amount to a lot of time spent reading. If nobody responds in a week objecting, I'll switch the first two points. A F K When Needed 21:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I have been around #wikipedia-en-afc connect for a few days when few reviewers are on. I have had to turn away some people for help because I am busy or multitask like crazy. I would like to suggest we switch people to en-help and maintain en-afc as for technical means. -- / MWOAP| Notify Me\ 01:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
The {{ move draft}} template was created for new editors (not yet autoconfirmed, thus unable to move a page themselves). They could add the template to a draft article, and an editor would move the page into article space. This good idea suffered from two problems:
As a remedy, the existing requests will be moved to AfC so that the editors helping out the regular request can also handle these draft articles. In addition, future requests will become requests at Wikiproject Articles for Creation, where they can simply be moved to article space if ready, or improved first if not ready. -- SPhilbrick T 22:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Chzz ► 22:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, so, I believe most/all are listed in User:The_Earwig/Sandbox#Pages ? They really all need checking, and users informing as appropriate. Because some have been accepted/declined/oversighted/histmerged etc in the meantime, a 'standard' spammed-out message probably is not appropriate. I've looked through some individually, but in doing so, I found various problems in the ways the AFCs had been processed, so I ended up getting side-tracked in fixing them, etc.
So - they need checking. Then again, that's true of pretty much all AFCs, and I suppose that, for accepted/held/rejected, at least now the users have had some kind of feedback. Chzz ► 03:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I've removed some of the clutter on the main page in the design below. This content (suggestions, notability) is shown during the article wizard, so it is not needed. I wanted to throw this out there; tell me what you think.-- mono 00:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Articles for Creation! If you do not have a Wikipedia user account but have an idea and sources for a new article, you can submit them here. If you have an idea for the title of an article, but no content for the article itself, please see Requested articles. If you have a Wikipedia user account already, you can also use the Registered Users Article Wizard to help you create your article.
This is Wikipedia's page for Articles for Creation; if you do not have a Wikipedia user account but have an idea and sources for a new article, you can submit them here. If you have an idea for the title of an article, but no content for the article itself, please see Requested articles. If you have a Wikipedia user account already, you can also use the Registered Users Article Wizard to help you create your article.
Please follow these directions to submit an article for creation.
- First – read this page: Wikipedia:Starting an article
and then the rest can be removed as it's already covered in the wizard. — fetch · comms 01:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
After an article has been created a redirect is left. An example is Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Johann F. C. Hessel. This came to my attention when that redirect was listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 June 13. As cross-namespace redirects, these are considered undesirable. However, this project may have a use for them? If not, it would be helpful for an instruction to be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions#Accepting an article to suppress the redirect. Also, any redirects created can be tagged, by non-admins, as WP:CSD G6. Bridgeplayer ( talk) 14:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I am an experienced editor (with no knowledge of AfC, although I have browsed what docs I could find). I am trying to help Smithmd2 ( talk · contribs) who has had this declined (I agree that the article needs improvement). The particular case is not so important but I am wondering whether a documentation overview exists to give experienced editors the big picture because I cannot work out what to advise the user. Also, it would be good if an overview could trace what happens to a successful submission and an unsuccessful submission (user completes wizard; page is created at X (a talk page?) with template Y; reviewer modifies Y; what then?).
The message on the user's talk page says "please feel free to request article creation again once the issues have been addressed" but I do not understand what that means: (1) put an improved article (copy/paste) through AfC again? or (2) improve the article on the page where it is declined and ask (how?) again?
I understand that the user (or I) could create a user subpage with the wikitext and work on it there. If that is recommended, would it be a move or a copy/paste? I worry that a move would break some AfC process, and a copy/paste is dubious due to copyright issues. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, maybe I'm just really computer slow but I have been looking for almost an hour and I absolutley can notfind any way to submit my article. I am an unregistered user of wikipedia but it says numerous times that unregistered users can submit ideas for wikipedia. But it doesn't say anywhere how to do this!!! It even says that there are instructions on the main page of this article for unregistered users on how to submit an article, but there are none!!! Where are they!!?? Great thanks to anyone who can help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.248.0.16 ( talk) 03:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone who knows how configure the bot to only archive FFU requests with more than one timestamp? We're getting unfulfilled, perfectly acceptable requests archived simply because there aren't enough people uploading images. I've read through the bot config page, but I'm still not sure what to put--or would one need to switch to Cluebot III? — fetch · comms 23:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
| archivebox =
parameter instead.
