![]() | 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 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
For me to start properly, is the tail of the submissions queue at 4 weeks old submissions or is there an older group of submissions somewhere? Gryllida ( talk) 20:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Somone left the following at my talk page. Perhaps someone from this project can take a look? Fram ( talk) 07:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Fram. You edited something in my article about HDL here /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/HDL-BUS_(Protocol) So, I appreciate that, but I can't understand why this article hasn't been published yet. Maybe it's just my mistake, or maybe it is waiting for review... for about 3 weeks so far. Sorry, I'm new here and if you give me some advise that would be just nice. The main thing I can't get: I see the big text block at the top of the article and it says "Article not currently submitted for review". But at the bottom it says "Review waiting". I need to say, that I hit a button "submit your draft when you are ready for it to be reviewed" once on 22nd of September. And 3 weeks after that, this text at the top is still there "Article not currently submitted for review"... But the article is absolutely ready to be published on wiki. So, dear Fram, please help if possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vadim.Sorokin.Wiki ( talk • contribs) 16:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
(end of copied text)
(note that the strange look of my post is caused by some error in the signature in the preceding section!) Fram ( talk) 07:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
This page User:JayBeats0610/sandbox may well deserve deletion, but is it a G13? I see that the author requested a review, so in my opinion that makes it a de facto AfC submission, even if in a personal sandbox. I'm inclined to delete, but wanted to see if anyone thought it should be MfD, which is the usual venue for sandbox pages. Is it fair to treat it as if it were on an AfC page? I'd say yes, although I'd feel differently if an editor other than the author asked for an AfC review.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 13:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
This attempt at an article Talk:Horizon Telcom, Inc. was deleted by The JPS as a G8. Not appropriate in my opinion. Same with Talk:Horton Hears a Who 2: Rudy Hears a Who!
This is a common occurrence. There must be a way to move these to AfC space. I tried, I failed, can someone tell me how?-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Here's another one: Talk:Miss Kurdistan beauty pageant-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Another one: Talk:Nuestra Señora de la Peña de Francia-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone involved in this project EVER judge whether to edit the title when a new article is moved into the article space? This move was recently done, so I had to move the new article to the singular title and then fix the links to the article. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I submitted an article earlier today and noticed that there's 1200+ articles waiting to be reviewed in the queue, and I was wondering if there was anything I could help to get some of this backlog reviewed? obviously, reviewing my own article would be a conflict of interest, but how can I try to help out and what should I read up on before I would be allowed to help? Bumblebritches57 ( talk) 19:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
It comes from a tribe that llajali means light — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.31.220 ( talk) 06:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
It appears that Citation bot has joined in the backlog elimination drive by trying to reduce the backlog itself. Unfortunately, it seems to be doing so by unsubmitting submissions, in some circumstances, that have previously been submitted and have not been accepted or declined.
I have filed a bug report at User talk:Citation bot/Archive1#Removes AfC submission template appearing after reflist template. Input there would be appreciated. This might include comments on whether this has happened on more occasions than the one listed, or if not why not, or comments on why it might be happening, or on what might be the best solution. Arthur goes shopping ( talk) 13:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, can someone have a look at this one, the editor doesn't like the fact it was declined for having one source. Rankersbo ( talk) 20:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/82.43.182.178 says it all.
This user is blindly (?) submitting pages with an edit summary of "{{subst:submit}}".
It's hard to tell if this is well-meaning or not but it's likely distracting. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 00:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I looked at a few. The earlier revisions had no {{ AFC submission}}. This activity looks constructive. — rybec 02:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
After I hit the review button at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bankstown Bites Food Festival, instead of the normal options, it said this:
Reviewing Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bankstown Bites Food Festival
Comment - Submit - Clean the submission
Why? Ross Hill ( talk) 03:08, 17 Oct 2013 ( UTC) 03:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Please comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria. As soon as a consensus is reached for a set of criteria, the discussion can be closed by an uninvolved editor. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 02:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I just came across a new proposal on WT:CSD#Addition to G13: Restored articles at 3 month mark, if unedited; 1 month mark if sill unedited that members of this project may have interest in. It is not my proposal, but since the proposer forgot to make mention here, and I believe it is important for members of the project this criterion is based upon to be aware of the discussion, I'm doing it for the proposer. Technical 13 ( talk) 16:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
There was a recent problem at an AfC for Aggregative games where comments were solicited at WT:MATH, some of us added comments to the article, and the closer approved the article without considering the comments. At least part of the problem is that our comments were not inside Template:Afc comment templates. The problems with the article are now resolved, but the discussion at WT:MATH#AfC submission brought up a question and a suggestion.
The question is: where in the article should comments be placed? I have always placed my comments between the big AfC header and the top of the lead of the article. But the closer, MatthewVanitas, was looking for the comments before the AfC header.
The suggestion is: it would be nice for the AfC header to indicate an acceptable way for a newbie (say, a solicited domain expert) to comment on the article. Right now, as far as I can tell, one has to (1) Expand the "Reviewer tools" box, (2) decide that "Instructions" might be the most likely link, (3) Read instructions until one gets down to the "Adding questions or comments" subsection in the "See also" section, and (4) have to start the installation and learning process for the AfC helper script. Although I'm still a newbie at this, I respectfully suggest adding something like the following to the AfC header: To make comments on this article, please use Template:Afc comment or the AfC helper script to do so. Please place your comment at location XXX.
Thanks for your comments and guidance, -- Mark viking ( talk) 21:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Until recently, there used to be two pages for looking at submissions. One was for the pending submissions, for the reviewers to work on. The other was a more general page, and had statistics about past submissions, details about recent submissions, and links to various categories related to submissions, including the category of submissions without templates. This page was useful to people trying to keep the project organized, and helped keep the "Pending Submission" page uncluttered and true to its title. I used this page extensively, but now I can't find it. It was under the Submissions tab, under the word "list". Now this link points somewhere else. Is there some reason this useful and informative page has been removed? And where can I find the link to the submissions without templates? — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
He is the member of parliament representing people of Kabale municipality. He is a mukiga by tribe. He recently took the IGG to court concerning procurement of Karuma hydro power project and won the case in the high court. He is known for his elaborate explanations on electricity in Uganda in parliament and national media.
He is married to Kembabazi Doreen with whom they have 2 daughters.Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page). New vision. Daily monitor , observer, Red pepper, the independent magazine, NTV WBS tv U tv. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
41.202.240.13 (
talk) 09:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm frustrated, because I asked what I thought was a simple question - how to move these into AfC space.
Is it really that hard to answer?
These are NOT G8 eligible:
Some of these will certainly not survive as article, at least not in their current form. I'm not arguing that we are losing quality articles. However, we are being rude to brand-new editors by not even welcoming them and explaining the shortcomings of their submissions, we are just blowing it away with out a comment. That's rude.
-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 17:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
We started the month at over 2000. After 1 week we were below 1500. That was a 500+ drop.
Since then we've been making small progress.
We are almost to the the 3-week mark and we are still above 1250.
Can we get down to 750 by the end of the month without sacrificing quality? I think so. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 17:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
There's a bit of a backlog on the help desk at the moment. Could somebody please take a look at the questions, as there are a bunch building up. I'm off wiki for most of the next 2-3 days, otherwise I'd do it myself. Cheers! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Just letting everyone know that I WP:BOLDly spoke out in the name of the project, here. Established team members are free to revert or clarify if they see fit to do so. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 18:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I've made a template that should make it faster to articles needing review! I hope you like it.
— (っ◔◡◔)っ Ross Hill 10:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm trying to answer some questions sent in to Wikimedia.
