Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Reform of AFC process

Having participated in the AFC backlog drive for March, and having seen the substantial efforts put in by many reviewers during this period, and noting that there doesn't seem to have been much of a reduction in the backlog over this period, I can't help thinking that it is worth seriously looking at ways to make the process more efficient. What is the correct forum to open up a discussion to collect together people's ideas, whether it be for minor tweaks here and there or more substantial reform? How can we obtain empirical data to establish where the problems lie (or indeed if there is no objective evidence of any problems)? (I'm thinking that it would potentially be useful to know how many times each individual candidate article is reviewed during its time at AFC, how many of the candidate articles as a percentage eventually make it to mainspace? Are there categories of article that are much more/less likely than others to make it to mainspace? How many times is each article viewed before it is reviewed?)--_nonsense ferret 15:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if it would be possible to have a dropdown tab on the Review toolbar with some of the more common types of submissions listed so that when a reviewer comes across a topic that they don't feel confident to review, they could mark it for others who are more expert in those areas? For example, I know nothing of sports, and I leave most of them alone, since they look like gibberish to me, full of acronyms I don't recognize. However, I'm pretty familiar with various musical genres and feel more confident in this area. If there were a way to mark submissions as Music, Sports, Science, Religion, Geography, Film, etc., it might cut down on the number of reviewers who check out a page and then back off. Or maybe there is already? —Anne Delong (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I find both of your proposals very valuable. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The notion of such categories was suggested a month ago [1]. If the feature could be added to the Article Wizard, the task of categorizing could be given to the authors of the articles instead of to AfC reviewers. Telling authors something like "your draft is likely to be reviewed more quickly, if you select a suitable category from this list" might lessen the push-back. —rybec 05:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

As a quick, "easy" way to generate the list of "AFC draft categories": If it has a portal, it's a category. If it's a question that was already answered by the Article Wizard and that question is relevant to reviewers, it's a category AND it's pre-checked if the user answered "yes" in the article wizard. If it has its own notability criteria, it's a category. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Flexxon Global Ltd

Flexxon is the specialist who focus on memory IC design-in to industrial application. Flexxon always keep pace with the latest memory market information and helping industrial customer on the selection of right partner to work with.

As different maker have different focus. And most of the memory market are cater for PC/ Server or even smart phone market, where industrial customer using most of legacy memory which is not align with tier one memory makers. Flexxon always share the latest memory market information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.165.40.65 (talk) 06:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

This page is for users involved in this project's administration. If you would like to start writing a new article, please use the Article wizard. If you have an idea for a new article, but would like to request that someone else write it, please see: Wikipedia:Requested articles. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

A user using a company name closely tied to this company submitted an article with the text above. I declined it. I also deleted the test above from that user's user and talk pages on the grounds that it violated Wikipeida's self-promotion policies. I also recommended that he change his name to conform to Wikipeida's username policy. Oh, and I welcomed him to Wikipedia. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G13: Abandoned Articles for creation submissions

A RfC has started at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G13: Abandoned Articles for creation submissions discussing a proposed new speedy deletion criterion for rejected and long since abandoned Articles for Creation submissions. This would generate an initial deletion of some 50,000 pages, and then a daily dose of give or take 100 pages (wild stab at the actual numbers, not a scientific report here). (I forgot to mention this here yesterday, even though it may be of some interest to this project obviously). Fram (talk) 06:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I've asked for a dump of AfC before the nuking: Wikipedia_talk:Database_download#dump_of_Articles_for_Creation_requested. —rybec 04:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the one year limiter is a good starting point. Once that has been completed, we could formally request the limiter and requirement be dropped to six months. I'm not sure it should go any lower than that. Just my

. Technical 13 (talk) 12:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Ummo

An Afc submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/UMMO is an exact copy of a section of this article: Planetary objects proposed in religion, astrology, ufology and pseudoscience. I was going to decline it as a duplicate, but maybe this is the editor's way of suggesting that it should have its own page? —Anne Delong (talk) 03:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Good question. The author is an IP editor, so asking him may not help. I'd say that since three of the sources are broken links and a fourth isn't reliable, it may not be notable enough for a standalone article. Ummo already redirects to the section; we once had an article there that was deliberately merged into the Planetary objects proposed in religion, astrology, ufology and pseudoscience article. Huon (talk) 06:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll decline it. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm doubting if I should have approved an article

A while ago I reviewed and approved Neil Marcus, but as I have an interest in the topic, (I'm an active member of WP:WikiProject Disability) I wonder if my enthusiasm for the subject might have impaired my objectivity in judging the submission fairly. Since passing the draft to mainspace I have done a significant amount of editing on it, so please take a look at the article history and evaluate it in the state it was when I approved it. Roger (talk) 11:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Personally I think it is quite acceptable (and to be encouraged) if a reviewer has a knowledge of the subject and can improve the article. Regardless of the state it was in when you accepted it, if you've subsequently cleaned it up and added sources, that can only be a good thing! I've done ot once or twice myself, seeing a poor article at AfC, but accepting it because I know I can quickly improve it to an acceptable state. Sionk (talk) 12:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Some of the old sources were questionable, but there were enough valid ones in my opinion without the questionable ones. Good approve IMHO. Technical 13 (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I've just taken a closer look. The article is quite promotional (in particular I'm not a fan of listing pompous quotes). The additions you have made ("In 2011, he choreographed a videodance with Richard Chen See, a Paul Taylor dancer. Marcus is based in Berkeley, California.") are unsourced. The article is still very poor and, as you have noticed yourself, the key claims to notability are still unproven. Much of it suggests the wording is taken from Marcus's promotional press packs and bios, for example the one reproduced at Access Living. Still needs work! Sionk (talk) 12:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Just a small "point of order" - I did not add that unsourced material. I've moved some of the content around, deleted some and found some sources - but I've not added anything without a source. I think we can give the original creator of this article some time to improve the sourcing - they do exist, I've looked at a bunch of them today. As it is now the article isn't Speedy-able anyway. Roger (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Initiatives for improving project wide coordination

Based on recent comment on my talk page from both newbies in need of some help as well as some project members I've started implementing a number of measures to improve reviewer communication with newbies. A second concern is training new AfC project reviewers on doing their jobs in a more co-ordinated approach.

Defining Workflow

One item which can help is a chart explaining how the overall process works. I think having such a chart can addresses two concerns -

It shows newbies the complexity of what we are trying to help them do and to help them figure where they are in the process so they don't give up. I've created a draft chart for how I view this process.
It can serve as a recombination for reviewers on the order and priority of rejection/accepting AfC candidates article.

And I would like any comments on this.

Finding copyright issues must come before rejection for any other reason. The AfC namespace has tons of abandoned "drafts" and rejections that are just copypasta from elsewhere on the web; we don't need any more. Danger ^{High voltage!} 18:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Nice chart. Danger is right about (c), but I'd like to expand on that and have reviewers think in terms of a "2-step" review:

Step 1: Quick-fail, with no opportunity to resubmit except in rare/one-off cases:

Does the submission violate any policies that require the submission to be DELETED, such as copyright? YES=deletion, NO=next step.
Does the submission violate any policies that require the submission to be BLANKED, such as an attack page? YES=decline and blank, NO=next step.
Is the subject "hopeless," i.e. one that obviously does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and will not in the very few days, such as lack of notability ("my pet turtle Sammy"), a non-English page, etc.? YES=decline, NO=next step.
Is the submission one in which the page already exists on this topic and the content is either already there or can be merged in? YES=decline w/ suggestion to merge if applicable, NO=next step.

Step 2: Review with suggestions for improvement until article is accepted or draft is abandoned:

Does any part of the article discuss a living person (typical for bands, organizations, creative works, etc.), or is the subject a living person (BLP)? If yes, go to sub-step, if NO go to next main step.

Is everything mentioned about living people sourced with in-line reliable sources? If NO then decline with reason(s) and await re-submission.

Are all other criteria, such as neutral point of view, non-promotional tone, meets notability requirements using reliable sources, etc. met well enough to include in the encyclopedia? If YES then MOVE, if NO then decline with reason(s) and await re-submission.

Instead of declining a submission that has easy-to-fix problems, reviewers are encouraged to fix the problems on the editor's behalf. For example, if an article on a movie says Joe Smith is the director but it has no in-line citation, adding the Internet Movie Database entry for the film as an in-line reference is a quick and easy fix. Likewise, adding [[:Category:Living people]] to articles about living people is an easy fix.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Pinpointing issues with sources

Recent research has shown that inline tags are the most efficient methods for getting editors to fix problems on Wikipedia. Using these type of tags not only pinpoints the location of the problem it also links to the section in the policy pages governing the problems. By providing these 2/3 of the process of finding a solution can be effected.

I've created a number of new template for inline tags for use in AfC reviews. I've started using these in some articles. I plan to further test and develop these templates so that they will be disabled outside WP:Namespace because while they are useful in communicating problems in Wikipedia I am not certain they should be used to tag problems universally.

The current templates I have come up with for tagging problematic source are:

Template:!IN:{{!IN}}
Template:!Blog:{{!Blog}}
Template:!Wiki:{{!Wiki}}
Template:!Related:{{!Related}}
Template:!Primary:{{!Primary}}
Template:!Promo:{{!Promo}}
Template:!Cite:{{!Cite}}

I think these are more intuitive then how we work today. But I'd like your comments on these - do we need more? are the links useful. BO | Talk 17:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it is a great idea provided that the templates are only used (or at least only work) on AfC and User: drafts. I think that the general non-editing world that comes here to find information would be intimidated or frightened off by seeing those kinds of things not understanding what the purpose of them is. Technical 13 (talk) 17:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I've now fixed these templates to suppress the output in the article mainspace. elsewhere they will be visible BO | Talk 21:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Recent research has shown that inline tags are the most efficient methods for getting editors to fix problems on Wikipedia.^{[citation needed]} :) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, I think this is a good idea but it should work in mainspace as well, provided that these templates have a "draft" mode that keeps them out of maintenance categories AND turn off the visible representation when the article is moved. Bonus points if they ADD a hidden category of "Articles with leftover AFC templates" after the article is moved to mainspace. Where there is a similar existing template intended for use in mainspace articles, I recommend modifying it rather than creating a new template. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Under-review count now at top of CAT:PEND

The text at the top now includes the number of submissions that are actively under review. I did this because I was tired of clicking on "R" just to see what was there. In order to do this, I created a new category, Category:Pending AfC submissions being reviewed now, which you might find useful for things other than just getting a count.

I thought about doing the same things for C and M but as they are listed before P anyone who wants a count can just eyeball it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Puzzled about external links

Dear reviewers:

While checking this submission: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Meghan Camarena I became puzzled over the external link section. There are unfamiliar templates there. Is this a feature that I haven't heard about to help editors add links to unreliable sources? —Anne Delong (talk) 01:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Those templates are useful but, as you point out, they can be misused. Articles about organizations whose have a "strong Internet presence" in on one of those sites will typically have one or maybe two such templates in their external link section. Having that many screams "promotional" and makes me give the not only the submission extra scrutiny if it's not an obvious decline, but it makes me want to check out the contributor's edit history to see if he's been using Wikipedia to WP:ADVERTISE or if he's just a new editor who is getting a bit carried away and who may need some help. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

backlog suggestion

I have a suggestion for the backlog. Since it is easier to review disambiguation pages and templates, as they have no pesky references to check, I suggest that they be placed into an additional categorization, Category: non-article AfC pending submissions , which should reduce the backlog by a few tens of pages. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 07:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

That won't really help with a backlog of a few thousand pages - it may make your submissions jump the queue, though. See above. Huon (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

No, not all my submissions, just the non-article ones. Since I can't really tell how many disambiguation pages are being submitted, I don't know how many that will clear up, I assume it will be some tens. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

You are correct, these are really rare cases, but who should do the categorization? mabdul 12:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The substituted template declaring it is a disambiguation or template page {{subst:AFC submission/submit|type=dab}} and {{subst:AFC submission/submit|type=template}} should be able to be modified to autosubst in a category. Just add a subst-if to subst in the category if type is template or dab. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Great idea! I went ahead and implemented a few changes in the sandbox version. Does somebody have a better name for Category:Template and disambiguation AfC submissions? I don't want to move the category later... mabdul 05:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Done As I haven't got any response, I included the changes (diff). Regards, mabdul 20:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I made a couple of tweaks: I added the parameter to {{Afc submission}} so it can be passed along to /pending. I also changed pending so the name will be the name of the submission, just like for the by-age sub-categories. The WP:Job queue must be high because the category hasn't updated since I've made these changes. However, if you open the pages listed in the category you will see that if the page isn't "pending" it doesn't show this category at the bottom. Hopefully this will fix itself in an hour or two. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguating headings

Unresolved

As can be seen on a page like this one, a series of repeated headings, all saying "Your submission at Articles for creation", is unhelpful. Each heading should be unique, so could we either append the title of the article concerned, or at least a time+date stamp? A better heading might be "AfC: [title]", like the DYK headings higher up the same page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. Feel free to try your hand at modifying the template. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Strike that. The section header is added by the script we use to decline or accept submissions, not the template. That's a bit trickier. But it is a good idea. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting... I will try to implement this kind of stuff that week. I'm still thinking about adding some kind of monthly headlines and combine the messages for the month (although rear case as most submitters don't submit their works on a regular basis - SPAs...) mabdul 05:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking about how to add a new headline. I was thinking about multiple possibilities. (not all links included or simplified for explanation)

Your submission at AfC [[WT:AFC/subpage|subpage]]

But this would also create problems as many users resubmit their article multiple times.

Then I thought about something like:

Your submission at AfC was reviewed on the DD Month YYYY

But this looks a bit strange. Also a combination is possible. What do you think? Any other ideas? !Votes? mabdul 21:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I like Your submission at AfC [[WT:AFC/subpage|subpage]] but for declines I would add today's date, e.g. Your submission at AfC [[WT:AFC/subpage|subpage]] (April 8). That should all but eliminate duplicate section titles. For accepted submissions I would replace "(Month day)" with "was accepted". davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Joel Potrykus

I'm kind of new here, would someone look over Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Joel_Potrykus and confirm I did it right. I'm open to suggestions and feedback, and I'm going to pause between each one for the first few until I get the hang of it. this is one of those things that no matter how much documentation you read, you get better the more you do. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I reverted your review as you haven't likely read the references! The references aren't shown because the reflist template was placed above the ref-tags, moving the reflist tag as I did here fixes the problem. Please be aware of such problems, this happens really regular! (I should add a warning to the helper script...) mabdul 23:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead already and added such a short test for warning the user. You can test it using the beta script. (see a section deeper!) mabdul 00:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so I'm assuming that the proper course of action for that article is to get the writer to put the references in-line... Would I place the review on hold and make a comment saying that "It is a good start but the references need to be put in-line."? Technical 13 (talk) 00:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Please not! WP:MOS isn't any reason to decline. Having sources inline is great, but not mandatory! For the case a draft is notable (with sources) then accept it and "tag" it with {{nofootnotes}}. Regards, mabdul 05:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

For content that's not about a living person, you are correct. However, while in-line citations aren't technically required for BLPs, WP:BLPSOURCES cites WP:Verifiability in saying that in-line citations are required for anything that is challenged or is likely to be challenged and that unsourced material about a living person appearing in any article should be removed. Unlike WP:MOS, WP:BLP is a policy, not a guideline, and it should almost always be followed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Too short

Dear reviewers:

Sorry to be filling up this page with questions, but I have only been reviewing for a few days. When using the Afc script, I see an option to decline "Too short but can be merged". What about submissions that are too short but there's not a suitable article or there's nothing much worth merging. Is there a plain "Too short" option? I've been using the "Test edit", but sometimes it's really just an article into which very little effort has been put, and I don't want to spend any more time reviewing it than the author spent writing the 5 or 6 words. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It depends on what the sourcing's like. If it's a three sentence stub but cites multiple news sources (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Death of Margaret Thatcher would be an excellent example as I write this), then it may be acceptable as a stub. If it's a three sentence stub with no sources, or the sources are questionable, it can be failed per the 'v' category. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

In this case, I would probably recommend contributing to the existing section in the "parent" article, knowing sooner or later someone who is already autoconfirmed will split the article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

If the topic is already covered, I use the "topic is already covered" option. If it's not already covered and the topic is notable, I try to turn it into a passable stub. If it's not notable enough for its own stand-alone article and there's not merge candidate, then I use one of the non-notable decline options. I may suggest the author write about a specific broader, obviously-notable-but-no-article-exists-yet topic, provided I can think of one. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I think I'm starting to get the hang of this...

Would someone be willing to verify my declination of Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Monica_Galetti. I'm still kind of new, but I think I am getting the hang of it and am requesting some assurance. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Sources didn't establish notability. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Article request: "List of Virtual Console games for Wii U (Japan)"

[Draft removed.]

--72.65.238.157 (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Please use the Article Wizard for drafts. Huon (talk) 01:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

A probably notable subject but the writing is not up to standard

The quality of English in Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Students Tamil Eelam liberation Movement is clearly not good enough for mainspace, but the subject seems to be notable - it has the required cites. Declining it won't help at all because the draft writer is obviously not capable of writing better English. The only way out is if someone else takes over the draft to rewrite it in fluent English - but AFAIK such a procedure does not exist. So what can we do? Roger (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

As this is a one-off situation, it calls for a one-off solution. I recommend finding a related Wikiproject and soliciting help there. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

So how do we tell this draft writer "Sorry dude, we're confistcating your draft because your English sucks"? The "ownership" of a draft is usually respected, other editors do not edit someone's draft unless they are invited to do so by the original creator of the draft. Roger (talk) 07:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I ran wikEd and citation bot to clean up a little and it looks like Anne Delong (talk · contribs) is copy editing it. The English doesn't look all that bad to me (only skim read it); although, some of the formatting is hard to follow. Either way, we should have a specific policy or guideline that defines what we do in these cases. On the other wiki I administrate, I often "inform" the original poster that their "English" leaves something to be desired and ask them if they would feel offended if I tidied it up for them. I've only once gotten a "no, me english is good" response. That being said, however, on that wiki I don't yet have in place the editpage header thing, nor is there a AfC submission request system with a big fancy box. I think that we could add a line saying that "All articles may be edited by any other editor at any time to correct typographical, grammatical, spelling, punctuation, or any other formatting errors perceived to confuse the article." I have a feeling that "most" non en-5 editors would care or be resistant. Technical 13 (talk) 12:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I did try to improve the grammar and punctuation in that article, but since I know nothing about the subject, in some places I was unable to figure out what was meant, so I left it. Don't forget about Wikiproject Cleanup at Wikipedia:Cleanup. A more important discussion for this article would be whether it maintains a neutral point of view, and in my ignorance of the subject I don't know. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I've asked for help from WiKiProject India. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

How specific about models and prices of products should and article be?

Hello again! I am reviewing an article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of Gaming Laptops. I plan to decline it because it has no source citation for the definition of a gaming laptop and for the information about the laptop models, but is the whole idea of this article an acceptable one? If the user backs up his definition (as could easily be done with this web site http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2020688,00.asp), should Wikipedia include a list of products and prices? The purpose of the article is not to sell laptops; these aren't even current models. It seems to me that the list would always be out of date. Also, gamers' ideas of what would be a high end graphics card will keep changing rapidly as technology advances, and the models and features are different every day. On the other hand, there seem to be articles about particular automobile engines, etc. I need to know if I should suggest the editor fix the referencing, or if something else is more appropriate. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes prices, especially the original MSRP or prices set at auction, are encyclopedic. WP:NOPRICES#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory and Template:Infobox_information_appliance#Prices provide guidance. Macintosh 128K and other 1970s and 1980s Apple computers frequently contain the original price because, for these computers, the price is encyclopedic. As this submission deals with relatively modern computers that, as far as I can tell, are not "limited editions" like the $7,499 Twentieth Anniversary Macintosh, pricing is not encyclopedic. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 10:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Indoctrination:

I have searched for the origin of Indoctrination through Wikipedia. I would really want the encyclopedic to add more of the information regarding "INDOCTRINATION".

Looking forward to see the addition.

Thanks & Best Regards, Jaspreet Kaur Nagi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.82.173 (talk) 11:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

You may wish to read the entire Indoctrination article and find the sub-type of indoctrination or a related topic on which you are looking for more information and read it. If you cannot find the information you seek, post a note to the talk page of the article that is most closely related to your question.

Note: This talk page is for discussing the WP:Articles for creation process, not for posting questions such as the one you have. You may wish to visit the Wikipedia Teahouse for help to find the right place to ask questions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Triplicate submission

On April 2, a new editor created this article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shane J. Lopez. It was declined April 6.

On April 8, another new editor created a page about the same person Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shane J. Lopez (2) and then a few hours later this one Shane J. Lopez.

I have declined the middle one as a duplicate, but the other two are different. The article in mainspace I would have declined since the sources aren't totally independent. The other has already been declined. Is there a way to get these two pages together? Maybe the combined references and information would make an acceptable page. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Even combined those sources won't suffice, in my opinion. Huon (talk) 13:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I got excited when I saw she was an APA fellow, until I realized that the APA named over 100 people as fellows in 2012 alone [2]. I tagged the page as a non-notable academic. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

New page with old tags

Dear reviewers:

This newly created page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tobias International, Inc. has a tag on it from 2010. Is there a history to this article that I should know about before declining it? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It appears to probably be a malformed submission where someone possibly created new content but used lifted text from elsewhere to start (in addition to the 2010 tags, was created directly into AfC space yet has a userspace draft template on it). I searched for anything by that title and was unsuccessful. Shearonink (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I am going to remove the obsolete tags and then decline it. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Check the first 4 revisions of the page: the user was using WiiKno as a basis to start with. mabdul 16:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Gerry Cogna

Dear reviewers: While reviewing an article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gerry Gogna, I came across this discussion: User talk:Drmies/Archive 30#Question on a user page, and I thought that I should report that although the page itself seems okay but not well sourced, one of the references leads to a web page that claims that Gerry has won a nobel prize in literature. I decline the page, but perhaps its author, new editor User:Nick demoz, is connected with the other user names that are being watched. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Nobody has commented on this, and I left a message on an administrator's page and received no reply. Now User:Nick demoz has left a message on my talk page User:Anne Delong. Does this mean he thinks he is an admin, or he thinks I am? Should I just delete it and ignore? —Anne Delong (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Using edit notices to deter copy-and-paste moves

The main article space edit notice reads:

{{#ifeq: {{PAGENAME}} | {{PAGENAME:{{TFA title}}}} | {{TFA-editnotice}} }}{{#ifeq: {{PAGENAME}} | {{PAGENAME:{{TFL title}}}} | {{TFL-editnotice}} }}

If we added a check that saw if

the existing page does NOT exist AND
there is a page named [[Wikipedia Talk:/Artlicles for creation/{{PAGENAME}}]] in Category:Pending_AfC_submissions,

then put up a big red template cautioning editors NOT to copy-and-paste the existing submission here, but rather to either continue editing it or REVIEW it and if it is ready to be in the main encyclopedia, MOVE it.

Thoughts? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

For those of us whose minds aren't structured to parse Wiki-template code intuitively, I think this link provides an example of the current edit notice that Davidwr describes. If I'm wrong, please provide a link to help discussants understand what you are descriging. --Orlady (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

That's part of it. Try editing Today's Featured Article to see its editnotice. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Why would it go in Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Main instead of Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Wikipedia_talk? Aren't AfC articles in Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/{{PAGENAME}}? Technical 13 (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, that's another and perhaps easier way of doing it. What I envisioned was that the editor would be warned when he PASTED the article. What you propose would have the warning when he COPIES the text. Either one would work and your proposal is probably technically simpler: The only check would be that the page name started out as Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

On a note of what I'm assuming is somehow related, "Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation" is posting to the page twice and the [show] for the tools on the lower one (one that is closer to the edit box) doesn't work. Instead it takes you tot he top of the page to use that one. Not exactly sure what is going on there. Technical 13 (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Can we refer this person to another web site?

