![]() | 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 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
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)
I'm a noob to Wikipedia, despite having had an account for many years. I've been busy creating articles over the last couple of weeks and so far have done them all using the Articles for Creation tool. Seeing the backlog of reviews, I decided to jump in and help. The reviewing tools provide a lot of help and guidance, but there are a couple of questions that I can't seem to find answers to:
The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 ( talk) 15:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I've tagged each and every discussion on here as either unresolved, stale, or resolved to hopefully make it easier to see where to comment at a glance. If you guys feel this it too bold, feel free to revert. -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 22:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I have noticed somewhat recently that when you decline and provide comments, the tool places the comment next to the decline and leaves the AfC in a "unclean" state where the clean submission will actually make a change. I'd like to suggest one of two options. First fix the decline routine so that afc-comments that are submitted with the decline are placed in the appropriate secton. Second is to have the Clean Submission be auto-fired after the decline routine completes. I'd prefer option one, but I could accept option two. Hasteur ( talk) 13:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you KCS, I appreciate your useful and short comment here as opposed to your normal TL;DR style of commenting. Hasteur, to be honest, I agree that you were unnecessarily pushy as all of the script devs have been working on fixing it. relax and it will be fixed, or write and use your own alpha script... Technical 13 ( talk) 02:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Cookies! | |
Davidwr hasn't forgotten that AFC work isn't all about clearing the backlog, and has given some cookies to those working behind the scenes to improve the AFC process and the AFC tools! Cookies recharge your batteries after hours on end staring at code or thinking about how to make the process better for submitters and reviewers. |
davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 05:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Cookies! | |
Davidwr hasn't forgotten that AFC includes many other areas, including manning the Help Desk just to mention one, and is giving cookies to everyone involved in WP:AFC! Cookies recharge your batteries after spending time on projects like WP:AFC. |
davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 05:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
This article. Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 20:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Can anyone figure out why Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MIDFLORIDA Credit Union can't be accepted and is throwing errors? Thanks, Nathan2055 talk - contribs 15:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello all! I have a few quick things to say:
That's all for now! Keep attacking the backlog everyone! Thanks, Nathan2055 talk - contribs 16:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
@Technical13: WT:CSD#Yet another AfC related discussion. Pol430 talk to me 06:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Where's the template in this submission? FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 17:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I feel that this article User:Babablacksheep102/sandbox has been decline with a reason that is too vague, so I wanted to add a comment. Because the article is declined, I can't use the script. Can I just steal the comment format from another article and change the parameters? Should I leave out the date and expect it to be automatically generated? Or is there a better way to add a comment? — Anne Delong ( talk) 02:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
{{
subst:Afc comment|Your comment here.}}
& sign it. It'll put it in the correct format; just be sure to place it where it's supposed to be. (Below the template?) ||
Tako (
bother me) ||
03:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Shouldn't this have been blanked? Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tenant Association of Allentown — Anne Delong ( talk) 04:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Dear editors: I have come across a number of articles that have been declined (but not deleted) without having been moved from user pages and sandboxes. In the case of user pages, this means that search engines will be indexing the articles. Is there any policy about this? Should the already declined articles be moved into Afc space? Or am I worrying about nothing? — Anne Delong ( talk) 04:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Working
I could try. We're gonna need to figure out how to get the drive bot active again. -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 14:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I have found a copyright violation, and I want to decline the article. However, the copied article is in a PDF file. How do I get Google to give me the URL of the PDF file? Instead it gives me a giant search string which Wikipedia rejects. I have tried right clicking on the entry in the Google search list, and I get the same really long and rejected URL. — Anne Delong ( talk) 06:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
http://gallery.mailchimp.com/8c505fe3083c13cca48fbc8c9/files/Pritch_Press_kit.pdf My browser is set up to open a PDF in the browser and not launch the PDF reader, so you may need an add-on depending on your browser. The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 ( talk) 12:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I've been trying to help with the backlog. (I figure the best way to get the articles I've submitted reviewed quickly is to get others out of the way!) I'm having a challenge with two types of articles:
I did one manually and it was pretty painful! I don't see anything on those issues in the FAQ, perhaps there was a prior discussion someone could link me to? I'd like to go the easy route! The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 ( talk) 14:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I was working on [ Dick Punks] and wanted to Decline for Musician Notability. I got the "Unable to locate AFC Submission Template. Aborting . . . . " error. I tried several other choices, but all returned the same error. The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 ( talk) 14:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Addition: [ Horizon] Tried to run review a second time, as I found possible copyright issues and got the error. The first rejection (no supporting evidence) worked properly. The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 ( talk) 14:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Can someone please take a look at this decline and comment if you agree/disagree with my assessment? I'm not sure that I used the right decline reason. — Anne Delong ( talk) 19:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I just approved the article, although LukeSurl, Tom Morris declined that article (and somebody other wanted to decline that). Please get again familiar with WP:MUSIC (again): They released an album with Sony (I really don't like that rule), were very successful in the Superstar K4 TV show and thus released another album and got enough attention in Korea.
mabdul 19:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
The user has created a page about the TOYM award given in the Philippines for over 50 years. And they created a listing of the winners for the entire time span. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of The Outstanding Young Men (TOYM) Philippines The entire list is available at the website TOYM Awardees Is it appropriate to duplicate such information? Or reject the list and have them link to the website from the article (which was submitted and I rejected for lack of any sources, but expect it will be accepted eventually). The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 ( talk) 21:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for my recent EdwardsBot cockup. I am currently sorting the issue out with AWB. It was all caused by a bad copy-paste, and my forgetting to remove the old template in there first, meaning I accidently removed a </small> tag. Sorry, Mdann52 ( talk) 21:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Cookies! | |
Davidwr has given you all some cookies! Cookies recharge your batteries after a weekend reducing the backlog at CAT:PEND. |
davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 04:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Here's another one - this article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pritch London has been declined as unsourced when in fact it is a copyright violation. Should I just revert and then decline again, or should I manually resubmit and then decline? The editor just added contact information instead of sources anyway. — Anne Delong ( talk) 04:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
And another: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jesus the Anointed One Church — Anne Delong ( talk) 04:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Great news! I am setting up a repository for the script over at GitHub. Check it out here! At this point, it's not completely finished so please don't clone or fork it yet. In the meantime, I could use some help moving the issues over from WP:AFCH/DEV. Thanks in advance! Good luck reviewing, Nathan2055 talk - contribs 15:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
@ Technical 13: - Sure! However, mabdul only wants the O is null bugfix in this build so we can push the latest changes. Good idea for the next version, though! -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 00:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, after the Pritch London CV was raised I have gone back and checked other adverts, particularly in userspace submissions. I hope people don't mind but while I changed the decline on some of my own articles for CV, I also nominated articles other prolific reviewers had declined as adverts. I mention this because people are likely to get notifications that they'd been "mentioned" in articles they thought were ancient history! Rankersbo ( talk) 07:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
Is there a talk page like this one for people reviewing articles that are already created? I tried the "Page curation" talk page, but it seems to be about bugs in the script rather than about the articles being curated. I wanted to ask for an opinion about whether the Del McCoury Band needs a sourcing tag, and if so which one. It has only one source, but it's a good one (I added it myself). However, it's not an Afc article. The editor who removed the unsourced tag left a rather provocative edit summary. — Anne Delong ( talk) 08:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
{{
unreferenced}}
, {{
ref improve}}
, {{
BLP unsourced}}
, {{
BLP sources}}
. As soon as a single reference is in the article, the unreferenced tags are invalid, therefore you should switch to the BLP sources or ref improve to indicate that there needs to be more references.
Hasteur (
talk)
13:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi all, If I can get a second opinion from someone more experienced than I: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Edward_Trybek It appears to be written and started by Edtrybek which cannot be a coincidence? Would this be grounds for automatic rejection (and possible blanking as a WP:BLP violation)? Thanks for any assistance regarding this article. Jguy Talk Done 14:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
{{
uw-coi-username}}
on the user talk page. I'm not seeing a good reason for blanking, but declining for
WP:AUTOBIO concerns is perfectly appropriate.
Hasteur (
talk)
14:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if a did you know in the style of Wikipedia:Article wizard/Conflict of interest indicating the number of declined pages due to lack of sources, of notability and such may be included in the wizard. For example, 8,000 for pages lacking sources. This would further sensitize users of the need to have sources and such, but may discourage some would-be acceptable submissions. Cenarium ( talk) 15:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I was in the middle of accepting an article, which did need some tags for the wider community to have a go at it for one section over WP:NPOV, and someone jumped and declared it to be {{{db-spam}}}. It was well souced, and we'd encoraged the editor to put a lot of work into the structure, and I turn my back to get my son ready for kindergarten and... . No warnings or anything Rankersbo ( talk) 06:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
A helpful admin has set us back so the article can be WP:NPOV'd. Rankersbo ( talk) 12:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I keep finding articles moved into the article space in which every word in the title begins with a capital letter for no reason. I just moved Self-Organized Criticality Control to Self-organized criticality control, and that must be the two-dozenth-or-so such instance. Someone had moved it into the article space with the inappropriately capitalized letters. Why do people who work on this neglect such an obvious point? Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I just pushed our first Git developed changes to beta. They include:
Please test these changes and report issues here. Thanks in advance, Nathan2055 talk - contribs 00:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Dear editors: One of the jobs that reviewers often take on is moving sandbox or user page submissions into Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation space. The reviewing instructions (as far as I can see) don't say when this should be done. If it's done right away, then the script can be used for everything, including deletions. Is this the right way to do it, or should quick-fail articles be deleted as they stand rather than being moved? Are there other situations in which the articles should be reviewed while not in Afc space? It would be nice to have some guidance in the instructions. If it's there, and I missed it, I will have to apologize again (sigh...) — Anne Delong ( talk) 19:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I've restored some threads where the archiving failed. When performing a normal archive of this page on 21 June 2013, twelve threads were eligible for archive and removed from this page. Nine of these were correctly added to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2013 3 which went full, and so MiszaBot II ( talk · contribs) tried to place the remaining three threads in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2013 4 - but was prevented from creating the page by edit filter 167 ( Edit filter log). A similar problem happened today.
The templated message is MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-AFC.
It's clear to me that the edit filter thought that the bot wanted to create an AfC submission for an article whose ultimate title was to be 2013 4. I think this edit filter should not be triggered in these circumstances. To prevent it happening again tomorrow, I've hidden this page from MiszaBot II, so no archiving will be attempted. When the edit filter is fixed, that 10:11, 23 June 2013 edit may be reverted, and archiving will resume. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 10:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Described as ‘accessible and dynamic’, her poetry appears in several journals and ground-breaking anthologies, including Bittersweet (Women's Press, 1998), The Fire People (Payback Press, 1998), Mythic Women/Real Women (Faber, 2000), IC3: The Penguin Book of New Black Writing in Britain (2000), and A Storm Between Fingers (Flipped Eye, 2007). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Affy7860 ( talk • contribs) 14:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Given there doesn't seem to be a unified notability guideline for said events, I wanted to make sure we were all on the same page. This submission for instance, even though there might be substantial coverage from local media, isn't notable in my opinion. It's not a matter of loss of lives, but where do we draw a line? Going through a fence is certainly on the no-inclusion side of the argument. What do you think? FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 14:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm thinking the {{ AFC submission/pending}} template wording should be changed. We are getting a LOT of people asking why their article hasn't been reviewed in #wikipedia-en-help. We tell them it is because we are backlogged and it is currently taking about 2-3 weeks to get to them. They ask why the template says it will be "only a week" and we say that it is a known issue and we are discussing what an appropriate number should be. So, although I think I've brought it up before (I have CRS syndrome), I think it is worth bringing it up again. Should it say two weeks? Three? Should it be a calculated formula that says it should be reviewed by [time submitted] + [oldest "days old" cat] + [3 days for cushion] or something? So, if there was stuff in the 16 day old category and it was submitted at the time of this post it would look like 16 + 3 = 19 days ~-~ June 17th + 19 days = July 9th "Your article should be reviewed by July 9th, 2013. Thank you for your patiences." Technical 13 ( talk) 10:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Thinking I'm being helpful by using my admin bit to delete the G13s, I've already rescued one start-class article from deletion and moved it to mainspace. Are these articles being CSD'd based purely on the 6-month period, or is there supposed to be some attempt to check and see if they can be salvaged? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Why do you consider it has failed Joe? There was once a time when the entire AfC process was deemed a complete failure, with the largest backlog on Wikipedia. But, here we are, still soldiering on. It is of course necessary to have a process for the deletion of abandoned drafts, even if the process is imperfect and at times frustrating. Please don't throw in the towel. Pol430 talk to me 16:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
A few weeks ago there was discussion about deleting old declined blank submissions. I have come across one, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ TVC Marketing. I checked and it really is blank. Should I tag it as db-empty? If so, do I need to notify the creator, who was already notified when it was declined as blank? — Anne Delong ( talk) 04:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I sometimes find that a user, after his/her submission was rejected goes on to anyhow create the article in mainspace. In such cases, what should be done? Submission CSD tagged? If yes, which criteria? --Vigyani talk ਯੋਗਦਾਨ 06:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: A previous discussion lead me to wonder about something. According to the Afc statistics at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions, there have been 31604 accepted submissions and 80069 declined submissions. Does the declined number include submissions that have been deleted, or only ones that are still sitting in Afc space? — Anne Delong ( talk) 07:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Ok, so I've been beavering away for a while on some revised article reviewing instructions and I now feel that the draft is ready for me to share with the project. These changes have been motivated by recent criticism of the reviewing instructions' lack of clarity, difficulty of navigation and lack of actual instruction on certain points. Following some lengthy, constructive feedback from DGG ( talk · contribs), I have drafted the following substantial changes:
{{
Afc submission}}
now has so much functionality built into it that it has become very complex to manipulate manually. Also, the AfC Helper Script is now more stable than ever and can be installed even more easily since it became a gadget. I do not know of anyone who reviews manually and in the unlikely event that anyone wishes to contribute without using the script they should be sufficiently clueful to figure it out from
Template:AFC submission/doc.You can find the draft at User:Pol430/Sandbox/AFCR Script. Please note that this only covers the article reviewing instructions and the instructions for redirects/cats and file will be unaffected. Any feedback or additional suggestions/comments are welcome at this stage. Please also feel free to correct any spelling or grammar errors you find. Pol430 talk to me 12:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
{{
Afc submission}}
by an expert in parser functions; then the devs would need to totally rewrite AfC Helper Script to accommodate the new template. The flowchart is buried somewhere in this talkpage's archive and I would love to include it, if someone is able to fix it so everything flows to the right place.
Pol430
talk to me
16:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC){{
Afc submission}}
by an expert in parser functions; then the devs would need to totally rewrite AfC Helper Script to accommodate the new template." speculation goes, I'm actually working on such a project in my spare time and it has much more to do than even "an expert in parser functions" could accommodate and is requiring me to expand my language library to include
Lua.
Technical 13 (
talk)
16:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)This discussion seems to have gone stale now, and the new instructions seem to be considered an improvement, so I'll mark this as resolved and ask for the page move in the next 48 hours, unless there are any objections registered here. Pol430 talk to me
Please refer to the previous discussion for unresolved issues -
WT:WikiProject Articles for creation/2013 2#Defining Workflow V2.0.
