![]() | 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 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
Having participated in the AFC backlog drive for March, and having seen the substantial efforts put in by many reviewers during this period, and noting that there doesn't seem to have been much of a reduction in the backlog over this period, I can't help thinking that it is worth seriously looking at ways to make the process more efficient. What is the correct forum to open up a discussion to collect together people's ideas, whether it be for minor tweaks here and there or more substantial reform? How can we obtain empirical data to establish where the problems lie (or indeed if there is no objective evidence of any problems)? (I'm thinking that it would potentially be useful to know how many times each individual candidate article is reviewed during its time at AFC, how many of the candidate articles as a percentage eventually make it to mainspace? Are there categories of article that are much more/less likely than others to make it to mainspace? How many times is each article viewed before it is reviewed?)-- nonsense ferret 15:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Flexxon is the specialist who focus on memory IC design-in to industrial application. Flexxon always keep pace with the latest memory market information and helping industrial customer on the selection of right partner to work with.
As different maker have different focus. And most of the memory market are cater for PC/ Server or even smart phone market, where industrial customer using most of legacy memory which is not align with tier one memory makers. Flexxon always share the latest memory market information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.165.40.65 ( talk) 06:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
A RfC has started at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G13: Abandoned Articles for creation submissions discussing a proposed new speedy deletion criterion for rejected and long since abandoned Articles for Creation submissions. This would generate an initial deletion of some 50,000 pages, and then a daily dose of give or take 100 pages (wild stab at the actual numbers, not a scientific report here). (I forgot to mention this here yesterday, even though it may be of some interest to this project obviously). Fram ( talk) 06:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I've asked for a dump of AfC before the nuking:
Wikipedia_talk:Database_download#dump_of_Articles_for_Creation_requested. —
rybec
04:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
An Afc submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/UMMO is an exact copy of a section of this article: Planetary objects proposed in religion, astrology, ufology and pseudoscience. I was going to decline it as a duplicate, but maybe this is the editor's way of suggesting that it should have its own page? — Anne Delong ( talk) 03:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
A while ago I reviewed and approved Neil Marcus, but as I have an interest in the topic, (I'm an active member of WP:WikiProject Disability) I wonder if my enthusiasm for the subject might have impaired my objectivity in judging the submission fairly. Since passing the draft to mainspace I have done a significant amount of editing on it, so please take a look at the article history and evaluate it in the state it was when I approved it. Roger ( talk) 11:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Based on recent comment on my talk page from both newbies in need of some help as well as some project members I've started implementing a number of measures to improve reviewer communication with newbies. A second concern is training new AfC project reviewers on doing their jobs in a more co-ordinated approach.
One item which can help is a chart explaining how the overall process works. I think having such a chart can addresses two concerns -
And I would like any comments on this.
Recent research has shown that inline tags are the most efficient methods for getting editors to fix problems on Wikipedia. Using these type of tags not only pinpoints the location of the problem it also links to the section in the policy pages governing the problems. By providing these 2/3 of the process of finding a solution can be effected.
I've created a number of new template for inline tags for use in AfC reviews. I've started using these in some articles. I plan to further test and develop these templates so that they will be disabled outside WP:Namespace because while they are useful in communicating problems in Wikipedia I am not certain they should be used to tag problems universally.
The current templates I have come up with for tagging problematic source are:
I think these are more intuitive then how we work today. But I'd like your comments on these - do we need more? are the links useful. BO | Talk 17:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
The text at the top now includes the number of submissions that are actively under review. I did this because I was tired of clicking on "R" just to see what was there. In order to do this, I created a new category, Category:Pending AfC submissions being reviewed now, which you might find useful for things other than just getting a count.
I thought about doing the same things for C and M but as they are listed before P anyone who wants a count can just eyeball it. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 22:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
While checking this submission: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Meghan Camarena I became puzzled over the external link section. There are unfamiliar templates there. Is this a feature that I haven't heard about to help editors add links to unreliable sources? — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I have a suggestion for the backlog. Since it is easier to review disambiguation pages and templates, as they have no pesky references to check, I suggest that they be placed into an additional categorization, Category: non-article AfC pending submissions , which should reduce the backlog by a few tens of pages. -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 07:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Done As I haven't got any response, I included the changes (
diff). Regards,
mabdul
20:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
As can be seen on a page like this one, a series of repeated headings, all saying "Your submission at Articles for creation", is unhelpful. Each heading should be unique, so could we either append the title of the article concerned, or at least a time+date stamp? A better heading might be "AfC: [title]", like the DYK headings higher up the same page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking about how to add a new headline. I was thinking about multiple possibilities. (not all links included or simplified for explanation)
But this would also create problems as many users resubmit their article multiple times.
Then I thought about something like:
But this looks a bit strange. Also a combination is possible. What do you think? Any other ideas? !Votes? mabdul 21:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm kind of new here, would someone look over Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Joel_Potrykus and confirm I did it right. I'm open to suggestions and feedback, and I'm going to pause between each one for the first few until I get the hang of it. this is one of those things that no matter how much documentation you read, you get better the more you do. Thank you. Technical 13 ( talk) 22:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
Sorry to be filling up this page with questions, but I have only been reviewing for a few days. When using the Afc script, I see an option to decline "Too short but can be merged". What about submissions that are too short but there's not a suitable article or there's nothing much worth merging. Is there a plain "Too short" option? I've been using the "Test edit", but sometimes it's really just an article into which very little effort has been put, and I don't want to spend any more time reviewing it than the author spent writing the 5 or 6 words. — Anne Delong ( talk) 13:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Would someone be willing to verify my declination of Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Monica_Galetti. I'm still kind of new, but I think I am getting the hang of it and am requesting some assurance. Thank you. Technical 13 ( talk) 19:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
[Draft removed.]
-- 72.65.238.157 ( talk) 00:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
The quality of English in Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Students Tamil Eelam liberation Movement is clearly not good enough for mainspace, but the subject seems to be notable - it has the required cites. Declining it won't help at all because the draft writer is obviously not capable of writing better English. The only way out is if someone else takes over the draft to rewrite it in fluent English - but AFAIK such a procedure does not exist. So what can we do? Roger ( talk) 21:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello again! I am reviewing an article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of Gaming Laptops. I plan to decline it because it has no source citation for the definition of a gaming laptop and for the information about the laptop models, but is the whole idea of this article an acceptable one? If the user backs up his definition (as could easily be done with this web site http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2020688,00.asp), should Wikipedia include a list of products and prices? The purpose of the article is not to sell laptops; these aren't even current models. It seems to me that the list would always be out of date. Also, gamers' ideas of what would be a high end graphics card will keep changing rapidly as technology advances, and the models and features are different every day. On the other hand, there seem to be articles about particular automobile engines, etc. I need to know if I should suggest the editor fix the referencing, or if something else is more appropriate. — Anne Delong ( talk) 03:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I have searched for the origin of Indoctrination through Wikipedia. I would really want the encyclopedic to add more of the information regarding "INDOCTRINATION".
Looking forward to see the addition.
Thanks & Best Regards, Jaspreet Kaur Nagi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.82.173 ( talk) 11:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
On April 2, a new editor created this article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shane J. Lopez. It was declined April 6.
On April 8, another new editor created a page about the same person Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shane J. Lopez (2) and then a few hours later this one Shane J. Lopez.
I have declined the middle one as a duplicate, but the other two are different. The article in mainspace I would have declined since the sources aren't totally independent. The other has already been declined. Is there a way to get these two pages together? Maybe the combined references and information would make an acceptable page. — Anne Delong ( talk) 12:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
This newly created page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tobias International, Inc. has a tag on it from 2010. Is there a history to this article that I should know about before declining it? — Anne Delong ( talk) 15:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: While reviewing an article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gerry Gogna, I came across this discussion: User talk:Drmies/Archive 30#Question on a user page, and I thought that I should report that although the page itself seems okay but not well sourced, one of the references leads to a web page that claims that Gerry has won a nobel prize in literature. I decline the page, but perhaps its author, new editor User:Nick demoz, is connected with the other user names that are being watched. — Anne Delong ( talk) 14:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
The main article space edit notice reads:
{{#ifeq: {{PAGENAME}} | {{PAGENAME:{{TFA title}}}} | {{TFA-editnotice}} }}{{#ifeq: {{PAGENAME}} | {{PAGENAME:{{TFL title}}}} | {{TFL-editnotice}} }}
If we added a check that saw if
then put up a big red template cautioning editors NOT to copy-and-paste the existing submission here, but rather to either continue editing it or REVIEW it and if it is ready to be in the main encyclopedia, MOVE it.
Thoughts? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 18:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Why would it go in
Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Main instead of
Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Wikipedia_talk? Aren't AfC articles in Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/{{PAGENAME}}
?
Technical 13 (
talk)
22:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
I was reviewing this page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Xhuljeta (Julia) Vlashi. Julia was a dental assistant, and I think the writer of the article wants to leave a memory of her life. I can't see that she has done anything that would be written about in the media. Rather than just mark the page declined, I would like to point the writer to an appropriate place to post his text. The only one that comes to my mind is http://findagrave.com. Can anyone suggest something less gloomy? — Anne Delong ( talk) 00:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Amatulic ( talk · contribs) fully-protected Template: AFC submission today without discussion. It was previously semi-protected. He did not protect the sub-pages, which kind of defeats the purpose if his goal is to protect from vandalism.
I and other AFC reviewers have been tweaking these templates for the past few weeks. I don't remember details, but there was at least one case where things "seemed to work" in the sandboxes but then broke when I moved them to the main template. It was only the ability to quickly test-fail-test-revert-try-again that I was able to successfully update the template. Had these templates been fully-protected I probably would have given up in frustration, and things like the pending-by-age categories and the 3-week-backlog report would not have happened.
I'm asking the community to come to a consensus: Absent vandalism, do we want these highly-visible templates to be fully protected or semi protected? If the answer is "fully" then they should be fully protected as a group. Given the above and that they are almost ever used in article-space, I'm obviously favoring semi-protection. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 01:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I wanted to approve WT:Articles for creation/Family of Secrets but Family of Secrets is a redirect to a section about the book in the author's biography. What is the correct way to get this draft into mainspace? Should something be done about the long detailed section in the biography which will become mostly redundant? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 08:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Are we going to have any April clearance drive? Or is the next one in May? Arctic Kangaroo 12:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
What can be done about articles such as this one? It doesn't look like the user's heeding any of the points given. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 15:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear editors:
A user has created a page on his or her User page, and submitted it to Afc. Then a few minutes later the same page was submitted from the user's sandbox. I moved the first one before seeing the second. I have declined the User page copy as a duplicate, and kept the one from the sandbox. Should I now request deletion of the duplicate, and take away the redirect from the user page? — Anne Delong ( talk) 15:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
I reviewed a page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Emad KAYYAM. and marked it as a copyright violation. It has been deleted. However, the user contacted me and said that there was a copyright permission on the talk page, which I failed to check. What should be done now? — Anne Delong ( talk) 15:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
When I first started contributing to Wikipedia, all if the Afc data was laid out nicely on the Template:AFC statistics page, including articles being reviewed, recently declined and recently approved articles, articles under review, and those awaiting review. For some time now, everything but the last group seems to be broken. I found it quite handy, and I'm wondering if there are any plans to get this going again. — Anne Delong ( talk) 03:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
Last month I tagged this page Bishow Sharma with POV and BLP sources. An IP user has removed the tags without making any improvements. Before replacing them, I'd like a second opinion. — Anne Delong ( talk) 05:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
On two occasions, I ticked the box for inviting a contributor to the Teahouse, but the invitation didn't get added to the person's talk page. Both times, I was declining a draft using the "can be merged" reason and the contributor's talk page was nonexistent beforehand. — rybec 00:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for working on this! Here are examples:
I made several attempts (both with articles I declined and ones I accepted) after posting here and before seeing your request for the contributors' names, and never saw it generate a Teahouse invitation. — rybec 23:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
... as beta tester for the AfC helper script!
After ~a year I began again to improve the actual beta script and fixed a few small bugs. I need you to find more bugs!
What you have to do
importScript('User:Mabdul/afc beta.js'); // Yet another AfC helper script (beta) [[User:Mabdul/afc beta.js]]
What is changes in the working beta code?
And then?
I will try to fix the reported problems and then (in the next few week) we can hopefully "push it" as the new version of the Gadget.
Thanks. mabdul 23:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
New feature added today in the beta script:
Regards, mabdul 08:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
{{ admin help}} Dear reviewers:
An editor has created an article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Giga Pets which is carefully researched, all except for the fact that there is already an article mainspace called Giga Pet. However, this new article is very much superior to the existing one with tags all over it. What is the best way to get this new article into the encyclopedia? Could any small useful bits of the old article be copied into the new one? it doesn't seem to make sense to do it the other way around. Or should I accept the page and then request a merge? — Anne Delong ( talk) 04:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I've just responded to a post at the Help desk and I noticed that the decline templates on the draft don't have a "resubmit" link, this is clearly not helpful. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 08:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
I have been reviewing pages for under two weeks now, and now I have over 600 pages on my watchlist. This is okay for now; it's nice to see what happens to the pages next after I move or review them. However, I will want the older ones off my list after a while. Is there a watchlist feature that lets one remove pages without editing each page and unchecking the "Watch this page" box? — Anne Delong ( talk) 14:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I know that this is not an Afc page Calltrunk, but I reviewed it some time ago when it was listed on the new pages feed. I tagged it as having some issues and left a message on the talk page. I went back to it and found that no improvements had been made, only the tags had been removed by an IP. I replaced the tags, but I would like some guidance as to what to do. The page has quotes which I feel are promotional. Should I just remove them?
A more perplexing problem is that there is a section at the bottom about the legalities of eavesdropping (which seems to be facilitated by the company's software. There has been some effort to include opposing views, but it's still pretty onesided. Should I just summarize this without all the quotes, or should it go? It is related. — Anne Delong ( talk) 18:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
That this WikiProject has been quite active of late? I especially want to highlight the team effort and good communication we've been having. Good work, everyone! FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 19:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Is there anyone here who can verify the sources in Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gabriele Mandel, which are all in Italian, (fortunately all are available online). If they establish notability the article can be aproved. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 21:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Links and reliable resources
Dear reviewers:
In the Afc process there are a lot of articles submitted by first-time editors, and there are two frequent characteristics of these pages that take up a lot of reviewers' time.
First, many of the articles are lodged in sandboxes. The reason for this is that the page move process is flawed in the case of sandboxes, first suggesting that the article be moved to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/sandbox, and then warning the editor that they can't move the page there. Is there some way that the page move process could check to see if the current page location was a sandbox, and either ask the editor what title was wanted, or just fill in a dummy title such as "User123's Afc article" so that the page could be moved to Afc space and the reviewing tools could be used? I realize that many new editors still wouldn't move the article, but it would be interesting to see how many tried and were put off by the large red warning text.
Secondly, many of the articles have no reference section at all. Would it be possible when an editor clicks on the submit button to have a radio button page come up that says Wait! Have you remembered to include citations to reliable sources? (1) Yes, submit the article (2) No, I forgot; I'll add them and submit later (3) No; what are citations? - link to referencing for beginners (4) No; because this article is a disambiguation page or redirect (5) No; I looked but I couldn't find any - link to notability policy
Not having been involved with Wikipedia's underpinnings, I don't know if these ideas represent trivial or complex programming tasks, or even if they have already been tried and rejected. — Anne Delong ( talk) 12:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Please check User_talk:Oo7565#Your AfC reviews and keep an eye on the reviewed submission by this user. He/she is simply only accepting and moving them without cleaning the submissions nor tagging, etc... mabdul 05:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I tried to review the two drafts in Category:AfC pending submissions without an age but on both the review tool came up with an error message saying it could not find the submission template. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 08:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
In case anyone in who works actively in this WikiProject did not know, there was recently a motion to pass the new speedy deletion criterion G13. This criterion may directly affect those who are part of this WikiProject who review articles in the Wikipedia:Articles for creation namespace. The purpose of this criterion seems to be for an effort to remove submissions from this space that have been abandoned per WP:STALEDRAFT. Since this is a new criterion, there have not been efficient guidelines created yet that are more specific to what criterion needs to be met for these submissions to qualify. Right now, the verbiage of the criterion reads as follows:
...However, due to this verbiage, there is the potential that there might be some good faith issues caused by editors wanting to make these unsubmitted drafts eventually eligible for this criterion. There could be editors that will submit submissions that have never been submitted and have not been edited in quite some time, just to get them rejected and start the clock for the "one-year" requirement to be eligible for this new criterion.
If anyone was not aware of the discussion that lead to the creation of this new criterion, it can be found at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposed new criterion: abandoned article drafts and Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G13: Abandoned Articles for creation submissions. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm checking mine and Nathans different versions of the AFC helper script and cleaning the different code pages to get again an overview of the actual versions.
