![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
If I want to create a template or a category, should I submit it here? -- 68.74.116.159 01:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
When an unregistered user clicks on a link for a non-existent article such as Kansas State Library, you get this, which as of this writing, does not mention Kansas State Library anywhere. For various reasons, including having the "What links here" make more sense, I'd like to request that the "Article not found" text be updated to include the name of the article that the unregistered user is unable to create. Thanks. 64.151.27.183 01:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC).
As several editors have already noted above, AFC has become so long that it is unmanageable. Building upon God_of_War's work above, AFC now has daily pages. All new submissions are directed to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Today. Every day User:Uncle G's 'bot will rename Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Today to another name (listed in Wikipedia:Articles for creation/List), and then blank the redirect to create a fresh page for today. This at least will chop the submissions up into lumps of manageable size, that don't take minutes to render. There still remains the question of how to archive processed and rejected submissions. Uncle G 09:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I've been out of the loop for a bit – does the article-creation restriction now apply to really new registered users as well? android 79 15:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Is there any way we could get the template to sign entries automatically? - Mgm| (talk) 11:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I've seen some more problems recently.
Are we being unclear somehow? Or are people simply not reading the instructions (again)? - Mgm| (talk) 10:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Is there any way of stopping people from adding stub templates to the articles until they're actually made? Wikipedia:Articles for creation keeps on appearing in all sorts of different stub catagories. BL kiss the lizard 22:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Not sure if it's just me, but Wikipedia:Articles for creation's Today's submissions and Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Today seem stuck on a redirect to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2006-01-15. Where are all these submissions? Tearlach 13:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Looks like User:Upload found a way to get {{ AFC preload}} to sign automatically but it needs some admin attention right now. Also if it's used, us non-admins won't be able to edit the template directly, so it should be protected. Kappa 17:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Below are what needs to be done, in order to get the automatic signing feature working:
~~
~~~~
(see below for details){{subst:AFC preload/~~}}{{subst:AFC preload/~~}}
<!-- The following will sign this submission automatically, please leave it as it is: -->
{{subst:AFC preload/~~}}{{subst:AFC preload/~~}}
~~~~
Upload 12:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
What about non-published sources? I have what is essentially a log book that my father kept when he was a sailor on a ship in the South Pacific. It is a source; but it has not been published, either in hard copy or on the web. The ship he was on currently does not have an article, so I would have to start one.
The page to request a new article asks for PUBLISHED sources. I have a source, but it is non-published. How do I reference a non-published source to start an article? Will you allow me to start an article with a non-published source?
Okay, I tried to follow the directions in the main article, and hoped I was doing it right, but it looks like something went amiss. I wanted to propose a new category. It would be called Category:Seafaring films, soon to be populated with lots of movies about seafaring, as quickly as I'd find them, I'd go ahead and add them in. But by following the instructions, it appears that the "Articles for creation" now belongs to the C. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.177.27.22 ( talk • contribs) .
Can somebody please remove Isara from the request list? I've just created the article; but can't find the requested articles in the archive -- it was requested 2-4 weeks ago; i'm really n ot sure, and unsure how to find it and remove it.
I added some notability links to the main page in hopes that some of the more common unsuitable submissions can be avoided. I specifically used the 'WP:' shortcuts since 1) they stand out much better, 2) they are easier to remember, and 3) we use that notation nearly uniformly in our responses to submissions and this helps put that in context. -- ShinmaWa( talk) 20:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
This mesage apears on top of ever archived page, and well the phrase doesn't really work in the english language (no offence to the creator) I suggest we change it. Deathawk 00:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Another thing to consider is that this text is transcluded into the main page. Its strange to see: "Please follow the link back to Wikipedia:Articles for creation" when you are already there. Perhaps some page-neutral language? -- ShinmaWa( talk) 10:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
email me at <deleted>.
looks like someone removed the note about stubsfrom the page. please can you make sure that stub templates dont keep cropping up on this page - thanx again :) BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 06:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Today, two users mistakingly added their article requests to the AFC page rather than use the addcomment link on the page. One of those users did it by blanking the entire page. I'm quite positive that these were NOT intentional acts of vandalism, but rather new users who are unfamiliar with the system making honest mistakes. The problem is that the issue wasn't fixed for over 4 hours -- and it's not the first time this has happened. This reflects poorly on Wikipedia and leaves a bad first-impression on new users. Given all this, perhaps semi-protection is in order in this case.
I'll grant you that WP:SPP states quite clearly that it "is not intended for pre-emptive protection of articles that might get vandalized.". However, I'm thinking that this is also a good WP:IAR candidate as well. The intention of semi-protecting AFC is not to prevent anonymous users from participating, but to ensure that new users can participate. For 4 hours today, during the Western Hemisphere's "prime time", anonymous users couldn't use AFC at all. -- ShinmaWa( talk) 06:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Looking at how the page source is organized, it looks loke there are several things that could be done that might help as much as the proposed semi-protection. The first thing is to move the header/instructions into a template similiar to Template:PR-instructions or Template:FAC-instructions. This would move information that should be fairly static out of the line of fire and make it easy to watchlist the template to see if any changes occur. The second thing that should probably be done is to move the Today's submissions and Older submissions headers into the transcluded pages instead of having them in the top level page. This would change the behaviour of the [edit] tag associated with the header to cause an edit to be of the transcluded file instead of the top level file. As this problem appears to be caused by newbies, removing this point of confusion should reduce the frequency of problems. -- Allen3 talk 13:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I have been convinced by Meegs' arguement above that semi-protection is worth a trial to see if it will help resolve the problems. As the purpose is to force anons and new users to use the link provided on the page instead of preventing vandalism, the usual {{ sprotected}} template has not been placed on the page. If another admin objects to this decision, please feel free to reverse the protection. -- Allen3 talk 14:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
We may be on our own with the archiving for a while; Uncle G's 'bot hasn't edited in more than a week, and Uncle G hasn't in four. Is there another bot around that we could ask to help? × Meegs 05:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I've added a note to the instructions of this page about stub templates. It is thoroughly irritating to have to keep removing stub templates from proposals on these pages. I see from looking through this talk page that I'm not the only one whose regularly needed to delete them - I've added it in the instructions template, which is hopefully a better place to where BL Lacertae added them. It's fine to just add plain {{ stub}} once they're created, they'll be sorted soon enough (though if you want to add more precise templates, no-one at WP:WSS will object :) Grutness... wha? 01:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Given Uncle G's bot is taking a wiki-vacation, I'm in the process of building my own bot. It will run on my dedicated server on a cron job. I'm starting to build it now and when its closer to completion, I'll make the official bot request for it on WP:BOT. Also planned is a utility to take care of stub templates and categories on here as well. -- ShinmaWa( talk) 19:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Failing to give an article title makes the article appear under the same section as the previous article. For example, see "Homer Spit" (or whatever it was) on today's listing. It includes three separate articles. Because the newbies only understand even a very basic instruction if it's written in 72-point flashing bright red in ALL CAPS, should one like this be put on the main AfC page to remind them to actually type a title? JIP | Talk 15:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I worked very hard on my article, Uniforms of La Grande Armee. I shortened it in the submission so that it wouldn't take long to copy and I could edit it and expand it once its created. Could someone please create it. -- 24.247.126.44 14:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
List of fictional subterranean countries are not included in the list List of fictional countries. So I created this article.
I just submitted my first article, the one on GSO. I could have linked to more terms already on wiki, but I just wanted to get something up. This is my first submission.
I think I messed up the layout and it is ruining the Articles for Creation page. Sorry! Can someone fix this?
