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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
Bringing up this past proposal and discussion. The new help pages are very nice, but they still have some holes left from the previous version. I thought I would work on clarifying some of these. There are pieces missing as we have found out from new reviewers attempting manual reviews. One item is the decline template inserted into the author's page is not addressed, or I have not found it. Any other things that may be missing? :- ) DCS 18:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I've added "If accepting an article about a living person, please ensure you add {{WPbiography|living=yes}} to the article talk page. This ensures such articles are placed in Category:Biography articles of living people." as a point to note, when accepting BLP articles. I think it's important this is done to ensure some extra level of scrutiny where BLP articles are concerned. It's not always done by the new page patrollers. Pol430 talk to me 18:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Some time ago I was cleaning up the "merge to" and the "already exist" cases finding many pages needing a history merge, but also had some useful references in which I merged into the mainspace articles. After some CSD declines of uninvolved admins and more or less discussions (some didn't answered), I gave up and stopped doing it. What I want to say: there are articles including some useful information which should/can be merged into mainspace articles (if there is one, there will be one). mabdul 18:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I have a suggestion that might order things a little better in regards to the tabs etc
Atm, we have the following tabs: Main page Reviewer talk Showcase Assessment Participants Resources Submissions Help desk
My suggestion is to switch it to: Main page Reviewer talk Showcase Participants Instructions Resources Submissions Help desk
Moving the assesment info & article alerts into the resources tab (along with the welcome template, barnstar, templates etc - but in collapse boxes where necessary), and then giving the instructions it's own tab on the top to make it easier to find. This makes more sense to me to how it's a bit scattered atm, and helps highlight the instructions more considering we're starting to get a few new reviewers coming through the door. Thoughts? - Happysailor (Talk) 20:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
The reason I suggested to keep resources and get rid of assessment, is that half of the assessment page has nothing to do with assessment (Article Alerts) - so regorganising it under a more general heading seems like the better option. (especially since the welcome template & barnstar has nothing to o with reviewing instructions.
In regards to the order of the tabs, I don't really mind what order they go in - however I think the reason they are in the order they are at present is so that the 'public' side of the project was not 'jammed' in the middle of the project pages. (just my 2¢) - Happysailor (Talk) 08:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I propose that the contents of this category be deleted. It's almost 2000 pages which are essentially blank and of no use to either Wikipedia or the project. I can do this through AWB fairly easily. Thoughts? - Happysailor (Talk) 18:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps we should consider this in conjunction with the final few threads of this dicussion? It may be a good idea to evaluate exactly what we have hanging around in the decline categories; particular emphasis on unsourced BLP's and completely blank submissions. Pol430 talk to me 19:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Just came across this - never seen it or heard it mentioned before - anyone use it? looks like it was created and only used by one or two people? and that it had some bugs. - Happysailor (Talk) 14:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
{{
Afc submission}}
.
Pol430
talk to me
09:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Just a note to everyone who is not already aware: High replag on the toolserver is preventing EarwigBot ( talk · contribs) from updating Template:AFC statistics. It is likely to take upto a week for the replag to ease. You can still see a current list of pending submissions at Category:Pending AfC submissions. Pol430 talk to me 09:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
So, some instruction about how to handle Articles for creation that are Categories is needed. I searched and searched but I couldn't find any instruction how to handle these. Currently there is: Category_talk:Articles_for_creation/Category:Alumni_of_the_École_nationale_de_l'aviation_civile which has been languishing in Articles For Creation, presumably because there are more reviewers out there like myself that don't know what to do with it. Thanks for the help, Dalisays ( talk) 05:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
When a reviewer is moving an Article for creation to the mainspace, whereby creating the need for a disambiguation page given the existence of other articles with the same or similar name, can the reviewer both create and approve the disambiguation page immediately and tag the pages. Or, should the reviewer create the disambiguation page and wait for another reviewer to approve it? Dalisays ( talk) 05:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello, everyone. If you don't remember me, I'm Nathan2055 and I helped pretty vigorously around here last October. However, I stopped for a while and basically vanished (except for "must fix spelling errors..." edits). However, today I have decided to return! I'm still getting my feet wet with the new draft feature, but I hope to start helping out again soon! Thanks, Nathan2055 talk - review 20:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Please tell me about the history of this statue — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.130.114 ( talk) 21:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Can we have a system of ensuring articles for creation are not placed in content categories? There is a smattering that pop up around the place. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 06:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
In my view AFC should be working to a similar standard to newpage patrol, currently it seems to me to be much more stringent. Translation being an obvious example, if a non-english article turns up in mainspace we tag it for translation, here it gets deleted. Now my preference would be to move them to the language for that wiki, but it does seem anomalous that we aren't trying to translate stuff that comes in here but we do if it comes into mainspace. Ϣere SpielChequers 09:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I've added Category:AfC submissions declined as not in English to Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English as a hatnote and I've tweaked the wording of the 'notenglish' decline reason to encourage people to check out other language versions. Pol430 talk to me 17:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate that standards are tighter at AFC than for creating articles in mainspace, I'm not sure why they are tighter and its one of the reasons why I wouldn't encourage newbies to use AFC; But looking at a few AFCs I've seen declines not just for being unreferenced, but for references not being inline....... Ϣere SpielChequers 09:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
{{
Afc submission}}
. It's worth remembering that the 'custom' param can be used (very easily if using the script) and perhaps some of us need to make more of an effort to use that function to explain what the problems are. Example: It's fine to decline the first time with a template that accurately addresses the only real barrier to acceptance, but in the case of multiple issues, or after 2 templated declines, we probably need stop doing that and explain problems more explicitly. I appreciate that templated declines are great when wading through the backlog, but common sense must prevail. One thing I find useful is to identify
Notability issues as early as possible. Refs can be added, citations can be formatted, and POV and advertising can be rewritten, but an inherently non-notable subject cannot be made notable though good editing.
Pol430
talk to me
17:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
You're quite right, I forgot to put 'V' back in there, thanks for reminding me. Yes, V and nn are separate issues, the problem seems to be that new editors (and new reviewers) easily confuse the two. Whilst it is true that everything must be verifiable, the superseding policy is WP:N, because it is the most basic criteria for inclusion and submissions can still be entirely verifiable but remain non-notable. The issue I'm trying to overcome is that often a submission is quickly declined (under 'V') because it has no references. This has the unfortunate effect of giving the author the impression that as long as they find some references their submission will be accepted. When in fact, the underlying problem is that the subject is inherently non-notable. The purpose of the exercise is to encourage reviewers to consider the notability of the subject, at the earliest opportunity, rather than lead the author down the garden path, only for them to find out (after X declines) that their chosen subject is inherently non-notable. Pol430 talk to me 21:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I've made a few changes to the wording of the decline reasons for notability and verifiability. This was prompted by this post at the helpdesk and this discussion, on this page. Pol430 talk to me 20:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
The problem is this article was not too bad, the other one really sucked. I don't remember this decline reason. When did it come about? :- ) DCS 23:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for handling that, Pol430. Since I never used that decline before, I was not sure of all the requisites. Now as to my 2 previous questions, I think we should verify that a submission is really blank and not a bad tag before we decline, this will reduce editor frustration because of their mistake and also reduce poking through Category:AfC submissions declined as blank mentioned above. :- ) DCS 17:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Recently, I've been seeing submissions where the creator didn't bother to remove the previous declined review. What is to be done about that? Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 14:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
|u=Example
and thus somebody should have add this. Or was this AFC bot? (similar to the AWB job some weeks ago/in January)
mabdul
02:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Anyone with account creator permissions or an Admin, who can move User:Uticacrib/HANDWITHLEGS to project space please. It's triggering the blacklist. Pol430 talk to me 20:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I am reviewing this page and was stuck on whether or not to accept or decline it.
Please help me, I am new this to this WheresTristan Let's talk· Contribs 23:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I tried to knock back some of your backlog today. I read the docs and think my BS detector is well-calibrated, but if any of you feel inspired to look over my shoulder and tell me how I fucked it up, my talk page is Kilopi ( talk) 05:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
{{
afc cleared}}
to template to use for Quick-fail "Vandalism or attack page" on
/Reviewing instructionsThis
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This is an edit request for WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions; it is placed here because that talk page redirects here.
Since the template is designed for cut-and-paste use, I think "<br/>{{tlx|afc cleared}}" would be a good addition to the "Template to use" column for "Quick-fail reason: Vandalism or attack page". This reinforces the instructions given in the "Description" column.
That is, edit request: To the table given in
Step 1: Quick-fail criteria, in the first row ("Vandalism or attack page"), third column, add "<br/>{{tlx|afc cleared}}" after "{{
AFC submission|D|test|ts={{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}
|5=u=Example|6=ns=5}}".
71.41.210.146 (
talk)
19:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I did a minor change to the reviewer instructions, I added a sentence explaining how to turn a pending submission into a draft if the need arises (the diff is here). Thanks, Nathan2055 talk 21:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I think Happysailor did the a lot of the help shortcuts, could be get one that is similar to "You may create your own article at Wikipedia:Starting an article or request an article at Wikipedia:Requested articles"? I would do it myself, but I am really swamped. Bless you my Son. :- ) DCS 04:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Me, Earwig, and Mabdul just pushed AfC helper script 4.1.2 to all users. The update adds a new checkbox to the decline reasons, allowing you to tell the user about the Teahouse! If you encounter any bugs or have any suggestions, please drop a note here. Thanks, Nathan2055 talk 21:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I thought I would help with backlog and tidied up an article and then approved it. However, it seems to have disappeared completely. The name of the article was Greg McKeown (Leadership Author). Independentwriter ( talk) 14:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I tried to install the Canens script in vector.js but nothing seemed to happen as a result. Any advice would be very welcome. Independentwriter ( talk) 17:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Hurricanes
A hurricane is a tropical storm with sustained winds of 74 miles per hour or more. Hurricane winds blow in a large spiral around a relative calm center known as the "eye." The "eye" is generally 20 to 30 miles wide and the storm may extend outward 400 miles. Hurricanes last for several hours and can last for more than 2 weeks over open waters.