Roger (Dodger67) (
talk)
08:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: I would like to thank in advance those who are working to set up the backlog drive. Shortening the review list is so important to the new editors! I remember last year when my first article, Toronto Light Opera Association, was in the queue. I had just joined Wikipedia and I didn't know anything about watchlists, so I probably checked the list 50 times before my article got to the top of the list of about 800 entries. I didn't realize that it was actually a good thing that it wasn't rejected right away. I am easily bored, so while I was waiting I started checking out and fixing up other people's submissions, which was more helpful after someone pointed out the value of edit summaries... anyway, a short list is important so that the new editors aren't discouraged, especially if they have to go through the queue several times before acceptance. Backup drives (oops, I meant backlog drives) seem to help, so bravo! — Anne Delong ( talk) 16:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I was told on my talk page that rating articles on the quality scale should be done for every article. The review tool says that the rating is optional. How can someone be expected to know how to rate every article on the quality scale if they are not familiar with that Wikiproject? Knowing if something is notable and has good citations is different from understanding the quality scale for every single Wikiproject. What is better - getting good articles accepted or having a bigger backlog? SL93 ( talk) 17:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
There's an interesting discussion about how the AfC process is potentially alienating newcomers at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention#AFC. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
While taking a look at this submission: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/José Rafael Cordero Sánchez I did a Google search checking for copyright violations and found this: [2]
Should the article just be declined as non-notable, or should more be done? I have no way of knowing what was previously said to this person when the first two renditions were deleted. — Anne Delong ( talk) 17:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง brought up an interesting point. There are a lot of names on the reviewing list, but are all of these really active reviewers? The first name on the list (alphabetically) is someone who retired from Wikipedia last year. Should names like that be removed? Kudpung's point about the experience needed for reviewing is also valid. Does anyone check out new names that are added to the list? Would it help if the names had (contribs) after them so that we could warn off users who hadn't used Wikipedia before? Or is this desirable? — Anne Delong ( talk) 14:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Hey, I know I have not reviewed any AfC articles for more than a month, but please don't remove me from that list. I'm still and will be active here, especially the backlog drive next month. Arctic Kangaroo ( ✉ • ✎) 15:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
wow, that's just a mess of links now. Do we really need all of those links. Surely just using the following would be enough: {{ User}} > Happysailor ( talk · contribs) - Happysailor (Talk) 10:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Done - I had more time than good, so the list should now be up to date!
Mdann52 (
talk)
08:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I feel there is a imbalance between these two process. During NPP, a huge percentage of new articles, which doesn't look good but also doesn't qualify for CSD are tagged for multiple problems. But finally those articles stand as published, until some of those ( a small number) are either PRODed or AfDed. However those same articles will be easily rejected at AfC. In such a case, what is the motivation for going to AfC, when you can publish your article directly. --Vigyani talk ਯੋਗਦਾਨ 02:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Concurring with you, DGG, it would be nice if the Foundation would/could come up with a software solution to AfC as they did for NPP. However, it still wouldn't address the problem of the users' knowledge of policies and powers of assessment. Some years ago, I started to code up a completely revamped New Article Wizard, but I dropped that work on the Foundation's promise of the Article Creation Flow landing page. Again, like Page Curation, it had the promise of being a brilliant piece of software and was offered by The Foundation as a consolation to their blunt rejection of WP:ACTRIAL. But we are still waiting for news of further development, the project was quietly archived in October last year, and no further concrete comments from the developer who appears to be charged with it appear to be forthcoming. If we had it now - and there has been plenty of time to develop it in the meantime - it would have practically solved all the problems with NPP and AfC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 03:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: This article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rhonda Dee has a template that I haven't seen before. Shouldn't people work on their new articles in their user space? Which of Wikipedia's spaces is it intended for? The documentation isn't specific about this. At any rate, it says it's not for biographies of living people, and should only be used during one editing session, so I think it should be removed. — Anne Delong ( talk) 14:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
First let me say that i am a great fan of AFC and of the persons who are contributing reviewers and other participants here. I am an experienced Wikipedia editor yet a direct user of AFC services for some articles that I create. I appreciate recent efforts here that I have observed about improving the wizard system for creation of new articles. As a user, however, I notice that currently, the AFC system is a bit wonky, and must seem even a bit crazy to new users, in a few ways that undermine its success.
Specifically:
1) A user has to deal with cognitive dissonance about contradictory messages in the wizard system, in order to get to the end of the wizard. The wizard repeatedly asks questions that can't be answered. E.g. "Does your proposed article have good sources?" and "Does your article submission meet the content requirements?" Well, you haven't let me write an article yet, so how could it do that? Hmm, maybe the designers of this wizard want me to understand that as meaning "Will the article you intend to write meet the content requirements?" (I personally think that is what you the designers mean.) Or, hmm, maybe this means I have to write out my article in a Word document on my PC, before I submit anything? Why did they bring me along this far, I dunno if I ever want to deal with this stupid Wikipedia... (Yikes, I personally think this is not what you designers want, and the PC version that a user goes off to draft is very much less likely to ever get finished or submitted. It would be much better to bring the user forward to the editing window in wikipedia.) These cause doubts and the only way forward is to suspend your disbelief about what the wizard wants. That is raising unnecessary hurdles that could be avoided by some rewriting.
2) When the new user finally gets to the article creation page, Wikipedia:Article wizard/Ready for submission, they get to submit their new article draft. Now (i think this recently changed), when they do, it is not actually "submitted", it is merely started by them as a draft that will not be looked at by anyone. The article that they draft, possibly contrary to their expectations of what will happen, gets a big banner "Article not currently submitted for review....This is a draft Articles for creation submission. It is not currently pending review. There is no deadline, you can take your time writing this draft." Note, the name of the page they started the draft from is named "Ready for submission". Many users will have thought they already submitted. I see the detail within "Ready for submission" page is pretty clear that this is just a draft, but those instructions contradict the name of the page, and I think some users are disappointed. The new system just gets them to a drafting point, and actually acts as if whatever they submit is NOT ready for submission. I think the language in page-naming and instructions needs to be reworked, perhaps in terms of "ready to draft" perhaps rather than "ready to submit".
3) Truly bizarre for me is the experience of what happens when you do "submit". You click on the nice green button "Submit your draft when you are ready for it to be reviewed!", and oddly, the page is blanked and you are instructed to ignore that reality but click "Save" anyhow. Okay, i do that (and hope that I will be rewarded with a confirming message that I did the right thing). And... what I get is a restored page, with prominent banner: Article not currently submitted for review. WTF!!! Oh, at the very bottom, probably out of view, there is another banner, with "Review waiting". Even if I see that, i don't know which to believe. Hmm, maybe this whole Wizard system is completely broken. Hmm, will I ever get a "review"? Hmm, should I wait for weeks now, when it appears obvious that my submission was not properly received (that is in fact what the designers want, i personally think). This is putting further unnecessary bewilderment onto the user. The wizard system absolutely must be changed, IMHO, to take out or revise the "This has not been submitted" message for articles that have been submitted. And probably the latest banner should be put in on top, above any others, and should perhaps statement that this message overrides any previous, lower banners.
4) This is a lesser point. The new user who arrives at wp:AFC may find their way to the article wizard. It's good, but is a longish sequence to go through, and after a few times they would probably like a shortcut to an article starting point further in. I've had trouble finding what entry point to bookmark for my own use. Maybe for users who are repeatedly creating articles of a similar type, with similar sources, etc., there could be a named shortcut that they could be advised that they could use, or a specific suggested page that could be identified as the one they should usefully bookmark? Probably that is Wikipedia:Article wizard/Ready for submission, i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_wizard/Ready_for_submission? It could be mentioned at the bottom of that short page, that this is a good page to bookmark and start from, if you've arrived here several times already. Otherwise for new users I expect it is unclear whether the entire wizard must be gone through each time. Who knows how these computer software things work? Is this a temporary page that cannot be bookmarked? (I personally believe that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_wizard/Ready_for_submission is a hard url that can be bookmarked, but that is not obvious. And, again, its name is a misnomer--it is not a page for "ready for submission"--it is, rather, a page for "ready to draft".)
I hope these comments are helpful. :) Again, I really like what you're all doing here, and that is why I take the time to try to give helpful feedback. Sincerely, -- do ncr am 17:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Has anyone ever thought of doing anything on these lines? Perhaps the two could be combined. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 05:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/CCI Channel Management Solutions is redirected to User:Articles for creation/CCI Channel Management Solutions instead of the other way around (no, it wasn't me this time!) How can that be fixed up so that the article to be reviewed is in Afc space? — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I submitted a second comment and reloaded the page; the script broke the previous comment as such: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Leaf guard. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 17:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
{{afc comment}} A good start, but removing "Installation" per [[WP:NOTHOWTO]].
{{afc comment|1= A good start, but removing "Installation" per [[WP:NOTHOWTO]].}}
{{afc comment}} A good start, but removing "Installation" per [[WP:NOTHOWTO]].
or
{{afc comment}} A good start, but removing "Installation" per [[WP:NOTHOWTO]]. Starting a list: * la *li *lo Signature (or not)
? How should I detect that? I believe a better education how to use such templates is better with less false positives... mabdul 18:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
{{{1}}}
to be more like {{{1|There is no comment here! Please use this template correctly!}}}
so that the template fails to work if they don't use the proper format. Just ideas...
Technical 13 (
talk)
19:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)When I select the "Backlog drives" tab at the top of this page it has instructions on how to take part in the drive. It says to go to the relevant backup drive page, but no where that I can find on the page does it say how to find this page except a barely noticeable link in the green invitation template at the bottom of the page. Is this an oversight, or is the drive by invitation only? — Anne Delong ( talk) 21:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Can we please see an example of what the "#[URL_TO_DIFF name_of_submission]" text looks like with actual content, or else explain in detail what "URL_TO_DIFF" is required and the exact format required for "name_of_submission"? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 16:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
@ Dodger67: you'd do it something like this - [http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AArticles_for_creation%2FCCI_Channel_Management_Solutions&diff=562329857&oldid=562326702 CCI Channel Management Solutions], producing CCI Channel Management Solutions. Mdann52 ( talk) 08:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
BTW do we get more Brownie points for an accept, which takes several minutes to complete, compared to a decline that can be done and dusted in just a few seconds? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 10:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear editors:
I came across this unusual article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/thoughtform thought-form ThoughtForms (disambiguation). I was going to decline it as non-notable, since none of the variations of "thoughtform" have an article in Wikipedia, but the editor has gone to some trouble to find references for some of the uses. I am presuming that the list of possible spellings is not needed, but what about the rest? — Anne Delong ( talk) 14:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
The Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/thoughtform thought-form ThoughtForms (disambiguation) page, declined by Mdann52 has been resubmitted, with only two entries this time, so I decided to look a little further. The author of the page has included two links. One is to the Thought page, which he has recently updated and to which he has added his own theory of thought with a reference to the book he has written about it. Now, is this what is meant by spam? — Anne Delong ( talk) 21:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I was up until about 3 a.m. whipping up an AfC-like submission page for COIs to request corrections, contest unsourced material and (after reading some disclosures) offer content for consideration. It comes to mind that I've seen posts several years old where editors have pondered why this doesn't already exist and it seems like a no-brainer.
It needs some coding work before the forms would actually "work" but I would be interested in (a) anyone who can help code the forms and (b) any thoughts generally. Most of the templates and coding I used so far has been copy/pasted from AfC. CorporateM ( Talk) 16:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I signed up for AfC Buddy on the user subpage of Excirial ( talk · contribs). Just wondering, will it (in addition to tracking the diffs of submissions, many thanks) also generate the running totals? The One Sean 22:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
This article, called Cultural Culinary Diplomacy, defines and outlines a new kind of diplomacy via food. It's a reasonably well written article, but I can't help but question the premise as a neologism. It doesn't seem to be created in an "attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term" (
WP:NEO), but I'm reluctant to accept it because of the non-prevalence of the term. Any second opinions? Thanks,
the
one
sean
02:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
P.S: The AfC Mentoring program is well under development. I will be posting requests for help after the backlog drive is over. Thanks.
Note to potential reviewers of this page. I have blanked it per WP:SOAP. Please see Talk:Emmanuel College (Queensland)#Edit warring re litigation and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive800#Emmanuel College (Queensland) for background. Voceditenore ( talk) 07:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
The visual editor was rolled out for my account yesterday, and I've noticed I can't use HotCat any longer. Is this a known issue? FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 15:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
So, I have quite a few ideas for how to revamp the Article Wizard, and I'm testing them on the labs cluster here (NOT SUL enabled with enwp).
If anyone wants to help, I'd love it if some people with good knowledge of either mw:Extension:GuidedTour or javascript in general could pop over, as that's the first idea I'd like to test. I can probably manage without anyone, but it'd help tremendously. Thanks ~ Charmlet -talk- 04:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear editors: I have been told several times that towns are considered notable as long as there is evidence that they are actual towns. However, I'm having difficulty in finding this in the notability guidelines. In fact, I found this: "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists." Can someone point me to the correct info page? Thanks. — Anne Delong ( talk) 02:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: This article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Metin2 has been deleted three times in 2007. Now a new page has been submitted with this name, but it isn't in English. When I tried to decline it, the list of deletions comes up, but not the Afc script. Is this a bug? — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Next time one is reviewing, or discussing, an article submission about a "life coach" or a management guru or a book about management techniques, or any similar topic, it may be useful to have this in mind: http://www.dilbert.com/2013-06-30/ Arthur goes shopping ( talk) 10:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear editors: The following submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mohanpur, Punjab, India has been declined and resubmitted without much in the way of sources. I started to improve it, but soon realized that there is already a similar article in the encyclopedia at Mohanpur, Punjab. This second one has not been edited since the cut-and-paste was made. Which article should be improved? What should be done with the other one? — Anne Delong ( talk) 17:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes one must verify whether the postal code is assigned to a region, suburb, town, district or village. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 07:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: This article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Robert King (2) has quite a few references, all properly cited, but only three are to the original sites ( one of which is not about the subject). The others are two screen shots of newpaper articles about the subject which have been added to the subject's web site. Isn't this a copyright violation? Since it's not on Wikipedia, should the screen shots be accepted as references? Or would the references be acceptable if the URLs to the screen shots were removed by the references left? (The article has other problems.) — Anne Delong ( talk) 18:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I have doubts about a few of the reviews I've done, please take a look at:
Thanks Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 07:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Just a heads up to anyone who is as unaware of its existence as I was until recently: There is a help page/tutorial on adding references that is more graphical than WP:REFB and WP:CITE, and includes a video. I have added a shortcut to it which is WP:INTREF. Personally, I think it will be more helpful to newbies than other wall-o-text pages. Pol430 talk to me 19:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
A quick update for the participants in the July Backlog Drive, on the matter "Now where are those automatically updated statistics i signed up for"? The short version is: "Sorry that took so long, but they will be updated before the end of the weekend!".
The long version - for those interested - is that i am currently improving AFCBuddy's code in order to make it more efficient and resilient. Right now AFCBuddy has two issues:
Both issues should be solved before the weekends end. Uploading will change to automatic, and the program should be more resilient which saves a load of time. For most part you shouldn't notice anything different, except that i will likely update the stats more often since it won't require an hour or so of my time to do this. At the same time this change means that i won't be combing trough every AFCbuddy result anymore either - so please keep an eye out of anything odd and let me know if something seems to bug out. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 19:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
An editor told me that I wrongly declined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alexandra Luke for the reason that it already exists. I declined it because the review tool said that it already exists. Now I see that it is just a redirect and I keep on getting an error each time that I try to approve it. SL93 ( talk) 21:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
This page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Scott Farquharson has been deleted once as a hoax earlier this year. I have been trying to find out it the current article contains incorrect information. I have run out of time before finding out whether the same person who is the poet and works at Harlequin is also the person who has had cancer and ADHD and has been in various productions. (I have to go out to a musical session) I thought I would leave a heads-up in case someone else wants to investigate further. Maybe this new article is completely legit, but I noticed that another user User:Harlequin Publishing Ltd has been blocked. — Anne Delong ( talk) 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
The song "Cant de la Senyera" appears to be a song prominent in the process of Catalan independence. It resulted in the imprisonment of Jordi Pujol
It would be good to see an article explaining why — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.76 ( talk • contribs) 23:25, 5 July 2013
Hello, I am back from my short vacation with a nice update to the script coming your way. It is v4.1.19, and is now available to everyone using the stable script (the gadget). It includes all the changes posted here and is really awesome. Give it a try today! Testers: a new beta build will be released soon. I'm just having trouble finding admins to do it for me. :P Thanks, Nathan2055 talk - contribs 14:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
FloodAlerts was accepted in AfC without any citations. SL93 ( talk) 21:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
See WT:Articles for creation/Ken Lanci, there's nothing particularly blatant, but it is a rather "nice" article for a person who is busy campaigning for political office - not a single word of criticism. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 21:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Tonite, I reviewed Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lighting a Billion Lives ( LaBL). I finished my review and reloaded the page and reviewed my review. Then I went to my watch list and imagine my surprise when I discovered another user had reviewed it and it overwrote my review. How does this happen? There certainly has to be a way to prevent two users from getting "the token" at the same time. Gtwfan52 ( talk) 09:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
With this review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wizkid? Which has now been moved to mainspace by Pratyya Ghosh ( talk · contribs) and, as far as I'm concerned, is still highly promotional. See the related thread on my talkpage, also: User talk:Pol430#Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wizkid for more. Pol430 talk to me 17:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Articles for Creation barnstar | |
This Articles for creation barnstar is bestowed to everyone who helped clear out the backlog. Thanks for all your help! -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 15:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC) |
The gadget worked perfectly fine for me for weeks, and then all of a sudden, I can't use it. Can somebody find out what's wrong? I use IE9. buff bills 7701 18:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Please take a look at this edit: The Helper script removes the newlines for section headings, appending them to the end of the previous paragraph and thus breaking the sections. Huon ( talk) 23:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Can someone please take another look at this article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hookworms (band)? Among the references I found four or maybe five good reviews and an interview, and I marked them by adding the name of the reviewer. — Anne Delong ( talk) 06:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
AfC
submissions Random submission |
3+ months |
This is the first time since my year of editing here at WikiProject AfC that I have seen Category:Pending AfC submissions completely free of all articles! Not sure if this is real or someone being disruptive, because this seems too good to be true. It's like the national debt being completely paid. :) Kudos to everyone! Michaelzeng7 ( talk) 14:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Hiyas everyone,
I made a slight change to the way the AFC backlog sign-up works. Instead of asking the user to list him or herself under the the totals list, a new section named
Participants has been added to the drive page, and a new template {{
AFCDriveSignup}}
has been made to register the addition. Why was this done you ask? Well, lets have another one of those dotted lists I'm addicted to!