Could an admin delete following pages:
All pages had been checked for backlinks.
I still have to check if Nathan2055 added any useful bits of code to User:Nathan2055/afc releasecandidate.js, but this is actually something different and I will request a deletion later if needed. ;-)
Thanks. mabdul 08:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Media-Soft Inc and Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Cameron Hughes are in content cats. When are going to sort this problem out? -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 10:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Is there anyway we could petition to get a modified version of MW:Manual:Force_preview#For_MediaWiki_1.17_or_newer set as a default gadget or added to common.js that forces new users to use the show preview button on AfC draft pages. It could be modified to make sure there are no content categories in the drafts and numerous other things as well. If someone else thinks there may be merit in this idea, I'll expand, otherwise I want to keep it short for readability. Technical 13 ( talk) 10:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
This is the first time that I have tried to review an article about a prominent person, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Henry Ristuccia and I would appreciate a second opinion in case I have messed up. — Anne Delong ( talk) 16:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear editors:
I reviewed an article that had five or six lines of text, declined it for lack of independent sources, and got back this: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alain de Weck. I went back in the page's history to find the deleted Afc box and Decline box, but I can't figure out how to help this editor resubmit the page. Also, I am not sure what Wikipedia reviewers think about long lists of papers and publications in an academic's article. I am going to leave this one for someone with more experience. — Anne Delong ( talk) 03:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
{{subst:submit}}
to the very top. If someone other than the author adds the template, it should be {{subst:submit|user=Author's Username}} so the correct person will be notified when the draft is reviewed. Regarding the papers, his own papers are
primary sources and we should find independent sources that discuss his work; since almost all sources are his own papers we should not accept the draft. I'll leave a note to that effect at the author's talk page.
Huon (
talk)
03:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Dear reviewers:
While reviewing a come across this page: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aboobacker Mdr.
It appears to be a redirect to a deleted page. After reading the text I dutifully did not edit the page. But should it be declined so that it is no longer in the Afc queue? — Anne Delong ( talk) 03:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
I have been following with interest the following deletion discussion /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amanda_Blain and I am of the opinion that Wikipedia notability policies needs some updating when it comes to social media sites. I agree that anything posted on social media sites is likely to be unreliable, but the sites themselves gather statistics that are impartial. If Miss Blaine really has 2.6 million followers on Google+, how can this not count toward some notability? Last month there was an article in Afc about an videogame reviewer calling himself Pewdie Pie whose videos on Youtube had been viewed over a billion times and the article, I see, didn't make it into mainspace. If editors of major newpapers don't write often about these types of people, it's likely because they know that there are whole subcultures of people out there who get all of the information that they are interested in without ever opening a book or a newspaper. Anyway, my question is, is there an appropriate forum to post rants, I mean opinions, like this? — Anne Delong ( talk) 21:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Congrats everyone! We have finally rid ourselves of the dead weight that is the three week old backlog! TheOneSean | Talk to me 21:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
There seem to be quite a few "porn star" submissions with presumably unreliable referencing and in some cases extensive MOS deviations. They include allusions to several awards, but they're non-notable from what I've gathered. Would it be prudent to contact the author about the whole lot, instead of bombarding him with declines? Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 22:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
What kind transmission fluid goes in a 1991 ford explorer 5 speed transmission — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:2500:58C9:C5E:7667:E463:8333 ( talk) 01:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
As suggested by User:Petrb, I have created a flow chart for discussion about a pop-up box to warn editors that they need sources before submitting and article to Afc. It's posted at User:Anne Delong/AfcBox. If you agree with me that reviewers waste a lot of time declining these articles, please check this out and find any flaws before I propose it to the technical guys. — Anne Delong ( talk) 05:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
The cited sources in this draft are all in Russian so I am unable to check them. Where do I find a reviewer who can read Russian? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 09:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Each draft by itself probably fails notability but if the drafts were merged the resulting text might pass.
Is there anything that can be done about this matter? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 11:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Now that the 3-week backlog is sometimes zero, I've added in the 2-week backlog. When it gets consistently close to or below zero, I or someone else can add the 1-week backlog. Eventually, I'd like to add a 3-day backlog and take out the backlogs longer than 1 week because they'll rarely be more than zero.
If you are interested, Template:AFC status/backlog is the template that generates these. Template:AFC status/backlog/sandbox and Template:AFC status/original/sandbox are useful for testing. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 21:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I have decline this article because there is already an existing article, but it reads to me as though it were copied out of the middle of an essay somewhere. I couldn't find the text using Google, but if someone has access to databases of academic papers, could you check this for copyvio? Thanks. — Anne Delong ( talk) 22:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
My request for help from a Russian speaker (above) and the fairly frequent occurrence of similar posts has given me an idea. We could change the list of project participans from just a simplistic list of usernames to a more informative page by including our language abilities and perhaps even our subject expertise and interests, that way the next time one of us needs need someone to verify sources on traditional Mongolian dances written in Chinese it might be easier to find the right person for the job.
(For the record: I'm fluent in Afrikaans, and can read Dutch that's not too full of jargon. My interests and expertise includes Disability; South African history, geography and current affairs; Aviation; and Military technology.) Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 12:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
It looks like an editor who shall remain nameless has a history of inappropriately changing AFC submission templates on submissions. As a result, other reviewers are reverting some of his work is being un-done and articles are re-appearing in the "pending" queue for re-evaluation. This explains the sudden increase in 3+-week-old pending submissions.
Carry on. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 18:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Can we turn down Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The History of The Beatles before it's submitted? It's 300k of play-by-play copied from other articles, over twice as long as The Beatles, and if there is ever a need to split off that history from the main article such should be proposed on the article's talk page. Drmies ( talk) 20:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Can someone confirm my page please? Miss.Dina Rae ( talk) 20:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear editors:
I reviewed and declined this page a few days ago: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/2013 Brussels Open (tennis) and the article' creator has improved it and submitted it again, but deleted the notice of declination. I thought of replacing it, but then the user might see it and think the article had been declined again. Should I just leave it? — Anne Delong ( talk) 02:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
The pending-by-age categories aren't always correct. Of the close to 700 in that category, many were several days old. The actual number with timestamps of 24 hours ago when I checked a few minutes ago was in the 190s.
That's the good news. The bad news is that they are still in the queue. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 03:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
I was reviewing this page: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Polarization (politics) when I realized that there was already an article Polarization (politics) in mainspace. It appears that an editor has copied the text into userspace and then added to it and submitted it. There is no date overlap in the page histories. Can they be merged? if so, where? — Anne Delong ( talk) 20:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
...is poking into content categories. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 03:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Education Society of Azerbaijan Republic and Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Education Society of Azerbaijan Republic are in content cats. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 04:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Note - I moved this here from Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, as this is clearly not in the scope of that page Ego White Tray ( talk) 12:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I was unable to get a chance to see the new G13 criterion in time to propose an addition, not to the verbiage in G13, but to a function that a bot should be programmed to do in conjunction with the G13 criterion that may be able to fix some of the mass of abandoned articles in the Wikipedia:Articles for creation space, and make them eligible for speedy deletion criterion G13 sooner. Steel1943 ( talk) 02:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I propose that there should be a bot programmed to automatically place the {{ AFC submission}} template on articles in the Wikipedia:Articles for creation namespace that do not have any variation of the {{ AFC submission}} template on them if the last edit on the article was done ... let's say 6 months ago. This process will properly list them for submission, and in addition, give these articles a chance to be denied, making them eligible for speedy deletion criterion G13 sooner, preventing an excess of stales drafts in the Wikipedia:Articles for creation namespace.
So, essentially, this bot could be programmed to submit the Wikipedia:Articles for creation articles that have yet to be submitted, and making these stale drafts possibly eligible for the speedy deletion criterion G13 sooner. Also, I saw that there was a slight discussion for this at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Abandoned unsubmitted articles, but it seems that there was no official consensus about that idea. Steel1943 ( talk) 02:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Categorizing the articles in question is good as well. Secret account 01:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers While checking out the article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fractural analysis of concrete, I notice that there is another article created by the same editor, Concrete Fracture Analysis. It seems that the editor has copied a section out of the middle of an existing article, not from the edit window but from the processed article, and then changed and expended it to include something called the Hillerborg model. Should this be merged back into the original article, or should instead the title be changed to something like "The Hillerborg model of concrete fracture analysis"? I don't know enough about physics or engineering to know if this is a significant separate topic. 13:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
While reviewing this article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Association for Interactive Media and Entertainment I decided to check Google for copyright infringement, and instead came across an entry in the Speedy Deletion Wiki (what a concept) and was able to see that the article had been deleted before as promotional and has been changed somewhat in an effort to comply with Wikipedia's guidelines. Is there a more direct way to see this information? — Anne Delong ( talk) 14:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
I am sorry to be filling up this forum with my problems, but I came to an usual submission at User:Hughstandish/sandbox and I replied at User talk:Hughstandish. Should I have added the text to the submission page instead as a comment? Should I now just manually decline the sandbox? And did I give the correct information? — Anne Delong ( talk) 18:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
<!--
NewPP limit report
Preprocessor visited node count: 299081/1000000
Preprocessor generated node count: 146274/1500000
Post-expand include size: 2048000/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 1301320/2048000 bytes
Highest expansion depth: 13/40
Expensive parser function count: 15/500
-->
I just noticed that Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions has a hiddencat of Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. I'm assuming this was not a known issue until now? How can we trim it down, there doesn't seem to be much on it. Above is the NewPP limit report I copied from the source for that page. Technical 13 ( talk) 18:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Can we get a bot to clean pending pages at least daily? The by-age categories are up to a week behind lately, but forcing a "clean" seems to get them in the right by-age category. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 04:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I have declined this page already: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vote for the Girls and now the creator has added her own comment to mine stating that she needs just one reference. Then she added two references to the subject web site. Also, when I tried to leave a message on her talk page there is a big notice about cyberbullying which I don't understand. As well, I am having trouble maintaining a neutral attitude about the subject. Can someone bolder please deal with this? — Anne Delong ( talk) 12:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: In this article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Edward Pomorski the author has cited two archives as references. I haven't come across something like this before. I would expect anything in an archive to be a reliable source, but wouldn't the editor have to name specific documents? — Anne Delong ( talk) 03:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
An editor has created a disambiguation page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anchor Management and correctly identified the four main uses of this term in Wikipedia. However, none of these topics have their own article. Is this appropriate? — Anne Delong ( talk) 12:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear editors: Now I have really made a mess. I accidentally moved a sandbox submission to the incorrect place, and now I can't move it to the correct place because I managed to get that page title redirecting to the incorrect one instead of the other way around. Can someone fix up Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anchor Management to be Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/DUNN The Signtologist? This will teach me to pay more attention when cutting and pasting article titles. — Anne Delong ( talk) 13:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Would it be acceptable to point a link at the top of the incubator page directing any would-be incubators to AfC? No articles have been incubated since 2010 according to the incubation history page, so I would not anticipate any influx. I think it's time to wind down the incubator process and mark it historical, but I'd like to give anyone who hits the page an alternative. Gigs ( talk) 16:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm doing this wikipedia for Matt Bennett and Elizabeth Gillies. They are from the show called "Victorious" on nick. I'm doing this wikipedia for their podcast show "The Universe" I'm just starting. If I get more informations on it can you please accepted it? It is a real show. You can hear it at https://soundcloud.com/mott-bonnott . It is not fake but real. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParveenjitKaur ( talk • contribs) 17:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Please turn them back on when it becomes necessary. See Template talk:AFC status/backlog for details. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 19:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
While reviewing this article User:Rosie khan/sandbox, I found another article Contemporary Saudi Arabian Female Artists. The same user has been improving both of these articles. What to do? — Anne Delong ( talk) 00:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
While reviewing this page: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Libertad Green (2) I found another page about the same person, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Libertad Green. This older article was declined because the article already existed, but that article has been deleted. Should the declined article now be considered, or the newly submitted one which is quite different? — Anne Delong ( talk) 05:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
This submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Louberto Orcullo appeared in one edit and the first photo appears to be from http://pinoymusicians.ning.com/profile/LOUBERTRAYORCULLO . However, this is a members site for musicians from the Phillipines. I want to know if the whole profile was copied from there. I could join the site, but I am not from the Phillipines. Would this be considered proper or snooping? Also, since the site is not public, and is more like a bulletin board to help musicians form up into bands, share equipment, find gigs, etc., does this count as being previously published and so copyvio (if one could see it and it turned out to be the same) ? — Anne Delong ( talk) 12:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
The AFC bot moves newer comments above older declines, as seen here. The beta version of the AFC Helper Script moves all comments below all previous declines, as seen in the next edit of the same page. Can the authors of these two tools work with each other so the end result of "cleaning" the submission, by bot or by script, is the same? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 18:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, me again - eventually I will have tried every possibility...
A user has submitted an article (?!) User:Wchughes95/Kurt Snibbe's Playbook Caption Contest on his or her user page, but when I try to move it to the Afc area, the script reminds me that there is a non-empty talk page. Does this matter? Should I move it anyway? — Anne Delong ( talk) 20:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
I may have made a mistake. I marked Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Quantum Keyhole as a copyright violation because it is posted at this web page http://www.spacetimeandtheuniverse.com/against-mainstream/4620-quantum-keyhole.html and is dated as December 2011. However, the author has contact me saying that he has written this, and at the top of the page it say from Wikipedia. There is no indication that a previous page with this name had been deleted, nor is there a page containing this term that I could find. I would have declined the page anyway because the author is promoting a new term that is not in general use, but should it be deleted or not? — Anne Delong ( talk) 03:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Please check out and comment on this helper script request. I think it would be productive to see pages shortened by listing declinations for articles in one box instead of having 3+ boxes... Comments, Complaints, Feedback, Questions, Rants, Suggestions? Technical 13 ( talk) 01:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
No rush mabdul, I'm working on it Template:AFC_submission/multi, Template:AFC_submission/message, and Template:AFC_submission/multi/testcases. I'm sure it is going to take me quite a while and I would appreciate other template knowledgeable individuals as this is pushing new ground passing templates into a template and pulling arguments out of them. Thanks Technical 13 ( talk) 17:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
I declined this article some time ago because it was uncsourced: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eurolib. Now the article creator has asked me to look at it again. Sure enough some references have been added, enough for me to realize that two large sections are copy and paste from the organization's web site. My question is, when removing these and notifying the author, do I also have to remove the organization's mission statement? It's pretty hard to restate a mission statement without changing the meaning. I'm hoping this has come up before. — Anne Delong ( talk) 11:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
<Blockquote>...</Blockquote>
tags? It doesn't appear to be to me. I would suggest it should be, and it should be removed from the article until it is.
Technical 13 (
talk)
12:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Vallage Roda khushab punjab pakistan, casts detail is under; Mahram Khail(Joyia) Dheeda (Joyia )Bouran (Joyia) Yaruo Khail (Joyia) Jhanday Khail (Joyia) Zaree Khail (Joyia) Khakah (Joyia) Lodhi (Joyia) Elahi Khail (Joyia) Nehalka (Joyia) Muhammab Khail (Joyia) Kalassi (Joyia) Latifi (Joyia) Shinki (Joyia) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.149.63.120 ( talk) 12:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
The Chemistry Project is the recipient of a fair number of inferior articles that result from various unevenly supervised homework assignments. Is there a mechanism by which a chemistry editor can look over at the chemically oriented AfC's before you approve them? -- Smokefoot ( talk) 13:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I've just finished distributing the barnstars (Hopefully, please trout for any mistakes!), and I was wondering if we should have another next month (May 1-31st). Any comments? Mdann52 ( talk) 12:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Is there anything that we can subscribe to that informs us about a drive on our talk page, or is it possible to inform us? Just asking 'cos May will be the first drive I'm participating in. Arctic Kangaroo 14:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I see the prominent notice "This page is for users working on the project's administration" -- however, if I follow the directions there, I get taken in a circle. For I would then click "our article request page", which is where I came from. I came from there because though it says it offers registered users the opportunity to create an article, and all users the opportunity to suggest one, I see no clickable link for the latter: only for creating an article with the wizard.
Come on, guys. If you want people to put things in the right places, you have to not direct them to the wrong places. 50.115.68.67 ( talk) 02:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
A submitter e-mailed me about my comments on a submission, and at first I couldn't find my comments, until I realized that somehow a section in the middle of the edit history has become separated from the rest. Can anything be done to reintegrate this?
2: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/David_Prangishvili&action=history
— Anne Delong ( talk) 16:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joseph Pitts (slave) and Joseph Pitts (slave). FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 18:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I've just come across Aandhra Pradesh State Archives and Research Institute which is not only a blatant copy and paste copyright vio but it was accepted by the same editor who created it. This casts into doubt the competency of every other review they have carried out. Please keep a look out for any similar problems. Pol430 talk to me 10:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Before I propose this at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process I wanted to get your thoughts:
As an modification to other forms of deletion, certain newly created articles (those created in or moved to article space within 7 days of being nominated or tagged for deletion) may be recommended for submission to Wikipedia:Articles for creation as an alternative to outright deletion, at the deleting administrator's discretion based on what is good for the encyclopedia.
