Template talk:AfC submission/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

nn

Could we separate not notable from A7?

A7 really only applies to a narrow scope of subjects, while notability is precisely defined by the existence of sources.

As it stands you would want to use one of the more specific comments when arguing from A7, ie. web/corp/band, and source when arguing for lack of notability. However source is not that appropriate when the article is sourced, but solely from primary sources.

It might also be good to get a context comment.

So my suggestions would be;

source:

We cannot accept unsourced suggestions or sources that are not reliable per the verifiability policy. Please provide reputable, third-party sources with your suggestions. Third party sources are needed to establish both the verifiability of the submission as well as its notability.

nn:

There is doubt that this submission meets our guidelines for inclusion. To be considered notable enough to merit an article a topic should have received nontrivial coverage in multiple independent sources. Suggestions for such sources should alleviate doubts about notability.

context:

The submission does not provide enough context for unfamiliar readers to identify the subject.

Taemyr (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Please expand lang switch

Could we have some code at Template:AFC submission/comments that would return the corresponding language name when the associated language prefix is entered? I mean, if {{AFC submission|H|lang|ia}} is entered, it should return the following comment:

“ This is the English-language Wikipedia; we can only accept articles written in the English language. Please provide an English-language translation for your article, or visit the Interlingua Wikipedia home page to find the Interlingua version of Wikipedia. ”

--Alexius08 (talk) 10:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone good with parser functions/Wikimarkup

It is my understanding that this template is only for use with articles for creation, and not for user subpages (because, in itself, AFC is meant for those without an account, right?). I've seen this template used far too many times in the User: namespace, which unnecessarily populates the Category:Articles for Creation. I've seen some templates that, when used in the wrong namespace, they 1) don't categorize the page, and 2) display an alternate text, like, "notice: this template should not be used in the X-namespace. Please use Y-template instead." Can this template be modified to do that? Thanks. —Duncan^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 06:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Replied to your comment over at WT:WPAFC. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Automatic delivery of Template:Afc decline

The following three posts are reposted from here:

As part of my WP:NPP efforts, I have been substituting Template:AFC submission/submit into AFC pages to complete the final submission step that the article creators forgot to do. This has resulted in my incorrectly receiving the Template:Afc decline notice. See my talk page.[1] I understand that this notification is delivered automatically.[2] Can you change the automatic delivery of Template:Afc decline so that it is delivered to the AFC submission page creator. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 22:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think it's all part of the AFC script I installed: importScript('User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD.js');. Bejinhan talks 10:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Martin (MSGJ · talk) provided the answer on my talk page. On substituting Template:AFC submission/submit, the template adds the name of the template poster to the |u= parameter. See, for example, these posts In the future, I will change the u parameter to be the username of the author rather than my username after I post the template. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Preloaded Inform the Author link - problem

I'm not sure if its working as intended, but the link provided when you reject a submission, "Inform author" does not seem to be preloading the talk page of the submitter with the declined template properly configured. It creates a message that says: "...Your article has been reviewed and declined; it is now located at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/..." wouldn't it make more sense if the link created included the actual article located there, rather then just the link back to the AFC starting point? Or am I not doing something right? Monty₈₄₅ 22:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

As I think you have now discovered you have to enter the name of the article as a parameter of the template, because there is no way to enter this automatically. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

add a link to Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners in the decline- verifiability message

Hi, I have seen several comments on AFCs which were declined on V, pointing people to this page. Can't we just include it in the standard message when you decline a page? I would have boldly added it, but I have no idea where to find the sub-subpage this text is on. Yoenit (talk) 07:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The "declined" banner is held at Template:AFC submission/declined. But perhaps it would be more appropriate to put this link on the talk page notification, which is Template:Afc decline. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Nah, that is not what I meant. I meant the "source" comment on this page. There is no reason to include that line when you decline a page based on some other reason, but source problems it will be useful. Yoenit (talk) 09:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Messages when article already exists

The messages in Template:AFC submission/declined and Template:Afc decline are not useful when an article already exists - are separate templates needed for this? Peter E. James (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Some observations

• The generic decline ("NN") should not link to the CSD criteria - I feel this is too confusing for new editors (even experienced editors) and I think it shuts them down. We should instead link to a less scary page like WP:GNG.
• We should allow a decline reason for articles which are just absolute formatting trainwrecks such as copy-and-paste text-wall nightmares (such as interwiki) which might not technically fall into any other decline criteria, but would require a lot of effort to cleanup and wikify. It's not really helping the encyclopedia or anyone else if more effort has to go into cleaning up a submissions than effort it took to create in the first place.
• Similarly, we don't really have a decline reason for machine-translated articles which I've been coming across lately. We should have a decline reason for these I think. These don't always fall into other criteria and can be hard to check if you can't read the original language.
• We should add to the "v" decline reason and add something like "or sources that cannot be verified". For instance, sources which might not be in English are going to be difficult to verify on the English encyclopedia.

Just some thoughts for now.    Thorncrag  00:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

All these are good ideas. The reasons can be updated by editing Template:AFC submission/comments. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I have removed all references to WP:CSD#A7. From what I gather, the relevant part ("does not indicate why its subject is important or significant") is already covered by the messages, and the rest don't really concern AfC. wctaiwan (talk) 13:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup template

There is a perpetual backlog at articles for creation. I went to try to review some articles, and I found this template to be intimidating. At /Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Reviewing_instructions the instructions say that the template should look "something like: {{AFC submission|D|reason|ts=20120117172850|u=Example|ns=5}}. Please do not remove or edit the ts, u, or ns parameters"

I was intimidated by this and I think many other able editors are also. This was a barrier to my participating in AFC, and thinking back I have come to AFC before and not reviewed articles just because I did not want to take the time to learn this template. Is there a way that the template could remove the ts, u, and ns parameters so that users do not have to see them, since users are not supposed to touch them? If this is absolutely not possible, then I think I would like to include stronger bold language in all instructions saying that there is no reason for anyone to question what these parameters are supposed to mean. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The new box

I've changed the wording slightly from 'The reviewer left the following comment about improving your draft' to: 'The reviewer left the following comment about this draft'. Dislike the word 'your' as it encourages WP:OWN issues and also, not all drafts can be improved to the point they will be accepted. Pol430 talk to me 17:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Some changes

In the spirit of WP:BRD, I would like people to review the changes I have made earlier and revert them if needed be. Here's a summary and some rationales for what I did:

• Changed all mentions of "third-party" to "independent" and added wikilinks to WP:Independent sources

I think that "independent" is a better description of our requirement, and from experience many new contributors do not understand what we mean by "independent sources".

• For nn, bio and film, changed "Please ... cite reliable, published third-party sources, so that the information in the article is verifiable. Thank you." to "Please ... support it by citing published sources that are reliable and independent."

I think that the relation between sources and verifiability isn't immediately clear to new contributors. Linking to WP:Referencing for beginners makes it easier for them to try adding sources on their own.

• Replaced the message for v with "This article is not adequately supported by reliable, independent sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified, and reliable independent sources are needed to establish the notability of the subject. If you need help citing sources, please see Referencing for beginners."

To me, the old message may be misunderstood to suggest that sources connected to the subject cannot be used at all. Furthermore, a more prominent link to WP:REFB is probably more helpful to new contributors than a link to the more detailed WP:CITE.

Thanks. wctaiwan (talk) 12:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 27 December 2013

Can somebody edit the template so that this edit I made on the sandbox shows on the actual template? buffbills7701 03:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Done Technical 13 (talk) 13:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Template protected edit request of 6 April 2014

Please apply the changed described in these edits to the sandbox to the base declined template. Some polishing of the language to give exact references to policy and give some discretion to AFC reviewers. Hasteur (talk) 02:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Partly done: I've applied the link to WP:PA but I don't see any other differences between the live version and sandbox version other than "softening" of the wording. I don't agree that this "softening" is accurate and it will need some discussion as to whether or not the project wants to stand some ground or be a complete pushover. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 14:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

With respect to Technical 13 I think it is already clear that the unilateral change by Ktr101 has already been objected to. I ask that the remainder of the changes that were proposed be implemented. Because the template is protected and the agressive language would have been WP:BRD-ed out but for the template protection. Hasteur (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. I support the stronger wording, and until there is a full discussion and consensus, it is the status quo and should remain. I have commented on the overly aggressive wording section as well. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 15:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Since Technical 13 is refusing to support WP:BRD as evidenced that the bold action was KTR101's, and now there is a request on the appropriate talk page that objects to the bold change I ask a different template editor or administrator to implement the changes exactly as described. The reversion is the one that I have proposed as a compromise. I ask that Technical 13 stay keep their hands off this request and that a different privileged user comment on the change. Hasteur (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• This new wording is unnecessarily bitey, and the 3-strikes rule mentioned in it has no grounds in the blocking policy (as it is not explicitly defined as disruptive editing). For transparency purposes, I did ask Rschen7754 on IRC to make the revert on my behalf, for the aforementioned reason. If we are going to give any warnings at all, they will have to be much more politely worded.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

@Technical 13:, @Ktr101:: Please discuss such a change before you make it. As template editors, you are expected to discuss before you make this edit; that is the whole point of the templateeditor flag. --Rschen7754 07:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

AfC Template discussion

I have moved a replica of the current template to Template talk:AFC submission/declined/draft, where editors may edit and discuss boldly, establish consensus for a new version and eventually move it into template-space (if there is sustained interest). I believe this is typically how high-volume templates develop, and would avoid the appearance of admins acting as super-users, since only they can edit the page.

