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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
The Great Backlog Drive needs your help! Join our project by adding {{ subst:The Great Backlog Drive}} to your mainspace and help us in our aim to reduce the backlogs! |
Panyd The muffin is not subtle 22:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
The term is used in transport, mainly commercial aviation and is referred to as 'Tech Stop'. Lets ay an airline is operating route A-b-C-D, with no traffic rights to/from b which is a tech stop only, it may involve one or more or even all of the following:
1. refuelling 2. crew change 3. food/drink/supplies restocking and cleaning of aircraft
However the airline is not allowed to tranport passengers or cargo any where to or from b. 116.71.19.75 ( talk) 16:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I have had the benifit of a few computer programming courses over the past few months, orienting me more to the language of python. We have talked many times about a bot, and I had one going, but it didn't address all the conflicts. I now feel and have rethought how to address the issues that came up and would like to takle the bot idea again. It would realize the difference between new articles in the mainspace and accepted ones just not logged yet, and userpage transfering, for you programming people, I didn't know about the .split(String) and that would help address the issue. Comments? DQ.alt (t) (e) 18:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
So? This new version is much better and with references! -- Colejohnson66 ( talk) 03:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
What do you think? Mono ( talk) 21:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I like Sven's idea for changing the hold and decline icons. However changing the main logo, it has been historically a green cross. This change will make it a white cross with a green background making it look more like the American red cross only green. And it is Articles for Creation. In the original logo there are two articles, whereas this one only has one. A few adjustments are needed, but the overall proposal is good. Alpha Quadrant talk 14:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Several proposals have been put forward over the years on what to do with the ten thousand or so declined AfC submissions. Most I have seen deal in general terms, proposing to delete large swaths of these. This proposal is very specific, and deals with a much smaller percentage of declined submissions. It is as follows:
What this means is that pages declined and blanked as copyright infringements, and left untouched for over a month, would be tagged CSD G12, and more than likely immediately deleted as any other unambiguous copyright infringement would be.
Blanked pages are a small subset of the overall declined submissions, and only cover copyright infringements, attack pages, and personal information/security issues. In most cases, personal information will have been removed via the admin tool revdel, or by oversighters, and the blanked pages are truly blank underneath the templates.
This proposal would result in the removal of a large amount of content that would have already been deleted had it been anywhere else on Wikipedia.
Would it be worth considering just revdel of the copyvio versions, leaving the 'declined as copyvio' page, so that non-admin AFC folks could see that a previous submission had been declined as copyvio? Chzz ► 22:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
How? Mono ( talk) 02:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
This criterion reads...: "No reliable sources: In order to be accepted, all articles must include at least one third-party reliable source. If no sources are listed, the only sources listed are unreliable (such as MySpace or YouTube), or the only sources are not published by a third party (such as the subject's website or any Wikimedia site), the article cannot be accepted. Tag the article with {{AFC submission|D|v|other parameters}}."
I am unaware of any policy that requires Wikipedia articles to include sources. Indeed, we have plenty of articles without them. WP:V obviously requires that the content of an article is verifiable, and WP:DEL#REASON suggests that articles which cannot be sourced should be deleted. However I think it's instruction creep to suggest that articles can only ever be created if they list sources. There is no such requirement on articles which are created the old-fashioned way rather than through AfC!
Perhaps this criterion ought to be removed or reworded so that it fits in with policy? Regards, The Land ( talk) 17:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
So much unreferenced content exists because too many new and anonymous users fly by, add content, and never cite their sources. I think requiring that citation as the submission is created is the best time to get users to cite their sources. Time and time again, I see a submission put on hold or declined for lack of referencing, and the submitter comes along and fixes it. Other times, they admit that the content is made up or otherwise unverifiable. So I've always thought this is a great requirement. Someguy1221 ( talk) 03:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I'm a participant of ru-wiki's Article Incubator (it is important to notice, that we use it not like your WP:Article Incubator, but like WP:Articles for creation). So after creation by new user we check new article and move in mainspace if it is good. And sometimes we have articles written in English in our Incubator. So, I want to ask you - can we move (for example by copy-pasting or another way) this articles from ru-Incubator to WP:Articles for creation or maybe to some other project in English WP? For example now we have such an article: Sanatoria and Resorts of Ulyanovsk Region. Dmitry89 ( talk) 21:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Here one else article in English, what do you think about it? Dmitry89 ( talk) 11:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
One else. Defender of reserve squad of Celtic. Dmitry89 ( talk) 06:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
New article in English. Is it notable for English WP? Dmitry89 ( talk) 08:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Is there a preferred way to deal with AFC submissions that are created in users' own userspace? I see two options:
Thoughts? Robert Skyhawk ( T C B) 23:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I propose eliminating the assessment function of this project. After articles are created, ths project doesn't have a continuing role with them, and the purpose of assessment is solely to plan for further development of the article. There doesn't seem to be any purpose in this project revisiting articles to reassess them continually. Given that there are now so many subject matter projects, it's easy for the AfC reviewer to provide an initial assessment via one of those projects' assessment schemes. Is there any reason to preserve this project's assessment function given this? -- Bsherr ( talk) 17:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I submitted a request twice, and am unable to find them despite having cleared cache. Please let me know if I have submitted incorrectly. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.210.148 ( talk) 04:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I've mentioned this before; sorry - can't remember where;
I think AFC would work better if there was no such thing as "Hold". Reasons;
Mostly: Keep It Simple.
We can work to make it clearer, and more friendly, that they are very welcome to resubmit if they think the issues can be addressed...but, can we do away with hold?
Comments and support/oppose are very welcome. Best, Chzz ► 10:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps we should canvass the talk pages of all Wikiproject members with news of this consensus? Otherwise confusion among reviewers who are not aware of it may ensue. Robert Skyhawk ( T C) 00:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I would like to propose that the hold parameter be reinstated with clearer use guidelines. Currently articles submissions not quite ready for mainspace are receiving comments, but they are not declined and the author is not being notified. This is resulting in duplication reviews and submissions nearly ready are remaining in the pending queue. I would like to propose that the hold parameter be used if the article meets one of these criteria:
This would eliminate the hold backlog issue and allow submitters time to address issues, rather than the current system of leaving comments on pending submissions. Alpha Quadrant talk 01:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I am in the process of reviewing an article requested for creation, and I was wondering if I am allowed to edit an article requested there. Or must I read it and accept or deny it?
Respond quickly!-- RayqayzaDialgaWeird2210Please respond on my talkpage, i will respond on your talkpage. 22:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Looking through Category:2010 video games, I saw Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/The Incident (video game). After a quick search in WP:VG's RS search engine, I found loads of coverage. So, since articles don't have to actually use sources to be considered notable, but the sources have to actually exist, should this article be moved into the mainspace with this search result on the talkpage? I fell it would garner more attention there, and would be expanded quicker. Thanks, Blake ( Talk· Edits) 15:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
As a side note, why is this AfC listed at "Wikipedia talk" instead of "Wikipedia"? I was going to put the sources on the talkpage, but found out that the actual article was on the talkpage. That makes no sense. Is this how all articles are positioned? Blake ( Talk· Edits) 15:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I just discovered Wikipedia:Article wizard/Userfeedback, which is getting plenty of comments from new users and various article attempts. Is any one here responding to user's concerns? Or even snagging an article contribution from there? By the way it probably needs archiving as it is getting big. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 11:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I posted a discussion thread at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#Declined AfC submissions indefinitely host page for which your input would be appreciated. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 15:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Is an older one that has not been reviewed. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 07:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
As part of my WP:NPP efforts, I have been substituting Template:AFC submission/submit into AFC pages to complete the final submission step that the article creators forgot to do. This has resulted in my incorrectly receiving the Template:Afc decline notice. See my talk page. [2] I understand that this notification is delivered automatically. [3] Can you change the automatic delivery of Template:Afc decline so that it is delivered to the AFC submission page creator. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 22:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
importScript('User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD.js');
.
Bejinhan
talks 10:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
|u=
parameter. See, for example,
these posts In the future, I will change the u parameter to be the username of the author rather than my username after I post the template. --
Uzma Gamal (
talk) 13:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)I've recently been doing some thinking (and a great deal of consultation with Philippe and James at the WMF's community department) on how to keep new users around and participating, particularly in light of Sue's March update. One of the things we'd like to test is whether the reception they get when they make their first article is key. In a lot of cases, people don't stay around; their article is deleted and that's that. By the time any contact is made, in other words, it's often too late.
What we're thinking of doing is running a project to gather data on if this occurs, how often it occurs, and so on, and in the mean time try to save as many pages (and new contributors) as possible. Basically, involved users would go through the deletion logs and through Special:NewPages looking for new articles which are at risk of being deleted, but could have something made of them - in other words, non-notable pages that are potentially notable, or spammy pages that could be rewritten in more neutral language. This would be entirely based on the judgment of the user reviewing pages - no finnicky CSD standards. These pages would be incubated instead of deleted, and the creator contacted and shepherded through how to turn the article into something useful. If they respond and it goes well, we have a decent article and maybe a new long-term editor. If they don't respond, the draft can be deleted after a certain period of time.
I know this isn't necessarily your standard fare, but with this project's role in helping newbies create articles I thought it might be intriguing to individual editors. If you're interested, read Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/New pages, sign up and get involved; questions can be dropped on the talkpage or directed at me. Ironholds ( talk) 02:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe it's there and I'm being obtuse, but I couldn't find a link to get here (to the AFC/Redirects page) at either WP:REDIRECT or Help:Redirect. It took me quite awhile to track down the page that would let me request that a redirect be created. It seems like that should be a pretty obvious thing to include on both those pages. 63.104.174.146 ( talk) 19:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Just a thought as I've just run into this. Shouldn't it be advised somewhere that when an article is moved into mainsapce at least one relevant category (not just a stub template) should be added? Otherwise sooner or later some AWB user is going to tag it as uncategorized and eventually someone who is possibly less familiar with he subject matter will come along and categorize it. Just a thought. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
With a lot of elbow grease, we have finally cleared the backlog at http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Submissions&action=purge, thank-you to anybody who helped! Wikipedian2 ( talk) 00:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I want to create this page: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Joseph McCarthy/1. How do I do it? 128.59.169.46 ( talk) 18:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I had an idea;
For any submissions with no inline references at all, to say to the author (in essence), "Hey - you submitted an AFC, and we'll try and help with it, but it has no inline refs; it'd help if you added some (like THIS)"
I drafted up User:Chzz/afc unreferenced.
I thought I'd boldly try it out, and I'm logging my efforts on User:Chzz/afc unreferenced log.
I'm hoping this will help without putting anyone off;
I intend to try it out, check results on these current few, and - if successful - to suggest a bot, which will say,
IF someone submits an AFC, AND it has no "<ref>" (in any CaSe),
Give help and advice on references.
Any thoughts/ideas/suggestions how to make it better? Cheers, Chzz ► 01:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Best, Chzz ► 22:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
There should probably be a different message for users who do a blank submission. I'm thinking something extremely simple, either pointing them back to their submission with instructions to add content and references, or pointing them to Wikipedia:Requested articles to list the topic as a requested article.-- Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 14:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Please see
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ChzzBot IV
Chzz
► 17:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I've put up a little advert for the project on the community bulletin board. Hopefully this will be bring in some extra volunteers to help keep the backlog down. This project is very much in line with the current " Resolution from the Foundation Board" to bring in more new editors and help retain them, so I think this is also a good time to draw in supporters and recruit more people to this project. -- œ ™ 12:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I think the 'essay' decline option in {{ AFC submission/comments}} is worded a bit poorly:
This request reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should be based on fact rather than opinions or original research. Thank you.
For one, it's very curt and unlike most of the others doesn't contain suggestions (or links to suggestions) on how to improve it, even though many of the submissions declined as essays are promising topics for articles, just written and formatted inappropriately. Also, essays are usually based on fact – the actual problem with them is sourcing, NPOV and encyclopaedic tone. So I suggest rewording it alone these lines:
This request reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in encyclopedic style. Thank you.
That should hopefully better get across why essay-like submissions are declined and how they can be improved. jroe tk cb 09:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, I have no experience with the AfC process, so I'm not sure how articles are usually declined, but I have never seen one sent to AfD, so I'm assuming that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/DR VIVIAN EDWARDS OAM is not the correct way to do it. At the very least it should be at MfD, not AfD, as it's not even in article space. Your help in tidying this up would be appreciated (or alternatively telling me I'm incorrect and the AfD is in the right place). Cheers, Jenks24 ( talk) 15:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it's a bug with EarwigBot, but lately copyvios have been going undetected by the bot. Before declining as advertisements or unsourced, please run a quick google search if it looks anything like it could have been grabbed off a website. Thanks. sonia♫ 21:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Where should such requests be submitted? 203.198.25.249 ( talk) 10:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
See here for how {{ AFC submission/submit}}, the standard recommendation for move requests of userspace drafts ( Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft) includes a rather confusing "Warning: this page should probably be located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/..." message. Can we sort this out in some way? Maybe with an extra parameter to indicate it's a request relating to a userspace draft, which parameter suppresses the warning? Rd232 talk 22:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I accepted this via AFC (in January), but on the talk page, a user has raised concerns that it is overly dependent on primary sources; I think that is true. So, if anyone can help improve it, trim out anything inappropriate, etc. - please do. Best, Chzz ► 03:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I sometimes edit Wikipedia anonymously, when I'm not using my own laptop. This also gives me some insight into how regular anonymous editors must feel. A few days ago I got a request to create a redirect created ( Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Universität München) declined twice. While apparently I should have requested this at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects, that wasn't at all clear to me from the article creation wizard. If I truly were a new editor it would have been quite off-putting to have my request simply denied with a short "try again here". Wouldn't it be better if we were a little less bureaucratic about this? — Ruud 22:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
There is a request by User:Mabdul for a bot to move AfC submissions from userspace into project space. As this request didn't seem to involve many users from the WikiProject, I thought I would raise the matter here. What do people think is the best approach to this?
