Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Merge of article wizards

I have made a proposal here that the AfC article wizard be merged with the Article wizard 2.0. It would be neater to keep them together and means that any changes only need to happen in one place. I have created a new proposed final page of the wizard at

• Wikipedia:Article wizard 2.0/Wizard-Ready for submission/sandbox

Please make any comments over there, thanks. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

No AfC people commented yet, but what we're currently planning is to use some javascript magic to detect whether a user is logged in or not and automatically direct unregistered users to AfC. It will mean that we will no longer get any registered users coming our way (they will only see the options to create in main space or in their userspace). So I don't anticipate it will not affect the process greatly, and we will move over to using the slightly more polished Wikipedia:Article wizard 2.0 rather than our own. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that I don't usually watch this page. I posted my note on the preposal. (notifying afc editors now) -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 22:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to try it myself when I find time, but it seems like a good idea from here.  fetchcomms☛ 22:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you all know that the last page of the article wizard now includes an option for unregistered users to submit to AfC. It seems to be going okay and there haven't been any objections yet. Now there is little to stop us merging the two wizards. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The only thing that we offer which the article wizard can not yet provide is the ability for unregistered users to create templates, categories, redirects, disambiguation pages, etc. So I am thinking about adding a another box to the bottom of the first page (similar to the "Advanced user" option that we have on Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Wizard-Introduction). Any thoughts on this? I'm going to temporarily lower the protection to semi, to encourage some more collaboration on this wizard. Cheers — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I have now added a link for "additional uses" on the article wizard. I think I will adapt these options later so that they can be used by registered users as well. Are there any thoughts about what we do with the following parts of WP:AFC?

• The reviewing instructions
• The "recently created" section
• The links to the archives of past submissions

My plan eventually is to redirect Wikipedia:Articles for creation to Wikipedia:Article wizard, but this might require some further thought to make sure we don't lose anything. This project depends on attracting registered users to review submissions, and so the link for them must be prominent. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

MiszaBot II screwups

See

Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects/2009- 12 and Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects/2010- 1

- these are misnamed... they should be:

Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects/2009-12 and Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects/2010-01

76.66.197.17 (talk) 08:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Well spotted. This seems to have been caused by 75.47.149.161 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) mucking around with the syntax on 21 November. I have fixed this and moved the archives to where they should be. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleting old declined submissions

Let me start by saying that I have no prior involvement in the Articles for creation project or process, so I will defer to those who actually are involved in the project. Now, on to the substance of my proposal...

I was motivated to initiate this discussion after looking at a few pages in Category:Declined AfC submissions and reading Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#This is why we shouldn't delete old submissions. There appeared to be agreement in that discussion that there would be no drawbacks to deleting old submissions in certain situations.

Proposal

An AfC submission page may be deleted under speedy deletion criterion G6 (routine housekeeping) iff it meets the following criteria:

1. It is a single-article submission page and not a daily log page such as Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2008-02-01;
2. It contains a declined AfC submission and is in Category:Declined AfC submissions;
3. It was declined at least six or twelve (to be determined) months ago; and
4. It was declined for one of the following reasons, and the reason should be noted in the deletion summary:
   1. Certain general speedy deletion criteria
      1. Nonsense (corresponds to criterion G1)
      2. Test page (corresponds to criterion G2)
      3. Vandalism or a blatant hoax (corresponds to criterion G3)
      4. Attack page (corresponds to criterion G10; e.g., Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Abdul Mohammed)
      5. Unambiguous advertising or promotion (corresponds to criterion G11)
      6. Copyright infringement (corresponds to criterion G12; e.g., Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ABCom)
   2. Certain article speedy deletion criteria
      1. No context (corresponds to criterion A1)
      2. No content (corresponds to criterion A3; e.g., Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/1950s in Sports)
      3. Duplicates an existing article (corresponds to criterion A10)
   3. Other criteria
      1. Humorous, not factual (e.g., Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/1million billions 1000000000000000)
5. (optional) It has been listed for at least 48 hours at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Old submissions (see #Explanation)

Justification

The basis for the proposal is the principle, derived from WP:NOT, that non-mainspace should not be used as a permanent repository of de facto articles that are not suited for inclusion in the mainspace. This includes:

1. Pages containing harmful content or history, such as attack pages and copyright violations;
2. Pages containing content that violates core Wikipedia policies and would need be to fundamentally rewritten to be acceptable, such as blatant advertising; and
3. Pages containing content that has no potential to contribute to the development of an appropriate article, such as nonsense or blank submissions.

Deleting such pages not only upholds that principle but also reduces clutter in Category:Declined AfC submissions, which in turn makes it easier for interested editors to seek out and identify useful content that could be used to write a decent article.

I realize that one could simply begin deleting declined AfC submission pages using the general speedy deletion criteria, without regard for the age of the submission, but I believe such an approach would be counter-productive to the purpose of AfC. There is value in archiving declined submissions for a period of time, even if it is only so that users making submissions can have an opportunity to see reviewers' comments and perhaps use them to write better draft articles. In addition, an uncoordinated approach would involve substantial duplication of efforts, since multiple editors would be checking the same pages again and again.

Proposed implementation

I realize that there is a significant workload associated with sifting through the nearly 10,000 pages in Category:Declined AfC submissions, but that load can be divided into much smaller parts by using the structure of Category:AfC submissions by date (and since AfC originally used daily logs, we need only to go back to July 2008). Allowing individual editors to volunteer for different months would make the task much easier and avoid needless duplication of efforts. Once the initial backlog is cleared, it becomes a matter of fairly regularly checking a relatively small number of submissions.

I believe that deletion of AfC submission pages which meet all of the criteria laid out above should be fairly uncontroversial, and for now I have deliberately avoided criteria that could result in deletion of useful content. If an additional level of oversight is desired, it would be no problem to create a page where pages can be listed for deletion for a period of time and evaluated by other editors (I am thinking of a process not unlike Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy).

I wish to avoid instruction creep, so I have attempted to offer a proposal which I am confident can be coordinated and carried out from only one subpage (e.g., Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Old submissions) that briefly describes the process and criteria and serves primarily as a space for editors to coordinate.

Discussion

Please add comments here. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• I support the idea. There's no need to keep thousands of pages that have no shot at being an article lying around. I think the waiting period should be six months, tops. Also, blatant copyright violations, attack pages, and spam should be deleted sooner. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 00:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• I also support this idea, but believe it needs refining. Category:Declined AfC submissions is a huge category filled with tons of pages that don't have a future in Wikipedia's mainspace, and should be deleted. This is a decent proposal, and would help clear out the category without deleting stuff that can be improved. It would be easy to create a list of all submissions meeting conditions 1, 2, and 3; each submission could be debated by members of the project, and deleted if they are believed to satisfy condition 4. Alternatively, a list could be generated of submissions meeting conditions 1, 2, and 3, yet declined for a certain reason (cv, blank, spam, etc), and they could be easily deleted en masse after a quick review. — The Earwig @ 03:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • As for condition 3: I think six months is a good length of time. These submissions have little hope, so there really isn't a point keeping them here for more than half a year. — The Earwig @ 03:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support Copyvios should already have been blanked, but I see no reason in leaving around joke submissions and blanked entries, etc for over 6 months. If the author wishes to continue we can have a notice telling them to request undeletion of their page to work on it somewhere or other, although this would be rather rare.  fetchcomms☛ 03:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support. We leave the submissions up temporarily so that the submitter can see what he did wrong. But there's also a reason to delete the pages, however minor: occasionally, another use might want to resubmit to the same page. While it is certainly possible to add to an existing submission, it may create confusion, especially if the new submitter fails to add a new AFC banner (new submissions to existing WT:AFC subpages are not caught by any filter, and will not be noticed unless the page happens to be watchlisted). This is a very rare occurance (less than one tenth of one percent of all submissions will have this happen to them), but there's no point in making that possible in the hope the original submitter will read the decline message six months after the fact. Now, I've actually opposed prior proposals to mass delete declined submissions, but I believe the limitations of this proposal make it entirely reasonable. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• I'm partly neutral, but oppose some parts of the proposal. I will post my detailed thoughts in the next day or two. But it's good to have the discussion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

  Finally I have some time to give my thoughts on the matter.

  • Firstly, submission pages which meet any of the general speedy deletion criteria may of course be deleted (or tagged for deletion) straightaway. Personally I am more likely to blank a copyright submission, rather than delete it, as it seems more friendly and encourages the user to submit a non-copyright version.
  • I am opposed to extending any of the article speedy deletion criteria to project space. The whole point of this process is that it encourages users to bring their submissions up to scratch until they are ready to be created. Deleting a submission under "No context" doesn't make sense, if the author could improve the article and add more context. (However I think it is a fair interpretation of G2 that a page with nothing but the submission template can be deleted as a test page.)
  • I am neutral to the idea of deleting submissions after a certain period of time. While I agree that a submission which has not been touched for a year is unlikely to be of any use in the future, it is just possible that someone might come along and use the existing content to build on ... Granted, there are hundreds of submissions which do not have any useful history, but I can't see a reliable way that these can be identified by a bot.
  • I have problems understanding the concern of "clutter" and the arguments for "there's no need to keep them". You've all got files on your hard drive which you don't need any more. It doesn't mean that you spend your time looking through and deleting all of these files. (At least that's not how I spend my time!) I just keep them because I am not short of space on my drive, they are not doing any harm, and who knows - maybe they will be useful one day :) And I don't quite understand why people are worried about all the pages with individual submissions after July 2008, but are not concerned about the daily listings. If you want to see real clutter, take a look at a page like Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2006-09-14. But no one is suggesting we delete these, presumably because they are a record of the project's activities at that time. What then suddenly changes when each submission is on a separate page? It's not any additional "load" on the server, even if that was an issue.

  In summary, I could accept a proposal to delete old submissions after a period of time, but I see it as unnecessary I and would not like to see WikiProject members spending time on this when there are so many more fruitful ways they can spend their time on Wikipedia. Sorry for the long post. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

  Thank you for providing such a detailed reply. Allow me to respond to each of your points individually:

  While you are correct that AfC submissions that meet the general speedy deletion criteria can be deleted on sight, I agree that blanking the page and adding an explanation is generally the better option (an obvious exception would be unambiguous vandalism). Part of the reason that I favor a delay even for pages that meet the general speedy deletion criteria is to avoid hindering the functioning of AfC. One could simply speedy delete an AfC submission that violates copyright or is blatantly promotional, but there is a chance that doing so will only confuse a well-intentioned user.

  My suggestion is not to extend the article speedy deletion criteria, or even just criteria A1, A3, and A10, to project-space in general, but rather to apply the principles behind them to declined AfC submissions. (In other words, an AfC submission deleted for "no content" should be deleted under criterion G6 (housekeeping), an AfC page that documents consensus to delete, or both, but not under criterion A3.) Submissions that contain no content (A3), that have an unidentifiable subject (A1), or that simply duplicate text that is already present in article (A10) cannot become articles unless they are completely rewritten (from 'scratch', as it were). I recognize that it is possible for this happen, but a six-month lag provides time for users who intend to undertake such a task to do so.

  I considered proposing deletion of all submissions after a certain period of time (e.g., 2 years), which would have made for a much shorter proposal, but in the end decided against it precisely for the reason you note: "it is just possible that someone might come along and use the existing content to build on". I do believe, however, that the criteria listed in the proposal exclude any pages that contain useful content. Any AfC submission that meets all of the proposed requirements would need to be wholly rewritten in order to be valid as an article.

  The reason I excluded the daily logs from potential deletion is not so much related to preserving a record of the project's activities in general as it is to preserving records of successful AfC submissions.

  I can understand your concern about burdening this WikiProject's members with the task of sorting through thousands of pages, and I can think of a few minor adjustments that ought to alleviate this concern. Ultimately, there is no deadline to clearing Category:Declined AfC submissions and it is up to each individual editor to decide whether they want to spend any time on this. As the initiator of this proposal, I certainly have no intention of dumping all of the work on this WikiProject's members. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 08:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• I think this is a good idea, as long as the deletion is limited to uncontroversial cases. The last thing we need is endless debate on whether a declined AfC submission should be deleted, which, in all likelihood, has exactly zero effect on the quality of the encyclopedia. If there is a demand for any automated tools, I can write a Kissle UI for this purpose very quickly, as it is basically NPP with only the CSDs. Tim Song (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

  What would that entail and how would it work (i.e., how would one use the tool to check declined submissions)? To be honest, I did not give much thought to the option of a bot or automated tool because I assumed it would require too much time and effort to write the program; however, my knowledge of programming is limited, so I have no idea whether my assumption is accurate. Thank you, –Black Falcon ^(talk) 08:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Old submissions to give a better idea of my proposed implementation (if consensus is that the page is premature or unnecessary, then I will not object to its speedy deletion). If there is any way that the process can be made more efficient, or if I've forgotten to mention something, then please revise the page as needed. Please rest assured that I do not intend for the page to be used as justification to delete declined AfC submissions that meet the criteria until it is perfectly clear that doing so is acceptable to the members of this WikiProject.

I have made a few changes from the original proposal based on the suggestions offered in this discussion; the major ones are:

1. The length of time is fixed as "six months" instead of "six or twelve months";
2. The "Requests for deletion" section reflects two possible options: it is either a section where non-administrators can request deletion of an AfC submission page or it is a section where all proposed deletions must be listed for 48 hours before they can be deleted.
3. In response to DC's and Martin's comments, I have added the following: "AfC submission pages that contain harmful content and meet one of the general speedy deletion criteria, such as vandalism, attack pages, and copyright violations, may be deleted under the appropriate general speedy deletion criteria."

The purpose of linking to the dated categories instead of simply directing editors to use Category:Declined AfC submissions is to ensure that editors do not needlessly check submissions that were declined less than six months ago. That being said, I think it would be possible to replace the section with a bot-generated list of the pages that meet criteria 1, 2, and 3, as suggested by The Earwig. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 09:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Opposition I have been trying to get an article [[1]] and the editor that reviewed it was of the opinion that one of the greatest concerns of an editor is to make sure that a proposed article not end up being deleted. The editor made the point that when an argument could be made that the proposed article could be tacked on to an already overflowing umbrella article, then it should be scientifically proven that this would somehow offend the gods, and if this could not be "proven", then obviously no proposed article should ever be accepted.