Dear reviewers:

I was reviewing this page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Xhuljeta (Julia) Vlashi. Julia was a dental assistant, and I think the writer of the article wants to leave a memory of her life. I can't see that she has done anything that would be written about in the media. Rather than just mark the page declined, I would like to point the writer to an appropriate place to post his text. The only one that comes to my mind is http://findagrave.com. Can anyone suggest something less gloomy? —Anne Delong (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Quite frankly it's not our problem - WP is not a grief counselling service. I've declined it and proposed it for deletion. Unfortunately there isn't a Speedy for stuff like this. Roger (talk) 11:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Classic! Nice attitude

Basket _Feudalist 11:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, sorry I asked. Next time I'll remember to use the "being reviewed" tag. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I would decline the submission, and point the submitter towards WP:NOTMEMORIAL in as graceful and tactful way as possible, emphasising that you're sorry that someone they loved has gone, but it doesn't change the notability guidelines. That should do it. While I agree with what Roger said, there are better ways of putting it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

My question was not about whether to decline (obvious). I was asking about alternative web sites. I realize maybe this was the wrong place to ask; I thought more experienced reviewers would have come across these types of submissions before and have a ready answer. After getting some sleep, I found an answer myself at http://memoriam.org/ and left a message on the user's talk page. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

(ec)So now I'm the big bad ogre simply because I choose not to get emotionally involved with anyone or anything on WP. WP:NOTMEMORIAL is the correct page to point the draft writer to. BTW the exact same text is also on their talk page. Roger (talk) 12:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

You've stated something correct per policy, but just saying "Your article is not suitable for wikipedia. Please read WP:NOT. I'm taking it to MfD" might as well say "Your article is rubbish. Read WP:NOT. GAME OVER. Insert coin." from the user's point of view. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Roger that he shouldn't have to be emotionally involved if he doesn't want to be. It's impossible to take a personal interest in every article and its author. One of the things I like about Wikipedia is that there are so many editors, each with his or her own interests and strengths. When I am reviewing and come across an article on a topic that repels me or which I think is incredibly trivial although others don't, etc., I usually just leave it alone and let someone else review it. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately the message you posted on the draft writer's talk page has had no effect, the draft has simply been resubmitted - without any changes. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest removing the article from speedy deletion, but also removing its submission. Allow her to keep the draft of the article. It's not hurting anybody. Maybe someone could move it to her sandbox? Also, if she resubmits it again, it could be grounds for blocking her. TheOneSean | Talk to me 12:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Protection levels for Afc submission templates

Amatulic (talk · contribs) fully-protected Template: AFC submission today without discussion. It was previously semi-protected. He did not protect the sub-pages, which kind of defeats the purpose if his goal is to protect from vandalism.

I and other AFC reviewers have been tweaking these templates for the past few weeks. I don't remember details, but there was at least one case where things "seemed to work" in the sandboxes but then broke when I moved them to the main template. It was only the ability to quickly test-fail-test-revert-try-again that I was able to successfully update the template. Had these templates been fully-protected I probably would have given up in frustration, and things like the pending-by-age categories and the 3-week-backlog report would not have happened.

I'm asking the community to come to a consensus: Absent vandalism, do we want these highly-visible templates to be fully protected or semi protected? If the answer is "fully" then they should be fully protected as a group. Given the above and that they are almost ever used in article-space, I'm obviously favoring semi-protection. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: /Created is not protected at all. Then again, it's only used on a few or no articles in any given moment. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: I invited Amatulic to participate in this discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

At his talk page, Amatulic makes a good point about the purge-related load on the server when the main template (and, presumably, /comments and /declined) are changed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

In response to the very valid points about server load: If the purpose of protection is to prevent server load due to cascade effects, then reducing the transclusion count may be the way to go. One way to do this is to delete ancient submissions, which has been proposed in recent weeks. Another is to bot-subst: the templates in very old declines and perhaps even mark those pages as archived. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I support semi-pp for those templates pending the results of the current new right/PC2 discussion. Technical 13 (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

What to do if the title already exists as a redirect

I wanted to approve WT:Articles for creation/Family of Secrets but Family of Secrets is a redirect to a section about the book in the author's biography. What is the correct way to get this draft into mainspace? Should something be done about the long detailed section in the biography which will become mostly redundant? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Use {{db-move}} on the redirect page - then wait for an admin to come along and delete it. Mdann52 (talk) 10:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

In the past I've copypasted the article into the mainspace version, manually redone the headers, and kept the draft as a redirect. This saves waiting for an admin to turn up, and still preserves the history via the draft redirect. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added {{db-move}} to the redirect. Doing a copy-paste is not a good idea because there's no guarantee that the draft redirect will be kept indefinitely. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

My experience at AfC suggests outside of the standard CSD Gx criteria, drafts are almost never ever deleted. Anyway, {{db-move}} is the way to go for this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Further back on this page is a proposal to delete 50,000 old Afc drafts. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but those are drafts that have never passed and made it to mainspace. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The number is closer to 90,000 - see WT:Criteria for speedy deletion#G13: Abandoned Articles for creation submissions for a lively discussion of the issue. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Use db-move. Sysops shouldn't take too long, and worst case scenario another day won't kill anyone. As Dodger67 said, there is no guarantee old redirects from AfC talkspace will be kept indefinitely. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Backlog after March drive

Are we going to have any April clearance drive? Or is the next one in May? Arctic Kangaroo 12:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It shall probably be May unless anyone objects - I was just about to sort it out :D Mdann52 (talk) 12:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Just want to know. :D Arctic Kangaroo 12:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Counter-proposal: If everyone here can put in about half of the "extra" effort they put in during March plus whatever effort they always put in, we should have the backlog down to a "steady-state" of less than a dozen articles older than a few days within a few months. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

6 times

What can be done about articles such as this one? It doesn't look like the user's heeding any of the points given. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

~~First thing I would do is~~ I have removed all of the tags that don't belong there in the sections. Those sections do indeed include references cited... Those references "may" not be reliable, but it may have been confusing the user saying there are none there, which may have been causing them to just ignore them. I've also run citation bot (which found nothing) and wikEd to clean up some minor formatting stuffs... Hopefully this helps them. Technical 13 (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Wait, what? I was declining that over a year ago...

Check in the article history what I did. Don't invest too much time in articles which were declined mutliple times and have no chance to get accepted. Actually I already did invest too much time in this draft again. mabdul 20:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate submission

Dear editors:

A user has created a page on his or her User page, and submitted it to Afc. Then a few minutes later the same page was submitted from the user's sandbox. I moved the first one before seeing the second. I have declined the User page copy as a duplicate, and kept the one from the sandbox. Should I now request deletion of the duplicate, and take away the redirect from the user page? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

If the two are identical and both have only one editor other than you, it doesn't really matter. Otherwise I would either request a history merge or decline the older one and review the newer one. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I may have made a mistake

Dear reviewers:

I reviewed a page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Emad KAYYAM. and marked it as a copyright violation. It has been deleted. However, the user contacted me and said that there was a copyright permission on the talk page, which I failed to check. What should be done now? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no deletion log for the page you linked above, so I would have to say that you need to find what page it really was and ask the deleting administrator to check to talk page and see if the permissions actually are there and undelete as is appropriate. Technical 13 (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I copied the page name directly from the declination box on the user's talk page. However, I accidentally added a period at the end before the double square bracket instead of after. I don't know how to find out who deleted the page. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, I figured it out. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:AFC statistics

When I first started contributing to Wikipedia, all if the Afc data was laid out nicely on the Template:AFC statistics page, including articles being reviewed, recently declined and recently approved articles, articles under review, and those awaiting review. For some time now, everything but the last group seems to be broken. I found it quite handy, and I'm wondering if there are any plans to get this going again. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a technical bug. Because of the way that page is built, it literally "breaks the wiki" - or rather, the wiki software just quits processing that particular page properly - when the backlog is more than a few hundred articles. This is one more reason to get that backlog down! :) . If there is a demand for summary statistics, that page can be broken into parts. Even so, it's very unlikely that the parts related to "pending" articles will work when there is a large backlog, even if the page is broken up. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Bishow Sharma

Dear reviewers:

Last month I tagged this page Bishow Sharma with POV and BLP sources. An IP user has removed the tags without making any improvements. Before replacing them, I'd like a second opinion. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Reverted, as the user didn't address the problem. mabdul 05:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yet Another AFC Helper Script not generating Teahouse invitations

On two occasions, I ticked the box for inviting a contributor to the Teahouse, but the invitation didn't get added to the person's talk page. Both times, I was declining a draft using the "can be merged" reason and the contributor's talk page was nonexistent beforehand. —rybec 00:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Would you do me a favor and name me the user talk pages? I want to debug it, maybe I found the error. In the next week I have easter holidays and I want to push the beta script after a year -.- ... mabdul 16:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for working on this! Here are examples:

I made several attempts (both with articles I declined and ones I accepted) after posting here and before seeing your request for the contributors' names, and never saw it generate a Teahouse invitation. —rybec 23:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Bad, very bad: all related 3 articles are deleted because of being a copyright violations. Next time when reviewing such articles, please do also a copyright violation check! mabdul 13:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, so I can't delete anything myself. You can see from the message I left on Greggar73's talk page that I declined his article as a copyright violation. I declined YLAKSHMINARAYANA's article partly because it contained one paragraph that matched one I found on a Web page, and partly because it was an advertisement. I left a comment pointing out the matching text and giving the URL. Since it was only one paragraph, in my opinion it was plagiarism rather than a copyright violation. I don't remember Jaspreet sohal's article but I see from the author's talk page that you tagged it for CSD G12. Since I'm unable to view deleted documents, perhaps you or another administrator like to remind me of the specifics of what the article was about, how much of it was copied, and what my comments were when I declined it. Is it your position is that every AfC review should include a check for copyright violations?

Anyway, what I came here for was to add User talk:Djswax (declined) as another example of a Teahouse invitation that didn't get generated. —rybec 23:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

"Is it your position is that every AfC review should include a check for copyright violations?" - Yes! Copyright violation is the serious biggest problem of wikipedia, moreover it could create a potential (legal) problem for the Wikimedia Foundation!

Please try our beta script out (how to is described at WP:AFCH, if you need any help, I will respond). Although the script has some known bugs I hopefully get managed this week, at least this script works for me. Hopefully for you too. (This would be very interesting since I didn't changed any TeaHouse related content). mabdul 04:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm using the beta script, and haven't had an issue yet. This being said, you claim there are some "known issues". Would it be possible to get a list of the known issues and (possibly even better) a list of the known issues and other improvements being worked on? It would be nice to know what historically hasn't been working right, for example, if the "send a TH invite" hasn't been working, then we could check to see if it actually did it and leave one manually if need be. Also, the list of planned future improvements would let us know whether or not something we found that might be useful has already been thought of or not. Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 11:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Although I know that you already found it: at WP:AFCH are all relevant links. ;-) mabdul 19:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes Mabdul, I have found the page I was looking for (Development page specifically). Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 11:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I want you...

... as beta tester for the AfC helper script!

After ~a year I began again to improve the actual beta script and fixed a few small bugs. I need you to find more bugs!

What you have to do

disable the gadget in the preferences
go to Special:MyPage/skin.js and add following line to the bottom

importScript('User:Mabdul/afc beta.js'); // Yet another AfC helper script (beta) [[User:Mabdul/afc beta.js]]

Use it and tell me here (or at my talk page) bugs, errors, strange behavior, etc. while reviewing AfC submissions.

What is changes in the working beta code?

Major cleanup of the code
Preparation for FFU stuff
BLP "wizard" to automate talk page tagging
Enabled review tab on all pages in userspace
Improvements to cleanup functionality
Updated interface
Rewrote canned decline comment interface (I believe that this need still some work, reports are welcomed!)
~~Rewrote AfC/R declining to be easier to use~~ (will not be part in the next release)
Change to displayed notice when using an incompatible browser
many small bug fixes!!!
adding automatically {{uncategorized}} (at the moment untested!)

And then?

I will try to fix the reported problems and then (in the next few week) we can hopefully "push it" as the new version of the Gadget.

Thanks. mabdul 23:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been beta testing it during the last drive but I'm now working to add some new features myself. BO | Talk 16:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Pointing me to bugs is hopefully enough for me. ;-) mabdul 19:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

New features added in the last few days:

automatic addition of stub tags when an article is rated stub class
dependent button: mark as reviewed --> unmark as reviewed (removing |r|
~~automatic addition of stub tags when an article is rated stub class~~
{{reflist}} check
Checking if the new page is orphaned and tag it.

mabdul 21:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Repeated tags? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

No, simply pasted it one time too much... mabdul 04:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

New feature added today in the beta script:

Adding WikiProject Disambiguation Banner to talk page and add {{disambig}} at the bottom of the disambiguation page

Regards, mabdul 08:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Giga Pets

{{admin help}} Dear reviewers:

An editor has created an article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Giga Pets which is carefully researched, all except for the fact that there is already an article mainspace called Giga Pet. However, this new article is very much superior to the existing one with tags all over it. What is the best way to get this new article into the encyclopedia? Could any small useful bits of the old article be copied into the new one? it doesn't seem to make sense to do it the other way around. Or should I accept the page and then request a merge? —Anne Delong (talk) 04:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

If it is radically superior and the talk page hasn't seen discussion in awhile, I would consider being WP:BOLD and doing a copy-over with a back-link in the edit summary AND accompanied by an announcement on the talk page. If the talk page is reasonably active I'd just open a discussion and try to get consensus and do a copy-over if there was one. In any case, if there was a move, I would request a history merge, provided that it wouldn't make the resulting history TOO messy. Wikipedia:Integrate may be helpful. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd just suggest that the new article gets moved on top of the old one, I believe its easier to have an admin do that than for it to be copied over and a history merge performed later. Ryan Vesey 04:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I added a {{admin help}}. Yes you're correct. If an admin moves it, somebody should tag the talk page and should notify the user. mabdul 05:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Done The article is now moved to the main article space, and merged with the previous version of the page. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 06:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I wrote a note on the editor's talk page. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Decline template without a "resubmit" link.

I've just responded to a post at the Help desk and I noticed that the decline templates on the draft don't have a "resubmit" link, this is clearly not helpful. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

"You are encouraged to make improvements by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page. When you are ready to resubmit, click here." is on every template. Moreover couldn't I find any thread at HD... mabdul 08:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, all templates were shrinked. OK, that is a big bug in the AFC helper script. I will fix that before this weekend... mabdul 08:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, the "Already exists" decline template should not contain: "You are encouraged to make improvements by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page. When you are ready to resubmit, click here." It should rather tell the submitter where to find the existing article and to edit that. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Giant watchlist

Dear reviewers:

I have been reviewing pages for under two weeks now, and now I have over 600 pages on my watchlist. This is okay for now; it's nice to see what happens to the pages next after I move or review them. However, I will want the older ones off my list after a while. Is there a watchlist feature that lets one remove pages without editing each page and unchecking the "Watch this page" box? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

You mean like Special:EditWatchlist? Technical 13 (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Perfect! I knew I couldn't be the only one with this problem. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Calltrunk

I know that this is not an Afc page Calltrunk, but I reviewed it some time ago when it was listed on the new pages feed. I tagged it as having some issues and left a message on the talk page. I went back to it and found that no improvements had been made, only the tags had been removed by an IP. I replaced the tags, but I would like some guidance as to what to do. The page has quotes which I feel are promotional. Should I just remove them?

A more perplexing problem is that there is a section at the bottom about the legalities of eavesdropping (which seems to be facilitated by the company's software. There has been some effort to include opposing views, but it's still pretty onesided. Should I just summarize this without all the quotes, or should it go? It is related. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the promotional quotes, be bold and get rid of them. If you expect the removal to be controversial, you may want to leave an explanatory note at the talk page and have your edit summary refer to that note. Regarding the legalities, the BBC explicitly discusses Calltrunk's stance, so it seems relevant enough, but other sources do not (and Wikipedia isn't even a reliable source in the first place), and we should base the coverage on third parties, not on quotes of company representatives. This may require some work to reword it. Huon (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed?

That this WikiProject has been quite active of late? I especially want to highlight the team effort and good communication we've been having. Good work, everyone! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Checking sources in Italian?

Is there anyone here who can verify the sources in Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gabriele Mandel, which are all in Italian, (fortunately all are available online). If they establish notability the article can be aproved. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

They're fine, except perhaps for the first and fourth, which are not exactly reliable. Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN(talk) 21:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, four RSes are sufficient, so I'll pass it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Prof. Dr. Mujeeb Zafar Anwaar Hameedi

Links and reliable resources

http://wpedia.goo.ne.jp/enwiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Mujeeb_Zafar_Anwar_Hameedi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.103.232.69 (talk) 04:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Two more thoughts about reforming the Afc process

Dear reviewers:

In the Afc process there are a lot of articles submitted by first-time editors, and there are two frequent characteristics of these pages that take up a lot of reviewers' time.

First, many of the articles are lodged in sandboxes. The reason for this is that the page move process is flawed in the case of sandboxes, first suggesting that the article be moved to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/sandbox, and then warning the editor that they can't move the page there. Is there some way that the page move process could check to see if the current page location was a sandbox, and either ask the editor what title was wanted, or just fill in a dummy title such as "User123's Afc article" so that the page could be moved to Afc space and the reviewing tools could be used? I realize that many new editors still wouldn't move the article, but it would be interesting to see how many tried and were put off by the large red warning text.

Secondly, many of the articles have no reference section at all. Would it be possible when an editor clicks on the submit button to have a radio button page come up that says Wait! Have you remembered to include citations to reliable sources? (1) Yes, submit the article (2) No, I forgot; I'll add them and submit later (3) No; what are citations? - link to referencing for beginners (4) No; because this article is a disambiguation page or redirect (5) No; I looked but I couldn't find any - link to notability policy

Not having been involved with Wikipedia's underpinnings, I don't know if these ideas represent trivial or complex programming tasks, or even if they have already been tried and rejected. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe this has been brought up several times. From what I gather, reforming the process seems extremely bureaucratic, otherwise I can't fathom why it hasn't been done, along with several other changes. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Simply be bold! ;-)

There are some problems with your second proposal: how do you determine what is a source (with using software like a bot or an edit filter)? Everything between a ref tag? New editors don't know what a ref tag is and they simply don't have to read them, moreover it is totally legit not including ref tags (although this isn't a good style, but think on the Harvard style). What about if an draft includes no URLs? Only books and offline news paper articles? Totally legitimate!

The first one would work, please ping Petrb (talk · contribs) if he would implement such an feature.

mabdul 13:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Mabdul, I think you missed what the second one was asking. It wouldn't check if there were references, it would simply be a popup that asks the user if they included any with a few help options if they didn't. Technical 13 (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The article wizard has a nice section saying PUT YOUR REFERENCES HERE, but, as you've probably noticed, a significant amount of submissions just ignore this and submit something completely unreferenced. There's no real value in doing anything else as people just do not read instructions, no matter how much we might wish they would! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Quite frankly AGF has become a "fetish" to such a degree that we are never allowed to call anything bullshit, the other nonsensical fetish is the idea that "anyone can edit", what utter bollocks! One look at the blogoshpere would show that the vast majority of people writing online these days are completely incapable of writing a single coherent sentence. If draft writers are really too thick to follow a simple instruction then they have no business here anyway WP:COMPETENCE. We see a lot of bleating all over the place that Wikipedia is in crisis because we don't have enough contributors. I don't believe that, the real problem, imho, is that have far too many illiterate single article vanicruftispam writers, and if we need to become brutal to the point of summarily deleting unencyclopedic drafts, then so be it. The whole debate around deleting abandoned drafts is one of the consequences of having a far too low (nonexistent) barrier to entry - cutting down on the number of rubbish drafts that get created in the first place should also be looked at seriously. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

There certainly does seem to be an increasing problem with single purpose vanispamcruftisment contributors at the moment. I reckon this is probably because as more and more stuff goes through WP:GAN and WP:FAC, the "easy pickings" get less and less, so newcomers look for something to improve, can't find anything that needs to be done, and do something else, leaving the "pimp my company" brigade to take over. Nevertheless, I still maintain the best way to deal with them is to point them towards WP:VRS and associated policies and wish them well (or WP:UAA in blatant cases) - they'll eventually lose interest. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Roger in that it seems that Afc can't handle any more contributors at this point; look at the backlog. The point of my request for a box with options is that the users would specifically have to lie to submit a page with no references. Some might hesitate, and those who repeatedly said that they had included references when there were none at all, not even unreliable ones, could be blocked from creating articles. This might help a little with Roger's complaint about too many articles with no useful content (rubbish). And maybe some new editors would read "Referencing for beginners" without one of us having to write a message. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

A more likely scenario is that users cite their own website, Facebook, Twitter, a company check website, a news article that mentions them in one sentence etc. etc. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

How true! However, I find that bad references are usually better than none when reviewing; it often lets you see whether there is actually any notability to be referenced at all, and that way you don't spend time helping with articles that have no chance of being approved.—Anne Delong (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I am happy to help out with any bot change needed. But unfortunately I have a little time. So in case there is a need to do some automated task, discuss it first and once it is clear of what needs to be done, let me know, we create a BRFA and once approved I will implement that new feature. Thank you for helping out on this project! Petrb (talk) 07:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Oo7565

Oo7565 (talk · contribs)

Please check User_talk:Oo7565#Your AfC reviews and keep an eye on the reviewed submission by this user. He/she is simply only accepting and moving them without cleaning the submissions nor tagging, etc... mabdul 05:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The user's clear difficulty with writing standard English also raises doubts about their ability to properly understand drafts well enough to do a competent review. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I've had a word. I'd just be careful in how you word things - if you say "we need three good references", some pointy editor could write an egregious BLP that cited trivial mentions in The Sun, The Daily Mail and The Daily Express and say "but I cited three good sources!" Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Submissions with faulty templates

I tried to review the two drafts in Category:AfC pending submissions without an age but on both the review tool came up with an error message saying it could not find the submission template. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is a known problem: Check the source code: the users added simply {{AFC submission}} without any parameter (instead of using {{subst:submit}}). That is also the problem why these pages don't have any timestamp and thus being in that category. mabdul 09:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a note about the problem on the category page would be useful, then new reviewers won't keep asking the same question. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

BE bold! and improve the category! mabdul 10:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

But you're the one who understands and can describe the problem properly, not me. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Done Feel free to copyedit my explanation. mabdul 11:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The new G13 speedy deletion criterion ... and how it may affect this WikiProject

In case anyone in who works actively in this WikiProject did not know, there was recently a motion to pass the new speedy deletion criterion G13. This criterion may directly affect those who are part of this WikiProject who review articles in the Wikipedia:Articles for creation namespace. The purpose of this criterion seems to be for an effort to remove submissions from this space that have been abandoned per WP:STALEDRAFT. Since this is a new criterion, there have not been efficient guidelines created yet that are more specific to what criterion needs to be met for these submissions to qualify. Right now, the verbiage of the criterion reads as follows:

G13. Abandoned Articles for creation submissions.

Rejected Articles for creation submissions that have not been edited in over a year.