This would NOT be an alternative to "not deleting" - this should only be used if the administrator would delete the article under existing rules. Policy-violating content would not be eligible for moving, it must be deleted.
Your thoughts? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 21:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
9 articles move to WT:AFC/ or User: space
|
---|
|
Can anyone have a look at the most recent conversation on my talk page and give me a hand? I'm not extremely proficient with copyright issues. Thanks! FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 12:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
The creator of this article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/KGCS-22 Joplin, Missouri Southern State University wants to resubmit, but can't find a submit button. I don't see it either. Am I missing it? — Anne Delong ( talk) 04:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I think this could well be the submission of the day! FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 15:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
does anyone know the actual siz of a Morgan silver dollar? stan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.36.77 ( talk) 21:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay, so after the discussions above, more specifically #Reviewer approving seemingly unsatisfactory articles, I started wondering why not have the AfC bot move protect all of the submissions and require "some" kind of autopatrolled or reviewer rights to accept the articles? Also, I would love to see some kind of "training" program like what WP:CVUA offers to make sure that all of our reviewers know the correct policies and have reasonable decision making skills to prevent problems like with the Eric Sanicola article where the author is now confused and frustrated because his article has been nominated for deletion when it appeared to be approved as an article that follows the requirements. If I'm talking out my butt, just tell me so; as a fairly new reviewer myself I wouldn't be opposed to going through such a training course as I just explained because I'm still not entirely comfortable with accepting articles (I've got no problem declining the ones that are WP:SNOW) at this point. Technical 13 ( talk) 11:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
$wgRestrictionLevels[] = 'reviewers';
Roger, this wouldn't change the ability to move pages from "ordinary" editors except for those that are specified as AfC drafts or even userdrafts that have been {{ subst:Submit}}ted for review. This would protect well intentioned users that are creating new articles to be much more certain that their article isn't prematurely approved and much less likely to be tagged for any kind of deletion in the first day. FaL, When you get down to the nitty gritty, WP:REVIEWER only adds three user rights/permissions: (aft-monitor), (review), and (validate). Currently, all that this user group does is allow people to mark pending changes as good or revert them and there are currently 7,985 reviewers + 855 administrators giving a starting pool of 8,840 users on Wikipedia that would be able to accept submissions. Of course, "anyone" would still be able to comment or decline submissions. I would suggest that we start by putting together the tutorial and run each other through it to make sure all of the important things are known. Then, once we see how that goes and get a group of people that would be qualified, and applied and received the reviewer right, we could then decide if there is a need or a want to initiate a RfC to see if this new move permission should be added. Technical 13 ( talk) 20:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
@Technical 13, I think Roger's point about taking away the ability of ordinary, competent editors ability to accept AfC's would become the overriding oppose rationale. On a more positive note, I've been looking at CVUA and I think there are some good ideas there for upgrading the present reviewing instructions to something more like an academy. Pol430 talk to me 20:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Proposed alternative #1 - MOVENOTICE. I don't think the Wiki software supports it yet but this would be a great place to force people to read an WP:EDITNOTICE-like message before moving a page. If all pages in "AFC submission space" (i.e. [[Wikipedia[ Talk]:Articles for [cC]reation/]] minus project-related pages) had a boilerplate notice highly recommending those without experience at AFC not move articles and explaining that their moves may be un-done or that articles that are not ready to be moved may face a far worse fate at WP:AFD, that would help without changing user-rights. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 15:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Proposed alternative #2 - Move-protect all pages in "AFC submission space" that have an "AFC submission/pending" template on them and set up a bot that would move (and, after moving out of AFC space, un-move-protect) articles on request, and build the "request" mechanism into the AFC Helper Script (while of course providing a manual way to request the move and a way for any editor to request the bot un-move-protect pages that are no longer pending submissions). This would serve two purposes: 1) it would strongly encourage the use of the helper script and, hopefully, encourage editors to educate themselves a bit before using it, and 2) it would allow the bot-owner, under direction from WP:WPAFC and with ultimate supervision by administrators and the bot-approvals group, to blacklist certain editors from moving things into article space while still allowing them to move articles around within AFC space or to User: space. The latter does leave open the possibility of a frustrated or malicious editor moving things from AFC space to USER space then moving the no-longer-move-protected page into the main encyclopedia, but that's a lot of work and such situations can be handled on a case-by-case basis. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 15:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Proposed addition: Use in draft articles is related to AFC submissions. Please read it and provide your input there. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 15:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: This article Wikipedia:GRAND - the Digital Magazine for Grandparents was declined, then improved, and then
but this article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/GRAND - the Digital Magazine for Grandparents was moved out of a sandbox and submitted. I'm not sure how these fit together, but the first is in the wrong place, I think. — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Monty Mondell Chambliss Jr.(born November 7, 1981) is an American football player, film, and television actor. Coming into the spotlight at the age of six. Being adopted by Monty Smith and Janet Jackson, Chambliss had appeared commercials and became a musician in 1990s when he joined Kris Kross. Chambliss almost became the second black quarterback to win the Superbowl, when he got a leg cramp tha kept in out of for the rest of the game. In 2013, he came back into the NFL after retiring in 2009 for his former spouse, Meagan Good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.180.173 ( talk) 04:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I went through a couple of dates and could not find an approved new article. On 4/12 I noted a town was declined, as it said it didn't have reliable sources (ie the reviewer was maybe too lazy to search him/herself on google). Afc looks like it is really just the deletes who somehow got a hold of Wikipedia as they were getting tired of the work required to delete everything in Afd. Seriously, a town doesn't qualify on wikipedia? Is there a written population requirement for town submission? I'm surprised the reviewer didn't say it was notable since he/she didn't live in the particular town, despite the fact that yahoo has 1.2M search results.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Dunns_Station,_Pennsylvania
The admins who approved this change to implement Afc, instead of allowing the public to create articles (and send the junk to Afd), should be ashamed of themselves...
Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 18:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
In Response to Jtbobwaysf 10:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC) And right there you have lost all credibility. Strike immediately your assertion that I think this is pleasurable or a game. If you had read and understood the decline reason of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mancoluto you would have understood that the 6 references for being in a documentary in the first paragraph and the 4 references regarding the confession to burying someone after an unfortunate accident in the final paragraph are prime examples of Wikipedia:Citation overkill. Now your righteous indignation appears to be nothing more than a tantrum at your activities being declined. As I said before I give passes on AfC submissions when they're well formed and unlikely to land in the AfD bin. Our responsiblity, in my viewpoint, is to look at the submissions critically and do everything necessary to ensure that the article does not land in any of the deletion choping blocks within a few weeks of being moved to mainspace. I'm sure you would also endorse that promoting substandard articles to mainspace so that annother volunteer has to come along and invest the time to make a AfD nomination and justification. Keeping problems out of mainspace to begin with is the way that we can contribute. Hasteur ( talk) 14:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I understand fully about the whirlwind of citations in which we new editor are lost. Someone will come along and delete a sentence, stating it is too much information, leaving another comment hanging, thus having it open to a "citation needed". When we add that, as well as create a paragraph so that the one sentence is supported, as it is critical to the article, then we are told the article is not "notable". We then go into over citation mode. I would like to see a "mentor" or "adoption" where we almost have a guardian to protect us from too many administrators. I understand open format and appreciate it, as I learn more about a topic that I felt worthy enough to form an article, but sometimes I feel like I'm a shop owner in the middle of a mafia territory. I want to pay someone protection money! When an article I've had up for months is suddenly deleted without discussion by one person, after many others have worked on it and it's been approved, it's disheartening and confusing. That much power is unwarranted. Thank you all for your time in volunteering. SandyC ( talk) 19:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
We need an easy way for editors to change their "submitted articles" back to "draft" state without having to know to add a "T" to the AFC submission template.
If there is a way to do this using a Wikilink, great. Otherwise, adding a a "click here to un-submit" wikilink which acted like the "resubmit" button on declined submissions and which added a "new section" which was just[[Category:AFC submissions that need to be turned into AFC drafts]], along with a bot to monitor that category and make the edit, would do the trick. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 16:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I think Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Supersound Guitars is ready but I've put in so much work I no longer feel impartial. Could someone else either make the move or, rather than declining it, provide a "to do list" in an AFC comment? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 21:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear editors: Last week I posted a proposal for an addition to the Afc submission process at my user page User:Anne Delong/AfcBox and asked the reviewers on the Afc talk page to respond at User talk:Anne Delong/AfcBox. After several of the reviewers showed interest, and with support from FoCuSandLeArN and some input from mabdul I asked for a technical assessment at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) and also at Village pump (technical).
Since then there has been a lot of discussion on all three talk pages about various ways to improve the Afc submission process, but aside from TheDJ, who indicated that my proposal was technically feasible, and Ypnypn , who agreed that PHP shouldn't be needed, all of the discussion has centred around alternative and more complicated ideas using bots, javascript, etc. These are likely good ideas, but don't provide feedback on my original simpler proposal.
Please will someone let me know if this simple proposal (rather than the other alternative ideas) is worth pursuing, or what's wrong with it if not, by posting your opinions at User talk:Anne Delong/AfcBox. If no one likes the idea, and people instead want to go in a different direction, I will delete it. If people agree that the proposal has merit. Petrb has agreed to set it up. I am posting this on all three talk pages hoping to get a decision one way or the other. Thanks for your time. — Anne Delong ( talk) 22:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
I declined this article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Axex Dental because it had no independent sources and was promotional, but was I correct in also noting that the information should be prose rather than point form? Is there an relevant policy about this? Or should I remove that part of my comment ? — Anne Delong ( talk) 11:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Hum? Really? What does your JavaScript error console say? I have no problem at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pete Williams... Which browser/version? mabdul 17:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
--
⇑↑⇑↑⇑↑⇑ this is my complete log for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pete Williams using the beta script on FF–20.0.1 on a windows Vista laptop. I added bullets to the start of every line for formatting purposes only. Technical 13 ( talk) 18:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
While reviewing this page: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MovieStarPlanet is the first time that I have seen a list of how many times an article has been deleted. I declined it as an advertisement, but should it also be deleted again? — Anne Delong ( talk) 00:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
After being away at a jam session all afternoon, I came back to do some reviewing. I found an article without independent sources, started to decline it and noticed that the decline button had changed from red to pink (I guess this is for mild declines....)
When I tried to find the decline reason for inadequate sources, I saw that everything has been moved around. I noticed that the BLP choice had a mention of WP:MINREF, so I went off to read it and found this text:
"Technically, if an article contains none of these four types of material [quotations, potentially challengable and other nasty stuff], then it is not required by any policy to name any sources at all, either as inline citations or as general references."
Hm! I guess our work is done. We can just accept everything that's nice. Why have I been cajoling new editors into adding references? — Anne Delong ( talk) 23:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Basically, if by some fluke the latest Category 5 hurricane that hit last week doesn't have an article about it and I write a bare-bones article with only widely-reported facts, nobody is going to challenge the submission for lack of notability unless they were just being WP:POINTy. However, they should tag such an article as unreferenced or, if it were at AFC, decline it as unreferenced even though technically listing references isn't required (I have a higher bar for accepting an AFC article than for "not" PROD/AFD'ing an existing one, I think others here do too). davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 06:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive....
Dear reviewers: My proposal at User:Anne Delong/AfcBox has gained some support at User talk:Anne Delong/AfcBox. So far no one has said no, although I expect that Technical 13 is just being nice. How will I know when it's time to ask for implementation? — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
This diff (which may soon vanish since I tagged Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MovieStarPlanet for speedy deletion) shows a Helper Script bug: While declining and tidying up the submission, the script was overeager. It turned <!-- INFOBOX FORMATTING --------> into <!-- INFOBOX FORMATTING >, thereby breaking the HTML comment and letting most of the submission disappear from view. Huon ( talk) 03:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I played with that part of the script and I'm assuming the purpose of the code that is creating this problem is an attempt to remove HRs from the submissions? Not sure why we would want to do that, as there "may" be a legitimate reason to have a horizontal rule, but I think the code should be changed based on some basic testing I've done from:
text = text.replace(/---[-]+/ig, "");
to:
text = text.replace(/[^<!--]----[^-->]/ig, "\n");
That being said, I'm still kind of new and not completely proficient with ReGex or JavaScript. Anyways, I've changed and tested it on https://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/test and it seems to work well for all of the test cases I could come up with. As a side note, the script there seems to hang up on getting my talk page when accepting if the talk page already exists, but not if it doesn't; however, it does move the page when that happens (I think the page move should be the last thing it does) but doesn't clean the article up. Also, I asked on the VP there, but don't expect a swift response, how does one apply for adminship there? Technical 13 ( talk) 16:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
It was well under 700 there for awhile. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 03:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
The draft Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ZANEWS is on the verge of being ready for mainspace. Meanwhile a new article ZANEWS has been created directly in mainspace. The AfC draft is clearly superior to the new really poor quality mainspace article, so much so that there is nothing worth keeping in it so a Merge would not make sense. So what should we do? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 07:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear editors:
On the talk page about my Afc proposal, User talk:Anne Delong/AfcBox, BigPimpinBrah commented that some types of articles do not need references. I already know about disambiguation pages, templates, redirects and lists with no other info, but BigPimpinBrah also mentioned schools and newspapers. I know that some topics don't have to prove notability, but I thought that they would still need a reference to show that they are legitimate. Is there a list somewhere among the policies of types of articles that require no references at all? I will need that to make the proposal work. — Anne Delong ( talk) 14:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
Here's an article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Elsie Lee which the submitter has cut from her sandbox and pasted onto another page, but not from the edit screen, and thereby losing the formatting. I started to fix it up before realizing what must have happened and going in search of the original, finding it at: User:Vickie Saunders/sandbox. Can something be done to get the article history back together? My unnecessary edits can be deleted. — Anne Delong ( talk) 22:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Source : http://www.veda.krishna.com/encyclopedia/vedicsound.htm
Vedic Conception of Sound in Four Features
(content removed)
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
117.219.115.163 (
talk)
01:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
(Content posted here which was copied from a web site and specifically marked as copyright was removed.) — Anne Delong ( talk) 02:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
On my talk page User talk:Anne Delong, an editor who had submitted a page to the Afc only to have it deleted as a copyright violation is asking if it's possible to get the deleted text back in order to rewrite the copied sections without having to redo all of the references and formatting. I think this is possible, but needs an administrator. Can someone help? — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Would it be possible to get a re-review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vision Capital? It was reviewed and rejected back in September. One of the main contributors to the article, User:JHAVTVS, recently made a request at the Paid Editor's Noticeboard about the nomination. After looking it over, it seems to me that the reasons for it being rejected don't make much sense, as it does have the appropriate references that showcase its notability. I tried contacting the most recent user to refuse the request, User:Czarkoff, on his talk page here. But then I noticed that he hasn't edited since December and isn't likely to respond.
So, in short, can this AfC nomination please be re-reviewed? It really seems to me that it meets the criteria for at least a stub. Silver seren C 02:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
The article Madeleine Riffaud was copy-paste moved to mainspace, another editor subsequently did a histmerge for the article page but the Talk page lacks the AfC template and the AfC categories as are normally applied in the correct approval procedure. See WP:Help desk#Review/assist new article! for more info about what happened. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 09:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
The article concerned is St. Dominic Catholic Church (Miami, FL)
I had just moved the draft from the writer's sandbox in response to this post at the Help desk and was still busy doing some cleanup when User:Mdann52 approved the article. I have posted about my concerns about the approval at User talk:Mdann52#An article you approved at AfC - amongst other problems the article contained unverifiable cites referencing personal communications - I have deleted them. Please review the events and consider if any further corrective action needs to be taken. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 18:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed that many submitted drafts contain a bulleted list of "references" where there should actually be a reflist. I don't think it is a co-incidence that so many article drafters are using exactly the same incorrect format in their drafts. Is there something in the draft guidance process (or wizard?) that is misleading writers into creating these lists? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 08:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
<!-- Be sure to cite all of your sources in <ref>...</ref>
tags and they will automatically display when you hit save. The more reliable sources added the better! -->
Technical 13 (
talk)
11:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
That was why I wanted to make sure the comment had the appropriate reference so that people can read up on in-line citations, which is how I think they should be. Whether or not they actually do read and do it right will remain to be seen. This may end up being an interesting study to see how many people just make articles and how many read all of the referenced instructions to try and build a GA... Technical 13 ( talk) 00:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
For those of you not familiar with edit filters and Tags, if a person edits a main-space article and certain criteria are met, the edit is "tagged."