I take the position that part of the natural cycle of such a user generated corpus is that there must be a mechanism to allow such proposed articles to be reviewed by the greater community, that it is the community's place to decide if the article should be merged with the larger one. Denying the creation of the article on those grounds is counterproductive.TeeTylerToe (talk) 05:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This is fantastic improvement because Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/AFC articles by quality log now keeps track of all our redirects and files as well. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Amir Ali

I do not know the reason why I can not get this published? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirali1995 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You may wish to come to our live help chat so we can better assist you. Thank you!  fetchcomms☛ 00:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Spirit in action.

I was wondering if this is the section where I can request that the article for the Radio program and the other radio program on Northern Spirit Radio can be done. I find this site not real easy to use.

[Northern Spirit Radio http://northernspiritradio.org/]

Zon Moy 00:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonmoy (talk • contribs)

I'm not quite sure what you are asking ...

• If you would like to create an article yourself, please follow the process at Wikipedia:Article wizard 2.0.
• If you are requesting that someone else write an article, you can try Wikipedia:Requested articles (but it is unlikely to happen for a long time).

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Redirects?

As per Martin's edit summary. I've tried, once to move a redirect to the right section, because I didn't know about the {{d|redirect}} thing. Since then I've either used the template or just created the redirect. Is there a better way to do this? It seems just a tad bitey. SS✞^(Kay) 22:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Generally, I would just make it (if suitable), put on a decline template, and leave a note on the template explaining WP:AFC/R for the future.  fetchcomms☛ 22:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You'd find it easier just to move it to mainspace, just as we do when we accept articles. I have done this several times, and I see no reason to decline these requests just because they're made in an unusual way. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I just move them into mainspace, or decline them if unsuitable. Declining for being put in the wrong place strikes me as process simply for the sake of process, and makes us do the same work eventually when the request is (eventually) put in the right place. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You guys are amazing.

I'm online almost every day, and as I last logged off I was freaking because of the "severely backlogged" thing, but was too lazy to help fix it :P. I just logged back on to see like, nine pending submissions. My jaw dropped. Kudos to all you guys. :) SS✞^(Kay) 09:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Clear!

Congratulations, everyone, the queue is empty! I saw my userpage had a blue box, and was convinced it was a bug, but, nope, it's clear. Great work, everyone. Now, please, IP's... write some new articles! Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Well done everyone, I haven't much time to review articles so I feel a bit guilty. It's not often we see the smiley face on the blue background! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It was backlogged just a couple days ago. I also thought something was wrong, but was pleasantly surprised that it really was clear. Congrats to those who pushed to clear it! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:NA

{{NA}} has been nominated for deletion again. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 07:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Request For Assistance: Ethics Of Entry Creation

My brother is a noted Macintosh programming author, and there are upwards of a quarter-million of his "how-to" books floating around the globe. There are any number of Macintosh applications that, to one extent or another, owe their existence to my brother's efforts. You get my point. My issue is this: He doesn't have a Wikipedia entry, and standard ethics preclude me from submitting an article. What's my next move? Is it unethical of me to initiate this process in any way? For example, I could contact his publisher and bring up the lack of an article, hoping that the publisher will move forward on a researched submission. But is that ethical? Is my only ethical option, as his brother, to sit back and hope that an independent party submits an article? Obviously I want to do this thing, as I truly believe that my brother is a significant part of the history of the Macintosh, but I value ethics above all else, so I ask you, dear reader, for guidance. Thank you. Stumark (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you could submit an article to WP:AFC for consideration. Then it will be reviewed by an impartial editor which will avoid any perceived conflict of interest. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

New Afc Category (work in progress)

Hello all, I've done something rather bold that I think will help reviewers. Lately, I've been perusing the statistics page, looking for submissions that have been "On Hold" for more than 24 hours with no further edits. These submissions, according to our procedures, are to be declined to reduce clogging in the "Pending submissions" category. I figured that it would be more efficient to simply list all of these submissions in a Category so that reviewers could simply navigate to the list, open the submissions, and decline them. Hence, I have created Category:Afc Submissions on hold more than 24 hours, and have modified {{AFC submission/onhold}} so that submissions that fit this criteria are automatically added to the category.

The pages are added using the {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} magic word, which gives the 14-digit UTC timestamp for the last edit done to the page. This number is then compared to the value of the current timestamp minus 1000000 (the equivalent of subtracting exactly 1 day). If the last edit's timestamp is less than or equal to that number (meaning that the edit occurred more than or exactly 24 hours ago), then the submission is added to the category. If the timestamp is greater (meaning the edit occured less than 24 hours ago), then nothing happens. For those familiar with parsers, this is emulated with the following code:

{{#ifexpr:{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}<=({{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}})-1000000|[[Category:Afc Submissions on hold more than 24 hours]]|}}

Submissions that are not "On Hold" are not added, since they do not use {{AFC submission/onhold}}. The code is not foolproof, and therefore not complete; it does not (at the moment) take into account who performed the last edit; if the submitter did, then the submission should not be declined in this fashion.

I believe that this addition will increase efficiency, but once it is perfected it also opens the door to semi-automated (and perhaps automated, eventually) elimination of these submissions, which will keep the "Pending" category relatively clean. Of course, I welcome feedback/advice on this addition, and welcome anybody who feels they can improve this system to do so. Thank you for your time. Robert Skyhawk ^{So sue me!} (You'll lose) 04:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

That's great. It's a really good idea. As someone who doesn't know a thing about code, that's really helpful. SS✞^(Kay) 06:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a good idea, but why not put them under a different heading in Category:Pending AfC submissions rather a whole new category? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments; in response to Martin, that would also work, except it would not allow for quick generation of a list for a semi-automated program, which is what I eventually hope to be able to do. However, if we find that putting it in the pending category is more convenient, so be it. Now that I think about it, we can do both. Making the change now. Robert Skyhawk ^{So sue me!} (You'll lose) 02:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Love the idea, is there anyway I can help? -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 02:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you; if you have any ideas regarding how to tell the code to check whether the submitter had edited the submission after it was placed on hold, that is really the only obstacle I can think of. Robert Skyhawk ^{So sue me!} (You'll lose) 04:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps check {{REVISIONUSER}} and compare it against the submitter recorded in the template? If the IP changed, this would not work, though. Tim Song (talk) 04:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

That's the idea I had; when I tried to tell the code to compare the magic word to the {{{author}}} parameter, it didn't work (see this diff), so perhaps I'm using the parameter incorrectly, or using the wrong parameter? Robert Skyhawk ^{So sue me!} (You'll lose) 04:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that parameter is {{{user}}}. Tim Song (talk) 04:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I will try that. Robert Skyhawk ^{So sue me!} (You'll lose) 04:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

This didn't work. Robert Skyhawk ^{So sue me!} (You'll lose) 04:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

← Works like a charm with that!  fetchcomms☛ 04:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Er, at least adding the cat :P  fetchcomms☛ 04:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

After staring at the code a bit, I'm confused (yet again): If the submitter has edited after the 24 hours, the page should be added to the "O" category? I thought that only those that have not been edited by the creator after 24 hours should stay there? (Sorry for being a bit slow on this.)  fetchcomms☛ 05:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't be sorry; the code is a confusing mess, especially if you aren't familiar with parser functions/variables. The code is such that submissions that fit the criteria for the category (have not been edited in 24h) are also listed in Category:Pending Afc submissions under "O" (meaning they are OLD). If they do not fit the criteria, they are now added only to the Pending category under "H". I've posted an updated snapshot of the code (and a description) below; hopefully this will help you understand the new feature. Robert Skyhawk ^{So sue me!} (You'll lose) 23:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

← I like the idea, but I'm afraid I can't help on the coding. Wouldn't {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} work though?  fetchcomms☛ 04:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

That is, won't the category be removed if the parserfunction turns false later on?  fetchcomms☛ 04:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not quite clear on what you are suggesting. The code currently uses {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} to check whether the submission was edited in the last 24 hours. If it wasn't, the parser is true and the category is added. If it was, then nothing happens. So the parser wouldn't go from true to false over time; it would go from false to true as it passed the 24h mark. Robert Skyhawk ^{So sue me!} (You'll lose) 04:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Wait, so if it was left for over 24 hours, added to the cat, then edited after that, it would not be removed from the cat? I thought the cat would only appear if the parserfunction was true, which would not be the case if it was edited less than 24 hours ago.  fetchcomms☛ 04:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I see what you're saying now; good question. {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} is such that it would change when a new revision is submitted. Therefore the submission would be removed from the >24h category if edited again after 24h had elapsed. Robert Skyhawk ^{So sue me!} (You'll lose) 04:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Wait, isn't that the point, or am I misunderstanding completely? Is the article supposed to be removed from the >24h cat after being edited by the submitter after the 24h passed, or still stay there?  fetchcomms☛ 04:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is the point, and right now the code does exactly what we want it to do in that respect. The problem we face right now is how exactly to account for who performed the last edit. Robert Skyhawk ^{So sue me!} (You'll lose) 23:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Eureka!

Thanks to the excellent feedback I've received, and the help of User:Fetchcomms, the code now works perfectly, and looks like this:

{{#ifexpr:{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}<=({{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}})-1000000|{{#ifeq:{{{user}}}|{{REVISIONUSER}}|[[Category:Pending AfC submissions|H{{#if:{{{submit|}}}|{{#expr:trunc({{{submit}}}/100)}}|3}}]]|[[Category:Afc Submissions on hold more than 24 hours|{{SUBPAGENAME}}]] [[Category:Pending AfC submissions|O]]}}|[[Category:Pending AfC submissions|H{{#if:{{{submit|}}}|{{#expr:trunc({{{submit}}}/100)}}|3}}]]}}

For the ease of those who wish to provide feedback, but find the mess of braces and prefixes above difficult to understand, allow me to summarize:

1. The 14-digit timestamp of the submission's latest revision is compared to the timestamp representing what time it was exactly 1 day in the past.
2. If the last edit occurred more than or exactly 24 hours ago, and the author was not the last person to edit it, then the submission is added to Category:Afc Submissions on hold more than 24 hours (sorted by submission name), and Category:Pending AfC submissions (under the O heading).
3. If the last edit occurred less than 24 hours ago, or the author was the last person to edit the submission, the submission is only placed in Category:Pending AfC submissions under the H heading, and sorted by timestamp, as has always been true.

The author issue was worked out thanks to correction of a missing { character (yes, I made that stupid a mistake) by Fetchcomms, who will be receiving a barnstar shortly. So the code now works perfectly! Robert Skyhawk ^{So sue me!} (You'll lose) 00:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It finally works \o/. Thanks again, Robert!  fetchcomms☛ 00:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I know that sometimes we like to categorize by 48 hours just to give the editor some more time. could we make a cat for that/does anyone agree? -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 03:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done; see Category:Afc Submissions on hold more than 48 hours. Robert Skyhawk ^{So sue me!} (You'll lose) 18:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool, but what's the point of having... both? One renders the other silly, and I'm actually more inclined to just have 48 hours to allow for some leeway (obviously reviewers can continue to decline after 24 hours regardless). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The "official" policy seems to be that holds should be declined after 24h, so I think that should stay. I see no harm in having a category for 48h if that's the standard that some editors prefer to use. On the other hand, it seems that if the 24h category is regularly cleaned out, then the 48h cat is indeed rendered useless. Robert Skyhawk ^{So sue me!} (You'll lose) 18:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Well here's my reasoning: After 24 hours, a submission is on hold and you feel it appropriate to decline, do so. If you don't, don't. If, as it often does, it turns out that there are some on hold for 48 hours, then a category would be helpful so that we can more easily be nice and get some of them out of limbo/cut down on a backlog. If a submission on hold is "eligible" for decline after 24 hours, any time after is fine. It's once they start dragging on for too long that we want to make sure we cut down on 'em. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Heads up on templates

Sometimes we get some small cvs and stuff, so I created some templates. Let me know on any improvements I can make or more if you want them.
{{afc cleared}} Produces:
Now {{afc cleared|section}}

{{afccopyviocheck|1=~~~|2=~~~~}} Produces:

{{afccopyviocheck|1=-- <font color="green">/[[User:MWOAP|<font color="green">MWOAP</font>]]|</font><font color="blue">[[User_Talk:MWOAP|<font color="blue">Notify Me</font>]]\</font>|2=-- <font color="green">/[[User:MWOAP|<font color="green">MWOAP</font>]]|</font><font color="blue">[[User_Talk:MWOAP|<font color="blue">Notify Me</font>]]\</font> 03:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)}}

{{afccopyvioconfirm|1=~~~}} Produces:

{{afccopyvioconfirm|1=-- <font color="green">/[[User:MWOAP|<font color="green">MWOAP</font>]]|</font><font color="blue">[[User_Talk:MWOAP|<font color="blue">Notify Me</font>]]\</font>}}

That's it. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 03:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the notifications seem a little overkill to me. It doesn't usually take too long to figure out, and putting a submission on hold or marking it as currently being reviewed would seem to be just as effective whilst avoiding what could be to many an insulting claim if not backed up. As for the first, why not just put it as an option ie {{Afc cleared|section}} or something? {{Afc section cleared}} could be a handy redirect. Consolidation rocks. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't get your comment on the copyvio review. It shows to other reviewers that someone is looking into it. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 22:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

So does the reviewing template. Either way, I say merge them into the original with parameters.  fetchcomms☛ 22:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ya, but then someone doesn't know you are reviewing it as a copyvio. I will merge them for now, no redirects though. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 22:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, why is reviewing for copyrights so different, is my question. Wouldn't you want to review the whole thing at the same time anyhow, including copyrights?  fetchcomms☛ 22:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You would, but if you have to step away for a min, or it turns out that it is not 100% clear. That is what it is for. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 22:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

←Well, if you have to leave, then no one is going to bother the reviewing template either. And if it's not clear, I would just reword it myself. (And I meant, incorporate your templates into {{Afc cleared}}.)  fetchcomms☛ 23:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Merging declined submissions into other articles

I've merged my declined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Timeline of relief efforts after the 2010 Chile earthquake into an article created after I submitted my request (which is why it was declined - it didn't exist when I created the request, but did when it was reviewed), Timeline of relief efforts after the 2010 Chile earthquake. So, this now creates a problem, since I see from this talk page that an automated deletion process is to be implemented. If this were to occur to this particular page, edit history would be lost.

