![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
We have a bunch of submissions in user space with templates at the bottom, not the top, asking for review, not submission. It sounds like a great idea to me; "Fix this and this, and your article should be fine."; but... I don't think that we can do that. We have to decline it, or it will be moved into Main Space. Right? Wrong? Help please. -- I B d Shank ( Talk Talk) 04:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
One issue that is also happening is that we are having a ton of non-substituted userspace templates and is is adding a bunch of text that needs to be manually removed from submissions (as I did here). I talked to Mabdul yesterday about the issue where a lot of submissions in the userspace were not being moved and he seems to have corrected it, so I'm assuming the bot probably fudged up somewhere. Honestly, we're working with five times the submissions we were a year ago, so it isn't surprising me that things are going haywire at this point. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 06:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure how this review process goes, but this one has been sitting there for months and looks like an elaborate hoax to me.-- Atlan ( talk) 22:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Someone might want to check out this error as it just wiped out a page instead of removing the AFC template. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 02:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello everybody. I've no idea how to upload the logo ( http://wikimannia.org/skins/common/images/wiki.png) here. Greetings -- 89.15.199.222 ( talk) 10:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd like a second opinion on the notability of the subject of: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Catherine D. Chatterley there are a lot of primary and self published sources. I've got it in 'review pending' at the moment. Pol430 talk to me 15:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Why does Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects/2012-01 currently not appear in the archive box on the side? The archive is already (being) populated. 31.16.20.174 ( talk) 22:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I have drafted a new page for creation, which is available at Chriscook54321/Iain_King. Can someone check it and create a page for it, please? Thank you, Chriscook54321 ( talk) 14:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
The Bot who decides that an article is unsourced, has no-inline, or is short, please stand up. We need you to at the same time decline these articles with "v" or "context" if their length is less than X bytes, X words, X sentences, or X whatever metric you use. I know these are not required for acceptance, but it is at least 3 Sigma that these articles will be declined by reviewers. This will probably reduce the load by 70%. The author of the article can then argue their case, they do anyways. With all the garbage being submitted, we are going to sink or burn-out. DCS( Talk Talk) 16:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't have as much time as I would like to spend on Wikipedia but I try to visit AfC as often as I can and I always goto the back of the queue and look for the old prev-decs that have been lingering for a while. Although AfC is often backlogged, we have also cleared it several times. I tend to agree that all we need is another handful of experienced editors to spend some more time here. <joke> I don't think User:DeclineBot is the answer </joke> ;-) Pol430 talk to me
Ok. Starting again. I'm just looking for a proactive solution to a problem I see developing. IMHO it's becoming "them" against "us". They outnumber us 100, 1000, 10,000 to 1 and they are starting to work the system. I just declined an article almost identical to an existing one that is AfD'd. They can just keep submitting until it gets approved, the odds are in their favor. They pit reviewer against reviewer, reviewer against administrator. They tone down an article until accepted then quietly turn it into a big ad. These are some hazards of a mostly volunteer organization. IMHO we can keep talking about keeping the Wiki "pure", but without more tools, people, money to keep us ahead of them, reviewers are going to get frustrated, burned out, and quit. :- ) DCS 05:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Why not simply routinely move protect declined articles? Flag them in some way so that online admins are alerted and do the necessary. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 05:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
( edit conflict)( edit conflict):::::NPP is a broken process, that's why WP:ACTRIAL was received by a large consensus, but only to be rejected by the WMF. Wikipedia:Requested moves isn't part of the equation at this stage - move protection can be preset to any automatic duration expiry just as any PP - it just needs to be long enough to deter a user from rejecting the AfC within the first few days, and moving it him/herself. Temporary salting could also be considered (both are done on the same operation page). The Admin dashboard for anyone who is not familiar with it is at {{ admin dashboard}}. You'll see that dozens of routine operations are linked to it so programmation is not a problem. The dashboard was created by Xeno. Perhaps Scottywong should be asked to chime in here too. What might not be so easy would be getting consensus over WP:PROT to be able to routinely protect/salt rejected pages for a while. That said, an AfC decline is pretty much the equivalent of a CSD/PROD/AfD because those are what would happen anyway if the article had been published immediately. What AfC does is to help user retention by not immediately deleting, but by giving the user an opportunity to understand why the page (in its present cast) is not acceptable, in a better way than the bitey deletion templates. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 07:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
We at the Wikipedia Education Program would like to change some of our direction to students next term. We'd like to urge all professors and students first and foremost to expand stub or start class articles, but if students really, really want to create new articles, we'd like to ask them to go through AFC. Some students already have been using AFC, and given our strong push toward stub and start articles, I believe that it won't add much if any workload for the AFC team. We are also reducing the number of courses for next term to focus on quality rather than quantity, so we'll likely only have about 40 courses working on the English Wikipedia, so I doubt this would be more than 50 AFC requests total between now and May, and likely much fewer than that. I've chatted about this idea a few times on IRC with some AFC regulars over the last few months, and it seemed to be well received, but let me know (ideally in the next day or so as we're putting the finishing touches on our guides to students, and we'd like to remove references to creating new articles and replace them with direction to AFC!) if there are concerns. -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) ( talk) 18:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
You know, Kevin has a point here. What we could do is, similar to (I think?) competitions involving GAs, is encourage people participating to review other submissions. In this case, I'm meaning ambassadors naturally, not the students! If an ambassador reviews as many articles as his group/class/pod is submitting, this should keep the added workload down; it's also a role suited for online ambassadors to practice guiding other kinds of newbies. sonia♫ 05:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
A couple months ago, I created an article about model Jessica Dykstra. The article was deleted as she wasn't considered noteworthy by voters. She has since signed on with Frederick's of Hollywood. Does that change things?
The big picture to the left is her. http://www.fredericks.com/Heart_Lace_Panty/93788,default,pd.html -- Johnny Spasm 71.3.221.58 ( talk) 10:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Possibly, with the increased backlog, newbies may be tempted to 'accept' their own articles and move them to mainspace. For example Collaborate: The Art of We, poorly sourced, un-notable, accepted within minutes of submission to AfC, badly named etc. What is done with these? I suppose the cruel but effective solution would be to speedy delete them! Sionk ( talk) 12:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
So, we all know that there is a problem with AFC. Below, I have gathered up what we have said in the threads recently as ideas of how to solve the problems, as well as problems:
These are just the ideas which I have found and posted here, so feel free to correct or add to them. I would like to see what we support and what we do not in order to help figure out a solution before we inevitably implode. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 04:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
The accept button is back... Pol430 talk to me 20:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I have been looking over this projects sub-pages for ways to improve them. My first observation is that some of them seem to be a bit unwieldy. For example we have two sets of reviewing instructions: the full set and an abridged set. We direct more experienced editors to the abridged set, but it would seem 'cleaner' to have just one set of well written instructions. Also, I find the pages difficult to navigate. The reviewing instructions seem to be only accessible via Wikilink. Would it be a good idea to have a page tab that points to them? The resources tab does not link to the reviewing instructions at all.
The list of participants contains a manually edited list that does not place people in Category:WikiProject Articles for creation participants. Perhaps get rid of the list and transclude the category instead? Thoughts... Pol430 talk to me 14:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I've just implemented a Toolserver tool called Recent moves that shows all moves into mainspace, to help patrol such moves. The interface is intended to resemble Special:Newpages. It allowed restriction based on the move-from namespace. I'd like to get some people to start using this to look for problematic new articles created using moves, and would appreciate suggestions on other places to advertise it. Feedback and suggestions are welcome. Dcoetzee 10:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
As you can see in Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates something is wrong lately with the creation of new discussions. Somebody added "subst" to some template, and now all "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation" pages substitute the {{ Userspace draft}} template. Will whoever did this please undo his edit asap, please. Debresser ( talk) 05:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
{{Userspace draft|date=January 2012}}
)?
Debresser (
talk)
05:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi all, today during the SF training the issue was raised that educators in the Wikipedia Education Program are accustomed to having students build new articles in a user sandbox. Since we're considering putting new articles through AfC, the question arises: should students be creating new articles as AfC subpages (drafts) and working on them here, or should they create them in their sandboxes as before and later move them to AfC when they're ready to considering moving to article space? Thanks for your thoughts. Dcoetzee 21:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
A more important thing to note is that the sandboxes shouldn't be user:x/sandbox, but should have descriptive titles for this to work! sonia♫ 10:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if they use sandboxes and submit them later (if they think the drafts are ready) or if they start with a pending draft... In both ways they get their submissions to WT:AFC! I hope that the teachers explain them no to do copyvios and how to cite correctly. (I don't think so - by experience) I see more the problem that we simply haven't enough active reviewers (yes, I'm not reviewing that much, but I have simply no time for such tasks!) for another 1.5k drafts. mabdul 12:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
This is esp. a message to AQ: Wikipedia:Article_wizard/Ready_for_submission what is at the moment the differences between the two options? They both add {{subst:submit}} and thus getting a direct review. Did you/we/Chzz change something and thus broke? mabdul 15:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
So, thanks to Tim Song, Derrick, and myself, we have fixed the AFC script so that it will now include a decline parameter for missing inline citations. This can be found right below the "V" part, but it also will help us in that it will provide a better explanation for an underused thing (the category currently has eighteen pages in it, and more could definitely be added). Additionally, the accept parameter will now allow for many more classes to be added to it, so that there won't be pages created without project classifications on them. I have still yet to address why template creations have an error on them, but I'll try to figure that out in the next week or so. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 18:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
"Hoax" is not listed in quick fail criteria. If an article is an obvious joke, do I CSD it or should a decline template be used? The section "quick fail criteria" should say something about this because some of the reasons for declining are otherwise criteria for speedy deletion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
No wonder there is a backlog! The "Reviewing articles" section does not give sufficient information for a user to start reviewing articles. I cannot be the first person who came here and could not figure out how to use the templates. What should users do with the "ts, u, or ns parameters" and what do they mean? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Watch out for users making it appear as though their pages exist on another Wiki, as a lot of them are hoaxes, including this one. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 01:52, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Maybe. :-p
I have written up my ideas on how to run AfC on my talk
page
I think it may eliminate a lot of issues. Please take a few minute to read and think about it. If it has some merit, we can move it somewhere and discuss.