A hurricane damages structures through storm surge, rainfall-caused flooding, as well as high wind impacts.
The Atlantic Ocean hurricane season officially begins on June 1 of each year and continues until November 30.
Tornadoes
A tornado is a violent windstorm characterized by a twisting, funnel-shaped cloud. It is usually spawned by a thunderstorm (or as a result of a hurricane).
Winds swirl around in a spiral at 40-320 mph. In the middle is an eye of descending air, surrounded by a strong upward current. The average diameter of a tornado tends to be a mile or smaller. Most tornadoes last less than 10 minutes. However, some have been known to last over an hour.
Damage is caused primarily from extreme winds and wind-blown debris. Tornado season is generally March through August. Also, over 80 percent of all tornadoes strike between noon and midnight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.0.58.210 ( talk) 16:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
How many sons of aristocracy were in the front lines, or near the front lines of world war one and world war two? How many of those killed were sons of aristocracy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.30.37 ( talk) 02:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I have working working in AfC, RfC, and FFU. I have noticed that there are two userboxes for this project. {{User AfC}} and {{User RfC}}. I think it would be cool to have a new userbox for WP:FFU. Can I create this for this project? Wheres T ristan 17:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
This user helps out at
Files for Upload. So can you! |
Hi, folks. I was just re-reading the reviewing instructions and noticed a new clause under section two about verifiability. For convenience, the quote is: "If what is written in the submission meets the notability guidelines, but the submission lacks references to evidence this, then the underlying issue is verifiability and the submission should be declined for that reason." I would be remiss not to point out that this appears to abrogate the accepted guideline about notability; from WP:NRVE: "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation." Is this intentional for AfC? NTox · talk 07:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Pol430 talk to me 20:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to submit an AfC request if you've created a substantial body of work, but there is a small article already? I'm asking regarding Honeywell Aerospace and my draft. I could submit a {{request edit}}, but I think those are usually for smaller edits. Thoughts? User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 03:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
If you don't like, you can always revert it. I also changed the Submissions Page so it will automatically reformat with the proper links when the listing template quits working. :- ) DCS 19:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I need an abbreviation for passageway. Any ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.52.192.162 ( talk) 15:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Please consider asking this question at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what the Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. :- ) DCS 20:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Why is the help desk tab red? I don't remember it being red before. Or did I miss something? A412 ( Talk • C) 01:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
After my edit request failed (see Template talk:User sandbox#add AFC button), I try to gain consensus here: I want to change {{ User sandbox}} similar to {{ userspacedraft}} and adding a "Submit!" link. If this link gets included, we get even more work (yes I know that we are heavily backlogged) and we would have to move many more pages by hand because these user space drafts are all located at /sandbox. Any ideas? mabdul 11:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
You may want to consider opening this as a WP:RfC, especially since this would involve more editors than just us here at AfC. Thanks, Nathan2055 talk 15:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I just checked at MediaWiki, and for what it's worth, the WikiEditor appears to be a client side script and the menu is designed to be modified. I'm not sure if this requires an Act of God or not, but there could be another drop-down added when in User Space to "Move this Page". Then, move this page to AfC, RfC, "My Sandbox", "User:Nolelover/", "Delete this Page", etc. :- ) DCS 17:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
OTRS tickets are normally located on a talk page. Recently, after I userfied an article, I placed the ticket on the appropriate talk page. When the user submitted the page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Annie Khalid the bot left the ticket behind. This could have cause the submission to fail for copyright violation - lucky I spotted it and added the ticket to the top of the page (as there is no talk page!). Could we not have the ArticlesForCreationBot check the talk pages for valid OTRS tickets? Ronhjones (Talk) 19:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I'am looking for some help in my family back ground, my four fathers was James Stewart a Soldier and his wife was Ann Keith in the year they give birth to Rebecca Stewart who is berried in Glenmuick in the Royal Deeside she died a aged 91 in 1869 and John Riach he was a Labour in Ballater at that time also I do know he was a Jacobite to, Rebecca Stewart was born in the year of 1777 so James Stewart and Ann Keith was still alive - I'am not off King James Stewart and Ann Keith's family tree, I would like to be? so can someone, could help me with my family tree of James Stewart and Ann Keith. yours James Stewart the fourth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.150.195 ( talk) 17:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if anyone else is having an issue but since earlier today if I send anyone a Teahouse invite the tool stickts on Checking for Previous invite. Jamietw ( talk) 17:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
With the new version I fixed three bugs ("adding TH invitation" to the correct edit summary, no problems any more with existing or non-existing pages, the links are now going to the correct location while declining), don't forget to bypass your browser's cache! Regards, mabdul 21:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I was just reviewing some pending articles for creation. First I run Ref Links check, then the Citation checker. Ref Links was fine. This is what was returned by Citation bot:
I tried this with two different articles for creation, waited about 10 minutes, purged cache etc. I've never had this happen before, and the tool is an important feature that is valuable for doing Afc reviews! --
FeralOink (
talk)
19:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
This issue appears to have been raised on Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2012 April 19#Citation_Bot_.28DOI_bot.29_is_down.3F, on Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard#Citationbot and on User talk:Citation bot#403:_User_account_expired as this has been broken for a few days now. 66.102.83.61 ( talk) 06:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
While trying to decline the submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bermuda Choose an Ideal Wedding Planner to rock the event, the Afc tool reports Edit Failed. I tried various decline reasons, tried adding comment instead of a decline, and even tried editing the title to remove non-letter characters, but still get the error. Maybe it's just an error on my end? Could someone try to review the article and check? thanks. Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 10:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't know how to make a submission, but please submit this species of bacteria that is similar to Escherichia Coli. -- 96.242.163.228 ( talk) 21:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
After have sent, for its possible acceptation in Wikipedia, an article entitled "Hyperia", I have checked there is already a brief article with this same title. So, I suggest this new title: "Hyperia: A superior cerebral function of epileptic nature" -- Japal1950 ( talk) 15:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
One of your customers has turned up at WP:NHD. Their article Chicken Boy has a "Article not currently submitted for review" template. Clicking the link to submit it adds a second "review waiting" template, but does not remove the "not submitted template". Is your system broken? Spinning Spark 08:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I suggest that topics that are listed as suggestions for submission be shown as such when someone searches (unsuccessfully) for such an article in Wikipedia. There are a number of reasons for my suggestions, but one that should be enough is that the searcher then is saved the time and effort (not always easy, especially for a non-editor who has never done this before) of making a listing suggestion (only to find, perhaps, that it has already been made). Kdammers ( talk) 07:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I have been in edit wars, and gave up, after being bombarded by book facts. How can 40+ years of experience compete with last year college book written by the company which wants control of the format, whether it relates to reality or not? :- ) Don 00:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I came hear a few days ago just to leave a note, saw your enormous backlog and decided to help clear a few of them. I have never worked around here before so I am probably making all kinds of mistakes. My latest disaster that needs to be untangled is Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Qfinance. I marked it as Review in Progress, but then decided that I only wanted to leave a comment and leave it to another reviewer to decide whether to decline or accept. The Review in Progress template needs removing and returning to Awaiting Review, but I do not know how to do this. At least, I do not know how to do it without upsetting your bots. Spinning Spark 01:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
We have a backlog number that means little to anyone who does not work here every day. And, it still means little because I don't know what formulas and critera was used to determine when a backlog exists. The natives seem to be getting more an more restless on the help page. The thought occurred to me the other day, and Earwig did not think I was totally crazy, like normal. The statistics page has the number of articles up for review. It also has the accepted and declines over the past 48 hours. If we total the articles for review and divide by the sum of accepted + the sum of declines over the past 48 hours, then multiply the result by 48, we get a real backlog in hours updated hourly because of the 48 hour running totals of declines and acceptances. :- ) DCS 20:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
:Not meaning to be an asshole, but everyone who knows me, considers me a total(F...king) asshole. That being said, it sometimes turns out that the Asshole was right, because everyone else has their head up their ass. You are getting on average over 200 submissions a day, anyone with an asshole would know that setting 24 articles as a backlog is an Asshole move. Who are you kidding? Yo Mama? The WMF, that you can probably do, they don't seem to have the sense of a wet rock. But you don't need a Ph.D to cypher 600/24, when you tell people it might be a day or so. I explained how to give people a realistic number, if you want to play your head games
:- ) DCS
01:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
When reviewers look at articles, do they consider adding talk page templates? For example, I just added templates to Talk:The Old 76 House, as part of my effort to get every Hudson Valley article rated. Overall, 13.7% of Wikipedia articles are unrated by quality, and 42.3% are unrated by importance. Improvement in these statistics is difficult when new articles go unrated. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 01:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
The templates are only half the battle... the reason why so many articles are unrated is that many of the individual WikiProjects are themselves inactive. 66.102.83.61 ( talk) 17:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
A number of submissions rapidly build up a large stack of declined templates (at this size 3 is a large stack). Most of the template is duplicated, and it doesn't say who declined nor the time, so it's not apparent wheterh one should look at the top or bottom of the stack. May I suggest:
Rich
Farmbrough,
04:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC).
|decliner=
and |declinets=
- and moreover this was already added to the {{
AFC submission}}, but was first modified (removing the direct link to contact the reviewer) and then removed.
mabdul
09:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)The multiple old templates are just plain ugly... a huge box saying "this article has been rejected" before the reviewer even gets to look at the actual text to see if the original issue had been fixed. Defacing a page with that mess pretty much ensures its being rejected again; I recall Fanshawe Pioneer Village as one article which was originally rejected as "needs sources", sources were duly added, yet the previous rejections led to subsequent attempts to submit the piece merely being rejected again. (disclaimer: This is one of the few major London, Ontario tourist attractions, I've been there once in 2003, it's about four hours down the 401 from here. I didn't write the article but did add the museum infobox at one point.) Perhaps the common euphemistic use of "needs sources" or "needs to establish notability" on WP:COI pages which more honestly should be "this is an advertisement, please don't do this again" is part of the problem? 66.102.83.61 ( talk) 17:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
One idea would be to have the old templates collapsed by reviewers when a draft has been reviewed previously. I'm sure the script (most?) people use could be altered to add a |collapse=yes
bit to the old review templates if they are present.