{{db-g13}}, {{db-afc}}

...However, due to this verbiage, there is the potential that there might be some good faith issues caused by editors wanting to make these unsubmitted drafts eventually eligible for this criterion. There could be editors that will submit submissions that have never been submitted and have not been edited in quite some time, just to get them rejected and start the clock for the "one-year" requirement to be eligible for this new criterion.

If anyone was not aware of the discussion that lead to the creation of this new criterion, it can be found at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposed new criterion: abandoned article drafts and Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G13: Abandoned Articles for creation submissions. Steel1943 (talk) 04:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Is your concern that, for example:

Someone will submit article "Example" in January 2014 and not edit it after that point;
"Example" will be speedy deleted per G13 in January 2015;
and another user will no longer be able to create "Example" without it immediately becoming eligible for speedy deletion per G13?

My interpretation of the G13 criterion is that the new "Example" article would not be eligible for speedy deletion per this criterion. – 29611670.x (talk) 04:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, my concern is that something might happen such as what I did for a while out of good faith, but have stopped doing until a clearer consensus can be reached:

Someone will create, but not submit article "Example" in January 2014 and not edit it after that point;
Someone else will find that article in January 2015 tag it with {{AFC submission}} so that it gets evaluated, and either rejected to accepted without evaluating the article themselves;
The article will get evaluated and rejected in January 2015;
Another editor will then tag the article for {{db-g13}} in January 2016, which will technically then make the article eligible for speedy deletion criterion G13.

...So yes, I would agree with your interpretation. What I just presented is a method that would technically meet the criterion, but would potentially bring in several bad/rejected submissions. Steel1943 (talk) 04:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The flaw in that scenario is that the submitter and the reviewer cannot be the same person. In any case there are pretty robust review and deletion procedures in mainspace anyway. The IMHO very rare possibilty of your scenario actually happening is not a big deal - there's already a load of crap in mainspace anyway. Your scenario further relies on an assumption that some random editor finding a random old unsubmitted draft would be so enamoured of the draft that they would act in bad faith to get it into mainspace. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

My point seems like it was slightly misunderstood. I'm referring to editors who assume, in good faith, submitting stale drafts so that they can then be rejected, and then made eligible for speedy deletion criterion G13 one year later (per current criterion verbiage.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Are there currently any sub-categories for "articles declined more than XXX (day|week|month|year)s ago? If not, I would propose that with the current one year to eligibility requirement, that three new categories be made. Category:AfC submissions half-way to G13 eligible, Category:AfC submissions 45 days for G13 eligibility, and Category:AfC submissions that are G13 eligible. What we call them is not important; the time scales are what are. That way, people that want to "rescue" or work on cleaning out these abandoned submissions will know where to look. Just an idea, feel free to expand upon it. Technical 13 (talk) 12:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- No need. We already have a category that tells us on which date the articles were declined, so it is easy enough to just do it that way IMHO. Mdann52 (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
  - Although we should check if there was any edit by another user who didn't decline the submission. Many users improve their articles and miss to resubmit it... There are many check the bot has to do in my eyes. It is not that easy as some think how we can do it... mabdul 12:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
    - The bot that will do the G13 tagging simply checks the page history for the date of the last edit, there's no need to create a series of "countdown" categories. It would ignore edits by bots more recent than one year because various "routine maintenance" bots sometimes edit such drafts. The date that matters is the last time a person did anything to the draft. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
      - I don't consider three categories to be much of a series. The purpose of the categories is more to point users that are looking for an article to edit to the ones that are nearing eligibility for deletion so those get worked on first. Technical 13 (talk) 12:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Need admin help

I'm checking mine and Nathans different versions of the AFC helper script and cleaning the different code pages to get again an overview of the actual versions.

Could an admin delete following pages:

User:Wikignome/afc config.js (unused, not implemented; don't want to login with my public account and tag it with U1)
User:Nathan2055/afc config old1.js (unused, not implemented)
User:Wikignome/afc.js (obsolete)
User:Nathan2055/afc.js (last edit 21 November 2012, obsolete to actual beta, very similar, see [3])
User:Nathan2055/afc nightly.js (only a redirect to my beta script)

All pages had been checked for backlinks.

I still have to check if Nathan2055 added any useful bits of code to User:Nathan2055/afc releasecandidate.js, but this is actually something different and I will request a deletion later if needed. ;-)

Thanks. mabdul 08:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I have deleted the ones in your alternate account's userpace, of course I cannot delete pages from somebody else's userspace on your request, it needs to be them that actually request it. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 09:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Categories yet again

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Media-Soft Inc and Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Cameron Hughes are in content cats. When are going to sort this problem out? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

A bot is normally checking them and ommenting them out by add the colon. Moreover after a cleanup or a review happened with the AFC helper tool they are also commented out. So only a matter of time. mabdul 10:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

That is all a bit slap-dash. AFC's should never appear in content cats. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

We can't prevent the users adding them. mabdul 10:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I am sure there must be a way. There is some pretty fancy programming all over WP so I am sure we can stop categories from being added. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

There is the problem if th bot does regular do the task and for case we accept the submission we even have catgegories then and not having baclog works to add them? mabdul 11:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

?? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 12:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

These were not using the afc submission templates. For the first one, I checked the submitters edit history and verified he's not currently active. If he was, I would've userfied the page and changed the categories to [[:Category...]] form. Since he wasn't there, I added {{subst:submit}}, cleaned the submission to verify the category was colon-ized, then rejected it as a non-notable company (if it wasn't an obvious reject, I would've either accepted it or left it in the pending queue). A page with a similar name, Media-soft, was speedy-deleted several years ago as blatant advertising. I have no idea of that article was about the same company that this Media-Soft submission was about. I will do something similar for the other one. As you see more of these, please fix them. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I moved the Cameron Hughes submission to WT:Articles for creation/Cameron Hughes (2). I rejected it as a dupe of the already-rejected submission WT:Articles for creation/Cameron Hughes. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

New user "drafting" script

Is there anyway we could petition to get a modified version of MW:Manual:Force_preview#For_MediaWiki_1.17_or_newer set as a default gadget or added to common.js that forces new users to use the show preview button on AfC draft pages. It could be modified to make sure there are no content categories in the drafts and numerous other things as well. If someone else thinks there may be merit in this idea, I'll expand, otherwise I want to keep it short for readability. Technical 13 (talk) 10:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. I would go further than this - I disable the "save page" button entirely until after the page had been previewed one time unless the user had said otherwise in his preferences. But this idea is better suited for the village pump than here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

New user "drafting" script Technical 13 (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Henry Ristuccia

This is the first time that I have tried to review an article about a prominent person, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Henry Ristuccia and I would appreciate a second opinion in case I have messed up. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Also smells rather promo-y to me. —Theopolisme (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alain de Weck

Dear editors:

I reviewed an article that had five or six lines of text, declined it for lack of independent sources, and got back this: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alain de Weck. I went back in the page's history to find the deleted Afc box and Decline box, but I can't figure out how to help this editor resubmit the page. Also, I am not sure what Wikipedia reviewers think about long lists of papers and publications in an academic's article. I am going to leave this one for someone with more experience. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Drafts can be manually submitted by adding {{subst:submit}} to the very top. If someone other than the author adds the template, it should be {{subst:submit|user=Author's Username}} so the correct person will be notified when the draft is reviewed. Regarding the papers, his own papers are primary sources and we should find independent sources that discuss his work; since almost all sources are his own papers we should not accept the draft. I'll leave a note to that effect at the author's talk page. Huon (talk) 03:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I dug through the edit history and restored your decline and the afc comment, and added a few afc comments of my own. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems I'm always thanking people - so thanks again! —Anne Delong (talk) 05:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aboobacker Mdr

Dear reviewers:

While reviewing a come across this page: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aboobacker Mdr.

It appears to be a redirect to a deleted page. After reading the text I dutifully did not edit the page. But should it be declined so that it is no longer in the Afc queue? —Anne Delong (talk) 03:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The {{redirect from merge}} template is meant for cases when a page with meaningful content is merged into another one and turned into a redirect to that other page. In this case there is no relevant history to preserve; the page was created with exactly that content. I'm tempted to tag it for deletion as a test edit, but for now I'll decline it. Huon (talk) 03:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/P.K Aboobacker Mdr appears to be the same subject. Shearonink (talk) 05:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Social media sites and notability

Dear reviewers:

I have been following with interest the following deletion discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amanda_Blain and I am of the opinion that Wikipedia notability policies needs some updating when it comes to social media sites. I agree that anything posted on social media sites is likely to be unreliable, but the sites themselves gather statistics that are impartial. If Miss Blaine really has 2.6 million followers on Google+, how can this not count toward some notability? Last month there was an article in Afc about an videogame reviewer calling himself Pewdie Pie whose videos on Youtube had been viewed over a billion times and the article, I see, didn't make it into mainspace. If editors of major newpapers don't write often about these types of people, it's likely because they know that there are whole subcultures of people out there who get all of the information that they are interested in without ever opening a book or a newspaper. Anyway, my question is, is there an appropriate forum to post rants, I mean opinions, like this? —Anne Delong (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The Talk page of WP:Notability is probably a good place to start. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

What Rog-dod said and I will be one of the first to support your position towards a consensus. Technical 13 (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Good idea, I will consider that when implementing / bug fixing that today (If I have time, otherwise tomorrow). mabdul 07:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've started a discussion at WP:Notability. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi it is best that we remember what WP:Notability is really about - it is not about popularity, but about a subject getting noticed by the kind of WP:RS which allow good encyclopedic articles to be written. Regarding the WP:RS of web stats - these have generally been excluded like other web only phenomena. Also using these is WP:OR and will often lead editors to WP:Synth.

We here at AfC need to keep policy handling in AfC as close to the norms of Wikipedia as we can while fostering new articles and editors. Accordingly I suggest we avoid spearheading reforms of policy just to help out a couple of new editors make sloppy article. I recommend to continue working per conservative norms (i.e inform newbies that social media is not considered WP:RS). BO | Talk 09:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

As the one who started the discussion, I would like to point out that I asked for advice from experienced editors before taking my concerns to the notability talk page, and received some encouragement. I am offended by BO's derogatory and totally unfounded remark about my reasons for requesting that guidelines be developed so that social media sources could accepted under specific circumstances. I was prepared for consensus to go against me, but not to be basically told to shut up. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congrats everyone! We have finally rid ourselves of the dead weight that is the three week old backlog! TheOneSean | Talk to me 21:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The 20 days category has also been cleared, I'm working on the 19 days category now. Let's see if we can push it back to 14 over the next few days. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Gay Porn

There seem to be quite a few "porn star" submissions with presumably unreliable referencing and in some cases extensive MOS deviations. They include allusions to several awards, but they're non-notable from what I've gathered. Would it be prudent to contact the author about the whole lot, instead of bombarding him with declines? Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

It is better to take care of these individually without contacting the author. However if they are not notable you should reject them and if they do not conform to BLP you should csd/clear them ASAP. BO | Talk 09:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Transmission Fluid

What kind transmission fluid goes in a 1991 ford explorer 5 speed transmission — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:2500:58C9:C5E:7667:E463:8333 (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

This page is for questions about the Articles for Creation process. Try a Haynes Manual. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Getting new editors to stop submitting articles without a reference section

As suggested by User:Petrb, I have created a flow chart for discussion about a pop-up box to warn editors that they need sources before submitting and article to Afc. It's posted at User:Anne Delong/AfcBox. If you agree with me that reviewers waste a lot of time declining these articles, please check this out and find any flaws before I propose it to the technical guys. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I added the fact that there are also templates. ;-) mabdul 07:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

If someone managed to get that far without having any references, he probably ignored every other piece of advice given by the article wizard. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I like the idea, but how do you plan to implement it? It looks like it would be a logic script that requires interaction which says it would have to be done with JavaScript. The problem with that is your flowchart doesn't define what happens for people who can't run the script because of lack of support. Are they permanently prevented from submitting articles? Will it be a loophole to by-bass the check where they will always be submitted? Are you suggesting that there be another stage of template added and the bot come through and check the article for good references before marking as submitted or it auto-declines if there are none? Lot's of questions to think about and I look forward to your answers. :) Technical 13 (talk) 11:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

So as not to fill up this page with a long discussion about technical stuff, I've summarized the questions and my responses so far on this talk page: User talk:Anne Delong/AfcBox and I invite people to weigh in, particularly if you see problems with the proposed Afc process change at User:Anne Delong/AfcBox

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lev Shekhtman

The cited sources in this draft are all in Russian so I am unable to check them. Where do I find a reviewer who can read Russian? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Natkabrown is a native Russian speaker and a professional language teacher, so if she can't do it, she'll know someone who can. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Two drafts about the same company

Each draft by itself probably fails notability but if the drafts were merged the resulting text might pass.

WT:Articles for creation/Solid Concepts Inc. - is in the submissions lineup, notability is marginal.
WT:Articles for creation/Solid Concepts - is not currently submitted and has not been edited since December 2012, not notable but if it's sources are added to the other one it may get the combined draft over the line.

Is there anything that can be done about this matter? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

- I would tag them as {{Merge to}} and {{Merge from}}. Send the page creators a note and see if they collaborate or if one just takes the initiative and does something (might reference WP:Bold) and let it go from there. Technical 13 (talk) 11:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Backlog status now shows 3- and 2-week backlogs

Now that the 3-week backlog is sometimes zero, I've added in the 2-week backlog. When it gets consistently close to or below zero, I or someone else can add the 1-week backlog. Eventually, I'd like to add a 3-day backlog and take out the backlogs longer than 1 week because they'll rarely be more than zero.

If you are interested, Template:AFC status/backlog is the template that generates these. Template:AFC status/backlog/sandbox and Template:AFC status/original/sandbox are useful for testing. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/James W. Pennebaker

I have decline this article because there is already an existing article, but it reads to me as though it were copied out of the middle of an essay somewhere. I couldn't find the text using Google, but if someone has access to databases of academic papers, could you check this for copyvio? Thanks. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Project members and language skills

My request for help from a Russian speaker (above) and the fairly frequent occurrence of similar posts has given me an idea. We could change the list of project participans from just a simplistic list of usernames to a more informative page by including our language abilities and perhaps even our subject expertise and interests, that way the next time one of us needs need someone to verify sources on traditional Mongolian dances written in Chinese it might be easier to find the right person for the job.

(For the record: I'm fluent in Afrikaans, and can read Dutch that's not too full of jargon. My interests and expertise includes Disability; South African history, geography and current affairs; Aviation; and Military technology.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Be bold and set up a page in this wikiproject space. For the record: I'm native German, can real NL a bit, and read Latin (lol). mabdul 12:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Let us know about that page and I'll add my info. Great idea. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

↑ seconded... Technical 13 (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Please come play in my Sandbox. Would be nice if we could make it a searchable "database", but I don't have any coding skills. BTW the Sandbox page has a usable Talk page too. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

AFC reviews by 1 editor being re-reviewed and reverted

It looks like an editor who shall remain nameless has a history of inappropriately changing AFC submission templates on submissions. As a result, other reviewers are reverting some of his work is being un-done and articles are re-appearing in the "pending" queue for re-evaluation. This explains the sudden increase in 3+-week-old pending submissions.

Carry on. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you able to release the name here so we can keep an eye on them, or at least warn them about their activities? Mdann52 (talk) 10:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Decline pre-emptively?

Can we turn down Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The History of The Beatles before it's submitted? It's 300k of play-by-play copied from other articles, over twice as long as The Beatles, and if there is ever a need to split off that history from the main article such should be proposed on the article's talk page. Drmies (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest communicating with the major editor about this on his talk page. He may be unaware of how such splits are done. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I have already told the article's creator on the help desk and my talk page that he's wasting his time with this and should improve other articles instead. It looks like he's copy / pasting from other articles without the proper attribution, so I was tempted to put {{db-g12}} on it, but I've instead blanked it to give him a hint less subtle than my previous ones as to what I think should happen. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

User in question JoshBlitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also came to disagree with me at my talk page when I declined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Timeline of Pirates of the Caribbean (Film Series) for patently obvious reasons. I think it would be wise to strongly taking the editor in hand and explaining the facts of WikiLife to them lest they have a very short wiki career. Hasteur (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Dina Rae

Can someone confirm my page please? Miss.Dina Rae (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

There is currently a 2-3 week backlog for reviewing new submissions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

To any reviewer: be careful: the page was deleted two times already. (use the beta script and get the deletion log presented when clicking on review!) mabdul 05:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Is it autobiographical? Basket _Feudalist 13:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Declination box removed

Dear editors:

I reviewed and declined this page a few days ago: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/2013 Brussels Open (tennis) and the article' creator has improved it and submitted it again, but deleted the notice of declination. I thought of replacing it, but then the user might see it and think the article had been declined again. Should I just leave it? —Anne Delong (talk) 02:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a stickler for the rules on that rule, so I'd say leave it off, and just re-review it if you want to :) gwickwire^talk_editing 02:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

If it was me and I was going to accept it, I would do what gwickwire says. If I was going to leave it un-reviewed or decline it, then I would restore the old template and any removed AFC comments BUT either make sure the new pending template is at the top if it's been re-submitted or add a kind-word "afc comment" explaining that having the old decline will actually HELP the next reviewer evaluate his submission more quickly. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, knowing nothing about sports and not being able to read the non-English references, I did as suggested and then left it for someone else.

Looks like the old declination box is back now and the old comments too. I've declined the submission again, it looks like a half empty boilerplate with hardly anything filled in. Technical 13 (talk) 11:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I replaced the box and the comments, and added a new one. Thanks for reviewing it. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Just under 200 articles "0 days old", NOT about 700

The pending-by-age categories aren't always correct. Of the close to 700 in that category, many were several days old. The actual number with timestamps of 24 hours ago when I checked a few minutes ago was in the 190s.

That's the good news. The bad news is that they are still in the queue. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Of these, at least 15-20 were very short (well under 1000 characters) and are taken care of. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there a way of listing submissions by time, i.e., oldest first? Basket _Feudalist 13:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

When the backlog gets down below 200-300, this is done automatically on the "list" view of the backlog page (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Submissions if you dare. I deliberately did NOT wikilink this because as of earlier this year when the backlog is high as it took a long time to load and produced useless output. I have no clue if that's been fixed yet but I would assume "no."). However, that doesn't work when there is a huge backlog. I cheated by making a spreadsheet that looks like the following (presented in comma-separated fields, or ".csv" form):

*{{PAGESIZE:,*full pagename goes here - Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Blah*,|R}}, [[:,]],*formula which concatenates A1,A2,A3,A4,A2,A5 goes here*

I then populate it with the 200 newest submissions then paste the last column into a temporary Wikipedia page. I don't even bother to save the page, I just preview it. I then eyeball it for pages of under 1000 bytes. If I wanted to, I could do all 1500+ pages and copy the "previewed" page back into a new spreadsheet and sort the results by size and cherry-pick them that way.

It would be good if someone with bot skills would give us a several-times-a-day (every 8-12 hours in non-backlog-drives, every 2-4 hours during a drive) report on the 30% biggest (with a cap of maybe 100) and 30% smallest (with a cap of maybe 100) items in the backlog, with the bot to run any time the backlog is more than, say, 300 items in size. When the backlog is under 300 items in size, the bot wouldn't work and its output page would soft-redirect to the "list" output page.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the detailed reply! Think I'll just leave it then... inserting smilies

is about the extent of my ability! Cheers. Basket _Feudalist 17:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Sortable table of all 1516 pending submissions as of about 00:00 April 17 (actually about 10-20 minutes before): User:Davidwr/test3. Enjoy. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Polarization (politics)

Dear reviewers:

I was reviewing this page: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Polarization (politics) when I realized that there was already an article Polarization (politics) in mainspace. It appears that an editor has copied the text into userspace and then added to it and submitted it. There is no date overlap in the page histories. Can they be merged? if so, where? —Anne Delong (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Please do me a favour: Use WP:IAR and decline it. ibid is evil, there are sections after the references and that there the very first checks.

For the case you still want to "push it"; copy and paste the text to mainspace and request a history merge by {{db-histmerge}}.

Regards, mabdul 20:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it is not ready to be accepted yet. I was worried that in the meantime until it is ready someone might make changes to the mainspace article, causing the merge to be more complicated. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand what mabdul means about ibid references. If the order of the references is changed or a new one added, the references become meaningless. I have left a message on the user's talk page asking for their removal. I don't feel confident to review this one; there's something about it that doesn't seem like an encyclopedia article. —Anne Delong (talk) 06:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

User:RiverStyx23/sandbox/Standards

...is poking into content categories. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It's transcluding other pages that have categories. Nothing much can be done about it. It happens all the time. As long as it's not an AFC submission it's not our issue as AFC project members to deal with it. As a Wikipedia editor, you are free to try to find a solution to the problem, but absent an AFC issue it is outside of the scope of AFC. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, I know it is a user namespace draft but I sure I saw an AFC template on it. Anyway it is no longer in content categories for some reason. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I need coffee... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

A few more

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Education Society of Azerbaijan Republic and Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Education Society of Azerbaijan Republic are in content cats. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

An added proposal in relation to the new G13 criterion

Note - I moved this here from Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, as this is clearly not in the scope of that page Ego White Tray (talk) 12:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I was unable to get a chance to see the new G13 criterion in time to propose an addition, not to the verbiage in G13, but to a function that a bot should be programmed to do in conjunction with the G13 criterion that may be able to fix some of the mass of abandoned articles in the Wikipedia:Articles for creation space, and make them eligible for speedy deletion criterion G13 sooner. Steel1943 (talk) 02:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to have a bot automatically submit articles in the Wikipedia:Articles for creation namespace

I propose that there should be a bot programmed to automatically place the {{AFC submission}} template on articles in the Wikipedia:Articles for creation namespace that do not have any variation of the {{AFC submission}} template on them if the last edit on the article was done ... let's say 6 months ago. This process will properly list them for submission, and in addition, give these articles a chance to be denied, making them eligible for speedy deletion criterion G13 sooner, preventing an excess of stales drafts in the Wikipedia:Articles for creation namespace.

So, essentially, this bot could be programmed to submit the Wikipedia:Articles for creation articles that have yet to be submitted, and making these stale drafts possibly eligible for the speedy deletion criterion G13 sooner. Also, I saw that there was a slight discussion for this at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Abandoned unsubmitted articles, but it seems that there was no official consensus about that idea. Steel1943 (talk) 02:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

No matter what we do with G13, or the equivalent, this seems reasonable. But it should notify the original editor. DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

When somebody implements this bot, please ping me about some technical stuff.

Moreover: Can (maybe the same operator) add the possibility that submissions which aren't submitted for a review (drafts using that template: Template:AFC submission/draft) are also get submitted. Please ping me to for that stuff when and how to implement.

