Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Did something happen when I was not looking?

We have a bunch of submissions in user space with templates at the bottom, not the top, asking for review, not submission.  It sounds like a great idea to me; "Fix this and this, and your article should be fine."; but...  I don't think that we can do that.  We have to decline it, or it will be moved into Main Space.  Right?  Wrong?  Help please.  --I B d Shank (Talk Talk) 04:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I've recently reviewed several of these and, because I have only started reviewing recently I have treated them like any other submission. There is nothing anywhere that I can see that suggests we should reject articles because the AfC box is in the 'wrong' place. It is quite possible to move the articles to mainspace, if they meet the usual AfC requirements. The difficulty arises when leaving the standard message template on the author's Talk Page when an article is declined - I have been manually adding the Userpage path to the script. Will be interested to hear other alternate views... Sionk (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, but this seems to be new behavior, or a bug has appeared.  I know the submission bot is complicated enough, but there was talk earlier about two reviews, maybe it might be possible to review articles without submitting.  In fact that is the way I thought this was how AfC worked when I first arrived, because somewhere in the beginner stuff, I think it says "Submit for Review". Therefore, these editors may not be ready for their articles to be published, just looking for feedback.  Wouldn't it be better in the long run if there were a submit for review, and a submit for publication?  It might not be too hard to do,if it's for review, everything works the same, just don't move it to Main Space.  I really hate approving a so-so article and then tagging it to death.  In any case the submission template should probably be moved manually to the top of the article before review. I did not realize the user was missing from the template.  --I B d Shank (Talk Talk) 14:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You should not be approving articles if they are not up to scratch, if you are reviewing an article and the content is pretty good, but it needs some format fixes etc. then make the changes. Help out the author. If the article is not up to scratch, then decline with an appropriate reason. It's a judgement call based on how severe the problems are; equally there is little point in spending an hour carefully turning a jumble of refs into inline citations, if the refs are unreliable or the notability is in doubt. The point is, when you move that submission into main space, it should comply with PAG. Maint tags should be used sparingly. It is often helpful to leave a personal comment about the problems to augment the standard decline-template spiel. I do think you have raised a valid point about AfC tags. Currently editors are expected to add a new 'awaiting review' tag each time they want it re-reviewed. It is possible to leave submissions in 'review in progress' but often editors don't come back to work on their submissions after the first decline. The whole Wiki interface can be confusing to new editors, the AfC process is no exception, so more obvious instructions on 'what to do next' would probably be a good idea. I !vote buttons, like on the new CSD templates when you want to contest. People like buttons... Pol430 talk to me 19:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree 100%.  I was talking about a general problem with AFC.  IMHO something is broken at this time.  E.g., I look at an article in user space with template that says "This is not a Wikipedia article: It is an individual user's work in progress page..." and "Finished? Submit the page!"; and a section that says "Request review at WP:AFC"; another template says "Warning: this page should probably be located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ISresearcher".  I work here(so to speak), and I don't understand what is going on, imagine the poor new editor?  If it were me, I would think that my article is out for a 2nd opinion, not submitted for approval. I B d Shank (Talk Talk) 14:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

One issue that is also happening is that we are having a ton of non-substituted userspace templates and is is adding a bunch of text that needs to be manually removed from submissions (as I did here). I talked to Mabdul yesterday about the issue where a lot of submissions in the userspace were not being moved and he seems to have corrected it, so I'm assuming the bot probably fudged up somewhere. Honestly, we're working with five times the submissions we were a year ago, so it isn't surprising me that things are going haywire at this point. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, there are now multiple problems discussed. For the diff linked above we have to go back to the original first revision: the edit summary shows that the user subst the userspace template. I will contact Petrb if there is a way to include such a case.

Regarding the problem that there are too many synonyms: Yeah - we should improve this situation. I will propose tomorrow morning (~24 hours) some rewordings. Regards, mabdul 09:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

mmh, sadly I found it out why. Template:Afc preload/draft was "boldly" changed by Chzz (taking a break) using a substituted userspacedraft template. Defacto ALL new submissions did get following warning dispayed at MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-AFC. A full list of pages and users trickered the filter can be followed here So I busted the myth why we have "some" bad substitutions (one month of many!) mabdul 15:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Evergirls (TV Series)

I'm not sure how this review process goes, but this one has been sitting there for months and looks like an elaborate hoax to me.--Atlan (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like AFCbot removed the only submission template a few weeks ago. Is that working as intended? joe•roe^t•c 22:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Check again! The diff you provided is by User:173.62.130.181 and not by the bot! Regards, mabdul 00:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, my mistake. There you go then: it was un-submitted and so shouldn't be "sitting" anywhere we're paying attention. joe•roe^t•c 07:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

AFC script error

Someone might want to check out this error as it just wiped out a page instead of removing the AFC template. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I had a similarly entertaining error when moving an submission to the mainspace. Note to self, don't add 'del' tags to AfC comment text. :) Pol430 talk to me 16:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/WikiMANNia

Hello everybody. I've no idea how to upload the logo ( http://wikimannia.org/skins/common/images/wiki.png) here. Greetings --89.15.199.222 (talk) 10:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The 'Upload File' link should be on any main page in the left side menu.  It points here. --DCS(Talk Talk) 15:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

and is not available for nonregistered users. Please go to WP:FFU and request it there after the article was accepted. mabdul 19:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Second opinion please

I'd like a second opinion on the notability of the subject of: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Catherine D. Chatterley there are a lot of primary and self published sources. I've got it in 'review pending' at the moment. Pol430 talk to me 15:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd say the Winnipeg Free Press and the Canadian Jewish News articles, both of which offer some details about Chatterley, suffice to make her pass the GNG. On the other hand, the Guardian obituary doesn't even mention her and should be removed. Huon (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Non-notable in my opinion. The Winnipeg Free Press article is written by Chatterley, not about her. The sources provided generally prove things that are incidental to her notability. As already mentioned, the Guardian obituary doen't even mention her. Sionk (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Mind you, there is this article cited in the Wikipedia article about CISA which could tip the balance in favour of 'notability'. Sionk (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

That's the Winnipeg Free Press article I meant; it's also cited in the draft. I should have been more specific. Huon (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, I've created it on basis that some of the articles in the Winnipeg Free Press and the Canadian Jewish News were written by others and generally she seems to scrape past the GNG. If NP patrol disagree they can AfD it. Pol430 talk to me 19:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Missing archive part

Resolved

Why does Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects/2012-01 currently not appear in the archive box on the side? The archive is already (being) populated. 31.16.20.174 (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Because it was simply not added. Thanks for reporting. I added the header. mabdul 23:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks – just out of curiosity: Where does one do that? 31.16.20.174 (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects/Header. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 00:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. 31.16.20.174 (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

draft

I have drafted a new page for creation, which is available at Chriscook54321/Iain_King. Can someone check it and create a page for it, please? Thank you, Chriscook54321 (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I submitted your draft for a review. mabdul 14:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Bot helped required before AfC sinks.

The Bot who decides that an article is unsourced, has no-inline, or is short, please stand up.  We need you to at the same time decline these articles with "v" or "context" if their length is less than X bytes, X words, X sentences, or X whatever metric you use.  I know these are not required for acceptance, but it is at least 3 Sigma that these articles will be declined by reviewers.  This will probably reduce the load by 70%.  The author of the article can then argue their case, they do anyways.  With all the garbage being submitted, we are going to sink or burn-out. DCS(Talk Talk) 16:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Already tried that. See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Snotbot 8. I have a bot that's all coded up and ready to go. It automatically declines articles that unambiguously fail one of the AfC quick-fail criteria, and posts a nice message on the author's talk page about it. But, there was too much opposition to it (see this discussion). —SW— ^spout 16:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Just an idea from a talk page stalker: why don't we submit a new bot request for Snotbot to instead put all of the articles that fit that criteria into a separate category for unreferenced AfC submissions? (If such a category already exists, please forgive my stupidity.) Then it would seem the objections some have over bots declining submissions would be alleviated, and the submissions queue would get filtered more like CSD is (though the comparison may not be the most comforting to some). Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Roger that Steven.  We can already do that thanks to the formatting that already exists in the submissions list.  I use the size to knock out short articles when I don't have time to do real reviews, but it still takes a lot of time considering the number of articles that fall into this category. --DCS(Talk Talk) 19:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Roger that Scotty.  However, it appears that discussion took place in October 2011.  The average daily submissions were 74.2/day in September 2011.  December 2011 averaged 179.0/day, 141% increase. And, we have the following section (Wikipedia Education Program directing students here for new articles this term?) to deal with shortly.  I think the discussion should be reopened shortly before there is mass exodus or suicide at AfC. :-)--DCS(Talk Talk) 19:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Real life is a bit busy for me at the moment, but feel free to re-open the discussion somewhere and let me know if I need to answer any questions about the way the bot is coded. I can make any changes required to the code and get it up and running fairly quickly, but only if there is clear consensus for it. —SW— ^express 19:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Me too.  Busy, that is.  Kevin saved our butt's last week, but he is not here much longer I think because of school. --DCS(Talk Talk) 19:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Once again, the solution to our problem is not the creation of a bot that auto-declines. What we need is more reviewers. We get ~200 submissions a day. So, if we could just get 20 users to do 10 reviews every day, we wouldn't have any problems. The average reviewer can do ~20 submissions/hour, so reviewing 10 isn't all that time consuming. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Tend to agree with Alpha Quadrant, based on my limited experience. It looks like a couple of people can clear the easy 'declines' very quickly. The difficulty is with the chewy and crunchy ones that are not so easy and left behind to build up. And they *are* building up. They can only be dealt with by a human using more than a modicum of time, experience and judgement.Sionk (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Roger that Sionk & Alpha Quadrant.  I do not think anyone but a Super Bot can carefully review 20 submissions per hour.  And if they could, what is the incentive, since we don't even(on average) have 10 reviewers doing 10 per day at this time.  That being said, what would be the complexity involved in having the editors submit their articles for review before submitting for publication?  I'm thinking that may lighten the load to a certain extent in that a conscientious editor could submit his article for review, an editor could quickly tag the hell out of it and mark it done.  Theoretically, the conscientious editor would fix the tagged items and hopefully more.  When submitted with the previous review, the reviewer would not have be concerned with the common details missed in all but the best submissions. Just thinkin' out loud. DCS(Talk Talk) 20:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't have as much time as I would like to spend on Wikipedia but I try to visit AfC as often as I can and I always goto the back of the queue and look for the old prev-decs that have been lingering for a while. Although AfC is often backlogged, we have also cleared it several times. I tend to agree that all we need is another handful of experienced editors to spend some more time here. <joke> I don't think User:DeclineBot is the answer </joke> ;-) Pol430 talk to me

Of course not. DeclineBot wouldn't be able to keep the backlog down we would need a User:MassDeclineBot. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Ok.  Starting again.  I'm just looking for a proactive solution to a problem I see developing.  IMHO it's becoming "them" against "us".  They outnumber us 100, 1000, 10,000 to 1 and they are starting to work the system.  I just declined an article almost identical to an existing one that is AfD'd.  They can just keep submitting until it gets approved, the odds are in their favor.  They pit reviewer against reviewer, reviewer against administrator.  They tone down an article until accepted then quietly turn it into a big ad.  These are some hazards of a mostly volunteer organization.  IMHO we can keep talking about keeping the Wiki "pure", but without more tools, people, money to keep us ahead of them, reviewers are going to get frustrated, burned out, and quit. :- ) DCS 05:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm still here for another week, but honestly people are starting to game us and it is going to burn us out quickly. Just yesterday I had a user get mad at me because I declined an article. She then proceeded to go on IRC, rant against my "liberal bias" as it somehow must have made me decline it, showed her Twitter to the channel, which linked to my userpage, proceeded to rant against me some more, and then when I reluctantly created it, she left a polite note thanking me for doing it because it would be a great reference in the future (I'm sure if she knew of Wikipedia Review, there would be a thread over there as well). I mean, it is people like this that make us disillusioned with the whole process! Oftentimes, I see users resubmitting things four or five times, with no effort on changing it. I wish we could block people for doing this, because it borderlines on disruptive editting. In the end, we either get more reviewers, start making the wording more strict to essentially say, "You aren't notable. Do not create an article about yourself, your band, or anything else related to you." I have really pondered doing that lately as people are putting crap into the system, and it takes time to review, decline, and delete that crap! Also, we need to emphasize that if your article is declined, don't come crying to us, and go to the help channel. I am sick and tired of devoting a good portion of my day to answering e-mails and responding to talk page threads from users who frankly do not have any merit to their arguments (I do get legitimate stuff though, so it is worth it sometimes). I have started making subpages and modifying my edit notices so that people can think before they act, but sometimes it gets really annoying, to the point that I do not want to review articles anymore because I expect a barrage of stuff to reply to every day. I know that's a rant, but that's my feelings towards this process.Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, I got involved in this whole process again because there was a backlog of over six hundred submissions, dating back twelve days. We're at three hundred now and I will try to lessen it so that it doesn't blow up again tomorrow, but we need to recruit more people, lest we die. Of note, I found a backlog drive from a few years ago, and the whole thing was talking about a backlog of one hundred and sixty odd submissions. Ah, the good 'ol days. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree that its disheartening to see the same article quickly re-submitted and accepted by another editor. I tend to leave an AFC comment on my declined articles with an additional explanation of what I think is required, but I still get badgered to change my mind. I'm inclined to stop answering the queries on my talk page. After all, I learnt Wikipedia the hard way, by reading the instructions pages and learning to crawl before I could walk. IMO other people should do the same too. I don't have the time to become a personal Wikipedia coach at the mo.

There may be a case to make for augmenting some of the text in the 'decline' boxes. For example, the 'lacks notability' box seems to give many people the idea that notability is achieved by simply writing more words, or adding more superlatives, rather than adding good citations! Sionk (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

That's good to know that I'm not the only one thinking about doing that. I had a user today try to convince me that a guy who was shot out of the sky in World War II was as notable as another guy who shot down around fifty people. Honestly, I started a month ago by being nice and helping users, but honestly I have gotten so many requests for help that I am not unable to even provide full explanations, and I have to be very blunt with them. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the point about the text of the decline boxes, it's not great. The references to CSD criteria are, I think, largely irrelevant. I too get bored of people contacting me to see if their article about a nobody is now 'magically' notable because they changed one word, or waited until it was a Tuesday to ask me. It is undeniably a product of WP:CLUElessness. Having said that, if we were not here to take the flack, these articles would only end up in the mainspace and go unnoticed for years in dire straits. I have created a sub-page which attempts to explain in no uncertain terms some of the more basic 'Wiki rules'. This brings me onto my next point, about gaming the system; I have noticed that authors will start a page at AfC and then rather than try and work on it in AfC space, they will arbitrarily move it into mainspace and hope nobody notices. I tend to simply move such articles back, provided I am able to, but perhaps we should develop a common strategy for dealing with this? As for solutions to the backlog problems, I would suggest: 1) Use AWB to launch a recruitment drive for reviewers. Much like the GOCE do -- targeting experienced editors with a real background in content creation. 2) Revise the text of the decline templates to be more visible and make their point more clearly. 3) Set up some easy-to-find AfC sub-pages that can explain common policies and guidelines in an easy to understand, high impact way, aimed at new users who get TLDR when we point them to WP:N, WP:V or WP:ADVERT. As an example, WP:VRS is a good idea of what I mean. Pol430 talk to me 23:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

That is another thing that is bothersome on this site. I would support making something to watch for these moves, (maybe a user flag or something for afc) because we risk crappy articles making it live daily. Additionally, these impromptu moves are almost always messy! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I recently proposed retrofitting the reviewer flag for a similar function at Village Pump here. Although that proposal was limited to using it for making new pages as 'patrolled'. To say it received little support would be an understatement... Pol430 talk to me 01:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I would be really supportive of making the templates more blunt, although there is the immediate downside that it would end up hurting in the end, even though most users just exist to create their one article and leave. Honestly, I do not feel like I will be doing epic amounts of work this week, and this is concerning since I am usually the one who clears the backlogs. We need more reviewers, and the faster we do it, the easier it will be in the long run. Also, the more reviewers we have, the less people will be clamoring to reach my talk page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The constructive steps suggested by Pol430 sound great!! Just one suggestion, maybe this strategy should be outlined in a separate section here, because I'm having difficulty finding it in this monster thread!!! Sionk (talk) 02:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I have added a section break, which should suffice for now, until we do such a thing. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

When I first arrived on the Wiki, I naturally assumed that there was some kind of safeguard so that a person could not write an article then move it into Main space without approval of somebody else.  That sounds terribly risky to me.  If I were in charge, that would be a priority.  I assume there must be some good reason this can be done. :- ) DCS 04:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Why not simply routinely move protect declined articles? Flag them in some way so that online admins are alerted and do the necessary. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

We would need some sort of bot for that, as you are talking about tagging two to three hundred submissions a day. Additionally, you would block users who do eventually accept the declined articles from moving them. Also, some page creators are auto-confirmed, so it would make a whole royal mess of the thing since move protected pages would then become a quagmire. Honestly, we should just have a bot which reports whenever a user who has created the article moves it into the mainspace without doing it properly. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about blocking anyone, and I wasn't talking about all submissions. I was talking about about declined submissions. It would be easy enough for the 'decline' template to populate a category that is listed on the admin dashboard. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I know, I meant that you would be blocking out people who would need to move it in the future who aren't admins. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Kudpung's got a point. Just a few thoughts:

• To preserve the article history, sometimes a reviewer like myself who comes across a declined article with potential will work on it in declined-space and move them when they are done. Not a problem, since the cases of this are few. But what about the users who resubmit a week after a decline or something, and the non-admin reviewers who want to approve that article? Unless this is automated, I doubt the protection can be automatically removed when the article is improved and resubmitted.
• I don't think it's very practical to write a parser for the dashboard that would note the number of non-protected pages with the decline template , or the number of protected pages with a new submit template, although it's certainly possible.
• (edited post to add this point) https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12363 . Solution that includes userspace drafts.

