![]() | 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 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
I propose a new category, WPAFC possible submissions without a template that will be populated by a bot. The exact parameters can be hashed out later, but in general it would be all sub-pages in Wikipedia: or Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation or their obvious mis-spellings that are not 1) tagged with {{ AFC submission}} or some equivalent tag and 2) are not a known exception.
Once these are categorized, we can decide what to do with them. My preference would be to notify the users that they can tag the article with {{subst:submit}}, but if the page is not edited within 90 days, it would be submitted to WP:Miscellany for deletion as part of a batch "soft deletion" request. If their article was deleted, a followup message would indicate that it would be un-deleted upon request. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 02:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Why's this article on the list if the template's gone? FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 02:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
One of the first things to check in reviewing if the subject appears at all plausible is if the article already exists. I find the easiest way is just to search for the title in Wikipedia. If it does, check the dates--sometimes it was already there when the AfC wa started, it which case it can be rejected accordingly (and in my opinion listed for speedy deletion as a technical G6 deletion); If it was earlier, and the article is based on it, I am not sure whether to also simply call it a duplicate, or to make a redirect out of it, as would ordinarily be done when an article is accepted. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
I have just declined an article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/POUR, which I felt was unintelligible, promotional and mostly opinion. Would someone check my work on this one? I'm not sure that I chose the correct declining option, and also I wonder if the sections about the artists are appropriate, or if each artist should be in his or her own article, (which I didn't say). — Anne Delong ( talk) 12:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
What a treat!. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 17:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Following comments by DGG to a couple of reviewers, I felt it would be worth opening some discussion here to agree an approach which could be written into the reviewing instructions. The question is whether as a matter of routine practice, as well as declining a draft article for being too much like an advert (ie promotional), reviewers should also nominate the draft article for deletion per criteria G11 of speedy deletion. Clearly there is broad agreement that such articles have no place in main article space, but it is not clear whether immediate deletion is consistent with the goal to give editors a gentler introduction to editing with proper coaching as to what is promotional and not. In my experience in many cases new editors often appear in other help channels after their article has been deleted without any idea of what they needed to do differently or to rewrite, and having the article no longer there to discuss with them makes it much harder for non-admins to offer them help. DGG has opened a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G11_and_AFCs regarding this matter but I feel that this venue is a more appropriate place for further discussion about changes to the reviewing instructions. Please contribute your thoughts. -- nonsense ferret 15:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
This article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Caitlin Chang has a lot of tags on it, some of which don't seem appropriate, and have old dates on them. Are any of them needed?— Anne Delong ( talk) 21:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
I'd like to have this article deleted: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gideon Nieuwoudt because the author has created another one with much more information, so this one isn't needed. It has very little edit history. Under what criteria should I request deletion? — Anne Delong ( talk) 03:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Dear editors:
This article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/FAM149A has been abandoned and the author started another and submitted it: User:Swaybe/FAM149A. Should the histories be combined? — Anne Delong ( talk) 03:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
If we could mark "likely hopeless" submissions with a special template that said
A reviewer believes that this topic is not suitable for Wikipedia at this time for the following reasons _________. He is requesting a second opinion. We realize that this may be discouraging. Please consider visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles and writing an article on one of the "missing" topics listed there. [[Category:AFC submissions of possibly unsuitable topics]]
and, once a second reviewer has concurred, the submission would be blanked and replaced with something like
Two reviewers agree that this topic is not suitable for Wikipedia at this time for the following reasons _________ and as a result this submission has been blanked and will be deleted in a few days. We realize that this may be discouraging. Please consider visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles and writing an article on one of the "missing" topics listed there. [[Category:AFC submissions of unsuitable topics ready for deletion after 7 days from the time of the concurring review]]
Anyhow, it would be a less bitey but more firm way of dealing with things like obviously non-notable topics and WP:What Wikipedia is not-type stuff. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 04:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have been active in #wikipedia-en-help for a little while now. At least 90% of the "editing help" questions are about the AFC process, and 90% of that is a familiar routine; the wait time, the COI issues (the vast majority of it is corporates or PR types, alas), WP:ADVERT, what's a good reference, why those aren't good references, why those references "do not adequately evidence the subject's notability".
So far, so good. A couple of days ago someone came in asking about what is now Eric_Sanicola; in the course of discussion, they (entirely predictably) proved to be Mr Sanicola, who had written the entire thing himself. (Not grounds for rejection itself, but not a good start). We gave him the usual spiel - references not reliable or mention him only in passing, notability is not infectious, etc. - but at the end of the discussion, User:Coolboygcp pops in for some other purpose and says "sure, I'll approve it"... and did.
This seems to me to be quite contrary to the reviewing instructions - and frankly, it seems a little futile to hang around in the help channel explaining the need for good references if someone else will come in and approve articles with junk references.
I attempted to discuss this with User:Coolboygcp on the same IRC channel the following day, to get completely stonewalled; a flat denial that there was anything wrong with the article. On checking further, their contribs consist of a series of AFC approvals many of which seem dubious, and from /info/en/?search=User_talk:Coolboygcp#Reverting_your_acceptance_of_Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation.2FBritish_Basketball_Association I am not the only editor to have an issue with them.
I'm seeking advice on what should be done next. Pinkbeast ( talk) 10:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I had no idea that there were this many editors interested in my contributions.
Additionally, when I read the quote: "I attempted to discuss this with Coolboygcp on the same IRC channel the following day, to get completely stonewalled:", I proceeded to laugh hysterically. I did no "stonewall" Pinkbeast, in any way whatsoever.
When I corresponded with him/her, I provided several reasons as to why I approved the Eric Sanicola article. I truly cannot comprehend why he/she would fabricate such an accusation and story about me. However, Pinkbeast has repeatedly threatened me on the mentioned IRC channel several time. Threats such as, "if you upload that image, I will delete it", and I will report you if you upload that image, as well as "I will report you for even thinking about creating that article". Additionally, he/she has repeatedly misinformed dozens of editors and users who come to the IRC channel in order to seek useful, and proper advice and help, who instead receive misinformation and incorrect instructions among other worrisome advice.
In fact, I would advise that Pinkbeast has exhibited very much more worrisome, and detrimental behavior and conduct. Coolboygcp ( talk) 12:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Looking through his declines, and his assurances that nothing is wrong, when many of his reviews clearly are, anyone willing to support an attempt to get a topic ban? Mdann52 ( talk) 13:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I spotted some blatant advertising by TheWikipreditor ( talk · contribs) and went back through his submissions. They had all been declined but I blanked most of them as near- or actual- blatant advertising and clear violations of the NPOV policy. Just wanted to give you all a heads up in case anyone asks about it. I've also raised issues about his username ("Wiki PR Editor"?) on his talk page. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 20:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
Will someone who is familiar with image copyright issues please check the images on this page: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jamaican cosmetic industry early pioneers ? Thanks. — Anne Delong ( talk) 22:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
So a weird thing happened to me. I looked at the "AfC submissions without an age" category, to hopefully clear it out (there is only one page in it) and this came up. What is it and can I decline it? Thanks, TheOneSean | Talk to me 11:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Is it possible that since the new script was released, it can't be used on other devices? I'm trying to review on my tablet but it doesn't work. Nothing majorly important, just wondering what's going on. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 18:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I have some questions about finding and sorting material.
To keep things simple, I would just have a "list-making" script or bot run through the entire AFC submissions category, weed out anything it could detect as an obvious non-submission or accepted submission, filter out a separate list of "things for a human to look at" (e.g. submissions in odd places like WT:name instead of WT:AFC/Name), and create a list of what's left sorted by the date of the last non-bot edit. For ease of keeping track of what has and hasn't been done and avoiding edit conflicts when striking entries, it may be best to have 1 page per day (we get hundreds of submissions per day, probably 60-80% are declined) broken into arbitrary sections of 10-20 each. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 02:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Here's another pair of pages needing merging.
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bruce Poon Tip (2) (newer and better)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bruce Poon Tip (older and declined)
— Anne Delong ( talk) 12:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
It would be super-helpful if, when an article is declined for copyvio, the offending URL was included somehow in the user's talk page message. Is that possible/easy? The article itself is often soon deleted, and often the deleting admin doesn't note the URL in the speedy deletion log, so often remembering what the claimed copyright source was is a matter of digging up the deleted content. -- j⚛e decker talk 16:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, with my other current projects crashing and dying around me, I have returned to the beautiful land of wiki. It looks like mabdul has returned, so I'll most likely return to being a developer on the script. I'm going to be going through my talk archives and trying to teach myself the "new and improved" MediaWiki, but if there's anything that occurred during my abscence that I should know about, telling me would be appreciated. Thanks,
Nathan2055
talk -
contribs 18:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Looking at declined article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/PSR J0348+0432 was declined because PSR J0348+0432 existed, but doing a diff, it is clear it was a copy-and-paste without proper attribution. So, this shouldn't be a rejection, it should be a history splice.
I think AFC processors should keep this in mind when processing requests which appear to exist in mainspace. Someone may have copied it out of AFC into articlespace, so would require a request to WP:SPLICE to fix it. -- 65.94.76.126 ( talk) 03:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Is this something new? What's its purpose? I hope it's not an attempt to make Wikipedia more like a social media site.... — Anne Delong ( talk) 08:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Over the last couple months I have seen a deluge of new articles from Doncram rolling through the AFC boards. I don't think I have seen a single one be declined which indicates to me that the user knows how to build an article. It seems to me that the Arbcom sanction against the user is complete nonsense at this point and someone should go to Arbcom and tell them enough is enough. To continue to make the user go through AFC is a waste of the users time as well as AFC's. Not to mention that it is leaving a whole lot of unneeded redirects behind when the article is moved to mainspace. I would tell them myself but Arbcom wouldn't believe me if I told them water was wet. It needs to come from someone here. You have better things to do IMO than to continue to create articles for a user who clearly knows how. Kumioko ( talk) 20:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
He may create new content pages in his user space, at Articles for Creation, in a sandbox area within a WikiProject's area, or in similar areas outside of article space. Such pages may only be moved to article space by other users after review. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee after one year.
Don, I wan to make one thing very clear. I do not consider your submissions to be invaluable or a burden, I'm just thinking that you would be better served having your own personal adopter/reviewer than having to wait weeks for us to get around to reviewing your stuff. Technical 13 ( talk) 19:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, all, for your concern and suggestions. I did start up with the category as suggested, and there are currently 10 articles drafted by me, there (and a continuously updating current number is: 0 articles in Category:Submissions by Doncram ready for review). Thanks Davidwr for processing a batch already. I don't fully understand how much burden there is in using the AFC process, as it depends on the use of tools that I am not fully familiar with, but I do hope this alternative process saves some steps. The timeliness of review is not all that important to me, although it is nice to get quicker response, if only so that my contributions show up in a weekly "progress" map of NRHP articles that seems to be coming out each Friday now. It would be great if anyone cared to address these 10, today, but again it doesn't really matter. Thanks again, all. -- do ncr am 09:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Since a lot of people do begin creating articles that end up getting deleted, a lot of hard work gets lost. Can we get an ongoing monitoring of deleted things to see if they can be userfied, or even incubated into an AfC process? Ranze ( talk) 19:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
This computer's browser has just upgraded from IE9 to IE10 - now the review script doesn't run. I don't have the option of using a different browser as it's not my own PC. Is there a setting I need to change? I don't remember what advanced setting were changed from the defaults when it ran IE9. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 17:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, if the script is indeed blowing up on IE10, we need to do a bit more testing with it. I personally am running Firefox 20 right now (Don't. Mention. Chrome.), but I'll add it to the dev sheet. -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 16:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
If we could provide multiple decline reasons in reviews, instead of only one, we might be able to shorten the AfC process. Certain decline reasons often occur together such as essay-like tone, poor sourcing, notability, etc. If it were possible to provide up to three different reasons for declining a draft at a single review the writer might be able to deal with all of them instead of being "sent back" multiple times for problems that could have been fixed simultaneously. There are of course certain decline reasons that are not suitable for combining - if a draft has copyvios then tone is unimportant. "Killing two (or three) birds with one stone", while taking care not to overwhelm the draft writer with a long list of issues, might help to considerably reduce frustration, shorten the time a draft spends here, and thus help reduce the backlog too! I'm thinking of something similar to the way maintenance tags are combined into a single "multiple issues" template. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 11:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
|nocat=true
option, is this not the case? {{{nocat}}}
option, I would be more inclined to spend my time adding that functionality to those templates (which would be a fairly simple add) compared to almost entirely re-writing the {{
AFC submission}} template.
Technical 13 (
talk) 14:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)This gets asked every few months. There is a custom decline message option hidden in the code of the script. To use it, choose "Select a decline message" and type your decline message in the comment. It will appear in the main template. This was hidden because new users were declining without linking to relevant policies, so be careful when using this. -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 17:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I would propose an "AFC" version of {{ Multiple issues}}, call it {{ AFC multiple issues}}, and making sure that all of the cleanup templates we might use have a "nocat" or "cat=no" parameter. If some cleanup templates already have a common way of disabling parameters, it would best to use it for all of them for consistency.
The reason to have an "afc" rather than just a "nocat" version is we would want to add a red-flag warning if it was still on the article after it was moved to article space. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 18:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
What happened to the AFC newsletter? I know the person working on it stepped down, but is the idea gone? -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 01:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
This article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Libertad Green was started in November, submitted in December and declined because there was an existing article Libertad Green. The mainspace article was then deleted in January.
The text from the draft was then cut and pasted piece by piece to a sandbox, edited in January, deleted and recreate in April and submitted again. I moved it to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Libertad Green (2) , where is was declined by Huon.
Now the text has been copied again into the sandbox and resubmitted at User:Vaughanster/sandbox.
Is there any way to get the history all back together again? There's so much duplication. — Anne Delong ( talk) 05:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
I was reviewing this page: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Penelope Whetton and I was warned that there was no reflist. Actually, though, there was one, although the syntax was Reflist|30em. — Anne Delong ( talk) 16:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
/\{\{Reflist(.*?)\}\}/i
I'll plug it into my copy of the script on test and see if that works as I suspect.
Technical 13 (
talk) 11:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
(.*?)
to your copy after testing it with mine
mabdul.
Technical 13 (
talk) 11:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
{{reflist
and the closing }}
that would be a false positive.
Technical 13 (
talk) 12:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Hmm, I don't know regex, but it seems like we need entries for {{reflist}}, {{Reflist}}, {{reflist*, {{Reflist*, and <references>. Looks like this might be a good first hacking project since my return. I'll mess with it. -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 23:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
/\{\{Reflist(.*?)\}\}/i
says look for only the stuff in between {{Reflist
and the first set of }}
. See:
ReGex#Lazy quantification and this related article from
ITworld./(<|\{\{)/?ref(erences?|list)?\|? ?(.*?)( ?/?>|\}\})(</?references? ?(.*?) ?/?>)?/i
and replace with {{Reflist{{SUBST:#ifeq:$10|||{{SUBST:!}}}}$10}}
which actually finds all of the cases (and then some) that
Nathan2055 mentions above in one shot.
