![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
There is an ongoing RfC going on at Category talk:Wikipedians#RfC: Is this category and current subcategories appropriate for Wikipedia that readers of this WikiProject may be interested it. Technical 13 ( talk) 12:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Whenever I decline a submission as a copyvio, I hit the Trigger the 'csd' parameter and nominate the submission for CSD? checkbox. However, this doesn't actually tag the page with a CSD template, just the {{ afc cleared}} one without the CSD parameter. Here's a recent example. Dea db eef 19:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I tried out the cv decline with the csd parameter again twice today, and it is still not adding the CSD parameter to the submission. Is the problem local, or is it still a template error? Thanks, Dea db eef 18:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC) (On a side note, it's also not logging the CSD noms on my log page.) Dea db eef 18:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
importScript( "User:Theo's Little Bot/afch/afchelper.js" ); // [[User:Theo's Little Bot/afch/afchelper.js]]
to your
Special:MyPage/common.js page. Happy editing and reviewing..
Technical 13 (
talk)
00:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)I've improved an article and want to accept it. I try to follow the instructions at this page but cannot find the accept button. Where should this appear? - Shiftchange ( talk) 09:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm suggesting this here before I suggest it to the AFC Helper Script maintainers:
Change the AFC Helper Script to prominently display links to the reviewing instructions and the 5 pillars.
Change the AFC Helper Script to spot likely-inexperienced editors and for those editors,
What is a "likely inexperienced editor"? I would say someone with no admin-granted or advanced user-rights
is probably a newbie or an editor returning after a long absence who may not be familiar with the current policies and guidelines. Exceptions can be whitelisted by the bot.
Change the AFC Helper Script to spot likely-inexperienced reviewers and if those editors accept or reject more than a few articles in a day, ask that they stop and request a review of their work so far before accepting further reviews, but that they are more than welcome to make COMMENTS on submissions to help out both the submitter and other reviewers. Provide a pre-filled "request for review of new reviewer {{USERNAME}}" that would be added to the bottom of WT:WPAFC.
Thoughts? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 19:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
On a side note: experienced users (IPs) can use the gadget to decline articles by typing in the address bar importscript('User:Mabdul/afc_beta.js'); and hit enter. At a AFC submission the review link will be loaded and works until somebody reloads the page. ;-) mabdul 21:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
For the sake of posterity and future helper script maintainers, I recommend old threads be archived rather than removed, or that they be marked {{ resolved}} or {{ archive}} or collapsed before being eventually archived. However, I will defer to you and the other current maintainers of the helper script. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 16:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion mentions a possible bug in the script. — Anne Delong ( talk) 03:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Someone has problably reported this already, but when reviewing I am frequently presented with this text
Please check the source code! This page contains one or more long (30+ characters) HTML comments! (please report false positives) The hidden text is: --- See Wikipedia:Footnotes on how to create references using tags which will then appear here automatically — Anne Delong ( talk) 03:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Dear script developers: I have noticed two small problem with the script.
None of these are urgent changes, and the script has been behaving well for me so far. — Anne Delong ( talk) 04:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, it's me again. I noticed that at the top of this page is says "Welcome to the Reviewer Help Page" and I wonder if this should be changed to "Welcome to the Afc Helper Script Development Page" or some such. — Anne Delong ( talk) 04:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Look at the Recent acceptions. Is this some kind of bug? I don't see any vandalism in the past history, but what happened?? buff bills 7701 23:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
User:Henryfrederickonlinemedia!/sandbox — Anne Delong ( talk) 03:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I tried to review this article, but the following message appeared, and then nothing else:
"Reviewing Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Priscillia Sari Dewi (2)"
Everything seems to be fine with other submissions. What could be the problem. — Anne Delong ( talk) 10:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Or at least that's the way it seems. See my recent entries in the edit history of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Donkeshwer for evidence.
It also turns "|D" templates into "|R|D" templates, which is NOT what you want. Worse, you can place such an article under review multiple times, and it winds up erasing entire templates. Not good.
I am using the production script gadget with Mozilla Firefox 23.0.1. I have some Wikipedia gadgets installed and some Firefox extensions installed, but they shouldn't be contributing to this issue. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 00:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
develop
/production version of the script, yet the closest I see is some commented out outdated beta script inclusion. The revisions that seem to be of importance here
Theopolisme are
Starting point →
cleaning moved {{
subst:submit}} posting to bottom of the pile of declines →
marking as reviewing added an |r to top template instead of bottom, probably due to lack of line feeds between templates →
trying to mark as under review again stripped out a chunk of template, again probably due to lack of line feeds between templates. My guess Theo is that we need to do something about templates with no line feeds between them. Perhaps substitute all instances of /\}\}\{\{afc submission\|/gi
with '\}\}\n\{\{AFC submission\|'
or something on script load.
Technical 13 (
talk)
02:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)The "mark as reviewing" /unmarking system is just getting many improvements and should be finished this week after iron out some last issues. The complete system is getting a revamp and should be fixed shortly. (@theopolisme the bug that the first template is simply used for marking with |r| is caused by the regex cleanup (removing all var afc_re and not using the correct regex. A quick fix could be using var pending_afc_re = /(\{\{\s*afc submission\s*\|)(\s*[||r])+((?:\{\{[^\{\}]*\}\}|[^\}\{])*\}\})/i; for else if (action === 'mark') { if it is not already used in the 'develop' version).) mabdul 13:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello again... The above submission seems to have a sandbox template that is not removed by the "Clean submission" option. — Anne Delong ( talk) 14:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Since a backlog drive is being planned, I tried to start a discussion on the associated talk page above, but an overly efficient filter refused to let me create the page unless I added a submit template. This would be appropriate for "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/pagename", but not for "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/pagename" or for other Wikipedia talk pages. I'd rather not submit the backlog talk page for review. I know that this is not the script, but it seems to be an Afc related problem, so I am reporting it here. — Anne Delong ( talk) 23:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
<!-- {{
subst:submit}} -->
on the top to override the edit filter.
legoktm, perhaps you could adjust the edit filter to ignore users that are autoconfirmed or have more than 50-100 edits or are over a month old or something?
Technical 13 (
talk)
23:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)This may have been reported before, but the script says "Report false positives", so here goes: This article appears to have comments related to being translated from another language. I presume that there is an example page somewhere that has these on it. The script is picking them up and giving a warning. I don't know if this is worth doing anything about. — Anne Delong ( talk) 12:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
develop
version of the script to show the comments up top that are triggering that warning, and offering options to delete them. Thanks for pointing this article out to use, I've used it as an example in the discussion on GitHub. :)
Technical 13 (
talk)
14:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Dear script developers: A point of information, please. If blank sandboxes and user pages are declined in place, instead of being moved into the Afc with an artificial title, are there any residual effects related to the script or other automated Afc processes (addition of hidden categories, for example, or a bot that looks for decline templates) that may cause the user problems later if the sandbox is reused (as is likely)? It seems that most reviewers favour leaving the blanks where they are, since there's obviously no chance of objectionable content. — Anne Delong ( talk) 17:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I understand that there are some changes being made in preparation for the backlog drive. Can someone who is up-to-date on what's being done post an update on the above page? Thanks! — Anne Delong ( talk) 19:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
See my recent edits to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/list of classic analog integrated circuits and User talk:DPRoberts534#Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation.2Flist of classic analog integrated circuits. I recommend that simultaneous to pushing out the hotfix, all pages that are "under review" be checked to make sure they are correctly formatted. After the hotfix is rolled out, those same pages will need to be checked to see if previous edits using the broken gadget didn't cause loss of previous submission templates.
I'm requesting just a single-issue hotfix, NOT a 6-day advance rollout of the code that's scheduled to go out on the 25th. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 20:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
This earlier today by the beta script erased Wikipedia:Articles for creation/recent. I manually restored the list to the last 10. Looking at the contributions of Zach Vega ( talk · contribs), it looks like the Beta script may not always be updating /recent . davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 02:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
If a submission is declined in User: space the user is told to click on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Username/Usersubpagename. Example diff, created by Technical 13 ( talk · contribs) using "AFCH develop."
It would be worth checking to see if similar problems happen if the submission is in other places besides WT:AFC/PageName.
This is a minor error and once fixed, the push to the gadget can wait until after the code is un-frozen on 11/1. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 21:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
{{
afc decline}}
(and perhaps meta-template {{
AFC submission/location}}
). I'm hesitant to do anything yet because of their widespread use –
Technical 13, what do you think? As far as in the source code, it's pretty trivial to just use wgPageName rather than afcHelper_submissionTitle (line 777 in submissions.js), but the issue is that we're simply passing a parameter to the afc decline template, which does all the work.
Theopolisme (
talk)
21:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)- usertext += "\n\{\{subst:afc decline|1=" + afcHelper_submissionTitle.replace(" ", "{{subst:Sp}}"); + usertext += "\n\{\{subst:afc decline|1=" + afcHelper_submissionTitle.replace(" ", "{{subst:Sp}}") + "|PARAMNAME=" + wgPageName.replace(" ", "{{subst:Sp}}");
Extended content
|
---|
{{subst:afc decline/sandbox|1=sandbox}} ![]()
{{subst:afc decline/sandbox|1=sand|2=WT:AFC}} ![]()
{{subst:afc decline/sandbox|1=sandbox|2=User:Example}} ![]()
{{subst:afc decline/sandbox|1=User:Example/sandbox}} ![]()
{{subst:afc decline/sandbox|1=WT:AFC/sand}} ![]()
|
full
parameter or something that accepts the complete pagename (e.g., "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/sandbox") – if that parameter is defined, then use the full page name; if not, fall back to 1
? What you've done right now seems unnecessarily complicated...