In short: if Kudpung's idea could be implemented, it would be most efficient as far as I can see via a bot. Done manually, protecting pages wouldn't be the hard bit- unprotecting them would. And I'm not sure that making either a sudden new demand on admins without some notification first will be appreciated! Personally it'd be a much more useful solution in general to just enable NPP to include pages moved into mainspace, but some thought should be given to this in the interim given that the system has indeed become established enough that many are currently gaming it. sonia♫ 06:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Does NPP handle some of this?  I see their backlog is 13 December. :-(  From personal experience, I very seldom see anything in Main space that is really off the wall.  Maybe it's not really much of a problem? :- ) DCS 06:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a startling amount, if one does, say, simple cleanup work, of articles in mainspace that should never have fallen through the cracks. sonia♫ 07:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It will not work because blocking people from moving the pages in general will totally alienate people. One way that I get users off my back is that I tell them to move it themselves. You cannot move protect a page, and then a week later expect someone to create it who isn't an admin, because the user might be the writer of the article, who is autoconfirmed, allowing for anyone to move it. The only way that blocking moving would be acceptable is to have moving allowed for autoconfirmed users, but then eventually the writers would outsmart us on that and beat the system. If anything, we need to start stating on articles, "Your article is unnotable, please do not submit it again." or, "If you are not going to make the changes requested and keep submitting this again, you will be blocked for disruptive editting." Honestly, I have done the former once, and to my knowledge, it has not returned. The only downside to that is that someone would go onto IRC, bitch and complain about how they were mistreated, and cause a crapton of controversy because they would threaten to drag the media into this or something. Honestly, we have got to stop pandering to them. I am guilty of this, but honestly this has to stop because we are showing that if you try, you can break the camel's back. Anyone who is involved with AFC clearly knows of its flaws, so we should start a subsection now to address possible ideas and stop flooding this page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The page protection solution is not just awkward, but can be circumvented: they copy-paste move the article into a user sandbox, and subsequently move that into article space. IMO the only thorough solution is implementing bug 12363, which will list all moves into mainspace in Special:Newpages. Dcoetzee 07:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm with you Kevin.  That was part of the idea for the Bots to just kick back the articles that don't meet certain minimums.  Maybe we need to set some minimum rules and standards and stick to them.  From the discussion of the last day or so, I think the submission process needs redone from scratch or we need more people.  Otherwise, we will be plugging holes forever. :- ) DCS 07:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict):::::NPP is a broken process, that's why WP:ACTRIAL was received by a large consensus, but only to be rejected by the WMF. Wikipedia:Requested moves isn't part of the equation at this stage - move protection can be preset to any automatic duration expiry just as any PP - it just needs to be long enough to deter a user from rejecting the AfC within the first few days, and moving it him/herself. Temporary salting could also be considered (both are done on the same operation page). The Admin dashboard for anyone who is not familiar with it is at {{admin dashboard}}. You'll see that dozens of routine operations are linked to it so programmation is not a problem. The dashboard was created by Xeno. Perhaps Scottywong should be asked to chime in here too. What might not be so easy would be getting consensus over WP:PROT to be able to routinely protect/salt rejected pages for a while. That said, an AfC decline is pretty much the equivalent of a CSD/PROD/AfD because those are what would happen anyway if the article had been published immediately. What AfC does is to help user retention by not immediately deleting, but by giving the user an opportunity to understand why the page (in its present cast) is not acceptable, in a better way than the bitey deletion templates. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

If we ever bring page move protection or any other admin function into this process that isn't periodic deletion, I will quit AFC outright. What if we erred and decided to create it the next day? There is no way in hell that I will go ask an administrator to do something because that will get a whole heck of a lot of people pissed off at us. I already bother my admin friends enough, and that is just to see fit that things are carried out in a timely manner so that I do not have to wait four hours to get something done. We cannot even figure out a way to effectively manage what we have now, so why should we serve to complicate it further by involving more people who probably have no clue on how to review an article! There's also a shit ton of issues going on outside this project, so involving a few hundred more people will only serve to cause more confusion over here.

Also, an AFC decline is in no way the equivalent of a CSD/PROD/AFD. They are two completely different things! Honestly, a decline is just to tell you that your submission is not suitable, but that does not mean that we will not take a second look at it if it isn't a complete load of crap. Oftentimes, I will decline an article, because it will leave a notice at the user's talk page so that they can see why I declined it (a comment will not do this, and might leave it in the category for needless days, if the user does not know that we have said something completely vital to their work). If it is a complete load of crap, we'll probably CSD it on the spot. A CSD is to get it out of our face, while a decline is to allow for it to be created. A lot of the submissions that have no hope are also not deleted because it would take far more time than it would be worth for the project. Furthermore, the aforementioned things are aimed at eventually ridding the project of a page, not disillusioning thousands of new editors who will see their stuff removed from the project entirely. I realize that you have never probably editted here, and if you are going to suggest ways to improve something, at least be involved with the process for which you are proposing changes! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 08:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Education Program directing students here for new articles this term?

We at the Wikipedia Education Program would like to change some of our direction to students next term. We'd like to urge all professors and students first and foremost to expand stub or start class articles, but if students really, really want to create new articles, we'd like to ask them to go through AFC. Some students already have been using AFC, and given our strong push toward stub and start articles, I believe that it won't add much if any workload for the AFC team. We are also reducing the number of courses for next term to focus on quality rather than quantity, so we'll likely only have about 40 courses working on the English Wikipedia, so I doubt this would be more than 50 AFC requests total between now and May, and likely much fewer than that. I've chatted about this idea a few times on IRC with some AFC regulars over the last few months, and it seemed to be well received, but let me know (ideally in the next day or so as we're putting the finishing touches on our guides to students, and we'd like to remove references to creating new articles and replace them with direction to AFC!) if there are concerns. -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I like this idea. AfC is an ideal method of checking the student's work. It might be a good idea to have a separate AfC process for the students, so that it is easier for us to keep track of them, and for the students to find them. Making a custom template would be very easy to do. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Strongest possible support! Ditto AQ, a separate AfC queue may be a good idea. Pol430 talk to me 00:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Alpha Quadrant and Pol340! Let me know if there's anything I can do to help with setting up a separate queue -- is this something you'd like to do before we send students there, or only if it looks like there's a lot of students coming at once? -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll create a new param if everyone's okay with that. Not that students should be treated any more "nicely" than any other newcomers, but it should be taken note of that they are working under a deadline and that constructive support is critical. sonia♫ 20:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

If we are going to get more submissions, it might be wise to get more reviewers on board. We have too few users reviewing already (it's essentially me and three other people), so letting the ambassadors know that this is here and should have extra help might be better in the long run because it will also teach them about the process as well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

See above for an idea for getting more reviewers on board Pol430 talk to me 23:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

You know, Kevin has a point here. What we could do is, similar to (I think?) competitions involving GAs, is encourage people participating to review other submissions. In this case, I'm meaning ambassadors naturally, not the students! If an ambassador reviews as many articles as his group/class/pod is submitting, this should keep the added workload down; it's also a role suited for online ambassadors to practice guiding other kinds of newbies. sonia♫ 05:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, try getting ambassadors unlike myself to do this. I'm the only Campus Ambassador that I know of who does AFC as well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Not saying make it compulsory for ambassadors to be regulars, but I feel that working this process gives one a much richer insight into newcomers and what they have to bring to the table in general. I think Kev and myself can speak for that. sonia♫ 07:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

As a campus ambassador (and ex-regional ambassador), I agree strongly with directing WEP students through AfC, for the same reason I think all new articles should go through it: to get the support authors of new articles need to write an acceptable article and avoid rapid deletion and a bad experience. Campus/online ambassadors should review student edits and collaborate with AfC regulars to provide feedback to students as early as possible (I wouldn't expect all of them though to learn to be AfC reviewers). Together with the enforced CA/student ratio these will make a huge difference in quality. Dcoetzee 07:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I would wholly support getting all new articles to go through any process than the broken NPP system for which WP:ACTRIAL was designed to relieve. However, that proposal, which met with the consensus of a highly subscribed RfC was summarily dismissed by the WMF as being contrary to what they insist: that spontaneous creation and immediate live publishing is essential to new user retention - they believe (without out any supporting evidence) that any delay would turn potential new 'regular' Wikipedians away. As I mentioned earlier in a thread somewhat higher up, all the problems of AfC and the Wizard would be solved by the WMF's proposed Article Creation Flow landing page, but it appears to have been shelved in favour of proritising less urgent gadgets such as the AFT. LiAnna Davis declines to discuss the problems caused for NPP by the IEP, and eventually by the USEP. Maybe Tory's independent report that is due out any moment will shed some light.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Kindly leave the ACTRIAL at the door. There's a place for bringing up that issue, and it's not in this thread. sonia♫ 22:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Kudpung, I'm sorry you feel like I am declining to discuss something, as I feel like I've gotten a lot out of the various discussions I've had with you, and I was unaware that you felt that way. I invite you to leave me a message on my talk page directing me to places where you've asked questions or started discussions that you feel I have declined to participate in, and I'd be happy to go to those pages to answer any unanswered questions if I can, or tell you if I simply don't know the answer. -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I second Sonia's opinion. ACTRIAL is dead, Kudpung. Please stop trying to canvass it on every thread here, in a vain attempt of blaming the foundation. You sound like you are trying to blame them for being evil and not accepting it, when in reality it was the proposal itself that was flawed. Essentially saying, "Well, we had this wonderful proposal, but the foundation nuked it for no apparent reason," is not only immature, but you are starting to look more like a fool by placing it on every discussion you enter on this page and trying to say that it will be the godsend to all our problems. It is not, so drop it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Kevin, I'm not trying to blame the WMF. If you would take the opportunity to familiarise yourself with the history of the project and the facts, there is no 'blame' - an employee at the WF simply did not like it and refused to allow the required software implemention. WP:ACTRIAL is hence dead, and will not happen. It is relevant however because it would have directly addressed some of the issues under discussion here. After rejecting it, the WMF themselves came up with a proposal for a brilliant alternative system, for which I displayed great enthusiasm and for a while worked together with them to develop it further; It would have addressed the issues even better that ACTRIAL, AfC, the Wizard, and NPP combined. Although the community, including many others who were disappointed in the outcome of ACTRIAL shared and voiced that enthusiasm, the developer appears to have abandoned that project some 4 1/2 months ago. Hence we are still here looking for solutions. On your other issues I have left a message on your talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I was also a strong supporter of ACTRIAL. However, bringing it up repeatedly is looking to the past - we must come up with new solutions within the bounds of what the WMF considers acceptable. Likewise, the article creation workflow has not been abandoned - it's a complex software artifact that requires substantial dedicated time from volunteer designers and developers. If you want to move it forward, the best way is to politely recruit interested people in an appropriate venue to help implement it. Dcoetzee 07:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

ACTRIAL is dead - as I have repeatedly said, it will never happen. As long as the WMF has their hands on the software button, what they don't like won't get done. I have also said repeatedly that 'we must come up with new solutions within the bounds of what the WMF considers acceptable' - and one of those is Article Creation Flow which , if you take the time to read mw:Talk:Article creation workflow you'll see my enthusiastic involvement (which has included discussion and conferences far beyond what is on that page). It has been shelved for months however, while development has been prioritised on what in my personal opinion are less important issues. There is talk that it 'might' be taken up again around February, but I'm not holding my breath. Even if all stops are then pulled out, as you say, it's a complex tool, will take months to develop and more months to get any consensus for its use, and perhaps then a trial, followed by further debate before final implementation, not to mention mw:New Page Triage that must be done in parallel and which has suffered the same fate; and this will provide more proof of the delay. We're looking now at something like next Christmas. By then we'll have had the next phase of the IEP in our laps. So consider checking your facts please before you suggest that I 'politely recruit interested people in an appropriate venue to help implement it'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

People watching this thread, also note the thread #Wikipedia_Education_Program_and_sandbox_problem below. Dcoetzee 05:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Jessica Dykstra

A couple months ago, I created an article about model Jessica Dykstra. The article was deleted as she wasn't considered noteworthy by voters. She has since signed on with Frederick's of Hollywood. Does that change things?

The big picture to the left is her. http://www.fredericks.com/Heart_Lace_Panty/93788,default,pd.html -- Johnny Spasm 71.3.221.58 (talk) 10:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:GNG which will explain what makes someone 'notable' enough for a WP article. Generally she will need to have been noticed and received in-depth news coverage in multiple reliable sources. Sionk (talk) 12:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, she probably isn't there yet, but the article I wrote about her is pretty good if you wanna read it on my talk page JS--71.3.221.58 (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Newbies accepting their own articles

Possibly, with the increased backlog, newbies may be tempted to 'accept' their own articles and move them to mainspace. For example Collaborate: The Art of We, poorly sourced, un-notable, accepted within minutes of submission to AfC, badly named etc. What is done with these? I suppose the cruel but effective solution would be to speedy delete them! Sionk (talk) 12:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the article fits any of the speedy deletion criteria. I've prodded it and fully expect having to go through a full AfD because the author will likely remove the prod without improvement. In general, I don't see how this can be stopped. As soon as newbies have enough edits to "accept" their own articles, they need not go through AfC anyway. Basically, this is what newpage patrol is for, isn't it? Huon (talk) 13:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

NPP is a broken process. See my post above. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm tempted to agree, but I doubt speedy deletion via WP:IAR is the solution. Instead we'd have to be much more restrictive in granting "newbies" (the editor in Sionk's example had an account a year old, though less than 50 edits, I believe) move and article creation rights. Huon (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:ACTRIAL was designed specifically to be more restrictive in creation rights (4 days/10 edits) but it was felt by the WMF that such a mild measure would handicap their campaign to recruit new editors because it would deny them the spontaneity of being able to create an article that can go live immediately. No support was provided for that argument, but the trial that would have proven the theory one way or the other was denied. Ironically, it would have been over by now, and we would all have known for sure. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You may want to look on my talk page listed in the next section.  The Wiki it not a college newspaper any longer.  There are many people out there with agendas and they are not above working the system anyway possible.  Whether it's 10 edits or 500 edits.  I have found people moving more than 5 or 10 articles to Main space in a day.  Some with a few words.  Some quite extensive.  The editor appears to be an article submission mill for IP's.  AfC is drowning now, next will be AfD.  If this is an alphabetic thing, what is AfE? :- ) DCS 07:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you reporting these users? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 09:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

No.  As I have mentioned many times, I naturally assumed there were safeguards in place to prevent such things.  Silly me...  Ok, for a real quick example, check out Laura Hale and the New Listing :- ) DCS 15:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Those "self accepted submission" by LauraHale are userspace drafts. Editors are by no means required to submit their drafts here for a review. Again, this process is intended to help IP editors, not highly experienced editors who know how to create, revise, and move their own drafts. There is nothing wrong with doing this. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Roger that AQ, a bad example.  It just happened to pop up today in the new listing.  The one I saw was happening several weeks ago. :- ) DCS 15:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

AFC Discussion results

So, we all know that there is a problem with AFC. Below, I have gathered up what we have said in the threads recently as ideas of how to solve the problems, as well as problems:

Solutions

1. We give Snotbot 8 a new mission.
2. We get more reviewers, either from ambassadors, experienced users, or others.
3. Fix the AFC bot so that it automatically declines unsourced submissions.

Problems needing solutions

1. Figure out a way to prevent users from gaming the system.
2. Figure out an effective way to prevent angry users from threatening us and getting their way.
3. Figure out a way to be more blunt to users so that they can understand that their topic is not notable (although this could easily backfire).
4. Preventing users from circumventing the system by moving their own articles into the mainspace.
5. Figuring out how to accomodate the influx of submissions that will surely result from directing students here.

Ideas

1. Retrofitting the reviewer tag so that it applies to AFC reviewers and allows us to do the moves.
2. Create subpages that easily explain all of the decline reasons, as a lot of the official pages are lengthy and cumbersome to read.
3. Move-protect declined pages from being created by users.
4. If pages do get through, figure out a way to add them to the New Page Patrol page.

These are just the ideas which I have found and posted here, so feel free to correct or add to them. I would like to see what we support and what we do not in order to help figure out a solution before we inevitably implode. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, then to make it successful we will need to leave our project to the admins(sob......sob.....sob.) But please the idea is awesome. To do such a thing we will need another prototype Wikipedia still.--Ankit Maity ^{Talk • contribs} 09:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, A lot has been said whilst I've been working/sleeping... I basically agree with most of the suggestions identified above; however, I think we need concentrate on doing the things we know to be achievable in the short term. The idea about the reviewer flag for example, although a good one, is likely to be an uphill struggle to gain consensus, and require a monumental RfC! So, here is what I intend to start working on: Use AWB to send a usertalk message to everyone who has listed themselves as a participant in this project and appeal to them to help review submissions. Work on some updated project pages in my user space. Pol430 talk to me 12:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of AfC is not to make sure every single submission is screened before it is moved to mainspace. AfC was made to allow IP editors, who cannot create article pages, to create articles through a review process. With autoconfirmed accounts, they can create articles and move their own submissions. If they are tired of waiting for a review, there is no problem with moving it themselves. They just have to face the consequences if the article isn't ready. We can't go around policing self-accepted submissions. If a user doesn't want a review, so be it, that's their prerogative. It might be possible to create an edit filter to track when a user accepts their own article. Either that, or we remove the big "Accept" button from the pending template, which automatically preloads the move. From the submitter's perspective: "I have spent a week waiting for a review. Is it ever going to happen? Hey... there is an "accept" button, maybe I can do this myself. Hmm it worked, but now it has this odd blue and white banner on it... maybe it will just go away on it's own." Remove or rename the "Accept" button, and the self accepts will drop away almost entirely. We all use the script, so I don't see much of a problem with that. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah let us remove the accept button! mabdul 00:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone's been busy, the AfC backlog has reduced from 320 to 20 this evening!! Re the above comments, I fully appreciate that AfC's role is to prevent the worst articles getting through (rather than only allow the perfect). Registered users 'accepting' their own articles is not 'gaming' and if their article is poor they will face the NPP gestapo. But I'm wondering whether users who repeatedly re-submit their articles without making any improvements should be warned for disruption! Re point S3 I'm wondering how a Bot will recognise an unsourced article, considering the multitude of ways sources can be added - inline, external links, internal links, simple text etc. Sionk (talk) 01:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

yes, removing the accept is fine by me. sonia♫ 01:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The accept button is back... Pol430 talk to me 20:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

And I removed it again! mabdul 21:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Alpha Quadrant suggested on renaming it, although users are still moving them, so I cannot be sure if they are using that or not. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

About the projects sub-pages

I have been looking over this projects sub-pages for ways to improve them. My first observation is that some of them seem to be a bit unwieldy. For example we have two sets of reviewing instructions: the full set and an abridged set. We direct more experienced editors to the abridged set, but it would seem 'cleaner' to have just one set of well written instructions. Also, I find the pages difficult to navigate. The reviewing instructions seem to be only accessible via Wikilink. Would it be a good idea to have a page tab that points to them? The resources tab does not link to the reviewing instructions at all.

The list of participants contains a manually edited list that does not place people in Category:WikiProject Articles for creation participants. Perhaps get rid of the list and transclude the category instead? Thoughts... Pol430 talk to me 14:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The second idea sounds pretty sensible. The first, yes; we need a revamp: I'll try to write a friendlier guide to replace both. sonia♫ 01:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Removed. Also, I am all for making stronger wording on the info page so that they understand that they are not notable. Honestly, stronger wording will be helpful, and if they really think that they are notable (or are just being disruptive), they'll still submit. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent moves

I've just implemented a Toolserver tool called Recent moves that shows all moves into mainspace, to help patrol such moves. The interface is intended to resemble Special:Newpages. It allowed restriction based on the move-from namespace. I'd like to get some people to start using this to look for problematic new articles created using moves, and would appreciate suggestions on other places to advertise it. Feedback and suggestions are welcome. Dcoetzee 10:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Excellent! A brilliant initiative. I'll add this to WP:NPP in the tools list in the hope that they will check it out sometimes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

bolding the moving user, maybe move the name to the front; implement a "whitelist" for well known reviewers so we are able to track the bad ones... But good page! mabdul 00:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Analogous to Special:NewPages I now highlight moves by users who are not autopatrollers, and you can also filter out all moves by autopatrollers. Dcoetzee 10:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Something broke

As you can see in Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates something is wrong lately with the creation of new discussions. Somebody added "subst" to some template, and now all "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation" pages substitute the {{Userspace draft}} template. Will whoever did this please undo his edit asap, please. Debresser (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I might have talked to Mabdul about that, so this pretty much addresses it.