Also, I read the website info about the rules for adding a website to GSO. AFAIK, it is not in any form of print media, but Wiki itself references GSO as evidenced here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=governmentsecurity.org
It's certainly a known site.
12.226.236.161Yorn
There are several articles that were submitted days ago, including a couple of mine, that have not been 'created' yet. Will someone please get to work on these? 147.240.236.9 22:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Someone deleted (vandalized) the page and deleted tens of article creation requests - NO ONE noticed!
The only reason I noticed is that my request vanished.
This system i.e. one big page, just doesn't work. There is no way to track which pages were rejected, or anything.
How about creating some sort of sub namespace, where users can actually CREATE the page. Then if approved the page is copied to the main area, and the page marked done.
Or the page can be marked denied, etc. (Presumably by using categories.)
This way each request is by itself and the whole system becomes far more manageable.
You would just look at the category page for uncompleted requests, denied ones, and if you want completed requests.
67.165.96.26 23:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I keep submitting articles, but it seems like nobody out there is putting them in. Get Cracking, and start putting them in, guys! 71.13.81.162 18:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. Not allowed. This is contrary to regulations. I am not allowed to create an account. I suspect that there are several others in the same boat (so to speak).
Yes. 147.240.236.9 22:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I created a 2 new articles on 29 March 2006
Dinio Garcia and
Yotuel Romero but it does not appear in this list, How do i fix this ?
Trade2tradewell
11:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
As mentioned in earlier topics, we lost the bot that used to archive WP:AFC/Today at the end of February. My attempts at finding a replacement have been unsuccessful; if anyone can provide a bot, or suggest a developer to perform this task, please do.
Also, though I have been doing the archiving manually, I will not be nearly as reliable in the future and it will be necessary for others to take-over. The three-step procedure for humans is the same as the one described in the bot request. × Meegs 06:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Right now, the instructions for submitting a request are fragmented and include many redundancies (albeit mostly for important points). The instructions for fulfilling requests are low-down in the page and often overlooked altogether. I've prepared a streamlined rewrite of the entire page head at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2006 April rewrite. Comments? × Meegs 21:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I have created a set of templates that can be used to respond to requests if users would wish to use them. Any comments anyone could provide would be appreciated. Specifically, I'm looking for any comments on how to improve current templates, and any suggestions on titles/contents of other templates that haven't been created yet. We could move them to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Response Templates if enough users agree with them. Any comments anyone? -- Darth Deskana (talk page) 22:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for putting this request here. I read Help: Starting a New Page which says "Anyone, including you, can write for Wikipedia! Just type a title in the box below, click "Create page", and start writing" and "'Create page' takes you to an edit page to enter the new text" and under "Starting a page through the URL" it says "Using the URL for the new page displays the default 'no article' message (see MediaWiki:Noarticletext). The default page has the usual Edit this page link, which can be used to begin adding content" but it did not. After typing in the title of thearticle I was atempting to create it went to an "Article not found" page which says "As an unregistered user, you may also submit the content that you wish to have created". So I clicked the "edit this page" tab but the identical page just comes up again. So clicking the "submit the content" link I went to "Wikipedia:Articles for creation" where it says "To request the creation of an article with text you wrote, post it here" but I see no way to do this. Wow what a loop!
So anyway the page (or just a stub to start) I was requesting the creation of was on the "National Cattlemen's Beef Association" [1]. I was going to include this quotation from said association (it appears at the bottom of every page of the site) "NCBA... working to increase profit opportunities for cattle and beef producers by enhancing the business climate and building consumer demand" which I find quite telling - especially the "working to increase profit opportunities for cattle and beef producers" and "building consumer demand" part.
Please be on the lookout for page blanking of WP:AFC/Today. The way to spot it is by routinely checking for the line
at the top of the page. It tends to happen about 3 times a week, but can be quite difficult to restore if it happens multiple times in one day.
I'd also personally like to ask for others to help in archiving the page. Ideally it should be done daily, shortly after 0000 UTC. When it is not done, the page becomes less accessible to the submitters, and it becomes harder to fix problems, such as blanking. × Meegs 11:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
If you can provide instructions on how to archive it, I'd gladly help on occasion. Perhaps we could come up with a rota for it! -- Darth Deskana (talk page) 07:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Below is the three step procedure for archiving WP:AFC/Today. Archiving can be done at any time of day, but only once per UTC calendar date.
× Meegs 10:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I understand that blocking page creation was an experiment. Is there discussion on how it's doing anywhere? -Dan 05:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
What happened to the Articles for Creation for May 2, 5, 7, and 8? They are missing. Probably some others also. 147.240.236.9 22:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
It seems that during an edit, 21:09 hrs 7 May 2006, that 66.31.238.200 erased many entries that were submitted, including some of mine, while editing an article. Whoever submitted entries between May 5 and May 9 needs to check to see if they have been created. 68.61.35.13 19:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Is this page still active? While there is certainly a large number of submissions that deserve to be ignored, a quick scan finds that there are also multiple submissions that deserve to be created. Are no new articles being created because people are having problems finding the signal hidden by all the noise or has this page reached the point where it has been completely abandoned by those empowered to fulfill requests? -- 208.100.200.35 12:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Could someone who knows how the system works look at Apple Valley High School? Today someone moved Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Today there. I'm not sure which entries belong where. Tearlach 15:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the article about Jon Lassonde is highly unexceptable! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.203.208.86 ( talk • contribs) 2006 June 2 32:10 UTC.
Are we supposed to be listing every article we create pursuant to an AFC request in that little list of created articles? That's kind of annoying if so. -- maru (talk) contribs 17:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Draconids (that doesn´t exist but appears as a link) must be redirected to Giacobinids. -- 80.103.117.190 12:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Is there some way that a "Declined because subject is not suitable for Wikipedia" template could be made? Many of the suggestions that are being submitted are just utter nonsense and this would speed up the process greatly. I would make one myself, but I am not sure of how to do it. Thank you. -- LynnMarie 18:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I can help out with the backlog here, but where to start? Is it better to go through the older archives forst, or go for today's entries? -- Kevin 10:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
For the {{ afc top}} and {{ afc b}} tags to work __TOC__ neds to go into the top of todays page, otherwise the first entry includes the table of contents in it's shaded area. I'm not sure how to do that other than manually adding it each day. Does someone know how to do this? Kevin 21:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea if, like Articles for deletion, we have a different background for those article requests that have been dealt with. I find it hard to filter through all the ones that are done and those that haven't been responded to because the page has a lot of "noise", because many people don't fully understand the instructions. Shading the completed ones would really help single out the ones still needing to be dealt with and help get this page back in shape. Harryboyles 10:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I've started a discussion on the Articles for Deletion talk page, asking what AfC reviewers should do when faced with a request for an AfD page to be created. If you have an interest in how those requests should be handled, I'd encourage you to participate in that discussion. Kickaha Ota 17:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed several users editing their submissions in response to "declined" comments. This, of course, is exactly what we want them to do. But since we've already marked their submission as "complete", it's highly unlikely that any editor will notice or respond to the changes. What can we do to avoid this problem? Kickaha Ota 23:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
The new templates really speed things up. But there still seems to me to be a problem: When I can't make up my mind whether an article is appropriate, I usually just skip it. (And looking at other editors' patterns, this seems to be a common reaction.) The {{ afc top}} and {{ afc b}} templates make it easier to pick out the unprocessed ones, but it still seems pretty easy for an unprocessed article to get visually lost in a crowd of processed ones. So I've experimentally created an {{ afc maybe}} template, which displays an alert box in the article. {{afc maybe|This seems like it's on the very edge of notability}} displays this:
The parameter is optional; if you omit it, the "reason" line gets omitted from the infobox.