Intelligent
sock 01:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Does the redirect request also function in this manner? As there have also been archives of unprocessed category and redirect requests. 76.66.195.196 ( talk) 19:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
This whole process is a bit eclectic and appears very counterintuitive. Why are there no instructions at all on how to submit a page creation request at Wikipedia:Articles for creation and at subpages like Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects? Is that obscurity intentional, to cheese off anons? Because that's almost how it looks. -- 87.79.177.121 ( talk) 02:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what percentage exactly, but a very high percentage of sources are websites. Proposals without sources are almost always declined, by virtue of verifiability. Therefore, I am wondering if there is a way to automatically hold, or at least separate, these pages. They could be quickly skimmed. This could help reduce the backlog and organize the reviewing process considerably. Gosox( 55)( 55) 03:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
It seems like a new user has been using this subpage to work on an article, and the content that should be there has been deleted; and someone else subsequently added a request there. I'm not sure what's the best way to fix this?... B7T ( talk) 17:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed that AfC is often heavily backlogged recently and I wondered why that was. Is it due to an increase in the number of submissions, or perhaps because of fewer reviewers? So I collected some data, did some calculations and produced this graph. My analysis is that there was a sharp increase in early March, which probably corresponds to when the option to use AfC was added to the article wizard. However since then, although there have been peaks and troughs, the number of submissions has been reasonably stable. So it perhaps it is the number of reviewers that has dropped off slightly? — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 20:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
User:Antonu has made us a new barnstar. It's quite different from the existing image though so I thought we should discuss it first. What do people think? It looks nice and after 3 years we may be due for a rebranding. But then we need to update our logo as well ... — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 08:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
There's been a decrease recently in the quality of the articles created. Just because we have a backlog is not an excuse to hurry; many pages are not MOS-compliant and contain inappropriate tone or wording. I am afraid that some reviewers may see a list of sources and accept based purely on that; I've seen articles where there are 20 primary sources and it's been accepted. This is ridiculous and only hurts the project. We need to have a stricter reviewing process. For example, Bruce Donald is a poorly sourced BLP (2 of the 4 sources are from his university's website), Clarisonic contains a list of unreliable and/or primary sources (don't we want footnotes, not a list of random links?), Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited (TNPL) needs its section headers lowercased per the MOS and it is half spam ("A 300 tpd state-of-the-art Hardwood Pulp line", "Amply supported by online process and quality control systems the company ensures uniform and consistent quality without compromising on efficiency", "Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited (TNPL) was formed by the Government of Tamil Nadu, one of the most environmentally compliant paper mills in the world"), Infopro Sdn Bhd has both a list of links and footnotes, Jake Smollett does not seem to have much significant coverage, as evidenced by the included sources being mere mentions as well, etc. Ideally, we want articles like John Nihill; copyedited, MOS-compliant, properly sourced, and ready-to-go. We cannot simply forgo things like copyediting and a full, in-depth review to let these things slide. This problem will only grow worse, and all reviewers must perform solid reviews. — fetch · comms 13:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I think AfC is raising the bar too high, if the initial rejection that Douglas Haig (actor) received here is typical. Many people who come here won't have learned yet how to add sources. Why don't you all help more and reject less? 64.105.65.28 ( talk) 16:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Could someone run a script to gather all the orphaned IFU requests (unclosed requests; some with seemingly nary a query) into a backlog page, instead of having them sit forlornly in the archives?
The Redirect/Category request archives could do with a sweep for orphan requests as well.
Oh, and the current IFU list is getting long.