Thank you for your swift reply. Is anybody going to fix this (by replacing the substituted template with {{Userspace draft|date=January 2012}})? Debresser (talk) 05:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Mabdul might be able to, though. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, we need an admin. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Why do we need an admin for this? I just fixed 9 of the 103 pages in the category. Debresser (talk) 06:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh crap, I thought you meant in the template Userspace template. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done All 103 fixed. Debresser (talk) 07:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Education Program and sandbox problem

Hi all, today during the SF training the issue was raised that educators in the Wikipedia Education Program are accustomed to having students build new articles in a user sandbox. Since we're considering putting new articles through AfC, the question arises: should students be creating new articles as AfC subpages (drafts) and working on them here, or should they create them in their sandboxes as before and later move them to AfC when they're ready to considering moving to article space? Thanks for your thoughts. Dcoetzee 21:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I would say sandboxes, because we might tag them as untagged articles in our namespace and allow them to be reviewed by accident, thus potentially backfiring on the users. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

If they were clearly marked in AfC space (i.e. a custom template AfC template), we wouldn't have that problem. And by having all of the articles at AfC, we would have them in a central location. I also noticed that one of the universities that is going to be involved in the Canada Global Education program has ~1,500 students, so the review script would be really helpful. (See Wikipedia:Canada Education Program/Courses/Present#Introduction to Psychology, Part II) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't the AFC bot automatically move userspace submissions? So they could work on them in userspace, add the submit template, and it'd get moved? Or am I behind the times again? sonia♫ 03:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Sonia, it does, but only when you give it the AFC tag. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Uhm, that was pretty clearly implied in my post. Thought so.

In that case, D, sandboxes is really the way to go. All students should be instructed that, when ready, they should add that template; as far as I know, it generates a suggestion to move to AFC space anyway, even if the bot doesn't work. I'd much prefer that to CAT:AFC suddenly ballooning as the end of semester nears. sonia♫ 05:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

@Alpha Quadrant: I don't think that many students will actually be participating, in light of the enforced 1:15 campus ambassador to student ratio (really large classes will only have some students participating). I think moving AfCs from userspace to AfC using {{subst:afc submission/submit}} is ideal, as the userspace sandbox is what we've been teaching for a long time, and it's what students will be using who are expanding existing articles, since AfC doesn't address those (consistency is good). I did a test submission to see if User:ArticlesForCreationBot will move a user sandbox into an AfC subpage, and it did very quickly. I'll make a note to the staff that students should submit when ready, but I do reasonably expect since students in one class tend to share a deadline that many of them will tend to submit simultaneously (but not 1500!) Thanks for your help. :-) Dcoetzee 05:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The only downside to the bot is it misses userpages, talk pages, and other various places that they are created in. Obviously there is a reason for this, but maybe it should notify the user to this issue and offer them help. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 08:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

A more important thing to note is that the sandboxes shouldn't be user:x/sandbox, but should have descriptive titles for this to work! sonia♫ 10:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if they use sandboxes and submit them later (if they think the drafts are ready) or if they start with a pending draft... In both ways they get their submissions to WT:AFC! I hope that the teachers explain them no to do copyvios and how to cite correctly. (I don't think so - by experience) I see more the problem that we simply haven't enough active reviewers (yes, I'm not reviewing that much, but I have simply no time for such tasks!) for another 1.5k drafts. mabdul 12:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

They probably shouldn't start with a pending draft. It'd just get reviewed right away when the student is just starting out; a wholly unnecessary waste of time for the reviewer, and a huge discouragement for the student. sonia♫ 12:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

@Sonia: I already let them know about giving subpages good names, that's an important point. @Mabdul: As I already mentioned, there is not really any class with 1500 students participating in the program, due to the hard 1:15 campus ambassador to student ratio. Moreover, many students (perhaps most?) are expanding stubs or adding sections to existing articles, and they won't be going through AfC. So there is no need to fear being overwhelmed, although the number of submissions near the end of the term may be on the order of hundreds. Dcoetzee 12:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

@sonia ups, I meant of course the article draft option ;) mabdul 16:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

can somebody explain me...

Resolved

This is esp. a message to AQ: Wikipedia:Article_wizard/Ready_for_submission what is at the moment the differences between the two options? They both add {{subst:submit}} and thus getting a direct review. Did you/we/Chzz change something and thus broke? mabdul 15:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The preload was changed. I fixed it. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Good news!

So, thanks to Tim Song, Derrick, and myself, we have fixed the AFC script so that it will now include a decline parameter for missing inline citations. This can be found right below the "V" part, but it also will help us in that it will provide a better explanation for an underused thing (the category currently has eighteen pages in it, and more could definitely be added). Additionally, the accept parameter will now allow for many more classes to be added to it, so that there won't be pages created without project classifications on them. I have still yet to address why template creations have an error on them, but I'll try to figure that out in the next week or so. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria

"Hoax" is not listed in quick fail criteria. If an article is an obvious joke, do I CSD it or should a decline template be used? The section "quick fail criteria" should say something about this because some of the reasons for declining are otherwise criteria for speedy deletion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, it is in the "suitability" subsection. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that is partially my fault. I editted the template the other day in order to allow for the hoax parameter to be included with the joke decline reason, and I apparently didn't see that one. The whole aim is to make it easier to CSD them. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Reviewing articles section incomprehensible

No wonder there is a backlog! The "Reviewing articles" section does not give sufficient information for a user to start reviewing articles. I cannot be the first person who came here and could not figure out how to use the templates. What should users do with the "ts, u, or ns parameters" and what do they mean? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what those parameters mean, but I believe you should just leave them alone. All you have to add to the templates if you decline a submission is a "d" and the reason from this list. If you accept a submission, you remove the entire template and still don't have to worry about what those parameters meant. I found the short instructions quite sufficient, actually. Huon (talk) 16:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually the short version of editing procedures is more informative in some ways.  The easiest way to review is to install Twinkle.  Twinkle makes life so easy. :- ) DCS 18:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Blue Rasberry, there's a script for that: User:Timotheus Canens/afchelper4.js. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a heads up...

Watch out for users making it appear as though their pages exist on another Wiki, as a lot of them are hoaxes, including this one. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:52, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I have solved the AfC problems

Maybe. :-p
I have written up my ideas on how to run AfC on my talk page

I think it may eliminate a lot of issues.  Please take a few minute to read and think about it.  If it has some merit, we can move it somewhere and discuss.

Thanks. :- ) DCS 18:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Right now, the process is black and white. If the article isn't ready, it is declined with a reason. If the article is ready, it is accepted. Creating a user right where users are required to have the flag in order to review is a bad idea. We need more reviewers, not less. Articles cannot be created by IP addresses, which is why AfC exists. If we were to move the process to userspace, IPs wouldn't be able to submit anything because they can't create non-talk pages. We have all of the submissions in AfC, so we can keep track of them. If the article submission violates policy, then it is deleted under the general CSD criteria. I think your change will make the process excessively bureaucratic and difficult for new users. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

A lot of those ideas will cause more harm than good in the end. I'm pondering creating a subpage for this, just so we can vote on ideas. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed Editors can move article directly to Main space?(T or F) :- ) DCS 06:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

True. That is what you are. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 09:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Did some more editing and moved here. :- ) DCS 17:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Your proposal is essentially to keep anyone, including highly experienced users, from creating mainspace articles. They would have to create it in userspace, and only a reviewer would have the technical ability to move the page to mainspace. While this would eliminate new page patrol, it would backlog AfC, and we would be flooded with both good and bad articles. This proposal is out of just the Articles for Creation scope, this is project wide. I don't think the community would accept it though. Attempting to get the move button removed from autoconfirmed and added exclusively to reviewer will be impossible. It would create a massive burden on the admins and there are thousands of non-admins that use the move button correctly. Making it impossible for all users to create mainspace articles without review will also be impossible. How would you explain to a user with 20 featured articles that their work needs to be reviewed before it can be in mainspace? They would be quite insulted by it. What is the point of even reviewing their work. We have autopatrolled for this purpose. If set up this way, it would basically make a manual new page patrol, which would take much longer than the current version. Articles for Creation is a project to allow IP editors the ability to create articles. Registered users are out of this project's scope. We still handle their article submissions, but that is not the reason we are here. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I would have to echo Alpha here. A lot of that is written in good intention, but the idea would just hurt us in the end because it would make a lot of things more complicated than they already are. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Changes on the JS helper script and many declines

Dcoetzee changes the JS helper script and many person decline drafts because of lacking inline citations, but that is no valid reason to decline a draft! Yes, it is an issue, but simply that the draft as {{no footnotes}} and accept it if there aren't any other reasons - of if it contains URLs (and if the draft is not that long) then simply fix the issue on your own! Please remove the new decline parameter of the tool and don't do (custom) declines because of lacking inline citations. mabdul 19:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Not quite true, inline citations are generally held to be a requirement for certain content. Per WP:MINREF. Pol430 talk to me 19:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

"Our sourcing policies do not require an inline citation for any other type of material, although it is typical for editors to voluntarily exceed these minimum standards. Material not supplied by an inline citation may be supported with WP:General references or sources named as inline citations for other material. If you can't find the source of a statement without an inline citation after a good-faith look, ask on the talk page, or request a citation." - So what? - Oh and the four cases which were mentioned (which need a reference) are normally not in an AFC draft... mabdul 20:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

For AFC inline citations should certainly not be required. We are dealing with new contributors here mostly who would not know how to do this. The idea is to keep the bar to entrance low so that we create articles. Not to get the article to GA standard before it is accepted. I am looking through what has been declined recently and accepting much of the material. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, we do have a lot of users who will bend over backwards to get an article approved, so I see no harm in asking them to do something for us. Besides, if I think it is viable, but needs a little work, I will save it to my favorites, go back and fix it a few days later, and then accept it. 21:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, please to do not blame Derrick for this, as I only asked him to do it. If anything, go blame me, as I wrote the script modifications. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

For the record I'm not saying that articles without inlines should be declined as a matter of course; however, there are occasions where it may be appropriate to do so. @Mabdul, I have reviewed many submissions that contain contentious statements about BLP subjects, or that otherwise fall within the definition of those four examples. Contentious does not mean defamatory or derogatory it is simply material that is likely to be disputed—which is all rather subjective. Further, I am not disputing peoples right to use inlines other than ref tags. Finally, I agree with Kevin's sentiment asking the authors of article submissions to fix the problems with the submission before it is accepted. I don't hold with the idea of just accepting articles and tagging them to death on the basis they will get better in time; dead link, orphan, new articles are unlikely to spotted by many other editors except for the New Page Patroller...If one ever looks at it. Pol430 talk to me 22:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I disagree with tagging articles, because our backlogs take five years to be addressed. It's just best to nip it in the bud, really. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

@Pol430: then it is better to tag these statements with and explain that we can't accept pages with such statements until we get inline references - but please don't insist on inline references per se. mabdul 21:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

@Mabdul: I'm entitled to my opinion; which on this occasion, does not appear to match yours. I think it is now time to drop the stick. Pol430 talk to me 19:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Guitar Hero Characters. Help Anyone?

I doing an article about Johnny Napalm and there isn't much about all the guitar hero characters. Would anyone do anyone else other than Johnny Napalm. Help... Anyone...

Jacob Koopa (talk) 08:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Jacob Koopa

You might check here:  Portal:Music. :- ) DCS 17:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Fortuna redirects

I am wondering why the redirects I've requested have been declined. The decliner said I needed internet proof they are used outside of Wikipedia. But the target article used the term so why would I need to find a source that uses it if the article uses it? And alternate punctuation is also being rejected for lack of sources, except I'm using commonly found alternate punctuation for this type of article/subject, and phrasing commonly found for these. (I'm referring to the Fortuna cruise ship requests) Indeed, the issue of hyphenation is in WP:NC-SHIPS showing both forms used.

It seems that these are what are usually created, and normally pass WP:RFD without being deleted.

76.65.128.132 (talk) 11:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The target article is mostly unsourced; in particular so is everything it says about a "Fortuna class". I'm tempted to remove that entire section, which would make this discussion moot. The two Wikipedia articles actually using the term "Fortuna class cruise ship" don't have sources referring to a Fortuna class either. If Wikipedia is the only place to use the exact term "Fortuna class cruise ship", it is hardly a likely search term, is it? Huon (talk) 12:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

That the term occurs in the article is why the redirect was requested. That's sufficient for a redirect to survive RFD, and was the standard used at AFC before for creating redirects. That "Fortuna class cruise ship" is the form recommended by NC-SHIPS should make that a viable redirect, since if you're familiar with the naming of ship articles on Wikipedia, then this formulation would then be expected to exist, if a class article exists. That English grammar rules turn spaces into hyphens for adjectival forms should make "Fortuna-class" a viable redirect, and is also covered by NC-SHIPS. If the title is a compound noun form, it would be "Fortuna class cruise ship" if it were an adjective-noun form it would be "Fortuna-class cruise ship" should allow for that formulation as well. Afterall, WP:CHEAP.

If you do remove the section, yes it becomes moot in requesting the creation of these redirects, but since the section exists, and existed when the redirects were requested, it does not render the decision to not implement them at the time of the request, moot.

If in future I request redirects to be created for a well referenced article, using a hyphen, or with the ship type attached to the redirect name, should these be rejected, as you rejected the ones requested this time. -- is why this isn't moot, even if you remove the section from the Destiny article.

76.65.128.132 (talk) 06:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed all that unsourced stuff. I still fail to see how it would have helped to create redirects which I'd now have to nominate for deletion. Redirects are cheap, but creating them just to get rid of them again seems outright stupid. I also still fail to see how "word combination X Y Z appears in the article, therefore we should create a redirect" is a valid line of reasoning. Regarding well-referenced articles, you'll find that I did create the various Triumph-class redirects because there references at least seemed to exist (though not in the article). It's not as if my standard of "seems to actually be in use" is unreasonably high. Huon (talk) 13:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It's that when I found use of "Fortuna class" and you created those redirects, I don't see why "Fortuna-class" would not also qualify, or "Fortuna class cruise ship", since the hyphen shows an adjective form, and from WP:REDIRECT such things would qualify for creation, or that the recommended title formulations from WP:NC-SHIPS (Fortuna class cruise ship) wouldn't also qualify. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 06:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Twinkle request

We could use a new option in Twinkle.  We have a merge into option, but once in a while, I find an article that should replace the existing article.  Maybe a "Merge From" along with the "Merge Into".  Or, in some cases a "Delete and Replace". -- :- ) DCS 18:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the "already exists" and "merge to" declines are really bad: nobody get any notice of the draft with sometimes useful refs/information in. Last sommer(?) I went through some of the drafts and merged them and marked the old afc drafts as G6 (housekeeping). I stopped after the third admin declined this procedure - after clearing ~50 of the drafts. mabdul 13:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I have been using other reason and explaining situation.  The editors have managed it, so far. :- ) DCS 17:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Good news

We only had eighty-eight submissions yesterday. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

And the backlog has been clear for over 12 hours. Whatever caused this remarkable feat should should be enabled permanently. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

A lot of hard work by a few, which can not be maintained indefinitely. :- ) DCS 17:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, we're at 171 submissions now. Also, the bot updated after we restarted, so we're at 94 for the other day. Also, I'm starting school soon, so I might not be able to single-handedly clear backlogs anymore. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Citation video

I found a video tutorial on editing, but I believe it stops at Citations.  Do we have a Citation Video?  It is without question that most rework of articles has to do with citations.  If there is not one, I would like to attempt doing one.  ?? :- ) DCS 17:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

General Question

If I want to submit an idea for an article, template, category, etc. for someone else to make, will that work? Allen (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested articles is the correct place for such requests :) Pol430 talk to me 21:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Chzz

We need to do something! Chzz is taking (finally) a wikibreak and his bot (is luckily) still informing new editors that their AFC drafts don't have any inline citations. Many editors responding at his talkpage at the moment, but nobody is responding. Maybe we should redirect this talkpage (of the bot) and of the AFC bot to a new feedback page. What do you think? mabdul 13:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No, although it might be better to lock it and fix the edit notice to scream at people that fact. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

What I've seen with our tests with bots, it works best to simply change the notice the bot sends to point to a different page directly. Leaving a notice on the bot's talk page certainly couldn't hurt either though. ;) Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 04:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Redirecting the Drawing Board to the Article Wizard

The drawing board is a noticeboard where users can discuss ideas about new articles, however it has very little activity, and users are most often confuse about what the purpose of this noticeboard is. I think it should be deprecated and users directed to the article wizard, which guides new users quite well and proposes feedback on suggestions of articles via IRC. Cenarium (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the help desk would be a better target. It appears the purpose of that noticeboard is to help users before they write an article. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I am one of the helpers there. It only gets used once a week, unless a class of students finds it. It has the advantage over the help desk in that there is already context that someone wants to write an article. The help desk will be a more confusing place for these new people. I wonder how often that people come back to see what happened with there proposal. I am not convinced that redirecting would be useful to the people that use it. Perhaps it could be renamed to proposed topics or something else. I suspect that the users that find their way to the drawing borad already would have had the choice of using the article wizard. So it would not be useful to send them into the wizard. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The two projects should then be better integrated with each other. At least, a note can be made in the wizard about the DB at the same time it suggests going to IRC for help - for those users who are unsure about whether to proceed, and the DB should showcase the wizard more prominently, as a possible next step. Cenarium (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, this noticeboad is somehow useless. Nobody will create such an aticle only because somebody post there their PR stuff. We really should redirect it to WP:AFC. mabdul 14:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Mabdul, I think the proposal is to redirect it to the article wizard, not AfC, which makes sense to me. But it probably shouldn't be done without the support of users who continue to patrol that noticeboard, even if it is not frequently used. —SW— ^talk 15:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Ups, yeah you're correct, I alway miss that there is a difference... I will add in a few minutes a button for the first page in the wizard to request an article. mabdul 11:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The helper script

Just to put everyone on notice: I will not be adding any additional features to this script. It was originally somewhat hackishly cooked up in a few days, and wasn't very well designed at all. Tackling on new features just makes it harder and harder to maintain. Maybe one day, when I have a lot of spare time, I'll do a complete rewrite, but until then, I will only deal with actual bugs or breaking MW changes. If you want a new feature, please start your own fork. T. Canens (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hiccups again?