So reviewers looking for problem articles left by previous reviewers could either scroll down the page and look for the alert boxes, or just do a quick browser search for "Attention, reviewers".
Naturally, comments, enhancements, and patient "This will never work" explanations are welcome.
Kickaha Ota
02:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I revised the HTML-comment instructions presented to users when they use the link in the instructions to start their article. I tried to simplify things, make it clearer where the article and the sources should go, and emphasize that they should LIST AT LEAST ONE SOURCE IN THE SOURCES SECTION AND NO "GOOGLE" DOESN'T COUNT AS A SOURCE ARGH DAMMIT.
Okay. I have released the tension. I am now calm and placid like a gentle lake. :)
Also, I removed the instruction that tells people to put [[]] around their headline. The theory is good, but the majority of users were getting it wrong, I couldn't think of any clearer way to explain it, and it seemed to me that the inconsistency resulting from users' varying attempts to comply with this were making things harder than if they just didn't do it. Besides, the less thought our beloved newbies give to where the brackets should go, the more brain capacity they'll have left over for listing something in the "Sources" section. Kickaha Ota 19:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
... is there any reason we really have to keep the "Recently Created Articles" seciton? Personally, I find it to be useless, since it creates an extra step of work for the volunteers maintaining the page (ie: us ;-)) and as not everybody (ie: me ;-)) actually adds the articles there, it's incomplete anyway... meaning that it's of very little use as a reference to anything. So why bother even having it at all, at that point? Just curious if there's any good reasons that I missed... -- Maelwys 17:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
When a registered user submits an article that's blatantly inappropriate (an advertisement, a personal attack, etc), I would encourage reviewers to decline the article in the normal way, rather than using the {{ afc reguser}} message to tell them that they can create their own articles. Yes, you're stating the obvious, but a lot of these people wouldn't otherwise bother to learn the obvious. :) This would seem to be a logical application of the WP:BEANS principle -- if someone appears to be trying to damage the encyclopedia, don't educate them as to how to do it better. Kickaha Ota 18:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Currently, we've been placing the {{ afc top}} marker above the section header in users' articles. This looks nice. However, I'm going to suggest that we instead place it just below the section header, even though it doesn't look as nice there, for two reasons:
By the way, this is also another reason not to ask users to place their article titles in [[wikilink brackets]]; if the section's title contains brackets, the section IDs wind up mangled in such a way that IE and Firefox won't correctly place you back at that section after you finish an edit. Kickaha Ota 18:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
This page is 272 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size. We need an archival bot. Fr e ddie Message? 22:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Andeh just asked me on my talk page about this edit. He thinks (I hope I am paraphrasing correctly) that we should decline all submissions from registered users, and points-out a new reply template, {{ afc reguser}}, that exists for just this purpose. I presume the template's creators agree, but I do not.
Well over ninety percent of what comes into AfC is not suitable for Wikipedia. For just the reasons that anonymous page creation was disallowed and this service created, we are lucky if registered users submit their crap here instead of creating new articles. It is a bit sinister, I know, but this is one tremendous practical benefit of this page. In the past, there was even some discussion of encouraging all new users to use AFC as a filter.
That's one reason. The other is that when the rare article-worthy submission does come along, we should make sure it is created, no matter who submitted it. In all of my time at AfC, there has not been a registered user who habitually uses AFC. In other words, they all leave the project, figure it out, or are told within a very short time. A comment in the accept response is just as effective at educating these inexperienced users as a declination. A note on their talk page is even better.
I strongly suggest that we get rid of this template altogether. When used on poor submissions, it encourages something we don't want and neglects to give constructive criticism; when used on good submissions, there is a chance that it will not be seen or heeded, and that the quality article will never be created. Creating the article and educating the user is the way to go. × Meegs 23:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I think it would be better if the titles of proposed pages were linked, but as noted above there were prblems with inexperienced users incorrectly placing the [[ ]]'s. I was wondering if there was a way to put into the link which users use to propose a new page some text which makes [[Insert page name here]] appear in the subject bar. I couldn't find a way to do this (in the very limited time I spent searching), but I had another idea: It is not compulsory to use the subject box to make a headline, so if the template included in the body of the request were to be changed to have the page title, as a level 2 headline, included in it, with instructions, the request would appear properly and with a link. To see what I mean, go to [2] (on my user namespace to leave a message on a test talk page. To see the code itself, go here. Is it worth including do you think - I'm aware of not making it too complicated, so I've tried to make the headline stand out and provide clear instructions. Let me know what you think Martinp23 23:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Currently, our great-looking instruction boxes at the top of the AfC page have the "how to submit your article" instructions on the left, and the "how to review articles" instructions on the right.
From looking at the AfC queue over the last few days, it looks to me like we have two distinct audiences:
I think the two audiences need different instructions.
The newbies need extremely simple directions: "Click here. Write the name of your article here. Write your article here. Write your source here. Click the save button." For these users, every extra concept that we add to the directions could be counterproductive, because it could draw their attention away from the really important stuff that they need to understand. For example, the current Step 5 in the creation instructions, which talks about stub templates, probably flies about 30 feet (10 meters) over these users' heads, and just distracts them from the important stuff in the earlier steps.
The experienced anonymous users can handle more complicated instructions, and there are a number of extra things that we could and should tell them in order to make our lives easier, like "If you include stub templates and category references, please comment them out," and "Please use '===' rather than '==' for your subject headers."
Meanwhile, I think the instructions for reviewers should be rewritten and expanded a bit as well, to better reflect our practices. (As an obvious example, they currently give little attention to how to correctly decline an article.)
So here's what I would suggest we do (I'll try to draw up a mockup tonight): Rather than putting article-creation instructions on the left and article-review instructions on the right, we instead put newbie-level article-creation instructions in a box of their own. Then, below that, in the current two-column box, we put the information meant for more experienced users -- the advanced-level article-creation tips on the left, and the article-review instructions on the right. Kickaha Ota 20:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
In order to make it easier for reviewers to find unfulfilled requests in the backlog, I've flagged the recent archive pages that haven't been completely reviewed yet with a new template, {{ afc moretodo}}. That template will add the page to Category:Wikipedia article creation requests needing further review, just like the {{ afc maybe}} template does. So reviewers can look in that category to find the archive pages that need their attention.
Here's the current look of the template. As always, feel free to make changes, but please try to keep the "Attention, reviewers:" intact.
Kickaha Ota
19:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
===) headers within their articles, because then it sets the inner-article header at the same level as the article-header, making it a lot more difficult to markup (since we've gotta edit multiple sections to drop everything to level 2 so it all fits within the same section edit). Just a little pet peeve of mine... -- Maelwys 19:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I have come across several articles that seem to have gone through this process. The problem is they seem to be copied with everything under the request (including the hidden stuff, like "You must submit sources), and even the signature. WP:SIG states there should be no signatures on article pages. Just wanted to alert you. - Royalguard11 Talk 18:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Anon user 66.177.176.228 (presumably accidentally, possibly as a result of the Firefox bug) cut off a number of contributions here, so I've restored them to the bottom of the page. Ziggurat 03:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I tried to add an article on former CT congressman Jim Maloney , but was told the article already exists. Well, the existing article does not link to articles from other CT politicians even when a wiki link is in the article...how to fix THAT?