76.66.195.196 ( talk) 05:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that ClueBot III was archiving requests to Wikipedia:Files for upload/Archives/ (which I've now emptied and tagged for G6 deletion), due to missing parameters on the archiving template. So, I fixed the template so that requests are now properly archived by month. The archived requests at the aforementioned page have been moved to their proper, dated archives. For any who were hoping to work on unclosed requests that were on that page, all of those are now at the Wikipedia:Files for upload/June 2010; the current month's archive only contains closed requests. I hope this fix hasn't caused any undue harm; if not, please let me know. Robert Skyhawk ( T C B) 03:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Fixed by removing the variable completely, replacing it with "2010". The template will have to be changed on January 1, 2011. Robert Skyhawk ( T C B) 03:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Just to let everyone know that our featured picture will be the picture of the day tomorrow. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 13:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
User:CuteMice reviewed some submissions here before being blocked as a sock of the problematic User:Ratinator. A review of his actions here may be in order, he clearly does not have a strong grasp of policy or very sound judgement. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I request a page for acting chairman of national salvation comittee of somalia. He was also a presidential canadite, and a powerful politician in somalia. His name is Abdigani Warsame, alternativly spelled Abdiqani, here is a picture File:Http://www.allsanaag.com/images/DSC00105 1.JPG and a source http://www.hiiraan.com/comments2-news-2008-mar-puntland_presidential_hopeful_campaigns_in_seattle.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.203.211 ( talk) 01:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
left the draft here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Public_viewing 87.162.68.37 ( talk) 09:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I am involved in an AFC related discussion at Wikipedia:Content noticeboard#Is it possible to delete hoax content from articles? over an article I greenlit a few years ago. It turns out that a portion of the article was well-hidden vandalism. Based on the current guidelines of AFC it looks like this situation might repeat itself if we don't examine where we failed. I'd like to ask the project to look at this situation for ways to improve our quick fail criteria. I'm very saddened by this, especially concerning my work on vandalism here at the project. Please take a look at my statements on the linked discussion. Maybe we can add a guideline suggesting stubbing unreferenced material from otherwise good looking candidates? Is that even within the scope of AFC? Thoughts? -- Torchwood Who? ( talk) 12:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I have created an AfC icon, if anyone is interested. Use {{ User:Hi878/AfC Icon}} It uses {{ topicon}} so it can be positioned in the same way. The icon also adds you to the participants category. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 06:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
May I request that a British Mythology page be made? I have been interested in learning about British mythology and was wondering if a page dedicated to British mythology could be made by a user here at Wikipedia. I could even give some of the British myths and put them on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.109.187 ( talk • contribs)
Would someone please look at this article - it was declined a few hours ago on a technicality and there has been some spirited conversation among the creator (me) and the deliner. His reason for deletion is incorrect according to the actual wording of the rules and was entirely subjectively determined. He argues that an article must be "substantially different" from a previous one - the actual rules state "not substantially identical" if I remember correctly. This article has had substantial work put into it. I and another editor were still working on improving the article when it was declined. The trouble is that it is now declined without discussion and coming back through this process again will require me to change more things about the article (can't have significantly similar pages to ones previous deleted) and its now going to be really difficult. Thanks ChildrenOfLight ( talk) 22:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Many article idea submissions have been created outside the right space ( WP:AFC). Quite a few of the entries on this list in the Wikipedia namespace are denied requests that have not been named correctly. Should an administrator bulk-move these into the correct name? Train2104 ( talk) 23:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand the problem. How should I change it? Thanks LVKen7@Gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lvken7 ( talk • contribs) 14:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
This template is used by many newcomers in their subpages of their account; AFC is geared towards those who don't have accounts, and when they use this template, it just populates the category unnecessarily. Some templates are designed to show alternate text when placed in the wrong namespace. Can this one be made to do that, too? — Duncan What I Do / What I Say 06:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi all. I am trying my hand at this. Please check my contribs here and tell me if I am making the right decisions, and writing appropriate edit summaries, etc. Thanks.