I have a few questions:
— Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 09:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
can you do a section with cliff richard songs with lyrics plz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.103.4.32 ( talk) 10:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Is it right to decline for not using inline citations. I have seen people comment but they didn't mention WP:REFB or WP:REFBEGIN or WP:REFSTART. -- Puffin Lets talk! 19:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation.
This template has been nominated for deletion. This was used to display reasons for declining a redirect request. Is this still in use or has it been replaced by another template? — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 11:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I would like to change the preload for redirect requests to include a stand in title, so that instead of empty requests being "Redirect request: [[ ]]" it would instead be "Redirect request: [[Name of Redirect Here]]". My hope is that the change would both reduce the number of redirect requests that fail to include the name they want redirected, and would also make processing incomplete requests easier. As the change may not be obvious to the regulars at the page until a bunch of requests to redirect Name of Redirect Here show up, I wanted to post it here to seek comment and give people a heads up about the idea. I'm also very open to a better stand in for the redirect, it isn't about what goes there so much as having something at all there. Also, I would like to do the same for categories, [[Category Name Here]]. Monty 845 20:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
River Park FC needs it own Wikipediapage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.243.229.219 ( talk) 17:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I added some references to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Adele Morgan, but I don't think notability has been established. I could be wrong, though. Could someone else take a look at the article? Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 19:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
The page Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects is a bit messy. -- 84.61.162.29 ( talk) 07:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Please create a disambiguation page at Mik! -- 84.61.162.29 ( talk) 17:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Please check Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Changing_Howto_article:_Wikipedia:So_you_made_a_userspace_draft and support this proposal! mabdul 00:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
discuss how java programming languagues differs from procedurals programming such as pascal and c. 1.classes 2.objects 3.attributes 4.methods 5.pirvate,protected,public 6.encapsulation 7.interface 8.inheritance 9.polymorphism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andersonelnino ( talk • contribs) 03:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello I accepted the article Ocean Village Gibraltar, because I could not find any obvious problems with it. However I am still unsure whether it really should have been accepted. Could someone give a quick look over? Vivio Testarossa Talk 22:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
A discussion at the above linked page is taking place on how to implement this in the most user-friendly way. A big part of the implementation will be AfC, so input from the regulars here would be greatly appreciated. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 20:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed several times that the AfC header doesn't correctly turn to the created header, instead loading the misplaced header. This happens primarily when you accept something without adding the reviewing tag, it also just happened with the reviewing tag. Could someone fix this? Thanks, Nathan2055 talk - review 21:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
|ns=5
is set, meaning the submission was created in the WT: namespace.
This submission uses the misplaced header because |ns=2
is set (2 is the User: namespace; it was created as a user draft then moved into AfC by
Petan-Bot (
task list ·
contribs), who apparently doesn't fix that parameter). It has nothing to do with being reviewed or not. I see a few solutions:
|ns=
parameter altogether and merge {{
AFC submission/created}} with {{
AFC submission/misplaced}}, perhaps to say something like "This submission is either misplaced, or it was recently created."I went ahead and merged the two submission templates. Feel free to correct if I broke something. mabdul 13:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
You know, I was moving some userspace submissions the other day, and ran across the fact that the template tries to move the submission to the Wikipedia namespace instead of Wikipedia talk. This gave me an idea: place submissions in Wikipedia instead of Wikipedia talk! This would allow us to use the Wikipedia namespace for submissions, and discuss problems at Wikipedia talk! Does anyone else think this is a good idea? -- Nathan2055 talk - review 16:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, it looks like the old comment to restore the hold parameter has gone dry. I'd like to reopen the request, considering
WP:ACTRIAL will raise backlog levels like crazy. I'd like to request another discussion to restore hold, however (with note to the first discussion) there will now be three options:
Placing a submission on hold will remove it from the main submissions category, placing it in a new category. If the problems are fixed within the time given, the article is either accepted (if admin assistance was needed) or placed back in the queue of submissions (other issues). If the article is not fixed and re-submitted within the time period given, it will be auto-declined. This will allow users to place submissions on hold easily. There have been many times in which I had to keep an article under review until an admin deleted a redirect or declined a article because it needed small edits. This would help all AfC users in responding to submissions. Thanks,
Nathan2055
talk -
review 18:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Is there a way to decline something for being patent nonsense? See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/sdkfjsldkjflksdjflksdf for what I mean. I declined it with a joke template, but that doesn't really do it; if that was in mainspace, it would be a clear G1. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 20:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
May a stub for 'Jack Moses' be created to link in the Jack Moses entry on the 'Gundagai' article page thanks. Jack Moses (and literature) are highly significant to Gundagai's story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.117.32 ( talk) 21:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've only started reviewing AfC submissions recently, but I've noticed there are quite a lot of articles submitted which fall into the quick fail criteria. It wouldn't be difficult to code a bot to look at new AfC submissions and decline them if:
Determining if the submission is a copyright violation is a bit more difficult, as evidenced by the recent problems with User:CorenSearchBot. Ideally, the bot would wait at least an hour after the last edit to the article before declining it, to prevent it from declining articles that are still in progress. I have a bot account and easily could code this if there is support for it, or if there is already someone running a bot which crawls through new submissions, it might make sense just to add it to that bot's task list. Let me know your thoughts. —SW— comment 23:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
One of the key roles of BLP policy is to protect the privacy of living persons. To the extent that a person is not in the public eye (notable), we don't publish information about them, which respects their privacy. In article space, there are multiple levels of process designed to remove BLP content that unjustifiably intrudes on a person's privacy. First, attack articles are deleted under CSD G10. Then articles which fail to identify how the subject is important are deleted under CSD A7. Articles that fail to include a reliable source are deleted by a BLPPROD. If the article has made it this far, the article is assessed for Notability, and if it is found lacking it may be PRODed, or sent to AfD, (where even if there is a lack of consensus, the results in a delete). There are additional steps, but past this point, and AFC submission would likely be in article space and subject to the same reviews as an article that had started there. AFC has only the protection of G10, and the fact that most submissions are in talk space and automatically no indexed. While no indexed articles wont show up in a google search, they will show up in an on-wiki search, and are fully accessible to anyone who can find the URL. I'm concerned that no-indexing the articles does not adequately deal with the privacy concern that drives the process in article space. The articles are gone to everyone but admins, while failed AFC submissions are available to anyone who knows how to look. Should we be doing something more at AFC to respect people's privacy? Monty 845 02:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Is a Sierra Leonean born in the west part of Freetown. Ernest Smith is the Publisher and CEO of the Sierra Leone View online Newspaper based in continental Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudunest ( talk • contribs) 18:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
98.116.126.133 has recently engaged in what I'd call an abuse of process: In order to create articles on people, he does not use the AfC process, but he requests a redirect from (person's name) to (organization with which person is associated) - and as soon as the redirect is created, he expands it to a stand-alone article. The most egregious example is Karlee Pérez, where he replaced a redirect with a version that had previously been rejected for creation. (This also shows that 98.116 is aware of the correct process and deliberately doesn't use it.) What should be done? Simply turn the articles on non-notable people back into redirects? In any case, I'd ask the other editors who create such redirects for 98.116 to keep an eye on them. Huon ( talk) 14:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
A bot that will affect the AFC process is being discussed for approval, your input is appreciated. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/KuduBot 4. Cliff ( talk) 08:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea how this works, but this proposed article, Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Gayot is a work of plagiarism. Cheers. Griswaldo ( talk) 00:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Done Taken care of. —SW— confess 00:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yuriipetrovich/jasonsmart I written the article here. Can it be reviewed by someone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuriipetrovich ( talk • contribs)
Hi, I've added about 8 news articles from 1st tier Kyrgyz news sources this morning. Plus notes from the OSCE (A diplomatic body) and the Jigorku Kenesh (Parliament of Kyrgyzstan)The majority is not in English, but in Kyrgyz or Russian. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuriipetrovich ( talk • contribs) 02:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
A request for article on Italian film Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Da grande (film) has been rejected for lack of references (IMDB is a trap for newbies, surely) but I've checked and added some other refs now. BTW the original author (not me!) has added a ref to New York Times, and complained to the reviewer. I have put a note on the reviewer's user page. How should we now proceed? Have read the Instructions but can't find anything on an appeals process. Page should clearly be accepted in my view. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 07:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I went ahead and modified the Template:Userspace draft:
Please post any wrong submitted templates, moves or edits by Petan-Bot. mabdul 10:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC) Oh I forgot: WP:SYMUD was also changes by me after discussion at WP:VPM and thus we are getting right now many submissions. @Earwig: can Earwigbot create a page with statistics? I love stats ^^ mabdul 11:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the bot should continue to move already rejected submissions from userspace to AFC space. If a rejection has already been made, there is no benefit to having the article relocated, as the primary point of relocation is to facilitate reviewing. For unconstructive submissions, such as jokes or really obvious WP:NOT material, having them moved with a redirect strikes me as a negative, as it increases the presence of material we don't want on Wikipedia, and could appear to the submitter as a confusing behavior. I raised this on the bot op's talk page, and was suggested to discuss it here instead. Monty 845 15:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I have been working at both Articles for Creation and Requested Moves and have noticed that many new users are confused by the userspace draft option. They create a userspace draft and are then unsure on how to move it to mainspace. They either find requested moves, where if there is problems, the draft is picked apart and the move is declined leaving the new editor with no idea on what to do. Or, they use Template:Helpme or the IRC help channel #wikipedia-en-help connect, in which case they are prompted to add Template:AFC submission/submit and article is moved to AfC and reviewed like a normal submission. There are also a some drafts where the draft creator discovers how to move the submission to mainspace. Overall, this process is very confusing to new editors.
I would like to propose that the userspace draft option be removed from Wikipedia:Article wizard/Ready for submission and replaced with an option to create a draft in Articles for Creation. So that we can keep track of these drafts, I would like to propose we repurpose the hold parameter. These drafts would not be located in Category:Pending AfC submissions, instead they would be located in another category, Category:Draft AfC submissions (working title). This would allow new users to work on drafts over time. When the draft writer is satisfied with their work, they would be advised (through a hidden comment or a link in the template to a image explaining how) to remove the H from the template, submitting it for review. (therefore removing the draft from Category:Draft AfC submissions and adding it to Category:Pending AfC submissions to be reviewed normally.) In the event that no work is done on a draft in two weeks, it will be declined. This method would make it easier for new users to create a draft and get feedback. They would not have to search though Wikipedia to find out how to move their draft, and would not have to deal with the Requested moves process or search for a way to submit the article to AfC. In any case we still have to review the moved user space drafts, as they are tagged with a review template, which often confuses new users as to why their articles do not get reviewed after several months. I believe that this proposal will make the process easier for new users. Thoughts? Alpha Quadrant talk 20:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't really like the userspace draft idea for new users, because it decentralizes things and often they think their draft is a "live" article, but I think it is useful for one reason: they get plenty of time to work on it. Currently, there is no way to tell if an AfC submission is being worked on still, if the author has submitted it for review and think they are "done". It's not easy to write an article in one go. I support implementing a new system to deprecate the userspace draft suggestion for new users, designed similar to the way Wikinews works:
{{subst: ...
stuff again.We could also have a set time to delete old "developing" articles which have been abandoned, or just archive them away like we do with every other failed submission. On Wikinews, I think this sort of system has worked fairly well. And I think this is quite similar to what Alpha Quadrant originally proposed above. / ƒETCH COMMS / 18:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I quite like Fetchcomm's ideas above, as it emphasises that there is no rush to complete the article. We do not want new users to submit their articles until they are ready, and it is quite unreasonable to expect them to make them suitable for article space in their first edit! Could we not adopt this approach to all submissions, rather than giving another option (which might cause more confusion). The article wizard could add a banner to the top which explains that the article is in draft form, and add it to a new category for drafts. It would also contain instructions on how to submit their article for review. I could help with some of the technicalities of this if needed. (The javascript idea is also nice, but I couldn't help with that.) — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 09:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I notice that the article wizard was recently updated, removing the userspace draft option, and citing this discussion as consensus. I'm not sure if this was the conclusion of this thread? I thought we were bouncing ideas and did not know there was a concrete proposal. Perhaps we could look at this a little more? — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 21:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I started a discussion a few weeks ago on this page ( #Bot to enforce quick-fail criteria) about a bot task which would decline AfC submissions which satisfy one of the quick-fail criteria. The discussion ended up being more about how the bot should run and what it should or shouldn't do, rather than coming to a consensus on whether or not it should run at all. Long story short, the bot went through a trial at WP:BRFA but was denied due to unclear consensus. The aim of this discussion is to discover whether or not there is consensus for this task. The details of the task have changed a bit since first conceived, so I'll describe them here again:
The bot will check new AfC submissions for the following conditions:
If it finds a submission that is blank or unreferenced, it will immediately leave a warning on the author's talk page. The current warnings can be viewed at Template:Afc warning/testcases. Once the article is 1 hour old, the bot will check if any edits have been made to it since the warning was given. If no edits have been made, it will decline the article and post the normal message on the author's talk page.