When you leave your note in an AfC article explaining why you accepted or declined the article, make sure to sign it with ~~~~, so that the submitter (or other reviewers) can get back to you with questions or comments if need be. I've updated the instructions. Kickaha Ota 17:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Someone added an instruction to the AFC preload template, reminding users to use three equal signs instead of two for their section headers. It's a bit confusingly worded. Also, I thought we'd agreed that we wanted to keep the instructions built into the template as simple as possible, and this seems a bit too advanced. (It's in the "extra tips for advanced users" section of the instructions on the AfC page itself.) I'd suggest removing it; any objections? Kickaha Ota 17:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Are anons able again to create articles? Stanisław Rogalski ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was created on 18 August, 2006 by 213.25.40.115 ( talk · contribs)...??-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 11:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
As everybody seems to use level two headings when writing up their proposed articles, would changing the template used so that it uses level 1 headings by default be any sort of problem? Would make this a heck of a lot easier when dealing with mega-fragmented proposals. talk to JD wants e-mail 00:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me why the AfC entries are archived on dates that are basically one day after the dates on which they appear? It's only 03:40 UTC on September 4 now, yet the "September 4" entries have already been archived. For that matter, in the USA it's still September 3. -- Metropolitan90 03:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The easy answer is that the date of the archive is the date when the archive is made. The reason for this is that is much easier for the bot that makes the archive to slap down today's date on it when making it. Therefore, the archive made on and dated 4 Sept will contain submissions from 3 Sept. -- ShinmaWa( talk) 04:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I submitted some articles about CT public officials and websites about a motnh ago and they have not been reviewed. Is thre a protocol here or are some articles more readily approved than others?
I've been noodling about some ideas on how to make the AFC more "newbie friendly". I've often said that bombarding users who haven't even created a username with a ton of rules, guidelines, etc is a great way for them not to read of any of it. I still believe that is true. Some of the recent changes to AFC's main page has certainly helped, but I had an idea on how go one step further -- a series of small pages that guide the user through the process, asking a few questions (answered by clicking Wiki-links) to narrow down the kind of article they plan on writing and presenting only the notability information they need to know. I might just put a few pages together as a proof of concept. If they don't work out, I'm sure I can talk Meegs into speedy deleting them for me since I'm mopless. Any thoughts? :) :) -- ShinmaWa( talk) 07:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Go-live is at 2130 UTC on 16 September -- ShinmaWa( talk) 21:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed that entries here show up on google searches, and I don't think it's a good thing. Entries here are essentially premptively deleted content and include a lot of copyvio, nonsense, unverifiable information about real people etc. Perhaps search engines should be asked not to index it. Kappa 18:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi everyone - I've been writing a program for the past while to help closing AfCs quickly and easily. At the moment, it can only decline requests (I know - very negative) and has some minor bugs (which I hope to fix when I change the program later (if I can)). If anyone would be interested in Beta testing for me, could you ask on my talk page or on IRC (nick Martinp23). Thanks - M a rtinp23 19:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Wow, it' so time consuming here at WP:AFC... It' neglected so no one checks it.. some of the articles (about 2 per day) are pretty good (near B-class) articles, yet no one cares about the anons. -- Chris chat edits essays 05:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Please create this article soon as the world needs to be notified of the suckage of Jeff.
I wrote a replacement for the original using the critisms incurred by the orignal (unknown to me)author of this important topic. If the article is not put up, I can only conclude goverment operatives or a culture of censorship exists amoung "serious" "week"-pedians. This is just a logical observation not a threat. After all, where is the 5-part (or onepart) Frontline or Dateline on the crony capitolism and facism that this accounting system is supposed to have prevented. Everything from insurance companies to Motorola and Microsoft is up to 50-85% institutional funds. That is a defacto government operation whether or not it has agency status. I have encountered graduating accounting students that claim CAFR doesnt Exist or cant be found and was not taught in school. Sum of human knowlege free? (Unless it could be,maybe,perhaps labeled anti-goverment?) == over n out ==
It seems to me that this page serves to tie up editors in catering to those who should get a user account in due course. By removing/decommissioning this page, we would provide incentive for anonymous users to create an account. As for the wait, a few days isn't going to hurt. In the meantime, they can edit existing articles. The Transhumanist 08:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't mean to be trolling here but it seems to me that if we keep tags like these on archived request pages it clutters up the Articles which may contain original research category. I know we are not supposed to edit archived requests which is why I left it untouched but could we agree to remove such tags? It will get increasingly annoying as more and more of these start to appear on the list. The category should be easy to walk through when trying to resolve these original research disputes. I understand that sometimes the tag itself is the reason the article was declined but that should be clear from the discussion and not the tag itself. MartinDK 08:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Am I supposed to do this? Is there anyway to do it? In the list of backlog pages for AfC, some say completed after the page title in the summary list... I've just closed the last article on a backlog page, but can't seem to find a way to now mark it as completed... Any suggestions? Thanks! QuiteUnusual 21:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
RTS Can someone edit the RTS table for me, I saved the page but forgot to get a preview.
I've created this new template. As of now, the wording simply stinks; but it's a start. Please (that's a request, not a nicety) improve upon it. Patstuart talk| edits 13:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I've been working on WP:AfC for almost a week now and I have some observations about the backlog situation.
It looks like the editors here are now more or less keeping up with demand - but it's definitely a struggle. But the backlog is so insanely long (an entire YEAR) that it'll never get cleared - we must accept that it's completely impossible. Even the archived pages marked as 'completed' are often not.
I have a proposal that would help immensely:
Split the AfC request page into three categories
So the top level 'WP:AfC' page would say:
By far the majority of the unanswered and rejected entries come from (1) and (2). They are almost all fail because they are very obviously non-notable. We can add a special reminder to contributors in each of these categories by giving a nice simple summary of the rules in WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC and asking people not to request articles that don't meet these criteria.
Hopefully, giving tailored advice for those two categories (which are by FAR the vast proportion of rejected articles) - we can cut down on the huge number of incoming 'junk' articles.
For the first two categories editors are not required to explicitly reject articles on grounds of non-notability
Instead, if a request is not picked up by an editor and turned into an article within 7 days, they are considered to have been rejected. This would save an immense amount of manual editing. It also pretty much reflects the reality of current practice. It's a real pain to have to add all of the justification and the pre/post templates for all of those bazillions of vanity articles.
It's no problem to scan a long list of those article requests and quickly identify the handful that need to be created - but to individually justify the rejection of all of the others is a lot of hassle.
Whilst this may not be the 'pure' approach that we'd like to take, IMHO it's the only thing that's going to keep the backlog down in the long term.
SteveBaker 12:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I think this is a great idea Steve. Johnandrus 17:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Anyone else here notice that if someone adds the words "up and coming artist" to a WP:MUSIC submission, that it's a dead-give away that it's not notable? No offense, it's like they're cluing us in. - Patstuart talk| edits 00:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I just found this place today. It really is a great catch all page for vandalism and articles that otherwise would be speedy deleted. If only all vandals could be sent here. All this stuff like about a guy you knew who took a picture of his poop, and other stuff that's just miles of gibberish. Anomo 18:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry guys I think i messed up the submission and it became 4 different ones, (Staff, Corporate Outcomes, mission etc.. all belong with the one article!)