The Submissions page is no longer updating itself, hasn't done so for 8 hours or so. Is something being tweaked? It's difficult to know at the moment what the current status is. Sionk (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It appears that the IRC feed is down also. :- ) DCS 19:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

When this happens, 99% of the time it's because the Toolserver was restarted or had an outage. For future reference, just give me a ping, either on my talk page or on IRC in ##earwig ^connect, and I'll fix it ASAP (takes about half a minute). — The Earwig ^(talk) 04:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Submissions page has not been updating/clearing itself for almost 48 hours now. It's difficult to know what has been reviewed and what hasn't. Rather discouraging. Or maybe I'm just being negative :( Sionk (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

{{Toolserver}} replication lag is really high right now, as you can see from that template (~7 hours; check the documentation to see what that means). The bot doesn't run when replag is really high, so we'll have to wait until the servers calm down and catch up. — The Earwig ^(talk) 02:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Replication lag is 26 seconds as of this time. :- ) DCS 09:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Hoorah! I notice we've been receiving over 400 articles a day, much more than any day in the early weeks of January! Sionk (talk) 10:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

A stupid question

When a editor submits an Article for creation, it is moved to Wikipedia Talk:Articles for creation/Article.  Why can it not be moved to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Article with a Talk page?  Then we don't have to clutter up the article page or various User Talk pages with discussions.  As we are rejecting more and more articles, discussions are ending up everywhere.  I believe I even saw a decline template that said to discuss it on the Article's Talk page.  :- ) DCS 07:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Why aren't you able to move the talkpage to the WP namespace? It is totally legit and the "tools" section in the submission template even has a button to do this with a notice for a discussion - although this is really seldom done. mabdul 11:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeap, you're right. I noticed it being done more and more.  Maybe we could make it the default action and remove the option?  I suppose the submission script and any reviewer scripts(e.g. Twinkle) might have to be modified?  That could be a draw back now that it is so busy. :- ) DCS 15:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

They start there because unregistered users can only create pages in talk namespaces. joe•roe^t•c 18:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation Joe.   :- ) DCS 22:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Now for the Soap Box again.  I just saw an urgent request for help with "New Pages".  They are like a zillion days behind.  I know I keep bringing up the fact that I don't think it is wise to just let anyone move pages to Main space.  But, IMHO, the Wikipedia is becoming to big to stay with the old ideas until we drown.  I looked at the first 10 pages in the "New Pages" list, and this was the best article.  If it takes a month to get an article through AfC, then that's just the way it's going to have to be.  In the time it takes NPP to clean out the chaf, twice as much will have flowed in.   :- ) DCS 22:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That article was not moved to mainspace, it was created in namespace. Please see WP:ACTRIAL, it has been proposed, and the Wikimedia Foundation rejected it. It doesn't matter how many editors you convince, it isn't going to happen unless the Wikimedia Foundation is convinced. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 23:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The result is the same.  I read about Dead Horses and sticks in the Wikipedia, so I will be quiet.  Not happy but quiet. :- ) DCS 23:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree; see WP:ACTRIAL. Grr.  Chzz  ►  16:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

User_talk:Example

I'm glad to see that after so many years of inactivity (a single edit in over six years), User:Example is now submitting articles for creation. A pity they are all getting rejected. Manning (talk) 10:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

new relevant bot task

see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ArticlesForCreationBot 5 and comment there ;) mabdul 15:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Article

Hi, I submitted a stub for publication days ago but nothing seems to be happening with it. It hasn't been posted and I've had no feedback. Can someone let me know what's happening please. There seems to be some massive backlog or its gone AWOL somehow.

Why did the procedures get changed? It used to be relatively straightforward to post an article but now it's become very difficult. I dont understand the reasons. Overall the new procedures seem to be working against the aims of the whole Wikipedia project.

Can someone get back to me please.

Thanks, Manticore83 (talk) 09:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as I understand, the new procedures were introduced to stop the large amount of inappropriate new articles being created without review. I agree, there is quite a backlog at the moment. This a partly to do with the recent significant increase in submissions and partly because some of the more prolific AfC reviewers are not around temporarily.

Articles are still getting reviewed, but it's taking 5 or six days, rather than 2 or 3. I see someone has reviewed your article but forgot to inform you! Sionk (talk) 13:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Checking his contributions, I recognized that his draft was already reviewed, but the reviewer missed to inform him. I will leave a message on the reviewers talk page that he/she should use the helper script ;) mabdul 13:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

On a serious note, when it comes to a backlog of near two weeks, please let me know. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Things have changed a bit?

Hey guys. I decided to come back to AFC after being gone for about a year. Things have changed a bit? Wondering if someone could kindly give me a quick rundown of how things are going, and how the process changed, if at all. Thanks. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It depends. Yes, it changed dramatically in some ways, some didn't changed.

• The wizard as it is didn't really changed:
  • The userspace option was replaced with a pending draft system which creates "a userspace draft at WT:AFC/ space"
  • The option to create directly a mainspace article was removed
• The design and wording of the templates/comment were improved and we added feedback links and contact links to the reviewer
• Tim's AFC helper script was updated (the best to use that one ;) ); feel free to report feature requests/bugs
• the {{userspacedraft}} template was "improved" - the move button was replaced with a "request a review" button
• because of the above mentioned changes we have now ~200 submissions a day (WP:AFC/S)

mabdul 12:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

EditFilter

I don't know how many people are aware of this, but I created filter 167 quite some time ago to catch malformed submissions to AFC. I used to peruse through the hits manually to uncover AFC submissions that did not show up in the category, but I guess I was the only one doing that. So anyway, there's probably now a years worth of uncategorized submissions in there. Is it possible for one of the AFC bots to go through the hits and tag the articles? I'll be doing so myself in the meantime. Thanks. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm also following that filter and luckily I was aware that Chzz changed our preform to subst:userspacedraft :( (and a second problem.) Now the filter should not catch that many. Our AFC bot also runs every month (?) and filling a cat containing articles without any submission template (which was cleared a few days ago)... mabdul 15:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I guess I was worried about nothing then. Thanks! Someguy1221 (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Strong suggestion we change submission template.

The Submission Template now says, "This might take several hours, or even days, at busy times."  The articles we care about are taking several days, minimum.  The editors of articles we don't care about are getting upset if it takes 2 hours.  I suggest it says "several days", because that looks like the future.  Reasonable people will be reasonably accepting of the change, unreasonable people will never be reasonable. :- ) DCS 04:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

How about we go with "This might take some time", to save us changing it back and forth in future? joe•roe^t•c 18:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable.  Several hours is most unlikely at this time. :- ) DCS 20:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I also saw an interesting thing in my Watch List, someone CSD's an article that was in the AfC directory.  Maybe there is a way we can stop the template from doing that.  Just another saved headache.  :- ) DCS 15:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

"someone CSD's an article that was in the AfC directory.  Maybe there is a way we can stop the template from doing that." ? All "CSD criteria" of G (for General) apply also to the AFC stuff and really should be deleted. dunno what you are talking about a template, maybe you are talking about {{afc clear}}? if so, this is the only correct thing! mabdul 16:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It was a {{db-spam}} template. :- ) DCS 16:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Which is actually a redirect to {{db-g11}}, one of the general templates that can validly be added to spam in whatever namespace. So what? Huon (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

If the article is in AFC space awaiting review, isnt's it our decision?  But, it might be a good clandestine idea to reduce our backlog. :- ) DCS 20:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

We have been CSDing submissions under the general criteria since mid 2010 after a discussion. Not all reviewers use CSD though. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 23:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I do get upset myself when I see people tagging AfC stuff with db-spam, but WP:OWN applies to projects as well as to articles. Attack pages, vandalism, and copyright violations should of course be blanked or deleted, but not spam. And I say that because even in the case of spam, the author actually came to our project to ask us if the content is OK, and possibly expecting feedback on how the article can be improved. Slapping the submission with db-g11 just looks bitey in that regard. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I just reverted one of Alpha's speedy's, as it could possibly be improved. Please do not bite the new users! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that 'routine' spam AFCs don't need CSD, but if something simply says e.g. BUY VIAGARA HERE!!11eleven! then I tend to use CSD. BTW I cleared the backlog.  Chzz  ►  03:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

(Pokes Chzz) Hey buddy, are you alive? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Decline Templates

Resolved

While were are talking about decline templates.  Can we copy the reviewer's name to the template?  It's really not very useful to have ArticlesForCreationBot on 4 decline templates. --:- ) DCS 00:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

This is simply not possible since the template is checking who has done the last edit on that page. CHeck Template:AFC submission/declined and you will see the old revision by somebody. Regards, mabdul 00:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Understood, but that is not useful information.  Especially when 4 templates say they were edited by ArticlesForCreationBot 2 hours ago. I don't see any reason the last reviewer and the time could not be copied into the template.  That would be useful information. :- ) DCS 04:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The media wiki software does not have that feature in it, to insert the user of the person editing. Perhaps we can request that feature. I would also like to see the ability to template the article creator. But using the javascript tools should make that possible. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I tried it myself, and there is no variable.  However I did find out that using ~~~~ in the template does copy the review's signature and the time.  Not optimum, but usable and much better than what we have. :- ) DCS 23:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want to develop a JS tool, I can give you the API code to get the latest (or the rev before) revision user. Simply ping me in IRC or on my talk. mabdul 11:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The only change needed is a change to the decline templates.  We are already talking about those.  I have not tried it outside of the sandbox, however.  Is there an easy way for a real test? :- ) DCS 15:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I updated Template:AFC submission/declined, Template:AFC submission, and Tims script (didn't recognized his message down there) and we have now two new parameters: decliner and declinets: really simply: the script adds the information who and when the submission was declined. Feel free to report any bugs to me! mabdul 19:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we need a page to discuss templates.  One tag in Twinkle says article contains insufficient content, but the tag says "introduction provides insufficient context".  I'm not sure which should be kept or if we need both.  I'm a big advocate of SPS, and I would put a counter in Twinkle to see which tags are never used and get rid of them.  It's a great tool, but there are so many tags to choose from.  Just thinkin' out loud.  :- ) DCS 07:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I have been copy editing the text of the decline templates in my sandbox. You can see the results at User:Pol430/Sandbox3. Any feedback would be appreciated Pol430 talk to me 17:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Before everyone(A412 & Pol430] starts rewriting decline reasons, why don't we make a copy of the current list somewhere, and modify IT.  That is what we are going to have to put back into Template space if we want to update the wording.  I will volunteer to copy & paste the text into dummy templates in my sandbox(or where ever) for review.  :- ) DCS 21:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Too Late!!  I have made a page here with all the decline templates, the existing codes, and the existing text.  You may go ahead and edit these templates if you like for review or testing.  When everyone is happy, we can copy the wording out to the real templates.  :- ) DCS 23:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The list I pointed you to in the first place is a copy and paste of the wordings at Template:AFC submission/comments with modifications. It simply requires copy and pasting into the relevant template if the wording is agreed upon... Pol430 talk to me 15:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm working on it, Pol430.  I faked the 2nd template parameter in mine.  Trying to get it working in yours and mine now.  Any template experts out there, I'm always on AfC IRC. :- ) DCS 17:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I am at a complete loss to understand why you are trying to make a working mock-up... The decline templates already exist, and work, they are all identical except for the text of the decline reason. The only issue is the wording of the individual decline reasons—at least, that is the only issue I am working to address. Pol430 talk to me 17:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Simply to have a sandbox to play in, especially if we are considering adding new templates, or we can work out the appearance and wording using the live templates.  In any case the old and new decline templates using the wording from Pol430's page are here for reference.

Calm down please! I really think we need two major changes: one of the style of the templates (and the general wording) and on the other side a complete rewording of the decline reasons! The WMF started/want to do an A/B testing on the existing ones (link in archives).
@Pol430: I think we have to reword even more the decline reasons - the average/new user needs a wording which could be used on the Simple Wikipedia. As an example: third party references is "useless" for non-academic users: explain better that they should include newspaper articles. I would also get rid of the A7 - even experienced users have problems to determine what A7 is (and I really thing that many, maybe even most, declines are incorrectly declined as A7!).
Related to the general rewording: I think adding the decliner and the contact link highly improves the understanding for the normal user who aren't aware of their talkpages (or if they are IP editors, they can have a new IP!) mabdul 19:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh and before I forget: if anybody needs help with a template change or/and the JS helper, feel free to ask here or on my talkpage (or in the IRC channel) and I will try to do it! mabdul 19:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I am currently away from a decent computer but will continue to try and improve the text of the decline reasons on my return, on Friday. I'm not even going to attempt it on an iPhone... Pol430 talk to me 22:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I have done some more copy editing of the decline templates wordings—See: User:Pol430/Sandbox3 for the results. I have tried to standardize terminology and write them in plain language. I was cautious about making the wordings too simple because 1) this is not Simple Wikipedia and 2) editing Wikipedia requires WP:CLUE and the ability to understand complex issues. I have also been cautious to avoid TLDR issues and encourage editors to actually follow the links... Pol430 talk to me 21:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyediting

A bit of a concern here. If you accept a submission, at least make sure that it complies with the WP:MOS and doesn't have some common errors. Many of these fixes are trivial- I've fixed quite a few.

1. Bold the title the first time it appears in text.
2. Correct the headline hierarchy. (2 equal signs, then 3, etc.)
3. Make sure headlines are not double-bolded.
4. etc.

Would help everybody out a lot! A412 (Talk * C) 00:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I tend to run newly accepted articles through AWB for a spot of clean up (but some stuff you have to do manually). Pol430 talk to me 21:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Question about the icons at Wikipedia:Articles for creation...

What exactly do the various icons mean? Is there any way to perhaps have a caption appear when one hovers the cursor on top of them or maybe have a link to "These icons mean/A key to these icons..."? Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 14:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Unless someone wants to have a go at {{AfC contribution}}, a key would be an excellent idea, IMO. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 14:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

They're from {{Class/icon}} and denote the article's class, if it's been assessed. I've raised adding a tooltip at the template talk, because I think they're intended to have them but they got lost at some point. joe•roe^t•c 18:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I have looked into this, and the capability to add alternate text has to be done at the point of HTML generation, which is a few levels lower than templates.  I don't think we have access to those programs. :- ) DCS 18:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

No, you can do it quite easily: joe•roe^t•c 18:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right.  I checked it out, and Mediawiki does support ALT-TEXT.  "You can do it quite easily?"  Cool, go for it.  It still sounds like a lot of work to me. :-p  Seriously, I could work on it in my spare (ha ha) time.  But, let's not have two people doing it without coordination. :- ) DCS 21:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Umm...you realize Joey Roe did it for that little image after the word "easily"? All it takes is adding <span title="TEXT"></span> around the file. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 22:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I fixed the unknown class.  We will have to wait for one to be added. If it does not break anything, I will do the balance. :- ) DCS 23:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, joe•roe. I saw you note at Template talk:Class/icon. I can make it work on the first expansion level, but not beyond that. I will have to think on this. :- ) DCS 04:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it is true what I suspected all along, the Alt-Text can not be carried in the template it has to occur in the final HTML, which means it must be imbedded into the image or the output code.  Which IS a lot of work. Perhaps it was at one time imbedded in the images, but since the same images are used all over the Wiki, it was probably taken out.  It may be necessary to create separate images for AfC.  I will check with some people who know better than me. :- ) DCS 04:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• So why don't we just implement Shearon's second solution - a key. Much easier, and more user-friendly, no? Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 07:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

  Key, as in linking the image? That seems like a good idea, harmless and useful. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

  That may work...I just meant editing Wikipedia:Articles for creation/recent and adding a "This icon means...", i guess on the top or right side. She's right that it doesn't tell newbies anything atm. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 08:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Help with AFC's

After I reviewed about 650 AFC's yesterday, I've had lots of queries on my user talk page. Not too surprising, I suppose...there have been about 40 to date. And I've tried to answer them all. But, any and all help would be appreciated; see my talk from 1-Feb onward, ie from User_talk:Chzz#Your_review_at_Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation.2FSeichim down. Ta.  Chzz  ►  20:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I think a lot of that is the prominent link added to {{AFC submission/declined}} to contact the reviewer directly. I must have missed when that was changed (I'd appreciate it if someone could point me to the discussion) but it seems seriously ill thought out. One or two every now and again is fine, but I don't want to become the single point of contact for every one of the people whose articles I decline. joe•roe^t•c 21:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I was looking for a discussion as well, I get the impression it may have taken place on IRC. I think the box is a good idea, to increase the visibility of the decline reason, but I'm not sure about the prominent contact link that open a new section for your talk page. It will cause all questions to circumvent the info banner at the top of my talk page that directs people with questions to my faq's page Pol430 talk to me 21:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Really? I would think it would be better, as there are times when another reviewer would disagree and you are the only one who can explain exactly why you felt a certain way. Regardless, I don't think that the "single point of contact" is really a problem...-en-help gets far more angry AfC'ers then I think I ever will. As a side note, my thanks to Chzz for his work as a one-man wrecking ball yesterday. Incredible. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 22:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Wait a second...I just realized that what you're referring to. This must have happened in the last couple days, no? Urg...dunno if I like that... Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 22:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's the diff of the template being changed. Take it up with Mabdul, I guess. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 22:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm the bad! We did last week change the template (earlier diff) and the script to add the reviewer to the template so that the "submitter" (normally unexperienced) doesn't have to click on the history - and later I get the "idea" to add a direct contact link since IPs doen't have any real talkpage and thus not gettting the decline template with this contact link (which the registered already getting on their talkpage). And through the feedback (I'm "stalking" some reviewers, I realize that this a really good addition since mostly the workding of the decline messages are simply bad! Most (even experienced) editors don't know what #A7 means and other phrases... So to get less messages, simply change the wording :/ mabdul 22:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC) BTW: I have to fight with the same problem, although this is not that dramatically as in Chzz case (of course) because I'm not reviewing that much! mabdul 22:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

An amazing effort by Chzz! My computer's too sluggish to do more than a dozen reviews in one session! The contact link is no problem for me either. If it creates a new section on my Talk page that is all the better, much preferable to having random comments scattered about by new authors who don't understand WP page formatting. In any case, when we notify the authors on their page, the link to our page was already part of the message. Sionk (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes...it's a little...garish, but I think it will be for the better. I'd prefer that they ask someone to it just sitting there, and if I can take the time to review it I can take the time to answer their question. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 23:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Just my personal preference but I would prefer it if it was just a link to the reviewers talk page rather than a new section edit link -- for the reasons I mentioned above. On a related note I have been further copy editing the decline reasons (text) at User:Pol430/Sandbox3 feel free to edit them or make suggestions. Pol430 talk to me 23:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks -to Nolelover, Joey Roe, Pol430 and anyone I've missed who helped respond to some of them.  Chzz  ►  15:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think the link is a bad idea. In fact, I think it's good - despite the fact that I've had about 70 messages on my talk, in the last 2 days, beginning with "Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/...". That's kinda my own fault, for reviewing so many. It's better that they have a 'real person' to ask.

I think we're addressing the wrong problem, in worrying about that.

The real problem is, there's not enough people to offer genuine help to the new users seeking it. WP:FEED was another fantastic system, but failed due to lack-of-helpers, and now redirects to helpdesk. Unless there's a paradigm shift on Wikipedia from template-warning/blocks to help/guidance, then I fear AFC could go the same way; it could quickly end up so backlogged that it's unusable.

And I'm disappointed by the WMF take on this - which seems to be focused on attracting/keeping new editors. We do, of course, need new editors. But we need GOOD editors. Thousands of new editors who are not going to help each other can drive off some good ones. Adding 'social networking' bollocks can attract lots of new people - as can sugar-sweet messages instead of warnings, and not clearly stomping down on spam...however, that can attract users who are "more trouble than they are worth". But, I digress...