Technical 13 (
talk) 12:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
<references></references>
, which I've still only seen on that one page out of thousands).
Technical 13 (
talk) 13:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
{{
reflist|refs=<ref>...</ref>
}}
and <references><ref>...</ref>
</references>
are
list-defined references. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 16:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Sorry if this has been brought up before but I think we might want to consider addressing the leftovers from the Article creation process. There are a lot of redirects being left behind when an article is created and rather than delete them through the MFD process I think it would be beneficial to either CSD them or perhaps even have a bot setup that would auto delete the leftover redirect once the article has been moved. Any thoughts? Kumioko ( talk) 01:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Bad idea. I suggested this in the past and I was told that this is used for statistical measurements. I vote to keep. -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 23:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
On the "user does not exist" message? Thank you mabdul for fixing the nexus issue (and the userbox one, I think). And today I've reviewed several submissions that got stuck in the "editing" bit. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 16:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I would like a review of my conduct by my AFC reviewing peers in regards to blanking submissions by NyGuha ( talk · contribs) ( Vandalism noticeboard) which I reviewed. I admit, when I went through these after the editor confirmed his lack of good faith, I was actively looking for an excuse to get his submitted content out of public view. I was actually surprised I was able to do so for each non-speedily-deleted submission that I reviewed, I expected to have to leave one or two visible.
See also #TheWikipreditor above, where I blanked some contributions for being near- or possibly meeting-CSD-criteria. Unlike with this editor, those blankings were clear policy violations.
If there is no general agreement that the blanking was justified, I will not revert anyone restoring the content. I do ask that you leave any comments I added in place though (i.e. don't simply "undo" my blanking-edit without checking to see if that's all the edit did). davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 03:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Is it something we should regularly and retroactively do for submissions by submitters who have demonstrated they were acting in bad faith and where the submission has problems that would allow for blanking if we were specifically "looking for an excuse" to blank it? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 03:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Joe Decker:
You reviewed two submissions by this editor, this and this. If the community endorses my actions above, you may want to consider doing the same, assuming the contributor left you a good reason to do so. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 03:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I have asked the good folks over at WikiProject Canada to help judge the notability of the visual-artist biographies submitted by Hobbsgal ( talk · contribs). Please see Wikipedia talk:Canadian_Wikipedians' notice board#Need a reviewer who knows Canadian artists if you are interested. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 23:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nickaang just revealed some new socks that were active in WP:AFC, including:
Expect to see submissions after May 6, 2013 go *poof* and editors get blocked in the next few days.
In addition to one that I tagged for speedy deletion as blatant advertising, the following non-AFC-submission-tagged pages were created in WT:AFC or WP:AFC. It's getting late and I'm letting them sit there but it might be worth submitting-declining-blanking or submitting-declining just so they will be G13-eligible when they get to be a year old (or is it 6 months now, I forget).
Remember, just because a sockpuppet or puppet-master wrote it doesn't mean the subject itself isn't notable. Heck, some of these may actually be salvageable. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 03:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Every now and then I run across a submission where the person either 1) may be notable but I can't tell, or 2) isn't notable but I am looking for a "kind" way to get the submitter to read the notability requirements and realize this himself.
I use this as a starting point, feel free to use it or make your own copy: User:Davidwr/AFCDecline. I've found that subst'd it ({{subst:User:Davidwr/AFCDecline}}) as the "decline reason" then going back and editing the decline reason is the most common way I use it.
Enjoy. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 02:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
It appears to me that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Flat irons museum is a pretty direct translation of ru:Музей_утюга, which raises a couple questions, first, do we have any obligation to note that in the history/talk page for attribution--second, the references are ... umm, probably valid, but I lacking Russian or much to go on there, it's a little beyond me to do any validity checking. Thoughts on this one? -- j⚛e decker talk 17:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
↑ 1 2 Gold Ring, 2002, June 25. ↑ 1 2 Nezavisimaya Gazeta, 2004, April 12. ↑ 1 2 3 Yuri Muscovites. Private value / / Kommersant-Money. March 15, 2004. ↑ 1 2 Trading newspaper. June 30, 2006. ↑ 1 2 3 4 The secret of the firm. June 23, 2008. ↑ worker. August 30, 2007. ↑ 1 2 Vremya MN, February 6, 2003. ↑ Russian newspaper. July 26, 2002. ↑ Peasant, in May 2006. ↑ Forum "Autotravel on Russia" ↑ Moskovsky Komsomolets. July 24, 2004. ↑ New news. July 27, 2011. ↑ Russian Century, December 2008.
Do you know if mermaids and mermen are real — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.59.76.26 ( talk) 05:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
"This may take up to a week. The articles for creation process is highly backlogged. Please be patient. There are Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character ",". submissions waiting for review." is currently showing on every submission template. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 18:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
This article Life of a Craphead which was just accepted has been nominated for deletion. Please weigh in. — Anne Delong ( talk) 21:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I would love to have a tool that identified likely-first-party and likely-non-reliable sources and added an AFC comment to the submission and posted a note on the user's talk page alerting him to the results.
Note that "first party" sources like an official web page may be reliable as references for specific facts, but some sources like blogs and Wikipedia itself are not even reliable in that sense.
Bonus points if the tool separately flags any source which has any word in the submission's title in it in the author, title, or URL. These are frequently first-party sources. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 00:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I had a go at moving Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The to the correct title "The #1s".but the #-character is not allowed in page names. Is there a workaround? Unfortunately the draft doesn't spell out wether the subject is known as "the number ones" or "the hash ones" so that makes deciding on an alternative way of writing the name difficult. (The # character has too many different names!) Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 13:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
{{
Correct title|The #1s|reason=#}}
as a hatnote.
Technical 13 (
talk) 15:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)What does Major mean in Music terms? I've tried Googling it and nothing comes up, I look it up in the dictionary and it talks about the Military, as well as Wikipedia. Can someone tell me what it means please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.231.197.174 ( talk) 21:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
On the page Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/FGFR1OP2, the script says "Be careful, there is a <ref> tag used, but no references list (Reflist)! You might not see all references." But there is a reflist. It's at the bottom, where it normally is. Perhaps a bug? TheOneSean [ U | T | C ] 02:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I had a help request at IRC about Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Promescent which had been declined by Mutualawe ( talk · contribs). The justification for the decline was "This submission is not suitable for Wikipedia. Please read 'What Wikipedia is not' for more information.", which appears to be a stock answer based on the template (I haven't reviewed many AfC articles so I am not fluent in the process, so pardon my ignorance). I didn't think that this was a particularly useful response to a new editor (especially since I couldn't figure out what part of WP:NOT was being referred to). Looking through the user's contributions I see he has (as of this post) 198 edits, the majority to AfC submissions (or subsequent talk page edits). Many of the rationale for declining articles are the same. In my opinion 198 is pretty light for someone reviewing new articles (notwithstanding he may have edited as an IP in the past, I have no way of knowing), and his first decline was his 13th edit. My questions are:
I know AfC is a busy/backlogged place, and canned answers are of great help to speed up process, but in this case there is no reason within WP:NOT that this product could not have an article (any referencing and any notability issues aside), "simply saying go read WP:NOT" is far too vague to be used as a criteria. I have left a note on Mutualawe's talk page, but he/she isn't editing right now, and left a comment on the submission asking for more explanation, and told the original creator that I would advise him if there was no response (either today or tomorrow). -- kelapstick( bainuu) 15:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
How does a review from NYT indicate notability? I asked this question of Kelapstick in a seperate talk page : is wiki supposed to have a page for every book the NYT does a review of? Dreams are real. TV is not. ( talk) 08:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
This list was helpful for seeing where I had made what you consider to be errors. Some of your reverts have since been declined by other users. I wonder if all this isn't just so someone can make an excuse for lists of the black and white kind? After all, about 50 of the 69 you have listed that have been re-reviewed were done correctly. Maybe you all could just thank a person when they come on and do this and offer advice on where improvements can be made? Dreams are real. TV is not. ( talk) 09:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
We really do need an AfC helper-script blacklist... Pol430 talk to me 09:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Back about six months ago when I was active, an AFCH blacklist WAS part of my "master plan". Due to us getting so many new users AfCing, we eventually instigated the first AfC topic bans. I think a standard system for topic bans and AFCH bans should be put in place since it looks like during my wikibreak we have had a noob attack. Any suggestions? -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 23:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
The only reason I turned down requiring autopatrolled is that it's only given to users with 50 pages to their credit (and if they really want us to not be elitist, implement rep like on Stack Exchange). I've looked at the Twinkle proposal and it seems like a whole different ballgame. With this script, any user could send copyvios, libel, or who knows what into mainspace with three clicks. Now, we need the script for expert reviewers. So, we have three proposals:
RFC? -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 17:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I was here yesterday and we had over 900 articles pending review, none of which were 14 days old, and suddenly we jumped to over 1000 with some as old as 19 days. What happened? Rankersbo ( talk) 09:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm almost certain this is a software glitch and am assuming this is something that Joe's Null Bot (task 4) by Joe Decker is responsible for. Technical 13 ( talk) 12:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
{{
Edit Protected}}
for several weeks started to appear in
Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 15:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC){{
AFC submission}}
so it wasn't a redirect problem. But I now know what it was, see below. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 15:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)This article was created by the same author of the AfC submission by the same name. The article is not fully copyvio, but it does copy parts of the association's website (e.g. this). Unsure if it's worth the extensive copy edit, or just merits a move back to AfC and tell the author all that needs to be done (not just cv, have a look). What do you think? FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 17:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
My "natural instinct" is to review the oldest drafts and so try to get to them all. I've just had a thought about a diffent strategy. Pick an arbitrary "line in the sand" age, for example 7-days and concentrate most of your effort on reviewing all the drafts that appear in that category, as far as possible don't let any ever make it into the 8-days category. Whenever the 7-days category becomes empty move up to the 6-days and so on. Would this "head them off at the pass" strategy be more, less or equally as (in)effective as the simpler "oldest first" strategy? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 16:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that is the cause mabdul... That link is generated by an off-by-default gadget ( MediaWiki:Gadget-mySandbox.js) that I don't expect many new users turn on... Actually... On an attempt to confirm my beliefs... I found that it is on by default... That being the case, the way that we might "fix" the problem is to create a sandbox setup to improve the preload template that it uses. We could add a section to that template that upon first save or preview would allow definition of the name of the page and options to move it to WT:AfC... Let me experiment and create a few sandboxes see what might work the best. We could also make a modification to the {{ Userspace draft}} and {{ subst:Submit}} templates that forces a page rename from sandbox to article title and moves the article to WT:AfC for review (I really like this idea)... Technical 13 ( talk) 11:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Ozob is correct that the right question is "how do we maximize value to the encyclopedia?" It may very well be that what seems like the most sensible tactic (getting rid of copyvios and such fast) is wrong--perhaps we should be alertly looking through the newest submissions for an editor who is trying hard to do the right thing and has a reasonable topic for an article, putting all our efforts on them, and letting everything else sit for two weeks. Not only would we get some decent articles, but we might net some engaged new editors that way. And if the corporate PR teams need to be more patient, that might be a decent tradeoff. (Conversely, it's hard to find the gems in the slush pile given all the slush.) I dunno, it's complicated. What would really make a lot of difference here is more people working on the project. -- j⚛e decker talk 22:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Just a heads-up that the script is creating (as far as I've seen) an extra space between every heading and the start of its corresponding paragraph. Not too important, but it's quite curious. I also noticed this site is copying some submissions. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 02:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I was trying to review redirects as you can see in my contribs, but apparently the beta script crashes when it attempts to edit the AfC/R page, resulting in a big mess that I don't have time to fix. Could someone sort it out for me? Thanks, Nathan2055 talk - contribs 18:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
There is draft content on both Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Clyde Vickers and Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Clyde Vickers. It should only be on the WT page, but I don't know how to fix it. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 11:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
QM400032 ( talk · contribs) moved 2 submissions into the main encyclopedia. I moved them back and declined one. I left him a gentle (I hope) note on his talk page asking him to leave reviewing to more experienced editors for now, but to come back in a few months, read our then-current procedures, and start reviewing. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 04:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Before I code up a template called {{AFC blocking issues|discussion=commentary here}} I want to see if anyone objects and if there is at least some support for it. This would be a "version 0.1" of the "AFC blocking issues" template above. In this version, it would have 3 modes:
"This submission has the following serious issues which must be resolved before the article is accepted:
{{{discussion}}}
This submission must not be moved into the encyclopedia until these issues are resolved. This template should not be removed until the issue is resolved. When removing resolved items from this template or removing the template altogether, please use the edit summary or a {{ afc comment}} to note that the issue is resolved.
followed by a separate colored box saying something likeWarning - this page may have been inadvertently added to the encyclopedia.
followed by the text above. It would also add the article to a Wikipedia maintenance category so such articles could be spotted quickly.This article was likely copied or moved from an Articles for creation submission, probably [[Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/{{PAGENAME}}]], by mistake and that the article should be immediately reviewed and if any of the issues are still present, that the article should be returned to AFC rather than being deleted. If none of the issues remain, this and any other AFC-related templates can be removed.
This template should only be removed by an experienced Wikipedia editor well-versed in Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines and should not be removed by anyone who is closely connected to the subject of this article or who was heavily involved in its creation.
This template is designed for use in articles under review at Articles for creation. If you are seeing this in a "user" sub-page it is likely that the submission as been userfied without this template being removed, or that a reviewer has placed this here without first moving the submission to a sub-page of [[Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/]]. Please take these comments as strong suggestions. You may move your userspace draft to the main encyclopedia, but if you do so without addressing these issues you face a very high risk that it will be deleted, either through speedy deletion, proposed deletion, or a deletion discussion. Please be sure to remove this template before moving your userspace draft to the main encyclopedia.
This template would exist independently of {{ AFC submission}} and {{ afc comment}} and could, from a software perpsective, be used anywhere, but would by practice only be placed on articles in AFC or in special cases, in user space. They would not be limited to articles that were "awaiting review" but it is unlikely they would be used on draft articles unless there was a special "one-off" reason.