As I can see, it did not come up in discussion, what to do in circumstances such as this?

70.29.210.242 (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

We'd only delete old submissions that are copyright violations, attack pages, etc. You need a history merge, see Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves.  fetchcomms☛ 23:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The section above, #Deleting old declined submissions, seems to indicate otherwise... 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Under "Proposal" in that section, it mentions pages that could be deleted under our speedy deletion criteria or other general deletion criteria, which would be attack pages, copyright violations, blank submissions, and joke pages. In any case, we are only currently deleting copyright violations (although restoring the the latest revision for records purposes).  fetchcomms☛ 06:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

But process change, so it would probably be a good idea to tag merged pages as such in order that futur editors can see if pages where merged somewhere. Taemyr (talk) 06:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That should be done in the edit summary, I think? The other page is a redirect?  fetchcomms☛ 06:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Timeline of relief efforts after the 2010 Chile earthquake cannot be history-merged into Timeline of relief efforts after the 2010 Chile earthquake: see WP:Parallel versions. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The only substantial edits to the declined submission is by the same IP who merged the material into the mainspace article. There is therefore no problem with attribution even if the submission should be deleted. Tim Song (talk) 08:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That may not be the case in all instances though. If an AfC reviewer declines to create an article because it exists, but someone other than the submitter merges the content into the preexisting article... 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Moving WP:AFC/R

WP:AFC/R also accepts requests for the creation of categories in addition to redirects. Shouldn't Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects be renamed Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories (WP:AFC/R&C)? At this point, new users who wish to request a category don't know where to go to do this, thinking that WP:AFC/R is only for redirects. This would help guide them to the right page. -- œ^™ 04:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

An explanation on Wikipedia:Articles for creation would do more good than an unwieldy page name, IMO. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Probably more friendly for new users to navigate that way, although the page name is a bit long as noted, (and I'd prefer WP:AFC/RC) :P  fetchcomms☛ 04:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Would splitting AFC/R into two pages be too much hassle? I suspect most people that work AFC/R have it watchlisted, once set up, a new AFC/C wouldn't be any more work on us. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

But we rarely get category submissions, although I have thought about that idea myself. Not unreasonable, I suppose, but probably empty usually. I don't use my watchlist often either :(  fetchcomms☛ 05:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Cat requests are rare enough that I'd stay with one page. Tim Song (talk) 05:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ideally, a more descriptive title would be best, but Tim is right. We don't get enough requests to warrant a change. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 05:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Would a redirect then suffice? Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Categories --> Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and WP:AFC/C --> WP:AFC/R? ... btw WP:CFC ("Categories for creation", possibly) currently redirects to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, not sure why... "Categories for conversation" maybe? :) -- œ^™ 10:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I would support a change in name, but agree with others that a separate page for category requests would be overkill. A redirect be fine as well. These requests are quite rare. Is there any evidence that editors are getting confused by this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I imagine evidence to back up such a claim would be hard to find, because the very idea hinges of people not achieving something. Unless one of these people left a message somewhere saying they couldn't find such a page, it would be a logical fallacy for evidence to exist on its own. OE is right though; common sense would say this causes confusion. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 22:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

And if the user knows enough to request a proper category, then they probably can figure out where to go.  fetchcomms☛ 23:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

And there are more possible things that anonymous users may want to create, and we can probably let them create the item anywhere sensible in the AFC pages. Recently someone tried to make a portal, but that would not mean that we need a special section for portals. Just keep it as simple as possible for the new people. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

How would you ever make a portal through WP:AFC? That means making something like 20 pages at once... 70.29.210.242 (talk) 08:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The simple solution is to register an account. Inexperienced people should be leaving their efforts to articles, but if you insist, I am sure that AFC can cope with 20 connected pages, jsut make sure they are accepted or declined as a group. 12:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Review script problem

I was working on the review script today. I had an issue with review a category. The script would not show any details about what I could do with the request. At this moment, it is still there, but just an FYI. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 21:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Brian Peppers

See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Brian P. I did a cursory search, but is there something I'm missing? Should it be blanked as an attack? SS✞^(Kay) 04:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Cleared. There was nothing good in that submission. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Revamp of project pages

I'm planning to give the wikiproject pages a bit of an overhaul. Anyone want to give a hand? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "overhaul"? Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 19:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Second ^ ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I made a start so you can tell me what you think. I have split up the main project page into subpages because it was way too long, and added some navigation tabs to the top. We have /Showcase to showcase our articles (the name doesn't really sound right but I couldn't think of a better name) and /Assessment which deals with assessment, etc. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. I'd suggest adding __FORCETOC__ to this talk page though; don't know if you changed that or not. I'd be nice to have a table of contents though. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 19:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I like the look, in general. The small caps kind of distract me, but I don't know why. SS✞^(Kay) 07:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Good point about the TOC on this page, I didn't intend to remove it, now fixed. I was hoping that the other pages would now be short enough not to require a TOC? About the font, please experiment with different fonts (the code is on /tabs and /tabs/code). What about the light green background on the pages? Perhaps this is a little too distracting - would a paler green (or just white) be better? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I like the background... maybe a little bit lighter, but it makes it different. I mucked around with the font- here's it in Garamond. I'm on the school computers using IE at the moment, so I can't see how round corners would look, but I'll try that when I get home :). SS✞^(Kay) 01:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

← I like the idea of a lighter color theme in general. Not too wild about round corners (maybe only on the end tabs?)  fetchcomms☛ 01:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how to do it just on the end tabs... but what I've done looks alright to me, like the tabs in Firefox. Feel free to revert, though. SS✞^(Kay) 03:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems OK to me, I'll test some code though.  fetchcomms☛ 03:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I like it curved on the ends, any other opinions?  fetchcomms☛ 03:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Mm. It looks good. The main colour is better now, should the background colour be a bit lighter? SS✞^(Kay) 04:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Lighter now, but a bit more palish grey in tone? I don't care too much either way.  fetchcomms☛ 04:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Like the curved tabs, but why not curve them all? (For comparison, see this version. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Meh, I don't care much, but I prefer rectangles.  fetchcomms☛ 15:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Nor do I have any strong opinion, but I prefer generally curved tabs. SS✞^(Kay) 00:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I changed them to curved. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Templates for Creation

I've been informed that "templates" are not to be created via AfC. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Template:Ski_areas_and_resorts_in_Alberta&oldid=349920196

This prompts the thought, how many other Templates, dab pages, redirects, categories, etc have been rejected out of hand, if they ended up with the standard AfC page (instead of a redirect or category at /Redirects, it were created as a subpage)...

The edit filter also dumped an error saying that the nomination was improperly formatted, even though the preload template is the one that generated "|type=template" in the first line.

70.29.210.242 (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Templates can be created here, it's not a separate process due to lack of submissions usually. (Sorry for the confusion, we just don't get any template submissions usually, but they normally do not get thrown out, it's actually been discussed before that they should be created but the submitter be notified of the correct place for redirects/categories). The edit filter issue has to be resolved at the false positives page, unfortunately.  fetchcomms☛ 03:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

And we just created a dab page today :)  fetchcomms☛ 03:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

(EC)

It wasn't a standard message - I wrote it.

If redirects are mistakenly placed in AFC, I either move them, or just create them and note the correct place to the creator.

"Articles for creation" makes no mention of anything but articles; the wizard may have the option, but the ability is undocumented within the procedures for AFC reviewing.  Chzz  ►  03:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Creating a template has been an option since October last year. It's basically the same process except that it asks for documentation instead of sources. I'll update the reviewing instructions shortly. The edit filter warning is worrying - perhaps Someguy could comment on that? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a simple fix to the edit filter:

• !(new_wikitext rlike "{{subst:AFC submission/(submit|submit\|type\=dab)}}|{{WPAFC")
• !(new_wikitext rlike "{{subst:AFC submission/(submit|submit\|type\=dab|submit\|type\=template)}}|{{WPAFC")

That's how I would do it, although wouldn't it be more efficient to do something like this?

• !(new_wikitext rlike "{{subst:AFC submission/submit(.*?)}}|{{WPAFC")

I'm not skilled in Edit Filter regexes, so I wouldn't know. — The Earwig ^(talk) 19:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I've pinged our resident expert. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm trying to help out here, but I'm having trouble putting together what exactly is wrong so I can fix it. Do we have a sample edit that should NOT be caught (but was) that I can go by? --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 07:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Chzz filled me in. I have made the appropriate changes and at the same time optimized the filter. I've tested it against the IP user's hit, it is no longer detected as inappropriate. Feel free to review the change. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 07:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Meh. Maybe we should rename it to "Pages for creation"? Neither redirects nor templates nor categories are articles, after all. Tim Song (talk) 07:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I fully agree that templates don't belong in this process; I think that users wishing to create templates should definitely create an account. I don't see a need to rename; it is articles for creation, and that covers it for me - proposed new article-space only. I see AFC as a generous attempt to help new users in their first creation, not as a means to circumvent the established consensus that only registered users can create articles. IMHO, obv.  Chzz  ►  08:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

If it's circumvention to create articles then the main purpose of this process is wrong? Creation is editing IMHO, and WP is supposed to be something anyone can edit, according to its purpose statement. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, anyone can edit - they can just sign up for an account, and away they go.  Chzz  ►  12:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Then why does this process exist? 76.66.194.32 (talk) 07:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Now, that is a very interesting question - I will start a new thread below, so that we can discuss it.  Chzz  ►  09:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Recreated deleted articles

Is it common practice for this group to recreate articles that have been deleted through a deletion discussion? Clarification of this issue would be useful at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stan Romanek (2nd nomination). In the future, I recommend that if an article has been deleted, WP:DRV is filed first so that permission can be granted from the community to reverse the decision. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

No, and we usually decline articles that have been deleted through AfD (unless the content is different). I'm not sure how that happened, as I was not involved in the project at that time. Perhaps someone else could shed some light on this? It may be useful to have some sort of toolbox with links to possible old AfDs based on a submission's title, however.  fetchcomms☛ 00:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It would appear that Stan Romanek was deleted 5 September 2008 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stan Romanek, and recreated here 16 October 2009 by Joel E. Rowan (talk · contribs) - it looks like they created it in the live area, but with an {{AFC submission}} template. I see no AFC reviewer involvement, unless I am missing something?  Chzz  ►  12:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It was reviewed by Kraftlos and moved to article space on 19 October 2009. No, this was not appropriate and is not something we should do. However it is an easy mistake to make, and is a mistake I have also made in the past. There is a convenient link to the page log of the target page, so we should remember to check this before creating new articles. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently I passed this one, though from looking at it, there's no way it met any criteria for sourcing (it's a little better now). I don't remember this at all. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Article draft created in Sandbox

I came across an article draft on Fred Onovwerosuoke submitted by User:Slac324 in the WP:Sandbox: [2]. Flatscan (talk) 04:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. I've placed it in the queue at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fred Onovwerosuoke by copy and paste. I'll let the submitter know. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of it. Flatscan (talk) 05:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

New header for suspected copyright violations

As of right now, EarwigBot puts all potential copyright violation submissions under the hold heading on Pending AfC submissions. While it's best to always AGF, copyright violations are a serious issue; potential copy vio articles should be resolved with some more expediency. While the hold heading is appropriate other articles, I think a heading specifically intended for EarwigBot violation flags would ensure we see to potential violations in a timely manner. It still assumes good faith on the part of the submitter but allows editors to work more expeditiously to remove any impinging content. To that effect, I propose a new header in Pending AfC submissions, e.g. S for suspected copyright issues. This header would only serve to bring quicker attention to articles flagged by EarwigBot as containing potential copyright issues. avs5221 (talk) 02:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion. Do you propose changing the template as well – Template:AFC submission/onhold – or just the section of the category it is filed under? By the way, there's an immensely-long discussion when I first started running EarwigBot about how copyvio articles should be tagged and categorized; see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/EarwigBot 1 if you're interested. — The Earwig ^(talk) 02:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the template is great, actually. It could be changed to distinguish a normal hold from a copy vio hold, but I'm not versed on how you set up the template/bot to integrate. At any rate, this is essentially a matter of organization. Creating a separate queue like S would help reviewers more expeditiously remove copyrighted material, and honestly I think it makes better use of EarwigBot in the process. Why have the bot bury flagged articles? It does a great service by finding the information quickly only to hide it in the hold queue.

As far as the discussion in Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/EarwigBot 1, I think you answered your own question:

"When I said "backlog," I wasn't referring to the 52-submission backlog that is a technical feature. I was referring to the fact that hold submissions often remain unlooked-at by reviewers because they are "on hold". But after looking at the hold criteria, I decided that your probably right, and this is probably a good idea."

(beware: slight redundancy lies ahead!) I'm hoping a new header eliminates that "unlooked" tendency. In a way, yes, copyright violations meet the criteria of the hold header. But I think they also deserve an expediency that is oft lost when they're dumped in hold. avs5221 (talk) 06:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Two points here. Is there anyway EarwigBot on the IRC channel, when you type ".copy" for it to say how many there are and link anyway. Because I found three or four the other day, and it was saying that that was ok. Second point, with the above preposal, is there a way that we can have the reasoning stay if it is there (like adv, bio, v, etc.) because I find some true copyvios (like from top to bottom) that aren't flagged. It would also be nice if we could display both the Copyvio notice and the stuff (like adv, bio, v, etc.) just in case it isn't a copyvio. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 10:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Once upon a time, it was proposed to use this instead of {{AFC submission|H|cv-bot}}; the bot would have added that template, but would have left {{AFC submission| | }}, so a reviewer could come back and hold for another reason. We scrapped it for – something, I can't remember quite why, but I'm pretty sure MSGJ knows. — The Earwig ^(talk) 20:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Might be a good idea to actually go back to using that method now that I think about it; the bot could tag an article while it is held or declined... the bot could even put the report directly in the template using {{hidden}}! — The Earwig ^(talk) 20:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Query on this page

Mary E. Byrd, American educator circa 1910 Appears as black text as there is no Mary E. Byrd page. Perhaps it was meant to be created and omitted? Or perhaps she is not notable enough in which case the page should not be on the disambiguation page. I cannot find her in any other article 86.43.110.186 (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, where are you reading this? I can't see any mention of Mary Byrd. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I see, you must be looking at the Byrd page. You're right, her entry could be removed because there isn't an article on her yet. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Why does this process exist?