Also of note is that User talk:Snotbot redirects to my own talk page, User talk:Snottywong, and I will personally field any questions or comments from users seeking more information about a declined article.
The goal is that the bot would take care of the most uncontroversial inappropriate submissions, and leave submissions that might actually have a chance for the human reviewers to review in their limited time. Like I mentioned above, the bot is already coded and went through a trial at BRFA. You can see the edits it made in its trial here:
Please indicate below whether your Support or Oppose this task, so that we may determine what the consensus is. Thanks for your time. —SW— gossip 17:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Please help! Need answer to this by Friday! If you can find the answer to this I will be very happy Thanks!
-- 99.176.7.33 ( talk) 00:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
It seems when I click on the project header for "Submissions" it doesn't direct to the normal article list, instead it goes to a page with the link Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/tabs (which is the page for the header). All the other headers seems to work as per normal. As far as I'm aware it's been like this for a couple of hours now, although I'm not sure the cause. Is this happening to anyone else? France3470 (talk) 01:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I've taken material from Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nitrate Poisoning and added it as a section in nitrate (which already had a section on toxicity which could be expanded) rather than create a new article (the proposed name has bad capitalization anyway). How should I close this out? Mangoe ( talk) 21:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The St Lawrence for Pegwell Bay railway station article has been created via AfC and some input from WP:UKT members. It may prove beneficial to inform wikiprojects of potential articles that have been suggested via AfC. Interested member may have sources that are not available to those writing the article at AfC. More sources = better demonstration of notability = better articles. Mjroots ( talk) 17:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
<snip> Per request of User:Okeyes (WMF) I posted some improvements ideas (including the wikiproject informing) at User:Okeyes (WMF)/AFC. Feel free to post your ideas there, too. (especially the ideas where we need help of devs/WMF/etc.) mabdul 20:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Since this is likely to be of great interest to contributors on Wikipedia, I just wanted to make sure you were aware that explorations of an "Article creation workflow" intended to help guide newcomers into more easily crafting articles that meet policies are ongoing at mw:Article creation workflow. This is an ideal time to help guide thinking there (feedback solicited at talk page), if you have input. :) Given that you guys have a lot of direct interaction with new contributors working on articles, it seems like you might particularly have something to offer there. -- Maggie Dennis (WMF) ( talk) 14:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Can someone figure out how to do that? It would be a major improvement vs. having to copy and paste it every time, which frankly I can't be bothered with. Usually people don't submit more than one article, so they probably can still find it even if you don't tell them, but that's not a guarantee. Have mörser, will travel ( talk) 14:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I propose that both talkpages should be merged and thus Wikipedia talk:Article wizard should be redirected to this. Both pages are handling the same content and mostly the same user are active since 2009 (as Martin (MSGJ) posted in section Wikipedia talk:Article wizard#Template:Article wizard). mabdul 01:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
moved discussion to the correct section
|
---|
|
I may be in the wrong place, but several weeks ago I created an article in userspace because I didn't feel I had enough sources or enough information to guarantee the article wouldn't be threatened with deletion. Once I felt comfortable, I moved it, and the article was moved. I did the same thing last week, but the article wasn't moved to the right place. I'm not really sure where it went as there were directions for what to do next, and a strong recommendation that I move the article to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mr. Joe White Avenue. Not knowing what else to do, I did that. User:Chzz recognized I was an established editor and moved the article to the proper place. I haven't received a response from this person on why this was necessary, but it doesn't matter because he/she is not the expert on what happened in the first place. Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
The above looks correct to me.
It had nothing to do with your being an established editor, Vchimpanzee - any editor is quite free to use the AFC process (for example, if they have a COI concern) - and their submission should (hopefully) be evaluated in the same way as any other. I even declined one from Jimbo, once ( here) :-)
I hope that helps explain. Chzz ► 01:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
A lot of the WikiPoject tabs are now giving that error and not displaying their contents except as a link. See WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions for example. Uʔ ( talk) 19:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Looks like I'm a day late to the party, but I believe I can write a decent article about Mellanox Technologies (which was deleted just the other day), using sources such as http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/HOTI.2007.16, http://www.springerlink.com/content/f4402734x8p60772/ or http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.85.9076&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Would you mind if I recreate the article ,and possibly provide me with the latest content that was deleted so I don't have to start everything from scratch? Jeff Song ( talk) 23:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and created a draft of an article, located here: User:Jeff Song/Mellanox. I believe the sources provided (Bloomberg, Wall Street Journal, Reuters, Globes, EETimes) establish notability well enough - happy to hear thoughts. Jeff Song ( talk) 20:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Another AfC reviewer and I both rejected Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Yin Mei Dance last week - I liked it and gave it an encouraging message, but have had no response. Since I felt the article was very worthy I tidied it up and added quotations and citations. I think it could now go into mainspace but as I'm now an involved party, not sure how to proceed. Resubmit? Accept and put a comment on talk page? Chiswick Chap ( talk) 11:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
After seeing several problems recently, I've boldly expanded the directions for reviewers here. These errors are largely the community's fault, not the individual's, because the source of the problem is our failure to provide adequate direction. When we don't provide adequate direction, then processes like AFC become a sort of oral tradition, with all the problems that entails: I once saw someone say that WP:PARENthetical citations aren't permitted, and I didn't see him get in trouble for saying it, so he must have been right, and now I'll pass along that falsehood in perfectly good faith.
My goal in selecting examples was to focus on major errors (thinking that ref tags are absolutely required by policy) and on irrelevancies (easily solved formatting issues, like insufficient wikilinks). I'm sure there are several other common errors, so if someone else wants to expand the list, please feel free. I'd kind of prefer that the list didn't reach WP:TLDR lengths, though, because reviewers' time is better spent dealing with articles than slogging through documentation. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 16:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I notice that the list of categories is part of the config set of a page. If that's the case, is it possible to add the review link to the topbar when pages are in that category but not in the usual place? Sceptre ( talk) 20:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Petrb#AfC_bot Someone recently complained about the task, so I would like you to discuss it and tell me if you want to disable bot, or leave it running Petrb ( talk) 20:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
User:ChzzBot IV is adding a references needed suggestion to disambiguation page submissions. As disambiguation pages do not have references ( WP:DAB#References) this should not be happening. It is suggesting that people who submit disambiguation pages do something that is not supposed to be placed on disambiguation pages. 65.94.77.11 ( talk) 04:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ArticlesForCreationBot about having the bot remove duplicate pending templates, non-pending draft templates, and/or old irrelevant decline templates from submissions pending review. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Can you guys create Ganked a page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.62.59 ( talk) 19:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
So I've deployed the new version of the statistics page for anyone that uses it (and hoping some people will start!), which has been in development, completely from scratch, for a few weeks now. I'm glad to finally push it to the live page so I can kill the old version with fire. This one is many magnitudes more efficient and should be a lot more reliable, but is likely to be bug-ridden in these early stages, so let me know if anything strange happens. The "submissions page" at WP:AFC/S still doesn't work, but this is because of the sheer number of submissions currently (looking at 356 pending subs at time of writing) and it should be fine if we ever succeed in clearing most of the backlog.
As before, it updates every hour (on the hour this time), and recently accepted/declined submissions are kept around for 36 hours before being removed from the table. I realize the "recently accepted" chart is empty for now; I'll get that working soon, but the rest of it Everything seems to be working as intended.
And its code is here if anyone is interested. Best, — The Earwig (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Sue Gardner mentioned in her presentation a couple of days ago how new-editor retention rates have dropped to unprecedented levels, and she cited the proliferation of talk page templates as one major factor. I accidentally came across a new article the other day that was created by a newbie who doesn't appear to have stuck around. I'm really sorry Wikipedia missed a chance to acquire a valuable contributor. The article was Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Nikky_Finney, and the newbie who created it was User_talk:Forward100. The article clearly lacked citations (although quite a lot of it was verifiable via the external links given). On the other hand, this was a person who can clearly write well, and all the info s/he put in checks out (I am currently going through the article sourcing it). It's a lot harder to teach someone to write well than it is to teach them referencing. If you look at her talk page, all the contributor got was a bot message and a template. There was no personal contact. Her draft was turned down (I am not quite sure how it actually ended up in mainspace), and the template used to communicate the result of the review looks pretty forbidding:
Review completed.
Some issues were found with this submission, and therefore it has not yet been accepted. The reviewer left the following comment:
{{subst:submit}} at the top of the article to request a new review. The reviewer(s) who declined this submission will be listed in the
page history. Last edited 0 seconds ago. Reviewer:
Inform author |
The colour and logo of that template send the message "You've failed", "You weren't good enough". There is no thank you. That's a pity in this case, because this article was really valuable -- not wikified, not referenced the way we do it, but a good-faith effort, solid in content, well written, and about a notable person (Finney just won a National Book Award) in a field where our coverage has big, big gaps. That user hasn't been back to Wikipedia since then. I think we need to try harder to reach out to newbies who clearly have potential, and think about how we can teach them what they have to learn about Wikipedia without discouraging them, or making them feel we don't want them. Having a look at the design of that template might be a first step.
Now I acknowledge that I don't know how AfC works, how many editors there are here and how many new articles you have to deal with, but I still wanted to mention it in light of Sue's comments recently. Thoughts? Cheers, -- J N 466 02:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Getting back to the top - I agree the current pinky-red-box isn't a good colour. I've been fiddling around, trying others here. I'd support pretty much any change, and suggest someone gets BOLD. Chzz ► 12:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Steven and I were just talking about doing an AfC test as part of our template testing task force! How apropos :)
We made a draft space for coordinating ideas about template redesigns, and there are some AfC templates in there right now. Whether you're a member of our task force or not, anybody who's interested should definitely feel free to start tweaking with those templates. Once we have a few different variants, we can test them against the current versions and measure how good (or bad) they are at helping to retain new editors. Maryana (WMF) ( talk) 23:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
FYI, I boldly merged Wikipedia:Article wizard/Userfeedback into Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/feedback since both pages have the same purpose and I also started to create archives. Until last week I wasn't aware that there are two different pages for leaving us feedback (I was only aware of the first feedback page). mabdul 21:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Re. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Reviewing_instructions#Draft submissions (experimental)
Can we drop that idea?
I don't see any benefit to it, and it's confusing. It's as easy as it can be for users to submit, especially from {{userspacedraft}} which has a button. And they don't need to move anything; a bot or the reviewer will move things as necessary.
So... does anyone object to doing away with "Draft submissions"? Chzz ► 13:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
{{
userspacedraft}}
)
mabdul 16:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Yep, yep. KISS. Submit -> /accept - done OR decline/ > can't be fixed, or advice, fix -> rinse repeat. No 'on hold while I have a bit of a think' crap.
AFC should be "Is this likely to be deleted? YES/NO. YES - decline, say why. NO - accept it. Is all. Chzz ► 23:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I like the idea that {{ userspacedraft}} come under the remit of our project, just as a tracking cat, and so that when the drafts are ready they segue nicely into a place where people are prepared to help them; however, the draft submissions which are up for review should just be "pending" like all the others. Doing otherwise is rather silly since the review process is the same. sonia♫ 02:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I think both Alpha Quadrant and Chzz have valid points. On the one hand, AfC shouldn't stray too far from its original mission, and shouldn't become overcomplicated with complex rules and procedures. On the other hand, new registered editors who create userspace drafts and submit them for review do create far better articles than the average AfC submission from an IP, and deserve a little extra TLC. How can we reconcile the two? Here's my idea:
Currently the AfC template is only valid in the Wikipedia talk namespace. What if we also allowed it to exist in the User namespace. That way, users who are creating userspace drafts could just slap it on their draft when they're done (instead of moving to WT), and we'll come over and accept it or decline it, and optionally give some feedback or fix some mistakes. The template could be re-designed such that it detects when it has been placed in the User namespace and displays different wording (and could even look radically different) in that situation. The decline version of the template could even drop the article into a different category. I believe this would solve the 2 major problems:
I think it's a big improvement over the current experimental draft system, which is complicated enough that I just steer clear of draft submissions altogether. Any comments? —SW— speak 15:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Eh? "the AfC template is only valid in the Wikipedia talk namespace" - it works fine elsewhere. Just, we then move stuff. It works fine. No problem. Chzz ► 01:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't understand this. I think we're over-thinking things.
A 'user space draft' of any kind can be submitted to AFC - and it'd be reviewed, and the user informed of the outcome. If the page happened to be elsewhere, a bot would move it to WT:AFC (in the vast majority of cases; and when it cannot, we can)
If the draft has {{userspacedraft}} on top of it, they can 'submit' for AFC using the prefilled one-click link. If they make it via the Wizard, it'll have that.
We need to keep this as simple as possible for our new users. By attempting to handle some user-space drafts via AFC - and, indeed, to treat them differently - we're making things much more complicated than necessary (I think).