These tags show up in article histories and in Special:RecentChanges.
If we had "AFC" versions of some of these tags, such as very short new article, autobiography, and others, it would not only enable "AFC specialists" to focus on certain types of submissions, but it would allow bots to add AFC comments to such submissions and messages to editor's talk pages inviting them to put their draft on hold. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 16:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Idea: I find that I am declining a lot of articles for blatant
WP:MOS violations. Is this a legitimate reason, and if so, why isn't there a category for it? TheOneSean |
Talk to me
16:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm trying to decline this article but the script says the edit failed. I'd appreciate someone explained to me what's happening. Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 16:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
<ref>http://www.co----rporationwiki.com/Alabama/Montgomery/ellis-holt/124920616.aspx</ref>
and when the
WP:AFCH tries to clean it, it removes all ----
per the discussion above
#AFCH: Overeager removal of HTML comments which leaves <ref>http://www.corporationwiki.com/Alabama/Montgomery/ellis-holt/124920616.aspx</ref>
and it was failing because www.corporationwiki.com
is on the
title blacklist.
Technical 13 (
talk)
18:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Message at OTRS that User:Misslynn1977/Irvine historical society did not submit. The code was added at the end, but not executed - the only reason I could find that they used <references>, and it appeared to blank everything after it. I changed it to {{ reflist}} and it all worked fine. Ronhjones (Talk) 23:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
<references>
tag might be uncommon, but it is advertised as a valid form at
WP:LDR - for use in conjunction with </references>
. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
22:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Is there a May backlog drive to be scheduled? The backlog is about 800 now and it's already 1 May (UTC). Arctic Kangaroo 02:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
When a draft is declined because an article already exists the template text should not include - "You are encouraged to make improvements by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page. When you are ready to resubmit, click here." It contradicts the decline reason and violates the prohibition against content forks.
This comes back to an issue I have raised before - AfC doesn't have a "permanent decline" except for blatant "crimes" such as attack pages. We need to be able to tell the drafter - "This is never going to be an acceptable article; stop working on it and rather find something else to do." Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 14:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
A cake shop — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.237.113 ( talk) 17:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I asked for Peronosclerospora philippinensis to be deleted under G6 to give way to the AfC submission which I had previously cleaned up. Now the talk page needs to be moved. I've never done that before, so could someone help me? Thanks! FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 17:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Idea: I'm thinking that should change. A More sensible approach to me would be...
Doing it in this order would be an improvement because any failures caused by cleanup will be known right away before an attempt to move the page, any failures in actually moving the page will prevent a massive spamming of the creator by a dozen different editors declining the article, and then the last thing it should do is record/log the process on the /recent page. Technical 13 ( talk) 12:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey guys, I looked at WP:Articles_for_creation/recent and was left less than impressed by the information the template is giving us. I've come up with a potential modification to the template, which I've posted on the template talk page but will copy here too. Hey guys, I have some suggestions for improving the appearance of this template and the resulting page that it is used on. Currently, the template displays:
I think it would be better if it looked like:
I even think that it would look just a smidge better than this if the bullet was the class icon, but currently all of our class icons are 180x185px which is just way too big.
Either way, I think the extra information here would be very useful.
Technical 13 (
talk)
13:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
<li style="list-style-image: url('http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f5/Symbol_stub_class.svg')">
Technical 13 (
talk)
14:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
"was" removed... All agree that this is an improvement? Technical 13 ( talk) 14:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kagiso, Gauteng, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DjMlindos and the Block Log
An added complication in this particular case is that the article already exists Kagiso and the draft is in fact an attempt to hijack the existing article for intentional spamming - the group of socks have a history of spamming the existing article over an extended period. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 15:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow reviewers! Just a heads-up to let you know that said article is being reviewed by me, and I will probably take a few days' time to finish the process. It's part of a taxonomic conundrum, and if you're interested, have a look at the relevant discussion. The appropriate WikiProjects have been notified, and with their input, we'll see where the content would be best placed. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 14:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
{{[[Template: link titleadminhelp| link titleadminhelp]]}}
I want to update the AFC helper script, but since it is a gadget and I don't have the admin bit, so I can't do it. It was extensively tested by me and other AFC reviewers and many parts are still in beta since over a year.
Simply replace the whole content at MediaWiki:Gadget-afchelper.js with {{subst:User:Mabdul/afc_push.js}}. Everything is prepared, even the header of the gadget file.
Thanks. mabdul 13:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I noticed up above at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation#Daily_cleaning_of_submissions that there was an issue in the maintenance categories for this process that was similar to an issue I dealt with in the WP:BLPPROD process, roughly speaking, categories not getting updated as time passes. We ended up fixing that with a bot that I wrote, User:joe's Null Bot that just pokes each article in a particular category once per day with a "purge with forcelinkupdate" (It's a little more work than a regular purge but not quite as heavy as the ever-so dainty WP:NULLEDIT.)
Anyway, I've verified that a similar solution would solve the issue here.
Shall I submit a task request to WP:BRFA asking to extend "Joe's Null Bot" to perform a once daily pass on the AfC pending submissions category in order to keep the categorization of pending submissions by days left more or less up to date? -- j⚛e decker talk 20:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi again I've updated the AfC workflow. I've tried to follow the recommendation provided here as well as simplifying things.
I plan to use this in a little course-ware about AfC. Once this new course has more matured a little more and the the question bank expanded I would like some volunteers to test it.
If the project members like it we can use it for:
So if you have some AfC specific materials you think should be included, let me know and if someone can make a small video podcast of using the reviing script - that would also be helpful. BO | Talk 23:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
So, I was thinking about the discussion I started last month ( WT:WikiProject Articles for creation/2013 2#Problem on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions), and I thought I would take a peak at the templates driving it to see if they could be slimmed down any. Here is what I've come up with that might help "some":
-->{{#if:{{{nc|}}}|<abbr title="Submission is a suspected copyright violation">copyvio</abbr>  |}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{nu|}}}|<abbr title="Submission lacks references completely">unsourced</abbr>  |}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{ni|}}}|<abbr title="Submission has no inline citations">no-inline</abbr>  |}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{ns|}}}|<abbr title="Submission is less than a kilobyte in length">short</abbr>  |}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{nr|}}}|<abbr title="Submission was resubmitted after a previous decline">resubmit</abbr>  |}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{no|}}}|<abbr title="Submission has not been touched in over four days">old</abbr>  |}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{nb|}}}|<abbr title="Submitter is currently blocked">blocked</abbr>|}}</td>
-->{{#if:{{{nc|}}}|[[WP:CV|copyright violation]]  |}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{nu|}}}|[[WP:V|No-Sources]]  |}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{ni|}}}|[[WP:IC|No-In-line]]  |}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{ns|}}}|[[WP:STUB|Short]]  |}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{nr|}}}|Resubmission  |}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{no|}}}|Stale  |}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{nb|}}}|[[WP:BP|Blocked]]|}}</td>
-->{{#if:{{{nc|}}}|copyright-violation |}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{nu|}}}| No-Sources |}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{ni|}}}| No-In-line |}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{ns|}}}| Short |}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{nr|}}}| Resubmission |}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{no|}}}| Stale |}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{nb|}}}| Blocked|}}</td>
Also, I notice that by looking at Template:AFC statistics directly and sorting by submission date, there are still things on the list that were declined in the middle of October and haven't been removed from the list that have not been re-submitted and are not pending. Why is User:EarwigBot not removing these from the list? That would shorten the list another large chunk that might put the list within range. Technical 13 ( talk) 13:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
<!-- WARNING: template omitted, post-expand include size too large -->
<!-- 131 more omissions -->
<!-- WARNING: template omitted, post-expand include size too large -->
<!--
NewPP limit report
Preprocessor visited node count: 166335/1000000
Preprocessor generated node count: 154783/1500000
Post‐expand include size: 2048000/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 669239/2048000 bytes
Highest expansion depth: 13/40
Expensive parser function count: 0/500
-->
<!-- WARNING: template omitted, post-expand include size too large -->
<!-- 90 more omissions -->
<!-- WARNING: template omitted, post-expand include size too large -->
<!--
NewPP limit report
Preprocessor visited node count: 165985/1000000
Preprocessor generated node count: 154076/1500000
Post‐expand include size: 2048000/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 669149/2048000 bytes
Highest expansion depth: 13/40
Expensive parser function count: 0/500
-->
<!-- WARNING: template omitted, post-expand include size too large -->
<!-- 88 more omissions -->
<!-- WARNING: template omitted, post-expand include size too large -->
<!--
NewPP limit report
Preprocessor visited node count: 165997/1000000
Preprocessor generated node count: 154100/1500000
Post‐expand include size: 2048000/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 669149/2048000 bytes
Highest expansion depth: 13/40
Expensive parser function count: 0/500
-->
<!--
NewPP limit report
Preprocessor visited node count: 32784/1000000
Preprocessor generated node count: 135721/1500000
Post‐expand include size: 712050/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 5091/2048000 bytes
Highest expansion depth: 13/40
Expensive parser function count: 7/500
Lua time usage: 1.557s
Lua memory usage: 1 MB
Lua Profile:
Scribunto_LuaSandboxCallback::getExpandedArgument 1280 ms 57.1%
Scribunto_LuaSandboxCallback::newChildFrame 380 ms 17.0%
recursiveClone <mw.lua:104> 240 ms 10.7%
getmetatable <mw.lua:73> 40 ms 1.8%
getExpandedArgument <mw.lua:256> 40 ms 1.8%
format 40 ms 1.8%
type 40 ms 1.8%
tonumber 20 ms 0.9%
newFrame <mw.lua:235> 20 ms 0.9%
Scribunto_LuaSandboxCallback::len 20 ms 0.9%
[others] 120 ms 5.4%
-->
Dear editors:
This article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Integration of Baseball is in the Afc queue. There is an existing article Desegregation of baseball which is a redirect to Baseball color line. Are these article topics sufficiently similar that they should be combined into one article, or should there be one article about the time when baseball was segregated by race, and another article about the process of racial integration/desegregation in the sport? Also, not being an American, I wonder which is the more commonly used term, integration or desegregation? — Anne Delong ( talk) 10:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey guys and gals! So, now that the changes and cleanups for EarwigBot by Earwig and changing that /row template to a Module: seem to have helped and the /list page is working again, I've seen some new stuff I hadn't seen before. Template:AfC submissions by month caught my eye and I've been tweaking it slightly for formatting. There are some things I'd like to ask and discuss about it now that I'm familiar with the code in it. If you take a look at User:Technical 13/SandBox, you'll see that I think a good way to be able to compare how we are doing for submissions is to have "A year ago this month", "Two months ago", "Last month", and "This month". Now, other than the fact that I've gone way over the 500 expensive parser function calls having all four of those sections four times to test the year change, you'll see that those four make for a good set to compare with. That being said, I think that merging them all into one big table would look better than four little tables. What do you guys think about doing that (I'll do all the leg work and write up the templates and stuff.)? Technical 13 ( talk) 19:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
I accepted an article that had been declined several times for poor references, but then had been improved. The acceptance script asked if it was a biography, and I answered yes. Then it asked me if the person was living or dead. I chose living, upon which it asked for the date and place of death. Maybe this is a programming error? — Anne Delong ( talk) 10:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Lawrence Fuchs raises an interesting issue: What should happen to the class= parameter in {{ WikiProject Articles for creation}} as the article improves? Should we leave the class= alone, change the class= as the other editor recommends, or just remove it, as I wound up doing?
I recommend removing it, but with a twist:
Add a new parameter, originalclass=originalassesssment.
To make this use crystal clear, I would recommend having the AFC Helper Script add an html comment after "class=" saying
If the class is no longer accurate, replace class=assessment with originalclass=originalassessment. Do not use both class= and originalclass=. See Template:WikiProject Articles for creation/doc for details.
The template's logic would need to be changed so it would not categorize an article as unassessed if originalclass existed.
Thoughts? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 03:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Date | Date | Date | Date | Date | Date |
I have a peculiar problem concerning the afc comment template. I recently changed my signature and ever since then this problem has manifested. Please let me know what I need to fix, if any of you have any ideas on what the issue is. - FUMITOL | LETS TALK 14:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank for helping to put my first major wiki article (Oyin Akoko) through. I suppose it can be moved as an article while we strive to make it look better. Once again, thanks. Boyede Ojomu ( talk) 15:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I've requested the creation of the missing archive indices for this project
Since the ones from 2010-2013 already exist, but 2008 and 2009 do not. -- 65.94.76.126 ( talk) 04:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
all exist, but for 2009 and 2008, they are missing. -- 65.94.76.126 ( talk) 12:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
good day! it was a draft article The youth time , it was removed. Now I want to finish this article. prompt, am I need to edit article in the last blank and then put up for discussion? Thank you. Tanya ZAV. ( talk) 05:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Which version do I edit?
I have found a number of sources that seem independent of the article:
Yaris678 ( talk) 20:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Dear editors:
While reviewing this page: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Everest (app)
I came across the following: http://en.mobile.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everest_%28app%29
Is this part of Wikipedia? If so, is it separate and should there be an article both there and in the main encyclopedia? — Anne Delong ( talk) 09:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I like to see a page like this : Maxthon downloads statistics, Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loooping8 ( talk • contribs) 07:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
The WP:VisualEditor is designed to let people edit without needing to learn wikitext syntax. The articles will look (nearly) the same in the new edit "window" as when you read them (aka WYSIWYG), and changes will show up as you type them, very much like writing a document in a modern word processor. The devs currently expect to deploy the VisualEditor as the new site-wide default editing system in early July 2013.
About 2,000 editors have tried out this early test version so far, and feedback overall has been positive. Right now, the VisualEditor is available only to registered users who opt-in, and it's a bit slow and limited in features. You can do all the basic things like writing or changing sentences, creating or changing section headings, and editing simple bulleted lists. It currently can't either add or remove templates (like fact tags), ref tags, images, categories, or tables (and it will not be turned on for new users until common reference styles and citation templates are supported). These more complex features are being worked on, and the code will be updated as things are worked out. Also, right now you can only use it for articles and user pages. When it's deployed in July, the old editor will still be available and, in fact, the old edit window will be the only option for talk pages (I believe that WP:Notifications (aka Echo) is ultimately supposed to deal with talk pages).
The developers are asking editors like you to join the alpha testing for the VisualEditor. Please go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and tick the box at the end of the page, where it says "Enable VisualEditor (only in the main namespace and the User namespace)". Save the preferences, and then try fixing a few typos or copyediting a few articles by using the new "Edit" tab instead of the section [Edit] buttons or the old editing window (which will still be present and still work for you, but which will be renamed "Edit source"). Fix a typo or make some changes, and then click the 'save and review' button (at the top of the page). See what works and what doesn't. We really need people who will try this out on 10 or 15 pages and then leave a note Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback about their experiences, especially if something mission-critical isn't working and doesn't seem to be on anyone's radar.
Also, if any of you are involved in template maintenance or documentation about how to edit pages, the VisualEditor will require some extra attention. The devs want to incorporate things like citation templates directly into the editor, which means that they need to know what information goes in which fields. Obviously, the screenshots and instructions for basic editing will need to be completely updated. The old edit window is not going away, so help pages will likely need to cover both the old and the new.
If you have questions and can't find a better place to ask them, then please feel free to leave a message on my user talk page, and perhaps together we'll be able to figure it out. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
The draft WT:Articles for creation/Rade Jovanović needs to be reviewed by someone who can understand the Bosnian language sources. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 12:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I have asked for help from WT:WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina#Help needed at Articles for creation -- Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 19:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Dear Reviewers:
I was about to accept this article: Webbers Falls Lake when I noticed that the either the coordinates in the infobox were wrong, or the lake is located at the north pole. The correct coordinates are in the text in metric form, so I used a conversion program I found on line to change the coordinates and then accepted it. I haven't done this conversion before; can someone check to make sure that I did it correctly? — Anne Delong ( talk) 13:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
If I understand this edit by Technical 13 correctly, submitted sandbox drafts are no longer categorized in Category:Pending AfC submissions. Compare for example User:DocFido/sandbox. Was that deliberate? How will they get reviewed? I'm tempted to revert the edit, but I'd like a second opinion - maybe that edit does something worthwhile I simply don't see. Huon ( talk) 20:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Please, feel free to say yes or not. It is a simple questio, though Miss Bono (zootalk) 16:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
You can submit an article for review by placing {{ subst:Submit}} at the top of the article page. :) Technical 13 ( talk) 16:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Adam Kess— Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.155.43.114 ( talk) 14:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Can anyone figure out why I can't move this submission to "XXX (film)"? Also, can we figure out a way to have it so that WikiProject stuff could be added as a parameter when creating articles, showing all the projects? I think it would be easier to do it this way with all of the ones that we have out there, and it would be more user friendly to new users at the end of the day. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 17:51, 13 May 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 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
Having participated in the AFC backlog drive for March, and having seen the substantial efforts put in by many reviewers during this period, and noting that there doesn't seem to have been much of a reduction in the backlog over this period, I can't help thinking that it is worth seriously looking at ways to make the process more efficient. What is the correct forum to open up a discussion to collect together people's ideas, whether it be for minor tweaks here and there or more substantial reform? How can we obtain empirical data to establish where the problems lie (or indeed if there is no objective evidence of any problems)? (I'm thinking that it would potentially be useful to know how many times each individual candidate article is reviewed during its time at AFC, how many of the candidate articles as a percentage eventually make it to mainspace? Are there categories of article that are much more/less likely than others to make it to mainspace? How many times is each article viewed before it is reviewed?)-- nonsense ferret 15:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Flexxon is the specialist who focus on memory IC design-in to industrial application. Flexxon always keep pace with the latest memory market information and helping industrial customer on the selection of right partner to work with.