Rather than fill the template with threats of a block, I would suggest that after three declines that the article-space page be locked and the AfC not able to re-submit for 3 months. This would require more programming and the template would say something like "This is your second decline. Please note after a third decline, you will not be allowed to re-submit for three months. This is intended to prevent excessive reviews on articles that may not meet Wikipedia's requirements for an article to exist or isn't looking like it will be successful. We do encourage you to do edit in other areas that may be more productive." Instead of all of this "you may be blocked if XYZ" stuff.

This should also have the effect of improving the quality of submissions if ppl know they only have three tries. CorporateM (Talk) 15:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• CorporateM, all users can edit Template:AFC submission/declined/sandbox which is where this kind of thing should be done. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 15:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
• We can't necessarily lock the space for them, so this would be an empty threat unless we fully-protected the pages so that auto confirmed users can't edit the AFC or draft space. In terms of the template idea though, I do like having it do it periodically, and I would even support something that would add back in the template when it is removed by users, so that people don't remove the template in order to skirt around the counter. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Technical. I have redirected it to the sandbox location you described. CorporateM (Talk) 15:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Ktr101: How about we steer this "lockout re-submissions" discussion back to WT:AFC to see if there's support for this (and to scope out the functional requirements). I could see a periodic (sub-daily) bot/script run over the pending submissions daily to hunt for ones to put on "timeout" and then a daily script which re-submits a page once it fell out of timeout. Hasteur (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Works for me. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 July 2014

Please undo this edit which was made without consensus and of which I oppose this change that prevents experienced users from using the submit button while viewing the edit window of the draft. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 13:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

With respect to Technical 13, I acutally think hiding the submit button when the user previews the page is a good thing if only to protect the users from unintentional mis-submissions. Hasteur (talk) 15:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• While that might be true, it shouldn't be forced upon others that want to be able to click the button... I've been know to look over another editor's draft upon request and want to submit it from the edit window after checking for hidden comments and whatnot and not changing anything. This change that was made without consensus breaks the ability to do that and should be reverted. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Multiple users showed agreement that this change was a good thing at WT:WPAFC. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

First, you are involved and are disallowed from closing this. Second, you made a bold change and my inability to revert the change itself is the only thing preventing me from doing it, and this is known as abusing the userright to further your cause and is grounds for  Template editor dismissal. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

First of all, it wasn't a WP:BOLD change. It was a change as a result of discussion. Whoever does end up closing this, please see discussion that led to the change at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Those blank submissions are our fault. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

 Administrator note I have reviewed the discussion. I find there is consensus that there was a problem, but not necessarily consensus that this is the best way of achieving it. Discussion after the event seems broadly to support the change, so I will not revert, but please continue to discuss there to avoid fragmenting the discussion. Jackmcbarn, closing this edit request to revert your own changes was extremely unwise. Please avoid this in future. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a problem, and this template needs to be reverted until the discussion has concluded as the change introduced here is disruptive. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 19 January 2015

The template’s text includes a link labeled “Articles for creation help desk” that leads to an edit page. Either the words “ask a question” should be included in the link to the form to ask a question at the Help Desk, or the link should be changed to WP:AFCHD rather than a preloaded edit page. So please make one of the following changes:

Either change

scroll|you may ask a question at the {{Plain link|url={{fullurl:Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk|action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AFC_submission/declined/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D={{FULLPAGENAMEE}}}}|name='''Articles for creation help desk'''}}

to

scroll|you may {{Plain link|url={{fullurl:Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk|action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AFC_submission/declined/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D={{FULLPAGENAMEE}}}}|name=ask a question at the '''Articles for creation help desk'''}}

or change

scroll|you may ask a question at the {{Plain link|url={{fullurl:Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk|action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AFC_submission/declined/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D={{FULLPAGENAMEE}}}}|name='''Articles for creation help desk'''}}

to

scroll|you may ask a question at the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk|'''Articles for creation help desk''']]

174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done for now: Sounds like a good idea, but we should decide which one we want to do before we make any edits. Please reopen the request after a few days if there is a consensus on what to do, or if no-one else has commented. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the former would be best; I don’t think someone seeing this template would have much use for the help desk if not to ask a question or request re-review. Won’t complain if anyone disagrees, though. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 10:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

You could do both, i.e. you may visit the Articles for creation help desk (ask a question) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Or, “ask a question at the Articles for creation help desk.” I considered that too, but figured it’d be better to keep it simple with one link. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Reconsidered. The other templates have both kinds of links. This one should, too. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: The second suggestion of eliminating the preload is pretty much out of the question as there is scripting and analytics run that requires the specific format that the preloads provide. The first suggestion seems strange to me, as I don't see the benefit of making more of the text blue. It functions exactly the same, but makes the page a `wall of blue` and that is generally undesirable. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 15:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • How about just linking the text “ask a question” then? Makes more sense than linking the page name to start editing a new section, when throughout the project it doesn’t work that way. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    • That would be fine if you can establish a consensus with others. Would just seem odd that it would be the text preceding that name of the destination page instead of the destination page itself, especially when all of the other templates use the destination page. Changing this will make it inconsistent with the rest of the templates. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

      As is, this template is the only one of these that mentions the help desk and doesn’t link to the page (and the only one where the words “ask a question” are not part of a link). This can’t possibly be made more inconsistent. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

      • Funny this should be raised, I have previously thought it was a little odd that a preloaded edit link was formatted as the page title. I just never thought to raise it. Personally, I like Martin's solution above. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 22:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
        • I'm hesitant about the two link approach as it will cause disruption in the scripting and analytics run that require the specific format that the preloads provide. If it's what everyone else wants though, I'd be happy to try and work out something. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 23:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
          • {{AFC submission/pending}} and {{AFC submission/draft}} both include both a page link and a preload link. (The other subtemplates have neither.) Do those cause disruption, too? Because either those two need to be fixed or this one does. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
            • I'm confused. Why does reformatting the the current preloaded link to display as 'ask a question' and adding a plain Wikilink to the page cause problems? Bellerophon _{talk to me} 17:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
              • Each different preload uses a different parameter name for the name of the page in Template:Lafc. It accepts [accepted, declinedtalk, declined, pending, draft, link, page] which allows for collection of data to see who is asking for help with their draft and how they are getting there. It was all part of a project to see what areas of AfC need help the most and which ones are working correctly. I'm not sure if Epochfail has had any time lately, but I know he was interested in helping with data collection once there was enough data to collect. I'm currently on an extensive project myself to update site and user JavaScript to be ready for an update coming that will remove functionality that some scripts are dependent on. If people stop using the preloads, then that opportunity to collect data is lost and the project suffers when time comes for analysis and revision to improve the project in a way that will reduce the ever increasing backlogs that plague AfC. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 18:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm still lost, but thanks for trying to explain. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 19:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Bellerophon, let me try this... January 1, 2015 has 8 requests broken down as:
  • 0 accepted

    These come from the user clicking the link on Template:AfC talk on their talk page

  • 2 declinedtalk

    These come from the user clicking the link on Template:Afc decline on their talk page

  • 1 declined

    These come from the user clicking the link on Template:AFC submission/declined on the draft

  • 1 pending

    These come from the user clicking the link on Template:AFC submission/pending on the draft

  • 0 draft

    These come from the user clicking the link on Template:AFC submission/draft on the draft

  • 0 link

    These come from the user navigating directly to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk and clicking on "add new section" at the top of the page and following the instructions in the edit notice

  • 4 page (one is empty)

    These come from the user navigating directly to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk and clicking on the "Click here to ask a new question." link in the header at the top of the page.