So again, I ask, can we just keep it simple? In terms of AFC itself, we do not need to worry about user-space drafts, or how users develop their drafts; of course, if people want to help them with things, that's great - but not part of AFC. Chzz ► 15:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, I've removed it (I think/hope). Chzz ► 06:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose that we remove completely the option of the Article Wizard that a page can be created directly out of the Wizard. Every experienced user knows how to do that or should or otherwise should use the wizard! By the way: since I couldn't find any option to hide that option if the user is not autoconfirmed it will only confuse new/unexperienced users. mabdul 14:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, what if we put on ignore all edits done by bots so that they wouldn't be listed as last editors of afc submission anywhere (submissions / template etc.)? It looks pretty weird since my bot is listed as last editor of most of submissions. Thanks Petrb ( talk) 14:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/World_Nugget_Challenge
So, I deleted an article via CSD earlier on this topic, and as I am won't to do, looked at the user's contributions, and saw tht the article had been an AFC. And I came here, and declined it. And the user is continuing to edit the article extensively. Im like 99.9% sure this page is either a joke, or something clearly not notable. I put a message on the author's talk page, saying I thought they were wasting their time, and if they had any questions, but they didn't respond, and continue to edit the page. The page has been deleted, and declined, so one side of me says if they repost it again, its approaching vandalism. On the other hand this could be just a confused n00b. Someone else take a look please. Gaijin42 ( talk) 23:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand the point of Articles for creation. Why not just be bold? Perhaps someone could improve the introductory paragraph. ··gracefool ☺ 01:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi everyone. Maryana and I have a proposal for the AfC process. It shouldn’t take any work from you all, but we want your input and experience with reviewing. Sorry if this is TL;DR...
As for exactly what templates we want to test... We’ve gotten a few community members to draft their template ideas. You can find them in the draft space. We still need help authoring stuff though, and Maryana and I will need to test the exact templates to make sure all the markup substitutes correctly when delivered.
Please take a look and let us know what you think – we’d like to test a very short, simplified version that doesn’t even look like a template (following on previous test results that suggest personalization increases the efficacy of template messages), and perhaps one other version (more graphical?).
Thanks for all the help so far, Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I thought I would lend a hand here to get rid of some of the back log so someone could approve my submission. I'm trying to stick to declining the no-brainers, since I'm just getting my Wiki-legs. I noticed User and Talk pages apparently being accidentally tagged and moved. Not sure of the best way to put them back where they belong???
Sorting by submission time and date of course is not working correctly. I'm guessing, doing programming myself, that this is not an easy fix or it would have been done, or maybe there has never been this much back log?
Thanks. --
I B d Shank (
Talk-Talk) 02:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
After looking at some submissions that others have approved, maybe someone should review my declines for 'lack of content' or 'not notable'. Perhaps I was a bit conservative. I will be gone for awhile. I feel addiction setting in, and I have to work to eat. -- I B d Shank ( Talk Talk) 17:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Currently Category:Draft AfC submissions holds all draft submissions. The idea was to have a place for drafts actively undergoing work. Drafts inactive after a period of time (arbitrarily one week) would be declined using the normal process (with the |d| parameter). Due to the backlog, no one has been able to go through and check to see if any of the drafts are inactive. I would like to propose that ArticlesforCreationBot go through the category once a week, and automatically mark inactive drafts as delined. The bot would be doing the following
I have spoken with Petrb, he said it shouldn't be too difficult to get the bot to perform this task. Thoughts? Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I'm as newbie as newbie gets and, while fairly adept at following instructions, confess to finding Wikipedia a bit confusing. On December 2, I submitted Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hervey White; I've not received any editor's comments, but see that other articles are usually addressed in a matter of a few hours/days. Of course in the print submission world, things take much longer but... Have I mis-clicked, mis-fired, missed something in the submission process? The only activity I've seen so far is a wrongly-identified fair-use image, which I hope I've rectified. Thanks much. Pastrychick ( talk) 21:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to do with them, and everyone else seems to be hoping they go away, me also. Maybe a very wise veteran could handle these. Playboys gang the submitter wants it his way. Fulbright Austria, we have Fulbright Program with organizations in 155 counties. Do we make a category Fulbright Programs by Country to fill or leave this one article through. Lastly, Pinching Penny I don't think is notable, and the references seem to confirm my suspicion.
Should we temporarily change the submission template to say days or weeks instead of hours or days? Before they set fire to the place? Thanks. -- I B d Shank ( Talk Talk) 03:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
For some reason, draft submissions are showing up in the non-draft submission category. Mangoe ( talk) 15:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I have looked into this category, and I think I understand the problem with this category being here. We need to clean it out, and figure out some way for it to never exist again. Many are very old. Many have no user talk page. Many have almost no content. Many have considerable content. Some may still be watched. Is there a procedure for handling these? It they are being watched will that definitely appear in "What links to this page?
I think: 1. If they are watched or have a user talk page, add a template to the page and to their talk page giving them 30 days to request if be moved back to user space, submit it, or delete it. 2. If we can determine it is being watched, add the same template to the page only. 3. If it has no user talk nor is being watched, and there is little content that would never pass review, mark for speed delete. 4. If there is considerable content, again put a 30day warning on the page, and hope. At what point does the writer relinquish his copyrights would be the next question? If it has been abandoned for, let's say 90 day with no links, can we just speedy delete it?
Is there a template for this? Should I make one? We can then patrol the category from time to time and speedy delete any template older than 30 days. -- I B d Shank ( Talk Talk) 21:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I tried reviewing. Does not work of course because the incorrect template is there. These are recent submissions. How to handle?? What do I tell the author to do, when I don't know what to do? -- I B d Shank ( Talk Talk) 22:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
what were the jobs as a knight in the middle ages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.95.75 ( talk) 00:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, so, I've been looking through the cat. And I wrote some code to help me check them - ie, it displays the page contents to me, so I can assess it, and then - if appropriate - I can fairly quickly 'submit' it with the creator's user name, and let the user know what I did. Examples. [10] [11], [12] [13].
There are some anomalies that really should not be submitted; for example, one user had written down his game cheat-codes on an AFC page - so I nommed that for MfD, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bloxorz cheats.
Another example oddity was, where a 'decline' was removed afterwards by the user who created the page - possibly trying to make it look like an article [14]. And so that was tagged by the bot as AFC-without-submission [15]. I didn't actually notice that when I was checking, so I submitted it [16] and told the user [17] - but I don't think that does much harm.
I could go through the approx. 1000 pages, and check which should be submitted. Doing reasonable checks with few fuck-ups, I estimate it'll take me average 30 seconds per page, so that'd be about 8 hours of my time.
Alternatively, we might think it perspicacious to just submit 'em all, and reviewers could deal with anomalies.
So - question -
Should I A) spend my hours on this, or B) should I ask for approval for a bot-run to just submit 'em?
Note: In either case, I suggest we do not 'flood' AFC with them; we could e.g. try to add 50 per day but only if the backlog is under 100. Or something.
Let me know please, here - A or B.
(Meanwhile, unless anyone screams at me, I'll keep sticking a few through) Chzz ► 16:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Mabdul, no offence intended but... it is very hard to understand what you are saying.
I used AWB and submitted some with no 'user' in the template - yes. I've now started submitting with the username.
@Dcshank I suppose I will just carry on then, by hand, and keep submitting a few; that's fine; I can review them too. We're only talking about 1000-ish; it's no big deal. I cleared the backlog and dealt with 500 in a few hours yesterday - I don't think I was sloppy, but I'm always open to criticism. One thing I do know though is...when AFC backlog is small, and users are answered in a timely way, they are much more likely to stick around; that empirical but I believe it. So even if reducing the backlog means the odd few mistakes, I think that is a price worth paying. Chzz ► 03:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree 100%, I feel better knowing something is happening, even if I don't like it, rather than being ignored. Many of the entries are no-brainers, but they are unfortunately manual no-brainers. I wish I could help more, but I have made work promises I can't keep, since I'm off to the east coast this Sat. for a 10 days. -- I B d Shank ( Talk Talk) 06:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
What should I do, when I attempt to create an article, but the name already exists as another person in another job? -- I B d Shank ( Talk Talk) 18:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
John Doe
to John Doe (politician)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Doe
to John Doe (singer)
John Doe
to John Doe (politician)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Doe
to John Doe (singer)
John Doe
to link to John Doe (politician)
, John Doe (singer)
, and any others on which we have articles, e.g. John Doe (academic)
, John Doe (clown)
, etc.Hersfold ( talk · contribs) indefinitely semi-protected Template:AFC submission/comments at the off-wiki request of an unnamed active AFC member (not very transparent IMHO), but nothing in the history of the template suggests a need to protect it. That the template is a "highly visible template" is also questionable, while it does have a lot of transclusion, it is unlikely to be found (you really have to know where to look) or to be the target of vandalism as it does not affect the main space and is a template seen only by a very specific crowd (newbies and reviewers). I note that the template was also protected last year and swiftly unprotected for apparent lack of consensus. I don't think we should preemptively protect (even semi) a template that is not that highly visible nor the victim of disruptive editing, e.g. the template is not high risk. I don't want to wheel-war, so I came here to ask for your thoughts on this. Regards, CharlieEchoTango ( contact) 02:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, it seems we have some inconsistency here, between some policy, and some current common-practice.
WP:PROT says, (A) Administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages which are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism or violations of content policy (such as biographies of living persons, neutral point of view). Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used solely to prevent editing by unregistered and newly registered users, nor to privilege registered users over unregistered users in content disputes.
However, it also says, (B) Highly visible templates which are used on an extremely large number of pages or substituted with great frequency are particularly vulnerable to vandalism, as vandalism to the template may introduce vandalism to hundreds of other pages. Therefore, they are frequently semi- or fully protected based on the degree of visibility, type of use, content, and other factors.
I've always thought that (A) is not negated by (B) - ie, there's no reason to indefinitely (semi-) protect pages unless they've already been vandalised a fair amount. But I do realise that that isn't what often happens in reality.
Snottywong, I do take your points regarding trust - and I agree to some extent; but I just don't believe that is current policy. Personally, I'd probably support requiring (auto)confirmed to create or edit any template namespace page. And who knows, maybe that could get support. But I do also strongly support the 'open editing' model, wherever it is practical to handle potential disruption. The template is behind-the-scenes pipework stuff; if it were vandalised, it'd likely be noticed/fixed within minutes. And there's a zillion (est.) similar templates. We could maybe argue for indef-semi of all of them, but I think that'd need changes to policy... unless I'm misinterpreting something.
As I said - this case - no big deal. But it's an interesting topic. Chzz ► 18:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, recently several articles on academic journals have been proposed at AFC and I have seen cases where both "reject creation" and "approved" decisions were diametrically opposed to what is usual at the WP:WikiProject Academic Journals. Although only an essay, WPJournals habitually uses WP:NJournals to determine whether a journal passes the notability bar. In recent weeks I have seen articles rejected that clearly pass this bar, and other articles created that don't pass this bar. The latter is more inconvenient than the former, as editors (especially newbies) may be surprised if an article that passed AFC is subsequently deleted (either by a PROD or an AfD). I realize that people here do a lot of work fighting against a backlog and handling articles on all kinds of topics, so I realize that it will be difficult to avoid this kind of situation, but I thought it might be helpful if I posted a note about this issue here anyway. With much appreciation for all the hard work of you people here, -- Guillaume2303 ( talk) 14:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps we could implement a system that list AFCs with relevant WikiProjects, e.g. "This AFC was listed on X WikiProject", and then a subpage of participating WikiProjects would list pending and recently accepted/declined AFCs that are relevant to them. Just throwing the idea there, because Guillaume makes a good point in that AFC reviewers deal with all kinds of topics they are not necessarily knowledgeable about, and Chzz makes a good reply in that the standard most reviewers hold is not limited to the CSD criteria, but also to ensure something would also pass AFD, and establishing notability is somewhat difficult to do when something is poorly sourced. Of course, the nature of AFC makes it inconsistent in the way it deals with submissions depending on which reviewer reviews. Implementing some kind of collaboration system with WikiProjects might fix some of that, and then other things, not the least of which the occasional backlog. Just my 2¢. CharlieEchoTango ( contact) 00:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
This article appears to be a word for word translation from the French Wiki. I don't know how this is handled. I would have used the Italian version which has 3 times more material.
Happy Holidays to all you Wikipedians:-p -- I B d Shank ( Talk Talk) 02:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Houston, we have a problem! We are experiencing a high backlog right now, sometimes even severe. Any suggestions how to fix this? Hold off on submitting articles for review that were created but never reviewed for awhile until the backlog goes down?
Also, I've noticed that articles in alot of them have been declined but still have the template. Please remove them when declining. We should work on getting rid of the template on any articles that have already been declined.
Cheers, JDOG555 Talk 20:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment was removed by AQ!
That's not quite where I was coming from. The point I was making (which Kudpung and Scottywong picked up on) is that potentially some articles that are already 'fit for entry'—because they have gone through a comprehensive review process at AfC—are ending up at the queue at NPP. I tend to agree with Kudpung that a double control measure is a good thing as the quality and competence of AfC reviewers does vary—and anyone can have a go. I was simply asking a technical question about the NPP interface. For the reasons I have highlighted concerning reviewing I don't think a bot or script fix is the answer. Pol430 talk to me 17:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
As a reviewer who seldom visits this Wikiproject, I recently okayed Terence Macartney-Filgate for article space. I now see it's rife with close paraphrasing issues, something I obviously should have checked for and caught first. I'll make sure this is addressed promptly, either by the creator or myself. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I think I was trying to be too clever(!) by okaying an AfC
Malayapuram Singaravelu Chettiar, but then subsequently finding a pre-existing article
Singaravelu Chettiar about the same person. That's the result of not understanding the various forms of Indian names, I suppose.
So what should I do now? The existing article seems inferior and less well sourced than the new article. I guess the *correct* thing to do was not to release the new article but, having done so, would it be more constructive to propose merger of the two?