Theopolisme (
talk)
00:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
{{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}
|2={{subst:NAMESPACE}}
:{{subst:BASEPAGENAME}}
}} to me (which gives {{
subst:afc decline|1=Helper script|2=Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation}} on this page.)...
Technical 13 (
talk)
01:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
var afch_title = mw.config.get( 'wgTitle' );
var afch_ns = mw.config.get( 'wgCanonicalNamespace' );
var afch_basePageName = afch_title.substring( 0, afch_title.lastIndexOf( '/' ) );
var afch_subPageName = afch_title.substring( afch_title.lastIndexOf( '/' ), afch_title.length );
var afch_declineNotice = "{{" + "AFC decline|1=" + afch_subPageName + "|2=" + afch_ns + ":" + afch_basePageName + "}}";
{{#ifeq: {{{full|}}} | | <!-- the old title parsing code --> | [[{{{full}}}]] }}
(and all we have to do in the script is `wgPageName`).
Theopolisme (
talk)
22:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)What's the status of this issue? mabdul 10:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
|full=
parameter in {{
afc decline}}
. Will convert code to use this shortly.
Theopolisme (
talk)
03:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
From the release notes:
The 25 September release brings with it a brand new interface to add WikiProject templates to talk pages, widespread CSD logging, integrated formatgeneral.js cleanup, automatic deletion of redirects in the way of acceptance (admins only), bug fixes, speed improvements, and unicorns.
A new beta script has been pushed as well. As usual, you'll need to bypass your cache to see the new features. Please let us know here if anything doesn't work as intended so we can make sure everything is ready for the October backlog drive. Theopolisme ( talk) 01:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
When cleaning submissions, the script sometimes leaves an odd white space behind. See https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Barks,_Perry_County,_Missouri&diff=prev&oldid=574950363. If this can be fixed it would be good. Thanks! -- t numbermaniac c 03:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
In submissions such as this, perhaps the link can be fixed to the proper single bracket syntax? Only a cleaning suggestion. -- t numbermaniac c 11:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
When submitting my draft, the helper didn't remove the draft template that was already there: see https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Numbermaniac/Pocket_Trains&diff=next&oldid=575570276. -- t numbermaniac c 12:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
This should not happen when using a script. I am using the gadget script, not the beta or other pre-release scripts.
Note: I manually rolled back my edit so the person who declined it first will be the "decliner of record." davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 23:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I received the following on my talk page:
If you add a G12 and blank the page, it takes far longer to get it deleted. I have to restore the page back and add the G12 banner to the restored page, so that I can use the very useful script in the banner to test how much data has been copied. Sadly the script will not work with history pages, only the live one.
Ronhjones
(Talk)
22:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
What thinks everyone?
78.26 (
I'm no IP, talk to me!)
20:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear scriptors: The NPOV decline reason on the list says "formal, neutral tone", but the resulting message to the submitter just says "formal". Since NPOV means "neutral point of view, could someone please make the message template say "formal, neutral" where it says "formal"? I think it used to say this, but I can't really remember. — Anne Delong ( talk) 04:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
When I tried to add WP: Alberta to an article I recently accepted, I noticed that Alberta wasn't an option. Was that for a reason? Or did you just forget a couple of Wikiprojects? buff bills 7701 01:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
{{
WikiProject Science}}
for
WP:SCIENCE) and instead uses a "sub-template" of sorts, {{WikiProject Canada|ab=yes}}
, as its banner. The way I generated the list of WikiProject was by searching for all templates that transcluded {{
WikiProjectBannerShell}}
, so it picked up WikiProject Canada but obviously had no way of identifying this sub-project. Just for you, I've
added Alberta to the menu -- please let me know if there are any other glaring omissions.
Theopolisme (
talk)
03:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
It's missing WP:SEGA. -- t numbermaniac c 23:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I know there are several issues that we bring up repeatedly, for which there is not an immediate solution. Could we perhaps make a fixed list of such concerns just so we don't need to re-discuss them, and/or so the folks working the scripts can have that as a reference tool of ongoing top concerns? AFCH has been great overall, and regularly getting better, but there are a few quirks which routinely cause our newbie editors hassle, and thus end up taking attention from the AFCHD and Teahouse to address their worries.
Those are the top few of concern to me, mostly because they discomfit vulnerable newbie editors. So is there some utility to forming such a list of top recognised quirks in the current code? MatthewVanitas ( talk) 20:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
{{
usersandbox}}
)With only 67 edits to mainspace, I think this is demonstrative of what we are up against. Perhaps someone can review his/her reviews (if any) and drop them an appropriate line. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 01:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC).
I don't know if this was a script problem or not, but I tried to decline the above article as a copyvio, but when I clicked on the "Review" option, I got this text:
The page Indubious was deleted 2 times. Here are the edit summaries from the deletion log: Timestamp User Reason 2007-12-10T03:12:30Z NawlinWiki (talk) CSD G1: Patent nonsense: content was: '{{db-nocontext}} {{dated prod|concern = {{{concern|Non notable phrase}}}|month = December|day = 10|year = 2007|time = 02:07|timestamp = 20071210020726}}
It said deleted twice, but only one instance of deletion was listed. Then the rest of the article is shown underneath this, but no decline options. I had to use Twinkle instead, which would be okay but I am missing my vitally important points for the backlog drive.... — Anne Delong ( talk) 04:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
This edit incorrectly linked to CSD:G12, which doesn't exist. Why not WP:G12 instead perhaps? -- t numbermaniac c 12:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm using the production gadget version. I declined a page as a COPYVIO and entered a hulu.com URL in the "copyright of" line. The script silently stalled AFTER updating the user page but BEFORE saving the AFC page. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 05:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Reviewing my first submission using the beta tool I got this:
Getting User talk:MatthewVanitas Got User talk:MatthewVanitas Sent User talk:MatthewVanitas an invitation. User talk:MatthewVanitas. Error info: http Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/W. H. Thornton. Error info: http Done (Reload page)
But the edit got through. Why did it report an error then? -- t numbermaniac c 02:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
If a user submits something, then several weeks later, perhaps after he edits it and perhaps after reviewers have commented on it and possibly put it under review then taken it off of review, that person or another person adds another submission template, then the next "clean" action will make it appear that the submission is new rather than old. This has the effect of removing urgency from the review.
Consider making the code "smarter" so if the oldest n afc submission templates are all in review state and they are all submitted by the same person, keep the oldest. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 02:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Since Time Warner is being a twit and not letting me into GitHub (I'll create a ticket when it lets me in), I'm going to make some notes here.
For any action, add "notify submitter" and "notify last reviewer" checkboxes and a "notify fill in the blank" box. Alternatively, just list the submitter's name and last reviewer's name and offer the fill-in-the-blank box.
Justification: I frequently notify the submitter or immediate-past-reviewers when I add a comment and sometimes notify them if I put something on hold. Having these for all actions would be useful. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 16:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Add an explicit "suggest decline" button with the same options as decline but instead of it becoming a real decline, it becomes an AFC comment with the same text that would be in the pink box and it would add the page to a special category of "submissions recommended for decline" or some such. The "afc blank" and "csd" options would be turned into text-statements recommending these actions as well. There would need to be an easy way for reviewers to reject the suggested decline, which would mark it as "suggested decline deferred" or some such and remove it from the special category.
Add an explicit "suggest accept" button with the same selections as "accept." The result would be an AFC comment recommending acceptance along with markers that would pre-load the suggested-acceptor's responses to the "accept" questions when another reviewer clicks the "accept" button. It would also add the page to a special category "submissions recommended for acceptance." There would need to be an easy way for reviewers to reject the suggested acceptance, which would mark it as "suggested acceptance deferred" or some such and remove it from the special category.
Justifications for both:
davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 16:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Every time I review a submission it always watches the talk page of the submitter. After over a month of not visiting my watchlist, I went there yesterday to find out I had 543 pages on my watchlist. Today I removed a majority of the user pages on my watchlist and I went down to 213, although there's much more to go. There needs to be an option to not watch these pages. -- t numbermaniac c 11:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
watchlist
option in the API request to nochange
...this way previously manually watched pages wouldn't be affected.)
Theopolisme (
talk)
16:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I have reviewed articles in the past with AfC Helper Script but when I come back after some time to review more, I am always confused at what to do. Often I have come back, tried to review more, and just failed to operate the tools. The documentation on this tool is not simple enough because it does not give step-by-step instructions and expects that I have some information which I do not have.
I clicked the "review" tab at the top of an AfC article and it told me to expect buttons. I do not see the buttons. Here is the step when I failed to proceed - [10] - no buttons for me that I saw.
