![]() | 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 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
I almost choked on my coffee when I saw the green bar with the word "Normal" in the pending submissions count box, I haven't seen it for ages! Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 08:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
@
Kikichugirl: ::laughs slightly at enjoy answering my messages
:: Kikichu is an amazing prolific reviewer... but when she reviews on two hours of sleep, it tends to generate about five talk page threads per day :P For me, personally, answering questions about why Kikichu declined is a lot easier than reviewing myself, mainly because of the slow internet here and therefore the relative unreliability of AFCH compared to responding to talk page messages. Cheers, --
L235 (
t /
c /
ping in reply)
19:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Pls see Help talk:Referencing for beginners#RfC: What method first -- Moxy ( talk) 15:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
See
Template talk:Afc decline#RFC: Stop adding User Talk pages to "Category:AfC submissions declined as..."?. --
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
00:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I think there should be a prominently place button which lets the person clicking it review a random article. It is not at all obvious how a person should find articles which need review.
Am I missing this button? Has it been proposed in the past to make this button easier to access? Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
There is still no article on the March 1st 2015 legislative and local elections in El Salvador - why not? 176.252.177.220 ( talk) 13:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, there was a portal template draft here. I contacted the folks over at the portal group and asked them to take a look John of Reading was kind enough to respond. Unfortunately, I didn't take his instructions seriously enough, and did not request the move be made through WP:RM. You can see his response HERE. Instead, I simply hit accept on the draft. Here's the result: Portal:Tuvalu. I attempted to "undo" the acceptance, but it's still all screwed up. Can someone else fix it? The editor did a lot of hard work on this, and I hate to think I was the cause of undoing all that effort. Onel5969 ( talk) 13:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Here's a hopefully quick question. I use Earwig's Copyvio detector to check articles for violations. I've found it very helpful. However, occasionally, for whatever reason, it does not operate correctly (like today, it's given me 10 0% violations in a row - and it RARELY gives a 0%). Is there another tool that is as good? Thanks. Onel5969 ( talk) 21:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
FYI 178.132.216.139 ( talk · contribs) has been deleting unprocessed requests off WP:AFC/R without closing or archiving them; I've reverted the deletions and issued a blanking warning. -- 65.94.43.89 ( talk) 04:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
-- Sdash095 ( talk) 13:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, currently, when we are declining edits as test, This submission seems to be a test edit and not an article worthy of an encyclopedia. Please use the sandbox for any tests in the future. Thank you.
is displayed. However, I find that many people are submitting out of their sandbox
like this and therefore it's weird to ask them to go and use the sandbox.
I propose that we reword this, to This submission seems to be a test edit and not an article worthy of an encyclopedia. Please use the sandbox for any tests in the future, but do not submit them. Or any other alternative wording...? I look forward to everyone's input. — kikichugirl oh hello! 20:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:AFC submission/comments has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hopefully I'm using the right template, since I don't actually know where the decline template can be found as it's a mess of templates and I'm bad at template syntax, but... If there's no further objections, can we implement this? — kikichugirl oh hello! 23:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Over at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects a user has proposed several redirects for names of fictional products or one-shot characters featured in episodes of The Simpsons, proposing a redirect to the article about the episode in which they appear (for example Gorilla Man Scalp Blaster -> Simpson and Delilah). While I'm satisfied these titles aren't going to be needed for any real entities, this is very much in the domain of trivia, and these articles make at the very most only quick references to the subjects of these redirects, rather than discussing them in any detail. Do people think these are valid proposals? -- LukeSurl t c 17:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I have been trying to work this out for 30 minutes. I checked to use helper script in my preferences and I cleared my browsers cache (Firefox).
The next step says: To launch AFCH, click on the upside-down triangle icon in the toolbar on an AFC-applicable page and then on the Review (AFCH) link.
There is no upside down triangle icon in the toolbar, so I am confused (and frustrated). Hopefully a patient Wikipedian can help me. Thank you.
CookieMonster755
(talk)
05:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
How can I find pending AfC submissions, but subject (i.e. by the category they will end up in)? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Andy Mabbett, for some subjects it works well to use this custom search which only looks in draft space. By adding the words "Review waiting", you only find drafts which are up for review. For example, if you want to find submissions about politicians, try typing "review waiting politician" in the search box below. — Anne Delong ( talk) 05:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
![]() | Find Articles for Creation in Draft: space
[[Draft:]] |
![]() |
There is a proposal related to Wikipedia's live help at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#IRC help channel disclaimer. PHANTOMTECH ( talk) 16:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I need some advice. Do I just need to sign and I will be a participant of the project? Willy Weazley 23:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation#Advertisement, maybe also mention {{ WPAFCInvite}}. Currently there's basically not a single WP page that mentions the template. -- 82.136.210.153 ( talk) 10:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Done ~
Kvng (
talk)
15:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects is suffering from a bit of a backlog at the moment. Could any helpers please use the script to process some requests? Rcsprinter123 (commune) @ 21:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Given the work AfC does with Drafts, I thought it would be important to inform everyone there is a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion (drafts) about whether there should be a PROD system for Drafts. Interested editors are asked to respond there. Thanks! EoRdE6( Come Talk to Me!) 00:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Regular reviewers will probably have encountered Buzzfeed put forward as a source for proving notability on quite a few occasions. This Reliable Sources Noticeboard search leads to some past discussion of Buzzfeed's reliability, with an overall feeling that it can be used as a source but with considerable care. However, the following article may cast further doubt on Buzzfeed's reliability, especially with regard to commercial and computing topics:
Another thing to watch out for is the text "This post was created by a member of BuzzFeed Community, where anyone can post awesome lists and creations" in Buzzfeed content. This of course indicates that the post in question cannot be used in proving notability. Such posts don't appear to be easily distinguishable by URL or title. Arthur goes shopping ( talk) 09:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
When a page passes review all the reviewer comments seem lost. I wish they could be posted to the newly created article's talk page. Is there any discussion about where these comments go, and the future development of AfC tools? I expected that at least the AfC creation template on the talk page would link to the reviewer comments, but it seems that they vanish. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The advantage of adding a link to the last version before acceptance is that it could be done automatically, whereas reviewers' time would be taken up by selective preservation of comments. However, it may not be as straightforward as it seems at first glance. For example, will the link still work if the article is moved to a new title? Also, some of the AfC templates do something totally different when they find themselves in mainspace (here's an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Riley_Senft&oldid=602178758). The decline reasons are no longer visible, including comments that were added to them using the custom decline. Comments saying things like "issues noted in the last decline have not been resolved" would be meaningless.— Anne Delong ( talk) 11:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I modified {{
WikiProject Articles for creation}} so that it can take an optional |oldid=
parameter. When this parameter is supplied, it adds a link to the last draft in the "This template was accepted..." line, as you can see at
Template:WikiProject Articles for creation/testcases. This uses {{
oldid2}} to bring up the old draft, so it shouldn't be bothered by things like page moves or histmerges. Is there consensus to have the AFCH tool fill in this field when placing the banner? I've mocked up the necessary patch
here. --
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
18:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Articles for creation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
it is a violent gun game 73.8.224.148 ( talk) 00:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Not that it makes much difference, but there seems to be an issue on the aging for the submissions. Don't know exactly when it started, but it looks like between 2-4 days ago. There are many articles on the 0 days list which were actually submitted a couple of days ago. Onel5969 ( talk) 17:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion that watchers of this page may be interested in on
Proposal to add global JavaScript and add an extra step for new users to get live IRC help. — {{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
19:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I'm an active helper on #wikipedia-en-help connect. Many helpees reach us from their declined and/or pending drafts. In my experience, there seems to be informal consensus among helpers to remove the "WPhelp" nick parameter. I noticed this first done by User:Logan on {{ Helpmessage}} not long ago. I attempted to apply this change in a bold edit to another AFC template, but I was reverted by Technical 13. I and users such as User:PhantomTech believe that we should remove the parameter and make them choose their own usernames.
I perceive the following benefits:
I know that there are some people who believe that they may end up choosing a generic name, and since enforce is set on their nicks, they will be automatically changed to Guest### or whatever, but we already experience this issue and it does not seem more problematic than WPhelp####. While it won't solve the problems behind us wanting to remove the WPHelp parameter, it won't create any more problems, either. In fact, many of the links elsewhere on the site use Freenode's webchat instead of KiwiIRC, which does not have a prefilled nick parameter at all. It is better than Freenode webchat because helpees sometimes can't figure out where to type, but they can on the user-friendly KiwiIRC.
{{#invoke:Random|item|Potato|Kartoffel|PommeDeTerre|Iwashi|Tameru|Rinngo}}
creating a nickname randomizer of some sort not unlike the Google Docs-type Anonymous Cat, Anonymous Dog, etc. nicknames. So, that's also another option.I appreciate anyone's thoughts and comments regarding this matter, especially comments from people who are active helpers in the IRC channel and familiar with the usual day-to-day events and questions that we deal with there. — kikichugirl oh hello! 21:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
User-WP32 has Joined #Wikipedia-en-help User-WP32: Related article: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:BOLD User-WP32: Coming from: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Help_desk User-WP32: I don't understand Wikipedia's policy on being bold
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
22:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC){{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
15:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)I would be open to T13's above proposal that we set the default nicks to the page that the helpees came from. Here's the code, for example, I would use to replace WPhelp: {{#ifeq: {{SUBPAGENAME}} | sandbox | {{BASEPAGENAME}} | {{SUBPAGENAME}} }}
This would set all nicks to the page name, except when the page is in a user sandbox, where it would default to the username. This allows for ease of finding drafts and/or usernames. The other alternative would be something like {{ifeq:{{SUBJECTSPACE}} | Draft | {{PAGENAME}} | {{BASEPAGENAME}} }}
in which if the namespace is draft, then the page name is used, otherwise, the base page name is used. One more alternative would be to combine all of them to say userspace would give usernames, draft space would get draft names, and all others would give WPhelp or the base page name or something. This would be for all links under the AFC jurisdiction. Finally,
User:PhantomTech seems to be almost done with a function that would allow us to grab their usernames, so I would defer if it comes to that, and works well. —
kikichugirl
oh hello!
20:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
{{#switch: {{SUBJECTSPACE}} | User = {{BASEPAGENAMEE}} | Wikipedia = {{BASEPAGENAMEE}} | Draft = {{PAGENAMEE}} | Template = T-{{PAGENAMEE}} | {{PAGENAMEE}}
This is very namespace dependent, and if the namespace is not applicable, it would return the simple page name (and probably get truncated by IRC. Pinging
an IRC op in invitation to comment. —
kikichugirl
oh hello!
21:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC){{PAGEID}}
can be used with a script to quickly access the page by helpers or it can be set up with a key in -helpers to quickly get to the page. Alternatively, {{REVISIONID}}
could be used and anyone could enter in the revision number using
Special:Diff/1180768284. I'd be happy to implement either one of these, I'm just opposed to merging all of the WPhelp nicks into the Guest nicks as that is a backwards movement. — {{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
10:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)if (!mw.user.isAnon()) { // really this next line is the only one that's important var userNick = mw.user.getName().substring(0,12).replace(/\W/g, "_") + "-WP" + Math.floor(Math.random() * 89 + 10).toString(); var ircLink = document.getElementById("ircLink").href; ircLink = ircLink.replace(/WPhelp\?/, userNick); } else { // do something random... }
PhantomTech (
talk)
21:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
The current new system, that results in nicknames like "P-659769291", is not the solution to the problem. The names generated this way are far too long, and the names will tend to be very similar. Helpees may have a very hard time telling what messages are for them. The system allows for quick finding of drafts, but I think it will hinder the actual process of helping. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
If the user is logged in, their nick is the first 11 characters of their username with anything non-alphanumeric characters replaced with an underscore and "-WP##" added to the end) is the full 16 character NICKLEN restriction? Also, I'll note that a good majority of usernames have spaces, which this proposed replacement doesn't allow and means the new nicks will be useless for helping the helpee since helpers won't be able to find the page that the helpee is asking for help with. —
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
00:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)Hi - would folks active in this project please have a look at this discussion at WP:COIN, No COI in Draft space?, and comment? I work at COIN and would be very interested in your thoughts there. Thanks! Jytdog ( talk) 13:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm old school and trying to grow my plumbing company (at a snails pace). It has proven to be much harder than expected; the two choices I have encountered are fork out a ton of money or ask for help. Asking for help has brought me here tonight. I would ask a well versed Wikipedian to generously write an article about my plumbing company with a link to my Google page in hopes of creating a stronger appearance. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.227.196 ( talk) 02:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I've noticed a few sports players on here, who's articles haven't been accepted due to notability concerns. However, sportspeople have their own criteria for notability, WP:NSPORT, which is generally easier to achieve than WP:GNG. Just wanted to inform reviewers that if drafts are about sportspeople, they should look at this criteria as well. Joseph2302 ( talk) 15:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Just wanted to say take care to you all. I've been asked to stop participating in the AfC process by someone with far more experience than I, Pigsonthewing. Good luck to everyone. Onel5969 ( talk) 14:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I discovered List_of_American_ethnic_and_religious_fraternal_orders today, and it has not been substantially worked on since it was approved. I discovered the following items:
As far as I am concerned, this is poorly researched copy/paste work that shows POV issues, and likely should never have been created until somebody who knew the fraternal org area could look at it. MSJapan ( talk) 22:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
The Knights of Pythias link goes to an African American order of the Knights of Pythias; I have never been aware of a ban on the use of the terms "Hispanic" or "American Indian"; the "Association Canado-Americaine" seems like a matter of semantics - French, French-Canadian, French Canadian America etc. I believe that their primary ethnic self - identity is French; Jewish fraternal groups come in both religious and secular forms - ergo the Workmans Circle, which identifies itself as ethnically Jewish, but is a secular group as far as I am aware; As for the sources - I went to the sources of my sources in each case as far as I could trace them - Axelrod, Scmict, Preuss and Stevens, oftentimes they were quoting from each other. In some cases I was able to find independently names sources ergo the Christian Cynosure. In anycase, each source qualifies as WP:PS, do they not? -- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 23:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't even work in or near this project but this is the second time I've seen a random IP user going and putting the submit tag on drafts that they themselves have not worked on. Why would they do that? Is that allowed? It might be necessary for reviewers to check who added the submit tag. I reverted two of this IP's tags ( here and here) because those drafts had not been edited since they were last declined. Was I right in doing that? — Jeraphine Gryphon ( talk) 12:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Pinging @ JMHamo:. — Jeraphine Gryphon ( talk) 12:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
12:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)@ Timtrent and Technical 13: -- Guys, did you look at this IP's contributions? Like last time, they just went in and submitted random drafts by different editors. I left them a message which they didn't react to, and not too long after the IP was blocked for several reasons, including that. And if a submission is declined then it doesn't make any sense to submit it again without making any changes to it.