Regards, mabdul 08:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

This bot task must not "flood" AFC with a huge pile of new submissions all at once - it should be "rationed" to a certain daily maximum - what that number should be I have no idea, but a look at Category:AfC pending submissions by age will give some idea about the rate at which reviews are currently being submitted and cleared. I'm trying to do at leat 30 a day and I always start at the oldest. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, but I would suggest the following; stick a notice on the talk page of every editor responsible for creating an AfC asking them what they want done with them; if nothing is forthcoming within, say, a week, then just delete it. They can always ask for it via WP:REFUND. Meanwhile, those who do respond can have it userfied, and then can edit it in their own time. Those done by IPs or blocked users send down to me, and I can deal with them.--Laun chba ller 20:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Strongly endorse parts of this. See below. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi all. I can write a bot to handle this, as soon as the specifics are hashed out. —Theopolisme (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Categorizing the articles in question is good as well. Secret ^account 01:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Please inform - If an article has never been submitted for review at the Afc, how would it get into the Wikipedia:Articles for creation namespace? Are there a lot of people out there manually moving unsubmitted articles into to this space? —Anne Delong (talk) 12:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

If a draft is created using the WP:Article wizard it is saved under AfC from the start. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

In addition to what Dodger67 said, some people DO create pages without the template in [[Wikipedia talk:/Articles for creation/xxxxx]] and, contrary to convention, in [[Wikipedia:/Articles for creation/xxxxxxx]]. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Not all pages in Wikipedia Talk:Articles for creation/xxxxxxx are user-submissions, so an automatic bot could break things. The following criteria should result in a 99%+ accuracy though:

First, the no-brainer stuff:

Is the page blank or db-author or similar and it only has one editor? If so, skip it and pass it on to a speedy-deletion bot or admin.
Is the page a redirect left over after a page move to main article space (i.e. no other edit history)? If so, skip it as it is out of scope for this bot.
Is the page a redirect left over after a page move to someplace other than article space? If so, flag for manual intervention, but beyond this the page is out of scope for this bot.
Is the page a redirect with an edit history? If so, flag for manual inspection, as a histmerge may be needed, but beyond this the page is out of scope for this bot.
Does the page have an AFC submission template or similar? If so, skip it, it is out of scope for this bot.

Now the stuff that may require some discussion:

Is the page name almost certainly "not" a submission based on a category it is in (e.g. Category:Project-Class AfC project pages), etc.? If so, skip it as it is out of scope for this bot.
Is the first edit after the AFC article creation wizard started creating pages in [[Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/PAGENAME]]? If not, skip it, it's out of scope for this bot.
Was the original submission by an IP address or an account that was likely not auto-confirmed at the time of the submission? If not, flag for manual checking. Note: I think that this test plus the ones above would result in 90%+ accuracy if you don't care about losing stuff that should be hist-merged - but copyright considerations require that we DO care about histmerge, so read on.
Is the corresponding non-talk page [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation/PAGENAME]] either blank or a redirect with no other edit history to the WT: page? If not, flag for manual intervention, possible histmerge, etc.
Is the page longer than some "this is too short to be a valid submission" size? Call it 100 characters for the sake of argument, maybe 250 to be on the safe side. If not, flag for manual inspection.
Is there a page with this same name in article space? If so, flag for manual inspection, possible histmerge, or if histmerge is not viable, possible preserving for copyright purposes and tagging article's talk page to indicate the copyright issues.
Is the page linked from anywhere else directly via redirect? If so, flag for manual inspection to make sure none of those links are history-back-links, which would indicate the page must be kept for copyright purposes.
Finally, and this will require some manual inspection of the page title only, is the page name one that suggests it was likely a submission? The preliminary list can be whatever the bot hasn't already weeded out using the above criteria. A human or humans can then weed out false positives and what's left can be input to the bot that applies the afc submission templates.

Therefore, my recommendation is that if the 1st phase of the bot is to get is a list of WT:AFC/xxxxx articles that are missing the template, the 2nd phase will use a bot or script to create a set of lists of non-afc-submission-tagged submissions broken out by the above criteria. If we decide to, we can take the last group - the candidates for bot-tagging and bot-deletion, manually massage the list the first bot gives us, and write a bot for that specific list of articles. In the meantime, those of us not doing other thngs can manually process the other lists by hand or write a bot that will tag all items in that list with one of several to-be-created AFC maintenance categories so they can be worked on at our leisure. Yes, it's a lot of work but we don't want to create a bot that will do more harm than good. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Steel1943: I just noticed that this section title refers to the Wikipedia:Articles for creation namespace. Did you mean Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation namespace, which is where almost all submissions go? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

From what you just asked, "almost all" is the key phrase there. I essentially meant both places, considering that they seem to be in both places (the Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation space and the Wikipedia:Articles for creation space). However, if one area needed priority over the other, definitely Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation over Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Steel1943 (talk) 05:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

There appear to be over 18,000 unsubmitted drafts: I uploaded a list to User:Rybec/draft AfC submissions (caution, page is 1.1 MB). I've heard that about 1,800 draft articles are submitted each month. Moving a sizable fraction of these unsubmitted drafts into the review "pile" could clutter it, causing delays for articles that have been submitted. Leaving them where they are would preserve the information that they hadn't been submitted for review. —rybec 22:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Fractural analysis of concrete

Dear reviewers While checking out the article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fractural analysis of concrete, I notice that there is another article created by the same editor, Concrete Fracture Analysis. It seems that the editor has copied a section out of the middle of an existing article, not from the edit window but from the processed article, and then changed and expended it to include something called the Hillerborg model. Should this be merged back into the original article, or should instead the title be changed to something like "The Hillerborg model of concrete fracture analysis"? I don't know enough about physics or engineering to know if this is a significant separate topic. 13:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the folks over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineering or one of its related WikiProjects could help? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

As suggested, I left a message for the civil engineers, but it's only the second message this year. Maybe some engineers have it on their watchlist. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Previously speedy deleted

Dear reviewers:

While reviewing this article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Association for Interactive Media and Entertainment I decided to check Google for copyright infringement, and instead came across an entry in the Speedy Deletion Wiki (what a concept) and was able to see that the article had been deleted before as promotional and has been changed somewhat in an effort to comply with Wikipedia's guidelines. Is there a more direct way to see this information? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

If you are considering accepting it, you might want to contact any administrator and have him compare the "before" and "after" text to see if it's been changed enough. I think there are a few who read this talk page, hopefully one of them will check the page and see why it was deleted. The beta version of the AFC helper tool will alert you if there was a previous deletion and show you the reason it was deleted. If you aren't using the beta version, you can go to the red-link Association for Interactive Media and Entertainment to see the deletion log directly.

In any case, you may want to add an afc-comment to alert other reviewers of the previous deletions and the reasons stated in the deletion log, but there is no need to draw attention to the off-wiki web site which you found. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I left the suggested comment on the page. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Hughstandish/sandbox

Dear reviewers:

I am sorry to be filling up this forum with my problems, but I came to an usual submission at User:Hughstandish/sandbox and I replied at User talk:Hughstandish. Should I have added the text to the submission page instead as a comment? Should I now just manually decline the sandbox? And did I give the correct information? —Anne Delong (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I've declined the sandbox. Huon (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Problem on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions

<!-- 
NewPP limit report
Preprocessor visited node count: 299081/1000000
Preprocessor generated node count: 146274/1500000
Post-expand include size: 2048000/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 1301320/2048000 bytes
Highest expansion depth: 13/40
Expensive parser function count: 15/500
-->

I just noticed that Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions has a hiddencat of Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. I'm assuming this was not a known issue until now? How can we trim it down, there doesn't seem to be much on it. Above is the NewPP limit report I copied from the source for that page. Technical 13 (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I raised something similar in January: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/2013_1#Template limit means backlog list doesn't show up in /Submissions. This is part of what drove me to create the "pending submissions by age" categories and create the "jumps" into WP:PAFC based on the date of the submission.

/Submissions is created by a bot on a regular basis. It works great when the number of submissions is under 300-400. Then it starts to hit Wikipedia's page-complexity limits. The bot author is aware of the problem. The best solution is to get that backlog down to manageable levels. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Daily cleaning of submissions

Can we get a bot to clean pending pages at least daily? The by-age categories are up to a week behind lately, but forcing a "clean" seems to get them in the right by-age category. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I took 3 hours out of my reviewing time and used the beta AFC Helper Script to "clean" every submission that the script would let me review (i.e. not User: drafts). I may have missed 1 or 2, but the by-age categories should be pretty up to date, for now at least.

Category:AfC pending submissions by age/0 days ago‎ (125 P)
Category:AfC pending submissions by age/1 day ago‎ (90 P)
Category:AfC pending submissions by age/2 days ago‎ (85 P)
Category:AfC pending submissions by age/3 days ago‎ (126 P)
Category:AfC pending submissions by age/4 days ago‎ (115 P)
Category:AfC pending submissions by age/5 days ago‎ (65 P)
Category:AfC pending submissions by age/6 days ago‎ (60 P)
Category:AfC pending submissions by age/7 days ago‎ (82 P)
Category:AfC pending submissions by age/8 days ago‎ (86 P)
Category:AfC pending submissions by age/9 days ago‎ (52 P)
Category:AfC pending submissions by age/10 days ago‎ (37 P)
Category:AfC pending submissions by age/11 days ago‎ (39 P)
Category:AfC pending submissions by age/12 days ago‎ (16 P)
Category:AfC pending submissions by age/13 days ago‎ (7 P)
Category:AfC pending submissions by age/14 days ago‎ (22 P)
Category:AfC pending submissions by age/15 days ago‎ (3 P)

The backlog as I write this at 01:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC) is 1007 pending submissions (0 over 3 weeks old, 20 over 2 weeks old, 322 over 1 week old). The backlog the last time this page was purged was 1,035 pending submissions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Vote for the girls

I have declined this page already: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vote for the Girls and now the creator has added her own comment to mine stating that she needs just one reference. Then she added two references to the subject web site. Also, when I tried to leave a message on her talk page there is a big notice about cyberbullying which I don't understand. As well, I am having trouble maintaining a neutral attitude about the subject. Can someone bolder please deal with this? —Anne Delong (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

You've declined the submission correctly. The two references are from the site the article is talking about - which are primary sources and can only contribute towards verifying facts, not for getting an article passed (which requires independent coverage). The cyber-bullying claim is on a talk page notice, which you automatically see whenever you edit someone's talk page if they've set it up. Anyone can create one - for example User talk:Ritchie333/Editnotice says "try the AFC help desk for a better response and by the way I hate talkback templates". I'd possibly get an admin to drop a polite note saying it sends a bit of a chilling effect, and asking if they really still need it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

While I did decline this page, it has been resubmitted, and I am hoping that someone else will do the honours this time. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Still needs to be declined, it's shite, unreliable sources or what. But unable to locate submission, etc. Basket _Feudalist 13:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it has been resubmitted - it's not currently marked as awaiting review. You Can Act Like A Man, this project is for helping new editors - exactly how does calling something "shite" help? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

How can I explain it? Basket _Feudalist 14:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I wasted people's time. I received a message from the creator asking for another review, and when I am on the page my Afc script review option is available on the menu, so I assumed that it had been submitted. How can I tell whether an article has been submitted? —Anne Delong (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Submitted drafts should carry a big yellow "review waiting" message. There are some rare cases when a draft is supposed to be submitted but the message doesn't show - a broken <ref> tag, for example. The easiest way of checking for such problems is the page history, or maybe look at the code whether there are any {{subst:submit}} templates that haven't actually been substituted, but that wasn't the case here. Huon (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Can an archive be a reliable source?

Dear reviewers: In this article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Edward Pomorski the author has cited two archives as references. I haven't come across something like this before. I would expect anything in an archive to be a reliable source, but wouldn't the editor have to name specific documents? —Anne Delong (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Right, specific documents have to be... documented. The sources have to be verifiable. Killiondude (talk) 03:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

By citing the archive he's basically citing where he got it, but did not say what it is he got! Imagine reading an eminently respected history book, and then your entire citation is, "Downtown Public Library". We can't say whether what he found is reliable until he gives a proper citation. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Besides, documents in those archives would likely be primary sources. The Polish government-in-exile is not a reliable source on itself. Huon (talk) 03:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't have time to write up the comment right now, but that submission should be declined. Those references need to be tied to the statements cited from them as in-line citations (link WP:...), and 2 sources isn't enough in my opinion for that amount of text. It needs to be blah blah author, blah blah archive located at blah blah... (more info if available, never too much information about the source). It also needs a copy edit (link WP:...). for spelling, grammar, punctuation, style, and so forth. Technical 13 (talk) 11:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I declined it.

disambiguation of term with no article

Dear reviewers:

An editor has created a disambiguation page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anchor Management and correctly identified the four main uses of this term in Wikipedia. However, none of these topics have their own article. Is this appropriate? —Anne Delong (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd say no, per WP:Disambiguation: "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous—when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia articles." Since none of the topics is covered by an article and none is likely to ever be so, there's nothing to disambiguate. Huon (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I declined it. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Messed up move

Dear editors: Now I have really made a mess. I accidentally moved a sandbox submission to the incorrect place, and now I can't move it to the correct place because I managed to get that page title redirecting to the incorrect one instead of the other way around. Can someone fix up Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anchor Management to be Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/DUNN The Signtologist? This will teach me to pay more attention when cutting and pasting article titles. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

An admin needs to clean that up. I've tagged Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/DUNN The Signtologist for speedy deletion; when it's gone we can move the draft back. Huon (talk) 13:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again. I see that you declined it. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Deleted articles

Would it be acceptable to point a link at the top of the incubator page directing any would-be incubators to AfC? No articles have been incubated since 2010 according to the incubation history page, so I would not anticipate any influx. I think it's time to wind down the incubator process and mark it historical, but I'd like to give anyone who hits the page an alternative. Gigs (talk) 16:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This needs to be discussed elsewhere, perhaps at WP:PUMP. I get the sense that the incubator is pretty much historical at this point. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Doing a wikipedia for Matt and Liz's show on soundcloud "The Universe

I'm doing this wikipedia for Matt Bennett and Elizabeth Gillies. They are from the show called "Victorious" on nick. I'm doing this wikipedia for their podcast show "The Universe" I'm just starting. If I get more informations on it can you please accepted it? It is a real show. You can hear it at https://soundcloud.com/mott-bonnott . It is not fake but real. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParveenjitKaur (talk • contribs) 17:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It may be real, but it doesn't appear to be notable. You'll need to show that they received significant coverage in newspapers or reputable magazines. Huon (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Turned off 3-week backlog on Template:AFC status/backlog

Please turn them back on when it becomes necessary. See Template talk:AFC status/backlog for details. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

An article with multiple issues

Dear reviewers:

While reviewing this article User:Rosie khan/sandbox, I found another article Contemporary Saudi Arabian Female Artists. The same user has been improving both of these articles. What to do? —Anne Delong (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I've declined the sandbox submission because the article already exists. The article itself should probably be tagged for various cleanup issues, possibly including notability - I'm not sure the topic of "Contemporary Saudi Arabian Female Artists" has been the subject of significant coverage. Huon (talk) 00:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that at one time the article was tagged for these things, and the tags were removed. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Article exists?

Dear reviewers:

While reviewing this page: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Libertad Green (2) I found another page about the same person, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Libertad Green. This older article was declined because the article already existed, but that article has been deleted. Should the declined article now be considered, or the newly submitted one which is quite different? —Anne Delong (talk) 05:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The article was deleted for a lack of notability a little over three months ago. The new draft doesn't establish notability either. I've declined it for that reason. I don't think we need to bother with the old draft which, going by the deletion discussion. seems a copy of the deleted article. Huon (talk) 05:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

More likely the other way around: The article was declined late last December, and the deletion discussion opened shortly thereafter. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Louberto Orcullo

This submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Louberto Orcullo appeared in one edit and the first photo appears to be from http://pinoymusicians.ning.com/profile/LOUBERTRAYORCULLO . However, this is a members site for musicians from the Phillipines. I want to know if the whole profile was copied from there. I could join the site, but I am not from the Phillipines. Would this be considered proper or snooping? Also, since the site is not public, and is more like a bulletin board to help musicians form up into bands, share equipment, find gigs, etc., does this count as being previously published and so copyvio (if one could see it and it turned out to be the same) ? —Anne Delong (talk) 12:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I tried to sign up, but they have a manual approval process, and I didn't want to bother one of their admins with what they would probably consider a frivolous request. I'm no copyright expert, but I'd say if the draft were published there it would indeed be a copyright violation. On the other hand I also strongly suspect that the Wikipedia editor is the subject; in that case re-publishing the content on Wikipedia would probably count as releasing it under a free license (though technically we would need confirmation that the editor is indeed the copyright holder). Huon (talk) 13:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

AFC bot and AFC Helper Script Beta are in conflict

The AFC bot moves newer comments above older declines, as seen here. The beta version of the AFC Helper Script moves all comments below all previous declines, as seen in the next edit of the same page. Can the authors of these two tools work with each other so the end result of "cleaning" the submission, by bot or by script, is the same? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

User page with a talk page

Sorry, me again - eventually I will have tried every possibility...

A user has submitted an article (?!) User:Wchughes95/Kurt Snibbe's Playbook Caption Contest on his or her user page, but when I try to move it to the Afc area, the script reminds me that there is a non-empty talk page. Does this matter? Should I move it anyway? —Anne Delong (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to WP:IAR and change this submission to a draft as it's a quick-fail. I'll explain my reasons on User talk:Wchughes95 shortly. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Quantum Keyhole

Dear reviewers:

I may have made a mistake. I marked Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Quantum Keyhole as a copyright violation because it is posted at this web page http://www.spacetimeandtheuniverse.com/against-mainstream/4620-quantum-keyhole.html and is dated as December 2011. However, the author has contact me saying that he has written this, and at the top of the page it say from Wikipedia. There is no indication that a previous page with this name had been deleted, nor is there a page containing this term that I could find. I would have declined the page anyway because the author is promoting a new term that is not in general use, but should it be deleted or not? —Anne Delong (talk) 03:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The page history goes back to 2010, so we did have it first. I'll un-blank the draft and add a comment about the OR issue. Huon (talk) 03:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Multiple declination articles

Please check out and comment on thishelper script request. I think it would be productive to see pages shortened by listing declinations for articles in one box instead of having 3+ boxes... Comments, Complaints, Feedback, Questions, Rants, Suggestions? Technical 13 (talk) 01:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Why not simply remove the old declines? mabdul 04:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

No, the old declines are important so that the new reviewers can see what was previously said to the page's creator. Otherwise there would be no way to spot people who just keep reposting without making any improvements. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I meant only removing all except the last 2 declines (and the new decline by oneself), so leaving at least 3 declines. This is enough indication for the next reviewer that this submission might be hopeless and he/she is aware that the article draft might have a longer story which then can be checked in the history. mabdul 05:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Would it not simply make more sense to create a "wrapper" template similar to {{Multiple issues}} but different. I could bullet list or even better offer a table of previous declines or comments on their dates and have the box show the current state of the article. I'll see if I can work up some kind of mock-up before too long. I have a feeling that will be the easiest way to describe what I have in mind. Technical 13 (talk) 11:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Would you test it in the /sandbox? If it works there without any problems (and it is pushed to the live template), I will work on this. At the moment, I have other "problems" which should be resolved first. mabdul 05:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

No rush mabdul, I'm working on it Template:AFC_submission/multi, Template:AFC_submission/message, and Template:AFC_submission/multi/testcases. I'm sure it is going to take me quite a while and I would appreciate other template knowledgeable individuals as this is pushing new ground passing templates into a template and pulling arguments out of them. Thanks Technical 13 (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Mission statement

Dear reviewers:

I declined this article some time ago because it was uncsourced: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eurolib. Now the article creator has asked me to look at it again. Sure enough some references have been added, enough for me to realize that two large sections are copy and paste from the organization's web site. My question is, when removing these and notifying the author, do I also have to remove the organization's mission statement? It's pretty hard to restate a mission statement without changing the meaning. I'm hoping this has come up before. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Is it in cited <Blockquote>...</Blockquote> tags? It doesn't appear to be to me. I would suggest it should be, and it should be removed from the article until it is. Technical 13 (talk) 12:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll point out WP:MISSION although that's only an essay, not a guideline: Unless third parties have noted the mission statement we shouldn't bother with it at all since mission statements are unlikely to contain relevant information about the organization. Huon (talk) 14:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Please delete any large quotations as copyright violations unless they clearly fall into WP:FAIRUSE guidelines OR they are clearly either in the public domain or previously published under a Wikipedia-compatible license. Merely having them there to parrot a mission statement is not fair use. A mission statement that has been around since before 1923 and published before 1923 is in the public domain and can be used without copyright concerns. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Malik Sad Ullah Joyia S/O Malik Jahangir Muhammad Joyia Adovicate

Vallage Roda khushab punjab pakistan, casts detail is under; Mahram Khail(Joyia) Dheeda (Joyia )Bouran (Joyia) Yaruo Khail (Joyia) Jhanday Khail (Joyia) Zaree Khail (Joyia) Khakah (Joyia) Lodhi (Joyia) Elahi Khail (Joyia) Nehalka (Joyia) Muhammab Khail (Joyia) Kalassi (Joyia) Latifi (Joyia) Shinki (Joyia) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.149.63.120 (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Huh? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Vandal/spambot? Technical 13 (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Chemistry articles - participate in review?

The Chemistry Project is the recipient of a fair number of inferior articles that result from various unevenly supervised homework assignments. Is there a mechanism by which a chemistry editor can look over at the chemically oriented AfC's before you approve them? --Smokefoot (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I would personally be happy if one of your knowledgeable project members wanted to poke through Category:Pending AfC submissions and review the chemistry related ones. That being said, there are not currently any mechanisms I am aware of to distinguish which articles are chemistry related and prevent another reviewer from looking the article over and approving it (first come first serve kind of applies here as best I can tell and with the backlog that seems to be common here, if your reviewer keeps up on the chemistry only articles, it shouldn't be a problem). Just a note, I am fairly new here and one of the senior reviewers may be able to offer you more or something else. Technical 13 (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Listing these at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry as they are identified is probably a good way to get attention from subject-matter experts. As a general rule, if a submission requires expertise, I find a relevant WikiProject that has some recent activity on its talk page and advertise the submission there. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Next backlog drive

I've just finished distributing the barnstars (Hopefully, please trout for any mistakes!), and I was wondering if we should have another next month (May 1-31st). Any comments? Mdann52 (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

For the case somebody sends out a newsletter or something like that, please ping me, I want to update the Gadget with my beta version until then. I want to write some notice explaning all the new features so that reviewers are of. mabdul 13:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there anything that we can subscribe to that informs us about a drive on our talk page, or is it possible to inform us? Just asking 'cos May will be the first drive I'm participating in. Arctic Kangaroo 14:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully we won't need it. We are down below 1300 now. If we can reduce things by 600 a month (20 a day) we'll be down below 100 by mid-June. If we get back to 1500 and stay there a few days then yeah we'll need a May drive. If we aren't close to or below 700 a month from now we can do a June drive. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

To recieve any spams we do with EdwardBot, add youself here. Mdann52 (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Didn't notice I have already added myself weeks ago, and think I deserve to trout myself. But too lazy to do so. :P Arctic Kangaroo 15:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, in less than a day we've dropped to below 1000 with nothing over 16 days old and less than 100 over 10 days old. This bodes well for no May backlog drive. Who is the busy-body today? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that might have been me. And perhaps some other people at the same time. I am much busier with retail therapy this week, though, so any more help is very welcome! The submissions don't stop rolling in... Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Me too, last weekend, see also WT:BN and the related BRFA of wikignome (talk · contribs) (my public account). -.- mabdul 15:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Circular References

I see the prominent notice "This page is for users working on the project's administration" -- however, if I follow the directions there, I get taken in a circle. For I would then click "our article request page", which is where I came from. I came from there because though it says it offers registered users the opportunity to create an article, and all users the opportunity to suggest one, I see no clickable link for the latter: only for creating an article with the wizard.