I just wanted to post and say that if I look at this and feel confused, then probably other people are also. I have been blaming myself and I put off reviewing anything saying, "I will make time to read the documentation later..." but then I forget, and when I come back and try again later, the same thing happens. If anyone could make a guide for the simplest person, even if it had lots of steps which seemed trivial, then I think that would not be too simple for me. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello again! I am trying to create a search using the standard Wikipedia search engine that will only search pages inside the :Category:Pending AFC Submissions. Unfortunately, according to the folks at VPT, the search engine function "incategory:" won't pick up template generated categories. This search: "football prefix:Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation" will pick up any page in Afc with the word "football", but I would like to only pick up pages waiting for review, rather than all of the old declined ones, unsubmitted drafts, pages with missing templates, etc. Searching for the {{AfC submission}} template doesn't select out the pending ones. Is there anything else that the script puts on every pending submission but not on any other page, and then removes when an article is accepted or declined, that the search engine might pick up? I am trying to find a way to make it easy for Wikiproject people to check to see if an article in their area of interest is pending. — Anne Delong ( talk) 20:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
When using the script on Firefox for Android on my phone, the buttons look like this. (Sorry, flickr and the standard m.flickr.com are blocked at school, so this is the old mobile version. I'll give the proper link at home.) Why is it like this? -- t numbermaniac c 02:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Fix this to the proper notation. Just a suggestion. -- t numbermaniac c 02:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid that I'm inclined to agree with Mabdul here -- {ref} fixing is too localized a correction, and too difficult to catch with 100% accuracy (or even 90%). The same goes for Mabdul's suggestion about ©/™/etc -- there are valid uses for the symbols, and the script is not intelligent enough to distinguish between correct and incorrect usage. Theopolisme ( talk) 20:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
{ref}
, sure, but then what would it be able to do to correct the issue? Replace it with <ref>
? But what if there's not a closing tag? What if it is intentional? I'm afraid there are just too many unknowns.
Theopolisme (
talk)
20:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Instead of just two hard-coded messages in the box that appears on a user's talk page after a submission is declined, allow for customized messages.
Currently, this template either displays the normal "keep working on it" text or, if there is a COPYVIO, it displays different text and it does not encourage the user to keep working on it.
Instead of having just these two options, have the template include at least two blocks of arbitrary text that can be passed to it by the AFC Helper Script. This first block of text should basically mirror what shows up in a "declined" AFC message. The second would be a copy of any AFC comment the reviewer left.
Give the reviewer a check-box to set a flag that determines if the template invites the user to continue to work on the submission (as normal) or not (copyvio, non-English, exists, attacks, hoaxes, hopelessly-non-notable stuff like "my little brother's dog", certain custom-decline reasons, etc. etc. etc.). NOT encouraging editors to continue with such submissions should speed up future backlog drives. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 00:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Add a checkbox that says "Welcome user" which, if checked, will add {{subst:welcome}} ~~~~ to the user's talk page if that page does not exist. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 00:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Add a "notify submitter" check-box and "copy comment to user talk page" sub-check-box options to the "mark as reviewing," "unmark as reviewing," and "comment" options. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 00:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
{{
Afc talk}}
and {{
Afc decline}}
into this template, so we can have a more consolidated notification system. I'll work on this some more (including a uniform look), and get back to you.
Theopolisme (
talk)
20:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Thinkin' aloud... should the comment notification include the comment itself? I think that'd be helpful... Theopolisme ( talk) 00:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Create a bot to scan recent submissions and determine if they are blank, and if so, summarily reject them.
"Blank" means only afc-related templates, ----, html comments, whitespace characters, and anything else the bot could determine with 100% certainty would not appear as a visible part of the page nor have any side-effects (e.g. some templates have side-effects, like categorization). davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 01:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
This code will have no false positives but some false negatives. With a bot, it's okay to miss a few but don't do anything that has to be reverted.
davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 22:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
A very signficant conesnsus was established that bots should not be declining aparently blank pages, the error rate is just too high (even when it's humans doing the evaluation). I know I speak for myself but I've looked through the RfBot requests and I see that "Decline blanks" has been tried multiple times. How many pages would this realistically touch? I think there's other ones that are more eligible at this time. Hasteur ( talk) 19:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
When cleaning a submission, if ---- does not exist, place it below the AFC templates and right above or below it put an HTML comment saying "do not remove anything above this line" or some such. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 01:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
{{
AFC comment}}
s on the page...is this not the case?
Theopolisme (
talk)
03:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
---- <!-- Do not delete anything above this line -->
"? @
Mabdul and
Technical 13: thoughts?
Theopolisme (
talk)
15:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello script writers: Articles which are eligible for G13 deletion but have draft templates on them are often good candidates for rescuing because they have never been declined. However, the script will only nominate them for deletion, not for postponement. — Anne Delong ( talk) 21:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Sometimes user's talk pages are left with a red-link to an accepted article's talk page. Purging the user's talk page fixes the problem. Consider re-ordering the file-writes or doing a "purge" of all files at the end. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 01:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Mistakes like this will be very hard to reliably prevent, but it should be easy to put a post-edit warning message up if anything other than whitespace, html comments, or AFC-related templates is before the first ----, so the reviewer can inspect the edit and manually correct it if needed. Bonus points if the warning message includes a diff. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 21:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Right now, when you do something to a submission, you get a "post-edit" report that says what files were modified, whether the user already has a tearoom invitation, etc.
It would be nice if each edit were followed by a diff.
For those places where the script does some analysis and detects possible problems (see "Request alert if non-AFC items are above the 4 minus signs" above), either put a note right after the diff indicating there may be a problem, and/or a list of problematic diffs at the end with their matching potential problems. This way we can check the diff immediately. Occasional false-positives are acceptable. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 21:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
If I put a blank line at the end of an AFC comment, the last line of the comment is a space followed by my signature. Spaces at the start of a line are interpreted as wiki-markup. Consider either removing them or replacing them with or something else that won't be mistaken for wiki-markup. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 21:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Done
commit
Theopolisme (
talk)
01:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I see a new beta just came out or will roll out very shortly.
Was the previous beta stable enough to become production? If so, please consider promoting it. If not, can you work towards a release candidate version so we can 1) have all of working/well-baked late-September and -October changes in production soon and 2) have another release-candidate (or beta-to-go-direct-to-production) 7-10 days before the end of the month so it is in production if we do a December backlog drive?
Also, when it comes to scheduling code changes and backlog drives, keep in mind the many November and December holidays in the English-speaking world. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 00:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I took a long look at a draft, so I turned on the "under review" but when I decided that I couldn't go through with a decision I had to undo the "under review" manually - the "under review" button didn't switch over to "unmark as under review" like it used to when I last did it (quite some time ago). Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 19:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Recently i accepted an article that contained a large amount of " /info/en/?search=Scutellum_%28insect_anatomy%29 scutellum" style links to Wikipedia pages. The cleanup on the page seems to handle those links incorrectly though. Instead of converting them into wikilinks it seems to add three leading square brackets and one trailing square bracket. This revision displays the (manual) correction that was required to repair these broken links. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 19:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello tech folks!
I have been away from reviewing for several weeks working on the G13 backlog. Today I declined an article, [ [12]], and added a comment. Instead of adding my comment under the decline box, my comment replaced the text in the box, removing the decline reason, which is valuable since it contains help links, etc. Is this a bug, or a deliberate change? — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello again; I tried to nominate this article under G13, and it came up with an interesting deletion log, but did not display the row of option buttons. — Anne Delong ( talk) 02:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Earlier today, I reviewed a submission with no problems; however, when I tried to review a second one I get this:
Reviewing Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Autoimmune autonomic ganglionopathy
...with no buttons to mark as reviewing (or to accept, decline or comment on the submession). I checked my .js page, and whatever AFCH scipt was there seems to be gone (although I have the Purge/Review dropdown arrow at the top of pages, so the script must be somewhere). Tried to add Theo's script to my .js, but it won't save. Next stop is my preferences, to uncheck whatever AFCH gadget box is there before I try installing Theo's script again. Am I on the right track? All the best, Mini apolis 20:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. I have twinkle installed and the CSD log set to on, and AFCH seems to log my G12s and G13s there as well. In the last couple of weeks, it's been stalling around the time of writing to the log. I was reminded because of Technical's problems with AFC buddy chucking up 503 errors, and wondered if it was a related server side change that is causing problems for twinkle and AFCH as well. I'll gather some specific info on what happens and update this later if you want (or just tell me it's a known issue if it is). Rankersbo ( talk) 10:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Dear script developers:
I want to make a proposal for an addition to the script. Should I post it here, or would you prefer that I post it on the general Afc talk page so that this page is mainly for implementation discussions and bug reports? — Anne Delong ( talk) 17:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Proposal:
Rationale:
§ion=0
, it would "look" a little out of place, but would categorize the page as the right CSD so would be functional. There is no way to restrict viewing of such a thing to any certain user, or group of users for that matter (except for admins in most cases and that's not useful here). The other possibility is to offer something via JavaScript as part of a new "Article Wizard"
guided tour idea I've been considering as a stop-gap to a new Extension for Drafts and whatnot. As far as your checkbox ideas go, they have been on mine and
mabdul's todo list for sometime as I suggested similar quite a while ago. So, those are just a matter of time.
Technical 13 (
talk)
01:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Dear script developers: Some time ago I pointed out that the "joke" and "hoax" decline reasons, previously separate, had been combined without any discussion. These are not the same because one is an attempt to be silly, and the other is an attempt to deceive, a much more serious problem. They used to have separate messages to the user. The change was reverted, and for a while the two were separate, but now they have been combined again.