I don't know how to fix it. 86.22.130.255 01:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Use Three '=' for the sub-headings, two for the main heading. Don't sweat it too much - I'll fix it - this happens all the time! SteveBaker 01:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Aha, I just tried this, I think i got it. 86.22.130.255 01:57, 25 December 2006 (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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
If I want to create a template or a category, should I submit it here? -- 68.74.116.159 01:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
When an unregistered user clicks on a link for a non-existent article such as Kansas State Library, you get this, which as of this writing, does not mention Kansas State Library anywhere. For various reasons, including having the "What links here" make more sense, I'd like to request that the "Article not found" text be updated to include the name of the article that the unregistered user is unable to create. Thanks. 64.151.27.183 01:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC).
As several editors have already noted above, AFC has become so long that it is unmanageable. Building upon God_of_War's work above, AFC now has daily pages. All new submissions are directed to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Today. Every day User:Uncle G's 'bot will rename Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Today to another name (listed in Wikipedia:Articles for creation/List), and then blank the redirect to create a fresh page for today. This at least will chop the submissions up into lumps of manageable size, that don't take minutes to render. There still remains the question of how to archive processed and rejected submissions. Uncle G 09:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I've been out of the loop for a bit – does the article-creation restriction now apply to really new registered users as well? android 79 15:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Is there any way we could get the template to sign entries automatically? - Mgm| (talk) 11:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I've seen some more problems recently.
Are we being unclear somehow? Or are people simply not reading the instructions (again)? - Mgm| (talk) 10:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Is there any way of stopping people from adding stub templates to the articles until they're actually made? Wikipedia:Articles for creation keeps on appearing in all sorts of different stub catagories. BL kiss the lizard 22:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Not sure if it's just me, but Wikipedia:Articles for creation's Today's submissions and Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Today seem stuck on a redirect to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2006-01-15. Where are all these submissions? Tearlach 13:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Looks like User:Upload found a way to get {{ AFC preload}} to sign automatically but it needs some admin attention right now. Also if it's used, us non-admins won't be able to edit the template directly, so it should be protected. Kappa 17:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Below are what needs to be done, in order to get the automatic signing feature working:
~~
~~~~
(see below for details){{subst:AFC preload/~~}}{{subst:AFC preload/~~}}
<!-- The following will sign this submission automatically, please leave it as it is: -->
{{subst:AFC preload/~~}}{{subst:AFC preload/~~}}
~~~~
Upload 12:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
What about non-published sources? I have what is essentially a log book that my father kept when he was a sailor on a ship in the South Pacific. It is a source; but it has not been published, either in hard copy or on the web. The ship he was on currently does not have an article, so I would have to start one.
The page to request a new article asks for PUBLISHED sources. I have a source, but it is non-published. How do I reference a non-published source to start an article? Will you allow me to start an article with a non-published source?
Okay, I tried to follow the directions in the main article, and hoped I was doing it right, but it looks like something went amiss. I wanted to propose a new category. It would be called Category:Seafaring films, soon to be populated with lots of movies about seafaring, as quickly as I'd find them, I'd go ahead and add them in. But by following the instructions, it appears that the "Articles for creation" now belongs to the C. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.177.27.22 ( talk • contribs) .
Can somebody please remove Isara from the request list? I've just created the article; but can't find the requested articles in the archive -- it was requested 2-4 weeks ago; i'm really n ot sure, and unsure how to find it and remove it.
I added some notability links to the main page in hopes that some of the more common unsuitable submissions can be avoided. I specifically used the 'WP:' shortcuts since 1) they stand out much better, 2) they are easier to remember, and 3) we use that notation nearly uniformly in our responses to submissions and this helps put that in context. -- ShinmaWa( talk) 20:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
This mesage apears on top of ever archived page, and well the phrase doesn't really work in the english language (no offence to the creator) I suggest we change it. Deathawk 00:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Another thing to consider is that this text is transcluded into the main page. Its strange to see: "Please follow the link back to Wikipedia:Articles for creation" when you are already there. Perhaps some page-neutral language? -- ShinmaWa( talk) 10:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
email me at <deleted>.
looks like someone removed the note about stubsfrom the page. please can you make sure that stub templates dont keep cropping up on this page - thanx again :) BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 06:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Today, two users mistakingly added their article requests to the AFC page rather than use the addcomment link on the page. One of those users did it by blanking the entire page. I'm quite positive that these were NOT intentional acts of vandalism, but rather new users who are unfamiliar with the system making honest mistakes. The problem is that the issue wasn't fixed for over 4 hours -- and it's not the first time this has happened. This reflects poorly on Wikipedia and leaves a bad first-impression on new users. Given all this, perhaps semi-protection is in order in this case.
I'll grant you that WP:SPP states quite clearly that it "is not intended for pre-emptive protection of articles that might get vandalized.". However, I'm thinking that this is also a good WP:IAR candidate as well. The intention of semi-protecting AFC is not to prevent anonymous users from participating, but to ensure that new users can participate. For 4 hours today, during the Western Hemisphere's "prime time", anonymous users couldn't use AFC at all. -- ShinmaWa( talk) 06:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Looking at how the page source is organized, it looks loke there are several things that could be done that might help as much as the proposed semi-protection. The first thing is to move the header/instructions into a template similiar to Template:PR-instructions or Template:FAC-instructions. This would move information that should be fairly static out of the line of fire and make it easy to watchlist the template to see if any changes occur. The second thing that should probably be done is to move the Today's submissions and Older submissions headers into the transcluded pages instead of having them in the top level page. This would change the behaviour of the [edit] tag associated with the header to cause an edit to be of the transcluded file instead of the top level file. As this problem appears to be caused by newbies, removing this point of confusion should reduce the frequency of problems. -- Allen3 talk 13:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I have been convinced by Meegs' arguement above that semi-protection is worth a trial to see if it will help resolve the problems. As the purpose is to force anons and new users to use the link provided on the page instead of preventing vandalism, the usual {{ sprotected}} template has not been placed on the page. If another admin objects to this decision, please feel free to reverse the protection. -- Allen3 talk 14:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
We may be on our own with the archiving for a while; Uncle G's 'bot hasn't edited in more than a week, and Uncle G hasn't in four. Is there another bot around that we could ask to help? × Meegs 05:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I've added a note to the instructions of this page about stub templates. It is thoroughly irritating to have to keep removing stub templates from proposals on these pages. I see from looking through this talk page that I'm not the only one whose regularly needed to delete them - I've added it in the instructions template, which is hopefully a better place to where BL Lacertae added them. It's fine to just add plain {{ stub}} once they're created, they'll be sorted soon enough (though if you want to add more precise templates, no-one at WP:WSS will object :) Grutness... wha? 01:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Given Uncle G's bot is taking a wiki-vacation, I'm in the process of building my own bot. It will run on my dedicated server on a cron job. I'm starting to build it now and when its closer to completion, I'll make the official bot request for it on WP:BOT. Also planned is a utility to take care of stub templates and categories on here as well. -- ShinmaWa( talk) 19:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Failing to give an article title makes the article appear under the same section as the previous article. For example, see "Homer Spit" (or whatever it was) on today's listing. It includes three separate articles. Because the newbies only understand even a very basic instruction if it's written in 72-point flashing bright red in ALL CAPS, should one like this be put on the main AfC page to remind them to actually type a title? JIP | Talk 15:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I worked very hard on my article, Uniforms of La Grande Armee. I shortened it in the submission so that it wouldn't take long to copy and I could edit it and expand it once its created. Could someone please create it. -- 24.247.126.44 14:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
List of fictional subterranean countries are not included in the list List of fictional countries. So I created this article.
I just submitted my first article, the one on GSO. I could have linked to more terms already on wiki, but I just wanted to get something up. This is my first submission.
