Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

Second opinions please

I have just declined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Online Shopping in Nepal as WP:Synthesis. Articles entitled "Foo in Bar" need to show that there are sources that do make an actual connection between Foo and Bar. Otherwise one can simply choose any arbitrary "thing" and add any arbitrary "place" to create an article. We would end up with an indefinite stream of "Widget production/sale/use/preference/ in Anyplace" type articles. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I concur. For many "Foo in Bar" articles sources discussing that connection will exist, but I see no indication that they do here. That the draft has lots of online sources without links doesn't help, though that could be fixed. Huon (talk) 13:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

spam blacklist?

I wanted to add the reflist template to a submission, so I could see the sources. Unfortunately, one of the sources (examiner.com) is on the spam blacklist. What to do in this instance? (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/An Embarrassing Position (opera)) Thanks! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 20:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

@78.26: Yeah.... Hrm.... Looks like The Examiner has been cited for scraping other sites and then using the content as their own, and subsequently spamming it out on Wikipedia. I see 2 options: Remove the examiner link and add the Reflist template or petition at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed removals for an exemption to include the link Hasteur (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't think examiner.com is a reliable source and would advocate removal. Huon (talk) 23:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks all. The question really isn't about the reliability of examiner.com, but procedurally what to do so the reflist template can be added. Answer is simple enough, remove offending reference. Ta Da! Again, thanks. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 13:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Two articles, two different creators

Resolved

What to do about this: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Trinidad and Tobago Securities and Exchange Commission and this: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Trinidad and Tobago Securities and Exchange Commission (2)? Not the same editor. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Why not just ignore/delete the earlier draft page, the 2013 version looks better to me. Both seem to have been single purpose accounts, one in 2012 one in 2013 so could have been the same editor with different accounts. --nonsense ferret 02:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay, the older one hadn't been edited for more than six months, so I put a G13 tag on it. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Applause (song)

Can I get a second opinion on this? This is an as-yet unreleased single by Lady Gaga, which in my view would scream "notable!" from the rooftops .... when it's released. As it stands now, there is a bit of a media buzz, but I personally feel that WP:CRYSTAL applies here, and we should aim to be behind the news and gossip, reporting on it once the buzz has settled. I declined the article expressing those sentiments, advising them to just hold on until September, but they disagree and think it's notable now. What do you all think? Note that Applause (song) already exists as a redirect to Artpop per WP:NMUSIC, so that will need to be deleted per CSD G6 before we can do anything. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

It would be better if the quotes were trimmed or paraphrased, but a news.google.com search "Lady+Gaga"+Applause&hl=en&gl=us&authuser=0&gbv=1&tbm=nws shows coverage in the Daily Mail, Elle, NME, another MTV article, etc.:
Isn't that sufficient for WP:GNG? —rybec 02:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that Lady Gaga is a very shrewd and prolific social media diva. I'd even say we need to generate a special Rule for things like this to the effect of "Subjects that are extremely proficent with manipulating social and traditional media may have percieved notability about their next big thing, however until such time that the thing actually materializes and unbiased reliable sources are present, no article should be created soley on the basis of hype and social media priming." Hasteur (talk) 03:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
A further problem is that while there is lots of news coverage, it's all talking about the same thing - the forthcoming cover artwork. I still think we're better off holding fire for the minute. If it enters the charts, I'll pass it myself, submitted or not. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I would approve it (because it's something people will be searching for more information on) and mark it as Future-Class, meaning that it's "a topic where details are subject to change often. The article covers a future topic of which no broadcasted version exists so far and all information is subject to change when new information arises from reliable sources. With multiple reliable sources there might be information that contradicts other information in the same or other articles.", [ 1 ]. theonesean 17:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

G13 Userbox / backlog drive

I created a userbox for all of you that are interested in working on the G13 eligible draft backlog: {{User:Technical 13/Userboxes/G13|user= (name)}}
Doing so will look something like below, only "This user" will be your username if in your userspace. :)

1This user is
evaluating CSD:G13
eligible AfC drafts		25

This userbox shows how many drafts are G13 eligible on the left side (1 currently but expected to increase to nearly 75K once fully through the job queue) and how many drafts are awaiting deletion as G13 on the right (0). So, this userbox is great for users that want to try and reduce the backlog and save some of the G13 eligible drafts and even more useful for administrators to see how many drafts have been nominated and how many more are on deck to possibly be nominated (strictly on the no edits in six months basis). I personally am reviewing each draft I look at and if it "might" be possible to save it, I'm simply cleaning the submission with the AFCH gadget and giving it another six month reprieve. If there is no way it is savable, it is G11 or G12, or it appears to have found another way into main article space, only then am I nominating for G13 (and sometimes tagging as multiple criteria where applicable). I hope others can find this userbox as helpful as I do and help save some of these drafts from deletion! Technical 13 (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I copied the box to my user page, and the number on the right changed to a 6. (These are the ones I just nominated a few minutes ago). Is the box above live, or is it just for show? Is the category it leads to sorted by date? The reason I ask is that I spend a lot more time at this page than I do at my user page. It would be nice to be reminded each time I end up here to check a few more. Also, there are a lot of orphaned submissions at Category:AfC submissions with missing AfC template and I have been contacting the users of any that look useful and asking if they intended to submit, or replacing the templates on ones that have been previously declined. Some of these are over 6 months stale and if they don't have useful content I am tagging them with G13, but since a bot has recently tagged them all they will not be picked up automatically as over 6 months. It would be nice to have a similar box for these, since the people who create these articles may not know how to submit. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
(Okay, one of my questions was answered- I guess the box is live but with a time delay)—Anne Delong (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey there Anne Delong, this userbox is dynamic (live). I currently have the "backlog" level set to 150 on both sides. What this means is that if either number reaches 150, it turns red. When the numbers are < 150 they are green. There should be very little delay in updating of the number on the right (although it may seem like it because there may be other editors or administrators working on it at the same time as you making the number fluctuate differently than you may expect). The goal is to try and keep the number on the right green at all times, while reducing the number on the left trying to get it down to a level where it turns green. I'm very willing to change the "backlog" levels (I was thinking 1,000 on the left and 100 on the right at some point perhaps?). The numbers are links to the respective categories and the Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions is sorted by number of weeks since the start of 2000 so the oldest ones are at the top of the category. Anyways. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 12:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I am confused about the number on the left. What does it currently represent? There are many thousands of actual submissions in the backlog; which ones are these? Also, about the number on the right being live: I had put a G13 tag on six articles (I don't know if they were from your selection on the left since I don't know which ones you are including) About 20 minutes later I saw your box, which said one. I went back and checked and the six had not yet been deleted. I checked the box again, refreshed the page and it still said one. Then I left a message asking if it was live, and when my message appeared the box now said 6. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
@Anne Delong:The number on the Left represents the count of G13 eligible articles as defined by membership in Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions which is added from the Declined AfC template where the decline date and the last modification date of the page is over "6 months". The Richt hand side of the box reperestents the count G13 nominations as defined by membership in Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions. Hasteur (talk) 14:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I must be dense today. I thought there were over 70,000 declined articles. Does this mean that the rest of them have been edited more recently than six months? —Anne Delong (talk) 16:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: A disadvantage of the way templates and categories work in our system is that when we update a deep level template, the changes may not populated up to pages that call in the template (i.e. the change to the Declined template doesn't apply computations and transclude the G13 candidates category in). Untill a WP:NULLEDIT is performed the page may not show up in all the categories. Part of the HasteurBot 2 task is to perform a null edit so that the template will re-compute and get the age calculations in so that it'll auto-magically add the category once it is valid in the future. Hasteur (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I know that I am being a pest, but now I would like to know where the 2000 or so current entries come from. Is the Hasteurbot 2 active now and going through the backlog? Or have these been identified in some other way? —Anne Delong (talk) 16:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
@Anne Delong: HasteurBot is not yet flagged nor approved so it's hands are tied by the bot rules, though I wouldn't be opposed to people poking the "active" BAG members with a sharp stick on my behalf. There are other bots out there that do null edits but mine is specifically to give a flying-kick to all the 180 days stale pages that are in the Category:AfC submissions by date categorization tree that start with the pattern "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/".I would not be suprised if other editors were also traversing records to give the same kick to the templates (or the global update pass is finally getting to these). And you're not being a pest, you're asking questions to gain knowledge. Gaining knowledge is never a bad thing.Hasteur (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I have been checking and either deleting or making a small edit to some of these old drafts, a few at a time, but I have been using CatScan to find them. As long as there are 2000 or so that have already been identified, though, there is probably no big rush to get the bot that identifies them active, since we have plenty to work on for the next little while. You will probably get more people to work on this after today, when the Afc backlog drive is over. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
BAG has gone incognito lately; I've got an open request from 2013-07-14 that's never been edited by BAG. They need more active members :/ Theopolisme (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Anne Delong, to answer your question about where the ~2k currently displaying came from, there is a thing called the job queue that will eventually find and populate the category with the entire 70-80k expected G13 eligible drafts. Job queue is very slow though, it could take it a couple months to find them all without a bot null editing them. Technical 13 (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Technical 13; can you tell me in what order the 2000 or so submissions in the list are sorted? Is it by date of last edit? date of creation? oldest to newest? —Anne Delong (talk) 01:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
      • I would be happy to Anne Delong. The code that I had added to the /declined template to add the category to the pages and sort them was:
{{#ifexpr: {{#time: U | {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} +6 months }} < {{#time: U}}| }}
      • Which says, if the current time is the time of the last revision +6 months, then add the draft to Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions and use {{padleft:{{#expr:(({{#time:y|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}}}*12)+{{REVISIONMONTH1}})}}|3|0}} to sort it which in turns says force a three digit number (padleft:) that is equal to the two digit year of the last edit (#time:y for last revision) times twelve months plus the number of month of the revision). The goal is, if the page was last edited in February of 2009 for example to figure out how many months since 1-1-2000 elapsed since the last edit, in that example it would be 9 years + 2 months = 110 months. For a draft last edited in August of 2011, it would be 11 years + 8 months = 140. So, what this does is put the oldest drafts at the beginning of the category and the newest at the end. I hope this isn't too technical or there is enough that you can pull out what you need easily. Technical 13 (talk) 01:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again. It's not too technical. Although I am not a Javascript programmer, I have had considerable experience with other languages and programming logic doesn't throw me. However, oldest at the beginning, newest at the end is what I needed to know. I will direct my efforts accordingly. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Will Espero

Resolved

Script isn't working with this submission. I click on decline and nothing happens. The button "presses" and everything... Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I had the same problem this evening and couldn't accept or decline anything. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
This is being investigated. For now, you can use the beta script (follow the instructions in the above section). Theopolisme (talk) 03:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you; it seems to be working now. —Anne Delong (talk) 06:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Blatant advertising

In the Afc I usually like to give article creators an opportunity to make their articles less promotional, but this is the worst case I've ever seen. This user has set up a whole web ad page, and then just not submitted it. I've marked it for deletion. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Adventurecraft. Another reason for clearing out the submissions. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm - now that the offending page is gone, this posting is useless. Should I delete it? What is the policy about postings on talkpages? Are they all kept? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Promotion is not acceptable anywhere; G11 applies throughout WP, though we are just a little more tolerant on talk pages and AfCs than articles, because it is still fixable. There's no need to move such pages to afc first--all that's needed is a G11 tag. I've deleted many dozens of them. Best practice is to add an explanation, if you think it won't be obvious; but this one was obvious: it was the first page of their wiki. ditto for copyvio--there's no reason to move to G11--just put a G12 tag on it wherever you find it. There are a few things at WP that have very simple and very quick processes, DGG ( talk ) 16:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, DGG, my question was not about the article, which is gone, but about postings like this that no longer make any sense once the item that the posting was about is gone. Should I just remove the whole thread? Too late now, but when it had no other postings but mine, and was no longer useful, should I have just deleted it? Is that ever done? —Anne Delong (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
eventually they get archived. We need a record of what was done in the past, and that includes what questions were asked. We do not normally remove postings from WP talk pages or article talk pages. DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Musica Orbis

I'd like a second opinion about my decline reason and comment on this submission:Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Musica Orbis, since I haven't been able to find a Wikipedia policy specifically about quoting reviews as opposed to citing them. I am also surprised that my comment did not come out right under the decline box, but further down where it may be less likely to be read. Should I just manually move it? —Anne Delong (talk) 12:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Anne, it's a weird article, to say the least. I agree that the lengthy blockquotes of reviews are promotional, and should be checked for WP:UNDUE, but this is one of those cases that doesn't really have a distinct policy. I agree with your decline. If you haven't already, I would invite the author to the Teahouse. I'm sure they'd be willing to help out with that. theonesean 15:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I had done that, but it was a good suggestion; sometimes I forget. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
the normal practice on handling reviews is to include a single representative sentence in the reference to it. Sometimes people put such a sentence in the text, which is a little more obtrusive but considered acceptable. The best use of such quotations is to document an artist being in a particular genre.
Note that the 30 illustrations showing all 30 pages of a booklet they produced does not belong here, and must be removed. Whether commons accepts it, is up to them. We often include the cover a publication in an article about the publication, but not in a bio, unless the work is exceptionally famous, even if it has a free license. DGG ( talk ) 16:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I have left a message for the editor, who is a member of the band and the creator of all of the graphic material, suggesting moving it to a web page or facebook page and adding an external link at the bottom of the article. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Magnus L. Kpakol

FYI

Just a heads up - I have declined this article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Magnus L. Kpakol, as promotional, but it will probably be submitted again. It appears to be a copyright violation of a Dpedia article, but in fact the text was originally copied into Dpedia from a Wikipedia article which has since been deleted, and since this text was freely available, there is no violation to the best of my knowledge. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Articles not in English

Dear reviewers: What happens to the articles that are declined as not in English? Does someone try to translated them or move them to the appropriate language encyclopedia? I have been going through the articles with no templates, and found this one: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alexis Ríos Rovira. It's too new to G13, has never been submitted (although created in Afc space), and is probably an advertisement. Is there someone to whom I should refer it? —Anne Delong (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Seeing as how it's just a resume, I don't think it could just be speedied as promotional rather than inflicting it on whichever other language we guess that it might be in (Spanish, I would guess). Or I suppose it could be handed over to WP:MFD. Mangoe (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately the "Not English" CSD is only in article space. I agree probably could be speedied under G11, or G13 (once it became available), but because there's enough oddities about it I agree making it the poster child for a "Non-Articlespace CSD:A2" rationalle in the future. Hasteur (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I've sent it to MFD for now since that's how it appears we have been handling this sort of AFC issue. Mangoe (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I see this as a classic example for the argument for the creation of a proper namespsce for AfC submissions so that all appropriate CSD criteria can be used on them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
A "drafts" namespace would enable us to solve many of the problems we're being piloried for in various places. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
For WP:BLP/privacy reasons, I courtesy-blanked the page, keeping the MFD template and the "no afc template" category and adding a custom courtesy-blank message. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
MFD is appropriate in this case. For relatively recent non-IP contributions that weren't obviously going to be quickly translated into English, I would summarily WP:userfy the page, notify the author on his talk page that I'd moved the page and, if it were not okay content for user-space, would nominated it for deletion at MFD in a few weeks, and if he had email turned on, email the author. A few weeks later I would nominate it for deletion if necessary. Before doing any of this I'd run it through a translator and search engine to make sure it wasn't an attack page, copyvio, or other speedy-eligible page. If it was G13-eligible and not otherwise speediable and not otherwise worth keeping, I'd G13 it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

No sources

Resolved

Dear editors: This article: Songs of Redemption has just been pasted from Afc into the main encyclopedia without even the few unreliable sources that the original had. Would it be appropriate for me to nominate it for deletion based on lack of sources? —Anne Delong (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it's gone!—Anne Delong (talk) 03:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Update to the latest version of the Articles for creation helper script

Hello everyone! We've released a new stable version of the Articles for creation helper script, which can be installed by going to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets and enabling "Yet Another AfC Helper Script." The changes for this release are printed below:

This new build includes a functional redirect review script, jQuery integration, access keys, revamped CSD/blanking, deletion log wikilink support, a brand new submit button, and a bucket full of bugfixes.