Also, I asked for a change in the list itself to make it easier to read. The titles are mixed in with the reasons. Couldn't they be bolded or indented or have underscores after them or something? Today I wanted to decline a submission as an advertisement and it took me nearly a minute, first trying to guess where in the list it might be, and then starting at the top and moving my mouse down the list one item at a time, until I found it. — Anne Delong ( talk) 13:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Would it be feasible to get {{
Afc decline}} to duplicate the actual text of the reason for declining when the script places the template? Something like the example shown in fig A at
User:Bellerophon/Sandbox2. Moreover, can the script be tweaked to support the change of {{
Afc decline}}'s cv=yes
parm into a general delete param, that is triggered by checking the CSD checkbox, in conjunction with a supported decline reason? So that the template will present itself something like the one shown at Fig B in my sandbox?
Bellerophon
talk to me
15:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
The proposal was closed as having consensus to move the {{ orphan}} tags to the talk namespace. AFCH currently places them automatically in the article if it is orphaned. Ramaksoud2000 ( Talk to me) 20:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
If this is too complicated, then it should just not put them. Ramaksoud2000 ( Talk to me) 18:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I was cleaning up the Category:AfC_pending_submissions_by_age/0_days_ago, and saw there are a number of articles which have the prefix "Draft:" rather than the standard AFC. I cannot review them in that space, so I have to move them to AFC. Is this some new format, a coding mistake, a sudden popular trend? MatthewVanitas ( talk) 16:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I've requested that the AfC helper script's very useful WikiProject template selector be made available as a stand-alone tool. Comments welcome at WP:VPT#WikiProject template selector. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
While reading the source code at MediaWiki:Gadget-afchelper.js/submissions.js, I noticed that AFCH places links to "CSD:G12" and "CSD:G13" in the CSD logs. These should point to WP:CSD#G12 and WP:CSD#G13 instead. Guess who introduced this. Keφr 14:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Can you add the Draft namespace to the helper? I'm trying to review an article in the draft namespace, but the script won't let me. buff bills 7701 01:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear script developers: Please comment on the above proposal, and in particular on the technical ease or difficulty of limiting access to the Afc script. Thanks! — Anne Delong ( talk) 14:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Here,(Edit: in line 42) the cleanup process confused the == in the ref link with wikimarkup, breaking up the whole page.-- Fauzan ✆ talk ✉ email 14:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I've tried to accept the article three times, and for reasons I can't figure out, it's not getting published. Can someone check it out? (And explain why it's happening so I don't make the same mistake in the future)? Thanks, Julie JSFarman ( talk) 21:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to paste and run, but I had this comment User_talk:Rankersbo#Screwed Links on my talk page after clean-up in AFCH beta messed up some links. Rankersbo ( talk) 22:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Whe decling an article as a 'cv' is there anyway to post multiple url's (as in the Twinkle-tool), because sometimes an article includes cv's from diffrent websites. -( t) Josve05a ( c) 10:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Sometimes when another user declines a review that I already have reviewed, I get a notification saying: USERNAME mentioned you on the Articles for creation/Manthan Shah talk page.
(it does not say 'USERNAME') Like for instance with
this edit an
this edit. It does not botter me, but it can get a little anoying if it happens a lot. (
t)
Josve05a (
c)
16:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello script developers. There is a small problem with the Afc comments that may or may not be easy to fix. If the commenter presses the enter key after his or her comment, the script includes the newline, then adds a space and the signature. This effectively disconnects the signature from the comment, and if more comments are added by others they are inserted after the existing comment, but before its signature. A solution that occurs to me is to have the script check for a newline or carriage return or whatever character is causing the problem and, if it is the last character of the comment string, remove it before adding the signature. Here is an examplet where the signature of the first commenter is misplaced: Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/Moves (album). I was going to fix it, but I thought that I would leave it as an example. Thanks in advance for taking a look at this. — Anne Delong ( talk) 15:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear script developers: This draft was never submitted, and the editor eventually gave up and made a mainspace article. To my surprise, it has two "subst:submit" templates on it. I edited it to postpone deletion (so the history could be merged), but the templates did not convert to a yellow submit box. This isn't of any consequence for that particular article, but I wonder what happened there. — Anne Delong ( talk) 15:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I wanted to promote this unsubmitted draft. When I chose "submit with the original submitter" the script showed me an error message; I didn't write it down (sorry) but I think it may have been "error: could not find a submission template". The custom submitter option let me proceed; it added a second AfC template. After I clicked "accept", one AfC template remained (I've left it in place but someone may come along and remove it). — rybec 04:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I like the commenting feature. Just now I wanted to add a comment to Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Divided_visual_field_paradigm, an unsubmitted draft, but the only buttons shown were "submit" and "clean submission". — rybec 23:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't find the archives to search them to see if this problem has been reported. But on the few articles I've accepted from the user space area, the user's name is put in front of the article name by the script. I didn't figure it out until the third note I got saying I was doing it wrong. So I guess the current work around is to move it to the articles for creation area before accepting, but that seems like it creates extra re-directs on the way. The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 ( talk)
Hello - I found this old Afc submission that's about to be deleted. I don't know what this is, but I thought you tech guys might recognize it. — Anne Delong ( talk) 14:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello script developers! I noticed today that the grey Afc draft template has white text, slightly offset, overlaying the green text on the "Submit" section. It's not really a problem, it is still readable, so whenever.... — Anne Delong ( talk) 02:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
The heading of [14] correctly links to User:Gfcibandadvisors/sandbox, but the following message links to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gfcibandadvisors/sandbox. PrimeHunter ( talk) 23:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Dear script experts: I have tried twice to accept the above submission, since I have been told by the football experts that it is ready for mainspace. I used the Accept button on the script menu. After typing in all of the biographical information, I once more chose Accept. Each time the script reports that it is moving the page to the new name, and the reports that it is done. However, the page is unchanged. Is something malfunctioning, or have I just made some silly mistake after using this same script thousands of times? The only thing that I can think of that could be different is that I tried to submit the article with the name of the original submitter, and the script reported that it couldn't find him/her, so I instead submitted it with a "custom" submitter - the person who asked for it to be accepted, which seemed to work. — Anne Delong ( talk) 06:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Per the thread immediately above this one, please modify the code so that it either prevents acceptance or gives a reasonable error when "accepting" a page that cannot be moved-onto (i.e. a destination page that is create-protected). A generic post-accept message along the lines of
The page is not at the destination with the expected size, please check all modified pages and undo any edits as needed. Checking for common error cases: Destination is protected? [YES or NO]. Source is move-protected? [YES or NO]. Error code: [UNKNOWN or NOT PROVIDED or error code]. Error logging successful? [YES or NO]. If the error code logging was NOT successful, please leave the following note at [Wikipedia discussion page monitored by script maintainers]: "Unknown error not logged property. Editor = [editor's name], timestamp = [timestamp]."
Thanks. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 18:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Take a look at listing 130 onwards because I want to know if you see what I see: If the page is messed up from there, then you're seeing what I see. Whether it's this script or twinkle that has caused this, I do not know. Just a bit...shocked. -- t numbermaniac c 08:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Dear script developers: I postponed this old G13 eligible Afc submission, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Star Furniture, and added some references, and now it has been submitted for review. I checked the page history and the automatically created edit summary is the correct one for a postponement, not a submit. Also, I don't think the submit lets you add a comment, so I don't think I could have pressed the wrong button. Is this a bug, or have I done something incorrectly? I'm not sure that this page is ready to be submitted. — Anne Delong ( talk) 15:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I noticed this recently, but it hasn't become a big issue until now. I know that we can add projects to the site, but why can we only add some sub-projects? In the United States, many of the state projects are not able to be added due to how they are now implemented under the United States project's template, so it creates a gap of projects that we are allowed to add to the reviews. Additionally, we also are not able to add project importance's to the script, which means that some person has to go back in and add them at a later date. Would there be any way to address these issues over the coming months, or is there something that I may have missed. Thanks! Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 18:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, Kevin, I've found the list of projects that is used to populate that via ajax call on User:Theo's Little Bot/afchwikiproject.js which means that only Theopolisme ( talk · contribs) or an administrator can add to that list. This pretty much holds the project hostage in that aspect, and I'm not particularly keen on that. You could post an edit request on the talk page (make sure to ping Theo in the request) and maybe an admin would add the projects you want. — {{U| Technical 13}} ( t • e • c) 23:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion here. Yeah, the WikiProject feature uses a list of WikiProjects which was generated by my bot based on pages using the standard WikiProject template wrapper. @T13, re I'm not particularly keen on that: it was initially in a .js page to prevent malicious editing which obviously would disrupt AFC reviewers. The importance suggestion is a good one -- thanks, I'll be implementing that soon! As for a more extensive project list, I agree that would be nice. There's not really any problem with a "flurry of edits"...feel free to post additional project requests on the the talk page and I'll add them. Theopolisme ( talk) 15:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone know what is up with this edit? Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 04:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I declined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/NetDev Ltd a few days ago, and as you can see there are a load of bad wikilinks throughout the article. They got added with the decline edit, in which AFCH attempted to convert URLs to wikilinks, but didn't realise how they were formatted. Samwalton9 ( talk) 10:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
|url=/info/en/?search=Turkey|work=Republic of Turkey
into |url=[[Turkey|work=Republic]] of Turkey
.