Please do not misunderstand my intentions here; I am not 'taking sides'. I have helped to review many hundreds of AFCs. The title arose in a previous thread on this page, regarding creation of templates via AFC, but I think a new thread is warranted to being discussions.

As I understand it, back in 2005, Mr. Wales decided to stop non-registered users from creating articles (signpost article here). This was to prevent vandalism. AFC provides an alternative way for non-registered users to create pages, with various assistance and checks that the articles meet standards.

I am all in favour of keeping Wikipedia as open as possible. The questions is - which is it? Can non-registered users create articles, or not? If the community believes that they should be able to, that's fine - we can just enable it again (though whether we could cope with the vandalism is another matter). If not, then should we really be 'bending over backwards' to allow them to create pages via AFC?

OK, so we are helping them to format articles and make them pass the notability criteria, etc, but, why should they receive this special treatment, which is not afforded to people who do create an account - often the latter create a poor article which is speedy deleted, and we hope that we have processes in place to help them. In reality, those processes are poor - but that seems to indicate a general fault, and not a reason for an alternative system to create things via a 'back-door'.

There seems to be rather an overlap, and perhaps excess bureaucracy, by us having requested articles, articles for creation, and the ability to create user-space drafts.

Perhaps we are shooting ourselves in the foot here, by going to all these efforts to fix problems in this way. Perhaps we ought to say 'get an account' and that's the end of it. Surely users who do get an account should receive helpful advice and assistance with their first article - perhaps moreso than those who do not take this step.

I notice that, currently, the messages that a non-registered user will see if they try to create a page are not exactly user-friendly. If they type in a non-existent article name, it goes like this;

1. "There were no results matching the query", "You may create the page "(NAME)", but consider checking the search results below to see whether it is already covered."

(There may or may not actually be any results)

Note, this is a bit wrong already - the anon may not' create it.

2. Clicking on the red link produces; Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for (NAME) in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings.

• Start the (NAME) article, using the Article Wizard if you wish, or add a request for it.
• Search for "(NAME)" in existing articles.
• Look for pages within Wikipedia that link to this title.

3. Clicking on the 'Start' link then produces a page entitled 'Unauthorized', which says;

Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact title. Please search for (NAME) in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings.

• Log in or create an account to start the (NAME) article. (which links to special:login)
• Submit the content that you wish to have created. (which links to AFC)
• Search for "(NAME)" in existing articles.

There are quite a few problems there, and it's certainly not a very 'friendly' start.

Surely, if a non-registered user tries to create an article, they should be seeing some nice, friendly message - suggesting that they sign up, offering alternatives, and certainly highlighting the basic need for reliable sources.

I think that this is an important discussion, and I look forward to hearing opinions.  Chzz  ►  10:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I never liked the article draft system when it was ported from the AFC wizard, but I chose not to say anything. I do believe it's probably too confusing for most newcomers (how many of them really understand the difference between the three options in the wizard?). This is why I altered the wording of the wizard a few weeks ago to make it clear that AFC is not just for unregistered users, but also for anyone who wants their article reviewed. OTRS actually gets occasional emails from people asking why their article wasn't reviewed (they had created it as a userspace draft).

Considering how long the Wizard probably is for newbies, maybe it could be simplified? I don't know. I agree that AFC shouldn't be considered just a process for IPs. I think that whatever comes of the myriad processes for creating articles suggested to newbies, I think the "this page doesn't exist" message and the wizard should consistent, and that AFC should remain for anyone who wants that extra help. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Whenever people ask me off-wiki (whether online or not) how to create an article, I always tell them to make an account, draft it on their userpage, and add the AFC template. Most of these people have no clue about our guidelines and I feel that AfC is a much more friendly way for them to see what our standards are and what is lacking in their articles than just a speedy delete. If this process is solely for IPs, I apologise for completely misreading it; however, I feel that it should expand to be a helping hand in general for newbies, that unlike adoption is only focused on one aspect. Also, I think that this isn't circumventing the IP ban on creating articles. AfC does a good job of filtering out the attack pages, copyvios, autobios, etc. It's like eating the grapes and spitting out the seeds instead of completely not eating grapes because of the seeds. The more coverage Wikipedia has, the better. Why prevent IPs from pitching in? </rant> SS✞^(Kay) 00:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Singlish speaker, I do not disagree with your sentiments; I simply wonder if we could be more even-handed over the handling of it; I would definitely welcome any simplification that discourages anon article creation.

My concern is the over-complexity; there is no clear, recommended way for a new user to create an article. There are several options, and depending on which they choose, they are treated very differently. I would like to see a simple, unified, even-handed approach to it.  Chzz  ►  14:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. On rereading, I apologise for only taking one part of your original post. It is important that there is consistency. I think it boils down to what you said earlier:

Surely, if a non-registered user tries to create an article, they should be seeing some nice, friendly message - suggesting that they sign up, offering alternatives, and certainly highlighting the basic need for reliable sources.

But what, exactly, and how? Is there any way to bring this to the attention of the wider community? It's an important issue, especially since it's so up-front. SS✞^(Kay) 02:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

There is. </promotion> I've recently listed the mediawiki messages which appear for non-existent articles here, in case it's proposed to modify them. I'm not sure it's been mentioned, but there's also the article wizard now. Cenarium (talk) 05:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Pathway is broken for IP editors

While surfing as an IP I noticed there's no longer a link via hitting the "Go" or "Search" buttons which (eventually) takes IP editors to AfC for a non-existent article. Log out and see for yourselves. I've X-posted this to the Tech Pump, but I'm not sure they'll understand the problem.... -- Kendrick7^talk 22:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, OK -- since IP editors can't get here anymore unless they are aware of the project to begin with, and no one is concerned, I'm going to go ahead and mark the page as historical. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That is incredibly pointy, especially since good work is still being done here. Seems that it was caused by a MediaWiki change - bugzilla:19600. See bugzilla:20976. Tim Song (talk) 06:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm an IP user and I found it. I clicked on a red link and it said do you want to create the page. 68.106.193.194 (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: the VPT discussion can now be found be archive 74. I thought we could maybe edit MediaWiki:Search-nonefound as a stop-gap measure, but I don't really understand enough of it to make the edit myself. Tim, is there anything we can do until 20976 is resolved? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a MediaWiki:Searchnoresults though. Is that the place to enhance? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No, as the talk page explains, that message is not used now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It is possible to change that to something different from the default "There were no results matching the query." to also include a link here, etc. But there's no way to differentiate IPs and registered users without using a script; as far as I can see there's no parser function that works. Tim Song (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We can just write something like "Unregistered users are invited to use the article wizard." — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, it is not shown if there's any search result at all, though the page doesn't exist. Perhaps it is best to use a script instead? Tim Song (talk) 14:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

When a search has results, it looks like MediaWiki:Showingresultsheader is shown, but it's probably not the best place to add a link to AFC. There is also a recent change to MediaWiki (linked to in a comment on Bug 20976) that mentions a "searchmenu-new-nocreate" message, but it isn't in Special:AllMessages. snigbrook (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:reflist

Is {{reflist}} banned from AfC articles now? Alpha Quadrant (talk · contribs) doesn't seem to like its use, while I've tried to make flocculent spiral galaxy like other astronomy articles, and most of the major ones use it, or it's equivalent "div small references /div".

70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Uh, what? I love reflists... saves space, etc., etc. Bring it up with the user, imo. —fetch·comms 21:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Not moving misplaced submissions

I would like to ask the team NOT to move misplaced submissions as I am trying to get approval for my bot and this is the only way, when they come, for my bot to preform. Thank you. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 01:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Currently the message box specifically suggests that editors do move them to project space. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know, that is why I am asking editors of AFC to not move them. If I miss one or two because of them not being part of AFC, so be it. I should be able to deal with them in 12 hours after they appear. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 10:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute. The bot is supposed to speed up page moves, right? Wouldn't that take longer if we have to wait for the bot to move pages if it's quicker to do it ourselves? — The Earwig ^(talk) 02:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, I am using my own test pages. and Earwig, I don't have access to toolserver yet, and I don't have a 24 hour server, that's why. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 15:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so when you get access to the Toolserver, you will be able to run the bot constantly (i.e., we will not have to wait for it), right? Thanks. — The Earwig ^(talk) 19:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, and once I fix a few more bugs and get it approved. Then I go onto my next bot idea. :) -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 20:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Question: I just created an article, and instead of the "this article has just been created etc etc" template, I got "this is a misplaced AfC submission". As a result, I had to paste in the talk page template. Does anyone know why? {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 06:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Looking into it right now. — The Earwig ^(talk) 20:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah ha! It's been like that for years, actually; upon further investigation, the reason that happened was because of a problem in the template coding

• {{AFC submission|||ts=20100519061657|u=Semiquaver|ns=5type=dab}}

That's what I saw. It should be:

• {{AFC submission|||ts=20100519061657|u=Semiquaver|ns=5|type=dab}}

...missing a pipe before type=dab. Apparently substituting {{subst:AFC submission/submit|type=dab}} causes that. Looking for a fix. — The Earwig ^(talk) 20:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. — The Earwig ^(talk) 20:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

First & Second steps

Is it not logical to have people search for the article in question before doing anything else so they don't waste time starting an article or preparing to do so, only to find it is not necessary? While at first glance the page appears to be short, anyone who needs it will likely also need to avail of numerous links in it; which could amount to a lot of time spent reading. If nobody responds in a week objecting, I'll switch the first two points. A F K When Needed 21:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Wizard that is linked to on the main Articles for creation page? If so, I don't see what you mean; the first page asks the user if he/she is prepared to make an article, and the second has a search box at the top of the page and text above saying, "If you haven't already done so, search below for alternate titles under which your subject might be covered already, then come back to this page." It seems like switching these two would be unnecessary and would disrupt the Wizard. Additionally, the Wizard linked to on the AFC page is the main article wizard for Wikipedia, and isn't AFC specific (there used to be an AFC wizard, but it was merged with the main wizard), so any changes would be better discussed on the wizard's talk page. Robert Skyhawk ^{So sue me!} (You'll lose) 00:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the OP was referring to our reviewing instructions but I can't really understand it either. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

IRC Channel

Hello everyone. I have been around #wikipedia-en-afc ^connect for a few days when few reviewers are on. I have had to turn away some people for help because I am busy or multitask like crazy. I would like to suggest we switch people to en-help and maintain en-afc as for technical means. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 01:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

That would seem appropriate. The AfC channel was a nice idea but it is probably redundant to the main help channel. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 03:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I was talking with Alpha Quadrant about it last night too and he agreed. I am going to make the change to the template now even though we don't have everyones comments. Just a comment though, it will still be a technical channel for AFC reviewers. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 19:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's best to wait for consensus. I, for one, don't know if it's the best idea as not everyone in -help understands the AfC process. We should put both links up--one saying something about going to -help if no one's at -afc. —fetch·comms 20:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I will be putting both on the template. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 20:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Strong support - the help channel is to provide all help for English Wikipedia; this is one area where new users need help. By splitting AFC from other help, we reduce the number of helpers available - it's silly. We're short of helpers enough as it is. The channel should prob be forwarded to #wikipedia-en-help - move he bot-report stuff elsewhere; it certainly doesn't help in a help channel.  Chzz  ►  20:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that combining channels is certainly a viable option, but first, we should figure out a more efficient system, because this could easily end up in people giving wrong advice about AfC, or even more multiple conversations going on at once. —fetch·comms 20:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Support MWOAP has a very good point, the AFC IRC channel is often very short on helpers. At the current moment there are three helpers in AFC IRC (counting myself) and two of them are away. We should probably list both channels in the template to help the submitters. However, I believe that the help channel should only be used if no one is in the AFC channel, because, like Fetchcomms said, not everyone in the help channel knows how answer AFC questions. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

New processing of Move Draft requests

The {{move draft}} template was created for new editors (not yet autoconfirmed, thus unable to move a page themselves). They could add the template to a draft article, and an editor would move the page into article space. This good idea suffered from two problems:

1. No one was monitoring the requests until recently
2. Four out of every five requests weren't quite ready for article space

As a remedy, the existing requests will be moved to AfC so that the editors helping out the regular request can also handle these draft articles. In addition, future requests will become requests at Wikiproject Articles for Creation, where they can simply be moved to article space if ready, or improved first if not ready. --SPhilbrickT 22:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)  Chzz  ►  22:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Good idea Captain n00dle\^Talk 10:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been moving these over for a while now, using a manually-assisted script. I'm mostly done. — The Earwig ^(talk) 20:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, so, I believe most/all are listed in User:The_Earwig/Sandbox#Pages ? They really all need checking, and users informing as appropriate. Because some have been accepted/declined/oversighted/histmerged etc in the meantime, a 'standard' spammed-out message probably is not appropriate. I've looked through some individually, but in doing so, I found various problems in the ways the AFCs had been processed, so I ended up getting side-tracked in fixing them, etc.

So - they need checking. Then again, that's true of pretty much all AFCs, and I suppose that, for accepted/held/rejected, at least now the users have had some kind of feedback.  Chzz  ►  03:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Main page simplify

I've removed some of the clutter on the main page in the design below. This content (suggestions, notability) is shown during the article wizard, so it is not needed. I wanted to throw this out there; tell me what you think.--mono 00:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

New Design

Welcome to Articles for Creation! If you do not have a Wikipedia user account but have an idea and sources for a new article, you can submit them here. If you have an idea for the title of an article, but no content for the article itself, please see Requested articles. If you have a Wikipedia user account already, you can also use the Registered Users Article Wizard to help you create your article.

Create an article!

Registered Wikipedians should follow these detailed directions to review the current submissions.

I think that might be good to reduce the amount of tl;dr, but there needs to be some sort of intro still. Basically, keep the

This is Wikipedia's page for Articles for Creation; if you do not have a Wikipedia user account but have an idea and sources for a new article, you can submit them here. If you have an idea for the title of an article, but no content for the article itself, please see Requested articles. If you have a Wikipedia user account already, you can also use the Registered Users Article Wizard to help you create your article.

Please follow these directions to submit an article for creation.