I don't know why anyone would go and do what those IPs did but apparently it happens, so maybe there should be a rule like "don't submit a draft if you haven't been involved with it and it has not been edited since it was last declined". — Jeraphine Gryphon ( talk) 13:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
13:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC){{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
13:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)How one can become New page petroler? Zarghun11 ( talk) 17:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
How does one find drafts that are over 6 months old? — Jeraphine Gryphon ( talk) 09:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
No, I guess my question is what causes eligible G13 drafts to be included in the Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions category. What criteria must a draft meet? It's not just be six months old. JMHamo ( talk) 15:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
16:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, is there any way in which the drafts are sorted subject wise? I want to review the drafts which come under Wikiproject:India however often I find myself unable to go through the list of all new drafts. Please help so that I can contribute more effectively. Mr RD ( talk) 10:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
![]() | Search Draft: space
Type a keyword and click on the button. Optionally, add "review waiting" to see only drafts under review, or "CSD G13" for only abandoned drafts. [[Draft:]] |
![]() |
The English Wikipedia has a lot of non-English redirects, so saying redirects that are not in English are not needed is unnecessary. 75.166.160.217 ( talk) 00:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
do not paste article drafts here
|
---|
The 2nd Amendment protects the Uniquely American Human Right Self Defense which allows all Natural Americans to Defend Self from Rape/Murder which are violation of Self. The American Human Right Self Defense is based on Natural Law. Rape and Murder are violations of Self. http://www.holmesivonline.com/2015/01/21/administrative-details-for-the-human-right-of-self-defense/ |
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ai6pg (
talk •
contribs)
18:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Can I get a consensus on something? Mr RD wants to accept Draft:Unicommerce, but can't because I salted that title after too many speedy deletions. I don't think it's ready to be accepted yet; corporation articles need a lot more source coverage and my impression on reading the draft is it doesn't really tell me much about the company that's of encyclopedic importance. I don't want to unsalt until there is a consensus that we have an AfD-proof article ready. So, what should we do? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Ju Xiaowen to be moved to Xiao Wen Ju. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 23:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Kristina Satter to be moved to Tina Satter. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 23:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to tell all my AfC co-workers that you are all wonderful! Since starting with AfC, I have grew to understand what AfC is about. It's about helping new comers to our wonderful community! I like to help them out and explain why their draft can't be accepted at a point in time. I have grew to see many AfC submitters grow, and become a vital part of community. I just wanted to talk about one of my good Wikipedia friends, Jmorange. He created the article Somerset Trust Company through our wonderful AfC process. When then draft was first submitted, to be honest, it was a mess. Formatting of the article was wrong, promotional tone, etc. I declined, gave them my reason why it was not accepted into the main space. I offered to help them work on it with them. They posted on my talk page saying that they did need help, so I decided to get started cleaning up the article. We both worked on the article for days. Than when it was finished being cleaned up, it was resubmitted. Jmorange had a frustrating time at AfC, like most editors do at first. My good friend and AfC co-worker Winner 42 than accepted the article into the main space. It was a proud moment for Jmorange and myself. They finally created a wonderful article for the main space. It was frustrating process at first, but we worked together, and the article was published. Jmorange has long really well in our community, and I hope they become an AfC member and reviewer. This is just one story out of many. I thank the IP addresses and new users and AfC members for bringing this AfC process together, which is so vital to our online Wikipedia community. I am hoping to expand my expertise with AfC, and am thinking about doing a Signpost article on why AfC is so vital to Wikipedia. I wish you good luck fellow Wikipedians. Thank you for having me as a AfC member. Please read my AfC introduction and make sure to contact me if you have any suggestions for my future Signpost article about AfC and its influence on the Wikipedia community. Cheers ya' all. CookieMonster755 (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
It's the end of a semester and student papers are coming in as articles. Unfortunately many students are used to writing papers by copying in blocks of material from online sites. After spending some time improving an article I discovered that it was entirely made up of copied material. So check for copyright problems early on. Earwig's tool doesn't always look inside pdfs, so check references too. StarryGrandma ( talk) 16:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I really want to review articles and help those poor 2796 article's be reviewed, but apparently, I haven't been on long enough. Is there any way around that?-- Airplane Maniac ( talk) 21:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi please confirm the last year business growth of aligarh Locks & brass industries — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.40.204.245 ( talk) 09:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Can someone fix this backlog? It's getting high and might become severe. SONIC678 ( span style="font-family:Aharoni; color:#FC1B23">Let’s hang out!/See the stuff I’ve done) 02:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
It's getting to a point where it might be severe, guys. SONIC678 ( Let’s hang out) 20:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
We should be able to review some of those 2796 submissions within the next few weeks. I know we can do it. SONIC678 ( Let’s hang out) 01:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
It looks like it's becoming severe... SONIC678 ( Let’s hang out) 18:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
This draft has a review pending tag but when I open AFCH then it only gives me options to Comment or Submit. I'm not sure where the problem is. — Jeraphine ( talk) 06:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
{{AFC submission|||ts=20150601154452|u=Unixt17|ns=2}}
is same in first submission and current submission, the problem is that
Unixt17 added the same previous tag again. Normally we get new tag for new submission but since the user copied it from old version, script is only showing submit and comment options.
Supdiop
talk
08:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)I don't know if this has already been addressed, but stuff like
[1] this isn't very helpful. It just leads to articles being tagged with {{
No footnotes}}
or similar cleanup templates, and to the addition of unsourced later material that cannot be readily distinguished from material that was apparently sourceable originally. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
06:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I hope the backlog doesn't become severe, so we have to review the submissions. Good luck! SONIC678 ( Let’s hang out) 17:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Please would folk offer this draft and its editors some help. I have failed to get them to understand what we need. Fiddle Faddle 08:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Persondata is now considered deprecated (and removal is imminent) as per this RfC. Is it possible to remove it from the AfC creation process? Thanks, — Msmarmalade ( talk) 03:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Does this mean when we accept biographies, there's no longer a need to add the biographical information (birth date/place etc.)? Joseph2302 ( talk) 11:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Can that be added to the script? FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 21:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
It has been proposed that a dealy period of 4 days be introduced for G13 deletions. The discussion is taking place ar WT:CSD#4-day delay period for G13 deletions. 103.6.159.179 ( talk) 15:01, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
{{
AFC submission/draft}}
template.
this is the set of changes that will make
Category:AFC G13 eligible soon submissions appear on pages that are at least 5 months un-edited, but vanish the category once the page has hit the 6 month mark (in favor of putting the "eligible for deletion right now" category on. Please speak up if you have any objections as I intend to file a Template edit-protected request (in addition to a similar set of changes to {{
AFC submission/declined}}
) to apply this change in parallel with the bot request/reseeding.
Hasteur (
talk)
11:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)I've just helped a user on IRC who was having issues adding {{subst:submit}}
as a result of them using the Visual Editor. They copy and pasted the template code from
WP:AfC, but VE didn't understand that it was a template and so added nowiki tags either side. We could do with adding a line about how to submit the article in VE (Insert > Template > subst:submit > Add Template > Insert) but I'm not sure how best to word that, especially given the fact that if they type it out in full rather than pasting it the box will pop up after the {{, probably adding to confusion.
Sam Walton (
talk)
09:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Is it possible to add an autocompletion feature to the "VE -> Insert Template" dialog box? I think in terms of usability, users should not be required to write subst:submit but rather simply submit and the template would pop out.
Orschiro ( talk) 06:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Just because a page is eligible for G13 because it has a {{
AFC submission}}
template and it hasn't been edited in 90 days doesn't mean it should be automatically nominated for G13. Please exercise discretion and not use mindless bulk speedying. This is being motivated out of the nomination of
Template:AFC submission/draft/testcases which is an obvious exception as we want to test changes to the template before we nominate them.
Hasteur (
talk)
13:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
demo=yes
parameter, and modified the template not to add categories if that parameter is present. --
Ahecht (
TALKA new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. This is another tool to help the AfC team assess if there is any plagiarism in new articles.-- Lucas559 ( talk) 19:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I received the information This submission appears to be taken from http://proxy2974.my-addr.org/myaddrproxy.php/https/de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_de_Peltrie. Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly exists under a compatible licence and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to
I, Maxim Pouska, did write the article in German for the WP:DE - I own the copyright. The I translatet the text from German into English for the WP:EN- also my copyright. Then I fixed the text on my user:maxim pouska space. After this I asked user:Philg88 on his talk site for help. After all correction I submited the text to review. User talk:Philg88 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim Pouska ( talk • contribs) 07:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC) PS I was to fast - and put on the save page and not on show preview - sorry.-- Maxim Pouska ( talk) 08:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello there! Just wondering if there's a specific tool (similar to afdstats) that summarises how many articles were approved by an editor at AfC and how many of them, if any, were subsequently nominated/deleted. Appreciated, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 21:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
APerson Jolly good! Only difference is it now seems to count less edits, although I can't confirm that now that the old hostname is no more. From the top of my head, I think it previously said something like 8k, while it's now at 3363. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 00:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Robert Steven Kaplan Marko Mihojević Samir Radovac Kerim Memija Amir Hadžiahmetović Besim Šerbečić Riad Bajić Dean Santangelo Sean Kelly (footballer) Massacoe Forest Pavilion International Journal of NanoScience and Nanotechnology Dan Perrins Vobasan Telehomecare Journal of Mobile Technology in Medicine Paul Summerville (politician) MiRandola: Extracellular Circulating microRNAs Database Momentum (company) Body by Vi Challenge HSE Faculty of Sociology Mike Ryan (music video producer) Marchioness (ship)
Hello, the new WP:AFC/R redirect preload template is incorrectly formatted. In the sources line
|<!-- Unless it is obvious, please enter a reliable source which supports your reason below this line -->
this clearly does not work properly if the source is an external link that includes an equals sign. Instead it should be:
|4=<!-- Unless it is obvious, please enter a reliable source which supports your reason below this line -->
where the parameter is explicitly stated, as this will make sure the template parser does not interpret a later URL equal sign as separating a template parameter name from parameter value -- 67.70.32.20 ( talk) 08:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
It would probably be a good idea to name all the parameters, in cases where the target or the redirect pagenames includes equals signs -- 67.70.32.20 ( talk) 08:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I created a template at User:Ahecht/sandbox/AFCR Template for creating requests at WP:AFC/R that would automatically deny requests that are blank, have a missing title, have a missing target, have a title that already exists, or have a target that doesn't exist. This wouldn't change the appearance of WP:AFC/R at all, except that automatically declined entries would show (Automatically declined) instead of the reviewer's signature. You can see it in action at User:Ahecht/sandbox/AFCR Template/testcases.