Come on, guys. If you want people to put things in the right places, you have to not direct them to the wrong places. 50.115.68.67 (talk) 02:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

If you simply want to create an article or suggest one for creation, the proper page to do that is Wikipedia:Articles for creation. That page offers a link to Create an article now! It also has a link to go to the requested articles page where you can add your article name and idea. Technical 13 (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I copied and slightly-wordsmithed some of the text from the top of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation to this talk page. This should help people break out of the circle of confusion. Thank you 50.115.68.67, whoever you are, for bringing this to our attention. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought the IP was referring to Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation, but I couldn't see the problem personally :/ Pol430 talk to me 21:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, you are probably right. In any case, the change I made is useful so unless someone else revert it, it stays. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Article with fractured edit history

Dear reviewers:

A submitter e-mailed me about my comments on a submission, and at first I couldn't find my comments, until I realized that somehow a section in the middle of the edit history has become separated from the rest. Can anything be done to reintegrate this?

1: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/David_Prangishvili&action=history

2: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/David_Prangishvili&action=history

—Anne Delong (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to decline Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Prangishvili with the same rationale as that given on Wikipedia:Articles for creation/David Prangishvili and then to tag the latter for speedy deletion as a useless duplicate; that should be uncontroversial maintenance (G6). Huon (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

However, if there is any possibility the subject meets the inclusion criteria and that these "declined" submissions may be improved, it may be worth either merging the histories of them or re-pasting your comment to better of the two submissions before requesting speedy deletion of the other. If it's a non-notable topic, then yeah, just zap it and be done with it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Almost certainly this is a notable topic. This man's work is being cited by other biologists and there is a considerable article about his work in the Encyclopedia of Microbiology. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

What's happening with this submission?

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joseph Pitts (slave) and Joseph Pitts (slave). FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

19:34, 21 April 2013‎ RHaworth (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (28,996 bytes) (0)‎ . . (RHaworth moved page Joseph Pitts (slave) to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joseph Pitts (slave) without leaving a redirect) (undo)
19:33, 21 April 2013‎ RHaworth (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (28,996 bytes) (0)‎ . . (RHaworth moved page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joseph Pitts (slave) to Joseph Pitts (slave) without leaving a redirect) (undo)

Perhaps engaging with RHaworth might be illuminating? Hasteur (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the page history you can see there was a pretty elaborate ring of alt titles for this submission. It looks like RHaworth was cleaning up the mess through a series of deletions and history merges. Pol430 talk to me 21:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

But did he do it with the AfC article in mind? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I see two entries that say "page created with ...." indicating that a history merge happened somewhere along the way. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The article history reports "created page" four times so obviously rationalisation was called for. One these was Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joseph Pitts. I decided that AfC was the better place, since in my view it is still a long way from being a Wikipedia article. It is by the authors' own admission a student essay and too long in proportion to its importance. MAprill said they were going to cut it down but that ain't happening yet. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've seen the comments on the user's page, so I guess we'll wait for the improvements. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Aandhra Pradesh State Archives and Research Institute

I've just come across Aandhra Pradesh State Archives and Research Institute which is not only a blatant copy and paste copyright vio but it was accepted by the same editor who created it. This casts into doubt the competency of every other review they have carried out. Please keep a look out for any similar problems. Pol430 talk to me 10:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pol430&oldid=493211693 may be worth remembering. Pinkbeast (talk) 10:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, which is why I have just raised the matter at WP:AN/I. Pol430 talk to me 11:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

It would not necessarily be absurd to prevent editors from accepting their own articles. DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, perhaps we could make it a 'project specific policy' as so to speak? It could easily be written into the reviewing instructions. In the same vein: DGG, do you think it would be feasible to have a system by which this Wikiproject could impose topic-bans on editors who lack the skills to properly review articles -- provided a consensus can be reached here to do so? The reason I ask is that it's not a new problem here, and attempting to take the matter to AN/I can often result in the incident being 'lost' in the greater morass of drama that flows into AN/I. Pol430 talk to me 18:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Any individual admin can do it, but if challenged it needs to go to ANI, & as you say, ANI is a place to be avoided. I have once or twice given very strong wording not here but at New Page Patrol, e.g. I am going to insist that, .... but not worded it as a ban. I would be prepared to do it here if necessary, or even word it as a ban, but it would be so much better to have a positive qualification. (And at NPP there is usually some more definite policy to point to, less ambiguous than the need to make a satisfactory article. ) DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Moving new pages to AFC instead of PROD/AFD

Before I propose this at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process I wanted to get your thoughts:

As an modification to other forms of deletion, certain newly created articles (those created in or moved to article space within 7 days of being nominated or tagged for deletion) may be recommended for submission to Wikipedia:Articles for creation as an alternative to outright deletion, at the deleting administrator's discretion based on what is good for the encyclopedia.

This would NOT be an alternative to "not deleting" - this should only be used if the administrator would delete the article under existing rules. Policy-violating content would not be eligible for moving, it must be deleted.

Your thoughts? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree in principle (it's what happened to the article we discussed above). There is the concern, though, that AfC'd be flooded with new submissions. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you thinking of this as a a method to "rehabilitate" new mainspace articles with serious defects but don't really deserve deletion? The usual option for marginal deletion cases is to Userify the article, the editor concerned then has the choice to submit to AFC or to fix the problems independently. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I would be fine with changing recommended for submission to Wikipedia:Articles for creation to recommended for userfication or submission to Wikipedia:Articles for creation. The important thing is that the person who wants the deletion can recommend, up front, that it be moved rather than deleted and, of course, that the nominator can recommend userfication, a trip to AFC, or if either option seems equally appropriate, administrator's choice. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Roger, I agree that "normally" those marginal deletion cases should be WP:USERFIED, except in the case where the person creating the article is not a registered user, in which case I think there should be an option to AfCIFY the article. Technical 13 (talk) 10:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

In less than 2 months I invoked WP:IAR and moved 8 brand-new articles to WT:AFC/ space and 1 to User: space. Of the 9, I was reverted once, 2 are now submissions awaiting review, 2 are "draft" submissions, 1 was accepted after significant change, 1 was declined, and 2 were speedily deleted. Had I done nothing, 6 low-quality articles would either remain in "main" space as is, would have been noticed and improved upon, or would have been deleted through existing means. Expand to see the list.

How many of those did you check for copyvios? The first one I looked at has real problems. --j⚛e decker ^talk 06:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed the first one Pol430 talk to me 18:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

9 articles move to WT:AFC/ or User: space

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wold Architects and Engineers, awaiting review
Carol Bachofner, which was restored to article space within 24 hours as a "reversal" of my move
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Thomas Thaulow Stöcklin, deleted as unambiguous advertising
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Daniel W. Harley, left in "draft" state rather than decline. Submitter notified.
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Neighbourhood, awaiting review (on 4/24, an article about a different topic was moved to The Neighborhood)
Elizabeth Rose (musician), AFC reviewer accepted submission after significant changes.
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Durga Prasad Kachroo (new submission), AFC reviewer declined submission
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Flottweg SE, deleted as a COPYVIO (had I noticed the COPYVIO, I would have SPEEDY'd it instead of moving it)
User:Stahir1/Imitation in animals, put submission in "draft" state rather than declining. Moved to rescue from WP:CSD#A10. Note that this is a userficiation not a move to AFC.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

One important difference between User space and Afc space is that Google indexes User pages but not Afc pages. This would be a good way to deal with pages that are about notable topics but written in a promotional way, since the creator would no longer be getting any publicity from them until they were improved. Also, if this becomes common, the articles should be clearly tagged as having been moved from mainspace. I and several editors whose help I asked spent a fair amount of time trying to figure out how articles with old multiple issue tags were ending up in Afc, thinking that the pages had been accidentally moved. Editors should also feel more freedom to make major changes knowing that the article was submitted specifically to be changed. —Anne Delong (talk) 10:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Copyright

Can anyone have a look at the most recent conversation on my talk page and give me a hand? I'm not extremely proficient with copyright issues. Thanks! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 12:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Can Do! -Fumitol|talk|cont 16:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/KGCS-22 Joplin, Missouri Southern State University

The creator of this article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/KGCS-22 Joplin, Missouri Southern State University wants to resubmit, but can't find a submit button. I don't see it either. Am I missing it? —Anne Delong (talk) 04:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed For some reason, the declined templates where in the "small" version, which doesn't include resubmit links. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 05:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a known bug of the helper tool, in the beta script it is already fixed and hopefully I can push it this weekend. :-) mabdul 06:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there any way to check recently declined articles for this problem? I have been declining a lot of unsourced articles with a note to add references and resubmit! Also, how do I fix this if I come across one? —Anne Delong (talk) 13:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

You can fix it by removing the "small=yes" parameter from one of the "decline" templates; compare The Anonymouse's edit. Finding problematic drafts would be much harder. Huon (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Just a bit of humour

I think this could well be the submission of the day! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Call me killjoy. It did make me laugh, but sadly it's all copyvio. Pol430 talk to me 17:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Both User:Pol430 and I declined it as a copyvio about 30 seconds apart from each other![4] The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 17:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

And was it flagged for deletion? Guessing not because it is still blue, doing it now. Technical 13 (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

If it made us all laugh then it proved its purpose.

FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Anonymouse, I've just undone your edit. Only because the the copyvio is from two separate locations and your edit only linked one. Hope you don't mind. Pol430 talk to me 18:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

And it's deleted as a G11, the circle of humor is complete :/ Pol430 talk to me 19:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

What is the size of a U.S. minted Morgan silver dollar?

does anyone know the actual siz of a Morgan silver dollar? stan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.36.77 (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

This isn't the place to ask, but I believe it's about 1.5 inches. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

You would probably do well to ask your question at the reference desk. Good luck! Technical 13 (talk) 23:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's ask Wiki-8-ball:

Editor: What is the actual size of the Morgan Silver Dollar.

Wiki-8-ball: Searching... Morgan silver dollar has the answer you seek.

:) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

AfC reviewing

Okay, so after the discussions above, more specifically #Reviewer approving seemingly unsatisfactory articles, I started wondering why not have the AfC bot move protect all of the submissions and require "some" kind of autopatrolled or reviewer rights to accept the articles? Also, I would love to see some kind of "training" program like what WP:CVUA offers to make sure that all of our reviewers know the correct policies and have reasonable decision making skills to prevent problems like with the Eric Sanicola article where the author is now confused and frustrated because his article has been nominated for deletion when it appeared to be approved as an article that follows the requirements. If I'm talking out my butt, just tell me so; as a fairly new reviewer myself I wouldn't be opposed to going through such a training course as I just explained because I'm still not entirely comfortable with accepting articles (I've got no problem declining the ones that are WP:SNOW) at this point. Technical 13 (talk) 11:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

In theory, this is a good idea - I'm not sure, though, if this is possible. Also, very few AFC reviewers have AFC/reviewer permissions, so we may need a brand-new user right to do this. And that may be the sticking point... Mdann52 (talk) 13:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Ditto what Mdann52 stated. Perhaps an unofficial tutorial. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it could be done with the current reviewer rights. What exactly are the requirements for obtaining that right? WP:REVIEWER says the answer to that is:

Previously, criteria for requesting the reviewer permission were as follows:

You have an account, and routinely edit.
You have a reasonable editing history – as a guide, enough edits that a track record can be established.
You have read our policy on vandalism and understand what is and what is not vandalism.
You are familiar with the basic content policies: Biographies of living persons, Neutral point of view, No original research, Verifiability and What Wikipedia is not.
You are familiar with the basic legal policy: Wikipedia:Copyrights.
You have read the guideline on reviewing.

I'm not sure why it says "Previously" but am curious. That aside, If we were to put together a training program that makes sure that reviewers have read WP:VAN, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:C, and WP:Reviewing#Reviewing process, then wouldn't it be okay for one of the admins that participate in AfC to give that right? I mean, I don't see another "reviewer" training guide or "course," so I doubt we would be stepping on any toes or anything like that. Technical 13 (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

It says 'previously' because the reviewer right was inactive not that long ago, when Wikipedia had a pending changes holiday. However, pending changes is now back 'on' (sort of) so the reviewer right once again has a purpose. I did actually suggest, in an RfC about two years ago, that the ability to 'patrol' new pages be restricted to people holding the reviewer right (for much the same reason you are proposing at AfC) -- it failed miserably. The move-protection idea isn't technically possible without significantly altering the functions of one or more existing userrights; and as anyone who's been around a while knows, trying to affect changes to userights, or create new ones, generally results in 'no consensus' (at best). Filemover was an exception. Pol430 talk to me 17:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought it would be as simple as adding a new mw:Manual:$wgRestrictionLevels parameter to mw:Defaultsettings.php like

$wgRestrictionLevels[] = 'reviewers';

to the move permissions group, no? Technical 13 (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not very good on technical-code type stuff, but if I'm reading what you've written correctly that would give 'reviewers' the ability to move any move-protected page on Wikipedia -- which is a pretty big change; I don't think the community would ever agree to it. Pol430 talk to me 19:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Not quite, what it would do is create a new type of move protection that only reviewers and administrators could move pages. Pages could still be administrator only move protected. Technical 13 (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting... If a proposal was drafted for the creation of this new form of move protection it would need to explicitly state: 'only for use in the AfC namespace' 'traditional move-protection by admins is unaffected'. Under those conditions it might stand a chance. A training course to replace/supplement the reviewing guidelines sounds like an option worth exploring as well. I'm going to have a look at what the CVU have got. Pol430 talk to me 19:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Suddenly removing the ability to move pages from "ordinary" editors, a user right that has existed "since forever" would cause a humunguous upheaval. I pity the person who tries to do that! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

So under your proposal, users would get these "reviewing rights" after completing this course (except users who already have reviewing rights)? As AfC stands, I don't know if said kind-of-drastic measure would make much of a difference. First of all, this was led in part due to some rogue user's reviews, which is not such a widespread issue. Secondly, I don't think all users who currently review articles (I for one) have reviewing rights nor would want to (which doesn't mean they wouldn't do that little course). Lastly, I think this type of procedure would leave AfC without at least a few willing editors, deterred by such a notion. I think the tutorial should be implemented, but I think this whole rights issue is out of proportion and exceedingly bureaucratic and to be blunt, quite absurd. Don't take me wrong, the course of action proposed is absolutely well-intentioned, but a majority of editors do not have the means (etc.) to carry reviewing rights, and what this measure would do is make AfC exclusive to a bunch of 10 or so editors who currently do most of the work. I would be bold enough to say that the other editors' work is just as important and shouldn't be hindered. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Roger, this wouldn't change the ability to move pages from "ordinary" editors except for those that are specified as AfC drafts or even userdrafts that have been {{subst:Submit}}ted for review. This would protect well intentioned users that are creating new articles to be much more certain that their article isn't prematurely approved and much less likely to be tagged for any kind of deletion in the first day. FaL, When you get down to the nitty gritty, WP:REVIEWER only adds three user rights/permissions: (aft-monitor), (review), and (validate). Currently, all that this user group does is allow people to mark pending changes as good or revert them and there are currently 8,015 reviewers + 852 administrators giving a starting pool of 8,867 users on Wikipedia that would be able to accept submissions. Of course, "anyone" would still be able to comment or decline submissions. I would suggest that we start by putting together the tutorial and run each other through it to make sure all of the important things are known. Then, once we see how that goes and get a group of people that would be qualified, and applied and received the reviewer right, we could then decide if there is a need or a want to initiate a RfC to see if this new move permission should be added. Technical 13 (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems that we already don't have enough reviewers. I am fairly new at this myself, and I started out by reading the policies about copyright violations and looking for those, and also moving submissions out of sandboxes and user pages. Then I started looking for invisible references and adding absent reflists. I made a few mistakes, but I figure that I saved the more experienced reviewers from wasting their expertise on the straightforward stuff. If I had had to wait until I knew everything before starting I might not have got around to it. Could we instead have a short essay that lists the types of reviewing tasks in order, from most straightforward (such as moving pages in to Afc) to most sophisticated (such as judging notability), and which policies should be learned before attempting that task. Reviewers could start small and work their way up. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

That is the point of the academy system I've mentioned. It will make it easier for people interested in reviewing the find the resources that are needed in order to properly review articles. Technical 13 (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Anne, I try to look at the potential article as one that would be immediately subjected to a AfD as soon as it lands in mainspace. Here's the list I use

Verify there's no duplicate submissions (Same text duplicated multiple times on the page)
Check notability (and it's appropriate Specific Notability Guideline
Density (and usage) of references
Verify that there's no Copyright violations
Make sure the prose reads well
Make sure that there's not a significant sampling of references from one particular source (or from the subject of the article)
Make sure that external links are appropriately wrapped in templates
Make sure there's some categories on the page (to help interested editors find it and get it to a similar wikiproject)
Check for an appropriate infobox
Read all the references to verify that the balance of the references speak in some detail about the subject of the article, and that the reference backs up the cited statement
Make sure there's an associated wikiproject to adopt the article.
Verify that the author doesn't have a blatantly obvious Conflict of Interest in having the article move to mainspace.

I know this is a lot of steps, but I tend to not want to promote any article to mainspace that isn't 100% good. Hasteur (talk) 01:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Convienent Section Break #1

@Technical 13, I think Roger's point about taking away the ability of ordinary, competent editors ability to accept AfC's would become the overriding oppose rationale. On a more positive note, I've been looking at CVUA and I think there are some good ideas there for upgrading the present reviewing instructions to something more like an academy. Pol430 talk to me 20:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, unless I'm completely misunderstanding it, the bit of suggested code (above) that would create the restriction is not in any way restricted to only AfC-space (which isn't actually defined as a distinct "space" anyway, it's just a few pages in "Wikipedia talk" space). The result of that code would be to remove the ability to move any page everywhere on WP from everyone who isn't a Reviewer. The backlash from tens of thousands of "ordinary" editors would make the "Watchlist War" look like the proverbial Sunday-school picnic.

Short version - Do you really have a deathwish? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding the intent. The point was it is just a couple lines of code in mw:Defaultsettings.php to create a new page move protection section for "reviewers". The Article creation wizard, AfC helper script, and/or AfC bot would protect the pages automatically. Then, anyone would still be able to review, comment, and decline, but only reviewers would be able to approve and move into article space. Like I said above, I would love to see us just start with the training academy part. I have to go, but I have a response for Anne as well when I get a moment. Technical 13 (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the point. There is no massive quantity of misjudged article acceptances that would merit such a solution. Not many articles are accepted each day, and I think it's well under our control to see if any of them are not up to standards. It would not be arduous work to AfD an odd article that made it through once every week or so, and have a word with the corresponding "ripe" reviewer. Simplicity is the key. Do not add, subtract. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 23:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you don't see the point in offering an academy for new reviewers to give them the proper tools to know which articles are good enough to accept, which ones are crap and should be quickly declined, and which ones are almost there and they should point the editor of the article towards some resource that would make the article acceptable? At the end of which, if the "trainees" decide to apply for "reviewer" rights (as they would have demonstrated proficiency in the same things that are required for "reviewer" in general), they may and would likely be approved. I don't see how that is a bad thing. That is all that I am proposing at this point. Technical 13 (talk) 00:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

No, you misunderstood me. My language might not have been clear, as is often the case. I'm all for that tutorial. In fact, I'd love to do it myself. What I was saying was that I'm against the reviewing rights-only accept. Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

No hard feelings, I often have difficulties with making my language clear as well. I'm happy to hear that you are in support of the tutorial. As far as the requiring reviewer rights to accept pages, I think it is too early to tell at this point until the tutorial is up and we see what kind of response there is there. :) Technical 13 (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Usually anything that helps clarify known issues is a good thing. I believe one of the hardest things for new editors, and even experienced ones is the lack of proper easy-to-understand resources. Yeah, I guess time will tell. Cheers for all the effort you're putting into this. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the "Reviewer" user right is appropriate for accepting--or rejecting--AfCs. If anything, it's a more sensitive action than dealing with patrolled edits--patrolled edits affect only the article, AfCs affect whether or not the editor is likely to remain of Wikipedia . But it's a problem how to implement it. As it is, anyone with autoconfirmed status may move an article, and there are some many good and non-problematic reasons for moving--such as merely correct typos in article titles-- that I would not like to make it more restrictive. So any actually restrictive limitation would have to be intrinsic in the AfC process, for using the formal procedure. (As is, anyone may bypass the procedure, and I've seen it done reasonably ass often as unreasonably. No matter what we do here, or what restrictions we place on using the macros, anyone who can create an article can always bypass the procedure by simply writing the article over again in main space. As long as we permit any registered editor to make an article, there is no possible way to prevent this, and previous attempts to restrict this have not been accepted-- nor should they, for maintaining the principle that anyone can edit is a very important one--we are almost unique in this, and even given the compelling reasons we are all aware of to restrict it, I do not think we should readily abandon it unless as a desperate last recourse to curb promotionalism, and I do not think we are at that extreme point yet.

therefore, whatever we say here will not be a genuine restriction, but just very strong advice that can nonetheless be bypassed. I think it's worth trying anyway, even if we can not be rigorous in its enforcement

The real problem, as Technical 13 points out, is teaching the new reviewers. But I am not a great believer in the effectiveness of formal training program, and I personally have always avoided them , preferring to get direct experience. What we need is for those of use with enough experience to understand the needs of the encyclopedia to pay more attention, not to individual articles as we now do, but to correcting and instructing those with insufficient experience. What I think we most need , if we are to do this effectively, is a better process, one that channelizes reviewers into providing actually helpful advice to the new article contributors. This can be done to some extent by tinkering with the messages,and encouraging detailed feedback rather than generalities, U thing the best way to do this would be to find some way of actually requiring the use of the article wizard , which by comparison with the rest of the process is a well-thought out and instructive process. If this fails, the only really effective way I know of would be to discard the existing system and start over,with a review process focussed on two stages: first, will this ever have potential as a WP article, and 2nd, specifically what is needed to make it an acceptable one. The previous system of relying on NP patrol had this advantage--the first stage was passing speedy deletion., and that quickly removed 50% of the newly submitted articles. If nothing else serves to reform AfC, I think it might be better to remove the entire AfC system, and rely on NPP--I have for the last year been seriously considering taking all the AfC pages to MfD; I do not think there would be consensus to keep them. DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

In the section above I suggested that a list be made up, from simple to complex, of tasks that new reviewers could take on (starting, say, with moving the sandbox articles to the Afc space or making invisible references show up). Hasteur came back with a very useful list of things to check before accepting an article. However, it is different from what I was requesting. I think that editors who aren't yet experienced could do some tasks that don't include accepting articles (which I feel takes some experience and judgement). If a list of these types of tasks could be made up, starting with the simplest, along with a link to the particular policy for that task, then reviewers could start out small and let the more experienced people accept the articles. As an example, I started reviewing because I reported a couple of copyright violations at the help page, and Huon suggested that I could deal with them myself and pointed me to the proper instruction page. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed alternative #1 - MOVENOTICE

Proposed alternative #1 - MOVENOTICE. I don't think the Wiki software supports it yet but this would be a great place to force people to read an WP:EDITNOTICE-like message before moving a page. If all pages in "AFC submission space" (i.e. [[Wikipedia[ Talk]:Articles for [cC]reation/]] minus project-related pages) had a boilerplate notice highly recommending those without experience at AFC not move articles and explaining that their moves may be un-done or that articles that are not ready to be moved may face a far worse fate at WP:AFD, that would help without changing user-rights. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed alternative #2 - bot-managed moves

Proposed alternative #2 - Move-protect all pages in "AFC submission space" that have an "AFC submission/pending" template on them and set up a bot that would move (and, after moving out of AFC space, un-move-protect) articles on request, and build the "request" mechanism into the AFC Helper Script (while of course providing a manual way to request the move and a way for any editor to request the bot un-move-protect pages that are no longer pending submissions). This would serve two purposes: 1) it would strongly encourage the use of the helper script and, hopefully, encourage editors to educate themselves a bit before using it, and 2) it would allow the bot-owner, under direction from WP:WPAFC and with ultimate supervision by administrators and the bot-approvals group, to blacklist certain editors from moving things into article space while still allowing them to move articles around within AFC space or to User: space. The latter does leave open the possibility of a frustrated or malicious editor moving things from AFC space to USER space then moving the no-longer-move-protected page into the main encyclopedia, but that's a lot of work and such situations can be handled on a case-by-case basis. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed change to WP:Non-free content

Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Proposed addition: Use in draft articles is related to AFC submissions. Please read it and provide your input there. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I've commented on it. There is definitely already a policy and consensus on it, and I think we could implement some in-house things to help increase compliance with it. Who is in charge of the AfC bot? I think they should read my comment on the page David linked... Technical 13 (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:GRAND - the Digital Magazine for Grandparents

Dear reviewers: This article Wikipedia:GRAND - the Digital Magazine for Grandparents was declined, then improved, and then

but this article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/GRAND - the Digital Magazine for Grandparents was moved out of a sandbox and submitted. I'm not sure how these fit together, but the first is in the wrong place, I think. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anne, how are you? I have tagged the first-named page for speedy deletion. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Monty Chambliss Jr.