Killiondude (
talk)
21:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
243 year old toymaker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.205.183.131 ( talk) 14:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I've seen the "this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations" decline reason used a lot recently, and it seems many reviewers misunderstand its meaning. WP:MINREF lists a handful of specific situations where inline citations are required, but I see it used in cases like this one (yes, there is one quote that should be attributed, but surely that's not enough for the decline reason). I worry that reviewers use it as a cop-out to avoid cleaning up a messy article that should otherwise be accepted but is not well formatted. Remember that AFC does not seek to accept perfect articles only, but merely articles that would survive a fair deletion discussion. So what do others think? Should it be removed, kept, clarified, etc? — The Earwig (talk) 03:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
how to calculate the require ppm of chemical tank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.129.150 ( talk) 14:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I am reviewing Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Accademia Normanna and it appears ready; however, I believe the title of the article should be Norman Academy so I left a question for the author. Should I decline the submission until I receive a reply or just let it wait? Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Can someone do a quick review of the articles I have reviewed? I want to get some feedback before I do too many.
Thanks in advance! Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
please advise on the subject so that some preventive steps could be
taken to improve the efficiency of the prostate glands — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.68.248.195 ( talk) 06:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Who changed the template? It won't display the reasons for decline anymore. Kinkreet ~♥moshi moshi♥~ 10:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
The Help Desk is starting to get up there. We have requests from two and three days ago that haven't been answered yet. Remember, if everyone answered one question per day we'd generally be fine. :) Nolelover Talk· Contribs 13:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Should Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Theuaredead be deleted or dealt with in some way? It was a blank submission, but I don't know what to make of the title. It could be perceived of as a threat if it was broken up into "The u are dead". Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm just poking around at my first few AfC reviews. As I will likely use the service from time to time, I also want to contribute to it. What I'm trying to sort out is that there are submissions that have been rejected three or four times, but still show up in the queue as pending review. Do they need to be rejected yet again? How do I clear them off the queue? User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 04:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
What's the best way to handle this? I approved the AfC, but afterwards the COI author re-wrote the article. I thought I was being helpful in donating my time to help them, but the COI participants aren't exactly appreciative. I've soaked a lot of time at this point in a barely notable article and COI participants refuse to wait for the editor that posted the peacock tag to provide feedback. Should I wait for 3 reverts then submit a request for temporary protection? The whole thing seems like a waste of time. I don't really know how to handle such an aggressive COI, but I feel obligated to protect a page I approved. Any advice is appreciated, as I'm sure seasoned AfC participants deal with it all the time. Also see here on my Talk page if you're interested. Similar instructions were also provided yet again by email. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 04:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
What is the policy when an editor removes a decline tag like here? Should it be re-added? Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
What should you do with articles that would never be appropriate. Are they just declined, or is there a system to have them deleted at some point? Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
cross posting something I wrote at WP:VPM A short while ago, Wikipedia introduced a thing where whenever you tried to create a new page it pushed you to do it in your userspace first and them move it into the articlespace. Then it pushed you to do it via an AfC request. Now, predictable as anything, we have a backlog at AfC of 818 articles. The template says anything more than 120 is a "severe backlog" so I'm not sure what 818 qualifies.
Wanted to flag this up somewhere prominent as I suggest that the poor people at AfC are being overwhelmed. I suggest we need to either:
Or, of course:
What do you think? AndrewRT(Talk) 22:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for the responses - interesting to know the background. Thanks particularly the Earwig for your effort here but I'm not sure that actually solves the problem. Maybe we need some kind of "Criteria for Speedy Approval" (pun intended) which says if the backlog is >100 we drop some of the detailed review items. Alternatively, is there any introduction for potential new AfDers or any way we can run a recruitment & training exercise? AndrewRT( Talk) 22:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I have an idea. Why don't we rig up an invite and a training process and try to "recruit" some NPP people in here. With the script, it's almost exactly the same as NPP with Twinkle/Huggle. This is just an idea, what do you guys think? -- Nathan2055 talk 14:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Great! I also think the reviewer instructions should be greatly expanded and revised ASAP before we start inviting people en masse. -- Nathan2055 talk 16:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
I have noticed numerous cases where the problem appears to be that editors click the submit button and it moves the submission to the bottom of the page while leaving the original not yet submitted tag on the top. Is this a known issue and how can we fix it? Ryan Vesey Review me! 06:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I was reviewing Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zeidler Partnership Architects. I think the submission is ready to be moved to article space, but there is a redirect at Zeidler Partnership Architects which is in the way. I have tagged the redirect with {{db-move|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zeidler Partnership Architects|moving successful Afc submission to article space}}, which I hope is correct. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 07:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi there!
I’m new to AfC and so far have done the following reviews. Would it be possible for someone to check that I’m doing okay before I go any further?
Thanks! ( Loriski ( talk) 16:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC))
P.S. I think the article on Mondira Dutta should probably have been declined on notability not verifiability, but am still a little unclear about this. A lifetime achievement award from an awarding body endorsed by the UN seems like potential ground for establishing notability but the article doesn’t provide – and, despite multiple searches, I couldn’t independently find – any external mention of this award or of the awarding body. Is that notability or verifiability or both?!
Declined
Accepted
Thanks so much, Spinningspark - really helpful :) Loriski ( talk) 21:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I need some help with this article. The reviewer left the following comment about this submission: This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. What is exactly meant? I cited 12 Wikipedia sources within the text. In which section do I have to give more reliable sources? It could be most likely in the section of "Publications", but not sure about it. Please, give me concrete advice. Thank you. Elke Ernsting ( talk) 08:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm having trouble installing the script and need help. I added "importScript('User:Timotheus Canens/afchelper4.js'); // Yet another AfC helper script v4." to my vector.js as instructed, but it hasn't worked for me. SwisterTwister talk 21:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I found it myself. It's near the "move" option, thanks for the reply though. Cheers! SwisterTwister talk 22:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Hey guys. So, I've adopted Belinda and have directed her efforts here in an effort to both teach her what is notable, and help clear the backlog. I want her to learn the ropes before going off and doing other things, so I have decided that this is the best route and can also help get stuff done for us. As such, if she does anything wrong, let me know. Also, do not be harsh with her, as she just returned after a long block (for MySpacing, but she didn't know it was bad), and really wants to help out the project. If anyone wants to help, please let me know, as she is the most eager of students, and could easily be a good editor if given the teaching. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 06:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
The Articles for Creation barnstar | ||
Thanks so much to everyone who's helping to clear the massive backlog! We just got under 300! Millermk90 ( talk) 06:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC) |
Hi, I had declined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Local Splash for not having adequate reliable and verifibility sources, but that was before I fixed the formatting errors that caused it not to display properly. Even after that I felt it was at best borderline fail on notability. However the submitter have since argued to me that the subject should be considered notable. So I've undone my decline. If someone could take a look and see what they think and do another review, that would be great. -- KTC ( talk) 18:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I recently deleted Template:AfCDel as it was requesting speedy delete of older AFC contributions. When we had this discussion before the conclusion was not to delete AFC contributions unless there was a problem (like copyright, attack or vandalism), or it was a no content situation. So at this point I think that using speedy delete criterion F6 is not appropriate as the deletion is controversial. The template appearance follows. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 22:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
This declined
Articles for Creation submission has been tagged for possible deletion This submission may be deleted by any administrator who is a part of this project under Criteria for Speedy Deletion: G6 - Non-Controversial Maintenance/Housekeeping This page has been tagged because it has not been re-submitted in 1 year (or longer), or violates other policy (Tag with appropriate CSD). Administrators involved in the project may elect to keep or archive this page instead of deleting it, for any reason. This article may be deleted at any time without further notice. If you are still working on this article, simply remove the {{ AfCDel}} tag, and no further action will take place. |
Good call. I am curious as to see his rationale for creating it in the first place, as a lot of times people come back and finish them off after a long break, so it would probably create an issue where people come back and have no idea what happened. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 23:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I've raised this submission -- and its many off-shoots -- and the conduct of Evarose3 ( talk · contribs) at WP:ANI. For the benefit of anyone I have not informed, at their talkpage, who wishes to contribute to the discussion. Pol430 talk to me 10:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
We have pro basketball teams and college mascots that are Blazers. What in the world is a Blazer? 209.30.94.143 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
This article Gaddafi's Mosques had no wiki-links, so I did not check, but 2 of the mosques listed already have short stubs. I'm of the opinion that we combine the two short ones ( Kampala Mosque and Masjid Al-Dahab} into Gaddafi's Mosques. Or, we can CSD Gaddafi's Mosques and move the new info to the other articles. Opinions? :- ) Don 17:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
...without something new happening in the world of Wikipedia. I got sick, and archive bot went ahead and threw the previous discussion in the Recycle Bin, so I'm reviving it.