Comments? Bad idea? Good idea? The plan is to use this is only for "real" (not-test/non-blank) submissions that would NOT result in a CSD while at AFC (i.e. NOT for blatant copyvio, attack, etc.), but which likely WOULD result in a CSD (typically as an A7) or a quick trip to AFD (typically as overly promotional, no/insufficent verification of notability) and, if not addressed during AFD, would result in deletion. The goal here is to 1) discourage people who are tired of waiting from moving not-ready articles before they are AFD-resistant, and, implicitly, 2) to make it easier to warn editors who do so anyways not to be disruptive. The latter purpose will either help editors learn not to be disruptive early before they get themselves blocked, or will make it easier to block the bad-faith editors as they will have just used up one of their warnings.
An note to the AFC Helper script authors: Until you have code in place to give the reviewer the option of stripping this template, consider adding code that would disable the "accept" button if this template is present (and of course put up some text explaining why accept isn't working). davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 20:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
or some such. Perhaps the "in the box" text can be changed from "... by mistake" to "... while it still had a notice listing outstanding issues. The article should immediately be reviewed by an experienced editor ..." davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 17:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Warning - Project-page template used on article page
... experienced with BLP articles (preferably also somewhat aware of Armenia related content) that might be willing to step up and mentor an editor that has had issues with identifying reliable sources for use on the biographies of living persons that have some verifiability that has resulted in a current topic ban from creating or editing such articles. It has been suggested in my request for a partial lifting of this topic ban on AN that if someone could be found that is willing to do this, than the ban could be relaxed a little. If you are interested and or willing to do this, please state so on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive249#Request for re-visitation of the topic ban of User:TheShadowCrow. Thank you. Technical 13 ( talk) 13:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Would you guys like it if I placed decline reasons in sections like how Twinkle has tags and stuff, or would you prefer the current method? -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 16:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
In Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Raytheon Infotech the script shows: "Be careful, there is a <ref> tag after the references list! You might not see all references", however this is hidden text included automatically from the article's submission. Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 16:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Good new anybody, TParis ( talk · contribs) added the AFC helper script to the automated edits tool at the toolserver. See my edits here. mabdul 17:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Lately I've been seeing articles being submitted without templates. Should I remove articles with no template? Citrusbowler ( talk) 20:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
![]() | The maintainers of the AFC Helper Script and those maintaining WT:Talk page guidelines are particularly encouraged to participate in this discussion. |
Appearently, I've been wrong about the use of {{ talk header}} (aka {{ talkpageheader}}. I was under the mistaken impression that it was fine to just slap it on all new article talk pages, even if there is no discussion on those pages.
Another editor pointed me to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Creating talk pages.
This guideline can be read two ways: 1) don't put the talk page header up unless readers need a reminder that this is a talk page and need a reminder of the talk page guidelines embedded in the header, or 2) don't create a talk page for the sake of creating a talk page and don't use "I'm putting a talk page header here" as an excuse to create a talk page.
Now, as this is a guideline and consensus can change, what do we want to do about it with respect to the AFC Helper Script? My recommendation is to continue adding it to the top of new pages, but in a collapsed or auto-collapse mode (I think this is how we are already doing it), even though there is almost never going to be a discussion on the talk page at the time the talk page is created. Since the talk page will be created anyways to get the AFC talk header, I see no harm to adding this header.
A disclaimer/COI: I disagree with the community's view as it was at the time the guideline was developed - I think all articles should have talk pages, and they all should have talkpageheader on top of them. The reason is that this gives a consistent look and feel throughout the main encyclopedia. However, I'm not going to go around adding talk pages just to add a talk page.
Your thoughts? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 17:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been listed at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines
{{
talk header}}
on all article talk pages, it could be done by creating
Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Talk as a one-off action, rather than adding it one-by-one to millions of article talk pages. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 18:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
My point was that it is not needed because we already have the WikiProject banner. So, it is extra fluff that may be confusing to new users. Technical 13 ( talk) 11:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Can someone see if Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Solid Concepts Inc. is notable? I looked at it, but it seems good if we can hammer out whether it's actually notable or not. -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 16:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, my friends. Per a discussion at the section WT:AFC#Yet another inexperienced editor trying to review things, I have begun drafting an AfC mentoring program/course for newbies, which you can find here, keeping in mind it's very, very under development. Just a suggestion, once this course is completed, perhaps any new editors who want to review documents must take the course to be whitelisted onto the script, and we push the course on the project page etc. I will post here when I need alpha testers/general comment. A few of you (Technical 13, I'm looking at you) have already begun to peruse it, many thanks for your comments. I am also in the planning phase for a bot to match mentors and students and various other tasks. However, given that I will be devoting ~80% of my time on Wikipedia to developing this course in the hopes of having a functional alpha by the end of June, I will be reviewing a lot less articles. If the backlog is too much for you to handle, drop me a line and I'll see what I can do. But, effective soon, I will only be reviewing a few articles a day. Feel free to stop by and see how I'm doing, but adios for now. Thanks for being awesome, TheOneSean [ U | T | C ] 03:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I have approved all the pages relating to the portal, just to get rid of them as they should never have been brought to AfC at all. Portal components are either bits of code that create the structure of a Portal page, thus of no interest to AfC, or they are extracts of existing articles, such as "featured biographies", and as such are also of no interest to AfC. Portals as a rule never contain any newly written content. The structure and content of Portals are solely the responsibility of the WikiProject that "owns" the Portal. I have posted a request to the editor concerned as well as WikiProject Gaelic Games that they do not in future submit portal components to AfC. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 08:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
The editor of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/N. Anthony (Tony) Coles has come out and stated he has a COI with the subject. What should I do here? -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 20:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I have had several notices from something called DPL bot saying that I have linked to disambiguation pages, when in fact I have made no such edit. Is this a bug? Is the bot notifying the wrong person?
Anne — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anne Delong ( talk • contribs) 02:25, 3 June 2013
UPDATE: This policy has been nulled and a discussion is going on at WT:CSD. -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 20:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'd like to ask that we bring this up one last time and decide definitively whether we want to delete redirects of created submissions or whether to keep them for tracking purposes. I've set up a poll below. If we choose to delete them, I will create a new redirect CSD criteria. -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 18:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
The AfC helper script isn't letting me review this article, as happened with another draft after I moved it from a sandbox earlier. For what it's worth, this is a copyvio of http://www.nilebasinclub.org/home/about-us.html, but I'd also like to see what's going on that's causing AfCH to not work on this page. I've tried it in Safari and Chrome, and I get the menu item, but no action when I select "Review". -- j⚛e decker talk 14:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Also the script is failing on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Kavitaram_Shrestha, which is a copyvio of http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/dr-kavitaram-shrestha-ma-phd/51/b64/ab2 -- j⚛e decker talk 14:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Don't let this happen to you.
If a submission seems like it was written professionally or for a different audience, such as a book or a non-encyclopedia web site, it might be a WP:COPYVIO. If I'm suspecting copyright issues, I'll grab a few several-word phrases and run them through some search engines. This duplication detector may also be helpful.
Thanks to my oversight accepting Charles Fanshawe, 4th Viscount Fanshawe, I spent the last few hours verifying the violation and re-writing it so it doesn't get deleted outright. Those are hours I could have spent elsewhere on the project.
We can't be perfect in our quest to keep policy-violating material out, but we can try. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 21:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Just a reminder for everyone: please remember to add specific categories to all accepted articles. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 17:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
The CSD policy maintainers objected to having the discussion on redirects here, among a number of things. So, we have reverted the policy change and a new discussion is on here. -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 20:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I think it might be prudent to make an effort to contact relevant WikiProjects, if there are any that are active, at some point in the AFC process. Interstate 35 in Kansas was recently submitted through the AFC process and approved, but it has several factual errors that could have been caught if WikiProject U.S. Roads had known about it, and appears to have been created by a banned user that we have dealt with before. In addition to situations like this, I can also think of cases where the WikiProject might be able to advise on relevant parts of the MOS, might help gauge whether an article is even needed, or simply might want to assist with polishing before the article is published. I understand that this extra step may be somewhat of a burden to the reviewers, but I think it can only result in a much more effective AFC process that produces higher-quality articles. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I was reviewing this page: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fragrance (album), and I was about to decline it as promotional, but I decided to check it for copyright violation. Google says that the same text is posted on this web site: http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/14683594-kiran-and-ambarish-with-their-first-musical-venture-fragrance
However, I can't see this text on the web page. Also, even if it were there, it appears that it was posted on the same day by the same user. With time zones, I can't tell which was posted first. Is this a copyright violation, or just unsourced promotional stuff? — Anne Delong ( talk) 19:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Before declining Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/William Rush (2), I thought that I'd have a look at the previously declined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/William Rush. It was much better, but light on sources. I have added some, and I think it would pass notability now, but it hasn't been submitted. How should I deal with these two articles? — Anne Delong ( talk) 09:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
I have been reading in this forum that some of the old declined submissions are being deleted. What is being done about ones that are not bad, just need a little improvement in sourcing or other such tweaking, but the submitter has not done it? Is there a way to draw other editors' attention to these so that they can be finished up and the work not wasted? — Anne Delong ( talk) 09:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I've found a fair number of "declined as blank" submissions that were in error, largely due to comment errors. They'll be showing up in the "very old" by age category as I revert and correct the comment errors within them. -- j⚛e decker talk 18:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
I clicked on a page history and next to some of the entries instead of (undo) it says (undo|thank). I am unable to find out exactly what the purpose of this option is, or what exactly would happen if I chose it. I tried WP:Thank (doesn't exist), WP:Thank you (no mention) and WP:THANKS (no mention). What am I missing? — Anne Delong ( talk) 11:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I came across a {{
Help me}} request asking how to get an article reviewed yesterday and checked the usage of {{
subst:Submit}} because I wanted to see how to note that the draft (
User:Ameliasenter/sandbox) should be moved to
Land of Opportunity if accepted and was disappointed to find that {{
subst:Submit}} which redirects to {{
AFC submission/submit}} doesn't have any kind of |page=
like {{
Userspace draft}} does. I really didn't want to confuse the user by telling him to add both {{
Userspace draft}} and {{
subst:Submit}} and now here I am... I would like to see this parameter added to our templates. Discussion, agree, disagree?
Technical 13 (
talk) 15:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
The enormous number of G13 deletions which are blank or simply repeat the words of the title suggest that many people think that AfC is like WP:Requested articles - a place to suggest a subject for someone else to write about. Could the instructions make clearer that AfC is only for submitting an actual article that you have already written, and that if you just have an idea for an article WP:RA is that way? JohnCD ( talk) 16:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
A user has moved this article to a strange location: User:Articles for creation/Aerodynamics and Heat transfer computation in Turbo-machinery
Can I just move it back? — Anne Delong ( talk) 19:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Will someone please look at this article: User:Food2013/sandbox and tell me if it should be moved to Afc or not? — Anne Delong ( talk) 20:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/The Spitfires. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 02:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Just wanted to hear other opinions with regards to DataMotion, Inc. and Zeppelin (iPod speaker system). In my view they fail notability guidelines. On another note, I'm seeing articles with serious flaws being accepted and left without even performing a minor copy edit. Articles have no categories, contain serious MOS faults and various other disturbing shortcomings. It is my view that the least one can do when reviewing (especially when accepting) submissions is correct its most visible problems; It only takes about a minute on average. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 00:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
When users are granted autopatrolled status, whatever they create skips curation. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 13:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
While you guys have been playing with the years-old submissions and I, apparently, have been whining over nothing on the Wikipedia talk:Notifications/Thanks page, the backlog has passed 1300. Do we need another backlog drive? — Anne Delong ( talk) 02:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Oops! I declined this article as improperly sourced, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Frank Scheffold and only later realized that it is a copyright violation of http://www.lsinstruments.ch/company/team/administrative_board/. Can I undo the decline? I guess the message is already sent. — Anne Delong ( talk) 16:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/AdSiF seems professionally written, and I would like to check to see if it is copied from one of the cited papers. Does anyone have a subscription to http://www.academia.edu and could check this out? — Anne Delong ( talk) 17:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Just wanted to hear other opinions with regards to DataMotion, Inc. and Zeppelin (iPod speaker system). In my view they fail notability guidelines. On another note, I'm seeing articles with serious flaws being accepted and left without even performing a minor copy edit. Articles have no categories, contain serious MOS faults and various other disturbing shortcomings. It is my view that the least one can do when reviewing (especially when accepting) submissions is correct its most visible problems; It only takes about a minute on average. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 00:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
When users are granted autopatrolled status, whatever they create skips curation. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 13:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
While you guys have been playing with the years-old submissions and I, apparently, have been whining over nothing on the Wikipedia talk:Notifications/Thanks page, the backlog has passed 1300. Do we need another backlog drive? — Anne Delong ( talk) 02:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Oops! I declined this article as improperly sourced, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Frank Scheffold and only later realized that it is a copyright violation of http://www.lsinstruments.ch/company/team/administrative_board/. Can I undo the decline? I guess the message is already sent. — Anne Delong ( talk) 16:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, For the Purpose of this article i wont give my name yet, but if the information is valuable and reliable then i will, I am trying to find out certain details about Dirk K. Stoffberg (Referance, Dulce September and The Z Squad Incorparated) after the careful reaserch that i have done and my Grand Parents, mother, aunties have all told me the same thing and i have no reason to think that they would lie to me, sorry i digressed, anyway i am his grandchild and i need to know more about hime because all over the web information about him is very scarce and censored, ty i will check this page again in a month to see if anything has been done if u need anymore info just make a post on the page and i will see what i can do — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.204.11 ( talk) 17:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/AdSiF seems professionally written, and I would like to check to see if it is copied from one of the cited papers. Does anyone have a subscription to http://www.academia.edu and could check this out? — Anne Delong ( talk) 17:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Young yen is in Battle Creek Michigan is a very hip hop person he made his debut on YouTube. his birthday is November 4 1994 he works from home he's going to be a star he's in the process of coming up with his blueprint everyday and the hotel is a new day to work shawntez brand will go over the world he says he's an eclipse baby with the Sun in his eyes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.141.213.45 ( talk) 18:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
This page is for users involved in this project's administration. If you would like to start writing a new article, please use the
Article wizard. If you have an idea for a new article, but would like to request that someone else write it, please see:
Wikipedia:Requested articles.
Citrusbowler (
talk) 13:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
This article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/t of number-one hits of 2013 (Austria) seems to be one of a series. The others from previous years look similar and are all in the encyclopedia. I haven't reviewed anything like this before. Should it be accepted? — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Why isn't the photo showing up in this article? Tikvah Alper — Anne Delong ( talk) 15:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Will someone please move this page to the right place? Wikipedia:List of number-one hits of 2013 (Austria) I have messed it up twice now (must be having a brain attack..) and I'm too embarrassed to try again. — Anne Delong ( talk) 15:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
{{
Afc decline}}
has an additional criteria for use on submissions which are copyright violations. I recently made some changes to the this template's functions that made the template less confusing and misleading when this parameter is employed. Under normal circumstances the template looks like this:
When used with the optional CV parameter, it now looks like this:
The existing submission may be deleted at any time. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
This set me thinking that perhaps the optional CV parameter should be changed to an optional CSD parameter. One that would be automatically initiated by AFC Helper Script when a submission is declined for a reason that makes it eligible for speedy deletion. The template with this parameter employed would read something like this:
The existing submission may be deleted at any time. If the submission has already been deleted by an administrator, the reason for the deletion will be indicated in the deletion summary at the page title.