I hope no one has an issue with my out-of-the-blue change; If you do, please let me know. Also, if someone notes an instance in the documentation still instructing the user to sign up under the "totals" list, or asks for them to sign up at AFCBuddy's talk page, please correct that or give me a nudge asking me to fix that. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 10:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
There are many French sources in Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Farid Dms Debah so it needs a French speaking/reading reviewer of which I am not. If someone could get that please. Also, you may have to manually review it since the tool isn't working on that article (I'm working on that) because it was previously deleted. (Fix might be in beta already...) I'll report back in a moment... Technical 13 ( talk) 12:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Looking... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 12:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Here goes:
http://offdecannes.fr/fr/page/laureats.html/ is a 404 (dead link)
http://www.lasemaine.org/la-semaine-pres-de-chez-vous/animation?id_animation=5216/ is a notice of an exhibition featuring the subject's photos
http://www.le-court.com/festivals/festival_fiche.php?festival_id=226&precedente_id=184#precedente/ is the web site of the French Short Film festival in Fréjus. No mention of the subject in the accessed page
http://akas.imdb.com/name/nm1096148/awards/ is a 404 (dead link)
http://www.le-court.com/festivals/festival_fiche.php?festival_id=417&precedente_id=819#precedente/ is the web site of the French Short Film festival in Fréjus. Confirms the subject as the recipient of the award: 2006 Prix coup de cœur du public, for the film Le Bourreau des innocents A 'coup de coeur public' is a low-level award voted by the attending audience at an award ceremony.
http://off-de-cannes.com/fr/blog/2012/02/23/emir-kusturika-remet-les-off-de-cannes-2007/ confirms the subject as the recipient of the 2007 'off' Cannes Golden Palm for his film Le bourreau des innocents
http://www.24courts.fr/?p=214#more-214/ confirms the subject as the recipient of the 2007 'Young Jury's prize for Le bourreau des innocents
http://catalogue.bnf.fr/servlet/biblio?idNoeud=1&ID=40184046&SN1=0&SN2=0&host=catalogue/ is the entry in the National Library of France for the book À gauche de l'écran, Ilario Calvo 2005, 180 pages, ISBN 2-915640-13-0, for which the subject wrote the preface.
Over to you, reviewers :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 12:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I've declined the submission for a second time due to the significant MoS and procedural faults that would almost certainly leave this submission open to a AfD within hours of hitting mainspace. The IP address did not address any of my concerns from the first decline, so per the "Please note that if the issues are not fixed, the draft will be rejected again." I invoked the decline again. I also listed explicitly the problems. Hasteur ( talk) 16:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: I have seen several articles lately in which a reliable source has written a report about an event, and then two or three other newspapers have copied the text, giving an attribution to the original paper. Is it suitable, in a case like that, for a Wikipedia article to refer to all of these papers, or should only the originating article be cited? I can see arguments both ways; for example, if the article appears in several papers, it shows that the editors of those papers thought that the topic was of wider interest than that of other articles which they chose not to reprint. Here's an example: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Graham Rogers (actor). — Anne Delong ( talk) 12:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: This article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ocucaje is a copyright violation of (a link I can't show you because of the spam filter) (which in turn it seems, copied it from another site no longer on the web). However, when I try to nominate it for deletion, either with the script or with Twinkle, I am blocked because apparently the link is triggering the spam filter. Being spam doesn't seem to be a good reason not to delete copyright material. What to do? — Anne Delong ( talk) 17:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
In regards to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ChoosePAWind there is a line that is taken directly from here: "[ChoosePAWind's] mission is to educate consumers about the environmental and economic benefits of using local, Pennsylvania-sourced wind energy."
Everything else seems to check out OK but given that the article is so short, would this be grounds for CSD? -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 22:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
It says that it was created via the Articles for creation process. Small problem and large problem. Small: there's no talk page. However, the history indicated that TracyK123 ( talk · contribs · count) created the article. Large problem: it's not ready for mainspace and wasn't reviewed via AfC. I'm moving it to AfC space. Anybody want to back me up or dispute this? Thanks, and you're awesome, the one sean 14:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I noticed an odd page on my suggestion list while heading toward WP:AFC/R. I checked it out and it turned out to be a ridiculously misplaced AfC submission from last year. I have marked it for deletion under WP:G12. I also found User:Renshinkan Karatedo Iran/sandbox and User:Renshinkan Karatedo Iran, all of which are misplaced subs that I'm not sure what to do with. Questions, comments, or remarks? -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 01:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: MER-C has reviewed several articles and marked them (CSD). I am presuming that means they are to be deleted. I can't think of a way to review these reviews, though, because unlike the other declines you can't see the reason or the article. In cases like this, should we just assume that if an admin actually deleted the page, that's a pass? — Anne Delong ( talk) 06:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
A number of submissions have been declined five or more times in quick succession for the same reason. The submitters make absolutely no attempt at all to fix the problems, they simply hit the resubmit button after every decline. Can we delete the submissions and/or block the submitters? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 18:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Part of it may be that the submitter believes that he will eventually encounter a lax reviewer that will allow the submission through. Technical 13 recently updated the decline template to say that if it is not significantly improved, it will be declined again. I honestly agree with Hasteur's approach of the "preemptive accept". It sounds like a good plan. -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 01:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: While checking over some reviews I came across this article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gavin Farley. It presents a fairly bizarre list of accomplishments for this person and ten references. I checked them out and here is the result:
Is this a hoax? Can someone look at this? Thanks. — Anne Delong ( talk) 12:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
I have been using the "Mark as Reviewing" feature quite a bit lately because I like to take my time when looking over a submission, and besides, after 50 years at the keyboard I can still only type at about 10 words per minute (sigh). I check for copyright violations and invisible references and I also frequently add (hopefully) helpful comments; this adds to the time between when I start reading and when I click the "decline" or "accept" button. Also, the submission list is so short lately, it's quite likely that two people would unknowingly be reading the same one at the same time unless this is used, even if the submission is simple.
Is there a policy about the use of the "Mark as Reviewing" feature? Is it only to be used for complex reviews? Or is the way I am using it (routinely when there are only a few submissions) appropriate? — Anne Delong ( talk) 15:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I have implemented a novel process regarding multiple declines for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rayid Ghani. I have added a collapse template around the declines that are more than a few days old (as long as there's ~4 remaining outside) to make the OMG DECLINES not be as distracting. Any thoughts? Hasteur ( talk) 16:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
{{
WikiProjectBannerShell}}
- for an example of that setup have a look at
Talk:Microsoft. All the related wikiprojects can be neatly collapsed into a single line archive, and each individual project can be extended for additional information. For the AFC project it might look like this.What is procedure for promoting an article, where an article of that name already exists, but only a redirect? In other words, the new article should replace the redirect, but AfChelper can't move the article, because it "already exists." thanks! 78.26 ( I'm no IP, talk to me!) 02:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: A truly strange thing happened while I was reviewing this article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eleven Past One. I found that it was a copyright violation, just about the time that I clicked the decline button, Wikipedia decided to log me out. Why? Who knows? Then the script seems to have partially failed, not sending a message to the user's talk page and not marking the page for deletion, but instead adding my comment inside the decline box. I logged back in, changed the name in the decline template from an IP address to my own, and then used Twinkle to request speedy deletion. Is there anything else I should do to straighten up this problem? These are guys from my town and I'd rather they weren't mad at me! — Anne Delong ( talk) 05:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Please look at WT:Articles for creation/Kopex as well as WP:Articles for creation/Kopex. I have repetadly declined, blanked and tagged as blatant copyvio of the subject's own websit but the submitting editor simply reverts the decline, blanking and speedy and then resubmits it. Needless to say it is also blatantly promotional too. This needs to be deleted, editor blocked and the page name should probably also be salted. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 09:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Snuggle users and the Teahouse are co-hosting an IRC office hours session (Wed. July 17th @ 1600 UTC - #wikimedia-office connect) to discuss the state of new editor support in Wikipedia and introduce you to WP:Snuggle, a web-based tool designed to make finding good-faith newcomers who need help fast and easy. Give it a try by pointing your browser to http://snuggle.grouplens.org.
See the agenda for more info. -- EpochFail ( talk), Technical 13 ( talk), TheOriginalSoni ( talk) 17:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#WikiProject Articles for creation Threatens to Ruin Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 01:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Not sure if this has been discussed before (maybe we need a "Perennial Requests" section somewhere to avoid re-treading questions like getting the red "User sandbox" error gone), but have we considered having a little checkbox which marks an article as being apparently written by the subject or employee, and/or where the username indicates affiliation with the subject? MatthewVanitas ( talk) 17:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Just spitballin' here, but maybe a "coi" checkbox could also provide the submitter's talk with the WP:LUC advisory?
If you write about yourself, your group or your company, once the article is created, you have no right to control its content, or to delete it outside the normal channels. Content is irrevocably added with every edit. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want to have included in an article, note that it will probably find its way there eventually. |
I was recently told that it would be nice to have the edit summaries for the creation of redirects contain a link to the target article. Could that be included in the helper script without too much of an effort, like this?
While I personally tend not to use the script for redirects, I do see the appeal of such a feature. Huon ( talk) 16:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm rather unhappy with the quality of the reviews by Techatology ( talk · contribs) and have raised the issue on their talk page. Huon ( talk) 23:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I see that my suggestion (user warnings) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Can we block editors for being too stupid? above has received little response. This is probably due to new threads causing it to be missed. Perhaps it needs to be listed as an RfC in order to gain some traction. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 01:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
A request for comment relating to the use of AfC with new users wishing to create articles is taking place here. ~ Charmlet -talk- 02:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I recently stumbled upon three different drafts CSD-blanked for what I'd call spurious reasons: One, two and a third one I don't remember. While I of course agree that "unambiguous advertising or promotion" is a speedy deletion criterion, these don't look like particularly egregious offenders to me; certainly not bad enough to warrant speedy deletion, let alone page blanking (I thought that was reserved for copyvios and attack pages?). Have I missed the "let's delete spam more freely" memo? Huon ( talk) 06:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
This caused me some "finger trouble" too. The speedy option only becomes available after blanking has been selected but it should be the other way round. Not all speedy-able drafts need to be blanked but all blank-able drafts should be speedied. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 09:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
@Kelapstick: There's another tag that says that the reason for blanking the page can be the decline reason. ✉→ Arctic Kangaroo ←✎ 16:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, part of the problem is the speedy deletion tag says it is nominated for the reason it was declined. If it is declined for poor referencing CSDH gives the option of blanking and CSDing it for just that reason, and poor referencing is explicitly not a speedy deletion criterion. The speedy deletion and blanking option should actually be removed from CSDH. When a CSD tag is actually required it should be put on manually, or via Twinkle or a similar mechanism. Attack pages are already autoblanked when applying {{ db-attack}}. Keeping it in CSDH just allows too much room for human error. -- kelapstick( bainuu) 22:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey, all of you awesome people! In addition to fighting the (nonexistent) backlog, I've been working on my AfC Mentoring program. I need some preliminary help. Can anyone find a draft of an AfC article (can be old) that is about a non-notable "garage band" or sorts? Just copy it over to User:Theonesean/sandbox/AfC_Mentoring/Section_2/Sample_Article 1: Jim-Bob and the Garage Rockers and I'll change the wording to make it fit. Alternatively, is anyone up to write an article about Jim-Bob and the Garage Rockers? That would be even more awesome. Basically what I want (feel free to take creative licence with all this) is an undercited article obviously written by Jim-Bob about the band he made with his friends. Citations should only be to self-published albums and local neighborhood newsletters.
I don't want to take advantage of this community, but I had such an outporing of people willing to help me, so I thought I'd take them up on this. Drop me a line if you have any questions.
Thanks so much. the one sean 14:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
There are dozens if not hundreds of {{ db-g13}}-eligible submissions in Wikipedia:Articles for creation/ sub-space.
Many of these were declined but some either were never submitted or the template was removed. Many are non-templated versions of drafts or declined submissions that are in Wikipedia Talk:[same page name].
What should we do about non-current submissions in Wikipedia:/Articles for creation space?
My recommendation:
By the way, there are a lot of historical project-related documents in Wikipedia:Articles for creation/. These should be kept for historical reasons, but there is no reason they and their talk pages can't all be moved en masse to a sub-space like Wikipedia:Articles for creation/historical/pre-DATE (where DATE is the date we changed from the "old" way of doing things to the "current" way of doing things, 2008-2009-ish I think) or some such. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 18:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations and thank you for all the hard work done by AfC volunteers recently: I was frankly gobsmacked today after checking the AfC category to find about 30-40 pages needing review. I try and review stuff at AfC occasionally but it quickly becomes utterly mindnumbing because of the sheer quantity of spam and rubbish that needs to be handled. I frankly don't have the patience for it.
My failure to help contribute to handling the frequent backlogs here is something that annoys me because I believe strongly in the principle that everyone who wants to contribute something to Wikipedia should have a fair shake and due process: they should be given a chance to write an article, to make their case in deletion discussions and so on.
So, yeah, keep on being amazing. If you've helped cut the AfC backlog from ludicrous to manageable, give yourself a big pat on the back and a nice virtual cuddle from a kitten for the hard work you've done keeping Wikipedia open to newbies.
—
Tom Morris (
talk)
09:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Is this article miscategorized? Or is it really up for review? Wikipedia:WikiAfrica/Cinema
— Anne Delong ( talk) 05:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Here's how to
add references from
reliable sources for the content you add to Wikipedia. This helps maintain the Wikipedia policy of
verifiability.
Adding well formatted references is actually quite easy:
You can read more about this on
Help:Edit toolbar or see this video
File:RefTools.ogv.
Hope this helps, --
Shearonink (
talk)
02:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
{{subst:
User:Shearonink/ref}}
on User:talk pages when needed.
How many times must we politely reject the exact same draft for exactly the same reason before we are allowed to really tell the submitter to stop bothering us with their blatantly non notable crap (usually some total nobody's very badly written autobiography)? There must be a point where AGF runs out. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 15:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I have an editor on my user talk page asking me questions on my talk page about the visual editor. He wants to work on his article with Visual Editor, but his article has been moved into AfC space. Am I right in thinking that Visual Editor is disabled in AfC space? Should I turn his article into a userspace draft so he can work on it? Rankersbo ( talk) 12:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Draft
namespace? I feel like this has been discussed before, just can't find it at the moment...