So here is where we stand now on the invite-NPP-people to AfC thing:
Can somebody help out with updating the reviewer instructions? I'll help out with this when I get a chance, but I'm a bit busy at the moment. Thanks for everyone's help, Nathan2055 talk 00:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
To be frank Nathan, I put a lot of time and effort into revamping those instructions to make them easier to navigate -- it is slightly insulting for you describe them as an eyesore. Particularly, when they were !voted in by most of the active AfC participants at the time. The use of collapse boxes was designed to make the instructions easier to navigate and prevent the new reviewer from being confronted with a wall of text. The use of the colors was designed to help new reviewers associate the color of the template with the status of the submission. I am quite open to anyone improving them further, but please don't decimate hours of hard work without some consensus. Ironically, the template you refer to strikes me as an eyesore and looks remarkably familiar. Pol430 talk to me 09:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I am somewhat new at this, so any input would be helpful. User:Yusuf_Hamzah_Anwar was submitted to AfC (article about Yusuf Hamzah Mohd Anwar). Looks like article is about user (based upon similarity of name). Deemed not notable based upon sources, declining. Would be a BLP, and does not follow Wikipedia:BLP. Should I have blanked it when I declined? -- Nouniquenames ( talk) 05:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Have a wild bird couple :) that has chosen to build a nest outside above my entry way and have already had one nest full (4 hatchlings) which they have raised and offspring have since grown and left the nest. The parent couple left for approx a week and have now returned, minus their offsprings and have laid 5 new eggs. Just curious how many times a wild bird couple lays eggs each Spring? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.108.58.21 ( talk) 18:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Could a more experienced editor please have a look at the helpdesk question about Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Holistic versus Analytic Cognition? I have no idea how to answer that one. On the one hand, the author is correct in noting that his article draft is supported by multiple reliable sources which do seem to cover its subject in detail - notability is no hindrance. On the other hand, I don't think we really do "X vs. Y" articles, but I could not find a specific policy against it. The author also asked AndrewN who declined the submission, but he has not answered yet. Huon ( talk) 14:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Every Wikipedia page should belong to at least one category.
Please do not just approve a submission. Consider what categories the approved submission can be placed in as well and add the categories either in the "Append to page (optional):" box during approval using the AFC Helper Script or afterwards. Thanks! -- KTC ( talk) 19:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
After watching this on and off for a few weeks, I think the sortable list is going to be too large to display more than maybe 10% of the time in the future, in its current state.
Task for Earwig(maybe): I've been looking at the template expansion numbers in the web sources and it appears, we either have to cut it back to 24 hours instead for 48 or break it into sections, i.e., Submissions, Accepted, Declines, Under Review, etc. Unless Media-wiki has some magic we don't know about, but at this time there are hard limits we are hitting.
:- ) Don
21:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
This article about Adobe CreatePDF. I will. Accept my review now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolandhelper ( talk • contribs) 11:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Especially to Earwig and other MW interface/Edit filter familiar people, please read Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#CAPTCHA_for_IP_users_adding_extenal_links and especially after the section break: Why do IP users have to enter a captcha while placing the AFC template? mabdul 12:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
The poor guys at Hill & Knowlton have been engaged on their Talk page for two years. They tried to remedy the situation with an AfC submission proposing a revised article, which was rejected several times for advert, before I rejected it for 'exists.' Instead of indefinite AfC submissions, I've tried to remedy the situation here. As a frequent COI contributor, I dare not swoop in and cleanse controversy for other COIs, so if anyone has a chance to review my suggestions and implement what they deem appropriate, I think it would make the world a better place. User:King4057 19:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi i'd like to submit this page Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Mika Horiuchi Ericdeaththe2nd
Ah okay, thanks. I wanted to see how it would do in its current state. The page is the same as the spanish version but more sources and information, i'll continue working on it till its improved but if you know anyone who has more knowledge on the topic could you please let them know, Thanks :) Ericdeaththe2nd
We seem to be demanding more of newbs than we do of established editors. Teahouse is full of people who have had their articles rejected, and while some of them need to be rejected, a lot would survive in the wild, and just need improvement, as do many articles. How can we address this?
Rich
Farmbrough,
13:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC).
Sorry, my bad. I accidentally broke this. Can some nice person (with POWER) try to move it for me?? Thanks. :- ) Don 22:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Has the issue of categories in Afc pages been addressed per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/2012_2#Categories? -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 04:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi there,
I raised a question about guidelines for the notability of record labels on the Notability in music talkpage ( here), after someone asked a question about it at Teahouse. I wondered if any more experienced reviewers might be able to chip in?
Loriski ( talk) 13:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Moments ago at Talk: A Monster Calls, I added the wikiproject banners Novels and Children's literature. Today the author and illustrator won their respective British "year's best" children's literature awards, the first double in 58 years, so I boldly called it a Mid-importance novel although I am not a member of that project. And I initiated the Talk.
Previously that Talk page has served only to log AfC project activity. Should the AfC banner remain at the top untouched? (There are thousands and I have visited thousands of Talk pages, but this is our first meeting.) -- P64 ( talk) 20:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
178.16.14.102 - This page is for Reviewer discussions. I have submitted your article "Luna Lovegood" for review and is located > here< :- ) Don 14:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Captaincollect1970 rejected my redirect from "Cosma" to Magna International because it went to AfD for a different reason. I don't think this user is authorized to do so, and I think my redirect is legit. Thoughts?-- Jax 0677 ( talk) 03:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I was attempting to decline this, and suggest the good info be merged into the existing article, which is approved and not so good. Something is broke, and I can not fix it. Help and thanks :- ) Don 15:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Howdy, everyone! There have been six new patches to our helper script recently, let me run through them real quick:
{{subst:submit}}
templatesPlease thank Mabdul, Earwig, Excirial, and Tim for coding these patches! The script will automatically update, just make sure the code
importScript('User:Timotheus Canens/afchelper4.js'); // Yet another AfC helper script v4.
is on your personal JavaScript page.
Earwig and I have also been hard at work with updates to the {{ AFC submission}} template. The template has been cleaned up and TONS of junk code removed. As well, we have cleaned a lot of the actual template up and even have written a prototype "short=yes" parameter into the decline template (per the discussion from a few weeks back), which is automatically triggered in v4.2.7 and up of our script thanks to a huge amount of coding work by Mabdul!
Don't forget, it's your work that helps lower our backlog by a little bit every day! Keep up the good work all! Thanks, Nathan2055 talk 00:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi everyone - an AfC that links to Matthewbroker's talk page is still listed at the top of the AfC statistics page. I failed to fix it. Anyone able to remove it? It'd be nice to see it off my radar.. :) Thank you. Sarah ( talk) 05:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
My opinion of the William A. Whitcombe submission is that the subject isn't notable. I declined it, but the submitter left me a message saying that he was told Whitcombe was notable (which I think was this comment on User talk:Simonevans680, though I haven't confirmed this). What is the community's opinion Whitcombe's notability? Callanecc ( talk) 11:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
My opinion of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/CYGNSS is that it is not (currently) notable. The originator respectfully disagrees (see my talk page). I am confident in my decline(s) of this article, but it seems prudent to have someone else double check me. Thanks in advance! -- Nouniquenames ( talk) 04:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Howdy everyone! Considering the MASSIVE backlog, I have taken Pol and Andrew's invite templates, merged them to together, and placed the result at {{ AfCinvite-urgent}}. PLEASE go to Category:Wikipedian new page patrollers and invite active NPPers to AfC. The template is designed for use through Twinkle's welcome system, but it can be used on it's own, just subst and don't forget to sign. Lastly, please check each users contribs and talk page before inviting them (By the way, all NPPers got a survey poll about New Page Triage about a year ago, that was automated so ignore it) to make sure they really are active. Thanks in advance, Nathan2055 talk - contribs 22:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Could someone research and write an article on the Sleeping Child Fire of Aug 1961 near Hamilton, MT? My late husband was the head medic on that fire and I woud like to know more about the fire than what I found on the internet. Thank You Kathy Stephens <E-mail redacted by Nathan2055 ( talk · contribs)> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.119.199.21 ( talk) 18:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Someone broke User:Timotheus Canens/afchelper4.js, it doesn't load in Firefox anymore... :( KTC ( talk) 12:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I have started a proposal to make the helper script a gadget. You are invited to review and comment on it here. Thanks. — The Earwig (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
What do you normally use to decline submissions that are works of fan fiction or things they made up? Currently none of the criteria seem to fit. It relates to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Warriors which was also created as an article that was speedily deleted. Also I would think that the second template at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Battalions (Marvel Superhero Group) is not a great idea as it seems to encourage the creator to work on their fiction. CambridgeBayWeather ( talk) 11:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I need some information about this Ochratoxin...When is found in a human what is the level that can put in danger your health? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.166.221 ( talk) 03:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Content removed by KTC ( talk)
It's quite common for there to be new and or inexperience users asking questions here that should be asked at the AFC help desk, general help desk, reference desk etc. While there's a notice at the top of the displayed page, there isn't any editnotices. Should there be to attempt to reduce the misplaced questions? KTC ( talk) 08:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Manuela_Kraller
It seems it was declined on grounds of non-notability (I would concur) some time ago;
the contributor appears to have been working on it, to what end I can't make out.
I can't see a resubmission in the history, unless the bot put it back on the list?
(I just started reviewing; I figure the quickest way to get my own contributions approved
is to get the backlog out of the way so another editor can get to my stuff!)
David FLXD (
talk)
19:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
"I am sorry, but it seems very unlikely that this article will be acceptable.
I must advise you to consider a different contribution, perhaps dealing with a band, or bands, or musical genre in which Kraller excels or makes a significant contribution. An article which deals only with her seems too limited at this time."