Looks good. The templates specifically warn you against marking the article under the normal CSD, so it would be nice if the script could automatically mark the pages for speedy deletion. Citrusbowler ( talk) 16:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I like the idea of an optional parameter, and that's a nice template for it. There are short copyvios that probably would warrant an edit to correct rather than a G12 in mainspace, I might want the flexibility. I'd also very much like a similar parameter for G11. Going through the list of declined AfCs for promotionally, there are some that never, ever, ever had a chance of being non-promotional, particularly those whose advertising extended to the title. We really need to push back on being abused as an ad site. -- j⚛e decker talk 19:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Any time the script ads a speedy-deletion tag, please also write any custom-comment and any other information, such as the thing the submission is a copyright violation of, to the user's talk page in addition to the submission page. This "extra stuff on the user's talk page" is only needed for speedy-deletion-tagged items because they may not be there for the submitter to see if they only exist on the submission page. Keeping a copy on the submission page (which is where it goes now) is useful for administrators who may need that information later. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 23:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Dear editors:
Here's an article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nooksack Loop Trail with three good newspaper references, but it's about something that doesn't yet exist. Should I approve it? — Anne Delong ( talk) 17:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Could someone experienced and expedient with regards to copyright issues have a look at my talk page and point the latter user in the right direction? Thanks! FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 01:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
I have been checking out this article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Irony aptness. It seemed like an odd phrase, and I wondered if it was a neologism. The main reference is a journal paper. The second reference does not contain the term. I did a Google search, leaving out the author of that paper, and leaving out the paper archiving web site on which it was posted ("irony aptness" -giora -gruyter) and that left 21 hits, with most of these having punctuation of various kinds between the two words (such as "irony; aptness"). My question is, if this term is mainly used in one journal paper, which was published in a respected journal, can this still be a notable term? The paper archiver says that the paper has been cited 40 times, but I have no way of finding out if any of the citations were about this term. — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term.
I'm sorry, but whoever thought it was a good idea to remove "Custom Decline Reason" from the AfC review tool needs to be trouted quite liberally. What happens when you have to decline a AfC on grounds that aren't in that dropdown? YOU CANT! Take for example the kludged way I had to respond here. If we still had the Custom Decline Reason option I could have asked the question in the decline box... Now it's not possible. Hasteur ( talk) 18:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
It appears this is a pretty recent change, but you have linked to an archive from 2012 Nathan? Why implement a change so long after the discussion concerning it? Moreover, I too cannot find any 'consensus' for this change in the linked archive. Nor do I recall it from memory, over the past two years of my involvement in this project. It appears, from where I'm sitting, that you unilaterally made this change and are suggesting there was a clear consensus for it when there is not. Misrepresenting consensus is not something I find acceptable and I would also ask you to reinstate the custom decline reason as Hasteur has requested. Pol430 talk to me 09:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, these aren't "AFC submission," but if you need a mental break from the hard work of AFC, Category:Submissions by Doncram ready for review is getting a bit back-logged. I've found that 80-90% of the drafts I review are acceptable with only clerical changes. Note that there is some stuff on each page in HTML comments that is supposed to go on the talk page, that there are some tl'd-out templates, and that the category Category:Submissions by Doncram ready for review needs to be removed entirely after moving the page. These also have to be moved by hand, the AFC Helper Script won't work on them. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 02:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
This article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dinesh Bhugra has 48 citations, many of which are independent newspaper articles, and I feel that the article is ready for acceptance. However, all of the sources are listed in the form of bare URLs. Usually I try to fix up this sort of thing, but there are so many that I just don't have the energy to tackle it. Should I accept it anyway? The subject is highly notable. — Anne Delong ( talk) 12:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Has anyone noticed what happened to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects? Some people decided to use it to make an article! I'm going to revert back to the original version and put stern warnings on the people's pages. I'm just telling you guys what happened. THIS IS URGENT, GET OUT THERE! I'm concerned I could go under 3RR to make all the reverts. Citrusbowler ( talk) ( contribs) ( email me) 18:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Hey admin, I want you to create a page on the famous website techgear8.weebly.com as it provides much information to students with free of cost and also provide the news of latest technology, and the specifications plus details of latest technological devices — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharjeel 10 ( talk • contribs) 21:46, 9 June 2013
Dear editors:
As per FoCuSandLeArN's suggestion, I have been trying to categorize some submissions, but this one has me stumped. It's an essay by H.G. Wells, but not fiction. He describes his theory that animals or people can be changed by surgery or other means, but would still retain their underlying nature. (Nobody knew about genes back then.) There doesn't seem to be a category to fit. I couldn't find "Scientific essays" or "biological theories" or "essays about biology" or anything else that would fit on the list. There were lots of people speculating about science; what category am I missing? — Anne Delong ( talk) 15:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
The writer of WT:Articles for creation/Lyceum of the Philippines University-Laguna shows absolutely no sign of even understanding the meaning of the term "independent source" in spite of having it pointed out multiple times. The university is obviously notable but this writer seems to be incapable of proving it. Should we keep declining it ad nauseam or do we "confiscate" the draft due to the writer's apparent incompetence and let an experienced editor fix it? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 09:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
When dealing with G13s which have been declined as blank I notice that, though many of them are indeed blank, if you click on "Edit" quite a few have actually got some text, invisible because enclosed for some reason within comment tags. In principle, there might be a possible article lurking in there, though I haven't found one yet. Three points:
JohnCD ( talk) 18:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I left a message on this submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hector Rosales suggesting that the Spanish newspaper references be made into citations. Here is the response from the submitter: User talk:Anne Delong#hector rosales. Is there a Spanish speaking editor who can assess this article? — Anne Delong ( talk) 22:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Dear Editors:
Usually when an article contains a lot of original research, I decline it with the "reads like an essay" option. However, this article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Freedom fighters list, is really a list, compiled by the submitter. There is already an article about the Indian freedom movement. I had been planning to suggest that the author write a short article about the list and its compilation, add references to show that the list was accepted and written about by his peers and the media, and add an external link to the list which is published on a web site. What decline option should I choose? — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Dear Reviewers:
I have accepted the Gray Tools article and now I would like to add categories. There is no catergory for "Canadian companies" or "Canadian manufacturers". Can I just type them in anyway, or is there some more formal process for adding new categories? — Anne Delong ( talk) 14:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pinchas Goldhar was rightfully declined as a duplicate, but it is superior to the existing article. I ignored all rules and boldly moved it to Talk:Pinchas Goldhar/Temp to facilitate merging. See Talk:Pinchas Goldhar for more details.
By the way, this is very "out of process" as it's the exception, not the rule, that someone will use AFC to create an article that is better than the one that already exists. After all, anyone can edit non-protected articles. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 17:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I declined a couple disambiguation pages from a Portuguese word that had no incoming links to where the page would have been moved to if it was approved this morning after asking around in IRC if it was what I should do with them... A few hours later, someone asked me why I declined them and I showed them the discussion and asked their opinion of it. They said they should have been approved so now I am confused. One of the two submissions in question is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Capela (disambiguation) and I can't seem to find the other one. I don't want to decline submissions that should be approved and more importantly I don't want to approve things that should be declined... Looking for a consensus of what should be done with these cases. Thanks Technical 13 ( talk) 22:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Dear Editors:
Here's a very good article about an opera singer: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Shuisky. Near the end of the article there are a number of quoted theatre reviews in Russian, followed by English translations. Is it appropriate to have the reviews in the article? — Anne Delong ( talk) 00:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Unless the backlog is well below 400 well before July 1 we should plan on a July backlog drive.
Among other things this means having
davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 19:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
The custom decline option will be rolled out along with a few other emergency changes in a few days. However, mabdul has vanished again, and I have no idea how to fix the scanner error in beta (which is the only stopper AFAIK). -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 16:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Before I ask the AFC Helper Script and Article Wizard developers to add this feature, I wanted to get feedback.
The feature is that when these scripts add any AFC template, they add
<!--Do not remove the following AFC template until the submission is accepted, see [insert URL of a future help page here] for details -->
before the template and
<!--Do not remove the preceding AFC template-->
At the same time, {{ submit}} and similar typically-subst'd templates that expand to "afc submission" and "afc comment" will be changed so that if they are subst'd (as it should be) it will also pre- and post-pend the same HTML comments.
Any objections before I ask the appropriate people to implement this? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 14:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Is it feasible using Lua to "encapsulate" existing templates or existing wikicode so that categories are not applied but the code visually looks the same?
In other words, could Lua be used to let navigation, infobox, and other category-including templates be used in submissions without causing the submission to be put in those categories?
Similarly, could the entire body of the submission be encapsulated in a Lua template so that templates like citation needed can be used as part of the review process without having the submission put into "articles needing citations since [date]"-type categories?
If this is feasible, are you (you being any Lua programmers out there) willing and able to try to make it work? Bonus points if you can have the page display a list of "would-be in" categories at the bottom. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 14:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
A couple of months ago I declined this article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eurolib, asking for some references, and then later also asked that a section which was a copyvio be rewritten in the editor's own words. Today I received a note that this had been done, but couldn't find any change. Then I realized that the submitter had actually edited an old version of the page which can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Eurolib&oldid=551625397. The copyrighted history has indeed been rewritten and the outside references added, so I would like to accept it, but how do I go about this? — Anne Delong ( talk) 16:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Our ancient scriptures talk extensively about human intellect contributing to human good and the story continues even today. However, present times are different due to use of electronic gadgets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.139.54 ( talk) 17:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
If anyone has been wondering whatever happened to my AfcBox proposal to ask submitters whether they have added sources, Writ Keeper has been helping me out with it, and now I have put a message on Village pump (technical) asking for someone to check the technical aspects. When that's done I will be asking the editors here for some comments about the exact working of the options. — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As we've had the free form decline reason taken away I propose the following pre-populated message.
Submission contains references but no in-line citations. Please review WP:INCITE and correct prior to re-submission
The purpose is for articles similar to this. It contains links, but no inline citations to claims in the text. We could do some guesswork as to what link belongs to which portion in the text, but our guess could be wrong, and doesn't correct the underlying issue of the user not understanding the inline citation format that articles must be in.
Hasteur ( talk) 14:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I would like to point out the following in our reviewing instructions:
"AFC participants should follow the normal standards set by the standard policies and guidelines for what makes an acceptable article. Avoid the following errors: Declining an article because it correctly uses general references to support some or all of the material. The content and sourcing policies require inline citations for only some specific types of material, most commonly: direct quotations and contentious material (whether negative, positive, or neutral) about living persons." — Anne Delong ( talk) 15:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As we had the free form decline reason taken away from the automated tool I propose the following decline reason
Duplicated prose sections. Please either unify or delete the duplicate and re-submit.
This type of decline would be used when the author has somehow copy pasted the body of the submission multiple times which makes the submission longer than it needs to be. The AfC reviewer could delete the duplication, but it has been impressed upon me that the reviewer should not take an active role in editing the article and the author may want to keep one version over the other. Yes it pushes more responsibility back onto the creator of the submission, but this way we are helping them learn how to do things and not depend on the kindness of other volunteers. Hasteur ( talk) 14:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I have seen many requests with a [[ ]] as the title, often with the target also being [[ ]]. I have seen that the IPs which make these requests are not the same or similar, which means it is not consistent spamming. I think that the Article/Redirect wizard starts you off with [[ ]], so it's probably just a user clicking save without editing anything. However, these requests are annoying. Is it possible that the article wizard can be edited so it will not allow users to save the page without editing? Citrusbowler ( talk) 21:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Currently, the AFC helper script drop-down menu of decline reasons shows the BLP decline reason with the following description:
Firstly, there is no process in the deletion policy or the criteria for speedy deletion to allow for the immediate deletion of pages which 'violate the BLP policy'. There is only process for the speedy deltion of "biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced." This is done under criteria G10 because such pages are a stones throw away from being an attack page.
In the case that a submission is eligible under criteria G10, the appropriate decline reason is 'test' (as indicated in the reviewing instructions). I have asked for a specific decline reason to be introduced at the script development page. The BLP decline reason is intended for use on submissions that do not comply with the BLP policy, but are not eligible for speedy deletion – they should be blanked as a courtesy and left declined/archived. Please can someone with the required knowledge re-write the description of this decline reason to something like:
This avoids misrepresenting the purpose of this decline reason and several policies. Pol430 talk to me 10:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
In eight days, a limited number of new editors (not a majority, or all) will get Wikipedia:VisualEditor. This may create some signficant limitations for those editors, some of ho may be at AfC, for example, as present, those editors will be entirely unable to create refs with VE. More info at [12] -- j⚛e decker talk 19:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Has anybody noticed that the WMF have not made it compatible with project space yet? It appears that for AfC at least, this is a non-issue. -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 16:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Guys! No one read my comment-the VE will NOT be turned on for Wikipedia space! There is no problem here. -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 21:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
This article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John M. Moyer House by Visitor7 looks oddly familiar.... — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
If WT:Articles for creation/Submissionname was just a single "meta-template", WT:Articles for creation/Submissionname/article was the submitted text, WT:Articles for creation/Submissionname/status held what we now see as {{ afc submission}} and {{ afc comment}}, and WT:Articles for creation/Submissionname/talk held proposed talk page content (in a form that prevented categorization, of course), it would things cleaner. The "meta-template" would transclude the sub-pages into a form similar to what we see now.
I'm just throwing this out as an idea for now, I wouldn't want to even try to do this until we've absorbed the impact of major changes like the new Visual Editor.
By the way, this wouldn't be the first major change to AFC. It underwent a radical change back in '08 or '09. The "old way" was kind of a mess, it was very difficult to create a submission bigger than a stub, and it was nearly impossible to include infoboxes and other visual templates. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 14:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Does anybody else have problems getting AFC helper script to work on Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects? Pol430 talk to me 20:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I am working on a decline reason for salted pages. But I'm not sure what the correct place to redirect users to to get their pages unsalted would be. What noticeboard should I send them to? -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 22:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Automating a submission to RFPP is possible, but we need to get the script to a point where it can understand error messages. I have a criterion asking users to request unsalting, but I agree that it shouldn't be used, so I will remove it soon. -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 21:28, 13 June 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 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
I propose a new category, WPAFC possible submissions without a template that will be populated by a bot. The exact parameters can be hashed out later, but in general it would be all sub-pages in Wikipedia: or Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation or their obvious mis-spellings that are not 1) tagged with {{ AFC submission}} or some equivalent tag and 2) are not a known exception.