This update is recommended for all users (except for those running the beta version, which is already up to date). Please let us know if anything doesn't work as expected! Theopolisme (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

@Theopolisme:How do we use the redirect logic? I want to exercise it! Hasteur (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Redirect reviewing is for WP:AfC/R; just click the review link, which is in the same place as it is for article submissions. Cheers, Theopolisme (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
That explains why it suddenly stopped working on IE9! I guess I'll have to try the beta again. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Stopped working? The beta or the main script? Theopolisme (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Main script no longer works on IE9, but the Beta does so I just switched over. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
The main script and the beta script should both work, since they both have the fix installed. Did you try bypassing your cache? Theopolisme (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes I cleared my cache several times, but don't worry, the beta is fine. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I was trying to review submissions, and then it stopped working...I had to review manually until I saw Dodger67's contributions commenting on this! Thanks for the update, and hopefully the Wikipedia Preferences stable version gets fixed. For now, I'm using the beta, and it is now working normally, but sure it feels a bit different with the newest version of the beta script! --みんな空の下 (トーク) 22:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I unfortunately don't have access to a Windows machine, so I'm unable to test the issue. Mabdul, another developer, has access to IE, so I'll ask him to take a look as soon as possible. This is definitely rather odd; thanks for bearing with us! Theopolisme (talk) 00:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I have isolated the issue and written a fix for it; I'm waiting for a sysop to push it to the gadget file. Theopolisme (talk) 01:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
@Minna Sora no Shita, Dodger67, and Anne Delong: Please try using the main gadget now; the issue should be resolved. You'll need to bypass your caches first, of course. :) Let me know how it goes, and thanks for the diligent error reporting! Theopolisme (talk) 04:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

New beta script

At the same time as the release of the new stable build, we've also released a new version of the AFCH beta script:

This new build enables Files for upload reviewing—now you can review requests inline at Files for upload; just click the [Review request] link next to a section. Additionally, you can now tag article submissions for speedy deletion under {{db-g13}} with one click, and the decline rationales have been reorganized. More bugfixes, too!

The beta script can be installed by following the instructions here. Theopolisme (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

@Theopolisme: I struck the redirectcheck for the TeaHouse invitations: that is still on the todo list (check source code, code is still uncommented, would be nice if we can together regarding that issue in the next days). What is working: if a page is moved/redirected, the notification will be placed to the redirected page - but the teahouse invitation will not check for another invitation. mabdul 05:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. We can continue this on github. Theopolisme (talk) 05:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Where is the right place for user feedback about the beta? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
We'll read it just about anywhere, but the preferred destination is Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Helper_script/Development_page—I'll try to make that more prominent. Theopolisme (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Still no go

The gadget is non-functional again, but this time I can't even see the review option above. Is something happening? Cache? Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I had the problem earlier and fixed it with a refresh on the page, but I don't know if that will work for you. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I ended up disabling the gadget and using the beta. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The gadget and the beta are both working for me on Mac OS 10.8 using Safari. FoCuSandLeArN, you could try bypassing your cache and enabling the gadget and then, if the problem persists, tell me what browser you're using? Theopolisme (talk) 00:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I hate bypassing the cache, because my form information's deleted and I'm lazy to input everything again. Thanks for the help! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Reviewers

Sorry to keep harping on the same old, same old, but is this with such a low edit count really logical? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

A user with only 7 articles ever edited? Throw away boldly, of course. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I've revoked this user's membership again (I've done it before). I see that the user has moved their previous caution off their talk page. I've delivered a flat out warning of what will happen if they repeat this WP:IDHT behavior. Thank you Kudpung for noticing the problem. I think this is now resolved. Hasteur (talk) 13:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Hasteur for reminding. First of all, I have not removed any caution from my talk page, they are still in my archive. Secondly, I am sorry for the confusion. In your earlier message, you cautioned me, and since then I have not contributed to any review. I respect all wiki policies and will work under that. I was not aware that my name has been removed from the list due to this reason. Now as clear, I will act accordingly. Sorry for all the confusion again. and I have removed all the archive and put all that back on my talk page so as to remove confusion again. Sorry for all this trouble. Logical1004 (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
@Logical1004: Help:Archiving a talk page provides a good set of advice. For example: I have a 31.25 day timeout on auto archiving threads off my talk page. Doing it like that and not bulk removing a lot of threads makes it seem less like you're trying to hide something. Hasteur (talk) 14:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Hasteur for the info and for helping regarding all this. I will keep this in mind. Logical1004 (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Different wikipedia-articles with common name

I was writing an article on a documentary film Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/War and Peace, but there is another article on a novel War and Peace by Tolstoy. Is it possible to create both articles with same name? If not, is it possible to change the name of the article like War and Peace (Documentary), as I am unable to do the same. Logical1004 (talk) 09:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cheese

I didn't find any CV with this, but it's incredibly long and I wasn't clear whether the editor was writing about Cheese or related issues that aren't in the existing Cheese articles. Rankersbo (talk) 11:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Most of it is copied from List of cheeses, perhaps we should redirect the draft writer there, however the complete lack of sources and the very poor/nonexitent formatting in the draft are not a good signs. The editor is quite likely to only degrade/damage the existing article rather than improve it. (I fixed the link in the heading) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Was not submitting an article.

I got a message saying that I had to place {{AFC submission}} on the top of the page and then save the page but I didn't want to submit it for review. I was just editing some stuff here at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Banjir. Is this supposed to happen? 75.62.130.234 (talk) 20:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Your editing is similar to test editing. Please feel free to do editing tests in Wikipedia:Sandbox, but having it in AfC space indicates that you're working to eventually submitting it and having it live in the main space of Wikipedia. Hasteur (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Entry on a disambiguation page

Resolved

Dear editors: When I accepted a page about a person named Jeff Ellis, I had to make a disambiguation page Jeff Ellis (disambiguation) because there are other articles about people named Jeff Ellis. Now someone has added another item about a Jeff Ellis who is a bow maker, and used this article Donald Hazelwood as a link. When I follow the link I do find a quite promotional sentence about Jeff Ellis, with a link to his web site. The promotional sentence and link were part of the original article in 2010. Now I feel that both the entry on the disambiguation page and the also the promotional language on the Hazelwood article should be removed. It is my understanding that an entry on a disambiguation page has to have either a link to its own article, or a link to an article with substantial information with reliable sources. Is this correct? —Anne Delong (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Your understanding is entirely correct. I've removed both the disambiguation page entry and the line in the Hazelwood article. Huon (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you again, Huon. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Script spelling

  • "Does the article needs a photo / image?"
  • "Does the article needs an infobox?"


should be corrected. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, will fix this momentarily and it will be live in the beta script in a few days. Theopolisme (talk) 01:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Drafts namespace

There's been passing discussion of developing a Draft namespace for AfC submissions. I'd just like to formalize this, and ping two WMF employees, the eternally helpful Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk · contribs) and a MW software engineer, Aaron Schulz (talk · contribs), to comment about the technical aspects of this. My take: it would simplify the currently convoluted system of having AfC submission as a "Talk" page, allow further, in depth discussion of draft articles, and generally streamline submitting articles. Thoughts? theonesean 18:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Pro ------- It would get new users used to posting on the article's talk page.
  • Con --------Many of them would miss seeing the comments because they wouldn't see the talk page.
    • Yes, but some (I don't have any specific numbers, but I've encountered quite a few) articles are created in the Wikipedia (not the Wikipedia talk) namespace incorrectly because editors don't know why it's on the talk page. Frankly, neither do I. It seems rather arbitrary. theonesean
  • Con ------- It would take reviewers longer because they would have to be switching between two pages.
    • The AFCH script could edit both pages at once without need to switch for commenting. Pinging Mabdul (talk · contribs), to ask about the technical aspect of changing the AFCH script to a new namespace and moving comments to separate talk pages. theonesean
  • Question -- Right now, all of the re-creation comments go away when the article is moved. Would this still happen?
    • I would hope they would be moved from the draft's talk page to the new page's talk page. theonesean
  • Question -- Can the pages be protected somehow from search engines? —Anne Delong (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear Theonesean: Thanks for your kind words and thoughtful suggestion. We discussed reviving the Draft project at our last product retreat, and expect that this initiative may be impacted by Flow, our new initiative to improve discussions on Wikipedia. I do not expect to be directly involved in either project, as I am joining the new Multimedia team, but would encourage you to follow up with Maryana Pinchuk for Flow after Wikimania. Aaron Schultz should be back from vacation next week, and can also comment from his perspective. Personally, I would love to have a safe space where I can save my drafts before I am ready to 'publish' them widely, so I will be cheering from the sidelines for anything that helps accomplish that goal. Thanks again for this good recommendation! Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Before we move to a new neighborhood (which is what the Drafts is), I think we need to make sure there's a migration plan for the tools, bots, policies, rationales, CSDs, Categories, templates, etc. Some of these I know are slower than molassas to get through, others are like quicksilver. Hasteur (talk) 19:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
You make an extremely good point. If indeed this becomes a "thing", so to speak, there will need to be a comprehensive plan for migration. theonesean 19:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
@Theonesean "because editors don't know why it's on the talk page. Frankly, neither do I. It seems rather arbitrary." - technical restrictions so that IPs can also create submissions. mabdul 06:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
This new namespace will need to allow unregistered users to create pages in it, which is currently impossible in MediaWiki (afaik). See related bugzilla:16642 which MSGJ and I participated in four years ago. — Earwig talk 03:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
"currently impossible" - they separated "talk" pages from "main" pages, they can separate out "draft" pages too with createdraftpage or similar. Whether or not they *will* do that is another story. ~Charmlet -talk- 15:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Beta script issue

Resolved

When reviewing this submission, the only options available are "comment" and "clean up submission". FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know; I'm working on a fix now. Sorry for the inconvenience, Theopolisme (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I've coded a fix for this (tl;dr, the script was only looking at the first submission template on the page); it will be pushed out to the beta script tomorrow. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
It's also happening here, but I'm assuming it's the exact same issue. Thanks for that! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
You are correct; I just verified that my fix will handle that scenario correctly. I'm waiting for a sysop to update the gadget code on-wiki, and will ping you when that's done. Theopolisme (talk) 01:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
@FoCuSandLeArN:  Done The beta script has been updated, and after bypassing your cache (I'm sorry in advance about your form data), the fix should take effect. Keep the feedback coming, Theopolisme (talk) 05:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

References to commercial book sellers

Dear reviewers: I was reviewing some reviews from the backlog drive, and I came to one in which the reviewer had declined an article because one of the source citations was to a book, and in the citation the URL given was to the book's page on Amazon, a commercial bookseller. Now, this link wasn't in the body of the article, only in the generated reference list at the bottom. The book wasn't written by the subject, but had some information about the subject person in it. I changed it to a link to the Google book page, which was more helpful because it had a preview.

My question is, was this a valid reason to decline? Certainly it might promote this book, which in turn might promote the subject, but that would be third hand promotion, and I'm not too sure we can keep that out. I am inclined to think that this should have been let go, but I wouldn't mind another opinion. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the decline (at least with respect to the reference) is because there was no specific page and was giving a very bland linkage. If the book was available at google books and you could deep link to the specific thing that was being cited then do it that way. If the page was known, but not available online a {{cite-book}} could be used and page plugged in so that one of the fact checkers could go to a library that had the book and verify the assertion. Hasteur (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Was the information on the Amazon page sufficient to back up the claim in the article? If not, then it should be replaced with {{cite book}}. Was the information on the Amazon page which backed up the claim "unreliable," such as a random-reader-written review or a COI-review written by the publisher? If so, it's not a good source. The best case would be if the page number were given AND the Amazon page included a preview of that page, much like Google Books sometimes does. The second-best case would be if the Amazon page included a snippet quote that backed up the Wikipedia submission. As to your original question, is the fact that it is an Amazon page in and of itself grounds to decline or treat the reference as if it didn't exist? Generally not. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for yor replies. I replaced the Amazon reference with a better one from Google books, which has a preview. I wanted to know whether the decline reason was valid, and from your comments I have decided that it wasn't. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
If the cite includes the ISBN it automagically links to a npov resource page instead of having to include an external link with a potential coi. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Watchlist

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Watchlist, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Watchlist and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Watchlist during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. mabdul 23:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

    • Also not aware of it until now - the last edit before it was nominated was in November 2011! All its content (or rather the useful bits thereof) can be accomodated in a section on the main project page. It looks like its purpose is to be a "site map" or index of sub-pages. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Articles in Afc space which have never had a submit template

Dear editors: ArticlesForCreationBot has now found over 800 articles in Afc space which don\t have a submit template. (Here's the category: Category:AfC submissions with missing AfC template.) Some, like this one,Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/AECYR, have never had one. This means 800 editors whose articles are stuck in the system! I have been going though some of them, re-adding decline templates where I see that they have been deleted, marking copyvios for deletion, etc. What should be done with the ones that were never submitted? —Anne Delong (talk) 07:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually Petrb (the bot operator) found ~1600 pages, but I said to him, that pushing only ~100 a day to that cat as it is enough for us to check them.
I think, ones which have never submitted actually should be submitted and then (mostly) get a direct decline... mabdul 10:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
If they've never been submitted, then after the six months' grace period, remind them about the article, and if there's no response, send it to G13. I disagree totally with auto-submitting and declining - what a nice slap in the face that will be for somebody who doesn't use Wikipedia as much as we regulars. They might have just forgotten they wrote it in the first place, since the article names are not obviously guessable. Having said that, this one should simply go, it looks like it was already speedied once. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
'CSDing the one who would get CSD as G11, G12, and so on is completely valid. I mean the "not so clear" ones and the ones which might be accepted. So which actually need a real review should get submitted. Some persons (actually new at Wikipedia) simply don't know what they have done in removing the submit code. After that the possible decline, 6months later they will get deleted through... So it is mostly only a matter of time. mabdul 11:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I asked for a feature in the AFCH tool to pro-forma submit (with the last non-bot editor and timestamp) the unsubmitted content so that
  1. If there does appear to be some content, try and get it saved
  2. We now have a decline template and timestamp on the article which gives it a 6 month extension on before it shows up in Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions as double confirmed abandoned.
Yes it does mean our space will have more, but by traversing the "afc submissions with missing afc template" it encourages us to clean out our house. Hasteur (talk) 12:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Currently Petrb (petan on IRC) is away for a couple weeks, so getting some input from him will have to wait. I've gone through the mis-placed drafts and no template drafts a few times and done some clearing. If there is no AfC template at all, I do one of three things:
    1. Tag it with {{subst:AFC draft|creator name}}
    2. Tag it with {{subst:submit}}
    3. Do nothing to it but check in with the creator to see what their status on it is.
  • I don't see any reason to not have the bot at very least {{subst:AFC draft|creator name}} the draft if it is being worked on (activity within the last six months), {{subst:submit}} it if it has gone stale and hasn't been touched in six months or more, and poke the creator either way with a friendly little message that the draft is still waiting for them but time may be limited. Either way, I don't think we should be G13ing Any draft that hasn't been properly declined.
  • Addendum post (edit conflict)... I don't think that drafts that are currently being worked on should be auto-submitted on the editor if there is no template. Simple mark it as a draft. Technical 13 (talk) 12:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • There are various reasons why these articles don't have a template:
  • The creator accidentally deleted it when they first created the page - These people need to be detected somehow and contacted, because they may believe that they have submitted their articles and wondering what happened.
  • The article was declined, and the decline template was subsequently removed. Putting it back is likely the right thing to do.
  • The creator has no intention of submitting, and has created an article which would never be acceptable, and is now being picked up by mirror sites and then by search engines - advertising, copyvio, attack or hoax pages, etc. - these need to be detected and removed, not six months later. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Anne, I agree with you on the first two points. The third point, less so. Regardless of their intent to submit, and although Wikipedia has no time limit, drafts in AFC kind of do. These drafts need to go through the proper process of submission, declination, and tagging for deletion six months later unless it qualifies to be deleted immediately under one of the other CSD criterion (G12 for copyvio for example). All drafts need "some" AfC template, at which point they will be tagged as __NOINDEX__ and the only mirrors or search engines that would be picking them up would be doing so "against the rules" so to speak. I encourage you to nominate any draft that qualifies as a copyvio or attack/hoax under the appropriate CSD. Technical 13 (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure where your disagreement lies- do you think that a template should be added first, then the page nominated for deletion, rather than nominating them right away? My point is that having a bot stick a tag on them and then leaving them for six months without a person checking them would not be appropriate for items that qualify for speedy deletion, and that there is no way of finding out which these are except by looking at them. I have been trying to check them, but there are too many for one person. Also, as far as I can see, at any one time there is always at least one "against the rules" copy of every Afc draft article; for example, this and this. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

So many old submissions to go through - can they delete their own?