Howdy everyone! The new documentation for your favorite script is out! You can see it and learn more about the script at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script. As well, there have been a few new updates to the script. Instead of going over them here, I've added a version history section in the documentation that will explain about it. Also, there are now beta and alpha versions available for you to test! Please report bugs and suggest features on this talk page and we will do our best to fix/add them! Keep up the good work everyone! Thanks, Nathan2055 talk - contribs 18:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I have started a proposal to make the helper script a gadget. You are invited to review and comment on it here. Thanks. — The Earwig (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
Bringing up this past proposal and discussion. The new help pages are very nice, but they still have some holes left from the previous version. I thought I would work on clarifying some of these. There are pieces missing as we have found out from new reviewers attempting manual reviews. One item is the decline template inserted into the author's page is not addressed, or I have not found it. Any other things that may be missing? :- ) DCS 18:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I've added "If accepting an article about a living person, please ensure you add {{WPbiography|living=yes}} to the article talk page. This ensures such articles are placed in Category:Biography articles of living people." as a point to note, when accepting BLP articles. I think it's important this is done to ensure some extra level of scrutiny where BLP articles are concerned. It's not always done by the new page patrollers. Pol430 talk to me 18:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Some time ago I was cleaning up the "merge to" and the "already exist" cases finding many pages needing a history merge, but also had some useful references in which I merged into the mainspace articles. After some CSD declines of uninvolved admins and more or less discussions (some didn't answered), I gave up and stopped doing it. What I want to say: there are articles including some useful information which should/can be merged into mainspace articles (if there is one, there will be one). mabdul 18:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I have a suggestion that might order things a little better in regards to the tabs etc
Atm, we have the following tabs: Main page Reviewer talk Showcase Assessment Participants Resources Submissions Help desk
My suggestion is to switch it to: Main page Reviewer talk Showcase Participants Instructions Resources Submissions Help desk
Moving the assesment info & article alerts into the resources tab (along with the welcome template, barnstar, templates etc - but in collapse boxes where necessary), and then giving the instructions it's own tab on the top to make it easier to find. This makes more sense to me to how it's a bit scattered atm, and helps highlight the instructions more considering we're starting to get a few new reviewers coming through the door. Thoughts? - Happysailor (Talk) 20:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
The reason I suggested to keep resources and get rid of assessment, is that half of the assessment page has nothing to do with assessment (Article Alerts) - so regorganising it under a more general heading seems like the better option. (especially since the welcome template & barnstar has nothing to o with reviewing instructions.
In regards to the order of the tabs, I don't really mind what order they go in - however I think the reason they are in the order they are at present is so that the 'public' side of the project was not 'jammed' in the middle of the project pages. (just my 2¢) - Happysailor (Talk) 08:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I propose that the contents of this category be deleted. It's almost 2000 pages which are essentially blank and of no use to either Wikipedia or the project. I can do this through AWB fairly easily. Thoughts? - Happysailor (Talk) 18:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps we should consider this in conjunction with the final few threads of this dicussion? It may be a good idea to evaluate exactly what we have hanging around in the decline categories; particular emphasis on unsourced BLP's and completely blank submissions. Pol430 talk to me 19:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Just came across this - never seen it or heard it mentioned before - anyone use it? looks like it was created and only used by one or two people? and that it had some bugs. - Happysailor (Talk) 14:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
{{
Afc submission}}
.
Pol430
talk to me
09:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Just a note to everyone who is not already aware: High replag on the toolserver is preventing EarwigBot ( talk · contribs) from updating Template:AFC statistics. It is likely to take upto a week for the replag to ease. You can still see a current list of pending submissions at Category:Pending AfC submissions. Pol430 talk to me 09:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
So, some instruction about how to handle Articles for creation that are Categories is needed. I searched and searched but I couldn't find any instruction how to handle these. Currently there is: Category_talk:Articles_for_creation/Category:Alumni_of_the_École_nationale_de_l'aviation_civile which has been languishing in Articles For Creation, presumably because there are more reviewers out there like myself that don't know what to do with it. Thanks for the help, Dalisays ( talk) 05:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
When a reviewer is moving an Article for creation to the mainspace, whereby creating the need for a disambiguation page given the existence of other articles with the same or similar name, can the reviewer both create and approve the disambiguation page immediately and tag the pages. Or, should the reviewer create the disambiguation page and wait for another reviewer to approve it? Dalisays ( talk) 05:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello, everyone. If you don't remember me, I'm Nathan2055 and I helped pretty vigorously around here last October. However, I stopped for a while and basically vanished (except for "must fix spelling errors..." edits). However, today I have decided to return! I'm still getting my feet wet with the new draft feature, but I hope to start helping out again soon! Thanks, Nathan2055 talk - review 20:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Please tell me about the history of this statue — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.130.114 ( talk) 21:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Can we have a system of ensuring articles for creation are not placed in content categories? There is a smattering that pop up around the place. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 06:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
In my view AFC should be working to a similar standard to newpage patrol, currently it seems to me to be much more stringent. Translation being an obvious example, if a non-english article turns up in mainspace we tag it for translation, here it gets deleted. Now my preference would be to move them to the language for that wiki, but it does seem anomalous that we aren't trying to translate stuff that comes in here but we do if it comes into mainspace. Ϣere SpielChequers 09:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I've added Category:AfC submissions declined as not in English to Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English as a hatnote and I've tweaked the wording of the 'notenglish' decline reason to encourage people to check out other language versions. Pol430 talk to me 17:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate that standards are tighter at AFC than for creating articles in mainspace, I'm not sure why they are tighter and its one of the reasons why I wouldn't encourage newbies to use AFC; But looking at a few AFCs I've seen declines not just for being unreferenced, but for references not being inline....... Ϣere SpielChequers 09:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
{{
Afc submission}}
. It's worth remembering that the 'custom' param can be used (very easily if using the script) and perhaps some of us need to make more of an effort to use that function to explain what the problems are. Example: It's fine to decline the first time with a template that accurately addresses the only real barrier to acceptance, but in the case of multiple issues, or after 2 templated declines, we probably need stop doing that and explain problems more explicitly. I appreciate that templated declines are great when wading through the backlog, but common sense must prevail. One thing I find useful is to identify
Notability issues as early as possible. Refs can be added, citations can be formatted, and POV and advertising can be rewritten, but an inherently non-notable subject cannot be made notable though good editing.
Pol430
talk to me
17:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
You're quite right, I forgot to put 'V' back in there, thanks for reminding me. Yes, V and nn are separate issues, the problem seems to be that new editors (and new reviewers) easily confuse the two. Whilst it is true that everything must be verifiable, the superseding policy is WP:N, because it is the most basic criteria for inclusion and submissions can still be entirely verifiable but remain non-notable. The issue I'm trying to overcome is that often a submission is quickly declined (under 'V') because it has no references. This has the unfortunate effect of giving the author the impression that as long as they find some references their submission will be accepted. When in fact, the underlying problem is that the subject is inherently non-notable. The purpose of the exercise is to encourage reviewers to consider the notability of the subject, at the earliest opportunity, rather than lead the author down the garden path, only for them to find out (after X declines) that their chosen subject is inherently non-notable. Pol430 talk to me 21:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I've made a few changes to the wording of the decline reasons for notability and verifiability. This was prompted by this post at the helpdesk and this discussion, on this page. Pol430 talk to me 20:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
The problem is this article was not too bad, the other one really sucked. I don't remember this decline reason. When did it come about? :- ) DCS 23:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for handling that, Pol430. Since I never used that decline before, I was not sure of all the requisites. Now as to my 2 previous questions, I think we should verify that a submission is really blank and not a bad tag before we decline, this will reduce editor frustration because of their mistake and also reduce poking through Category:AfC submissions declined as blank mentioned above. :- ) DCS 17:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Recently, I've been seeing submissions where the creator didn't bother to remove the previous declined review. What is to be done about that? Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 14:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
|u=Example
and thus somebody should have add this. Or was this AFC bot? (similar to the AWB job some weeks ago/in January)
mabdul
02:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Anyone with account creator permissions or an Admin, who can move User:Uticacrib/HANDWITHLEGS to project space please. It's triggering the blacklist. Pol430 talk to me 20:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I am reviewing this page and was stuck on whether or not to accept or decline it.
Please help me, I am new this to this WheresTristan Let's talk· Contribs 23:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I tried to knock back some of your backlog today. I read the docs and think my BS detector is well-calibrated, but if any of you feel inspired to look over my shoulder and tell me how I fucked it up, my talk page is Kilopi ( talk) 05:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
{{
afc cleared}}
to template to use for Quick-fail "Vandalism or attack page" on
/Reviewing instructionsThis
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This is an edit request for WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions; it is placed here because that talk page redirects here.
Since the template is designed for cut-and-paste use, I think "<br/>{{tlx|afc cleared}}" would be a good addition to the "Template to use" column for "Quick-fail reason: Vandalism or attack page". This reinforces the instructions given in the "Description" column.
That is, edit request: To the table given in
Step 1: Quick-fail criteria, in the first row ("Vandalism or attack page"), third column, add "<br/>{{tlx|afc cleared}}" after "{{
AFC submission|D|test|ts={{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}
|5=u=Example|6=ns=5}}".
71.41.210.146 (
talk)
19:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I did a minor change to the reviewer instructions, I added a sentence explaining how to turn a pending submission into a draft if the need arises (the diff is here). Thanks, Nathan2055 talk 21:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I think Happysailor did the a lot of the help shortcuts, could be get one that is similar to "You may create your own article at Wikipedia:Starting an article or request an article at Wikipedia:Requested articles"? I would do it myself, but I am really swamped. Bless you my Son. :- ) DCS 04:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Me, Earwig, and Mabdul just pushed AfC helper script 4.1.2 to all users. The update adds a new checkbox to the decline reasons, allowing you to tell the user about the Teahouse! If you encounter any bugs or have any suggestions, please drop a note here. Thanks, Nathan2055 talk 21:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I thought I would help with backlog and tidied up an article and then approved it. However, it seems to have disappeared completely. The name of the article was Greg McKeown (Leadership Author). Independentwriter ( talk) 14:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I tried to install the Canens script in vector.js but nothing seemed to happen as a result. Any advice would be very welcome. Independentwriter ( talk) 17:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Hurricanes
A hurricane is a tropical storm with sustained winds of 74 miles per hour or more. Hurricane winds blow in a large spiral around a relative calm center known as the "eye." The "eye" is generally 20 to 30 miles wide and the storm may extend outward 400 miles. Hurricanes last for several hours and can last for more than 2 weeks over open waters.