1. First – read this page: Wikipedia:Starting an article

and then the rest can be removed as it's already covered in the wizard. —fetch·comms 01:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

There is little reason for the Wikipedia:Articles for creation page to exist anymore. I've been thinking about redirecting it to Wikipedia:Article wizard. By the way, mono, you've been making some substantial changes to the article wizard and some of these should probably be discussed in more detail. For example making AfC the "recommended" method of submitting an article will have an impact on the number of submissions we receive and the project may not be able to cope with the increase. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, as no one commented on this, I've gone ahead and made the redirect. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

As WP:AFC is a highly used redirect, should we either make it go to the project, or add a hatnote to the wizard (not preferred), or make the old AfC page transclude the wizard main page with a hatnote on that, or what? —fetch·comms 18:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I also object to this major change; I didn't notice this post in the time between suggestion on 7th and implementation on 10th - sorry about that. But now I have...can we please discuss it a bit? I've changed it back for now.

I do not see the wizard as a replacement to the AFC process. Many users come to AFC not via the wizard; we receive any and all submissions. This page explains the AFC process - not 'how to make an article', as the wizard does. It also serves as the portal for the people reviewing the submissions. Chzz  ►  18:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The wizard has replaced the AfC process in reality. Since the wizards were merged the link "Create an article!" has taken users straight to the article wizard. Therefore this creates one extra (and probably unnecessary) step in the process. Fetchcomms: I would be open to redirecting the page to the project page Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation. I think that makes a lot of sense. But before this is possible we would need to be sure that all incoming links, which new users might follow to create an article, are adjusted to point to Wikipedia:Article wizard. (I've updated quite a lot but am not satisified that I caught them all.) Otherwise a newbie trying to create an article and ending up at the project page would be surely confused. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I'm a bit dim. Are you saying that some page has a link 'create an article!' which links to WP:AFC? In which case, why not just change it to point to the wizard thingy? Why do we need to change the shortcut WP:AFC?  Chzz  ►  17:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "create an article" links to WP:AFC can and should be changed to WP:WIZ. The majority have been updated but I can't be sure that there aren't a few left on obscure help pages. If people want to have a look through Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Articles for creation (excluding userspace links would be a help) and update any left over we can probably follow Fetchcomms suggestion of redirecting it to the project page WP:WPAFC. I feel this is the more natural place for the "portal for reviewers" as it is our editor-facing page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Left-over redirects

After an article has been created a redirect is left. An example is Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Johann F. C. Hessel. This came to my attention when that redirect was listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 June 13. As cross-namespace redirects, these are considered undesirable. However, this project may have a use for them? If not, it would be helpful for an instruction to be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions#Accepting an article to suppress the redirect. Also, any redirects created can be tagged, by non-admins, as WP:CSD G6. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I think they're useful for two reasons. One, they give some sort of trackable history to the process, and two they direct others to the actual article rather than waste their time on a new submission. X-namespace redirects only really matter when it's mainspace -> elsewhere, and it's pretty fair precedent at RfD to allow things that wouldn't ruin a behind-the-scenes look. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what Amory says. An new editor who bookmarks the submission page and then comes back to check it later would be confused to see that their article had disappeared into thin air. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. The log messages left behind when a redirect is suppressed or deleted are not always clear to a new user that has no familiarity with Wikipedia. The redirects are harmless; I don't see them as "undesirable". — The Earwig ^(talk) 17:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for these helpful comments; I am persuaded! Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

After being declined

I am an experienced editor (with no knowledge of AfC, although I have browsed what docs I could find). I am trying to help Smithmd2 (talk · contribs) who has had this declined (I agree that the article needs improvement). The particular case is not so important but I am wondering whether a documentation overview exists to give experienced editors the big picture because I cannot work out what to advise the user. Also, it would be good if an overview could trace what happens to a successful submission and an unsuccessful submission (user completes wizard; page is created at X (a talk page?) with template Y; reviewer modifies Y; what then?).

The message on the user's talk page says "please feel free to request article creation again once the issues have been addressed" but I do not understand what that means: (1) put an improved article (copy/paste) through AfC again? or (2) improve the article on the page where it is declined and ask (how?) again?

I understand that the user (or I) could create a user subpage with the wikitext and work on it there. If that is recommended, would it be a move or a copy/paste? I worry that a move would break some AfC process, and a copy/paste is dubious due to copyright issues. Johnuniq (talk) 02:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for taking the time to post. We have two versions of instructions for reviewers: long version, short version. If you are still confused after reading this, please let us know! The easiest way for a user to resubmit an article is to paste {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} at the top of the article. (This is mentioned on the decline template on the submission, but should probably be added to the user talk template as well.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, however I had found and read both the short and long versions and they simply do not address the points I mentioned. I understand that documenting stuff is awkward: too many details and you'll be told WP:TLDR; too few, and you get people like me who want some understanding of what actually happens. Anyway, thanks for the {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} info. Johnuniq (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I have added the instruction to Template:Afc onhold and Template:Afc decline. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Problem submitting article

I'm sorry, maybe I'm just really computer slow but I have been looking for almost an hour and I absolutley can notfind any way to submit my article. I am an unregistered user of wikipedia but it says numerous times that unregistered users can submit ideas for wikipedia. But it doesn't say anywhere how to do this!!! It even says that there are instructions on the main page of this article for unregistered users on how to submit an article, but there are none!!! Where are they!!?? Great thanks to anyone who can help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.248.0.16 (talk) 03:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello 0.16. I'm sorry for your difficulties. You can start the submission process on this page and just follow the directions, clicking where necessary. Feel free to come back to this page if anything else is unclear to you. Cheers. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

FFU archiving

Can anyone who knows how configure the bot to only archive FFU requests with more than one timestamp? We're getting unfulfilled, perfectly acceptable requests archived simply because there aren't enough people uploading images. I've read through the bot config page, but I'm still not sure what to put--or would one need to switch to Cluebot III? —fetch·comms 23:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

 Working I will take a crack at this in a few hours. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 02:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

And even tougher to unarchive all the stuff that has been packed away, there are still unfulfilled requests from a year back, but since the templates change they are very hard to read. Thanks to Fetchcomms for all the work on IFU/FFU! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done I have just modified the FFU page so that it will only archive things after a year, and when a request is closed, it is set to archive by a paramiter set in the decline/accept top header. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 17:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I've disabled the index as it was creating an unsightly mess of seemingly unrelated article links at the beginning of the page. You might want to try using the | archivebox = parameter instead. Intelligentsock 01:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Does the redirect request also function in this manner? As there have also been archives of unprocessed category and redirect requests. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 19:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

No instructions

This whole process is a bit eclectic and appears very counterintuitive. Why are there no instructions at all on how to submit a page creation request at Wikipedia:Articles for creation and at subpages like Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects? Is that obscurity intentional, to cheese off anons? Because that's almost how it looks. --87.79.177.121 (talk) 02:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

On the first page you mention there is a huge link which says "Create an article!" and which takes you to the article wizard. On the latter there is an instruction at the top of the page which says "To request a new redirect please go to Articles for creation/Wizard-Redirects. Can you tell us how we can make it clearer than that? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you did not notice the large "Create an article!" banner. I've made it bigger, though, just in case. —fetch·comms 23:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Auto-hold for verifiability?

I don't know what percentage exactly, but a very high percentage of sources are websites. Proposals without sources are almost always declined, by virtue of verifiability. Therefore, I am wondering if there is a way to automatically hold, or at least separate, these pages. They could be quickly skimmed. This could help reduce the backlog and organize the reviewing process considerably. Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 03:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I think unsourced submissions should be declined on sight. I'm not sure if it would be worth a bot doing it, because references are often hidden inside the body of an article and a bot might have trouble recognising them reliably. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with MSGJ; there is no merit in placing unsourced submissions on hold if it is part of the quick-fail criteria. —fetch·comms 13:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Redirect subpage overwritten

It seems like a new user has been using this subpage to work on an article, and the content that should be there has been deleted; and someone else subsequently added a request there. I'm not sure what's the best way to fix this?... B7T (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

To which subpage are you referring? Robert Skyhawk ^{(T C B)} 17:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects. B7T (talk) 17:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the misplaced submissions. They looked like copyright violations anyway. And I've re-added the redirect request. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Heavy backlogs recently

7-day moving average of AfC submissions in 2010.

I've noticed that AfC is often heavily backlogged recently and I wondered why that was. Is it due to an increase in the number of submissions, or perhaps because of fewer reviewers? So I collected some data, did some calculations and produced this graph. My analysis is that there was a sharp increase in early March, which probably corresponds to when the option to use AfC was added to the article wizard. However since then, although there have been peaks and troughs, the number of submissions has been reasonably stable. So it perhaps it is the number of reviewers that has dropped off slightly? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that we have a similar number of reviewers, but they are working with more. Would posting at the reward board (for, say, a barnstar?) to review x number of articles be helpful for a bit? Or possibly doing a bit of recruiting for the project, as I don't think it's very well known/respected within the Wikipedia community. Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 02:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we should try anything we can to get more reviewers. Things are getting desperate with a backlog of 100 as I write this. The review board might be worth a try. How about spamming our participants? If everyone reviewed on that list 5 articles we'd clear the backlog instantly. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I notice that this thread is very recent. Has the introduction of pending changes caused this backlog since that system also requires a review effort? To show whether it does or not, we need a chart of the backlog each day. PleaseStand ^(talk) 17:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Woah, that is a lot of articles. I was off wikipedia for two days and come back to twice the articles. Hold on (Decline, Decline, Decline, wait this one needs work but might work, Hold). I'll do 20 or so today, that should help. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I know what the issue is--making us the "recommended" method of creating a new article, coupled with the elimination of the move draft template system. We just all need to work harder. —fetch·comms 13:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

New barnstar

The existing image

The new image

A new version of the existing barnstar

User:Antonu has made us a new barnstar. It's quite different from the existing image though so I thought we should discuss it first. What do people think? It looks nice and after 3 years we may be due for a rebranding. But then we need to update our logo as well ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Some more background on this at WT:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards#Barnstars 2.0 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm all in favor of it. —fetch·comms 13:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well the new image doesn't have as much significance to the project and less thought has gone into it. If you read the original discussion back in 2007 you'll see that Hersfold designed it with 5 A's which stand for "Articles", which the new version doesn't have. And the new image looks more like the good article icon than the plus sign we have become used to. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Would everyone be alright with me creating a new version of the old one? sonia^♫♪ 11:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be great. Any progress yet? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hm, perhaps that would be a better idea (I was never aware of the old one's design significance). —fetch·comms 21:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't had time to do anything major to it- just replaced the grey background with a screenshot from our FA. Does that look better (or worse)? Does anyone have any suggestions? sonia^♫♪ 23:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Both images look great. I think the second new image best represents AFC because of the significance of the five A's. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I've done some tweaking and been bold in replacing the barnstar. Anyone's free to revert. sonia♫ 05:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Slide in article quality

There's been a decrease recently in the quality of the articles created. Just because we have a backlog is not an excuse to hurry; many pages are not MOS-compliant and contain inappropriate tone or wording. I am afraid that some reviewers may see a list of sources and accept based purely on that; I've seen articles where there are 20 primary sources and it's been accepted. This is ridiculous and only hurts the project. We need to have a stricter reviewing process. For example, Bruce Donald is a poorly sourced BLP (2 of the 4 sources are from his university's website), Clarisonic contains a list of unreliable and/or primary sources (don't we want footnotes, not a list of random links?), Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited (TNPL) needs its section headers lowercased per the MOS and it is half spam ("A 300 tpd state-of-the-art Hardwood Pulp line", "Amply supported by online process and quality control systems the company ensures uniform and consistent quality without compromising on efficiency", "Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited (TNPL) was formed by the Government of Tamil Nadu, one of the most environmentally compliant paper mills in the world"), Infopro Sdn Bhd has both a list of links and footnotes, Jake Smollett does not seem to have much significant coverage, as evidenced by the included sources being mere mentions as well, etc. Ideally, we want articles like John Nihill; copyedited, MOS-compliant, properly sourced, and ready-to-go. We cannot simply forgo things like copyediting and a full, in-depth review to let these things slide. This problem will only grow worse, and all reviewers must perform solid reviews. —fetch·comms 13:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting post. Should it be harder for an unregistered user to create article than for a registered user? From your point of view it seems that we should not be creating any article unless it is at least C-class or B-class. If you read the criteria for C-class it includes "The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup", in other words it is not necessarily copy-edited or conforming to the manual of style. Now look at some of the Special:Newpages and look at the average quality in some of those. Our criteria has always been higher than just surviving deletion, but I'd like to caution against raising the bar too high. I often create Stub- or Start-class articles through AfC. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not talking about the articles themselves, but how our reviewers don't stop to do easy things like copyedit and whatnot before accepting. Obviously, not all articles going in will look pretty. But can't we do things like despammify, remove unneeded external links, even just bold the title before accepting, rather than make more work for others? —fetch·comms 21:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

While we can do such things, and it even could be generally argued that we should as a Wikipedian, I submit that modifying accepted articles in any way is not the purpose of AFC and is no means required. The sole purpose of AFC and the review process is to give the contributors who otherwise could not contribute articles or wish to do so anonymously the ability to do so. Although, having been involved in AFC since 2006, I think I can reasonably say that our criteria hasn't always been higher than "would it survive AFD?". In fact, I would say that that that is still fundamentally our criteria today. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 23:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That was the purpose of AfC, but now the process is recommended to all new users wishing to create articles, anonymously or otherwise. I'm not sure when this practice was adopted, or what discussion led to it, as I was absent at the time.

I do agree that at a fundamental level whether or not I believe an article would/should* survive AfD is the absolute measure of acceptability, at least for me. Nevertheless, as I mentioned somewhere else, I am of the opinion that a reviewer is as responsible for the content of an article as the author, in terms of taking responsibility for mistakes and sloppiness – actually moreso, as reviewers are expected to be experienced editors who know better. Plus it never hurts to take a little pride in one's work.

*That is to say, if I would !vote against the article at an AfD, I won't accept the submission at AfC, even if I expect consensus would be against me in said AfD. However, I would not decline a submission on this basis either, but simply leave it to someone else to review.