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 15:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
What I did so far...
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 15:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
AFC submission|d|prof}}
for Ethan as it is more specific. Also, you can put possibly promising ones like that on hold for a day to give the author a chance to find better sources, etc. PS The duck face had me laughing, especially
this edit. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk) 15:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Is it the intention that AFC be used only by IPs? I thought that while that may have been its origins, it is available to very new registered accounts who may have an outline of an article, with some sources, and are willing to help, but don't have sufficient knowledge of WP Policies and Wikicodes to write an article without help.
The reason I'm asking is that I believe it is often a mistake for a pure newbie to start writing an article as their first edit. Some can do it, but many cannot, so I offer some advice to those who don't quite feel ready to tackle a new article. Right now, I direct them to WP:RA, but that backlog id so long it isn't really a viable alternative, while the backlog at WP:AFC is much more manageable. If new editors other than IPs are welcome here, I'd like to edit the intro to indicate that. Otherwise, if I direct editors here, they will see the intro telling them that this place is for people without an account.-- SPhilbrick T 21:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Doh. My article for creation should be named Douglas Haig (actor). 64.105.65.28 ( talk) 02:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Please make Group Study Room F a redirect to Community (TV series). 207.81.170.99 ( talk) 04:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
All these copyvios are annoying me, I've already found over 8 in the time I've been involved with the project, is there a way for the bots to confirm copyvios or is that a human task? Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Tea and biscuits? 23:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
It looks like it is broken again... Allmightyduck What did I do wrong? 16:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Someone has put John Harmon (disambiguation) on hold, stating that the page contains "broken links". That is incorrect. The page includes entries that are red links, and those red links are in accord with MOS:DABRL. One of the red links is likely to become a blue link, pending action on a request to move the article now at John Harmon. 69.3.72.9 ( talk) 21:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I've come here indirectly; I do not work here regularly, but rather as an admin patrolling speedy and prod, deleting the impossible articles (12,000 so far), and rescuing the few possibly acceptable ones (maybe 2,000) . Except for new BLP articles, not having 3rd party references--indeed, not having references at all--is not a reason for deletion; rather articles are deleted if it is not possible to identify such sources. But on this page, the instruction are to not even consider an article without such sources. I do not think alone is a reason to decline, because if the person were a registered editor, the article--even if a BLP--would not be subject to speedy deletion. The instructions ought therefore to say that the reviewer should either place the article on hold and instruct the applicant to find such sources, or look for such sources themselves. Of course we do not want to ever give advice for making just a very minimal attempt at an article that will just pass speedy deletion, or for people to adopt the irresponsible practice of making articles without references in the hope someone else will reference them. However, it is in my experience usual for beginners to need guidance in finding proper sources, not outright rejection of their work (which is its why it is not a speedy criterion, and even for blp, requires a 10 day period at WP:PROD.) DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Declining a submission is not completely rejection; they are advised to add sources an resubmit when ready. It's not nearly like deletion as the content is not gone or destroyed. One of the main reasons we do that is to keep the backlog down (not working right now) so the pending submissions can be separated from those reviewed but without sources and the like. — fetch · comms 03:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Exactly how long is an AfC candidate supposed to be under review? I'd like to know so I can figure out if the review forgot about a submission or something. 76.66.200.95 ( talk) 04:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't footnote references supposed to be interspersed with inline citations? I had it separated in two different sections, but the reviewer has removed the distinction between the two, by removing the "group" specifier from the ref tag. I have noticed that several articles that use both forms separate them using the group specifier. 76.66.200.95 ( talk) 12:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
There appears to be article poaching going on. I created an article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/French frigate Montréal, the reviewer then created the article HMS Montreal (1761) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). As this article had been redlinked for months, and a new article appears a few hours after I submitted an article about the same ship, coincidence beggars belief, since it is the same editor who created the new article declined my request.
If my request spurred the editor to create the new article, then it should be part of the contribution history to the article, or exist as a redirect with its edit history intact in article space.