A hurricane damages structures through storm surge, rainfall-caused flooding, as well as high wind impacts.
The Atlantic Ocean hurricane season officially begins on June 1 of each year and continues until November 30.
Tornadoes
A tornado is a violent windstorm characterized by a twisting, funnel-shaped cloud. It is usually spawned by a thunderstorm (or as a result of a hurricane).
Winds swirl around in a spiral at 40-320 mph. In the middle is an eye of descending air, surrounded by a strong upward current. The average diameter of a tornado tends to be a mile or smaller. Most tornadoes last less than 10 minutes. However, some have been known to last over an hour.
Damage is caused primarily from extreme winds and wind-blown debris. Tornado season is generally March through August. Also, over 80 percent of all tornadoes strike between noon and midnight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.0.58.210 ( talk) 16:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
How many sons of aristocracy were in the front lines, or near the front lines of world war one and world war two? How many of those killed were sons of aristocracy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.30.37 ( talk) 02:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I have working working in AfC, RfC, and FFU. I have noticed that there are two userboxes for this project. {{User AfC}} and {{User RfC}}. I think it would be cool to have a new userbox for WP:FFU. Can I create this for this project? Wheres T ristan 17:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
This user helps out at
Files for Upload. So can you! |
Hi, folks. I was just re-reading the reviewing instructions and noticed a new clause under section two about verifiability. For convenience, the quote is: "If what is written in the submission meets the notability guidelines, but the submission lacks references to evidence this, then the underlying issue is verifiability and the submission should be declined for that reason." I would be remiss not to point out that this appears to abrogate the accepted guideline about notability; from WP:NRVE: "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation." Is this intentional for AfC? NTox · talk 07:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Pol430 talk to me 20:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to submit an AfC request if you've created a substantial body of work, but there is a small article already? I'm asking regarding Honeywell Aerospace and my draft. I could submit a {{request edit}}, but I think those are usually for smaller edits. Thoughts? User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 03:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
If you don't like, you can always revert it. I also changed the Submissions Page so it will automatically reformat with the proper links when the listing template quits working. :- ) DCS 19:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I need an abbreviation for passageway. Any ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.52.192.162 ( talk) 15:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Please consider asking this question at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what the Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. :- ) DCS 20:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Why is the help desk tab red? I don't remember it being red before. Or did I miss something? A412 ( Talk • C) 01:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
After my edit request failed (see Template talk:User sandbox#add AFC button), I try to gain consensus here: I want to change {{ User sandbox}} similar to {{ userspacedraft}} and adding a "Submit!" link. If this link gets included, we get even more work (yes I know that we are heavily backlogged) and we would have to move many more pages by hand because these user space drafts are all located at /sandbox. Any ideas? mabdul 11:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
You may want to consider opening this as a WP:RfC, especially since this would involve more editors than just us here at AfC. Thanks, Nathan2055 talk 15:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I just checked at MediaWiki, and for what it's worth, the WikiEditor appears to be a client side script and the menu is designed to be modified. I'm not sure if this requires an Act of God or not, but there could be another drop-down added when in User Space to "Move this Page". Then, move this page to AfC, RfC, "My Sandbox", "User:Nolelover/", "Delete this Page", etc. :- ) DCS 17:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
OTRS tickets are normally located on a talk page. Recently, after I userfied an article, I placed the ticket on the appropriate talk page. When the user submitted the page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Annie Khalid the bot left the ticket behind. This could have cause the submission to fail for copyright violation - lucky I spotted it and added the ticket to the top of the page (as there is no talk page!). Could we not have the ArticlesForCreationBot check the talk pages for valid OTRS tickets? Ronhjones (Talk) 19:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I'am looking for some help in my family back ground, my four fathers was James Stewart a Soldier and his wife was Ann Keith in the year they give birth to Rebecca Stewart who is berried in Glenmuick in the Royal Deeside she died a aged 91 in 1869 and John Riach he was a Labour in Ballater at that time also I do know he was a Jacobite to, Rebecca Stewart was born in the year of 1777 so James Stewart and Ann Keith was still alive - I'am not off King James Stewart and Ann Keith's family tree, I would like to be? so can someone, could help me with my family tree of James Stewart and Ann Keith. yours James Stewart the fourth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.150.195 ( talk) 17:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if anyone else is having an issue but since earlier today if I send anyone a Teahouse invite the tool stickts on Checking for Previous invite. Jamietw ( talk) 17:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
With the new version I fixed three bugs ("adding TH invitation" to the correct edit summary, no problems any more with existing or non-existing pages, the links are now going to the correct location while declining), don't forget to bypass your browser's cache! Regards, mabdul 21:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I was just reviewing some pending articles for creation. First I run Ref Links check, then the Citation checker. Ref Links was fine. This is what was returned by Citation bot:
I tried this with two different articles for creation, waited about 10 minutes, purged cache etc. I've never had this happen before, and the tool is an important feature that is valuable for doing Afc reviews! --
FeralOink (
talk)
19:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
This issue appears to have been raised on Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2012 April 19#Citation_Bot_.28DOI_bot.29_is_down.3F, on Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard#Citationbot and on User talk:Citation bot#403:_User_account_expired as this has been broken for a few days now. 66.102.83.61 ( talk) 06:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
While trying to decline the submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bermuda Choose an Ideal Wedding Planner to rock the event, the Afc tool reports Edit Failed. I tried various decline reasons, tried adding comment instead of a decline, and even tried editing the title to remove non-letter characters, but still get the error. Maybe it's just an error on my end? Could someone try to review the article and check? thanks. Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 10:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't know how to make a submission, but please submit this species of bacteria that is similar to Escherichia Coli. -- 96.242.163.228 ( talk) 21:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
After have sent, for its possible acceptation in Wikipedia, an article entitled "Hyperia", I have checked there is already a brief article with this same title. So, I suggest this new title: "Hyperia: A superior cerebral function of epileptic nature" -- Japal1950 ( talk) 15:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
One of your customers has turned up at WP:NHD. Their article Chicken Boy has a "Article not currently submitted for review" template. Clicking the link to submit it adds a second "review waiting" template, but does not remove the "not submitted template". Is your system broken? Spinning Spark 08:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I suggest that topics that are listed as suggestions for submission be shown as such when someone searches (unsuccessfully) for such an article in Wikipedia. There are a number of reasons for my suggestions, but one that should be enough is that the searcher then is saved the time and effort (not always easy, especially for a non-editor who has never done this before) of making a listing suggestion (only to find, perhaps, that it has already been made). Kdammers ( talk) 07:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I have been in edit wars, and gave up, after being bombarded by book facts. How can 40+ years of experience compete with last year college book written by the company which wants control of the format, whether it relates to reality or not? :- ) Don 00:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I came hear a few days ago just to leave a note, saw your enormous backlog and decided to help clear a few of them. I have never worked around here before so I am probably making all kinds of mistakes. My latest disaster that needs to be untangled is Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Qfinance. I marked it as Review in Progress, but then decided that I only wanted to leave a comment and leave it to another reviewer to decide whether to decline or accept. The Review in Progress template needs removing and returning to Awaiting Review, but I do not know how to do this. At least, I do not know how to do it without upsetting your bots. Spinning Spark 01:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
We have a backlog number that means little to anyone who does not work here every day. And, it still means little because I don't know what formulas and critera was used to determine when a backlog exists. The natives seem to be getting more an more restless on the help page. The thought occurred to me the other day, and Earwig did not think I was totally crazy, like normal. The statistics page has the number of articles up for review. It also has the accepted and declines over the past 48 hours. If we total the articles for review and divide by the sum of accepted + the sum of declines over the past 48 hours, then multiply the result by 48, we get a real backlog in hours updated hourly because of the 48 hour running totals of declines and acceptances. :- ) DCS 20:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
:Not meaning to be an asshole, but everyone who knows me, considers me a total(F...king) asshole. That being said, it sometimes turns out that the Asshole was right, because everyone else has their head up their ass. You are getting on average over 200 submissions a day, anyone with an asshole would know that setting 24 articles as a backlog is an Asshole move. Who are you kidding? Yo Mama? The WMF, that you can probably do, they don't seem to have the sense of a wet rock. But you don't need a Ph.D to cypher 600/24, when you tell people it might be a day or so. I explained how to give people a realistic number, if you want to play your head games
:- ) DCS
01:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
When reviewers look at articles, do they consider adding talk page templates? For example, I just added templates to Talk:The Old 76 House, as part of my effort to get every Hudson Valley article rated. Overall, 13.7% of Wikipedia articles are unrated by quality, and 42.3% are unrated by importance. Improvement in these statistics is difficult when new articles go unrated. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 01:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
The templates are only half the battle... the reason why so many articles are unrated is that many of the individual WikiProjects are themselves inactive. 66.102.83.61 ( talk) 17:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
A number of submissions rapidly build up a large stack of declined templates (at this size 3 is a large stack). Most of the template is duplicated, and it doesn't say who declined nor the time, so it's not apparent wheterh one should look at the top or bottom of the stack. May I suggest:
Rich
Farmbrough,
04:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC).
|decliner=
and |declinets=
- and moreover this was already added to the {{
AFC submission}}, but was first modified (removing the direct link to contact the reviewer) and then removed.
mabdul
09:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)The multiple old templates are just plain ugly... a huge box saying "this article has been rejected" before the reviewer even gets to look at the actual text to see if the original issue had been fixed. Defacing a page with that mess pretty much ensures its being rejected again; I recall Fanshawe Pioneer Village as one article which was originally rejected as "needs sources", sources were duly added, yet the previous rejections led to subsequent attempts to submit the piece merely being rejected again. (disclaimer: This is one of the few major London, Ontario tourist attractions, I've been there once in 2003, it's about four hours down the 401 from here. I didn't write the article but did add the museum infobox at one point.) Perhaps the common euphemistic use of "needs sources" or "needs to establish notability" on WP:COI pages which more honestly should be "this is an advertisement, please don't do this again" is part of the problem? 66.102.83.61 ( talk) 17:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
One idea would be to have the old templates collapsed by reviewers when a draft has been reviewed previously. I'm sure the script (most?) people use could be altered to add a |collapse=yes
bit to the old review templates if they are present.