Theopolisme (
talk)
23:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Draft
namespace would be ideal, though I don't know what the technical requirements would be for this. --
LukeSurl
t
c
22:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I fear this project permits and tacitly encourages users to create "orphans", i.e. articles to which no other articles link. Every one who creates a new Wikipedia article should consider the question of which other articles should link to it, and create the links as the occasion arises. Michael Hardy ( talk) 04:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Nathan2055 wrote: "Our review script tags these automatically if they are truly orphans." That did not happen with oblate spheroidal wave functions, which I just edited. I changed the title to the singular: oblate spheroidal wave function and did some other edits. I also created a couple of links to that article from other articles:
As for not fixing fine details: I agree that many "fine details" can wait until after a proposed article becomes an article, and indeed, sometimes a proposed article should become an orphaned article. But when articles get reviewed, that could be looked at, AND authors could be told that that's one thing to look at. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
WT:WikiProject Articles for creation/July 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive#Time to close this drive? -- Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 11:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear Wiki, I proposed article on Institute of political studies in Belgrade. Institute of political studies (IPS) is leading national institution in Belgrade. I hope that that you will grant permission to publish article on IPS. Sincerely, IPS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IPS-u-Beogradu ( talk • contribs) 17:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Could something be added to the Reviewing instructions page telling reviewers to look at whether the new article created will be an "orphan" (i.e. no other articles link to it) and to suggest to the author that they consider which other articles ought to link to it, and that they could add the links? Lot of completely orphaned articles are getting created by this project, and although there's supposed to be software that tags then as orphans, that failed to happen in the last two instances I looked at. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I have responded in depth aon the RfC, but to save looking it up, here is my reply on the issue of creating a user right:
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 06:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Really, I tried looking through the archives, but evidently everyone else either knows the answer, or I'm not searching correctly! I've run across numerous times where someone has submitted a sandbox for review and it is blank. What is the process? Manually decline? Move it the user's name in AfC and then decline as blank? Just remove the submit template? The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 ( talk) 17:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Could someone please very quickly get me up to speed as to why AfC submissions are made on a talk page, and not on, for example, something like Articles for submission/submission/''articlename''? Thjis would allow some talk on its talk page, and would enable the full Twinkle pallets of CSD criteria and user warnings. Thanks in advance. IMO, our template markup and .php should make this possible, but I just don't have time to knock up a demo. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 06:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Can I get a second opinion on something? This article spent a bit of time being declined and subsequently fixed up at AfC. I reviewed it, decided he was notable, and passed it. I've just had a note from the article's creator here and alarm bells are immediately ringing - the article looks well written and referenced (though the refs are predominantly in Hebrew, his position as a prominent journalist on national television seems to be verifiable and typing his name into Google returns multiple news hits) but the reply on my talk page looks ... well, like an excitable teenager. My immediate thought is copyright violation but a search for key phrases in the article doesn't produce anything obvious. How should I proceed? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
User:Techatology has been blocked for socking along with his multiple accounts, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cybolton. (user Techatology now removed from list of active reviewers). This account was ostensibly created for the sole purpose of reviewing and accepting the many articles by his sock user:Cybolton and possibly others, especially Philippine related articles.
There is a strong possibility that this kind of abuse of AfC is not isolated.
Now that the backlog appears to have been miraculously cleared, it is probably time to review the performance of all relatively new and/or low edit count users who continue to review, and any users who begin reviewing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 22:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I have just spent around 2 hours going through this list. Except for 9 users who only have from 82 to 471 mainspace edits, among whom at least two admit to being inexperienced, I did not find anything of particular concern. One user is under adoption and possibly should not be reviewing at this stage, and I have removed two blocked users from the list. The list should now be checked for genuinely active users. The list of inactive users should be checked to see if any have become active again. There may be reviewers who are not on either list. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 01:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
After it was observed that the declined, potentially violating, and stale submissions in our project space are being picked up by mirrors and potentially leaving wikipedia open for hosting WP:NOT content, I've decided to embark on a crusade. I'm going through the AFC submissions by date and taking a hard look at the submissions that are stale (>2 years old with no updates in that same time period that are declined and applying the CSD ruberics on them. For the most part this means CSD:G13, but could also have others that apply (Calling a city very gay qualifies as an attack page). I'm hoping to get at least these cleared out soonish. Hasteur ( talk) 17:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Category:AfC submissions by date/October 2008 is in the process of being drained of stale articles. If people want to start taking individual months moving forward and cleaning those out, that'd be great too. Hasteur ( talk) 17:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear Editors: I was reviewing the article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pusat Tingkatan Enam Meragang, but when I tried to accept it to mainspace at Pusat Tingkatan Enam Meragang I found that the creator had already cut and pasted it to the article name I needed a few hours ago. The version in Afc is much better because it has a lot of good references (although they are bare URLs) and also because I spent some time rearranging the sections in the usual order. Can I just request that the mainspace page be deleted so that I can accept the better version? There is one edit where an orphan tag was added, but i intend to link it to List of schools in Brunei right away, so that won't be needed. — Anne Delong ( talk) 10:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
{{
db-move}}
would be applicable here.
Theopolisme (
talk)
14:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: I don't know if you have noticed, but there has been a lot of criticism of the Afc lately, and not all unjustified. Some of the reviews this month have been done too quickly without taking time to help the new editors, who have then been pouring out their problems at the Teahouse and and other help desks. Also, we have had an editor who was not reviewing in good faith and has been blocked. I have noticed a few reviews where the article was declined for reasons that would make the article better, but are not needed for acceptance, such as inline citations of non-controversial material, references not formatted properly, etc. Now that the backlog is gone, this is the time to get involved in the re-reviewing, and while you are at it, if you see an editor that seems to need help leave a message on his or her talk page, or even fix up the problems yourself if they are minor. Thanks! — Anne Delong ( talk) 15:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
The review helper script seems to be malfunctioning, it stalls repeatedly and is slow to execute when it does work. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 12:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I've just discovered that the current script does not work on IE10 at all. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 08:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
This submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tepr has all of the data replaced with a row of wikiproject banners. Any ideas? — Anne Delong ( talk) 02:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone have an IMDb Pro subscription? I think this article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sydney Urshan is copied from there, but I can't get in to look. — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Being that I've been at this for several days and we're only down to a little over 79k declined submissions I propose the following:
It is a simple binary Yes/No regarding the qualification of G13, has a human interlock (an admin must verify that G13 applies), does no critical harm, is recoverable for users who wish to take an activist role in saving an old AfC. It also has the benefit of being reasonable in the size of data it submits to the Admin Corps so as to not flood them with too many requests at once.
I ask for consensus to submit this proposed Bot Task (and probably to code it using the pywikipedia framework) so that we can clean up our house. Thoughts, Comments, Concerns, Suggestions? Hasteur ( talk) 16:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
{{
db-g13}}
) as a regular user would but would save the effort of a individual user clicking through each and every one of the categories to evaluate and use almost the same process that twinkle would. I know that the overall CSD backlog has gone up to 250 over the past few days and that anything over 50 in the overall CSD category automatically generates a backlog notice for Administrators. I'm open to other thresholds, but I'm trying to match our automated process workflow with the throughput that I think the Admin corps can handle.
Hasteur (
talk)
22:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: A new user has made these edits. First he created a talk page with a link to his blog. Then he created a sandbox with nothing in it and submitted it. It was declined as blank by me. Then another editor asked him not to include promotional material on his talk page. He started a "Contested deletion" section, although as far as I can see nothing was deleted. He then submitted his blank article twice more and was declined by two other users. Then he sent me a barnstar that's not in English. Perhaps he doesn't speak English? — Anne Delong ( talk) 22:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
this is exactly the kind of thing I've been talking about constantly for a couple of weeks. Is no one going to take the initiative to check up on this sort of thing? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 12:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the many efforts of the valiant few in taking the time to check that user out and clean up his act for him, and plugging away with your comments on the RfC. If he continues, let me know and I'll issue a preventative block. Let's hope that something official can be raised about reviewer experience soon, otherwise AfC appears to be in free fall. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 15:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Shortly after the one mentioned at the top of this article, annother user added themselves to the AfC members and started conducting a review. I cautioned them that it probably isn't a good idea for them to be doing reviews and that they should come discuss with us their experience. Hasteur ( talk) 17:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear editors: Is there list somewhere of popular user-contributed databases? I know YouTube of course, and the IMDb, and presswire.com for press releases, but what about tvguide.com, for example? — Anne Delong ( talk) 21:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I seem to be back in question mode today. I was working on the Assessment page, and I came to this article: David Andrews (Trio Capital chairman). Is this an appropriate article name? Shouldn't it be David Andrews (diplomat) or something less promotional of his company? — Anne Delong ( talk) 13:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: I have been going through the old submissions declined as advertising, and I found this submission: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/CLUSTER. This seemed like a notable topic, so I checked out mainspace and found CLUSTER, which has no references at all. I have made an edit to the article to save it from being G13'd; perhaps the references from one can be used to improve the other. — Anne Delong ( talk) 03:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: I know that there is a page where you can see how many articles have been submitted each day, and I know that there's a spot where you can see the recently accepted and declined articles. Is there any statistics page that keeps track of the number of articles accepted, declined and deleted each day so that you can spot a trend in the numbers? — Anne Delong ( talk) 22:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear editors: At the bottom of the list of recent Afc activity, I found a link to this page: Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2006-04-28 and some similar. Can anyone tell me the history and purpose of this page? — Anne Delong ( talk) 11:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I asked at Village Pump Technical, and I was able to find that there have been about 46,000 deleted submissions to Afc, not including sandboxes and user pages that were never moved into the Afc space. Add that to the 80,000 declined submissions and 24,000 created articles (not including redirects) and we have 150,000 articles that have been assessed by the Afc reviewers. That seems like a lot of work! By the way, can anyone explain why all of these (over 8000) redirects are categorized as Afc? It seems to me that most redirects would be created in mainspace after the articles were accepted. — Anne Delong ( talk) 19:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Could a reviewer competent in French please review Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ilana Salama Ortar. We really need to create a proper system for such "language skills needed" requests. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 11:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
OK team members, petrb runs AFCbot every day and adds at least 100 pages to Category:AfC submissions with missing AfC template. A generated list includes ~6500 pages without any template. These pages should be resubmitted and then reviewed and likely to be declined. mabdul 16:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I was trying to decline Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/'Originated-by-Korean' allegations under verifiability while leaving a comment on the page about NPOV, as I have done dozens of times. However, when I go to decline it with the helper script, it balks for some reason, poppoing up an error reading "Unable to locate AFC submission template, aborting...". Does anyone know what is going on? Tazerdadog ( talk) 21:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: I think this article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/TMA Solutions is ready for acceptance. There are four sources that are reliable, and I have removed any promotional comments that weren't directly supported. However, it seems that the article has been deleted several times before because it was too promotional. Is there somewhere I should appeal to have this title unblocked, or should I just give it a slightly different title, such as TMA Solutions (software company)? — Anne Delong ( talk) 05:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
When reviewing an article on opera or classical music-related subjects, if the reviewer is not familiar with these subjects, please contact the talk pages at Wikiproject Opera and/or WikiProject Classical Music. The draft for Der Waffenschmied was summarily rejected yesterday. According to the reviewer: "subject appears to be a non-notable musical performer or work" with unreliable and non-independent references, with the further comment "The article is still too heavy on the plot and needs more information on the opera itself." Even without the plot, the article had sufficient information and context to form a viable encyclopedic stub. It had 3 references to reliable independent sources, is an opera by a very notable 19th-century composer, and the title was already red-linked from Wikipedia:Music encyclopedia topics/10 and The opera corpus. Fortunately, another reviewer contacted Wikiproject Opera and asked us to look at the draft [4]. I immediately accepted the article, tidied it up, and added one more reference. I also notified the article's creator with a personal message here. Voceditenore ( talk) 07:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
We need someone who can read Chinese to verify the sources cited in Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lan Yu. -- Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 07:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Erika Winters cites sources in Spanish, please check for Notability.
Please check User:Pippa.lewis's contributions record. This user has submitted numerous brief articles about "touristy" places in England. I have noticed that all the places are in one county, Shropshire and that the editor consistently cites the same few sources in all the articles. There is no problem of notability because any named geographic place/feature that has proven existence is deemed inherently notable. However I am concerned that this editor might be acting as a representative of a tourism or promotion authority of the Shropshire county and thus all the already approved articles (and pending drafts) will have to be scrutinised for promotional content. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 12:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
According to the author, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ivan Ozhogin was a translation assignment (from de:Ivan Ozhogin) for school that needs to be live by Monday (I'd really like to have a word with whoever handed out this assignment). The better sources are all in Russian, unfortunately. Notability is something of an issue, and I'm not all that comfortable with judging the reliability of Russian sources. I tried to find German ones but only came up with press releases. There may also be COI issues; the author claimed that the German version was written by the actor's PR representative (and on second thought I wonder how she knew that when the translation was a school project...). So if someone here speaks Russian and can review it, I'm sure it will be appreciated. Huon ( talk) 06:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Please see User talk:Dodger67#question about my rejected submission (JPost) and add your opinions. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 09:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:AFC_submission/comments has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please copy the contents of Template:AFC_submission/comments/sandbox into the main template (it's been updated with an additional parameter, per this github issue). Thanks, Theopolisme ( talk) 15:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi there. Barnstars for the drive will not be handed out until the 16th August, to allow time for reviewing reviews, and due to me being offline until this date. Any queries should be directed via email. Thanks, Mdann52 ( talk) 16:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Has anyone noticed that since the Afc queue is so much shorter, we are not experiencing so many cut-and-paste duplicates? I hope that we can keep this going for a while. — Anne Delong ( talk) 00:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
This article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cuzie.com has two references to one of the founders, neither of which mention the subject, and one of which appears to be a political ad. Should at least one of these be removed? — Anne Delong ( talk) 02:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I would like an opinion about the viability of this article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Three Cons. It was declined as a neologism because the original title was "The three cons". This has been fixed; however, I am having difficulty in seeing how this article is a valid topic at all. Could it be a list instead? — Anne Delong ( talk) 03:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I decided to look at some of the old submissions that don't have a submission template, and I found this one: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/2012–13 United States network television schedule. The article has been created. Usually submissions don't have talk pages, and comments are just deleted when the article is created. Should this one be deleted, or should it be merged with the current article's talk page? — Anne Delong ( talk) 04:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Here's what causes those articles with no Afc templates: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/CIIT College of Arts and Technology. — Anne Delong ( talk) 06:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
We've been working hard to improve the Articles for creation helper script, fixing and adding a whole suite of features. Now it's time for the fun part: testing! If you're an AfC reviewer who doesn't mind being on the cutting edge now and then, we'd love it if you disabled the current AFCH gadget and added
importScript('MediaWiki:Gadget-afchelper-beta.js'); // AFCH beta script
to your common.js page. We'd then love to hear your feedback (bug reports, feature suggestions, you name it) about reviewing article and redirect submissions. You can post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Development page, or on GitHub. We're looking forward to hearing from you! Theopolisme ( talk) 01:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
@ Dodger67: I've opened an issue on GitHub for us to try to figure out why the script doesn't work in IE 9; please hang tight. :) Does it run in other browsers? Theopolisme ( talk) 22:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
@ Dodger67 and Mabdul: This issue should be fixed (if I understood mabdul correctly) and will be available in the beta script soon. I'll let you (Dodger) know when it's live. Thanks, Theopolisme ( talk) 22:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Roger, this should be fixed, try adding the beta script to your common.js and bypassing your cache. Please let me know how it goes-- Theopolisme ( talk) 00:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to help out with AfC. I made a comment on the help page, here that Roger criticised. Having just reviewed my first AFC, I can see now how a manual move into mainspace would mess up things.