I will note that a significant portion of the new HMS Montreal article is verbatim copy to what I submitted.
76.66.200.95 ( talk) 04:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Done. Someguy1221 ( talk) 04:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I've seen a lot of requests pointing to licensing or the actual picture on facebook. Should something be added to the instruction pages about this, considering facebook has no way to properly license it? Allmightyduck What did I do wrong? 02:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
FFU archiving is still broken, just look at August and September where there are alot of requests with no replies that have been archived.
Can someone set up a backlog page, so that unprocessed or unclosed requests can be piled into? 76.66.200.95 ( talk) 06:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Exactly what is wrong with the tone in Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/vertical seat ? 76.66.200.95 ( talk) 06:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I saw this move and subsequent tagging of Edward Lipinski (Belgian scholar) to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Edward Lipinski (Belgian scholar) and I have to say I am confused as to exactly what it means. Nevertheless I added some sources to the submission in rough form. I also posted this note on the contributor's Talk page. I have no idea how Articles for Creation works, but I feel this could survive as a new article with cleanup tags. - 84user ( talk) 23:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
That's the first time I've heard about this bot. I do not understand how someone can program a bot for this project without even discussing it here first. That suggests a complete disregard for other participants' views. Is there agreement that this bot is desired? — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 11:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Someone wanted it:
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/AFC_clerk_bot is a bot clerking the requests. It is currently moving submissions for their correct places. Soon, it will tag duplicate submissions in main space. — I-20 the highway 19:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
There is somebody reviewing their submission. I have moved Imran Channa visual artist back 2 times and the same person has moved it back. As an involved party I'd like to request a 3rd opinion. — I-20 the highway 14:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Following a conversation with Chzz this evening, I've found what I think is an inconsistency in the reviewing guidelines. WP:AFCR says
However, when an article is declined for notability reasons, {{
AFC submission/comments}}
gives this message to the user:
These represent very different standards. Based on the AFC reviewing criteria, a reviewer might decline an article because it is poorly sourced, but what is communicated to the user is that the article simply needs to explain better why the subject is notable.
What is the right thing to do here? If the goal is to make sure the article is not immediately eligible for speedy deletion, I think that the AFC comments template is right and the reviewer instructions need to be revised. Tim Pierce ( talk) 02:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm unfortunately without any experience regarding the Article for creation process, but I would like to move Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Heinrich Scholz into article space, giving two sources for the biography:
I can also check about the applicablity of the three inline references at de:Heinrich Scholz.
Is there any formal process to be observed, other than just moving and editing?
-- Pjacobi ( talk) 14:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
A few months or so ago I requested that DragonFable be made as an redirect to Artix Entertainment#DragonFable. I have been working on an article for it here, and, while it'll probably never make it to Featured, that I can make it pass notability guidelines. However, if I do make it a normal article, should I remove the {{ WPAFC}} template? Or should I change its class? Am I allowed to create it at all? Yes, the article's editable now, but the only reason that is is because I said it would be a reasonable redirect, and that's not really the same as having it allowed to be an article. Harry Blue5 ( talk) 15:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
There's a problem I've seen many times;
An article gets held, for whatever reason, e.g. [5]
...and then after 24 hours+, it is changed to 'decline' with a nice message, e.g. [6]
Unfortunately, that means the new user will look at the page (after 24 hours), and have no idea why it was declined - as happened in that example case.
I'm not quite sure what the answer is.
Chzz ► 18:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, yes; that's exactly what I, personally do - in fact, I have a little thingy in notepad for it;
{{Afc comment|{{Hilite|Note:}} The status of this has been changed from "Hold" to "Declined" because the issues described above were not addressed within 24 hours. This is just procedure, so we can keep the "Articles for creation" queue up to date, so we can help all new users with their articles. '''You can resubmit this at any time''', whenever you think it is ready. Thanks for your understanding.}}
...However, clearly not everyone realises the need to do it that way - it is a bit counter-intuitive. I wonder if we cannot avoid the problem by some technical means.