Once these are categorized, we can decide what to do with them. My preference would be to notify the users that they can tag the article with {{subst:submit}}, but if the page is not edited within 90 days, it would be submitted to WP:Miscellany for deletion as part of a batch "soft deletion" request. If their article was deleted, a followup message would indicate that it would be un-deleted upon request. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 02:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Why's this article on the list if the template's gone? FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 02:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
One of the first things to check in reviewing if the subject appears at all plausible is if the article already exists. I find the easiest way is just to search for the title in Wikipedia. If it does, check the dates--sometimes it was already there when the AfC wa started, it which case it can be rejected accordingly (and in my opinion listed for speedy deletion as a technical G6 deletion); If it was earlier, and the article is based on it, I am not sure whether to also simply call it a duplicate, or to make a redirect out of it, as would ordinarily be done when an article is accepted. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
I have just declined an article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/POUR, which I felt was unintelligible, promotional and mostly opinion. Would someone check my work on this one? I'm not sure that I chose the correct declining option, and also I wonder if the sections about the artists are appropriate, or if each artist should be in his or her own article, (which I didn't say). — Anne Delong ( talk) 12:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
What a treat!. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 17:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Following comments by DGG to a couple of reviewers, I felt it would be worth opening some discussion here to agree an approach which could be written into the reviewing instructions. The question is whether as a matter of routine practice, as well as declining a draft article for being too much like an advert (ie promotional), reviewers should also nominate the draft article for deletion per criteria G11 of speedy deletion. Clearly there is broad agreement that such articles have no place in main article space, but it is not clear whether immediate deletion is consistent with the goal to give editors a gentler introduction to editing with proper coaching as to what is promotional and not. In my experience in many cases new editors often appear in other help channels after their article has been deleted without any idea of what they needed to do differently or to rewrite, and having the article no longer there to discuss with them makes it much harder for non-admins to offer them help. DGG has opened a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G11_and_AFCs regarding this matter but I feel that this venue is a more appropriate place for further discussion about changes to the reviewing instructions. Please contribute your thoughts. -- nonsense ferret 15:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
This article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Caitlin Chang has a lot of tags on it, some of which don't seem appropriate, and have old dates on them. Are any of them needed?— Anne Delong ( talk) 21:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
I'd like to have this article deleted: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gideon Nieuwoudt because the author has created another one with much more information, so this one isn't needed. It has very little edit history. Under what criteria should I request deletion? — Anne Delong ( talk) 03:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Dear editors:
This article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/FAM149A has been abandoned and the author started another and submitted it: User:Swaybe/FAM149A. Should the histories be combined? — Anne Delong ( talk) 03:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
If we could mark "likely hopeless" submissions with a special template that said
A reviewer believes that this topic is not suitable for Wikipedia at this time for the following reasons _________. He is requesting a second opinion. We realize that this may be discouraging. Please consider visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles and writing an article on one of the "missing" topics listed there. [[Category:AFC submissions of possibly unsuitable topics]]
and, once a second reviewer has concurred, the submission would be blanked and replaced with something like
Two reviewers agree that this topic is not suitable for Wikipedia at this time for the following reasons _________ and as a result this submission has been blanked and will be deleted in a few days. We realize that this may be discouraging. Please consider visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles and writing an article on one of the "missing" topics listed there. [[Category:AFC submissions of unsuitable topics ready for deletion after 7 days from the time of the concurring review]]
Anyhow, it would be a less bitey but more firm way of dealing with things like obviously non-notable topics and WP:What Wikipedia is not-type stuff. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 04:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have been active in #wikipedia-en-help for a little while now. At least 90% of the "editing help" questions are about the AFC process, and 90% of that is a familiar routine; the wait time, the COI issues (the vast majority of it is corporates or PR types, alas), WP:ADVERT, what's a good reference, why those aren't good references, why those references "do not adequately evidence the subject's notability".
So far, so good. A couple of days ago someone came in asking about what is now Eric_Sanicola; in the course of discussion, they (entirely predictably) proved to be Mr Sanicola, who had written the entire thing himself. (Not grounds for rejection itself, but not a good start). We gave him the usual spiel - references not reliable or mention him only in passing, notability is not infectious, etc. - but at the end of the discussion, User:Coolboygcp pops in for some other purpose and says "sure, I'll approve it"... and did.
This seems to me to be quite contrary to the reviewing instructions - and frankly, it seems a little futile to hang around in the help channel explaining the need for good references if someone else will come in and approve articles with junk references.
I attempted to discuss this with User:Coolboygcp on the same IRC channel the following day, to get completely stonewalled; a flat denial that there was anything wrong with the article. On checking further, their contribs consist of a series of AFC approvals many of which seem dubious, and from /info/en/?search=User_talk:Coolboygcp#Reverting_your_acceptance_of_Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation.2FBritish_Basketball_Association I am not the only editor to have an issue with them.
I'm seeking advice on what should be done next. Pinkbeast ( talk) 10:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I had no idea that there were this many editors interested in my contributions.
Additionally, when I read the quote: "I attempted to discuss this with Coolboygcp on the same IRC channel the following day, to get completely stonewalled:", I proceeded to laugh hysterically. I did no "stonewall" Pinkbeast, in any way whatsoever.
When I corresponded with him/her, I provided several reasons as to why I approved the Eric Sanicola article. I truly cannot comprehend why he/she would fabricate such an accusation and story about me. However, Pinkbeast has repeatedly threatened me on the mentioned IRC channel several time. Threats such as, "if you upload that image, I will delete it", and I will report you if you upload that image, as well as "I will report you for even thinking about creating that article". Additionally, he/she has repeatedly misinformed dozens of editors and users who come to the IRC channel in order to seek useful, and proper advice and help, who instead receive misinformation and incorrect instructions among other worrisome advice.
In fact, I would advise that Pinkbeast has exhibited very much more worrisome, and detrimental behavior and conduct. Coolboygcp ( talk) 12:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Looking through his declines, and his assurances that nothing is wrong, when many of his reviews clearly are, anyone willing to support an attempt to get a topic ban? Mdann52 ( talk) 13:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I spotted some blatant advertising by TheWikipreditor ( talk · contribs) and went back through his submissions. They had all been declined but I blanked most of them as near- or actual- blatant advertising and clear violations of the NPOV policy. Just wanted to give you all a heads up in case anyone asks about it. I've also raised issues about his username ("Wiki PR Editor"?) on his talk page. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 20:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
Will someone who is familiar with image copyright issues please check the images on this page: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jamaican cosmetic industry early pioneers ? Thanks. — Anne Delong ( talk) 22:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
So a weird thing happened to me. I looked at the "AfC submissions without an age" category, to hopefully clear it out (there is only one page in it) and this came up. What is it and can I decline it? Thanks, TheOneSean | Talk to me 11:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Is it possible that since the new script was released, it can't be used on other devices? I'm trying to review on my tablet but it doesn't work. Nothing majorly important, just wondering what's going on. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 18:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I have some questions about finding and sorting material.
To keep things simple, I would just have a "list-making" script or bot run through the entire AFC submissions category, weed out anything it could detect as an obvious non-submission or accepted submission, filter out a separate list of "things for a human to look at" (e.g. submissions in odd places like WT:name instead of WT:AFC/Name), and create a list of what's left sorted by the date of the last non-bot edit. For ease of keeping track of what has and hasn't been done and avoiding edit conflicts when striking entries, it may be best to have 1 page per day (we get hundreds of submissions per day, probably 60-80% are declined) broken into arbitrary sections of 10-20 each. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 02:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Here's another pair of pages needing merging.
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bruce Poon Tip (2) (newer and better)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bruce Poon Tip (older and declined)
— Anne Delong ( talk) 12:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
It would be super-helpful if, when an article is declined for copyvio, the offending URL was included somehow in the user's talk page message. Is that possible/easy? The article itself is often soon deleted, and often the deleting admin doesn't note the URL in the speedy deletion log, so often remembering what the claimed copyright source was is a matter of digging up the deleted content. -- j⚛e decker talk 16:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, with my other current projects crashing and dying around me, I have returned to the beautiful land of wiki. It looks like mabdul has returned, so I'll most likely return to being a developer on the script. I'm going to be going through my talk archives and trying to teach myself the "new and improved" MediaWiki, but if there's anything that occurred during my abscence that I should know about, telling me would be appreciated. Thanks,
Nathan2055
talk -
contribs 18:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Looking at declined article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/PSR J0348+0432 was declined because PSR J0348+0432 existed, but doing a diff, it is clear it was a copy-and-paste without proper attribution. So, this shouldn't be a rejection, it should be a history splice.
I think AFC processors should keep this in mind when processing requests which appear to exist in mainspace. Someone may have copied it out of AFC into articlespace, so would require a request to WP:SPLICE to fix it. -- 65.94.76.126 ( talk) 03:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Is this something new? What's its purpose? I hope it's not an attempt to make Wikipedia more like a social media site.... — Anne Delong ( talk) 08:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Over the last couple months I have seen a deluge of new articles from Doncram rolling through the AFC boards. I don't think I have seen a single one be declined which indicates to me that the user knows how to build an article. It seems to me that the Arbcom sanction against the user is complete nonsense at this point and someone should go to Arbcom and tell them enough is enough. To continue to make the user go through AFC is a waste of the users time as well as AFC's. Not to mention that it is leaving a whole lot of unneeded redirects behind when the article is moved to mainspace. I would tell them myself but Arbcom wouldn't believe me if I told them water was wet. It needs to come from someone here. You have better things to do IMO than to continue to create articles for a user who clearly knows how. Kumioko ( talk) 20:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
He may create new content pages in his user space, at Articles for Creation, in a sandbox area within a WikiProject's area, or in similar areas outside of article space. Such pages may only be moved to article space by other users after review. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee after one year.
Don, I wan to make one thing very clear. I do not consider your submissions to be invaluable or a burden, I'm just thinking that you would be better served having your own personal adopter/reviewer than having to wait weeks for us to get around to reviewing your stuff. Technical 13 ( talk) 19:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, all, for your concern and suggestions. I did start up with the category as suggested, and there are currently 10 articles drafted by me, there (and a continuously updating current number is: 0 articles in Category:Submissions by Doncram ready for review). Thanks Davidwr for processing a batch already. I don't fully understand how much burden there is in using the AFC process, as it depends on the use of tools that I am not fully familiar with, but I do hope this alternative process saves some steps. The timeliness of review is not all that important to me, although it is nice to get quicker response, if only so that my contributions show up in a weekly "progress" map of NRHP articles that seems to be coming out each Friday now. It would be great if anyone cared to address these 10, today, but again it doesn't really matter. Thanks again, all. -- do ncr am 09:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Since a lot of people do begin creating articles that end up getting deleted, a lot of hard work gets lost. Can we get an ongoing monitoring of deleted things to see if they can be userfied, or even incubated into an AfC process? Ranze ( talk) 19:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
This computer's browser has just upgraded from IE9 to IE10 - now the review script doesn't run. I don't have the option of using a different browser as it's not my own PC. Is there a setting I need to change? I don't remember what advanced setting were changed from the defaults when it ran IE9. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 17:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, if the script is indeed blowing up on IE10, we need to do a bit more testing with it. I personally am running Firefox 20 right now (Don't. Mention. Chrome.), but I'll add it to the dev sheet. -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 16:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
If we could provide multiple decline reasons in reviews, instead of only one, we might be able to shorten the AfC process. Certain decline reasons often occur together such as essay-like tone, poor sourcing, notability, etc. If it were possible to provide up to three different reasons for declining a draft at a single review the writer might be able to deal with all of them instead of being "sent back" multiple times for problems that could have been fixed simultaneously. There are of course certain decline reasons that are not suitable for combining - if a draft has copyvios then tone is unimportant. "Killing two (or three) birds with one stone", while taking care not to overwhelm the draft writer with a long list of issues, might help to considerably reduce frustration, shorten the time a draft spends here, and thus help reduce the backlog too! I'm thinking of something similar to the way maintenance tags are combined into a single "multiple issues" template. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 11:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
|nocat=true
option, is this not the case? {{{nocat}}}
option, I would be more inclined to spend my time adding that functionality to those templates (which would be a fairly simple add) compared to almost entirely re-writing the {{
AFC submission}} template.
Technical 13 (
talk) 14:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)This gets asked every few months. There is a custom decline message option hidden in the code of the script. To use it, choose "Select a decline message" and type your decline message in the comment. It will appear in the main template. This was hidden because new users were declining without linking to relevant policies, so be careful when using this. -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 17:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I would propose an "AFC" version of {{ Multiple issues}}, call it {{ AFC multiple issues}}, and making sure that all of the cleanup templates we might use have a "nocat" or "cat=no" parameter. If some cleanup templates already have a common way of disabling parameters, it would best to use it for all of them for consistency.
The reason to have an "afc" rather than just a "nocat" version is we would want to add a red-flag warning if it was still on the article after it was moved to article space. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 18:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
What happened to the AFC newsletter? I know the person working on it stepped down, but is the idea gone? -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 01:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
This article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Libertad Green was started in November, submitted in December and declined because there was an existing article Libertad Green. The mainspace article was then deleted in January.
The text from the draft was then cut and pasted piece by piece to a sandbox, edited in January, deleted and recreate in April and submitted again. I moved it to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Libertad Green (2) , where is was declined by Huon.
Now the text has been copied again into the sandbox and resubmitted at User:Vaughanster/sandbox.
Is there any way to get the history all back together again? There's so much duplication. — Anne Delong ( talk) 05:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
I was reviewing this page: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Penelope Whetton and I was warned that there was no reflist. Actually, though, there was one, although the syntax was Reflist|30em. — Anne Delong ( talk) 16:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
/\{\{Reflist(.*?)\}\}/i
I'll plug it into my copy of the script on test and see if that works as I suspect.
Technical 13 (
talk) 11:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
(.*?)
to your copy after testing it with mine
mabdul.
Technical 13 (
talk) 11:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
{{reflist
and the closing }}
that would be a false positive.
Technical 13 (
talk) 12:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Hmm, I don't know regex, but it seems like we need entries for {{reflist}}, {{Reflist}}, {{reflist*, {{Reflist*, and <references>. Looks like this might be a good first hacking project since my return. I'll mess with it. -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 23:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
/\{\{Reflist(.*?)\}\}/i
says look for only the stuff in between {{Reflist
and the first set of }}
. See:
ReGex#Lazy quantification and this related article from
ITworld./(<|\{\{)/?ref(erences?|list)?\|? ?(.*?)( ?/?>|\}\})(</?references? ?(.*?) ?/?>)?/i
and replace with {{Reflist{{SUBST:#ifeq:$10|||{{SUBST:!}}}}$10}}
which actually finds all of the cases (and then some) that
Nathan2055 mentions above in one shot.