AJCham 00:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

We need to be very careful about increasing the scope of AFC beyond its primary purpose: accepting articles or declining articles. I agree that as a Wikipedian, we must take responsibility to the quality of our own edits. However, once an article is accepted, the responsibility of the article belongs the community as a whole, just as any other article. It deeply saddens me to see otherwise good Start or Stub-class articles held indefinitely because of MOS minutiae and other trivial issues with instructions saying, essentially, "we won't accept your article until you and you alone make it at least B-class". By the same token, I don't want to burden our reviewers the same way by saying "you can't accept the article unless you and you alone make it at least B-class first". -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 01:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about bringing an article up to B-class, that would be ridiculous, and I don't recall anyone making that demand of an editor, even implicitly. It is actually very rare that I accept an article as B-class. Most are stubs or start-class, and a handful of Cs. The kind of fixes that I think are worth implementing before acceptance are very basic, and not particularly time consuming. Removing excessive/spammy links, bolding the title, using proper section headers, formatting wikilinks (or intended wikilinks) correctly, that sort of thing. AJCham 02:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You didn't, no, but fetchcomms gave me that very distinct impression: "We need to have a stricter reviewing process." "many pages are not MOS-compliant and contain inappropriate tone or wording [...] We want articles like John Nihill; copyedited, MOS-compliant, properly sourced, and ready-to-go. We cannot simply forgo things like copyediting and a full, in-depth review to let these things slide." This gave me the impression that if the article is not highly polished, that it either shouldn't be accepted or that it is the responsibility of the reviewer to make it "highly polished", which I opposed for all my stated reasons above. Perhaps I exaggerated a bit when I said B-class, but not that much. It really isn't AFC's role to enforce MOS-compliance and rejecting or holding an article on that basis alone -- or changing the process to compel reviewers to enforce MOS-compliance -- works against what I believe the goal of AFC is. I have no objection, of course, if editors clean up articles on their own volition and I think every AFC reviewer does just that. However, this activity is simply being a good WP:Wikipedian, not an AFC process. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 05:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I am saying that our reviewers should be helping these articles, not the submitters themselves. If I am reviewing a page and I see the wrong dash or something, I should change it, to make less work in the future. —fetch·comms 19:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

As long as it is a "should" and not a "must", then I have no issues. I agree that we, not just as AFC reviewers but as Wikipedians in general, should copyedit whenever we see it needing to be done. However, when you started talking about a "stricter review process", it sounded an awful lot like a "must" and presented a significant scope increase to AFC. With that, thank you for your clarification. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 20:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think AfC is raising the bar too high, if the initial rejection that Douglas Haig (actor) received here is typical. Many people who come here won't have learned yet how to add sources. Why don't you all help more and reject less? 64.105.65.28 (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

IFU backlog

Could someone run a script to gather all the orphaned IFU requests (unclosed requests; some with seemingly nary a query) into a backlog page, instead of having them sit forlornly in the archives?

The Redirect/Category request archives could do with a sweep for orphan requests as well.

Oh, and the current IFU list is getting long.

76.66.195.196 (talk) 05:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

FFU Archiving Fixed

I noticed that ClueBot III was archiving requests to Wikipedia:Files for upload/Archives/ (which I've now emptied and tagged for G6 deletion), due to missing parameters on the archiving template. So, I fixed the template so that requests are now properly archived by month. The archived requests at the aforementioned page have been moved to their proper, dated archives. For any who were hoping to work on unclosed requests that were on that page, all of those are now at the Wikipedia:Files for upload/June 2010; the current month's archive only contains closed requests. I hope this fix hasn't caused any undue harm; if not, please let me know. Robert Skyhawk ^{(T C B)} 03:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting that out! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The bot seems to be archiving to the 2009 page (see summary of this edit...I'm not sure why. Robert Skyhawk ^{(T C B)} 18:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, very odd. I have no idea either. If it does it again I shall raise the question with its owner. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It happened again. I've posited a question on User talk:ClueBot Commons, but we may want to try User talk:Cobi. Robert Skyhawk ^{(T C B)} 02:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed by removing the variable completely, replacing it with "2010". The template will have to be changed on January 1, 2011. Robert Skyhawk ^{(T C B)} 03:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Update: Cobi was kind enough to explain that the large age parameter (about 364.25 days, done on purpose to preserve unanswered requests) was screwing with the bot's formatting. But as stated above, archiving is working properly for now. Robert Skyhawk ^{(T C B)} 04:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Just to let everyone know that our featured picture will be the picture of the day tomorrow. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

block evading sock on the loose over here today

User:CuteMice reviewed some submissions here before being blocked as a sock of the problematic User:Ratinator. A review of his actions here may be in order, he clearly does not have a strong grasp of policy or very sound judgement. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done. I undid numerous unfounded holds and declines, so thanks very much for letting us know. Robert Skyhawk ^{(T C B)} 01:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for a page

I request a page for acting chairman of national salvation comittee of somalia. He was also a presidential canadite, and a powerful politician in somalia. His name is Abdigani Warsame, alternativly spelled Abdiqani, here is a picture File:Http://www.allsanaag.com/images/DSC00105 1.JPG and a source http://www.hiiraan.com/comments2-news-2008-mar-puntland_presidential_hopeful_campaigns_in_seattle.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.203.211 (talk) 01:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

AFC is for submitting drafts of articles for review. You seem to be looking for Requested articles. Robert Skyhawk ^{(T C B)} 01:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for page "Public Viewing"

left the draft here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Public_viewing 87.162.68.37 (talk) 09:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hard to see Hoaxes

I am involved in an AFC related discussion at Wikipedia:Content noticeboard#Is it possible to delete hoax content from articles? over an article I greenlit a few years ago. It turns out that a portion of the article was well-hidden vandalism. Based on the current guidelines of AFC it looks like this situation might repeat itself if we don't examine where we failed. I'd like to ask the project to look at this situation for ways to improve our quick fail criteria. I'm very saddened by this, especially concerning my work on vandalism here at the project. Please take a look at my statements on the linked discussion. Maybe we can add a guideline suggesting stubbing unreferenced material from otherwise good looking candidates? Is that even within the scope of AFC? Thoughts? --Torchwood Who? (talk) 12:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If you feel it is necessary to explicitly state in the reviewing guidelines that unreferenced material should be removed, then we can always do so. But verifiability is already established as a key policy of Wikipedia, and the fact that a lack of reliable sources is a quick-fail criteria carries with it the implication that this is taken as seriously at AFC as anywhere else. Also, the way I see it, a reviewer is responsible for articles they accept to the same extent as with articles they write, or any other edits they make. I'm sure other reviewers feel the same, and are appropriately concerned with the work they put their name to meeting certain standards.

As for hoaxes, the best ones can be tricky to spot as they may be plausible and appear to be referenced, typically to offline sources, or sources that are otherwise not immediately accessible. The sources must, of course, be verifiable in theory, but it is not necessarily practical for us to do so in reality. I'm not about to book plane tickets in order to visit an American library and check the archives of the Chicago Tribune, for example. So sometimes we have to assume good faith and take it on trust that a cited source says what they claim it to, and as such falsities may slip through the cracks on occasion. 'Tis the nature of the wiki, I'm afraid. AJCham 13:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. There's a fine line between assuming good faith and assuming bad when we start to edit AFC articles beyond the grade of C. Maybe the next time I work on one I'll move information (like in this instance the list of episode names) to the talk page with a note for discussion? This could be a middle ground option for material that skirts that edge. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Icon

I have created an AfC icon, if anyone is interested. Use {{User:Hi878/AfC Icon}} It uses {{topicon}} so it can be positioned in the same way. The icon also adds you to the participants category. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 06:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Lol. I already have one. (Welcome to the project, Hi878, and thanks for your help so far- it's been a while since we got so backlog-free!) sonia^♫♪ 06:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That's cool, it's going on my userpage. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Glad you liked it. :) And thank you Sonia. By the way, mine is most certainly better than your one that is... Almost exactly the same... :P ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 17:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I just made mine's tooltip a tad more pushy, I guess. What I wasn't prudent enough to see was that others might want to use it as well. (You might want to move it into main templatespace, and put a note on the participants page about it.) sonia^♫♪ 19:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

British Mythology

May I request that a British Mythology page be made? I have been interested in learning about British mythology and was wondering if a page dedicated to British mythology could be made by a user here at Wikipedia. I could even give some of the British myths and put them on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.109.187 (talk • contribs)

This sounds like a worthy subject for an article. I notice there are a few problems with your submission. I think basically it needs a few more reliable sources before it can be created. If you'd like to continue working on it that would be good. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Ian McCormack

Would someone please look at this article - it was declined a few hours ago on a technicality and there has been some spirited conversation among the creator (me) and the deliner. His reason for deletion is incorrect according to the actual wording of the rules and was entirely subjectively determined. He argues that an article must be "substantially different" from a previous one - the actual rules state "not substantially identical" if I remember correctly. This article has had substantial work put into it. I and another editor were still working on improving the article when it was declined. The trouble is that it is now declined without discussion and coming back through this process again will require me to change more things about the article (can't have significantly similar pages to ones previous deleted) and its now going to be really difficult. Thanks ChildrenOfLight (talk) 22:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, someone will look over it in due time if you would follow the directions on the page in resubmitting it. Being declined is no big deal because you can still work on it, and resubmitting for review is just adding a line of code and saving the page. Not substantially identical is about the same as substantially different (maybe a little different, but this page is still about 80% to 85% the same as the deleted version). —fetch·comms 22:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd like someone other than my accuser in the stand now, your Honor, :) thank you, ChildrenOfLight (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Then you will, of course, follow the directions by adding {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article in question and wait for someone else to review it. The list of pending article submissions is more often checked than this page, and I am telling you how to get your article looked at quicker. If you want to wait longer, be my guest. —fetch·comms 22:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe I requested your advice here, but thank you anyways, ChildrenOfLight (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The advice given by Fetchcomms is correct: by following the instructions and resubmitting the article it would have been received a new review by a different reviewer. I note you didn't take this advice. However I've had a look at the AfD and the original article and agree that it is substantially the same. Not completely identical, but it is about the same person and written in the same style, and the references are no better. We cannot override the decision of an AfD unless the article is substantially different. If you wish to contest the AfD you'll need to open a deletion review but I wouldn't recommend it in this case as I believe the result was correct. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Mis-named AFC submissions-what to do?

Many article idea submissions have been created outside the right space (WP:AFC). Quite a few of the entries on this list in the Wikipedia namespace are denied requests that have not been named correctly. Should an administrator bulk-move these into the correct name? Train2104 (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem. How should I change it? Thanks LVKen7@Gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lvken7 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I just found the post above ("Not moving misplaced submissions"). Is the bot up for approval yet? —Train2104 (talk · contribs) 23:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The bot has not been approved yet and I have my doubts that it ever will be. See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DeltaQuadBot. Feel free to move any misplaced requests yourself, although I'm not sure it would be worth the bother of mass-moving. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I raise the issue again. —I-20the highway 22:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI, here. —I-20the highway 22:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I have moved those entries that are in the WT namespace but not under AfC. There is one where the user created it outside AfC because there was already an entry in the proper place under that article name, created by a different user. What do we do about that? — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 01:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• I moved the new submission to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/National Athletic Basketball League, and the old one without redirect to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/National Athletic Basketball League (previous declined) as it is long abandoned and fairly hopeless. Courcelles 01:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Modifying Template:afc submission

This template is used by many newcomers in their subpages of their account; AFC is geared towards those who don't have accounts, and when they use this template, it just populates the category unnecessarily. Some templates are designed to show alternate text when placed in the wrong namespace. Can this one be made to do that, too? —Duncan^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 06:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Currently, on Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft non-confirmed editors are recommended to add the submission template to their article in order to get it moved into mainspace. This seems sensible and within the scope of this project. (In the past we have always accommodated all new users and not just unregistered users.) See also #New processing of Move Draft requests. Do you think there is a problem with this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Martin! Long time no talk. Well, not necessarily a problem. I think I just hadn't seen this template applied to user namespace in the past, except by mistake. I didn't know it was legitimate. In that case, I'll withdraw my request. :-) —Duncan^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 22:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

We recently made a change, turning all the {{move draft}} requests to AfC and advising users to use AfC if they wanted a review of a userspace draft. So you're not going crazy; it was changed a few months ago. —fetch·comms 22:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Please check my work

Hi all. I am trying my hand at this. Please check my contribs here and tell me if I am making the right decisions, and writing appropriate edit summaries, etc. Thanks.

• Anna Frodesiak (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

What I did so far...

• Duck face
• Proposed article
• Edit summary: change reason to "exists"
• Notification

• Liggy
• Proposed article
• Edit summary: Not notable. States "consultant for UN", but cannot find anything further on that to establish notability
• Notification

• Menthogen
• Proposed article
• Edit summary: googles: sites selling the product, with no hits for studies, newspaper articles, etc
• Notification

• Ethan
• Proposed article
• Edit summary: Most refs about father or other, not subject. Product, main achievement mentioned in lede, doesn't google.
• Notification

• Misc
• [3]
• [4]

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the project. These look pretty good to me. You could have used {{AFC submission|d|prof}} for Ethan as it is more specific. Also, you can put possibly promising ones like that on hold for a day to give the author a chance to find better sources, etc. PS The duck face had me laughing, especially this edit. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback. "...sleek attitude and positive energy..." huh? Doesn't sound much like gurning. More like Halie Barrie. But picture her gurning. Quite the visual.

Anyhoo. "prof", okay noted. I will improve.

Ethan. Hold. Okay. How do I do that again? Nevermind. I will dig.

What if there is promise, but an editor has marked it "declined". The last two links are such an example. Where do I add comments like that? Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

To change the status of a submission you simply change the first parameter of the {{AFC submission}} template, e.g. "H" to put on hold. It's all explained on the instructions page. The decline reasons are listed at Template:AFC submission/comments. Have fun! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

H for hold. Thank you. I will plow through the documentation. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Intended audience

Is it the intention that AFC be used only by IPs? I thought that while that may have been its origins, it is available to very new registered accounts who may have an outline of an article, with some sources, and are willing to help, but don't have sufficient knowledge of WP Policies and Wikicodes to write an article without help.