Killiondude (
talk)
21:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
243 year old toymaker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.205.183.131 ( talk) 14:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I've seen the "this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations" decline reason used a lot recently, and it seems many reviewers misunderstand its meaning. WP:MINREF lists a handful of specific situations where inline citations are required, but I see it used in cases like this one (yes, there is one quote that should be attributed, but surely that's not enough for the decline reason). I worry that reviewers use it as a cop-out to avoid cleaning up a messy article that should otherwise be accepted but is not well formatted. Remember that AFC does not seek to accept perfect articles only, but merely articles that would survive a fair deletion discussion. So what do others think? Should it be removed, kept, clarified, etc? — The Earwig (talk) 03:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
how to calculate the require ppm of chemical tank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.129.150 ( talk) 14:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I am reviewing Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Accademia Normanna and it appears ready; however, I believe the title of the article should be Norman Academy so I left a question for the author. Should I decline the submission until I receive a reply or just let it wait? Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Can someone do a quick review of the articles I have reviewed? I want to get some feedback before I do too many.
Thanks in advance! Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
please advise on the subject so that some preventive steps could be
taken to improve the efficiency of the prostate glands — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.68.248.195 ( talk) 06:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Who changed the template? It won't display the reasons for decline anymore. Kinkreet ~♥moshi moshi♥~ 10:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
The Help Desk is starting to get up there. We have requests from two and three days ago that haven't been answered yet. Remember, if everyone answered one question per day we'd generally be fine. :) Nolelover Talk· Contribs 13:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Should Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Theuaredead be deleted or dealt with in some way? It was a blank submission, but I don't know what to make of the title. It could be perceived of as a threat if it was broken up into "The u are dead". Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm just poking around at my first few AfC reviews. As I will likely use the service from time to time, I also want to contribute to it. What I'm trying to sort out is that there are submissions that have been rejected three or four times, but still show up in the queue as pending review. Do they need to be rejected yet again? How do I clear them off the queue? User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 04:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
What's the best way to handle this? I approved the AfC, but afterwards the COI author re-wrote the article. I thought I was being helpful in donating my time to help them, but the COI participants aren't exactly appreciative. I've soaked a lot of time at this point in a barely notable article and COI participants refuse to wait for the editor that posted the peacock tag to provide feedback. Should I wait for 3 reverts then submit a request for temporary protection? The whole thing seems like a waste of time. I don't really know how to handle such an aggressive COI, but I feel obligated to protect a page I approved. Any advice is appreciated, as I'm sure seasoned AfC participants deal with it all the time. Also see here on my Talk page if you're interested. Similar instructions were also provided yet again by email. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 04:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
What is the policy when an editor removes a decline tag like here? Should it be re-added? Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
What should you do with articles that would never be appropriate. Are they just declined, or is there a system to have them deleted at some point? Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
cross posting something I wrote at WP:VPM A short while ago, Wikipedia introduced a thing where whenever you tried to create a new page it pushed you to do it in your userspace first and them move it into the articlespace. Then it pushed you to do it via an AfC request. Now, predictable as anything, we have a backlog at AfC of 818 articles. The template says anything more than 120 is a "severe backlog" so I'm not sure what 818 qualifies.
Wanted to flag this up somewhere prominent as I suggest that the poor people at AfC are being overwhelmed. I suggest we need to either:
Or, of course:
What do you think? AndrewRT(Talk) 22:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for the responses - interesting to know the background. Thanks particularly the Earwig for your effort here but I'm not sure that actually solves the problem. Maybe we need some kind of "Criteria for Speedy Approval" (pun intended) which says if the backlog is >100 we drop some of the detailed review items. Alternatively, is there any introduction for potential new AfDers or any way we can run a recruitment & training exercise? AndrewRT( Talk) 22:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I have an idea. Why don't we rig up an invite and a training process and try to "recruit" some NPP people in here. With the script, it's almost exactly the same as NPP with Twinkle/Huggle. This is just an idea, what do you guys think? -- Nathan2055 talk 14:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Great! I also think the reviewer instructions should be greatly expanded and revised ASAP before we start inviting people en masse. -- Nathan2055 talk 16:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
I have noticed numerous cases where the problem appears to be that editors click the submit button and it moves the submission to the bottom of the page while leaving the original not yet submitted tag on the top. Is this a known issue and how can we fix it? Ryan Vesey Review me! 06:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I was reviewing Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zeidler Partnership Architects. I think the submission is ready to be moved to article space, but there is a redirect at Zeidler Partnership Architects which is in the way. I have tagged the redirect with {{db-move|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zeidler Partnership Architects|moving successful Afc submission to article space}}, which I hope is correct. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 07:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi there!
I’m new to AfC and so far have done the following reviews. Would it be possible for someone to check that I’m doing okay before I go any further?
Thanks! ( Loriski ( talk) 16:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC))
P.S. I think the article on Mondira Dutta should probably have been declined on notability not verifiability, but am still a little unclear about this. A lifetime achievement award from an awarding body endorsed by the UN seems like potential ground for establishing notability but the article doesn’t provide – and, despite multiple searches, I couldn’t independently find – any external mention of this award or of the awarding body. Is that notability or verifiability or both?!
Declined
Accepted
Thanks so much, Spinningspark - really helpful :) Loriski ( talk) 21:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I need some help with this article. The reviewer left the following comment about this submission: This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. What is exactly meant? I cited 12 Wikipedia sources within the text. In which section do I have to give more reliable sources? It could be most likely in the section of "Publications", but not sure about it. Please, give me concrete advice. Thank you. Elke Ernsting ( talk) 08:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm having trouble installing the script and need help. I added "importScript('User:Timotheus Canens/afchelper4.js'); // Yet another AfC helper script v4." to my vector.js as instructed, but it hasn't worked for me. SwisterTwister talk 21:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I found it myself. It's near the "move" option, thanks for the reply though. Cheers! SwisterTwister talk 22:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Hey guys. So, I've adopted Belinda and have directed her efforts here in an effort to both teach her what is notable, and help clear the backlog. I want her to learn the ropes before going off and doing other things, so I have decided that this is the best route and can also help get stuff done for us. As such, if she does anything wrong, let me know. Also, do not be harsh with her, as she just returned after a long block (for MySpacing, but she didn't know it was bad), and really wants to help out the project. If anyone wants to help, please let me know, as she is the most eager of students, and could easily be a good editor if given the teaching. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 06:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
The Articles for Creation barnstar | ||
Thanks so much to everyone who's helping to clear the massive backlog! We just got under 300! Millermk90 ( talk) 06:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC) |
Hi, I had declined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Local Splash for not having adequate reliable and verifibility sources, but that was before I fixed the formatting errors that caused it not to display properly. Even after that I felt it was at best borderline fail on notability. However the submitter have since argued to me that the subject should be considered notable. So I've undone my decline. If someone could take a look and see what they think and do another review, that would be great. -- KTC ( talk) 18:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I recently deleted Template:AfCDel as it was requesting speedy delete of older AFC contributions. When we had this discussion before the conclusion was not to delete AFC contributions unless there was a problem (like copyright, attack or vandalism), or it was a no content situation. So at this point I think that using speedy delete criterion F6 is not appropriate as the deletion is controversial. The template appearance follows. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 22:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
This declined
Articles for Creation submission has been tagged for possible deletion This submission may be deleted by any administrator who is a part of this project under Criteria for Speedy Deletion: G6 - Non-Controversial Maintenance/Housekeeping This page has been tagged because it has not been re-submitted in 1 year (or longer), or violates other policy (Tag with appropriate CSD). Administrators involved in the project may elect to keep or archive this page instead of deleting it, for any reason. This article may be deleted at any time without further notice. If you are still working on this article, simply remove the {{ AfCDel}} tag, and no further action will take place. |
Good call. I am curious as to see his rationale for creating it in the first place, as a lot of times people come back and finish them off after a long break, so it would probably create an issue where people come back and have no idea what happened. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 23:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I've raised this submission -- and its many off-shoots -- and the conduct of Evarose3 ( talk · contribs) at WP:ANI. For the benefit of anyone I have not informed, at their talkpage, who wishes to contribute to the discussion. Pol430 talk to me 10:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
We have pro basketball teams and college mascots that are Blazers. What in the world is a Blazer? 209.30.94.143 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
This article Gaddafi's Mosques had no wiki-links, so I did not check, but 2 of the mosques listed already have short stubs. I'm of the opinion that we combine the two short ones ( Kampala Mosque and Masjid Al-Dahab} into Gaddafi's Mosques. Or, we can CSD Gaddafi's Mosques and move the new info to the other articles. Opinions? :- ) Don 17:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
...without something new happening in the world of Wikipedia. I got sick, and archive bot went ahead and threw the previous discussion in the Recycle Bin, so I'm reviving it.