Technical 13 (
talk) 12:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
<references></references>
, which I've still only seen on that one page out of thousands).
Technical 13 (
talk) 13:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
{{
reflist|refs=<ref>...</ref>
}}
and <references><ref>...</ref>
</references>
are
list-defined references. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 16:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Sorry if this has been brought up before but I think we might want to consider addressing the leftovers from the Article creation process. There are a lot of redirects being left behind when an article is created and rather than delete them through the MFD process I think it would be beneficial to either CSD them or perhaps even have a bot setup that would auto delete the leftover redirect once the article has been moved. Any thoughts? Kumioko ( talk) 01:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Bad idea. I suggested this in the past and I was told that this is used for statistical measurements. I vote to keep. -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 23:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
On the "user does not exist" message? Thank you mabdul for fixing the nexus issue (and the userbox one, I think). And today I've reviewed several submissions that got stuck in the "editing" bit. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 16:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I would like a review of my conduct by my AFC reviewing peers in regards to blanking submissions by NyGuha ( talk · contribs) ( Vandalism noticeboard) which I reviewed. I admit, when I went through these after the editor confirmed his lack of good faith, I was actively looking for an excuse to get his submitted content out of public view. I was actually surprised I was able to do so for each non-speedily-deleted submission that I reviewed, I expected to have to leave one or two visible.
See also #TheWikipreditor above, where I blanked some contributions for being near- or possibly meeting-CSD-criteria. Unlike with this editor, those blankings were clear policy violations.
If there is no general agreement that the blanking was justified, I will not revert anyone restoring the content. I do ask that you leave any comments I added in place though (i.e. don't simply "undo" my blanking-edit without checking to see if that's all the edit did). davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 03:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Is it something we should regularly and retroactively do for submissions by submitters who have demonstrated they were acting in bad faith and where the submission has problems that would allow for blanking if we were specifically "looking for an excuse" to blank it? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 03:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Joe Decker:
You reviewed two submissions by this editor, this and this. If the community endorses my actions above, you may want to consider doing the same, assuming the contributor left you a good reason to do so. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 03:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I have asked the good folks over at WikiProject Canada to help judge the notability of the visual-artist biographies submitted by Hobbsgal ( talk · contribs). Please see Wikipedia talk:Canadian_Wikipedians' notice board#Need a reviewer who knows Canadian artists if you are interested. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 23:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nickaang just revealed some new socks that were active in WP:AFC, including:
Expect to see submissions after May 6, 2013 go *poof* and editors get blocked in the next few days.
In addition to one that I tagged for speedy deletion as blatant advertising, the following non-AFC-submission-tagged pages were created in WT:AFC or WP:AFC. It's getting late and I'm letting them sit there but it might be worth submitting-declining-blanking or submitting-declining just so they will be G13-eligible when they get to be a year old (or is it 6 months now, I forget).
Remember, just because a sockpuppet or puppet-master wrote it doesn't mean the subject itself isn't notable. Heck, some of these may actually be salvageable. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 03:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Every now and then I run across a submission where the person either 1) may be notable but I can't tell, or 2) isn't notable but I am looking for a "kind" way to get the submitter to read the notability requirements and realize this himself.
I use this as a starting point, feel free to use it or make your own copy: User:Davidwr/AFCDecline. I've found that subst'd it ({{subst:User:Davidwr/AFCDecline}}) as the "decline reason" then going back and editing the decline reason is the most common way I use it.
Enjoy. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 02:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
It appears to me that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Flat irons museum is a pretty direct translation of ru:Музей_утюга, which raises a couple questions, first, do we have any obligation to note that in the history/talk page for attribution--second, the references are ... umm, probably valid, but I lacking Russian or much to go on there, it's a little beyond me to do any validity checking. Thoughts on this one? -- j⚛e decker talk 17:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
↑ 1 2 Gold Ring, 2002, June 25. ↑ 1 2 Nezavisimaya Gazeta, 2004, April 12. ↑ 1 2 3 Yuri Muscovites. Private value / / Kommersant-Money. March 15, 2004. ↑ 1 2 Trading newspaper. June 30, 2006. ↑ 1 2 3 4 The secret of the firm. June 23, 2008. ↑ worker. August 30, 2007. ↑ 1 2 Vremya MN, February 6, 2003. ↑ Russian newspaper. July 26, 2002. ↑ Peasant, in May 2006. ↑ Forum "Autotravel on Russia" ↑ Moskovsky Komsomolets. July 24, 2004. ↑ New news. July 27, 2011. ↑ Russian Century, December 2008.
Do you know if mermaids and mermen are real — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.59.76.26 ( talk) 05:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
"This may take up to a week. The articles for creation process is highly backlogged. Please be patient. There are Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character ",". submissions waiting for review." is currently showing on every submission template. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 18:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
This article Life of a Craphead which was just accepted has been nominated for deletion. Please weigh in. — Anne Delong ( talk) 21:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I would love to have a tool that identified likely-first-party and likely-non-reliable sources and added an AFC comment to the submission and posted a note on the user's talk page alerting him to the results.
Note that "first party" sources like an official web page may be reliable as references for specific facts, but some sources like blogs and Wikipedia itself are not even reliable in that sense.
Bonus points if the tool separately flags any source which has any word in the submission's title in it in the author, title, or URL. These are frequently first-party sources. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 00:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I had a go at moving Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The to the correct title "The #1s".but the #-character is not allowed in page names. Is there a workaround? Unfortunately the draft doesn't spell out wether the subject is known as "the number ones" or "the hash ones" so that makes deciding on an alternative way of writing the name difficult. (The # character has too many different names!) Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 13:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
{{
Correct title|The #1s|reason=#}}
as a hatnote.
Technical 13 (
talk) 15:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)What does Major mean in Music terms? I've tried Googling it and nothing comes up, I look it up in the dictionary and it talks about the Military, as well as Wikipedia. Can someone tell me what it means please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.231.197.174 ( talk) 21:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
On the page Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/FGFR1OP2, the script says "Be careful, there is a <ref> tag used, but no references list (Reflist)! You might not see all references." But there is a reflist. It's at the bottom, where it normally is. Perhaps a bug? TheOneSean [ U | T | C ] 02:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I had a help request at IRC about Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Promescent which had been declined by Mutualawe ( talk · contribs). The justification for the decline was "This submission is not suitable for Wikipedia. Please read 'What Wikipedia is not' for more information.", which appears to be a stock answer based on the template (I haven't reviewed many AfC articles so I am not fluent in the process, so pardon my ignorance). I didn't think that this was a particularly useful response to a new editor (especially since I couldn't figure out what part of WP:NOT was being referred to). Looking through the user's contributions I see he has (as of this post) 198 edits, the majority to AfC submissions (or subsequent talk page edits). Many of the rationale for declining articles are the same. In my opinion 198 is pretty light for someone reviewing new articles (notwithstanding he may have edited as an IP in the past, I have no way of knowing), and his first decline was his 13th edit. My questions are:
I know AfC is a busy/backlogged place, and canned answers are of great help to speed up process, but in this case there is no reason within WP:NOT that this product could not have an article (any referencing and any notability issues aside), "simply saying go read WP:NOT" is far too vague to be used as a criteria. I have left a note on Mutualawe's talk page, but he/she isn't editing right now, and left a comment on the submission asking for more explanation, and told the original creator that I would advise him if there was no response (either today or tomorrow). -- kelapstick( bainuu) 15:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
How does a review from NYT indicate notability? I asked this question of Kelapstick in a seperate talk page : is wiki supposed to have a page for every book the NYT does a review of? Dreams are real. TV is not. ( talk) 08:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
This list was helpful for seeing where I had made what you consider to be errors. Some of your reverts have since been declined by other users. I wonder if all this isn't just so someone can make an excuse for lists of the black and white kind? After all, about 50 of the 69 you have listed that have been re-reviewed were done correctly. Maybe you all could just thank a person when they come on and do this and offer advice on where improvements can be made? Dreams are real. TV is not. ( talk) 09:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
We really do need an AfC helper-script blacklist... Pol430 talk to me 09:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Back about six months ago when I was active, an AFCH blacklist WAS part of my "master plan". Due to us getting so many new users AfCing, we eventually instigated the first AfC topic bans. I think a standard system for topic bans and AFCH bans should be put in place since it looks like during my wikibreak we have had a noob attack. Any suggestions? -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 23:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
The only reason I turned down requiring autopatrolled is that it's only given to users with 50 pages to their credit (and if they really want us to not be elitist, implement rep like on Stack Exchange). I've looked at the Twinkle proposal and it seems like a whole different ballgame. With this script, any user could send copyvios, libel, or who knows what into mainspace with three clicks. Now, we need the script for expert reviewers. So, we have three proposals:
RFC? -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 17:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I was here yesterday and we had over 900 articles pending review, none of which were 14 days old, and suddenly we jumped to over 1000 with some as old as 19 days. What happened? Rankersbo ( talk) 09:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm almost certain this is a software glitch and am assuming this is something that Joe's Null Bot (task 4) by Joe Decker is responsible for. Technical 13 ( talk) 12:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
{{
Edit Protected}}
for several weeks started to appear in
Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 15:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC){{
AFC submission}}
so it wasn't a redirect problem. But I now know what it was, see below. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 15:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)This article was created by the same author of the AfC submission by the same name. The article is not fully copyvio, but it does copy parts of the association's website (e.g. this). Unsure if it's worth the extensive copy edit, or just merits a move back to AfC and tell the author all that needs to be done (not just cv, have a look). What do you think? FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 17:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
My "natural instinct" is to review the oldest drafts and so try to get to them all. I've just had a thought about a diffent strategy. Pick an arbitrary "line in the sand" age, for example 7-days and concentrate most of your effort on reviewing all the drafts that appear in that category, as far as possible don't let any ever make it into the 8-days category. Whenever the 7-days category becomes empty move up to the 6-days and so on. Would this "head them off at the pass" strategy be more, less or equally as (in)effective as the simpler "oldest first" strategy? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 16:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that is the cause mabdul... That link is generated by an off-by-default gadget ( MediaWiki:Gadget-mySandbox.js) that I don't expect many new users turn on... Actually... On an attempt to confirm my beliefs... I found that it is on by default... That being the case, the way that we might "fix" the problem is to create a sandbox setup to improve the preload template that it uses. We could add a section to that template that upon first save or preview would allow definition of the name of the page and options to move it to WT:AfC... Let me experiment and create a few sandboxes see what might work the best. We could also make a modification to the {{ Userspace draft}} and {{ subst:Submit}} templates that forces a page rename from sandbox to article title and moves the article to WT:AfC for review (I really like this idea)... Technical 13 ( talk) 11:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Ozob is correct that the right question is "how do we maximize value to the encyclopedia?" It may very well be that what seems like the most sensible tactic (getting rid of copyvios and such fast) is wrong--perhaps we should be alertly looking through the newest submissions for an editor who is trying hard to do the right thing and has a reasonable topic for an article, putting all our efforts on them, and letting everything else sit for two weeks. Not only would we get some decent articles, but we might net some engaged new editors that way. And if the corporate PR teams need to be more patient, that might be a decent tradeoff. (Conversely, it's hard to find the gems in the slush pile given all the slush.) I dunno, it's complicated. What would really make a lot of difference here is more people working on the project. -- j⚛e decker talk 22:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Just a heads-up that the script is creating (as far as I've seen) an extra space between every heading and the start of its corresponding paragraph. Not too important, but it's quite curious. I also noticed this site is copying some submissions. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 02:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I was trying to review redirects as you can see in my contribs, but apparently the beta script crashes when it attempts to edit the AfC/R page, resulting in a big mess that I don't have time to fix. Could someone sort it out for me? Thanks, Nathan2055 talk - contribs 18:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
There is draft content on both Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Clyde Vickers and Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Clyde Vickers. It should only be on the WT page, but I don't know how to fix it. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 11:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
QM400032 ( talk · contribs) moved 2 submissions into the main encyclopedia. I moved them back and declined one. I left him a gentle (I hope) note on his talk page asking him to leave reviewing to more experienced editors for now, but to come back in a few months, read our then-current procedures, and start reviewing. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 04:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Before I code up a template called {{AFC blocking issues|discussion=commentary here}} I want to see if anyone objects and if there is at least some support for it. This would be a "version 0.1" of the "AFC blocking issues" template above. In this version, it would have 3 modes:
"This submission has the following serious issues which must be resolved before the article is accepted:
{{{discussion}}}
This submission must not be moved into the encyclopedia until these issues are resolved. This template should not be removed until the issue is resolved. When removing resolved items from this template or removing the template altogether, please use the edit summary or a {{ afc comment}} to note that the issue is resolved.
followed by a separate colored box saying something likeWarning - this page may have been inadvertently added to the encyclopedia.
followed by the text above. It would also add the article to a Wikipedia maintenance category so such articles could be spotted quickly.This article was likely copied or moved from an Articles for creation submission, probably [[Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/{{PAGENAME}}]], by mistake and that the article should be immediately reviewed and if any of the issues are still present, that the article should be returned to AFC rather than being deleted. If none of the issues remain, this and any other AFC-related templates can be removed.
This template should only be removed by an experienced Wikipedia editor well-versed in Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines and should not be removed by anyone who is closely connected to the subject of this article or who was heavily involved in its creation.
This template is designed for use in articles under review at Articles for creation. If you are seeing this in a "user" sub-page it is likely that the submission as been userfied without this template being removed, or that a reviewer has placed this here without first moving the submission to a sub-page of [[Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/]]. Please take these comments as strong suggestions. You may move your userspace draft to the main encyclopedia, but if you do so without addressing these issues you face a very high risk that it will be deleted, either through speedy deletion, proposed deletion, or a deletion discussion. Please be sure to remove this template before moving your userspace draft to the main encyclopedia.
This template would exist independently of {{ AFC submission}} and {{ afc comment}} and could, from a software perpsective, be used anywhere, but would by practice only be placed on articles in AFC or in special cases, in user space. They would not be limited to articles that were "awaiting review" but it is unlikely they would be used on draft articles unless there was a special "one-off" reason.