Monty Mondell Chambliss Jr.(born November 7, 1981) is an American football player, film, and television actor. Coming into the spotlight at the age of six. Being adopted by Monty Smith and Janet Jackson, Chambliss had appeared commercials and became a musician in 1990s when he joined Kris Kross. Chambliss almost became the second black quarterback to win the Superbowl, when he got a leg cramp tha kept in out of for the rest of the game. In 2013, he came back into the NFL after retiring in 2009 for his former spouse, Meagan Good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.180.173 (talk) 04:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for letting us know your opinions about Chambliss Jr! Did you mean to post this at WP:AFC after finding some independent reliable sources that talk in detail about him? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

You should probably click here to create a new article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Reform the Afc process? How about kill it?

I went through a couple of dates and could not find an approved new article. On 4/12 I noted a town was declined, as it said it didn't have reliable sources (ie the reviewer was maybe too lazy to search him/herself on google). Afc looks like it is really just the deletes who somehow got a hold of Wikipedia as they were getting tired of the work required to delete everything in Afd. Seriously, a town doesn't qualify on wikipedia? Is there a written population requirement for town submission? I'm surprised the reviewer didn't say it was notable since he/she didn't live in the particular town, despite the fact that yahoo has 1.2M search results.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Dunns_Station,_Pennsylvania

The admins who approved this change to implement Afc, instead of allowing the public to create articles (and send the junk to Afd), should be ashamed of themselves...

Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

You have a good point about Dunns Station. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Places would suggest that this place should be kept as long as a verifiable source called it a city or (incorporated or equivalent status) village. If it was never incorporated, then it would clearly need to meet WP:Notability. In the past couple of months we've been working away at a backlog (it was over 2000 articles a few weeks ago), so it's understandable that reviewers are looking to "quickly accept" or "quickly fail" articles if at all possible. By declining the article and inviting the submitter to fix the problem it allowed the reviewer to move on to the next submission that was in the queue. When the backlog is eliminated I expect that I and probably others will take the time to do as you suggest, and fix articles on acceptable topics whose submission is not ready to be accepted rather than just declining them and hoping the submitter eventually fixes the problem.

By the way, verification of existence is needed to prevent hoaxes from slipping in through AFC.

I would welcome it if you would take that article and similar articles and fix them up to the point that they would survive WP:AFD then move them into the main encyclopedia. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

In response to your questions (in order) WP:EXISTS,WP:GHITS,WP:MINIMUM,WP:BURDEN. I know I decline most of the articles I look at. I try to look at the potential article as one that would be immediately subjected to a AfD as soon as it lands in mainspace. That's why I check notability, density (and usage) of references, verify that there's no Copyright violations, make sure the prose reads well, make sure that there's not a significant sampling of references from one particular source (or from the subject of the article), make sure that external links are appropriately wrapped in templates, make sure there's some categories on the page (to help interested editors find it and get it to a similar wikiproject). Now tell me you make that much effort when you came and complained about a specific article that got declined and I'll be happy to walk away. Hasteur (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

You also declined my submission where notability was established (BLP with two notable events covered in mass media). You justified the declining the submission based on overcite. However, I guess you have also declined many submissions based on lack of citations. This is just a slippery slope trick to get your rocks off on deleting articles. You say yourself "I know I decline most of the articles I look at." Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

When an article is declined, it doesn't mean that the topic is declined (Wikipedia certainly does want articles about towns), or that the article isn't wanted. It just means that the article needs more work. It's not surprising that a lot of Afc submissions are declined the first time they are submitted, since most are by inexperienced editors. My own first article was declined, and then accepted after I improved it, but this took two trips to a library in another city to look up microfilm records. It's not fair to expect reviewers to research and find reliable sources for the hundreds of unsourced articles that are submitted every week. It's the article writers' job to do that, or to ask for help if they are having trouble finding sources. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I share Jtbobwaysf's concerns that some articles with potential could be lost because they are declined in the Afc process. When I first joined Wikipedia I spent some time looking through the "Recently Declined Articles" at Template:AFC statistics and improving them. It doesn't seem to work any more, I've heard because the backlog is too big. An orgranized process for helping out new editors who have submitted their articles too soon and encouraging them to add references and resubmit might rescue a lot of good material. Some don't seem realize that they can do this. Also, is there a process for "adopting" articles in which the creators seem to have lost interest before they got into mainspace? I hear that a lot of old declined submissions are about to be deleted. Maybe an Afa (Articles for adoption) to which people could nominate old drafts that just need a little help? —Anne Delong (talk) 11:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

My own experience is that at least 10% of the time that an article is declined and the submitter never improves it, there would be a possibility for improvement. 10% may not sound like much, but it's many thousands of articles--and many thousand editors who came here wanting to work on wikipedia, and have not persisted. Most of that 10% got a response that was technically correct, but not sufficient specific to guide the user in fixing the problems. Some people will always not return, no matter how helpful we are, but we need to find some way of inducing the reviewers to make appropriate help when they decline an article. One step I've been thinking about is to remove the prebuilt reasons, or at least also require a specific comment, but there are a great many cases where the articles are so unsatisfactory that prebuilt reasons are sufficient, and people would make the same inadequate responses if they had to write them from scratch. A simple technical step that would help, and is within our power, and I have asked for it repeatedly, is a preview of the rejection notice before it is applied, as is done in many other processes. (There's a chance to supplement the notice first, but seeing it again, with a strong message to try to add specificity, would help considerably.) There has been good success with Twinkle notices in guiding them to be more specific, by asking for details after the submission, and we should try this here also. It would also help if the notices differentiated between the conditions: (1) This is not likely to be notable, unless you can find some good references, and (2) This is likely to be notable, but it needs better references to demonstrate it.

Of course, it would help if we had more and better qualified reviewers at this vital process. I and others have long suggested requiring or at least strongly recommending some qualifications. Getting more good experienced people would dilute the impact of the poor ones, but it will not be easy to get them to come here from other processes--I came, but I came only in desperation after seeing the harm it was doing as it is presently established. DGG ( talk ) 18:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

In Response to Jtbobwaysf 10:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC) And right there you have lost all credibility. Strike immediately your assertion that I think this is pleasurable or a game. If you had read and understood the decline reason of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mancoluto you would have understood that the 6 references for being in a documentary in the first paragraph and the 4 references regarding the confession to burying someone after an unfortunate accident in the final paragraph are prime examples of Wikipedia:Citation overkill. Now your righteous indignation appears to be nothing more than a tantrum at your activities being declined. As I said before I give passes on AfC submissions when they're well formed and unlikely to land in the AfD bin. Our responsiblity, in my viewpoint, is to look at the submissions critically and do everything necessary to ensure that the article does not land in any of the deletion choping blocks within a few weeks of being moved to mainspace. I'm sure you would also endorse that promoting substandard articles to mainspace so that annother volunteer has to come along and invest the time to make a AfD nomination and justification. Keeping problems out of mainspace to begin with is the way that we can contribute. Hasteur (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand fully about the whirlwind of citations in which we new editor are lost. Someone will come along and delete a sentence, stating it is too much information, leaving another comment hanging, thus having it open to a "citation needed". When we add that, as well as create a paragraph so that the one sentence is supported, as it is critical to the article, then we are told the article is not "notable". We then go into over citation mode. I would like to see a "mentor" or "adoption" where we almost have a guardian to protect us from too many administrators. I understand open format and appreciate it, as I learn more about a topic that I felt worthy enough to form an article, but sometimes I feel like I'm a shop owner in the middle of a mafia territory. I want to pay someone protection money! When an article I've had up for months is suddenly deleted without discussion by one person, after many others have worked on it and it's been approved, it's disheartening and confusing. That much power is unwarranted. Thank you all for your time in volunteering.SandyC (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Needed: Un-submit "button"

We need an easy way for editors to change their "submitted articles" back to "draft" state without having to know to add a "T" to the AFC submission template.

If there is a way to do this using a Wikilink, great. Otherwise, adding a a "click here to un-submit" wikilink which acted like the "resubmit" button on declined submissions and which added a "new section" which was just[[Category:AFC submissions that need to be turned into AFC drafts]], along with a bot to monitor that category and make the edit, would do the trick. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

This can only be done by JavaScript. Why do you think this is needed? I mean if a user submits a draft, then he/she do want to get it reviewed. Multiple submission templates get automatically removed after reviewing or cleaning... mabdul 13:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Need a 2nd eye for Supersound Guitars

I think Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Supersound Guitars is ready but I've put in so much work I no longer feel impartial. Could someone else either make the move or, rather than declining it, provide a "to do list" in an AFC comment? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I took a look and added a comment. Could use a few more wikilinks, but I'd say the rest is fine. Technical 13 (talk) 13:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Accepted article. Your comment got lost upon acceptance though :( . davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Please say yes or no to this Afc proposal.

Dear editors: Last week I posted a proposal for an addition to the Afc submission process at my user page User:Anne Delong/AfcBox and asked the reviewers on the Afc talk page to respond at User talk:Anne Delong/AfcBox. After several of the reviewers showed interest, and with support from FoCuSandLeArN and some input from mabdul I asked for a technical assessment at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) and also at Village pump (technical).

Since then there has been a lot of discussion on all three talk pages about various ways to improve the Afc submission process, but aside from TheDJ, who indicated that my proposal was technically feasible, and Ypnypn , who agreed that PHP shouldn't be needed, all of the discussion has centred around alternative and more complicated ideas using bots, javascript, etc. These are likely good ideas, but don't provide feedback on my original simpler proposal.

Please will someone let me know if this simple proposal (rather than the other alternative ideas) is worth pursuing, or what's wrong with it if not, by posting your opinions at User talk:Anne Delong/AfcBox. If no one likes the idea, and people instead want to go in a different direction, I will delete it. If people agree that the proposal has merit. Petrb has agreed to set it up. I am posting this on all three talk pages hoping to get a decision one way or the other. Thanks for your time. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is that we should all head southwards, to somewhere that is warmer in the winter! Establishing ourselves beside a lake or sea would help to deal with some of the issues caused by it being colder in the winter. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Anna, it's a good idea, you have my support, boldly do it. Also, heading south is advisable if that's an option for you... Pol430 talk to me 20:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Point form?

Dear reviewers:

I declined this article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Axex Dental because it had no independent sources and was promotional, but was I correct in also noting that the information should be prose rather than point form? Is there an relevant policy about this? Or should I remove that part of my comment ? —Anne Delong (talk) 11:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:PL and WP:EMBED seem to handle it. The article seems mostly promotional anyways. Can't seem to find any independent information on the product, although being specialized, likely only found in dentistry journals. LionMans Account (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

AfC script freezing

I'm having the helper script hang after opening the user page when I attempt to reject Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pete Williams, anyone else? --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, and I'm using the Beta script. It is hanging on the second stage of multiple pages. It gets the token and then hangs on "Getting User talk:...". Technical 13 (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Happened to me in one page too. It also says the user who submitted the article doesn't exist, however it then saves their talk page. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Hum? Really? What does your JavaScript error console say? I have no problem at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pete Williams... Which browser/version? mabdul 17:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Log cleared, clicked arrow, clicked review, clicked decline, turned off notifications, clicked decline.

[13:59:24.947] ReferenceError: assignment to undeclared variable form @ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mabdul/afc_beta.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:540
[13:59:25.005] POST http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php [HTTP/1.0 200 OK 348ms]
[13:59:25.301] ReferenceError: assignment to undeclared variable pageid @ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mabdul/afc_beta.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:1428
[13:59:25.306] ReferenceError: assignment to undeclared variable i @ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mabdul/afc_beta.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:1279
[13:59:25.307] ReferenceError: assignment to undeclared variable texttest @ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mabdul/afc_beta.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:1327
[13:59:25.365] GET http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=logevents&format=json&leprop=user%7Ctimestamp%7Ccomment&letype=delete&leaction=delete%2Fdelete&letitle=Pete%20Williams&lelimit=10 [HTTP/1.0 200 OK 447ms]
[13:59:25.764] ReferenceError: assignment to undeclared variable refbegin @ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mabdul/afc_beta.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:1365

[13:59:25.764] ReferenceError: assignment to undeclared variable refend @ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mabdul/afc_beta.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:1366

[13:59:25.776] ReferenceError: reference to undefined property animation.opts.start @ http://bits.wikimedia.org/en.wikipedia.org/load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery%2Cmediawiki%2CSpinner%7Cjquery.triggerQueueCallback%2CloadingSpinner%2CmwEmbedUtil%7Cmw.MwEmbedSupport&only=scripts&skin=vector&version=20130426T023642Z:132

--

[13:59:42.850] GET http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&prop=info&indexpageids=1&intoken=edit&format=json&titles=Wikipedia%20talk%3AArticles%20for%20creation%2FPete%20Williams [HTTP/1.0 200 OK 3000ms]
[13:59:45.798] ReferenceError: assignment to undeclared variable token @ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mabdul/afc_beta.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:1408
[13:59:45.800] ReferenceError: assignment to undeclared variable url @ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mabdul/afc_beta.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:1458
[13:59:45.923] POST http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php [HTTP/1.0 200 OK 2308ms]
[13:59:48.121] ReferenceError: assignment to undeclared variable response @ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mabdul/afc_beta.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:1465

⇑↑⇑↑⇑↑⇑ this is my complete log for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pete Williams using the beta script on FF–20.0.1 on a windows Vista laptop. I added bullets to the start of every line for formatting purposes only. Technical 13 (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm starting to see the same thing. From what I can deduce atm, If the user already has content on their talk page, it won't go through. If no talk page exists, it goes through fine. I've gone back to using v.4.1.15 for now. You've changed the order of the decline reasons - arghhh

Happysailor ^(Talk) 18:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Would an admin push a modified version for me? Same as in the section above, I simply removed the redirectchecker for now.. sadly. My tests were totally ok,... mabdul 20:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

D'oh not tested correctly... mabdul 20:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

~~I think it's better now. At least it's not saying users don't exist anymore.~~ FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I added a redirect check for the case a user was renamed. sadly I only tested it with a moved user (and thought how the MediaWiki API works, but it doesn't). I commented out the changes for afc_beta and the actual script. It should work after a WP:BYPASS. I have to recheck how this should be coded... After all: it is working at the moment with many new features (tested again). mabdul 22:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MovieStarPlanet

Dear reviewers:

While reviewing this page:Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MovieStarPlanet is the first time that I have seen a list of how many times an article has been deleted. I declined it as an advertisement, but should it also be deleted again? —Anne Delong (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I've tagged it for a combination of spam and copyright violation. It might survive the spam issue on its own, but much of it is pasted from the corporate website. Huon (talk) 02:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I figured it must be from somewhere, but couldn't find exact matches. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

References not needed?

Dear reviewers:

After being away at a jam session all afternoon, I came back to do some reviewing. I found an article without independent sources, started to decline it and noticed that the decline button had changed from red to pink (I guess this is for mild declines....)

When I tried to find the decline reason for inadequate sources, I saw that everything has been moved around. I noticed that the BLP choice had a mention of WP:MINREF, so I went off to read it and found this text:

"Technically, if an article contains none of these four types of material [quotations, potentially challengable and other nasty stuff], then it is not required by any policy to name any sources at all, either as inline citations or as general references."

Hm! I guess our work is done. We can just accept everything that's nice. Why have I been cajoling new editors into adding references? —Anne Delong (talk) 23:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I for one am full of doubt and likely to challenge statements, which would then require sources... Huon (talk) 02:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was part of our job to at least give a token challenge to the topic's existence (avoid WP:HOAXes). Seriously, any claim of notability must be "challenged" by us at least in our own minds as part of our review, and the lack of any claims that survive the challenge is grounds for rejection for lack of notability. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. MINREF isn't either a guideline nor a policy, either. On a stronger ground, articles must demonstrate notability, which usually requires sources via WP:GNG, in the rare case there's a claim of inherent notability, even there you have WP:NRVE. --j⚛e decker ^talk 05:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Even WP:NRVE says

Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive....

Basically, if by some fluke the latest Category 5 hurricane that hit last week doesn't have an article about it and I write a bare-bones article with only widely-reported facts, nobody is going to challenge the submission for lack of notability unless they were just being WP:POINTy. However, they should tag such an article as unreferenced or, if it were at AFC, decline it as unreferenced even though technically listing references isn't required (I have a higher bar for accepting an AFC article than for "not" PROD/AFD'ing an existing one, I think others here do too). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 06:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

If WP:MINREF isn't a policy or a guideline, should the AFC script be directing reviewers to it? Is there another article that is a policy of guideline that should be mentioned instead? I am not a bold person; in order to decline unsourced articles I need to feel confident that I am doing the right thing. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Davidwr, you're right about NRVE, of course. I still don't think it's very good policy to promote unsourced content, although should the latest Cat 5 hurricane come through our waters unsourced I would be far more likely to simply add a source and promote than decline. I've seen too many strange and occasionally believable hoaxes to really trust anything here without a reliable source. Anne: I suspect that "having a higher standard for promotion than deletion" as Davidwr describes is common practice, and that can be seen as a form of consensus. It's certainly a position I support. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

How much support does a proposal need?

Dear reviewers: My proposal at User:Anne Delong/AfcBox has gained some support at User talk:Anne Delong/AfcBox. So far no one has said no, although I expect that Technical 13 is just being nice. How will I know when it's time to ask for implementation? —Anne Delong (talk) 01:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

RFCs usually run for 30 days. We can end them faster if all agree, but I'd say a few days or a week cannot hurt. Huon (talk) 02:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I posted the proposal April 15 and announced it here, on Village Pump Technical and Village Pump Proposals that day. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I'm never "just being nice." I agree with your concerns driving the proposal, I disagree that it could be done in a user-friendly way without the use of JavaScript. Technical 13 (talk) 12:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

AFCH: Overeager removal of HTML comments

This diff (which may soon vanish since I tagged Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MovieStarPlanet for speedy deletion) shows a Helper Script bug: While declining and tidying up the submission, the script was overeager. It turned  into <!-- INFOBOX FORMATTING >, thereby breaking the HTML comment and letting most of the submission disappear from view. Huon (talk) 03:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I guess we'd better be sure to eyeball the page after using the script until that's fixed. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Mmmh, thanks for reporting. Strange that I have never seen such a comment before. Fix will be shortly (a day or two) pushed. :-/ mabdul 05:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it happened because  had far too many dashes in the close markup, there should only be two "-->". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's the reason. But the script should check something as it might be more common as I thought. So simply fix the detector. XD mabdul 10:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it is very common as I have seen it in the copy and paste sections of infoboxes for people to use. It shouldn't be hard to add a little bit to the what I'm assuming is ReGex search for that that tells it to ignore it if it is /(-*?)->/ or something simple like that, no? Technical 13 (talk) 11:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, exact a system similar like that I will do. Actually I'm simply replacing everything with regex since it is the easiest way for complex structures... mabdul 12:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh and by the way: feel free to improve the script at every place if you want. I'm not the owner and help is appreciated. ;-) If you are familiar with regex (and very good in) feel free to revamp the AFC/R / AFC/C detecting. At the moment it is somewhat low priority for me, but it still needs very much work.

If you want to play with the script, go to https://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/ and copy and paste https://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:mabdul/common.js . I'm an admin there and can help with everything. I will check, test, and overtake newest features into the afc_beta script as soon as possible. mabdul 12:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I played with that part of the script and I'm assuming the purpose of the code that is creating this problem is an attempt to remove HRs from the submissions? Not sure why we would want to do that, as there "may" be a legitimate reason to have a horizontal rule, but I think the code should be changed based on some basic testing I've done from:

		text = text.replace(/---[-]+/ig, "");

to:

		text = text.replace(/[^<!--]----[^-->]/ig, "\n");

That being said, I'm still kind of new and not completely proficient with ReGex or JavaScript. Anyways, I've changed and tested it on https://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/test and it seems to work well for all of the test cases I could come up with. As a side note, the script there seems to hang up on getting my talk page when accepting if the talk page already exists, but not if it doesn't; however, it does move the page when that happens (I think the page move should be the last thing it does) but doesn't clean the article up. Also, I asked on the VP there, but don't expect a swift response, how does one apply for adminship there? Technical 13 (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The code looks good. Yes, exactly, I want to remove the HRs as they are always added between the afc template(s) and the actual content. Moreover HRs mostly aren't suitable for Wikipedia and I have never seen any afc submission with a useful rationale for this.

I will test it again tomorrow at work (in ~8h) and will push it to the beta version if it works correctly (although the code looks similar to a version I had in mind...

As I said: feel free to learn JS/Regex and help me with AFCH: I started the same way: improving AFCH and accidentally I overtook the script because Tim Canens was /is working in other enwp areas. For the case we get a bigger developer basis, I'm willing to use any git based system. ;-)

mabdul 21:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't suppose you have any authority over at test.wikipedia to review my request for adminship, do you? Technical 13 (talk) 21:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Backlog getting worse again

It was well under 700 there for awhile. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

At one point during the weekend there were no submissions older than 6 days. If we can really push hard now we might be able to knock it back. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm still hesitant to approve things to be honest. I have no issue declining things that are obvious WP:SNOW. When might we be able to put together that academy/tutorial/training thing? I would really feel much more comfortable having completed such a thing before approving submissions. Thanks Technical 13 (talk) 11:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

We need more people who can plow through the snow to clear out the backlog for the rest of us. A good way to learn is to "watchlist" articles you think will be initially rejected and later approved as well as the talk pages of the submitter and any AFC reviewer that comments on the article and watch the conversation unfold. You won't see everything - some submitters prefer to use email to get feedback - but you'll get some good info. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

What to do when a newly created page is preventing approval of a draft?