Dear reviewers: There are so many old submissions, and more being created every day. One problem is that the new users do not know how to delete articles that they have decided not to finish for one reason or another. Would it be possible, and would it be a good idea, for the decline script to have an option for the reviewer to include in the user's talk page decline message instructions on how to request deletion of the page? It could be used for obviously non-notable, article exists, blank, etc. and would save one of us checking it later. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Why would a editor who is making an effort to create an article here (including the investment in time) want to delete it? If I had to guess I'd say that the editors who actively decide to remove their submission would be 1% of those who come back after the initial burst of editing (which is 1% of the editors using the space) Hasteur (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I disagree - I think some of those who decide not to continue would clean up after themselves if they had a choice at the time of declining, especially if they realized that their subject couldn't meet notability. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Anne, the reviewer script and template used on user talk pages most certainly could be modified to say that and offer that option; however, I do not personally think it would be worth the time and effort for the very low number of creators that would use it appropriately. Also, I'm in the process of drafting up a proposal in a months time or so, which I will post a link to here, to merge WP:RA into WP:AFC. If that proposal goes through, it would be even less likely that such a thing would be useful. I encourage everyone to gather any questions they may have about this upcoming proposal, but hold them until the actual proposal is ready. Thanks. :) Technical 13 (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ahmad mousa shaweesh

What should be done about the above article? On the user's talk page it says that a page of this name was deleted. This is probably a cut and paste, but since the other article is gone, I can't tell. It was never submitted. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

First-Time Review

Hi, I am a first-time reviewer looking at a submission titled Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jahnna N. Malcolm. Based on my review of changes made since the last draft I am inclined to accept the article, but I am still slightly uncertain and would appreciate a second opinion. I am also having difficulty moving the page into the mainspace. The review tool says I do not have permission. Any help would be appreciated. BryonDavis (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

You're really much too young to know the policies and guidelines for promoting a new submission to mainspace. You don't even have autoconfirmed yet. It would be best to not make final decisions, but at first glance I see a broad swath of text that has zero citations on it. I would probably decline the submission at this time to either force more references for the unreferenced sections or remove the sections entirely. Also, you may want to remove yourself from the AfC reviewers list for the time being. Hasteur (talk) 22:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at the article in question. I am always willing to learn and want to try to help as best I can. "BryonDavis (talk) 23:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)"

Hello, BryonDavis, it's great to have a new editor to help with the encyclopedia. There is so much to do! Reviewing, though, is usually done by experienced editors who've worked on hundreds of articles. If you want to help out with reviewing Arc articles in the future when you have more experience, a good way to start out is to find a topic that doesn't have an article, and go through the process yourself using the Wikipedia:Article wizard. If you can't think of a topic, check out Wikipedia:Requested articles. Good luck! —Anne Delong (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

"Exists"

Resolved

Why was this removed as a decline criterion in the new beta? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 12:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

To encourage reviewers to go ahead and convert the submission to a redirect rather than let the submission linger for 6 months? Hasteur (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I highly doubt that is the reason as there have been many discussions here about the redirects being cleaned out after a certain period of time. It is more likely that one of the script developers (Theopolisme—Mabdul—APerson) that have been actively coding on the script accidentally removed it trying to improve the script and (c|w|sh)ould put it back without much discussion. Technical 13 (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
UUUUPS... That was accidentally me (https://github.com/WPAFC/afch/commit/898d796591a86d8e0d45c1b082c37c3ff6d7d51d#src/submissions.js) - some major differences between the actual github and my local versions and thus getting some problems. I thought I found all "problems" when pushing my changes to github... mabdul 14:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Reviewers should not change titles

The reviewer added (author) to my article's title, and that was not the subject's primary career. I understand that he did this to differentiate it from two other entries whose name is the same as my subject, but choosing to identify him as an author was not appropriate. I decided to change the title by adding the subject's middle initial and then created a new page for him. It would have been better for the reviewer to message me with options.

I do appreciate all the help editors have given me! Margaretwmiller (talk) 14:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello User:Margaretwmiller: Since there's a disambiguation page for Harry Middleton, the title had to be modified. Since the person authored four books, this seemed like a reasonable fit that wouldn't be overly long (instead of say, "Harry Middleton - presidential speech writer and staff assistant"). I appreciate your eye for accuracy, and adding in the person's middle initial, titling the article "Harry J. Middleton", works just fine. Regarding messaging, conversely, you could have messaged me about this matter on my talk page, which I encourage. Thanks for helping to improve Wikipedia's coverage of biographical topics. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Margaretwmiller--The middle initial is a fine way of dealing with that.
One note, though: you'll find that usual practice around here (not just at AfC, but Wikipedia in general) is "Bold, Revert, Discuss", WP:BRD. Editors make changes they think improve things, if they're generally considered a good idea, they get made very quickly, if there's a problem, discussion happens more quickly. This may seem, at first blush, a bit blunt, but it's our general editorial process, and one that avoids issues of ownership of articles as well. So don't be alarmed if changes happen to the article going forward that you don't agree with--I pretty much can guarantee that that will happen at some point down the road, it always does--just understand it's part of the process of being on a Wiki. Cheers, --j⚛e deckertalk 16:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

About Epicreetard

Epicreetard AKA Isheanesu (elvis) Sosera is a 13 year singer he started singing after bieng inspired by lilwayne,lilchuckee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.169.146.167 (talk) 04:34, 7 August 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. theonesean 06:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Submissions not in English

Dear reviewers: What happens to submissions which are not in English? Are they sent away to another Wikipedia? and by the way, does anyone know what language this is? Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/kali pertama. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

According to Google Translate that's Indonesian, and it sounds like a non-notable autobiography, written as a first-person narrative. Huon (talk) 07:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I will "prod" it. (my first one, so somebody tell me if this is not appropriate.) —Anne Delong (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
The "Proposed deletion" template give a warning only to use it on articles; will it still work in Afc? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Prod is not the appropriate way. This is just a regular decline situation, decline for non notable biography and not English. It only has to be deleted in a hurry if it is harmful. Otherwise it can be a learning experience. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, then I am back to my original question. There seems little point in keeping this article in the Afc, since it has zero chance of being accepted. What should be done with it? It has not been edited since being declined. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
This relates to an issue I raised some time ago - we need a "permanent decline" mechanism - currently only jokes, hoaxes, patent nonsense, attack pages, blatant spam and copyvios can be declined and deleted. The decline templates for all other decline reasons contain language encouraging the submitter to improve the draft and then resubmit - but we need one that tells them "this will never be an acceptable article, don't continue working on it, don't resubmit it". In general some of the Speedy rationales that are currently limited to mainspace articles, could be extended to drafts too. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Not being in English is not a permanent reason to decline, as it could be translated to English, or occasionally used in another language Wikipedia. For example the ru Wikipedia also has an afc mechanism, and sometimes offer us English language articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
OK, but what about the general question of what to do about drafts that will never be acceptable even though they are not eligible for Speedy? Are we forced to wait for G13? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Change to Template:AFC submission/draft

FYI

After our great success with adding the Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions to the Template:AFC submission/declined I have added the same refined logic to the draft template as by technicality, these submissions are also eligible for G13. Please let me know if you have questions. I'm just giddy because these will also show up in the category. Hasteur (talk) 23:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually the magic sentence was removed in that edit by Nathan2055. (the original idea was, that a bot CSD or even deleted unsubmitted drafts after a amount of time which wasn't ever completely discussed nor implemented into a bot) mabdul 05:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
@Mabdul: Actually, drafts are eligible per Wikipedia:G13#G13 Rejected or unsubmitted Articles for creation pages that have not been edited in over six months. This criterion applies to both rejected AfC pages and unsubmitted AfC pages. So Drafts are de jure eligible for G13 if they've not been edited in a long time. The nudging/nominating process for G13 for drafts has been integrated into the HasteurBot tasks. Obviously if there's no draft template on the page we won't have the Category:AfC submissions by date (or one of it's children) to help organize the submission by date. Thats why I'm crawling the "AFC submissions without a template" category to get those resolved as well. Hasteur (talk) 11:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
There is a difference between the stale declined drafts and the stale unsubmitted drafts: The editors may have believed that they submitted them and not known why nothing happened, whereas the declined drafts have at least seen what the templates should look like and seen the messages telling them where to get help. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
You don't want people working the backlog to pro-forma submit the pages missing a header (from above) and you don't want ones that only have a "draft" template to be added to the hierarchy by date either. I'm sorry if this seems counter productive as you can't have it both ways. Either we need to only put all of the members of the "AfC namespace pages without a template" category through a submit or we need to accept that the draft template is a valid justification. Please provide clarification (and invite further comment) as to which method is the least painful. Hasteur (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Update the notice placed when declining submissions under "Verify" when using the The AFC Helper Script

Something I've noticed when declining a submission using the The AFC Helper Script under "Verify" is that the notice doesn't state anything about topic notability. This can possibly mislead editors, in which they then may add sources to verify content, but may not add sources that provide significant coverage that qualify topic notability. After adding sources and resubmitting, it's possible that submissions are then being declined per not meeting various notability guidelines. This would obviously be quite frustrating to experience, particularly for new editors.

Therefore, I propose that the "Verify" template be updated to include the following wording to correct this matter:

"This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified and to qualify the topic's notability. Please add reliable sources to the submission that preferably provide significant coverage of this topic. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. For additional information about topic notability, see the general guideline on notability and the golden rule."

 – Northamerica1000(talk) 04:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Note: Pinging User:Timotheus Canens and User:Mabdul, in hopes to obtain input from the script's authors. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't agree with the final sentence sending the submitter to the notability guideline, because the "verify" decline template is not intended to be used unless the submitter has already shown notability, and it's only other facts in the article that need verifying. The 'v' decline is overused, I believe because reviewers are hesitant to tell a submitter that their topic isn't demonstrating notability, since this is often misunderstood. What's needed instead, in my opinion, are changes to the various notability declines, especially the edit summaries "appears to be non-notable" changed to say something like "references don't show notability", so that the reviewers will use these appropriately instead of the "verify" decline. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Picking up on Anne's comment - I think we should work out a logical sequence of decline reasons and always use the first applicable one - starting with copyvio and working down to the lesser problems. That way a notability decline would take precedence over a verifiability decline and so on. We had a flowchart here some time ago - I think we should excavate it from the archive and work to refine and incorporate its functionality into the script's decline menu by sorting it into the same "order of precedence" and requesting reviewers to always use the "highest ranking" applicable option. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: Instead of making the "verify" response be more like the "not notable" response, why not eliminate "verify" from the helper script altogether and rename "not notable" to something like "not golden" or something. Just an idea. :) (edit conflict) I agree with Roger that the available options should help us follow the flow-chart that was made. I wouldn't even be opposed to putting a thumbnail of the flowchart in the lower-left corner of the screen that would expand on mouse-over with a z-index of -1 so it wouldn't interfere with any toolbox links or whatever. Technical 13 (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • In the Beta script the decline reasons have been "grouped" but I'm not sure if the grouping is aligned with the flowchart. BTW where has the chart been filed away? IIRC it still has a few minor errors that need fixing. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Here's another place where the "verify" should not have been used: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Spaeth Horsemanship. This is both a blatant advertisement and not showing notability, and both of these reasons should have come first. However, there are cases where the article is neutrally written and is about an obviously notable person such as a university professor, Emmy-winning actor, prominent politician, etc., or another notable items such as a city or a biological species, and just needs proper sources before being accepted, and that's where we need the "verify" option. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse questions about article creation

There are a lot of new editors that have been coming to the Teahouse question and answers page about this process, expressing concern about why their article received a bad review or why the editor was so rude, etc.. Is there a possibility that something needs to be addressed here? Thoughts?--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 07:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

There was a drive in July to reduce the backlog involving a number of new and inexperienced editors, which created a few problems. Now it's over things will be geting back to normal ...and probably the backlog rising too I expect! In the case of the very recent comment at Teahouse the author has been advised by several AfC reviewers about their promotional article but hasn't addressed the problems. Sometimes a blunt message is needed. Sionk (talk) 07:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Mark, during the past month there have been thousands of submissions, and a recent change has been that the first time an editor's article is declined (or accepted) they are given an invitation to the Teahouse along with the usual notice which includes an invitation to the Afc help desk. This has likely lead to some taking their Afc questions to the Teahouse, and since the reviewers at Afc are generally swamped by the number of submissions and questions, any help that can be given at the Teahouse is appreciated. —Anne Delong (talk) 10:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Mark, it is simply the same old story of people trying to write puff piece advertising or articles about themselves or... Well, anything that falls under COI, and them not getting it approved, so they are trying to forum shop a little. There was a backlog drive to try and cut back the number of submission from about 1,100 and now we are quickly back up to 1,227. This means that there will likely be another drive soon, and another wave of COI editors forum shopping to get "their" article up. :/ Technical 13 (talk) 12:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Figured it was something like that. I used to volunteer here and should probably try to get back as much as possible. Like all of these projects, a few more volunteers can only help. I will try and put out the word where I can tat AFC could use a few more volunteers.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 19:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced submissions

Resolved

Dear reviewers: I was trying to check out the reviews by banned user Techatology, so I did this search: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=wp%3Atechatology&title=Special%3ASearch

and found a number of submissions which had been moved to the wrong area. Is there any reason I shouldn' just move these all to "Wikipedia talk:" space? —Anne Delong (talk) 11:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Anne, if they are AfC drafts or submissions, there is no reason not to move them to project space. Although, if the user was banned, it might be just as easy to tag the ones under the CSD for material created by a banned user. Technical 13 (talk) 12:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, that's done, although I don't know what to do about the fact that many of them had the wrong decline reason. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Deletions by Techatology

Dear reviewers: On the same search as in my above posting, (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=default&search=wp%3Atechatology&fulltext=Search), There are several "Miscellany for deletion" entries, nominated by Techatology, closed by the same sysop, which I find disturbing. I'd like an opinion about the appropriateness of these deletions; am I worried over nothing? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I think WP:Deletion review might be the way to go if they look dodgy. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Reviewing drive

I propose a new drive. Entitled Autumn backlog drive, lasts from 25th August to 25th October. By 25th September the aim is to have reduced the backlog to 0. The challenge for the second part is to keep it at 0. If the queue has 0-5 items on 25th October, every participant gets an extra barnstar on top of their one for how many reviews they did. Sound good? Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (barney) @ 21:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

We just came off a backlog drive. In fact our backlog drive turned out to be very counter productive. Many hungry reviewers pouncing on the re-submission as soon as it was posted which caused the submissions to be under a hailstorm of declined afc templates and burning out several submitters. We even had people coming in from the outside and attempting to game the system to inflate their review stats. Before we declare a new holy war on the backlog, let's find out why we can't keep the backlog clean except when it's elimination drive time. If anything, we shouldn't need to be rewarded for doing what we should be doing already. Furthermore, there's plenty of other larger backlogs that we need to take care of first such as Category:AfC submissions with missing AfC template and Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions. Also, what's the purpose of handing out barnstars like candy? Hasteur (talk) 21:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree it's too soon for another drive. We need some time to discuss changes that will make the next one go more smoothly. I also like Hasteur's point about why the backlog appears in the first place. An on-going process would be better. Maybe a drive is more suitable for backlogs that crop up and need to be dealt with for a short time, for instance the items mentioned above that have been recently brought to everyone's attention. However, giving out awards (even virtual ones) does seem to work in encouraging people to work on what is not an otherwise very rewarding activity, checking other people's work. Maybe we could work out some incentives that don't include a contest for a winner or that don't have a deadline. Did you notice that when the backlog was short there were hardly any cut-and-paste moves made by impatient submitters? —Anne Delong (talk) 23:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I also agree - enough with the drives already! I was in the "fortunate" position of having a break from university for the whole of July I was basically a fulltime Wikipedian, but the drives are hard work and the competitive element was counterproductive - I tried to do lots of reviews in an attempt to undo some of the damage done - but it wasn't an effective strategy and in fact the quality of my own reviews suffered too. The short answer to why we're more or less permanently backlogged is that we simply don't have enough "everyday" reviewers. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Generally reviewing backlog drives, as I've observed so far at least, are reserved for when the backlog has hung around the 1,000 mark for at least a week or two. Currently, the backlog is at 1,227. AfC currently has three projects that need some work, and I would envision our best course of action would be to try and handle them in the following order:
    1. Clear out the 0 Category:AfC submissions with missing AfC template
    2. Work on clearing out the 1 Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions by reviewing these articles and either:
      • Making an edit of some kind (I clean the submission with the tool or do some other minuscule task) so that they get a new six months timer
      • Tagging for G13 (and sometimes I tag multiple including G12 or some other obvious tag) while attempting to keep Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned AfC submissions below 250 at any one time (don't want to overload our admins ;}) which is currently at 0.
    3. Work on a backlog drive to get our submissions back down again.
      • No barnstar for number of reviews, instead maybe a barnstar for number of accepts that aren't nominated for deletion within a week or a month, or something of that sort that will require reviewers to actually put some effort into finishing off the little things these drafts need to get the permanently out of our hair.
  • These are just my ideas and suggestions, and I look forward to your addendums or counter ideas or questions. :) Technical 13 (talk) 12:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Question regarding the interpertation of CSD:G13