These kinds of statistics are important (especially when gathered and compiled for a period of time longer than a day like we've done here) to be able to see where we might need to improve the system. If there are more asking questions using the link on their talk page instead of navigating to the draft and reading the comments and whatnot, then we know that we need to improve how the declines are posted on user's talk pages. Maybe if we add any custom comments to the talk page message as well as the draft itself, it will reduce questions? I'm pleased to see that of the people navigating directly to the talk page none used the "add new section" and instead used the "Click here to ask a new question.", and I'm glad that preload is clear enough that 75% of people used it correctly and put in the name of their draft. I do wish that they had navigated in from one of the other preloads, but the more preloads we take away, the less data we can collect for analysis. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 20:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

So how would including both links here, like in /pending and /draft, cause problems for these analytics? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• I think it should be removed from /pending and /draft too. I wasn't aware that they were like that, unfortunately I can't "just fix it" at this point until either this discussion has concluded as no consensus to make /declined less useful or there is a consensus to make /pending and /draft consistent with the other three. Generally, the numbers for "link" and "page" should be 0 and all requests for assistance should come from where-ever the user was when they decided they needed help. This is the most useful in the ability to see where we might need to rethink our convoluted system of templates and instructions for helping new editors create useful articles. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I would support removing the help desk page links from the other templates, since I can’t see why anyone would visit it from there if not to ask a question or request a review. I still think it’s important that any links for asking a question do not exclude the words “ask a question,” because the link in this template as it stands is misleading. WP:EGG applies here. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
    • @T13: Thanks for the full explanation, I understand now. I have a few questions: what data have we gathered from the annalytics so far? How long have they been running? While I'm sure knowing how AfC users interact with the templates has value, is it so precious that we should put it before seemingly straightforward changes to templates? I understand the concern that placing both the standard Wikilink and a preloaded 'ask a question link' might produce duplicate or erroneous results, but as /pending and /draft show, such inconsistencies could already be inherent in the data. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 17:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
      • There was a decision to add the decline reason to the Template:Afc decline which was supported by the data as a good idea (after a long period of people talking about it but no action being taken prior to data being available) because there were a lot of questions asking 'why' their draft was declined coming from their talk page. I do believe that the number of these has reduced some since that was added. There are more analytics to be done and the current linking on /pending and /draft may be skewing some of it. There is support to remove those links and I'll do so in a couple days unless I see some objection. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 18:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
        • In the meantime, please at least change the linked text on this template to include the word “question” per WP:EGG. It appears as a link to the page proper, which it is not. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

They are all now consistent: declined, draft, and pending. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Cool. Hope that helps people get where they need to be. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 06:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Why isn’t this a redirect?

Why does this Talk page exist when the other subtemplates’ Talks all redirect to WT:Article wizard? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 10:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think any of the talk pages for the AfC submission template and subtemplates should redirect to Template talk:AFC submission itself. They are not part of the article wizard, and the redirects there are confusing. Maybe I'll bring it up later, too busy on another project myself right now. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Centralize templates

Since the 4 templates {{AFC pending}}, {{AFC reviewing}}, {{AFC onhold}} and {{AFC completed}} were not being called independently it seemed to make sense to move them to subpages of {{AFC submission}} which does call them. Thus they are now at {{AFC submission/pending}}, {{AFC submission/reviewing}}, {{AFC submission/onhold}} and {{AFC submission/declined}} respectively. MSGJ 19:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. I'm restoring this to be the central talk page for this talk page and all of the sub talk pages. Some of them redirect here, some redirect to WT:WPAFC, some redirect to WT:WIZARD, some don't redirect at all... It is confusing... Making it easy, they can all point here and this will be archived on a 6-months cycle. A lack of people watching this page doesn't seem especially true since all requests for edits get posted on the table with all of the other edit protected requests and there are plenty of people watching the AnomieBot PERtables. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 March 2015

Per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Better copyvio message at Template:AFC submission.2Fcomments, please change Template:AFC submission/comments:

|cv = {{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>#ifeq:{{{2|}}}|||This submission appears to be taken from {{{2}}}.}} Wikipedia takes [[WP:CV|copyright violations]] ''very'' seriously. We cannot accept [[WP:Copyrights|copyrighted]] content taken from websites or printed sources. '''Note that copyright protection is granted to all works automatically, whether it is asserted or not'''. Unless stated otherwise, assume that most content on the internet is copyrighted and not suitable for publishing on Wikipedia. Copyrighted content can be [[WP:CITE|cited]] as a [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|reliable source]] if it meets Wikipedia's guidelines; however, your submission must be written in your own words, and in continuous prose.<includeonly>[[Category:AfC submissions declined as copyright violations]]</includeonly>

to

|cv = {{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>#ifeq:{{{2|}}}|||This submission appears to be taken from {{{2}}}.}} [[WP:CV|Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere]], unless it explicitly exists under a [[WP:Compatible license|compatible licence]] <u>and</u> is written in an [[WP:NPOV|acceptable tone]]—'''this includes material that you own the copyright to.''' You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using [[WP:CITE|citations]], but [[Wikipedia:C-P|copying and pasting]] or [[WP:PARAPHRASE|closely paraphrasing]] sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure.<includeonly>[[Category:AfC submissions declined as copyright violations]]</includeonly>

Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Done — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 18:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 March 2015

We shouldn't be adding user talk pages to the "Category:AfC submissions declined as..." categories when {{Afc decline}} is used to leave a message (this is an unintended side effect of the change to use {{AFC submission/comments}} as part of the comment left by {{Afc decline}}). Since the User Talk namespace isn't a valid location for an AfC draft, I modified the sandbox version to only place the category if the target page isn't in the User Talk namespace. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. What makes you think that User_talk is a prohibited dpace for drafts? Please link to the discussion where a consensus on that was reached. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

nick parameter

Please discuss it here if you want to remove this parameter. It's more confusing to have 10 users in the -help channel with "Guest#####" names and not know what ANY of them need than it is to have 3 "Guest" names and 7 "WPHelp##" names. As someone who is mostly distancing himself from AfC at the moment, I do not have any interest in people who want to know why their draft was declined or why it hasn't been reviewed yet. I'd be happy to help people interested in those helpees make the nicks more definitive (AfCpend##, AfDrereview##, AfCwhatever##, THQhelp##, etc) but I think it is a massive backwards step to group all helpees coming in as "Guest". In reply to the argument that they wouldn't be all guest or why I think most of them would be "Guest". Human nature. Most of them will want to be in there by their first name (Bob, Sue, Mary, Jack...) or a screenname (strangely often not their wiki name even if occasionally) and as such the name is often already registered or in use and IRC defaults them to Guest#####. I'd be willing to create a script that would set their nick to their wiki username (already have chunks of code available for it in various places), but last time I offered the community rejected it not understanding how it would work instead of just asking or being happy it would work. If something has changed there, I'm sure an agreeable way to do could be reached. Anyways, happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 11:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@Technical 13: This is being centrally discussed at WT:WPAFC as the parameters mainly apply to templates under its jurisdiction. You are invited to comment. I also removed the WPhelp parameter from a help desk template - I suppose you are opposed to that removal as well, even when it has nothing to do with AfC? A willingness to help with everything is what is valued in the channel, although I would be supportive of more variations of nicks other than a single WPhelp, because then everyone is WPhelp - or even a nick randomizer using {{#invoke:Random|item|}} so that everyone has different nicknames. — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 19:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 12 April 2015

The semi-automatic reference filler has a new name, reFill. Please change:

[{{fullurl:toollabs:fengtools/reflinks/result.php|page={{FULLPAGENAMEE}}&defaults=y}} Run Reflinks]

to

[{{fullurl:toollabs:refill/result.php|page={{FULLPAGENAMEE}}&defaults=y}} Run reFill]

Thank you. Zhaofeng Li [talk ♦ contribs] 07:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Done Alakzi (talk) 09:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

See old comments that were left on drafts before they were approved

Per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#Reviewer_comments_lost_on_creation_of_the_article, there is a desire to see old comments that were left on drafts before they were approved. Currently, the template hides decline reasons if the article is in mainspace. This modification will allow declined templates in mainspace to be viewed when viewing an old revision.

Change:

  |{{#ifeq:{{{ns}}}|0
   |misplaced
   |created
  }}

to:

  |{{#if:{{#ifeq:{{REVISIONID}}|{{REVISIONID:{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}|0|}}{{#ifeq:{{ucfirst:{{{1|}}}}}|D||0}}
   |{{#ifeq:{{{ns}}}|0
    |misplaced
    |created
   }}
   |declined
  }}

A corresponding change will also need to be made to {{AFC submission/declined}} to use {{AFC_submission/declinedivbox}} instead of {{AFC_submission/divbox}}. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Have you tested this change? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@MSGJ: I tested this portion of it in Template:AFC_submission/sandbox by transcluding it at MainspaceTest. I did not test it in conjunction with the change below so while the pink box showed up, the divbox inside didn't. However, I did test the divbox separately and it works as expected. In any case, the template correctly shows the same "in process" message on the current version of the page and shows the pink box on old versions. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@MSGJ: I switched Template:AFC submission/sandbox to use Template:AFC submission/declined/sandbox and tested it on a recently approved AFC article at Percival Savage/sandbox. It works as expected. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Another change

Per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#Reviewer_comments_lost_on_creation_of_the_article, there is a desire to see old comments that were left on drafts before they were approved. Currently, the template hides decline reasons if the article is in mainspace. This modification will allow declined templates in mainspace to be viewed when viewing an old revision.