The preload when a user submits a request would change, and instead of the current preload they would see the source of User:Ahecht/sandbox/AFCR_Template_preload ( Template:AfC_editintro/redirect would need to change as well):
{{subst:User:Ahecht/sandbox/AFCR Template |<!-- Enter the title of the new redirect you would like created below this line --> |<!-- Enter the name of the existing page that you want the redirect to point to below this line --> |<!-- Enter the reason for the new redirect (e.g. alternative name, common misspelling, etc.) below this line --> |<!-- Unless it is obvious, please enter a reliable source which supports your reason below this line --> <!-- Do not change or delete this line -->}}
I haven't done a lot at
WP:AFC/R, but from what I have done it seems like a very significant fraction of requests are denied for being incomplete, so this would save a lot of work on the part of reviewers. I just went and closed 10 such requests, and the three requests submitted since I did that are also incomplete. This might also help requesters not submit blank requests, as I think many overlook the title bar and therefore don't see where they are supposed to enter the title of the redirect that they want created. Are there any comments or objections to this approach? --
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
20:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
|close=
parameter is present. We can run it that way for a while and evaluate the false-positive rate before adding close=yes
to the preload. My hope is that malformed requests will decreate with the new preload, but I know it won't be zero. --
Ahecht (
TALKclose=yes
). --
Ahecht (
TALKThere's currently a discussion at ANI in which members may wish to have some input, or should at least be aware of. It concerns a scam where users are contacting multiple people who have had drafts rejected and offering to fix them up and/or accept them on payment of $150–300. Sometimes, they actually create an article or draft and then threaten to request speedy deletion per {{ Db-author}} unless a "ransom" is paid. The scam has involved impersonating both administrators and experienced editors. In at least one of the emails received by a hapless "customer" the person claimed to be a Wikipedian with "high privileges" and a "member of Article for Creation review department". The full discussion is at WP:ANI#Someone may be impersonating me. – Voceditenore ( talk) 15:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome :), although your PS should have been your first point and your first point should have been the PS. A topic gets derailed only if people actively choose to ignore it, let alone try to think about its implications. Until Arthur and Focus commented, that was precisely what the active members did. But onward and upwards. Rankersbo, what do you think about putting up the disclaimer notices? Voceditenore ( talk) 13:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
This discussion has gone a little off track so I'd like to bring it back to the main thing that needs deciding regarding this issue: Should we add a warning notice (or multiple if appropriate) somewhere to warn editors about this scam, informing them not to accept any offer of editing for payment they receive by email? Sam Walton ( talk) 11:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Emboldened by this week's very flattering commemorations, I have made a start by adding a basic warning to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/header. Please feel free to critique or improve the Latin or the English elements of the warning, and consider where else information needs to be added. Arthur goes shopping ( talk) 08:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Has the legal department of the WMF officially responded to this issue yet? It's been six weeks since this issue was first raised. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 12:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Why are some pending articles (well, hundreds of them) not in any of the Pending by Age categories on the first page of AfC? What is the difference between the 3 categories by age (which today all read zero) and the articles that are pending but are not in any of those categories? And which should we prioritize for review? Thanks, LaMona ( talk) 01:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Please add a few "additional redirectX" parameters. Or even better, switch to Lua, that should simplify things considerably. 85.178.192.71 ( talk) 06:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Do we have a script that does this?
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 22:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
mw.config.get('wgRelevantUserName')
exists and mw.config.get('wgArticleId')
is > 0)@ MusikAnimal and Anna Frodesiak: Do you often find users creating drafts in the userspace of non-registered users? MusikAnimal, perhaps accidentally, suggested that we don't allow the gadget to load on such pages (wgRelevantUserName is null). However, I'm wondering if it would be worth it to do the extra work to make the script usable on these pages as well. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
If an editor created an article in draft or user space without using the article wizard, what do I need to do to add to the AFC process so the editor can submit it for review? -- NeilN talk to me 13:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
{{
subst:submit|username}}
, replacing username with the draft creator's username. If you just want to add the button for them to submit it themselves, use {{
subst:AFC draft|username}}
. --
Ahecht (
TALKI see the backlog is down to just 690 articles (from over 1500 a week or so ago)- clearly some users have been doing a lot of reviewing! Thank you to those that have, glad to see the backlog down and thus new submissions will get seen to more quickly. Joseph2302 ( talk) 18:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Hey AFC participants. Back in March-April 2015, a small team of us ran a pilot for a mentorship space for newer editors called the the Co-op. The work for the space was funded by an IEG grant from the WMF. After some analysis and tweaks to the space post-pilot, we are officially open this week, and we're looking for additional mentors. Our final report is still being reviewed by the WMF, but it is more or less done, and you are welcome to check it out. Here are some of our more prominent findings:
Based on our results, the Co-op seems to have a lot of benefits for newer editors. But our mentorship space will not work if we lack mentors. In particular, mentors who are familiar with reviewing new articles are very helpful as this is a common request from newer editors. While mentoring does require some time and effort, our findings from the Co-op suggest that such effort has a strong impact on newer editors. If you're interested in becoming a mentor, please consider joining us. Thanks, I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm fairly new to this project, but have dived in head first as some of you all have noticed. One issue I've seen (granted not a huge issue) is people who continually resubmit their AfC with little to no edits made. My theory is that people are doing it because 1) they don't care to improve it or 2) They think it might squeak by a less vigilant editor.
Unfortunately from what I understand there isn't a means of recourse for this. I'm proposing the creation of a warning template (which I'd happily help to create) that could be posted on user talk pages. I'm sure there might be some slippery slope issues, so I'd say the use of the template at minimum shouldn't be implemented until someone has clearly resubmitted more than once without making much of an effort to improve their article.
I think an official warning like this my help alleviate some of the backlog created by habitual resubmitters who aren't taking the time to improve their articles.
Thoughts? Sulfurboy ( talk) 03:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Full disclosure: I'm not as well informed about day-to-day work at AfC as I might be. But I was alarmed when I saw Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged Clinton Controversies, an AfD through which Alleged Clinton Controversies was snow-deleted in less than 24 hours. I read the article itself and was even more alarmed. Would people here care to comment, perhaps especially Sulfurboy who accepted the article and moved it to mainspace? I don't mean to put Sulfurboy on the spot, we all make mistakes, but can something be done towards avoiding such debacles in the future? Requiring endorsement by a second reviewer before an article is accepted? (Perhaps this is a perennial proposal and unrealistic because of time constraints.) Please see the comments in the AfD. I realize non-admins can't now read the article itself; I've put a copy of it (just after it was moved to mainspace) temporarily into my userspace for accessibility. Pinging the article's creator Professor JR for courtesy, though please note, Professor JR, that I don't mean to criticize you, or to re-ligitate the AfD; it's the AFC process that concerns me.
PS, when I went to post this on the page, the edit window met me with "This page is for users working on the project's administration" in loud letters, and suggestions for other pages for other business. However, a) none of those other pages seemed to fit either, and b) I would really like to hear from users working on the project's administration. And please don't think I don't realize that working here is an ungrateful task, that you're perennially backlogged, etc. I do know that much about AfC, and I do appreciate the work done here. Bishonen | talk 10:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC).
![]() | This page is for users working on the project's administration.
|
Just a note to say that the WikiProject Opera banner now supports "Draft" class. I've bannered the ones I've found via our new article bot and will continue to do so every time I check the bot results. If members here find any further drafts within WPO's scope, feel free to add {{Opera|class=Draft}} to the draft talk page and feel free to post a note at our project's talk page if you need specialist advice in assessing those drafts. See Category:Draft-Class Opera articles.
Although many project banners may not yet support draft class, if you are looking for new drafts to review in other specific subject areas, don't forget to check the search results available via the links at User:AlexNewArtBot#Currently supported. The bot now lists all new drafts as well as new articles in nearly 100 subject areas. Voceditenore ( talk) 09:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Now, I see: I can explain all this to your satisfaction, but, must end it here, as I cannot go farther than this last point: philipofBVM PhilipofBVM ( talk) 21:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Here is the point: yes, I did copy that information from cathinfo site; however, I am the one who penned that information, and it was backed up by some other Wikipedian. Ergo: this can never be considered copywrite infringement, to cut and paste one's own writing, word for word. Case closed. I might add here, that, for presenting the factual truth, in regards to the true Catholic baptism, of Saint Constantine the Great by Pope Sylvsester I, during his lifetime, and/or similiar factual reportings, such as this, and also, for example, that Marcel LeFebre was not a Catholic, but an apostate, for denying the "salvation dogma", I was banned from cathinfo site, and about 5 other sites, for telling the truth. Will also Wickedpedia also ban me? I can't go any further on all this. Go "seek, ask, and knock" and you shall find the true Catholic Church. Since you don't want me to give the site, most people can find it anyways by using key words. Thanks, again. Sincerely, philipofBVM PhilipofBVM ( talk) 21:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I commend this RfC to you It affects those who converse with new editors, and AfC is most certainly the key place for that. Please offer your opinions there. Fiddle Faddle 15:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Please would an experienced reviewer look at this draft and consider whether my review is correct. I fear each of:
I'd appreciate further eyes. Fiddle Faddle 08:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
FYI, you may be interested in the deletion nomination for {{ MovedtoMainspace}} which is a template for processing of moving drafts to articlespace -- 67.70.32.190 ( talk) 05:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
{{ AFC Request}} has been nominated for deletion -- 67.70.32.190 ( talk) 05:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I am interested in reviewing AfC submissions, but my user account doesn't meet the reviewer requirements (90 days old and 500 edits to the article namespace). For a number of reasons, I am requesting that I be permitted to review submissions while not yet meeting these criteria. First, I have created 10 non-redirect articles under my current account; from my (legitimate) former account, User:Millelacs, I created 37 articles and amassed 1,666 article-space edits ( [5]) under the usernames Theodore! and DCI2026. Additionally, I am well-versed in Wikipedia policy; under my current account, I have participated in 58 AfD discussions ( [6]) and NAC'd several others. Thanks, North of Eden ( talk) 01:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
This template leaves a lot of whitespace on a talk page. Can we look at widening the format to 7-800 or so? - Happysailor (Talk) 12:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I made a request at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts/Feature requests but I'll ask here as well. I wondered if we could have a WikiProject alert for when articles in their draftspace fall into Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions or better yet Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions. That would give the projects the best chance to review and express opinions on articles including in particular the ones where the original drafter have abandoned it. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 06:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Articles for creation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Muhammad Atif 20:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Im a new user and I accidentally approved some redirects a couple of days back and then realized that I had to be a reviewer and then had to clean up my mess. But I liked the job and in some time, I would like to become a reviewer. I would like to know what it takes though, like I know the 500 edits and whatnot but can a reviewer give me some insider insight as to the pros and cons of the job and what their favorite and least favorite parts are and what policies are used the most. But even better, if a reviewer wouldnt mind, I would appreciate doing a mentorship on the subject instead of just having a few questions answered because I think that it would better prepare me and it would be nice having one person to answer my questions. Thank You and please ping me in a response. GlacialFrost (Talk) 20:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow reviewers. It's been a while since I posted here, so I may be getting out of touch with the latest changes. This talk page: Talk:CapitalVia is listed as eligible for db-g13, because for some reason all of the AfC templates and AfC comments for this article, which is now in mainspace, are on the talk page. I am assuming that this is an error, but I thought that I'd better make sure that no new process was being tried out before deleting this materiel.— Anne Delong ( talk) 05:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The AfC Redirect Wizard preload throws an error when you supply a target with wiki-notation for the target link.
If you supply [[target]] it dumps an error
But if you do the same thing with the redirect name [[redirect]] the template accepts it with no problem
Seems to be a mismatch in processing? It would seem logical to accept targets that use square brackets
-- 67.70.32.190 ( talk) 06:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Antimetaphysics is a teatise over antimetaphysical beliefs. Not all atheists are antimetaphysical, some accept or perform magical thinking, some believe in other forces, even non scientific methods that do not apply to reason but to metaphysics. We need a new article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.84.222.127 ( talk) 20:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I've just noticed that the declined categories were at some point translating onto the users talk pages (because we now put the reason for the decline on the page) which in turn, has screwed up the maintenance categories as it is now showing all of the user_talk pages as declined drafts.
Can we look at clearing this up somewhow? Bot maybe like the teahouse notice issue? - Happysailor (Talk) 18:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I have been in Wikipedia since February 2013, created more than 39 articles and more than 600 edits.I also mark articles for review using page curation log.I have thoroughly studied the Wikipedia reviewing guidelines. Can i add my name to the Wikipedia reviewer's list? Please guide me. Zarghun11 ( talk) 10:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
We're building a tool to help reviewers make better decisions, and we need your help! We're looking for volunteers to decide if article topics are notable or not. We'll use these decisions to train an automated classifier that will score new articles based on how notable it thinks they're likely to be.