I think I messed up the layout and it is ruining the Articles for Creation page. Sorry! Can someone fix this?
Also, I read the website info about the rules for adding a website to GSO. AFAIK, it is not in any form of print media, but Wiki itself references GSO as evidenced here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=governmentsecurity.org
It's certainly a known site.
12.226.236.161Yorn
There are several articles that were submitted days ago, including a couple of mine, that have not been 'created' yet. Will someone please get to work on these? 147.240.236.9 22:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Someone deleted (vandalized) the page and deleted tens of article creation requests - NO ONE noticed!
The only reason I noticed is that my request vanished.
This system i.e. one big page, just doesn't work. There is no way to track which pages were rejected, or anything.
How about creating some sort of sub namespace, where users can actually CREATE the page. Then if approved the page is copied to the main area, and the page marked done.
Or the page can be marked denied, etc. (Presumably by using categories.)
This way each request is by itself and the whole system becomes far more manageable.
You would just look at the category page for uncompleted requests, denied ones, and if you want completed requests.
67.165.96.26 23:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I keep submitting articles, but it seems like nobody out there is putting them in. Get Cracking, and start putting them in, guys! 71.13.81.162 18:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. Not allowed. This is contrary to regulations. I am not allowed to create an account. I suspect that there are several others in the same boat (so to speak).
Yes. 147.240.236.9 22:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I created a 2 new articles on 29 March 2006
Dinio Garcia and
Yotuel Romero but it does not appear in this list, How do i fix this ?
Trade2tradewell
11:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
As mentioned in earlier topics, we lost the bot that used to archive WP:AFC/Today at the end of February. My attempts at finding a replacement have been unsuccessful; if anyone can provide a bot, or suggest a developer to perform this task, please do.
Also, though I have been doing the archiving manually, I will not be nearly as reliable in the future and it will be necessary for others to take-over. The three-step procedure for humans is the same as the one described in the bot request. × Meegs 06:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Right now, the instructions for submitting a request are fragmented and include many redundancies (albeit mostly for important points). The instructions for fulfilling requests are low-down in the page and often overlooked altogether. I've prepared a streamlined rewrite of the entire page head at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2006 April rewrite. Comments? × Meegs 21:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I have created a set of templates that can be used to respond to requests if users would wish to use them. Any comments anyone could provide would be appreciated. Specifically, I'm looking for any comments on how to improve current templates, and any suggestions on titles/contents of other templates that haven't been created yet. We could move them to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Response Templates if enough users agree with them. Any comments anyone? -- Darth Deskana (talk page) 22:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for putting this request here. I read Help: Starting a New Page which says "Anyone, including you, can write for Wikipedia! Just type a title in the box below, click "Create page", and start writing" and "'Create page' takes you to an edit page to enter the new text" and under "Starting a page through the URL" it says "Using the URL for the new page displays the default 'no article' message (see MediaWiki:Noarticletext). The default page has the usual Edit this page link, which can be used to begin adding content" but it did not. After typing in the title of thearticle I was atempting to create it went to an "Article not found" page which says "As an unregistered user, you may also submit the content that you wish to have created". So I clicked the "edit this page" tab but the identical page just comes up again. So clicking the "submit the content" link I went to "Wikipedia:Articles for creation" where it says "To request the creation of an article with text you wrote, post it here" but I see no way to do this. Wow what a loop!
So anyway the page (or just a stub to start) I was requesting the creation of was on the "National Cattlemen's Beef Association" [1]. I was going to include this quotation from said association (it appears at the bottom of every page of the site) "NCBA... working to increase profit opportunities for cattle and beef producers by enhancing the business climate and building consumer demand" which I find quite telling - especially the "working to increase profit opportunities for cattle and beef producers" and "building consumer demand" part.
Please be on the lookout for page blanking of WP:AFC/Today. The way to spot it is by routinely checking for the line
at the top of the page. It tends to happen about 3 times a week, but can be quite difficult to restore if it happens multiple times in one day.
I'd also personally like to ask for others to help in archiving the page. Ideally it should be done daily, shortly after 0000 UTC. When it is not done, the page becomes less accessible to the submitters, and it becomes harder to fix problems, such as blanking. × Meegs 11:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
If you can provide instructions on how to archive it, I'd gladly help on occasion. Perhaps we could come up with a rota for it! -- Darth Deskana (talk page) 07:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Below is the three step procedure for archiving WP:AFC/Today. Archiving can be done at any time of day, but only once per UTC calendar date.
× Meegs 10:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I understand that blocking page creation was an experiment. Is there discussion on how it's doing anywhere? -Dan 05:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
What happened to the Articles for Creation for May 2, 5, 7, and 8? They are missing. Probably some others also. 147.240.236.9 22:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
It seems that during an edit, 21:09 hrs 7 May 2006, that 66.31.238.200 erased many entries that were submitted, including some of mine, while editing an article. Whoever submitted entries between May 5 and May 9 needs to check to see if they have been created. 68.61.35.13 19:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Is this page still active? While there is certainly a large number of submissions that deserve to be ignored, a quick scan finds that there are also multiple submissions that deserve to be created. Are no new articles being created because people are having problems finding the signal hidden by all the noise or has this page reached the point where it has been completely abandoned by those empowered to fulfill requests? -- 208.100.200.35 12:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Could someone who knows how the system works look at Apple Valley High School? Today someone moved Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Today there. I'm not sure which entries belong where. Tearlach 15:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the article about Jon Lassonde is highly unexceptable! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.203.208.86 ( talk • contribs) 2006 June 2 32:10 UTC.
Are we supposed to be listing every article we create pursuant to an AFC request in that little list of created articles? That's kind of annoying if so. -- maru (talk) contribs 17:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Draconids (that doesn´t exist but appears as a link) must be redirected to Giacobinids. -- 80.103.117.190 12:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Is there some way that a "Declined because subject is not suitable for Wikipedia" template could be made? Many of the suggestions that are being submitted are just utter nonsense and this would speed up the process greatly. I would make one myself, but I am not sure of how to do it. Thank you. -- LynnMarie 18:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I can help out with the backlog here, but where to start? Is it better to go through the older archives forst, or go for today's entries? -- Kevin 10:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
For the {{ afc top}} and {{ afc b}} tags to work __TOC__ neds to go into the top of todays page, otherwise the first entry includes the table of contents in it's shaded area. I'm not sure how to do that other than manually adding it each day. Does someone know how to do this? Kevin 21:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea if, like Articles for deletion, we have a different background for those article requests that have been dealt with. I find it hard to filter through all the ones that are done and those that haven't been responded to because the page has a lot of "noise", because many people don't fully understand the instructions. Shading the completed ones would really help single out the ones still needing to be dealt with and help get this page back in shape. Harryboyles 10:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I've started a discussion on the Articles for Deletion talk page, asking what AfC reviewers should do when faced with a request for an AfD page to be created. If you have an interest in how those requests should be handled, I'd encourage you to participate in that discussion. Kickaha Ota 17:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed several users editing their submissions in response to "declined" comments. This, of course, is exactly what we want them to do. But since we've already marked their submission as "complete", it's highly unlikely that any editor will notice or respond to the changes. What can we do to avoid this problem? Kickaha Ota 23:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
The new templates really speed things up. But there still seems to me to be a problem: When I can't make up my mind whether an article is appropriate, I usually just skip it. (And looking at other editors' patterns, this seems to be a common reaction.) The {{ afc top}} and {{ afc b}} templates make it easier to pick out the unprocessed ones, but it still seems pretty easy for an unprocessed article to get visually lost in a crowd of processed ones. So I've experimentally created an {{ afc maybe}} template, which displays an alert box in the article. {{afc maybe|This seems like it's on the very edge of notability}} displays this:
The parameter is optional; if you omit it, the "reason" line gets omitted from the infobox.