Change:

  | {{AFC submission/divbox|gray||{{AFC submission/comments|{{{reason}}}|{{{details|}}}}}}}

to:

  | {{AFC submission/declinedivbox|gray||{{AFC submission/comments|{{{reason}}}|{{{details|}}}}}}}

Change:

{{findsources|{{SUBPAGENAME}}}}.

to:

{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{findsources|{{SUBPAGENAME}}}}.|}}

And finally, since we don't want people resubmitting old drafts that have already been accepted into mainspace, change:

 }}</small><div style="border-top: 1px #AAA solid; margin-top:5px;">{{#invoke:AFC submission catcheck|submitted|This draft has been resubmitted and is currently awaiting re-review.|{{#if:{{REVISIONID}}<noinclude>0</noinclude>|<table><tr><td>{{Clickable button 2
  | Resubmit
  | url = {{fullurl: {{FULLPAGENAME}}  | action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:AFC_submission/Subst&editintro=Template:AFC_submission/Subst/Editintro}}
  | class = mw-ui-progressive
 }}</td><td>Please note that if the issues are not fixed, the draft will be rejected again.</td></tr></table>|Once you save your changes using the "Save page" button below, you will be able to resubmit your draft for review by pressing the "Resubmit" button that will appear here.}}}}</div>

to:

 }}</small>{{main other||2=<div style="border-top: 1px #AAA solid; margin-top:5px;">{{#invoke:AFC submission catcheck|submitted|This draft has been resubmitted and is currently awaiting re-review.|{{#if:{{REVISIONID}}<noinclude>0</noinclude>|<table><tr><td>{{Clickable button 2
  | Resubmit
  | url = {{fullurl: {{FULLPAGENAME}}  | action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:AFC_submission/Subst&editintro=Template:AFC_submission/Subst/Editintro}}
  | class = mw-ui-progressive
 }}</td><td>Please note that if the issues are not fixed, the draft will be rejected again.</td></tr></table>|Once you save your changes using the "Save page" button below, you will be able to resubmit your draft for review by pressing the "Resubmit" button that will appear here.}}}}</div>}}

This is all mocked up in the sandbox here. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Think I've done both of those. Rather than forking the divbox did you consider tweaking the current one? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@MSGJ: I didn't know if the AFC divbox was used elsewhere where it would be undesirable to have it show up in mainspace, but I'd have no objection to copying {{AFC submission/declinedivbox}} over to {{AFC submission/divbox}}. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 20 May 2015

Add support for cat=no parameter passed by {{Afc decline}} to avoid categorizing user talk pages as a draft when we leave a message about a declined draft. This should be less controversial then my last attempt to solve this problem, as it makes no judgments about where a draft can be located. I have mocked it up in the sandbox here Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Done as requested... — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 29 May 2015

At Template:AFC submission/draft replace [//kiwiirc.com/client/irc.freenode.net/?nick=T-{{REVISIONID}}#wikipedia-en-help '''live help chat'''] with [[Wikipedia:IRC help disclaimer|'''live help chat''']] per Special:Diff/664524277. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done APerson (talk!) 18:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 29 May 2015

At Template:AFC submission/declined replace [//kiwiirc.com/client/irc.freenode.net/?nick=D-{{REVISIONID}}#wikipedia-en-help '''live help chat'''] with [[Wikipedia:IRC help disclaimer|'''live help chat''']] per consensus at Special:Diff/664524277. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done APerson (talk!) 18:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 8 July 2015

It's no longer "highly backlogged". This should be changed to "backlogged". Anarchyte 12:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The description here depends on the value of {{AFC status/level}}, which you're gonna have to purge to update the value of. Alakzi (talk) 13:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That text is updated automatically - it will change to "highly backlogged" when there are 1200 pages or less in Category:Pending AfC submissions, and "backlogged" when there are 900 pages or less. The text used is at Template:AFC submission/pending, and the numbers are at Template:AFC status/level. You can change both of them yourself if you want, as they are only semi-protected. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 July 2015

Following the consensus evaluated at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Sidebar_proposal I propose that the these changes be applied to the template for the purposes of enacting point 3 of the proposal. Hasteur (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done, although I changed the name of the category to Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions to match the capitalization of the other categories used by the template. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 July 2015

Per consensus agreed to at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Sidebar_proposal, please apply the changes described in this revision to the above template. Hasteur (talk) 22:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done, although I changed the name of the category to Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions to match the capitalization of the other categories used by the template. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Article space

It seems that whenever a page with this template on it is created in article space, the page says that the article "has recently been created via the Articles for creation process. The reviewer is in the process of closing the request, and this tag should be removed soon." However, I have seen a fair number of pages created where the article was created with that template on it in article space and was never even submitted to AFC, much less accepted by it. For this reason I think this template should say something else when it is on a page in article space. Everymorning (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Templates in Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions

User:Liz noted here than both Template:AFC submission/draftnew/testcases and Template:AFC draft/testcases both appear in Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions for some reason. Is there a way to suppress them? Are those pages actually used or for testing? Do they need protection? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It is common for templates to automatically assign categories to every page they are placed on and, frankly, it drives editors crazy because, for instance, some editors put templates on their user pages for reference. I don't know whether whether having this automatic categorization serves AFC purposes or whether you have other tools keeping track of submissions and drafts as they age. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I modified the AFC templates to recognize the |demo= parameter, and set demo=yes on those testcases. This should prevent it from showing up in those categories in the future (and any cases of this template being used on user pages can be appended with |demo=yes). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 December 2015

At the page Template:AFC submission/comments, please change the decline reasons for the following parameters:

• nn
• film
• bio
• web
• corp
• music
• sport
• academic

to:

This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires ''significant'' coverage about the subject in [[WP:RS|''reliable'' sources]] that are ''independent'' of the subject—see the <<<either general or subject specific notability guideline>>> and [[WP:VRS|the golden rule]]. Please improve the submission's referencing <small>(see [[Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners]])</small>, so that the information is [[WP:V|verifiable]], and there is clear evidence of why the subject is [[WP:N|notable]] and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If no additional ''reliable'' sources can be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

in accordance with the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Adding to the non-notable decline reason. Whoever implements this should make sure they change the <<<either general or subject specific notability guideline>>> text to link to either the general or specific notability guideline that corresponds with the decline reason. See how it was before and copy paste. If the reviewer needs to have specific texts for each parameter, I can provide that.

Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Mz7 (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Wording of Decline Template

Moved from WT:AFCH § Wording of Decline Template

 – APerson (talk!) 15:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that wording be added to the text of the AFC decline template. The wording should say something to the effect of: "Do not remove this notice from a draft that is still in review" or something to that effect. Occasionally authors do remove the decline notice. I don't know whether they know that consensus is not to do that, in which case they are attempting to game the system, or whether they just don't know, and think that it can be removed when the draft is resubmitted. In any case, if the notice should not be removed from the draft, it should say that. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe something like "Please do not remove this notice. It will be put back and can be seen as disruptive" (maybe not disruptive but something). It doesn't really matter if it's been reviewed or not, it's also important to see those declines when there's a G13 pending (not necessarily by rule but it is a factor about just extending it) and especially when people file an MFD on it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree as to having the history in place being related to MFDTendentious resubmission of a draft without improving it will, in some cases, result in an MFD being filed. Removing the decline notices doesn't take the declines out of the edit history of the draft. (Also, editors who remove the decline notice from the draft often don't notice that the decline notices are also on their talk page.) I would just say "Please do not remove this notice while this draft is still in review." Robert McClenon (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I suppose there's no harm in a friendly reminder. How about: "Please do not remove this notice if you plan on resubmitting the draft." There's no need, however, to threaten accusations of disruptive editing when it hasn't occurred, per WP:BITE and, to a lesser extent, WP:BEANS. Mz7 (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Notability decline message wording

Almost a year ago, I swapped out the verb "show" for the verb "evidence", as they're synonyms and "show" has a clearer meaning. In the recent edit request implementation by Ahecht, we went back to "evidence". I prefer "show" (or "demonstrate", at least) - should we switch back? APerson (talk!) 15:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@APerson: I'm fine with either (I actually prefer "show" as well), but I went with the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Adding to the non-notable decline reason. You might want to post a link to this discussion there. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. APerson (talk!) 17:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Using "evidence" in the sentence sounds odd to my ear. When I'm describing the problem in free-form comments I almost always use "demonstrate", occasionally "prove". I'm fine with "show". Worldbruce (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• "Show" is less awkward. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• "Evidence" as a verb is not commonly used in colloquial American English. I don't know about British English. I think "demonstrate" or "show" are much better. LaMona (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• I have no issues with replacing "evidence" with "show" per APerson's reasoning. The change to the non-notable decline message was actually first proposed back in March 2014, before the change to "show". When I revived the discussion last month, I guess I copied the original proposal verbatim, and the word "evidence" got carried through without objection. Mz7 (talk) 20:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• Question: would the word "indicate" be an option? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• In my opinion we needn't be discussing this word, but rather the entire paragraph. We should have a separate decline rationale for blatantly non-notable individuals/organizations which will never be considered notable. Users who wrote about subjects which might be in fact notable and are presented with the existing paragraph will tend to present better sources regardless of a change in evidence/show. If, on the other hand, users have chosen to submit a draft about their best friend in high-school and aren't presented with a clear-cut "this will never be accepted" message, they will continue to bombard us with submissions, as is clearly demonstrated on a daily reviewing basis. At present, I have to be much harsher than I'd intend to be in lieu of a convenient usable rationale. I sympathise with reviewers who carry a spreadsheet with common decline expansions, but why should we even have preset decline templates other than custom ones if their selection is lacking? Time saved with useless submissions could thus be spent on salvageable drafts which dearly need our attention. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 23:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• Evidence is not often used as a verb, even native speakers of different ENGVARs find it jarring. I'm ok with either show or demonstrate. On the topic of a more specific decline for "this topic will never be notable" submissions, I agree with FoCuSandLeArN that we need a more emphatic rejection (as opposed to decline) message to get them to go away permanently. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit request

At this point, I believe there is a consensus above to change all instances of the word "evidence" in the phrase This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability. to "show". The following decline reasons need to be changed: nn, film, bio, web, corp, music, sport, academic. This request is made without prejudice to additional discussion over whether we should continue to strengthen the wording of the templates. Mz7 (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mz7: Please make all of the suggested edits at Template:AFC_submission/sandbox for review, then reactivate this edit request. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: My apologies – the actual template to be edited is Template:AFC submission/comments, not Template:AFC submission (that template's talk page redirects here). The change should be straightforward enough not to need a sandbox. The parameters for nn, film, bio, web, corp, music, sport, and academic need to be changed from:

This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability.

to

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability.