One of them involves an AfC submission. I don't know enough about the process to answer the question. The submissions is: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/If You're Not Here At Christmas (song)
The question is: Also, when I try to submit this for review, I'm asked to save it. When I comply I end up in a continuos loo[p]
Can someone tell me the status? The top box says it hasn't been submitted for review. but below it looks like it has.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 18:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok, this is a question that we get all the time over at the IRC help channel. Helpees are confused because they've submitted a draft for review but there's still a box on the page saying that their draft is not submitted. So, I'm proposing that a new bullet point be added to Template:AFC submission/draft that says "If there is a box that says "Review waiting" anywhere on this page, you can ignore this box." Further, a bullet point should be added to Template:AFC submission that says "As long as this box is somewhere on this page, your article is correctly submitted for review regardless of what any other boxes on this page say." What do you all think? I think it would be a lot less confusing for editors submitting drafts. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 17:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
This is related to Anne Delong's Help Desk [2] and VPT [3] request to find articles in Category:Pending AfC submissions that are about football. I think that articles listed at Category:Pending AfC submissions should be further subcategorized. So that there is consistency, I think the AfC subcategorization can track the subcategories listed at Category:AfD debates but in the sense of Category:AfC disussions. This will allow editors who are interested in a particular area to focus on expanding potential articles in the area of their interest. -- Jreferee ( talk) 19:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Can I create the article, "Machete Kills Again...in Space!"?, I have a plot, Machete is tasked by President Rathcock (Charlie Sheen) to take out Voz (Mel Gibson) after trying to start a nuclear holocaust on Earth. Before his mass exodus to a space station which he built. While kidnapping revolutionary Luz (Michelle Rodriguez) who is frozen in carbonite. Along with a bunch of Mexican-Americans who are forced to work/build on the space station. Even a link, [4]
76.188.116.60 ( talk) 01:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I've had Hasteurbot on hiatus for the past several weeks while the AfC backlog drive was rolling along. Now that we're getting down to the tail end, I intend to reactivate the bot in approximately 10 hours. Assuming there are no objections there will be some nominations while the bot clears out it's backlog of articles that have already been nominated that were not beeing watched over by the bot. Hasteur ( talk) 16:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
See: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 146#Discussion of Articles for Creation. It's about using AFC as a filter for articles created by PR companies and other COI editors. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 13:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
has been created. This isn't intended as a precursor to any obligatory requirement for training. Like the Counter vandalism and the NPP schools (of which it is effectively a clone), it's really for anyone who would like to review but feels they would like some training, and for those who have been recommended to go on a course because they are getting their reviews wrong too often.
It doesn't mean there is going to be a storm of people wanting to enroll, so any regular project members who would like to add themselves to the 'active trainer' section, please feel free to do so. It's very low maintenance and like the other two schools, it practically runs itself. Candidates for training simply contact an instructor. There is an outline curriculum from which instructors can develop their own syllabus on a case-by-case basis. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 08:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
FYI and possibly for use any future reviewer-training program:
See Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Ashura In Kashmir (likely future archive home 55 or 56) and the final outcome of the newly-opened sockpuppet investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sharafat99 for more information.
I'm bringing this here at the suggestion of Abecedare in the India noticeboard discussion linked above ( diff). davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 15:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I realize this will have to go through the Article Wizard developers as well as the AFCH Helper Script developers, but I wanted to run it by here first...
If we could have the Article Wizard and the AFC template structure work together to flag very commonly submitted-and-rejected' categories such as "living people," "music and musicians," and "companies and organizations" it would allow us to immediately do some broad-scale grouping for reviewers who like to specialize, and it would allow future customizations to templates, such as forcing "living people" submissions which lack in-line citations to stay in "draft" state until they have them.
For the sake of simplicity, I'm thinking of just adding "broadcategory=yes" parameters to {{ afc submission}}, where broadcategory is arbitrary but the only ones we would recognize initially would be the three above, "living people," "music and musicians," and "companies and organizations."
This same mechanism can be used for non-content-related flags like "COI=yes," which a future version of the AFCH script can turn into a {{ connected contributor}} template on the talk page if the submission is eventually accepted.
Thoughts? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 04:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Now that the backlog drive is over, the G13 submissions are being deleted again. I have been checking the February 2012 ones, which are next to go, and I have rescued a few, but I will be busy with the Individual Engagement Grants for three days, by which time the Feb ones may be gone. If anyone would like to look these over and maybe save a few, just pick a letter, put your name next to it, then click on the infobox and start checking ones starting with that letter. When you've checked them, mark off that letter. The Afc script has an option that will let you easily postpone any that you think are worth saving or have history that should be merged into existing articles. Happy hunting... — Anne Delong ( talk) 15:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Is it possible to see a list of AfC submissions on a particular subject, e.g. geography, mathematics, theology, linguistics etc.? If that can be done, it would immensely speed up reviews and editing because people could look for AfC submissions on which they have expertise. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
What has happened to the backlog drive page? It appears to be starting a November drive all by itself, and the pointer to the October drive is gone, even though the re-reviews aren't finished yet. Can someone check this out please? — Anne Delong ( talk) 16:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
See the last entry in Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/October 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive/Davidwr#Checked reviews, "48. (Accepted) Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Matvei Igonen". If you are the 2nd person (3rd, counting my self-fail), please delete mine, it's just there to make it easy for you to copy-and-paste. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 00:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
can you answer my question please? apologies for being so formal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.78.62 ( talk) 23:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
( 174.52.233.163 ( talk) 00:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)) They need a page on the Apprenticeship of Colonial America. (@_@) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.233.163 ( talk) 00:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Please see this edit on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria#Research needed? as well as my reply at m:Research talk:Wikipedia article creation#En's Articles for creation question. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 16:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I want to get all email address of Bangladesh union parish ad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.234.94.187 ( talk) 04:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
These will be given out today or tomorrow. As I have just re-wrote the template, can you let me know if there are any bugs in it... -- Mdann 52 talk to me! 15:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
This will be on the honor system, with brownies given out by yours truly throughout the week and barnstars given by yours truly late next week. The delay is to allow time for people to nominate improperly-accepted pages for deletion.
Rules:
Incorrect acceptances should be obvious, but they include:
Brownie:
Barnstar points:
and so on.
There are no Golden/Silver/Bronze wikis for this competition.
Why the weird scoring?
Start time: 00:00:00 11 November 2013 (UTC). End time: 23:59:59 17 November 2013 (UTC).
By the way, I will be reviewing articles during this time but I will not be participating in the scoring. After all, I might be biased :) . davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 00:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Why is the {{WPAFC}} template added to the talk page of pages created through AFC? After the article has been created, I don't expect much involvement of the AFC wikiproject anymore; so the importance and quality ratings seem totally unnecessary, only functioning as an advertisement for AFC. It does create a burden upon the people trying to keep the ratings up-to-date. -- WS ( talk) 09:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to change part of Template:AFC submission (or, more accurately, Template:AFC submission/pending). Currently, it says "If you require extra assistance, you can visit our help desk. / Click here to ask a new question at the help desk / Click here to get assistance via live help chat". However, many users appear to misunderstand this prompt and are visiting the live help chat (#wikipedia-en-help on IRC) to ask for a reviewer to attend to their submission because they're impatient. This greatly inflates traffic to that channel and benefits "queue jumpers" to the detriment of every other AFC submitter, considering the reality of limited reviewer time.
I'd like to tweak the wording of the template to emphasize that the help links are there for help editing or submitting AFCs, not as a shortcut to get one's article reviewed. My proposed wording, though I'm very much open to other ideas, is to change those lines to say (bolding mine, for emphasis here, not for use in final template): "If you require extra assistance editing or submitting your article, you can visit our help desk. / Click here to ask a new question at the help desk about editing or submitting your article / Click here to get assistance editing or submitting your article via live help chat". Ideally I would also add some language to the effect of "please note that these help venues are not for requesting that your submission be reviewed", but I can't think of a way to distill that enough to fit neatly into the template. The upshot here is that I'd like to make clear to submitters that helpers are there to help with editing, not to help you jump the queue.
Thoughts on this? I don't generally edit templates, especially commonly-transcluded ones, so I'd like to make sure both that my proposal is generally agreed with and that I edit the template in as non-breaking-things a manner as possible. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! ( talk) 19:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Done Template updated. @
Fluffernutter: If in a few weeks you haven't seen any decrease in IRC whining, post another message here and we can experiment with other solutions.
Theopolisme (
talk) 20:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
See
list. 79 edits to mainspace. registered for only two weeks one month. In particular, see concerns raised on the user's talk page.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk) 23:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
4 weeks/192 mainspace edits. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 08:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I have been looking through Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions to see if there is anything worth saving. I have been moving at least one in ten pages I review into article space. That means that there are probably four to five thousand articles rotting in the category that should be in artice space. I am seeing a lot of pages that have been declined for not meeting the minimum standard for inline citations that as far as I can see have not failed the minimum standard. The minimum requirement is actually zero except for a limited set of specific circumstances. It is perfectly possible that an article with no inline citations at all could still be accepted, and I have moved a number into article space.