Sionk (
talk) 17:10, 30 December 2011 (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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
The Great Backlog Drive needs your help! Join our project by adding {{ subst:The Great Backlog Drive}} to your mainspace and help us in our aim to reduce the backlogs! |
Panyd The muffin is not subtle 22:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
The term is used in transport, mainly commercial aviation and is referred to as 'Tech Stop'. Lets ay an airline is operating route A-b-C-D, with no traffic rights to/from b which is a tech stop only, it may involve one or more or even all of the following:
1. refuelling 2. crew change 3. food/drink/supplies restocking and cleaning of aircraft
However the airline is not allowed to tranport passengers or cargo any where to or from b. 116.71.19.75 ( talk) 16:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I have had the benifit of a few computer programming courses over the past few months, orienting me more to the language of python. We have talked many times about a bot, and I had one going, but it didn't address all the conflicts. I now feel and have rethought how to address the issues that came up and would like to takle the bot idea again. It would realize the difference between new articles in the mainspace and accepted ones just not logged yet, and userpage transfering, for you programming people, I didn't know about the .split(String) and that would help address the issue. Comments? DQ.alt (t) (e) 18:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
So? This new version is much better and with references! -- Colejohnson66 ( talk) 03:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
What do you think? Mono ( talk) 21:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I like Sven's idea for changing the hold and decline icons. However changing the main logo, it has been historically a green cross. This change will make it a white cross with a green background making it look more like the American red cross only green. And it is Articles for Creation. In the original logo there are two articles, whereas this one only has one. A few adjustments are needed, but the overall proposal is good. Alpha Quadrant talk 14:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Several proposals have been put forward over the years on what to do with the ten thousand or so declined AfC submissions. Most I have seen deal in general terms, proposing to delete large swaths of these. This proposal is very specific, and deals with a much smaller percentage of declined submissions. It is as follows:
What this means is that pages declined and blanked as copyright infringements, and left untouched for over a month, would be tagged CSD G12, and more than likely immediately deleted as any other unambiguous copyright infringement would be.
Blanked pages are a small subset of the overall declined submissions, and only cover copyright infringements, attack pages, and personal information/security issues. In most cases, personal information will have been removed via the admin tool revdel, or by oversighters, and the blanked pages are truly blank underneath the templates.
This proposal would result in the removal of a large amount of content that would have already been deleted had it been anywhere else on Wikipedia.
Would it be worth considering just revdel of the copyvio versions, leaving the 'declined as copyvio' page, so that non-admin AFC folks could see that a previous submission had been declined as copyvio? Chzz ► 22:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
How? Mono ( talk) 02:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
This criterion reads...: "No reliable sources: In order to be accepted, all articles must include at least one third-party reliable source. If no sources are listed, the only sources listed are unreliable (such as MySpace or YouTube), or the only sources are not published by a third party (such as the subject's website or any Wikimedia site), the article cannot be accepted. Tag the article with {{AFC submission|D|v|other parameters}}."
I am unaware of any policy that requires Wikipedia articles to include sources. Indeed, we have plenty of articles without them. WP:V obviously requires that the content of an article is verifiable, and WP:DEL#REASON suggests that articles which cannot be sourced should be deleted. However I think it's instruction creep to suggest that articles can only ever be created if they list sources. There is no such requirement on articles which are created the old-fashioned way rather than through AfC!
Perhaps this criterion ought to be removed or reworded so that it fits in with policy? Regards, The Land ( talk) 17:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
So much unreferenced content exists because too many new and anonymous users fly by, add content, and never cite their sources. I think requiring that citation as the submission is created is the best time to get users to cite their sources. Time and time again, I see a submission put on hold or declined for lack of referencing, and the submitter comes along and fixes it. Other times, they admit that the content is made up or otherwise unverifiable. So I've always thought this is a great requirement. Someguy1221 ( talk) 03:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I'm a participant of ru-wiki's Article Incubator (it is important to notice, that we use it not like your WP:Article Incubator, but like WP:Articles for creation). So after creation by new user we check new article and move in mainspace if it is good. And sometimes we have articles written in English in our Incubator. So, I want to ask you - can we move (for example by copy-pasting or another way) this articles from ru-Incubator to WP:Articles for creation or maybe to some other project in English WP? For example now we have such an article: Sanatoria and Resorts of Ulyanovsk Region. Dmitry89 ( talk) 21:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Here one else article in English, what do you think about it? Dmitry89 ( talk) 11:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
One else. Defender of reserve squad of Celtic. Dmitry89 ( talk) 06:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
New article in English. Is it notable for English WP? Dmitry89 ( talk) 08:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Is there a preferred way to deal with AFC submissions that are created in users' own userspace? I see two options:
Thoughts? Robert Skyhawk ( T C B) 23:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I propose eliminating the assessment function of this project. After articles are created, ths project doesn't have a continuing role with them, and the purpose of assessment is solely to plan for further development of the article. There doesn't seem to be any purpose in this project revisiting articles to reassess them continually. Given that there are now so many subject matter projects, it's easy for the AfC reviewer to provide an initial assessment via one of those projects' assessment schemes. Is there any reason to preserve this project's assessment function given this? -- Bsherr ( talk) 17:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I submitted a request twice, and am unable to find them despite having cleared cache. Please let me know if I have submitted incorrectly. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.210.148 ( talk) 04:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I've mentioned this before; sorry - can't remember where;
I think AFC would work better if there was no such thing as "Hold". Reasons;
Mostly: Keep It Simple.
We can work to make it clearer, and more friendly, that they are very welcome to resubmit if they think the issues can be addressed...but, can we do away with hold?
Comments and support/oppose are very welcome. Best, Chzz ► 10:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps we should canvass the talk pages of all Wikiproject members with news of this consensus? Otherwise confusion among reviewers who are not aware of it may ensue. Robert Skyhawk ( T C) 00:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I would like to propose that the hold parameter be reinstated with clearer use guidelines. Currently articles submissions not quite ready for mainspace are receiving comments, but they are not declined and the author is not being notified. This is resulting in duplication reviews and submissions nearly ready are remaining in the pending queue. I would like to propose that the hold parameter be used if the article meets one of these criteria:
This would eliminate the hold backlog issue and allow submitters time to address issues, rather than the current system of leaving comments on pending submissions. Alpha Quadrant talk 01:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I am in the process of reviewing an article requested for creation, and I was wondering if I am allowed to edit an article requested there. Or must I read it and accept or deny it?
Respond quickly!-- RayqayzaDialgaWeird2210Please respond on my talkpage, i will respond on your talkpage. 22:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Looking through Category:2010 video games, I saw Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/The Incident (video game). After a quick search in WP:VG's RS search engine, I found loads of coverage. So, since articles don't have to actually use sources to be considered notable, but the sources have to actually exist, should this article be moved into the mainspace with this search result on the talkpage? I fell it would garner more attention there, and would be expanded quicker. Thanks, Blake ( Talk· Edits) 15:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
As a side note, why is this AfC listed at "Wikipedia talk" instead of "Wikipedia"? I was going to put the sources on the talkpage, but found out that the actual article was on the talkpage. That makes no sense. Is this how all articles are positioned? Blake ( Talk· Edits) 15:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I just discovered Wikipedia:Article wizard/Userfeedback, which is getting plenty of comments from new users and various article attempts. Is any one here responding to user's concerns? Or even snagging an article contribution from there? By the way it probably needs archiving as it is getting big. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 11:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I posted a discussion thread at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#Declined AfC submissions indefinitely host page for which your input would be appreciated. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 15:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Is an older one that has not been reviewed. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 07:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
As part of my WP:NPP efforts, I have been substituting Template:AFC submission/submit into AFC pages to complete the final submission step that the article creators forgot to do. This has resulted in my incorrectly receiving the Template:Afc decline notice. See my talk page. [2] I understand that this notification is delivered automatically. [3] Can you change the automatic delivery of Template:Afc decline so that it is delivered to the AFC submission page creator. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 22:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
importScript('User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD.js');
.
Bejinhan
talks 10:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
|u=
parameter. See, for example,
these posts In the future, I will change the u parameter to be the username of the author rather than my username after I post the template. --
Uzma Gamal (
talk) 13:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)I've recently been doing some thinking (and a great deal of consultation with Philippe and James at the WMF's community department) on how to keep new users around and participating, particularly in light of Sue's March update. One of the things we'd like to test is whether the reception they get when they make their first article is key. In a lot of cases, people don't stay around; their article is deleted and that's that. By the time any contact is made, in other words, it's often too late.
What we're thinking of doing is running a project to gather data on if this occurs, how often it occurs, and so on, and in the mean time try to save as many pages (and new contributors) as possible. Basically, involved users would go through the deletion logs and through Special:NewPages looking for new articles which are at risk of being deleted, but could have something made of them - in other words, non-notable pages that are potentially notable, or spammy pages that could be rewritten in more neutral language. This would be entirely based on the judgment of the user reviewing pages - no finnicky CSD standards. These pages would be incubated instead of deleted, and the creator contacted and shepherded through how to turn the article into something useful. If they respond and it goes well, we have a decent article and maybe a new long-term editor. If they don't respond, the draft can be deleted after a certain period of time.
I know this isn't necessarily your standard fare, but with this project's role in helping newbies create articles I thought it might be intriguing to individual editors. If you're interested, read Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/New pages, sign up and get involved; questions can be dropped on the talkpage or directed at me. Ironholds ( talk) 02:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe it's there and I'm being obtuse, but I couldn't find a link to get here (to the AFC/Redirects page) at either WP:REDIRECT or Help:Redirect. It took me quite awhile to track down the page that would let me request that a redirect be created. It seems like that should be a pretty obvious thing to include on both those pages. 63.104.174.146 ( talk) 19:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Just a thought as I've just run into this. Shouldn't it be advised somewhere that when an article is moved into mainsapce at least one relevant category (not just a stub template) should be added? Otherwise sooner or later some AWB user is going to tag it as uncategorized and eventually someone who is possibly less familiar with he subject matter will come along and categorize it. Just a thought. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
With a lot of elbow grease, we have finally cleared the backlog at http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Submissions&action=purge, thank-you to anybody who helped! Wikipedian2 ( talk) 00:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I want to create this page: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Joseph McCarthy/1. How do I do it? 128.59.169.46 ( talk) 18:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I had an idea;
For any submissions with no inline references at all, to say to the author (in essence), "Hey - you submitted an AFC, and we'll try and help with it, but it has no inline refs; it'd help if you added some (like THIS)"
I drafted up User:Chzz/afc unreferenced.
I thought I'd boldly try it out, and I'm logging my efforts on User:Chzz/afc unreferenced log.
I'm hoping this will help without putting anyone off;
I intend to try it out, check results on these current few, and - if successful - to suggest a bot, which will say,
IF someone submits an AFC, AND it has no "<ref>" (in any CaSe),
Give help and advice on references.
Any thoughts/ideas/suggestions how to make it better? Cheers, Chzz ► 01:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Best, Chzz ► 22:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
There should probably be a different message for users who do a blank submission. I'm thinking something extremely simple, either pointing them back to their submission with instructions to add content and references, or pointing them to Wikipedia:Requested articles to list the topic as a requested article.-- Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 14:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Please see
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ChzzBot IV
Chzz
► 17:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I've put up a little advert for the project on the community bulletin board. Hopefully this will be bring in some extra volunteers to help keep the backlog down. This project is very much in line with the current " Resolution from the Foundation Board" to bring in more new editors and help retain them, so I think this is also a good time to draw in supporters and recruit more people to this project. -- œ ™ 12:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I think the 'essay' decline option in {{ AFC submission/comments}} is worded a bit poorly:
This request reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should be based on fact rather than opinions or original research. Thank you.
For one, it's very curt and unlike most of the others doesn't contain suggestions (or links to suggestions) on how to improve it, even though many of the submissions declined as essays are promising topics for articles, just written and formatted inappropriately. Also, essays are usually based on fact – the actual problem with them is sourcing, NPOV and encyclopaedic tone. So I suggest rewording it alone these lines:
This request reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in encyclopedic style. Thank you.
That should hopefully better get across why essay-like submissions are declined and how they can be improved. jroe tk cb 09:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, I have no experience with the AfC process, so I'm not sure how articles are usually declined, but I have never seen one sent to AfD, so I'm assuming that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/DR VIVIAN EDWARDS OAM is not the correct way to do it. At the very least it should be at MfD, not AfD, as it's not even in article space. Your help in tidying this up would be appreciated (or alternatively telling me I'm incorrect and the AfD is in the right place). Cheers, Jenks24 ( talk) 15:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it's a bug with EarwigBot, but lately copyvios have been going undetected by the bot. Before declining as advertisements or unsourced, please run a quick google search if it looks anything like it could have been grabbed off a website. Thanks. sonia♫ 21:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Where should such requests be submitted? 203.198.25.249 ( talk) 10:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
See here for how {{ AFC submission/submit}}, the standard recommendation for move requests of userspace drafts ( Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft) includes a rather confusing "Warning: this page should probably be located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/..." message. Can we sort this out in some way? Maybe with an extra parameter to indicate it's a request relating to a userspace draft, which parameter suppresses the warning? Rd232 talk 22:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I accepted this via AFC (in January), but on the talk page, a user has raised concerns that it is overly dependent on primary sources; I think that is true. So, if anyone can help improve it, trim out anything inappropriate, etc. - please do. Best, Chzz ► 03:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I sometimes edit Wikipedia anonymously, when I'm not using my own laptop. This also gives me some insight into how regular anonymous editors must feel. A few days ago I got a request to create a redirect created ( Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Universität München) declined twice. While apparently I should have requested this at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects, that wasn't at all clear to me from the article creation wizard. If I truly were a new editor it would have been quite off-putting to have my request simply denied with a short "try again here". Wouldn't it be better if we were a little less bureaucratic about this? — Ruud 22:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
There is a request by User:Mabdul for a bot to move AfC submissions from userspace into project space. As this request didn't seem to involve many users from the WikiProject, I thought I would raise the matter here. What do people think is the best approach to this?