Mz7 (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: I have sandboxed the requested changes at Template:AFC submission/comments/sandbox. Best, Mz7 (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Done Bazj (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 14 January 2016

There is a glaring omission in the methods for establishing notability: i.e.- there are actually two ways to establish notability according to the WP notability policy. Consensus is already in place per the cited policy:

1. Significant reliable sources
2. Winning a prominent award

This is not mentioned in the current boilerplate. Therefore:

At the page Template:AFC submission/comments, please change the decline reasons for the following parameters:

• nn
• film
• bio
• web
• corp
• music
• sport
• academic

to:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability.

A topic is [[Rebuttable presumption|presumed]] to merit an article if:

#It meets either the [[Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline|general notability guideline]]
#It is not excluded under the [[Wikipedia:NOT|What Wikipedia is not policy]]

Wikipedia requires either one of the following:

# Significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject{{nsmdns}}see the guidelines on the notability of films and the golden rule
# A well-known award

Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Whoever implements this should make sure they change the <<<either general or subject specific notability guideline>>> text to link to either the general or specific notability guideline that corresponds with the decline reason. See how it was before and copy paste. If the reviewer needs to have specific texts for each parameter, I can provide that.

Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

 Denied In my own authority as someone who has worked with this template and the project. Please establish consensus for this request at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation prior to requesting such a change. Hasteur (talk) 00:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for proper capitalization

For proper capitalization, could someone please change "highbeam" to "HighBeam" and "wikipedia" to "Wikipedia"? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Template:AFC submission/helptools contains the text you mention. It's only semi-protected. Bazj (talk) 09:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Bazj: Sorry for just looking at the protection level of this template instead of diving deep into the code. Template:AFC submission/helptools shows that the text is in {{find sources}}, whose documentation explains that the text is in Module:Find sources/templates/Find sources, which is also protected. Therefore, I posted a request at Module talk:Find sources#Request for proper capitalization. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction! GoingBatty (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

GoingBatty No worries. Happy to help. Bazj (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Feature request

On Template:AFC submission/declined, would it be possible to have a link that would show a diff since the last time the page was reviewed? When I see that a page has been declined previously, the first thing I do is look up the history to see what's changed between the last time the page was reviewed and now. If nothing has changed then I will generally respect the previous reviewer's decision, and comment that previous issues have not been addressed.

I'm not entirely sure if what I'm requested is technically possible, but it sure would be nice to have. I would suggest that when the text This draft has been resubmitted and is currently awaiting re-review. is displayed, a link be shown next to it that says something like See what's changed since the last review. Bradv 20:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I think this is not a good idea. If you want to compare it to the last submission, that's what page history for. Could you please request this feature at WT:AFC to see if there is consensus for this feature? Hasteur (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Template appears broken....

This seems to be a single case (as the others I randomly checked seem to be correct), but Draft:Lua Server Pages says the draft was declined 3 months ago, and it wasn't; it was just over four (March 21). It also claims the page was edited 2 minutes ago, and it hasn't been edited since June 29, which is about 25 days. The timestamps look OK (I think), but since the template doc doesn't explain the parameters, I can't be sure and can't fix it. As I'm not entirely sure the problem is limited, I figured I'd bring it to somebody's attention. MSJapan (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

MSJapan, I did a WP:NULLEDIT and it now shows "Declined 4 months ago" - which is fine. However, the last edited thing now shows "0 seconds ago". That seems to be problematic. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Help page links given upon submission decline

For the |ilc inline citation decline, the recommended Help:Referencing for beginners help page is quite difficult for a new user to follow (e.g. it discusses full manual referencing before even mentioning VisualEditor). Help:Introduction to referencing is probably more useful to a user who is not yet familiar with how to do basic reference formatting. There my be more instances where the Help:intro to pages prove useful. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 23:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 26 March 2017

Please add [[Category:Misplaced AfC submissions]] to aid in tracking these pages. Kharkiv07 (T) 01:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

To clarify: on Template:AFC submission/misplaced. Kharkiv07 (T) 01:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. The existing template already separates out misplaced pages by categorizing them under M in Category:Pending AfC submissions. — Train2104 (t • c) 02:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested rename of on-hold category

At WP:CFDS an editor has made a reasonable request for speedy renaming of Category:Afc Submissions on hold more than 24 hours to Category:AFC submissions on hold more than 24 hours. I can't see where that is coded. Could somebody please trace and update this if there are no objections within 48 hours? – Fayenatic London 21:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Now listed at WP:RT. – Fayenatic London 22:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

AfC tags placed by others

The issue of AfC templates being placed on userspace drafts by users other than the individual whose userspace in which a userspace draft resides was raised by Blueboar at Wikipedia talk:User pages § STALEDRAFT and the newly expanded G13. I suggest language be added to the documentation of this template prohibiting such actions. If necessary: An exemption could be carved out stating that if a user wants to submit a draft to AfC which is not in their userspace, they may do so, but the template must removed by them if it is declined (or something else along those lines, e.g. maybe an AfC "one submission" template which nullifies if declined). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 20:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Godsy, out of curiosity, do you have any evidence of this happening? I know that submitted userspace drafts are sent to draft space per convention, but I don't think I've ever seen someone trawling through the user space looking for things to submit. Primefac (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: That question would be better directed at Blueboar (per my first sentence above), so I will defer it to them if they do not mind. Best Regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 21:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

To avoid getting the same answer twice, I've replied at the original post and will consider that location the main point of discussion. Primefac (talk) 21:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

If such a policy were put into place, there would have to be an exemption for users who request help in submitting a draft for review but are technically unable to figure out how to do it themselves. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Good point. And as we all know, the more exemptions are placed, the more people can weasel out of them. Primefac (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Visual Editor issues

Apparently the "Submit your draft for a review" button in the {{AFC submission/draftnew}} version of this template does not work properly when the Visual Editor is the default editor: The VE does not preload the section it's meant to preload, and the "Save page" button is not where users are told to expect it (but saving the page without the content supposed to be preloaded would not submit the draft anyway). I don't know whether there is a way to preload additional content in the VE; maybe someone more tech-savvy than me can figure something out? Huon (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

For now I've added &veswitched=0 to the links in Template:AFC submission/draft and Template:AFC submission/declined to enforce use of the source editor. Thanks go to AntiCompositeNumber for pointing out this workaround. Huon (talk) 14:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit request: dashes

Please edit Template:AFC submission. In the section "How to improve your article", under the heading "You may also wish to look at:", in each of the first three bullets, please change

• space hyphen space ( - )

to

• space en dash space ( – )

—Anomalocaris (talk) 03:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 11:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

This template occasionally send the notice to the wrong user

This template occasionally send the notice to the wrong user.[3][4] Is there something we can do about this? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The template only spits out what it's given. If someone puts |u=username, then AFCH will attempt to contact User:Username when the page is reviewed. Garbage in, garbage out, nothing more. There's no practical way to check to see if the person adding the submission template is the same one that's in the |u= parameter. Primefac (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

...said everyone who was willing to put up with shitty software, ever... Of course there is a practical way to check to see if the person adding the submission template is the same one that's in the |u= parameter. It may very well be that the WMF has more important things to spend millions and millions of software development funds on, but it's software. it can be fixed.

Depiction of Wikimedia Foundation destroying Wikipedia with Visual Editor, Flow, and Mobile App.

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

You're also forgetting that users (mostly via AFCH) can submit drafts as other people. I regularly submit drafts for folks on IRC who aren't sure about how to do it. Would the software then flag me as the recipient? It shouldn't.

99% of the time the person who submits the draft (and/or the person the draft is being submitted for) will be the person listed in the |u= parameter. I have no idea why this particular draft got filled in with such an odd username, but it is most definitely not an issue on the template's end, nor is it something we need to waste time trying to fix.