But this is a generic, core problem with the project. Too many people need help, not enough to give it. I feel it's because the focus of the project is incorrect; there's massive efforts go into the 'bad side' of Wikipedia; we've kinda forgotten that the goal is to create quality content, and not to play a WP:MMPORPG. I hope/wish we could move to a more academic atmosphere, where people help each other to write articles. I don't know if/when that will happen.  Chzz  ►  16:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Members of this project might be interested in watching the progress of the WP:Teahouse, which I'm sure many of you received invites to. If it succeeds, well, I hope it will fill the large hole the FEED left, although I'm doubtful. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 16:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I object to that project; I find it sexist and patronising. The solution to a gender-bias is not to condescend and offer quaint, stereotypical assistance; it's simply to treat people equally - which that singly fails to do.  Chzz  ►  18:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd be interested to hear to expand on your concerns, wherever you would like (my talk or email). I do agree that there will be some problems off the bat, but how the outside of the project looks can easily be changed, if the basic premise works. Either way, we'll find out very soon. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 20:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Continued help at User talk:Chzz would be appreciated. There's now over 100 requests for help on there, and I've only got three pairs of hands...  Chzz  ►  18:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

No good deed goes unpunished.  The new decline templates are too high vertically.  Is there any way to remove some of the white space(in this case pink space)? :- ) DCS 20:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

What pink space? It looks ok to me. What browser are you using? Do you have a screenshot to share? Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

There appears to be a blank pink line under the yellow box.  Firefox 10.0.  What's the best procedure to get you a screen shot? :- ) DCS 00:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, the line was only visible on transclusion for declined submissions, so I couldn't see it on the template page directly. I fixed the problem in this edit.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

IRC

Moved to Wikipedia talk:IRC/wikipedia-en-help as outside of the scope of this page. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 22:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I give up. Let me know if/when it's fixed. Cheers, so long and thanks for all the fish.  Chzz  ►  23:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Where to send confused editors

The change to the decline template has now been reverted. I actually liked it, but I'm only doing one tenth as many reviews as Chzz. But I do think it produces a healthy amount of engagement from our submitters, knowing how confused they can get. Perhaps there should still be a link to ask for more information, but to a communal page rather than our own talk pages? Also, I think the other change to the template, putting the decline reason in its own prominent box, was a definite improvement. If no one objects, I'd like to see that change put back in. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Reading the thread above, I had exactly the same idea earlier today. I was working on a communal help page draft in my userspace earlier today, and I'll submit a formal proposal tomorrow or something, because I know that for me, dealing with the flow of user talk help requests is the biggest reason why I don't really work on AfC anymore, lack of time to commit to answering all the help requests, and a talk page message is more of a pressure to reply, as opposed to a communal page... Having dealt a few times with over 200 submissions at once, I am absolutely amazed at Chzz's 600+ submission handled. That's burn out material right there. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 06:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

What I've drafted earlier, just a header : User:CharlieEchoTango/WPAFC/T... I'll work a bit more on it tomorrow, and then submit it as a AFC help desk proposal. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 06:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and that one too, as a showcase : User:CharlieEchoTango/WPAFC/Q. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 06:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Removing the reviewer's name from the template does not do anything except make things more inconvenient for subsequent reviewers and the authors, unless you are going to delete the history also.  Someone has to be accountable, and since theoretically we don't have management to blame, who is left?  The reviewer's name being on the template did not do the damage, wacking through 500+ articles in several hours is what did the damage.  AFC and or WPF is becoming schizoid.  Every one seems to want everything done immediately and perfectly with no consequences for anyone. :- ) DCS 07:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that if no one whacks through 500+ articles at once, the backlog doesn't get dealt with. The backlog always grows bigger until someone comes in and goes through a significant chunck, or leads the way; this is a dynamic that is obvious to anyone who has watched AFC over time. There are not enough editors dealing with AFC. I have thought about my proposal (an idea now shared with Someguy1221) rendering the process less personnal, but frankly, I don't see this as much of an issue. We have the help desk for general questions relating to the encyclopedia, why not have a help desk for questions about submissions. People can answer when they have free time, without being pressured into answering; there is also the possibility of having more than one answer, and thus more accountability to the answer (since people won't really comment on someone else's talk page, for several reasons, the biggest one being that not all people watchlist each other's page). I'm a busy guy; I can't comb through 100 submissions one night and then have 10-15 help and clarification requests in the morning sitting on my talk page, it doesn't seem like a lot, but it is. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

As I have been saying since I showed up here a few months ago, Wiki is no longer a high school newspaper, but the people in charge seem to want to keep running it as if it was.  A year ago, I believe AFC was getting approximately 30-50 submissions per day, now 300+ on a bad day.  Every suggestion over the last few months to streamline the process from numerous people have been immediately nixed as "We don't do things that way."  That being the case, I see few options except to keep burning people out, until the whole place shuts down. :-( :- ) DCS 07:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

After reflecting on the events of the day, I think the emotion among most of the people I have chatted with is frustration.  It's like so many companies I have worked for.  They have brilliant people, who do have the answers to make something successful, but they are ignored until the company is in big trouble.  The company then calls in a $2000 per day consultant who tells them exactly the same thing.  When you are really paying for the advice, all of a sudden it makes sense.  I too have been spending way too much time here, for my own good and income, because I don't get paid unless I work. I have had to cut back my Wiki hours drastically the last few weeks, so I am feeling exceptionally helpless with the current situation.  Not a crisis yet, but it's getting there. :- ) DCS 08:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Where to send confused editors?  IMHO, right here.  There used to be a class called "Reviewers".  That's why the reviewer's name should be on the template.  Reviewers were done away with for some reason I don't want to know, but from my limited time here at the Wiki, the most generally knowledgeable people the Wiki has are the Reviewers I have worked with here. :- ) DCS 08:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)   Sorry :-( I am tired and out of time. :- ) DCS 09:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The reviewer userright had nothing to do with AFC, see WP:PC CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Approve of User:CharlieEchoTango/WPAFC/Q and User:CharlieEchoTango/WPAFC/T although remove the link to 'Live Help' cut them out the equation because of this . Change the link in the new box on the decline templates (that currently contacts the reviewer) to a link that points to an AFC help page based on User:CharlieEchoTango's example. There should still be imprint at the bottom of the decline template that indicates who performed the review. Pol430 talk to me 13:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Just want to point out this link. WP:FEED had the same idea, but a lack of reviewers shut it down, and that was with a broader base. Personally, I'd prefer that people writing pages I review be directed towards my talk page, but anyway... Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 15:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess its down to personal preference. WP:FEED died and WP:HD could easily be overwhelmed if the template pointed there and someone attempted to clear the backlog. I think that's the basis for the suggestion that AfC have its own 'help desk'. Pol430 talk to me 17:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

But who would be helping at this new desk? The same people who are reviewing. I just think we're moving the problem NIMBY style - "just get it off my talk page". The same people will still be doing most of the work, IMO. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 17:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

At the moment, we are doing a fairly good job keeping the backlog down because we have enough reviewers doing a few reviews. Right now, we have 15 editors reviewing. With an average of 270 submissions, we need to average 18 submissions/reviewer. If we can get a few more editors on board, we shouldn't have a severe backlog problem anymore and the workload will greatly decrease. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

True Religion

This is a notable company, and someone locked it. Can somebody help with this? Tinton5 (talk) 06:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Articles for creation. However, when an article only substance is The unique stitching and oversize flap pockets, along with the unusual logo of Buddha on the back of the jeans, True Religion has continued to lead the premium denim market worldwide, it is a textbook speedy deletion candidate. I won't unSALT the article, but you can ask User talk:Jimfbleak, the administrator who deleted and SALTed the article. It would be best to first draft something in your userspace, complete with references, before asking him to unprotect from creation - it has been locked for a reason ;) CharlieEchoTango (contact) 06:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I would like to request it for creation. I don't want to write it Tinton5 (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Go to WP:RA and add it there. Maybe somebody will write an article ;=) mabdul 20:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Script problem?

I just went to review a few pages and noticed that when I decline, the submitter is not receiving a notice like my script usually does. Is anyone else experiencing this? Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 21:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm...and I just realized that for the AfC's that this happened on (example) the user parameter was not filled. Any idea on why that's happening? Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 21:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I am in the process of going through all the submissions in the WP space instead of the WT space and tagging anything that has languished there. Because there is no way to get the creator's name through AWB, I just left off the parameter. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks for the explanation. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 22:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

What category are you getting them from though? I trust that my declining them doesn't put them right back? Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 22:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for creation, then weeding out denied ones and redirects. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Note that when I tag the pages I cannot see if the corresponding talk page exists. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I do hope you can lend a hand to the massive backlog you have created... Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 23:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

YOu know what is bad, Train2104? 1) you didn't checked the history, 2) you didn't add a submitter, and 3) you created a backlog out of nothing, 4) we have a bot that this is doing that every 2nd month (or so), 5) you could save your work and time and doing something useful. :( mabdul 16:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware we had a bot-I will stop. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

CSD

Is this some policy I don't know about or should you also decline submissions when you CSD them? I've seen a few which have been CSDed but not declined. It clutters up the submissions list and uses unnecessary time. A412 (Talk * C) 01:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to decline them too; but I suspect most reviewers don't bother since the submissions will be deleted anyway (if the CSD is valid). CharlieEchoTango (contact) 02:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Just went through all of the AFC CSDs, so that should declutter the list for now. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 02:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

All AFC reviewers should simply seek adminship so this is not a problem :) Someguy1221 (talk) 07:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The solution would be for each to achieve adminship, not just to seek it. :)   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Careful... That sort of talk will attract the Wikidrama monger's—shouting CABAL! CABAL! ;) Pol430 talk to me 19:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

New decline categories?

We need some new decline categories, because there are some that don't fit in any of the standard decline messages (in my opinion):

• ATTACK, a subcategory of NPOV, because the current NPOV decline message is for positive NPOV, we need a negative one.
• BOOK, (does not pass WP:NBOOK), the current decline reason for books is just NN.
• NONSENSE, (WP:Patent nonsense), for the completely random and illogical submissions
• HOAX (another shortcut for JOKE, which already exists)
• OR (WP:OR)- Currently can be tagged as essay (not always correct) or no refs (not always true)

I'll write the decline messages for these if everybody thinks they're good ideas.

A412 (Talk * C) 02:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit bemused by the existing 'Does not conform to BLP' category too. It currently states that all biographical info has been deleted from the article. But because the article isn't yet in mainspace there is no reason to delete the uncited information. Instead the message should point out the article doesn't conform to WP:BLP and demand reliable citations. Does anyone else agree? Sionk (talk) 02:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll be willing to write these in the coming days, although my only concern is what would become of the "JOKE" decline reason, as it would never be used, and could be absorbed into "NOT". Sionk, it is supposed to be for attacks on people and whatnot, as those can come up in search results. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm for leaving the text in BLP, but default a wipe for a page that is ATTACK.  If the BLP is derogatory, mark it ATTACK and wipe it. That being said, if the BLP was written about me, and not sourced and the article said something I did not like, I might call my lawyer.  So, I can see some rational for wiping BLP's.  Even if they are not in Main space, people could post a link to their user page on Facebook for example.  I'm also in favor default wiping of NONSENSE and HOAX.  Why waste space, get them SPD'd.  --:- ) DCS 05:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Attacks don't get declined (and therefore preserved), they get placed for speedy deletion. That solves one problem. No comment on the rest. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Sven on the attack front if it meets CSDG10 then tag it for speedy deletion. As for BLP articles that are unsourced: how about a blanking template? Like we have for copyright violations; saying something like: "The content of this submission has been blanked as a courtesy because it contains unreferenced material about a living person. Please add references, from reliable sources, to this submission before removing this template." Pol430 talk to me 13:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Is Speedy Deletion appropriate for AfC? After all, they are not in mainspace. Speedy deletion would also apply to non-notable unsourced articles, and there are plenty of those in AfC! I understood only admins could speedy delete, which rules me and several other AfC participants out of the running. Sionk (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Attack pages fall under CSDG10. The 'G' category applies 'Generally' to Wikipedia pages. The 'A' category pages apply only to article namespace. An attack page is an attack page anywhere in Wikipedia. Non-notability falls under 'A7' which applies only to the article mainspace. Pol430 talk to me 14:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I have certainly declined on the JOKE criteria in the past. Some HOAXes may not be Jokes so that sounds OK. The NONSENSE sounds reasonable too as a decline reason as it would replicate a speedy delete reason. It is probably some one just testing the function that will never return to find out what happened. There used to be an attack decline reason, which included blanking the content. OR could also be a possible reason to decline if obvious enough. It would useually be matched by a lack of Verifyability. My only concern with adding some of these in is that it is more to remember for the people here! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

How about NON-NOTABLE SOFTWARE also? :- ) DCS 04:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

We could also use one for "lack of formatting": I've rejected several for lacking any paragraphing, for instance. Mangoe (talk) 05:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

A NSOFT decline reason would be useful, although we easily can use NN (not notable) or mostly WEB. And again: declining because of "lack of formatting" is not a reason! I overruled a few minutes ago a reviewer who stated that the submitter should following WP:MOS. Sry, but there are a) simply to many MOS pages and secondly it is not a valid decline reason! We have enough editors who doing gnomisch work and can wikify and fix such "minor" issues! mabdul 14:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, this is Articles for Creation, not Featured Articles for Creation. The articles we accept just need to be capable of reasonably surviving deletion. They don't need to be able to pass the featured article criteria in order to be accepted. Unless the MoS violation would likely result in deletion (i.e. failing to use inline citations on contentious BLP information), then there is no reason to decline it. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I've never rejected an article for poor formatting. I have rejected several which consisted of twenty or thirty lines (which on my screen runs to a couple thousand characters) of solid text. It's not a minor issue to have to read through such an indigestible lump to determine whether it contains BLP issues or other such content faults. Mangoe (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I've created some drafts of messages at User:A412/afcmessages. Feel free to edit it. On the topic of attacks, shouldn't it be declined (to remove it from the submission list) and also CSD'ed? A412 (Talk * C) 00:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you make up a mockup of the actual template?  The surrounding text could make a big difference in the way the wording reads. :- ) DCS 15:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is it we make reference to CSD 'A' criteria (I'm referring mostly to notability under A7) in the decline templates? AfC is aimed, primarily, at anon users who cannot create pages in the article namespace. 'A' criteria are invalid in the AfC namespace, and so it seems without merit to point to that criteria in the decline templates. It just seems like extra text, and more Wikilinks, for already confused new editors to have to follow. Pol430 talk to me 17:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Although you are correct that the A criteria is for mainspace and not for AFC pages, we cannot move them if they fail the A. But indeed, even experienced users don't understand what #A7 is correctly and thus should be removed from the decline reason and explaining it better. mabdul 17:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

How exactly do I make a mockup of the actual template? I can't find a way to. A412 (Talk * C) 17:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea I'm afraid, it's a complicated template. On a slightly related matter see below Pol430 talk to me 17:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm working on a impotent mockup.  Hopefully you will be able to copy, paste, then redisplay.  :- ) DCS 18:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I have made the current Decline template more or less impotent.  Clicking will take you somewhere, but it will not change or submit anything:  {{Dcshank|Your decline text goes here}}.  Let me know if it has problems.  :- ) DCS 19:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Can we keep this in one thread or the other? I would suggest the thread below is the better venue. Pol430 talk to me 15:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• This Section is closed.  All further discussion shall take place in the section Decline Templates, below. :- ) DCS 15:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

---

snip

---

Oh by the way: I really think we should create a new decline reason for books. There is seldom, but every 1000th decline is a book, so it might be worth! mabdul 00:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Funnily enough... I added one to my page of decline re-writes, here. Pol430 talk to me 00:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I have boldly made changes to some of the decline wordings, following on from User:wctaiwan's efforts. I feel we should add a decline reason for non-notable books but I'm unsure how to add a new reason and how to integrate it into the AfC helper script. Any help would be appreciated. Pol430 talk to me 15:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

message

Hi, it would be cool to have an option for auto-reply to creator of submission regarding the result of review, at this time the process is:

1. Submission is sent
2. Reviewer check it and change the tag
3. Reviewer open the user's page and inform him about the status

Point 3 can be done by my bot, only requirement would be to use parameter when saving the submission. What do you think is it a good idea? Petrb (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you can use the script for all of that. (I can't find the link, can somebody else? =/ ) A412 (Talk * C) 15:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The generic AfC script?

importScript('User:Timotheus Canens/afchelper4.js');

I don't quite understand the OP's question, but this is the script I use and it notifies the submitter automatically. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 16:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is this not a gadget then? Such a script is hard to find, there is no link for that Petrb (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Where do you discuss individual submissions?

All submissions are created in the WP talk space by default, so where do you actually talk about them? I know you can leave some comments in {{AFC submission}}, but that is not optimal. jonkerz ♠talk 15:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Generally, on the reviewer talk page. (Also note our help desk suggestion from a few posts above, that's our solution to this problem.) A412 (Talk * C) 16:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

In the past, if we need to discuss a submission, we move the submission to the Wikipedia: namespace. As IP editors cannot create Wikipedia: space pages, it forces us to have them use the talk namespace. Recently though, he have used {tlx|AfC comment}}, discussing the submission on the same page as the submission. When we accept the submission, we just remove the comments. Either method works. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

User:DUNCANMACLAREN/FRESH DIALOGUES (interview series)

Anyone with the account creator flag or an Admin that can move this submission? It's triggering title blacklist. I thought i'd try here first as WP:RM is backlogged. Pol430 talk to me 02:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Done, I have moved the submission to AfC space. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Pol430 talk to me 02:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Unregistered submissions

86.183.252.155 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has created the following AFC entries, which I think are not logged anywhere and will not be reviewed:

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Cromwell Sisters
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Giuliano Scicolone
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sarah Loy

None has a single source included in the proposed article, which is a problem by itself. I have no opinion on whether or not the subjects are actually notable. I think some feedback would be good but I've never used the WP:AFC process so I'm not qualified...can someone take this on? I'd appreciate pointers as well...I would have moved these submissions into the right channels but I really don't know the ropes, so I can see how a new user wouldn't "get it" either.

Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  00:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I've added the appropriate template so the submissions will now be categorized. I'll let someone else evaluate the pages later (they should all be declined in their current state, but I want to give a little time in case the IP returns to add sources or more material). Thanks for noticing this issue, Frank. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Frank - if you ever want to learn AfC, its pretty easy once you get the hang of it and I'd be happy to help you out. Fetchcomms has added the {{submit}} template to each submission, which will put them into the Pending Submissions category, where they'll eventually be reviewed. I've declined all due to a lack of sourcing (basic rule; all AfC submission must have at least one good source to be accepted). Cheers, Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 06:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks (both). I would like to get in some time in this area of the project; not ready to right at the moment but I will try to come back to it. Feel free to ping my talk page at some point if you have a good starting point, some extra time of your own, a backlog...  Frank  |  talk  17:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

As already mentioned some sections above: we have a bot which is running every second month (?) tagging these pages. I'm going through these then normally by hand and restoring the decline reason or add the submit tag. mabdul 12:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

New reviewer instructions

I've been working on some revamped reviewer instructions at User:Pol430/Sandbox4, they are essentially a slightly re-written version of the current set. I have split the article reviewing instructions, and redirect and cat instructions, onto separate pages and linked them with pagetabs, as the original page was getting rather unwieldy. I have also tried to re-write them so that they make sense to people who use the script and those who want to do it manually. They're still work in progress, but I'm happy for anyone to help with the construction, feel free to edit away. Pol430 talk to me 18:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice job on the instructions, I believe they are much clearer. On User:Pol430/Sandbox4/Reviewing redirects and categories, you might consider mentioning that the AfC review script can be used to accept/decline category and redirect requests. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I've not spent to much time on that page at the moment. But I'll certainly add that. Pol430 talk to me 19:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I've experimented with the layout with {{Collapse box}}, in an effort to make the page more comfortable to read. Does it work? Or does it look crap? Pol430 talk to me 19:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Changed link on AfC draft templates from live help to AfC Help Desk

Recent changes to the AfC draft templates (here, here, and here) replaced links to the chat channel #Wikipedia-en-help on irc with a link to the new AfC Help Desk.