Another point, however, is - as I discussed in IRC the other day - really, I think we should do away with 'hold' completely; it is the main reason the queue backs up, it causes more confusion than it solves, and...well, I don't think it helps, really. Might as well just say "yay" or "nay" to a submission, and that's it. "hold" for 24 hours kinda goes against the principles re. no deadline, and I'm forever having to explain it to users - that when their AFC changes from 'hold' to 'decline' they shouldn't panic, but instead can resubmit any time, blah blah. If there was no 'hold' at all, that could be made v clear in decline. Chzz ► 14:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I've been going through the backlog of several hundred unrated articles from AfC. Most are easy, stubs, starts, disambigs, and redirects I can do without any difficulty. I did, however, discover one article that was outstanding, and gave it a B rank. That article is Aberdeen Student Show. I'd like someone more experienced than I to go and double check that. I also think that it might be possible to submit it for GA review, but for that I definitely need outside conformation. I'd appreciate it if someone checks up on this (and keeps me in the loop.) If I come across any other articles that I think are B rank, I will post them here as well, just so we can be sure I got them right. Anything less than a C I doubt I'll get wrong, but feel free to come in after me and clean up any messes I make. If there are any, do keep me in the loop please, so I can improve in the future. Sven Manguard Talk 04:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Theatre's out of my area of expertise, but it looks like a really nice article with a very good start. VictorianMutant( Talk) 18:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering if I could create a WikiProject through AfC? I already proposed it at the WikiProject Council back in June, and it has subsequently garnered the necessary level of support to allow for creation of the WikiProject.
The WP:WikiProject Council states that proposals need to garner the support of 5-10 active Wikipedians before the creation of the project. As the proposal has achieved this level of support, creation of the Wikiproject can go ahead.
76.66.199.238 ( talk) 09:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
My time on Wikipedia will be somewhat limited until November 1st, but I check on WP daily, and if I see East Asia in the pipelines, I'll come a-runnin' to help. Don't wait for me though, as I intend on joining regardless. If it isn't already up by the 1st, I will bring it online myself (as I will have the time to do so after the 1st,) but again, don't hold up because of me. Sven Manguard Talk 17:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
hi
i want to start a new article for Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective by Ha-Joon Chang.
It's nearly 10 years old, pretty well know, its on google books and there still doesnt seem to be an article for it!
i'd do it by myslef but im new to editing and the last one i did didnt work out very well
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Chomsky).
Where can i get some help for this project?
I've read the book if that helps at all, but i dont want to bring in any of my own point of view.
I'd really like some help on this cause i dont want to mess up this page like i did the last one.
Ultan42 ( talk) 20:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Ronald Skirth for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dwab3 ( talk) 15:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
How do you request an article? -- 99.255.104.101 ( talk) 20:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
First of all, I'm not sure when the bot is supposed to archive old threads, but based on the bot's edit history, I know it's running as of two days ago.
That being said, about half of the things in the October 2010 archive were not closed. I'm going to go back and review them, (plus the past few months if I don't like what I see in October)
In the meat time, should the bot be archiving FFU submissions that are not closed? We have the {{afc-c|r}} template for languishing submissions, we can use that for the ones that just starve out, but the decision should be a human's decision, not a bot's, I think. Sven Manguard Talk 23:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Is there a way to watch new articles being posted on Wikipedia? Bridgettttttte babble poop 15:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Please see the new page
Wikipedia:Database reports/Talk pages by size (to be updated weekly). This talk page ranks third, with 36578 kilobytes.
Perhaps this will motivate greater efficiency in the use of kilobytes.
—
Wavelength (
talk) 21:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
My proposed article about Appetizer was recently declined as the reviewer felt that the sources were not reliable. However I think they are - in particular LifeHacker, Clubic and DownloadSquad reviews are used as sources in many software articles in Wikipedia. They are notable and (at least in my opinion) reliable websites. So is there a way for me to appeal this decision, or perhaps to get a second opinion? Thank you, Laurent ( talk) 03:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)