Thanks. :- ) DCS 18:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Dcoetzee changes the JS helper script and many person decline drafts because of lacking inline citations, but that is no valid reason to decline a draft! Yes, it is an issue, but simply that the draft as {{ no footnotes}} and accept it if there aren't any other reasons - of if it contains URLs (and if the draft is not that long) then simply fix the issue on your own! Please remove the new decline parameter of the tool and don't do (custom) declines because of lacking inline citations. mabdul 19:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
@Mabdul: I'm entitled to my opinion; which on this occasion, does not appear to match yours. I think it is now time to drop the stick. Pol430 talk to me 19:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I doing an article about Johnny Napalm and there isn't much about all the guitar hero characters. Would anyone do anyone else other than Johnny Napalm. Help... Anyone...
Jacob Koopa ( talk) 08:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Jacob Koopa
I am wondering why the redirects I've requested have been declined. The decliner said I needed internet proof they are used outside of Wikipedia. But the target article used the term so why would I need to find a source that uses it if the article uses it? And alternate punctuation is also being rejected for lack of sources, except I'm using commonly found alternate punctuation for this type of article/subject, and phrasing commonly found for these. (I'm referring to the Fortuna cruise ship requests) Indeed, the issue of hyphenation is in WP:NC-SHIPS showing both forms used.
It seems that these are what are usually created, and normally pass WP:RFD without being deleted.
76.65.128.132 ( talk) 11:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
We could use a new option in Twinkle. We have a merge into option, but once in a while, I find an article that should replace the existing article. Maybe a "Merge From" along with the "Merge Into". Or, in some cases a "Delete and Replace". -- :- ) DCS 18:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
We only had eighty-eight submissions yesterday. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 05:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I found a video tutorial on editing, but I believe it stops at Citations. Do we have a Citation Video? It is without question that most rework of articles has to do with citations. If there is not one, I would like to attempt doing one. ?? :- ) DCS 17:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
If I want to submit an idea for an article, template, category, etc. for someone else to make, will that work? Allen ( talk) 20:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
We need to do something! Chzz is taking (finally) a wikibreak and his bot (is luckily) still informing new editors that their AFC drafts don't have any inline citations. Many editors responding at his talkpage at the moment, but nobody is responding. Maybe we should redirect this talkpage (of the bot) and of the AFC bot to a new feedback page. What do you think? mabdul 13:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
The drawing board is a noticeboard where users can discuss ideas about new articles, however it has very little activity, and users are most often confuse about what the purpose of this noticeboard is. I think it should be deprecated and users directed to the article wizard, which guides new users quite well and proposes feedback on suggestions of articles via IRC. Cenarium ( talk) 00:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Just to put everyone on notice: I will not be adding any additional features to this script. It was originally somewhat hackishly cooked up in a few days, and wasn't very well designed at all. Tackling on new features just makes it harder and harder to maintain. Maybe one day, when I have a lot of spare time, I'll do a complete rewrite, but until then, I will only deal with actual bugs or breaking MW changes. If you want a new feature, please start your own fork. T. Canens ( talk) 17:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
The Submissions page is no longer updating itself, hasn't done so for 8 hours or so. Is something being tweaked? It's difficult to know at the moment what the current status is. Sionk ( talk) 19:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
When a editor submits an Article for creation, it is moved to Wikipedia Talk:Articles for creation/Article. Why can it not be moved to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Article with a Talk page? Then we don't have to clutter up the article page or various User Talk pages with discussions. As we are rejecting more and more articles, discussions are ending up everywhere. I believe I even saw a decline template that said to discuss it on the Article's Talk page. :- ) DCS 07:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Now for the Soap Box again. I just saw an urgent request for help with "New Pages". They are like a zillion days behind. I know I keep bringing up the fact that I don't think it is wise to just let anyone move pages to Main space. But, IMHO, the Wikipedia is becoming to big to stay with the old ideas until we drown. I looked at the first 10 pages in the "New Pages" list, and this was the best article. If it takes a month to get an article through AfC, then that's just the way it's going to have to be. In the time it takes NPP to clean out the chaf, twice as much will have flowed in. :- ) DCS 22:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that after so many years of inactivity (a single edit in over six years), User:Example is now submitting articles for creation. A pity they are all getting rejected. Manning ( talk) 10:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ArticlesForCreationBot 5 and comment there ;) mabdul 15:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I submitted a stub for publication days ago but nothing seems to be happening with it. It hasn't been posted and I've had no feedback. Can someone let me know what's happening please. There seems to be some massive backlog or its gone AWOL somehow.
Why did the procedures get changed? It used to be relatively straightforward to post an article but now it's become very difficult. I dont understand the reasons. Overall the new procedures seem to be working against the aims of the whole Wikipedia project.
Can someone get back to me please.
Thanks, Manticore83 ( talk) 09:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey guys. I decided to come back to AFC after being gone for about a year. Things have changed a bit? Wondering if someone could kindly give me a quick rundown of how things are going, and how the process changed, if at all. Thanks. Someguy1221 ( talk) 11:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't know how many people are aware of this, but I created filter 167 quite some time ago to catch malformed submissions to AFC. I used to peruse through the hits manually to uncover AFC submissions that did not show up in the category, but I guess I was the only one doing that. So anyway, there's probably now a years worth of uncategorized submissions in there. Is it possible for one of the AFC bots to go through the hits and tag the articles? I'll be doing so myself in the meantime. Thanks. Someguy1221 ( talk) 02:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
The Submission Template now says, "This might take several hours, or even days, at busy times." The articles we care about are taking several days, minimum. The editors of articles we don't care about are getting upset if it takes 2 hours. I suggest it says "several days", because that looks like the future. Reasonable people will be reasonably accepting of the change, unreasonable people will never be reasonable. :- ) DCS 04:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I also saw an interesting thing in my Watch List, someone CSD's an article that was in the AfC directory. Maybe there is a way we can stop the template from doing that. Just another saved headache. :- ) DCS 15:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree that 'routine' spam AFCs don't need CSD, but if something simply says e.g. BUY VIAGARA HERE!!11eleven! then I tend to use CSD. BTW I cleared the backlog. Chzz ► 03:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
While were are talking about decline templates. Can we copy the reviewer's name to the template? It's really not very useful to have ArticlesForCreationBot on 4 decline templates. -- :- ) DCS 00:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, I updated Template:AFC submission/declined, Template:AFC submission, and Tims script (didn't recognized his message down there) and we have now two new parameters: decliner and declinets: really simply: the script adds the information who and when the submission was declined. Feel free to report any bugs to me! mabdul 19:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Maybe we need a page to discuss templates. One tag in Twinkle says article contains insufficient content, but the tag says "introduction provides insufficient context". I'm not sure which should be kept or if we need both. I'm a big advocate of SPS, and I would put a counter in Twinkle to see which tags are never used and get rid of them. It's a great tool, but there are so many tags to choose from. Just thinkin' out loud. :- ) DCS 07:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Calm down please! I really think we need two major changes: one of the style of the templates (and the general wording) and on the other side a complete rewording of the decline reasons! The WMF started/want to do an
A/B testing on the existing ones (link in archives).
@Pol430: I think we have to reword even more the decline reasons - the average/new user needs a wording which could be used on the
Simple Wikipedia. As an example: third party references is "useless" for non-academic users: explain better that they should include newspaper articles. I would also get rid of the A7 - even experienced users have problems to determine what A7 is (and I really thing that many, maybe even most, declines are incorrectly declined as A7!).
Related to the general rewording: I think adding the decliner and the contact link highly improves the understanding for the normal user who aren't aware of their talkpages (or if they are IP editors, they can have a new IP!)
mabdul
19:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
A bit of a concern here. If you accept a submission, at least make sure that it complies with the WP:MOS and doesn't have some common errors. Many of these fixes are trivial- I've fixed quite a few.
Would help everybody out a lot! A412 ( Talk * C) 00:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
What exactly do the various icons mean? Is there any way to perhaps have a caption appear when one hovers the cursor on top of them or maybe have a link to "These icons mean/A key to these icons..."? Cheers, Shearonink ( talk) 14:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
<span title="TEXT"></span>
around the file.
Nolelover
Talk·
Contribs
22:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
After I reviewed about 650 AFC's yesterday, I've had lots of queries on my user talk page. Not too surprising, I suppose...there have been about 40 to date. And I've tried to answer them all. But, any and all help would be appreciated; see my talk from 1-Feb onward, ie from User_talk:Chzz#Your_review_at_Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation.2FSeichim down. Ta. Chzz ► 20:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm the bad! We did last week change the template (earlier diff) and the script to add the reviewer to the template so that the "submitter" (normally unexperienced) doesn't have to click on the history - and later I get the "idea" to add a direct contact link since IPs doen't have any real talkpage and thus not gettting the decline template with this contact link (which the registered already getting on their talkpage). And through the feedback (I'm "stalking" some reviewers, I realize that this a really good addition since mostly the workding of the decline messages are simply bad! Most (even experienced) editors don't know what #A7 means and other phrases... So to get less messages, simply change the wording :/ mabdul 22:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC) BTW: I have to fight with the same problem, although this is not that dramatically as in Chzz case (of course) because I'm not reviewing that much! mabdul 22:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't necessarily think the link is a bad idea. In fact, I think it's good - despite the fact that I've had about 70 messages on my talk, in the last 2 days, beginning with "Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/...". That's kinda my own fault, for reviewing so many. It's better that they have a 'real person' to ask.
I think we're addressing the wrong problem, in worrying about that.
The real problem is, there's not enough people to offer genuine help to the new users seeking it. WP:FEED was another fantastic system, but failed due to lack-of-helpers, and now redirects to helpdesk. Unless there's a paradigm shift on Wikipedia from template-warning/blocks to help/guidance, then I fear AFC could go the same way; it could quickly end up so backlogged that it's unusable.