If you're interested, please sign up here and take a look at the hand-coding form to get an idea of what you'll be doing. We'll let you know as soon as we're ready for you to start. Comments and suggestions are very welcome! Bluma.Gelley ( talk) 21:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
The article Draft:Nature's_Art_Village has a script problem and cannot be reviewed. I've tried various times and different browsers and I get an unresponsive script message. Does anyone know how to fix this? (I'm trying to reject the article, btw.) Thanks, LaMona ( talk) 05:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I have been patrolling new pages for a while, and would like to become an AfC reviewer. My account isn't quite 90 days old yet (it will be on the 30th), but I do have about 1500 edits. I have read the reviewing instructions. Is there a way I can start reviewing submissions now, or should I just wait a week? KSF T C 15:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
@ Timtrent: I have shamelessly copy/pasted your material in User:Timtrent/Reviewing into my Wikipedia Boilerplate Notebook to use as I start at AfC. Thanks for the leg up! Cheers. Jbh Talk 21:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Wiki crew ! It's been 2 weeks since I asked for a review of this article. Can someone help me ? Thank you very much. Jim
Here is the draft :
/info/en/?search=Draft:The_Price_We_Pay_(2014_Film) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supe.jim ( talk • contribs) 20:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
In July 2014, the
Afc decline template was modified to present a full decline notice to users on their talk pages, complete with the decline rationale. One of the side-effects of this was that the user talk pages got put into the "AfC submission declined as..." categories that are intended to only house draft articles. I tried fixing it in
March of this year, but due to opposition from an editor who is no longer on Wikipedia, a fix wasn't implemented until
May. In the meantime, thousands of user talk pages ended up in those categories. At the time, I didn't propose bulk removal of those pages from the categories because a certain outspoken editor (who is no longer on Wikipedia)
insisted that User Talk: pages were valid locations for drafts. This issue was recently brought up
on my talk page, and
User:Fuhghettaboutit manually went through all 349 pages in
Category:AfC submissions declined as copyright violations and not a single one was an actual draft. Therefore, I wanted to see if there was a consensus now to do a one-time manual
Pywikibot run to remove user talk pages (but not subpages) from all the "AfC submission declined as..." categories before I proposed it at
WP:BRFA. I've tested this in simulation mode (running python pwb.py category.py -simulate -log -pt:10 remove -from:AfC_submissions_declined_as_non-notable -match:"^User.talk:([^/]*)$"
, for example) and it seems to filter pages correctly. --
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
16:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
{{
AFC submission|d}}
on it. In that case the category won't show up as text to be removed from the page (becasue it's being sneakily transcluded from the submission template). No objection now because anything that has the text available in the User talk space could only have been a subst-ed decline message to the user. I would however like to see it chew through ~300ish articles at a slow pace before going at a higher pace. I could see the justification for a weekly run that crawls 1k pages a week to remove and waits for feedback.
Hasteur (
talk)
00:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I brought this up last week (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#miscategorisation) Since then I have gone through a couple of the smaller categories and done the removal myself with AWB, but after having AWB scan the categories, there are 19925 user talk pages in the combined categories that are miscategorised. That's quite a few manual edits there... - Happysailor (Talk) 18:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I've just posted a comment at Draft:Accredo Business Software Ltd but it is not formatted correctly, the template code has not been parsed, it is simply displayed instead of being converted into the usual formatting. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 19:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
If anyone would like to comment, there is an edit request at Template talk:Userspace draft about whether users should be able to tag pages in the Draft namespace with {{ userspace draft}}. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
When declining a submission, I can select that I want the user to receive a Teahouse invitation. In this case, the user receives a message purportedly signed by me saying that I have declined the submission, followed by a message, also signed by me, saying
* "Hello! xxx, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. ..."
This give the impression that I have just noticed that I did something. I presume this is a matter of a simple change to Wikipedia:Teahouse/AfC Invitation but may need to be coordinated with the script. -- Boson ( talk) 22:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
As a regular around here, I know that I could create an article in mainspace, however because I'm interested in the subject and I volunteered to create the article if sources were fetched, I decided to use AFC to help immunize the potential COI that I may have. If people could take a look at Draft:GORUCK. I'd like to see what people thing before I actually put it into the AFC review queue (or just move it to mainspace) so that I can have a very successful page creation. Hasteur ( talk) 03:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
This is a comment from the peanut gallery follow-up from
this thread at
WT:MED, where
Dodger67 suggested that some people there might poke through the pending AfC submissions on occasion to find relevant ones. I asked about topic tagging, and I see there's a thread above on this page describing a script for reviewers to apply wikiproject tags, but there appear to be over 1000 wikiprojects available for tagging.
IMO there are too many semi-active wikiprojects on very specific topics to generate much project buy-in in terms of regularly monitoring draft categories, and you'd be better off with a small number of general categories along the lines of Category:AfD debates, with one category assigned by the author at the time of submission. Not sure if AfC has already considered and rejected that approach for other reasons (maybe the submitters are too unreliable to trust with a list of 10 categories to pick from?). Speaking for myself, I'd be a lot more likely to occasionally look at a hypothetical Category:Science, technology, and medicine AfC submissions than to dig through an undifferentiated list of 4000, or keep track of draft categories for all of the various semi-active wikiprojects whose scope has some overlap with my interests. Having reviewers apply wikiproject tags is a good start, but it's an extra person's worth of effort and risks missing willing reviewers for niche topics because they're watching for drafts in the wrong niche. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 06:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
My first thought was to replicate the AfD category structure below - which might allow for some interesting statistics eventually on the survival of AfC articles in different topic areas. I'm not currently active in the AfC process except as a person who responds sometimes when someone asks a wikiproject I follow about a draft, though, so maybe these topics don't map well to what people tend to submit here. It wouldn't really help much if 70% of the backlog is in one category. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 23:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
cat=M | Media and music |
cat=O | Organisation, corporation, or product |
cat=B | Biographical |
cat=S | Society topics |
cat=W | Web or Internet |
cat=G | Games or sports |
cat=T | Science and technology |
cat=F | Fiction and the arts |
cat=P | Places and transportation |
cat=I | Indiscernible or unclassifiable topic |
cat=U | Debate not yet sorted |
Some old related discussions that went nowhere:
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 16:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
This seems like an awesome idea. I'd just like a bit of clarification: this is going to take the form of parameters on the AfC submission template, right? I think an example of the new syntax would be {{AFC submission|d|bio|u=Ejaz92|ns=118|decliner=Flat Out|declinets=20150729045231|ts=20150726112721|cat=bio}}
APerson (
talk!)
23:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I suggest an alternative implementation below. My only concern is that this information would be lost when these articles are posted to mainspace so I suggest using the AFC Wikiproject template instead. That's more straight-forward and we'd basically be set up similar to how the biography project set ups its articles (but only within draftspace for now). -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 17:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Can I make an alternative implementation proposal? There already exists Template:WikiProject Articles for creation and in particular Category:Draft-Class AFC articles. Instead, we can have the AFC Wikiproject template contain the categories and create subcategories within the Draft-Class category so that only the draft-space articles are categorized. It'll be like what WikiProject Biography does, is less complicated than a wholesale change to the AFC template and we can just ask them for help on setting up the class mask for our template. It'll be an additional step on the back-end but we'll also have better stats on the former AFC articles that get approved. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 18:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
how can i change the article name that i created? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lentech23 ( talk • contribs) 17:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Sometimes when I review an article, I see that it has already been submitted and declined multiple times, and that the concerns of the reviewers have not been addressed. Maybe the editor just doesn't understand the guidelines for acceptance, or maybe the editor is hoping to get an easier reviewer on resubmission. In any case, resubmitting an article multiple times without addressing the concerns of the reviewers wastes the time of the reviewers. Is there any criterion for deleting such draft articles? (Should I ask this at the Wikipedia Help Desk?) Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
So looking through User talk:Drvasanthms' talk page and its all on the same thing: Shrevin. They keep making articles and draft pages on that subject for years, with them always getting deleted. I don't know what to make of that but its overall unproductive. But I don't know if that violates anything. I thought it would be best to make a comment on this here because more than likely after Draft:SHREVIN and Draft:Shrevin get deleted another draft about Shrevin will be made. GamerPro64 16:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Articles for creation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
113.167.90.189 ( talk) 15:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for this basic question but I've looked all over this WikiProject as well as the Article Wizard and I can't find information on what template is used to submit a draft for review. I'm reviewing a lot of abandoned AFC drafts and I found one in good shape that had never been submitted for review and I'd like to get it in the pipeline in case it meets your criteria. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 21:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Can someone figure out why User talk:Anthony Bradbury and User talk:JMHamo/Archive 9 shows up in CAT:GFOO? -- Sam Sailor Talk! 13:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
AfC participants constantly evaluate draft articles. They have to be good at deciding what is viable, what is a copyvio, what should be deleted, etc. Well, that is exactly what administrators need to do a lot.
So, please consider watchlisting and taking a look at this page:
You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.
Best wishes,
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 05:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
5,000,000 articles is a heady total and we, those who review and those who submit at AFC have helped hugely. Congratulations to all folk here and thank you for the hard work. Fiddle Faddle 17:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Liz has a point above. Currently, neither Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation nor Wikipedia:Article wizard mention how an active user here could submit an article to the AFC process (namely, to use {{AFC submission|T}} if it's not ready for submission or {{subst:submit}} to submit it). There's over 49k articles within Category:Userspace drafts created via the Article Wizard so a lot of help can be done with just "adopting" old drafts and taking them to AFC. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 22:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I commented on the submission and it now appears blank. Can anyone tell me what's going on? FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Why are there articles not tagged for G13 deletion in Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions, such as Draft:EatBlue.com and many, many more.. Thanks, JMHamo ( talk) 00:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
{{
AFC submission/draft}}
and {{
AFC submission/declined}}
templates will display the red warning banner that the page is eligible for deletion (but not nominate it) and to get the template to include the
Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions category from inside the template.See also User_talk:JohnCD#G13_cases Hasteur ( talk) 14:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I think the real answer is that the Bot messed up (but we'll live)... I've never seen Drafts that are G13 eligible have the red warning banner removed when they were already included in Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions It's very messy... JMHamo ( talk) 02:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
{{
AFC submission/declined}}
). This means that right now either of you could apply the CSD:G13 nomination template ({{
db-g13}}
) to nominate it for deletion because the CSD:G13 qualification is valid right now. Per the bot's implentation rules, the bot notified the creator of the article on November 1st. At least 30 days after that notice, the bot will come back and see if the draft is still CSD:G13 eligible. If it is, then the bot will perform the CSD:G13 nomination. The AFC submission template pulls in the
Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions category at 5 months unedited. and pulls in the
Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions at 6 months and includes the red bar notice at 6 months too. Before you go on to demonstrate even more ignorance, please go look at the related discussion recently at JohnCD's talk page, the Template source, and the Bot Requests for approval petitions
1/
2.
Hasteur (
talk)
14:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Hasteur: Why can't you answer a question without the passive aggression. Thank god you are not an Admin, you wouldn't be much good at editor retention. There are still unanswered questions but you will not be able to manage to answer them without being rude (or leaving snide edit summaries). There is obviously a reason as stated on your User page that you've been 'drug to the Administration Noticeboards 9 times'. JMHamo ( talk) 14:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
No actually, it does not answer my questions, but I am not going to bother any more as I've said you are just too passive aggressive and you suck the life out of me... I'd rather move on and let others suffer you. JMHamo ( talk) 15:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
We are excited that pre-production has started for a series of motivational and educational videos that will introduce Wikipedia and some of its sister projects to new contributors.
Over the past several years, many videos have been produced to train new contributors. This series will feature VisualEditor and the new citation tool called Citoid. Additionally, the series will include an introduction to the Wikimedia Commons repository of freely-licensed media.
The video series and associated materials will help students and instructors who participate in the Wikipedia Education Program. The series is also designed to assist the professional staff and volunteers of galleries, libraries, archives, and museums ( GLAMs) with understanding how their content gains exposure on Wikimedia sites, and how to document or upload their content for direct viewing on Wikipedia and its sister projects.
The video content will be available in segments that can be viewed, translated, or updated individually.
There are currently volunteer translators for Arabic, Armenian, Czech, German, Greek, Odia, and Spanish. Additional volunteers with high proficiency translation skills are welcome to sign up on the talk page.
We are currently seeking feedback on the outline for the scripts, as well as suggestions for an attractive name for the series. Please leave any comments on this talk page!
Regards,
Series director and screenwriter
This series is funded by an individual engagement grant from the Wikimedia Foundation. A big thanks to the community, the IEG Committee, and WMF for their support.