As different maker have different focus. And most of the memory market are cater for PC/ Server or even smart phone market, where industrial customer using most of legacy memory which is not align with tier one memory makers. Flexxon always share the latest memory market information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.165.40.65 ( talk) 06:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
A RfC has started at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G13: Abandoned Articles for creation submissions discussing a proposed new speedy deletion criterion for rejected and long since abandoned Articles for Creation submissions. This would generate an initial deletion of some 50,000 pages, and then a daily dose of give or take 100 pages (wild stab at the actual numbers, not a scientific report here). (I forgot to mention this here yesterday, even though it may be of some interest to this project obviously). Fram ( talk) 06:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I've asked for a dump of AfC before the nuking:
Wikipedia_talk:Database_download#dump_of_Articles_for_Creation_requested. —
rybec
04:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
An Afc submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/UMMO is an exact copy of a section of this article: Planetary objects proposed in religion, astrology, ufology and pseudoscience. I was going to decline it as a duplicate, but maybe this is the editor's way of suggesting that it should have its own page? — Anne Delong ( talk) 03:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
A while ago I reviewed and approved Neil Marcus, but as I have an interest in the topic, (I'm an active member of WP:WikiProject Disability) I wonder if my enthusiasm for the subject might have impaired my objectivity in judging the submission fairly. Since passing the draft to mainspace I have done a significant amount of editing on it, so please take a look at the article history and evaluate it in the state it was when I approved it. Roger ( talk) 11:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Based on recent comment on my talk page from both newbies in need of some help as well as some project members I've started implementing a number of measures to improve reviewer communication with newbies. A second concern is training new AfC project reviewers on doing their jobs in a more co-ordinated approach.
One item which can help is a chart explaining how the overall process works. I think having such a chart can addresses two concerns -
And I would like any comments on this.
Recent research has shown that inline tags are the most efficient methods for getting editors to fix problems on Wikipedia. Using these type of tags not only pinpoints the location of the problem it also links to the section in the policy pages governing the problems. By providing these 2/3 of the process of finding a solution can be effected.
I've created a number of new template for inline tags for use in AfC reviews. I've started using these in some articles. I plan to further test and develop these templates so that they will be disabled outside WP:Namespace because while they are useful in communicating problems in Wikipedia I am not certain they should be used to tag problems universally.
The current templates I have come up with for tagging problematic source are:
I think these are more intuitive then how we work today. But I'd like your comments on these - do we need more? are the links useful. BO | Talk 17:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
The text at the top now includes the number of submissions that are actively under review. I did this because I was tired of clicking on "R" just to see what was there. In order to do this, I created a new category, Category:Pending AfC submissions being reviewed now, which you might find useful for things other than just getting a count.
I thought about doing the same things for C and M but as they are listed before P anyone who wants a count can just eyeball it. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 22:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
While checking this submission: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Meghan Camarena I became puzzled over the external link section. There are unfamiliar templates there. Is this a feature that I haven't heard about to help editors add links to unreliable sources? — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I have a suggestion for the backlog. Since it is easier to review disambiguation pages and templates, as they have no pesky references to check, I suggest that they be placed into an additional categorization, Category: non-article AfC pending submissions , which should reduce the backlog by a few tens of pages. -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 07:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Done As I haven't got any response, I included the changes (
diff). Regards,
mabdul
20:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
As can be seen on a page like this one, a series of repeated headings, all saying "Your submission at Articles for creation", is unhelpful. Each heading should be unique, so could we either append the title of the article concerned, or at least a time+date stamp? A better heading might be "AfC: [title]", like the DYK headings higher up the same page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking about how to add a new headline. I was thinking about multiple possibilities. (not all links included or simplified for explanation)
But this would also create problems as many users resubmit their article multiple times.
Then I thought about something like:
But this looks a bit strange. Also a combination is possible. What do you think? Any other ideas? !Votes? mabdul 21:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm kind of new here, would someone look over Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Joel_Potrykus and confirm I did it right. I'm open to suggestions and feedback, and I'm going to pause between each one for the first few until I get the hang of it. this is one of those things that no matter how much documentation you read, you get better the more you do. Thank you. Technical 13 ( talk) 22:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
Sorry to be filling up this page with questions, but I have only been reviewing for a few days. When using the Afc script, I see an option to decline "Too short but can be merged". What about submissions that are too short but there's not a suitable article or there's nothing much worth merging. Is there a plain "Too short" option? I've been using the "Test edit", but sometimes it's really just an article into which very little effort has been put, and I don't want to spend any more time reviewing it than the author spent writing the 5 or 6 words. — Anne Delong ( talk) 13:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Would someone be willing to verify my declination of Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Monica_Galetti. I'm still kind of new, but I think I am getting the hang of it and am requesting some assurance. Thank you. Technical 13 ( talk) 19:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
[Draft removed.]
-- 72.65.238.157 ( talk) 00:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
The quality of English in Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Students Tamil Eelam liberation Movement is clearly not good enough for mainspace, but the subject seems to be notable - it has the required cites. Declining it won't help at all because the draft writer is obviously not capable of writing better English. The only way out is if someone else takes over the draft to rewrite it in fluent English - but AFAIK such a procedure does not exist. So what can we do? Roger ( talk) 21:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello again! I am reviewing an article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of Gaming Laptops. I plan to decline it because it has no source citation for the definition of a gaming laptop and for the information about the laptop models, but is the whole idea of this article an acceptable one? If the user backs up his definition (as could easily be done with this web site http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2020688,00.asp), should Wikipedia include a list of products and prices? The purpose of the article is not to sell laptops; these aren't even current models. It seems to me that the list would always be out of date. Also, gamers' ideas of what would be a high end graphics card will keep changing rapidly as technology advances, and the models and features are different every day. On the other hand, there seem to be articles about particular automobile engines, etc. I need to know if I should suggest the editor fix the referencing, or if something else is more appropriate. — Anne Delong ( talk) 03:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I have searched for the origin of Indoctrination through Wikipedia. I would really want the encyclopedic to add more of the information regarding "INDOCTRINATION".
Looking forward to see the addition.
Thanks & Best Regards, Jaspreet Kaur Nagi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.82.173 ( talk) 11:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
On April 2, a new editor created this article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shane J. Lopez. It was declined April 6.
On April 8, another new editor created a page about the same person Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shane J. Lopez (2) and then a few hours later this one Shane J. Lopez.
I have declined the middle one as a duplicate, but the other two are different. The article in mainspace I would have declined since the sources aren't totally independent. The other has already been declined. Is there a way to get these two pages together? Maybe the combined references and information would make an acceptable page. — Anne Delong ( talk) 12:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
This newly created page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tobias International, Inc. has a tag on it from 2010. Is there a history to this article that I should know about before declining it? — Anne Delong ( talk) 15:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: While reviewing an article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gerry Gogna, I came across this discussion: User talk:Drmies/Archive 30#Question on a user page, and I thought that I should report that although the page itself seems okay but not well sourced, one of the references leads to a web page that claims that Gerry has won a nobel prize in literature. I decline the page, but perhaps its author, new editor User:Nick demoz, is connected with the other user names that are being watched. — Anne Delong ( talk) 14:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
The main article space edit notice reads:
{{#ifeq: {{PAGENAME}} | {{PAGENAME:{{TFA title}}}} | {{TFA-editnotice}} }}{{#ifeq: {{PAGENAME}} | {{PAGENAME:{{TFL title}}}} | {{TFL-editnotice}} }}
If we added a check that saw if
then put up a big red template cautioning editors NOT to copy-and-paste the existing submission here, but rather to either continue editing it or REVIEW it and if it is ready to be in the main encyclopedia, MOVE it.
Thoughts? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 18:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Why would it go in
Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Main instead of
Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Wikipedia_talk? Aren't AfC articles in Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/{{PAGENAME}}
?
Technical 13 (
talk)
22:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
I was reviewing this page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Xhuljeta (Julia) Vlashi. Julia was a dental assistant, and I think the writer of the article wants to leave a memory of her life. I can't see that she has done anything that would be written about in the media. Rather than just mark the page declined, I would like to point the writer to an appropriate place to post his text. The only one that comes to my mind is http://findagrave.com. Can anyone suggest something less gloomy? — Anne Delong ( talk) 00:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Amatulic ( talk · contribs) fully-protected Template: AFC submission today without discussion. It was previously semi-protected. He did not protect the sub-pages, which kind of defeats the purpose if his goal is to protect from vandalism.
I and other AFC reviewers have been tweaking these templates for the past few weeks. I don't remember details, but there was at least one case where things "seemed to work" in the sandboxes but then broke when I moved them to the main template. It was only the ability to quickly test-fail-test-revert-try-again that I was able to successfully update the template. Had these templates been fully-protected I probably would have given up in frustration, and things like the pending-by-age categories and the 3-week-backlog report would not have happened.
I'm asking the community to come to a consensus: Absent vandalism, do we want these highly-visible templates to be fully protected or semi protected? If the answer is "fully" then they should be fully protected as a group. Given the above and that they are almost ever used in article-space, I'm obviously favoring semi-protection. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 01:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I wanted to approve WT:Articles for creation/Family of Secrets but Family of Secrets is a redirect to a section about the book in the author's biography. What is the correct way to get this draft into mainspace? Should something be done about the long detailed section in the biography which will become mostly redundant? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 08:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Are we going to have any April clearance drive? Or is the next one in May? Arctic Kangaroo 12:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
What can be done about articles such as this one? It doesn't look like the user's heeding any of the points given. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 15:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear editors:
A user has created a page on his or her User page, and submitted it to Afc. Then a few minutes later the same page was submitted from the user's sandbox. I moved the first one before seeing the second. I have declined the User page copy as a duplicate, and kept the one from the sandbox. Should I now request deletion of the duplicate, and take away the redirect from the user page? — Anne Delong ( talk) 15:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
I reviewed a page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Emad KAYYAM. and marked it as a copyright violation. It has been deleted. However, the user contacted me and said that there was a copyright permission on the talk page, which I failed to check. What should be done now? — Anne Delong ( talk) 15:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
When I first started contributing to Wikipedia, all if the Afc data was laid out nicely on the Template:AFC statistics page, including articles being reviewed, recently declined and recently approved articles, articles under review, and those awaiting review. For some time now, everything but the last group seems to be broken. I found it quite handy, and I'm wondering if there are any plans to get this going again. — Anne Delong ( talk) 03:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
Last month I tagged this page Bishow Sharma with POV and BLP sources. An IP user has removed the tags without making any improvements. Before replacing them, I'd like a second opinion. — Anne Delong ( talk) 05:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
On two occasions, I ticked the box for inviting a contributor to the Teahouse, but the invitation didn't get added to the person's talk page. Both times, I was declining a draft using the "can be merged" reason and the contributor's talk page was nonexistent beforehand. — rybec 00:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for working on this! Here are examples:
I made several attempts (both with articles I declined and ones I accepted) after posting here and before seeing your request for the contributors' names, and never saw it generate a Teahouse invitation. — rybec 23:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
... as beta tester for the AfC helper script!
After ~a year I began again to improve the actual beta script and fixed a few small bugs. I need you to find more bugs!
What you have to do
importScript('User:Mabdul/afc beta.js'); // Yet another AfC helper script (beta) [[User:Mabdul/afc beta.js]]
What is changes in the working beta code?
And then?
I will try to fix the reported problems and then (in the next few week) we can hopefully "push it" as the new version of the Gadget.
Thanks. mabdul 23:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
New feature added today in the beta script:
Regards, mabdul 08:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
{{ admin help}} Dear reviewers:
An editor has created an article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Giga Pets which is carefully researched, all except for the fact that there is already an article mainspace called Giga Pet. However, this new article is very much superior to the existing one with tags all over it. What is the best way to get this new article into the encyclopedia? Could any small useful bits of the old article be copied into the new one? it doesn't seem to make sense to do it the other way around. Or should I accept the page and then request a merge? — Anne Delong ( talk) 04:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I've just responded to a post at the Help desk and I noticed that the decline templates on the draft don't have a "resubmit" link, this is clearly not helpful. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 08:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
I have been reviewing pages for under two weeks now, and now I have over 600 pages on my watchlist. This is okay for now; it's nice to see what happens to the pages next after I move or review them. However, I will want the older ones off my list after a while. Is there a watchlist feature that lets one remove pages without editing each page and unchecking the "Watch this page" box? — Anne Delong ( talk) 14:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I know that this is not an Afc page Calltrunk, but I reviewed it some time ago when it was listed on the new pages feed. I tagged it as having some issues and left a message on the talk page. I went back to it and found that no improvements had been made, only the tags had been removed by an IP. I replaced the tags, but I would like some guidance as to what to do. The page has quotes which I feel are promotional. Should I just remove them?
A more perplexing problem is that there is a section at the bottom about the legalities of eavesdropping (which seems to be facilitated by the company's software. There has been some effort to include opposing views, but it's still pretty onesided. Should I just summarize this without all the quotes, or should it go? It is related. — Anne Delong ( talk) 18:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
That this WikiProject has been quite active of late? I especially want to highlight the team effort and good communication we've been having. Good work, everyone! FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 19:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Is there anyone here who can verify the sources in Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gabriele Mandel, which are all in Italian, (fortunately all are available online). If they establish notability the article can be aproved. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 21:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Links and reliable resources
Dear reviewers:
In the Afc process there are a lot of articles submitted by first-time editors, and there are two frequent characteristics of these pages that take up a lot of reviewers' time.
First, many of the articles are lodged in sandboxes. The reason for this is that the page move process is flawed in the case of sandboxes, first suggesting that the article be moved to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/sandbox, and then warning the editor that they can't move the page there. Is there some way that the page move process could check to see if the current page location was a sandbox, and either ask the editor what title was wanted, or just fill in a dummy title such as "User123's Afc article" so that the page could be moved to Afc space and the reviewing tools could be used? I realize that many new editors still wouldn't move the article, but it would be interesting to see how many tried and were put off by the large red warning text.
Secondly, many of the articles have no reference section at all. Would it be possible when an editor clicks on the submit button to have a radio button page come up that says Wait! Have you remembered to include citations to reliable sources? (1) Yes, submit the article (2) No, I forgot; I'll add them and submit later (3) No; what are citations? - link to referencing for beginners (4) No; because this article is a disambiguation page or redirect (5) No; I looked but I couldn't find any - link to notability policy
Not having been involved with Wikipedia's underpinnings, I don't know if these ideas represent trivial or complex programming tasks, or even if they have already been tried and rejected. — Anne Delong ( talk) 12:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Please check User_talk:Oo7565#Your AfC reviews and keep an eye on the reviewed submission by this user. He/she is simply only accepting and moving them without cleaning the submissions nor tagging, etc... mabdul 05:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I tried to review the two drafts in Category:AfC pending submissions without an age but on both the review tool came up with an error message saying it could not find the submission template. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 08:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
In case anyone in who works actively in this WikiProject did not know, there was recently a motion to pass the new speedy deletion criterion G13. This criterion may directly affect those who are part of this WikiProject who review articles in the Wikipedia:Articles for creation namespace. The purpose of this criterion seems to be for an effort to remove submissions from this space that have been abandoned per WP:STALEDRAFT. Since this is a new criterion, there have not been efficient guidelines created yet that are more specific to what criterion needs to be met for these submissions to qualify. Right now, the verbiage of the criterion reads as follows:
...However, due to this verbiage, there is the potential that there might be some good faith issues caused by editors wanting to make these unsubmitted drafts eventually eligible for this criterion. There could be editors that will submit submissions that have never been submitted and have not been edited in quite some time, just to get them rejected and start the clock for the "one-year" requirement to be eligible for this new criterion.
If anyone was not aware of the discussion that lead to the creation of this new criterion, it can be found at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposed new criterion: abandoned article drafts and Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G13: Abandoned Articles for creation submissions. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm checking mine and Nathans different versions of the AFC helper script and cleaning the different code pages to get again an overview of the actual versions.