And I'm disappointed by the WMF take on this - which seems to be focused on attracting/keeping new editors. We do, of course, need new editors. But we need GOOD editors. Thousands of new editors who are not going to help each other can drive off some good ones. Adding 'social networking' bollocks can attract lots of new people - as can sugar-sweet messages instead of warnings, and not clearly stomping down on spam...however, that can attract users who are "more trouble than they are worth". But, I digress...
But this is a generic, core problem with the project. Too many people need help, not enough to give it. I feel it's because the focus of the project is incorrect; there's massive efforts go into the 'bad side' of Wikipedia; we've kinda forgotten that the goal is to create quality content, and not to play a WP:MMPORPG. I hope/wish we could move to a more academic atmosphere, where people help each other to write articles. I don't know if/when that will happen. Chzz ► 16:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Continued help at User talk:Chzz would be appreciated. There's now over 100 requests for help on there, and I've only got three pairs of hands... Chzz ► 18:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Wikipedia talk:IRC/wikipedia-en-help as outside of the scope of this page. Snowolf How can I help? 22:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
The change to the decline template has now been reverted. I actually liked it, but I'm only doing one tenth as many reviews as Chzz. But I do think it produces a healthy amount of engagement from our submitters, knowing how confused they can get. Perhaps there should still be a link to ask for more information, but to a communal page rather than our own talk pages? Also, I think the other change to the template, putting the decline reason in its own prominent box, was a definite improvement. If no one objects, I'd like to see that change put back in. Someguy1221 ( talk) 05:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Where to send confused editors? IMHO, right here. There used to be a class called "Reviewers". That's why the reviewer's name should be on the template. Reviewers were done away with for some reason I don't want to know, but from my limited time here at the Wiki, the most generally knowledgeable people the Wiki has are the Reviewers I have worked with here.
:- ) DCS 08:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC) Sorry :-( I am tired and out of time.
:- ) DCS
09:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Approve of User:CharlieEchoTango/WPAFC/Q and User:CharlieEchoTango/WPAFC/T although remove the link to 'Live Help' cut them out the equation because of this . Change the link in the new box on the decline templates (that currently contacts the reviewer) to a link that points to an AFC help page based on User:CharlieEchoTango's example. There should still be imprint at the bottom of the decline template that indicates who performed the review. Pol430 talk to me 13:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment: Just want to point out this link. WP:FEED had the same idea, but a lack of reviewers shut it down, and that was with a broader base. Personally, I'd prefer that people writing pages I review be directed towards my talk page, but anyway... Nolelover Talk· Contribs 15:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
This is a notable company, and someone locked it. Can somebody help with this? Tinton5 ( talk) 06:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I just went to review a few pages and noticed that when I decline, the submitter is not receiving a notice like my script usually does. Is anyone else experiencing this? Nolelover Talk· Contribs 21:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I do hope you can lend a hand to the massive backlog you have created... Nolelover Talk· Contribs 23:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Is this some policy I don't know about or should you also decline submissions when you CSD them? I've seen a few which have been CSDed but not declined. It clutters up the submissions list and uses unnecessary time. A412 ( Talk * C) 01:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
We need some new decline categories, because there are some that don't fit in any of the standard decline messages (in my opinion):
I'll write the decline messages for these if everybody thinks they're good ideas.
A412 ( Talk * C) 02:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Attacks don't get declined (and therefore preserved), they get placed for speedy deletion. That solves one problem. No comment on the rest. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
How about NON-NOTABLE SOFTWARE also? :- ) DCS 04:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
We could also use one for "lack of formatting": I've rejected several for lacking any paragraphing, for instance. Mangoe ( talk) 05:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I've created some drafts of messages at User:A412/afcmessages. Feel free to edit it. On the topic of attacks, shouldn't it be declined (to remove it from the submission list) and also CSD'ed? A412 ( Talk * C) 00:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Can we keep this in one thread or the other? I would suggest the thread below is the better venue. Pol430 talk to me 15:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
snip
Oh by the way: I really think we should create a new decline reason for books. There is seldom, but every 1000th decline is a book, so it might be worth! mabdul 00:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, it would be cool to have an option for auto-reply to creator of submission regarding the result of review, at this time the process is:
Point 3 can be done by my bot, only requirement would be to use parameter when saving the submission. What do you think is it a good idea? Petrb ( talk) 13:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
importScript('User:Timotheus Canens/afchelper4.js');
All submissions are created in the WP talk space by default, so where do you actually talk about them? I know you can leave some comments in {{
AFC submission}}
, but that is not optimal.
jonkerz
♠talk
15:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Anyone with the account creator flag or an Admin that can move this submission? It's triggering title blacklist. I thought i'd try here first as WP:RM is backlogged. Pol430 talk to me 02:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
86.183.252.155 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) has created the following AFC entries, which I think are not logged anywhere and will not be reviewed:
None has a single source included in the proposed article, which is a problem by itself. I have no opinion on whether or not the subjects are actually notable. I think some feedback would be good but I've never used the WP:AFC process so I'm not qualified...can someone take this on? I'd appreciate pointers as well...I would have moved these submissions into the right channels but I really don't know the ropes, so I can see how a new user wouldn't "get it" either.
Thanks! Frank | talk 00:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I've been working on some revamped reviewer instructions at User:Pol430/Sandbox4, they are essentially a slightly re-written version of the current set. I have split the article reviewing instructions, and redirect and cat instructions, onto separate pages and linked them with pagetabs, as the original page was getting rather unwieldy. I have also tried to re-write them so that they make sense to people who use the script and those who want to do it manually. They're still work in progress, but I'm happy for anyone to help with the construction, feel free to edit away. Pol430 talk to me 18:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
{{
Collapse box}}
, in an effort to make the page more comfortable to read. Does it work? Or does it look crap?
Pol430
talk to me
19:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Recent changes to the AfC draft templates ( here, here, and here) replaced links to the chat channel #Wikipedia-en-help on irc with a link to the new AfC Help Desk.
As an irc help chat regular, I think we do a lot of good work, and in a format that many users find accessible and efficient. My understanding was that the AfC help desk was designed to replace leaving messages on the reviewer's talk page rather than replacing irc help, so I find these changes a bit in the wrong direction. I think the AfC Help Desk is a great idea and the two forums should be complimentary. So...
What do you think? Ocaasi t | c 22:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Ever since the recent AfC Review-template revamp, it seems that Comments are getting disconnected from the review that they're supposed to be attached to. Anyone else notice this? Here's one AfC that it happened on... [1]. Does anybody know why this is happening and can it be fixed? Shearonink ( talk) 05:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I think there is a slight problem, reflected at User talk:207.216.31.33, and on the user's contributions page showing their recent edits for that matter. Not sure how that might best be addressed, but thought I should flag it here for those who know better.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 06:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Over the past several months there has been contentious debate over aspects of WP:Article Titles policy. That contentiousness has led to efforts to improve the overall effectiveness of the policy and associated processes. An RFC entitled: Wikipedia talk:Article titles/RFC-Article title decision practice has been initiated to assess the communities’ understanding of our title decision making policy. As a project that is involved in new article creation, participants in this project are encouraged to review and participate in the RFC.-- Mike Cline ( talk) 17:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
But atm exactly four of the 11 editors who supported the concept have edited our new help desk, and only one of those has responded to more then one AfC concern. I think it's just that no one quite realizes it actually live....but it is. And right now it has no centijimbos. We needz moar centijimbos...please, think of the server kittens, and while you're feeling happy watch this page :) Nolelover Talk· Contribs 17:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Will anyone attend to the aforementioned request? Merlaysamuel ( talk) 08:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Merlaysamuel ( talk) 13:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Can the help desk be formatted in standard hierarchy (2 equals signs, then 3) rather than the current formatting (1 equal sign, then 2)? The 1 equal sign headers are strangely large and look nonstandard. A412 ( Talk * C) 18:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I request that a mature reviewer with an academically-acquired historical perspective look over my article referenced above and get it accepted as a Wikipedia article. A teenager "REVIEWER" rejected it. What follows is the article: Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Lincoln University School of Law
Slidhome (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Bold text
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I was going to write a longer rant to introduce this proposal, but since Someguy1221 brought it up above, I already did, kinda. We should have a communal page to deal with help and clarification requests. This communal page would be linked to from start to finish in the AfC process, but especially where it matters : the decline template. It's quite simple really :
Some may say a communal page would render the process impersonal, and that's true to a certain extent. But in my view, it is no different than what we already do by linking to live IRC help : most reviewers are not on IRC.
Thoughts? (if you simply support or oppose, just add #'''Support''' [...] ~~~~ or #'''Oppose''' [...] ~~~~ in the sections below; if you have comments, add them to the discussion section) CharlieEchoTango ( contact) 22:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have noticed lately that there are often cases where new editors will continually resubmit a submission. While sometimes they make a genuine effort, there are many submissions where a new user will make a one or two sentence change and resubmit ( example). Sometimes, the submissions are resubmitted within five minutes of the decline. We try leave comments to help these users, but they are often disregarded. Therefore, I would like to propose the following:
While protecting submissions in order to get the submitters attention is not ideal, it is the only method we really have of getting their attention. These repeatedly resubmitted article submissions are hindering our ability to keep the backlog down. They waste our reviewing time, as the content is almost identical from the last review. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 06:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Quite a few of the editors submitting such articles, have actually created an account. By the time the submission has been declined 5 five times, it is quite probable the editor will be auto-confirmed and semi-protection will be useless. Pol430 talk to me 10:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't we update {{ User sandbox}} and add a submit button since everybody has a "My Sandbox" link at the top using that template? Regards, mabdul 10:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
A good idea Mabdul, but I don't know if it is worth the effort. I don't think the actual percentage is very high. I could be wrong. But, I only use it to play with templates. :- ) DCS 16:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
The best idea that something was done about since I have been here. Well not actually true. I still think the reviewer and the time substituted on the declines was good. It saved me the time of poking through the history to figure out the story.
But..., back to the help desk. How is it decided that an entry is closed and should be archived? Where does it get archived? By whom does it get archived?