![]() | 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 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
I almost choked on my coffee when I saw the green bar with the word "Normal" in the pending submissions count box, I haven't seen it for ages! Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 08:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
@
Kikichugirl: ::laughs slightly at enjoy answering my messages
:: Kikichu is an amazing prolific reviewer... but when she reviews on two hours of sleep, it tends to generate about five talk page threads per day :P For me, personally, answering questions about why Kikichu declined is a lot easier than reviewing myself, mainly because of the slow internet here and therefore the relative unreliability of AFCH compared to responding to talk page messages. Cheers, --
L235 (
t /
c /
ping in reply)
19:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Pls see Help talk:Referencing for beginners#RfC: What method first -- Moxy ( talk) 15:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
See
Template talk:Afc decline#RFC: Stop adding User Talk pages to "Category:AfC submissions declined as..."?. --
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
00:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I think there should be a prominently place button which lets the person clicking it review a random article. It is not at all obvious how a person should find articles which need review.
Am I missing this button? Has it been proposed in the past to make this button easier to access? Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
There is still no article on the March 1st 2015 legislative and local elections in El Salvador - why not? 176.252.177.220 ( talk) 13:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, there was a portal template draft here. I contacted the folks over at the portal group and asked them to take a look John of Reading was kind enough to respond. Unfortunately, I didn't take his instructions seriously enough, and did not request the move be made through WP:RM. You can see his response HERE. Instead, I simply hit accept on the draft. Here's the result: Portal:Tuvalu. I attempted to "undo" the acceptance, but it's still all screwed up. Can someone else fix it? The editor did a lot of hard work on this, and I hate to think I was the cause of undoing all that effort. Onel5969 ( talk) 13:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Here's a hopefully quick question. I use Earwig's Copyvio detector to check articles for violations. I've found it very helpful. However, occasionally, for whatever reason, it does not operate correctly (like today, it's given me 10 0% violations in a row - and it RARELY gives a 0%). Is there another tool that is as good? Thanks. Onel5969 ( talk) 21:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
FYI 178.132.216.139 ( talk · contribs) has been deleting unprocessed requests off WP:AFC/R without closing or archiving them; I've reverted the deletions and issued a blanking warning. -- 65.94.43.89 ( talk) 04:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
-- Sdash095 ( talk) 13:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, currently, when we are declining edits as test, This submission seems to be a test edit and not an article worthy of an encyclopedia. Please use the sandbox for any tests in the future. Thank you.
is displayed. However, I find that many people are submitting out of their sandbox
like this and therefore it's weird to ask them to go and use the sandbox.
I propose that we reword this, to This submission seems to be a test edit and not an article worthy of an encyclopedia. Please use the sandbox for any tests in the future, but do not submit them. Or any other alternative wording...? I look forward to everyone's input. — kikichugirl oh hello! 20:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:AFC submission/comments has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hopefully I'm using the right template, since I don't actually know where the decline template can be found as it's a mess of templates and I'm bad at template syntax, but... If there's no further objections, can we implement this? — kikichugirl oh hello! 23:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Over at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects a user has proposed several redirects for names of fictional products or one-shot characters featured in episodes of The Simpsons, proposing a redirect to the article about the episode in which they appear (for example Gorilla Man Scalp Blaster -> Simpson and Delilah). While I'm satisfied these titles aren't going to be needed for any real entities, this is very much in the domain of trivia, and these articles make at the very most only quick references to the subjects of these redirects, rather than discussing them in any detail. Do people think these are valid proposals? -- LukeSurl t c 17:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I have been trying to work this out for 30 minutes. I checked to use helper script in my preferences and I cleared my browsers cache (Firefox).
The next step says: To launch AFCH, click on the upside-down triangle icon in the toolbar on an AFC-applicable page and then on the Review (AFCH) link.
There is no upside down triangle icon in the toolbar, so I am confused (and frustrated). Hopefully a patient Wikipedian can help me. Thank you.
CookieMonster755
(talk)
05:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
How can I find pending AfC submissions, but subject (i.e. by the category they will end up in)? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Andy Mabbett, for some subjects it works well to use this custom search which only looks in draft space. By adding the words "Review waiting", you only find drafts which are up for review. For example, if you want to find submissions about politicians, try typing "review waiting politician" in the search box below. — Anne Delong ( talk) 05:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
![]() | Find Articles for Creation in Draft: space
[[Draft:]] |
![]() |
There is a proposal related to Wikipedia's live help at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#IRC help channel disclaimer. PHANTOMTECH ( talk) 16:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I need some advice. Do I just need to sign and I will be a participant of the project? Willy Weazley 23:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation#Advertisement, maybe also mention {{ WPAFCInvite}}. Currently there's basically not a single WP page that mentions the template. -- 82.136.210.153 ( talk) 10:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Done ~
Kvng (
talk)
15:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects is suffering from a bit of a backlog at the moment. Could any helpers please use the script to process some requests? Rcsprinter123 (commune) @ 21:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Given the work AfC does with Drafts, I thought it would be important to inform everyone there is a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion (drafts) about whether there should be a PROD system for Drafts. Interested editors are asked to respond there. Thanks! EoRdE6( Come Talk to Me!) 00:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Regular reviewers will probably have encountered Buzzfeed put forward as a source for proving notability on quite a few occasions. This Reliable Sources Noticeboard search leads to some past discussion of Buzzfeed's reliability, with an overall feeling that it can be used as a source but with considerable care. However, the following article may cast further doubt on Buzzfeed's reliability, especially with regard to commercial and computing topics:
Another thing to watch out for is the text "This post was created by a member of BuzzFeed Community, where anyone can post awesome lists and creations" in Buzzfeed content. This of course indicates that the post in question cannot be used in proving notability. Such posts don't appear to be easily distinguishable by URL or title. Arthur goes shopping ( talk) 09:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
When a page passes review all the reviewer comments seem lost. I wish they could be posted to the newly created article's talk page. Is there any discussion about where these comments go, and the future development of AfC tools? I expected that at least the AfC creation template on the talk page would link to the reviewer comments, but it seems that they vanish. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The advantage of adding a link to the last version before acceptance is that it could be done automatically, whereas reviewers' time would be taken up by selective preservation of comments. However, it may not be as straightforward as it seems at first glance. For example, will the link still work if the article is moved to a new title? Also, some of the AfC templates do something totally different when they find themselves in mainspace (here's an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Riley_Senft&oldid=602178758). The decline reasons are no longer visible, including comments that were added to them using the custom decline. Comments saying things like "issues noted in the last decline have not been resolved" would be meaningless.— Anne Delong ( talk) 11:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I modified {{
WikiProject Articles for creation}} so that it can take an optional |oldid=
parameter. When this parameter is supplied, it adds a link to the last draft in the "This template was accepted..." line, as you can see at
Template:WikiProject Articles for creation/testcases. This uses {{
oldid2}} to bring up the old draft, so it shouldn't be bothered by things like page moves or histmerges. Is there consensus to have the AFCH tool fill in this field when placing the banner? I've mocked up the necessary patch
here. --
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
18:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Articles for creation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
it is a violent gun game 73.8.224.148 ( talk) 00:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Not that it makes much difference, but there seems to be an issue on the aging for the submissions. Don't know exactly when it started, but it looks like between 2-4 days ago. There are many articles on the 0 days list which were actually submitted a couple of days ago. Onel5969 ( talk) 17:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion that watchers of this page may be interested in on
Proposal to add global JavaScript and add an extra step for new users to get live IRC help. — {{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
19:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I'm an active helper on #wikipedia-en-help connect. Many helpees reach us from their declined and/or pending drafts. In my experience, there seems to be informal consensus among helpers to remove the "WPhelp" nick parameter. I noticed this first done by User:Logan on {{ Helpmessage}} not long ago. I attempted to apply this change in a bold edit to another AFC template, but I was reverted by Technical 13. I and users such as User:PhantomTech believe that we should remove the parameter and make them choose their own usernames.
I perceive the following benefits:
I know that there are some people who believe that they may end up choosing a generic name, and since enforce is set on their nicks, they will be automatically changed to Guest### or whatever, but we already experience this issue and it does not seem more problematic than WPhelp####. While it won't solve the problems behind us wanting to remove the WPHelp parameter, it won't create any more problems, either. In fact, many of the links elsewhere on the site use Freenode's webchat instead of KiwiIRC, which does not have a prefilled nick parameter at all. It is better than Freenode webchat because helpees sometimes can't figure out where to type, but they can on the user-friendly KiwiIRC.
{{#invoke:Random|item|Potato|Kartoffel|PommeDeTerre|Iwashi|Tameru|Rinngo}}
creating a nickname randomizer of some sort not unlike the Google Docs-type Anonymous Cat, Anonymous Dog, etc. nicknames. So, that's also another option.I appreciate anyone's thoughts and comments regarding this matter, especially comments from people who are active helpers in the IRC channel and familiar with the usual day-to-day events and questions that we deal with there. — kikichugirl oh hello! 21:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
User-WP32 has Joined #Wikipedia-en-help User-WP32: Related article: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:BOLD User-WP32: Coming from: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Help_desk User-WP32: I don't understand Wikipedia's policy on being bold
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
22:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC){{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
15:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)I would be open to T13's above proposal that we set the default nicks to the page that the helpees came from. Here's the code, for example, I would use to replace WPhelp: {{#ifeq: {{SUBPAGENAME}} | sandbox | {{BASEPAGENAME}} | {{SUBPAGENAME}} }}
This would set all nicks to the page name, except when the page is in a user sandbox, where it would default to the username. This allows for ease of finding drafts and/or usernames. The other alternative would be something like {{ifeq:{{SUBJECTSPACE}} | Draft | {{PAGENAME}} | {{BASEPAGENAME}} }}
in which if the namespace is draft, then the page name is used, otherwise, the base page name is used. One more alternative would be to combine all of them to say userspace would give usernames, draft space would get draft names, and all others would give WPhelp or the base page name or something. This would be for all links under the AFC jurisdiction. Finally,
User:PhantomTech seems to be almost done with a function that would allow us to grab their usernames, so I would defer if it comes to that, and works well. —
kikichugirl
oh hello!
20:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
{{#switch: {{SUBJECTSPACE}} | User = {{BASEPAGENAMEE}} | Wikipedia = {{BASEPAGENAMEE}} | Draft = {{PAGENAMEE}} | Template = T-{{PAGENAMEE}} | {{PAGENAMEE}}
This is very namespace dependent, and if the namespace is not applicable, it would return the simple page name (and probably get truncated by IRC. Pinging
an IRC op in invitation to comment. —
kikichugirl
oh hello!
21:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC){{PAGEID}}
can be used with a script to quickly access the page by helpers or it can be set up with a key in -helpers to quickly get to the page. Alternatively, {{REVISIONID}}
could be used and anyone could enter in the revision number using
Special:Diff/1180768284. I'd be happy to implement either one of these, I'm just opposed to merging all of the WPhelp nicks into the Guest nicks as that is a backwards movement. — {{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
10:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)if (!mw.user.isAnon()) { // really this next line is the only one that's important var userNick = mw.user.getName().substring(0,12).replace(/\W/g, "_") + "-WP" + Math.floor(Math.random() * 89 + 10).toString(); var ircLink = document.getElementById("ircLink").href; ircLink = ircLink.replace(/WPhelp\?/, userNick); } else { // do something random... }
PhantomTech (
talk)
21:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
The current new system, that results in nicknames like "P-659769291", is not the solution to the problem. The names generated this way are far too long, and the names will tend to be very similar. Helpees may have a very hard time telling what messages are for them. The system allows for quick finding of drafts, but I think it will hinder the actual process of helping. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
If the user is logged in, their nick is the first 11 characters of their username with anything non-alphanumeric characters replaced with an underscore and "-WP##" added to the end) is the full 16 character NICKLEN restriction? Also, I'll note that a good majority of usernames have spaces, which this proposed replacement doesn't allow and means the new nicks will be useless for helping the helpee since helpers won't be able to find the page that the helpee is asking for help with. —
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
00:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)Hi - would folks active in this project please have a look at this discussion at WP:COIN, No COI in Draft space?, and comment? I work at COIN and would be very interested in your thoughts there. Thanks! Jytdog ( talk) 13:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm old school and trying to grow my plumbing company (at a snails pace). It has proven to be much harder than expected; the two choices I have encountered are fork out a ton of money or ask for help. Asking for help has brought me here tonight. I would ask a well versed Wikipedian to generously write an article about my plumbing company with a link to my Google page in hopes of creating a stronger appearance. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.227.196 ( talk) 02:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I've noticed a few sports players on here, who's articles haven't been accepted due to notability concerns. However, sportspeople have their own criteria for notability, WP:NSPORT, which is generally easier to achieve than WP:GNG. Just wanted to inform reviewers that if drafts are about sportspeople, they should look at this criteria as well. Joseph2302 ( talk) 15:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Just wanted to say take care to you all. I've been asked to stop participating in the AfC process by someone with far more experience than I, Pigsonthewing. Good luck to everyone. Onel5969 ( talk) 14:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I discovered List_of_American_ethnic_and_religious_fraternal_orders today, and it has not been substantially worked on since it was approved. I discovered the following items:
As far as I am concerned, this is poorly researched copy/paste work that shows POV issues, and likely should never have been created until somebody who knew the fraternal org area could look at it. MSJapan ( talk) 22:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
The Knights of Pythias link goes to an African American order of the Knights of Pythias; I have never been aware of a ban on the use of the terms "Hispanic" or "American Indian"; the "Association Canado-Americaine" seems like a matter of semantics - French, French-Canadian, French Canadian America etc. I believe that their primary ethnic self - identity is French; Jewish fraternal groups come in both religious and secular forms - ergo the Workmans Circle, which identifies itself as ethnically Jewish, but is a secular group as far as I am aware; As for the sources - I went to the sources of my sources in each case as far as I could trace them - Axelrod, Scmict, Preuss and Stevens, oftentimes they were quoting from each other. In some cases I was able to find independently names sources ergo the Christian Cynosure. In anycase, each source qualifies as WP:PS, do they not? -- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 23:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't even work in or near this project but this is the second time I've seen a random IP user going and putting the submit tag on drafts that they themselves have not worked on. Why would they do that? Is that allowed? It might be necessary for reviewers to check who added the submit tag. I reverted two of this IP's tags ( here and here) because those drafts had not been edited since they were last declined. Was I right in doing that? — Jeraphine Gryphon ( talk) 12:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Pinging @ JMHamo:. — Jeraphine Gryphon ( talk) 12:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
12:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)@ Timtrent and Technical 13: -- Guys, did you look at this IP's contributions? Like last time, they just went in and submitted random drafts by different editors. I left them a message which they didn't react to, and not too long after the IP was blocked for several reasons, including that. And if a submission is declined then it doesn't make any sense to submit it again without making any changes to it.