I'd like to get the Wikiproject's viewpoint on the readong of CSD:G13. My personal interpertation is that the criterion only applies if there are no registered edits in 6 months. I do not see any exceptions written in (ex. for maintenance bots). I'd like to see what others think before I start opposing CSDs that I'm seeing on the technical grounds that the nomination is not valid. And yes I'm intentionally keeping this nebulous so as to single any individual AFC page/editor out. Hasteur (talk) 13:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I participated in the process that created G13 - my understanding throughout was/is that automatic "routine maintenance" bot edits don't count - only edits direcly by a person or a manually initated bot edit would "reset the timer". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't like criterium G13 much myself, and would rather we wouldn't have it, or have it in a different form. But its spirit is clear here, abandoned AfC's. I would consider it within the scope of the criterium when a bot automatically comes by and changes something on the page. It is unreasonable to think it is any less abandoned in that case. Some bots are user activated for a specific page, and in those cases I wouldn't consider it abandoned. So that's the dividing line I would make. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Some editors may make a change to an article because they feel it is worth keeping but don't have time to work on it right then. But there might be edits that are obviously not such attempts. For example, if an editor sees an article and adds a comment such as "There is no useful encyclopedic content here", or "The author was contacted but did not respond.", or even "Copyright material removed", I don't see that that should in itself prevent deletion. Of course, a bot can't judge that. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not speaking about a bot here. Here's the Scenario that I'm looking at. A article was sufficently stale that it was eligible for nomination under G13, a bot came in to change something (remove/replace a template/category, add a defect tracking category, fix a spelling error, etc.) and therefore resetting the last edit more than 6 months ago, an editor came in after the bot and nominated for G13. The downside I see to letting the G13 proceed is that it's possible that the user had forgotten about their AfC and the act of the bot making a change causes the page to show up in their watchlist. Hasteur (talk) 16:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I see your concern, but at the same time, compare the situation where the bot edit had not been made. In the case with the bot edit it would be wise to hold off because the user has been alerted and might still want to edit it, while in the case without the bot edit, the editor has a larger chance of remaining unaware, so it is fine to delete? That makes no sense. If we're good to delete it without the author seeing it on his watchlist (and I have to say this is very hypothetical, though I don't have evidence I don't think there are many people who frequently check their watchlist and also have a forgotten about AfC), we should also be ok with it if it did cross their watchlist. Anything else would very inconsistent. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, the deletion notice is going to show up on their user page anyway. The default watchlist is 72 hours; if the user hasn't edited the article by then, the notice will be gone. I seem to remember that we had discussed having another bot remind the users sometime before the six months were up. If that were done, then I don't see that it's likely that a watchlist notice would make a difference at the six month point. Also, if they see the notice too late, they can still request their article back again. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
One more thing that occurred to me: If the submissions in the G13 eligible category are ordered by the date that they are tagged, or even if they are ordered by date since last non-bot edit, then as long as the reviewers marking them for deletion begin with the oldest ones, there should always be a reasonable time delay between when the bot categorizes them and when they are actually deleted. Right? —Anne Delong (talk) 18:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think that any of this should be automated as far as nomination or deletion of these drafts go. I also don't think it should apply to unsubmitted drafts. If they have been abandoned and unsubmitted, submit them, decline them and let the sit for six months. They really aren't hurting anything. Hasteur, I understand your question and concern about uninitiated bot edits; however, with 21K in the eligible queue, and an expected 50-60K that haven't reached the queue yet but should, I'm not too concerned with a few dozen drafts that get an unearned 6 months at this stage. Once the backlog is down, we should have some data as to what bots are making these edits automatically and request the operators have the bots skip anything in the category for G13 eligible. Technical 13 (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
the answer depends if people looking at G13s are going to be looking carefully, or just removing in a bot-like fashion themselves. If the admins can be trusted to examine the articles for rescueability, there would be no harm in listing them, but I;m not sure this is going to be the case. DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • DGG, I can only speak for myself here, but I personally have been trying to "rescue" as many of these eligible drafts as there is a reasonable reason to (at least for this first round). I've found that approximately 30% of these drafts may be savable. I have encouraged others to try to save any that may have been able to pass AfD or have become notable enough since the last decline, and only G13 as a last option (I sometimes dual or multitag with other criteria). The reason I think that the non-admin reviewers should be more selective here is that we have less than 200 (probably less than 75-100 active) admins and to expect them to have to review and decide the fate of all 80K or so drafts is unreasonable. Even having to go through 70% (~54K is going to be bad enough). Technical 13 (talk) 11:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
The problem with "submit and decline" is that the person doing so becomes the "registered author" and the original author is actually no longer included in any notifications. The responsibility for the draft passes to you as if you are the author. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Roger, that is not an issue if done properly. I believe the WP:AFCH has a new submit button that submits the draft using the name of the original creator (I haven't personally tested it, but if that is not the case I would be happy to adjust that). Failing that, until it can be adjusted to do that by default or at least offer an option of whom to submit as, there is always the option of submitting using {{subst:AFC draft|creator username }} Technical 13 (talk)
  • There's 2 tools currently in the beta "Submit as last non-bot submitter" which I requested for the "AFC pages without AFC template" backlog burning and "Submit with creator". In some of the cases we have to look into the history and try to figure out if the creator of the page is the right person to tag as the advocate for the page. Hasteur (talk) 12:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • It's a tricky choice between submitting the article yourself or in someone else's name. If the article has been abandoned a long time and the user is not active, it may be better to just submit in your own name. (A lot of these abandoned articles were made by editors who joined up just for the purpose of making that article.) That way at least if the article is rejected and needs a little more work you will get the notices and do the work to have it accepted. For users that are still editing regularly, it's probably better to either submit in their names and leave them a message telling them you've done it.—Anne Delong (talk) 12:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Another cut and paste

Dear editors: Here's an editor that misunderstood the need for the template, deleted it, then became impatient when the submission wasn't reviewed and cut and pasted the article to mainspace: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Brittany Lee then became Brittany Lee. Should some of the references be removed as promotional? They are annoying me, so I'll let someone else decide. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anne. IMO, the cut and paste is not problematic here, as there is no copyright breaking issue. It seems to annoy you more that the author is pushing through non-notable, spammy articles. I agree with you that that is annoying. I can also understand some frustration with additional lad-magazinishness of the article. I noticed that the mainspace article is tagged A7 and G11 at the moment. I disagree with both assertions, but not strongly enough for me to remove the tags, especially since I do agree this should be deleted, and double so because deleting it doesn't really lose anything, there is a copy in AfC space. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I think at times like this the WP:NPP will be more than willing to step up and tag (as they seem to have done), so we shouldn't worry. If it was reviewed properly, and the editor decided to ignore that and go ahead, then we did what we could within the scope of this project, and shouldn't lose any sleep. Yes, it's irritating, I know. Rankersbo (talk) 10:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
While it is disappointing to see an article leave Afc in bad shape, I was not annoyed by that because I think the editor, having removed the template thinking it was causing the article to appear blank, didn't know what else to do. What was annoying me was the inclusion of blatant advertising in the guise of reliable sources. It's a bit like an article about a television show that contains links to sponsors' web sites. I wanted to just delete the promotional references, but I felt that my personal distaste for the displayed lack of subtlety might be leading me astray, so this was my way of seeing what others thought about it. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I have restored the deletion template and added a relevant AFC comment to discourage re-submission until reliable-source references are provided. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Requesting an administrator compare this version of the draft with the last version of Brittany Lee before its deletion and note the results as an AFC comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Brittany Lee. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Userbox for AfC submissions with missing AfC template

Resolved

Question: Is there any userbox for users who review articles in Category:AfC submissions with missing AfC template that is like the one for G13? APerson (talk!) 19:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

@APerson: User:Hasteur/AfC missing AfC header. Split from Technical 13's version and modified to be different. Hasteur (talk) 19:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Do you mind if I fork it to a subpage of my userpage and modify it? APerson (talk!) 23:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
What change are you proposing? Why not edit it in-situ? Hasteur (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I made a couple modifications. I fixed the second color for 150/400 threshold and I added a |left= that set to any value will "standardize" to box and put the counting category link on the left side of the box like most other boxes. I also intend update some of the text in the info section to a link to the category. Technical 13 (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dan Gross

Dear reviewers: I know that interview references aren't as good as those totally written by journalists, but the above article has a number of them, and some are part interview and part journalist text. Can someone give me an opinion about whether this article has enough references to pass notability? —Anne Delong (talk) 05:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

there are enough good sources to pass notability . The interviews, which do not really show notability but are usable references otherwise, when referred to in a manner that clarifies this, as the articles does. The problems with the article is that the references are still bare links,and the article is formatted as a string of disconnected sentences. I'm not sure how realistic is is to expect users to fix things like this. DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with DGG re notability. I've run the article through Reflinks to generate (imperfect, but better than nothing) references, revert if you'd rather I hadn't. --j⚛e deckertalk 01:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I made the text a little more neutral and then passed it. It's a little skimpy for a biography, but maybe someone will expand it. Now it's Dan Gross (activist). —Anne Delong (talk) 04:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

History merge?

Resolved

Dear reviewers: I have been checking the Afc submissions without a template, and dealing with any that were cut and paste moves. Most can just be deleted, although I have found a few that have been edited substantially before being pasted. Am I right to assume that no history merge is needed if all of the edits (on the pre-paste copy) by editors other than the submitter are non-content items, such as declines, page moves, cleaning the submission, Afc comments, etc., and that a merge is only needed if other editors contributed to the actual content of the article? What if another editor tidied up the spacing or fixed a bad infobox template by adding brackets, or some other technical fix that doesn't include adding or changing actual information? —Anne Delong (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

As I think you do, I interpret our attribution concern to be with information, not formatting.
As a related point, in examining these, I have seen a number copypasted to mainspace that should never have been put there; some need speedy deletion & I've listed them accordingly or sometimes just deleted the worst of them; if they need deletion, but not speedy, I think since the editor has almost always moved on, there's no point sending back to AfC an article that they will never know to improve to acceptability, so I've used AfD DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, DGG, I have been requesting history merge only if the older article had more than one editor actually contributing to the content. We here at Afc are used to having many of our non-content edits deleted. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Copyright law covers non-trivial changes to formatting. For example, adding or removing an infobox, re-wording a sentence in a non-mechanical way including significant changes to poor grammar or poor word choice, should require maintaining the history. Trivial changes, like fixing obvious typos, moving a <ref> from before a period to after, etc. likely don't need attribution-preservation. I say "likely" only because I'm not a copyright lawyer. When in doubt, preserve the attribution. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, what I have been doing is saying in the deletion request comment anything that might be iffy, for example "no others' edits to preserve except adding one comma" or some such. Then the administrator can decide and I am off the hook. If the admin rejects it, I can then request a history merge. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Jacka

Hello fellow reviewers! Here's an article in which the submitter was confused by a custom decline and thought he should delete all except two of his many references. I have fixed it up; can someone else decide of it's ready? Thanks. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done - See David Jacka -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Fujiro Katsurada

I have removed the article that was cut and paste here, and submitted the page it was C&P from. Rankersbo (talk) 07:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Which namespace do AfC submissions belong in?

This discussion started on RHaworth's talk page. The issue is that different things suggest different namespaces. Even within Template:AFC submission/tools, one link says Wikipedia: and another says Wikipedia talk:.

*'''Warning:''' This page should probably be located at [[Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/{{SUBPAGENAME}}]] ([{{fullurl:index.php|title=Special:MovePage/{{FULLPAGENAMEE}}&wpNewTitle=Wikipedia_talk:Articles+for+creation/{{SUBPAGENAMEE}}&wpReason={{urlencode:Preferred location for [[WP:AFC|AfC]] submissions}}}} move]).

and

[{{fullurl:index.php|title=Special:MovePage/{{FULLPAGENAMEE}}&wpNewTitle=Wikipedia:Articles+for+creation/{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{SUBPAGENAMEE}}}}|sandbox|{{urlencode:{{#titleparts:{{FULLPAGENAMEE}}|1}}/{{#titleparts:{{FULLPAGENAMEE}}||-1}}|WIKI}}|{{SUBPAGENAMEE}}}}&wpReason=Move+Articles+for+creation+submission+to+project+space}} To project space]

I've also found [1] [2] [3] claiming Wikipedia, and [4] [5] claiming Wikipedia talk. Which of these is correct? As of right now, our submissions are mixed between both. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

To the best of my understanding, the submissions belong in Wikipedia talk. That is because Google doesn't index talk pages, and so doesn't pick up the half-finished articles. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Submissions belong in Wikipedia Talk. This is so that non-logged-in and brand-new (not autoconfirmed) editors can create them. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

to clear some statements: Every page containing {{afc submission}} is index not indexed [amendation by RHaworth] by google and other search services as it includes the magic word __NOINDEX__.

WT space is needed as IPs can only create talk pages.

WP is used for experienced editors who want to add a talk page (which is automatic moved when accepted) to prepare a talk page if a page gets accepted.

So actually there isn't any real answer but 'both. mabdul 08:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The real solution to all this is to get the draft namespace as proposed in the RfC. The problem with putting submissions in WP instead of WT is people think it's a mistake and move it to the right namespace, or that a new editor puts a submission in both namespaces by mistake, presumably creating it once, thinking "where's it gone?" and writing it again. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/University of Fashion

Resolved
 – temporary issue

This submission is on the list of submitted articles, but it doesn't appear to have a submit template.  ?? —Anne Delong (talk) 01:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Temporary issue. The software wasn't fast enough to update the category as it seems. At least it isn't in any more. mabdul 08:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Colonel Jacob C. Higgins

Resolved

Dear editors: While looking through the submissions without a template I came across this bizarre article. After being declined, the editor moved all of the content to mainspace, but then submitted a note to the reviewers. A reviewer then declined his note as having no context. Now being confused, thinking his article was being declined rather than the note, he added all kinds of explanations. Should this content be moved to the article's talk page? It's really talk about the article. Or should something else be done? —Anne Delong (talk) 03:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

  • No need. The article was already submitted, somehow accepted and this flaw doesn't need to be mentioned any more. I simply put a G13 template on the page as the history of the page doesn't include any useful edits in the history (see also WP:Parallel history). mabdul 08:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

New editor in need of help

Hello,

i am a new user on wiki and my account hasn't yet been confirmed id like to kindly ask you can you confirm it for me and instruct me on how to use the site.

i am wanting to upload a article on to Wikipedia however not sure of how to use the site and were i upload.

How many days does the process take to upload?

would appreciate your help and assistance.

my account is amellondon

regards Amel amelun@hotmail.co.uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amellondon (talk • contribs) 15:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear Amellondon: A good place to start is by reading Wikipedia:Your first article. You will find lots of useful information there. I have left an invitation to the Teahouse on your talk page; you should ask questions about editing there rather than at this forum, which is for reviewers and others working on this Wikiproject. Good luck, and don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildas (~~~~). —Anne Delong (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cumbria League

Resolved

Here's another article that is really a query. It has another editor's input. Then there is this article: Cumbria League (Rugby Union) and this one: Cumbria League.

Yes, as it seems. I merged the two articles. mabdul 21:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I know nothing about rugby. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Cut and paste non-submissions

The reason that I am finding so many strange articles is that I am looking through the Afc submissions without templates and dealing with the cut-and-paste moves. I am up to the letter 'c' so far... (sigh) So I have another question. Is there some efficient way to identify pairs of articles that have the same name but are in different spaces (for example, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MYARTICLE, and MYARTICLE)? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps extract the portion of the AfC Submit template that detects if an article by the same name already exists to a seperate template and when AfCbot adds the defect category it also adds the check if a page exists by the same name template. Hasteur (talk) 15:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, that would save a lot of work, because new templateless articles are being created all the time, and there is no way to tell which ones have already been checked manually, so sometimes the articles may be checked by more than one editor. It would also be useful to know if there were old copies in user space, but I guess that's not our problem here at Afc and we seem to have enough on our plates. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

AfC Mentoring Program update

Hey everybody, sorry for my spotty availability these past few days. I have just created a To-Do list for the AfC Mentoring Program to better organize the many people who have expressed their willingness to help. You're welcome to add things to the list, and strike the ones that are finished. Thanks for your overwhelming support. theonesean 01:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Could someone with more wiki-programming knowledge make a "progress bar" that measures how much of the TDL is completed? Thanks.