I think we could use some kind of "Go see the Help Desk" template to drop into the comment section of a decline or anywhere else it might be needed or wanted. :- ) DCS 16:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Like this maybe: User:Dcshank/sandbox b :- ) DCS 21:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Can I manually archive some of the Help Desk, or someone who knows the proper way to do it. I can get a cup of coffee while it's scrolling. :- ) DCS 00:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
We had talked awhile ago about the AfC icons on the recent submissions page. I looked into doing the rollover, and it was going to be a lot of work. I wacked out a Legend real quick. The page will look something like > this<. It looks ok I guess, but after chatting with AQ today, I will have to address the helper script(s) that update the list, so they don't break. Let me know if I should proceed or drop the idea? :- ) DCS 01:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone know why this site is blocked? It has some good info for a Help Desk problem. Thanks. :- ) DCS 17:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Is this the article to where we can submit article names or ideas for others to start for me? If not, could you direct me to the correct place? Allen ( talk) 02:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I put this one on hold. Seems as notable to me as 10 Tulu language films, but AfD seems to disagree. If somebody knows what to do about, please do. Thanks. :- ) DCS 20:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
For what it's worth the new article looks very little like the one that was deleted at AfD. That said, this submission has no reliable sources. The two CNN sources are from iReport, which is user-generated content; one of the source is self-published; three other are press releases. That leaves one very weak source about the subject, albeit in passing mention only (The Age). I would decline, both for the lack of reliable sources, and for the somewhat promotional tone (him being a "pioneer", unsourced, was also a recurrent theme on the old article). CharlieEchoTango ( contact) 21:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I noticed there are over 3,000 articles in the although it says the articles will be automatically declined, there are articles that haven't since October. Can some articles that have a chance of passing be submitted or not? JayJay Talk to me 02:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Template:UnsignedAFC has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
mabdul
02:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Firstly, apologies for my absence and lack of input at the new help desk and on reviewing, I've just come back from holiday. Secondly, I've removed the former participants, from the participants page, to allow the page to used by AWB as a mailing list. If there was some pertinent reason for keeping the list of former participants, feel free to revert me. Pol430 talk to me 11:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Now it's back to it's dried blood unreadable self. I looked but could not find WP:AFCUSERBOXMUSTBEUNREADABLE. :- ) DCS 05:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Why has ArticlesForCreationBot stopped working? No edits since 27th. I've lost count of the number of page moves and tag clean ups I've done tonight... Pol430 talk to me 21:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Recently with the increase in daily submissions for articles, the backlog has seem to only gotten worse and shows no sign of improving. We need to do something about this. I believe we should make it so when the backlog gets worse to over 200+ articles for submission we should shut it down so people cannot submit articles temporarily until the backlog has improved. This is merely a suggestion, any other suggestions, ideas, comments? JayJay Talk to me 0:58, February 25, 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've finished working on the new reviewer instructions at User:Pol430/Sandbox4/Reviewing articles. I propose that:
If supported, I will need some admin assistance to perform a technical page move, or I could just copy and paste...
The Help Desk seems to be a bit of a hit, What do people think about setting up some standard templates for the Help Desk such as those for the main WP:Help desk? (Like at Template:HD) - Happysailor (Talk) 00:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
i.e.
This page is for questions about the
Articles for creation process. Please consider asking this question at the
Wikipedia:Help desk. - This is where editors will try to answer any question regarding how to use Wikipedia. Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try
searching Wikipedia for any help related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps.
Like I said, I just threw some drafts together for comment. I actually agree with you regarding those last few, but thought i'd chuck em in there to get feedback (might have been wanted)
I'll look at getting those couple up for now, and if they need tweaking or adding to, that's easy to do. - Happysailor (Talk) 17:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Are there any templates for displaying a user's military ribbons and medals as worn on his uniform? If not, how can I do it? User:Gadget850 said that he uses the template "Quote box" to place ribbons into. Is that good, or is there a better way? Thank you. Allen ( talk) 02:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The one between the 1st, 2nd & 3rd rows? no idea sorry (it must be a programming glitch with the devices that is causing it. Regarding the ODD which is a silver 0 then we just need a version of it, (like this one
} but in silver. It can then be added to the ribbons template for people to use. -
Happysailor
(Talk)
21:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Template:Afc warning has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
mabdul
19:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I know there's been talk about preventing users from submitting things for one day after it has been declined, but what do you all think of having something where they are unable to go for a week if they are declined three times, with no major improvements? In a way, this would be more like page protection, although we might be able to have something written that goes around this. It's just an idea, but what do others think? Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 16:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello all. I'm an online ambassador for this term, and one of the students has submitted what is clearly a draft to you folks. I think he thought AfC was more of a topic approval process. It's here: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Trail Smelter Dispute. If possible, could someone userfy it to the author's page: User:SockeyeSam. I can explain to the user and direct him to the draft. It'll knock one off your backlog at least! Thanks, The Interior (Talk) 17:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
{{ Alpha index}} has been nominated for deletion. I had a thought you might like to integrate it into the article wizard (as an option to create alphabetic lists)
70.49.126.147 ( talk) 05:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
It looks like the COI decline reason was retired, removed from template and it isn't in the AfC helper template either. But I think "The reviewer left the following comment about this draft: coi." isn't helpful for a user, who latter returns to fix the submission, for example: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Thomas Kraabel. I see two ways to fix this. The parameter is added back to the template either permanently (but it is made clear it shouldn't be used any-more) or temporally (in this case the pages should be re-reviewed with the help of temporary category). Any thoughts? (Hopefully from someone, who knows who the AFC templates work.) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 17:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't really think this is a problem we need to worry to much about fixing. COI was removed from the decline reasons sufficiently long ago for any submission that still contain that rationale to be considered historical. It is unlikely that the authors are going to come back to them now; even if they do, the template now includes a very prominent link to the AfC helpdesk, where the author can ask "Hey! what does 'coi' mean?" Pol430 talk to me 19:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Personally, when I go through the list of submissions, I often have to read a lot of topics I am uninterested in, say physics; at the same time, someone else might be going through the list and have to read things they are not interested in, say biology. What I propose here is to require the person who submits the article to place it in a broad category. When I say broad, I mean like 'People', 'Science', 'Music' and 'General' (etc). So it would make the process more enjoyable, as you will be learning about things that interests you more. It takes very little effort for the author to pick one of the categories.
By implementing this, I think more people would join the project, as they would not see this as a wholly administrative task, but also an opportunity to learn new things from the subject they are interested in. (For me, I see quite a few new articles on a new species, which interests me; another person might want to review 'Music' to find lesser-known bands etc.) Kinkreet ~♥moshi moshi♥~ 00:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
What to do? This one is getting old. I think it looks very good, but what do I know? It was last marked as copyvio. I have not found blatant copyvio, or I have missed it. :- ) DCS 15:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello, new reviewer here. I keep coming across submissions that are clearly unsuitable due to bad writing or formatting, but can't be denied on the basis of notability or referencing. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dr. Ariel Cohen for example; it is well-referenced and probably notable, but I don't feel comfortable moving it to the mainspace without lots of rewriting. Is unencyclopedic style valid grounds for denying a submission? Is there a standard rationale built into the template for such denials, or should I write out a custom rationale? Thanks, -- Cerebellum ( talk) 18:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm thinking we should delete Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Active participants and replace any links to it, with a link to this reviewer talk page. For the following reasons:
Discussion
Delete - But it is active in about 60 AfC Welcome templates. What to do with those? :- ) DCS 15:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I created "Jacques Derrida on deconstruction" and sent a draft here by mistake. I have since uploaded the finished article to the live Wikipedia. The draft does not need to be reviewed...please delete the draft, if possible. Thank you! OttawaAC ( talk) 16:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that project has become much more active lately, and with increased activity comes longer talkpages and archives. It is March, and the 2012 archive is already as long or longer than previous years'. Can someone (who actually knows how to) change the archive settings so another subpage is created (possibly at the end of March so that we have quarterly archives)? Nolelover Talk· Contribs 19:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I really like the AFC status box, so I copied the idea and made drafts for new templates for the {{Request edit}} and {{coi}} ques: User:Eclipsed/Template:Requested edits status User:Eclipsed/Template:COI tag status
Feel free to edit the draft templates at User:Eclipsed/Template:Requested edits status and User:Eclipsed/Template:COI tag status. Any comments welcome. Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 22:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
See AfC - John Belk and AfC - Joe Beck, both of which I just declined as not notable. However, it appears on the face of it that two different users ( Aichelman and Willjarvis)are doing exactly the same thing (including submitting from their sandboxes), and how many more of these are there in the 1200-plus pending AfC's? How can I find out where they're coming from? David_FLXD (Talk) 19:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
what dose n.y state specify on personal injury law — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.37.18 ( talk) 00:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Since conversation hasn't really started yet on the new Backlog Drive Talk page, I just wanted to note a few concerns that were raised for the November 2012 drive, that appear to be carrying over to the next drive:
I think there should be some serious consideration to addressing the scoring system. A few editors vaguely mentioned there'd be some easy script-based way to do it. If it will save dozens of hours for 30+ competitors (just in this Drive, much less future ones) I'd submit it's worth writing a script for it and giving an AFC barnstar to the scriptwriter automatically. The award bars is more of a quibble, but for scoring I honestly don't see myself competing if I have to spend 10 hours just proving I did some reviews. For your consideration. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 20:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
It has to be in the project space. If you go to a tagged article in the user's sandbox you won't see it. Gigs ( talk) 16:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
As I mentioned at the drive's talk page, I just finished a script that does just this – check out the beta at User:The Anonymouse/January 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive data.