I don't know why anyone would go and do what those IPs did but apparently it happens, so maybe there should be a rule like "don't submit a draft if you haven't been involved with it and it has not been edited since it was last declined". — Jeraphine Gryphon ( talk) 13:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
13:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC){{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
13:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)How one can become New page petroler? Zarghun11 ( talk) 17:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
How does one find drafts that are over 6 months old? — Jeraphine Gryphon ( talk) 09:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
No, I guess my question is what causes eligible G13 drafts to be included in the Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions category. What criteria must a draft meet? It's not just be six months old. JMHamo ( talk) 15:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
16:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, is there any way in which the drafts are sorted subject wise? I want to review the drafts which come under Wikiproject:India however often I find myself unable to go through the list of all new drafts. Please help so that I can contribute more effectively. Mr RD ( talk) 10:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
![]() | Search Draft: space
Type a keyword and click on the button. Optionally, add "review waiting" to see only drafts under review, or "CSD G13" for only abandoned drafts. [[Draft:]] |
![]() |
The English Wikipedia has a lot of non-English redirects, so saying redirects that are not in English are not needed is unnecessary. 75.166.160.217 ( talk) 00:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
do not paste article drafts here
|
---|
The 2nd Amendment protects the Uniquely American Human Right Self Defense which allows all Natural Americans to Defend Self from Rape/Murder which are violation of Self. The American Human Right Self Defense is based on Natural Law. Rape and Murder are violations of Self. http://www.holmesivonline.com/2015/01/21/administrative-details-for-the-human-right-of-self-defense/ |
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ai6pg (
talk •
contribs)
18:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Can I get a consensus on something? Mr RD wants to accept Draft:Unicommerce, but can't because I salted that title after too many speedy deletions. I don't think it's ready to be accepted yet; corporation articles need a lot more source coverage and my impression on reading the draft is it doesn't really tell me much about the company that's of encyclopedic importance. I don't want to unsalt until there is a consensus that we have an AfD-proof article ready. So, what should we do? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Ju Xiaowen to be moved to Xiao Wen Ju. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 23:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Kristina Satter to be moved to Tina Satter. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 23:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to tell all my AfC co-workers that you are all wonderful! Since starting with AfC, I have grew to understand what AfC is about. It's about helping new comers to our wonderful community! I like to help them out and explain why their draft can't be accepted at a point in time. I have grew to see many AfC submitters grow, and become a vital part of community. I just wanted to talk about one of my good Wikipedia friends, Jmorange. He created the article Somerset Trust Company through our wonderful AfC process. When then draft was first submitted, to be honest, it was a mess. Formatting of the article was wrong, promotional tone, etc. I declined, gave them my reason why it was not accepted into the main space. I offered to help them work on it with them. They posted on my talk page saying that they did need help, so I decided to get started cleaning up the article. We both worked on the article for days. Than when it was finished being cleaned up, it was resubmitted. Jmorange had a frustrating time at AfC, like most editors do at first. My good friend and AfC co-worker Winner 42 than accepted the article into the main space. It was a proud moment for Jmorange and myself. They finally created a wonderful article for the main space. It was frustrating process at first, but we worked together, and the article was published. Jmorange has long really well in our community, and I hope they become an AfC member and reviewer. This is just one story out of many. I thank the IP addresses and new users and AfC members for bringing this AfC process together, which is so vital to our online Wikipedia community. I am hoping to expand my expertise with AfC, and am thinking about doing a Signpost article on why AfC is so vital to Wikipedia. I wish you good luck fellow Wikipedians. Thank you for having me as a AfC member. Please read my AfC introduction and make sure to contact me if you have any suggestions for my future Signpost article about AfC and its influence on the Wikipedia community. Cheers ya' all. CookieMonster755 (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
It's the end of a semester and student papers are coming in as articles. Unfortunately many students are used to writing papers by copying in blocks of material from online sites. After spending some time improving an article I discovered that it was entirely made up of copied material. So check for copyright problems early on. Earwig's tool doesn't always look inside pdfs, so check references too. StarryGrandma ( talk) 16:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I really want to review articles and help those poor 2796 article's be reviewed, but apparently, I haven't been on long enough. Is there any way around that?-- Airplane Maniac ( talk) 21:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi please confirm the last year business growth of aligarh Locks & brass industries — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.40.204.245 ( talk) 09:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Can someone fix this backlog? It's getting high and might become severe. SONIC678 ( span style="font-family:Aharoni; color:#FC1B23">Let’s hang out!/See the stuff I’ve done) 02:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
It's getting to a point where it might be severe, guys. SONIC678 ( Let’s hang out) 20:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
We should be able to review some of those 2796 submissions within the next few weeks. I know we can do it. SONIC678 ( Let’s hang out) 01:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
It looks like it's becoming severe... SONIC678 ( Let’s hang out) 18:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
This draft has a review pending tag but when I open AFCH then it only gives me options to Comment or Submit. I'm not sure where the problem is. — Jeraphine ( talk) 06:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
{{AFC submission|||ts=20150601154452|u=Unixt17|ns=2}}
is same in first submission and current submission, the problem is that
Unixt17 added the same previous tag again. Normally we get new tag for new submission but since the user copied it from old version, script is only showing submit and comment options.
Supdiop
talk
08:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)I don't know if this has already been addressed, but stuff like
[1] this isn't very helpful. It just leads to articles being tagged with {{
No footnotes}}
or similar cleanup templates, and to the addition of unsourced later material that cannot be readily distinguished from material that was apparently sourceable originally. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
06:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I hope the backlog doesn't become severe, so we have to review the submissions. Good luck! SONIC678 ( Let’s hang out) 17:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Please would folk offer this draft and its editors some help. I have failed to get them to understand what we need. Fiddle Faddle 08:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Persondata is now considered deprecated (and removal is imminent) as per this RfC. Is it possible to remove it from the AfC creation process? Thanks, — Msmarmalade ( talk) 03:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Does this mean when we accept biographies, there's no longer a need to add the biographical information (birth date/place etc.)? Joseph2302 ( talk) 11:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Can that be added to the script? FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 21:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
It has been proposed that a dealy period of 4 days be introduced for G13 deletions. The discussion is taking place ar WT:CSD#4-day delay period for G13 deletions. 103.6.159.179 ( talk) 15:01, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
{{
AFC submission/draft}}
template.
this is the set of changes that will make
Category:AFC G13 eligible soon submissions appear on pages that are at least 5 months un-edited, but vanish the category once the page has hit the 6 month mark (in favor of putting the "eligible for deletion right now" category on. Please speak up if you have any objections as I intend to file a Template edit-protected request (in addition to a similar set of changes to {{
AFC submission/declined}}
) to apply this change in parallel with the bot request/reseeding.
Hasteur (
talk)
11:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)I've just helped a user on IRC who was having issues adding {{subst:submit}}
as a result of them using the Visual Editor. They copy and pasted the template code from
WP:AfC, but VE didn't understand that it was a template and so added nowiki tags either side. We could do with adding a line about how to submit the article in VE (Insert > Template > subst:submit > Add Template > Insert) but I'm not sure how best to word that, especially given the fact that if they type it out in full rather than pasting it the box will pop up after the {{, probably adding to confusion.
Sam Walton (
talk)
09:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Is it possible to add an autocompletion feature to the "VE -> Insert Template" dialog box? I think in terms of usability, users should not be required to write subst:submit but rather simply submit and the template would pop out.
Orschiro ( talk) 06:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Just because a page is eligible for G13 because it has a {{
AFC submission}}
template and it hasn't been edited in 90 days doesn't mean it should be automatically nominated for G13. Please exercise discretion and not use mindless bulk speedying. This is being motivated out of the nomination of
Template:AFC submission/draft/testcases which is an obvious exception as we want to test changes to the template before we nominate them.
Hasteur (
talk)
13:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
demo=yes
parameter, and modified the template not to add categories if that parameter is present. --
Ahecht (
TALKA new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. This is another tool to help the AfC team assess if there is any plagiarism in new articles.-- Lucas559 ( talk) 19:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I received the information This submission appears to be taken from http://proxy2974.my-addr.org/myaddrproxy.php/https/de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_de_Peltrie. Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly exists under a compatible licence and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to
I, Maxim Pouska, did write the article in German for the WP:DE - I own the copyright. The I translatet the text from German into English for the WP:EN- also my copyright. Then I fixed the text on my user:maxim pouska space. After this I asked user:Philg88 on his talk site for help. After all correction I submited the text to review. User talk:Philg88 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim Pouska ( talk • contribs) 07:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC) PS I was to fast - and put on the save page and not on show preview - sorry.-- Maxim Pouska ( talk) 08:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello there! Just wondering if there's a specific tool (similar to afdstats) that summarises how many articles were approved by an editor at AfC and how many of them, if any, were subsequently nominated/deleted. Appreciated, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 21:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
APerson Jolly good! Only difference is it now seems to count less edits, although I can't confirm that now that the old hostname is no more. From the top of my head, I think it previously said something like 8k, while it's now at 3363. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 00:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Robert Steven Kaplan Marko Mihojević Samir Radovac Kerim Memija Amir Hadžiahmetović Besim Šerbečić Riad Bajić Dean Santangelo Sean Kelly (footballer) Massacoe Forest Pavilion International Journal of NanoScience and Nanotechnology Dan Perrins Vobasan Telehomecare Journal of Mobile Technology in Medicine Paul Summerville (politician) MiRandola: Extracellular Circulating microRNAs Database Momentum (company) Body by Vi Challenge HSE Faculty of Sociology Mike Ryan (music video producer) Marchioness (ship)
Hello, the new WP:AFC/R redirect preload template is incorrectly formatted. In the sources line
|<!-- Unless it is obvious, please enter a reliable source which supports your reason below this line -->
this clearly does not work properly if the source is an external link that includes an equals sign. Instead it should be:
|4=<!-- Unless it is obvious, please enter a reliable source which supports your reason below this line -->
where the parameter is explicitly stated, as this will make sure the template parser does not interpret a later URL equal sign as separating a template parameter name from parameter value -- 67.70.32.20 ( talk) 08:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
It would probably be a good idea to name all the parameters, in cases where the target or the redirect pagenames includes equals signs -- 67.70.32.20 ( talk) 08:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I created a template at User:Ahecht/sandbox/AFCR Template for creating requests at WP:AFC/R that would automatically deny requests that are blank, have a missing title, have a missing target, have a title that already exists, or have a target that doesn't exist. This wouldn't change the appearance of WP:AFC/R at all, except that automatically declined entries would show (Automatically declined) instead of the reviewer's signature. You can see it in action at User:Ahecht/sandbox/AFCR Template/testcases.