As an irc help chat regular, I think we do a lot of good work, and in a format that many users find accessible and efficient. My understanding was that the AfC help desk was designed to replace leaving messages on the reviewer's talk page rather than replacing irc help, so I find these changes a bit in the wrong direction. I think the AfC Help Desk is a great idea and the two forums should be complimentary. So...

Options

• change it back; leaving the new help desk hard to find
• offer both links (If you require extra assistance, you can visit our Help desk. You can also get live assistance in our help chat); Properly distinguished gives users the choice but also risks of confusion or dilution. This is my first choice.
• prominently place a link to live help on the AfC Help page; this seems to me like it should be done regardless, and I support it, but especially if we don't offer both links as in the above option

What do you think? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 22:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The two links should be prominently featured IMHO. Some might disagree about linking to the IRC help channel, though. I think that so long as the channel is there, we should use it; and not let wikipolitics (no matter the merit of the argument) get in the way of helping users. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 22:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments being disconnected from Reviews?

Ever since the recent AfC Review-template revamp, it seems that Comments are getting disconnected from the review that they're supposed to be attached to. Anyone else notice this? Here's one AfC that it happened on... [1]. Does anybody know why this is happening and can it be fixed? Shearonink (talk) 05:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand, the comments on that submission were left using the {{Afc comment}} template, which is unrelated to the review template. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 06:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

CET - In the past my Comments were always right underneath my Review, in that one link my Comments are placed at the bottom of the page. Even if my Comments are part of a different template, it is all part of the Review "box". I have no idea why this is happening. Is it possible that the ArticleforCreationBot or submitters are misplacing Review request/pending templates and confusing the system? Shearonink (talk) 06:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's another AfC that looks odd... Clozette. It looks like ArticleForCreationBot is cleaning up the AfC but in the process is lifting the subsequent "afc comment' and then placing it underneath the most recent "review requested", which isn't quite the right place. Shearonink (talk) 06:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Problem

I think there is a slight problem, reflected at User talk:207.216.31.33, and on the user's contributions page showing their recent edits for that matter. Not sure how that might best be addressed, but thought I should flag it here for those who know better.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Weird. He appears to have been around before, based on his knowledge of the db-templates. In any case, I have blocked him for disruptive editing, he keeps resubmitting submissions which are not his own, either without improvements or with only one or two sentences added. He has been warned for disruption before. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. Uber fast response. It was getting way out of hand. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

RFC – WP title decision practice

Over the past several months there has been contentious debate over aspects of WP:Article Titles policy. That contentiousness has led to efforts to improve the overall effectiveness of the policy and associated processes. An RFC entitled: Wikipedia talk:Article titles/RFC-Article title decision practice has been initiated to assess the communities’ understanding of our title decision making policy. As a project that is involved in new article creation, participants in this project are encouraged to review and participate in the RFC.--Mike Cline (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound like a you-know-what...

But atm exactly four of the 11 editors who supported the concept have edited our new help desk, and only one of those has responded to more then one AfC concern. I think it's just that no one quite realizes it actually live....but it is. And right now it has no centijimbos. We needz moar centijimbos...please, think of the server kittens, and while you're feeling happy watch this page :) Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 17:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I hope the new help desk works out. That said, it's not a foregone conclusion that centralized help is better than having reviewers be contacted directly on their talk pages. On the one hand, centralized help could be more responsive, on the other hand, if no one is there, it could be far less so. Also, centralized help means that people will be looking at articles they haven't reviewed or even seen, so it might discourage some helpers. On the other hand, directly contacting reviewers had the benefit of familiarity, but the downside that a reviewer might not see the message close to when it was posted. So, I guess we'll have to see how it goes. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, it's not entirely clear to me that we wouldn't be better linking to the general help desk or the new contributors help page/questions, which would pool efforts with existing fora. Still, I hope it works out. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, those are roughly the issues that kept me from supporting. However, now that it's up, lets make it work... Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 00:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The Doon School Category

Will anyone attend to the aforementioned request?Merlaysamuel (talk) 08:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey there Merlay. Which request exactly are you referring to? Can you provide a link? Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 17:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably WP:AFC/R#Category request: Category:The Doon School; I have meanwhile created the category. Huon (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks Huon. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 18:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much both of you!

Merlaysamuel (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Help Desk formatting

Can the help desk be formatted in standard hierarchy (2 equals signs, then 3) rather than the current formatting (1 equal sign, then 2)? The 1 equal sign headers are strangely large and look nonstandard. A412 (Talk * C) 18:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

But how would we get the newbies to use a level 3? AFAIK the form they are directed to from their AfC submission is the new section one, which automatically uses a level 2. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 18:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The formatting is consistent with the one used on WP:HD. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 18:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, didn't notice that. Never mind then. A412 (Talk * C) 18:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

LINCOLN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, 1938 - 1955

I request that a mature reviewer with an academically-acquired historical perspective look over my article referenced above and get it accepted as a Wikipedia article. A teenager "REVIEWER" rejected it. What follows is the article: Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Lincoln University School of Law

Slidhome (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Bold text

I have removed the content of the submission and placed a link there instead. Slidhome, I understand that you're upset (and with good reason), so let me just say that I'm not trying to hide your work or anything. It's much easier to read the actual submission with the relevant code then a copied version. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 21:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Setting up a help desk

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 was going to write a longer rant to introduce this proposal, but since Someguy1221 brought it up above, I already did, kinda. We should have a communal page to deal with help and clarification requests. This communal page would be linked to from start to finish in the AfC process, but especially where it matters : the decline template. It's quite simple really :

The benefits for the reviewer

• less pressure on reviewers, as one can comb through the backlog without fear of “retaliation” - no good deed goes unpunished, as someone put it somewhere above. Waking up to see dozens of requests on your talk page is a daunting experience; it takes a lot less time to decline something than to explain why you declined it and how to improve.
• more equal workload for reviewers, as someone who does a lot of reviews has a reduced burden, whereas someone who doesn't do a lot of review can, if they wish, take on an increased burden.
• new(er) reviewers learn from reading other reviewers' answer. I know listening to -en-help and reading the help desk taught me a lot in my beginnings at Wikipedia.
• the possibility of reaching an admin more easily when needed (e.g. maybe having an 'admin request' section)

The benefits for the submitter

• more helpful and consistent answers, as more than one reviewer has input, and with time, a “help desk standard” will develop
• more timely answers, as the page would be engaging more than one reviewer and thus operate without the constraints of a single reviewer's schedule or time zone.
• more targeted answers, as reviewers may be more familiar than others with a given topic

The benefits for the project

• it provides a central place to see contested declined submissions, and promotes transparency and openness.
• it fosters a “best practice” environment, where one can be thorough in explaining to a submitter how to improve an article, another one can learn from it, and grow to become a better reviewer.
• it has the potential to engage and attract new reviewers; someone passing by may be able to answer a question, and thus “discover” AFC that way.

Some may say a communal page would render the process impersonal, and that's true to a certain extent. But in my view, it is no different than what we already do by linking to live IRC help : most reviewers are not on IRC.

How to implement immediately

• move User:CharlieEchoTango/WPAFC/Q to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk (not ready yet, but only small changes need to be made for it to be coherent right now, improvements will come later. Scsbot archiving needs to be set up the same way the regular Help desk works) - then create archive page, and talk page. It will probably look weird at first, but within a few days of reviews the ball will get rolling, especially at the rate submissions come in.
• add the link prominently in the AFC template, with a pre-formatted header “Review of ...” in the url
• add a tab in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/tabs template
• notify all active AFC members listed on the participants page, and encourage them to watchlist the new page

How to develop it, over time

• build a FAQ
• build a reviewer resources page (a real one), with tips on how to answer, on how to review, and on making the AFC script known to new reviewers
• etc (your suggestion here)

Thoughts? (if you simply support or oppose, just add #'''Support''' [...] ~~~~ or #'''Oppose''' [...] ~~~~ in the sections below; if you have comments, add them to the discussion section) CharlieEchoTango (contact) 22:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment. As a regular in irc en-help I'm intrigued by this idea. It would operate like a help desk just for newcomers. I think it's a great idea for that reason. The downside is that as it funnels all AfC questions to a single page, it will make it fairly difficult to new and overwhelmed users to actually find their own post. That's someone simpler on most user's talk pages. If that issue can be smoothed out a bit, I'd support it. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 00:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

  Because it was more of a comment than an outright support, I took the liberty of moving your comment from the support section to the discussion section in order to keep the !vote sections clean; I hope you don't mind, but if you do, feel free to move it back. You raise a good point. I think the best way to deal with it is for reviewers to post a talkback on the submitter's user talk, linking the section; much like one would do if answering on user talk page. This is not an ideal solution (poorly enforced, I guess), but it would be the best practice for reviewers. Other solution is to include a message on top of the page instructing to look back frequently for an answer to the question. Finding the section can't be that difficult, it's very similar to a user talk page, just perhaps bigger (well except Chzz's talk page right now...) - I agree it's not ideal, but that's a making of our version of the mediawiki software, prohibitive for newbies. Seems to work sufficiently well on WP:HD though. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 00:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

  Oh, and I would like to address you first sentence, re "a help desk just for newscomers". There is already such a thing at WP:NCHP, with its help desk at WP:NCHP/Q. This proposal wouldn't establish an indiscriminate board for newcomers, but rather a specific board for newcomers that have written articles to AFC and have them declined. Of course, if some newcomer that has nothing to do with AfC somehow ends up to this help desk, nothing forbids someone from helping, but it's not the goal here. Cheers, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

  No problem moving the post, good idea. I guess the only risk here is creating either confusion or dilution among help options. Between the help desk, the new contributor help desk, and irc help, there's a risk that people won't know where to go. So an obvious criterion for an AfC help desk is that it's well advertised for AfC users and easy to find. The dilution issue is more of a concern. Are we fairly confident there will be enough people to consistently staff it? If so, go for it. If not, I'd encourage redirecting to help desk, NCHP/Q, or irc help. I suppose the accurate comparison is whether an AfC help desk would offer quicker response times than average user page responses. My hunch is that on average it's faster to have a centralized help, so I'm coming around to this idea. edit: two more thoughts. NCHP/Q is very low traffic (probably why I didn't think of it first). That might suggest merging or using it for AfC. It's already set up. Is there particular benefit to having an AfC help desk just for AfC rather than for new users in general? Also, about talkbacks and messages, perhaps there's a way to automate talk page notices, for example, "You left a question [here]. Please check back regularly to see if someone has responded. If you want live help, try [irc chat]". Automation would be a huge plus. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 16:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

As an observation: It is clear to me, and I dare say to many other reviewers, that some of the most persistent new editors at AfC are the ones trying to get submissions about organizations, products and services published. No sooner have we declined a submission than the editor is badgering us at our talk page and resubmitting the page for review without addressing the issues. I think what we are trying to achieve with an 'AfC Helpdesk' is a forum that we can collaboratively contribute to, so that new editors working on submissions can get help to improve them, from more than one reviewer, and those editors here for a single purpose can receive feedback about why their submission is being declined from more than one reviewer. If it is all kept on the reviewers talk page then you are generally on your own in responding to the editor. Also, I believe that we should not be encouraging this 'I want it now' mentality. If a editor posts a question at the helpdesk, it is not unreasonable that they should have to wait for a response. We have about 15 people who contribute to AfC on a regular basis and I have little doubt that most questions will receive a response within 24hrs. Furthermore, when some poor sod (I'm looking at Chzz and Kevin here) has to wade through the backlog, it means that the burden of responding to the inevitable questions is more evenly shared.Pol430 talk to me 19:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think there is pretty much unanimous support now; can implementation be started? A412 (Talk * C) 16:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

  I would do it, if you explain me, what the consent is now? Do create an "AFCHD" like proposed by CET? mabdul 20:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

  Sorry, not too active, trying to enforce wikibreak (not working so well :P). I moved the page, the next step is to change the templates to link to it and to ask User talk:Ummit to set up Scsbot to archive every 7 days or so (let's start slow) and to add daily headers, exactly as is done on the actual wp:help desk. Or maybe we could set up MiszaBot for the time being. If someone who has AWB wants to go through the active user list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants and tell them of this new page so that they can start watchlist it if they want, that would help. Then we're good to go. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 22:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

  I've sorted out the links on the templates. I can also do the AWB bit, but not until tomorrow, because I need some sleep now... Pol430 talk to me 23:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

  Ok cool, thanks! And thanks for adding the links on the template(s). Perhaps we should make it a lot more prominent, like when Mabdul caused massive spam on Chzz's talk page, to encourage users to ask any questions they have, before resubmitting. An editintro would be nice, I'll work on that tomorrow. Oh, and re myself up there, no need for Scsbot for now, we can archive and add headers manually for the beginning, once I (or we) have an idea of the rate at which questions come in, I'll ask User talk:Ummit to set up automatic archiving, but doing so now is premature. Cheers CharlieEchoTango (contact) 06:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Support AFC help desk

1. Support as proposer CharlieEchoTango (contact) 22:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
2. Support as mentioned in the above section Pol430 talk to me 23:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
3. Support Jarkeld (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
4. Support This would indeed be a useful process. We just need to ensure that such a help desk does not fall to the same fate as our IRC channel did. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 00:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
5. Support Why not? A412 (Talk * C) 01:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
6. Support Even if it proves unmanageable the worst thing that happens is the newbies ask their questions and never receive an answer, as opposed to now, where they simply have no idea how to ask at all. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
7. Support, hell yes. mabdul 13:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
8. Support, hell yes.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
9. Support Splendid idea. Make it so. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
10. Support We GOT to do something. Shearonink (talk) 03:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
11. Support --Extra999 (talk) 04:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose AFC help desk

The discussion above 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.

Proposal to protect repeatedly resubmitted submissions

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 have noticed lately that there are often cases where new editors will continually resubmit a submission. While sometimes they make a genuine effort, there are many submissions where a new user will make a one or two sentence change and resubmit (example). Sometimes, the submissions are resubmitted within five minutes of the decline. We try leave comments to help these users, but they are often disregarded. Therefore, I would like to propose the following:

• If a submission is resubmitted five or more times without substantial changes, then the submission may listed at request for page protection and full (semi?) protected for a discretionary amount of time.
• Links to the help desk and/or the help channel are provided so that the submitter may ask questions.
• The submission is then logged at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Protected submissions.

While protecting submissions in order to get the submitters attention is not ideal, it is the only method we really have of getting their attention. These repeatedly resubmitted article submissions are hindering our ability to keep the backlog down. They waste our reviewing time, as the content is almost identical from the last review. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 06:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Quite a few of the editors submitting such articles, have actually created an account. By the time the submission has been declined 5 five times, it is quite probable the editor will be auto-confirmed and semi-protection will be useless. Pol430 talk to me 10:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

That was my first thought as well, and I have a feeling that requesting a higher protection level will require much wider input. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 20:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I brought up the idea with another editor on IRC once of 3 submissions with no changes, and then some sort of result of denial. Honestly, if they keep submitting it and not changing it, I would support removing the AFC template, and leaving a note. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

So far, I have dealt with such submissions as 'procedural declines' and written a message to that effect in the custom reason section. It generally seems to work in prompting the editor to either address the concerns, or stop flogging the dead horse. Pol430 talk to me 18:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Although I like the idea and like want to see that implemented, I oppose it: most submitters are new, unexperienced and likely WP:SPAs, but this should only happen in extreme cases like the two cases I remember: XSite Pro and the Dyposium Software (and possible the Spider Graph) where this was/should have been used. The submitters should learn how to deal with our rules - otherwise it is really likely that they will be driven away! Similar to Pols 'procedural declines' we should create a decline reason which should be used if the draft is submitted without any changes! mabdul 12:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Support proposal

Oppose proposal

1. Oppose per above. mabdul 12:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
2. Oppose as well, although I would completely support a procedural decline to be used when a editor has submitted an obviously problematic article more then say, thrice. "Obviously problematic" because I've seen cases in which an on-the-line submission was declined, resubmitted w/o changes and accepted. Sometimes notability is on the eye of the reviewer. This decline reason wouldn't be for those cases. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 14:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
3. Oppose Doing this would also discourage many people who have submitted an article, although I believe in certain situations were the article has no chance of becoming a real one should not be repeatedly re-submitted this is not a way to do it. If you really want to stop resubmissions actually help the users that are having troubles and ARE trying to create an article, instead of just pass/failing them and then leaving providing no help for the user. JayJay^{Talk to me} 22:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
4. Oppose Per above. Too many problems will happen because of this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
5. Oppose Per all. In my opinion, if the creator of the submission persists in resubmitting the submission without making any substantial improvements, action should be taken on them, not the page, because then they might create another submission...and it just starts all over. --Bmusician 06:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Template:User sandbox

Shouldn't we update {{User sandbox}} and add a submit button since everybody has a "My Sandbox" link at the top using that template? Regards, mabdul 10:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

A good idea Mabdul, but I don't know if it is worth the effort.  I don't think the actual percentage is very high.  I could be wrong.  But, I only use it to play with templates.  :- ) DCS 16:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Help Desk

The best idea that something was done about since I have been here.  Well not actually true.  I still think the reviewer and the time substituted on the declines was good.  It saved me the time of poking through the history to figure out the story.

But..., back to the help desk.  How is it decided that an entry is closed and should be archived?  Where does it get archived?  By whom does it get archived?

I think we could use some kind of "Go see the Help Desk" template to drop into the comment section of a decline or anywhere else it might be needed or wanted.  :- ) DCS 16:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Like this maybe: User:Dcshank/sandbox b :- ) DCS 21:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, there is already a link to the help desk on the various templates, but no objection to your version of it. As for archiving, none has been done yet. I've asked User talk:Ummit this morning if he was willing to take this task. He operates Scsbot which archives the original help desk (after which our help desk is modeled) and the reference desks. Based on the activity so far, I think archiving every 6-7 days is good. Generally an entry is well over closed after 6-7 days, if it is not, it can be pulled from the archives. The other option would be to do away with the date headers and archive selectively when a thread has seen no activity for a while (with MiszaBot). CharlieEchoTango (contact) 21:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeap, your right, it is there, I never noticed.  That is the problem. :-p  The thought occurred to me because I have seen others drop comments about the help desk to authors, and a template is easier then typing out the note.