  • A progress bar based on what? What value should each of the pages of the tutorial have? Should it try to automagically update itself, or would manual updating be okay (much easier)? Technical 13 (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Bot to handle templateless AFC submissions

Handling AFC submissions that don't have templates:

Regarding Anne Delong's comment "new templateless articles are being created all the time" in "Cut and paste non-submissions" above:

If we had a maintenance-bot to userfy such submissions provided that the user has edited Wikipedia recently and the page in question hasn't been edited in the last few hours.

After userfying it, the bot should add a template that is like a draft template but it doesn't put the article in any AFC categories. The "submit" button on this template should not only add a proper template but also move the page into WT:AFC space.

If this is too much work, just have the maintenance bot put a note on the user's talk page for newly-discovered pages and create a report containing a list of all template-less pages where the user was notified more than, say, a week ago or where the user has not edited Wikipedia recently. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

A complication here is that there are various reasons that templateless articles are created, and each needs a different action by reviewers:
  • The template was accidentally deleted when the first edit was made. -> message on talk page asking if they need help to submit
  • The template was deliberately deleted after one or more declines because the user thought it looked bad and didn't realize that they would need it later. - > replace the template
  • The user tried to submit the page but mistyped the subst:submit somehow. -> fix the template
  • The user cut and pasted the article to mainspace and deleted the template and/or blanked the old page because they didn't intend to submit the draft again. -> delete or histmerge the draft
  • The user moved the article into Wikipedia talk: space manually, thinking that they had submitted it. -> message on talk page asking if they need help to submit
  • The user had no intention of submitting, and was using the page to practise editing or to make a WP:FAKEARTICLE -> userfy or delete depending on content

There are probably more that I haven't thought of, but I'm not sure a bot could tell which was which. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem that I was mentioning above was smaller in scope. If articles which were cut and pasted into mainspace could be identified right away, they could be reintegrated and the editors contacted. This happens fairly well with pages that do have templates, but the templateless ones have been sitting around for a long time, and some of the users who created them are no longer active, so in the future it would be good to find a way to discover these right away. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't be opposed to firing up AWB and pre-pending {{subst:AFC draft|creator}} to all of the pages with no template to get them in to the system... I think that is the best option. I wouldn't want to submit stuff for others if there was no need to do so. Just tag them all as draft and clean them out in six months... It's not like we are going to run out of G13 eligible submissions and accruing regular reviews in that amount of time... Technical 13 (talk) 12:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that marking these with draft will just ignore any problems. Regular submissions have at least been looked at by a reviewer within a few days to make sure that they are not attack pages, copyright violations, etc. About half of these appear to be new users who think that they have submitted their articles and are waiting for something to happen; it's not fair to deliberately ignore them, and we could lose some potential new editors. In my opinion, what should be done is:
  • add to the "Category:Pending AfC submissions" page a new line "Category:AfC submissions with missing AfC template", maybe under "subcategories" or under "see also". so that reviewers will know about them;
  • sort the "Category:AfC submissions with missing AfC template" by date tagged, so that we can pick off the new ones and fix them before the editors get frustrated and either leave for good or start cutting and pasting, and then work away at the backlog;
  • as was discussed above, it would be nice if a bot could somehow either tag or make a separate list of the ones for which there is an article of the same name already in the encyclopedia, because it would save the manual work of checking this for each one. This would be useful for all of the submissions, not just the ones without a template, although it wouldn't catch ones with titles that had to be changed for some reason. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
IMO the only real solution is to put eyes and brains on the issue. We need an editor to go into each page and determine why it showed up on the defect category and what the best resolution (restore AfC banner, Mark as draft, Submit for review) is. Hasteur (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/File:VakıfBank Spor Kulübü Logo.jpg

Resolved

This is the first time I've seen a file in the Afc. Is this a normal occurrence? —Anne Delong (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it should have been at Wikipedia:Files for upload I don't think I've ever seen that before. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
It's an old submission. Should it just be deleted? —Anne Delong (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I've tagged it for deletion. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Only 1014 more templateless submissions to deal with. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dillydale

Resolved

I'm thinking that this is a hoax, but although I have read all of the Mr. Men books, I've never seen the TV series which includes the town of Dillydale, so before marking it for deletion I'd like some confirmation from someone who may know for sure. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a copy of the article at Wikia. Whether it reflects something on Mr men or not, in its present cast it's absolutely unsuitable for an entry in a serious encyclopedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
It's patent nonsense. It's got nothing to do with TfL bus routes either. I have nominated it for speedy. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I didn't see the speedy, but "in-universe" locations of TV shows do have Wikipedia articles, and some of those are written "in-universe." Many can be found in Category:Fictional populated places. The If the submission's topic arguably meets Wikipedia's notability requirements, it's at least somewhat accurate, it shouldn't be deleted as patent nonsense. Now, if it it really is a copy of something from the Wikia page (which is CC-BY-SA 2.0), then attribution must be given, but that's a copyright issue not a content issue. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Because the text was copied from a Wiki which was all about Mr. Men, it lacked vital information that an article should have had, such as saying that it wasn't a real place, and a description of its relationship to the TV series. As such it was very confusing. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
The article was based on the Wikia page, but added numerous further fictional claims such as a list of TfL bus routes that served Dillydale. I think there were some other claims as well. Reporting about fiction is okay on a Wikipedia page, but adding additional fiction isn't. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
If the bus routes were mentioned in canonical or other "generally accepted as reliable" sources about the DillyDale universe, including (or rather, especially) specific TV episodes, then that is okay. If they were made up out of whole cloth or were from non-canonical sources then that wouldn't be allowed. See the many articles about The Simpsons, Star Trek, Star Wars, Doctor Who, and Babylon 5 for examples of "real within the universe" fiction in articles about fictional universes. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Merging articles about a novel and the novelist

I have just accepted The Age of Miracles (novel) into mainspace and then I looked at the linked article about the author Karen Thompson Walker which turns out to be a very brief stub that contains more information about the novel (apparently the author's only published work so far) than about the person, so it can barely be described as a biography. I believe they should be merged but I'm not sure if the merged article should be about the book or the author. The book's notability is indisputable but the author's is rather marginal. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

In such cases, I usually put it under the author, because if the first book is successful there will be more books and thus the article has potential for expansion; this is rarely the case for an article on a book, unless it gets made into a film. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
But!... a biography that contains literaly just one sentence about the person "X wrote a book" and the rest of the article is about the book itself would violate WP:COATRACK. The most basic info such as the author's nationality isn't even stated (it is in the book article), we know nothing about here beyond her name and that she wrote the book. I have merged and redirected Karen Thompson Walker to The Age of Miracles (novel). I hope this is a satisfactory solution. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Issue at ANI about systematic abuse of AfC

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Suspicious/problematic behavior of Moheen Reeyad, TilottamaTitlee, and Leelabratee - a case of apparent meatpuppetry abusing AfC to create a large number of sub-standard articles. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

As a short term measure, would Nathan / Mabdul or somebody else suitable consider temporarily turning the script off due to abuse? If I pass an AfC submission I usually have to delve into the source text to do copyediting or add additional sources, so manually tweaking the submission template is not particularly onerous. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think paralysing AfC is a solution - punishing the many for the sins of the few. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I concur with Dodger67 on this. I would also note that "if" all of our reviewers had the "reviewer" rights/permissions, the tool could be set to require that and prevent this kind of issue... Food for thought. Technical 13 (talk) 11:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, I think the proper solution is 2 handed
  1. Add a AfC permission that doesn't let pages be moved out of AfC space (or the AFCH tool be used). Obviously the permission needs to be handed out like candy to appropriately qualified users.
  2. Admins take a stronger hand in modifying the behavior of disruptive individuals who are attempting to game the system.
I'm taking the radical position, but we've now been caught with Egg on our face multiple times for this same vector. 11:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Hasteur (talk)
  • As it stands, although still "technically" possible to do reviews and move to article space without the helper script, it is a much more difficult task that way to "get it right" and not mess up the submission template. This means that requiring "reviewer" (which is stupid simple to get if you are qualified) for the helper script would logically reduce abuse of the helper script. Having "reviewer" does not mean that you have to patrol new pages, just that you have to review stuff, and in our case it would be AfC submissions. Let me do some more research, I might be able to sweeten the pot for wanting to get reviewer... Technical 13 (talk) 12:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
An adaptation of the existing Reviewer right should be workable. The criteria for qualification are clear, fairly simple and, IMHO, fully compatible with our requirements. I've had the right for quite a long time but very rarely use it as "pending changes" doesn't seem to be very active. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
As a note, the user at ANI did accept many of the articles without use of the tool. Jackmcbarn (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I've had a rumage through a number of submissions - some shouldn't have been created, some are good for a redirect, some have gone to AfD, some I think are actually notable. The principal problem with all has been a lack of verifiability, so I would have expected most if not all submissions to fail at AfC. Regarding long term solutions, I see a lot of talk about "yes, we need Reviewer rights" (not least from myself), but until an uninvolved admin closes down the RfC, and the WMF agree to implement any necessary changes, it won't happen. Who can do this? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
BTW the link to the manual reviewing instructions is dead. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Hasteur Bot

Is this going to occur on every page that I have ever edited from now on? If so, this has the potential to get really annoying. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

@Ktr101: Hi, I'm the bot operator. If you create a page in AfC space and you don't do anything with it in over 180 days, the bot is going to come by and nudge you into doing something about it. It might be you taking the proactive action of self nominating for deletion or editing the page so that it's making forward process towards acceptance. The bot is simply notifying you at this time that your page is either eligible now or soon to be eligible for CSD:G13. Hasteur (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

AfC Mentoring Program help request

Unresolved

Hi, everybody, theonesean here. The AfC Mentoring Program is in full swing. However, I have little to no experience reviewing files, templates, and categories, and working at the help desk (although I plan to change that.) Could anyone with more experience design and write that section of the curriculum? I'll leave a lot to your discretion, but here's the basic structure.

  • Introduction: tells about the process, briefly summarizes section. Use fairly colloquial language.
  • Sample: a question, file etc, that is seen fairly often. It can be a good one or a bad one. Ask them to answer the question or review the file/cat/template.
  • How Did You Do?: what was the correct answer? and why?
  • Review: go over the type of question/file/cat/template that the sample was. Go over how to handle it, and cite any necessary WP policy if you need to. If there's any policy that pertains to it but isn't directly references, create a "Suggested Reading" down at the bottom.
  • Repeat that for a few common types of questions, or go over the approved and unapproved file, template, or category types.

My hope is that there will be two or three experienced people helping to complete each section. I've created a section of the page where people can put their names down for each section.

Thanks for your help.

theonesean 21:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

  • I'd be happy to contribute to a section on templates. That is an area I know quite a bit about. It might be a bit before I have a chance, but I'll get it done (I don't expect there is much of a rush, I hardly ever see template submissions). Technical 13 (talk) 13:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI: AFC helper script at eswp

FYI

@Theopolisme and others: I just asked at eswp's WPAFC (es:Wikiproyecto Discusión:Asistente para la creación de artículos#AFC helper script) if they need help or actually have already a helper script (and thus we could combine our developer teams). mabdul 11:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gathurst

Resolved

This old abandoned Afc-article-without-a-template is about a village, so I guess it really should be in the encyclopedia. I added a couple of references, but I haven't worked on geography articles. Is this enough to pass notability? Or should a government source be found to verify that this is/was a village? —Anne Delong (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Glanworth, Ontario, Canada - Middlesex County

Resolved

This submission really should have been at Wikipedia:Requested articles. Is there any way to move it there? —Anne Delong (talk) 04:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

CSD

Unresolved

I submitted this article for deletion using the script, however as you can see, the script didn't do its job correctly, or so it seems. Bug? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the script isn't putting up csd tags. I've seen that in the past few days. LionMans Account (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Which AFCH are you using? I'll be happy to file the bug ticket on your behalf. Hasteur (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Somehow  Confirmed. I'm working on the triggers and thus at the moment in the beta script the ceckbox for "Blank the submission (replace the content with {{afc cleared}}):" isn't automatically checked. I have to (and will) work on that one. mabdul 22:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Cheers for that guys! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 23:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
@Mabdul: Is this in the issue tracker? I'll have some time tomorrow if you haven't gotten to it by then. Theopolisme (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
OF course. issue 8. mabdul 09:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Infront Sports & Media

Resolved

I'm not sure what to do with this discussion that was among the unsubmitted Afc articles. Do the edits of the people involved in the discussion need to be preserved? If so, should the page be moved somewhere else so that it won't be deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 10:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

This was just the "Promote to mainspace" request so I'd say it can be CSD:"Housekeeping" dealt with. Hasteur (talk) 12:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, done, and another like it as well. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Where to start?

Unresolved

After reading the guidelines, I'm not sure where to start when I begin to review. There is a recent submissions page but when I checked a few, they had already been reviewed. Then I found a AfC category and see a lot of files listed but it's not clear if they are ordered in the order they were submitted and one should start at the beginning or just dive in. It would also be helpful if there was a sample or two of reviews done by experienced reviewers so beginners can see how it is done.

FWIW, I'm not going to start doing any reviewing now, I'm just educating myself on what is expected and required. I won't touch an AfC until thoroughly understand the process. NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk 15:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:AfC pending submissions by age is the list of AfC submissions that are asking for a review and are good to look at. You'll see relatively all the examples of potential faults. Work this backlog from the oldest as they've waited the longest.
Category:AfC submissions with missing AfC template is the list of all pages in the AfC space that are missing a AFC template for one reason or annother. They need to be evaluated (to see why they're missing) and potentially submitted for AfC evaluation or marked as a draft. so that they can eventually be captured on the stale AfC report. Work this backlog in watever order you prefer as it's sorted alphabetically.
Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions represents AfC pages that have not been edited at all in at 6 months and therefore are eligible for CSD:G13 nominations. Work this backlog from the front as it's already sorted oldest first.
Beyond that there's Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk to answer questions at. Hope this helps Hasteur (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Do note, Liz, that submitters can resubmit their submissions when they are declined. So a submission can be waiting for review even though it has "declined" notices on it; sometimes the declined notices are at the top and the "waiting for review" notice is at the bottom.
Submissions that have already been declined multiple times are often harder to review; so you may not always want to review the oldest, especially if you're new to the process. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Liz! We can use all of the reviewing help we can get. Asking questions on this page is a good way to start. If you start reviewing an article and aren't sure about something, just post your question here; if there's one thing that reviewers like, it's giving advice! Some kinds of articles are easier to review than others, and they are usually to be found in the more recent submissions, since after a while these have all been weeded out. For example, to review a submission that appears to be blank, the only thing you have to do is check the source code to make sure that the article really has no information, and then decline it. Articles that aren't in English, are jokes, nasty comments or gibberish are also pretty cut and dried. Starting with those will free up the more experienced editors to work on the tricky ones. If you come to something you aren't sure about, either ask or just back out and leave it for someone else. Good luck! —Anne Delong (talk) 03:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Hasteur, Demiurge1000 and Anne Delong, I appreciate your advice you taking the time to respond. I think there is more to this than I thought as I see messages about mentoring programs (for article reviewing or article creation?) and people using programs (in Preferences?) to guide them through the process. I'll just be checking in for a while, familiarizing myself with this space. My watchwords are Do No Harm! Thanks, again. Liz Let's Talk 19:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
By the way, do new reviewers need to apply for reviewer rights? Liz Let's Talk 19:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
No, right now the reviewers' rights are for another process altogether, reviewing pending changes. There's talk of it, though, since a bad review can really confuse a new editor. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I was just checking out the WP IRC Help channel and asked Huon about it, too. Guess I mixed that up. Is it possible to look over someone else' work to see what a good review looks like? I don't mean right now but at some point in the future. Liz Let's Talk 21:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

(in)experienced reviewers

Unresolved

Just pointing out another possible anomaly - only 5 edits to mainspace. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I left a message on his/her talk page. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I've reverted some of the damage done by this user:
Marked a submission as "under review" and then just left it - I reverted about 12 hours later
Added a second submit template to a draft already waiting for review and thereby became the "registered submitter" effectively "hijacking" the draft from the editor who actually worked on and submitted it. I reverted it
I also decined the editor's own submission as improperly sourced (no independent refs), thus confirming his/her lack of competence to review submissions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
@Anne: There's no message from you on the user's talk page or history so I've left one.
@Roger: Thanks for doing the cleaning up.
For anyone who is not aware, the editor is Acain829. If they continue to review, please let me know. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, from looking at the diff you posted above, the user name appears to be ACain829 rather than Acain829. Now each of them has a message, but I am surprised that Wikipedia would accept two usernames so similar. I wonder if they are the same person? —Anne Delong (talk) 13:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The anomaly I pointed out was Acain829. ACain829 is not a registered account. Looks like you made a typo and created a talk page for a non existent account ;) Shall I delete it for you? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, please delete it. But before you do, notice in your diff that the name that was added to the review list was ACaine829, so it looks as though the user misspelled their own user name, which I then used to try to contact them. Oh well. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

What's this?