This is not the only grounds on which I am seeing reviewers being overly strict. Your backlog would be significantly smaller, there would be fewer potentially decent editors abandoning drafts and walking away from Wikipedia, and we would have a larger cadre of editors to do more reviewing if only people would look past the scraggy formatting of a submitted article to the actual useful encyclopaedic content.
Thanks for listening, Spinning Spark 19:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
( edit conflict) I just want to be sure that I have not been misunderstood here. AfC is neither WP:EAR nor WP:HD, nor the Teahouse, it is a filtering system, like NPP. Spinningspark's issues could be resolved if Wikipedia had a proper landing page, but the creation of one is a larger project than the volunteers can be expected to do themselves; unfortunately after all this time and WP:ACTRIAL, the WMF does not see this as a priority. In the meantime, we are trying to do something about it by 1) attempting to set some criteria of competence for reviewing, and 2) attempting to get a 'draft' namespace created that will allow for cleaner and more equitable reviewing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 04:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I have already warned the reviewer in question; If you find any more, please ping me/let me know on the talk page, and I will investigate and take action accordingly. -- Mdann 52 talk to me! 13:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
@ Ritchie333: took half a day to retrospectively source to DYK standards. That about sums up what is wrong with the mindset here. It is not necessary to get an article to DYK standard for it to be in mainspace (and in many ways DYK has become a tougher standard to pass than GA nowadays). If you want to get the article to DYK standard then fine, go ahead, I certainly won't object, but that should not be stopping you from moving it to mainspace first. Spinning Spark 16:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: Please feel free to add your opinion on the above talk page. — Anne Delong ( talk) 00:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Please see the above example of why the G13 eligible submissions should be checked before being nominated for deletion. — Anne Delong ( talk) 17:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Pages that consist of content OTHER than an AFC submission should NOT be G13'd. Rather, the "afc submission" template should be removed or, as I did above, deactivated. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 01:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
भूगोल हा विषय फार प्राचीण आहेँ जगाच्या आधुनिकी बरोबर या विषयाची गुणवत्ता वाढत आहे. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.98.98.43 ( talk) 08:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
भूगोल हा विषय फार प्राचीण आहेँ जगाच्या आधुनिकी बरोबर या विषयाची गुणवत्ता वाढत आहे. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.98.98.43 ( talk) 08:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Darylgolden( talk) 01:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Can someone have a look at this article submitted here here: Pathfinder (band).
When I tried to move it into mainspace, it simply stalls on the 'moving' stage. Perhaps someone else could have a go? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi ( talk) 10:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
There are many help desk posts that have not yet had any replies, some are even being archived without having received any attention. I'm trying to deal with the ones I feel I can handle. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 06:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
mabdul 06:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to the editors who helped with the checking of the March and April 2012 G13-eligible submissions: Rankersbo , phoebe, DES, Darylgolden, DGG and others who have helped a little here and there. The ones not postponed, accepted or otherwise edited have mostly been deleted now. In spite of the backlog drive in October, we managed to check six months of old submissions in less than three months, so we are gaining on the backlog. May 2012 is next! — Anne Delong ( talk) 19:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I have changed the text on the above page, which said to look below for submissions (they're not there since the pages were changed all around for some reason). However, the text also says that there are 33 declined submissions. This used to show the number of declined submissions since 2008, but now it erroneously just counts the 33 categories of declined submissions. Can this be changed back to show the actual number of declined submissions instead?
Also, I can't seem to find the link to the list of submissions without a template. It was there before, so maybe I just can't see it for looking? — Anne Delong ( talk) 17:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Please comment at MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist#RfC: Should the titleblacklist be set up to prevent AfC submissions from being created in the wrong location?. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 00:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
The graphic of a "save page" button on Template:AFC submission/Subst/Editintro is very confusing. I keep trying to press it myself if I'm not paying attention so heaven knows how confused our new editors get. I suggest removing the graphic and replacing simply with the words "the save page button below". Alternatively, turn it into an actual save page button so it can be pressed. Spinning Spark 00:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I'M SORRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What did I do wrong did i copy paste text do I have no references and now I can't request it ever again!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandharrison ( talk • contribs) 13:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I presume the other participants in the October 2013 backlog drive have received their awards by this point, but I have not. Unless there was an issue with one/more, which should have been reported to me if so, I did review 15 AFC submissions, so with the next drive occurring soon I'd appreciate if this could be wrapped up. If I said "I'm miffed!", would you come running or go? ( talk) 03:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)#
Moved to the Helpdesk page - Sionk ( talk) 00:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi all, Per a discussion on the December drives talk page, the next Backlog Elimination Drive is now between 1st January - 31st January 2013. -- Mdann 52 talk to me! 08:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Registered 29 Oct. 39 mainspace edits. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 06:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm having to decline or comment on every submission twice before the script actually does what it has to. What's happening? FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 18:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Try disabling the gadget via settings, adding
importScript('MediaWiki:Gadget-afchelper-beta.js'); // AFCH beta script [[MediaWiki:Gadget-afchelper-beta.js]]
to your Special:MyPage/common.js page, and then bypassing your cache. Please let me know if this resolves the problem. Theopolisme ( talk) 22:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: The text on this page should really have been on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk page. I thought of moving it in among the archived discussions from last year. Is this a good idea, or is modifying the archive inappropriate? — Anne Delong ( talk) 03:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
This appears to be a hoax - references don't mention it, and the coordinates are in the Adriatic Sea - but has not been submitted. I found it when looking at contributions of an IP range that appears to be only used for vandalism. Is it acceptable to decline before submission? Peter James ( talk) 17:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
By now its probably rather obvious that the AFC backlog drive statistics aren't updated regularly - or not at all for that matter. The reason for this is that the code responsible for uploading the generated data to Wikipedia is consistently receiving an HTTP 503 as a response to the upload attempt. After initially assuming this was something temporal it would now seem that there is an underlying issue somewhere. The issue itself is actually quite problematic for a few reasons:
Long story short: It may take some time to figure out what is happening, why this is happing and subsequently preventing it will happen. Hopefully i will have some time during the weekend to sit down and analyze what is going on. Note that the statistics themselves are correctly generated - in a worst case scenario i can upload them manually but I'd rather not do so as it is both tedious and time consuming work. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 19:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
There a re now 163 pages in the CSD cat. Too many for us to be expected to take a proper look at them and resucue any. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 18:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
@ Kudpung I find your comment very offensive, I am sorry if I am too efficient for the Admins. I am not new to Wikipedia and think that I (a real human being) can do a better job than a bot. I know the difference between a good article that should be moved to the Main space or one that should be deleted. Rather than discourage editors from clearing the huge backlog, you should be encouraging. I will slow down my nominations if you can not cope but I will not stop. JMHamo ( talk) 19:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
No thanks. I'm out. I wish the project well. JMHamo ( talk) 20:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I wanted to promote Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/PACT programming model as Parallelization contract. The author's user page has been changed from another account, with a claim that the other account belongs to the same person [7]. Believing the claim, I chose "custom submitter" in the script and gave the new account, Physikerwelt, as the submitter, rather than the original author, Schubi87. Unfortunately, when I chose "accept" in the script, the notice went to User talk:72.200.84.87, notifiying someone who had previously inserted an AfC submittion template [8] into the draft. — rybec 00:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I have proposed that Category:AfC pending submissions by age/21 days ago through Category:AfC pending submissions by age/28 days ago be nominated on the grounds that they are not being used nor are they procedurally being used. The nomination is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 9#Category:AfC pending submissions by age/28 days ago. Please feel free to weigh in on the debate if you feel it is appropriate. Hasteur ( talk) 22:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Kafziel seems to be making especially troublesome reviews - he either accepts or deletes drafts - he doesn't "decline" them, just deletes them. Some of his deletions is especially problematic, for example deleting an article per a csd criteria in the article section. To game the system, he has sometimes "accepted" articles by moving them into mainspace and then immediately deleting them. Huon has left him a message on his talk page, but Kafziel has declined to change his reviews, citing that he is not a member of AfC, and thus does not need to follow their rules as it is not policy. User talk:Kafziel#Skimlinks may explain the rationale behind his actions, which is completely against consensus. I am at a loss of what to do, can someone help? Thanks! Darylgolden( talk) 01:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Is there a simple way to move this back to AfC or NPP? If not, there should be. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 12:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Reviewers and others, please weigh in at:
Thanks — Anne Delong ( talk) 19:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Suggest we start thinking about the changes that will be required to start using the new draft namespace when it is launched. (See mw:Draft namespace.) — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 13:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
It sometimes happens that when a reviewer starts to review a draft, s/he finds that it has been cut&paste-moved to article space already. Our decline reason of duplicate doesn't really handle this well, it is set up for the different case when the AfC submitter has duplicated a previously existing article. A history merge would be the ideal result, but that takes an admin and may be more trouble than it is worth, particularly if there is no other editor to credit. Should these be tagged for G6 (housekeeping) speedy deletes? or just declined and left until they are deleted as stale? Or should we seek some other way of handling them? I don't favor a cross-namespace redirect for such, as one poster on WT:CSD suggested. DES (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I have had a couple of CSD nominations declined because an AFC submission has subsequently been duplicated by a main space article. Which criteria should I be using? Hack ( talk) 03:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Articles like this have popped up when I push the {{ AFC button}}. Is there a problem with the button or a problem with the banners on these submissions? ~ KvnG 03:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
There is a problem when an article submitted to AfC from a userspace page is moved to WT:Articles for creation after it has been declined, like this: the link from the userpage message that says "If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at... " no longer works, see this version (I have fixed this one manually). I don't understand the complex syntax of the template, and I would have expected the redirect to simply pass one through to the new location, but the actual result after User:Hsanchez6/Virtuous Records was moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Virtuous Records, was a redlink to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hsanchez6/Virtuous Records. JohnCD ( talk) 15:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, this looks like a problem with the old {{
AFC submission/location}}
template. Interestingly enough, the edit
you linked was me removing its usage whenever possible, due to bugs like this ;) I'm pinging
a user who I know has worked on the borked template in the past to investigate a temporary fix -- new versions of the script (from <4 months ago IIRC) use the {{subst:Afc_decline/sandbox|full=User:Hsanchez6/Virtuous Records}}
syntax, which alleviates this problem.