I think I saw an archive bot that archived a section if it was not touch for X number of days? That would do the trick, I think.  :- ) DCS 23:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

There's that option (it's MiszaBot). My view is that the threads are usually over after a few days, and having the date headers and the date-by-date archiving is easier on newbies to find their message, especially considering the help desk looks like it will be quite busy. But then if others think archiving threads independently is better, I'm fine with it too, but we'll have to use a numbered archive (e.g. Archive XXX instead of Archive/YYYY MM DD) and to do away with the date headers. What do people think? CharlieEchoTango (contact) 23:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

For example of what I think is best, see Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/January_2012. Very newbie friendly. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 23:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "threads are usually over after a few days" - agree, and for the few (at this point, one) threads that span several days, I've been pulling it down to the date with the editors newest comment. I'd assume that if Scsbot works for the original help desk, it'll work for us too. I assume you mean that it archives the entire day's worth of threads at once? If so, then yeah, that should be fine (and minimally different then MiszaBot). Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 23:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeap, that is a cool archive.  My only concern would be ongoing threads, but if that happened, anybody could just pull it up to the current page from the Archive.  :- ) DCS 01:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Now, we just decide on a number of days.  :- ) DCS 01:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

And, find a friendly Bot jockey.  :- ) DCS 01:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep, should not be an issue. User talk:Ummit has indicated a willingness to set his bot for the task. I've already created the needed templates. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Can I manually archive some of the Help Desk, or someone who knows the proper way to do it.  I can get a cup of coffee while it's scrolling.  :- ) DCS 00:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't, the bot will do it. It already archived February 15, leaving a transclusion in the help desk (it will remove the transclusion at the next run, and then transclude Feb 16, and so on). CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You can press PgDn to scroll to the bottom really quickly or End to get to it right away. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

 :-\  Wonderful.  :- ) DCS 16:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

AfC recent submissions

We had talked awhile ago about the AfC icons on the recent submissions page.  I looked into doing the rollover, and it was going to be a lot of work.  I wacked out a Legend real quick.  The page will look something like >this<.  It looks ok I guess, but after chatting with AQ today, I will have to address the helper script(s) that update the list, so they don't break. Let me know if I should proceed or drop the idea?  :- ) DCS 01:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Like if it doesn't break anything. I'd prefer a key over the alt text anyway. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 02:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the Alt-Text is less likey to break anything, but a lot more work, I think.  Fixing scripts could be a lot of "frustrating" work.  Hummm  :- ) DCS 02:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I would guess that the hover text would be less likely to break something, but a key seems far more user-friendly to me. As a newbie, which are you more likely do... see a key, or hover over the icon? I just think that even if we do that it won't help very much. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 03:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeap, I agree. :- ) DCS 07:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

There's no reason we can't do both, though personally I think if we do tooltips a key is unnecessary because people will generally mouse over something to find out what it means - that's as about standard an interface paradigm as it gets.

Re. the tooltip I was waiting for a response at Template talk:Class/icon since it's such a high vis template... but that doesn't seem to be happening so I've gone ahead and submitted an edit request. It is quite a trivial change once you know how to do it. joe•roe^t•c 18:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have gotten very busy in real life.  I was looking into both options.  I did some experimenting on both.  They both work, but they both had issues that need addressed.  :- ) DCS 19:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Tooltips ahoy. joe•roe^t•c 18:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• I checked the helper script, looks like legend should not break it.  Going to go live.  :- ) DCS 18:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed someone added that ALT-TEXT.  Let me know if I should rip out the legend.  I love this place.  :- ) DCS 20:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Examiner.com

Does anyone know why this site is blocked?  It has some good info for a Help Desk problem. Thanks.  :- ) DCS 17:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably because of linkspam problems. I believe the authors of examiner.com articles are paid per visitor, which would provide quite a temptation to link to your own articles as often as possible to increase your income. Since it's not a reliable secondary source anyway, the encyclopedia probably doesn't lose much by blacklisting them. Anyway, wouldn't Wikipedia talk:Spam blacklist be a better place for such a question? Huon (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Roger that, and thanks.  Wikipedia talk:Spam blacklist would probably be a better place, but I didn't know it existed.  Is there a list somwhere?  :- ) DCS 18:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Others to Start

Is this the article to where we can submit article names or ideas for others to start for me? If not, could you direct me to the correct place? Allen (talk) 02:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requested articles. Regards, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 02:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/2GreenDollars

I put this one on hold.  Seems as notable to me as 10 Tulu language films, but AfD seems to disagree.  If somebody knows what to do about, please do.  Thanks.  :- ) DCS 20:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Youtube teaser vid aside the article looks like it could be Start-Class to me. Though I'd change it to his real name and redirect 2GreenDollers find proper sources for the citation needed links. If he speaks out often to high level government and businesses then cite those to. Seems it was a stretch on Notability due to DJ not producing works, but rather replaying them. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth the new article looks very little like the one that was deleted at AfD. That said, this submission has no reliable sources. The two CNN sources are from iReport, which is user-generated content; one of the source is self-published; three other are press releases. That leaves one very weak source about the subject, albeit in passing mention only (The Age). I would decline, both for the lack of reliable sources, and for the somewhat promotional tone (him being a "pioneer", unsourced, was also a recurrent theme on the old article). CharlieEchoTango (contact) 21:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Roger Wilco.  I should watch TV sometime, then I might know this stuff.  I was trying to find the articles deleted to look at them, but could only find the discussions.  Hints?  Thanks for your inputs, Chris & Charlie.  :- ) DCS 00:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Submitting Draft articles?

I noticed there are over 3,000 articles in the although it says the articles will be automatically declined, there are articles that haven't since October. Can some articles that have a chance of passing be submitted or not? JayJay^{Talk to me} 02:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

No, there isn't any bot at the moment. Leave it, we are working on it. mabdul 02:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh and technically they aren't submitted - so... who cares? mabdul 02:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:UnsignedAFC

Template:UnsignedAFC has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. mabdul 02:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

List of participants

Firstly, apologies for my absence and lack of input at the new help desk and on reviewing, I've just come back from holiday. Secondly, I've removed the former participants, from the participants page, to allow the page to used by AWB as a mailing list. If there was some pertinent reason for keeping the list of former participants, feel free to revert me. Pol430 talk to me 11:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I could read the AfC uesr box for a day

Now it's back to it's dried blood unreadable self.  I looked but could not find WP:AFCUSERBOXMUSTBEUNREADABLE. :- ) DCS 05:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Oy...it is. I move we change back to either the prior colors, or a nice green, which seem to be a theme here. Do we have a second? Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 14:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw written somewhere that IS our color. :- ) DCS 15:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The color is taken from whatever the current backlog of requests is, it's not that someone keeps changing the color. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 15:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely genius! More specifically, evil genius.

Seriously though, aren't there better way to advertise the backlog size? That would be like the "This user is a Wikipedian" u-box updating to follow WikiDefCon. A swell idea, unless your backlog is always in the dark red. I mean, it is a little hard to read. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 17:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Why not simply changing the text color related to the backlog? (black on white is readable, but also white on black, yk) mabdul 18:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I changed it over the weekend to white text on dark and dark on light, but it got reverted. But, I also changed it to magnitude scaling instead of linear so it would not be Severe 99% of time.  That also got reverted.  We can have one, the other or both.  But, an arbitrary number is still not an accurate representative of the magnitude of the back log because daily numbers change.  I'm working on the proper way based on total submissions, submission/day, declines/day, and accepts per day.  :- ) DCS 21:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I've put the white text in for lvl 6 on the userboxes to make it readable. Making the text white on the {{User AfC}} template can be done, but when i tested it it didn't look right so I left the text color alone. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 21:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

AFC Bot

Resolved

 – Both bots are working again - seems that Petrb restarted the bot. mabdul 11:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Why has ArticlesForCreationBot stopped working? No edits since 27th. I've lost count of the number of page moves and tag clean ups I've done tonight... Pol430 talk to me 21:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems ok here last update 37 minutes ago: Last updated by EarwigBot (owner • talk) at 7:01 pm, Today (UTC−7). Dates range from Feb 22 through Mar 02. Am I missing something?  :- ) DCS 02:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

ArticlesForCreationBot ≠ EarwigBot. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 04:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Understand that. But, things looked ok, but that is because Pol430 was doing it manually?  Just trying to understand.  :- ) DCS 16:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Backlog is only going to get worse.

Recently with the increase in daily submissions for articles, the backlog has seem to only gotten worse and shows no sign of improving. We need to do something about this. I believe we should make it so when the backlog gets worse to over 200+ articles for submission we should shut it down so people cannot submit articles temporarily until the backlog has improved. This is merely a suggestion, any other suggestions, ideas, comments? JayJay^{Talk to me} 0:58, February 25, 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the idea that we should prevent users from submitting articles because of something out of their control; we might miss some quality submissions that way. The backlog is only an issue in that it takes more time for a submission to be reviewed, and even then, it's only a matter of days. They'll just have to be patient, there is no deadline. Maybe we can make it more clear in the submission template that it can take a few days. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should make it so there article is saved it their personal sandbox or something similar so they can submit it later. And no the backlog is not because articles need more time to be reviewed it is the increase in submitted articles, repeatedly submitted articles, and lack of reviewers willing to help improve the backlog. JayJay^{Talk to me} 01:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I oppose this strongly; the system could be locked for days at a time because of it. We need a recruitment run or something. A412 (Talk • C) 01:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Well we clearly need to fix this problem but everyone opposes, I'm only trying to come up with ideas. JayJay^{Talk to me} 01:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I have always maintained that a backlog at AfC is expected and acceptable (some submissions are just not likely to turn into articles any time soon and it's okay for them to languish indefinitely) - but that we need a way of effectively prioritizing review work to focus on the submissions with the best chance of getting deployed as good quality articles. Some kind of tool is needed that can "rank" submissions based on how important it is to review them, while also giving a "bonus" to ones that have been waiting for a while, not unlike a CPU scheduler. Dcoetzee 02:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Do I hear an echo in here? Been there, done that, JayJay.  :- ) DCS 14:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the time taken.  Someone was going to change the submit template to say days, but I think that got nixed. Maybe I will just do it, seems to be the only way around here. :-p  One temporary or maybe permanent procedure might be to take the first 10 minutes of every hour and decline the unlikely candidates(the shortest articles).  Drops the count quicker and should save time on servers. Maybe I will talk to Earwig and see if he can default sort the article list by submit date, unless there is more than x items, then sort by size, shortest first. I had the idea the other night on IRC of limiting an article's submission to one per 24 hours.  But, I got smacked with a mackerel.  :- ) DCS 14:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I was also thinking we should change Talk page at the top tab here to Review Talk, to keep stuff like below out of here.  :- ) DCS 15:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Okidoki, that was quick.  Template is done, tab is done.  :- ) DCS 15:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

After thinking about the idea of getting the no-brainers declined first, it might help us, but just without a limit on resubmitting, does nothing except to reinforce spammers, maybe?  Or, maybe an immediate decline will discourage them?  :- ) DCS 16:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

We may have been enhancing the submission of spam by reviewing it immediately in order to get it off of the list.  We either have to 1)have a Bot reject it before the editor has time to blink, or 2)we review articles more or less oldest first.  This way the spammer will either get it immediately bounced without bothering us, or he is going to wait in the queue with the good articles for 4-5 days then get their rejection again after changing nothing.  Sound logical?  :- ) DCS 17:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

When I started on the back log yesterday is was at 505 submissions, I (and other people) got it down to about 400(ish). I come on this morning to find it's at 517... Oh the joys of working at AFC :) Pol430 talk to me 08:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

New reviewer instructions proposal

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 finished working on the new reviewer instructions at User:Pol430/Sandbox4/Reviewing articles. I propose that:

1. They replace the current instructions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions
2. That the instructions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions/short be deleted, under a housekeeping rationale, as no longer required. Two sets of instructions are confusing and it is probably beneficial to this project that any new participants read the full set.
3. The existing image upload reviewers instructions at Wikipedia:Files for upload/Reviewer instructions have been incorporated as a page tag link.

If supported, I will need some admin assistance to perform a technical page move, or I could just copy and paste...

Discussion

Nice tidy instructions! However, re accepting, something should perhaps be said about finding similar articles to grab a wikiproject banner and categories off (or, at least, trying to add cats and a relevant banner—especially the BLP one if necessary), since those are crucial to the later maintenance of the article. sonia♫ 19:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, feel free to edit those things in :) The crux of this proposal is to see if the notion of a single set of instructions is supported and if the new new layout is deemed better than the old one. Pol430 talk to me 20:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks good, and it will also replace one-half of the "Resources" page also.  Perhaps the reminder of reviewing stuff on the Support page can be merged or deleted?  Why are not the automatic programs, scripts, etc. in the "Resources" tab?  That is where I went looking for them?  And possible the decline list?  :- ) DCS 15:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Draft submissions are not really relevant any longer.  They will simply appear in the submission list when ready.  Am I wrong?  :- ) DCS 02:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Correct, we removed the "parallel systems" because they serve the same purpose after they get submitted for the first time. mabdul 09:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. Pol430 talk to me 12:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC) as proposer
2. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 18:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
3. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
4. Slon02 (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
5. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
6. Hallows AG (talk) 05:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
7. A412 (Talk • C) 23:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

The discussion above 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.

Help Desk templates?

The Help Desk seems to be a bit of a hit, What do people think about setting up some standard templates for the Help Desk such as those for the main WP:Help desk? (Like at Template:HD) - Happysailor ^(Talk) 00:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

i.e.

This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Please consider asking this question at the Wikipedia:Help desk. - This is where editors will try to answer any question regarding how to use Wikipedia. Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for any help related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps.

Sounds like a good idea.  The Reference Desk we could use for sure.  As to what we need, I think we will just have to watch and see which responses are most common, since the decline reasons are theoretically already on the decline template.  :- ) DCS 01:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll look at drafting some tomorrow (bed time right now ) based on the Helf desk ones, and on what we've been getting though our desk. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 01:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at User:Happysailor/Sandbox. I've created some drafts there for now. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 13:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Why exactly do we need the decline template-esque ones? I'm sure that those asking wouldn't be very satisfied to read the reviewer's message and receive the same reply at the help desk? A412 (Talk • C) 16:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, if we're going to use templates I'd say only the first two are appropriate. The rest sort of invalidate the whole point of the help desk, i.e. actually talking to people trying to improve a submission, not just swapping template messages. joe•roe^t•c 17:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

As Joe. I would very strongly oppose any answering templates for the help desk since a theme is that the people who come there haven't understood the template in the decline messages. Wouldn't mind the fist three though. Could be very useful. Apologies to Sailor for shooting down his work...but I would never use those. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 17:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, I just threw some drafts together for comment. I actually agree with you regarding those last few, but thought i'd chuck em in there to get feedback (might have been wanted)

I'll look at getting those couple up for now, and if they need tweaking or adding to, that's easy to do. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 17:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Those look helpful and time saving, especially for tagging it immediately, so we don't have two people working a question, finishing with an edit conflict.  No need to reiterate what is already in the decline templates.  :- ) DCS 18:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done located at Template:AFCHD - Happysailor ^(Talk) 18:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice, Sailor. :-)  Can we / us / you / I add the other little table of icons from your sandbox to the documentation, so everything is in one place? Thanks.  :- ) DCS 19:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Can do, but the reason I left them off the doc page, it they aren't technically in that template sub-set. If you open up the Help desk to edit, and look at the top, you'll see a green bar (just like it currently is on my Sandbox) with those smaller templates too, so theyre very easy to access. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 19:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

That is SO COOL. Nevermind.  :- ) DCS 02:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice looking templates, should come in handy :) Pol430 talk to me 18:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Templates for Displaying Military Ribbons/Medals as Worn?

Are there any templates for displaying a user's military ribbons and medals as worn on his uniform? If not, how can I do it? User:Gadget850 said that he uses the template "Quote box" to place ribbons into. Is that good, or is there a better way? Thank you. Allen (talk) 02:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

No such template, but you can use tables with the {{ribbon devices}} template if needed, see for example James F. Amos. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 02:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

If you check User:Morriswa/My userboxes#Military Ribbons I've Earned, you'll see I've done just that, just using the "Quote box" template I mentioned above. Unfortunately, the ribbons still have some spaces between them, and I don't think the stars on my Navy Sea Service Deployment Ribbon are correct. I have earned four, but I thought the fourth award was one silver star, not four bronze stars. If I am incorrect, please let me know (with a reference, please). Thank you for all of your help. Allen (talk) 02:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Should this post really go here, or at the Help Desk? A412 (Talk • C) 03:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I already asked it there, but only one person answered. Allen (talk) 03:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

doesn't mean this was the right place to ask , however I've fixed it for you using standard wiki tables. Also, it's the fifth award which is silver. The United States military issues bronze and silver service stars, with a silver service star issued in lieu of five bronze. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 07:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting my ribbons, however how can the horizontal spaces be removed (from between each row)? Also, how do we get the Operational Distinguishing Device to appear on the Coast Guard ribbon? Thank you, again! Allen (talk) 11:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

To remove the horizontal space we will have to abbreviate or wrap the title text.  Image for Operational Distinguishing Device?  :- ) DCS 16:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry looking at wrong page. Can probably photo-shop the other if you have an image or example.  :- ) DCS 19:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't have an image. I looked on Commons, but they didn't have one, either. I could look at Google Images, but I don't want the "copyright police" to remove it. Any help you or your friends could provide on all issues would be great. Allen (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The one between the 1st, 2nd & 3rd rows? no idea sorry (it must be a programming glitch with the devices that is causing it. Regarding the ODD which is a silver 0 then we just need a version of it, (like this one } but in silver. It can then be added to the ribbons template for people to use. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 21:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Or you use SVG or a bit of magic with CSS... mabdul 01:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't have an image of it, whether gif, jpg, svg, etc. (whether a photo or a normal image). If we could find one, that would be great. Allen (talk) 02:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I found http://www.iragreen.com/images/upload/sized/074bb4adcd67e9e7dcf00a472a2ce650.jpg, http://64.20.46.230/images/OperationalDevice.gif, and http://militarywired.com/i/dir/Silver-Letter-O. Allen (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

- Happysailor ^(Talk) 21:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, dude! I will attempt to get this implemented ASAP! Allen (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Did I do it correctly? I added the device code "n0s" for it. Allen (talk) 01:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Afc warning

Template:Afc warning has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. mabdul 19:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

A crazy idea

I know there's been talk about preventing users from submitting things for one day after it has been declined, but what do you all think of having something where they are unable to go for a week if they are declined three times, with no major improvements? In a way, this would be more like page protection, although we might be able to have something written that goes around this. It's just an idea, but what do others think? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, but how should this be done on the technical side? The only solution which comes in my mind, is by using the new parameter declinets (which is added by the helper tool, not documented) and hiding the submit link, but then? There is no way to manipulate the other submission templates on that page. mabdul 16:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I really think this project needs to work on demonstrating there is in fact a problem before we start solving it. We get hundreds of submissions a day... what proportion are re-submissions? How many submissions are re-submitted more than three times? How many of those aren't improving or otherwise have no hope of being accepted? We should be certain we're actually going to reduce the backlog before giving reviewers a lot more work to do and submitters a lot more hoops to jump through. joe•roe^t•c 16:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought about doing some research into that, but decided it was not worth the time.  We have all seen the problem.  What percentage it is?  It varies depending on the Moon, or Venus, or the price of gas, who knows.  IMHO, as long as we keep a reasonable, i.e., several days of back log, and the reviewers attempt to work from the oldest first, the spammers will give up.  I think we inadvertently caused the problem by bouncing the spam back immediately because it was easy to see, and of course they immediately resubmitted.  If they have to wait a week to get declined, what fun is that? I'm sure that Mr. Earwig can default sort the list oldest first.  :- ) DCS 03:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Even if we delay a few days, they won't give up entirely. At this point, we're probably just trying to stick our finger in a leaky dike, by trying to squelch all the problems. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Mistaken submission