The draft Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ZANEWS is on the verge of being ready for mainspace. Meanwhile a new article ZANEWS has been created directly in mainspace. The AfC draft is clearly superior to the new really poor quality mainspace article, so much so that there is nothing worth keeping in it so a Merge would not make sense. So what should we do? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I would approve the article and tag ZANEWS as WP:CSD#G6 with Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ZANEWS being the page to be moved in like {{db-move|WT:Articles for creation/ZANEWS|AfC approval — see WT:WikiProject Articles for creation#What to do when a newly created page is preventing approval of a draft?}}. Technical 13 (talk) 11:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The draft can't actually be approved before the existing article has been deleted so that sequence of actions won't work. How about a copy-paste move followed by a history merge? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've marked the draft as "Under Review" and tagged the existing article with Speedy G6 as suggested. Let's see if this works. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

You would probably have to manually accept the article without the helper script in this rare case. Not sure if the responding admin will have the helper script available by default. Technical 13 (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, seems it is already done. :) Technical 13 (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Types of articles that don't need references

Dear editors:

On the talk page about my Afc proposal, User talk:Anne Delong/AfcBox, BigPimpinBrah commented that some types of articles do not need references. I already know about disambiguation pages, templates, redirects and lists with no other info, but BigPimpinBrah also mentioned schools and newspapers. I know that some topics don't have to prove notability, but I thought that they would still need a reference to show that they are legitimate. Is there a list somewhere among the policies of types of articles that require no references at all? I will need that to make the proposal work. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that even high schools, which are presumed to be inherently notable, need a source to verify that they exist. Middle schools and elementary schools are not presumed to be inherently notable (see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES), and I've never heard such a claim about newspapers. Geographical features, especially populated places, are also presumed to be inherently notable - but I still believe they must be shown to exist. Huon (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I think there is a policy/guideline hole on whether unsourced but inherently notable are valid, as WP:NRVE does limit itself to unsourcable, rather than unsourced entries. One could also draw a distinction between adding and removing material, note the tension between WP:BEFORE and WP:BURDEN. As I believe that promoting vs. not promoting material is more akin to a BURDEN/adding material question rather than a BEFORE/deleting material one, I do not support the promotion of unsourced content. Instead, if you have to promote it, add a source. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I would not be surprised if a user were to create many entries without any references at all they may well be deleted. This can be done wholesale or piecemeal by challenging and removing any unsourced parts. So even if an draft is inherently notable the creator should provide minimal sourcing showing notability and allowing facts to be checked. I also think that teaching AfC students about this kind of policy loopholes is not as constructive as just requiring they supply a good source, the main point being that once newcomers can make this "loophole" argument they should be long graduated from AfC. BO | Talk 06:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Elsie Lee

Dear reviewers:

Here's an article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Elsie Lee which the submitter has cut from her sandbox and pasted onto another page, but not from the edit screen, and thereby losing the formatting. I started to fix it up before realizing what must have happened and going in search of the original, finding it at: User:Vickie Saunders/sandbox. Can something be done to get the article history back together? My unnecessary edits can be deleted. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Vedic Conception of Sound in Four Features : Waikhari, Madhyama, Pashyanti, Para

Source : http://www.veda.krishna.com/encyclopedia/vedicsound.htm

Vedic Conception of Sound in Four Features

(content removed)

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.219.115.163 (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

(Content posted here which was copied from a web site and specifically marked as copyright was removed.) —Anne Delong (talk) 02:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Deleted text

Dear reviewers:

On my talk page User talk:Anne Delong, an editor who had submitted a page to the Afc only to have it deleted as a copyright violation is asking if it's possible to get the deleted text back in order to rewrite the copied sections without having to redo all of the references and formatting. I think this is possible, but needs an administrator. Can someone help? —Anne Delong (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

If he asks the deleting admin nicely, he may get either it or the URL of the original source sent to his mailbox. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I left a message to that effect for the user. —Anne Delong (talk) 06:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Re-review?

Would it be possible to get a re-review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vision Capital? It was reviewed and rejected back in September. One of the main contributors to the article, User:JHAVTVS, recently made a request at the Paid Editor's Noticeboard about the nomination. After looking it over, it seems to me that the reasons for it being rejected don't make much sense, as it does have the appropriate references that showcase its notability. I tried contacting the most recent user to refuse the request, User:Czarkoff, on his talk page here. But then I noticed that he hasn't edited since December and isn't likely to respond.

So, in short, can this AfC nomination please be re-reviewed? It really seems to me that it meets the criteria for at least a stub. Silver seren^C 02:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Somebody (preferably the original writer but it can be anyone who is willing to take on the responsibility for it) just has to click the resubmit link. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I re-submitted it for review, and re-reviewed it (giving a detailed reason why I declined it). Process for Process sake! Hasteur (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't seem appropriate at all, especially since you've now declined it for an even more ridiculous reason. Silver seren^C 06:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

We decline things for having too many sources? Isn't that counter-intuitive when every thing and everyplace you go on wikipedia says more citations are better? I agree that the article needs more context and possibly looks a little like and advertisement, but I disagree that there is such a thing as "too many sources". Interesting. Anyways, I've just gone through and commented a fair chunk of sources out and suggested in the edit summary that they become "See also" or "External links" Technical 13 (talk) 22:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect move from AfC to mainspace

The article Madeleine Riffaud was copy-paste moved to mainspace, another editor subsequently did a histmerge for the article page but the Talk page lacks the AfC template and the AfC categories as are normally applied in the correct approval procedure. See WP:Help desk#Review/assist new article! for more info about what happened. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect approval of a draft

The article concerned is St. Dominic Catholic Church (Miami, FL)

I had just moved the draft from the writer's sandbox in response to this post at the Help desk and was still busy doing some cleanup when User:Mdann52 approved the article. I have posted about my concerns about the approval at User talk:Mdann52#An article you approved at AfC - amongst other problems the article contained unverifiable cites referencing personal communications - I have deleted them. Please review the events and consider if any further corrective action needs to be taken. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Bulleted lists of references

I've noticed that many submitted drafts contain a bulleted list of "references" where there should actually be a reflist. I don't think it is a co-incidence that so many article drafters are using exactly the same incorrect format in their drafts. Is there something in the draft guidance process (or wizard?) that is misleading writers into creating these lists? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It's controlled by Template:AfC preload. The bulletted is placed there for the benefit of newbies who don't know how to use ref tags, and would rather just list their sources. I can't speak for how often it actually works as intended. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that preload really could use some work... There are all kinds of basic formating things that could be commented in there. For a first example because I'm in a rush this morning, the three bullets could be replaced with a comment something like

<!-- Be sure to cite all of your sources in <ref>...</ref> tags and they will automatically display when you hit save.  The more reliable sources added the better! -->

Technical 13 (talk) 11:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Done Mdann52 (talk) 12:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I have just seen this, and I may have been partially responsible for the similar look of the bulleted lists. I have been checking submissions for invisible or messed up references, and whenever I find ones that are just in a heap at the bottom of the page I add bullets to make them easier to read. If I weren't so lazy I would read all of the references and make citations.... —Anne Delong (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I would like to point out that adding ref tags actually causes more problems than not if they are at the end of the article instead of in the body of the article. New users usually end up adding them after the reflist template and then they are nor shown, or before the reflist template but with no titles, so they show up as little numbers. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

That was why I wanted to make sure the comment had the appropriate reference so that people can read up on in-line citations, which is how I think they should be. Whether or not they actually do read and do it right will remain to be seen. This may end up being an interesting study to see how many people just make articles and how many read all of the referenced instructions to try and build a GA... Technical 13 (talk) 00:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

@all: Next time please ping me when adding or modifying an HTML comment; Then I will add the removal to the AFCH script! mabdul 06:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Based on the following two drafts, I think the new wording appears to be leading people to put their references in the References section, but enclosed in <ref> tags. I suggest changing it back, or saying that when using <ref> tags, the references should be placed immediately after the material they support. Examples:

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Kahala Hotel & Resort
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Neighborhood Toy Store Day —rybec 23:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Strongly agree! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- To be completely honest, I think that is better than the bullets list of raw html references we were getting. I would prefer to add/improve the comment so that they go to WP:IC so they can learn how to put the references in-line. I really don't want to go back to what I was seeing. ick. Technical 13 (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Well yes, but I think it could be a little clearer about enclosing whatever you want to cite between the tags, after what it is that needs referencing. For some reason, editors are failing to grasp this. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit filters

For those of you not familiar with edit filters and Tags, if a person edits a main-space article and certain criteria are met, the edit is "tagged."

These tags show up in article histories and in Special:RecentChanges.

If we had "AFC" versions of some of these tags, such as very short new article, autobiography, and others, it would not only enable "AFC specialists" to focus on certain types of submissions, but it would allow bots to add AFC comments to such submissions and messages to editor's talk pages inviting them to put their draft on hold. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I really like this idea, but am unsure/interested how such a thing would be implemented and effective. could you post some more details or give me an example here or on my talk page David? Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

General comment re: edit filters Edit filters are "expensive", meaning they take up a lot of computational time on the servers and tend to overload them. This is because they run a test on every single edit (thousands per minute). The edit filter managers tend to not implement filters unless there is a significant benefit to Wikipedia as a whole. Just thought I should mention that so people don't get their hopes up. 64.40.54.27 (talk) 19:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Tags are usually placed by edit filters. Special:AbuseFilter/98 (recent log entries) is the filter that finds very short lines in new mainspace articles. It adds the text "very short new article" to the edit summary. Cloning this to a new filter that tagged very short new articles in Wikipedia: or Wikipedia talk: space whose "first part" is "Articles for creation/" or "Articles for Creation/" could tag short submissions. A human (probably running a 1-button quick-fail script) or bot could then post-process these by going through the edit filter log and taking whatever action needed to be taken.

Note that with few exceptions, only administrators can change edit filters. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you provide a list of filters you would like to see enabled for AfC? It won't be too hard to adept them to include AfC in the search criteria. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Possible New Category

Idea: I find that I am declining a lot of articles for blatant WP:MOS violations. Is this a legitimate reason, and if so, why isn't there a category for it? TheOneSean | Talk to me 16:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

That's not a legitimate reason; MOS violations could be resolved by cleanup and would not require deletion if it were a live article. Huon (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

In all the time I've been involved with this project, I've only declined submissions solely based on their appearance/layout about twice -- because they were so bad that they were literally unreadable and I couldn't fix them. Submissions don't have to be 100% MOS compliant when we accept them, they just have to be reasonably presentable. If they're not, fix it. If they are really bad, you will often find that there is another legitimate reason to decline. Pol430 talk to me 21:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Awesome. Just wanted to throw it out there. I usually can find some other reason too. Thanks for your comments. TheOneSean | Talk to me 22:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Failed decline

I'm trying to decline this article but the script says the edit failed. I'd appreciate someone explained to me what's happening. Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I am investigating and will report back soon. TheOneSean | Talk to me 17:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I am clueless. No major formatting errors. I am going to manually decline it unless told otherwise. TheOneSean | Talk to me 17:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Let me take a look at it real quick (and I've already cleaned up after the dozen or so "your submission has been declined" on the poor user's talk page). What was the rationale for which you guys were going to decline it? nn? Technical 13 (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so here is what I found... Sneaky little bugger... There was a reference at the bottom of the page to: <ref>http://www.co----rporationwiki.com/Alabama/Montgomery/ellis-holt/124920616.aspx</ref> and when the WP:AFCH tries to clean it, it removes all ---- per the discussion above #AFCH: Overeager removal of HTML comments which leaves <ref>http://www.corporationwiki.com/Alabama/Montgomery/ellis-holt/124920616.aspx</ref> and it was failing because www.corporationwiki.com is on the title blacklist. Technical 13 (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Well that took some detective work! Thanks! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Mabdul, do you think the AFCH helper script could return those errors instead of just saying the edit failed? I intend to spend some more time looking over, learning, and improving the script myself, but I do not have the time for that right now. It's finals week this week and next at school here and I'm going through a divorce making things tough at home too. Maybe it could even give a warning of these things before "accept" or "decline" is hit? Also, I had to clean out a dozen notices on the user's page when the script failed, is there anyway that the notification of the user can be moved down to after the script actually finishes it's cleanup of the article on declines or after the article is actually moved on accepts? Is there currently a flow chart of sorts for how the script processes things? Technical 13 (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, this is already on my list; I might do this next after fixing the newly reported bugs. Dunno what kind of messages I do get by MediaWiki API. Let me check that in a few minutes, that's interesting actually. ;-) mabdul 22:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Done Fixed in the beta script, see example edit at test wiki. mabdul 22:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Works for me Technical 13 (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Another one for you techies: I can't review this article. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm assuming that your problem was that the "review" link wasn't showing up in the drop-down? I had the same problem. i moved the article from Wikipedia talk:Kent Michael Nerburn to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kent Michael Nerburn and the link showed up and it declined just fine. Apparently, the script only runs on articles in project space. Technical 13 (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I should be more attentive! Thanks! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Bug?

Message at OTRS that User:Misslynn1977/Irvine historical society did not submit. The code was added at the end, but not executed - the only reason I could find that they used <references>, and it appeared to blank everything after it. I changed it to {{reflist}} and it all worked fine. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Not a bug; this is Mediawiki; the correct tag is <references/>! Similar to the {{Reflist|refs=references here}} the references tag can be used... mabdul 23:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes - I never use that tag, so I didn't notice the loss of the closing slash. Pity WP does not show an error though... Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That might be a common enough error for the helper script to detect (I thought it already did, but I'm using beta). Ron, do use the helper script? I'll see if I can make up a process list for how the helper script works. I have somE other ideas I'd like to try and work in. Technical 13 (talk) 01:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

<references> (and also with slash) is very uncommon nowadays... Yeah, we can add such detection. The missing slash is actual not detected... mabdul 11:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The <references> tag might be uncommon, but it is advertised as a valid form at WP:LDR - for use in conjunction with </references>. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

May backlog drive?

Is there a May backlog drive to be scheduled? The backlog is about 800 now and it's already 1 May (UTC). Arctic Kangaroo 02:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that's down - or at worst, only slightly higher - than it was and the end of the March backlog drive. I think if we keep up the "slow, steady march" we will have this down to well below 400 within a couple of months. By the way, it has started creeping up lately, so we need to all keep grinding along. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I know it's down from the end of the previous backlog drive when we had ~1500 or so pending submissions. I know I'm doing what I can to keep the numbers down by working the tail end of the Submissions pending by age report. If we can start tackling the zero day submissions for the patently obvious ones, the ones that linger are the ones that may not be so easy to determine. Hasteur (talk) 12:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Decline template for "article already exists"

When a draft is declined because an article already exists the template text should not include - "You are encouraged to make improvements by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page. When you are ready to resubmit, click here." It contradicts the decline reason and violates the prohibition against content forks.

This comes back to an issue I have raised before - AfC doesn't have a "permanent decline" except for blatant "crimes" such as attack pages. We need to be able to tell the drafter - "This is never going to be an acceptable article; stop working on it and rather find something else to do." Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I'll take a look at the templates and see what it would take to do that (should be simple) and report back here for consensus on actually doing it. Technical 13 (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Chocywacydohdah

A cake shop — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.237.113 (talk) 17:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Peronosclerospora philippinensis

I asked for Peronosclerospora philippinensis to be deleted under G6 to give way to the AfC submission which I had previously cleaned up. Now the talk page needs to be moved. I've never done that before, so could someone help me? Thanks! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Where is the talk page? I can't find one. Danger ^{High voltage!} 18:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm not really sure, but the thing is that the script didn't run because the page was moved directly, so the AfC template's missing. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

There was no talk page to move. The talk page is only created automatically if you use the script, and I'm not sure the script supports technical page moves. Pol430 talk to me 19:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Now

Fixed Pol430 talk to me 19:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

So why was that template left at the top? Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That's what the AFC submission template looks like when you put it in article mainspace. Regardless of whether the script is used or not, the AFC submission template is always carried over during the page move. The script removes it automatically after the page move. Pol430 talk to me 21:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Idea: I'm thinking that should change. A More sensible approach to me would be...

Reviewer clicks accept.
Reviewer selects class, adds prepend, append, talk append, selects whether or not it is a BLP, and clicks accept.
WP:AFCH cleans up article.
AFCH moves page to new location
AFCH creates article talk page
AFCH notifies page creator that page has been accepted and moved.

~~AFCH tags redirect with Category:Articles for creation/redirects to delete on (todays date +14 days)~~
AFCH logs all data in Wikipedia:Articles for creation/recent

Doing it in this order would be an improvement because any failures caused by cleanup will be known right away before an attempt to move the page, any failures in actually moving the page will prevent a massive spamming of the creator by a dozen different editors declining the article, and then the last thing it should do is record/log the process on the /recent page. Technical 13 (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Why deleting the redirect? mabdul 16:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't really see why the order needs changing? It won't avoid the problem described above. However, I have no objections to the order being changed as you describe. I agree with mabdul that the redirect is useful and should stay. It will help to avoid duplicate creations. Pol430 talk to me 18:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I actually think those redirects qualify under WP:CSD#R2 (WP:Cross-namespace redirects) which means they should be deleted anyways, unless I'm misunderstanding the criteria... However, I've got no problem striking that from the list. Technical 13 (talk) sometime between 18:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC) and 14:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

AfC contribution

Hey guys, I looked at WP:Articles_for_creation/recent and was left less than impressed by the information the template is giving us. I've come up with a potential modification to the template, which I've posted on the template talk page but will copy here too. Hey guys, I have some suggestions for improving the appearance of this template and the resulting page that it is used on. Currently, the template displays:

PAGENAME (talk). Submitted by Creator (talk · contribs).

I think it would be better if it looked like:

At 12:50PM, 10 October 2023, Reviewer (talk · contribs) accepted PAGENAME by Creator (talk · contribs)

I even think that it would look just a smidge better than this if the bullet was the class icon, but currently all of our class icons are 180x185px which is just way too big. Either way, I think the extra information here would be very useful. Technical 13 (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually the icons are SVGs and thus don't have any (pixel) size. You even could size them to 30000X30000 or 10x10 pixel. mabdul 14:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I realize they are svg, I'm not familiar enough with the type to know how to make them the size I want when I include them in the css <li style="list-style-image: url('http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f5/Symbol_stub_class.svg')"> Technical 13 (talk) 14:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The creator's username should be more prominent than the reviewer, placing the reviewer ahead of the author is "stealing the limelight" from the creator. In any case the reviewer who happens to be the one to approve the draft is frequently just the last of a number of reviewers. It's inapropriate for the approver to be given so much credit. Put me down on the "Oppose" side. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

By that logic Roger, the creator's name shouldn't be there either as they may have been only one of many editors working on the draft. They may have even "only" created a blank boilerplate page and pointed the other editors there to work on it and not actually contributed much to it. As to your other concern, I have no problem with:

PAGENAME by Creator (talk · contribs) was accepted by Reviewer (talk · contribs) at 12:50PM, 10 October 2023.

Does that look better? Technical 13 (talk) 16:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I like this idea. It would be more convenient than looking at the history of the page to see the reviewer's name and the time. If "was" were omitted for brevity, it would be perfect. —rybec 02:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

PAGENAME by Creator (talk · contribs) accepted by Reviewer (talk · contribs) at 12:50PM, 10 October 2023.

"was" removed... All agree that this is an improvement? Technical 13 (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Support, for brevity's sake. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

What do we do with drafts by authors who have been indef blocked for sockpuppetry?

See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kagiso, Gauteng, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DjMlindos and the Block Log

An added complication in this particular case is that the article already exists Kagiso and the draft is in fact an attempt to hijack the existing article for intentional spamming - the group of socks have a history of spamming the existing article over an extended period. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:CSD#G5. Mdann52 (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

G5 the draft, yes. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Pygmy pipehorse

Hello fellow reviewers! Just a heads-up to let you know that said article is being reviewed by me, and I will probably take a few days' time to finish the process. It's part of a taxonomic conundrum, and if you're interested, have a look at the relevant discussion. The appropriate WikiProjects have been notified, and with their input, we'll see where the content would be best placed. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw this bleed over into the Teahouse as well... *sigh* to be honest, I think this project is better served on species: (species:Home) than it is here. Technical 13 (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Has it? Could you link me? Yeah, well, sort of...we can have a thorough discussion about that! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh well, looks like the author gave up. We can't win 'em all. I would've preferred he'd edited the existing article with the good content he had created, and eventually sorted out the taxonomical incongruencies as they came along. There's nothing wrong with that...it's an ongoing issue in science, and by no means does it preclude us from doing our best to cope. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Adminhelp

I want to update the AFC helper script, but since it is a gadget and I don't have the admin bit, so I can't do it. It was extensively tested by me and other AFC reviewers and many parts are still in beta since over a year.

Simply replace the whole content at MediaWiki:Gadget-afchelper.js with {{subst:User:Mabdul/afc_push.js}}. Everything is prepared, even the header of the gadget file.

Thanks. mabdul 13:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. JohnCD (talk) 14:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Please fo it again, see section deeper: newest feature wasn't tested enough... :-/ mabdul 20:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Done Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

And another bug was fixed after reportage! :-) Would an admin replace the content again please? mabdul 16:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. JohnCD (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Maintenance category maintanence

I noticed up above at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation#Daily_cleaning_of_submissions that there was an issue in the maintenance categories for this process that was similar to an issue I dealt with in the WP:BLPPROD process, roughly speaking, categories not getting updated as time passes. We ended up fixing that with a bot that I wrote, User:joe's Null Bot that just pokes each article in a particular category once per day with a "purge with forcelinkupdate" (It's a little more work than a regular purge but not quite as heavy as the ever-so dainty WP:NULLEDIT.)

Anyway, I've verified that a similar solution would solve the issue here.

Shall I submit a task request to WP:BRFA asking to extend "Joe's Null Bot" to perform a once daily pass on the AfC pending submissions category in order to keep the categorization of pending submissions by days left more or less up to date? --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please do. I was rather confused realizing that there were many edits in the last few weeks by hand to solve such issues. mabdul 21:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Now that I now that a null edit works, I did a few dozen of them today to make the "1 week backlog" close to accurate. For now. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, unless there is a good reason not to. It would be okay to limit this to maybe 1 "edit" per minute or 1500 "edits" a day, with it "picking up where it left off, and looping around to the beginning" during times of heavy load. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The infrastructure of the existing Bot is already smart about backing off with server load, I don't think there will be a problem with the volume of edits, but I can certainly put an additional cap on it if BAG requests. --j⚛e decker ^talk 23:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm drafting the BRFA here, comments welcome (it's not submitted to BRFA yet, I'll probably do that after I sleep on it.) --j⚛e decker ^talk 23:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Submitted. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Done This is approved and scheduled for a daily run. --j⚛e decker ^talk 00:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Defining Workflow V2.0

Hi again I've updated the AfC workflow. I've tried to follow the recommendation provided here as well as simplifying things.

I plan to use this in a little course-ware about AfC. Once this new course has more matured a little more and the the question bank expanded I would like some volunteers to test it.

If the project members like it we can use it for:

qualifying new reviewers (e.g. before a new drive)
requalifying reviewers who have been banned due to non-normative rejection/acceptance.