PrimeHunter (
talk)
17:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
There is an ongoing RfC going on at Category talk:Wikipedians#RfC: Is this category and current subcategories appropriate for Wikipedia that readers of this WikiProject may be interested it. Technical 13 ( talk) 12:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Whenever I decline a submission as a copyvio, I hit the Trigger the 'csd' parameter and nominate the submission for CSD? checkbox. However, this doesn't actually tag the page with a CSD template, just the {{ afc cleared}} one without the CSD parameter. Here's a recent example. Dea db eef 19:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I tried out the cv decline with the csd parameter again twice today, and it is still not adding the CSD parameter to the submission. Is the problem local, or is it still a template error? Thanks, Dea db eef 18:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC) (On a side note, it's also not logging the CSD noms on my log page.) Dea db eef 18:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
importScript( "User:Theo's Little Bot/afch/afchelper.js" ); // [[User:Theo's Little Bot/afch/afchelper.js]]
to your
Special:MyPage/common.js page. Happy editing and reviewing..
Technical 13 (
talk)
00:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)I've improved an article and want to accept it. I try to follow the instructions at this page but cannot find the accept button. Where should this appear? - Shiftchange ( talk) 09:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm suggesting this here before I suggest it to the AFC Helper Script maintainers:
Change the AFC Helper Script to prominently display links to the reviewing instructions and the 5 pillars.
Change the AFC Helper Script to spot likely-inexperienced editors and for those editors,
What is a "likely inexperienced editor"? I would say someone with no admin-granted or advanced user-rights
is probably a newbie or an editor returning after a long absence who may not be familiar with the current policies and guidelines. Exceptions can be whitelisted by the bot.
Change the AFC Helper Script to spot likely-inexperienced reviewers and if those editors accept or reject more than a few articles in a day, ask that they stop and request a review of their work so far before accepting further reviews, but that they are more than welcome to make COMMENTS on submissions to help out both the submitter and other reviewers. Provide a pre-filled "request for review of new reviewer {{USERNAME}}" that would be added to the bottom of WT:WPAFC.
Thoughts? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 19:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
On a side note: experienced users (IPs) can use the gadget to decline articles by typing in the address bar importscript('User:Mabdul/afc_beta.js'); and hit enter. At a AFC submission the review link will be loaded and works until somebody reloads the page. ;-) mabdul 21:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
For the sake of posterity and future helper script maintainers, I recommend old threads be archived rather than removed, or that they be marked {{ resolved}} or {{ archive}} or collapsed before being eventually archived. However, I will defer to you and the other current maintainers of the helper script. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 16:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion mentions a possible bug in the script. — Anne Delong ( talk) 03:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Someone has problably reported this already, but when reviewing I am frequently presented with this text
Please check the source code! This page contains one or more long (30+ characters) HTML comments! (please report false positives) The hidden text is: --- See Wikipedia:Footnotes on how to create references using tags which will then appear here automatically — Anne Delong ( talk) 03:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Dear script developers: I have noticed two small problem with the script.
None of these are urgent changes, and the script has been behaving well for me so far. — Anne Delong ( talk) 04:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, it's me again. I noticed that at the top of this page is says "Welcome to the Reviewer Help Page" and I wonder if this should be changed to "Welcome to the Afc Helper Script Development Page" or some such. — Anne Delong ( talk) 04:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Look at the Recent acceptions. Is this some kind of bug? I don't see any vandalism in the past history, but what happened?? buff bills 7701 23:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
User:Henryfrederickonlinemedia!/sandbox — Anne Delong ( talk) 03:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I tried to review this article, but the following message appeared, and then nothing else:
"Reviewing Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Priscillia Sari Dewi (2)"
Everything seems to be fine with other submissions. What could be the problem. — Anne Delong ( talk) 10:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Or at least that's the way it seems. See my recent entries in the edit history of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Donkeshwer for evidence.
It also turns "|D" templates into "|R|D" templates, which is NOT what you want. Worse, you can place such an article under review multiple times, and it winds up erasing entire templates. Not good.
I am using the production script gadget with Mozilla Firefox 23.0.1. I have some Wikipedia gadgets installed and some Firefox extensions installed, but they shouldn't be contributing to this issue. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 00:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
develop
/production version of the script, yet the closest I see is some commented out outdated beta script inclusion. The revisions that seem to be of importance here
Theopolisme are
Starting point →
cleaning moved {{
subst:submit}} posting to bottom of the pile of declines →
marking as reviewing added an |r to top template instead of bottom, probably due to lack of line feeds between templates →
trying to mark as under review again stripped out a chunk of template, again probably due to lack of line feeds between templates. My guess Theo is that we need to do something about templates with no line feeds between them. Perhaps substitute all instances of /\}\}\{\{afc submission\|/gi
with '\}\}\n\{\{AFC submission\|'
or something on script load.
Technical 13 (
talk)
02:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)The "mark as reviewing" /unmarking system is just getting many improvements and should be finished this week after iron out some last issues. The complete system is getting a revamp and should be fixed shortly. (@theopolisme the bug that the first template is simply used for marking with |r| is caused by the regex cleanup (removing all var afc_re and not using the correct regex. A quick fix could be using var pending_afc_re = /(\{\{\s*afc submission\s*\|)(\s*[||r])+((?:\{\{[^\{\}]*\}\}|[^\}\{])*\}\})/i; for else if (action === 'mark') { if it is not already used in the 'develop' version).) mabdul 13:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello again... The above submission seems to have a sandbox template that is not removed by the "Clean submission" option. — Anne Delong ( talk) 14:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Since a backlog drive is being planned, I tried to start a discussion on the associated talk page above, but an overly efficient filter refused to let me create the page unless I added a submit template. This would be appropriate for "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/pagename", but not for "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/pagename" or for other Wikipedia talk pages. I'd rather not submit the backlog talk page for review. I know that this is not the script, but it seems to be an Afc related problem, so I am reporting it here. — Anne Delong ( talk) 23:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
<!-- {{
subst:submit}} -->
on the top to override the edit filter.
legoktm, perhaps you could adjust the edit filter to ignore users that are autoconfirmed or have more than 50-100 edits or are over a month old or something?
Technical 13 (
talk)
23:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)This may have been reported before, but the script says "Report false positives", so here goes: This article appears to have comments related to being translated from another language. I presume that there is an example page somewhere that has these on it. The script is picking them up and giving a warning. I don't know if this is worth doing anything about. — Anne Delong ( talk) 12:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
develop
version of the script to show the comments up top that are triggering that warning, and offering options to delete them. Thanks for pointing this article out to use, I've used it as an example in the discussion on GitHub. :)
Technical 13 (
talk)
14:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Dear script developers: A point of information, please. If blank sandboxes and user pages are declined in place, instead of being moved into the Afc with an artificial title, are there any residual effects related to the script or other automated Afc processes (addition of hidden categories, for example, or a bot that looks for decline templates) that may cause the user problems later if the sandbox is reused (as is likely)? It seems that most reviewers favour leaving the blanks where they are, since there's obviously no chance of objectionable content. — Anne Delong ( talk) 17:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I understand that there are some changes being made in preparation for the backlog drive. Can someone who is up-to-date on what's being done post an update on the above page? Thanks! — Anne Delong ( talk) 19:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
See my recent edits to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/list of classic analog integrated circuits and User talk:DPRoberts534#Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation.2Flist of classic analog integrated circuits. I recommend that simultaneous to pushing out the hotfix, all pages that are "under review" be checked to make sure they are correctly formatted. After the hotfix is rolled out, those same pages will need to be checked to see if previous edits using the broken gadget didn't cause loss of previous submission templates.
I'm requesting just a single-issue hotfix, NOT a 6-day advance rollout of the code that's scheduled to go out on the 25th. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 20:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
This earlier today by the beta script erased Wikipedia:Articles for creation/recent. I manually restored the list to the last 10. Looking at the contributions of Zach Vega ( talk · contribs), it looks like the Beta script may not always be updating /recent . davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 02:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
If a submission is declined in User: space the user is told to click on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Username/Usersubpagename. Example diff, created by Technical 13 ( talk · contribs) using "AFCH develop."
It would be worth checking to see if similar problems happen if the submission is in other places besides WT:AFC/PageName.
This is a minor error and once fixed, the push to the gadget can wait until after the code is un-frozen on 11/1. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 21:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
{{
afc decline}}
(and perhaps meta-template {{
AFC submission/location}}
). I'm hesitant to do anything yet because of their widespread use –
Technical 13, what do you think? As far as in the source code, it's pretty trivial to just use wgPageName rather than afcHelper_submissionTitle (line 777 in submissions.js), but the issue is that we're simply passing a parameter to the afc decline template, which does all the work.
Theopolisme (
talk)
21:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)- usertext += "\n\{\{subst:afc decline|1=" + afcHelper_submissionTitle.replace(" ", "{{subst:Sp}}"); + usertext += "\n\{\{subst:afc decline|1=" + afcHelper_submissionTitle.replace(" ", "{{subst:Sp}}") + "|PARAMNAME=" + wgPageName.replace(" ", "{{subst:Sp}}");
Extended content
|
---|
{{subst:afc decline/sandbox|1=sandbox}} ![]()
{{subst:afc decline/sandbox|1=sand|2=WT:AFC}} ![]()
{{subst:afc decline/sandbox|1=sandbox|2=User:Example}} ![]()
{{subst:afc decline/sandbox|1=User:Example/sandbox}} ![]()
{{subst:afc decline/sandbox|1=WT:AFC/sand}} ![]()
|
full
parameter or something that accepts the complete pagename (e.g., "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/sandbox") – if that parameter is defined, then use the full page name; if not, fall back to 1
? What you've done right now seems unnecessarily complicated...