Theopolisme (
talk) 22:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Backlog from 21 to 28 days ago is cleared! Don't forget the older stuff. ~ KvnG 23:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal, a renounced columnist in world affairs Hr writes mainly in English in many newspapers and non-print media portals. He edits "Foreign Policy Issues and " International Opinion" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdulruff ( talk • contribs) 06:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This page in a nutshell: Persuade Wikiprojects to agree to review articles relevant to their area |
My name is noticeably absent from those who do the heavy lifting with the reviews, so I'll understand that I may not have the qualifications to be making suggestions on process. In my defense, I do field a lot of OTRS questions, many of which relate to AFC, so I do see the process, and in ways that some of the regulars might not see. As is well-known, there is a backlog. Recruiting more volunteers would be an answer, but that isn't an easy sell. I did a fair amount of work at the predecessor to AfC, the Feedback forum, and frankly, it twas largely thankless work. So I can't really imagine an easy way to attract new editor to AfC in general. Of course, I could volunteer, but I'm struggling to find enough volunteers to help out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Basketball/Women's basketball. While I'm not ready to sign up as a general volunteer, if someone ran across an article related to women's basketball, I would be happy to get involved.
That reminded me of something
Anne Delong did, which I hope can be formalized? I don't remember where I saw it, but she posted a link to an AfC submission to a Wikiproject page. In short, rather than recruiting generalists for AfC, why not strong arm Wikiprojects into agreeing that they would review submissions in their area?
I'm here because of an OTRS issue. After helping someone process permission, she asked when the submission about her might be done. My heart sank, because I knew the answer was not a short period of time. Then I decided to check with a specific editor, and if that failed, try the relevant Wikiproject. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that the first request will work, but it reminded me again that it might make sense to reach out to Wikiprojects.
In principle, the process is simple. Craft a plea directed at Wikiprojects, letting hem know how backlogged the process is and that many potential articles in their area of expertise are not getting the attention they deserve. They would be hard-pressed to turn you down, how can they argue that their main goal is articles about X, and turn down helping with articles about X? If they agree, someone can work out the details, but one approach would be to add a section to the main Wikiproject page for relevant submissions, then create a list for AfC volunteers, Then part of the triage could be to see if the draft fits in to any of the Wikiprojects who signed up, turn it over to them (with a name who can help with the review process,and then reviewers can concentrate on drafts who don't have a participating Wikiproject.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 20:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
In my mind there's nothing with poking some of the most active projects (like MILHIST/ROADS/Anime) and seeing if they're willing to take over the job of reviewing the submissions for their subject. Hasteur ( talk) 20:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm asking a WikiProject about a related situation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology#A bombardment of new psychology articles at Articles for Creation - class project? - in particular, whether that Wikiproject would prefer acceptable-looking articles to be simply accepted by non-specialists and dropped into their Wikiproject category for remedial tidy-up, or whether they would like us to confer with them about acceptance on a case by case basis. Arthur goes shopping ( talk) 14:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Since the backlog is not organized by topic, soliciting the involvement of WikiProject members to help with the backlog would amount to an awareness campaign targeting all WikiProjects. This feels a bit like spam. I would suggest an awareness campaign targeted to the assessment departments of any WikiProject that has such a department. We can post an appeal to the assessment department's talk page. The starting point, if we want to pursue this idea, is to identify which WikiProjects have assessment departments. ~
KvnG 18:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Please see and join the emerging discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Drafts#Deletion_and_Draft: regarding part of the potential usage of the Draft: namespace. Fiddle Faddle 19:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I attempted to accept Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paul Pesco. A redirect exists for this person. I got a "Can't find AfD template" error from the script when I went to accept. Not sure what to do next. ~ KvnG 14:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
User talk:Rebecca1990#Article help, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Danica Dillon. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 03:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed that category requests slip off and are archived without being accepted or rejected, or even queried, much more often than with redirect requests. I have a mind that this may be because they are being lost in the sea of red and green accepted and denied redirect requests, and bad article requests, and that they are more complex so require more thought.
So I'm proposing that category requests go to a separate WP:AFC/C page apart from WP:AFC/R, with a different and longer archival time limit (say two weeks instead of just 1 week).
-- 65.94.78.9 ( talk) 22:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I got about 2-3 articles, that are yet to be reviewed/patrolled. I think they have been overlooked. Can I submit them here? Bladesmulti ( talk) 04:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Dear contributor:
This is not the place for draft articles. You are probably looking for WP:AFC. I have "collapsed" the content of your comment so that you can copy it to a "real" submission at your convenience.