The reason I'm asking is that I believe it is often a mistake for a pure newbie to start writing an article as their first edit. Some can do it, but many cannot, so I offer some advice to those who don't quite feel ready to tackle a new article. Right now, I direct them to WP:RA, but that backlog id so long it isn't really a viable alternative, while the backlog at WP:AFC is much more manageable. If new editors other than IPs are welcome here, I'd like to edit the intro to indicate that. Otherwise, if I direct editors here, they will see the intro telling them that this place is for people without an account.--SPhilbrickT 21:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right. Originally the process was set up with unregistered users in mind but new registered users have always been accommodated. The best place to direct these editors is not here, but the Wikipedia:Article wizard. At the end of the wizard, the first of the three submission options is "submit for review" and will come to us. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Douglas Haig

Doh. My article for creation should be named Douglas Haig (actor). 64.105.65.28 (talk) 02:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the article is about long enough to qualify for Did You Know. Anyone want to take it there? 64.105.65.28 (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. I would encourage you, as the author, to nominate it. Have a look at the (somewhat complicated) instructions and feel free to post back if you need any help with it! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If it has 1500 characters of prose (which it does), then you can nominate it at T:TDYK. You just need an interesting fact that sourced in the article to build the hook on. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Group Study Room F

Please make Group Study Room F a redirect to Community (TV series). 207.81.170.99 (talk) 04:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The target does not seem to mention this term so a redirect may not be appropriate. By the way, you can use Wikipedia:Article wizard/Redirect to make these requests. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Ughh

All these copyvios are annoying me, I've already found over 8 in the time I've been involved with the project, is there a way for the bots to confirm copyvios or is that a human task? Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Tea and biscuits? 23:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Human, bots always have false positives. 8 is relatively little; if you can't be bothered to check them, let someone else do it. —fetch·comms 23:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Most of 'em are pretty simple. Nine times out of ten, you'll have a false positive or a blatant copy-and-paste, at least that's my experience. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope I checked my contribs, more than 10 and I've only done 40 or so proper AfC reviews other times they were mistakes which other people were kind enough to fix and tolerate for a while, it's not that I'm lazy it's just that I hate seeing people be so lazy so as to plagiarise other people's work. Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Tea and biscuits? 09:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

FFU Archiving

It looks like it is broken again... Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 16:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

F. ClueBot III is down; will change back to MiszaBot until it is back up. —fetch·comms 21:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

John Harmon (disambiguation)

Someone has put John Harmon (disambiguation) on hold, stating that the page contains "broken links". That is incorrect. The page includes entries that are red links, and those red links are in accord with MOS:DABRL. One of the red links is likely to become a blue link, pending action on a request to move the article now at John Harmon. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 21:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

minimum standards

I've come here indirectly; I do not work here regularly, but rather as an admin patrolling speedy and prod, deleting the impossible articles (12,000 so far), and rescuing the few possibly acceptable ones (maybe 2,000) . Except for new BLP articles, not having 3rd party references--indeed, not having references at all--is not a reason for deletion; rather articles are deleted if it is not possible to identify such sources. But on this page, the instruction are to not even consider an article without such sources. I do not think alone is a reason to decline, because if the person were a registered editor, the article--even if a BLP--would not be subject to speedy deletion. The instructions ought therefore to say that the reviewer should either place the article on hold and instruct the applicant to find such sources, or look for such sources themselves. Of course we do not want to ever give advice for making just a very minimal attempt at an article that will just pass speedy deletion, or for people to adopt the irresponsible practice of making articles without references in the hope someone else will reference them. However, it is in my experience usual for beginners to need guidance in finding proper sources, not outright rejection of their work (which is its why it is not a speedy criterion, and even for blp, requires a 10 day period at WP:PROD.) DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I am wondering why some of my articles have been sitting here for days, pending. And why some other articles have been here for months. Many of the creators are registered users and could move the articles themselves, if only someone would give them a clue that registered users are not only free but expected to do this for themselves. Maybe someone will approve mine. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 03:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cowman (profession)
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ken Shirk
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sacred cow (idiom)

Someone has. Thank you, Fetchcomms. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 03:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Declining a submission is not completely rejection; they are advised to add sources an resubmit when ready. It's not nearly like deletion as the content is not gone or destroyed. One of the main reasons we do that is to keep the backlog down (not working right now) so the pending submissions can be separated from those reviewed but without sources and the like. —fetch·comms 03:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

under review

Exactly how long is an AfC candidate supposed to be under review? I'd like to know so I can figure out if the review forgot about a submission or something. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Referencing

Shouldn't footnote references supposed to be interspersed with inline citations? I had it separated in two different sections, but the reviewer has removed the distinction between the two, by removing the "group" specifier from the ref tag. I have noticed that several articles that use both forms separate them using the group specifier. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 12:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Contribution history problems

There appears to be article poaching going on. I created an article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/French frigate Montréal, the reviewer then created the article HMS Montreal (1761) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). As this article had been redlinked for months, and a new article appears a few hours after I submitted an article about the same ship, coincidence beggars belief, since it is the same editor who created the new article declined my request.

If my request spurred the editor to create the new article, then it should be part of the contribution history to the article, or exist as a redirect with its edit history intact in article space.

I will note that a significant portion of the new HMS Montreal article is verbatim copy to what I submitted.

76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

In any case, several ships have multiple articles, based on the service under which the ship served, if it switched nations. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I've asked the Benea to comment on this. Taemyr (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I've written any number of articles on sailing ships of the Royal Navy, my spur to create this one was a link the ip added to an article on my watch list. The common approach, especially as the ship was built and served for the majority of her active career would be to title it as it is currently, that is to say as HMS Montreal (1761). After having written it using my own sources (and you'll note the article is substantially larger and different to the one the ip submitted, which has virtually nothing on her British history), and checking the what links here feature, I discovered the ip's request. There would be no point in two articles on the same ship (as under current practice) the 'French frigate Montreal' would be used as a redirect. I amalgamated the few points of information not currently included in the article, namely the brief engagement with Peacock and Minorca, and used the ip's sources to reference it. It is by no means a cut-and-paste move as the content I have added is original from my own sources. All I did was to add the essence of the ip's contents when I discovered that they had been working on a version, and had some details that could be used to expand the article, though I rewrote it and fixed up the formatting. I have no problem with the ip being included in the contributions for that, I would suggest the current redirect French frigate Montreal being deleted and it being recreated as a redirect using the ip's request history. But I would point out that a separate article on her French career in this case, is against common practice, especially where it would result in such a small article. I also resent the accusation of article poaching, it was the ip's addition of the redlink that was the initial spur here, and I am more than happy to look at ways to incorporate the ip's information. Benea (talk) 13:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Since there is very little concurrent history on the two articles I think a history merge could be carried out. Taemyr (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, let's merge the histories. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 03:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:FFU

I've seen a lot of requests pointing to licensing or the actual picture on facebook. Should something be added to the instruction pages about this, considering facebook has no way to properly license it? Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 02:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

FFU archiving

FFU archiving is still broken, just look at August and September where there are alot of requests with no replies that have been archived.

Can someone set up a backlog page, so that unprocessed or unclosed requests can be piled into? 76.66.200.95 (talk) 06:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/vertical seat

Exactly what is wrong with the tone in Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/vertical seat ? 76.66.200.95 (talk) 06:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Had a quick look and couldn't see anything wrong. But it would be best, I think, to bring this up with User:Alpha Quadrant initially. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it reads like a essay, not a encyclopedia entry. That is why I put it on hold. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 18:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a decent article to me. Could you explain which specific parts of it you thionk read like an essay? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd echo Martin here; the article seems fine from what I can determine (excluding refs, which I did not check carefully). I'd usually consider an "essay" to have more of an essay-like structure, sometimes we'll see articles with a conclusion section (not encyclopedic), but this submission doesn't have that. — The Earwig ^(talk) 22:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like alot of articles on Wikipedia... which is why the "tone" statement confused me. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 11:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Confusing AFC clerk bot

I saw this move and subsequent tagging of Edward Lipinski (Belgian scholar) to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Edward Lipinski (Belgian scholar) and I have to say I am confused as to exactly what it means. Nevertheless I added some sources to the submission in rough form. I also posted this note on the contributor's Talk page. I have no idea how Articles for Creation works, but I feel this could survive as a new article with cleanup tags. -84user (talk) 23:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

After adding cites and cleanup I have now moved Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Edward Lipinski (Belgian scholar) to Edward Lipinski (orientalist). -84user (talk) 15:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The submission was misplaced. Maybe the cache was bad. —I-20the highway 20:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Consensus?

That's the first time I've heard about this bot. I do not understand how someone can program a bot for this project without even discussing it here first. That suggests a complete disregard for other participants' views. Is there agreement that this bot is desired? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I only saw it on a random patrol of BRfA, and I think I only have half an answer to the questions I have asked, but I haven't looked into it for my answers either. -- DQ (t) (e) 12:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I announced this in August way at the top. —I-20the highway 20:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep, check the first discussion on this talk page, it concerns this bot. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 00:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

new bot

Someone wanted it:

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/AFC_clerk_bot is a bot clerking the requests. It is currently moving submissions for their correct places. Soon, it will tag duplicate submissions in main space. —I-20the highway 19:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Can't handle

There is somebody reviewing their submission. I have moved Imran Channa visual artist back 2 times and the same person has moved it back. As an involved party I'd like to request a 3rd opinion. —I-20the highway 14:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Well first of all, the editor that moved the article to mainspace is a different editor from the one that created the article in AFC space. Second, I see no reason why an editor should not be allowed to move an article from AFC to mainspace, even if it is one that he himself has created, he is after all allowed to create the article in mainspace directly. If you feel there are issues with the article that needs to be handled proceed acording to standard editorial processes. If you feel the article does not belong on wikipedia take it to AfD. Taemyr (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Alrightly, thanks! Just didn't know. —I-20the highway 17:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

which notability guidelines to use when reviewing

Following a conversation with Chzz this evening, I've found what I think is an inconsistency in the reviewing guidelines. WP:AFCR says

Many submissions do not meet notability guidelines, that is, the article does not show that the subject "has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

However, when an article is declined for notability reasons, {{AFC submission/comments}} gives this message to the user:

This suggestion doesn't sufficiently explain the importance or significance of the subject. See the speedy deletion criteria (A7) and/or guidelines on notability. Please provide more information on why the subject is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Thank you.

These represent very different standards. Based on the AFC reviewing criteria, a reviewer might decline an article because it is poorly sourced, but what is communicated to the user is that the article simply needs to explain better why the subject is notable.

What is the right thing to do here? If the goal is to make sure the article is not immediately eligible for speedy deletion, I think that the AFC comments template is right and the reviewer instructions need to be revised. Tim Pierce (talk) 02:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, one article I reviewed today I put on hold for 24 hours. It was moved to decline less than 2 hours later under this criteria by one of our newer AFC members. This particular feedback often results in the submitter writing "the topic is notable because..." this is really against the MoS then we have to fix it. I have also noticed that quite a few submission on hold are being declined hours before the 24 hold would normally end. I know there was recently a backlog, but if one reviewer reviews a submission and puts it on hold for 24 hours.and informs the creator. Then the creator sees that 2 hours later another review comes and declines it. I think if I were a new user I would be quite confused. So I think that maybe we need to rewrite this feedback comment. Best, --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 03:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree the notice is confusing, but I'd like to raise a greater concern and suggestion: simply put, either an article is "acceptable" or it is not. The "hold" category is causing problems with the system.

The task of a reviewer should be simple: "Is this article likely to be deleted (via CSD, PROD or AFD) or would it survive?" If yes, accept. If no, decline. The notice given makes it clear what the requirements are, and I see little chance of loss in this way.

"Hold" is not terribly helpful, and that is what causes the backlogs here. So many times, I have personally cleared down a backlog of over 100 AFC's, only to watch it rebuild in days.

IMHO, the AFC should be simplified greatly; if an article is unlikely to be deleted, we should accept it. If it is not, we should decline, and say why. That way, AFC could be much more sustainable. Thoughts welcome. xxx  Chzz  ►  04:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This thread is interesting, and perhaps timely, as discussion can only benefit our collective efforts at AfC. For the most part, I agree with what is being said with slight nuance. First, WP:AFCR has been cited, and I agree it should supersede any template ambiguity. In particular the 5 quick fail criteria, of which number 4 should govern parts of this discussion.

Regarding template ambiguity, some is undoubtedly attributed to an attempt to articulate a decision to hold and a decision to decline, using the same prose. I do believe hold is a valid option, but only for articles which are likely to achieve stub class. I think if it seems unlikely that the subject will rise to notability, decline is the least confusing option.

Hold exudes implications that doing the recommended improvements will result in the acceptance of their submission. For example, placing citations inline is often included with hold guidance. Perhaps fine, if there appear to be verifiable sources. If the sources are primary, blogs, directories, or otherwise, placing them inline will never satisfy acceptance criteria.

Also I agree that member cohesion can only benefit a project, therefor, to the extent possible, we should support each others efforts, and avoid actions which could undermine the efforts of another. And also be willing to accept if the mistake, or misunderstanding is our-own. Where I have erred, accept my apologies in good faith. And where we can improve, moving forward, by all means, let's do so. Best. My76Strat 16:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Heinrich Scholz

I'm unfortunately without any experience regarding the Article for creation process, but I would like to move Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Heinrich Scholz into article space, giving two sources for the biography:

• http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Scholz.html
• V. Peckhaus: Moral Integrity During a Difficult Period: Beth and Scholz. In: Philosophia Scientiae, Nancy, Band 3, Nummer 4, S. 151–173. -- online at: http://kw.uni-paderborn.de/fileadmin/kw/institute/Philosophie/Personal/Peckhaus/Texte_zum_Download/beth.pdf

I can also check about the applicablity of the three inline references at de:Heinrich Scholz.

Is there any formal process to be observed, other than just moving and editing?