Theopolisme (
talk)
00:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
{{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}
|2={{subst:NAMESPACE}}
:{{subst:BASEPAGENAME}}
}} to me (which gives {{
subst:afc decline|1=Helper script|2=Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation}} on this page.)...
Technical 13 (
talk)
01:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
var afch_title = mw.config.get( 'wgTitle' );
var afch_ns = mw.config.get( 'wgCanonicalNamespace' );
var afch_basePageName = afch_title.substring( 0, afch_title.lastIndexOf( '/' ) );
var afch_subPageName = afch_title.substring( afch_title.lastIndexOf( '/' ), afch_title.length );
var afch_declineNotice = "{{" + "AFC decline|1=" + afch_subPageName + "|2=" + afch_ns + ":" + afch_basePageName + "}}";
{{#ifeq: {{{full|}}} | | <!-- the old title parsing code --> | [[{{{full}}}]] }}
(and all we have to do in the script is `wgPageName`).
Theopolisme (
talk)
22:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)What's the status of this issue? mabdul 10:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
|full=
parameter in {{
afc decline}}
. Will convert code to use this shortly.
Theopolisme (
talk)
03:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
From the release notes:
The 25 September release brings with it a brand new interface to add WikiProject templates to talk pages, widespread CSD logging, integrated formatgeneral.js cleanup, automatic deletion of redirects in the way of acceptance (admins only), bug fixes, speed improvements, and unicorns.
A new beta script has been pushed as well. As usual, you'll need to bypass your cache to see the new features. Please let us know here if anything doesn't work as intended so we can make sure everything is ready for the October backlog drive. Theopolisme ( talk) 01:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
When cleaning submissions, the script sometimes leaves an odd white space behind. See https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Barks,_Perry_County,_Missouri&diff=prev&oldid=574950363. If this can be fixed it would be good. Thanks! -- t numbermaniac c 03:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
In submissions such as this, perhaps the link can be fixed to the proper single bracket syntax? Only a cleaning suggestion. -- t numbermaniac c 11:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
When submitting my draft, the helper didn't remove the draft template that was already there: see https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Numbermaniac/Pocket_Trains&diff=next&oldid=575570276. -- t numbermaniac c 12:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
This should not happen when using a script. I am using the gadget script, not the beta or other pre-release scripts.
Note: I manually rolled back my edit so the person who declined it first will be the "decliner of record." davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 23:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I received the following on my talk page:
If you add a G12 and blank the page, it takes far longer to get it deleted. I have to restore the page back and add the G12 banner to the restored page, so that I can use the very useful script in the banner to test how much data has been copied. Sadly the script will not work with history pages, only the live one.
Ronhjones
(Talk)
22:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
What thinks everyone?
78.26 (
I'm no IP, talk to me!)
20:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear scriptors: The NPOV decline reason on the list says "formal, neutral tone", but the resulting message to the submitter just says "formal". Since NPOV means "neutral point of view, could someone please make the message template say "formal, neutral" where it says "formal"? I think it used to say this, but I can't really remember. — Anne Delong ( talk) 04:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
When I tried to add WP: Alberta to an article I recently accepted, I noticed that Alberta wasn't an option. Was that for a reason? Or did you just forget a couple of Wikiprojects? buff bills 7701 01:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
{{
WikiProject Science}}
for
WP:SCIENCE) and instead uses a "sub-template" of sorts, {{WikiProject Canada|ab=yes}}
, as its banner. The way I generated the list of WikiProject was by searching for all templates that transcluded {{
WikiProjectBannerShell}}
, so it picked up WikiProject Canada but obviously had no way of identifying this sub-project. Just for you, I've
added Alberta to the menu -- please let me know if there are any other glaring omissions.
Theopolisme (
talk)
03:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
It's missing WP:SEGA. -- t numbermaniac c 23:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I know there are several issues that we bring up repeatedly, for which there is not an immediate solution. Could we perhaps make a fixed list of such concerns just so we don't need to re-discuss them, and/or so the folks working the scripts can have that as a reference tool of ongoing top concerns? AFCH has been great overall, and regularly getting better, but there are a few quirks which routinely cause our newbie editors hassle, and thus end up taking attention from the AFCHD and Teahouse to address their worries.
Those are the top few of concern to me, mostly because they discomfit vulnerable newbie editors. So is there some utility to forming such a list of top recognised quirks in the current code? MatthewVanitas ( talk) 20:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
{{
usersandbox}}
)With only 67 edits to mainspace, I think this is demonstrative of what we are up against. Perhaps someone can review his/her reviews (if any) and drop them an appropriate line. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 01:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC).
I don't know if this was a script problem or not, but I tried to decline the above article as a copyvio, but when I clicked on the "Review" option, I got this text:
The page Indubious was deleted 2 times. Here are the edit summaries from the deletion log: Timestamp User Reason 2007-12-10T03:12:30Z NawlinWiki (talk) CSD G1: Patent nonsense: content was: '{{db-nocontext}} {{dated prod|concern = {{{concern|Non notable phrase}}}|month = December|day = 10|year = 2007|time = 02:07|timestamp = 20071210020726}}
It said deleted twice, but only one instance of deletion was listed. Then the rest of the article is shown underneath this, but no decline options. I had to use Twinkle instead, which would be okay but I am missing my vitally important points for the backlog drive.... — Anne Delong ( talk) 04:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
This edit incorrectly linked to CSD:G12, which doesn't exist. Why not WP:G12 instead perhaps? -- t numbermaniac c 12:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm using the production gadget version. I declined a page as a COPYVIO and entered a hulu.com URL in the "copyright of" line. The script silently stalled AFTER updating the user page but BEFORE saving the AFC page. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 05:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Reviewing my first submission using the beta tool I got this:
Getting User talk:MatthewVanitas Got User talk:MatthewVanitas Sent User talk:MatthewVanitas an invitation. User talk:MatthewVanitas. Error info: http Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/W. H. Thornton. Error info: http Done (Reload page)
But the edit got through. Why did it report an error then? -- t numbermaniac c 02:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
If a user submits something, then several weeks later, perhaps after he edits it and perhaps after reviewers have commented on it and possibly put it under review then taken it off of review, that person or another person adds another submission template, then the next "clean" action will make it appear that the submission is new rather than old. This has the effect of removing urgency from the review.
Consider making the code "smarter" so if the oldest n afc submission templates are all in review state and they are all submitted by the same person, keep the oldest. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 02:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Since Time Warner is being a twit and not letting me into GitHub (I'll create a ticket when it lets me in), I'm going to make some notes here.
For any action, add "notify submitter" and "notify last reviewer" checkboxes and a "notify fill in the blank" box. Alternatively, just list the submitter's name and last reviewer's name and offer the fill-in-the-blank box.
Justification: I frequently notify the submitter or immediate-past-reviewers when I add a comment and sometimes notify them if I put something on hold. Having these for all actions would be useful. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 16:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Add an explicit "suggest decline" button with the same options as decline but instead of it becoming a real decline, it becomes an AFC comment with the same text that would be in the pink box and it would add the page to a special category of "submissions recommended for decline" or some such. The "afc blank" and "csd" options would be turned into text-statements recommending these actions as well. There would need to be an easy way for reviewers to reject the suggested decline, which would mark it as "suggested decline deferred" or some such and remove it from the special category.
Add an explicit "suggest accept" button with the same selections as "accept." The result would be an AFC comment recommending acceptance along with markers that would pre-load the suggested-acceptor's responses to the "accept" questions when another reviewer clicks the "accept" button. It would also add the page to a special category "submissions recommended for acceptance." There would need to be an easy way for reviewers to reject the suggested acceptance, which would mark it as "suggested acceptance deferred" or some such and remove it from the special category.
Justifications for both:
davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 16:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Every time I review a submission it always watches the talk page of the submitter. After over a month of not visiting my watchlist, I went there yesterday to find out I had 543 pages on my watchlist. Today I removed a majority of the user pages on my watchlist and I went down to 213, although there's much more to go. There needs to be an option to not watch these pages. -- t numbermaniac c 11:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
watchlist
option in the API request to nochange
...this way previously manually watched pages wouldn't be affected.)
Theopolisme (
talk)
16:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I have reviewed articles in the past with AfC Helper Script but when I come back after some time to review more, I am always confused at what to do. Often I have come back, tried to review more, and just failed to operate the tools. The documentation on this tool is not simple enough because it does not give step-by-step instructions and expects that I have some information which I do not have.
I clicked the "review" tab at the top of an AfC article and it told me to expect buttons. I do not see the buttons. Here is the step when I failed to proceed - [10] - no buttons for me that I saw.