I have a few questions:
— Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 09:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
can you do a section with cliff richard songs with lyrics plz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.103.4.32 ( talk) 10:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Is it right to decline for not using inline citations. I have seen people comment but they didn't mention WP:REFB or WP:REFBEGIN or WP:REFSTART. -- Puffin Lets talk! 19:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation.
This template has been nominated for deletion. This was used to display reasons for declining a redirect request. Is this still in use or has it been replaced by another template? — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 11:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I would like to change the preload for redirect requests to include a stand in title, so that instead of empty requests being "Redirect request: [[ ]]" it would instead be "Redirect request: [[Name of Redirect Here]]". My hope is that the change would both reduce the number of redirect requests that fail to include the name they want redirected, and would also make processing incomplete requests easier. As the change may not be obvious to the regulars at the page until a bunch of requests to redirect Name of Redirect Here show up, I wanted to post it here to seek comment and give people a heads up about the idea. I'm also very open to a better stand in for the redirect, it isn't about what goes there so much as having something at all there. Also, I would like to do the same for categories, [[Category Name Here]]. Monty 845 20:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
River Park FC needs it own Wikipediapage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.243.229.219 ( talk) 17:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I added some references to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Adele Morgan, but I don't think notability has been established. I could be wrong, though. Could someone else take a look at the article? Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 19:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
The page Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects is a bit messy. -- 84.61.162.29 ( talk) 07:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Please create a disambiguation page at Mik! -- 84.61.162.29 ( talk) 17:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Please check Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Changing_Howto_article:_Wikipedia:So_you_made_a_userspace_draft and support this proposal! mabdul 00:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
discuss how java programming languagues differs from procedurals programming such as pascal and c. 1.classes 2.objects 3.attributes 4.methods 5.pirvate,protected,public 6.encapsulation 7.interface 8.inheritance 9.polymorphism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andersonelnino ( talk • contribs) 03:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello I accepted the article Ocean Village Gibraltar, because I could not find any obvious problems with it. However I am still unsure whether it really should have been accepted. Could someone give a quick look over? Vivio Testarossa Talk 22:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
A discussion at the above linked page is taking place on how to implement this in the most user-friendly way. A big part of the implementation will be AfC, so input from the regulars here would be greatly appreciated. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 20:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed several times that the AfC header doesn't correctly turn to the created header, instead loading the misplaced header. This happens primarily when you accept something without adding the reviewing tag, it also just happened with the reviewing tag. Could someone fix this? Thanks, Nathan2055 talk - review 21:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
|ns=5
is set, meaning the submission was created in the WT: namespace.
This submission uses the misplaced header because |ns=2
is set (2 is the User: namespace; it was created as a user draft then moved into AfC by
Petan-Bot (
task list ·
contribs), who apparently doesn't fix that parameter). It has nothing to do with being reviewed or not. I see a few solutions:
|ns=
parameter altogether and merge {{
AFC submission/created}} with {{
AFC submission/misplaced}}, perhaps to say something like "This submission is either misplaced, or it was recently created."I went ahead and merged the two submission templates. Feel free to correct if I broke something. mabdul 13:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
You know, I was moving some userspace submissions the other day, and ran across the fact that the template tries to move the submission to the Wikipedia namespace instead of Wikipedia talk. This gave me an idea: place submissions in Wikipedia instead of Wikipedia talk! This would allow us to use the Wikipedia namespace for submissions, and discuss problems at Wikipedia talk! Does anyone else think this is a good idea? -- Nathan2055 talk - review 16:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, it looks like the old comment to restore the hold parameter has gone dry. I'd like to reopen the request, considering
WP:ACTRIAL will raise backlog levels like crazy. I'd like to request another discussion to restore hold, however (with note to the first discussion) there will now be three options:
Placing a submission on hold will remove it from the main submissions category, placing it in a new category. If the problems are fixed within the time given, the article is either accepted (if admin assistance was needed) or placed back in the queue of submissions (other issues). If the article is not fixed and re-submitted within the time period given, it will be auto-declined. This will allow users to place submissions on hold easily. There have been many times in which I had to keep an article under review until an admin deleted a redirect or declined a article because it needed small edits. This would help all AfC users in responding to submissions. Thanks,
Nathan2055
talk -
review 18:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Is there a way to decline something for being patent nonsense? See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/sdkfjsldkjflksdjflksdf for what I mean. I declined it with a joke template, but that doesn't really do it; if that was in mainspace, it would be a clear G1. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 20:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
May a stub for 'Jack Moses' be created to link in the Jack Moses entry on the 'Gundagai' article page thanks. Jack Moses (and literature) are highly significant to Gundagai's story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.117.32 ( talk) 21:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've only started reviewing AfC submissions recently, but I've noticed there are quite a lot of articles submitted which fall into the quick fail criteria. It wouldn't be difficult to code a bot to look at new AfC submissions and decline them if:
Determining if the submission is a copyright violation is a bit more difficult, as evidenced by the recent problems with User:CorenSearchBot. Ideally, the bot would wait at least an hour after the last edit to the article before declining it, to prevent it from declining articles that are still in progress. I have a bot account and easily could code this if there is support for it, or if there is already someone running a bot which crawls through new submissions, it might make sense just to add it to that bot's task list. Let me know your thoughts. —SW— comment 23:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
One of the key roles of BLP policy is to protect the privacy of living persons. To the extent that a person is not in the public eye (notable), we don't publish information about them, which respects their privacy. In article space, there are multiple levels of process designed to remove BLP content that unjustifiably intrudes on a person's privacy. First, attack articles are deleted under CSD G10. Then articles which fail to identify how the subject is important are deleted under CSD A7. Articles that fail to include a reliable source are deleted by a BLPPROD. If the article has made it this far, the article is assessed for Notability, and if it is found lacking it may be PRODed, or sent to AfD, (where even if there is a lack of consensus, the results in a delete). There are additional steps, but past this point, and AFC submission would likely be in article space and subject to the same reviews as an article that had started there. AFC has only the protection of G10, and the fact that most submissions are in talk space and automatically no indexed. While no indexed articles wont show up in a google search, they will show up in an on-wiki search, and are fully accessible to anyone who can find the URL. I'm concerned that no-indexing the articles does not adequately deal with the privacy concern that drives the process in article space. The articles are gone to everyone but admins, while failed AFC submissions are available to anyone who knows how to look. Should we be doing something more at AFC to respect people's privacy? Monty 845 02:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Is a Sierra Leonean born in the west part of Freetown. Ernest Smith is the Publisher and CEO of the Sierra Leone View online Newspaper based in continental Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudunest ( talk • contribs) 18:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
98.116.126.133 has recently engaged in what I'd call an abuse of process: In order to create articles on people, he does not use the AfC process, but he requests a redirect from (person's name) to (organization with which person is associated) - and as soon as the redirect is created, he expands it to a stand-alone article. The most egregious example is Karlee Pérez, where he replaced a redirect with a version that had previously been rejected for creation. (This also shows that 98.116 is aware of the correct process and deliberately doesn't use it.) What should be done? Simply turn the articles on non-notable people back into redirects? In any case, I'd ask the other editors who create such redirects for 98.116 to keep an eye on them. Huon ( talk) 14:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
A bot that will affect the AFC process is being discussed for approval, your input is appreciated. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/KuduBot 4. Cliff ( talk) 08:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea how this works, but this proposed article, Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Gayot is a work of plagiarism. Cheers. Griswaldo ( talk) 00:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Done Taken care of. —SW— confess 00:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yuriipetrovich/jasonsmart I written the article here. Can it be reviewed by someone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuriipetrovich ( talk • contribs)
Hi, I've added about 8 news articles from 1st tier Kyrgyz news sources this morning. Plus notes from the OSCE (A diplomatic body) and the Jigorku Kenesh (Parliament of Kyrgyzstan)The majority is not in English, but in Kyrgyz or Russian. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuriipetrovich ( talk • contribs) 02:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
A request for article on Italian film Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Da grande (film) has been rejected for lack of references (IMDB is a trap for newbies, surely) but I've checked and added some other refs now. BTW the original author (not me!) has added a ref to New York Times, and complained to the reviewer. I have put a note on the reviewer's user page. How should we now proceed? Have read the Instructions but can't find anything on an appeals process. Page should clearly be accepted in my view. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 07:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I went ahead and modified the Template:Userspace draft:
Please post any wrong submitted templates, moves or edits by Petan-Bot. mabdul 10:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC) Oh I forgot: WP:SYMUD was also changes by me after discussion at WP:VPM and thus we are getting right now many submissions. @Earwig: can Earwigbot create a page with statistics? I love stats ^^ mabdul 11:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the bot should continue to move already rejected submissions from userspace to AFC space. If a rejection has already been made, there is no benefit to having the article relocated, as the primary point of relocation is to facilitate reviewing. For unconstructive submissions, such as jokes or really obvious WP:NOT material, having them moved with a redirect strikes me as a negative, as it increases the presence of material we don't want on Wikipedia, and could appear to the submitter as a confusing behavior. I raised this on the bot op's talk page, and was suggested to discuss it here instead. Monty 845 15:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I have been working at both Articles for Creation and Requested Moves and have noticed that many new users are confused by the userspace draft option. They create a userspace draft and are then unsure on how to move it to mainspace. They either find requested moves, where if there is problems, the draft is picked apart and the move is declined leaving the new editor with no idea on what to do. Or, they use Template:Helpme or the IRC help channel #wikipedia-en-help connect, in which case they are prompted to add Template:AFC submission/submit and article is moved to AfC and reviewed like a normal submission. There are also a some drafts where the draft creator discovers how to move the submission to mainspace. Overall, this process is very confusing to new editors.
I would like to propose that the userspace draft option be removed from Wikipedia:Article wizard/Ready for submission and replaced with an option to create a draft in Articles for Creation. So that we can keep track of these drafts, I would like to propose we repurpose the hold parameter. These drafts would not be located in Category:Pending AfC submissions, instead they would be located in another category, Category:Draft AfC submissions (working title). This would allow new users to work on drafts over time. When the draft writer is satisfied with their work, they would be advised (through a hidden comment or a link in the template to a image explaining how) to remove the H from the template, submitting it for review. (therefore removing the draft from Category:Draft AfC submissions and adding it to Category:Pending AfC submissions to be reviewed normally.) In the event that no work is done on a draft in two weeks, it will be declined. This method would make it easier for new users to create a draft and get feedback. They would not have to search though Wikipedia to find out how to move their draft, and would not have to deal with the Requested moves process or search for a way to submit the article to AfC. In any case we still have to review the moved user space drafts, as they are tagged with a review template, which often confuses new users as to why their articles do not get reviewed after several months. I believe that this proposal will make the process easier for new users. Thoughts? Alpha Quadrant talk 20:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't really like the userspace draft idea for new users, because it decentralizes things and often they think their draft is a "live" article, but I think it is useful for one reason: they get plenty of time to work on it. Currently, there is no way to tell if an AfC submission is being worked on still, if the author has submitted it for review and think they are "done". It's not easy to write an article in one go. I support implementing a new system to deprecate the userspace draft suggestion for new users, designed similar to the way Wikinews works:
{{subst: ...
stuff again.We could also have a set time to delete old "developing" articles which have been abandoned, or just archive them away like we do with every other failed submission. On Wikinews, I think this sort of system has worked fairly well. And I think this is quite similar to what Alpha Quadrant originally proposed above. / ƒETCH COMMS / 18:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I quite like Fetchcomm's ideas above, as it emphasises that there is no rush to complete the article. We do not want new users to submit their articles until they are ready, and it is quite unreasonable to expect them to make them suitable for article space in their first edit! Could we not adopt this approach to all submissions, rather than giving another option (which might cause more confusion). The article wizard could add a banner to the top which explains that the article is in draft form, and add it to a new category for drafts. It would also contain instructions on how to submit their article for review. I could help with some of the technicalities of this if needed. (The javascript idea is also nice, but I couldn't help with that.) — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 09:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I notice that the article wizard was recently updated, removing the userspace draft option, and citing this discussion as consensus. I'm not sure if this was the conclusion of this thread? I thought we were bouncing ideas and did not know there was a concrete proposal. Perhaps we could look at this a little more? — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 21:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I started a discussion a few weeks ago on this page ( #Bot to enforce quick-fail criteria) about a bot task which would decline AfC submissions which satisfy one of the quick-fail criteria. The discussion ended up being more about how the bot should run and what it should or shouldn't do, rather than coming to a consensus on whether or not it should run at all. Long story short, the bot went through a trial at WP:BRFA but was denied due to unclear consensus. The aim of this discussion is to discover whether or not there is consensus for this task. The details of the task have changed a bit since first conceived, so I'll describe them here again:
The bot will check new AfC submissions for the following conditions:
If it finds a submission that is blank or unreferenced, it will immediately leave a warning on the author's talk page. The current warnings can be viewed at Template:Afc warning/testcases. Once the article is 1 hour old, the bot will check if any edits have been made to it since the warning was given. If no edits have been made, it will decline the article and post the normal message on the author's talk page.