Extended content
|
---|
Bold textProf. Mahavir Saran Jain Born: January 17, 1941 Buland Shahr (UP) India. Family: Ela Jain (wife), Richa (daughter), Manu (son). Education: M.A. (1960); D.Phil. (1962); D.Litt. (1967). Appointment & Positions: 1992-2001: Director, Central Institute of Hindi (Kendriya Hindi Sansthan), Government of India, Agra. 1988-1992: Professor & Head of the Department of Post Graduate Studies and Research in Hindi and Linguistics. Dean, Faculty of Arts, Jabalpur University, Jabalpur. 1984-1988: Visiting Professor of Hindi Language & Literature, University of Bucharest, Romania. 1964-1984: Lecturer, Reader, Professor : Department of Postgraduate Studies and Research in Hindi and Linguistics, University, JABALPUR ( INDIA )
Publications: 25 book length publications, 108 research papers, 81 articles and 56 reviews/ prefaces, including: • Anya Bhaashaa Shikshan • Parinishthit Hindi Kaa Dhvanigraamik Adhyayan • Parinishthit Hindi Kaa Roopgraamik Adhyayan • Bhaashaa Evam Bhaashaa Vigyaan • Vishva Chetanaa Evam Sarvadharma Sambhaav. • Bhagwaan Mahaaveer Evam Jain Darshan • Aavaran Ke Pare - book on das-laxan dharma. • Vishwa Shanti Evam Ahimsa (World Peace and Ahimsa ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.233.120.192 ( talk) 01:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC) |
davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 01:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
This text on the template should read "more than" not over. Please can someone fix it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I've requested that the AfC helper script's very useful WikiProject template selector be made available as a stand-alone tool. Comments welcome at WP:VPT#WikiProject template selector. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:14, 28 December 2013 (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 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
For me to start properly, is the tail of the submissions queue at 4 weeks old submissions or is there an older group of submissions somewhere? Gryllida ( talk) 20:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Somone left the following at my talk page. Perhaps someone from this project can take a look? Fram ( talk) 07:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Fram. You edited something in my article about HDL here /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/HDL-BUS_(Protocol) So, I appreciate that, but I can't understand why this article hasn't been published yet. Maybe it's just my mistake, or maybe it is waiting for review... for about 3 weeks so far. Sorry, I'm new here and if you give me some advise that would be just nice. The main thing I can't get: I see the big text block at the top of the article and it says "Article not currently submitted for review". But at the bottom it says "Review waiting". I need to say, that I hit a button "submit your draft when you are ready for it to be reviewed" once on 22nd of September. And 3 weeks after that, this text at the top is still there "Article not currently submitted for review"... But the article is absolutely ready to be published on wiki. So, dear Fram, please help if possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vadim.Sorokin.Wiki ( talk • contribs) 16:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
(end of copied text)
(note that the strange look of my post is caused by some error in the signature in the preceding section!) Fram ( talk) 07:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
This page User:JayBeats0610/sandbox may well deserve deletion, but is it a G13? I see that the author requested a review, so in my opinion that makes it a de facto AfC submission, even if in a personal sandbox. I'm inclined to delete, but wanted to see if anyone thought it should be MfD, which is the usual venue for sandbox pages. Is it fair to treat it as if it were on an AfC page? I'd say yes, although I'd feel differently if an editor other than the author asked for an AfC review.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 13:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
This attempt at an article Talk:Horizon Telcom, Inc. was deleted by The JPS as a G8. Not appropriate in my opinion. Same with Talk:Horton Hears a Who 2: Rudy Hears a Who!
This is a common occurrence. There must be a way to move these to AfC space. I tried, I failed, can someone tell me how?-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Here's another one: Talk:Miss Kurdistan beauty pageant-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Another one: Talk:Nuestra Señora de la Peña de Francia-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone involved in this project EVER judge whether to edit the title when a new article is moved into the article space? This move was recently done, so I had to move the new article to the singular title and then fix the links to the article. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I submitted an article earlier today and noticed that there's 1200+ articles waiting to be reviewed in the queue, and I was wondering if there was anything I could help to get some of this backlog reviewed? obviously, reviewing my own article would be a conflict of interest, but how can I try to help out and what should I read up on before I would be allowed to help? Bumblebritches57 ( talk) 19:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
It comes from a tribe that llajali means light — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.31.220 ( talk) 06:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
It appears that Citation bot has joined in the backlog elimination drive by trying to reduce the backlog itself. Unfortunately, it seems to be doing so by unsubmitting submissions, in some circumstances, that have previously been submitted and have not been accepted or declined.
I have filed a bug report at User talk:Citation bot/Archive1#Removes AfC submission template appearing after reflist template. Input there would be appreciated. This might include comments on whether this has happened on more occasions than the one listed, or if not why not, or comments on why it might be happening, or on what might be the best solution. Arthur goes shopping ( talk) 13:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, can someone have a look at this one, the editor doesn't like the fact it was declined for having one source. Rankersbo ( talk) 20:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/82.43.182.178 says it all.
This user is blindly (?) submitting pages with an edit summary of "{{subst:submit}}".
It's hard to tell if this is well-meaning or not but it's likely distracting. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 00:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I looked at a few. The earlier revisions had no {{ AFC submission}}. This activity looks constructive. — rybec 02:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
After I hit the review button at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bankstown Bites Food Festival, instead of the normal options, it said this:
Reviewing Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bankstown Bites Food Festival
Comment - Submit - Clean the submission
Why? Ross Hill ( talk) 03:08, 17 Oct 2013 ( UTC) 03:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Please comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria. As soon as a consensus is reached for a set of criteria, the discussion can be closed by an uninvolved editor. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 02:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I just came across a new proposal on WT:CSD#Addition to G13: Restored articles at 3 month mark, if unedited; 1 month mark if sill unedited that members of this project may have interest in. It is not my proposal, but since the proposer forgot to make mention here, and I believe it is important for members of the project this criterion is based upon to be aware of the discussion, I'm doing it for the proposer. Technical 13 ( talk) 16:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
There was a recent problem at an AfC for Aggregative games where comments were solicited at WT:MATH, some of us added comments to the article, and the closer approved the article without considering the comments. At least part of the problem is that our comments were not inside Template:Afc comment templates. The problems with the article are now resolved, but the discussion at WT:MATH#AfC submission brought up a question and a suggestion.
The question is: where in the article should comments be placed? I have always placed my comments between the big AfC header and the top of the lead of the article. But the closer, MatthewVanitas, was looking for the comments before the AfC header.
The suggestion is: it would be nice for the AfC header to indicate an acceptable way for a newbie (say, a solicited domain expert) to comment on the article. Right now, as far as I can tell, one has to (1) Expand the "Reviewer tools" box, (2) decide that "Instructions" might be the most likely link, (3) Read instructions until one gets down to the "Adding questions or comments" subsection in the "See also" section, and (4) have to start the installation and learning process for the AfC helper script. Although I'm still a newbie at this, I respectfully suggest adding something like the following to the AfC header: To make comments on this article, please use Template:Afc comment or the AfC helper script to do so. Please place your comment at location XXX.
Thanks for your comments and guidance, -- Mark viking ( talk) 21:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Until recently, there used to be two pages for looking at submissions. One was for the pending submissions, for the reviewers to work on. The other was a more general page, and had statistics about past submissions, details about recent submissions, and links to various categories related to submissions, including the category of submissions without templates. This page was useful to people trying to keep the project organized, and helped keep the "Pending Submission" page uncluttered and true to its title. I used this page extensively, but now I can't find it. It was under the Submissions tab, under the word "list". Now this link points somewhere else. Is there some reason this useful and informative page has been removed? And where can I find the link to the submissions without templates? — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
He is the member of parliament representing people of Kabale municipality. He is a mukiga by tribe. He recently took the IGG to court concerning procurement of Karuma hydro power project and won the case in the high court. He is known for his elaborate explanations on electricity in Uganda in parliament and national media.
He is married to Kembabazi Doreen with whom they have 2 daughters.Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page). New vision. Daily monitor , observer, Red pepper, the independent magazine, NTV WBS tv U tv. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
41.202.240.13 (
talk) 09:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm frustrated, because I asked what I thought was a simple question - how to move these into AfC space.
Is it really that hard to answer?
These are NOT G8 eligible:
Some of these will certainly not survive as article, at least not in their current form. I'm not arguing that we are losing quality articles. However, we are being rude to brand-new editors by not even welcoming them and explaining the shortcomings of their submissions, we are just blowing it away with out a comment. That's rude.
-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 17:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
We started the month at over 2000. After 1 week we were below 1500. That was a 500+ drop.
Since then we've been making small progress.
We are almost to the the 3-week mark and we are still above 1250.
Can we get down to 750 by the end of the month without sacrificing quality? I think so. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 17:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
There's a bit of a backlog on the help desk at the moment. Could somebody please take a look at the questions, as there are a bunch building up. I'm off wiki for most of the next 2-3 days, otherwise I'd do it myself. Cheers! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Just letting everyone know that I WP:BOLDly spoke out in the name of the project, here. Established team members are free to revert or clarify if they see fit to do so. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 18:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I've made a template that should make it faster to articles needing review! I hope you like it.
— (っ◔◡◔)っ Ross Hill 10:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm trying to answer some questions sent in to Wikimedia.