Now, if you start seeing this being a regular occurrence, then I'll personally make inroads on getting things changed, but if two incidents on the same draft (by the same user) are all that you have, then there's not much more to discuss. Primefac (talk) 17:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 29 January 2018

Change the description of the button from "Save page" to "Publish changes" in the sentence "Once you save your changes using the ..." near the end of the template. Worldbruce (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format; basically I can't find what you're referring to, as I was pretty sure I caught all instances of "save" shortly after the change happened. Primefac (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Primefac: Ah, I didn't notice that the sub-template talk redirected me, and you wouldn't know where I came from. You'll find the outdated language in the source of Template:AFC submission/declined. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I wasn't looking at the source code, and the template (as shown on the page) doesn't display that language. Probably why I missed it the first time. Thanks! Primefac (talk) 13:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 7 February 2018

This request requires some thinking as I am not providing the exact code change. This template attempts to close a <small> tag with another <small> instead of </small>. The exact fix is left for those with more expertise I have. Anomalocaris (talk) 11:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: I assume you're talking about the line

-->{{int:dot-separator}}Last edited {{time ago|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}}}{{#if:{{REVISIONUSER}}| by [[User:{{REVISIONUSER}}|{{REVISIONUSER}}]]</span>}}<small>}}<small>

which does indeed appear to "close" a small tag with another small. However, at the bottom of the template is

--></span></small></small>

which closes the two opening smalls. Primefac (talk) 13:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, the template in question is actually {{AFC submission/tools}}. Here's how I know it has an unclosed <small> tag: it says so at Lint errors: Multiple unclosed formatting tags: Namespace: Template. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

It seems that the closing small tags may be outside a template (like {{hidden}}) whereas the opening tags are inside the template. This may make it seem there is an error coming from the template's output. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done That's exactly the template I'm talking about. And as I said before, there are two opening smalls and two closing smalls. I did fail to notice that the }} of the {{hidden}} was between the smalls, but I've fixed the issue. Primefac (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

And for what it's worth, I will look into the other errors it's throwing. Primefac (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Primefac: Thank you for your work and your promise of into-looking. I reset this to answered=no because the problem still shows up at Lint errors: Multiple unclosed formatting tags: Namespace: Template. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done I said I'd fix it, but okay... I dropped the second <small> because for whatever reason it wasn't actually giving a double-small font size, and that's likely the reason the error was being thrown. Primefac (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Primefac: Thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 12 March 2018

Please change [http://tools.wmflabs.org/citations/doibot.php?edit=toolbar&slow=1&user=&page={{FULLPAGENAMEE}} Citation Bot]<!-- -->{{int:dot-separator}}Search: [http://www.google.com/search?&q={{urlencode:{{SUBPAGENAME}}}} Google], [http://www.bing.com/ to [https://tools.wmflabs.org/citations/doibot.php?edit=toolbar&slow=1&user=&page={{FULLPAGENAMEE}} Citation Bot]<!-- -->{{int:dot-separator}}Search: [https://www.google.com/search?&q={{urlencode:{{SUBPAGENAME}}}} Google], [https://www.bing.com/. This edit adds HTTPS to links, thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 20 March 2018

As many submissions are more quickly addressed and because n is now based on actual queue status, change "This may take n weeks or more." to "This may take up to n weeks." ~Kvng (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

 Note: this is produced by Template:AFC status/age and its text is shared with other templates, so we need to be cautious. Pinging Primefac who has been active on this template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

It's true that many submissions are reviewed within the first few days, but the problem with the phrasing "may take up to n weeks" is that it sets an upper limit on how long it will take, when in fact there is no such limit. Better to offer a pesimistic prediction and pleasantly surprise the submitter than to make a promise we can't keep. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I added the "drafts are reviewed in no specific order" specifically to address the fact that it could be reviewed sooner. Also the use of the word "may". I'm not sure how I can be more concise and more informative at the same time, because otherwise I end up with a massive statement saying "this could take anywhere between 0 seconds and n weeks, because we don't review them in any particular order, so good luck!" Primefac (talk) 11:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Worldbruce: The number of submissions that will exceed this prediction, based on my observations of AfC end-of-queue behavior, is less than 1% (much less than 10 per week). The understatement in these cases would be less than one week. If we feel we need to be completely safe about this, we can say, "This may take up to n+1 weeks." I do think it is important to give authors a definitive range so AfC looks less like a fussy black hole. ~Kvng (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Kvng, this template talk is not watched by that many people. Start a discussion at WT:AFC and see what others think. I'll evaluate the consensus and apply the necessary changes. Primefac (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Primefac I realize that and so have pinged Worldbruce. If I can't warm anyone here to it, I don't need to suck down a bunch of other people's time and attention on a minor wording change proposal. ~Kvng (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Been mulling this over, is This may take up to X weeks or more too wishy-washy? As before, my only issue is that there's no good way to say "this might take up to a certain amount of time but it could be sooner or longer". Primefac (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

"Up to n [or n+1] weeks" is precise, but not always true. "Up to n weeks or more" is true but imprecise. Which is better may be a matter of personal philosophy. I prefer to under promise and over deliver rather than have even a small number of people get upset that their draft hasn't been reviewed by a deadline. Upset submitters generate complaints and questions that divert reviewing effort.

Rather than fiddling with the template wording, could a draft tracking link be created that would show people the draft's position in the stream - how long it has been in the stream, how many drafts have been in longer, and rolling averages of how many drafts have been reviewed from each portion of the stream in say the past week? AfC might still look like a hole, but at least one in which submitters could see a light at the end. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Every draft ends up in one of the subcats of Category:AfC pending submissions by age, and if they go to that category they can see how many pages are in each one. The only issue with giving hard numbers in the template itself is that it gives the impression that there is a "queue". Of course, despite what we say this might actually be true; the reality of the situation is that if a draft isn't reviewed in the first 48 hours, it has a very high chance of not being reviewed until it's at the back end of the process. You can see this in the daily totals - almost every day has about 50 pages in it and then it hits "3 weeks". I completely agree that we should give people the max time rather than any false sense of idealism, since if you're not one of the lucky 2/3 that gets their draft declined same-day, you pretty much are waiting in the queue. Primefac (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

There is a known queueing problem where patient people who think they're in the queue wait indefinitely not knowing that they're not actually in the queue. This is solved at doctor's offices, for instance, with a sign, "If you have been waiting over x minutes, please see the receptionist." I'm not sure how often this sort of thing happens at AfC but we already have a fair number of authors pestering us at the help desk well before the estimated period is up asking when they will get a review. So I assume it is not much additional overhead and it is good customer service for us to deal with inquiries about reviews that failed to be completed before their estimated date. I think we actually do want to know about these to make sure our estimates are as accurate as possible and to prevent the authors of drafts not actually in the queue from waiting unnecessarily. ~Kvng (talk) 15:14, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what your point here is. If they can't read the pending submission banner to see it might take X weeks or more, and complain because their article has been reviewed, that's their own fault - just tell 'em to keep waiting. If they haven't realized that their draft has already been reviewed, then we tell them that. Again, not seeing the issue as it relates to this template. Primefac (talk) 15:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

My edit proposal for the template text was to set an upper limit on time to expect a review to take with the implication that something has gone wrong if it takes longer. It wasn't part of my proposal but we can welcome the author to contact the help desk if it takes longer and/or discourage them from contacting if estimated wait time hasn't elapsed. I think the current wording is wishy washy and your counter proposal makes that even worse. If we're going to give customer service, we should give a crisp estimate and deal productively with any cases where expectations are not met. There usually is a good explanation for why a draft takes longer than expected time to get a review by a WP:VOLUNTEER: WP:PROMO, WP:COI, foreign sources, submission or reviewing error. An author that contacts the help desk in these cases may appreciate a draft-specific explanation for the delay. ~Kvng (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

We don't really have an upper limit (or even "crisp" estimates), though. In the last week we've shifted between "~8" and "~7" on the backlog almost daily, because the 8-week-old drafts are being handled almost as soon as they hit that category. If someone submits when the template says "~7" and 12 hours later it's kicked over to "~8", should they start complaining when it gets to 8 weeks? No. Nothing has "gone wrong" if someone's draft is at the back of the queue, it just means that no one has reviewed it yet. They aren't customers, we aren't employees, so I think the "customer service" view of AFC is a bit disingenuous. Primefac (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Now, would I like to be able to tell users that we'll "definitely" have their drafts reviewed in X days? Sure. However, we're an all-volunteer operation, and that's simply not possible. Primefac (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The other problem, which Kvng has completely failed to take into account, is sudden rises or falls in volunteer numbers, donated time, volunteer editor average and accepted workload, their average review time and one off events such as dedicated backlog reduction exercises. That could see a review which is listed as taking 2 weeks because of a recently cleared backlog drifting to 8 or 10 weeks by the time it's actually reviewed, particularly if it's a complex article that nobody wants to touch. If people check their submission daily, and see the review estimate increasing daily, your proposal risks having a complaint to deal with daily, which given AFC, IRC help and OTRS is making use of the same increasingly rare volunteer labour, is just going to further delay drafts being reviewed, even having people checking back at the end of the expected review 'wait' time, to find they've now got another week or two weeks, and then complaining, is adding extra work to an already thinly stretched and fragile group of volunteers. It wouldn't take more than a handful of active AFC reviewers to go on a break or to retire for AFC to collapse in a heap of unreviewed crap. Nick (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

On your last sentence, this has happened at least twice in recent history. Once, when one of our most prolific reviewers was blocked for socking, and a second time our most prolific reviewer (1000+ reviews per month) disappeared. The top ten reviewers do more than 60% of the work, meaning that if any of them leave the backlog is likely to increase. However, I think we're getting away from the point of this discussion, which is about the language used in the template to describe approximately the age of the oldest drafts. Primefac (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't look like there could be a consensus for the change I have proposed and there are legitimate reasons to stick with the current wobbly working so lets stick with the current wobbly wording. ~Kvng (talk) 14:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 29 April 2018

I've been puzzling over how these AFC templates work and noticed that one piece is now out of date. The template includes the text save your work by pressing the "Save page" button below and that "Save page" button has for some time been replaced by a "Publish changes" button. To avoid user confusion, please change

"Save page" → "Publish changes"

On my wide screen, this appears around line 35 but your editing window may wrap things differently. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Reopening - sorry, both words needed to be changed. So now I'm asking for

"Publish page" → "Publish changes"

Thanks. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done Primefac (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 May 2018

Replace

Drafts not being improved may be deleted after six months.

with

Drafts not being improved may be deleted after six months.