So if you have some AfC specific materials you think should be included, let me know and if someone can make a small video podcast of using the reviing script - that would also be helpful. BO | Talk 23:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Why is there a yes between "an attack or vandalism" and "subject encyclopedic"? Technical 13 (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, it Should be a no! BO | Talk 00:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks good, but change the green "article created" to some color other than green, and change the text to "draft submitted," "submission created," "draft ready for review," or something else that doesn't call it an article. It's not an article yet, it's still a draft or submission or whatever. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback - I've fixed the above issues. BO | Talk 00:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

There's a typo in the final "BLP checking" stage - "controversial". It looks really good. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

"Attack or vandalism" = "Yes" should flow to DELETED not BLANKED. Pol430 talk to me 11:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't "Blank, test, or nonsense" as well as they qualify for G1, G2, G7 (blanked), A1, and/or A3? Technical 13 (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

No reason why not, anything that meets a valid CSD criteria can be deleted. Some admins are more cautious with anything in the AfC namespace and may decline CSDs incase the author comes back to it. None of the 'A' criteria apply as these can only be used in the article mainspace. The 'G' criteria apply in any namespace (broadly speaking) and vandalism, attack pages, neg BLPs, hoaxes and copyright violations should be deleted with fervor; either due to legal issues or because they discredit the encyclopedia. Pol430 talk to me 18:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Problem on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions

So, I was thinking about the discussion I started last month (WT:WikiProject Articles for creation/2013 2#Problem on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions), and I thought I would take a peak at the templates driving it to see if they could be slimmed down any. Here is what I've come up with that might help "some":

On Template:AFC_statistics/row

This chunk of code:

-->{{#if:{{{nc|}}}|<abbr title="Submission is a suspected copyright violation">copyvio</abbr>&#32;&#32;|}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{nu|}}}|<abbr title="Submission lacks references completely">unsourced</abbr>&#32;&#32;|}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{ni|}}}|<abbr title="Submission has no inline citations">no-inline</abbr>&#32;&#32;|}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{ns|}}}|<abbr title="Submission is less than a kilobyte in length">short</abbr>&#32;&#32;|}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{nr|}}}|<abbr title="Submission was resubmitted after a previous decline">resubmit</abbr>&#32;&#32;|}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{no|}}}|<abbr title="Submission has not been touched in over four days">old</abbr>&#32;&#32;|}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{nb|}}}|<abbr title="Submitter is currently blocked">blocked</abbr>|}}</td>

Could probably be replaced with:

-->{{#if:{{{nc|}}}|[[WP:CV|copyright violation]]&#32;&#32;|}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{nu|}}}|[[WP:V|No-Sources]]&#32;&#32;|}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{ni|}}}|[[WP:IC|No-In-line]]&#32;&#32;|}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{ns|}}}|[[WP:STUB|Short]]&#32;&#32;|}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{nr|}}}|Resubmission&#32;&#32;|}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{no|}}}|Stale&#32;&#32;|}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{nb|}}}|[[WP:BP|Blocked]]|}}</td>

Might be even better to replaced with:

-->{{#if:{{{nc|}}}|copyright-violation&#32;|}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{nu|}}}|&#32;No-Sources&#32;|}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{ni|}}}|&#32;No-In-line&#32;|}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{ns|}}}|&#32;Short&#32;|}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{nr|}}}|&#32;Resubmission&#32;|}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{no|}}}|&#32;Stale&#32;|}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{nb|}}}|&#32;Blocked|}}</td>

Also, I notice that by looking at Template:AFC statistics directly and sorting by submission date, there are still things on the list that were declined in the middle of October and haven't been removed from the list that have not been re-submitted and are not pending. Why is User:EarwigBot not removing these from the list? That would shorten the list another large chunk that might put the list within range. Technical 13 (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I've done a couple test edits here (first test) and here (second test) to see how much of a difference the above proposed change would make and here are the results:
As the template stands right now:

<!-- WARNING: template omitted, post-expand include size too large -->
<!-- 131 more omissions -->
<!-- WARNING: template omitted, post-expand include size too large -->

<!-- 
NewPP limit report
Preprocessor visited node count: 166335/1000000
Preprocessor generated node count: 154783/1500000
Post‐expand include size: 2048000/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 669239/2048000 bytes
Highest expansion depth: 13/40
Expensive parser function count: 0/500
-->

Results from my proposed change above:

<!-- WARNING: template omitted, post-expand include size too large -->
<!-- 90 more omissions -->
<!-- WARNING: template omitted, post-expand include size too large -->

<!-- 
NewPP limit report
Preprocessor visited node count: 165985/1000000
Preprocessor generated node count: 154076/1500000
Post‐expand include size: 2048000/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 669149/2048000 bytes
Highest expansion depth: 13/40
Expensive parser function count: 0/500
-->

Results from my alternative proposed change above:

<!-- WARNING: template omitted, post-expand include size too large -->
<!-- 88 more omissions -->
<!-- WARNING: template omitted, post-expand include size too large -->

<!-- 
NewPP limit report
Preprocessor visited node count: 165997/1000000
Preprocessor generated node count: 154100/1500000
Post‐expand include size: 2048000/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 669149/2048000 bytes
Highest expansion depth: 13/40
Expensive parser function count: 0/500
-->

So, based on my tests, I think my original solution is the best (with the links because removing the links made little inpact, although I'm not sure we really need the links and there could be a static "legend" div applied in the lower left corner of the screen which would probably be the best solution). None of the template changes alone is going to fix the problem, and EarwigBot really needs to clean up better and probably more often... Also, I'm thinking that the AFCH script should be able to remove the ones that are accepted or declined in it's process. Mabdul? Technical 13 (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
"Also, I'm thinking that the AFCH script should be able to remove the ones that are accepted or declined in it's process." - Yes, it is possible; although I still think that it would be better to do this by (any) bot. I will ping Earwig what he thinks about tracking RC. mabdul 16:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks; you've presented some new things I can fix. Martijn Hoekstra has been working on a rewrite of the row template in Lua, so there's that, and I should make that live soon (been putting it off due to work). That should help a lot with the template size. As for the "wrong" articles being in the template, I'm aware of the issue and it will get fixed soon (I have a bit of code to add that will keep it better up-to-date). Also, I have plans to serve up a copy of the statistics chart from the Toolserver directly, which will update nearly instantly instead of once an hour, and should avoid the template size problem. Keep in mind that a good portion of the problem is related to the Toolserver's constant major issues with replication lag and lack of resources. As for the AFCH script, that won't help since the bot would just write over it. Thanks again. — Earwig ^talk 23:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

IMHO the whole /Submissions page needs to be redone so it works well when the backlog is large. This may mean splitting it into sections and only showing the "top 10" or "top 100" of each "section" in the actual /Submissions page. For example, for pending, a daily or 2x-day bot could add new items to /Submissions/pending/all, /Submissions/pending/summary, /Submissions/pending/oldest50, /Submissions/pending/newest50, /Submissions/pending/largest50, /Submissions/pending/smallest50, and /Submissions/pending/busyauthors which would hold submissions where the same author is waiting on many pending contributions, with about 50 submissions. As someone suggested, the Helper Script could update these when it "knew" an update was needed, reducing the work of the daily bot to just new submissions.

/Submissions/summary would transclude all of the previous plus info about recently-declined, recently-accepted, misplaced, and created-but-still-bearing-the-template submissions. By limiting itself to well under 400 articles it would not exceed system resource limits and would actually be USEFUL no matter how big the backlog gets.

One other way to reduce the "system resource limits" is to reduce transclusion: Instead of the bot or script just adding templates for each submission to the tables, have it add the subst'd form of the templates. Since (for reasons I don't understand) transcluding a template that transcludes a template counts more than transcluding a template that is already expanded (via subst:), we may be able to get more than just "top 50" in the sub-pages that make up /Submissions/pending/summary. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Do note that the template is fairly workable if Module:Afc.row is used. It's still a large page, so there is a lot of data to be pulled to the browser and to be rendered by the browser, but the html itself gets rendered fairly fast by mediawiki, and doesn't choke. So a fix for the system resource limits is in the works, and I suspect the change to the bot is fairly trivial. I could probably open a pull request for the change myself if I can find the time, but I don't think making the change is really more work than doing the code review on a patch. earwig, do correct me if I'm wrong, and I'll get working on a pull request. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I've finally gone ahead and (gosh I don't know why I took so long to do this) updated the bot. I also completely purged its submissions database so that can start over fresh without stuff from October. It'll take a little while to rebuild. Let's see if this works. — Earwig ^talk 02:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

That is great User:Earwig; I'm glad to hear it is updated. Take a look at Template:AFC_statistics and tell me if you see the {{{h}}} (short title) missing for all the articles as well. Thanks! Technical 13 (talk) 11:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, it's User:The Earwig and User:EarwigBot... Technical 13 (talk) 11:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, looks like I forgot something. Let's try that again. — Earwig ^talk 16:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

And it works! WP:AFC/S displays fine, but I'm not sure if that's because the template itself is better, or because the number of pending submissions is relatively low right now (<1000). Looking at the limit report:

<!-- 
NewPP limit report
Preprocessor visited node count: 32784/1000000
Preprocessor generated node count: 135721/1500000
Post‐expand include size: 712050/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 5091/2048000 bytes
Highest expansion depth: 13/40
Expensive parser function count: 7/500
Lua time usage: 1.557s
Lua memory usage: 1 MB
Lua Profile:
    Scribunto_LuaSandboxCallback::getExpandedArgument               1280 ms     57.1%
    Scribunto_LuaSandboxCallback::newChildFrame                      380 ms     17.0%
    recursiveClone <mw.lua:104>                                      240 ms     10.7%
    getmetatable <mw.lua:73>                                          40 ms      1.8%
    getExpandedArgument <mw.lua:256>                                  40 ms      1.8%
    format                                                            40 ms      1.8%
    type                                                              40 ms      1.8%
    tonumber                                                          20 ms      0.9%
    newFrame <mw.lua:235>                                             20 ms      0.9%
    Scribunto_LuaSandboxCallback::len                                 20 ms      0.9%
    [others]                                                         120 ms      5.4%
-->

Things seem to have improved substantially. — Earwig ^talk 17:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The Integration of Baseball

Dear editors:

This article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Integration of Baseball is in the Afc queue. There is an existing article Desegregation of baseball which is a redirect to Baseball color line. Are these article topics sufficiently similar that they should be combined into one article, or should there be one article about the time when baseball was segregated by race, and another article about the process of racial integration/desegregation in the sport? Also, not being an American, I wonder which is the more commonly used term, integration or desegregation? —Anne Delong (talk) 10:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the author means well, but baseball color line describes it pretty well. I think the author has information to contribute to that article and Negro Leagues though. LionMans Account (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

AfC submissions by month‎‎

Hey guys and gals! So, now that the changes and cleanups for EarwigBot by Earwig and changing that /row template to a Module: seem to have helped and the /list page is working again, I've seen some new stuff I hadn't seen before. Template:AfC submissions by month caught my eye and I've been tweaking it slightly for formatting. There are some things I'd like to ask and discuss about it now that I'm familiar with the code in it. If you take a look at User:Technical 13/SandBox, you'll see that I think a good way to be able to compare how we are doing for submissions is to have "A year ago this month", "Two months ago", "Last month", and "This month". Now, other than the fact that I've gone way over the 500 expensive parser function calls having all four of those sections four times to test the year change, you'll see that those four make for a good set to compare with. That being said, I think that merging them all into one big table would look better than four little tables. What do you guys think about doing that (I'll do all the leg work and write up the templates and stuff.)? Technical 13 (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

As long as no server kitties die, I'm all for it ;-) Pol430 talk to me 07:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

That's essentially what I do with excel on my computer (I like to analyze and do trend lines.) I think it's a great idea! - FUMITOL | LETS TALK 13:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Bug in article creation?

Dear reviewers:

I accepted an article that had been declined several times for poor references, but then had been improved. The acceptance script asked if it was a biography, and I answered yes. Then it asked me if the person was living or dead. I chose living, upon which it asked for the date and place of death. Maybe this is a programming error? —Anne Delong (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, known bug. It is already fixed at test.wikipedia.org , but I can only push the bug fix this evening/afternoon. mabdul 11:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed in the beta script, requested to push the bug fix at #Adminhelp. Regards, mabdul 16:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

class= in WikiProject Articles for creation template

Talk:Lawrence Fuchs raises an interesting issue: What should happen to the class= parameter in {{WikiProject Articles for creation}} as the article improves? Should we leave the class= alone, change the class= as the other editor recommends, or just remove it, as I wound up doing?

I recommend removing it, but with a twist:

Add a new parameter, originalclass=originalassesssment.

To make this use crystal clear, I would recommend having the AFC Helper Script add an html comment after "class=" saying

If the class is no longer accurate, replace class=assessment with originalclass=originalassessment. Do not use both class= and originalclass=. See Template:WikiProject Articles for creation/doc for details.

The template's logic would need to be changed so it would not categorize an article as unassessed if originalclass existed.

Thoughts? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way, apparently "leaving it alone" if it was originally "stub" can quick-fail a "Did you know?" nomination - see [5] for details. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Davidwr, thanks for raising a valid issue. The supplementary guideline preventing stub articles from having a "Did you know?" nomination is (D11). Please let me know if you require examples of when an article rating was asked to be changed for acceptance at DYK. - tucoxn\^talk 04:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment I think that we should change it to a scale:


Date	Date	Date	Date	Date	Date

This will make it easy to see the progress and I think will encourage pride and goal setting to see the scale move. I suggest that the scale should be made as a meta/sub-template to the current template and would be transcluded. The "diff" row with dates is of course optional (I personally think that the icons should be linked to the diff and the mouse-over text should read the date putting it all in one nice neat line). Technical 13 (talk) 11:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Interesting idea. However, what criteria do we use? There are general criteria but for articles that are already supported by one or more WikiProjects which may have varying assessment criteria, which criteria do we use? It's probably best to not use any criteria, even stub, if there is already an assessment in place. This would mean that the class= would only be populated by the script if, at the time the script was run, there were no other wikiprojects with assessments. It would also mean that a bot should be written to strip out the WPAFC assessments on articles that are later given assessments in another WikiProject's template. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I've been thinking this over a little more, and am wondering why we as a "general" wikiproject are classifying articles at all. Technical 13 (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)}
Well, I believe some sort of classification is better than none. Although what becomes of it (statistically speaking of its usefulness) I'm not quite sure. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It's largely meaningless, the 'general condition' of the article is apparent to anyone that reads it. While classifying articles within specific WikiProjects has some intrinsic value, I don't see any for AfC. We might as well deprecate it. Pol430 talk to me 16:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I think there is value in having a "snapshot" of the initial assessment, as in "This article was created through WP:AFC on 02:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC) and at that time was assessed as a stub article. This is not an indication of the current quality of the article." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Signature breaking the comment template

I have a peculiar problem concerning the afc comment template. I recently changed my signature and ever since then this problem has manifested. Please let me know what I need to fix, if any of you have any ideas on what the issue is. - FUMITOL | LETS TALK 14:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Ha! Figured it out. It was the | - FUMITOL | LETS TALK 15:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

That will do it... You can use {{!}} or | in your signature instead to avoid that problem in the future. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Mmmmh, great "bug report". This is easy fixable: put {{afc comment|1=comment}} and it should work. I will fix the script tomorrow or maybe in a few days. mabdul 17:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Article for creation; Oyin Akoko

Thank for helping to put my first major wiki article (Oyin Akoko) through. I suppose it can be moved as an article while we strive to make it look better. Once again, thanks. Boyede Ojomu (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid it can't be moved while someone makes it look better. You can address the problems with the submission just fine where it is. Once it complies with our policies and guidelines then it can be moved into the mainspace. Pol430 talk to me 16:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Missing archive indices

I've requested the creation of the missing archive indices for this project

Since the ones from 2010-2013 already exist, but 2008 and 2009 do not. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

So why was this speedily deleted instead of actually creating the missing indices?

all exist, but for 2009 and 2008, they are missing. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 12:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Check your page titles, the titles that were deleted had a double namespace prefix. Pol430 talk to me 18:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

That's the entire point, the project is missing:

So, how else are they supposed to be listed? -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

YT - Article, Submission declined

good day! it was a draft article The youth time , it was removed. Now I want to finish this article. prompt, am I need to edit article in the last blank and then put up for discussion? Thank you. Tanya ZAV. (talk) 05:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have created two different versions of the submission at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/The Youth Time (YT) International Movement and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Youth Time (YT) International Movement. The one you have edited most recently is only half finished and neither are currently submitted for review. I am unsure what you are asking for? Please continue to to edit the submission at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Youth Time (YT) International Movement and when it is ready for review you may re-submit it by clicking the link in the big pink template. Pol430 talk to me 18:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Which version do I edit?

I have found a number of sources that seem independent of the article:

Triangle Business Journal on Awadalla's research relating to malaria.
Genome Web on Awadalla's research on rare genes in two French Canadians.
Science Daily on Awadalla's research on the rate of mutation in humans.
Fox News on the same mutation-rate story (in a very different style).

Yaris678 (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Philip Awadalla - I've tagged the other one for deletion as it's a copy/paste duplicate - Happysailor ^(Talk) 21:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Mobile wiki

Dear editors:

While reviewing this page: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Everest (app)

I came across the following: http://en.mobile.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everest_%28app%29

Is this part of Wikipedia? If so, is it separate and should there be an article both there and in the main encyclopedia? —Anne Delong (talk) 09:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It would appear to be a copy-paste move, if so a histmerge is needed. I'll bung the appropriate templates on it.--Laun chba ller 09:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It's the mobile version of the English Wikipedia. Don't worry about it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Maxthon Browser downloads statistics

I like to see a page like this : Maxthon downloads statistics, Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loooping8 (talk • contribs) 07:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

This page is for users involved in this project's administration. If you would like to start writing a new article, please use the Article wizard. If you have an idea for a new article, but would like to request that someone else write it, please see: Wikipedia:Requested articles. Pol430 talk to me 10:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor is coming

The WP:VisualEditor is designed to let people edit without needing to learn wikitext syntax. The articles will look (nearly) the same in the new edit "window" as when you read them (aka WYSIWYG), and changes will show up as you type them, very much like writing a document in a modern word processor. The devs currently expect to deploy the VisualEditor as the new site-wide default editing system in early July 2013.

About 2,000 editors have tried out this early test version so far, and feedback overall has been positive. Right now, the VisualEditor is available only to registered users who opt-in, and it's a bit slow and limited in features. You can do all the basic things like writing or changing sentences, creating or changing section headings, and editing simple bulleted lists. It currently can't either add or remove templates (like fact tags), ref tags, images, categories, or tables (and it will not be turned on for new users until common reference styles and citation templates are supported). These more complex features are being worked on, and the code will be updated as things are worked out. Also, right now you can only use it for articles and user pages. When it's deployed in July, the old editor will still be available and, in fact, the old edit window will be the only option for talk pages (I believe that WP:Notifications (aka Echo) is ultimately supposed to deal with talk pages).

The developers are asking editors like you to join the alpha testing for the VisualEditor. Please go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and tick the box at the end of the page, where it says "Enable VisualEditor (only in the main namespace and the User namespace)". Save the preferences, and then try fixing a few typos or copyediting a few articles by using the new "Edit" tab instead of the section [Edit] buttons or the old editing window (which will still be present and still work for you, but which will be renamed "Edit source"). Fix a typo or make some changes, and then click the 'save and review' button (at the top of the page). See what works and what doesn't. We really need people who will try this out on 10 or 15 pages and then leave a note Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback about their experiences, especially if something mission-critical isn't working and doesn't seem to be on anyone's radar.

Also, if any of you are involved in template maintenance or documentation about how to edit pages, the VisualEditor will require some extra attention. The devs want to incorporate things like citation templates directly into the editor, which means that they need to know what information goes in which fields. Obviously, the screenshots and instructions for basic editing will need to be completely updated. The old edit window is not going away, so help pages will likely need to cover both the old and the new.

If you have questions and can't find a better place to ask them, then please feel free to leave a message on my user talk page, and perhaps together we'll be able to figure it out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I tried it out a few weeks ago and wasn't impressed. It's clunky, slow, and I couldn't do anything useful with it. As a side note, I think talk pages are going to be handled by the "Flow" project, not "Echo". Technical 13 (talk) 01:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Is it worse than the thing that Wikia uses? (The thing Wikia uses is horrible) -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, Technical 13: Talk pages are being replaced by mw:Flow, not by Notifications/Echo. This may happen even sooner than the VisualEditor.

65.94, the Wikia thing has a bad reputation among power users, but I've never used it, so I don't really know how they compare. The VisualEditor here was supposed to be designed to be better than it. Of course, it's only got about half the necessary features right now, but it gets new features every week or two. For example, a while ago, we couldn't pipe links, and now that's been added. Registered users can turn it on and use it whenever they want, with the 'Edit Source' button always there when they need it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Personally, as an admin on a Wikia page, it only takes a few clicks to get rid of the editor thingy there and get the proper one up. I hope that will be the case here too. Mdann52 (talk) 10:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you will be able to get rid of it permanently in prefs (well, nobody's promising anything about what will happen 50 years from now, but you know what I mean) or bypass it on each page by clicking 'Edit source' instead of 'Edit'. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Tried it but don't like it. I think it will be great if its the default option for new editors, but I've turned it off myself. Pol430 talk to me 17:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Reviewer who can read Bosnian sources needed

The draft WT:Articles for creation/Rade Jovanović needs to be reviewed by someone who can understand the Bosnian language sources. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I have asked for help from WT:WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina#Help needed at Articles for creation -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Webbers Falls Lake

Dear Reviewers:

I was about to accept this article: Webbers Falls Lake when I noticed that the either the coordinates in the infobox were wrong, or the lake is located at the north pole. The correct coordinates are in the text in metric form, so I used a conversion program I found on line to change the coordinates and then accepted it. I haven't done this conversion before; can someone check to make sure that I did it correctly? —Anne Delong (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It was just a hair off... It is okay to use the metric form (35.5534, -95.168597 in this case). Technical 13 (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I used a conversion program, but I noticed that the template in the infobox dropped the decimal places.—Anne Delong (talk) 23:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Categorizing sandbox drafts

If I understand this edit by Technical 13 correctly, submitted sandbox drafts are no longer categorized in Category:Pending AfC submissions. Compare for example User:DocFido/sandbox. Was that deliberate? How will they get reviewed? I'm tempted to revert the edit, but I'd like a second opinion - maybe that edit does something worthwhile I simply don't see. Huon (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I've self reverted it for now. The intent was to keep the template's sandbox and test-cases out of the categorization. I'm cramming for and taking a final today, tomorrow I'll revise it to only apply the sandbox/testcase filtering in the template namespace. At the time I did it, I did not know that people were creating drafts for "Foo" in "User:Bar/sandbox" instead of "User:Bar/Foo". I'm now more aware of that but had forgotten about my filtering... Anyways, thanks for raising the issue, and like I said, it is self reverted for now until I can add the logic for it to only filter the template sandbox/testcases pages... Technical 13 (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Can I ask you a question?

Please, feel free to say yes or not. It is a simple questio, though Miss Bono (zootalk) 16:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course you can ask a question User:Miss Bono. The only stupid question is the question you don't ask - Idiomatic Proverb ;) Technical 13 (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

How can I Submit an article for being created?? Miss Bono (zootalk) 16:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

You can submit an article for review by placing {{subst:Submit}} at the top of the article page. :) Technical 13 (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

David Adam Kess

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Adam Kess— Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.155.43.114 (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to submit the article for review, please add {{subst:Submit}} to the top of the page. Also, please use the AFC Help Desk for help with submissions rather than this talk page which is mainly for reviewers. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 18:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Questions

Can anyone figure out why I can't move this submission to "XXX (film)"? Also, can we figure out a way to have it so that WikiProject stuff could be added as a parameter when creating articles, showing all the projects? I think it would be easier to do it this way with all of the ones that we have out there, and it would be more user friendly to new users at the end of the day. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Because Double_Vision_(film) redirects to Double_vision_(disambiguation), and properly so. There are already two films with this name in Wikipedia, Double Vision (1992 film) and Double Vision (2002 film). You might try moving it to Double vision (1971 film). Oh, XXX (film) also exists :) . davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I see that the second half of your question remains unanswered. Maybe it's because it's not clear exactly what stuff you mean and to what it would be added. Can you explain? —Anne Delong (talk) 12:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: WikiProjects: New users are likely unfamiliar enough with things as it is and this may prove to be more of a distraction to them and, for the cleanup efforts, to us than it's worth. It's probably better to just have reviewers use the AFCH and type in the project headers in the "put this on the talk page" field (note: I think this is only in the beta version of the script). The script (or at least the beta version) already populates WPBiography for biographies. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The "biography wizard" is already active in the normal script since a few weeks. mabdul 21:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)