The preload when a user submits a request would change, and instead of the current preload they would see the source of User:Ahecht/sandbox/AFCR_Template_preload ( Template:AfC_editintro/redirect would need to change as well):
{{subst:User:Ahecht/sandbox/AFCR Template |<!-- Enter the title of the new redirect you would like created below this line --> |<!-- Enter the name of the existing page that you want the redirect to point to below this line --> |<!-- Enter the reason for the new redirect (e.g. alternative name, common misspelling, etc.) below this line --> |<!-- Unless it is obvious, please enter a reliable source which supports your reason below this line --> <!-- Do not change or delete this line -->}}
I haven't done a lot at
WP:AFC/R, but from what I have done it seems like a very significant fraction of requests are denied for being incomplete, so this would save a lot of work on the part of reviewers. I just went and closed 10 such requests, and the three requests submitted since I did that are also incomplete. This might also help requesters not submit blank requests, as I think many overlook the title bar and therefore don't see where they are supposed to enter the title of the redirect that they want created. Are there any comments or objections to this approach? --
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
20:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
|close=
parameter is present. We can run it that way for a while and evaluate the false-positive rate before adding close=yes
to the preload. My hope is that malformed requests will decreate with the new preload, but I know it won't be zero. --
Ahecht (
TALKclose=yes
). --
Ahecht (
TALKThere's currently a discussion at ANI in which members may wish to have some input, or should at least be aware of. It concerns a scam where users are contacting multiple people who have had drafts rejected and offering to fix them up and/or accept them on payment of $150–300. Sometimes, they actually create an article or draft and then threaten to request speedy deletion per {{ Db-author}} unless a "ransom" is paid. The scam has involved impersonating both administrators and experienced editors. In at least one of the emails received by a hapless "customer" the person claimed to be a Wikipedian with "high privileges" and a "member of Article for Creation review department". The full discussion is at WP:ANI#Someone may be impersonating me. – Voceditenore ( talk) 15:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome :), although your PS should have been your first point and your first point should have been the PS. A topic gets derailed only if people actively choose to ignore it, let alone try to think about its implications. Until Arthur and Focus commented, that was precisely what the active members did. But onward and upwards. Rankersbo, what do you think about putting up the disclaimer notices? Voceditenore ( talk) 13:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
This discussion has gone a little off track so I'd like to bring it back to the main thing that needs deciding regarding this issue: Should we add a warning notice (or multiple if appropriate) somewhere to warn editors about this scam, informing them not to accept any offer of editing for payment they receive by email? Sam Walton ( talk) 11:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Emboldened by this week's very flattering commemorations, I have made a start by adding a basic warning to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/header. Please feel free to critique or improve the Latin or the English elements of the warning, and consider where else information needs to be added. Arthur goes shopping ( talk) 08:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Has the legal department of the WMF officially responded to this issue yet? It's been six weeks since this issue was first raised. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 12:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Why are some pending articles (well, hundreds of them) not in any of the Pending by Age categories on the first page of AfC? What is the difference between the 3 categories by age (which today all read zero) and the articles that are pending but are not in any of those categories? And which should we prioritize for review? Thanks, LaMona ( talk) 01:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Please add a few "additional redirectX" parameters. Or even better, switch to Lua, that should simplify things considerably. 85.178.192.71 ( talk) 06:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Do we have a script that does this?
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 22:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
mw.config.get('wgRelevantUserName')
exists and mw.config.get('wgArticleId')
is > 0)@ MusikAnimal and Anna Frodesiak: Do you often find users creating drafts in the userspace of non-registered users? MusikAnimal, perhaps accidentally, suggested that we don't allow the gadget to load on such pages (wgRelevantUserName is null). However, I'm wondering if it would be worth it to do the extra work to make the script usable on these pages as well. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
If an editor created an article in draft or user space without using the article wizard, what do I need to do to add to the AFC process so the editor can submit it for review? -- NeilN talk to me 13:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
{{
subst:submit|username}}
, replacing username with the draft creator's username. If you just want to add the button for them to submit it themselves, use {{
subst:AFC draft|username}}
. --
Ahecht (
TALKI see the backlog is down to just 690 articles (from over 1500 a week or so ago)- clearly some users have been doing a lot of reviewing! Thank you to those that have, glad to see the backlog down and thus new submissions will get seen to more quickly. Joseph2302 ( talk) 18:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Hey AFC participants. Back in March-April 2015, a small team of us ran a pilot for a mentorship space for newer editors called the the Co-op. The work for the space was funded by an IEG grant from the WMF. After some analysis and tweaks to the space post-pilot, we are officially open this week, and we're looking for additional mentors. Our final report is still being reviewed by the WMF, but it is more or less done, and you are welcome to check it out. Here are some of our more prominent findings:
Based on our results, the Co-op seems to have a lot of benefits for newer editors. But our mentorship space will not work if we lack mentors. In particular, mentors who are familiar with reviewing new articles are very helpful as this is a common request from newer editors. While mentoring does require some time and effort, our findings from the Co-op suggest that such effort has a strong impact on newer editors. If you're interested in becoming a mentor, please consider joining us. Thanks, I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm fairly new to this project, but have dived in head first as some of you all have noticed. One issue I've seen (granted not a huge issue) is people who continually resubmit their AfC with little to no edits made. My theory is that people are doing it because 1) they don't care to improve it or 2) They think it might squeak by a less vigilant editor.
Unfortunately from what I understand there isn't a means of recourse for this. I'm proposing the creation of a warning template (which I'd happily help to create) that could be posted on user talk pages. I'm sure there might be some slippery slope issues, so I'd say the use of the template at minimum shouldn't be implemented until someone has clearly resubmitted more than once without making much of an effort to improve their article.
I think an official warning like this my help alleviate some of the backlog created by habitual resubmitters who aren't taking the time to improve their articles.
Thoughts? Sulfurboy ( talk) 03:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Full disclosure: I'm not as well informed about day-to-day work at AfC as I might be. But I was alarmed when I saw Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged Clinton Controversies, an AfD through which Alleged Clinton Controversies was snow-deleted in less than 24 hours. I read the article itself and was even more alarmed. Would people here care to comment, perhaps especially Sulfurboy who accepted the article and moved it to mainspace? I don't mean to put Sulfurboy on the spot, we all make mistakes, but can something be done towards avoiding such debacles in the future? Requiring endorsement by a second reviewer before an article is accepted? (Perhaps this is a perennial proposal and unrealistic because of time constraints.) Please see the comments in the AfD. I realize non-admins can't now read the article itself; I've put a copy of it (just after it was moved to mainspace) temporarily into my userspace for accessibility. Pinging the article's creator Professor JR for courtesy, though please note, Professor JR, that I don't mean to criticize you, or to re-ligitate the AfD; it's the AFC process that concerns me.
PS, when I went to post this on the page, the edit window met me with "This page is for users working on the project's administration" in loud letters, and suggestions for other pages for other business. However, a) none of those other pages seemed to fit either, and b) I would really like to hear from users working on the project's administration. And please don't think I don't realize that working here is an ungrateful task, that you're perennially backlogged, etc. I do know that much about AfC, and I do appreciate the work done here. Bishonen | talk 10:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC).
![]() | This page is for users working on the project's administration.
|
Just a note to say that the WikiProject Opera banner now supports "Draft" class. I've bannered the ones I've found via our new article bot and will continue to do so every time I check the bot results. If members here find any further drafts within WPO's scope, feel free to add {{Opera|class=Draft}} to the draft talk page and feel free to post a note at our project's talk page if you need specialist advice in assessing those drafts. See Category:Draft-Class Opera articles.
Although many project banners may not yet support draft class, if you are looking for new drafts to review in other specific subject areas, don't forget to check the search results available via the links at User:AlexNewArtBot#Currently supported. The bot now lists all new drafts as well as new articles in nearly 100 subject areas. Voceditenore ( talk) 09:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Now, I see: I can explain all this to your satisfaction, but, must end it here, as I cannot go farther than this last point: philipofBVM PhilipofBVM ( talk) 21:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Here is the point: yes, I did copy that information from cathinfo site; however, I am the one who penned that information, and it was backed up by some other Wikipedian. Ergo: this can never be considered copywrite infringement, to cut and paste one's own writing, word for word. Case closed. I might add here, that, for presenting the factual truth, in regards to the true Catholic baptism, of Saint Constantine the Great by Pope Sylvsester I, during his lifetime, and/or similiar factual reportings, such as this, and also, for example, that Marcel LeFebre was not a Catholic, but an apostate, for denying the "salvation dogma", I was banned from cathinfo site, and about 5 other sites, for telling the truth. Will also Wickedpedia also ban me? I can't go any further on all this. Go "seek, ask, and knock" and you shall find the true Catholic Church. Since you don't want me to give the site, most people can find it anyways by using key words. Thanks, again. Sincerely, philipofBVM PhilipofBVM ( talk) 21:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I commend this RfC to you It affects those who converse with new editors, and AfC is most certainly the key place for that. Please offer your opinions there. Fiddle Faddle 15:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Please would an experienced reviewer look at this draft and consider whether my review is correct. I fear each of:
I'd appreciate further eyes. Fiddle Faddle 08:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
FYI, you may be interested in the deletion nomination for {{ MovedtoMainspace}} which is a template for processing of moving drafts to articlespace -- 67.70.32.190 ( talk) 05:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
{{ AFC Request}} has been nominated for deletion -- 67.70.32.190 ( talk) 05:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I am interested in reviewing AfC submissions, but my user account doesn't meet the reviewer requirements (90 days old and 500 edits to the article namespace). For a number of reasons, I am requesting that I be permitted to review submissions while not yet meeting these criteria. First, I have created 10 non-redirect articles under my current account; from my (legitimate) former account, User:Millelacs, I created 37 articles and amassed 1,666 article-space edits ( [5]) under the usernames Theodore! and DCI2026. Additionally, I am well-versed in Wikipedia policy; under my current account, I have participated in 58 AfD discussions ( [6]) and NAC'd several others. Thanks, North of Eden ( talk) 01:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
This template leaves a lot of whitespace on a talk page. Can we look at widening the format to 7-800 or so? - Happysailor (Talk) 12:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I made a request at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts/Feature requests but I'll ask here as well. I wondered if we could have a WikiProject alert for when articles in their draftspace fall into Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions or better yet Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions. That would give the projects the best chance to review and express opinions on articles including in particular the ones where the original drafter have abandoned it. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 06:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Articles for creation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Muhammad Atif 20:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Im a new user and I accidentally approved some redirects a couple of days back and then realized that I had to be a reviewer and then had to clean up my mess. But I liked the job and in some time, I would like to become a reviewer. I would like to know what it takes though, like I know the 500 edits and whatnot but can a reviewer give me some insider insight as to the pros and cons of the job and what their favorite and least favorite parts are and what policies are used the most. But even better, if a reviewer wouldnt mind, I would appreciate doing a mentorship on the subject instead of just having a few questions answered because I think that it would better prepare me and it would be nice having one person to answer my questions. Thank You and please ping me in a response. GlacialFrost (Talk) 20:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow reviewers. It's been a while since I posted here, so I may be getting out of touch with the latest changes. This talk page: Talk:CapitalVia is listed as eligible for db-g13, because for some reason all of the AfC templates and AfC comments for this article, which is now in mainspace, are on the talk page. I am assuming that this is an error, but I thought that I'd better make sure that no new process was being tried out before deleting this materiel.— Anne Delong ( talk) 05:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The AfC Redirect Wizard preload throws an error when you supply a target with wiki-notation for the target link.
If you supply [[target]] it dumps an error
But if you do the same thing with the redirect name [[redirect]] the template accepts it with no problem
Seems to be a mismatch in processing? It would seem logical to accept targets that use square brackets
-- 67.70.32.190 ( talk) 06:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Antimetaphysics is a teatise over antimetaphysical beliefs. Not all atheists are antimetaphysical, some accept or perform magical thinking, some believe in other forces, even non scientific methods that do not apply to reason but to metaphysics. We need a new article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.84.222.127 ( talk) 20:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I've just noticed that the declined categories were at some point translating onto the users talk pages (because we now put the reason for the decline on the page) which in turn, has screwed up the maintenance categories as it is now showing all of the user_talk pages as declined drafts.
Can we look at clearing this up somewhow? Bot maybe like the teahouse notice issue? - Happysailor (Talk) 18:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I have been in Wikipedia since February 2013, created more than 39 articles and more than 600 edits.I also mark articles for review using page curation log.I have thoroughly studied the Wikipedia reviewing guidelines. Can i add my name to the Wikipedia reviewer's list? Please guide me. Zarghun11 ( talk) 10:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
We're building a tool to help reviewers make better decisions, and we need your help! We're looking for volunteers to decide if article topics are notable or not. We'll use these decisions to train an automated classifier that will score new articles based on how notable it thinks they're likely to be.