--Pjacobi (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry no one replied to you. Yes you can go right ahead and move it over and make the necessary changes. If you wouldn't mind placing {{WPAFC}} on the talk page to show it was created through AfC it would be appreciated. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

DragonFable

A few months or so ago I requested that DragonFable be made as an redirect to Artix Entertainment#DragonFable. I have been working on an article for it here, and, while it'll probably never make it to Featured, that I can make it pass notability guidelines. However, if I do make it a normal article, should I remove the {{WPAFC}} template? Or should I change its class? Am I allowed to create it at all? Yes, the article's editable now, but the only reason that is is because I said it would be a reasonable redirect, and that's not really the same as having it allowed to be an article. Harry Blue5 (talk) 15:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the notability guidelines of online games, but it looks like a viable article to me. The best way to create the article is not to overwrite the redirect with the content of the new article, because that will mean all the history is separated from the article. The best way is to get DragonFable deleted and then moving the new article over. This can be achieved by placing {{Db-move}} on the DragonFable (or I can do it for you). — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

In that case, thank you for the help. The article isn't finished quite yet, but now I know what to do. And knowing is half the battle. Harry Blue5 (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hold reasons overridden when declining

There's a problem I've seen many times;

An article gets held, for whatever reason, e.g. [5]

...and then after 24 hours+, it is changed to 'decline' with a nice message, e.g. [6]

Unfortunately, that means the new user will look at the page (after 24 hours), and have no idea why it was declined - as happened in that example case.

I'm not quite sure what the answer is.

 Chzz  ►  18:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The answer is to decline for the same reason as it was held. In this case this would be {{AFC submission}}. The "Hold issues not addressed within 24 hours." message is fairly unhelpful. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

When I decline because of a hold not addressed within 24 hours, you should just change to declined with a hold reason still there and with a {{afc comment}} say something like, "Declined because hold not addressed within 24 hours.  JoeGazz  ▲  00:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes; that's exactly what I, personally do - in fact, I have a little thingy in notepad for it;

{{Afc comment|{{Hilite|Note:}} The status of this has been changed from "Hold" to "Declined" because the issues described above were not addressed within 24 hours. This is just procedure, so we can keep the "Articles for creation" queue up to date, so we can help all new users with their articles. '''You can resubmit this at any time''', whenever you think it is ready. Thanks for your understanding.}}

• Comment: Note: The status of this has been changed from "Hold" to "Declined" because the issues described above were not addressed within 24 hours. This is just procedure, so we can keep the "Articles for creation" queue up to date, so we can help all new users with their articles. You can resubmit this at any time, whenever you think it is ready. Thanks for your understanding.

...However, clearly not everyone realises the need to do it that way - it is a bit counter-intuitive. I wonder if we cannot avoid the problem by some technical means.

Another point, however, is - as I discussed in IRC the other day - really, I think we should do away with 'hold' completely; it is the main reason the queue backs up, it causes more confusion than it solves, and...well, I don't think it helps, really. Might as well just say "yay" or "nay" to a submission, and that's it. "hold" for 24 hours kinda goes against the principles re. no deadline, and I'm forever having to explain it to users - that when their AFC changes from 'hold' to 'decline' they shouldn't panic, but instead can resubmit any time, blah blah. If there was no 'hold' at all, that could be made v clear in decline.  Chzz  ►  14:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Chzz is right, the hold is really threating the users to fix there stuff in 24 hours or else. And some think the or else is like an absolute no to their article. We need to stress on the template that they can resubmit. Otherwise, were not really being welcoming to these new users. I do get the point of holds, but it's not working, and it's too much. It's gotta go. DQ.alt (t) (e) 17:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The declined template does clearly say "Your submission did not meet our criteria, but if you can address the reasons given, you are encouraged to make improvements and resubmit it." It also gives instructions on how to resubmit the article. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know it's there but most people miss it. We need to make it more visible. -- DQ (t) (e) 11:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I think a lot of users, when their submission is put on hold and then changed to 'declined' think that it is a total rejection. Yes, MSGJ, it does say they can resubmit, but the fact that it has been held and declined, I'm sure, is off-putting.

If we did away with 'hold', and rebranded 'decline' to have less negative connotations - get rid of the pinky-red colour, for a start, and make it more friendlly, and ultra-ultra clear "This is not an appropriate article yet or at this time.

This would, I am sure, help with the backlog. It would mean any reviewer could simply look at a page and decide - is this, currently, acceptable (or can be fixed to become so)? Yes or no. If no, tell 'em why not. And they'll get the explanation saying how to ask again if they fix the issues.  Chzz  ►  15:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I just decide, I do not waste time with holding. I agree that the hold is basically declining with a time limit to fix. I use {{HoldtoDecline}} (Just Created From Notepad Provided to make easier to make message) when declining from hold. However I just decline since the article is not ready now. Just declining will help us see a REAL backlog, of new unreviewed submissions. Right now at 10:18 EST there is no pending submissions but there is a backlog of 10 because of holds. Thats not really a backlog because they have been reviewed already. I really think hold can be removed and decline be made friendlier. Hold is really a friendly decline...  JoeGazz  ▲  14:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Upgrading Aberdeen Student Show

I've been going through the backlog of several hundred unrated articles from AfC. Most are easy, stubs, starts, disambigs, and redirects I can do without any difficulty. I did, however, discover one article that was outstanding, and gave it a B rank. That article is Aberdeen Student Show. I'd like someone more experienced than I to go and double check that. I also think that it might be possible to submit it for GA review, but for that I definitely need outside conformation. I'd appreciate it if someone checks up on this (and keeps me in the loop.) If I come across any other articles that I think are B rank, I will post them here as well, just so we can be sure I got them right. Anything less than a C I doubt I'll get wrong, but feel free to come in after me and clean up any messes I make. If there are any, do keep me in the loop please, so I can improve in the future. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It is an outstanding article. It could probably use some restructuring (balance the sections, use some sub-sections, etc.) and proper citation templates. But GA would certainly be an option. It might be diplomatic to suggest that User:Summerhill Loon nominates it as he/she is the main contributor. However they don't seem to have edited in the past couple of months. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• Note: I have listed Unplaced in APG II as a B rating, per it having a B rating from WikiProject Plants. I'm not sure whether or not it deserves a C or a B, but I deferred to the other WikiProject. Sven Manguard _Talk 20:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
• Note: I have listed Rick DePiro as a B rating. I'm not sure if it is a C or a B, so I'd like a second opinion. Sven Manguard _Talk 01:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Assessment doesn't really matter. As long as you don't give it GA/FA without going through the proper reviewing process, no one really cares too much for one article. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, between you and Chzz, I'm beginning to realizing that is the case. From no on, I'll bring up any that might make GA here, but yeah, all the other ratings seem to be arbitrary. Sven Manguard _Talk 01:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• It is definitely a decent article with a lot of promise (I could see it going to FA with some work). I would definitely take it to peer review before trying for a GA nom, though. Some specific recommendations:

• The lead should be longer and conform to WP:LEAD meaning the lead should be able to stand on its own as a summary of the article. Ideally, there should also be no citations in the lead(as everything in the lead should be mentioned somewhere in the article itself).
• Some sections appear as if they could benefit from expansion, while a few could benefit from shortening or forking to a new article.
• Citations: While the article has a large number of references, there are many claims made which do not have citations. a lot of the citations could be cleaned up for consistency and some would be problematic at GA (such as this).
• A few pictures and an infobox of some sort would be nice as well.

Theatre's out of my area of expertise, but it looks like a really nice article with a very good start. VictorianMutant^(Talk) 18:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Creating a WikiProject through AFC?

I was wondering if I could create a WikiProject through AfC? I already proposed it at the WikiProject Council back in June, and it has subsequently garnered the necessary level of support to allow for creation of the WikiProject.

The WP:WikiProject Council states that proposals need to garner the support of 5-10 active Wikipedians before the creation of the project. As the proposal has achieved this level of support, creation of the Wikiproject can go ahead.

76.66.199.238 (talk) 09:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

You can certainly ask, however it may be simpler to request one of the potential participants to do it for you, and that would prove their committment. If you know what to put on the page, but they don't you can just request creation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is the project you have in mind? Sven Manguard _Talk 02:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's WikiProject Boats, after looking through his/her contribs. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, he said it had the support it needed, and Boats didn't have have any other signatories. Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Confederate States of America has five, but he isn't a signatory there. I looked at his contributions before I asked the question, and saw that other than boats, the only two other proposals he contributed to were C.S.A. and submarines. I'm wondering if he uses a non-static IP. Sven Manguard _Talk 02:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I think he was asking around elsewhere before then. Maybe I'm wrong. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I am now thoroughly confused. Sven Manguard _Talk 02:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Me too. Let's just wait and see if he asks someone else or creates it via AfC. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I submitted proposals for "East Asia" and "North America" in June, both have garnered the requisite support levels for creation. My IP is rotating (yes, non-static). I didn't specify a project, since it wouldn't matter if I couldn't create one through AfC. If I could, then I'd start writing a submission. 76.66.199.238 (talk) 05:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

For North America, the set of related requests is listed at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/WikiProject North America . Hopefully I haven't forgotten something. 76.66.199.238 (talk) 08:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Believe me, if you set up East Asia at AfC like you did for North America, I will make sure it gets done. Let's just say that I'm really excited about it. It's my field of academic study, and I can bring a lot to it. Also, having worked out all the kinks the hard way with North America, I think that I can get this WikiProject twice as fast, and get all the technical stuff right, the first time. I'm asking for you to submit it in AfC only because I really don't know how to get everything set up, a problem you have demonstrated that you do not suffer from. Sven Manguard _Talk 00:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Submitting WikiProjects through AFC is a very good idea. Maybe I'll submit my proposal, it hasn't gotten any page views recently. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 13:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Which proposal is that one? 76.66.196.13 (talk) 04:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Backlog Countermeasure --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 20:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That seems like a pretty good idea for a wikiproject. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 08:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll be submitting East Asia end of this week or sometime next week... since getting North America squared away, with the proper categories and templates working, took a bit of time; Especially since I made mistakes with the project banner AfC request, leaving two parts missing. 76.66.196.13 (talk) 04:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

My time on Wikipedia will be somewhat limited until November 1st, but I check on WP daily, and if I see East Asia in the pipelines, I'll come a-runnin' to help. Don't wait for me though, as I intend on joining regardless. If it isn't already up by the 1st, I will bring it online myself (as I will have the time to do so after the 1st,) but again, don't hold up because of me. Sven Manguard _Talk 17:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on a few new astronomy articles that I said I'd do for Waldir (talk · contribs), so it'll probably be the weekend. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 08:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, the request for WikiProject East Asia is up. It's listed at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/WikiProject East Asia with related pages at the top. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 08:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright, most of it is done, I'm still tagging the project pages, but the creation side is done, and the rest will be handled out of AfC. Look forward to working with you in the future. Sven Manguard _Talk 22:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Starting a New Article for Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective by Ha-Joon Chang

hi

i want to start a new article for Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective by Ha-Joon Chang.

It's nearly 10 years old, pretty well know, its on google books and there still doesnt seem to be an article for it!

i'd do it by myslef but im new to editing and the last one i did didnt work out very well

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Chomsky).

Where can i get some help for this project?

I've read the book if that helps at all, but i dont want to bring in any of my own point of view.

I'd really like some help on this cause i dont want to mess up this page like i did the last one.

Ultan42 (talk) 20:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Ronald Skirth FAR

I have nominated Ronald Skirth for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dwab3 (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

???

How do you request an article? --99.255.104.101 (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Go to Wikipedia:Requested articles and add your suggestion to the correct section. PleaseStand ^(talk) 20:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

FFU Archives are a mess

First of all, I'm not sure when the bot is supposed to archive old threads, but based on the bot's edit history, I know it's running as of two days ago.

That being said, about half of the things in the October 2010 archive were not closed. I'm going to go back and review them, (plus the past few months if I don't like what I see in October)

In the meat time, should the bot be archiving FFU submissions that are not closed? We have the {{afc-c|r}} template for languishing submissions, we can use that for the ones that just starve out, but the decision should be a human's decision, not a bot's, I think. Sven Manguard _Talk 23:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, closing all of them is going to be an unneeded mess, and I haven't come across any that were zapped that should have been uploaded, but still, it's so easy to close these things when they're active that we should really stop the bot in the future from archiving unresolved ones. Sven Manguard _Talk 00:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

How to list new articles?

Is there a way to watch new articles being posted on Wikipedia? Bridgettttttte_babble^poop 15:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you can view new pages at Special:NewPages. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 23:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow! That's neat. They come in every minute. Thank you, alpha. 00:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Bridgettttttte_babble^poop 00:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages by size

Please see the new page Wikipedia:Database reports/Talk pages by size (to be updated weekly). This talk page ranks third, with 36578 kilobytes. Perhaps this will motivate greater efficiency in the use of kilobytes.
—Wavelength (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

How is a kilobyte used more efficiently? Smaller script? fewer gaps? No more wasteful indentations? Are we running out of kilobytes? Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

No, no, no. This talk page is fine; the size is a misunderstanding. All AfC requests are under "WT:Articles for creation/Name of article" as IPs can only create talk pages, and the database report counts all those subpages. There is no issue, in other words :) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Appeal when an article for creation is declined?

My proposed article about Appetizer was recently declined as the reviewer felt that the sources were not reliable. However I think they are - in particular LifeHacker, Clubic and DownloadSquad reviews are used as sources in many software articles in Wikipedia. They are notable and (at least in my opinion) reliable websites. So is there a way for me to appeal this decision, or perhaps to get a second opinion? Thank you, Laurent (talk) 03:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You can always follow the instuctions on how o release it for afc consideration again. But I would suggest that you make some attempt to improve, by finding yet another reference or two. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

If you feel the decline is inappropriate you can, since you have an account, create the article in mainspace. That will give the greater community an oppertunity to form a consensus about wether the article should be kept. However, as the article stands I am a bit unsure about it, it seems to be more of a coatrack for posting the scores it has recevied. If that is all the sources provided then the sources probably doesn't pass out requirement that they need to give nontrivial coverage. Taemyr (talk) 04:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually I was waiting to see if the article would be accepted before expanding it. I feel there's no use spending an hour on an article if it ends up being deleted for lack of notability. I'm going to follow your advices though - I'll remove the scores, put some more general information and add some sources. Hopefully, that will do it. Laurent (talk) 05:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The new submission has been rejected as the reviewer felt it was not written under a neutral point of view. So I moved the article to the mainspace so that I can get more opinions, even if it means it ends up being deleted. AFC is a useful project, however I think reviewers should put more comments or some directions on how to improve the article when they reject it. In both cases, I didn't have a clue what I could do to improve the article. For instance, I feel that the article is neutral, the reviewer doesn't - that's fine, however I can't do anything if he doesn't say what is not neutral. Laurent (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)