So here is where we stand now on the invite-NPP-people to AfC thing:
Can somebody help out with updating the reviewer instructions? I'll help out with this when I get a chance, but I'm a bit busy at the moment. Thanks for everyone's help, Nathan2055 talk 00:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
To be frank Nathan, I put a lot of time and effort into revamping those instructions to make them easier to navigate -- it is slightly insulting for you describe them as an eyesore. Particularly, when they were !voted in by most of the active AfC participants at the time. The use of collapse boxes was designed to make the instructions easier to navigate and prevent the new reviewer from being confronted with a wall of text. The use of the colors was designed to help new reviewers associate the color of the template with the status of the submission. I am quite open to anyone improving them further, but please don't decimate hours of hard work without some consensus. Ironically, the template you refer to strikes me as an eyesore and looks remarkably familiar. Pol430 talk to me 09:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I am somewhat new at this, so any input would be helpful. User:Yusuf_Hamzah_Anwar was submitted to AfC (article about Yusuf Hamzah Mohd Anwar). Looks like article is about user (based upon similarity of name). Deemed not notable based upon sources, declining. Would be a BLP, and does not follow Wikipedia:BLP. Should I have blanked it when I declined? -- Nouniquenames ( talk) 05:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Have a wild bird couple :) that has chosen to build a nest outside above my entry way and have already had one nest full (4 hatchlings) which they have raised and offspring have since grown and left the nest. The parent couple left for approx a week and have now returned, minus their offsprings and have laid 5 new eggs. Just curious how many times a wild bird couple lays eggs each Spring? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.108.58.21 ( talk) 18:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Could a more experienced editor please have a look at the helpdesk question about Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Holistic versus Analytic Cognition? I have no idea how to answer that one. On the one hand, the author is correct in noting that his article draft is supported by multiple reliable sources which do seem to cover its subject in detail - notability is no hindrance. On the other hand, I don't think we really do "X vs. Y" articles, but I could not find a specific policy against it. The author also asked AndrewN who declined the submission, but he has not answered yet. Huon ( talk) 14:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Every Wikipedia page should belong to at least one category.
Please do not just approve a submission. Consider what categories the approved submission can be placed in as well and add the categories either in the "Append to page (optional):" box during approval using the AFC Helper Script or afterwards. Thanks! -- KTC ( talk) 19:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
After watching this on and off for a few weeks, I think the sortable list is going to be too large to display more than maybe 10% of the time in the future, in its current state.
Task for Earwig(maybe): I've been looking at the template expansion numbers in the web sources and it appears, we either have to cut it back to 24 hours instead for 48 or break it into sections, i.e., Submissions, Accepted, Declines, Under Review, etc. Unless Media-wiki has some magic we don't know about, but at this time there are hard limits we are hitting.
:- ) Don
21:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
This article about Adobe CreatePDF. I will. Accept my review now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolandhelper ( talk • contribs) 11:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Especially to Earwig and other MW interface/Edit filter familiar people, please read Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#CAPTCHA_for_IP_users_adding_extenal_links and especially after the section break: Why do IP users have to enter a captcha while placing the AFC template? mabdul 12:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
The poor guys at Hill & Knowlton have been engaged on their Talk page for two years. They tried to remedy the situation with an AfC submission proposing a revised article, which was rejected several times for advert, before I rejected it for 'exists.' Instead of indefinite AfC submissions, I've tried to remedy the situation here. As a frequent COI contributor, I dare not swoop in and cleanse controversy for other COIs, so if anyone has a chance to review my suggestions and implement what they deem appropriate, I think it would make the world a better place. User:King4057 19:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi i'd like to submit this page Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Mika Horiuchi Ericdeaththe2nd
Ah okay, thanks. I wanted to see how it would do in its current state. The page is the same as the spanish version but more sources and information, i'll continue working on it till its improved but if you know anyone who has more knowledge on the topic could you please let them know, Thanks :) Ericdeaththe2nd
We seem to be demanding more of newbs than we do of established editors. Teahouse is full of people who have had their articles rejected, and while some of them need to be rejected, a lot would survive in the wild, and just need improvement, as do many articles. How can we address this?
Rich
Farmbrough,
13:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC).
Sorry, my bad. I accidentally broke this. Can some nice person (with POWER) try to move it for me?? Thanks. :- ) Don 22:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Has the issue of categories in Afc pages been addressed per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/2012_2#Categories? -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 04:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi there,
I raised a question about guidelines for the notability of record labels on the Notability in music talkpage ( here), after someone asked a question about it at Teahouse. I wondered if any more experienced reviewers might be able to chip in?
Loriski ( talk) 13:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Moments ago at Talk: A Monster Calls, I added the wikiproject banners Novels and Children's literature. Today the author and illustrator won their respective British "year's best" children's literature awards, the first double in 58 years, so I boldly called it a Mid-importance novel although I am not a member of that project. And I initiated the Talk.
Previously that Talk page has served only to log AfC project activity. Should the AfC banner remain at the top untouched? (There are thousands and I have visited thousands of Talk pages, but this is our first meeting.) -- P64 ( talk) 20:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
178.16.14.102 - This page is for Reviewer discussions. I have submitted your article "Luna Lovegood" for review and is located > here< :- ) Don 14:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Captaincollect1970 rejected my redirect from "Cosma" to Magna International because it went to AfD for a different reason. I don't think this user is authorized to do so, and I think my redirect is legit. Thoughts?-- Jax 0677 ( talk) 03:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I was attempting to decline this, and suggest the good info be merged into the existing article, which is approved and not so good. Something is broke, and I can not fix it. Help and thanks :- ) Don 15:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Howdy, everyone! There have been six new patches to our helper script recently, let me run through them real quick:
{{subst:submit}}
templatesPlease thank Mabdul, Earwig, Excirial, and Tim for coding these patches! The script will automatically update, just make sure the code
importScript('User:Timotheus Canens/afchelper4.js'); // Yet another AfC helper script v4.
is on your personal JavaScript page.
Earwig and I have also been hard at work with updates to the {{ AFC submission}} template. The template has been cleaned up and TONS of junk code removed. As well, we have cleaned a lot of the actual template up and even have written a prototype "short=yes" parameter into the decline template (per the discussion from a few weeks back), which is automatically triggered in v4.2.7 and up of our script thanks to a huge amount of coding work by Mabdul!
Don't forget, it's your work that helps lower our backlog by a little bit every day! Keep up the good work all! Thanks, Nathan2055 talk 00:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi everyone - an AfC that links to Matthewbroker's talk page is still listed at the top of the AfC statistics page. I failed to fix it. Anyone able to remove it? It'd be nice to see it off my radar.. :) Thank you. Sarah ( talk) 05:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
My opinion of the William A. Whitcombe submission is that the subject isn't notable. I declined it, but the submitter left me a message saying that he was told Whitcombe was notable (which I think was this comment on User talk:Simonevans680, though I haven't confirmed this). What is the community's opinion Whitcombe's notability? Callanecc ( talk) 11:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
My opinion of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/CYGNSS is that it is not (currently) notable. The originator respectfully disagrees (see my talk page). I am confident in my decline(s) of this article, but it seems prudent to have someone else double check me. Thanks in advance! -- Nouniquenames ( talk) 04:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Howdy everyone! Considering the MASSIVE backlog, I have taken Pol and Andrew's invite templates, merged them to together, and placed the result at {{ AfCinvite-urgent}}. PLEASE go to Category:Wikipedian new page patrollers and invite active NPPers to AfC. The template is designed for use through Twinkle's welcome system, but it can be used on it's own, just subst and don't forget to sign. Lastly, please check each users contribs and talk page before inviting them (By the way, all NPPers got a survey poll about New Page Triage about a year ago, that was automated so ignore it) to make sure they really are active. Thanks in advance, Nathan2055 talk - contribs 22:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Could someone research and write an article on the Sleeping Child Fire of Aug 1961 near Hamilton, MT? My late husband was the head medic on that fire and I woud like to know more about the fire than what I found on the internet. Thank You Kathy Stephens <E-mail redacted by Nathan2055 ( talk · contribs)> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.119.199.21 ( talk) 18:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Someone broke User:Timotheus Canens/afchelper4.js, it doesn't load in Firefox anymore... :( KTC ( talk) 12:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I have started a proposal to make the helper script a gadget. You are invited to review and comment on it here. Thanks. — The Earwig (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
What do you normally use to decline submissions that are works of fan fiction or things they made up? Currently none of the criteria seem to fit. It relates to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Warriors which was also created as an article that was speedily deleted. Also I would think that the second template at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Battalions (Marvel Superhero Group) is not a great idea as it seems to encourage the creator to work on their fiction. CambridgeBayWeather ( talk) 11:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I need some information about this Ochratoxin...When is found in a human what is the level that can put in danger your health? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.166.221 ( talk) 03:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Content removed by KTC ( talk)
It's quite common for there to be new and or inexperience users asking questions here that should be asked at the AFC help desk, general help desk, reference desk etc. While there's a notice at the top of the displayed page, there isn't any editnotices. Should there be to attempt to reduce the misplaced questions? KTC ( talk) 08:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Manuela_Kraller
It seems it was declined on grounds of non-notability (I would concur) some time ago;
the contributor appears to have been working on it, to what end I can't make out.
I can't see a resubmission in the history, unless the bot put it back on the list?
(I just started reviewing; I figure the quickest way to get my own contributions approved
is to get the backlog out of the way so another editor can get to my stuff!)
David FLXD (
talk)
19:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
"I am sorry, but it seems very unlikely that this article will be acceptable.
I must advise you to consider a different contribution, perhaps dealing with a band, or bands, or musical genre in which Kraller excels or makes a significant contribution. An article which deals only with her seems too limited at this time."
Howdy everyone! The new documentation for your favorite script is out! You can see it and learn more about the script at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script. As well, there have been a few new updates to the script. Instead of going over them here, I've added a version history section in the documentation that will explain about it. Also, there are now beta and alpha versions available for you to test! Please report bugs and suggest features on this talk page and we will do our best to fix/add them! Keep up the good work everyone! Thanks, Nathan2055 talk - contribs 18:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I have started a proposal to make the helper script a gadget. You are invited to review and comment on it here. Thanks. — The Earwig (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)