So reviewers looking for problem articles left by previous reviewers could either scroll down the page and look for the alert boxes, or just do a quick browser search for "Attention, reviewers".
Naturally, comments, enhancements, and patient "This will never work" explanations are welcome.
Kickaha Ota
02:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I revised the HTML-comment instructions presented to users when they use the link in the instructions to start their article. I tried to simplify things, make it clearer where the article and the sources should go, and emphasize that they should LIST AT LEAST ONE SOURCE IN THE SOURCES SECTION AND NO "GOOGLE" DOESN'T COUNT AS A SOURCE ARGH DAMMIT.
Okay. I have released the tension. I am now calm and placid like a gentle lake. :)
Also, I removed the instruction that tells people to put [[]] around their headline. The theory is good, but the majority of users were getting it wrong, I couldn't think of any clearer way to explain it, and it seemed to me that the inconsistency resulting from users' varying attempts to comply with this were making things harder than if they just didn't do it. Besides, the less thought our beloved newbies give to where the brackets should go, the more brain capacity they'll have left over for listing something in the "Sources" section. Kickaha Ota 19:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
... is there any reason we really have to keep the "Recently Created Articles" seciton? Personally, I find it to be useless, since it creates an extra step of work for the volunteers maintaining the page (ie: us ;-)) and as not everybody (ie: me ;-)) actually adds the articles there, it's incomplete anyway... meaning that it's of very little use as a reference to anything. So why bother even having it at all, at that point? Just curious if there's any good reasons that I missed... -- Maelwys 17:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
When a registered user submits an article that's blatantly inappropriate (an advertisement, a personal attack, etc), I would encourage reviewers to decline the article in the normal way, rather than using the {{ afc reguser}} message to tell them that they can create their own articles. Yes, you're stating the obvious, but a lot of these people wouldn't otherwise bother to learn the obvious. :) This would seem to be a logical application of the WP:BEANS principle -- if someone appears to be trying to damage the encyclopedia, don't educate them as to how to do it better. Kickaha Ota 18:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Currently, we've been placing the {{ afc top}} marker above the section header in users' articles. This looks nice. However, I'm going to suggest that we instead place it just below the section header, even though it doesn't look as nice there, for two reasons:
By the way, this is also another reason not to ask users to place their article titles in [[wikilink brackets]]; if the section's title contains brackets, the section IDs wind up mangled in such a way that IE and Firefox won't correctly place you back at that section after you finish an edit. Kickaha Ota 18:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
This page is 272 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size. We need an archival bot. Fr e ddie Message? 22:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Andeh just asked me on my talk page about this edit. He thinks (I hope I am paraphrasing correctly) that we should decline all submissions from registered users, and points-out a new reply template, {{ afc reguser}}, that exists for just this purpose. I presume the template's creators agree, but I do not.
Well over ninety percent of what comes into AfC is not suitable for Wikipedia. For just the reasons that anonymous page creation was disallowed and this service created, we are lucky if registered users submit their crap here instead of creating new articles. It is a bit sinister, I know, but this is one tremendous practical benefit of this page. In the past, there was even some discussion of encouraging all new users to use AFC as a filter.
That's one reason. The other is that when the rare article-worthy submission does come along, we should make sure it is created, no matter who submitted it. In all of my time at AfC, there has not been a registered user who habitually uses AFC. In other words, they all leave the project, figure it out, or are told within a very short time. A comment in the accept response is just as effective at educating these inexperienced users as a declination. A note on their talk page is even better.
I strongly suggest that we get rid of this template altogether. When used on poor submissions, it encourages something we don't want and neglects to give constructive criticism; when used on good submissions, there is a chance that it will not be seen or heeded, and that the quality article will never be created. Creating the article and educating the user is the way to go. × Meegs 23:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I think it would be better if the titles of proposed pages were linked, but as noted above there were prblems with inexperienced users incorrectly placing the [[ ]]'s. I was wondering if there was a way to put into the link which users use to propose a new page some text which makes [[Insert page name here]] appear in the subject bar. I couldn't find a way to do this (in the very limited time I spent searching), but I had another idea: It is not compulsory to use the subject box to make a headline, so if the template included in the body of the request were to be changed to have the page title, as a level 2 headline, included in it, with instructions, the request would appear properly and with a link. To see what I mean, go to [2] (on my user namespace to leave a message on a test talk page. To see the code itself, go here. Is it worth including do you think - I'm aware of not making it too complicated, so I've tried to make the headline stand out and provide clear instructions. Let me know what you think Martinp23 23:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Currently, our great-looking instruction boxes at the top of the AfC page have the "how to submit your article" instructions on the left, and the "how to review articles" instructions on the right.
From looking at the AfC queue over the last few days, it looks to me like we have two distinct audiences:
I think the two audiences need different instructions.
The newbies need extremely simple directions: "Click here. Write the name of your article here. Write your article here. Write your source here. Click the save button." For these users, every extra concept that we add to the directions could be counterproductive, because it could draw their attention away from the really important stuff that they need to understand. For example, the current Step 5 in the creation instructions, which talks about stub templates, probably flies about 30 feet (10 meters) over these users' heads, and just distracts them from the important stuff in the earlier steps.
The experienced anonymous users can handle more complicated instructions, and there are a number of extra things that we could and should tell them in order to make our lives easier, like "If you include stub templates and category references, please comment them out," and "Please use '===' rather than '==' for your subject headers."
Meanwhile, I think the instructions for reviewers should be rewritten and expanded a bit as well, to better reflect our practices. (As an obvious example, they currently give little attention to how to correctly decline an article.)
So here's what I would suggest we do (I'll try to draw up a mockup tonight): Rather than putting article-creation instructions on the left and article-review instructions on the right, we instead put newbie-level article-creation instructions in a box of their own. Then, below that, in the current two-column box, we put the information meant for more experienced users -- the advanced-level article-creation tips on the left, and the article-review instructions on the right. Kickaha Ota 20:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
In order to make it easier for reviewers to find unfulfilled requests in the backlog, I've flagged the recent archive pages that haven't been completely reviewed yet with a new template, {{ afc moretodo}}. That template will add the page to Category:Wikipedia article creation requests needing further review, just like the {{ afc maybe}} template does. So reviewers can look in that category to find the archive pages that need their attention.
Here's the current look of the template. As always, feel free to make changes, but please try to keep the "Attention, reviewers:" intact.
Kickaha Ota
19:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
===) headers within their articles, because then it sets the inner-article header at the same level as the article-header, making it a lot more difficult to markup (since we've gotta edit multiple sections to drop everything to level 2 so it all fits within the same section edit). Just a little pet peeve of mine... -- Maelwys 19:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I have come across several articles that seem to have gone through this process. The problem is they seem to be copied with everything under the request (including the hidden stuff, like "You must submit sources), and even the signature. WP:SIG states there should be no signatures on article pages. Just wanted to alert you. - Royalguard11 Talk 18:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Anon user 66.177.176.228 (presumably accidentally, possibly as a result of the Firefox bug) cut off a number of contributions here, so I've restored them to the bottom of the page. Ziggurat 03:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I tried to add an article on former CT congressman Jim Maloney , but was told the article already exists. Well, the existing article does not link to articles from other CT politicians even when a wiki link is in the article...how to fix THAT?