Also of note is that User talk:Snotbot redirects to my own talk page, User talk:Snottywong, and I will personally field any questions or comments from users seeking more information about a declined article.
The goal is that the bot would take care of the most uncontroversial inappropriate submissions, and leave submissions that might actually have a chance for the human reviewers to review in their limited time. Like I mentioned above, the bot is already coded and went through a trial at BRFA. You can see the edits it made in its trial here:
Please indicate below whether your Support or Oppose this task, so that we may determine what the consensus is. Thanks for your time. —SW— gossip 17:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Please help! Need answer to this by Friday! If you can find the answer to this I will be very happy Thanks!
-- 99.176.7.33 ( talk) 00:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
It seems when I click on the project header for "Submissions" it doesn't direct to the normal article list, instead it goes to a page with the link Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/tabs (which is the page for the header). All the other headers seems to work as per normal. As far as I'm aware it's been like this for a couple of hours now, although I'm not sure the cause. Is this happening to anyone else? France3470 (talk) 01:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I've taken material from Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nitrate Poisoning and added it as a section in nitrate (which already had a section on toxicity which could be expanded) rather than create a new article (the proposed name has bad capitalization anyway). How should I close this out? Mangoe ( talk) 21:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The St Lawrence for Pegwell Bay railway station article has been created via AfC and some input from WP:UKT members. It may prove beneficial to inform wikiprojects of potential articles that have been suggested via AfC. Interested member may have sources that are not available to those writing the article at AfC. More sources = better demonstration of notability = better articles. Mjroots ( talk) 17:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
<snip> Per request of User:Okeyes (WMF) I posted some improvements ideas (including the wikiproject informing) at User:Okeyes (WMF)/AFC. Feel free to post your ideas there, too. (especially the ideas where we need help of devs/WMF/etc.) mabdul 20:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Since this is likely to be of great interest to contributors on Wikipedia, I just wanted to make sure you were aware that explorations of an "Article creation workflow" intended to help guide newcomers into more easily crafting articles that meet policies are ongoing at mw:Article creation workflow. This is an ideal time to help guide thinking there (feedback solicited at talk page), if you have input. :) Given that you guys have a lot of direct interaction with new contributors working on articles, it seems like you might particularly have something to offer there. -- Maggie Dennis (WMF) ( talk) 14:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Can someone figure out how to do that? It would be a major improvement vs. having to copy and paste it every time, which frankly I can't be bothered with. Usually people don't submit more than one article, so they probably can still find it even if you don't tell them, but that's not a guarantee. Have mörser, will travel ( talk) 14:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I propose that both talkpages should be merged and thus Wikipedia talk:Article wizard should be redirected to this. Both pages are handling the same content and mostly the same user are active since 2009 (as Martin (MSGJ) posted in section Wikipedia talk:Article wizard#Template:Article wizard). mabdul 01:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
moved discussion to the correct section
|
---|
|
I may be in the wrong place, but several weeks ago I created an article in userspace because I didn't feel I had enough sources or enough information to guarantee the article wouldn't be threatened with deletion. Once I felt comfortable, I moved it, and the article was moved. I did the same thing last week, but the article wasn't moved to the right place. I'm not really sure where it went as there were directions for what to do next, and a strong recommendation that I move the article to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mr. Joe White Avenue. Not knowing what else to do, I did that. User:Chzz recognized I was an established editor and moved the article to the proper place. I haven't received a response from this person on why this was necessary, but it doesn't matter because he/she is not the expert on what happened in the first place. Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
The above looks correct to me.
It had nothing to do with your being an established editor, Vchimpanzee - any editor is quite free to use the AFC process (for example, if they have a COI concern) - and their submission should (hopefully) be evaluated in the same way as any other. I even declined one from Jimbo, once ( here) :-)
I hope that helps explain. Chzz ► 01:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
A lot of the WikiPoject tabs are now giving that error and not displaying their contents except as a link. See WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions for example. Uʔ ( talk) 19:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Looks like I'm a day late to the party, but I believe I can write a decent article about Mellanox Technologies (which was deleted just the other day), using sources such as http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/HOTI.2007.16, http://www.springerlink.com/content/f4402734x8p60772/ or http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.85.9076&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Would you mind if I recreate the article ,and possibly provide me with the latest content that was deleted so I don't have to start everything from scratch? Jeff Song ( talk) 23:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and created a draft of an article, located here: User:Jeff Song/Mellanox. I believe the sources provided (Bloomberg, Wall Street Journal, Reuters, Globes, EETimes) establish notability well enough - happy to hear thoughts. Jeff Song ( talk) 20:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Another AfC reviewer and I both rejected Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Yin Mei Dance last week - I liked it and gave it an encouraging message, but have had no response. Since I felt the article was very worthy I tidied it up and added quotations and citations. I think it could now go into mainspace but as I'm now an involved party, not sure how to proceed. Resubmit? Accept and put a comment on talk page? Chiswick Chap ( talk) 11:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
After seeing several problems recently, I've boldly expanded the directions for reviewers here. These errors are largely the community's fault, not the individual's, because the source of the problem is our failure to provide adequate direction. When we don't provide adequate direction, then processes like AFC become a sort of oral tradition, with all the problems that entails: I once saw someone say that WP:PARENthetical citations aren't permitted, and I didn't see him get in trouble for saying it, so he must have been right, and now I'll pass along that falsehood in perfectly good faith.
My goal in selecting examples was to focus on major errors (thinking that ref tags are absolutely required by policy) and on irrelevancies (easily solved formatting issues, like insufficient wikilinks). I'm sure there are several other common errors, so if someone else wants to expand the list, please feel free. I'd kind of prefer that the list didn't reach WP:TLDR lengths, though, because reviewers' time is better spent dealing with articles than slogging through documentation. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 16:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I notice that the list of categories is part of the config set of a page. If that's the case, is it possible to add the review link to the topbar when pages are in that category but not in the usual place? Sceptre ( talk) 20:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Petrb#AfC_bot Someone recently complained about the task, so I would like you to discuss it and tell me if you want to disable bot, or leave it running Petrb ( talk) 20:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
User:ChzzBot IV is adding a references needed suggestion to disambiguation page submissions. As disambiguation pages do not have references ( WP:DAB#References) this should not be happening. It is suggesting that people who submit disambiguation pages do something that is not supposed to be placed on disambiguation pages. 65.94.77.11 ( talk) 04:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ArticlesForCreationBot about having the bot remove duplicate pending templates, non-pending draft templates, and/or old irrelevant decline templates from submissions pending review. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Can you guys create Ganked a page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.62.59 ( talk) 19:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
So I've deployed the new version of the statistics page for anyone that uses it (and hoping some people will start!), which has been in development, completely from scratch, for a few weeks now. I'm glad to finally push it to the live page so I can kill the old version with fire. This one is many magnitudes more efficient and should be a lot more reliable, but is likely to be bug-ridden in these early stages, so let me know if anything strange happens. The "submissions page" at WP:AFC/S still doesn't work, but this is because of the sheer number of submissions currently (looking at 356 pending subs at time of writing) and it should be fine if we ever succeed in clearing most of the backlog.
As before, it updates every hour (on the hour this time), and recently accepted/declined submissions are kept around for 36 hours before being removed from the table. I realize the "recently accepted" chart is empty for now; I'll get that working soon, but the rest of it Everything seems to be working as intended.
And its code is here if anyone is interested. Best, — The Earwig (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Sue Gardner mentioned in her presentation a couple of days ago how new-editor retention rates have dropped to unprecedented levels, and she cited the proliferation of talk page templates as one major factor. I accidentally came across a new article the other day that was created by a newbie who doesn't appear to have stuck around. I'm really sorry Wikipedia missed a chance to acquire a valuable contributor. The article was Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Nikky_Finney, and the newbie who created it was User_talk:Forward100. The article clearly lacked citations (although quite a lot of it was verifiable via the external links given). On the other hand, this was a person who can clearly write well, and all the info s/he put in checks out (I am currently going through the article sourcing it). It's a lot harder to teach someone to write well than it is to teach them referencing. If you look at her talk page, all the contributor got was a bot message and a template. There was no personal contact. Her draft was turned down (I am not quite sure how it actually ended up in mainspace), and the template used to communicate the result of the review looks pretty forbidding:
Review completed.
Some issues were found with this submission, and therefore it has not yet been accepted. The reviewer left the following comment:
{{subst:submit}} at the top of the article to request a new review. The reviewer(s) who declined this submission will be listed in the
page history. Last edited 0 seconds ago. Reviewer:
Inform author |
The colour and logo of that template send the message "You've failed", "You weren't good enough". There is no thank you. That's a pity in this case, because this article was really valuable -- not wikified, not referenced the way we do it, but a good-faith effort, solid in content, well written, and about a notable person (Finney just won a National Book Award) in a field where our coverage has big, big gaps. That user hasn't been back to Wikipedia since then. I think we need to try harder to reach out to newbies who clearly have potential, and think about how we can teach them what they have to learn about Wikipedia without discouraging them, or making them feel we don't want them. Having a look at the design of that template might be a first step.
Now I acknowledge that I don't know how AfC works, how many editors there are here and how many new articles you have to deal with, but I still wanted to mention it in light of Sue's comments recently. Thoughts? Cheers, -- J N 466 02:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Getting back to the top - I agree the current pinky-red-box isn't a good colour. I've been fiddling around, trying others here. I'd support pretty much any change, and suggest someone gets BOLD. Chzz ► 12:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Steven and I were just talking about doing an AfC test as part of our template testing task force! How apropos :)
We made a draft space for coordinating ideas about template redesigns, and there are some AfC templates in there right now. Whether you're a member of our task force or not, anybody who's interested should definitely feel free to start tweaking with those templates. Once we have a few different variants, we can test them against the current versions and measure how good (or bad) they are at helping to retain new editors. Maryana (WMF) ( talk) 23:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
FYI, I boldly merged Wikipedia:Article wizard/Userfeedback into Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/feedback since both pages have the same purpose and I also started to create archives. Until last week I wasn't aware that there are two different pages for leaving us feedback (I was only aware of the first feedback page). mabdul 21:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Re. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Reviewing_instructions#Draft submissions (experimental)
Can we drop that idea?
I don't see any benefit to it, and it's confusing. It's as easy as it can be for users to submit, especially from {{userspacedraft}} which has a button. And they don't need to move anything; a bot or the reviewer will move things as necessary.
So... does anyone object to doing away with "Draft submissions"? Chzz ► 13:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
{{
userspacedraft}}
)
mabdul 16:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Yep, yep. KISS. Submit -> /accept - done OR decline/ > can't be fixed, or advice, fix -> rinse repeat. No 'on hold while I have a bit of a think' crap.
AFC should be "Is this likely to be deleted? YES/NO. YES - decline, say why. NO - accept it. Is all. Chzz ► 23:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I like the idea that {{ userspacedraft}} come under the remit of our project, just as a tracking cat, and so that when the drafts are ready they segue nicely into a place where people are prepared to help them; however, the draft submissions which are up for review should just be "pending" like all the others. Doing otherwise is rather silly since the review process is the same. sonia♫ 02:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I think both Alpha Quadrant and Chzz have valid points. On the one hand, AfC shouldn't stray too far from its original mission, and shouldn't become overcomplicated with complex rules and procedures. On the other hand, new registered editors who create userspace drafts and submit them for review do create far better articles than the average AfC submission from an IP, and deserve a little extra TLC. How can we reconcile the two? Here's my idea:
Currently the AfC template is only valid in the Wikipedia talk namespace. What if we also allowed it to exist in the User namespace. That way, users who are creating userspace drafts could just slap it on their draft when they're done (instead of moving to WT), and we'll come over and accept it or decline it, and optionally give some feedback or fix some mistakes. The template could be re-designed such that it detects when it has been placed in the User namespace and displays different wording (and could even look radically different) in that situation. The decline version of the template could even drop the article into a different category. I believe this would solve the 2 major problems:
I think it's a big improvement over the current experimental draft system, which is complicated enough that I just steer clear of draft submissions altogether. Any comments? —SW— speak 15:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Eh? "the AfC template is only valid in the Wikipedia talk namespace" - it works fine elsewhere. Just, we then move stuff. It works fine. No problem. Chzz ► 01:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't understand this. I think we're over-thinking things.
A 'user space draft' of any kind can be submitted to AFC - and it'd be reviewed, and the user informed of the outcome. If the page happened to be elsewhere, a bot would move it to WT:AFC (in the vast majority of cases; and when it cannot, we can)
If the draft has {{userspacedraft}} on top of it, they can 'submit' for AFC using the prefilled one-click link. If they make it via the Wizard, it'll have that.
We need to keep this as simple as possible for our new users. By attempting to handle some user-space drafts via AFC - and, indeed, to treat them differently - we're making things much more complicated than necessary (I think).