Could the rest of the templated decline reasons be added to the dropdown menu? Danger High voltage! 04:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
The script does not recognise when the user who submitted a draft page has had a change of user name; and is leaving messages on the redirected talk page, rather than on the page to which it redirects. Here's an example. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I have concerns about Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Andy A. Anderson created by Badboyzshop ( talk · contribs). It appears to have been copied out of another user's sandbox User:Andybrevard/sandbox, so attribution is incomplete. -- 65.92.180.225 ( talk) 06:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
AFD informing bot, see Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 49#AFC reviewer informing if article is at AfD. Regards, mabdul 12:00, 4 August 2012 (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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
We have a bunch of submissions in user space with templates at the bottom, not the top, asking for review, not submission. It sounds like a great idea to me; "Fix this and this, and your article should be fine."; but... I don't think that we can do that. We have to decline it, or it will be moved into Main Space. Right? Wrong? Help please. -- I B d Shank ( Talk Talk) 04:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
One issue that is also happening is that we are having a ton of non-substituted userspace templates and is is adding a bunch of text that needs to be manually removed from submissions (as I did here). I talked to Mabdul yesterday about the issue where a lot of submissions in the userspace were not being moved and he seems to have corrected it, so I'm assuming the bot probably fudged up somewhere. Honestly, we're working with five times the submissions we were a year ago, so it isn't surprising me that things are going haywire at this point. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 06:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure how this review process goes, but this one has been sitting there for months and looks like an elaborate hoax to me.-- Atlan ( talk) 22:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Someone might want to check out this error as it just wiped out a page instead of removing the AFC template. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 02:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello everybody. I've no idea how to upload the logo ( http://wikimannia.org/skins/common/images/wiki.png) here. Greetings -- 89.15.199.222 ( talk) 10:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd like a second opinion on the notability of the subject of: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Catherine D. Chatterley there are a lot of primary and self published sources. I've got it in 'review pending' at the moment. Pol430 talk to me 15:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Why does Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects/2012-01 currently not appear in the archive box on the side? The archive is already (being) populated. 31.16.20.174 ( talk) 22:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I have drafted a new page for creation, which is available at Chriscook54321/Iain_King. Can someone check it and create a page for it, please? Thank you, Chriscook54321 ( talk) 14:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
The Bot who decides that an article is unsourced, has no-inline, or is short, please stand up. We need you to at the same time decline these articles with "v" or "context" if their length is less than X bytes, X words, X sentences, or X whatever metric you use. I know these are not required for acceptance, but it is at least 3 Sigma that these articles will be declined by reviewers. This will probably reduce the load by 70%. The author of the article can then argue their case, they do anyways. With all the garbage being submitted, we are going to sink or burn-out. DCS( Talk Talk) 16:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't have as much time as I would like to spend on Wikipedia but I try to visit AfC as often as I can and I always goto the back of the queue and look for the old prev-decs that have been lingering for a while. Although AfC is often backlogged, we have also cleared it several times. I tend to agree that all we need is another handful of experienced editors to spend some more time here. <joke> I don't think User:DeclineBot is the answer </joke> ;-) Pol430 talk to me
Ok. Starting again. I'm just looking for a proactive solution to a problem I see developing. IMHO it's becoming "them" against "us". They outnumber us 100, 1000, 10,000 to 1 and they are starting to work the system. I just declined an article almost identical to an existing one that is AfD'd. They can just keep submitting until it gets approved, the odds are in their favor. They pit reviewer against reviewer, reviewer against administrator. They tone down an article until accepted then quietly turn it into a big ad. These are some hazards of a mostly volunteer organization. IMHO we can keep talking about keeping the Wiki "pure", but without more tools, people, money to keep us ahead of them, reviewers are going to get frustrated, burned out, and quit. :- ) DCS 05:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Why not simply routinely move protect declined articles? Flag them in some way so that online admins are alerted and do the necessary. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 05:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
( edit conflict)( edit conflict):::::NPP is a broken process, that's why WP:ACTRIAL was received by a large consensus, but only to be rejected by the WMF. Wikipedia:Requested moves isn't part of the equation at this stage - move protection can be preset to any automatic duration expiry just as any PP - it just needs to be long enough to deter a user from rejecting the AfC within the first few days, and moving it him/herself. Temporary salting could also be considered (both are done on the same operation page). The Admin dashboard for anyone who is not familiar with it is at {{ admin dashboard}}. You'll see that dozens of routine operations are linked to it so programmation is not a problem. The dashboard was created by Xeno. Perhaps Scottywong should be asked to chime in here too. What might not be so easy would be getting consensus over WP:PROT to be able to routinely protect/salt rejected pages for a while. That said, an AfC decline is pretty much the equivalent of a CSD/PROD/AfD because those are what would happen anyway if the article had been published immediately. What AfC does is to help user retention by not immediately deleting, but by giving the user an opportunity to understand why the page (in its present cast) is not acceptable, in a better way than the bitey deletion templates. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 07:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
We at the Wikipedia Education Program would like to change some of our direction to students next term. We'd like to urge all professors and students first and foremost to expand stub or start class articles, but if students really, really want to create new articles, we'd like to ask them to go through AFC. Some students already have been using AFC, and given our strong push toward stub and start articles, I believe that it won't add much if any workload for the AFC team. We are also reducing the number of courses for next term to focus on quality rather than quantity, so we'll likely only have about 40 courses working on the English Wikipedia, so I doubt this would be more than 50 AFC requests total between now and May, and likely much fewer than that. I've chatted about this idea a few times on IRC with some AFC regulars over the last few months, and it seemed to be well received, but let me know (ideally in the next day or so as we're putting the finishing touches on our guides to students, and we'd like to remove references to creating new articles and replace them with direction to AFC!) if there are concerns. -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) ( talk) 18:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
You know, Kevin has a point here. What we could do is, similar to (I think?) competitions involving GAs, is encourage people participating to review other submissions. In this case, I'm meaning ambassadors naturally, not the students! If an ambassador reviews as many articles as his group/class/pod is submitting, this should keep the added workload down; it's also a role suited for online ambassadors to practice guiding other kinds of newbies. sonia♫ 05:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
A couple months ago, I created an article about model Jessica Dykstra. The article was deleted as she wasn't considered noteworthy by voters. She has since signed on with Frederick's of Hollywood. Does that change things?
The big picture to the left is her. http://www.fredericks.com/Heart_Lace_Panty/93788,default,pd.html -- Johnny Spasm 71.3.221.58 ( talk) 10:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Possibly, with the increased backlog, newbies may be tempted to 'accept' their own articles and move them to mainspace. For example Collaborate: The Art of We, poorly sourced, un-notable, accepted within minutes of submission to AfC, badly named etc. What is done with these? I suppose the cruel but effective solution would be to speedy delete them! Sionk ( talk) 12:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
So, we all know that there is a problem with AFC. Below, I have gathered up what we have said in the threads recently as ideas of how to solve the problems, as well as problems:
These are just the ideas which I have found and posted here, so feel free to correct or add to them. I would like to see what we support and what we do not in order to help figure out a solution before we inevitably implode. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 04:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
The accept button is back... Pol430 talk to me 20:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I have been looking over this projects sub-pages for ways to improve them. My first observation is that some of them seem to be a bit unwieldy. For example we have two sets of reviewing instructions: the full set and an abridged set. We direct more experienced editors to the abridged set, but it would seem 'cleaner' to have just one set of well written instructions. Also, I find the pages difficult to navigate. The reviewing instructions seem to be only accessible via Wikilink. Would it be a good idea to have a page tab that points to them? The resources tab does not link to the reviewing instructions at all.
The list of participants contains a manually edited list that does not place people in Category:WikiProject Articles for creation participants. Perhaps get rid of the list and transclude the category instead? Thoughts... Pol430 talk to me 14:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I've just implemented a Toolserver tool called Recent moves that shows all moves into mainspace, to help patrol such moves. The interface is intended to resemble Special:Newpages. It allowed restriction based on the move-from namespace. I'd like to get some people to start using this to look for problematic new articles created using moves, and would appreciate suggestions on other places to advertise it. Feedback and suggestions are welcome. Dcoetzee 10:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
As you can see in Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates something is wrong lately with the creation of new discussions. Somebody added "subst" to some template, and now all "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation" pages substitute the {{ Userspace draft}} template. Will whoever did this please undo his edit asap, please. Debresser ( talk) 05:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
{{Userspace draft|date=January 2012}}
)?
Debresser (
talk)
05:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi all, today during the SF training the issue was raised that educators in the Wikipedia Education Program are accustomed to having students build new articles in a user sandbox. Since we're considering putting new articles through AfC, the question arises: should students be creating new articles as AfC subpages (drafts) and working on them here, or should they create them in their sandboxes as before and later move them to AfC when they're ready to considering moving to article space? Thanks for your thoughts. Dcoetzee 21:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
A more important thing to note is that the sandboxes shouldn't be user:x/sandbox, but should have descriptive titles for this to work! sonia♫ 10:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if they use sandboxes and submit them later (if they think the drafts are ready) or if they start with a pending draft... In both ways they get their submissions to WT:AFC! I hope that the teachers explain them no to do copyvios and how to cite correctly. (I don't think so - by experience) I see more the problem that we simply haven't enough active reviewers (yes, I'm not reviewing that much, but I have simply no time for such tasks!) for another 1.5k drafts. mabdul 12:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
This is esp. a message to AQ: Wikipedia:Article_wizard/Ready_for_submission what is at the moment the differences between the two options? They both add {{subst:submit}} and thus getting a direct review. Did you/we/Chzz change something and thus broke? mabdul 15:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
So, thanks to Tim Song, Derrick, and myself, we have fixed the AFC script so that it will now include a decline parameter for missing inline citations. This can be found right below the "V" part, but it also will help us in that it will provide a better explanation for an underused thing (the category currently has eighteen pages in it, and more could definitely be added). Additionally, the accept parameter will now allow for many more classes to be added to it, so that there won't be pages created without project classifications on them. I have still yet to address why template creations have an error on them, but I'll try to figure that out in the next week or so. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 18:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
"Hoax" is not listed in quick fail criteria. If an article is an obvious joke, do I CSD it or should a decline template be used? The section "quick fail criteria" should say something about this because some of the reasons for declining are otherwise criteria for speedy deletion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
No wonder there is a backlog! The "Reviewing articles" section does not give sufficient information for a user to start reviewing articles. I cannot be the first person who came here and could not figure out how to use the templates. What should users do with the "ts, u, or ns parameters" and what do they mean? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Watch out for users making it appear as though their pages exist on another Wiki, as a lot of them are hoaxes, including this one. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 01:52, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Maybe. :-p
I have written up my ideas on how to run AfC on my talk
page
I think it may eliminate a lot of issues. Please take a few minute to read and think about it. If it has some merit, we can move it somewhere and discuss.