When you leave your note in an AfC article explaining why you accepted or declined the article, make sure to sign it with ~~~~, so that the submitter (or other reviewers) can get back to you with questions or comments if need be. I've updated the instructions. Kickaha Ota 17:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Someone added an instruction to the AFC preload template, reminding users to use three equal signs instead of two for their section headers. It's a bit confusingly worded. Also, I thought we'd agreed that we wanted to keep the instructions built into the template as simple as possible, and this seems a bit too advanced. (It's in the "extra tips for advanced users" section of the instructions on the AfC page itself.) I'd suggest removing it; any objections? Kickaha Ota 17:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Are anons able again to create articles? Stanisław Rogalski ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was created on 18 August, 2006 by 213.25.40.115 ( talk · contribs)...??-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 11:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
As everybody seems to use level two headings when writing up their proposed articles, would changing the template used so that it uses level 1 headings by default be any sort of problem? Would make this a heck of a lot easier when dealing with mega-fragmented proposals. talk to JD wants e-mail 00:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me why the AfC entries are archived on dates that are basically one day after the dates on which they appear? It's only 03:40 UTC on September 4 now, yet the "September 4" entries have already been archived. For that matter, in the USA it's still September 3. -- Metropolitan90 03:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The easy answer is that the date of the archive is the date when the archive is made. The reason for this is that is much easier for the bot that makes the archive to slap down today's date on it when making it. Therefore, the archive made on and dated 4 Sept will contain submissions from 3 Sept. -- ShinmaWa( talk) 04:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I submitted some articles about CT public officials and websites about a motnh ago and they have not been reviewed. Is thre a protocol here or are some articles more readily approved than others?
I've been noodling about some ideas on how to make the AFC more "newbie friendly". I've often said that bombarding users who haven't even created a username with a ton of rules, guidelines, etc is a great way for them not to read of any of it. I still believe that is true. Some of the recent changes to AFC's main page has certainly helped, but I had an idea on how go one step further -- a series of small pages that guide the user through the process, asking a few questions (answered by clicking Wiki-links) to narrow down the kind of article they plan on writing and presenting only the notability information they need to know. I might just put a few pages together as a proof of concept. If they don't work out, I'm sure I can talk Meegs into speedy deleting them for me since I'm mopless. Any thoughts? :) :) -- ShinmaWa( talk) 07:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Go-live is at 2130 UTC on 16 September -- ShinmaWa( talk) 21:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed that entries here show up on google searches, and I don't think it's a good thing. Entries here are essentially premptively deleted content and include a lot of copyvio, nonsense, unverifiable information about real people etc. Perhaps search engines should be asked not to index it. Kappa 18:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi everyone - I've been writing a program for the past while to help closing AfCs quickly and easily. At the moment, it can only decline requests (I know - very negative) and has some minor bugs (which I hope to fix when I change the program later (if I can)). If anyone would be interested in Beta testing for me, could you ask on my talk page or on IRC (nick Martinp23). Thanks - M a rtinp23 19:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Wow, it' so time consuming here at WP:AFC... It' neglected so no one checks it.. some of the articles (about 2 per day) are pretty good (near B-class) articles, yet no one cares about the anons. -- Chris chat edits essays 05:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Please create this article soon as the world needs to be notified of the suckage of Jeff.
I wrote a replacement for the original using the critisms incurred by the orignal (unknown to me)author of this important topic. If the article is not put up, I can only conclude goverment operatives or a culture of censorship exists amoung "serious" "week"-pedians. This is just a logical observation not a threat. After all, where is the 5-part (or onepart) Frontline or Dateline on the crony capitolism and facism that this accounting system is supposed to have prevented. Everything from insurance companies to Motorola and Microsoft is up to 50-85% institutional funds. That is a defacto government operation whether or not it has agency status. I have encountered graduating accounting students that claim CAFR doesnt Exist or cant be found and was not taught in school. Sum of human knowlege free? (Unless it could be,maybe,perhaps labeled anti-goverment?) == over n out ==
It seems to me that this page serves to tie up editors in catering to those who should get a user account in due course. By removing/decommissioning this page, we would provide incentive for anonymous users to create an account. As for the wait, a few days isn't going to hurt. In the meantime, they can edit existing articles. The Transhumanist 08:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't mean to be trolling here but it seems to me that if we keep tags like these on archived request pages it clutters up the Articles which may contain original research category. I know we are not supposed to edit archived requests which is why I left it untouched but could we agree to remove such tags? It will get increasingly annoying as more and more of these start to appear on the list. The category should be easy to walk through when trying to resolve these original research disputes. I understand that sometimes the tag itself is the reason the article was declined but that should be clear from the discussion and not the tag itself. MartinDK 08:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Am I supposed to do this? Is there anyway to do it? In the list of backlog pages for AfC, some say completed after the page title in the summary list... I've just closed the last article on a backlog page, but can't seem to find a way to now mark it as completed... Any suggestions? Thanks! QuiteUnusual 21:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
RTS Can someone edit the RTS table for me, I saved the page but forgot to get a preview.
I've created this new template. As of now, the wording simply stinks; but it's a start. Please (that's a request, not a nicety) improve upon it. Patstuart talk| edits 13:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I've been working on WP:AfC for almost a week now and I have some observations about the backlog situation.
It looks like the editors here are now more or less keeping up with demand - but it's definitely a struggle. But the backlog is so insanely long (an entire YEAR) that it'll never get cleared - we must accept that it's completely impossible. Even the archived pages marked as 'completed' are often not.
I have a proposal that would help immensely:
Split the AfC request page into three categories
So the top level 'WP:AfC' page would say:
By far the majority of the unanswered and rejected entries come from (1) and (2). They are almost all fail because they are very obviously non-notable. We can add a special reminder to contributors in each of these categories by giving a nice simple summary of the rules in WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC and asking people not to request articles that don't meet these criteria.
Hopefully, giving tailored advice for those two categories (which are by FAR the vast proportion of rejected articles) - we can cut down on the huge number of incoming 'junk' articles.
For the first two categories editors are not required to explicitly reject articles on grounds of non-notability
Instead, if a request is not picked up by an editor and turned into an article within 7 days, they are considered to have been rejected. This would save an immense amount of manual editing. It also pretty much reflects the reality of current practice. It's a real pain to have to add all of the justification and the pre/post templates for all of those bazillions of vanity articles.
It's no problem to scan a long list of those article requests and quickly identify the handful that need to be created - but to individually justify the rejection of all of the others is a lot of hassle.
Whilst this may not be the 'pure' approach that we'd like to take, IMHO it's the only thing that's going to keep the backlog down in the long term.
SteveBaker 12:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I think this is a great idea Steve. Johnandrus 17:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Anyone else here notice that if someone adds the words "up and coming artist" to a WP:MUSIC submission, that it's a dead-give away that it's not notable? No offense, it's like they're cluing us in. - Patstuart talk| edits 00:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I just found this place today. It really is a great catch all page for vandalism and articles that otherwise would be speedy deleted. If only all vandals could be sent here. All this stuff like about a guy you knew who took a picture of his poop, and other stuff that's just miles of gibberish. Anomo 18:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry guys I think i messed up the submission and it became 4 different ones, (Staff, Corporate Outcomes, mission etc.. all belong with the one article!)
I don't know how to fix it. 86.22.130.255 01:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Use Three '=' for the sub-headings, two for the main heading. Don't sweat it too much - I'll fix it - this happens all the time! SteveBaker 01:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Aha, I just tried this, I think i got it. 86.22.130.255 01:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)