Resolved

User:A480641/twinkleoptions.js. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

  • It is a user's custom Twinkle preferences that apparently has a custom tag to submit a draft as the user. It looks like:
window.Twinkle.prefs = {
  "twinkle": {},
  "friendly": {
    "customTagList": [
      {
        "value": "subst:submit",
        "label": "{{AFC submission|||ts=20130816081444|u=A480641|ns=2}}=Submit unsubmitted article to AfC"
      }
    ]
  }
};
  • I actually have only one problem with this... When the user uses this, it is submitting the draft with a static timestamp of 20130816081444 which resolves to 08:14:44 16-Aug-2013... Now, if they were to replace that timestamp with {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} or {{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}} or replace the whole static template with {{subst:submit}}, then I wouldn't have any issues... A480641, could you please fix that for me, or I can request an admin help you with it if you need. Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I hadn't noticed that!! I'll stop using it til I can get it fixed!

Also, is there a way to change the u= part to be the article submitter? I've been doing it manually.--A. 02:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Replacing the whole of {{AFC submission|||ts=20130816081444|u=A480641|ns=2}} with {{subst:submit}} will solve all the issues. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually I played with this a little, and the label isn't what is transcluded. The value is wrapped in curly brackets and pasted to the page. So, you should be able to change your twinkleoptions.js to this instead of what you have:
window.Twinkle.prefs = {
  "twinkle": {},
  "friendly": {
    "customTagList": [
      {
        "value": "subst:AFC draft",
        "label": "test draft tag"
      },
      {
        "value": "subst:submit",
        "label": "Test custom tag"
      }
    ],
  }
};
  • I'm not sure what you are doing with these anyways, I just tested and the tag module doesn't seem to load in the namespace where this would be most appropriate (Wikipedia_talk:)... Also, the WP:AFCH (at least in beta) has options to tag as draft, submit, submit as last non-bot submitter, and tag as G13 when qualified... Technical 13 (talk) 12:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kevin Harrington (Marketing Strategist)

Unresolved

Dear editors: This article was written last year. The submitter came along in March and removed the decline template, but did not edit the text of the article. Is it eligible for G13? —Anne Delong (talk) 13:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

If I remember my date counting correctly, The current -6 months is Feburary 20th or so, which is not close enough if we were counting on the March date, the page has been updated since that editor came through. IMO, restore the AfC banners, remove the defect category, and start the 6 month clock again. It's not optimal, and if we catch the user doing it again we can either try one of the other CSDs or MFD it so there's a firm calling of the question. Heck, I'd even be open to MFDing it now as the creator has demonstrated a lack of respect to the community. Hasteur (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I restored the decline template, as I routinely do in such cases. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Many submissions with no references at all, not even unreliable ones

Unresolved

Dear fellow reviewers:

Reading through the Afc Help page, I see that about half of the answers to questions are reminding people that they haven't added any references to reliable sources. Several months ago I made a proposal (User:Anne Delong/AfcBox) for an addition to the submission process that would ask submitters if they had included any sources, and if not, give them links to places to get help in adding them. The proposal was accepted (User talk:Anne Delong/AfcBox), Javascript for it was made by Writ Keeper, and a request was put out for testing. Technical 13 offered to do some testing, but didn't find time, and has since become involved in other projects., and no one else offered. (Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 113#Proposed change to the Afc submission process) I don't know enough about Wikipedia's underpinnings to do it myself. Aren't you all getting tired of declining articles with no references at all? If something has happened to make this approved idea no longer useful, I'd like to hear what it is, so I can drop it for good. If not, I don't understand why people are putting all kinds of work into other projects and no one with some technical skill is interested in one that may help save a lot of editors from having to individually help hundreds of submitters who haven't added references, and just needs a little testing. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Not sure why I didn't get a ping on this, but either way... I'm planning on rolling your suggestion into a much larger scale project I am working on to do multiple things.
    1. Merge WP:RA into AFC
    2. Create a new branch of template for {{Afc submission}} to distinguish "requested articles"
    3. Create a new namespace specifically for AFC (I'm thinking "Concept:", but could be persuaded in other directions)
    4. Create a new wizard to allow users to request articles and encourage them to start a draft themselves. It will include an evolved version of Anne's idea. Also, new wizard will have an on-by-default gadget component to open up tons of new possibilities for helping new editors build proper drafts/articles.
    5. Revise the current {{Afc submission}} templates and helper script to make it even more difficult to manually review drafts and improve the feedback that editors get from the review (I think this has been greatly lacking). Also, new templates should discourage or prevent re-submission until an edit has been made to fix the problems (/and a certain amount of time has passed).
  • I'm working on an RfC proposal, and I will be sure to include a link to it here when I have completed it. I'm requesting minimal questions and comments at this time, but I encourage them when I've completed the RfC and posted it. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Why do you want to "make it even more difficult to manually review drafts"? Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
There is already a broad consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC 2013 to have a "Drafts" namespace. Everyone since the year dot have been calling these things "drafts", to now suddenly use another term, and particularly one as ambiguous as "concepts", is IMHO not a good idea at all. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I give up. The subject has been changed again. If all of you thought that my idea was a bad one, why didn't you say so in the first place instead of approving it, then ignoring it, and now rolling it into some other project which hasn't even been proposed yet? I am done with wasting my time on this. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
No! Don't give up! please, we need you Anne. I get frustrated too with proposals that have overwhelming support and then just get buried in the archival black hole.
Who do we need to beg/bribe/kick to get Anne's original proposal implimented NOW while the bigger reform and rennovation ideas are still being incubated? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
We all have our individual places we need to scratch, mine's the hordes of G13 records. Anne, I think absorbing Requested articles is a good thing, but have been I endorse your workflow proposal and endorse getting AfC moved into a Drafts namespace. I think the next step forward is to propose the change at Village Pump (Proposals) and add a note at WP:VPP indicating that a change is being proposed. Make sure to note the AfC internal discussion we've already had. Hasteur (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The suggestion that was discussed in a RL meeting recently was to create a 'Draft' namespace. The talk page would contain an inter-active template as a checklist for basic pass/fail criteria. According to the checked boxes or radio buttons, the submission would automatically be accepted or declined with an appropriate short message automatically sent to the creators talk page. There would be space for free text comments by the reviewer. This would greatly speed up the system and largely take out subjective reviewing and hence reduce the damage done by inexperienced reviewers. As such, it would obviate the need for a 'AfC reviwer' right. As a namespace, it would also allow for totally inappropriate submissions to be tagged immediately with any of the standard CSD criteria. The checklist template should not be too difficult to code up and, I imagine, would work very much the way that CSD and PROD templates do. If any other minor tweaks are needed to the site software (such as the creation of the namespace for a start), then the Foundation would accommodate this provided the proposal does not conflict with any Global Policies. careful, non-bitey and short concise prose should be used on the template and any messages.
It's quite a bit of work to prepare, but not difficult, and if it were elaborated by a small taskforce and proposed as a complete package to the community, the RfC would have the best chance of achieving consensus. The most effective kind kind of RfC would be a stand-alone RfC/Cent project, such as, for example WP:New AfC , which would be linked to from various departments on the VP and perhaps a bot message/newsletter inviting all listed reviewers to participate.
If at some stage it becomes desirable to create a user right - or a pseudo user right - for reviewers, this could be proposed in a separate RfC.
As far as a new Wizard is concerned, there is a very strong possibility that the Foundation will now be looking into further development of the Article_Creation_Workflow/Landing_System which they designed a couple of years over a year ago but temporarily put on hold due to other priorities. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Problematic article moved from AFC to mainspace

Unresolved

Please take a look at the history of Piramal Group. It was simply moved to mainspace after its last decline by User:SarahStierch - this diff. Since then it has become even more spammy. It's talk page was deleted under G8 at some stage - I suspect during a previous incarnation of the article. Do we pull it back into AFC and give the submitter a stern scolding for messing it up or do we simply speedy delete it as spammy rubbish? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The original author moved the article. That's a clear indication that (s)he doesn't want to work within AfC. Two AfC reviewers said the article reads like an advertisement, and it still does. I doubt that moving it back would be productive. —rybec 10:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
My initial reaction was "send it to AfD and hope it will be a learning experience" but I can't say at a quick glance that there's not enough coverage in amongst the press releases and puffery to meet WP:GNG. It's been tagged, that will suffice. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
So I've AfDed it - maybe it gets fixed, maybe it gets whacked... Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

(in)experienced reviewers (2)

Unresolved

Another 'anomaly'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks like trouble. I saw they moved (or duplicated) a submission in main space, I G11ed it and was instantly reverted by an IP. I smell sockpuppetry. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I excised them from the list Hasteur (talk) 12:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it's a sock. More likely too inexperienced to know to log in because the entry to the reviewer list was also done by an IP. Fishy all the same. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

G13 again

Unresolved

Dear reviewers:

After reading the above thread again, I need some more clarification. I understand and agreed at the time it was set up that a bot would put all of the articles that hadn't been edited for six months in a category. Now, am I correct in understanding that another bot AND ONLY THIS BOT is allowed to decide which articles have no salvageable information and tag them for deletion (or is it just tagging them all?), and that administrators are rubberstamping these nominations, just checking now and then to see that the bot is still working as expected? Just checking... —Anne Delong (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, I see that the category of G13 eligible submissions is organized in alphabetical order, but according to the discussion above the submissions are being deleted by date. What is the procedure for rescuing articles ahead of the deletion? —Anne Delong (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Follow along in [6] and I'll narrate the diff.
If the date/time of the last revision + 6 months is less than the current time, add the category G13 eligible AfC submissions with a sorting parameter that is ((Year*12)+MonthNumber).
This causes the category to cleverly be sorted first by Month, then alphabetical so the pages at the front of the category are the most stale and alphabetically hightest. Hasteur (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Ok, take a deep breath. One bot task does a null edit so that the AFC templates appropriately apply the G13 eligible category and lets the author of the AfC page that their creation is (or soon will be) eligible for deletion under G13. A second bot task (running in the same bot account) picks up a list of pages that it notified the author at least 30 days ago and verifies that the article hasn't been edited in at least 210 days (180 days for base G13, and 30 days for notification of eligibility). The bot does not take a look at the contents of the page, simply at the straight eligibility of G13. If editors want to take a swing at saving them (or getting annother user to adopt them) all it takes is a single registered edit on the page (or perhaps a null template that adds a hidden category indicating how many times G13 has been stayed) to remove the page from current danger. Hasteur (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I'll put together a template {{AfC reprieve|n}} that can be added to the submission if an editor thinks there's hope for the submission. The n parameter can be omited, but if populated represents the number of times the article has been given a reprieve. I'll tie a hidden category to the template so that the reprieved parameter will allow editors to sort based on how many times the submission has been reprieved. The addition of the template will allow editors interested in giving more time to a submission by having the edit date move forward and also track how many times we've been generous with the submission. Does this help to alleviate some of your concern Anne Delong? Hasteur (talk) 20:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, your explanation is clear; so is the answer to my question that although when I click on the list of submissions in the user box, the submissions appear to be sorted alphabetically, I am actually seeing the alphabetical list of the stalest month only? If so, then I can just look at the first few pages of the list at any time, right? Now, you say that a registered edit will remove the G13; I presume that this means that the bot is regularly checking the already tagged submissions to see if they have been edited and removing the tags.
Your idea of marking ones that are improvable is good, and if you add a hidden category we would be able to find them once they are no longer on the G13 list. However I am more concerned with the waste of time of multiple people checking ones that are hopeless. My intention had been to just tag for deletion ones in which someone is describing their cat, or a band that hasn't had its first gig yet, or a first novel not yet published, the school chess club that may soon attend a tournament etc. Then the next reviewer wouldn't see them. However, it seems that this is going to be looked down on, so if six people are trying to save articles, all six will have to check these non-notable articles one after another. And they can't even leave a comment for the next person, because that would change the last edit date. Maybe your category idea could include a solution for this. I bet you never thought when you started this that it would be so much work! —Anne Delong (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
A edit that sticks (even if it's removing a single space) changes the last modified date to when the change lands at the wikipedia database. When the nominating task goes in it's keyed to select (at most) 50 oldest notifications and go inspect the page. It checks to see if the page has been converted into a redirect (which makes the page ineligible for G13 by fact that it's not a submission) or doesn't exist any more (which means that the page was deleted from somewhere else). The bot then checks to make sure the page hasn't been edited in at least 210 days (180 + 30) to be double sure that the page hasn't been edited since the notification went out (if it was, the bot removes the who/what record from it's database) At the point the articles are in the G13 eligible category, they aren't nominations yet, but they are technically eligible. The idea behind the hidden category is so that we can see which ones had at least 1 editor who had confidence in it and focus the efforts for saving on that collection. Hasteur (talk) 22:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay again. So, if I understand you, even though some of the submissions have been edited, once nominated they will retain their G13 eligibility tag and stay on the list until they get to the top of the queue. Oh, by the way, I found this: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2013 5 in the submissions without template list. I was going to remove the category, but then I thought that I'd better report it. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

If the submission is eligible for G13 and it gets edited for any reason besides to nominate the page for G13, the page looses it's eligibility immediately

If the page is edited to nominate for G13, the page is still active for the purpose of G13 (otherwise the G13 nomination would instantly void G13 on the page, Chatch-22 and all).
The pages that are at the top of the G13 eligiblity list are the ones that are the most likely to be nominated for deletion first as they represent the oldest records and it doesn't really help to jump up and down on the records that just became eligible at the very bottom of the list.

It's my personal opinion that the ones that are discovered in "Pages without a AfC template" should either be put into draft/submitted/banners restored so that they're navigable by the "AfC submissions by date" hierarchy. Hasteur (talk) 02:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Anne Delong Ok, I've

created a category Category:AfC postponed G13 that tracks how many times a postponement of G13 has been requested, I've documented the purpose, and set the category up so that it is hidden from most people (except those registered users who have Hidden categories turned on)
created a template {{AfC postpone G13}} that invokes the category and documents how to use the template (including how to show how many times a submission has been given a reprieve
added a AfC page that has potential to the category (by way of the template) as I think the submission has potential (I was one of the decliners when it was being actively submitted)

As you can tell Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/A Theory of Justice: The Musical! no longer has the G13 eligibility and the last modified date is so fresh that it's impossible for the bot to pick it up. I hope this satisfies your needs for the task. Hasteur (talk) 02:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

That looks good, Hasteur. To be clear, I didn't ask for that; it was your own idea. My comments were about the ones that were not improvable for one reason or another, and how to tell which ones had already been looked at. However, what you have done looks very useful and should help those who want to rescue articles, of which I will be one, so thank you. I will look into enabling hidden categories. This will be more efficient than what I have been doing, which is making my own list on a user page . —Anne Delong (talk) 03:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

drafter-suggested categories in AFC submissions

Unresolved

Hi, it seems to me that the AFC reviewer scripts / tools might have been changed recently to process user-suggested categories for new articles, in an imperfect way. Not sure if this is a bug or a feature, or if this is really new or not.

For example, this diff removed categories that i had suggested, by commenting them out with a colon, i.e. by changing [[Category:...]] to [[:Category:...]]. That was an edit that was also approving the article for mainspace, removing the AFC header. I think (but am not sure) that was automated, not a manual change by the approving editor.

It seems to me that any automated feature should be going in the other direction, i.e. changing all instances of [[:Category:...]] to [[Category:...]].

I personally am confused about how I should submit categories in articles for AFC that I submit. It's an advanced feature for not many AFC submitters, I grant, to be able to submit categorization as part of a draft article, but I think it should be possible. I have tried submitting both ways, with and without colons myself, and for a while I was finding that submitting without the colon got the article into mainspace with the categorizations made live. But that seems not to be working now. --doncram 14:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep, this was a bug introduced by another developer quite a while ago that I happened to notice (independent of this post) a few days ago and fixed; it will be available in the live script in the coming days. Sorry about that! Theopolisme (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Status update: The fix is now present in the live beta script...after about a week of testing to make sure it doesn't blow anything up, it will be migrated to the master gadget. Theopolisme (talk) 01:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse

FYI

Dear editors: I have been working through the Category:AfC submissions with missing AfC template and I have noticed that there are a lot fewer in 2013 than there were in the same period in 2012. I credit the Teahouse invitations. Before that, if the template was missing, so was the message about how to reach the Afc help desk. Of the more recent ones that I have been working on today, not one has had a Teahouse invitation. So bravo, Teahouse, and I hope everyone will remember to send these invitations to any new editors. Maybe sometime in the future a similar invitation to the Afc help page could be triggered when an editor uses the article wizard, but in the meantime the Teahouse is the next best thing. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Bad acceptances?

