Template talk:AfC accept

Header level

Why is the header on this template at === instead of ==? It causes hierarchy problems on talk pages that already have discussions. Powers ^T 14:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and changed it. If anyone has an issue, please don't hesitate to discuss.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 00:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFC flow and IP contributors

I had modified the template to remove the "register and you can create articles directly" phrase, but my edit was undone. I'm motivated by how wrong it is to say that phrase: an anonymous contributor, even if experienced, should be able to exist without us nagging him to register. «Anyone can edit» is a central core of Wikimedia projects philosophy.

Would we please have these people go through AFC as a consequence of the current restrictions on page creation, and not nag them, for the time being? Gryllida (talk) 04:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find the current wording "nagging". In fact, I find it rather useful: it clearly explains a concrete benefit of creating an account relevant to the situation at hand; namely, you can create pages without having to wait for review if you create an account. Regardless of the "morals" of the current page creation restrictions, it's still a fact. Theopolisme (talk) 04:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer the wording be a little more naggy, if for no other reason, accountability. Having an account name builds trust in the community, gives a target for reward and appreciation to be given and boosts the moral of editors. From a technical standpoint, having an account name makes you more anonymous than editing as an IP because as an IP, anyone can see that and do a whois and geolocate you. As a registered user, that private information is hidden and only a very select few can view that information. People also tend to be less vandalish or trollish when they have an account name (not always the case, but it does happen), and this is a good thing. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 15:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing paragraph break

@Tholme: It looks like you fixed up the changes I made to the template by removing the /div at one point. The reason I had put that in was there was that, without it, the paragraph break between the assessment paragraph and the autoconfirmation paragraph doesn't seem to display (see e.g. here). How can I fix this? Sdkb (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdkb: Hi, could you please take a look now? I think i fixed your problem by making sure there were correct number of line breaks with all different parameters to this template. The problem with your fix was that <div/> is not valid html (self closing div is not allowed) and will show up as Special:LintErrors. Please let me now if you see any more not working as it should. Tholme (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was still one missing break, but I think I've been able to fix that with an extra br tag, so should be good now. Sdkb (talk) 22:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Add COI guidance?

The template currently says "Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer." I propose we bring this in line with WP:COI guidelines by changing it to "Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer. Wikipedia guidelines strongly recommended that you use the Articles for creation process for any topics for which you have a conflict of interest." Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, is people creating articles about themselves after their first AfC draft is approved a problem? The link in the message goes to Help:YFA, which should cover things like that. I'm hesitant mainly because it's really important we keep this message concise, since otherwise people don't read it. It's also not a hard rule, just a strong suggestion. If we do include something, we'd want to keep it short, like "...without posting a request (so long as you do not have a conflict of interest)." {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that wording would work for me :) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no prohibition on COI editors editing in that field, and adding somewhat unnecessary verbiage is the opposite of concise. Primefac (talk) 10:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac, what is the field you are referring to? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The field/topic the COI relates to. Primefac (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How about "...without posting a request. However, it is recommended that you continue to submit work through Articles for creation if you have a conflict of interest on the subject." This replaces the "if you prefer" wording, which isn't very helpful because 1) it doesn't say why someone might prefer to use one process over another, and 2) almost nobody who understands the options prefers to use AfC. If we don't say anything at all about COI, the message would imply that the Wikipedia community is fine with the user never going through AfC again. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

Hi. The template allows for assessment but leaves out how the assessment should be made. Should these be WikiProject assessments or some arbitrary marks? It would be helpful if somebody added this information. --13:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I have added a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Assessment. Primefac (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Yam.Ing.Wa.Ng

The script said in the acceptance message that the user can create new articles without AfC, though that doesn't appear to be correct, since they aren't autoconfirmed. Could someone that does more template-related stuff take a look? NotAGenious (talk) 12:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They cannot see that message, actually; it is hidden behind an "autoconfirmed-show" trigger. If you view their page logged-out you'll actually see Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days... instead. Primefac (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh ok! Thanks for the clarification NotAGenious (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pointer to DYK?

Should this notice let users know that they have a chance to submit their article to DYK? Sdkb ^talk 20:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bandaid concern, but newer articles are the most likely to turn up problems in the review process and on the Main Page, as opposed to 5xes and GAs. I'm not sure it'd be good for DYK to suddenly be processing a much higher proportion of AfC creations. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if it led to a flood of submissions with problems, we'd want to roll it back (or limit it to appear only for creators whose articles are assessed at a certain grade). But it seems like something that we could at least try — on the optimistic side, we might find that only a manageable portion of AfC creators submit a DYK, and that those who do are the ones whose article actually has an interesting fact to share. Sdkb ^talk 21:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The other corollary is that editors submitting through AfC are much more likely to be new, so they wouldn't have to do QPQs, and WP:DYKN would be hitting the PEIS limit nearly all the time. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:44, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, I don't even see 'did you know' or 'DYK' anywhere on Help:your first article aside from the article creation template. For the same reason why it doesn't say that it should be to GA, let alone FA standards, because its already hard to create an article that should be accepted via AfC. JuniperChill (talk) 00:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JuniperChill, this message is delivered to users whose article has been accepted, so I'm not sure I follow your point — H:YFA is for a different audience, whose article has not yet been accepted and where we need to focus on getting them past the notability threshhold. Sdkb ^talk 03:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this was the template for unsubmitted/declined AfC drafts, offering that it may be nominated for DYK within 7 days of being accepted. But the fact that it will lead to a huge backlog still stands. JuniperChill (talk) 10:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Informal oppose, that would create a horrendously-long backlog. Sir MemeGod  16:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]