The first link, which is the current one, links to a non-existent section - it's likely that section was renamed but was never updated. The second one links to an anchor that goes to the correct section. Additionally, linking to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G13. Abandoned Drafts and Articles for creation submissions would also work, as that's the actual section name. However, one of these two changes should happen, so that the reader can be pointed to the correct section. SkyGazer 512 ^{What will you say? / What did I do?} 02:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 8 June 2018

Change sortkey of Template:AFC submission/draft and other subtemplates to {{{revisionts|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}}}} (or something like this) so that Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions is more useful. Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

For context, see WT:CSD#Shouldn't G13 (stale draft deletion) be a PROD-like process?. This diff to the sandbox should do it, but I'd appreciate it if someone who knew what they were doing a bit better than me verified it. It'll need to be in {{AFC submission/declined}}, too (and maybe other subtemplates here?), not just /draft. —Cryptic 07:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done I'll do it today. Primefac (talk) 11:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 20 June 2018

Sorry this isn't in a "change X to Y" format, but from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:LintErrors/html5-misnesting?namespace=118 it appears that this template is causing Lint errors: Misnested tag with different rendering in HTML5 and HTML4 and it needs to be fixed. Sorry I can't be more specific, but if you don't know how to fix this, please leave it as answered=no for a few days, because someone else may know how to fix it. — Anomalocaris (talk) 10:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks like the problem is with {{AFC submission/reviewing}}, which is only semi-protected at the moment. —AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 12:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

AntiCompositeNumber: Thanks! Within {{AFC submission/reviewing}}, the LintHint tool identifies that the error is really in {{AFC submission/tools}}, which is protected. There, we see there are 3 <span> and only 2 </span>, which suggests both that one of the first two <span> tags is missing its end tag and that the other <span> is probably effectively missing its end tag too, because <span>...</span> can't wrap multiple blocks. The usual workarounds are to use <span>...<span> tightly around each individual block, or to use <div>...</div> instead. LintHint says there are 4 Lint errors. The first is the opening <span> tag is missing its end tag, and then everything from <small> to </small></span> is highlighted for

• Missing end tag <small>
• Misnested tags <small>
• Stripped tags </span>

<small>...</small> also can't wrap multiple blocks and has to be wrapped tightly around each individual block. I hope this helps. —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris:  Done --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Ahecht: Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anomalocaris (talk • contribs) 23:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 5 August 2018

Can someone revert (or fix) the edits made by User:Primefac on Template:AFC_submission/comments? It seems to have broken AFC decline messages, see User talk:Az Fans for an example. Iffy★Chat -- 18:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done - Iffy, thanks for reporting, could you please confirm it's unbroken... not sure what the right word is, since Primefac thought that version needed fixing, perhaps "a workable & temporarily acceptable level of broken"? Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The issue was with the commented-out bits. I've removed them and things seem to be working again. Primefac (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 August 2018

I suggest changing:

This is not the correct place to request new redirects. Please follow the instructions...

to

Thank you for your submission, but this is not the correct place to request new redirects. Please follow the instructions...

The reason for this is because most of the redirect submissions I've come across would actually be very helpful and constructive. And it seems very bitey to me to be so terse. Adding the "Thank you for your submission" allows it to convey mostly the same meaning, but lets the submitter know that we appreciate their work and effort, but that it's just not the correct place. SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 22:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. None of the decline comments has any sort of "thank you for your submission" note; they all get right to the point and say why the page was declined. I don't see any reason to change just this one. Primefac (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Primefac: the duplicate articles decline reason does in fact say the same thing, which is actually where I got the idea from. Aside from these two decline reasons, the other reasons have to do with the submission's actual content having some kind of problem as to why it can't be moved to the mainspace. However, for this specific one, most of the time the submission content is perfectly acceptable for mainspace, but the creator just didn't realize that normal redirects are created by a different process. If you think that it needs to be all or nothing, then should we remove the "thank you for your submission" text from the duplicate articles decline reason as well?--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 17:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Fair point. There's been a big push for the decline reasons being concise, and I'm honestly not sure how editors like SmokeyJoe would feel about this change, which is why I suggested getting a consensus. Also, I didn't see the exist decline reason used similar language. Primefac (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

For the most part, I completely agree that the reasons need to be concise, and that the "thank you for your submission" text wouldn't be necessary for most decline reasons, particularly because a lot of the articles that come across AfC are autobiographies, spam, etc. However, for a decline reason such as this one, I don't see how trying to make the wording a bit softer would hurt anything. Simply adding "thank you for your submission" isn't going to make it any less concise in this case, and I doubt somebody's going to resubmit the same redirect via AfC just because we add this little bit of text to make it less bitey.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 17:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

declined revision: Warmer language about resubmission

Moved to WT:AFC (diff). Primefac (talk) 19:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

declined comments revision: lead with positive request for improvement

Moved to WT:AFC (diff). Primefac (talk) 19:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Template protected edit request 26 November 2018

Please change

Please note that if the issues are not fixed, the draft will be rejected again.

to

Please note that if the issues are not fixed, the draft will be declined again.

The current wording is ambiguous with the introduction of the reject feature. The change can be seen at Template:AFC submission/declined/sandbox. ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 15:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC) forgot to sign when editing, sorry

 Done Primefac (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 28 November 2018

Add |4=Please do not remove reviewer comments or this notice until the submission is accepted. to the blist template in {{AFC submission/declined}} Flooded with them hundreds 07:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done Cabayi (talk) 08:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 4 December 2018

{{#ifeq:{{NUMBEROFSECTIONS}}|0|[[Category:Pending AfC submissions without a section]]}} Some tweaking needs to be done to make the category show only pages without a section. I think adding |level=234 to after NUMBEROFSECTIONS might work. Comments? Flooded with them hundreds 11:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; all "tweaking" should be done there to minimize the number or changes needed for the main template. Primefac (talk) 12:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 5 February 2019

Please add {{pp-template}} to Template:AFC submission/tools, given that it is protected. It can be added to the already-present "noinclude" section at the bottom. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 08:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC) DannyS712 (talk) 08:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

And also to Template:AFC submission/table --DannyS712 (talk) 08:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done on both. Though I have added it to the top since I think that's usually where it is expected to be found. Thanks for the request! --Bsherr (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 25 November 2018

Add {{#ifeq:{{NUMBEROFSECTIONS}}|0|[[Category:Pending AfC submissions without a section]]}} to before noinclude. To populate the category for pending AfC submissions without a section. Flooded with them hundreds 11:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Why? Izno (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Izno, it doesn't affect anything in the template, just adds an extra helpful element for reviewers. Flooded with them hundreds 15:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Adding this means AfC submissions without a section is added to the above category, making it easier to filter out the terrible submissions because pages without a section is likely to be not good enough for approval. Flooded with them hundreds 15:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Please establish consensus then. You can invite editors from WT:AFC to discuss this suggested change. --Izno (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Izno, this is uncontroversial, in no way is the addition of the above code going to damage or break anything. Why do you think this is controversial that consensus is needed? I have the category set up at Category:Pending AfC submissions without a section, when the code is added, sectionless submissions will show up there. It's simple as that, no harm done. Flooded with them hundreds 18:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The closer has said there needs to be a consensus. If there is no opposition then a consensus will be easy to get. There is no rush to utilize this category. Primefac (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The persons who show to discuss your change may not believe that there is utility in such a scheme. They may decide the opposite and try to identify other ways to find low-lying fruit. They may come to some middle believe ("I won't use it, but if you want to..."). As Primefac said, if you believe it is uncontroversial, then it should be trivial to prove it so. --Izno (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• While I'm not sure I'll use it, I agree with the requestor that this doesn't appear to have any inherent negatives and has some potential positives - and thus should be done. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• This seems like a reasonable idea. It will not hurt the template but will help divide drafts into a new way to look at them. Might be pretty useful. Legacypac (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• I don't have any issues with doing this, it seems logical and beneficial overall.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 02:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support use: If it doesn't do any harm, and even a few can use it to make things easier, I don't object. Otr500 (talk) 09:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• This is a very brilliant idea. I've reopened the edit request. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• I think I see the intended use for this, but I am concerned that it’s another maintenance category that will fill up and not be checked. Do you have any estimate for how many drafts would be categorized? —AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done Primefac (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

This has proven quite useful for bringing forward drafts that can be quickly dealt with. Legacypac (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 March 2019

Please remove the line:

<noinclude>{{pp-template}}</noinclude>

Additionally, please replace

[[Category:WikiProject Articles for creation]]

with

{{documentation}}

This removes the protection template and the category, and instead transcludes the documentation page (Template:AFC submission/tools/doc), which includes the category and would automatically add the protection template.

Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

please do the same at Template:AFC submission/table. --DannyS712 (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712:  Done and  Done. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 April 2019

Please replace

'''Usage:'''

This template is normally [[Wikipedia:Preload|preloaded]].

It is recommended that any page pre-loading this template use ''editintro=Template:AFC_submission/user_talk_editintro'' in the URL which pre-loads this template.  This will cause the following instructions to appear above the edit box:

{{AFC submission/user talk editintro}}

See [[Template:AFC submission/created]] for an example of how this is done.

'''See also:'''
* [[Template:AFC submission/user talk editintro]]
* [[Wikipedia:Wikiproject Articles for creation]]
</noinclude>
<noinclude>
[[Category:WikiProject Articles for creation]]

with {{documentation}}. I have created the documentation page with the current "documentation" from the template itself. Using the documentation template instead would allow non-template-editors the ability to edit the documentation, show a template-protected icon on the template's page as well as categorize it accordingly, and eliminate the unneeded duplication of "noinclude" statements. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 02:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done – bradv🍁 05:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 11 April 2019

Moved from Template talk:AFC submission/Subst/Editintro

 – * Pppery * _{has returned} 00:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Please remove <noinclude>{{pp-template|small=yes}}</noinclude> from the start of the template

AND

Please append <noinclude>{{documentation}}</noinclude> to the end of the template.

The documentation template will automatically add the template icon and category, and using it will allow non-template-editors to create a documentation page for the template. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

DannyS712, this template is so far down the rabbit hole, does it really need a /doc? Seems completely unnecessary since anyone who is editing this page will already have a pretty good idea of what it is and why it's here. Primefac (talk) 22:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Primefac: well, it doesn't have any transclusions, and I was going to post at AfC's discussion page about this and a few other templates asking if they were still in use and, if so, if documentation could be written to explain how its used. But, I didn't want to post without others (or myself) necessarily being able to create a documentation page. (The same rational applies to a few other AfC templates that I was going to file similar edit requests for, so I'll hold off until this one is resolved). Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 22:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

90% of "untranscluded" AFC templates are either used in edit notices or as preloads for starting templates. So yes, they are in use, though I'm probably one of the few people who remembers where everything goes... Primefac (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Primefac: and that is exactly why documentation should be created! Because if you are one of the few people who remembers where everything goes, what happens when no one remembers and its not recorded anywhere? --DannyS712 (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Done Primefac (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

That's a fair point, I suppose. Just give me a list and I'll save you the hassle of filing TPERs. Primefac (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Primefac: here is a list. A number of them have categories noinclude'd that I will add to the documentation pages, or protection icons that should be removed. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Template:AFC submission category header/day
• Template:AFC submission category header/td
• Template:AFC submission/banner editintro
• Template:AFC submission/banner preload (bio)
• Template:AFC submission/declined/HD preload
• Template:AFC submission/draftsubmit
• Template:AFC submission/helptools
• Template:AFC submission/misplaced
• Template:AFC submission/old
• Template:AFC submission/user talk preload (hold)
• Template:AFC submission/user talk editintro (hold)
• Template:AFC submission/user talk editintro

  This hasn't been forgotten, just low on my priority list right now. Primefac (talk) 10:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

   Done. Primefac (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 May 2019

At Template:AFC submission/pending, please remove

[[es:Plantilla:Enviar artículo/pendiente]]
[[zh:Template:AFC submission/pending]] 

since the chinese link is already included on wikidata (wikidata:Q17627705) and the spanish page doesn't exist (es:Plantilla:Enviar artículo/pendiente). Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 May 2019

At Template:AFC status/age, please append

<noinclude>{{documentation}}</noinclude>

so that non-template editors can develop documentation for the template. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 18 May 2019

Amirbannd (talk) 23:32, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 23:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Submission counter broken

I currently (after purging the cache) get this message where the submission counter should be: "There are Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character ",". pending submissions waiting for review." That seems to be new. Are there simply too many? That doesn't seem to be the case. Has something else changed? Huon (talk) 12:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

It's because Category:AfC pending submissions by age/Very old now has over 1000 pages, which gets returned by {{PAGESINCATEGORY}} as "1,014". I'll look into what we can do to Template:AFC status/backlog to fix it. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 12:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

 Fixed here. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 12:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 19 June 2019

I would like to publish this for AFC submission as I do not have access. Sydneystudent123456 (talk) 02:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)sydneystudent

 Not done: this is not the correct way to request that an AfC submission be created. See WP:AFC DannyS712 (talk) 02:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 3 July 2019

Drafts are not typically deleted merely for being bad articles; that's why they're drafts. Even if a draft is resubmitted that is not ready, it does not make sense and is not in accordance with policy to delete a page solely because of a possibly disruptive editor. Threatening new editors with this doesn't seem helpful and is at least a little WP:BITEy

On Template:AFC submission/declined, "and potentially deleted" should be removed. KSFT ^(t|c) 06:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. The language was discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2018 2#Version 2, so a new discussion should be started at WT:AFC. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Stop sign for rejection

Does Template:AFC submission/rejected need the big red stop sign icon? It feels a little WP:BITEy to me. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what's bitey any more, but to me it just looks like another way of getting attention. Primefac (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Asterisk in username breaking template?

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T166946

The template may need some fixing. *Treker's username contains an asterisk (*), which converts into a typographical bullet, breaking the [[User:]] link. See this edit. Can the issue be fixed? George Ho (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

George Ho, the issue is likely with {{Last edited by}}. See Template talk:Last edited by#REVISIONUSER breaks when the user has a name like mine. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, "Warning: This submission is not timestamped, please replace this template with {{subst:submit}}." wbm1058 (talk) 19:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

And Template talk:AFC submission/submit redirects to this page... looking at Template:AFC submission/submit. wbm1058 (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

The subtemplate Template:AFC submission/draft transcludes {{last edited by|brief=yes}} – wbm1058 (talk) 20:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Alas, this is a MediaWiki software bug. See Template:Last edited by/sandbox for a test edit. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 September 2019

label=Earwig should be label=Copyvio Detector or simply label=Copyvio. Because it's just simple rather than Earwig. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 17:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@CAPTAIN MEDUSA:  Done at Template:AFC submission/tools. I just removed the |label= parameter entirely so that it uses the default from {{Copyvios}}. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

"Warning: Draft:X is Y bytes" doesn't appear to be correct

In Template:AFC submission/created change this:

'''WARNING:  [[{{#ifexist:Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/{{SUBPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/|Draft:}}{{SUBPAGENAME}}]] is {{PAGESIZE:{{SUBPAGENAME}}}} bytes.'''

to this:

'''WARNING:  [[{{#ifexist:Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/{{SUBPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/|Draft:}}{{SUBPAGENAME}}]] is {{PAGESIZE:{{#ifexist:Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/{{SUBPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/|Draft:}}{{SUBPAGENAME}}}} bytes.'''

Reason: The template currently says "Draft:X is Y bytes!" but instead shows the pagesize of the mainspace article.

Additional suggestion: Check if the draft is a redirect before showing this warning message by wrapping it in #invoke:Redirect|isRedirect. Could maybe me implemented like this (haven't tested it).

– Thjarkur (talk) 12:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: There are zero non-redirects that use the prefix "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/"; I think the entire code might need to be updated. I don't now if {{PAGESIZE:Draft:{{SUBPAGENAME}}}} will give the desired effect, but that's why we have sandboxes and testcases. Primefac (talk) 01:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Primefac: There aren't any testcases for this template (not sure how I'd create them as the logic is based on current namespace). But here is an updated diff, it does give the desired result (going by the highly reliable method of me pasting this logic into a few recently created AfC articles). – Thjarkur (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Seems reasonable.  Done. Primefac (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Better clock picture

Please change:

[[Image:Ambox clock.svg|75px|alt=|link=]]

to

[[Image:Appointment.svg|75px|alt=|link=]]

This or nicer than this . {{u|waddie96}} {talk} 11:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Waddie96:  Not done: Appointment.svg is licensed with a creative commons license that requires attribution, which means it cannot be used without linking to the image's info page. A public domain image such as the Ambox_clock.svg currently in use is preferred here because it does not create extra link targets that might confuse new editors. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ahecht: Apologies, but I believe it's that "is licensed with a creative commons license that requires attribution" as mentioned above. Luckily, is public domain just like the current image, . I still believe is nicer than , with cleaner edges and a more suited icon for a more modern Wikipedia. This is, however, your discretion. {{u|waddie96}} {talk} 10:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Ambox clock isn't used in {{AFC submission/created}}. Where is this supposed edit taking place? While I have no personal opinion on which image is used, it might be worth dropping at note at WT:AFC to get other reviewer's inputs on the image (i.e. please get a consensus). Primefac (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

It's used in Template:AFC submission/reviewing.

@Waddie96: Thanks, I missed that. For future use, I put together a public domain version of the blue clock: --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Per Primefac above, I'm going to close the edit request for now as  Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ahecht and Primefac: Thanks for your feedback, discussion started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Change clock icon in {{AFC submission/created}}. {{u|waddie96}} {talk} 20:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)