I've ticked the box at "Preferences → Gadgets → Yet Another AFC Helper Script" and I've found Template:AFC statistics#Pending submissions; and reviewed and accepted Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Noel Lee, moving it into mainspace as Noel Lee (manufacturer). I'd appreciate review of that, if anyone has the time, before I do any more. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 12:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
{{
Reply to}}
it'll trigger the LittleRedBoxOfWin for the user (assuming they are a editor and not an IP address)
Hasteur (
talk)
19:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Do the histories on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alexander Koch (Actor) and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alexander Koch (actor) need to be merged? — Anne Delong ( talk) 06:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Redirects redirects here, so am I here. Should a bot decline the waste? Wiping malformed submissions out is a job certainly below the dignity of a human Wikipedian, even with a script assistance. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 08:57, 29 July 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 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
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)
I'm a noob to Wikipedia, despite having had an account for many years. I've been busy creating articles over the last couple of weeks and so far have done them all using the Articles for Creation tool. Seeing the backlog of reviews, I decided to jump in and help. The reviewing tools provide a lot of help and guidance, but there are a couple of questions that I can't seem to find answers to:
The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 ( talk) 15:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I've tagged each and every discussion on here as either unresolved, stale, or resolved to hopefully make it easier to see where to comment at a glance. If you guys feel this it too bold, feel free to revert. -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 22:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I have noticed somewhat recently that when you decline and provide comments, the tool places the comment next to the decline and leaves the AfC in a "unclean" state where the clean submission will actually make a change. I'd like to suggest one of two options. First fix the decline routine so that afc-comments that are submitted with the decline are placed in the appropriate secton. Second is to have the Clean Submission be auto-fired after the decline routine completes. I'd prefer option one, but I could accept option two. Hasteur ( talk) 13:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you KCS, I appreciate your useful and short comment here as opposed to your normal TL;DR style of commenting. Hasteur, to be honest, I agree that you were unnecessarily pushy as all of the script devs have been working on fixing it. relax and it will be fixed, or write and use your own alpha script... Technical 13 ( talk) 02:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Cookies! | |
Davidwr hasn't forgotten that AFC work isn't all about clearing the backlog, and has given some cookies to those working behind the scenes to improve the AFC process and the AFC tools! Cookies recharge your batteries after hours on end staring at code or thinking about how to make the process better for submitters and reviewers. |
davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 05:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Cookies! | |
Davidwr hasn't forgotten that AFC includes many other areas, including manning the Help Desk just to mention one, and is giving cookies to everyone involved in WP:AFC! Cookies recharge your batteries after spending time on projects like WP:AFC. |
davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 05:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
This article. Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 20:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Can anyone figure out why Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MIDFLORIDA Credit Union can't be accepted and is throwing errors? Thanks, Nathan2055 talk - contribs 15:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello all! I have a few quick things to say:
That's all for now! Keep attacking the backlog everyone! Thanks, Nathan2055 talk - contribs 16:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
@Technical13: WT:CSD#Yet another AfC related discussion. Pol430 talk to me 06:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Where's the template in this submission? FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 17:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I feel that this article User:Babablacksheep102/sandbox has been decline with a reason that is too vague, so I wanted to add a comment. Because the article is declined, I can't use the script. Can I just steal the comment format from another article and change the parameters? Should I leave out the date and expect it to be automatically generated? Or is there a better way to add a comment? — Anne Delong ( talk) 02:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
{{
subst:Afc comment|Your comment here.}}
& sign it. It'll put it in the correct format; just be sure to place it where it's supposed to be. (Below the template?) ||
Tako (
bother me) ||
03:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Shouldn't this have been blanked? Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tenant Association of Allentown — Anne Delong ( talk) 04:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Dear editors: I have come across a number of articles that have been declined (but not deleted) without having been moved from user pages and sandboxes. In the case of user pages, this means that search engines will be indexing the articles. Is there any policy about this? Should the already declined articles be moved into Afc space? Or am I worrying about nothing? — Anne Delong ( talk) 04:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Working
I could try. We're gonna need to figure out how to get the drive bot active again. -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 14:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I have found a copyright violation, and I want to decline the article. However, the copied article is in a PDF file. How do I get Google to give me the URL of the PDF file? Instead it gives me a giant search string which Wikipedia rejects. I have tried right clicking on the entry in the Google search list, and I get the same really long and rejected URL. — Anne Delong ( talk) 06:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
http://gallery.mailchimp.com/8c505fe3083c13cca48fbc8c9/files/Pritch_Press_kit.pdf My browser is set up to open a PDF in the browser and not launch the PDF reader, so you may need an add-on depending on your browser. The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 ( talk) 12:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I've been trying to help with the backlog. (I figure the best way to get the articles I've submitted reviewed quickly is to get others out of the way!) I'm having a challenge with two types of articles:
I did one manually and it was pretty painful! I don't see anything on those issues in the FAQ, perhaps there was a prior discussion someone could link me to? I'd like to go the easy route! The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 ( talk) 14:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I was working on [ Dick Punks] and wanted to Decline for Musician Notability. I got the "Unable to locate AFC Submission Template. Aborting . . . . " error. I tried several other choices, but all returned the same error. The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 ( talk) 14:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Addition: [ Horizon] Tried to run review a second time, as I found possible copyright issues and got the error. The first rejection (no supporting evidence) worked properly. The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 ( talk) 14:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Can someone please take a look at this decline and comment if you agree/disagree with my assessment? I'm not sure that I used the right decline reason. — Anne Delong ( talk) 19:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I just approved the article, although LukeSurl, Tom Morris declined that article (and somebody other wanted to decline that). Please get again familiar with WP:MUSIC (again): They released an album with Sony (I really don't like that rule), were very successful in the Superstar K4 TV show and thus released another album and got enough attention in Korea.
mabdul 19:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
The user has created a page about the TOYM award given in the Philippines for over 50 years. And they created a listing of the winners for the entire time span. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of The Outstanding Young Men (TOYM) Philippines The entire list is available at the website TOYM Awardees Is it appropriate to duplicate such information? Or reject the list and have them link to the website from the article (which was submitted and I rejected for lack of any sources, but expect it will be accepted eventually). The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 ( talk) 21:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for my recent EdwardsBot cockup. I am currently sorting the issue out with AWB. It was all caused by a bad copy-paste, and my forgetting to remove the old template in there first, meaning I accidently removed a </small> tag. Sorry, Mdann52 ( talk) 21:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Cookies! | |
Davidwr has given you all some cookies! Cookies recharge your batteries after a weekend reducing the backlog at CAT:PEND. |
davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 04:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Here's another one - this article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pritch London has been declined as unsourced when in fact it is a copyright violation. Should I just revert and then decline again, or should I manually resubmit and then decline? The editor just added contact information instead of sources anyway. — Anne Delong ( talk) 04:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
And another: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jesus the Anointed One Church — Anne Delong ( talk) 04:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Great news! I am setting up a repository for the script over at GitHub. Check it out here! At this point, it's not completely finished so please don't clone or fork it yet. In the meantime, I could use some help moving the issues over from WP:AFCH/DEV. Thanks in advance! Good luck reviewing, Nathan2055 talk - contribs 15:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
@ Technical 13: - Sure! However, mabdul only wants the O is null bugfix in this build so we can push the latest changes. Good idea for the next version, though! -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 00:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, after the Pritch London CV was raised I have gone back and checked other adverts, particularly in userspace submissions. I hope people don't mind but while I changed the decline on some of my own articles for CV, I also nominated articles other prolific reviewers had declined as adverts. I mention this because people are likely to get notifications that they'd been "mentioned" in articles they thought were ancient history! Rankersbo ( talk) 07:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
Is there a talk page like this one for people reviewing articles that are already created? I tried the "Page curation" talk page, but it seems to be about bugs in the script rather than about the articles being curated. I wanted to ask for an opinion about whether the Del McCoury Band needs a sourcing tag, and if so which one. It has only one source, but it's a good one (I added it myself). However, it's not an Afc article. The editor who removed the unsourced tag left a rather provocative edit summary. — Anne Delong ( talk) 08:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
{{
unreferenced}}
, {{
ref improve}}
, {{
BLP unsourced}}
, {{
BLP sources}}
. As soon as a single reference is in the article, the unreferenced tags are invalid, therefore you should switch to the BLP sources or ref improve to indicate that there needs to be more references.
Hasteur (
talk)
13:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi all, If I can get a second opinion from someone more experienced than I: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Edward_Trybek It appears to be written and started by Edtrybek which cannot be a coincidence? Would this be grounds for automatic rejection (and possible blanking as a WP:BLP violation)? Thanks for any assistance regarding this article. Jguy Talk Done 14:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
{{
uw-coi-username}}
on the user talk page. I'm not seeing a good reason for blanking, but declining for
WP:AUTOBIO concerns is perfectly appropriate.
Hasteur (
talk)
14:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if a did you know in the style of Wikipedia:Article wizard/Conflict of interest indicating the number of declined pages due to lack of sources, of notability and such may be included in the wizard. For example, 8,000 for pages lacking sources. This would further sensitize users of the need to have sources and such, but may discourage some would-be acceptable submissions. Cenarium ( talk) 15:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I was in the middle of accepting an article, which did need some tags for the wider community to have a go at it for one section over WP:NPOV, and someone jumped and declared it to be {{{db-spam}}}. It was well souced, and we'd encoraged the editor to put a lot of work into the structure, and I turn my back to get my son ready for kindergarten and... . No warnings or anything Rankersbo ( talk) 06:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
A helpful admin has set us back so the article can be WP:NPOV'd. Rankersbo ( talk) 12:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I keep finding articles moved into the article space in which every word in the title begins with a capital letter for no reason. I just moved Self-Organized Criticality Control to Self-organized criticality control, and that must be the two-dozenth-or-so such instance. Someone had moved it into the article space with the inappropriately capitalized letters. Why do people who work on this neglect such an obvious point? Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I just pushed our first Git developed changes to beta. They include:
Please test these changes and report issues here. Thanks in advance, Nathan2055 talk - contribs 00:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Dear editors: One of the jobs that reviewers often take on is moving sandbox or user page submissions into Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation space. The reviewing instructions (as far as I can see) don't say when this should be done. If it's done right away, then the script can be used for everything, including deletions. Is this the right way to do it, or should quick-fail articles be deleted as they stand rather than being moved? Are there other situations in which the articles should be reviewed while not in Afc space? It would be nice to have some guidance in the instructions. If it's there, and I missed it, I will have to apologize again (sigh...) — Anne Delong ( talk) 19:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I've restored some threads where the archiving failed. When performing a normal archive of this page on 21 June 2013, twelve threads were eligible for archive and removed from this page. Nine of these were correctly added to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2013 3 which went full, and so MiszaBot II ( talk · contribs) tried to place the remaining three threads in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2013 4 - but was prevented from creating the page by edit filter 167 ( Edit filter log). A similar problem happened today.
The templated message is MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-AFC.
It's clear to me that the edit filter thought that the bot wanted to create an AfC submission for an article whose ultimate title was to be 2013 4. I think this edit filter should not be triggered in these circumstances. To prevent it happening again tomorrow, I've hidden this page from MiszaBot II, so no archiving will be attempted. When the edit filter is fixed, that 10:11, 23 June 2013 edit may be reverted, and archiving will resume. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 10:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Described as ‘accessible and dynamic’, her poetry appears in several journals and ground-breaking anthologies, including Bittersweet (Women's Press, 1998), The Fire People (Payback Press, 1998), Mythic Women/Real Women (Faber, 2000), IC3: The Penguin Book of New Black Writing in Britain (2000), and A Storm Between Fingers (Flipped Eye, 2007). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Affy7860 ( talk • contribs) 14:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Given there doesn't seem to be a unified notability guideline for said events, I wanted to make sure we were all on the same page. This submission for instance, even though there might be substantial coverage from local media, isn't notable in my opinion. It's not a matter of loss of lives, but where do we draw a line? Going through a fence is certainly on the no-inclusion side of the argument. What do you think? FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 14:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm thinking the {{ AFC submission/pending}} template wording should be changed. We are getting a LOT of people asking why their article hasn't been reviewed in #wikipedia-en-help. We tell them it is because we are backlogged and it is currently taking about 2-3 weeks to get to them. They ask why the template says it will be "only a week" and we say that it is a known issue and we are discussing what an appropriate number should be. So, although I think I've brought it up before (I have CRS syndrome), I think it is worth bringing it up again. Should it say two weeks? Three? Should it be a calculated formula that says it should be reviewed by [time submitted] + [oldest "days old" cat] + [3 days for cushion] or something? So, if there was stuff in the 16 day old category and it was submitted at the time of this post it would look like 16 + 3 = 19 days ~-~ June 17th + 19 days = July 9th "Your article should be reviewed by July 9th, 2013. Thank you for your patiences." Technical 13 ( talk) 10:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Thinking I'm being helpful by using my admin bit to delete the G13s, I've already rescued one start-class article from deletion and moved it to mainspace. Are these articles being CSD'd based purely on the 6-month period, or is there supposed to be some attempt to check and see if they can be salvaged? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Why do you consider it has failed Joe? There was once a time when the entire AfC process was deemed a complete failure, with the largest backlog on Wikipedia. But, here we are, still soldiering on. It is of course necessary to have a process for the deletion of abandoned drafts, even if the process is imperfect and at times frustrating. Please don't throw in the towel. Pol430 talk to me 16:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
A few weeks ago there was discussion about deleting old declined blank submissions. I have come across one, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ TVC Marketing. I checked and it really is blank. Should I tag it as db-empty? If so, do I need to notify the creator, who was already notified when it was declined as blank? — Anne Delong ( talk) 04:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I sometimes find that a user, after his/her submission was rejected goes on to anyhow create the article in mainspace. In such cases, what should be done? Submission CSD tagged? If yes, which criteria? --Vigyani talk ਯੋਗਦਾਨ 06:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: A previous discussion lead me to wonder about something. According to the Afc statistics at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions, there have been 31604 accepted submissions and 80069 declined submissions. Does the declined number include submissions that have been deleted, or only ones that are still sitting in Afc space? — Anne Delong ( talk) 07:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Ok, so I've been beavering away for a while on some revised article reviewing instructions and I now feel that the draft is ready for me to share with the project. These changes have been motivated by recent criticism of the reviewing instructions' lack of clarity, difficulty of navigation and lack of actual instruction on certain points. Following some lengthy, constructive feedback from DGG ( talk · contribs), I have drafted the following substantial changes:
{{
Afc submission}}
now has so much functionality built into it that it has become very complex to manipulate manually. Also, the AfC Helper Script is now more stable than ever and can be installed even more easily since it became a gadget. I do not know of anyone who reviews manually and in the unlikely event that anyone wishes to contribute without using the script they should be sufficiently clueful to figure it out from
Template:AFC submission/doc.You can find the draft at User:Pol430/Sandbox/AFCR Script. Please note that this only covers the article reviewing instructions and the instructions for redirects/cats and file will be unaffected. Any feedback or additional suggestions/comments are welcome at this stage. Please also feel free to correct any spelling or grammar errors you find. Pol430 talk to me 12:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
{{
Afc submission}}
by an expert in parser functions; then the devs would need to totally rewrite AfC Helper Script to accommodate the new template. The flowchart is buried somewhere in this talkpage's archive and I would love to include it, if someone is able to fix it so everything flows to the right place.
Pol430
talk to me
16:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC){{
Afc submission}}
by an expert in parser functions; then the devs would need to totally rewrite AfC Helper Script to accommodate the new template." speculation goes, I'm actually working on such a project in my spare time and it has much more to do than even "an expert in parser functions" could accommodate and is requiring me to expand my language library to include
Lua.
Technical 13 (
talk)
16:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)This discussion seems to have gone stale now, and the new instructions seem to be considered an improvement, so I'll mark this as resolved and ask for the page move in the next 48 hours, unless there are any objections registered here. Pol430 talk to me
Please refer to the previous discussion for unresolved issues -
WT:WikiProject Articles for creation/2013 2#Defining Workflow V2.0.