One of them involves an AfC submission. I don't know enough about the process to answer the question. The submissions is: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/If You're Not Here At Christmas (song)
The question is: Also, when I try to submit this for review, I'm asked to save it. When I comply I end up in a continuos loo[p]
Can someone tell me the status? The top box says it hasn't been submitted for review. but below it looks like it has.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 18:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok, this is a question that we get all the time over at the IRC help channel. Helpees are confused because they've submitted a draft for review but there's still a box on the page saying that their draft is not submitted. So, I'm proposing that a new bullet point be added to Template:AFC submission/draft that says "If there is a box that says "Review waiting" anywhere on this page, you can ignore this box." Further, a bullet point should be added to Template:AFC submission that says "As long as this box is somewhere on this page, your article is correctly submitted for review regardless of what any other boxes on this page say." What do you all think? I think it would be a lot less confusing for editors submitting drafts. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 17:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
This is related to Anne Delong's Help Desk [2] and VPT [3] request to find articles in Category:Pending AfC submissions that are about football. I think that articles listed at Category:Pending AfC submissions should be further subcategorized. So that there is consistency, I think the AfC subcategorization can track the subcategories listed at Category:AfD debates but in the sense of Category:AfC disussions. This will allow editors who are interested in a particular area to focus on expanding potential articles in the area of their interest. -- Jreferee ( talk) 19:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Can I create the article, "Machete Kills Again...in Space!"?, I have a plot, Machete is tasked by President Rathcock (Charlie Sheen) to take out Voz (Mel Gibson) after trying to start a nuclear holocaust on Earth. Before his mass exodus to a space station which he built. While kidnapping revolutionary Luz (Michelle Rodriguez) who is frozen in carbonite. Along with a bunch of Mexican-Americans who are forced to work/build on the space station. Even a link, [4]
76.188.116.60 ( talk) 01:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I've had Hasteurbot on hiatus for the past several weeks while the AfC backlog drive was rolling along. Now that we're getting down to the tail end, I intend to reactivate the bot in approximately 10 hours. Assuming there are no objections there will be some nominations while the bot clears out it's backlog of articles that have already been nominated that were not beeing watched over by the bot. Hasteur ( talk) 16:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
See: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 146#Discussion of Articles for Creation. It's about using AFC as a filter for articles created by PR companies and other COI editors. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 13:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
has been created. This isn't intended as a precursor to any obligatory requirement for training. Like the Counter vandalism and the NPP schools (of which it is effectively a clone), it's really for anyone who would like to review but feels they would like some training, and for those who have been recommended to go on a course because they are getting their reviews wrong too often.
It doesn't mean there is going to be a storm of people wanting to enroll, so any regular project members who would like to add themselves to the 'active trainer' section, please feel free to do so. It's very low maintenance and like the other two schools, it practically runs itself. Candidates for training simply contact an instructor. There is an outline curriculum from which instructors can develop their own syllabus on a case-by-case basis. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 08:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
FYI and possibly for use any future reviewer-training program:
See Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Ashura In Kashmir (likely future archive home 55 or 56) and the final outcome of the newly-opened sockpuppet investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sharafat99 for more information.
I'm bringing this here at the suggestion of Abecedare in the India noticeboard discussion linked above ( diff). davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 15:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I realize this will have to go through the Article Wizard developers as well as the AFCH Helper Script developers, but I wanted to run it by here first...
If we could have the Article Wizard and the AFC template structure work together to flag very commonly submitted-and-rejected' categories such as "living people," "music and musicians," and "companies and organizations" it would allow us to immediately do some broad-scale grouping for reviewers who like to specialize, and it would allow future customizations to templates, such as forcing "living people" submissions which lack in-line citations to stay in "draft" state until they have them.
For the sake of simplicity, I'm thinking of just adding "broadcategory=yes" parameters to {{ afc submission}}, where broadcategory is arbitrary but the only ones we would recognize initially would be the three above, "living people," "music and musicians," and "companies and organizations."
This same mechanism can be used for non-content-related flags like "COI=yes," which a future version of the AFCH script can turn into a {{ connected contributor}} template on the talk page if the submission is eventually accepted.
Thoughts? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 04:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Now that the backlog drive is over, the G13 submissions are being deleted again. I have been checking the February 2012 ones, which are next to go, and I have rescued a few, but I will be busy with the Individual Engagement Grants for three days, by which time the Feb ones may be gone. If anyone would like to look these over and maybe save a few, just pick a letter, put your name next to it, then click on the infobox and start checking ones starting with that letter. When you've checked them, mark off that letter. The Afc script has an option that will let you easily postpone any that you think are worth saving or have history that should be merged into existing articles. Happy hunting... — Anne Delong ( talk) 15:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Is it possible to see a list of AfC submissions on a particular subject, e.g. geography, mathematics, theology, linguistics etc.? If that can be done, it would immensely speed up reviews and editing because people could look for AfC submissions on which they have expertise. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
What has happened to the backlog drive page? It appears to be starting a November drive all by itself, and the pointer to the October drive is gone, even though the re-reviews aren't finished yet. Can someone check this out please? — Anne Delong ( talk) 16:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
See the last entry in Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/October 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive/Davidwr#Checked reviews, "48. (Accepted) Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Matvei Igonen". If you are the 2nd person (3rd, counting my self-fail), please delete mine, it's just there to make it easy for you to copy-and-paste. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 00:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
can you answer my question please? apologies for being so formal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.78.62 ( talk) 23:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
( 174.52.233.163 ( talk) 00:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)) They need a page on the Apprenticeship of Colonial America. (@_@) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.233.163 ( talk) 00:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Please see this edit on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria#Research needed? as well as my reply at m:Research talk:Wikipedia article creation#En's Articles for creation question. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 16:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I want to get all email address of Bangladesh union parish ad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.234.94.187 ( talk) 04:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
These will be given out today or tomorrow. As I have just re-wrote the template, can you let me know if there are any bugs in it... -- Mdann 52 talk to me! 15:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
This will be on the honor system, with brownies given out by yours truly throughout the week and barnstars given by yours truly late next week. The delay is to allow time for people to nominate improperly-accepted pages for deletion.
Rules:
Incorrect acceptances should be obvious, but they include:
Brownie:
Barnstar points:
and so on.
There are no Golden/Silver/Bronze wikis for this competition.
Why the weird scoring?
Start time: 00:00:00 11 November 2013 (UTC). End time: 23:59:59 17 November 2013 (UTC).
By the way, I will be reviewing articles during this time but I will not be participating in the scoring. After all, I might be biased :) . davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 00:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Why is the {{WPAFC}} template added to the talk page of pages created through AFC? After the article has been created, I don't expect much involvement of the AFC wikiproject anymore; so the importance and quality ratings seem totally unnecessary, only functioning as an advertisement for AFC. It does create a burden upon the people trying to keep the ratings up-to-date. -- WS ( talk) 09:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to change part of Template:AFC submission (or, more accurately, Template:AFC submission/pending). Currently, it says "If you require extra assistance, you can visit our help desk. / Click here to ask a new question at the help desk / Click here to get assistance via live help chat". However, many users appear to misunderstand this prompt and are visiting the live help chat (#wikipedia-en-help on IRC) to ask for a reviewer to attend to their submission because they're impatient. This greatly inflates traffic to that channel and benefits "queue jumpers" to the detriment of every other AFC submitter, considering the reality of limited reviewer time.
I'd like to tweak the wording of the template to emphasize that the help links are there for help editing or submitting AFCs, not as a shortcut to get one's article reviewed. My proposed wording, though I'm very much open to other ideas, is to change those lines to say (bolding mine, for emphasis here, not for use in final template): "If you require extra assistance editing or submitting your article, you can visit our help desk. / Click here to ask a new question at the help desk about editing or submitting your article / Click here to get assistance editing or submitting your article via live help chat". Ideally I would also add some language to the effect of "please note that these help venues are not for requesting that your submission be reviewed", but I can't think of a way to distill that enough to fit neatly into the template. The upshot here is that I'd like to make clear to submitters that helpers are there to help with editing, not to help you jump the queue.
Thoughts on this? I don't generally edit templates, especially commonly-transcluded ones, so I'd like to make sure both that my proposal is generally agreed with and that I edit the template in as non-breaking-things a manner as possible. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! ( talk) 19:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Done Template updated. @
Fluffernutter: If in a few weeks you haven't seen any decrease in IRC whining, post another message here and we can experiment with other solutions.
Theopolisme (
talk) 20:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
See
list. 79 edits to mainspace. registered for only two weeks one month. In particular, see concerns raised on the user's talk page.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk) 23:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
4 weeks/192 mainspace edits. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 08:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I have been looking through Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions to see if there is anything worth saving. I have been moving at least one in ten pages I review into article space. That means that there are probably four to five thousand articles rotting in the category that should be in artice space. I am seeing a lot of pages that have been declined for not meeting the minimum standard for inline citations that as far as I can see have not failed the minimum standard. The minimum requirement is actually zero except for a limited set of specific circumstances. It is perfectly possible that an article with no inline citations at all could still be accepted, and I have moved a number into article space.