Hello all. I'm an online ambassador for this term, and one of the students has submitted what is clearly a draft to you folks. I think he thought AfC was more of a topic approval process. It's here: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Trail Smelter Dispute. If possible, could someone userfy it to the author's page: User:SockeyeSam. I can explain to the user and direct him to the draft. It'll knock one off your backlog at least! Thanks, The Interior (Talk) 17:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Userfied to User:SockeyeSam/Trail Smelter Dispute. joe•roe^t•c 19:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Joe. The Interior (Talk) 19:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Alpha index

{{Alpha index}} has been nominated for deletion. I had a thought you might like to integrate it into the article wizard (as an option to create alphabetic lists)

70.49.126.147 (talk) 05:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason COI

It looks like the COI decline reason was retired, removed from template and it isn't in the AfC helper template either. But I think "The reviewer left the following comment about this draft: coi." isn't helpful for a user, who latter returns to fix the submission, for example: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Thomas Kraabel. I see two ways to fix this. The parameter is added back to the template either permanently (but it is made clear it shouldn't be used any-more) or temporally (in this case the pages should be re-reviewed with the help of temporary category). Any thoughts? (Hopefully from someone, who knows who the AFC templates work.) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Well technically people aren't prohibited from writing about things where they have a COI, just "strongly discouraged", so I don't think we can decline for COI alone. I tend to decline or accept as I usually would then put {{uw-coi}} on the editor's talk page. joe•roe^t•c 17:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The question isn't whether it's good to decline a submission due to conflict of interest. The question is: What should be done with submissions, which were declined with this reason and now don't have any guidance to the submitter except "coi"? Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 18:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I misunderstood. I suppose putting COI back in the template but removing it from the table and the helper script should be enough to stop it being used. But since it was "retired" nearly a year ago, is this really an issue? Not a lot of people go back to submissions after a couple of months. joe•roe^t•c 18:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

We could change it so that COI is a shortcut to ADV. More than likely if it was declined with COI, it probably also has advertising issues. Alpha_Quadrant (talk)

Another option is a redirect to WP:NPOV, but I like the notion of bringing the template back but keeping it out of the helper script. NTox · talk 19:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, having a COI is not a valid reason to decline an article. It shouldn't be used at all. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Correct. What I would suggest is replacing the COI text with something along the lines of 'This submission appears to have been written by an editor with a conflict of interest. Encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view', and so on. The rationale, of course, being WP:NPOV, since WP:COI is merely a guideline—assuming such a change is practical. NTox · talk 20:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't really think this is a problem we need to worry to much about fixing. COI was removed from the decline reasons sufficiently long ago for any submission that still contain that rationale to be considered historical. It is unlikely that the authors are going to come back to them now; even if they do, the template now includes a very prominent link to the AfC helpdesk, where the author can ask "Hey! what does 'coi' mean?" Pol430 talk to me 19:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Require category in submission

Personally, when I go through the list of submissions, I often have to read a lot of topics I am uninterested in, say physics; at the same time, someone else might be going through the list and have to read things they are not interested in, say biology. What I propose here is to require the person who submits the article to place it in a broad category. When I say broad, I mean like 'People', 'Science', 'Music' and 'General' (etc). So it would make the process more enjoyable, as you will be learning about things that interests you more. It takes very little effort for the author to pick one of the categories.

By implementing this, I think more people would join the project, as they would not see this as a wholly administrative task, but also an opportunity to learn new things from the subject they are interested in. (For me, I see quite a few new articles on a new species, which interests me; another person might want to review 'Music' to find lesser-known bands etc.) Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 00:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure how feasible that is. Mainspace categories should not be added to pages outside of mainspace. If the submission ends up declined, then someone has to go through and do this. It would also add another hoop for new users to jump through in order for their submission to be accepted. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Kinkreet, I think many people do that automatically because they would rather read and maybe learn something they are already interested in.  I know I do when I have the leisure.  However, real life is stomping me right now, so I have made an effort to review the oldest articles, which are usually the biographies nobody wants to touch. :-p  And, usually take more time per kB.  :- ) DCS 05:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with AQ that we shouldn't add mainspace cats to submissions or force people submitting to learn the [[Category:]] syntax, but if I'm reading correctly that's not quite what Kinkreet is suggesting. He's saying we should have specific AfC submission categories which, presumably, the user will choose in the Article Wizard and will then get added to the template.

Assuming it's feasible to put that functionality in the Wizard, I think it's a great idea. With the backlog regularly hovering around 500 now is really the time to break it up a bit to make it more manageable, just like AfDs and RfCs are broken up. I agree it would make it much more enjoyable to be able to say I'm only going to review submissions on xyz topic I'm interested in tonight, rather than always have to wade through the usual spread of biographies, companies, etc. Also, I think there sometimes is a problem of viable submissions getting declined by reviewers because they weren't familiar enough with the topic (e.g. WP:ACADEMICs and their special guidelines on notability) and conversely bad articles slipping they're too specialist for the reviewer to give it a proper assessment. I know I've spotted both in the areas I'm interested in and been guilty of both in the areas I'm not. Filtering by topic would make it more likely that a submission will be looked at by someone who knows a bit about that topic.

One possible problem is that certain categories may get neglected because reviewers know they're less likely to have good articles in them. As long as we make an effort to keep on top of any backlogs in those categories, though, that could be a benefit: because it would make it easier for good articles in other categories to get through promptly even when we have a flood of advertisements for small businesses or indecipherable hagiographies of New Age Indian mystics. joe•roe^t•c 07:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing to be done.  Even if articles are categorized; without hard, fast rules, people are going to review what they want.  You can pretty much tell by the title, "Aardvark cloning" is biology, or maybe a video game.  The sticky, nasty, ugly articles are going to be left for last.  See the next section:   :- ) DCS 16:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/C. Lorenz AG

What to do?  This one is getting old.  I think it looks very good, but what do I know?  It was last marked as copyvio.  I have not found blatant copyvio, or I have missed it.   :- ) DCS 15:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

From what i've seen so far, there are some closely paraphrased sections (possible Plagiarism} from the book linked to in the first decline. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 16:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, some sentences are copied word for word - Happysailor ^(Talk) 16:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I did not see that. I will print it out, and see if it can be easily fixed.  The schizophrenia of the Wiki, take a well written article and muck it up so it can be accepted.   :- ) DCS 16:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm seeing some paraphrasing but can't find anything too egregious. I've messaged the reviewer who declined to see if they spotted something we have not. Pol430 talk to me 16:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hiya. I did one of the reviews on Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/C._Lorenz_AG and marked it as possible copyright violation. This is because I selected a random segment of the submission and searched for it on Google. The phrase was: "Put into production by Lorenz in 1942, the Hohentwiel was highly successful" which resulted in 1 result to Google Books[2]. The Book is: Radar Origins Worldwide[3] by Jr. Raymond C. Watson from Trafford Publishing, Nov 25, 2009. I haven't looked at the updated submission, so can't comment on that. Thanks. Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   17:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

History shows it was unblanked and resubmitted with no change.  :- ) DCS 18:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I have declined again because: 1) there is sufficient evidence of copyright concerns (see above) and 2) The author did nothing to address those concerns before resubmitting. Pol430 talk to me 19:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Can we decline submissions for being poorly written?

Hello, new reviewer here. I keep coming across submissions that are clearly unsuitable due to bad writing or formatting, but can't be denied on the basis of notability or referencing. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dr. Ariel Cohen for example; it is well-referenced and probably notable, but I don't feel comfortable moving it to the mainspace without lots of rewriting. Is unencyclopedic style valid grounds for denying a submission? Is there a standard rationale built into the template for such denials, or should I write out a custom rationale? Thanks, --Cerebellum (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

A bloody mess, you mean.  One of the thankless jobs of a reviewer.  Fix and approve, or approve and fix.  Or, find someone willing.  There are many editors out there that can take this and make it beautiful.  Offer candies, flowers, or whatever.  :- ) DCS 18:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, yes and no... Generally speaking we should try and fix the problems. Sometimes this is more work than fundamentally rewriting the article. If another decline reason applies, use that. I'll see what I can do with fixing that particular submission. Pol430 talk to me 19:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I've left a comment on that submission, it is completely reliant on references written by the subject and therefore cannot properly demonstrate notability. It is probable that the author will be able to address those concerns, and this submission is likely to be declined a few more time before ultimately being accepted (perhaps). That's one of the nice bits about AfC, it acts as a system of editor coaching for new users. Pol430 talk to me 19:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to delete a subpage

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'm thinking we should delete Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Active participants and replace any links to it, with a link to this reviewer talk page. For the following reasons:

1. Some of the editors listed are no longer very active at AfC
2. Active AfC editors change over time, the list will require updating often
3. Who decides when someone is active or no longer active?
4. Linking to this page gives all members of the project a chance to respond to enquires; fostering an atmosphere of collegiality.

• If agreement is reached here, page can easily be deleted under a G6 housekeeping rationale. Pol430 talk to me 19:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• This was designed to be a short list (I think it contained 3-4 users initially) that users could approach if they wanted help. Directing people at this talk page might work well, but perhaps there are occasions when some people would prefer to contact someone individually rather than posting on a busy talk page like this one (e.g. if they have made a mistake). In any case I agree that it has grown too large and needs to be substantially trimmed. I'll have a go but I'm not sure who the most active people are these days. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete - But it is active in about 60 AfC Welcome templates. What to do with those?   :- ) DCS 15:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, don't really have an answer for that one, I guess it's never been subst'd in the past. Pol430 talk to me 16:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Scratch that, if we were to replace the the link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Active participants on the AfC welcome template (with a link to this page for example), wouldn't that have the desired effect? Pol430 talk to me 16:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so, because the welcome template was substituted, so changes to the template wont effect the ones on talk pages. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 16:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Since MSGJ made the changes to /Active participants yesterday, the archived welcome templates seem to be showing the newly revised version (at least the six or so I looked at were). Which seems to suggest they were not subst'd when they were originally applied... Or I might just be going mad... Pol430 talk to me 16:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The welcome template includes a transclusion of the participants page. So when it was substituted onto people talk page, so was the transclusion code (which is why the list gets updated in peoples archives.) If you change the welcome template, it wont change the ones already put on people pages, unless you can work out a way to change the text in the participants page to tie in with the welcome template itself so that if you chagne it, it doesnt look wrong? - Happysailor ^(Talk) 16:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

There is already a link to this page in the welcome template (in the line above) so it wouldn't make sense to add another. If there is agreement to remove the active participant list, then the whole line in the template should be removed. The active list can be left alone, for the sake of the 60 transclusions. Otherwise they will need to be substituted before deleting the list. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

@ Happysailor: Ahh, yes, you're quite right. Pol430 talk to me 17:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

We also could create a bot checking if a participant is still active (at aft/general)... mabdul 14:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I can fix up 60 templates over a week or so, 30 minutes if I had the time.  Then it will be handled, and we can delete the page. Just need to figure out best way to fix.   :- ) DCS 15:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you want me to run this through AWB? it'll take like 2 mins to substitute the Active Participants template to peoples archives, then it can be gotten rid of *just need to decide what text should be subst (list of people as now or a link to the help desk?) - Happysailor ^(Talk) 15:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

In fact, since it already mentions the talk page & help desk, i propose i just delete the "experience editor" line from all the teamplates - that'll free it up for deletion then. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 15:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Deleting the line will get the job done.  I don't use AWB, if only 2 minutes, enjoy.   :- ) DCS 15:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. changed to redirect as some pages are hard linked. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 17:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Sent an article draft here by mistake

I created "Jacques Derrida on deconstruction" and sent a draft here by mistake. I have since uploaded the finished article to the live Wikipedia. The draft does not need to be reviewed...please delete the draft, if possible. Thank you! OttawaAC (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done - I have tagged the page for deletion. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 17:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

All set. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Archiving

I'm glad to see that project has become much more active lately, and with increased activity comes longer talkpages and archives. It is March, and the 2012 archive is already as long or longer than previous years'. Can someone (who actually knows how to) change the archive settings so another subpage is created (possibly at the end of March so that we have quarterly archives)? Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 19:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the archive settings for both MiszaBot and Cluebot, you can either archive by year, month or consecutive No. Archives. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 19:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I've been manually archiving since I got here, so even that almost went over my head. Isn't there a way to set it up so that after, say, 100 headers in the archive a new subpage is created? Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 03:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I've added cluebot code to this page which will archive as (/2012 1 : /2012 2 : /2012 3 etc) It's not active atm, as i'll activate it at the end of March so the currrent archive carries Jan-March archives in full. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 10:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much :) Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 13:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

draft status boxes for {{Request edit}} and {{coi}}

I really like the AFC status box, so I copied the idea and made drafts for new templates for the {{Request edit}} and {{coi}} ques: User:Eclipsed/Template:Requested edits status User:Eclipsed/Template:COI tag status

Feel free to edit the draft templates at User:Eclipsed/Template:Requested edits status and User:Eclipsed/Template:COI tag status. Any comments welcome. Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   22:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Something fishy here...

See AfC - John Belk and AfC - Joe Beck, both of which I just declined as not notable. However, it appears on the face of it that two different users (Aichelman and Willjarvis)are doing exactly the same thing (including submitting from their sandboxes), and how many more of these are there in the 1200-plus pending AfC's? How can I find out where they're coming from? David_FLXD (Talk) 19:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd guess it's some sort of school project, "pick a guy interviewed for the Federal Writers Project and write a Wikipedia article on him". Going by these two, I doubt any of them would be notable. If that's indeed what's going on it might be worth the effort to find the professor and speak to him about the assignment. A quick search for "Federal Writers Project" in userspace came up with another two, currently not submitted: User:Jarvisw/sandbox, User:Fmenozzi/sandbox. And there's this: User:Engl105gerst/sandbox. Same timeframe, username sounds like a course title. Have you tried asking the submitted drafts' authors? Huon (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't think of a school project! I suspected some one person under multiple usernames, but your suggestion looks more likely. I will ask. Thanks! David_FLXD (Talk) 02:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I've added a note at User talk:Engl105gerst, what I believe to be the professor's account. Huon (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

n.y.s personal injury law

what dose n.y state specify on personal injury law — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.37.18 (talk) 00:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Please consider asking this question at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what the Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps.

We cannot offer legal advice. Please see the legal disclaimer. Contact a lawyer. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 02:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Concerns about prep for next drive

Since conversation hasn't really started yet on the new Backlog Drive Talk page, I just wanted to note a few concerns that were raised for the November 2012 drive, that appear to be carrying over to the next drive:

• Competitors are still required to manually tabulate their own scores, by pulling up both the title of every page they review, as well as the link to the diff. I'm sure programmer-y folks have some magic methods, but even after refining my manual practises for smoothest motion, it still takes me on average a good 20-30 seconds to add each title to my score. That's fine for folks reviewing 20 articles, but for those few of us who review 1000+ articles, that's getting into 10+ hours just of adding up the score. In 10 hours I can probably knock out 600 quickie no-brainer reviews (no sourcing, not-notable, blank, advert), so that's reviews lost on administrative minutiae. It's simply not worth it for a lot of high scorers to compete for the top slots, and even if they are willing it's a waste of time they could be using to kill the backlog.
• The awards bar is set way too low. A brownie for 1 review? With AFC helper, even a total novice can find a clearly unsuitable review, select "non-notable/unverified/advert" and be done in under 60 seconds. That's not helping us, the person giving them the brownie spends more time giving it to them than the person spent earning it. The highest non-competitive award is for 130 reviews, which one can knock out in a couple of hours, or maybe 4 minutes a day. Just me, but I'd suggest at least 15 for brownie, and at least 300 for AFC Barnstar.

I think there should be some serious consideration to addressing the scoring system. A few editors vaguely mentioned there'd be some easy script-based way to do it. If it will save dozens of hours for 30+ competitors (just in this Drive, much less future ones) I'd submit it's worth writing a script for it and giving an AFC barnstar to the scriptwriter automatically. The award bars is more of a quibble, but for scoring I honestly don't see myself competing if I have to spend 10 hours just proving I did some reviews. For your consideration. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd definitely empathise with Matthew regarding the possibilities for automated scoring, as we spent a significant amount of time calculating our results instead of actually reviewing new submissions. Mephistophelian (contact) 03:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC).

I'm still considering the boundaries - I'm thinking of increasing many of them by a bit to encorage more reviews to be done. I agree automated scoring, or at least a log for AFC reviews, similar to Twinkles CSD log, would be good. Mdann52 (talk) 13:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm most likely the only one here like this, but I have no connection to a toolserver, so I can't use the AFC helper script. That means that I have to review all submissions manually. It took me the length of the whole last drive to review 85 submissions. So if you "set the bar" higher, I'm just going to have to drop out, or just accept a brownie. That's just my 2 cents. Jakob 15:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Automated logging doesn't seem that hard, but mabdul has his plate full and can't code it so it would be up to me trying to reverse-engineer Twinkle. @B. Jakob T.: You don't need the Toolserver. If you have an account you can use the script. Read over WP:AFCH. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 21:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I selected the little box next to the "Yet another AFC helper script", but when I go to review an AFC, I don't see any changes to when I did it manually. Would you mind expanding on where I should click to start the script? Thanks, Jakob 23:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It should be in the same tab as your "Move" one. If you still can't find it, let me know. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It has to be in the project space. If you go to a tagged article in the user's sandbox you won't see it. Gigs (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I wrote a patch for that. You'll be able to do userspace reviewing in the next update. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 21:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned at the drive's talk page, I just finished a script that does just this – check out the beta at User:The Anonymouse/January 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive data.

Helper script decline menu

Could the rest of the templated decline reasons be added to the dropdown menu? Danger ^{High voltage!} 04:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

What decline reasons do we not have implemented currently? --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 21:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh my god, it was a problem with my browser and scrolling I feel so stupid now I'll just go put my head in a bucket of water for a while so sorry. Danger ^{High voltage!} 02:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It happens. I'm a programmer with lots of experience and stuff like that still happens to me on a regular basis. Gigs (talk) 14:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Same here. The script is the most annoying thing in history to code. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 20:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It might be worth creating decline options for those subjects that have their own notability guidelines, but which are currently declined using 'nn', i. e., astronomical objects, books, geographic features, and numbers. One for books would be especially useful. Alexrexpvt (talk) 16:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Patch this file with whatever new decline options you want to see and then I'll add them to the script. Simple! --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 21:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Script bug: not recognising redirects

The script does not recognise when the user who submitted a draft page has had a change of user name; and is leaving messages on the redirected talk page, rather than on the page to which it redirects. Here's an example. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, that can't be that common of a bug. I'll file it on the list for v4.1.17, though. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 21:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Andy A. Anderson

I have concerns about Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Andy A. Anderson created by Badboyzshop (talk · contribs). It appears to have been copied out of another user's sandbox User:Andybrevard/sandbox, so attribution is incomplete. -- 65.92.180.225 (talk) 06:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Note, I have asked for a history splice on this to fix the attribution -- 65.92.180.225 (talk) 06:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the histmerge has been done now. I've re-added the AfC tag so the submission doesn't fall into the AFC black hole. I'm reviewing it now. Pol430 talk to me 22:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI: new bot requested

AFD informing bot, see Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 49#AFC reviewer informing if article is at AfD. Regards, mabdul 12:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Filed BRFA. Noom _talk ^stalk 23:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)