Could an admin delete following pages:
All pages had been checked for backlinks.
I still have to check if Nathan2055 added any useful bits of code to User:Nathan2055/afc releasecandidate.js, but this is actually something different and I will request a deletion later if needed. ;-)
Thanks. mabdul 08:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Media-Soft Inc and Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Cameron Hughes are in content cats. When are going to sort this problem out? -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 10:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Is there anyway we could petition to get a modified version of MW:Manual:Force_preview#For_MediaWiki_1.17_or_newer set as a default gadget or added to common.js that forces new users to use the show preview button on AfC draft pages. It could be modified to make sure there are no content categories in the drafts and numerous other things as well. If someone else thinks there may be merit in this idea, I'll expand, otherwise I want to keep it short for readability. Technical 13 ( talk) 10:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
This is the first time that I have tried to review an article about a prominent person, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Henry Ristuccia and I would appreciate a second opinion in case I have messed up. — Anne Delong ( talk) 16:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear editors:
I reviewed an article that had five or six lines of text, declined it for lack of independent sources, and got back this: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alain de Weck. I went back in the page's history to find the deleted Afc box and Decline box, but I can't figure out how to help this editor resubmit the page. Also, I am not sure what Wikipedia reviewers think about long lists of papers and publications in an academic's article. I am going to leave this one for someone with more experience. — Anne Delong ( talk) 03:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
{{subst:submit}}
to the very top. If someone other than the author adds the template, it should be {{subst:submit|user=Author's Username}} so the correct person will be notified when the draft is reviewed. Regarding the papers, his own papers are
primary sources and we should find independent sources that discuss his work; since almost all sources are his own papers we should not accept the draft. I'll leave a note to that effect at the author's talk page.
Huon (
talk)
03:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Dear reviewers:
While reviewing a come across this page: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aboobacker Mdr.
It appears to be a redirect to a deleted page. After reading the text I dutifully did not edit the page. But should it be declined so that it is no longer in the Afc queue? — Anne Delong ( talk) 03:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
I have been following with interest the following deletion discussion /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amanda_Blain and I am of the opinion that Wikipedia notability policies needs some updating when it comes to social media sites. I agree that anything posted on social media sites is likely to be unreliable, but the sites themselves gather statistics that are impartial. If Miss Blaine really has 2.6 million followers on Google+, how can this not count toward some notability? Last month there was an article in Afc about an videogame reviewer calling himself Pewdie Pie whose videos on Youtube had been viewed over a billion times and the article, I see, didn't make it into mainspace. If editors of major newpapers don't write often about these types of people, it's likely because they know that there are whole subcultures of people out there who get all of the information that they are interested in without ever opening a book or a newspaper. Anyway, my question is, is there an appropriate forum to post rants, I mean opinions, like this? — Anne Delong ( talk) 21:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Congrats everyone! We have finally rid ourselves of the dead weight that is the three week old backlog! TheOneSean | Talk to me 21:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
There seem to be quite a few "porn star" submissions with presumably unreliable referencing and in some cases extensive MOS deviations. They include allusions to several awards, but they're non-notable from what I've gathered. Would it be prudent to contact the author about the whole lot, instead of bombarding him with declines? Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 22:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
What kind transmission fluid goes in a 1991 ford explorer 5 speed transmission — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:2500:58C9:C5E:7667:E463:8333 ( talk) 01:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
As suggested by User:Petrb, I have created a flow chart for discussion about a pop-up box to warn editors that they need sources before submitting and article to Afc. It's posted at User:Anne Delong/AfcBox. If you agree with me that reviewers waste a lot of time declining these articles, please check this out and find any flaws before I propose it to the technical guys. — Anne Delong ( talk) 05:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
The cited sources in this draft are all in Russian so I am unable to check them. Where do I find a reviewer who can read Russian? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 09:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Each draft by itself probably fails notability but if the drafts were merged the resulting text might pass.
Is there anything that can be done about this matter? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 11:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Now that the 3-week backlog is sometimes zero, I've added in the 2-week backlog. When it gets consistently close to or below zero, I or someone else can add the 1-week backlog. Eventually, I'd like to add a 3-day backlog and take out the backlogs longer than 1 week because they'll rarely be more than zero.
If you are interested, Template:AFC status/backlog is the template that generates these. Template:AFC status/backlog/sandbox and Template:AFC status/original/sandbox are useful for testing. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 21:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I have decline this article because there is already an existing article, but it reads to me as though it were copied out of the middle of an essay somewhere. I couldn't find the text using Google, but if someone has access to databases of academic papers, could you check this for copyvio? Thanks. — Anne Delong ( talk) 22:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
My request for help from a Russian speaker (above) and the fairly frequent occurrence of similar posts has given me an idea. We could change the list of project participans from just a simplistic list of usernames to a more informative page by including our language abilities and perhaps even our subject expertise and interests, that way the next time one of us needs need someone to verify sources on traditional Mongolian dances written in Chinese it might be easier to find the right person for the job.
(For the record: I'm fluent in Afrikaans, and can read Dutch that's not too full of jargon. My interests and expertise includes Disability; South African history, geography and current affairs; Aviation; and Military technology.) Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 12:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
It looks like an editor who shall remain nameless has a history of inappropriately changing AFC submission templates on submissions. As a result, other reviewers are reverting some of his work is being un-done and articles are re-appearing in the "pending" queue for re-evaluation. This explains the sudden increase in 3+-week-old pending submissions.
Carry on. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 18:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Can we turn down Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The History of The Beatles before it's submitted? It's 300k of play-by-play copied from other articles, over twice as long as The Beatles, and if there is ever a need to split off that history from the main article such should be proposed on the article's talk page. Drmies ( talk) 20:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Can someone confirm my page please? Miss.Dina Rae ( talk) 20:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear editors:
I reviewed and declined this page a few days ago: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/2013 Brussels Open (tennis) and the article' creator has improved it and submitted it again, but deleted the notice of declination. I thought of replacing it, but then the user might see it and think the article had been declined again. Should I just leave it? — Anne Delong ( talk) 02:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
The pending-by-age categories aren't always correct. Of the close to 700 in that category, many were several days old. The actual number with timestamps of 24 hours ago when I checked a few minutes ago was in the 190s.
That's the good news. The bad news is that they are still in the queue. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 03:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
I was reviewing this page: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Polarization (politics) when I realized that there was already an article Polarization (politics) in mainspace. It appears that an editor has copied the text into userspace and then added to it and submitted it. There is no date overlap in the page histories. Can they be merged? if so, where? — Anne Delong ( talk) 20:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
...is poking into content categories. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 03:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Education Society of Azerbaijan Republic and Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Education Society of Azerbaijan Republic are in content cats. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 04:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Note - I moved this here from Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, as this is clearly not in the scope of that page Ego White Tray ( talk) 12:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I was unable to get a chance to see the new G13 criterion in time to propose an addition, not to the verbiage in G13, but to a function that a bot should be programmed to do in conjunction with the G13 criterion that may be able to fix some of the mass of abandoned articles in the Wikipedia:Articles for creation space, and make them eligible for speedy deletion criterion G13 sooner. Steel1943 ( talk) 02:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I propose that there should be a bot programmed to automatically place the {{ AFC submission}} template on articles in the Wikipedia:Articles for creation namespace that do not have any variation of the {{ AFC submission}} template on them if the last edit on the article was done ... let's say 6 months ago. This process will properly list them for submission, and in addition, give these articles a chance to be denied, making them eligible for speedy deletion criterion G13 sooner, preventing an excess of stales drafts in the Wikipedia:Articles for creation namespace.
So, essentially, this bot could be programmed to submit the Wikipedia:Articles for creation articles that have yet to be submitted, and making these stale drafts possibly eligible for the speedy deletion criterion G13 sooner. Also, I saw that there was a slight discussion for this at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Abandoned unsubmitted articles, but it seems that there was no official consensus about that idea. Steel1943 ( talk) 02:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Categorizing the articles in question is good as well. Secret account 01:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers While checking out the article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fractural analysis of concrete, I notice that there is another article created by the same editor, Concrete Fracture Analysis. It seems that the editor has copied a section out of the middle of an existing article, not from the edit window but from the processed article, and then changed and expended it to include something called the Hillerborg model. Should this be merged back into the original article, or should instead the title be changed to something like "The Hillerborg model of concrete fracture analysis"? I don't know enough about physics or engineering to know if this is a significant separate topic. 13:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
While reviewing this article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Association for Interactive Media and Entertainment I decided to check Google for copyright infringement, and instead came across an entry in the Speedy Deletion Wiki (what a concept) and was able to see that the article had been deleted before as promotional and has been changed somewhat in an effort to comply with Wikipedia's guidelines. Is there a more direct way to see this information? — Anne Delong ( talk) 14:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
I am sorry to be filling up this forum with my problems, but I came to an usual submission at User:Hughstandish/sandbox and I replied at User talk:Hughstandish. Should I have added the text to the submission page instead as a comment? Should I now just manually decline the sandbox? And did I give the correct information? — Anne Delong ( talk) 18:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
<!--
NewPP limit report
Preprocessor visited node count: 299081/1000000
Preprocessor generated node count: 146274/1500000
Post-expand include size: 2048000/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 1301320/2048000 bytes
Highest expansion depth: 13/40
Expensive parser function count: 15/500
-->
I just noticed that Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions has a hiddencat of Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. I'm assuming this was not a known issue until now? How can we trim it down, there doesn't seem to be much on it. Above is the NewPP limit report I copied from the source for that page. Technical 13 ( talk) 18:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Can we get a bot to clean pending pages at least daily? The by-age categories are up to a week behind lately, but forcing a "clean" seems to get them in the right by-age category. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 04:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I have declined this page already: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vote for the Girls and now the creator has added her own comment to mine stating that she needs just one reference. Then she added two references to the subject web site. Also, when I tried to leave a message on her talk page there is a big notice about cyberbullying which I don't understand. As well, I am having trouble maintaining a neutral attitude about the subject. Can someone bolder please deal with this? — Anne Delong ( talk) 12:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: In this article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Edward Pomorski the author has cited two archives as references. I haven't come across something like this before. I would expect anything in an archive to be a reliable source, but wouldn't the editor have to name specific documents? — Anne Delong ( talk) 03:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
An editor has created a disambiguation page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anchor Management and correctly identified the four main uses of this term in Wikipedia. However, none of these topics have their own article. Is this appropriate? — Anne Delong ( talk) 12:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear editors: Now I have really made a mess. I accidentally moved a sandbox submission to the incorrect place, and now I can't move it to the correct place because I managed to get that page title redirecting to the incorrect one instead of the other way around. Can someone fix up Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anchor Management to be Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/DUNN The Signtologist? This will teach me to pay more attention when cutting and pasting article titles. — Anne Delong ( talk) 13:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Would it be acceptable to point a link at the top of the incubator page directing any would-be incubators to AfC? No articles have been incubated since 2010 according to the incubation history page, so I would not anticipate any influx. I think it's time to wind down the incubator process and mark it historical, but I'd like to give anyone who hits the page an alternative. Gigs ( talk) 16:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm doing this wikipedia for Matt Bennett and Elizabeth Gillies. They are from the show called "Victorious" on nick. I'm doing this wikipedia for their podcast show "The Universe" I'm just starting. If I get more informations on it can you please accepted it? It is a real show. You can hear it at https://soundcloud.com/mott-bonnott . It is not fake but real. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParveenjitKaur ( talk • contribs) 17:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Please turn them back on when it becomes necessary. See Template talk:AFC status/backlog for details. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 19:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
While reviewing this article User:Rosie khan/sandbox, I found another article Contemporary Saudi Arabian Female Artists. The same user has been improving both of these articles. What to do? — Anne Delong ( talk) 00:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
While reviewing this page: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Libertad Green (2) I found another page about the same person, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Libertad Green. This older article was declined because the article already existed, but that article has been deleted. Should the declined article now be considered, or the newly submitted one which is quite different? — Anne Delong ( talk) 05:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
This submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Louberto Orcullo appeared in one edit and the first photo appears to be from http://pinoymusicians.ning.com/profile/LOUBERTRAYORCULLO . However, this is a members site for musicians from the Phillipines. I want to know if the whole profile was copied from there. I could join the site, but I am not from the Phillipines. Would this be considered proper or snooping? Also, since the site is not public, and is more like a bulletin board to help musicians form up into bands, share equipment, find gigs, etc., does this count as being previously published and so copyvio (if one could see it and it turned out to be the same) ? — Anne Delong ( talk) 12:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
The AFC bot moves newer comments above older declines, as seen here. The beta version of the AFC Helper Script moves all comments below all previous declines, as seen in the next edit of the same page. Can the authors of these two tools work with each other so the end result of "cleaning" the submission, by bot or by script, is the same? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 18:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, me again - eventually I will have tried every possibility...
A user has submitted an article (?!) User:Wchughes95/Kurt Snibbe's Playbook Caption Contest on his or her user page, but when I try to move it to the Afc area, the script reminds me that there is a non-empty talk page. Does this matter? Should I move it anyway? — Anne Delong ( talk) 20:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
I may have made a mistake. I marked Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Quantum Keyhole as a copyright violation because it is posted at this web page http://www.spacetimeandtheuniverse.com/against-mainstream/4620-quantum-keyhole.html and is dated as December 2011. However, the author has contact me saying that he has written this, and at the top of the page it say from Wikipedia. There is no indication that a previous page with this name had been deleted, nor is there a page containing this term that I could find. I would have declined the page anyway because the author is promoting a new term that is not in general use, but should it be deleted or not? — Anne Delong ( talk) 03:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Please check out and comment on this helper script request. I think it would be productive to see pages shortened by listing declinations for articles in one box instead of having 3+ boxes... Comments, Complaints, Feedback, Questions, Rants, Suggestions? Technical 13 ( talk) 01:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
No rush mabdul, I'm working on it Template:AFC_submission/multi, Template:AFC_submission/message, and Template:AFC_submission/multi/testcases. I'm sure it is going to take me quite a while and I would appreciate other template knowledgeable individuals as this is pushing new ground passing templates into a template and pulling arguments out of them. Thanks Technical 13 ( talk) 17:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
I declined this article some time ago because it was uncsourced: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eurolib. Now the article creator has asked me to look at it again. Sure enough some references have been added, enough for me to realize that two large sections are copy and paste from the organization's web site. My question is, when removing these and notifying the author, do I also have to remove the organization's mission statement? It's pretty hard to restate a mission statement without changing the meaning. I'm hoping this has come up before. — Anne Delong ( talk) 11:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
<Blockquote>...</Blockquote>
tags? It doesn't appear to be to me. I would suggest it should be, and it should be removed from the article until it is.
Technical 13 (
talk)
12:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Vallage Roda khushab punjab pakistan, casts detail is under; Mahram Khail(Joyia) Dheeda (Joyia )Bouran (Joyia) Yaruo Khail (Joyia) Jhanday Khail (Joyia) Zaree Khail (Joyia) Khakah (Joyia) Lodhi (Joyia) Elahi Khail (Joyia) Nehalka (Joyia) Muhammab Khail (Joyia) Kalassi (Joyia) Latifi (Joyia) Shinki (Joyia) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.149.63.120 ( talk) 12:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
The Chemistry Project is the recipient of a fair number of inferior articles that result from various unevenly supervised homework assignments. Is there a mechanism by which a chemistry editor can look over at the chemically oriented AfC's before you approve them? -- Smokefoot ( talk) 13:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I've just finished distributing the barnstars (Hopefully, please trout for any mistakes!), and I was wondering if we should have another next month (May 1-31st). Any comments? Mdann52 ( talk) 12:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Is there anything that we can subscribe to that informs us about a drive on our talk page, or is it possible to inform us? Just asking 'cos May will be the first drive I'm participating in. Arctic Kangaroo 14:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I see the prominent notice "This page is for users working on the project's administration" -- however, if I follow the directions there, I get taken in a circle. For I would then click "our article request page", which is where I came from. I came from there because though it says it offers registered users the opportunity to create an article, and all users the opportunity to suggest one, I see no clickable link for the latter: only for creating an article with the wizard.
Come on, guys. If you want people to put things in the right places, you have to not direct them to the wrong places. 50.115.68.67 ( talk) 02:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
A submitter e-mailed me about my comments on a submission, and at first I couldn't find my comments, until I realized that somehow a section in the middle of the edit history has become separated from the rest. Can anything be done to reintegrate this?
2: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/David_Prangishvili&action=history
— Anne Delong ( talk) 16:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joseph Pitts (slave) and Joseph Pitts (slave). FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 18:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I've just come across Aandhra Pradesh State Archives and Research Institute which is not only a blatant copy and paste copyright vio but it was accepted by the same editor who created it. This casts into doubt the competency of every other review they have carried out. Please keep a look out for any similar problems. Pol430 talk to me 10:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Before I propose this at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process I wanted to get your thoughts:
As an modification to other forms of deletion, certain newly created articles (those created in or moved to article space within 7 days of being nominated or tagged for deletion) may be recommended for submission to Wikipedia:Articles for creation as an alternative to outright deletion, at the deleting administrator's discretion based on what is good for the encyclopedia.