This is not the only grounds on which I am seeing reviewers being overly strict. Your backlog would be significantly smaller, there would be fewer potentially decent editors abandoning drafts and walking away from Wikipedia, and we would have a larger cadre of editors to do more reviewing if only people would look past the scraggy formatting of a submitted article to the actual useful encyclopaedic content.
Thanks for listening, Spinning Spark 19:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
( edit conflict) I just want to be sure that I have not been misunderstood here. AfC is neither WP:EAR nor WP:HD, nor the Teahouse, it is a filtering system, like NPP. Spinningspark's issues could be resolved if Wikipedia had a proper landing page, but the creation of one is a larger project than the volunteers can be expected to do themselves; unfortunately after all this time and WP:ACTRIAL, the WMF does not see this as a priority. In the meantime, we are trying to do something about it by 1) attempting to set some criteria of competence for reviewing, and 2) attempting to get a 'draft' namespace created that will allow for cleaner and more equitable reviewing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 04:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I have already warned the reviewer in question; If you find any more, please ping me/let me know on the talk page, and I will investigate and take action accordingly. -- Mdann 52 talk to me! 13:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
@ Ritchie333: took half a day to retrospectively source to DYK standards. That about sums up what is wrong with the mindset here. It is not necessary to get an article to DYK standard for it to be in mainspace (and in many ways DYK has become a tougher standard to pass than GA nowadays). If you want to get the article to DYK standard then fine, go ahead, I certainly won't object, but that should not be stopping you from moving it to mainspace first. Spinning Spark 16:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: Please feel free to add your opinion on the above talk page. — Anne Delong ( talk) 00:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Please see the above example of why the G13 eligible submissions should be checked before being nominated for deletion. — Anne Delong ( talk) 17:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Pages that consist of content OTHER than an AFC submission should NOT be G13'd. Rather, the "afc submission" template should be removed or, as I did above, deactivated. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 01:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
भूगोल हा विषय फार प्राचीण आहेँ जगाच्या आधुनिकी बरोबर या विषयाची गुणवत्ता वाढत आहे. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.98.98.43 ( talk) 08:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
भूगोल हा विषय फार प्राचीण आहेँ जगाच्या आधुनिकी बरोबर या विषयाची गुणवत्ता वाढत आहे. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.98.98.43 ( talk) 08:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Darylgolden( talk) 01:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Can someone have a look at this article submitted here here: Pathfinder (band).
When I tried to move it into mainspace, it simply stalls on the 'moving' stage. Perhaps someone else could have a go? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi ( talk) 10:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
There are many help desk posts that have not yet had any replies, some are even being archived without having received any attention. I'm trying to deal with the ones I feel I can handle. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 06:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
mabdul 06:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to the editors who helped with the checking of the March and April 2012 G13-eligible submissions: Rankersbo , phoebe, DES, Darylgolden, DGG and others who have helped a little here and there. The ones not postponed, accepted or otherwise edited have mostly been deleted now. In spite of the backlog drive in October, we managed to check six months of old submissions in less than three months, so we are gaining on the backlog. May 2012 is next! — Anne Delong ( talk) 19:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I have changed the text on the above page, which said to look below for submissions (they're not there since the pages were changed all around for some reason). However, the text also says that there are 33 declined submissions. This used to show the number of declined submissions since 2008, but now it erroneously just counts the 33 categories of declined submissions. Can this be changed back to show the actual number of declined submissions instead?
Also, I can't seem to find the link to the list of submissions without a template. It was there before, so maybe I just can't see it for looking? — Anne Delong ( talk) 17:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Please comment at MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist#RfC: Should the titleblacklist be set up to prevent AfC submissions from being created in the wrong location?. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 00:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
The graphic of a "save page" button on Template:AFC submission/Subst/Editintro is very confusing. I keep trying to press it myself if I'm not paying attention so heaven knows how confused our new editors get. I suggest removing the graphic and replacing simply with the words "the save page button below". Alternatively, turn it into an actual save page button so it can be pressed. Spinning Spark 00:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I'M SORRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What did I do wrong did i copy paste text do I have no references and now I can't request it ever again!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandharrison ( talk • contribs) 13:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I presume the other participants in the October 2013 backlog drive have received their awards by this point, but I have not. Unless there was an issue with one/more, which should have been reported to me if so, I did review 15 AFC submissions, so with the next drive occurring soon I'd appreciate if this could be wrapped up. If I said "I'm miffed!", would you come running or go? ( talk) 03:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)#
Moved to the Helpdesk page - Sionk ( talk) 00:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi all, Per a discussion on the December drives talk page, the next Backlog Elimination Drive is now between 1st January - 31st January 2013. -- Mdann 52 talk to me! 08:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Registered 29 Oct. 39 mainspace edits. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 06:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm having to decline or comment on every submission twice before the script actually does what it has to. What's happening? FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 18:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Try disabling the gadget via settings, adding
importScript('MediaWiki:Gadget-afchelper-beta.js'); // AFCH beta script [[MediaWiki:Gadget-afchelper-beta.js]]
to your Special:MyPage/common.js page, and then bypassing your cache. Please let me know if this resolves the problem. Theopolisme ( talk) 22:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: The text on this page should really have been on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk page. I thought of moving it in among the archived discussions from last year. Is this a good idea, or is modifying the archive inappropriate? — Anne Delong ( talk) 03:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
This appears to be a hoax - references don't mention it, and the coordinates are in the Adriatic Sea - but has not been submitted. I found it when looking at contributions of an IP range that appears to be only used for vandalism. Is it acceptable to decline before submission? Peter James ( talk) 17:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
By now its probably rather obvious that the AFC backlog drive statistics aren't updated regularly - or not at all for that matter. The reason for this is that the code responsible for uploading the generated data to Wikipedia is consistently receiving an HTTP 503 as a response to the upload attempt. After initially assuming this was something temporal it would now seem that there is an underlying issue somewhere. The issue itself is actually quite problematic for a few reasons:
Long story short: It may take some time to figure out what is happening, why this is happing and subsequently preventing it will happen. Hopefully i will have some time during the weekend to sit down and analyze what is going on. Note that the statistics themselves are correctly generated - in a worst case scenario i can upload them manually but I'd rather not do so as it is both tedious and time consuming work. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 19:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
There a re now 163 pages in the CSD cat. Too many for us to be expected to take a proper look at them and resucue any. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 18:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
@ Kudpung I find your comment very offensive, I am sorry if I am too efficient for the Admins. I am not new to Wikipedia and think that I (a real human being) can do a better job than a bot. I know the difference between a good article that should be moved to the Main space or one that should be deleted. Rather than discourage editors from clearing the huge backlog, you should be encouraging. I will slow down my nominations if you can not cope but I will not stop. JMHamo ( talk) 19:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
No thanks. I'm out. I wish the project well. JMHamo ( talk) 20:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I wanted to promote Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/PACT programming model as Parallelization contract. The author's user page has been changed from another account, with a claim that the other account belongs to the same person [7]. Believing the claim, I chose "custom submitter" in the script and gave the new account, Physikerwelt, as the submitter, rather than the original author, Schubi87. Unfortunately, when I chose "accept" in the script, the notice went to User talk:72.200.84.87, notifiying someone who had previously inserted an AfC submittion template [8] into the draft. — rybec 00:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I have proposed that Category:AfC pending submissions by age/21 days ago through Category:AfC pending submissions by age/28 days ago be nominated on the grounds that they are not being used nor are they procedurally being used. The nomination is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 9#Category:AfC pending submissions by age/28 days ago. Please feel free to weigh in on the debate if you feel it is appropriate. Hasteur ( talk) 22:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Kafziel seems to be making especially troublesome reviews - he either accepts or deletes drafts - he doesn't "decline" them, just deletes them. Some of his deletions is especially problematic, for example deleting an article per a csd criteria in the article section. To game the system, he has sometimes "accepted" articles by moving them into mainspace and then immediately deleting them. Huon has left him a message on his talk page, but Kafziel has declined to change his reviews, citing that he is not a member of AfC, and thus does not need to follow their rules as it is not policy. User talk:Kafziel#Skimlinks may explain the rationale behind his actions, which is completely against consensus. I am at a loss of what to do, can someone help? Thanks! Darylgolden( talk) 01:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Is there a simple way to move this back to AfC or NPP? If not, there should be. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 12:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Reviewers and others, please weigh in at:
Thanks — Anne Delong ( talk) 19:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Suggest we start thinking about the changes that will be required to start using the new draft namespace when it is launched. (See mw:Draft namespace.) — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 13:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
It sometimes happens that when a reviewer starts to review a draft, s/he finds that it has been cut&paste-moved to article space already. Our decline reason of duplicate doesn't really handle this well, it is set up for the different case when the AfC submitter has duplicated a previously existing article. A history merge would be the ideal result, but that takes an admin and may be more trouble than it is worth, particularly if there is no other editor to credit. Should these be tagged for G6 (housekeeping) speedy deletes? or just declined and left until they are deleted as stale? Or should we seek some other way of handling them? I don't favor a cross-namespace redirect for such, as one poster on WT:CSD suggested. DES (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I have had a couple of CSD nominations declined because an AFC submission has subsequently been duplicated by a main space article. Which criteria should I be using? Hack ( talk) 03:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Articles like this have popped up when I push the {{ AFC button}}. Is there a problem with the button or a problem with the banners on these submissions? ~ KvnG 03:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
There is a problem when an article submitted to AfC from a userspace page is moved to WT:Articles for creation after it has been declined, like this: the link from the userpage message that says "If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at... " no longer works, see this version (I have fixed this one manually). I don't understand the complex syntax of the template, and I would have expected the redirect to simply pass one through to the new location, but the actual result after User:Hsanchez6/Virtuous Records was moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Virtuous Records, was a redlink to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hsanchez6/Virtuous Records. JohnCD ( talk) 15:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, this looks like a problem with the old {{
AFC submission/location}}
template. Interestingly enough, the edit
you linked was me removing its usage whenever possible, due to bugs like this ;) I'm pinging
a user who I know has worked on the borked template in the past to investigate a temporary fix -- new versions of the script (from <4 months ago IIRC) use the {{subst:Afc_decline/sandbox|full=User:Hsanchez6/Virtuous Records}}
syntax, which alleviates this problem.