Unresolved

I think SefBau (talk · contribs) may be too generous in accepting some articles, such as Camelot (software) and Pagemodo (the latter of which is tagged for deletion). Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Ping: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2013 4#Can we block editors for being too stupid?

Unresolved

This was archived as unresolved. I think the suggestion for creating some uw is worthy of further discussion. If not, let's say so and drop the idea. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

In my mind, this discussion is flawed, perhaps fatally, by the use of the word "stupid". I think that the real issue is competence, and I also think that there are many causes of incompetence to edit Wikipedia, of which low intelligence is perhaps the least common.
The factors that cause someone to be incompetent to edit may include conflict of interest, such as being assigned by one's boss to write a promotional puff piece and pursuing this goal with a vengeance, POV pushing such as placing determined issue advocacy above building an encyclopedia, and personality traits that cause someone to be pretty much unable to collaborate or compromise. Very marginal English language skills can also cause incompetence, though editors not fully fluent in English can be productive if they are aware of their shortcomings and willing to collaborate with fluent editors.
The word "stupid" is insulting in most contexts. I have a son, a young adult with a rare genetic defect that causes some significant learning disabilities. He is very strong in some areas, and very weak in others. Recently, he has expressed an interest in editing Wikipedia. His spelling is very good, but his punctuation and capitalization are poor. His math skills are weak, but he is quite good in general knowledge and if a topic interests him, he will accumulate a large number of facts. Cruel people might call my son "stupid" and it is clear by most measurements that his intelligence is "below normal". But he can watch a TV show like "Jeopardy" and get many answers right. He is also not stubborn, and very willing to listen if someone says he is wrong. I believe my "stupid" son is capable of editing Wikipedia, if he takes it slow, listens to others, and asks people to check his work when he is getting started. But I would never use the word "stupid" to describe him, because he is aware of his shortcomings and willing to limit himself to areas where he is competent, even if slower than others. He has learning disabilities, or is mildly mentally retarded. I often wonder why intelligent people use insulting, belittling terms like "stupid", but they often do. Perhaps it is because intelligence and compassion are not the same thing.
Why would someone resubmit a rejected AFC draft over and over, without addressing the underlying issues? I am not certain though I have some theories. Though competence enters into it, I am not sure that "stupidity" is a useful explanation. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree that the thread title was an unfortunate choice of words (I didn't start it), and I concur that there are many reasons why so many editors appear to have less clue. One of the problems is the failing of Wikipedia after all these years to have a proper landing page for all new users that tells them immediately (and in friendly terms) what they can and can not post; there will however be some forthcoming discussion to address these issues.
By pointing to this archived thread however, I was hoping to restart some discussion on the uw system I proposed which would not be more bitey or discouraging than the set of uw already in use. It would be a start. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
What is uw? —Anne Delong (talk) 04:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Its part in the name of most user conduct warning templates, I presume it stands for user warn or something similar. Monty845 04:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
WP:UW. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Anne Delong, for asking the question that I was getting ready to ask. After four years of active editing, I was unsure what "uw" meant. I am going to watch some bluegrass videos on YouTube (usually not a reliable source on Wikipedia) in your honor. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Be careful with the decision to go with boilerplate templates. I think an individualized message is likely to be a lot more effective and can also give the struggling editor a point of contact to whom they can bring questions. One important distinction is whether the reviewer thinks the submission just needs some work, or is totally unsalvageable. If your leaving the message to an editor who is struggling to get an article about a clearly unnotable person accepted, directly addressing the futility of resubmitting is important, whereas a poorly sourced, but notable topic, a message focused more on the need to make improvements, or even help doing so, would serve better. To often there is a boiler plate message on an AfC rejection, but no specifics related to the article, and I'd hate to see that followed by escalating warning messages, all without anyone trying to explain how policy relates to the specifics of the submission. Monty845 04:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
This is an excellent point, Monty. I am active in AfD and the Teahouse, both of which see spillover from the AFC process. Since I don't do AFC reviews at this time, please excuse my lack of direct experience in this area. But at AfD, good participants look primarily at the notability of the topic, not the current state of the article. A poor article about a notable topic can always be improved (and I am proud to have improved many I've discovered at AfD). But an article about a topic that is fundamentally non-notable must be deleted at AfD, or forcefully declined at AFC. Holding out false hope is far more cruel than bringing the axe down promptly. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
The whole point is that if the 'boilerplates' were very carefully crafted they would have the relevant information in them and they wouldn't be perceived as bitey. You may be surprised, but when I first started editing many years ago, even I thought that some of the template messages were individually written. For anyone interested in creating them, there is a lot that can be done to personalise them - problem is that perhaps not everyone knows how to make them friendly and encouraging enough. I recast some of the milder ones in use by Twinkle today because I thought their messages were too harsh. There are so many submissions constantly being made that such uw could even be AB tested. I think the misnomer is that we refer to them as user warning templates when in fact many of them aren't warnings at all. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

Reviewer permission

FYI

An RfC has been opened to determine community consensus for a user right or permission for AfC reviewers at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Reviewers' areas of expertise

Unresolved

Some time ago a suggestion was made that we should keep track of the areas of expertise of frequent reviewers, so that others could point out submissions that could benefit from such. Then Dodger67 started a list in a sandbox: (User:Dodger67/Sandbox/AfC Participants test page). Was anything ever done about this? Or was it just lost in the archive as was mentioned in the above thread? It could very easily be put on the Participants page —Anne Delong (talk) 11:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I like the idea. If a reviewer is unsure about whether or not to pass an article, they can ask a subject expert. I'm good on musician / band articles, DGG is good on academics. It's useful information to have to hand. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I fixed the link. We need to be able to make the list searchable - so that one can find someone with a particular interest or language competence, or even a combination: "Need a reviewer to check a French source about Polish folk music". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Better co-ordination with Wikiprojects

There has been a lot of concern expressed about the size of the backlog, and the need to recruit experienced editors to do some reviewing. One way to attract reviewers is to leave messages at Wikiprojects about articles that are in their area of interest.

Would it be difficult to add an extra item under the "review" option called “Notify project” that would:

  • open an alphabetical list of Wikiprojects,
  • if one was clicked on, post an automated message at the project such as “ 'Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Such and such an article', which has been submitted for review at Afc, may be of interest to members of this Wikiproject.”,
  • add an Afc comment “'Wikiproject such and such' has been notified about this submission.” to the submitted article-to-be?

This may be worth the effort because:

  1. editors who have reviewed in the past or who know the subject well may see one of these and come back and take on some of these reviews.
  2. editors who are interested in specific topics may take time to help the submitters improve the submissions by adding references, thus making fewer declines and resubmissions.
  3. submitters may see the notices and visit the Wikiprojects in their area of interest, this increasing their knowledge of Wikipedia.
  4. it would be an good task to give new reviewers, who would see a variety of submissions, comments and decline reasons while doing it.
  5. when an article is accepted, the accepting reviewer would already know which Wikiprojects should have banners on the talk page, or, perhaps, sometime in the future these banners could be added automatically.

I'm not sure how many Wikprojects there are, or if this would be practical. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Anne, there are a crapload of Wikiprojects. (Yes, crapload is a technical term.) I agree there should be better Wikiproject integration, but there would have to be some auditing to determine which to include. A fair amount of Wikiprojects are defunct or only partially active. Perhaps only active Wikiprojects could be included, and semi-active ones would be able to request that they be included. And perhaps instead of organizing them by alphabet, perhaps category instead. Thanks, theonesean 00:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There are around 2,200 WikiProjects. While I'm not sure about this proposal specifically, I do think that making the addition of WikiProject templates should be more intuitive when using the script (and is something I'll be working on in the future). Theopolisme (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, I guess 2,200 is too many to put on a list. It was just an idea. There have been a number of editors who have specifically asked to be notified (Opera, chemistry, math come to mind). Even a list of links to the talk pages of these would be helpful. Then the reviewer could copy the article title, click on the link, and leave their own message. This would require no programming at all. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:AfC pending submissions by age Challenge

Attention All reviewers, I'm putting a bounty out. I know I plowed through at least 60 AfC submissions yesterday and saw little progress being made on the back of the log, so here is my challenge: I challenge all the reviewers and talk page watchers to burn the backlog down to no pending reviews in any of the sub-categories over 7 days within 48 hours of this timestamp. If the challenge is met, I'll make a registered donation to the WikiMedia foundation of $50. So game on! Hasteur (talk) 16:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

You're on. theonesean 22:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Dear Hasteur: This was a brilliant idea, but I don't think enough people saw it for such an ambitious challenge. If you decide to do it again at a future date, I will match your donation with $50 (CDN). —Anne Delong (talk) 12:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

AFCH developer request for help with wikipedian categorization to make mailings easier

Hello! I've been working on (but had to take a break from) a project that will make it easier for me to be able to send out notifications of bugs and patches with the helper script based on your OS, browser, and skin choice on wiki. Please add the following userboxes (or manually add yourself to appropriate categories if you don't like userboxes):

Thank you for your assistance. Technical 13 (talk) 01:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

This talk page

Unresolved

While doing some research for something, I spent the whole morning going through the entire archives for 2013. A couple of things became glaringly obvious:

  • There are two main types of discussion threads: Those on the AfC system itself and the management of it; and requests on how to handle individual tricky submissions.
  • Many threads trend to get archived before they are resolved/concluded, leading to the same questions/issues being reported again in a later active page.
  • Many threads, even on a current non-archive page tend to get submerged and ignored by the many subsequent new threads.

How about, in the future, splitting into two thematic talk pages for these different kinds of threads? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

That may be a good idea, although there are so many discussion pages to keep track of already. The usefulness of the page depends on a lot of editors participating. Another possibility would be to hide the contents of resolved threads, thus shortening up the page and highlighting the unresolved threads, but that has its disadvantages too, since I personally learn a lot from reading the answers to other people's questions. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Kudpung I agree this page is archived way too often, I've adjusted the settings to allow threads to sit for 15 days instead of just the 7 it was set at. Currently, the main talk page for the WP:AFCH redirects here. I think it would be a fine idea to make that not happen. Also, I have no problem and think it would be a fine idea to have another "room" for technical questions and leave this page just for submission questions. I should probably try and find MiszaBot's code and see if I can add the coding to allow it to archive sections tagged as {{Resolved}} or {{Done}} but I don't have time at the moment *cough* Theopolisme it is written in Python I believe *cough* Technical 13 (talk) 04:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Probably then, the easiest solution is to create WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewer help and make sure that the regular reviewers know what it's for, add a tab for it to the project pagetop navigation template, and keep this talk page for all the actual management/technical discussions - the edit notice already says This page is for users working on the project's administration.. Otherwise, even now, I can see this very thread being submerged soon. Something like this does not need a long convoluted discussion for approval. In some projects where I'm the main mover & shaker I would just go ahead and do it, but here at AfC I'm not.
It's easy enough to keep track of discussion pages if they are on your watch list. If your name is mentioned anywhere there is also the useful red square notification you get whenever you log in or load a new page. I have over 14,000 pages/articles on my WL, some of them regularly edited, but each time I reload from 'only new' it's actually only a short list to quickly scan through. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
With an average of around 23 posts a dy (over the last 7 days) that makes this a very busy talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I also support a separate "Reviewer help" page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
It'd also help to have some listing of "Perennial questions" or whatever for "can we get rid of the huge "Userspace" red error message that confuses submitters", "can we get the newest yellow box to appear at top instead of bottom", "can we have multiple pink boxes merge into one "multiple declines" box so it doesn't overwhelm the page", "can we force everyone to move to AFC space to be considered for review", "can we have a 'bot automatically Decline blank pages", etc. Those are all valid questions, but if we had some place to recognise that they're key questions without an easy answer yet, that'd help, and at least keep the issues visible. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Not fair, it was my turn to ask those questions next.... Seriously, an FAQ sounds like a good idea, as long as it's kept up to date - with all of the changes going on around here the answers could be in flux. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Still marked as 'Unresolved'. Is someone goung to carry rthrough with the suggestions? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, the easiest one to start with is probably the FAQ. That would shorten up this page a lot, because if someone asked one of those questions, we could refer them directly to that page. Anyone who had up-to-date information on the question could edit the page, and since it would not be a discussion page, out of date info could be removed or replaced, keeping the page short. I would be willing to start this page if there is consensus on its title and location. How about Wikipedia:Wikiproject Articles for creation/Reviewer FAQ? That way it can have its own talk page for deciding what should be on it. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Next backlog drive

Hi all, Two questions:

  1. Is it worth starting a September Drive, or should we hang on until October
  2. Should we make anyone who reviews enough to get certain barnstars also have to review 25 reviews to earn it - this is to adress the sheer number that aren't, using a similar system to DYK.

Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was a certainty that we weren't going to do annother drive until we can explain why the unreviewed submissions pile up when there's not an active drive. We already do barnstar giveaways based on the number of reviews in a drive. I want to understand why we start with a relatively clear backlog, get so hopelessly backlogged that the only way to fix it is to go on a holy war, burn down the entire backlog in 3~5 days and are left with an entire month of jumping on every last submission? Hasteur (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm Opposed to handing out barnstars for AFC drives as it is currently set up... There should be barnstars given out, for quality and not quantity of reviews... I'm thinking that when the backlog has been hanging at 1,500 for a couple weeks, we should discuss another drive whether we understand why we are getting these backlogs or not. There is no reason to make all of the submitters wait any longer than needed because of a flaw in our system. Technical 13 (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
  • It's pretty evident to me that the main reason for the rise in pending submissions seen after each drive is simply due to less reviews being performed. In other words: everyone participates in drives, not many people regularly review. We have a few usual suspects (we're a strange folk indeed), but this group of editors can't handle the current influx of articles, hence the steadily-increasing accumulation after each drive's over (drives which are pretty crude for mere spectators). The best way of countering this is, as many of you have already pointed out: enticing regular reviews by outside editors. Bringing young blood to this Project and retaining said blood is the most effective way to go, no matter what the Project's fate is, at least the sheer number of reviews will be accounted for in the long-term. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Proposal: We hand out Barnstars (seemingly the major motivator behind the BLDs) for every 50 reviews by anybody anytime. Everytime someone does 50 reviews they get a Barnstar. If they do 100, they get another one. Feel free to elaborate on this, break it down by month, etc. but that's one way to expand the motivation of a Backlog Drive to the normal, non-BLD world. We could hql reviews, allowing more precise tracking. theonesean 15:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
    • But, in RE: the original question, if we're going to do a drive, let's do it in October, not September. And yes, I think reviewing reviews should totally be required for barnstarage.
    • Giving a barnstar for every fifty review would mean that last time our top reviewer would have received more than 20 barnstars. Some reviews don't take much time. What's needed is a way to encourage people to review the tricky ones that get to the top of the queue. I'm not saying that I have the answer to that. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
  • About the reasons for fewer reviews being done: there have been some new developments during the past month or two in Afc which have taken away the time of some regular reviewers:
(1) A lot of time was spent discussing the (at the time) 80,000 old drafts and then developing a consensus and a procedure for dealing with them;
(2) Some editors who would normally have been reviewing, concerned that good material was about to be deleted, switched their efforts to rescuing these, and there is an almost unending supply
(3) It was brought to our attention that there were about 2000 drafts which were in Afc space but didn't have any template at all on them, and some editors who would normally be reviewing switched their attentions to dealing with these, since the longer the drafts remain “stuck”, the more likely it is that the editors will either give up and stop editing or cut and paste their drafts to mainspace.
(4) During the first half of August, a lot of reviewers' time was taken up with re-reviewing and answering questions on help pages, in particular because there were over-eager (or in one case COI) reviewers who weren't spending enough time on each submission to do a proper job, and so the editors had to be contacted with more information about how to improve their drafts.
  • The way I see it, one barnstar for participating plus the trophies is enough. Handing out many barstars (like you said, 20 in some cases) sounds a bit dodgy and useless. I also liked the idea of a barnstar based on the quality of articles accepted instead. This could be a way of stimulating careful examination instead of just bulk low-quality reviewing. Nobody in their right mind can think that reviewing 100 or so submissions a day is good or careful reviewing. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Submissions in the wrong space

Will the G13 bot pick up submissions in Wikipedia:Articles for creation as well as Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation, or should these be moved? —Anne Delong (talk) 05:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The authorization and coding are such that the bot only pays attention to articles that have a title that starts with "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation". If there's consensus, I can go ahead and "Wikipedia:Articles for creation" prefix as well. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we use the WT namespace as it's easier for newbie/IP editors to create their work there. I'm happy to do whatever is best and makes it easier on reviewers. Hasteur (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
As far as I understand, articles for review are all supposed to be in :"Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation", but from time to time either someone misunderstands, or accidentally chooses the wrong space (I've done it myself). However, there are other pages in "Wikipedia:Articles for creation" that belong there. I presume they wouldn't have submit templates, so a bot could tell the difference. I personally would prefer to see all of the submissions in the correct space, and the bot dealing with them there, but of course moving the old ones would change their date of last edit, and maybe that's not good. Is there a way to find out how many there are? If there are just a few, it's probably easier to move them. If there are a lot, perhaps the best solution may be to move any fairly recent ones or ones which could be "rescued", and leave the rest for the G13. I don't have a strong opinion about this; I just came across an incorrectly placed submission and wondered what would happen to it. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I noticed a few of these in the CSD queue recently, did a double-take, because I didn't think they should be there, and wondered why. Now I know.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Afc Help Desk

Recently I noticed that the Afc decline template doesn't seem to have a link to the Afc help desk. Is this a bug? The older templates have one. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You sure about that? Template:AFC submission/declined includes a link (If you require extra help, ask a question at the Articles for creation help desk), and when I just tested it the link was present... Theopolisme (talk) 22:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Theopolisme, please check out this recently declined submission. The first decline box has the link; I'm pretty sure that the next two do not. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI: New AFCH version pushed

Hi everyone, I've pushed a new version of AFCH. According to User:Theopolisme: 

This release includes new button styling, speed improvements, an
"article creator" option for submit and mark as draft, CSD logging for
G13 nominations, a "postpone G13 speedy deletion" button, and lots of
bug fixes.