Comments? Bad idea? Good idea? The plan is to use this is only for "real" (not-test/non-blank) submissions that would NOT result in a CSD while at AFC (i.e. NOT for blatant copyvio, attack, etc.), but which likely WOULD result in a CSD (typically as an A7) or a quick trip to AFD (typically as overly promotional, no/insufficent verification of notability) and, if not addressed during AFD, would result in deletion. The goal here is to 1) discourage people who are tired of waiting from moving not-ready articles before they are AFD-resistant, and, implicitly, 2) to make it easier to warn editors who do so anyways not to be disruptive. The latter purpose will either help editors learn not to be disruptive early before they get themselves blocked, or will make it easier to block the bad-faith editors as they will have just used up one of their warnings.
An note to the AFC Helper script authors: Until you have code in place to give the reviewer the option of stripping this template, consider adding code that would disable the "accept" button if this template is present (and of course put up some text explaining why accept isn't working). davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 20:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
or some such. Perhaps the "in the box" text can be changed from "... by mistake" to "... while it still had a notice listing outstanding issues. The article should immediately be reviewed by an experienced editor ..." davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 17:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Warning - Project-page template used on article page
... experienced with BLP articles (preferably also somewhat aware of Armenia related content) that might be willing to step up and mentor an editor that has had issues with identifying reliable sources for use on the biographies of living persons that have some verifiability that has resulted in a current topic ban from creating or editing such articles. It has been suggested in my request for a partial lifting of this topic ban on AN that if someone could be found that is willing to do this, than the ban could be relaxed a little. If you are interested and or willing to do this, please state so on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive249#Request for re-visitation of the topic ban of User:TheShadowCrow. Thank you. Technical 13 ( talk) 13:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Would you guys like it if I placed decline reasons in sections like how Twinkle has tags and stuff, or would you prefer the current method? -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 16:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
In Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Raytheon Infotech the script shows: "Be careful, there is a <ref> tag after the references list! You might not see all references", however this is hidden text included automatically from the article's submission. Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 16:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Good new anybody, TParis ( talk · contribs) added the AFC helper script to the automated edits tool at the toolserver. See my edits here. mabdul 17:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Lately I've been seeing articles being submitted without templates. Should I remove articles with no template? Citrusbowler ( talk) 20:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
![]() | The maintainers of the AFC Helper Script and those maintaining WT:Talk page guidelines are particularly encouraged to participate in this discussion. |
Appearently, I've been wrong about the use of {{ talk header}} (aka {{ talkpageheader}}. I was under the mistaken impression that it was fine to just slap it on all new article talk pages, even if there is no discussion on those pages.
Another editor pointed me to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Creating talk pages.
This guideline can be read two ways: 1) don't put the talk page header up unless readers need a reminder that this is a talk page and need a reminder of the talk page guidelines embedded in the header, or 2) don't create a talk page for the sake of creating a talk page and don't use "I'm putting a talk page header here" as an excuse to create a talk page.
Now, as this is a guideline and consensus can change, what do we want to do about it with respect to the AFC Helper Script? My recommendation is to continue adding it to the top of new pages, but in a collapsed or auto-collapse mode (I think this is how we are already doing it), even though there is almost never going to be a discussion on the talk page at the time the talk page is created. Since the talk page will be created anyways to get the AFC talk header, I see no harm to adding this header.
A disclaimer/COI: I disagree with the community's view as it was at the time the guideline was developed - I think all articles should have talk pages, and they all should have talkpageheader on top of them. The reason is that this gives a consistent look and feel throughout the main encyclopedia. However, I'm not going to go around adding talk pages just to add a talk page.
Your thoughts? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 17:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been listed at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines
{{
talk header}}
on all article talk pages, it could be done by creating
Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Talk as a one-off action, rather than adding it one-by-one to millions of article talk pages. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 18:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
My point was that it is not needed because we already have the WikiProject banner. So, it is extra fluff that may be confusing to new users. Technical 13 ( talk) 11:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Can someone see if Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Solid Concepts Inc. is notable? I looked at it, but it seems good if we can hammer out whether it's actually notable or not. -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 16:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, my friends. Per a discussion at the section WT:AFC#Yet another inexperienced editor trying to review things, I have begun drafting an AfC mentoring program/course for newbies, which you can find here, keeping in mind it's very, very under development. Just a suggestion, once this course is completed, perhaps any new editors who want to review documents must take the course to be whitelisted onto the script, and we push the course on the project page etc. I will post here when I need alpha testers/general comment. A few of you (Technical 13, I'm looking at you) have already begun to peruse it, many thanks for your comments. I am also in the planning phase for a bot to match mentors and students and various other tasks. However, given that I will be devoting ~80% of my time on Wikipedia to developing this course in the hopes of having a functional alpha by the end of June, I will be reviewing a lot less articles. If the backlog is too much for you to handle, drop me a line and I'll see what I can do. But, effective soon, I will only be reviewing a few articles a day. Feel free to stop by and see how I'm doing, but adios for now. Thanks for being awesome, TheOneSean [ U | T | C ] 03:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I have approved all the pages relating to the portal, just to get rid of them as they should never have been brought to AfC at all. Portal components are either bits of code that create the structure of a Portal page, thus of no interest to AfC, or they are extracts of existing articles, such as "featured biographies", and as such are also of no interest to AfC. Portals as a rule never contain any newly written content. The structure and content of Portals are solely the responsibility of the WikiProject that "owns" the Portal. I have posted a request to the editor concerned as well as WikiProject Gaelic Games that they do not in future submit portal components to AfC. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 08:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
The editor of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/N. Anthony (Tony) Coles has come out and stated he has a COI with the subject. What should I do here? -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 20:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I have had several notices from something called DPL bot saying that I have linked to disambiguation pages, when in fact I have made no such edit. Is this a bug? Is the bot notifying the wrong person?
Anne — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anne Delong ( talk • contribs) 02:25, 3 June 2013
UPDATE: This policy has been nulled and a discussion is going on at WT:CSD. -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 20:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'd like to ask that we bring this up one last time and decide definitively whether we want to delete redirects of created submissions or whether to keep them for tracking purposes. I've set up a poll below. If we choose to delete them, I will create a new redirect CSD criteria. -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 18:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
The AfC helper script isn't letting me review this article, as happened with another draft after I moved it from a sandbox earlier. For what it's worth, this is a copyvio of http://www.nilebasinclub.org/home/about-us.html, but I'd also like to see what's going on that's causing AfCH to not work on this page. I've tried it in Safari and Chrome, and I get the menu item, but no action when I select "Review". -- j⚛e decker talk 14:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Also the script is failing on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Kavitaram_Shrestha, which is a copyvio of http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/dr-kavitaram-shrestha-ma-phd/51/b64/ab2 -- j⚛e decker talk 14:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Don't let this happen to you.
If a submission seems like it was written professionally or for a different audience, such as a book or a non-encyclopedia web site, it might be a WP:COPYVIO. If I'm suspecting copyright issues, I'll grab a few several-word phrases and run them through some search engines. This duplication detector may also be helpful.
Thanks to my oversight accepting Charles Fanshawe, 4th Viscount Fanshawe, I spent the last few hours verifying the violation and re-writing it so it doesn't get deleted outright. Those are hours I could have spent elsewhere on the project.
We can't be perfect in our quest to keep policy-violating material out, but we can try. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 21:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Just a reminder for everyone: please remember to add specific categories to all accepted articles. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 17:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
The CSD policy maintainers objected to having the discussion on redirects here, among a number of things. So, we have reverted the policy change and a new discussion is on here. -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 20:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I think it might be prudent to make an effort to contact relevant WikiProjects, if there are any that are active, at some point in the AFC process. Interstate 35 in Kansas was recently submitted through the AFC process and approved, but it has several factual errors that could have been caught if WikiProject U.S. Roads had known about it, and appears to have been created by a banned user that we have dealt with before. In addition to situations like this, I can also think of cases where the WikiProject might be able to advise on relevant parts of the MOS, might help gauge whether an article is even needed, or simply might want to assist with polishing before the article is published. I understand that this extra step may be somewhat of a burden to the reviewers, but I think it can only result in a much more effective AFC process that produces higher-quality articles. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I was reviewing this page: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fragrance (album), and I was about to decline it as promotional, but I decided to check it for copyright violation. Google says that the same text is posted on this web site: http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/14683594-kiran-and-ambarish-with-their-first-musical-venture-fragrance
However, I can't see this text on the web page. Also, even if it were there, it appears that it was posted on the same day by the same user. With time zones, I can't tell which was posted first. Is this a copyright violation, or just unsourced promotional stuff? — Anne Delong ( talk) 19:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Before declining Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/William Rush (2), I thought that I'd have a look at the previously declined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/William Rush. It was much better, but light on sources. I have added some, and I think it would pass notability now, but it hasn't been submitted. How should I deal with these two articles? — Anne Delong ( talk) 09:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
I have been reading in this forum that some of the old declined submissions are being deleted. What is being done about ones that are not bad, just need a little improvement in sourcing or other such tweaking, but the submitter has not done it? Is there a way to draw other editors' attention to these so that they can be finished up and the work not wasted? — Anne Delong ( talk) 09:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I've found a fair number of "declined as blank" submissions that were in error, largely due to comment errors. They'll be showing up in the "very old" by age category as I revert and correct the comment errors within them. -- j⚛e decker talk 18:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
I clicked on a page history and next to some of the entries instead of (undo) it says (undo|thank). I am unable to find out exactly what the purpose of this option is, or what exactly would happen if I chose it. I tried WP:Thank (doesn't exist), WP:Thank you (no mention) and WP:THANKS (no mention). What am I missing? — Anne Delong ( talk) 11:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I came across a {{
Help me}} request asking how to get an article reviewed yesterday and checked the usage of {{
subst:Submit}} because I wanted to see how to note that the draft (
User:Ameliasenter/sandbox) should be moved to
Land of Opportunity if accepted and was disappointed to find that {{
subst:Submit}} which redirects to {{
AFC submission/submit}} doesn't have any kind of |page=
like {{
Userspace draft}} does. I really didn't want to confuse the user by telling him to add both {{
Userspace draft}} and {{
subst:Submit}} and now here I am... I would like to see this parameter added to our templates. Discussion, agree, disagree?
Technical 13 (
talk) 15:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
The enormous number of G13 deletions which are blank or simply repeat the words of the title suggest that many people think that AfC is like WP:Requested articles - a place to suggest a subject for someone else to write about. Could the instructions make clearer that AfC is only for submitting an actual article that you have already written, and that if you just have an idea for an article WP:RA is that way? JohnCD ( talk) 16:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
A user has moved this article to a strange location: User:Articles for creation/Aerodynamics and Heat transfer computation in Turbo-machinery
Can I just move it back? — Anne Delong ( talk) 19:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Will someone please look at this article: User:Food2013/sandbox and tell me if it should be moved to Afc or not? — Anne Delong ( talk) 20:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/The Spitfires. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 02:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Just wanted to hear other opinions with regards to DataMotion, Inc. and Zeppelin (iPod speaker system). In my view they fail notability guidelines. On another note, I'm seeing articles with serious flaws being accepted and left without even performing a minor copy edit. Articles have no categories, contain serious MOS faults and various other disturbing shortcomings. It is my view that the least one can do when reviewing (especially when accepting) submissions is correct its most visible problems; It only takes about a minute on average. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 00:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
When users are granted autopatrolled status, whatever they create skips curation. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 13:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
While you guys have been playing with the years-old submissions and I, apparently, have been whining over nothing on the Wikipedia talk:Notifications/Thanks page, the backlog has passed 1300. Do we need another backlog drive? — Anne Delong ( talk) 02:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Oops! I declined this article as improperly sourced, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Frank Scheffold and only later realized that it is a copyright violation of http://www.lsinstruments.ch/company/team/administrative_board/. Can I undo the decline? I guess the message is already sent. — Anne Delong ( talk) 16:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/AdSiF seems professionally written, and I would like to check to see if it is copied from one of the cited papers. Does anyone have a subscription to http://www.academia.edu and could check this out? — Anne Delong ( talk) 17:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Just wanted to hear other opinions with regards to DataMotion, Inc. and Zeppelin (iPod speaker system). In my view they fail notability guidelines. On another note, I'm seeing articles with serious flaws being accepted and left without even performing a minor copy edit. Articles have no categories, contain serious MOS faults and various other disturbing shortcomings. It is my view that the least one can do when reviewing (especially when accepting) submissions is correct its most visible problems; It only takes about a minute on average. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 00:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
When users are granted autopatrolled status, whatever they create skips curation. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 13:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
While you guys have been playing with the years-old submissions and I, apparently, have been whining over nothing on the Wikipedia talk:Notifications/Thanks page, the backlog has passed 1300. Do we need another backlog drive? — Anne Delong ( talk) 02:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Oops! I declined this article as improperly sourced, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Frank Scheffold and only later realized that it is a copyright violation of http://www.lsinstruments.ch/company/team/administrative_board/. Can I undo the decline? I guess the message is already sent. — Anne Delong ( talk) 16:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, For the Purpose of this article i wont give my name yet, but if the information is valuable and reliable then i will, I am trying to find out certain details about Dirk K. Stoffberg (Referance, Dulce September and The Z Squad Incorparated) after the careful reaserch that i have done and my Grand Parents, mother, aunties have all told me the same thing and i have no reason to think that they would lie to me, sorry i digressed, anyway i am his grandchild and i need to know more about hime because all over the web information about him is very scarce and censored, ty i will check this page again in a month to see if anything has been done if u need anymore info just make a post on the page and i will see what i can do — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.204.11 ( talk) 17:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/AdSiF seems professionally written, and I would like to check to see if it is copied from one of the cited papers. Does anyone have a subscription to http://www.academia.edu and could check this out? — Anne Delong ( talk) 17:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Young yen is in Battle Creek Michigan is a very hip hop person he made his debut on YouTube. his birthday is November 4 1994 he works from home he's going to be a star he's in the process of coming up with his blueprint everyday and the hotel is a new day to work shawntez brand will go over the world he says he's an eclipse baby with the Sun in his eyes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.141.213.45 ( talk) 18:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
This page is for users involved in this project's administration. If you would like to start writing a new article, please use the
Article wizard. If you have an idea for a new article, but would like to request that someone else write it, please see:
Wikipedia:Requested articles.
Citrusbowler (
talk) 13:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
This article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/t of number-one hits of 2013 (Austria) seems to be one of a series. The others from previous years look similar and are all in the encyclopedia. I haven't reviewed anything like this before. Should it be accepted? — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Why isn't the photo showing up in this article? Tikvah Alper — Anne Delong ( talk) 15:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Will someone please move this page to the right place? Wikipedia:List of number-one hits of 2013 (Austria) I have messed it up twice now (must be having a brain attack..) and I'm too embarrassed to try again. — Anne Delong ( talk) 15:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
{{
Afc decline}}
has an additional criteria for use on submissions which are copyright violations. I recently made some changes to the this template's functions that made the template less confusing and misleading when this parameter is employed. Under normal circumstances the template looks like this:
When used with the optional CV parameter, it now looks like this:
The existing submission may be deleted at any time. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
This set me thinking that perhaps the optional CV parameter should be changed to an optional CSD parameter. One that would be automatically initiated by AFC Helper Script when a submission is declined for a reason that makes it eligible for speedy deletion. The template with this parameter employed would read something like this:
The existing submission may be deleted at any time. If the submission has already been deleted by an administrator, the reason for the deletion will be indicated in the deletion summary at the page title.