Thanks. :- ) DCS 18:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Dcoetzee changes the JS helper script and many person decline drafts because of lacking inline citations, but that is no valid reason to decline a draft! Yes, it is an issue, but simply that the draft as {{ no footnotes}} and accept it if there aren't any other reasons - of if it contains URLs (and if the draft is not that long) then simply fix the issue on your own! Please remove the new decline parameter of the tool and don't do (custom) declines because of lacking inline citations. mabdul 19:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
@Mabdul: I'm entitled to my opinion; which on this occasion, does not appear to match yours. I think it is now time to drop the stick. Pol430 talk to me 19:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I doing an article about Johnny Napalm and there isn't much about all the guitar hero characters. Would anyone do anyone else other than Johnny Napalm. Help... Anyone...
Jacob Koopa ( talk) 08:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Jacob Koopa
I am wondering why the redirects I've requested have been declined. The decliner said I needed internet proof they are used outside of Wikipedia. But the target article used the term so why would I need to find a source that uses it if the article uses it? And alternate punctuation is also being rejected for lack of sources, except I'm using commonly found alternate punctuation for this type of article/subject, and phrasing commonly found for these. (I'm referring to the Fortuna cruise ship requests) Indeed, the issue of hyphenation is in WP:NC-SHIPS showing both forms used.
It seems that these are what are usually created, and normally pass WP:RFD without being deleted.
76.65.128.132 ( talk) 11:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
We could use a new option in Twinkle. We have a merge into option, but once in a while, I find an article that should replace the existing article. Maybe a "Merge From" along with the "Merge Into". Or, in some cases a "Delete and Replace". -- :- ) DCS 18:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
We only had eighty-eight submissions yesterday. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 05:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I found a video tutorial on editing, but I believe it stops at Citations. Do we have a Citation Video? It is without question that most rework of articles has to do with citations. If there is not one, I would like to attempt doing one. ?? :- ) DCS 17:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
If I want to submit an idea for an article, template, category, etc. for someone else to make, will that work? Allen ( talk) 20:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
We need to do something! Chzz is taking (finally) a wikibreak and his bot (is luckily) still informing new editors that their AFC drafts don't have any inline citations. Many editors responding at his talkpage at the moment, but nobody is responding. Maybe we should redirect this talkpage (of the bot) and of the AFC bot to a new feedback page. What do you think? mabdul 13:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
The drawing board is a noticeboard where users can discuss ideas about new articles, however it has very little activity, and users are most often confuse about what the purpose of this noticeboard is. I think it should be deprecated and users directed to the article wizard, which guides new users quite well and proposes feedback on suggestions of articles via IRC. Cenarium ( talk) 00:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Just to put everyone on notice: I will not be adding any additional features to this script. It was originally somewhat hackishly cooked up in a few days, and wasn't very well designed at all. Tackling on new features just makes it harder and harder to maintain. Maybe one day, when I have a lot of spare time, I'll do a complete rewrite, but until then, I will only deal with actual bugs or breaking MW changes. If you want a new feature, please start your own fork. T. Canens ( talk) 17:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
The Submissions page is no longer updating itself, hasn't done so for 8 hours or so. Is something being tweaked? It's difficult to know at the moment what the current status is. Sionk ( talk) 19:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
When a editor submits an Article for creation, it is moved to Wikipedia Talk:Articles for creation/Article. Why can it not be moved to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Article with a Talk page? Then we don't have to clutter up the article page or various User Talk pages with discussions. As we are rejecting more and more articles, discussions are ending up everywhere. I believe I even saw a decline template that said to discuss it on the Article's Talk page. :- ) DCS 07:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Now for the Soap Box again. I just saw an urgent request for help with "New Pages". They are like a zillion days behind. I know I keep bringing up the fact that I don't think it is wise to just let anyone move pages to Main space. But, IMHO, the Wikipedia is becoming to big to stay with the old ideas until we drown. I looked at the first 10 pages in the "New Pages" list, and this was the best article. If it takes a month to get an article through AfC, then that's just the way it's going to have to be. In the time it takes NPP to clean out the chaf, twice as much will have flowed in. :- ) DCS 22:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that after so many years of inactivity (a single edit in over six years), User:Example is now submitting articles for creation. A pity they are all getting rejected. Manning ( talk) 10:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ArticlesForCreationBot 5 and comment there ;) mabdul 15:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I submitted a stub for publication days ago but nothing seems to be happening with it. It hasn't been posted and I've had no feedback. Can someone let me know what's happening please. There seems to be some massive backlog or its gone AWOL somehow.
Why did the procedures get changed? It used to be relatively straightforward to post an article but now it's become very difficult. I dont understand the reasons. Overall the new procedures seem to be working against the aims of the whole Wikipedia project.
Can someone get back to me please.
Thanks, Manticore83 ( talk) 09:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey guys. I decided to come back to AFC after being gone for about a year. Things have changed a bit? Wondering if someone could kindly give me a quick rundown of how things are going, and how the process changed, if at all. Thanks. Someguy1221 ( talk) 11:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't know how many people are aware of this, but I created filter 167 quite some time ago to catch malformed submissions to AFC. I used to peruse through the hits manually to uncover AFC submissions that did not show up in the category, but I guess I was the only one doing that. So anyway, there's probably now a years worth of uncategorized submissions in there. Is it possible for one of the AFC bots to go through the hits and tag the articles? I'll be doing so myself in the meantime. Thanks. Someguy1221 ( talk) 02:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
The Submission Template now says, "This might take several hours, or even days, at busy times." The articles we care about are taking several days, minimum. The editors of articles we don't care about are getting upset if it takes 2 hours. I suggest it says "several days", because that looks like the future. Reasonable people will be reasonably accepting of the change, unreasonable people will never be reasonable. :- ) DCS 04:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I also saw an interesting thing in my Watch List, someone CSD's an article that was in the AfC directory. Maybe there is a way we can stop the template from doing that. Just another saved headache. :- ) DCS 15:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree that 'routine' spam AFCs don't need CSD, but if something simply says e.g. BUY VIAGARA HERE!!11eleven! then I tend to use CSD. BTW I cleared the backlog. Chzz ► 03:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
While were are talking about decline templates. Can we copy the reviewer's name to the template? It's really not very useful to have ArticlesForCreationBot on 4 decline templates. -- :- ) DCS 00:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, I updated Template:AFC submission/declined, Template:AFC submission, and Tims script (didn't recognized his message down there) and we have now two new parameters: decliner and declinets: really simply: the script adds the information who and when the submission was declined. Feel free to report any bugs to me! mabdul 19:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Maybe we need a page to discuss templates. One tag in Twinkle says article contains insufficient content, but the tag says "introduction provides insufficient context". I'm not sure which should be kept or if we need both. I'm a big advocate of SPS, and I would put a counter in Twinkle to see which tags are never used and get rid of them. It's a great tool, but there are so many tags to choose from. Just thinkin' out loud. :- ) DCS 07:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Calm down please! I really think we need two major changes: one of the style of the templates (and the general wording) and on the other side a complete rewording of the decline reasons! The WMF started/want to do an
A/B testing on the existing ones (link in archives).
@Pol430: I think we have to reword even more the decline reasons - the average/new user needs a wording which could be used on the
Simple Wikipedia. As an example: third party references is "useless" for non-academic users: explain better that they should include newspaper articles. I would also get rid of the A7 - even experienced users have problems to determine what A7 is (and I really thing that many, maybe even most, declines are incorrectly declined as A7!).
Related to the general rewording: I think adding the decliner and the contact link highly improves the understanding for the normal user who aren't aware of their talkpages (or if they are IP editors, they can have a new IP!)
mabdul
19:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
A bit of a concern here. If you accept a submission, at least make sure that it complies with the WP:MOS and doesn't have some common errors. Many of these fixes are trivial- I've fixed quite a few.
Would help everybody out a lot! A412 ( Talk * C) 00:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
What exactly do the various icons mean? Is there any way to perhaps have a caption appear when one hovers the cursor on top of them or maybe have a link to "These icons mean/A key to these icons..."? Cheers, Shearonink ( talk) 14:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
<span title="TEXT"></span>
around the file.
Nolelover
Talk·
Contribs
22:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
After I reviewed about 650 AFC's yesterday, I've had lots of queries on my user talk page. Not too surprising, I suppose...there have been about 40 to date. And I've tried to answer them all. But, any and all help would be appreciated; see my talk from 1-Feb onward, ie from User_talk:Chzz#Your_review_at_Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation.2FSeichim down. Ta. Chzz ► 20:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm the bad! We did last week change the template (earlier diff) and the script to add the reviewer to the template so that the "submitter" (normally unexperienced) doesn't have to click on the history - and later I get the "idea" to add a direct contact link since IPs doen't have any real talkpage and thus not gettting the decline template with this contact link (which the registered already getting on their talkpage). And through the feedback (I'm "stalking" some reviewers, I realize that this a really good addition since mostly the workding of the decline messages are simply bad! Most (even experienced) editors don't know what #A7 means and other phrases... So to get less messages, simply change the wording :/ mabdul 22:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC) BTW: I have to fight with the same problem, although this is not that dramatically as in Chzz case (of course) because I'm not reviewing that much! mabdul 22:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't necessarily think the link is a bad idea. In fact, I think it's good - despite the fact that I've had about 70 messages on my talk, in the last 2 days, beginning with "Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/...". That's kinda my own fault, for reviewing so many. It's better that they have a 'real person' to ask.
I think we're addressing the wrong problem, in worrying about that.
The real problem is, there's not enough people to offer genuine help to the new users seeking it. WP:FEED was another fantastic system, but failed due to lack-of-helpers, and now redirects to helpdesk. Unless there's a paradigm shift on Wikipedia from template-warning/blocks to help/guidance, then I fear AFC could go the same way; it could quickly end up so backlogged that it's unusable.