Theopolisme (
talk) 22:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Backlog from 21 to 28 days ago is cleared! Don't forget the older stuff. ~ KvnG 23:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal, a renounced columnist in world affairs Hr writes mainly in English in many newspapers and non-print media portals. He edits "Foreign Policy Issues and " International Opinion" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdulruff ( talk • contribs) 06:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This page in a nutshell: Persuade Wikiprojects to agree to review articles relevant to their area |
My name is noticeably absent from those who do the heavy lifting with the reviews, so I'll understand that I may not have the qualifications to be making suggestions on process. In my defense, I do field a lot of OTRS questions, many of which relate to AFC, so I do see the process, and in ways that some of the regulars might not see. As is well-known, there is a backlog. Recruiting more volunteers would be an answer, but that isn't an easy sell. I did a fair amount of work at the predecessor to AfC, the Feedback forum, and frankly, it twas largely thankless work. So I can't really imagine an easy way to attract new editor to AfC in general. Of course, I could volunteer, but I'm struggling to find enough volunteers to help out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Basketball/Women's basketball. While I'm not ready to sign up as a general volunteer, if someone ran across an article related to women's basketball, I would be happy to get involved.
That reminded me of something
Anne Delong did, which I hope can be formalized? I don't remember where I saw it, but she posted a link to an AfC submission to a Wikiproject page. In short, rather than recruiting generalists for AfC, why not strong arm Wikiprojects into agreeing that they would review submissions in their area?
I'm here because of an OTRS issue. After helping someone process permission, she asked when the submission about her might be done. My heart sank, because I knew the answer was not a short period of time. Then I decided to check with a specific editor, and if that failed, try the relevant Wikiproject. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that the first request will work, but it reminded me again that it might make sense to reach out to Wikiprojects.
In principle, the process is simple. Craft a plea directed at Wikiprojects, letting hem know how backlogged the process is and that many potential articles in their area of expertise are not getting the attention they deserve. They would be hard-pressed to turn you down, how can they argue that their main goal is articles about X, and turn down helping with articles about X? If they agree, someone can work out the details, but one approach would be to add a section to the main Wikiproject page for relevant submissions, then create a list for AfC volunteers, Then part of the triage could be to see if the draft fits in to any of the Wikiprojects who signed up, turn it over to them (with a name who can help with the review process,and then reviewers can concentrate on drafts who don't have a participating Wikiproject.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 20:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
In my mind there's nothing with poking some of the most active projects (like MILHIST/ROADS/Anime) and seeing if they're willing to take over the job of reviewing the submissions for their subject. Hasteur ( talk) 20:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm asking a WikiProject about a related situation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology#A bombardment of new psychology articles at Articles for Creation - class project? - in particular, whether that Wikiproject would prefer acceptable-looking articles to be simply accepted by non-specialists and dropped into their Wikiproject category for remedial tidy-up, or whether they would like us to confer with them about acceptance on a case by case basis. Arthur goes shopping ( talk) 14:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Since the backlog is not organized by topic, soliciting the involvement of WikiProject members to help with the backlog would amount to an awareness campaign targeting all WikiProjects. This feels a bit like spam. I would suggest an awareness campaign targeted to the assessment departments of any WikiProject that has such a department. We can post an appeal to the assessment department's talk page. The starting point, if we want to pursue this idea, is to identify which WikiProjects have assessment departments. ~
KvnG 18:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Please see and join the emerging discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Drafts#Deletion_and_Draft: regarding part of the potential usage of the Draft: namespace. Fiddle Faddle 19:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I attempted to accept Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paul Pesco. A redirect exists for this person. I got a "Can't find AfD template" error from the script when I went to accept. Not sure what to do next. ~ KvnG 14:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
User talk:Rebecca1990#Article help, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Danica Dillon. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 03:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed that category requests slip off and are archived without being accepted or rejected, or even queried, much more often than with redirect requests. I have a mind that this may be because they are being lost in the sea of red and green accepted and denied redirect requests, and bad article requests, and that they are more complex so require more thought.
So I'm proposing that category requests go to a separate WP:AFC/C page apart from WP:AFC/R, with a different and longer archival time limit (say two weeks instead of just 1 week).
-- 65.94.78.9 ( talk) 22:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I got about 2-3 articles, that are yet to be reviewed/patrolled. I think they have been overlooked. Can I submit them here? Bladesmulti ( talk) 04:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Dear contributor:
This is not the place for draft articles. You are probably looking for WP:AFC. I have "collapsed" the content of your comment so that you can copy it to a "real" submission at your convenience.
Extended content
|
---|
Bold textProf. Mahavir Saran Jain Born: January 17, 1941 Buland Shahr (UP) India. Family: Ela Jain (wife), Richa (daughter), Manu (son). Education: M.A. (1960); D.Phil. (1962); D.Litt. (1967). Appointment & Positions: 1992-2001: Director, Central Institute of Hindi (Kendriya Hindi Sansthan), Government of India, Agra. 1988-1992: Professor & Head of the Department of Post Graduate Studies and Research in Hindi and Linguistics. Dean, Faculty of Arts, Jabalpur University, Jabalpur. 1984-1988: Visiting Professor of Hindi Language & Literature, University of Bucharest, Romania. 1964-1984: Lecturer, Reader, Professor : Department of Postgraduate Studies and Research in Hindi and Linguistics, University, JABALPUR ( INDIA )
Publications: 25 book length publications, 108 research papers, 81 articles and 56 reviews/ prefaces, including: • Anya Bhaashaa Shikshan • Parinishthit Hindi Kaa Dhvanigraamik Adhyayan • Parinishthit Hindi Kaa Roopgraamik Adhyayan • Bhaashaa Evam Bhaashaa Vigyaan • Vishva Chetanaa Evam Sarvadharma Sambhaav. • Bhagwaan Mahaaveer Evam Jain Darshan • Aavaran Ke Pare - book on das-laxan dharma. • Vishwa Shanti Evam Ahimsa (World Peace and Ahimsa ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.233.120.192 ( talk) 01:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC) |
davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 01:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
This text on the template should read "more than" not over. Please can someone fix it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I've requested that the AfC helper script's very useful WikiProject template selector be made available as a stand-alone tool. Comments welcome at WP:VPT#WikiProject template selector. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)