I just wanted to post and say that if I look at this and feel confused, then probably other people are also. I have been blaming myself and I put off reviewing anything saying, "I will make time to read the documentation later..." but then I forget, and when I come back and try again later, the same thing happens. If anyone could make a guide for the simplest person, even if it had lots of steps which seemed trivial, then I think that would not be too simple for me. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello again! I am trying to create a search using the standard Wikipedia search engine that will only search pages inside the :Category:Pending AFC Submissions. Unfortunately, according to the folks at VPT, the search engine function "incategory:" won't pick up template generated categories. This search: "football prefix:Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation" will pick up any page in Afc with the word "football", but I would like to only pick up pages waiting for review, rather than all of the old declined ones, unsubmitted drafts, pages with missing templates, etc. Searching for the {{AfC submission}} template doesn't select out the pending ones. Is there anything else that the script puts on every pending submission but not on any other page, and then removes when an article is accepted or declined, that the search engine might pick up? I am trying to find a way to make it easy for Wikiproject people to check to see if an article in their area of interest is pending. — Anne Delong ( talk) 20:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
When using the script on Firefox for Android on my phone, the buttons look like this. (Sorry, flickr and the standard m.flickr.com are blocked at school, so this is the old mobile version. I'll give the proper link at home.) Why is it like this? -- t numbermaniac c 02:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Fix this to the proper notation. Just a suggestion. -- t numbermaniac c 02:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid that I'm inclined to agree with Mabdul here -- {ref} fixing is too localized a correction, and too difficult to catch with 100% accuracy (or even 90%). The same goes for Mabdul's suggestion about ©/™/etc -- there are valid uses for the symbols, and the script is not intelligent enough to distinguish between correct and incorrect usage. Theopolisme ( talk) 20:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
{ref}
, sure, but then what would it be able to do to correct the issue? Replace it with <ref>
? But what if there's not a closing tag? What if it is intentional? I'm afraid there are just too many unknowns.
Theopolisme (
talk)
20:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Instead of just two hard-coded messages in the box that appears on a user's talk page after a submission is declined, allow for customized messages.
Currently, this template either displays the normal "keep working on it" text or, if there is a COPYVIO, it displays different text and it does not encourage the user to keep working on it.
Instead of having just these two options, have the template include at least two blocks of arbitrary text that can be passed to it by the AFC Helper Script. This first block of text should basically mirror what shows up in a "declined" AFC message. The second would be a copy of any AFC comment the reviewer left.
Give the reviewer a check-box to set a flag that determines if the template invites the user to continue to work on the submission (as normal) or not (copyvio, non-English, exists, attacks, hoaxes, hopelessly-non-notable stuff like "my little brother's dog", certain custom-decline reasons, etc. etc. etc.). NOT encouraging editors to continue with such submissions should speed up future backlog drives. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 00:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Add a checkbox that says "Welcome user" which, if checked, will add {{subst:welcome}} ~~~~ to the user's talk page if that page does not exist. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 00:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Add a "notify submitter" check-box and "copy comment to user talk page" sub-check-box options to the "mark as reviewing," "unmark as reviewing," and "comment" options. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 00:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
{{
Afc talk}}
and {{
Afc decline}}
into this template, so we can have a more consolidated notification system. I'll work on this some more (including a uniform look), and get back to you.
Theopolisme (
talk)
20:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Thinkin' aloud... should the comment notification include the comment itself? I think that'd be helpful... Theopolisme ( talk) 00:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Create a bot to scan recent submissions and determine if they are blank, and if so, summarily reject them.
"Blank" means only afc-related templates, ----, html comments, whitespace characters, and anything else the bot could determine with 100% certainty would not appear as a visible part of the page nor have any side-effects (e.g. some templates have side-effects, like categorization). davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 01:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
This code will have no false positives but some false negatives. With a bot, it's okay to miss a few but don't do anything that has to be reverted.
davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 22:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
A very signficant conesnsus was established that bots should not be declining aparently blank pages, the error rate is just too high (even when it's humans doing the evaluation). I know I speak for myself but I've looked through the RfBot requests and I see that "Decline blanks" has been tried multiple times. How many pages would this realistically touch? I think there's other ones that are more eligible at this time. Hasteur ( talk) 19:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
When cleaning a submission, if ---- does not exist, place it below the AFC templates and right above or below it put an HTML comment saying "do not remove anything above this line" or some such. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 01:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
{{
AFC comment}}
s on the page...is this not the case?
Theopolisme (
talk)
03:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
---- <!-- Do not delete anything above this line -->
"? @
Mabdul and
Technical 13: thoughts?
Theopolisme (
talk)
15:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello script writers: Articles which are eligible for G13 deletion but have draft templates on them are often good candidates for rescuing because they have never been declined. However, the script will only nominate them for deletion, not for postponement. — Anne Delong ( talk) 21:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Sometimes user's talk pages are left with a red-link to an accepted article's talk page. Purging the user's talk page fixes the problem. Consider re-ordering the file-writes or doing a "purge" of all files at the end. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 01:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Mistakes like this will be very hard to reliably prevent, but it should be easy to put a post-edit warning message up if anything other than whitespace, html comments, or AFC-related templates is before the first ----, so the reviewer can inspect the edit and manually correct it if needed. Bonus points if the warning message includes a diff. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 21:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Right now, when you do something to a submission, you get a "post-edit" report that says what files were modified, whether the user already has a tearoom invitation, etc.
It would be nice if each edit were followed by a diff.
For those places where the script does some analysis and detects possible problems (see "Request alert if non-AFC items are above the 4 minus signs" above), either put a note right after the diff indicating there may be a problem, and/or a list of problematic diffs at the end with their matching potential problems. This way we can check the diff immediately. Occasional false-positives are acceptable. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 21:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
If I put a blank line at the end of an AFC comment, the last line of the comment is a space followed by my signature. Spaces at the start of a line are interpreted as wiki-markup. Consider either removing them or replacing them with or something else that won't be mistaken for wiki-markup. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 21:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Done
commit
Theopolisme (
talk)
01:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I see a new beta just came out or will roll out very shortly.
Was the previous beta stable enough to become production? If so, please consider promoting it. If not, can you work towards a release candidate version so we can 1) have all of working/well-baked late-September and -October changes in production soon and 2) have another release-candidate (or beta-to-go-direct-to-production) 7-10 days before the end of the month so it is in production if we do a December backlog drive?
Also, when it comes to scheduling code changes and backlog drives, keep in mind the many November and December holidays in the English-speaking world. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 00:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I took a long look at a draft, so I turned on the "under review" but when I decided that I couldn't go through with a decision I had to undo the "under review" manually - the "under review" button didn't switch over to "unmark as under review" like it used to when I last did it (quite some time ago). Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 19:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Recently i accepted an article that contained a large amount of " /info/en/?search=Scutellum_%28insect_anatomy%29 scutellum" style links to Wikipedia pages. The cleanup on the page seems to handle those links incorrectly though. Instead of converting them into wikilinks it seems to add three leading square brackets and one trailing square bracket. This revision displays the (manual) correction that was required to repair these broken links. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 19:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello tech folks!
I have been away from reviewing for several weeks working on the G13 backlog. Today I declined an article, [ [12]], and added a comment. Instead of adding my comment under the decline box, my comment replaced the text in the box, removing the decline reason, which is valuable since it contains help links, etc. Is this a bug, or a deliberate change? — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello again; I tried to nominate this article under G13, and it came up with an interesting deletion log, but did not display the row of option buttons. — Anne Delong ( talk) 02:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Earlier today, I reviewed a submission with no problems; however, when I tried to review a second one I get this:
Reviewing Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Autoimmune autonomic ganglionopathy
...with no buttons to mark as reviewing (or to accept, decline or comment on the submession). I checked my .js page, and whatever AFCH scipt was there seems to be gone (although I have the Purge/Review dropdown arrow at the top of pages, so the script must be somewhere). Tried to add Theo's script to my .js, but it won't save. Next stop is my preferences, to uncheck whatever AFCH gadget box is there before I try installing Theo's script again. Am I on the right track? All the best, Mini apolis 20:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. I have twinkle installed and the CSD log set to on, and AFCH seems to log my G12s and G13s there as well. In the last couple of weeks, it's been stalling around the time of writing to the log. I was reminded because of Technical's problems with AFC buddy chucking up 503 errors, and wondered if it was a related server side change that is causing problems for twinkle and AFCH as well. I'll gather some specific info on what happens and update this later if you want (or just tell me it's a known issue if it is). Rankersbo ( talk) 10:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Dear script developers:
I want to make a proposal for an addition to the script. Should I post it here, or would you prefer that I post it on the general Afc talk page so that this page is mainly for implementation discussions and bug reports? — Anne Delong ( talk) 17:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Proposal:
Rationale:
§ion=0
, it would "look" a little out of place, but would categorize the page as the right CSD so would be functional. There is no way to restrict viewing of such a thing to any certain user, or group of users for that matter (except for admins in most cases and that's not useful here). The other possibility is to offer something via JavaScript as part of a new "Article Wizard"
guided tour idea I've been considering as a stop-gap to a new Extension for Drafts and whatnot. As far as your checkbox ideas go, they have been on mine and
mabdul's todo list for sometime as I suggested similar quite a while ago. So, those are just a matter of time.
Technical 13 (
talk)
01:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Dear script developers: Some time ago I pointed out that the "joke" and "hoax" decline reasons, previously separate, had been combined without any discussion. These are not the same because one is an attempt to be silly, and the other is an attempt to deceive, a much more serious problem. They used to have separate messages to the user. The change was reverted, and for a while the two were separate, but now they have been combined again.