And I'm disappointed by the WMF take on this - which seems to be focused on attracting/keeping new editors. We do, of course, need new editors. But we need GOOD editors. Thousands of new editors who are not going to help each other can drive off some good ones. Adding 'social networking' bollocks can attract lots of new people - as can sugar-sweet messages instead of warnings, and not clearly stomping down on spam...however, that can attract users who are "more trouble than they are worth". But, I digress...
But this is a generic, core problem with the project. Too many people need help, not enough to give it. I feel it's because the focus of the project is incorrect; there's massive efforts go into the 'bad side' of Wikipedia; we've kinda forgotten that the goal is to create quality content, and not to play a WP:MMPORPG. I hope/wish we could move to a more academic atmosphere, where people help each other to write articles. I don't know if/when that will happen. Chzz ► 16:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Continued help at User talk:Chzz would be appreciated. There's now over 100 requests for help on there, and I've only got three pairs of hands... Chzz ► 18:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Wikipedia talk:IRC/wikipedia-en-help as outside of the scope of this page. Snowolf How can I help? 22:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
The change to the decline template has now been reverted. I actually liked it, but I'm only doing one tenth as many reviews as Chzz. But I do think it produces a healthy amount of engagement from our submitters, knowing how confused they can get. Perhaps there should still be a link to ask for more information, but to a communal page rather than our own talk pages? Also, I think the other change to the template, putting the decline reason in its own prominent box, was a definite improvement. If no one objects, I'd like to see that change put back in. Someguy1221 ( talk) 05:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Where to send confused editors? IMHO, right here. There used to be a class called "Reviewers". That's why the reviewer's name should be on the template. Reviewers were done away with for some reason I don't want to know, but from my limited time here at the Wiki, the most generally knowledgeable people the Wiki has are the Reviewers I have worked with here.
:- ) DCS 08:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC) Sorry :-( I am tired and out of time.
:- ) DCS
09:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Approve of User:CharlieEchoTango/WPAFC/Q and User:CharlieEchoTango/WPAFC/T although remove the link to 'Live Help' cut them out the equation because of this . Change the link in the new box on the decline templates (that currently contacts the reviewer) to a link that points to an AFC help page based on User:CharlieEchoTango's example. There should still be imprint at the bottom of the decline template that indicates who performed the review. Pol430 talk to me 13:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment: Just want to point out this link. WP:FEED had the same idea, but a lack of reviewers shut it down, and that was with a broader base. Personally, I'd prefer that people writing pages I review be directed towards my talk page, but anyway... Nolelover Talk· Contribs 15:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
This is a notable company, and someone locked it. Can somebody help with this? Tinton5 ( talk) 06:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I just went to review a few pages and noticed that when I decline, the submitter is not receiving a notice like my script usually does. Is anyone else experiencing this? Nolelover Talk· Contribs 21:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I do hope you can lend a hand to the massive backlog you have created... Nolelover Talk· Contribs 23:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Is this some policy I don't know about or should you also decline submissions when you CSD them? I've seen a few which have been CSDed but not declined. It clutters up the submissions list and uses unnecessary time. A412 ( Talk * C) 01:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
We need some new decline categories, because there are some that don't fit in any of the standard decline messages (in my opinion):
I'll write the decline messages for these if everybody thinks they're good ideas.
A412 ( Talk * C) 02:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Attacks don't get declined (and therefore preserved), they get placed for speedy deletion. That solves one problem. No comment on the rest. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
How about NON-NOTABLE SOFTWARE also? :- ) DCS 04:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
We could also use one for "lack of formatting": I've rejected several for lacking any paragraphing, for instance. Mangoe ( talk) 05:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I've created some drafts of messages at User:A412/afcmessages. Feel free to edit it. On the topic of attacks, shouldn't it be declined (to remove it from the submission list) and also CSD'ed? A412 ( Talk * C) 00:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Can we keep this in one thread or the other? I would suggest the thread below is the better venue. Pol430 talk to me 15:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
snip
Oh by the way: I really think we should create a new decline reason for books. There is seldom, but every 1000th decline is a book, so it might be worth! mabdul 00:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, it would be cool to have an option for auto-reply to creator of submission regarding the result of review, at this time the process is:
Point 3 can be done by my bot, only requirement would be to use parameter when saving the submission. What do you think is it a good idea? Petrb ( talk) 13:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
importScript('User:Timotheus Canens/afchelper4.js');
All submissions are created in the WP talk space by default, so where do you actually talk about them? I know you can leave some comments in {{
AFC submission}}
, but that is not optimal.
jonkerz
♠talk
15:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Anyone with the account creator flag or an Admin that can move this submission? It's triggering title blacklist. I thought i'd try here first as WP:RM is backlogged. Pol430 talk to me 02:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
86.183.252.155 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) has created the following AFC entries, which I think are not logged anywhere and will not be reviewed:
None has a single source included in the proposed article, which is a problem by itself. I have no opinion on whether or not the subjects are actually notable. I think some feedback would be good but I've never used the WP:AFC process so I'm not qualified...can someone take this on? I'd appreciate pointers as well...I would have moved these submissions into the right channels but I really don't know the ropes, so I can see how a new user wouldn't "get it" either.
Thanks! Frank | talk 00:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I've been working on some revamped reviewer instructions at User:Pol430/Sandbox4, they are essentially a slightly re-written version of the current set. I have split the article reviewing instructions, and redirect and cat instructions, onto separate pages and linked them with pagetabs, as the original page was getting rather unwieldy. I have also tried to re-write them so that they make sense to people who use the script and those who want to do it manually. They're still work in progress, but I'm happy for anyone to help with the construction, feel free to edit away. Pol430 talk to me 18:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
{{
Collapse box}}
, in an effort to make the page more comfortable to read. Does it work? Or does it look crap?
Pol430
talk to me
19:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Recent changes to the AfC draft templates ( here, here, and here) replaced links to the chat channel #Wikipedia-en-help on irc with a link to the new AfC Help Desk.
As an irc help chat regular, I think we do a lot of good work, and in a format that many users find accessible and efficient. My understanding was that the AfC help desk was designed to replace leaving messages on the reviewer's talk page rather than replacing irc help, so I find these changes a bit in the wrong direction. I think the AfC Help Desk is a great idea and the two forums should be complimentary. So...
What do you think? Ocaasi t | c 22:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Ever since the recent AfC Review-template revamp, it seems that Comments are getting disconnected from the review that they're supposed to be attached to. Anyone else notice this? Here's one AfC that it happened on... [1]. Does anybody know why this is happening and can it be fixed? Shearonink ( talk) 05:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I think there is a slight problem, reflected at User talk:207.216.31.33, and on the user's contributions page showing their recent edits for that matter. Not sure how that might best be addressed, but thought I should flag it here for those who know better.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 06:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Over the past several months there has been contentious debate over aspects of WP:Article Titles policy. That contentiousness has led to efforts to improve the overall effectiveness of the policy and associated processes. An RFC entitled: Wikipedia talk:Article titles/RFC-Article title decision practice has been initiated to assess the communities’ understanding of our title decision making policy. As a project that is involved in new article creation, participants in this project are encouraged to review and participate in the RFC.-- Mike Cline ( talk) 17:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
But atm exactly four of the 11 editors who supported the concept have edited our new help desk, and only one of those has responded to more then one AfC concern. I think it's just that no one quite realizes it actually live....but it is. And right now it has no centijimbos. We needz moar centijimbos...please, think of the server kittens, and while you're feeling happy watch this page :) Nolelover Talk· Contribs 17:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Will anyone attend to the aforementioned request? Merlaysamuel ( talk) 08:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Merlaysamuel ( talk) 13:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Can the help desk be formatted in standard hierarchy (2 equals signs, then 3) rather than the current formatting (1 equal sign, then 2)? The 1 equal sign headers are strangely large and look nonstandard. A412 ( Talk * C) 18:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I request that a mature reviewer with an academically-acquired historical perspective look over my article referenced above and get it accepted as a Wikipedia article. A teenager "REVIEWER" rejected it. What follows is the article: Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Lincoln University School of Law
Slidhome (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Bold text
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I was going to write a longer rant to introduce this proposal, but since Someguy1221 brought it up above, I already did, kinda. We should have a communal page to deal with help and clarification requests. This communal page would be linked to from start to finish in the AfC process, but especially where it matters : the decline template. It's quite simple really :
Some may say a communal page would render the process impersonal, and that's true to a certain extent. But in my view, it is no different than what we already do by linking to live IRC help : most reviewers are not on IRC.
Thoughts? (if you simply support or oppose, just add #'''Support''' [...] ~~~~ or #'''Oppose''' [...] ~~~~ in the sections below; if you have comments, add them to the discussion section) CharlieEchoTango ( contact) 22:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have noticed lately that there are often cases where new editors will continually resubmit a submission. While sometimes they make a genuine effort, there are many submissions where a new user will make a one or two sentence change and resubmit ( example). Sometimes, the submissions are resubmitted within five minutes of the decline. We try leave comments to help these users, but they are often disregarded. Therefore, I would like to propose the following:
While protecting submissions in order to get the submitters attention is not ideal, it is the only method we really have of getting their attention. These repeatedly resubmitted article submissions are hindering our ability to keep the backlog down. They waste our reviewing time, as the content is almost identical from the last review. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 06:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Quite a few of the editors submitting such articles, have actually created an account. By the time the submission has been declined 5 five times, it is quite probable the editor will be auto-confirmed and semi-protection will be useless. Pol430 talk to me 10:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't we update {{ User sandbox}} and add a submit button since everybody has a "My Sandbox" link at the top using that template? Regards, mabdul 10:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
A good idea Mabdul, but I don't know if it is worth the effort. I don't think the actual percentage is very high. I could be wrong. But, I only use it to play with templates. :- ) DCS 16:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
The best idea that something was done about since I have been here. Well not actually true. I still think the reviewer and the time substituted on the declines was good. It saved me the time of poking through the history to figure out the story.
But..., back to the help desk. How is it decided that an entry is closed and should be archived? Where does it get archived? By whom does it get archived?