Looks good. The templates specifically warn you against marking the article under the normal CSD, so it would be nice if the script could automatically mark the pages for speedy deletion. Citrusbowler ( talk) 16:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I like the idea of an optional parameter, and that's a nice template for it. There are short copyvios that probably would warrant an edit to correct rather than a G12 in mainspace, I might want the flexibility. I'd also very much like a similar parameter for G11. Going through the list of declined AfCs for promotionally, there are some that never, ever, ever had a chance of being non-promotional, particularly those whose advertising extended to the title. We really need to push back on being abused as an ad site. -- j⚛e decker talk 19:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Any time the script ads a speedy-deletion tag, please also write any custom-comment and any other information, such as the thing the submission is a copyright violation of, to the user's talk page in addition to the submission page. This "extra stuff on the user's talk page" is only needed for speedy-deletion-tagged items because they may not be there for the submitter to see if they only exist on the submission page. Keeping a copy on the submission page (which is where it goes now) is useful for administrators who may need that information later. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 23:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Dear editors:
Here's an article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nooksack Loop Trail with three good newspaper references, but it's about something that doesn't yet exist. Should I approve it? — Anne Delong ( talk) 17:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Could someone experienced and expedient with regards to copyright issues have a look at my talk page and point the latter user in the right direction? Thanks! FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 01:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
I have been checking out this article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Irony aptness. It seemed like an odd phrase, and I wondered if it was a neologism. The main reference is a journal paper. The second reference does not contain the term. I did a Google search, leaving out the author of that paper, and leaving out the paper archiving web site on which it was posted ("irony aptness" -giora -gruyter) and that left 21 hits, with most of these having punctuation of various kinds between the two words (such as "irony; aptness"). My question is, if this term is mainly used in one journal paper, which was published in a respected journal, can this still be a notable term? The paper archiver says that the paper has been cited 40 times, but I have no way of finding out if any of the citations were about this term. — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term.
I'm sorry, but whoever thought it was a good idea to remove "Custom Decline Reason" from the AfC review tool needs to be trouted quite liberally. What happens when you have to decline a AfC on grounds that aren't in that dropdown? YOU CANT! Take for example the kludged way I had to respond here. If we still had the Custom Decline Reason option I could have asked the question in the decline box... Now it's not possible. Hasteur ( talk) 18:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
It appears this is a pretty recent change, but you have linked to an archive from 2012 Nathan? Why implement a change so long after the discussion concerning it? Moreover, I too cannot find any 'consensus' for this change in the linked archive. Nor do I recall it from memory, over the past two years of my involvement in this project. It appears, from where I'm sitting, that you unilaterally made this change and are suggesting there was a clear consensus for it when there is not. Misrepresenting consensus is not something I find acceptable and I would also ask you to reinstate the custom decline reason as Hasteur has requested. Pol430 talk to me 09:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, these aren't "AFC submission," but if you need a mental break from the hard work of AFC, Category:Submissions by Doncram ready for review is getting a bit back-logged. I've found that 80-90% of the drafts I review are acceptable with only clerical changes. Note that there is some stuff on each page in HTML comments that is supposed to go on the talk page, that there are some tl'd-out templates, and that the category Category:Submissions by Doncram ready for review needs to be removed entirely after moving the page. These also have to be moved by hand, the AFC Helper Script won't work on them. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 02:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
This article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dinesh Bhugra has 48 citations, many of which are independent newspaper articles, and I feel that the article is ready for acceptance. However, all of the sources are listed in the form of bare URLs. Usually I try to fix up this sort of thing, but there are so many that I just don't have the energy to tackle it. Should I accept it anyway? The subject is highly notable. — Anne Delong ( talk) 12:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Has anyone noticed what happened to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects? Some people decided to use it to make an article! I'm going to revert back to the original version and put stern warnings on the people's pages. I'm just telling you guys what happened. THIS IS URGENT, GET OUT THERE! I'm concerned I could go under 3RR to make all the reverts. Citrusbowler ( talk) ( contribs) ( email me) 18:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Hey admin, I want you to create a page on the famous website techgear8.weebly.com as it provides much information to students with free of cost and also provide the news of latest technology, and the specifications plus details of latest technological devices — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharjeel 10 ( talk • contribs) 21:46, 9 June 2013
Dear editors:
As per FoCuSandLeArN's suggestion, I have been trying to categorize some submissions, but this one has me stumped. It's an essay by H.G. Wells, but not fiction. He describes his theory that animals or people can be changed by surgery or other means, but would still retain their underlying nature. (Nobody knew about genes back then.) There doesn't seem to be a category to fit. I couldn't find "Scientific essays" or "biological theories" or "essays about biology" or anything else that would fit on the list. There were lots of people speculating about science; what category am I missing? — Anne Delong ( talk) 15:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
The writer of WT:Articles for creation/Lyceum of the Philippines University-Laguna shows absolutely no sign of even understanding the meaning of the term "independent source" in spite of having it pointed out multiple times. The university is obviously notable but this writer seems to be incapable of proving it. Should we keep declining it ad nauseam or do we "confiscate" the draft due to the writer's apparent incompetence and let an experienced editor fix it? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 09:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
When dealing with G13s which have been declined as blank I notice that, though many of them are indeed blank, if you click on "Edit" quite a few have actually got some text, invisible because enclosed for some reason within comment tags. In principle, there might be a possible article lurking in there, though I haven't found one yet. Three points:
JohnCD ( talk) 18:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I left a message on this submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hector Rosales suggesting that the Spanish newspaper references be made into citations. Here is the response from the submitter: User talk:Anne Delong#hector rosales. Is there a Spanish speaking editor who can assess this article? — Anne Delong ( talk) 22:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Dear Editors:
Usually when an article contains a lot of original research, I decline it with the "reads like an essay" option. However, this article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Freedom fighters list, is really a list, compiled by the submitter. There is already an article about the Indian freedom movement. I had been planning to suggest that the author write a short article about the list and its compilation, add references to show that the list was accepted and written about by his peers and the media, and add an external link to the list which is published on a web site. What decline option should I choose? — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Dear Reviewers:
I have accepted the Gray Tools article and now I would like to add categories. There is no catergory for "Canadian companies" or "Canadian manufacturers". Can I just type them in anyway, or is there some more formal process for adding new categories? — Anne Delong ( talk) 14:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pinchas Goldhar was rightfully declined as a duplicate, but it is superior to the existing article. I ignored all rules and boldly moved it to Talk:Pinchas Goldhar/Temp to facilitate merging. See Talk:Pinchas Goldhar for more details.
By the way, this is very "out of process" as it's the exception, not the rule, that someone will use AFC to create an article that is better than the one that already exists. After all, anyone can edit non-protected articles. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 17:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I declined a couple disambiguation pages from a Portuguese word that had no incoming links to where the page would have been moved to if it was approved this morning after asking around in IRC if it was what I should do with them... A few hours later, someone asked me why I declined them and I showed them the discussion and asked their opinion of it. They said they should have been approved so now I am confused. One of the two submissions in question is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Capela (disambiguation) and I can't seem to find the other one. I don't want to decline submissions that should be approved and more importantly I don't want to approve things that should be declined... Looking for a consensus of what should be done with these cases. Thanks Technical 13 ( talk) 22:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Dear Editors:
Here's a very good article about an opera singer: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Shuisky. Near the end of the article there are a number of quoted theatre reviews in Russian, followed by English translations. Is it appropriate to have the reviews in the article? — Anne Delong ( talk) 00:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Unless the backlog is well below 400 well before July 1 we should plan on a July backlog drive.
Among other things this means having
davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 19:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
The custom decline option will be rolled out along with a few other emergency changes in a few days. However, mabdul has vanished again, and I have no idea how to fix the scanner error in beta (which is the only stopper AFAIK). -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 16:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Before I ask the AFC Helper Script and Article Wizard developers to add this feature, I wanted to get feedback.
The feature is that when these scripts add any AFC template, they add
<!--Do not remove the following AFC template until the submission is accepted, see [insert URL of a future help page here] for details -->
before the template and
<!--Do not remove the preceding AFC template-->
At the same time, {{ submit}} and similar typically-subst'd templates that expand to "afc submission" and "afc comment" will be changed so that if they are subst'd (as it should be) it will also pre- and post-pend the same HTML comments.
Any objections before I ask the appropriate people to implement this? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 14:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Is it feasible using Lua to "encapsulate" existing templates or existing wikicode so that categories are not applied but the code visually looks the same?
In other words, could Lua be used to let navigation, infobox, and other category-including templates be used in submissions without causing the submission to be put in those categories?
Similarly, could the entire body of the submission be encapsulated in a Lua template so that templates like citation needed can be used as part of the review process without having the submission put into "articles needing citations since [date]"-type categories?
If this is feasible, are you (you being any Lua programmers out there) willing and able to try to make it work? Bonus points if you can have the page display a list of "would-be in" categories at the bottom. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 14:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
A couple of months ago I declined this article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eurolib, asking for some references, and then later also asked that a section which was a copyvio be rewritten in the editor's own words. Today I received a note that this had been done, but couldn't find any change. Then I realized that the submitter had actually edited an old version of the page which can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Eurolib&oldid=551625397. The copyrighted history has indeed been rewritten and the outside references added, so I would like to accept it, but how do I go about this? — Anne Delong ( talk) 16:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Our ancient scriptures talk extensively about human intellect contributing to human good and the story continues even today. However, present times are different due to use of electronic gadgets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.139.54 ( talk) 17:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
If anyone has been wondering whatever happened to my AfcBox proposal to ask submitters whether they have added sources, Writ Keeper has been helping me out with it, and now I have put a message on Village pump (technical) asking for someone to check the technical aspects. When that's done I will be asking the editors here for some comments about the exact working of the options. — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As we've had the free form decline reason taken away I propose the following pre-populated message.
Submission contains references but no in-line citations. Please review WP:INCITE and correct prior to re-submission
The purpose is for articles similar to this. It contains links, but no inline citations to claims in the text. We could do some guesswork as to what link belongs to which portion in the text, but our guess could be wrong, and doesn't correct the underlying issue of the user not understanding the inline citation format that articles must be in.
Hasteur ( talk) 14:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I would like to point out the following in our reviewing instructions:
"AFC participants should follow the normal standards set by the standard policies and guidelines for what makes an acceptable article. Avoid the following errors: Declining an article because it correctly uses general references to support some or all of the material. The content and sourcing policies require inline citations for only some specific types of material, most commonly: direct quotations and contentious material (whether negative, positive, or neutral) about living persons." — Anne Delong ( talk) 15:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As we had the free form decline reason taken away from the automated tool I propose the following decline reason
Duplicated prose sections. Please either unify or delete the duplicate and re-submit.
This type of decline would be used when the author has somehow copy pasted the body of the submission multiple times which makes the submission longer than it needs to be. The AfC reviewer could delete the duplication, but it has been impressed upon me that the reviewer should not take an active role in editing the article and the author may want to keep one version over the other. Yes it pushes more responsibility back onto the creator of the submission, but this way we are helping them learn how to do things and not depend on the kindness of other volunteers. Hasteur ( talk) 14:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I have seen many requests with a [[ ]] as the title, often with the target also being [[ ]]. I have seen that the IPs which make these requests are not the same or similar, which means it is not consistent spamming. I think that the Article/Redirect wizard starts you off with [[ ]], so it's probably just a user clicking save without editing anything. However, these requests are annoying. Is it possible that the article wizard can be edited so it will not allow users to save the page without editing? Citrusbowler ( talk) 21:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Currently, the AFC helper script drop-down menu of decline reasons shows the BLP decline reason with the following description:
Firstly, there is no process in the deletion policy or the criteria for speedy deletion to allow for the immediate deletion of pages which 'violate the BLP policy'. There is only process for the speedy deltion of "biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced." This is done under criteria G10 because such pages are a stones throw away from being an attack page.
In the case that a submission is eligible under criteria G10, the appropriate decline reason is 'test' (as indicated in the reviewing instructions). I have asked for a specific decline reason to be introduced at the script development page. The BLP decline reason is intended for use on submissions that do not comply with the BLP policy, but are not eligible for speedy deletion – they should be blanked as a courtesy and left declined/archived. Please can someone with the required knowledge re-write the description of this decline reason to something like:
This avoids misrepresenting the purpose of this decline reason and several policies. Pol430 talk to me 10:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
In eight days, a limited number of new editors (not a majority, or all) will get Wikipedia:VisualEditor. This may create some signficant limitations for those editors, some of ho may be at AfC, for example, as present, those editors will be entirely unable to create refs with VE. More info at [12] -- j⚛e decker talk 19:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Has anybody noticed that the WMF have not made it compatible with project space yet? It appears that for AfC at least, this is a non-issue. -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 16:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Guys! No one read my comment-the VE will NOT be turned on for Wikipedia space! There is no problem here. -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 21:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
This article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John M. Moyer House by Visitor7 looks oddly familiar.... — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
If WT:Articles for creation/Submissionname was just a single "meta-template", WT:Articles for creation/Submissionname/article was the submitted text, WT:Articles for creation/Submissionname/status held what we now see as {{ afc submission}} and {{ afc comment}}, and WT:Articles for creation/Submissionname/talk held proposed talk page content (in a form that prevented categorization, of course), it would things cleaner. The "meta-template" would transclude the sub-pages into a form similar to what we see now.
I'm just throwing this out as an idea for now, I wouldn't want to even try to do this until we've absorbed the impact of major changes like the new Visual Editor.
By the way, this wouldn't be the first major change to AFC. It underwent a radical change back in '08 or '09. The "old way" was kind of a mess, it was very difficult to create a submission bigger than a stub, and it was nearly impossible to include infoboxes and other visual templates. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 14:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Does anybody else have problems getting AFC helper script to work on Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects? Pol430 talk to me 20:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I am working on a decline reason for salted pages. But I'm not sure what the correct place to redirect users to to get their pages unsalted would be. What noticeboard should I send them to? -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 22:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Automating a submission to RFPP is possible, but we need to get the script to a point where it can understand error messages. I have a criterion asking users to request unsalting, but I agree that it shouldn't be used, so I will remove it soon. -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 21:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)