If you're interested, please sign up here and take a look at the hand-coding form to get an idea of what you'll be doing. We'll let you know as soon as we're ready for you to start. Comments and suggestions are very welcome! Bluma.Gelley ( talk) 21:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
The article Draft:Nature's_Art_Village has a script problem and cannot be reviewed. I've tried various times and different browsers and I get an unresponsive script message. Does anyone know how to fix this? (I'm trying to reject the article, btw.) Thanks, LaMona ( talk) 05:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I have been patrolling new pages for a while, and would like to become an AfC reviewer. My account isn't quite 90 days old yet (it will be on the 30th), but I do have about 1500 edits. I have read the reviewing instructions. Is there a way I can start reviewing submissions now, or should I just wait a week? KSF T C 15:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
@ Timtrent: I have shamelessly copy/pasted your material in User:Timtrent/Reviewing into my Wikipedia Boilerplate Notebook to use as I start at AfC. Thanks for the leg up! Cheers. Jbh Talk 21:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Wiki crew ! It's been 2 weeks since I asked for a review of this article. Can someone help me ? Thank you very much. Jim
Here is the draft :
/info/en/?search=Draft:The_Price_We_Pay_(2014_Film) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supe.jim ( talk • contribs) 20:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
In July 2014, the
Afc decline template was modified to present a full decline notice to users on their talk pages, complete with the decline rationale. One of the side-effects of this was that the user talk pages got put into the "AfC submission declined as..." categories that are intended to only house draft articles. I tried fixing it in
March of this year, but due to opposition from an editor who is no longer on Wikipedia, a fix wasn't implemented until
May. In the meantime, thousands of user talk pages ended up in those categories. At the time, I didn't propose bulk removal of those pages from the categories because a certain outspoken editor (who is no longer on Wikipedia)
insisted that User Talk: pages were valid locations for drafts. This issue was recently brought up
on my talk page, and
User:Fuhghettaboutit manually went through all 349 pages in
Category:AfC submissions declined as copyright violations and not a single one was an actual draft. Therefore, I wanted to see if there was a consensus now to do a one-time manual
Pywikibot run to remove user talk pages (but not subpages) from all the "AfC submission declined as..." categories before I proposed it at
WP:BRFA. I've tested this in simulation mode (running python pwb.py category.py -simulate -log -pt:10 remove -from:AfC_submissions_declined_as_non-notable -match:"^User.talk:([^/]*)$"
, for example) and it seems to filter pages correctly. --
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
16:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
{{
AFC submission|d}}
on it. In that case the category won't show up as text to be removed from the page (becasue it's being sneakily transcluded from the submission template). No objection now because anything that has the text available in the User talk space could only have been a subst-ed decline message to the user. I would however like to see it chew through ~300ish articles at a slow pace before going at a higher pace. I could see the justification for a weekly run that crawls 1k pages a week to remove and waits for feedback.
Hasteur (
talk)
00:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I brought this up last week (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#miscategorisation) Since then I have gone through a couple of the smaller categories and done the removal myself with AWB, but after having AWB scan the categories, there are 19925 user talk pages in the combined categories that are miscategorised. That's quite a few manual edits there... - Happysailor (Talk) 18:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I've just posted a comment at Draft:Accredo Business Software Ltd but it is not formatted correctly, the template code has not been parsed, it is simply displayed instead of being converted into the usual formatting. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 19:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
If anyone would like to comment, there is an edit request at Template talk:Userspace draft about whether users should be able to tag pages in the Draft namespace with {{ userspace draft}}. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
When declining a submission, I can select that I want the user to receive a Teahouse invitation. In this case, the user receives a message purportedly signed by me saying that I have declined the submission, followed by a message, also signed by me, saying
* "Hello! xxx, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. ..."
This give the impression that I have just noticed that I did something. I presume this is a matter of a simple change to Wikipedia:Teahouse/AfC Invitation but may need to be coordinated with the script. -- Boson ( talk) 22:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
As a regular around here, I know that I could create an article in mainspace, however because I'm interested in the subject and I volunteered to create the article if sources were fetched, I decided to use AFC to help immunize the potential COI that I may have. If people could take a look at Draft:GORUCK. I'd like to see what people thing before I actually put it into the AFC review queue (or just move it to mainspace) so that I can have a very successful page creation. Hasteur ( talk) 03:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
This is a comment from the peanut gallery follow-up from
this thread at
WT:MED, where
Dodger67 suggested that some people there might poke through the pending AfC submissions on occasion to find relevant ones. I asked about topic tagging, and I see there's a thread above on this page describing a script for reviewers to apply wikiproject tags, but there appear to be over 1000 wikiprojects available for tagging.
IMO there are too many semi-active wikiprojects on very specific topics to generate much project buy-in in terms of regularly monitoring draft categories, and you'd be better off with a small number of general categories along the lines of Category:AfD debates, with one category assigned by the author at the time of submission. Not sure if AfC has already considered and rejected that approach for other reasons (maybe the submitters are too unreliable to trust with a list of 10 categories to pick from?). Speaking for myself, I'd be a lot more likely to occasionally look at a hypothetical Category:Science, technology, and medicine AfC submissions than to dig through an undifferentiated list of 4000, or keep track of draft categories for all of the various semi-active wikiprojects whose scope has some overlap with my interests. Having reviewers apply wikiproject tags is a good start, but it's an extra person's worth of effort and risks missing willing reviewers for niche topics because they're watching for drafts in the wrong niche. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 06:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
My first thought was to replicate the AfD category structure below - which might allow for some interesting statistics eventually on the survival of AfC articles in different topic areas. I'm not currently active in the AfC process except as a person who responds sometimes when someone asks a wikiproject I follow about a draft, though, so maybe these topics don't map well to what people tend to submit here. It wouldn't really help much if 70% of the backlog is in one category. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 23:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
cat=M | Media and music |
cat=O | Organisation, corporation, or product |
cat=B | Biographical |
cat=S | Society topics |
cat=W | Web or Internet |
cat=G | Games or sports |
cat=T | Science and technology |
cat=F | Fiction and the arts |
cat=P | Places and transportation |
cat=I | Indiscernible or unclassifiable topic |
cat=U | Debate not yet sorted |
Some old related discussions that went nowhere:
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 16:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
This seems like an awesome idea. I'd just like a bit of clarification: this is going to take the form of parameters on the AfC submission template, right? I think an example of the new syntax would be {{AFC submission|d|bio|u=Ejaz92|ns=118|decliner=Flat Out|declinets=20150729045231|ts=20150726112721|cat=bio}}
APerson (
talk!)
23:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I suggest an alternative implementation below. My only concern is that this information would be lost when these articles are posted to mainspace so I suggest using the AFC Wikiproject template instead. That's more straight-forward and we'd basically be set up similar to how the biography project set ups its articles (but only within draftspace for now). -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 17:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Can I make an alternative implementation proposal? There already exists Template:WikiProject Articles for creation and in particular Category:Draft-Class AFC articles. Instead, we can have the AFC Wikiproject template contain the categories and create subcategories within the Draft-Class category so that only the draft-space articles are categorized. It'll be like what WikiProject Biography does, is less complicated than a wholesale change to the AFC template and we can just ask them for help on setting up the class mask for our template. It'll be an additional step on the back-end but we'll also have better stats on the former AFC articles that get approved. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 18:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
how can i change the article name that i created? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lentech23 ( talk • contribs) 17:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Sometimes when I review an article, I see that it has already been submitted and declined multiple times, and that the concerns of the reviewers have not been addressed. Maybe the editor just doesn't understand the guidelines for acceptance, or maybe the editor is hoping to get an easier reviewer on resubmission. In any case, resubmitting an article multiple times without addressing the concerns of the reviewers wastes the time of the reviewers. Is there any criterion for deleting such draft articles? (Should I ask this at the Wikipedia Help Desk?) Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
So looking through User talk:Drvasanthms' talk page and its all on the same thing: Shrevin. They keep making articles and draft pages on that subject for years, with them always getting deleted. I don't know what to make of that but its overall unproductive. But I don't know if that violates anything. I thought it would be best to make a comment on this here because more than likely after Draft:SHREVIN and Draft:Shrevin get deleted another draft about Shrevin will be made. GamerPro64 16:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Articles for creation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
113.167.90.189 ( talk) 15:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for this basic question but I've looked all over this WikiProject as well as the Article Wizard and I can't find information on what template is used to submit a draft for review. I'm reviewing a lot of abandoned AFC drafts and I found one in good shape that had never been submitted for review and I'd like to get it in the pipeline in case it meets your criteria. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 21:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Can someone figure out why User talk:Anthony Bradbury and User talk:JMHamo/Archive 9 shows up in CAT:GFOO? -- Sam Sailor Talk! 13:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
AfC participants constantly evaluate draft articles. They have to be good at deciding what is viable, what is a copyvio, what should be deleted, etc. Well, that is exactly what administrators need to do a lot.
So, please consider watchlisting and taking a look at this page:
You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.
Best wishes,
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 05:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
5,000,000 articles is a heady total and we, those who review and those who submit at AFC have helped hugely. Congratulations to all folk here and thank you for the hard work. Fiddle Faddle 17:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Liz has a point above. Currently, neither Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation nor Wikipedia:Article wizard mention how an active user here could submit an article to the AFC process (namely, to use {{AFC submission|T}} if it's not ready for submission or {{subst:submit}} to submit it). There's over 49k articles within Category:Userspace drafts created via the Article Wizard so a lot of help can be done with just "adopting" old drafts and taking them to AFC. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 22:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I commented on the submission and it now appears blank. Can anyone tell me what's going on? FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Why are there articles not tagged for G13 deletion in Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions, such as Draft:EatBlue.com and many, many more.. Thanks, JMHamo ( talk) 00:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
{{
AFC submission/draft}}
and {{
AFC submission/declined}}
templates will display the red warning banner that the page is eligible for deletion (but not nominate it) and to get the template to include the
Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions category from inside the template.See also User_talk:JohnCD#G13_cases Hasteur ( talk) 14:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I think the real answer is that the Bot messed up (but we'll live)... I've never seen Drafts that are G13 eligible have the red warning banner removed when they were already included in Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions It's very messy... JMHamo ( talk) 02:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
{{
AFC submission/declined}}
). This means that right now either of you could apply the CSD:G13 nomination template ({{
db-g13}}
) to nominate it for deletion because the CSD:G13 qualification is valid right now. Per the bot's implentation rules, the bot notified the creator of the article on November 1st. At least 30 days after that notice, the bot will come back and see if the draft is still CSD:G13 eligible. If it is, then the bot will perform the CSD:G13 nomination. The AFC submission template pulls in the
Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions category at 5 months unedited. and pulls in the
Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions at 6 months and includes the red bar notice at 6 months too. Before you go on to demonstrate even more ignorance, please go look at the related discussion recently at JohnCD's talk page, the Template source, and the Bot Requests for approval petitions
1/
2.
Hasteur (
talk)
14:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Hasteur: Why can't you answer a question without the passive aggression. Thank god you are not an Admin, you wouldn't be much good at editor retention. There are still unanswered questions but you will not be able to manage to answer them without being rude (or leaving snide edit summaries). There is obviously a reason as stated on your User page that you've been 'drug to the Administration Noticeboards 9 times'. JMHamo ( talk) 14:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
No actually, it does not answer my questions, but I am not going to bother any more as I've said you are just too passive aggressive and you suck the life out of me... I'd rather move on and let others suffer you. JMHamo ( talk) 15:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
We are excited that pre-production has started for a series of motivational and educational videos that will introduce Wikipedia and some of its sister projects to new contributors.
Over the past several years, many videos have been produced to train new contributors. This series will feature VisualEditor and the new citation tool called Citoid. Additionally, the series will include an introduction to the Wikimedia Commons repository of freely-licensed media.
The video series and associated materials will help students and instructors who participate in the Wikipedia Education Program. The series is also designed to assist the professional staff and volunteers of galleries, libraries, archives, and museums ( GLAMs) with understanding how their content gains exposure on Wikimedia sites, and how to document or upload their content for direct viewing on Wikipedia and its sister projects.
The video content will be available in segments that can be viewed, translated, or updated individually.
There are currently volunteer translators for Arabic, Armenian, Czech, German, Greek, Odia, and Spanish. Additional volunteers with high proficiency translation skills are welcome to sign up on the talk page.
We are currently seeking feedback on the outline for the scripts, as well as suggestions for an attractive name for the series. Please leave any comments on this talk page!
Regards,
Series director and screenwriter
This series is funded by an individual engagement grant from the Wikimedia Foundation. A big thanks to the community, the IEG Committee, and WMF for their support.