I think we could use some kind of "Go see the Help Desk" template to drop into the comment section of a decline or anywhere else it might be needed or wanted. :- ) DCS 16:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Like this maybe: User:Dcshank/sandbox b :- ) DCS 21:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Can I manually archive some of the Help Desk, or someone who knows the proper way to do it. I can get a cup of coffee while it's scrolling. :- ) DCS 00:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
We had talked awhile ago about the AfC icons on the recent submissions page. I looked into doing the rollover, and it was going to be a lot of work. I wacked out a Legend real quick. The page will look something like > this<. It looks ok I guess, but after chatting with AQ today, I will have to address the helper script(s) that update the list, so they don't break. Let me know if I should proceed or drop the idea? :- ) DCS 01:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone know why this site is blocked? It has some good info for a Help Desk problem. Thanks. :- ) DCS 17:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Is this the article to where we can submit article names or ideas for others to start for me? If not, could you direct me to the correct place? Allen ( talk) 02:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I put this one on hold. Seems as notable to me as 10 Tulu language films, but AfD seems to disagree. If somebody knows what to do about, please do. Thanks. :- ) DCS 20:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
For what it's worth the new article looks very little like the one that was deleted at AfD. That said, this submission has no reliable sources. The two CNN sources are from iReport, which is user-generated content; one of the source is self-published; three other are press releases. That leaves one very weak source about the subject, albeit in passing mention only (The Age). I would decline, both for the lack of reliable sources, and for the somewhat promotional tone (him being a "pioneer", unsourced, was also a recurrent theme on the old article). CharlieEchoTango ( contact) 21:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I noticed there are over 3,000 articles in the although it says the articles will be automatically declined, there are articles that haven't since October. Can some articles that have a chance of passing be submitted or not? JayJay Talk to me 02:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Template:UnsignedAFC has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
mabdul
02:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Firstly, apologies for my absence and lack of input at the new help desk and on reviewing, I've just come back from holiday. Secondly, I've removed the former participants, from the participants page, to allow the page to used by AWB as a mailing list. If there was some pertinent reason for keeping the list of former participants, feel free to revert me. Pol430 talk to me 11:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Now it's back to it's dried blood unreadable self. I looked but could not find WP:AFCUSERBOXMUSTBEUNREADABLE. :- ) DCS 05:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Why has ArticlesForCreationBot stopped working? No edits since 27th. I've lost count of the number of page moves and tag clean ups I've done tonight... Pol430 talk to me 21:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Recently with the increase in daily submissions for articles, the backlog has seem to only gotten worse and shows no sign of improving. We need to do something about this. I believe we should make it so when the backlog gets worse to over 200+ articles for submission we should shut it down so people cannot submit articles temporarily until the backlog has improved. This is merely a suggestion, any other suggestions, ideas, comments? JayJay Talk to me 0:58, February 25, 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've finished working on the new reviewer instructions at User:Pol430/Sandbox4/Reviewing articles. I propose that:
If supported, I will need some admin assistance to perform a technical page move, or I could just copy and paste...
The Help Desk seems to be a bit of a hit, What do people think about setting up some standard templates for the Help Desk such as those for the main WP:Help desk? (Like at Template:HD) - Happysailor (Talk) 00:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
i.e.
This page is for questions about the
Articles for creation process. Please consider asking this question at the
Wikipedia:Help desk. - This is where editors will try to answer any question regarding how to use Wikipedia. Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try
searching Wikipedia for any help related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps.
Like I said, I just threw some drafts together for comment. I actually agree with you regarding those last few, but thought i'd chuck em in there to get feedback (might have been wanted)
I'll look at getting those couple up for now, and if they need tweaking or adding to, that's easy to do. - Happysailor (Talk) 17:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Are there any templates for displaying a user's military ribbons and medals as worn on his uniform? If not, how can I do it? User:Gadget850 said that he uses the template "Quote box" to place ribbons into. Is that good, or is there a better way? Thank you. Allen ( talk) 02:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The one between the 1st, 2nd & 3rd rows? no idea sorry (it must be a programming glitch with the devices that is causing it. Regarding the ODD which is a silver 0 then we just need a version of it, (like this one
} but in silver. It can then be added to the ribbons template for people to use. -
Happysailor
(Talk)
21:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Template:Afc warning has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
mabdul
19:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I know there's been talk about preventing users from submitting things for one day after it has been declined, but what do you all think of having something where they are unable to go for a week if they are declined three times, with no major improvements? In a way, this would be more like page protection, although we might be able to have something written that goes around this. It's just an idea, but what do others think? Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 16:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello all. I'm an online ambassador for this term, and one of the students has submitted what is clearly a draft to you folks. I think he thought AfC was more of a topic approval process. It's here: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Trail Smelter Dispute. If possible, could someone userfy it to the author's page: User:SockeyeSam. I can explain to the user and direct him to the draft. It'll knock one off your backlog at least! Thanks, The Interior (Talk) 17:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
{{ Alpha index}} has been nominated for deletion. I had a thought you might like to integrate it into the article wizard (as an option to create alphabetic lists)
70.49.126.147 ( talk) 05:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
It looks like the COI decline reason was retired, removed from template and it isn't in the AfC helper template either. But I think "The reviewer left the following comment about this draft: coi." isn't helpful for a user, who latter returns to fix the submission, for example: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Thomas Kraabel. I see two ways to fix this. The parameter is added back to the template either permanently (but it is made clear it shouldn't be used any-more) or temporally (in this case the pages should be re-reviewed with the help of temporary category). Any thoughts? (Hopefully from someone, who knows who the AFC templates work.) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 17:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't really think this is a problem we need to worry to much about fixing. COI was removed from the decline reasons sufficiently long ago for any submission that still contain that rationale to be considered historical. It is unlikely that the authors are going to come back to them now; even if they do, the template now includes a very prominent link to the AfC helpdesk, where the author can ask "Hey! what does 'coi' mean?" Pol430 talk to me 19:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Personally, when I go through the list of submissions, I often have to read a lot of topics I am uninterested in, say physics; at the same time, someone else might be going through the list and have to read things they are not interested in, say biology. What I propose here is to require the person who submits the article to place it in a broad category. When I say broad, I mean like 'People', 'Science', 'Music' and 'General' (etc). So it would make the process more enjoyable, as you will be learning about things that interests you more. It takes very little effort for the author to pick one of the categories.
By implementing this, I think more people would join the project, as they would not see this as a wholly administrative task, but also an opportunity to learn new things from the subject they are interested in. (For me, I see quite a few new articles on a new species, which interests me; another person might want to review 'Music' to find lesser-known bands etc.) Kinkreet ~♥moshi moshi♥~ 00:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
What to do? This one is getting old. I think it looks very good, but what do I know? It was last marked as copyvio. I have not found blatant copyvio, or I have missed it. :- ) DCS 15:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello, new reviewer here. I keep coming across submissions that are clearly unsuitable due to bad writing or formatting, but can't be denied on the basis of notability or referencing. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dr. Ariel Cohen for example; it is well-referenced and probably notable, but I don't feel comfortable moving it to the mainspace without lots of rewriting. Is unencyclopedic style valid grounds for denying a submission? Is there a standard rationale built into the template for such denials, or should I write out a custom rationale? Thanks, -- Cerebellum ( talk) 18:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm thinking we should delete Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Active participants and replace any links to it, with a link to this reviewer talk page. For the following reasons:
Discussion
Delete - But it is active in about 60 AfC Welcome templates. What to do with those? :- ) DCS 15:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I created "Jacques Derrida on deconstruction" and sent a draft here by mistake. I have since uploaded the finished article to the live Wikipedia. The draft does not need to be reviewed...please delete the draft, if possible. Thank you! OttawaAC ( talk) 16:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that project has become much more active lately, and with increased activity comes longer talkpages and archives. It is March, and the 2012 archive is already as long or longer than previous years'. Can someone (who actually knows how to) change the archive settings so another subpage is created (possibly at the end of March so that we have quarterly archives)? Nolelover Talk· Contribs 19:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I really like the AFC status box, so I copied the idea and made drafts for new templates for the {{Request edit}} and {{coi}} ques: User:Eclipsed/Template:Requested edits status User:Eclipsed/Template:COI tag status
Feel free to edit the draft templates at User:Eclipsed/Template:Requested edits status and User:Eclipsed/Template:COI tag status. Any comments welcome. Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 22:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
See AfC - John Belk and AfC - Joe Beck, both of which I just declined as not notable. However, it appears on the face of it that two different users ( Aichelman and Willjarvis)are doing exactly the same thing (including submitting from their sandboxes), and how many more of these are there in the 1200-plus pending AfC's? How can I find out where they're coming from? David_FLXD (Talk) 19:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
what dose n.y state specify on personal injury law — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.37.18 ( talk) 00:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Since conversation hasn't really started yet on the new Backlog Drive Talk page, I just wanted to note a few concerns that were raised for the November 2012 drive, that appear to be carrying over to the next drive:
I think there should be some serious consideration to addressing the scoring system. A few editors vaguely mentioned there'd be some easy script-based way to do it. If it will save dozens of hours for 30+ competitors (just in this Drive, much less future ones) I'd submit it's worth writing a script for it and giving an AFC barnstar to the scriptwriter automatically. The award bars is more of a quibble, but for scoring I honestly don't see myself competing if I have to spend 10 hours just proving I did some reviews. For your consideration. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 20:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
It has to be in the project space. If you go to a tagged article in the user's sandbox you won't see it. Gigs ( talk) 16:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
As I mentioned at the drive's talk page, I just finished a script that does just this – check out the beta at User:The Anonymouse/January 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive data.
Could the rest of the templated decline reasons be added to the dropdown menu? Danger High voltage! 04:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
The script does not recognise when the user who submitted a draft page has had a change of user name; and is leaving messages on the redirected talk page, rather than on the page to which it redirects. Here's an example. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I have concerns about Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Andy A. Anderson created by Badboyzshop ( talk · contribs). It appears to have been copied out of another user's sandbox User:Andybrevard/sandbox, so attribution is incomplete. -- 65.92.180.225 ( talk) 06:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
AFD informing bot, see Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 49#AFC reviewer informing if article is at AfD. Regards, mabdul 12:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)