This would NOT be an alternative to "not deleting" - this should only be used if the administrator would delete the article under existing rules. Policy-violating content would not be eligible for moving, it must be deleted.
Your thoughts? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 21:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
9 articles move to WT:AFC/ or User: space
|
---|
|
Can anyone have a look at the most recent conversation on my talk page and give me a hand? I'm not extremely proficient with copyright issues. Thanks! FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 12:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
The creator of this article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/KGCS-22 Joplin, Missouri Southern State University wants to resubmit, but can't find a submit button. I don't see it either. Am I missing it? — Anne Delong ( talk) 04:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I think this could well be the submission of the day! FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 15:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
does anyone know the actual siz of a Morgan silver dollar? stan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.36.77 ( talk) 21:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay, so after the discussions above, more specifically #Reviewer approving seemingly unsatisfactory articles, I started wondering why not have the AfC bot move protect all of the submissions and require "some" kind of autopatrolled or reviewer rights to accept the articles? Also, I would love to see some kind of "training" program like what WP:CVUA offers to make sure that all of our reviewers know the correct policies and have reasonable decision making skills to prevent problems like with the Eric Sanicola article where the author is now confused and frustrated because his article has been nominated for deletion when it appeared to be approved as an article that follows the requirements. If I'm talking out my butt, just tell me so; as a fairly new reviewer myself I wouldn't be opposed to going through such a training course as I just explained because I'm still not entirely comfortable with accepting articles (I've got no problem declining the ones that are WP:SNOW) at this point. Technical 13 ( talk) 11:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
$wgRestrictionLevels[] = 'reviewers';
Roger, this wouldn't change the ability to move pages from "ordinary" editors except for those that are specified as AfC drafts or even userdrafts that have been {{ subst:Submit}}ted for review. This would protect well intentioned users that are creating new articles to be much more certain that their article isn't prematurely approved and much less likely to be tagged for any kind of deletion in the first day. FaL, When you get down to the nitty gritty, WP:REVIEWER only adds three user rights/permissions: (aft-monitor), (review), and (validate). Currently, all that this user group does is allow people to mark pending changes as good or revert them and there are currently 7,985 reviewers + 855 administrators giving a starting pool of 8,840 users on Wikipedia that would be able to accept submissions. Of course, "anyone" would still be able to comment or decline submissions. I would suggest that we start by putting together the tutorial and run each other through it to make sure all of the important things are known. Then, once we see how that goes and get a group of people that would be qualified, and applied and received the reviewer right, we could then decide if there is a need or a want to initiate a RfC to see if this new move permission should be added. Technical 13 ( talk) 20:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
@Technical 13, I think Roger's point about taking away the ability of ordinary, competent editors ability to accept AfC's would become the overriding oppose rationale. On a more positive note, I've been looking at CVUA and I think there are some good ideas there for upgrading the present reviewing instructions to something more like an academy. Pol430 talk to me 20:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Proposed alternative #1 - MOVENOTICE. I don't think the Wiki software supports it yet but this would be a great place to force people to read an WP:EDITNOTICE-like message before moving a page. If all pages in "AFC submission space" (i.e. [[Wikipedia[ Talk]:Articles for [cC]reation/]] minus project-related pages) had a boilerplate notice highly recommending those without experience at AFC not move articles and explaining that their moves may be un-done or that articles that are not ready to be moved may face a far worse fate at WP:AFD, that would help without changing user-rights. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 15:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Proposed alternative #2 - Move-protect all pages in "AFC submission space" that have an "AFC submission/pending" template on them and set up a bot that would move (and, after moving out of AFC space, un-move-protect) articles on request, and build the "request" mechanism into the AFC Helper Script (while of course providing a manual way to request the move and a way for any editor to request the bot un-move-protect pages that are no longer pending submissions). This would serve two purposes: 1) it would strongly encourage the use of the helper script and, hopefully, encourage editors to educate themselves a bit before using it, and 2) it would allow the bot-owner, under direction from WP:WPAFC and with ultimate supervision by administrators and the bot-approvals group, to blacklist certain editors from moving things into article space while still allowing them to move articles around within AFC space or to User: space. The latter does leave open the possibility of a frustrated or malicious editor moving things from AFC space to USER space then moving the no-longer-move-protected page into the main encyclopedia, but that's a lot of work and such situations can be handled on a case-by-case basis. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 15:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Proposed addition: Use in draft articles is related to AFC submissions. Please read it and provide your input there. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 15:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: This article Wikipedia:GRAND - the Digital Magazine for Grandparents was declined, then improved, and then
but this article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/GRAND - the Digital Magazine for Grandparents was moved out of a sandbox and submitted. I'm not sure how these fit together, but the first is in the wrong place, I think. — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Monty Mondell Chambliss Jr.(born November 7, 1981) is an American football player, film, and television actor. Coming into the spotlight at the age of six. Being adopted by Monty Smith and Janet Jackson, Chambliss had appeared commercials and became a musician in 1990s when he joined Kris Kross. Chambliss almost became the second black quarterback to win the Superbowl, when he got a leg cramp tha kept in out of for the rest of the game. In 2013, he came back into the NFL after retiring in 2009 for his former spouse, Meagan Good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.180.173 ( talk) 04:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I went through a couple of dates and could not find an approved new article. On 4/12 I noted a town was declined, as it said it didn't have reliable sources (ie the reviewer was maybe too lazy to search him/herself on google). Afc looks like it is really just the deletes who somehow got a hold of Wikipedia as they were getting tired of the work required to delete everything in Afd. Seriously, a town doesn't qualify on wikipedia? Is there a written population requirement for town submission? I'm surprised the reviewer didn't say it was notable since he/she didn't live in the particular town, despite the fact that yahoo has 1.2M search results.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Dunns_Station,_Pennsylvania
The admins who approved this change to implement Afc, instead of allowing the public to create articles (and send the junk to Afd), should be ashamed of themselves...
Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 18:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
In Response to Jtbobwaysf 10:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC) And right there you have lost all credibility. Strike immediately your assertion that I think this is pleasurable or a game. If you had read and understood the decline reason of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mancoluto you would have understood that the 6 references for being in a documentary in the first paragraph and the 4 references regarding the confession to burying someone after an unfortunate accident in the final paragraph are prime examples of Wikipedia:Citation overkill. Now your righteous indignation appears to be nothing more than a tantrum at your activities being declined. As I said before I give passes on AfC submissions when they're well formed and unlikely to land in the AfD bin. Our responsiblity, in my viewpoint, is to look at the submissions critically and do everything necessary to ensure that the article does not land in any of the deletion choping blocks within a few weeks of being moved to mainspace. I'm sure you would also endorse that promoting substandard articles to mainspace so that annother volunteer has to come along and invest the time to make a AfD nomination and justification. Keeping problems out of mainspace to begin with is the way that we can contribute. Hasteur ( talk) 14:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I understand fully about the whirlwind of citations in which we new editor are lost. Someone will come along and delete a sentence, stating it is too much information, leaving another comment hanging, thus having it open to a "citation needed". When we add that, as well as create a paragraph so that the one sentence is supported, as it is critical to the article, then we are told the article is not "notable". We then go into over citation mode. I would like to see a "mentor" or "adoption" where we almost have a guardian to protect us from too many administrators. I understand open format and appreciate it, as I learn more about a topic that I felt worthy enough to form an article, but sometimes I feel like I'm a shop owner in the middle of a mafia territory. I want to pay someone protection money! When an article I've had up for months is suddenly deleted without discussion by one person, after many others have worked on it and it's been approved, it's disheartening and confusing. That much power is unwarranted. Thank you all for your time in volunteering. SandyC ( talk) 19:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
We need an easy way for editors to change their "submitted articles" back to "draft" state without having to know to add a "T" to the AFC submission template.
If there is a way to do this using a Wikilink, great. Otherwise, adding a a "click here to un-submit" wikilink which acted like the "resubmit" button on declined submissions and which added a "new section" which was just[[Category:AFC submissions that need to be turned into AFC drafts]], along with a bot to monitor that category and make the edit, would do the trick. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 16:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I think Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Supersound Guitars is ready but I've put in so much work I no longer feel impartial. Could someone else either make the move or, rather than declining it, provide a "to do list" in an AFC comment? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 21:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear editors: Last week I posted a proposal for an addition to the Afc submission process at my user page User:Anne Delong/AfcBox and asked the reviewers on the Afc talk page to respond at User talk:Anne Delong/AfcBox. After several of the reviewers showed interest, and with support from FoCuSandLeArN and some input from mabdul I asked for a technical assessment at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) and also at Village pump (technical).
Since then there has been a lot of discussion on all three talk pages about various ways to improve the Afc submission process, but aside from TheDJ, who indicated that my proposal was technically feasible, and Ypnypn , who agreed that PHP shouldn't be needed, all of the discussion has centred around alternative and more complicated ideas using bots, javascript, etc. These are likely good ideas, but don't provide feedback on my original simpler proposal.
Please will someone let me know if this simple proposal (rather than the other alternative ideas) is worth pursuing, or what's wrong with it if not, by posting your opinions at User talk:Anne Delong/AfcBox. If no one likes the idea, and people instead want to go in a different direction, I will delete it. If people agree that the proposal has merit. Petrb has agreed to set it up. I am posting this on all three talk pages hoping to get a decision one way or the other. Thanks for your time. — Anne Delong ( talk) 22:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
I declined this article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Axex Dental because it had no independent sources and was promotional, but was I correct in also noting that the information should be prose rather than point form? Is there an relevant policy about this? Or should I remove that part of my comment ? — Anne Delong ( talk) 11:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Hum? Really? What does your JavaScript error console say? I have no problem at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pete Williams... Which browser/version? mabdul 17:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
--
⇑↑⇑↑⇑↑⇑ this is my complete log for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pete Williams using the beta script on FF–20.0.1 on a windows Vista laptop. I added bullets to the start of every line for formatting purposes only. Technical 13 ( talk) 18:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
While reviewing this page: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MovieStarPlanet is the first time that I have seen a list of how many times an article has been deleted. I declined it as an advertisement, but should it also be deleted again? — Anne Delong ( talk) 00:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
After being away at a jam session all afternoon, I came back to do some reviewing. I found an article without independent sources, started to decline it and noticed that the decline button had changed from red to pink (I guess this is for mild declines....)
When I tried to find the decline reason for inadequate sources, I saw that everything has been moved around. I noticed that the BLP choice had a mention of WP:MINREF, so I went off to read it and found this text:
"Technically, if an article contains none of these four types of material [quotations, potentially challengable and other nasty stuff], then it is not required by any policy to name any sources at all, either as inline citations or as general references."
Hm! I guess our work is done. We can just accept everything that's nice. Why have I been cajoling new editors into adding references? — Anne Delong ( talk) 23:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Basically, if by some fluke the latest Category 5 hurricane that hit last week doesn't have an article about it and I write a bare-bones article with only widely-reported facts, nobody is going to challenge the submission for lack of notability unless they were just being WP:POINTy. However, they should tag such an article as unreferenced or, if it were at AFC, decline it as unreferenced even though technically listing references isn't required (I have a higher bar for accepting an AFC article than for "not" PROD/AFD'ing an existing one, I think others here do too). davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 06:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive....
Dear reviewers: My proposal at User:Anne Delong/AfcBox has gained some support at User talk:Anne Delong/AfcBox. So far no one has said no, although I expect that Technical 13 is just being nice. How will I know when it's time to ask for implementation? — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
This diff (which may soon vanish since I tagged Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MovieStarPlanet for speedy deletion) shows a Helper Script bug: While declining and tidying up the submission, the script was overeager. It turned <!-- INFOBOX FORMATTING --------> into <!-- INFOBOX FORMATTING >, thereby breaking the HTML comment and letting most of the submission disappear from view. Huon ( talk) 03:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I played with that part of the script and I'm assuming the purpose of the code that is creating this problem is an attempt to remove HRs from the submissions? Not sure why we would want to do that, as there "may" be a legitimate reason to have a horizontal rule, but I think the code should be changed based on some basic testing I've done from:
text = text.replace(/---[-]+/ig, "");
to:
text = text.replace(/[^<!--]----[^-->]/ig, "\n");
That being said, I'm still kind of new and not completely proficient with ReGex or JavaScript. Anyways, I've changed and tested it on https://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/test and it seems to work well for all of the test cases I could come up with. As a side note, the script there seems to hang up on getting my talk page when accepting if the talk page already exists, but not if it doesn't; however, it does move the page when that happens (I think the page move should be the last thing it does) but doesn't clean the article up. Also, I asked on the VP there, but don't expect a swift response, how does one apply for adminship there? Technical 13 ( talk) 16:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
It was well under 700 there for awhile. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 03:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
The draft Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ZANEWS is on the verge of being ready for mainspace. Meanwhile a new article ZANEWS has been created directly in mainspace. The AfC draft is clearly superior to the new really poor quality mainspace article, so much so that there is nothing worth keeping in it so a Merge would not make sense. So what should we do? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 07:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear editors:
On the talk page about my Afc proposal, User talk:Anne Delong/AfcBox, BigPimpinBrah commented that some types of articles do not need references. I already know about disambiguation pages, templates, redirects and lists with no other info, but BigPimpinBrah also mentioned schools and newspapers. I know that some topics don't have to prove notability, but I thought that they would still need a reference to show that they are legitimate. Is there a list somewhere among the policies of types of articles that require no references at all? I will need that to make the proposal work. — Anne Delong ( talk) 14:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
Here's an article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Elsie Lee which the submitter has cut from her sandbox and pasted onto another page, but not from the edit screen, and thereby losing the formatting. I started to fix it up before realizing what must have happened and going in search of the original, finding it at: User:Vickie Saunders/sandbox. Can something be done to get the article history back together? My unnecessary edits can be deleted. — Anne Delong ( talk) 22:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Source : http://www.veda.krishna.com/encyclopedia/vedicsound.htm
Vedic Conception of Sound in Four Features
(content removed)
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
117.219.115.163 (
talk)
01:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
(Content posted here which was copied from a web site and specifically marked as copyright was removed.) — Anne Delong ( talk) 02:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
On my talk page User talk:Anne Delong, an editor who had submitted a page to the Afc only to have it deleted as a copyright violation is asking if it's possible to get the deleted text back in order to rewrite the copied sections without having to redo all of the references and formatting. I think this is possible, but needs an administrator. Can someone help? — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Would it be possible to get a re-review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vision Capital? It was reviewed and rejected back in September. One of the main contributors to the article, User:JHAVTVS, recently made a request at the Paid Editor's Noticeboard about the nomination. After looking it over, it seems to me that the reasons for it being rejected don't make much sense, as it does have the appropriate references that showcase its notability. I tried contacting the most recent user to refuse the request, User:Czarkoff, on his talk page here. But then I noticed that he hasn't edited since December and isn't likely to respond.
So, in short, can this AfC nomination please be re-reviewed? It really seems to me that it meets the criteria for at least a stub. Silver seren C 02:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
The article Madeleine Riffaud was copy-paste moved to mainspace, another editor subsequently did a histmerge for the article page but the Talk page lacks the AfC template and the AfC categories as are normally applied in the correct approval procedure. See WP:Help desk#Review/assist new article! for more info about what happened. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 09:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
The article concerned is St. Dominic Catholic Church (Miami, FL)
I had just moved the draft from the writer's sandbox in response to this post at the Help desk and was still busy doing some cleanup when User:Mdann52 approved the article. I have posted about my concerns about the approval at User talk:Mdann52#An article you approved at AfC - amongst other problems the article contained unverifiable cites referencing personal communications - I have deleted them. Please review the events and consider if any further corrective action needs to be taken. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 18:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed that many submitted drafts contain a bulleted list of "references" where there should actually be a reflist. I don't think it is a co-incidence that so many article drafters are using exactly the same incorrect format in their drafts. Is there something in the draft guidance process (or wizard?) that is misleading writers into creating these lists? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 08:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
<!-- Be sure to cite all of your sources in <ref>...</ref>
tags and they will automatically display when you hit save. The more reliable sources added the better! -->
Technical 13 (
talk)
11:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
That was why I wanted to make sure the comment had the appropriate reference so that people can read up on in-line citations, which is how I think they should be. Whether or not they actually do read and do it right will remain to be seen. This may end up being an interesting study to see how many people just make articles and how many read all of the referenced instructions to try and build a GA... Technical 13 ( talk) 00:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
For those of you not familiar with edit filters and Tags, if a person edits a main-space article and certain criteria are met, the edit is "tagged."