Roger (Dodger67) (
talk)
08:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: I would like to thank in advance those who are working to set up the backlog drive. Shortening the review list is so important to the new editors! I remember last year when my first article, Toronto Light Opera Association, was in the queue. I had just joined Wikipedia and I didn't know anything about watchlists, so I probably checked the list 50 times before my article got to the top of the list of about 800 entries. I didn't realize that it was actually a good thing that it wasn't rejected right away. I am easily bored, so while I was waiting I started checking out and fixing up other people's submissions, which was more helpful after someone pointed out the value of edit summaries... anyway, a short list is important so that the new editors aren't discouraged, especially if they have to go through the queue several times before acceptance. Backup drives (oops, I meant backlog drives) seem to help, so bravo! — Anne Delong ( talk) 16:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I was told on my talk page that rating articles on the quality scale should be done for every article. The review tool says that the rating is optional. How can someone be expected to know how to rate every article on the quality scale if they are not familiar with that Wikiproject? Knowing if something is notable and has good citations is different from understanding the quality scale for every single Wikiproject. What is better - getting good articles accepted or having a bigger backlog? SL93 ( talk) 17:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
There's an interesting discussion about how the AfC process is potentially alienating newcomers at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention#AFC. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
While taking a look at this submission: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/José Rafael Cordero Sánchez I did a Google search checking for copyright violations and found this: [2]
Should the article just be declined as non-notable, or should more be done? I have no way of knowing what was previously said to this person when the first two renditions were deleted. — Anne Delong ( talk) 17:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง brought up an interesting point. There are a lot of names on the reviewing list, but are all of these really active reviewers? The first name on the list (alphabetically) is someone who retired from Wikipedia last year. Should names like that be removed? Kudpung's point about the experience needed for reviewing is also valid. Does anyone check out new names that are added to the list? Would it help if the names had (contribs) after them so that we could warn off users who hadn't used Wikipedia before? Or is this desirable? — Anne Delong ( talk) 14:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Hey, I know I have not reviewed any AfC articles for more than a month, but please don't remove me from that list. I'm still and will be active here, especially the backlog drive next month. Arctic Kangaroo ( ✉ • ✎) 15:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
wow, that's just a mess of links now. Do we really need all of those links. Surely just using the following would be enough: {{ User}} > Happysailor ( talk · contribs) - Happysailor (Talk) 10:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Done - I had more time than good, so the list should now be up to date!
Mdann52 (
talk)
08:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I feel there is a imbalance between these two process. During NPP, a huge percentage of new articles, which doesn't look good but also doesn't qualify for CSD are tagged for multiple problems. But finally those articles stand as published, until some of those ( a small number) are either PRODed or AfDed. However those same articles will be easily rejected at AfC. In such a case, what is the motivation for going to AfC, when you can publish your article directly. --Vigyani talk ਯੋਗਦਾਨ 02:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Concurring with you, DGG, it would be nice if the Foundation would/could come up with a software solution to AfC as they did for NPP. However, it still wouldn't address the problem of the users' knowledge of policies and powers of assessment. Some years ago, I started to code up a completely revamped New Article Wizard, but I dropped that work on the Foundation's promise of the Article Creation Flow landing page. Again, like Page Curation, it had the promise of being a brilliant piece of software and was offered by The Foundation as a consolation to their blunt rejection of WP:ACTRIAL. But we are still waiting for news of further development, the project was quietly archived in October last year, and no further concrete comments from the developer who appears to be charged with it appear to be forthcoming. If we had it now - and there has been plenty of time to develop it in the meantime - it would have practically solved all the problems with NPP and AfC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 03:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: This article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rhonda Dee has a template that I haven't seen before. Shouldn't people work on their new articles in their user space? Which of Wikipedia's spaces is it intended for? The documentation isn't specific about this. At any rate, it says it's not for biographies of living people, and should only be used during one editing session, so I think it should be removed. — Anne Delong ( talk) 14:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
First let me say that i am a great fan of AFC and of the persons who are contributing reviewers and other participants here. I am an experienced Wikipedia editor yet a direct user of AFC services for some articles that I create. I appreciate recent efforts here that I have observed about improving the wizard system for creation of new articles. As a user, however, I notice that currently, the AFC system is a bit wonky, and must seem even a bit crazy to new users, in a few ways that undermine its success.
Specifically:
1) A user has to deal with cognitive dissonance about contradictory messages in the wizard system, in order to get to the end of the wizard. The wizard repeatedly asks questions that can't be answered. E.g. "Does your proposed article have good sources?" and "Does your article submission meet the content requirements?" Well, you haven't let me write an article yet, so how could it do that? Hmm, maybe the designers of this wizard want me to understand that as meaning "Will the article you intend to write meet the content requirements?" (I personally think that is what you the designers mean.) Or, hmm, maybe this means I have to write out my article in a Word document on my PC, before I submit anything? Why did they bring me along this far, I dunno if I ever want to deal with this stupid Wikipedia... (Yikes, I personally think this is not what you designers want, and the PC version that a user goes off to draft is very much less likely to ever get finished or submitted. It would be much better to bring the user forward to the editing window in wikipedia.) These cause doubts and the only way forward is to suspend your disbelief about what the wizard wants. That is raising unnecessary hurdles that could be avoided by some rewriting.
2) When the new user finally gets to the article creation page, Wikipedia:Article wizard/Ready for submission, they get to submit their new article draft. Now (i think this recently changed), when they do, it is not actually "submitted", it is merely started by them as a draft that will not be looked at by anyone. The article that they draft, possibly contrary to their expectations of what will happen, gets a big banner "Article not currently submitted for review....This is a draft Articles for creation submission. It is not currently pending review. There is no deadline, you can take your time writing this draft." Note, the name of the page they started the draft from is named "Ready for submission". Many users will have thought they already submitted. I see the detail within "Ready for submission" page is pretty clear that this is just a draft, but those instructions contradict the name of the page, and I think some users are disappointed. The new system just gets them to a drafting point, and actually acts as if whatever they submit is NOT ready for submission. I think the language in page-naming and instructions needs to be reworked, perhaps in terms of "ready to draft" perhaps rather than "ready to submit".
3) Truly bizarre for me is the experience of what happens when you do "submit". You click on the nice green button "Submit your draft when you are ready for it to be reviewed!", and oddly, the page is blanked and you are instructed to ignore that reality but click "Save" anyhow. Okay, i do that (and hope that I will be rewarded with a confirming message that I did the right thing). And... what I get is a restored page, with prominent banner: Article not currently submitted for review. WTF!!! Oh, at the very bottom, probably out of view, there is another banner, with "Review waiting". Even if I see that, i don't know which to believe. Hmm, maybe this whole Wizard system is completely broken. Hmm, will I ever get a "review"? Hmm, should I wait for weeks now, when it appears obvious that my submission was not properly received (that is in fact what the designers want, i personally think). This is putting further unnecessary bewilderment onto the user. The wizard system absolutely must be changed, IMHO, to take out or revise the "This has not been submitted" message for articles that have been submitted. And probably the latest banner should be put in on top, above any others, and should perhaps statement that this message overrides any previous, lower banners.
4) This is a lesser point. The new user who arrives at wp:AFC may find their way to the article wizard. It's good, but is a longish sequence to go through, and after a few times they would probably like a shortcut to an article starting point further in. I've had trouble finding what entry point to bookmark for my own use. Maybe for users who are repeatedly creating articles of a similar type, with similar sources, etc., there could be a named shortcut that they could be advised that they could use, or a specific suggested page that could be identified as the one they should usefully bookmark? Probably that is Wikipedia:Article wizard/Ready for submission, i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_wizard/Ready_for_submission? It could be mentioned at the bottom of that short page, that this is a good page to bookmark and start from, if you've arrived here several times already. Otherwise for new users I expect it is unclear whether the entire wizard must be gone through each time. Who knows how these computer software things work? Is this a temporary page that cannot be bookmarked? (I personally believe that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_wizard/Ready_for_submission is a hard url that can be bookmarked, but that is not obvious. And, again, its name is a misnomer--it is not a page for "ready for submission"--it is, rather, a page for "ready to draft".)
I hope these comments are helpful. :) Again, I really like what you're all doing here, and that is why I take the time to try to give helpful feedback. Sincerely, -- do ncr am 17:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Has anyone ever thought of doing anything on these lines? Perhaps the two could be combined. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 05:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/CCI Channel Management Solutions is redirected to User:Articles for creation/CCI Channel Management Solutions instead of the other way around (no, it wasn't me this time!) How can that be fixed up so that the article to be reviewed is in Afc space? — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I submitted a second comment and reloaded the page; the script broke the previous comment as such: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Leaf guard. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 17:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
{{afc comment}} A good start, but removing "Installation" per [[WP:NOTHOWTO]].
{{afc comment|1= A good start, but removing "Installation" per [[WP:NOTHOWTO]].}}
{{afc comment}} A good start, but removing "Installation" per [[WP:NOTHOWTO]].
or
{{afc comment}} A good start, but removing "Installation" per [[WP:NOTHOWTO]]. Starting a list: * la *li *lo Signature (or not)
? How should I detect that? I believe a better education how to use such templates is better with less false positives... mabdul 18:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
{{{1}}}
to be more like {{{1|There is no comment here! Please use this template correctly!}}}
so that the template fails to work if they don't use the proper format. Just ideas...
Technical 13 (
talk)
19:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)When I select the "Backlog drives" tab at the top of this page it has instructions on how to take part in the drive. It says to go to the relevant backup drive page, but no where that I can find on the page does it say how to find this page except a barely noticeable link in the green invitation template at the bottom of the page. Is this an oversight, or is the drive by invitation only? — Anne Delong ( talk) 21:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Can we please see an example of what the "#[URL_TO_DIFF name_of_submission]" text looks like with actual content, or else explain in detail what "URL_TO_DIFF" is required and the exact format required for "name_of_submission"? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 16:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
@ Dodger67: you'd do it something like this - [http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AArticles_for_creation%2FCCI_Channel_Management_Solutions&diff=562329857&oldid=562326702 CCI Channel Management Solutions], producing CCI Channel Management Solutions. Mdann52 ( talk) 08:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
BTW do we get more Brownie points for an accept, which takes several minutes to complete, compared to a decline that can be done and dusted in just a few seconds? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 10:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear editors:
I came across this unusual article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/thoughtform thought-form ThoughtForms (disambiguation). I was going to decline it as non-notable, since none of the variations of "thoughtform" have an article in Wikipedia, but the editor has gone to some trouble to find references for some of the uses. I am presuming that the list of possible spellings is not needed, but what about the rest? — Anne Delong ( talk) 14:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
The Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/thoughtform thought-form ThoughtForms (disambiguation) page, declined by Mdann52 has been resubmitted, with only two entries this time, so I decided to look a little further. The author of the page has included two links. One is to the Thought page, which he has recently updated and to which he has added his own theory of thought with a reference to the book he has written about it. Now, is this what is meant by spam? — Anne Delong ( talk) 21:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I was up until about 3 a.m. whipping up an AfC-like submission page for COIs to request corrections, contest unsourced material and (after reading some disclosures) offer content for consideration. It comes to mind that I've seen posts several years old where editors have pondered why this doesn't already exist and it seems like a no-brainer.
It needs some coding work before the forms would actually "work" but I would be interested in (a) anyone who can help code the forms and (b) any thoughts generally. Most of the templates and coding I used so far has been copy/pasted from AfC. CorporateM ( Talk) 16:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I signed up for AfC Buddy on the user subpage of Excirial ( talk · contribs). Just wondering, will it (in addition to tracking the diffs of submissions, many thanks) also generate the running totals? The One Sean 22:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
This article, called Cultural Culinary Diplomacy, defines and outlines a new kind of diplomacy via food. It's a reasonably well written article, but I can't help but question the premise as a neologism. It doesn't seem to be created in an "attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term" (
WP:NEO), but I'm reluctant to accept it because of the non-prevalence of the term. Any second opinions? Thanks,
the
one
sean
02:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
P.S: The AfC Mentoring program is well under development. I will be posting requests for help after the backlog drive is over. Thanks.
Note to potential reviewers of this page. I have blanked it per WP:SOAP. Please see Talk:Emmanuel College (Queensland)#Edit warring re litigation and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive800#Emmanuel College (Queensland) for background. Voceditenore ( talk) 07:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
The visual editor was rolled out for my account yesterday, and I've noticed I can't use HotCat any longer. Is this a known issue? FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 15:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
So, I have quite a few ideas for how to revamp the Article Wizard, and I'm testing them on the labs cluster here (NOT SUL enabled with enwp).
If anyone wants to help, I'd love it if some people with good knowledge of either mw:Extension:GuidedTour or javascript in general could pop over, as that's the first idea I'd like to test. I can probably manage without anyone, but it'd help tremendously. Thanks ~ Charmlet -talk- 04:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear editors: I have been told several times that towns are considered notable as long as there is evidence that they are actual towns. However, I'm having difficulty in finding this in the notability guidelines. In fact, I found this: "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists." Can someone point me to the correct info page? Thanks. — Anne Delong ( talk) 02:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: This article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Metin2 has been deleted three times in 2007. Now a new page has been submitted with this name, but it isn't in English. When I tried to decline it, the list of deletions comes up, but not the Afc script. Is this a bug? — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Next time one is reviewing, or discussing, an article submission about a "life coach" or a management guru or a book about management techniques, or any similar topic, it may be useful to have this in mind: http://www.dilbert.com/2013-06-30/ Arthur goes shopping ( talk) 10:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear editors: The following submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mohanpur, Punjab, India has been declined and resubmitted without much in the way of sources. I started to improve it, but soon realized that there is already a similar article in the encyclopedia at Mohanpur, Punjab. This second one has not been edited since the cut-and-paste was made. Which article should be improved? What should be done with the other one? — Anne Delong ( talk) 17:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes one must verify whether the postal code is assigned to a region, suburb, town, district or village. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 07:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: This article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Robert King (2) has quite a few references, all properly cited, but only three are to the original sites ( one of which is not about the subject). The others are two screen shots of newpaper articles about the subject which have been added to the subject's web site. Isn't this a copyright violation? Since it's not on Wikipedia, should the screen shots be accepted as references? Or would the references be acceptable if the URLs to the screen shots were removed by the references left? (The article has other problems.) — Anne Delong ( talk) 18:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I have doubts about a few of the reviews I've done, please take a look at:
Thanks Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 07:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Just a heads up to anyone who is as unaware of its existence as I was until recently: There is a help page/tutorial on adding references that is more graphical than WP:REFB and WP:CITE, and includes a video. I have added a shortcut to it which is WP:INTREF. Personally, I think it will be more helpful to newbies than other wall-o-text pages. Pol430 talk to me 19:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
A quick update for the participants in the July Backlog Drive, on the matter "Now where are those automatically updated statistics i signed up for"? The short version is: "Sorry that took so long, but they will be updated before the end of the weekend!".
The long version - for those interested - is that i am currently improving AFCBuddy's code in order to make it more efficient and resilient. Right now AFCBuddy has two issues:
Both issues should be solved before the weekends end. Uploading will change to automatic, and the program should be more resilient which saves a load of time. For most part you shouldn't notice anything different, except that i will likely update the stats more often since it won't require an hour or so of my time to do this. At the same time this change means that i won't be combing trough every AFCbuddy result anymore either - so please keep an eye out of anything odd and let me know if something seems to bug out. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 19:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
An editor told me that I wrongly declined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alexandra Luke for the reason that it already exists. I declined it because the review tool said that it already exists. Now I see that it is just a redirect and I keep on getting an error each time that I try to approve it. SL93 ( talk) 21:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
This page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Scott Farquharson has been deleted once as a hoax earlier this year. I have been trying to find out it the current article contains incorrect information. I have run out of time before finding out whether the same person who is the poet and works at Harlequin is also the person who has had cancer and ADHD and has been in various productions. (I have to go out to a musical session) I thought I would leave a heads-up in case someone else wants to investigate further. Maybe this new article is completely legit, but I noticed that another user User:Harlequin Publishing Ltd has been blocked. — Anne Delong ( talk) 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
The song "Cant de la Senyera" appears to be a song prominent in the process of Catalan independence. It resulted in the imprisonment of Jordi Pujol
It would be good to see an article explaining why — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.76 ( talk • contribs) 23:25, 5 July 2013
Hello, I am back from my short vacation with a nice update to the script coming your way. It is v4.1.19, and is now available to everyone using the stable script (the gadget). It includes all the changes posted here and is really awesome. Give it a try today! Testers: a new beta build will be released soon. I'm just having trouble finding admins to do it for me. :P Thanks, Nathan2055 talk - contribs 14:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
FloodAlerts was accepted in AfC without any citations. SL93 ( talk) 21:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
See WT:Articles for creation/Ken Lanci, there's nothing particularly blatant, but it is a rather "nice" article for a person who is busy campaigning for political office - not a single word of criticism. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 21:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Tonite, I reviewed Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lighting a Billion Lives ( LaBL). I finished my review and reloaded the page and reviewed my review. Then I went to my watch list and imagine my surprise when I discovered another user had reviewed it and it overwrote my review. How does this happen? There certainly has to be a way to prevent two users from getting "the token" at the same time. Gtwfan52 ( talk) 09:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
With this review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wizkid? Which has now been moved to mainspace by Pratyya Ghosh ( talk · contribs) and, as far as I'm concerned, is still highly promotional. See the related thread on my talkpage, also: User talk:Pol430#Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wizkid for more. Pol430 talk to me 17:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Articles for Creation barnstar | |
This Articles for creation barnstar is bestowed to everyone who helped clear out the backlog. Thanks for all your help! -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 15:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC) |
The gadget worked perfectly fine for me for weeks, and then all of a sudden, I can't use it. Can somebody find out what's wrong? I use IE9. buff bills 7701 18:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Please take a look at this edit: The Helper script removes the newlines for section headings, appending them to the end of the previous paragraph and thus breaking the sections. Huon ( talk) 23:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Can someone please take another look at this article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hookworms (band)? Among the references I found four or maybe five good reviews and an interview, and I marked them by adding the name of the reviewer. — Anne Delong ( talk) 06:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
AfC
submissions Random submission |
3+ months |
This is the first time since my year of editing here at WikiProject AfC that I have seen Category:Pending AfC submissions completely free of all articles! Not sure if this is real or someone being disruptive, because this seems too good to be true. It's like the national debt being completely paid. :) Kudos to everyone! Michaelzeng7 ( talk) 14:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Hiyas everyone,
I made a slight change to the way the AFC backlog sign-up works. Instead of asking the user to list him or herself under the the totals list, a new section named
Participants has been added to the drive page, and a new template {{
AFCDriveSignup}}
has been made to register the addition. Why was this done you ask? Well, lets have another one of those dotted lists I'm addicted to!