Also, I asked for a change in the list itself to make it easier to read. The titles are mixed in with the reasons. Couldn't they be bolded or indented or have underscores after them or something? Today I wanted to decline a submission as an advertisement and it took me nearly a minute, first trying to guess where in the list it might be, and then starting at the top and moving my mouse down the list one item at a time, until I found it. — Anne Delong ( talk) 13:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Would it be feasible to get {{
Afc decline}} to duplicate the actual text of the reason for declining when the script places the template? Something like the example shown in fig A at
User:Bellerophon/Sandbox2. Moreover, can the script be tweaked to support the change of {{
Afc decline}}'s cv=yes
parm into a general delete param, that is triggered by checking the CSD checkbox, in conjunction with a supported decline reason? So that the template will present itself something like the one shown at Fig B in my sandbox?
Bellerophon
talk to me
15:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
The proposal was closed as having consensus to move the {{ orphan}} tags to the talk namespace. AFCH currently places them automatically in the article if it is orphaned. Ramaksoud2000 ( Talk to me) 20:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
If this is too complicated, then it should just not put them. Ramaksoud2000 ( Talk to me) 18:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I was cleaning up the Category:AfC_pending_submissions_by_age/0_days_ago, and saw there are a number of articles which have the prefix "Draft:" rather than the standard AFC. I cannot review them in that space, so I have to move them to AFC. Is this some new format, a coding mistake, a sudden popular trend? MatthewVanitas ( talk) 16:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I've requested that the AfC helper script's very useful WikiProject template selector be made available as a stand-alone tool. Comments welcome at WP:VPT#WikiProject template selector. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
While reading the source code at MediaWiki:Gadget-afchelper.js/submissions.js, I noticed that AFCH places links to "CSD:G12" and "CSD:G13" in the CSD logs. These should point to WP:CSD#G12 and WP:CSD#G13 instead. Guess who introduced this. Keφr 14:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Can you add the Draft namespace to the helper? I'm trying to review an article in the draft namespace, but the script won't let me. buff bills 7701 01:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear script developers: Please comment on the above proposal, and in particular on the technical ease or difficulty of limiting access to the Afc script. Thanks! — Anne Delong ( talk) 14:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Here,(Edit: in line 42) the cleanup process confused the == in the ref link with wikimarkup, breaking up the whole page.-- Fauzan ✆ talk ✉ email 14:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I've tried to accept the article three times, and for reasons I can't figure out, it's not getting published. Can someone check it out? (And explain why it's happening so I don't make the same mistake in the future)? Thanks, Julie JSFarman ( talk) 21:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to paste and run, but I had this comment User_talk:Rankersbo#Screwed Links on my talk page after clean-up in AFCH beta messed up some links. Rankersbo ( talk) 22:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Whe decling an article as a 'cv' is there anyway to post multiple url's (as in the Twinkle-tool), because sometimes an article includes cv's from diffrent websites. -( t) Josve05a ( c) 10:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Sometimes when another user declines a review that I already have reviewed, I get a notification saying: USERNAME mentioned you on the Articles for creation/Manthan Shah talk page.
(it does not say 'USERNAME') Like for instance with
this edit an
this edit. It does not botter me, but it can get a little anoying if it happens a lot. (
t)
Josve05a (
c)
16:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello script developers. There is a small problem with the Afc comments that may or may not be easy to fix. If the commenter presses the enter key after his or her comment, the script includes the newline, then adds a space and the signature. This effectively disconnects the signature from the comment, and if more comments are added by others they are inserted after the existing comment, but before its signature. A solution that occurs to me is to have the script check for a newline or carriage return or whatever character is causing the problem and, if it is the last character of the comment string, remove it before adding the signature. Here is an examplet where the signature of the first commenter is misplaced: Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/Moves (album). I was going to fix it, but I thought that I would leave it as an example. Thanks in advance for taking a look at this. — Anne Delong ( talk) 15:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear script developers: This draft was never submitted, and the editor eventually gave up and made a mainspace article. To my surprise, it has two "subst:submit" templates on it. I edited it to postpone deletion (so the history could be merged), but the templates did not convert to a yellow submit box. This isn't of any consequence for that particular article, but I wonder what happened there. — Anne Delong ( talk) 15:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I wanted to promote this unsubmitted draft. When I chose "submit with the original submitter" the script showed me an error message; I didn't write it down (sorry) but I think it may have been "error: could not find a submission template". The custom submitter option let me proceed; it added a second AfC template. After I clicked "accept", one AfC template remained (I've left it in place but someone may come along and remove it). — rybec 04:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I like the commenting feature. Just now I wanted to add a comment to Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Divided_visual_field_paradigm, an unsubmitted draft, but the only buttons shown were "submit" and "clean submission". — rybec 23:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't find the archives to search them to see if this problem has been reported. But on the few articles I've accepted from the user space area, the user's name is put in front of the article name by the script. I didn't figure it out until the third note I got saying I was doing it wrong. So I guess the current work around is to move it to the articles for creation area before accepting, but that seems like it creates extra re-directs on the way. The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 ( talk)
Hello - I found this old Afc submission that's about to be deleted. I don't know what this is, but I thought you tech guys might recognize it. — Anne Delong ( talk) 14:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello script developers! I noticed today that the grey Afc draft template has white text, slightly offset, overlaying the green text on the "Submit" section. It's not really a problem, it is still readable, so whenever.... — Anne Delong ( talk) 02:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
The heading of [14] correctly links to User:Gfcibandadvisors/sandbox, but the following message links to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gfcibandadvisors/sandbox. PrimeHunter ( talk) 23:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Dear script experts: I have tried twice to accept the above submission, since I have been told by the football experts that it is ready for mainspace. I used the Accept button on the script menu. After typing in all of the biographical information, I once more chose Accept. Each time the script reports that it is moving the page to the new name, and the reports that it is done. However, the page is unchanged. Is something malfunctioning, or have I just made some silly mistake after using this same script thousands of times? The only thing that I can think of that could be different is that I tried to submit the article with the name of the original submitter, and the script reported that it couldn't find him/her, so I instead submitted it with a "custom" submitter - the person who asked for it to be accepted, which seemed to work. — Anne Delong ( talk) 06:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Per the thread immediately above this one, please modify the code so that it either prevents acceptance or gives a reasonable error when "accepting" a page that cannot be moved-onto (i.e. a destination page that is create-protected). A generic post-accept message along the lines of
The page is not at the destination with the expected size, please check all modified pages and undo any edits as needed. Checking for common error cases: Destination is protected? [YES or NO]. Source is move-protected? [YES or NO]. Error code: [UNKNOWN or NOT PROVIDED or error code]. Error logging successful? [YES or NO]. If the error code logging was NOT successful, please leave the following note at [Wikipedia discussion page monitored by script maintainers]: "Unknown error not logged property. Editor = [editor's name], timestamp = [timestamp]."
Thanks. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 18:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Take a look at listing 130 onwards because I want to know if you see what I see: If the page is messed up from there, then you're seeing what I see. Whether it's this script or twinkle that has caused this, I do not know. Just a bit...shocked. -- t numbermaniac c 08:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Dear script developers: I postponed this old G13 eligible Afc submission, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Star Furniture, and added some references, and now it has been submitted for review. I checked the page history and the automatically created edit summary is the correct one for a postponement, not a submit. Also, I don't think the submit lets you add a comment, so I don't think I could have pressed the wrong button. Is this a bug, or have I done something incorrectly? I'm not sure that this page is ready to be submitted. — Anne Delong ( talk) 15:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I noticed this recently, but it hasn't become a big issue until now. I know that we can add projects to the site, but why can we only add some sub-projects? In the United States, many of the state projects are not able to be added due to how they are now implemented under the United States project's template, so it creates a gap of projects that we are allowed to add to the reviews. Additionally, we also are not able to add project importance's to the script, which means that some person has to go back in and add them at a later date. Would there be any way to address these issues over the coming months, or is there something that I may have missed. Thanks! Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 18:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, Kevin, I've found the list of projects that is used to populate that via ajax call on User:Theo's Little Bot/afchwikiproject.js which means that only Theopolisme ( talk · contribs) or an administrator can add to that list. This pretty much holds the project hostage in that aspect, and I'm not particularly keen on that. You could post an edit request on the talk page (make sure to ping Theo in the request) and maybe an admin would add the projects you want. — {{U| Technical 13}} ( t • e • c) 23:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion here. Yeah, the WikiProject feature uses a list of WikiProjects which was generated by my bot based on pages using the standard WikiProject template wrapper. @T13, re I'm not particularly keen on that: it was initially in a .js page to prevent malicious editing which obviously would disrupt AFC reviewers. The importance suggestion is a good one -- thanks, I'll be implementing that soon! As for a more extensive project list, I agree that would be nice. There's not really any problem with a "flurry of edits"...feel free to post additional project requests on the the talk page and I'll add them. Theopolisme ( talk) 15:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone know what is up with this edit? Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 04:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I declined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/NetDev Ltd a few days ago, and as you can see there are a load of bad wikilinks throughout the article. They got added with the decline edit, in which AFCH attempted to convert URLs to wikilinks, but didn't realise how they were formatted. Samwalton9 ( talk) 10:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
|url=/info/en/?search=Turkey|work=Republic of Turkey
into |url=[[Turkey|work=Republic]] of Turkey
.
PrimeHunter (
talk)
17:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)