These tags show up in article histories and in Special:RecentChanges.
If we had "AFC" versions of some of these tags, such as very short new article, autobiography, and others, it would not only enable "AFC specialists" to focus on certain types of submissions, but it would allow bots to add AFC comments to such submissions and messages to editor's talk pages inviting them to put their draft on hold. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 16:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Idea: I find that I am declining a lot of articles for blatant
WP:MOS violations. Is this a legitimate reason, and if so, why isn't there a category for it? TheOneSean |
Talk to me
16:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm trying to decline this article but the script says the edit failed. I'd appreciate someone explained to me what's happening. Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 16:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
<ref>http://www.co----rporationwiki.com/Alabama/Montgomery/ellis-holt/124920616.aspx</ref>
and when the
WP:AFCH tries to clean it, it removes all ----
per the discussion above
#AFCH: Overeager removal of HTML comments which leaves <ref>http://www.corporationwiki.com/Alabama/Montgomery/ellis-holt/124920616.aspx</ref>
and it was failing because www.corporationwiki.com
is on the
title blacklist.
Technical 13 (
talk)
18:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Message at OTRS that User:Misslynn1977/Irvine historical society did not submit. The code was added at the end, but not executed - the only reason I could find that they used <references>, and it appeared to blank everything after it. I changed it to {{ reflist}} and it all worked fine. Ronhjones (Talk) 23:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
<references>
tag might be uncommon, but it is advertised as a valid form at
WP:LDR - for use in conjunction with </references>
. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
22:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Is there a May backlog drive to be scheduled? The backlog is about 800 now and it's already 1 May (UTC). Arctic Kangaroo 02:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
When a draft is declined because an article already exists the template text should not include - "You are encouraged to make improvements by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page. When you are ready to resubmit, click here." It contradicts the decline reason and violates the prohibition against content forks.
This comes back to an issue I have raised before - AfC doesn't have a "permanent decline" except for blatant "crimes" such as attack pages. We need to be able to tell the drafter - "This is never going to be an acceptable article; stop working on it and rather find something else to do." Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 14:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
A cake shop — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.237.113 ( talk) 17:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I asked for Peronosclerospora philippinensis to be deleted under G6 to give way to the AfC submission which I had previously cleaned up. Now the talk page needs to be moved. I've never done that before, so could someone help me? Thanks! FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 17:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Idea: I'm thinking that should change. A More sensible approach to me would be...
Doing it in this order would be an improvement because any failures caused by cleanup will be known right away before an attempt to move the page, any failures in actually moving the page will prevent a massive spamming of the creator by a dozen different editors declining the article, and then the last thing it should do is record/log the process on the /recent page. Technical 13 ( talk) 12:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey guys, I looked at WP:Articles_for_creation/recent and was left less than impressed by the information the template is giving us. I've come up with a potential modification to the template, which I've posted on the template talk page but will copy here too. Hey guys, I have some suggestions for improving the appearance of this template and the resulting page that it is used on. Currently, the template displays:
I think it would be better if it looked like:
I even think that it would look just a smidge better than this if the bullet was the class icon, but currently all of our class icons are 180x185px which is just way too big.
Either way, I think the extra information here would be very useful.
Technical 13 (
talk)
13:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
<li style="list-style-image: url('http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f5/Symbol_stub_class.svg')">
Technical 13 (
talk)
14:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
"was" removed... All agree that this is an improvement? Technical 13 ( talk) 14:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kagiso, Gauteng, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DjMlindos and the Block Log
An added complication in this particular case is that the article already exists Kagiso and the draft is in fact an attempt to hijack the existing article for intentional spamming - the group of socks have a history of spamming the existing article over an extended period. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 15:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow reviewers! Just a heads-up to let you know that said article is being reviewed by me, and I will probably take a few days' time to finish the process. It's part of a taxonomic conundrum, and if you're interested, have a look at the relevant discussion. The appropriate WikiProjects have been notified, and with their input, we'll see where the content would be best placed. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 14:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
{{[[Template: link titleadminhelp| link titleadminhelp]]}}
I want to update the AFC helper script, but since it is a gadget and I don't have the admin bit, so I can't do it. It was extensively tested by me and other AFC reviewers and many parts are still in beta since over a year.
Simply replace the whole content at MediaWiki:Gadget-afchelper.js with {{subst:User:Mabdul/afc_push.js}}. Everything is prepared, even the header of the gadget file.
Thanks. mabdul 13:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I noticed up above at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation#Daily_cleaning_of_submissions that there was an issue in the maintenance categories for this process that was similar to an issue I dealt with in the WP:BLPPROD process, roughly speaking, categories not getting updated as time passes. We ended up fixing that with a bot that I wrote, User:joe's Null Bot that just pokes each article in a particular category once per day with a "purge with forcelinkupdate" (It's a little more work than a regular purge but not quite as heavy as the ever-so dainty WP:NULLEDIT.)
Anyway, I've verified that a similar solution would solve the issue here.
Shall I submit a task request to WP:BRFA asking to extend "Joe's Null Bot" to perform a once daily pass on the AfC pending submissions category in order to keep the categorization of pending submissions by days left more or less up to date? -- j⚛e decker talk 20:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi again I've updated the AfC workflow. I've tried to follow the recommendation provided here as well as simplifying things.
I plan to use this in a little course-ware about AfC. Once this new course has more matured a little more and the the question bank expanded I would like some volunteers to test it.
If the project members like it we can use it for:
So if you have some AfC specific materials you think should be included, let me know and if someone can make a small video podcast of using the reviing script - that would also be helpful. BO | Talk 23:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
So, I was thinking about the discussion I started last month ( WT:WikiProject Articles for creation/2013 2#Problem on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions), and I thought I would take a peak at the templates driving it to see if they could be slimmed down any. Here is what I've come up with that might help "some":
-->{{#if:{{{nc|}}}|<abbr title="Submission is a suspected copyright violation">copyvio</abbr>  |}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{nu|}}}|<abbr title="Submission lacks references completely">unsourced</abbr>  |}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{ni|}}}|<abbr title="Submission has no inline citations">no-inline</abbr>  |}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{ns|}}}|<abbr title="Submission is less than a kilobyte in length">short</abbr>  |}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{nr|}}}|<abbr title="Submission was resubmitted after a previous decline">resubmit</abbr>  |}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{no|}}}|<abbr title="Submission has not been touched in over four days">old</abbr>  |}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{nb|}}}|<abbr title="Submitter is currently blocked">blocked</abbr>|}}</td>
-->{{#if:{{{nc|}}}|[[WP:CV|copyright violation]]  |}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{nu|}}}|[[WP:V|No-Sources]]  |}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{ni|}}}|[[WP:IC|No-In-line]]  |}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{ns|}}}|[[WP:STUB|Short]]  |}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{nr|}}}|Resubmission  |}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{no|}}}|Stale  |}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{nb|}}}|[[WP:BP|Blocked]]|}}</td>
-->{{#if:{{{nc|}}}|copyright-violation |}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{nu|}}}| No-Sources |}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{ni|}}}| No-In-line |}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{ns|}}}| Short |}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{nr|}}}| Resubmission |}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{no|}}}| Stale |}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{nb|}}}| Blocked|}}</td>
Also, I notice that by looking at Template:AFC statistics directly and sorting by submission date, there are still things on the list that were declined in the middle of October and haven't been removed from the list that have not been re-submitted and are not pending. Why is User:EarwigBot not removing these from the list? That would shorten the list another large chunk that might put the list within range. Technical 13 ( talk) 13:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
<!-- WARNING: template omitted, post-expand include size too large -->
<!-- 131 more omissions -->
<!-- WARNING: template omitted, post-expand include size too large -->
<!--
NewPP limit report
Preprocessor visited node count: 166335/1000000
Preprocessor generated node count: 154783/1500000
Post‐expand include size: 2048000/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 669239/2048000 bytes
Highest expansion depth: 13/40
Expensive parser function count: 0/500
-->
<!-- WARNING: template omitted, post-expand include size too large -->
<!-- 90 more omissions -->
<!-- WARNING: template omitted, post-expand include size too large -->
<!--
NewPP limit report
Preprocessor visited node count: 165985/1000000
Preprocessor generated node count: 154076/1500000
Post‐expand include size: 2048000/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 669149/2048000 bytes
Highest expansion depth: 13/40
Expensive parser function count: 0/500
-->
<!-- WARNING: template omitted, post-expand include size too large -->
<!-- 88 more omissions -->
<!-- WARNING: template omitted, post-expand include size too large -->
<!--
NewPP limit report
Preprocessor visited node count: 165997/1000000
Preprocessor generated node count: 154100/1500000
Post‐expand include size: 2048000/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 669149/2048000 bytes
Highest expansion depth: 13/40
Expensive parser function count: 0/500
-->
<!--
NewPP limit report
Preprocessor visited node count: 32784/1000000
Preprocessor generated node count: 135721/1500000
Post‐expand include size: 712050/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 5091/2048000 bytes
Highest expansion depth: 13/40
Expensive parser function count: 7/500
Lua time usage: 1.557s
Lua memory usage: 1 MB
Lua Profile:
Scribunto_LuaSandboxCallback::getExpandedArgument 1280 ms 57.1%
Scribunto_LuaSandboxCallback::newChildFrame 380 ms 17.0%
recursiveClone <mw.lua:104> 240 ms 10.7%
getmetatable <mw.lua:73> 40 ms 1.8%
getExpandedArgument <mw.lua:256> 40 ms 1.8%
format 40 ms 1.8%
type 40 ms 1.8%
tonumber 20 ms 0.9%
newFrame <mw.lua:235> 20 ms 0.9%
Scribunto_LuaSandboxCallback::len 20 ms 0.9%
[others] 120 ms 5.4%
-->
Dear editors:
This article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Integration of Baseball is in the Afc queue. There is an existing article Desegregation of baseball which is a redirect to Baseball color line. Are these article topics sufficiently similar that they should be combined into one article, or should there be one article about the time when baseball was segregated by race, and another article about the process of racial integration/desegregation in the sport? Also, not being an American, I wonder which is the more commonly used term, integration or desegregation? — Anne Delong ( talk) 10:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey guys and gals! So, now that the changes and cleanups for EarwigBot by Earwig and changing that /row template to a Module: seem to have helped and the /list page is working again, I've seen some new stuff I hadn't seen before. Template:AfC submissions by month caught my eye and I've been tweaking it slightly for formatting. There are some things I'd like to ask and discuss about it now that I'm familiar with the code in it. If you take a look at User:Technical 13/SandBox, you'll see that I think a good way to be able to compare how we are doing for submissions is to have "A year ago this month", "Two months ago", "Last month", and "This month". Now, other than the fact that I've gone way over the 500 expensive parser function calls having all four of those sections four times to test the year change, you'll see that those four make for a good set to compare with. That being said, I think that merging them all into one big table would look better than four little tables. What do you guys think about doing that (I'll do all the leg work and write up the templates and stuff.)? Technical 13 ( talk) 19:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
I accepted an article that had been declined several times for poor references, but then had been improved. The acceptance script asked if it was a biography, and I answered yes. Then it asked me if the person was living or dead. I chose living, upon which it asked for the date and place of death. Maybe this is a programming error? — Anne Delong ( talk) 10:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Lawrence Fuchs raises an interesting issue: What should happen to the class= parameter in {{ WikiProject Articles for creation}} as the article improves? Should we leave the class= alone, change the class= as the other editor recommends, or just remove it, as I wound up doing?
I recommend removing it, but with a twist:
Add a new parameter, originalclass=originalassesssment.
To make this use crystal clear, I would recommend having the AFC Helper Script add an html comment after "class=" saying
If the class is no longer accurate, replace class=assessment with originalclass=originalassessment. Do not use both class= and originalclass=. See Template:WikiProject Articles for creation/doc for details.
The template's logic would need to be changed so it would not categorize an article as unassessed if originalclass existed.
Thoughts? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 03:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Date | Date | Date | Date | Date | Date |
I have a peculiar problem concerning the afc comment template. I recently changed my signature and ever since then this problem has manifested. Please let me know what I need to fix, if any of you have any ideas on what the issue is. - FUMITOL | LETS TALK 14:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank for helping to put my first major wiki article (Oyin Akoko) through. I suppose it can be moved as an article while we strive to make it look better. Once again, thanks. Boyede Ojomu ( talk) 15:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I've requested the creation of the missing archive indices for this project
Since the ones from 2010-2013 already exist, but 2008 and 2009 do not. -- 65.94.76.126 ( talk) 04:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
all exist, but for 2009 and 2008, they are missing. -- 65.94.76.126 ( talk) 12:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
good day! it was a draft article The youth time , it was removed. Now I want to finish this article. prompt, am I need to edit article in the last blank and then put up for discussion? Thank you. Tanya ZAV. ( talk) 05:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Which version do I edit?
I have found a number of sources that seem independent of the article:
Yaris678 ( talk) 20:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Dear editors:
While reviewing this page: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Everest (app)
I came across the following: http://en.mobile.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everest_%28app%29
Is this part of Wikipedia? If so, is it separate and should there be an article both there and in the main encyclopedia? — Anne Delong ( talk) 09:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I like to see a page like this : Maxthon downloads statistics, Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loooping8 ( talk • contribs) 07:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
The WP:VisualEditor is designed to let people edit without needing to learn wikitext syntax. The articles will look (nearly) the same in the new edit "window" as when you read them (aka WYSIWYG), and changes will show up as you type them, very much like writing a document in a modern word processor. The devs currently expect to deploy the VisualEditor as the new site-wide default editing system in early July 2013.
About 2,000 editors have tried out this early test version so far, and feedback overall has been positive. Right now, the VisualEditor is available only to registered users who opt-in, and it's a bit slow and limited in features. You can do all the basic things like writing or changing sentences, creating or changing section headings, and editing simple bulleted lists. It currently can't either add or remove templates (like fact tags), ref tags, images, categories, or tables (and it will not be turned on for new users until common reference styles and citation templates are supported). These more complex features are being worked on, and the code will be updated as things are worked out. Also, right now you can only use it for articles and user pages. When it's deployed in July, the old editor will still be available and, in fact, the old edit window will be the only option for talk pages (I believe that WP:Notifications (aka Echo) is ultimately supposed to deal with talk pages).
The developers are asking editors like you to join the alpha testing for the VisualEditor. Please go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and tick the box at the end of the page, where it says "Enable VisualEditor (only in the main namespace and the User namespace)". Save the preferences, and then try fixing a few typos or copyediting a few articles by using the new "Edit" tab instead of the section [Edit] buttons or the old editing window (which will still be present and still work for you, but which will be renamed "Edit source"). Fix a typo or make some changes, and then click the 'save and review' button (at the top of the page). See what works and what doesn't. We really need people who will try this out on 10 or 15 pages and then leave a note Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback about their experiences, especially if something mission-critical isn't working and doesn't seem to be on anyone's radar.
Also, if any of you are involved in template maintenance or documentation about how to edit pages, the VisualEditor will require some extra attention. The devs want to incorporate things like citation templates directly into the editor, which means that they need to know what information goes in which fields. Obviously, the screenshots and instructions for basic editing will need to be completely updated. The old edit window is not going away, so help pages will likely need to cover both the old and the new.
If you have questions and can't find a better place to ask them, then please feel free to leave a message on my user talk page, and perhaps together we'll be able to figure it out. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
The draft WT:Articles for creation/Rade Jovanović needs to be reviewed by someone who can understand the Bosnian language sources. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 12:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I have asked for help from WT:WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina#Help needed at Articles for creation -- Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 19:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Dear Reviewers:
I was about to accept this article: Webbers Falls Lake when I noticed that the either the coordinates in the infobox were wrong, or the lake is located at the north pole. The correct coordinates are in the text in metric form, so I used a conversion program I found on line to change the coordinates and then accepted it. I haven't done this conversion before; can someone check to make sure that I did it correctly? — Anne Delong ( talk) 13:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
If I understand this edit by Technical 13 correctly, submitted sandbox drafts are no longer categorized in Category:Pending AfC submissions. Compare for example User:DocFido/sandbox. Was that deliberate? How will they get reviewed? I'm tempted to revert the edit, but I'd like a second opinion - maybe that edit does something worthwhile I simply don't see. Huon ( talk) 20:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Please, feel free to say yes or not. It is a simple questio, though Miss Bono (zootalk) 16:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
You can submit an article for review by placing {{ subst:Submit}} at the top of the article page. :) Technical 13 ( talk) 16:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Adam Kess— Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.155.43.114 ( talk) 14:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Can anyone figure out why I can't move this submission to "XXX (film)"? Also, can we figure out a way to have it so that WikiProject stuff could be added as a parameter when creating articles, showing all the projects? I think it would be easier to do it this way with all of the ones that we have out there, and it would be more user friendly to new users at the end of the day. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 17:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)