So again, I ask, can we just keep it simple? In terms of AFC itself, we do not need to worry about user-space drafts, or how users develop their drafts; of course, if people want to help them with things, that's great - but not part of AFC. Chzz ► 15:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, I've removed it (I think/hope). Chzz ► 06:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose that we remove completely the option of the Article Wizard that a page can be created directly out of the Wizard. Every experienced user knows how to do that or should or otherwise should use the wizard! By the way: since I couldn't find any option to hide that option if the user is not autoconfirmed it will only confuse new/unexperienced users. mabdul 14:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, what if we put on ignore all edits done by bots so that they wouldn't be listed as last editors of afc submission anywhere (submissions / template etc.)? It looks pretty weird since my bot is listed as last editor of most of submissions. Thanks Petrb ( talk) 14:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/World_Nugget_Challenge
So, I deleted an article via CSD earlier on this topic, and as I am won't to do, looked at the user's contributions, and saw tht the article had been an AFC. And I came here, and declined it. And the user is continuing to edit the article extensively. Im like 99.9% sure this page is either a joke, or something clearly not notable. I put a message on the author's talk page, saying I thought they were wasting their time, and if they had any questions, but they didn't respond, and continue to edit the page. The page has been deleted, and declined, so one side of me says if they repost it again, its approaching vandalism. On the other hand this could be just a confused n00b. Someone else take a look please. Gaijin42 ( talk) 23:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand the point of Articles for creation. Why not just be bold? Perhaps someone could improve the introductory paragraph. ··gracefool ☺ 01:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi everyone. Maryana and I have a proposal for the AfC process. It shouldn’t take any work from you all, but we want your input and experience with reviewing. Sorry if this is TL;DR...
As for exactly what templates we want to test... We’ve gotten a few community members to draft their template ideas. You can find them in the draft space. We still need help authoring stuff though, and Maryana and I will need to test the exact templates to make sure all the markup substitutes correctly when delivered.
Please take a look and let us know what you think – we’d like to test a very short, simplified version that doesn’t even look like a template (following on previous test results that suggest personalization increases the efficacy of template messages), and perhaps one other version (more graphical?).
Thanks for all the help so far, Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I thought I would lend a hand here to get rid of some of the back log so someone could approve my submission. I'm trying to stick to declining the no-brainers, since I'm just getting my Wiki-legs. I noticed User and Talk pages apparently being accidentally tagged and moved. Not sure of the best way to put them back where they belong???
Sorting by submission time and date of course is not working correctly. I'm guessing, doing programming myself, that this is not an easy fix or it would have been done, or maybe there has never been this much back log?
Thanks. --
I B d Shank (
Talk-Talk) 02:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
After looking at some submissions that others have approved, maybe someone should review my declines for 'lack of content' or 'not notable'. Perhaps I was a bit conservative. I will be gone for awhile. I feel addiction setting in, and I have to work to eat. -- I B d Shank ( Talk Talk) 17:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Currently Category:Draft AfC submissions holds all draft submissions. The idea was to have a place for drafts actively undergoing work. Drafts inactive after a period of time (arbitrarily one week) would be declined using the normal process (with the |d| parameter). Due to the backlog, no one has been able to go through and check to see if any of the drafts are inactive. I would like to propose that ArticlesforCreationBot go through the category once a week, and automatically mark inactive drafts as delined. The bot would be doing the following
I have spoken with Petrb, he said it shouldn't be too difficult to get the bot to perform this task. Thoughts? Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I'm as newbie as newbie gets and, while fairly adept at following instructions, confess to finding Wikipedia a bit confusing. On December 2, I submitted Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hervey White; I've not received any editor's comments, but see that other articles are usually addressed in a matter of a few hours/days. Of course in the print submission world, things take much longer but... Have I mis-clicked, mis-fired, missed something in the submission process? The only activity I've seen so far is a wrongly-identified fair-use image, which I hope I've rectified. Thanks much. Pastrychick ( talk) 21:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to do with them, and everyone else seems to be hoping they go away, me also. Maybe a very wise veteran could handle these. Playboys gang the submitter wants it his way. Fulbright Austria, we have Fulbright Program with organizations in 155 counties. Do we make a category Fulbright Programs by Country to fill or leave this one article through. Lastly, Pinching Penny I don't think is notable, and the references seem to confirm my suspicion.
Should we temporarily change the submission template to say days or weeks instead of hours or days? Before they set fire to the place? Thanks. -- I B d Shank ( Talk Talk) 03:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
For some reason, draft submissions are showing up in the non-draft submission category. Mangoe ( talk) 15:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I have looked into this category, and I think I understand the problem with this category being here. We need to clean it out, and figure out some way for it to never exist again. Many are very old. Many have no user talk page. Many have almost no content. Many have considerable content. Some may still be watched. Is there a procedure for handling these? It they are being watched will that definitely appear in "What links to this page?
I think: 1. If they are watched or have a user talk page, add a template to the page and to their talk page giving them 30 days to request if be moved back to user space, submit it, or delete it. 2. If we can determine it is being watched, add the same template to the page only. 3. If it has no user talk nor is being watched, and there is little content that would never pass review, mark for speed delete. 4. If there is considerable content, again put a 30day warning on the page, and hope. At what point does the writer relinquish his copyrights would be the next question? If it has been abandoned for, let's say 90 day with no links, can we just speedy delete it?
Is there a template for this? Should I make one? We can then patrol the category from time to time and speedy delete any template older than 30 days. -- I B d Shank ( Talk Talk) 21:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I tried reviewing. Does not work of course because the incorrect template is there. These are recent submissions. How to handle?? What do I tell the author to do, when I don't know what to do? -- I B d Shank ( Talk Talk) 22:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
what were the jobs as a knight in the middle ages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.95.75 ( talk) 00:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, so, I've been looking through the cat. And I wrote some code to help me check them - ie, it displays the page contents to me, so I can assess it, and then - if appropriate - I can fairly quickly 'submit' it with the creator's user name, and let the user know what I did. Examples. [10] [11], [12] [13].
There are some anomalies that really should not be submitted; for example, one user had written down his game cheat-codes on an AFC page - so I nommed that for MfD, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bloxorz cheats.
Another example oddity was, where a 'decline' was removed afterwards by the user who created the page - possibly trying to make it look like an article [14]. And so that was tagged by the bot as AFC-without-submission [15]. I didn't actually notice that when I was checking, so I submitted it [16] and told the user [17] - but I don't think that does much harm.
I could go through the approx. 1000 pages, and check which should be submitted. Doing reasonable checks with few fuck-ups, I estimate it'll take me average 30 seconds per page, so that'd be about 8 hours of my time.
Alternatively, we might think it perspicacious to just submit 'em all, and reviewers could deal with anomalies.
So - question -
Should I A) spend my hours on this, or B) should I ask for approval for a bot-run to just submit 'em?
Note: In either case, I suggest we do not 'flood' AFC with them; we could e.g. try to add 50 per day but only if the backlog is under 100. Or something.
Let me know please, here - A or B.
(Meanwhile, unless anyone screams at me, I'll keep sticking a few through) Chzz ► 16:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Mabdul, no offence intended but... it is very hard to understand what you are saying.
I used AWB and submitted some with no 'user' in the template - yes. I've now started submitting with the username.
@Dcshank I suppose I will just carry on then, by hand, and keep submitting a few; that's fine; I can review them too. We're only talking about 1000-ish; it's no big deal. I cleared the backlog and dealt with 500 in a few hours yesterday - I don't think I was sloppy, but I'm always open to criticism. One thing I do know though is...when AFC backlog is small, and users are answered in a timely way, they are much more likely to stick around; that empirical but I believe it. So even if reducing the backlog means the odd few mistakes, I think that is a price worth paying. Chzz ► 03:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree 100%, I feel better knowing something is happening, even if I don't like it, rather than being ignored. Many of the entries are no-brainers, but they are unfortunately manual no-brainers. I wish I could help more, but I have made work promises I can't keep, since I'm off to the east coast this Sat. for a 10 days. -- I B d Shank ( Talk Talk) 06:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
What should I do, when I attempt to create an article, but the name already exists as another person in another job? -- I B d Shank ( Talk Talk) 18:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
John Doe
to John Doe (politician)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Doe
to John Doe (singer)
John Doe
to John Doe (politician)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Doe
to John Doe (singer)
John Doe
to link to John Doe (politician)
, John Doe (singer)
, and any others on which we have articles, e.g. John Doe (academic)
, John Doe (clown)
, etc.Hersfold ( talk · contribs) indefinitely semi-protected Template:AFC submission/comments at the off-wiki request of an unnamed active AFC member (not very transparent IMHO), but nothing in the history of the template suggests a need to protect it. That the template is a "highly visible template" is also questionable, while it does have a lot of transclusion, it is unlikely to be found (you really have to know where to look) or to be the target of vandalism as it does not affect the main space and is a template seen only by a very specific crowd (newbies and reviewers). I note that the template was also protected last year and swiftly unprotected for apparent lack of consensus. I don't think we should preemptively protect (even semi) a template that is not that highly visible nor the victim of disruptive editing, e.g. the template is not high risk. I don't want to wheel-war, so I came here to ask for your thoughts on this. Regards, CharlieEchoTango ( contact) 02:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, it seems we have some inconsistency here, between some policy, and some current common-practice.
WP:PROT says, (A) Administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages which are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism or violations of content policy (such as biographies of living persons, neutral point of view). Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used solely to prevent editing by unregistered and newly registered users, nor to privilege registered users over unregistered users in content disputes.
However, it also says, (B) Highly visible templates which are used on an extremely large number of pages or substituted with great frequency are particularly vulnerable to vandalism, as vandalism to the template may introduce vandalism to hundreds of other pages. Therefore, they are frequently semi- or fully protected based on the degree of visibility, type of use, content, and other factors.
I've always thought that (A) is not negated by (B) - ie, there's no reason to indefinitely (semi-) protect pages unless they've already been vandalised a fair amount. But I do realise that that isn't what often happens in reality.
Snottywong, I do take your points regarding trust - and I agree to some extent; but I just don't believe that is current policy. Personally, I'd probably support requiring (auto)confirmed to create or edit any template namespace page. And who knows, maybe that could get support. But I do also strongly support the 'open editing' model, wherever it is practical to handle potential disruption. The template is behind-the-scenes pipework stuff; if it were vandalised, it'd likely be noticed/fixed within minutes. And there's a zillion (est.) similar templates. We could maybe argue for indef-semi of all of them, but I think that'd need changes to policy... unless I'm misinterpreting something.
As I said - this case - no big deal. But it's an interesting topic. Chzz ► 18:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, recently several articles on academic journals have been proposed at AFC and I have seen cases where both "reject creation" and "approved" decisions were diametrically opposed to what is usual at the WP:WikiProject Academic Journals. Although only an essay, WPJournals habitually uses WP:NJournals to determine whether a journal passes the notability bar. In recent weeks I have seen articles rejected that clearly pass this bar, and other articles created that don't pass this bar. The latter is more inconvenient than the former, as editors (especially newbies) may be surprised if an article that passed AFC is subsequently deleted (either by a PROD or an AfD). I realize that people here do a lot of work fighting against a backlog and handling articles on all kinds of topics, so I realize that it will be difficult to avoid this kind of situation, but I thought it might be helpful if I posted a note about this issue here anyway. With much appreciation for all the hard work of you people here, -- Guillaume2303 ( talk) 14:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps we could implement a system that list AFCs with relevant WikiProjects, e.g. "This AFC was listed on X WikiProject", and then a subpage of participating WikiProjects would list pending and recently accepted/declined AFCs that are relevant to them. Just throwing the idea there, because Guillaume makes a good point in that AFC reviewers deal with all kinds of topics they are not necessarily knowledgeable about, and Chzz makes a good reply in that the standard most reviewers hold is not limited to the CSD criteria, but also to ensure something would also pass AFD, and establishing notability is somewhat difficult to do when something is poorly sourced. Of course, the nature of AFC makes it inconsistent in the way it deals with submissions depending on which reviewer reviews. Implementing some kind of collaboration system with WikiProjects might fix some of that, and then other things, not the least of which the occasional backlog. Just my 2¢. CharlieEchoTango ( contact) 00:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
This article appears to be a word for word translation from the French Wiki. I don't know how this is handled. I would have used the Italian version which has 3 times more material.
Happy Holidays to all you Wikipedians:-p -- I B d Shank ( Talk Talk) 02:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Houston, we have a problem! We are experiencing a high backlog right now, sometimes even severe. Any suggestions how to fix this? Hold off on submitting articles for review that were created but never reviewed for awhile until the backlog goes down?
Also, I've noticed that articles in alot of them have been declined but still have the template. Please remove them when declining. We should work on getting rid of the template on any articles that have already been declined.
Cheers, JDOG555 Talk 20:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment was removed by AQ!
That's not quite where I was coming from. The point I was making (which Kudpung and Scottywong picked up on) is that potentially some articles that are already 'fit for entry'—because they have gone through a comprehensive review process at AfC—are ending up at the queue at NPP. I tend to agree with Kudpung that a double control measure is a good thing as the quality and competence of AfC reviewers does vary—and anyone can have a go. I was simply asking a technical question about the NPP interface. For the reasons I have highlighted concerning reviewing I don't think a bot or script fix is the answer. Pol430 talk to me 17:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
As a reviewer who seldom visits this Wikiproject, I recently okayed Terence Macartney-Filgate for article space. I now see it's rife with close paraphrasing issues, something I obviously should have checked for and caught first. I'll make sure this is addressed promptly, either by the creator or myself. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I think I was trying to be too clever(!) by okaying an AfC
Malayapuram Singaravelu Chettiar, but then subsequently finding a pre-existing article
Singaravelu Chettiar about the same person. That's the result of not understanding the various forms of Indian names, I suppose.
So what should I do now? The existing article seems inferior and less well sourced than the new article. I guess the *correct* thing to do was not to release the new article but, having done so, would it be more constructive to propose merger of the two?
Sionk (
talk) 17:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)