I hope no one has an issue with my out-of-the-blue change; If you do, please let me know. Also, if someone notes an instance in the documentation still instructing the user to sign up under the "totals" list, or asks for them to sign up at AFCBuddy's talk page, please correct that or give me a nudge asking me to fix that. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 10:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
There are many French sources in Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Farid Dms Debah so it needs a French speaking/reading reviewer of which I am not. If someone could get that please. Also, you may have to manually review it since the tool isn't working on that article (I'm working on that) because it was previously deleted. (Fix might be in beta already...) I'll report back in a moment... Technical 13 ( talk) 12:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Looking... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 12:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Here goes:
http://offdecannes.fr/fr/page/laureats.html/ is a 404 (dead link)
http://www.lasemaine.org/la-semaine-pres-de-chez-vous/animation?id_animation=5216/ is a notice of an exhibition featuring the subject's photos
http://www.le-court.com/festivals/festival_fiche.php?festival_id=226&precedente_id=184#precedente/ is the web site of the French Short Film festival in Fréjus. No mention of the subject in the accessed page
http://akas.imdb.com/name/nm1096148/awards/ is a 404 (dead link)
http://www.le-court.com/festivals/festival_fiche.php?festival_id=417&precedente_id=819#precedente/ is the web site of the French Short Film festival in Fréjus. Confirms the subject as the recipient of the award: 2006 Prix coup de cœur du public, for the film Le Bourreau des innocents A 'coup de coeur public' is a low-level award voted by the attending audience at an award ceremony.
http://off-de-cannes.com/fr/blog/2012/02/23/emir-kusturika-remet-les-off-de-cannes-2007/ confirms the subject as the recipient of the 2007 'off' Cannes Golden Palm for his film Le bourreau des innocents
http://www.24courts.fr/?p=214#more-214/ confirms the subject as the recipient of the 2007 'Young Jury's prize for Le bourreau des innocents
http://catalogue.bnf.fr/servlet/biblio?idNoeud=1&ID=40184046&SN1=0&SN2=0&host=catalogue/ is the entry in the National Library of France for the book À gauche de l'écran, Ilario Calvo 2005, 180 pages, ISBN 2-915640-13-0, for which the subject wrote the preface.
Over to you, reviewers :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 12:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I've declined the submission for a second time due to the significant MoS and procedural faults that would almost certainly leave this submission open to a AfD within hours of hitting mainspace. The IP address did not address any of my concerns from the first decline, so per the "Please note that if the issues are not fixed, the draft will be rejected again." I invoked the decline again. I also listed explicitly the problems. Hasteur ( talk) 16:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: I have seen several articles lately in which a reliable source has written a report about an event, and then two or three other newspapers have copied the text, giving an attribution to the original paper. Is it suitable, in a case like that, for a Wikipedia article to refer to all of these papers, or should only the originating article be cited? I can see arguments both ways; for example, if the article appears in several papers, it shows that the editors of those papers thought that the topic was of wider interest than that of other articles which they chose not to reprint. Here's an example: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Graham Rogers (actor). — Anne Delong ( talk) 12:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: This article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ocucaje is a copyright violation of (a link I can't show you because of the spam filter) (which in turn it seems, copied it from another site no longer on the web). However, when I try to nominate it for deletion, either with the script or with Twinkle, I am blocked because apparently the link is triggering the spam filter. Being spam doesn't seem to be a good reason not to delete copyright material. What to do? — Anne Delong ( talk) 17:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
In regards to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ChoosePAWind there is a line that is taken directly from here: "[ChoosePAWind's] mission is to educate consumers about the environmental and economic benefits of using local, Pennsylvania-sourced wind energy."
Everything else seems to check out OK but given that the article is so short, would this be grounds for CSD? -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 22:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
It says that it was created via the Articles for creation process. Small problem and large problem. Small: there's no talk page. However, the history indicated that TracyK123 ( talk · contribs · count) created the article. Large problem: it's not ready for mainspace and wasn't reviewed via AfC. I'm moving it to AfC space. Anybody want to back me up or dispute this? Thanks, and you're awesome, the one sean 14:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I noticed an odd page on my suggestion list while heading toward WP:AFC/R. I checked it out and it turned out to be a ridiculously misplaced AfC submission from last year. I have marked it for deletion under WP:G12. I also found User:Renshinkan Karatedo Iran/sandbox and User:Renshinkan Karatedo Iran, all of which are misplaced subs that I'm not sure what to do with. Questions, comments, or remarks? -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 01:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: MER-C has reviewed several articles and marked them (CSD). I am presuming that means they are to be deleted. I can't think of a way to review these reviews, though, because unlike the other declines you can't see the reason or the article. In cases like this, should we just assume that if an admin actually deleted the page, that's a pass? — Anne Delong ( talk) 06:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
A number of submissions have been declined five or more times in quick succession for the same reason. The submitters make absolutely no attempt at all to fix the problems, they simply hit the resubmit button after every decline. Can we delete the submissions and/or block the submitters? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 18:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Part of it may be that the submitter believes that he will eventually encounter a lax reviewer that will allow the submission through. Technical 13 recently updated the decline template to say that if it is not significantly improved, it will be declined again. I honestly agree with Hasteur's approach of the "preemptive accept". It sounds like a good plan. -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 01:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: While checking over some reviews I came across this article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gavin Farley. It presents a fairly bizarre list of accomplishments for this person and ten references. I checked them out and here is the result:
Is this a hoax? Can someone look at this? Thanks. — Anne Delong ( talk) 12:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers:
I have been using the "Mark as Reviewing" feature quite a bit lately because I like to take my time when looking over a submission, and besides, after 50 years at the keyboard I can still only type at about 10 words per minute (sigh). I check for copyright violations and invisible references and I also frequently add (hopefully) helpful comments; this adds to the time between when I start reading and when I click the "decline" or "accept" button. Also, the submission list is so short lately, it's quite likely that two people would unknowingly be reading the same one at the same time unless this is used, even if the submission is simple.
Is there a policy about the use of the "Mark as Reviewing" feature? Is it only to be used for complex reviews? Or is the way I am using it (routinely when there are only a few submissions) appropriate? — Anne Delong ( talk) 15:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I have implemented a novel process regarding multiple declines for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rayid Ghani. I have added a collapse template around the declines that are more than a few days old (as long as there's ~4 remaining outside) to make the OMG DECLINES not be as distracting. Any thoughts? Hasteur ( talk) 16:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
{{
WikiProjectBannerShell}}
- for an example of that setup have a look at
Talk:Microsoft. All the related wikiprojects can be neatly collapsed into a single line archive, and each individual project can be extended for additional information. For the AFC project it might look like this.What is procedure for promoting an article, where an article of that name already exists, but only a redirect? In other words, the new article should replace the redirect, but AfChelper can't move the article, because it "already exists." thanks! 78.26 ( I'm no IP, talk to me!) 02:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: A truly strange thing happened while I was reviewing this article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eleven Past One. I found that it was a copyright violation, just about the time that I clicked the decline button, Wikipedia decided to log me out. Why? Who knows? Then the script seems to have partially failed, not sending a message to the user's talk page and not marking the page for deletion, but instead adding my comment inside the decline box. I logged back in, changed the name in the decline template from an IP address to my own, and then used Twinkle to request speedy deletion. Is there anything else I should do to straighten up this problem? These are guys from my town and I'd rather they weren't mad at me! — Anne Delong ( talk) 05:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Please look at WT:Articles for creation/Kopex as well as WP:Articles for creation/Kopex. I have repetadly declined, blanked and tagged as blatant copyvio of the subject's own websit but the submitting editor simply reverts the decline, blanking and speedy and then resubmits it. Needless to say it is also blatantly promotional too. This needs to be deleted, editor blocked and the page name should probably also be salted. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 09:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Snuggle users and the Teahouse are co-hosting an IRC office hours session (Wed. July 17th @ 1600 UTC - #wikimedia-office connect) to discuss the state of new editor support in Wikipedia and introduce you to WP:Snuggle, a web-based tool designed to make finding good-faith newcomers who need help fast and easy. Give it a try by pointing your browser to http://snuggle.grouplens.org.
See the agenda for more info. -- EpochFail ( talk), Technical 13 ( talk), TheOriginalSoni ( talk) 17:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#WikiProject Articles for creation Threatens to Ruin Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 01:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Not sure if this has been discussed before (maybe we need a "Perennial Requests" section somewhere to avoid re-treading questions like getting the red "User sandbox" error gone), but have we considered having a little checkbox which marks an article as being apparently written by the subject or employee, and/or where the username indicates affiliation with the subject? MatthewVanitas ( talk) 17:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Just spitballin' here, but maybe a "coi" checkbox could also provide the submitter's talk with the WP:LUC advisory?
If you write about yourself, your group or your company, once the article is created, you have no right to control its content, or to delete it outside the normal channels. Content is irrevocably added with every edit. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want to have included in an article, note that it will probably find its way there eventually. |
I was recently told that it would be nice to have the edit summaries for the creation of redirects contain a link to the target article. Could that be included in the helper script without too much of an effort, like this?
While I personally tend not to use the script for redirects, I do see the appeal of such a feature. Huon ( talk) 16:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm rather unhappy with the quality of the reviews by Techatology ( talk · contribs) and have raised the issue on their talk page. Huon ( talk) 23:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I see that my suggestion (user warnings) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Can we block editors for being too stupid? above has received little response. This is probably due to new threads causing it to be missed. Perhaps it needs to be listed as an RfC in order to gain some traction. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 01:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
A request for comment relating to the use of AfC with new users wishing to create articles is taking place here. ~ Charmlet -talk- 02:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I recently stumbled upon three different drafts CSD-blanked for what I'd call spurious reasons: One, two and a third one I don't remember. While I of course agree that "unambiguous advertising or promotion" is a speedy deletion criterion, these don't look like particularly egregious offenders to me; certainly not bad enough to warrant speedy deletion, let alone page blanking (I thought that was reserved for copyvios and attack pages?). Have I missed the "let's delete spam more freely" memo? Huon ( talk) 06:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
This caused me some "finger trouble" too. The speedy option only becomes available after blanking has been selected but it should be the other way round. Not all speedy-able drafts need to be blanked but all blank-able drafts should be speedied. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 09:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
@Kelapstick: There's another tag that says that the reason for blanking the page can be the decline reason. ✉→ Arctic Kangaroo ←✎ 16:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, part of the problem is the speedy deletion tag says it is nominated for the reason it was declined. If it is declined for poor referencing CSDH gives the option of blanking and CSDing it for just that reason, and poor referencing is explicitly not a speedy deletion criterion. The speedy deletion and blanking option should actually be removed from CSDH. When a CSD tag is actually required it should be put on manually, or via Twinkle or a similar mechanism. Attack pages are already autoblanked when applying {{ db-attack}}. Keeping it in CSDH just allows too much room for human error. -- kelapstick( bainuu) 22:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey, all of you awesome people! In addition to fighting the (nonexistent) backlog, I've been working on my AfC Mentoring program. I need some preliminary help. Can anyone find a draft of an AfC article (can be old) that is about a non-notable "garage band" or sorts? Just copy it over to User:Theonesean/sandbox/AfC_Mentoring/Section_2/Sample_Article 1: Jim-Bob and the Garage Rockers and I'll change the wording to make it fit. Alternatively, is anyone up to write an article about Jim-Bob and the Garage Rockers? That would be even more awesome. Basically what I want (feel free to take creative licence with all this) is an undercited article obviously written by Jim-Bob about the band he made with his friends. Citations should only be to self-published albums and local neighborhood newsletters.
I don't want to take advantage of this community, but I had such an outporing of people willing to help me, so I thought I'd take them up on this. Drop me a line if you have any questions.
Thanks so much. the one sean 14:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
There are dozens if not hundreds of {{ db-g13}}-eligible submissions in Wikipedia:Articles for creation/ sub-space.
Many of these were declined but some either were never submitted or the template was removed. Many are non-templated versions of drafts or declined submissions that are in Wikipedia Talk:[same page name].
What should we do about non-current submissions in Wikipedia:/Articles for creation space?
My recommendation:
By the way, there are a lot of historical project-related documents in Wikipedia:Articles for creation/. These should be kept for historical reasons, but there is no reason they and their talk pages can't all be moved en masse to a sub-space like Wikipedia:Articles for creation/historical/pre-DATE (where DATE is the date we changed from the "old" way of doing things to the "current" way of doing things, 2008-2009-ish I think) or some such. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 18:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations and thank you for all the hard work done by AfC volunteers recently: I was frankly gobsmacked today after checking the AfC category to find about 30-40 pages needing review. I try and review stuff at AfC occasionally but it quickly becomes utterly mindnumbing because of the sheer quantity of spam and rubbish that needs to be handled. I frankly don't have the patience for it.
My failure to help contribute to handling the frequent backlogs here is something that annoys me because I believe strongly in the principle that everyone who wants to contribute something to Wikipedia should have a fair shake and due process: they should be given a chance to write an article, to make their case in deletion discussions and so on.
So, yeah, keep on being amazing. If you've helped cut the AfC backlog from ludicrous to manageable, give yourself a big pat on the back and a nice virtual cuddle from a kitten for the hard work you've done keeping Wikipedia open to newbies.
—
Tom Morris (
talk)
09:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Is this article miscategorized? Or is it really up for review? Wikipedia:WikiAfrica/Cinema
— Anne Delong ( talk) 05:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Here's how to
add references from
reliable sources for the content you add to Wikipedia. This helps maintain the Wikipedia policy of
verifiability.
Adding well formatted references is actually quite easy:
You can read more about this on
Help:Edit toolbar or see this video
File:RefTools.ogv.
Hope this helps, --
Shearonink (
talk)
02:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
{{subst:
User:Shearonink/ref}}
on User:talk pages when needed.
How many times must we politely reject the exact same draft for exactly the same reason before we are allowed to really tell the submitter to stop bothering us with their blatantly non notable crap (usually some total nobody's very badly written autobiography)? There must be a point where AGF runs out. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 15:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I have an editor on my user talk page asking me questions on my talk page about the visual editor. He wants to work on his article with Visual Editor, but his article has been moved into AfC space. Am I right in thinking that Visual Editor is disabled in AfC space? Should I turn his article into a userspace draft so he can work on it? Rankersbo ( talk) 12:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Draft
namespace? I feel like this has been discussed before, just can't find it at the moment...
Theopolisme (
talk)
23:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Draft
namespace would be ideal, though I don't know what the technical requirements would be for this. --
LukeSurl
t
c
22:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I fear this project permits and tacitly encourages users to create "orphans", i.e. articles to which no other articles link. Every one who creates a new Wikipedia article should consider the question of which other articles should link to it, and create the links as the occasion arises. Michael Hardy ( talk) 04:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Nathan2055 wrote: "Our review script tags these automatically if they are truly orphans." That did not happen with oblate spheroidal wave functions, which I just edited. I changed the title to the singular: oblate spheroidal wave function and did some other edits. I also created a couple of links to that article from other articles:
As for not fixing fine details: I agree that many "fine details" can wait until after a proposed article becomes an article, and indeed, sometimes a proposed article should become an orphaned article. But when articles get reviewed, that could be looked at, AND authors could be told that that's one thing to look at. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
WT:WikiProject Articles for creation/July 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive#Time to close this drive? -- Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 11:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear Wiki, I proposed article on Institute of political studies in Belgrade. Institute of political studies (IPS) is leading national institution in Belgrade. I hope that that you will grant permission to publish article on IPS. Sincerely, IPS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IPS-u-Beogradu ( talk • contribs) 17:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Could something be added to the Reviewing instructions page telling reviewers to look at whether the new article created will be an "orphan" (i.e. no other articles link to it) and to suggest to the author that they consider which other articles ought to link to it, and that they could add the links? Lot of completely orphaned articles are getting created by this project, and although there's supposed to be software that tags then as orphans, that failed to happen in the last two instances I looked at. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I have responded in depth aon the RfC, but to save looking it up, here is my reply on the issue of creating a user right:
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 06:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Really, I tried looking through the archives, but evidently everyone else either knows the answer, or I'm not searching correctly! I've run across numerous times where someone has submitted a sandbox for review and it is blank. What is the process? Manually decline? Move it the user's name in AfC and then decline as blank? Just remove the submit template? The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 ( talk) 17:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Could someone please very quickly get me up to speed as to why AfC submissions are made on a talk page, and not on, for example, something like Articles for submission/submission/''articlename''? Thjis would allow some talk on its talk page, and would enable the full Twinkle pallets of CSD criteria and user warnings. Thanks in advance. IMO, our template markup and .php should make this possible, but I just don't have time to knock up a demo. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 06:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Can I get a second opinion on something? This article spent a bit of time being declined and subsequently fixed up at AfC. I reviewed it, decided he was notable, and passed it. I've just had a note from the article's creator here and alarm bells are immediately ringing - the article looks well written and referenced (though the refs are predominantly in Hebrew, his position as a prominent journalist on national television seems to be verifiable and typing his name into Google returns multiple news hits) but the reply on my talk page looks ... well, like an excitable teenager. My immediate thought is copyright violation but a search for key phrases in the article doesn't produce anything obvious. How should I proceed? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
User:Techatology has been blocked for socking along with his multiple accounts, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cybolton. (user Techatology now removed from list of active reviewers). This account was ostensibly created for the sole purpose of reviewing and accepting the many articles by his sock user:Cybolton and possibly others, especially Philippine related articles.
There is a strong possibility that this kind of abuse of AfC is not isolated.
Now that the backlog appears to have been miraculously cleared, it is probably time to review the performance of all relatively new and/or low edit count users who continue to review, and any users who begin reviewing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 22:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I have just spent around 2 hours going through this list. Except for 9 users who only have from 82 to 471 mainspace edits, among whom at least two admit to being inexperienced, I did not find anything of particular concern. One user is under adoption and possibly should not be reviewing at this stage, and I have removed two blocked users from the list. The list should now be checked for genuinely active users. The list of inactive users should be checked to see if any have become active again. There may be reviewers who are not on either list. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 01:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
After it was observed that the declined, potentially violating, and stale submissions in our project space are being picked up by mirrors and potentially leaving wikipedia open for hosting WP:NOT content, I've decided to embark on a crusade. I'm going through the AFC submissions by date and taking a hard look at the submissions that are stale (>2 years old with no updates in that same time period that are declined and applying the CSD ruberics on them. For the most part this means CSD:G13, but could also have others that apply (Calling a city very gay qualifies as an attack page). I'm hoping to get at least these cleared out soonish. Hasteur ( talk) 17:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Category:AfC submissions by date/October 2008 is in the process of being drained of stale articles. If people want to start taking individual months moving forward and cleaning those out, that'd be great too. Hasteur ( talk) 17:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear Editors: I was reviewing the article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pusat Tingkatan Enam Meragang, but when I tried to accept it to mainspace at Pusat Tingkatan Enam Meragang I found that the creator had already cut and pasted it to the article name I needed a few hours ago. The version in Afc is much better because it has a lot of good references (although they are bare URLs) and also because I spent some time rearranging the sections in the usual order. Can I just request that the mainspace page be deleted so that I can accept the better version? There is one edit where an orphan tag was added, but i intend to link it to List of schools in Brunei right away, so that won't be needed. — Anne Delong ( talk) 10:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
{{
db-move}}
would be applicable here.
Theopolisme (
talk)
14:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: I don't know if you have noticed, but there has been a lot of criticism of the Afc lately, and not all unjustified. Some of the reviews this month have been done too quickly without taking time to help the new editors, who have then been pouring out their problems at the Teahouse and and other help desks. Also, we have had an editor who was not reviewing in good faith and has been blocked. I have noticed a few reviews where the article was declined for reasons that would make the article better, but are not needed for acceptance, such as inline citations of non-controversial material, references not formatted properly, etc. Now that the backlog is gone, this is the time to get involved in the re-reviewing, and while you are at it, if you see an editor that seems to need help leave a message on his or her talk page, or even fix up the problems yourself if they are minor. Thanks! — Anne Delong ( talk) 15:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
The review helper script seems to be malfunctioning, it stalls repeatedly and is slow to execute when it does work. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 12:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I've just discovered that the current script does not work on IE10 at all. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 08:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
This submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tepr has all of the data replaced with a row of wikiproject banners. Any ideas? — Anne Delong ( talk) 02:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone have an IMDb Pro subscription? I think this article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sydney Urshan is copied from there, but I can't get in to look. — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Being that I've been at this for several days and we're only down to a little over 79k declined submissions I propose the following:
It is a simple binary Yes/No regarding the qualification of G13, has a human interlock (an admin must verify that G13 applies), does no critical harm, is recoverable for users who wish to take an activist role in saving an old AfC. It also has the benefit of being reasonable in the size of data it submits to the Admin Corps so as to not flood them with too many requests at once.
I ask for consensus to submit this proposed Bot Task (and probably to code it using the pywikipedia framework) so that we can clean up our house. Thoughts, Comments, Concerns, Suggestions? Hasteur ( talk) 16:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
{{
db-g13}}
) as a regular user would but would save the effort of a individual user clicking through each and every one of the categories to evaluate and use almost the same process that twinkle would. I know that the overall CSD backlog has gone up to 250 over the past few days and that anything over 50 in the overall CSD category automatically generates a backlog notice for Administrators. I'm open to other thresholds, but I'm trying to match our automated process workflow with the throughput that I think the Admin corps can handle.
Hasteur (
talk)
22:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: A new user has made these edits. First he created a talk page with a link to his blog. Then he created a sandbox with nothing in it and submitted it. It was declined as blank by me. Then another editor asked him not to include promotional material on his talk page. He started a "Contested deletion" section, although as far as I can see nothing was deleted. He then submitted his blank article twice more and was declined by two other users. Then he sent me a barnstar that's not in English. Perhaps he doesn't speak English? — Anne Delong ( talk) 22:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
this is exactly the kind of thing I've been talking about constantly for a couple of weeks. Is no one going to take the initiative to check up on this sort of thing? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 12:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the many efforts of the valiant few in taking the time to check that user out and clean up his act for him, and plugging away with your comments on the RfC. If he continues, let me know and I'll issue a preventative block. Let's hope that something official can be raised about reviewer experience soon, otherwise AfC appears to be in free fall. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 15:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Shortly after the one mentioned at the top of this article, annother user added themselves to the AfC members and started conducting a review. I cautioned them that it probably isn't a good idea for them to be doing reviews and that they should come discuss with us their experience. Hasteur ( talk) 17:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear editors: Is there list somewhere of popular user-contributed databases? I know YouTube of course, and the IMDb, and presswire.com for press releases, but what about tvguide.com, for example? — Anne Delong ( talk) 21:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I seem to be back in question mode today. I was working on the Assessment page, and I came to this article: David Andrews (Trio Capital chairman). Is this an appropriate article name? Shouldn't it be David Andrews (diplomat) or something less promotional of his company? — Anne Delong ( talk) 13:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: I have been going through the old submissions declined as advertising, and I found this submission: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/CLUSTER. This seemed like a notable topic, so I checked out mainspace and found CLUSTER, which has no references at all. I have made an edit to the article to save it from being G13'd; perhaps the references from one can be used to improve the other. — Anne Delong ( talk) 03:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: I know that there is a page where you can see how many articles have been submitted each day, and I know that there's a spot where you can see the recently accepted and declined articles. Is there any statistics page that keeps track of the number of articles accepted, declined and deleted each day so that you can spot a trend in the numbers? — Anne Delong ( talk) 22:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear editors: At the bottom of the list of recent Afc activity, I found a link to this page: Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2006-04-28 and some similar. Can anyone tell me the history and purpose of this page? — Anne Delong ( talk) 11:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I asked at Village Pump Technical, and I was able to find that there have been about 46,000 deleted submissions to Afc, not including sandboxes and user pages that were never moved into the Afc space. Add that to the 80,000 declined submissions and 24,000 created articles (not including redirects) and we have 150,000 articles that have been assessed by the Afc reviewers. That seems like a lot of work! By the way, can anyone explain why all of these (over 8000) redirects are categorized as Afc? It seems to me that most redirects would be created in mainspace after the articles were accepted. — Anne Delong ( talk) 19:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Could a reviewer competent in French please review Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ilana Salama Ortar. We really need to create a proper system for such "language skills needed" requests. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 11:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
OK team members, petrb runs AFCbot every day and adds at least 100 pages to Category:AfC submissions with missing AfC template. A generated list includes ~6500 pages without any template. These pages should be resubmitted and then reviewed and likely to be declined. mabdul 16:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I was trying to decline Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/'Originated-by-Korean' allegations under verifiability while leaving a comment on the page about NPOV, as I have done dozens of times. However, when I go to decline it with the helper script, it balks for some reason, poppoing up an error reading "Unable to locate AFC submission template, aborting...". Does anyone know what is going on? Tazerdadog ( talk) 21:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: I think this article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/TMA Solutions is ready for acceptance. There are four sources that are reliable, and I have removed any promotional comments that weren't directly supported. However, it seems that the article has been deleted several times before because it was too promotional. Is there somewhere I should appeal to have this title unblocked, or should I just give it a slightly different title, such as TMA Solutions (software company)? — Anne Delong ( talk) 05:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
When reviewing an article on opera or classical music-related subjects, if the reviewer is not familiar with these subjects, please contact the talk pages at Wikiproject Opera and/or WikiProject Classical Music. The draft for Der Waffenschmied was summarily rejected yesterday. According to the reviewer: "subject appears to be a non-notable musical performer or work" with unreliable and non-independent references, with the further comment "The article is still too heavy on the plot and needs more information on the opera itself." Even without the plot, the article had sufficient information and context to form a viable encyclopedic stub. It had 3 references to reliable independent sources, is an opera by a very notable 19th-century composer, and the title was already red-linked from Wikipedia:Music encyclopedia topics/10 and The opera corpus. Fortunately, another reviewer contacted Wikiproject Opera and asked us to look at the draft [4]. I immediately accepted the article, tidied it up, and added one more reference. I also notified the article's creator with a personal message here. Voceditenore ( talk) 07:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
We need someone who can read Chinese to verify the sources cited in Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lan Yu. -- Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 07:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Erika Winters cites sources in Spanish, please check for Notability.
Please check User:Pippa.lewis's contributions record. This user has submitted numerous brief articles about "touristy" places in England. I have noticed that all the places are in one county, Shropshire and that the editor consistently cites the same few sources in all the articles. There is no problem of notability because any named geographic place/feature that has proven existence is deemed inherently notable. However I am concerned that this editor might be acting as a representative of a tourism or promotion authority of the Shropshire county and thus all the already approved articles (and pending drafts) will have to be scrutinised for promotional content. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 12:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
According to the author, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ivan Ozhogin was a translation assignment (from de:Ivan Ozhogin) for school that needs to be live by Monday (I'd really like to have a word with whoever handed out this assignment). The better sources are all in Russian, unfortunately. Notability is something of an issue, and I'm not all that comfortable with judging the reliability of Russian sources. I tried to find German ones but only came up with press releases. There may also be COI issues; the author claimed that the German version was written by the actor's PR representative (and on second thought I wonder how she knew that when the translation was a school project...). So if someone here speaks Russian and can review it, I'm sure it will be appreciated. Huon ( talk) 06:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Please see User talk:Dodger67#question about my rejected submission (JPost) and add your opinions. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 09:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:AFC_submission/comments has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please copy the contents of Template:AFC_submission/comments/sandbox into the main template (it's been updated with an additional parameter, per this github issue). Thanks, Theopolisme ( talk) 15:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi there. Barnstars for the drive will not be handed out until the 16th August, to allow time for reviewing reviews, and due to me being offline until this date. Any queries should be directed via email. Thanks, Mdann52 ( talk) 16:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Has anyone noticed that since the Afc queue is so much shorter, we are not experiencing so many cut-and-paste duplicates? I hope that we can keep this going for a while. — Anne Delong ( talk) 00:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
This article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cuzie.com has two references to one of the founders, neither of which mention the subject, and one of which appears to be a political ad. Should at least one of these be removed? — Anne Delong ( talk) 02:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I would like an opinion about the viability of this article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Three Cons. It was declined as a neologism because the original title was "The three cons". This has been fixed; however, I am having difficulty in seeing how this article is a valid topic at all. Could it be a list instead? — Anne Delong ( talk) 03:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I decided to look at some of the old submissions that don't have a submission template, and I found this one: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/2012–13 United States network television schedule. The article has been created. Usually submissions don't have talk pages, and comments are just deleted when the article is created. Should this one be deleted, or should it be merged with the current article's talk page? — Anne Delong ( talk) 04:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Here's what causes those articles with no Afc templates: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/CIIT College of Arts and Technology. — Anne Delong ( talk) 06:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
We've been working hard to improve the Articles for creation helper script, fixing and adding a whole suite of features. Now it's time for the fun part: testing! If you're an AfC reviewer who doesn't mind being on the cutting edge now and then, we'd love it if you disabled the current AFCH gadget and added
importScript('MediaWiki:Gadget-afchelper-beta.js'); // AFCH beta script
to your common.js page. We'd then love to hear your feedback (bug reports, feature suggestions, you name it) about reviewing article and redirect submissions. You can post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Development page, or on GitHub. We're looking forward to hearing from you! Theopolisme ( talk) 01:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
@ Dodger67: I've opened an issue on GitHub for us to try to figure out why the script doesn't work in IE 9; please hang tight. :) Does it run in other browsers? Theopolisme ( talk) 22:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
@ Dodger67 and Mabdul: This issue should be fixed (if I understood mabdul correctly) and will be available in the beta script soon. I'll let you (Dodger) know when it's live. Thanks, Theopolisme ( talk) 22:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Roger, this should be fixed, try adding the beta script to your common.js and bypassing your cache. Please let me know how it goes-- Theopolisme ( talk) 00:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to help out with AfC. I made a comment on the help page, here that Roger criticised. Having just reviewed my first AFC, I can see now how a manual move into mainspace would mess up things.
I've ticked the box at "Preferences → Gadgets → Yet Another AFC Helper Script" and I've found Template:AFC statistics#Pending submissions; and reviewed and accepted Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Noel Lee, moving it into mainspace as Noel Lee (manufacturer). I'd appreciate review of that, if anyone has the time, before I do any more. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 12:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
{{
Reply to}}
it'll trigger the LittleRedBoxOfWin for the user (assuming they are a editor and not an IP address)
Hasteur (
talk)
19:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Do the histories on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alexander Koch (Actor) and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alexander Koch (actor) need to be merged? — Anne Delong ( talk) 06:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Redirects redirects here, so am I here. Should a bot decline the waste? Wiping malformed submissions out is a job certainly below the dignity of a human Wikipedian, even with a script assistance. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 08:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)