I'll be on #wikipedia-en-afc connect for another hour or so, please ping me if something is horribly broken. Legoktm (talk) 05:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Legoktm That's the production gadget you pushed (i.e. only have to enable it on the gadget preferences page)? Hasteur (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
He pushed the new build of the production gadget and of the beta script (master and beta branches on github, respectively). Theopolisme (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
NOTE: If you see odd behavior, please bypass your cache before you report a problem. The tool is almost entirely in javascript. Hasteur (talk) 11:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Reminder regarding Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions

FYI

This category represents old AfC submissions that meet the CSD:G13 rationalle. HasteurBot went through all the old AfC submissions and gave a gentle tap on the shoulder of the page creator that their submission is in danger of being deleted via that CSD rationalle. Starting September 4th, the 30 day wait window on the notification of eligibility will begin to expire. When the wait window expires, HasteurBot will methodically start nominating for G13. Please review the members of the category for records that merit saving. The following is a list of how many pages per day the bot notified so that editors can get an idea of how many records per day are up for challenge

Date Count
2013-08-05 1307
2013-08-06 523
2013-08-08 1219
2013-08-09 1938
2013-08-10 1507
2013-08-11 1777
2013-08-12 2413
2013-08-13 2934
2013-08-14 3768
2013-08-15 1878
2013-08-16 4116
2013-08-17 2720
2013-08-18 2562
2013-08-19 3490
2013-08-20 25181
2013-08-22 16
2013-08-24 43
2013-08-27 169
2013-08-29 359
2013-08-30 10

Just a FYI at this point. Hasteur (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

2013-08-20 25181 - was that the day the python ate the elephant? :) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
That was the day that the tasks were approved, the user account gained the bot flag, and the throttle on the process went from ~15 seconds wait on save actions, to "as fast as you can consume the data". Plus I submitted ~90 days worth of evaluations to the compute cluster queue that day Hasteur (talk) 20:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I highly recommend limiting the G13-nomination to a few hundred a day over a period of 4-6 months. I eyeballed 55-60,000 submissions in the list above. For those who want hard numbers, I would recommend no more than 100 the first day, 0 the next to give time to wait for complaints, review logs, etc., 100 each for the next few days, 0 the next to do a review, then ramp it up to about 500 a day until this list is exhausted, throttling back if needed if either there are complaints or if administrators can't keep up with the new backlog of db-13-bot-marked submissions.
The only reason I can think of to go over 500 is if the number of incoming submissions that aren't accepted is anywhere close to 500 AND the administrators can keep up with the bot-generated G13 backlog. Assuming the administrators can handle more work, the throttle can be raised to "500 plus the number incoming" to ensure that 6 months from now we are all caught up. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
There have already been some initial tests with the most stale submissions so far, but per User talk:Hasteur/Archive 6#Your bot (CSD 13), as long as they're indicated as bot nominations, 3 of the admins who were actively patrolling the category (@RHaworth, JohnCD, and Sphilbrick:) have tentatively given their ascent that they are fine with the bot's nominations and that they can handle the objections.
The bot works as thus: The bot will select up to 50 potential pages. Open the page to make sure it's still valid for G13 (and make sure it's also been 30 days since the bot notified the creator the page is in danger of being deleted). If the page is still valid, mark it for G13, notify the creator, and write what time we nominated the page. The bot does not nominate more than 50 pages in a single run. The bot tries to not have more than 50 pages into the G13 deletion category at a single time (though cannot ensure that other editors are not nominating by themselves). If there's already nominations for the G13 category, the bot deducts that many from the potential list it pulls from the database. During the initial tests, the admins were actioning the G13 nominations almost as fast as the bot putting the nominations up. Probably during the first few days I'll limit it to 1x a hour triggering of the bot, but after that I'll open the throttle to 2x a hour (or more pending the Admins telling me they want more) Hasteur (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. After reading some of the concerns, I will be modifying my process. As before, I will spot-check occasionally to make sure the date checking doesn't fall apart, but the bot has a 100% success rate so far. In addition I will do a cursory assessment of the page content, in case some substantial article gets into the pile and ought to be handled differently.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Topped up to 50 G13 nominations once every 30 minutes - I will give my assent to that. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • You can make it easy for yourself to keep track of how many are left eligible and how many are waiting on an admin to delete with my userbox... Simply transclude {{User:Technical 13/Userboxes/G13}} on your userpage (talk page, edit notice page for either or both...) and you will get
1This WikiProject is
evaluating CSD:G13
eligible AfC drafts		25
I'm also willing (and likely) to make a small userscript that will keep you up to date on all of the G13 categories (and be configurable). Requests for this could make me go faster and move it up my list... ;) Technical 13 (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Mass submissions of old drafts

Unresolved

I've noticed lately that some IPs and users have been mass-submitting old drafts, such as Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carlos Rodrequez Costa (this one in particular has only submitted one, but I've seen others that have submitted many). Should anything in particular be done with these? Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you give an example of multiple submissions? One thing that comes to mind is that users have been getting reminders that their old drafts will be deleted if they haven't been edited for six months, under G13. This might be prompting some who had forgotten about the drafts to resubmit them. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't have the link, but I remember one IP submitted about 10 really old drafts, all unrelated to each other and to him, that would otherwise be G13-able. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
It's okay to edit old drafts, thus making them temporarily ineligible for G13, but hopefully one wouldn't submit them unless (1) the editor had improved the draft substantially after the last decline, and (2) the draft now appeared to have a chance of passing the review. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky Institute of Eastern Christian Studies

Resolved

Dear editors: The above article is on the list of recently accepted articles, but it doesn't seem to have ever been in Afc space, but just had a submission template put on and then removed by its creator. Should it be removed from the category of accepted articles or does this count? Or is it cut-and-paste that I have missed? —Anne Delong (talk) 13:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Where is the list of recently accepted? Something is screwey here. Hasteur (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for creation/recent never had it. It was created with an AFC template, which meant it showed up in CAT:PEND as a "misplaced submission." The author later removed the AFC template. Other than some iffy notability and a concern as to whether this should be merged into its parent university, I would have accepted in in AFC. I might have suggested a more unique info-box rather than stealing that of the parent university though. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
This submission was listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:AFC_statistics as having been accepted by a redlinked editor, which caught my attention when I was looking through the green list of recent accepts. It's gone now. I guess it's not likely to happen often. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Reviewer FAQ - what shall we call it?

In a previous discussion on this page, a number of ideas were put forth for ways to shorten this talk page so that important discussions wouldn't be archived. Here is my posting in that discussion, which I am reposting here for better visibility:

Well, the easiest one to start with is probably the FAQ (suggested by MatthewVanitas). That would shorten up this page a lot, because if someone asked one of those questions, we could refer them directly to that page. Anyone who had up-to-date information on the question could edit the page, and since it would not be a discussion page, out of date info could be removed or replaced, keeping the page short. I would be willing to start this page if there is consensus on its title and location. How about Wikipedia:Wikiproject Articles for creation/Reviewer FAQ? That way it can have its own talk page for deciding what should be on it. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

—Anne Delong (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, a "Reviewer FAQ" page makes a lot of sense - go for it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Who is this FAQ for exactly? Draft creators that come in asking the same questions over and over or reviewers that haven't been through the training program (when it's available) or read through the "How to review drafts" documentation? Technical 13 (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
It's for questions from reviewers that keep coming up, not so much about how to review drafts, because you are right that we will be able to point them to the review instructions or the training progra, but more "Why don't we do things this way?". Here are some of Matthew's suggestions for questions:
"can we get rid of the huge "Userspace" red error message that confuses submitters", "can we get the newest yellow box to appear at top instead of bottom", "can we have multiple pink boxes merge into one "multiple declines" box so it doesn't overwhelm the page", "can we force everyone to move to AFC space to be considered for review", "can we have a 'bot automatically Decline blank pages", etc
It seems like people take the time to answer these questions for one person, but then the page is archived, and a few weeks later someone asks again. The nice thing about having the FAQ is that if one person knows of some new information, say about an upcoming technical improvement, they can add it there and it will not be archived, just changed or deleted when it becomes out of date. For instance, if a question said "Is there a training program for new reviewers?" The answer could be a link to the reviewing instructions, with a note that a training program is in development; then when the program is ready it could be changed to a link to the program. If we find that it's not helpful, it's just a page, so it can always be deleted without causing any technical problems. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I will start the page, but I will wait until there is consensus about whether the result is useful and accurate before linking it to anything except this thread. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I have started a page at the link above, but now I am riding north to cottage country where there is, sadly only dial-up access, for two days. Please feel free to add, change, move to a different page title, whatever. Surprise me! I have added "NOINDEX" for now. It's probably best not to reinvent the wheel; if the answer is already on a policy page or essay, just point at that. My connection is getting weaker... ahhhhh.... —Anne Delong (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions that have been blanked

If this has been covered please can you link me to it? Thanks.

I've been noticing that some articles in the potential G13 category have been blanked and marked {{afc cleared}}. Trouble is some of the decline reasons don't match with current best practice for blanking articles in terms of the decline reason. How should we be handling this- should we just trust the judgement of the original reviewer and G13/G11/G10 (as the decline reason suggests) all reviewer blanked submissions that are over 180 days old, or should we look into the history and seek second opinions? Part of me thinks- if an article was abandoned in 2012 or earlier we should just let it go, but another part of me hears the arguments that human reviewers shouldn't be G13'ing all abandoned submissions in a bot-like fashion. Rankersbo (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The second part of your question seems to do with the wisdom of G13 in general, the first part appears to have to do with submissions that are blanked for one reason or another. This leaves me to wonder whether or not I'm completely understanding your question.
With respect to blanking, however, there are a number of reasons that blanking might be appropriate that may not yet be codified in our FAQs. --j⚛e deckertalk 14:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
There was only one part of my question: How should we deal with articles that were been blanked by the original reviewer that are now old enough to qualify for G13 deletion? There was a bit of background discussion, but only a single question. Rankersbo (talk) 14:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Rankersbo, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that at least some of these blanked submissions were blanked properly under CSD:G10 or CSD:G12 but for some reason the CSD template wasn't applied or it somehow got lost in the shuffle and now it has come around for another shot at deletion. Technical 13 (talk) 23:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I haven't helped by asking after the fact, sorry. Most of the blanked articles that were there yesterday are now deleted under G13 as articles that showed no promise but no obvious faults otherwise. Several of these articles were blanked with a decline reason of lacking sources, and no comment to show the reviewer thought there were problems beyond that. I mean blanking would be apt. in a mainspace bio, but not here. None of them had a serious decline reason. Some were declined for advertising with no indication that the reviewer had found a copyvio.
There may be some that the reviewer would have been correct in blanking because they qualified for G10 or G12, but the decline reason chosen was not the most serious one they could have flagged the article for. To rephrase my point above, the decline reasons do not indicate the articles were declined as attacks, hoaxes or copyright violations, or anything serious like that.
If it says it's a copyright issue, I mark as G12, advertising G11, hoax G3. But... if the reviewer said none of that in their stated decline reasoning or comments?
So, my question is, in such cases, do we nominate for G13, because life's too short to be questioning decisions made over a year ago? Or do we delve deeper- even if just to check if other decline reasons are? Rankersbo (talk) 07:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Rankersbo, I don't suppose it was one or two specific editors that may have been uninformed about the proper process, would it? I'd say that unless there is a chance that there is new information to support those topics having an article now, that CSD:G13 is still appropriate despite other circumstances. The more important issue in my mind is if these reviewers are still reviewing, have they learned the appropriate process? I think that a quick note on their talk page checking in to see why they were blanking and make sure they know (if not accept or understand, which might be a bigger problem) the correct process now. Technical 13 (talk) 12:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

AFCH "Clean submission" not working

Resolved

My "Clean submission" button in the AFCH script isn't working. Whenever I hit it on any submission, it immediately gives an "Edit failed" message. Anyone else have this problem? Sincerely, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Which version are you you using? (Preferences, Beta, Dev tracker)
Have you tried bypassing/clearing your browser cache?
Thanks Hasteur (talk) 22:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Additionally, could you provide a link to the page that you have this issue (or is it every page)? Thanks again for the error report; they're always appreciated! Theopolisme (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Never mind! The script is working now! I think I just got caught while the devs were updating the script as it looks different now. For the record, I enabled my script in preferences, and I had the issue on every page. Thanks guys! Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Great, glad everything cleared up! Please let us know if you ever have any feature suggestions (or more bug reports, although they're less fun ) for the script in the future-- Theopolisme (talk) 00:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/DJ Asif Ali

Google says that this article is a copyright violation, but I don't know enough about Soundcloud to find the text. If anyone else can, please nominate this for deletion. Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done Theopolisme (talk) 21:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

G13 six months or 180 days?

Resolved

6 months means 6 months. 180 days was just a convienence factor that has now been eliminated from the bot's needs Hasteur (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Problem Summary

CSD G13 covers:

Rejected or unsubmitted Articles for creation pages that have not been edited in over six months.

(emphasis added)

It doesn't say 180 days, it says six months.

Potential solution 1

Clarify that the community really means 180 days, and edit the policy wording, after completing whatever steps are needed to change a policy.

Potential solution 2

Clarify that the community really means six months, and stop nominating articles which are over 180 days, but have not reached the six month hurdle.

Interim suggestion

Discussion

Please place !votes above, and discuss here.

Support either solution. Basically as long as things are clarified as to the definition it would work either way. Practice has been for the automated bots to start tagging things at 180 days as suggested in solution 1, but if solution 2 is taken then those will need to be updated. If that is done then solution #2 can work too. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

*grumbles* Once again, from the top, with feeling. The Bot notifies editors whose pages have been stale for at least 180 days that their submission could soon be (or is) eligible for deletion [7]. Depending on the configuration of days in the past 6 months this is most likely just before G13 eligibility takes effect. This gives the editor a few days before an excited deleter (or admin) jumps on the page for being significantly old. The category Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions is a list of definitely eligible pages that meet the G13 criterion. The category is either applied from {{AFC submission/draft}} or {{AFC submission/declined}} only if the last modification date of the page is more than six months ago [8]. The bot only nominates articles for which we've waited 30 days from the notification date and the last modified date of the page in question is 210 days (180 + 30 days) which puts us definitely inside the 6 month window. 6 months is not a definite amount of time due to the division of days per month. During the BRFA I originally used 182.5 (6 months = 1/2 year = 365 days /2), but was encouraged to use 180 days as a less arbitrary number. The membership of the category IS 6 months unedited.

Sidebar: When talking about stale I'm specifically referring to registered edits. A Null edit recomputes the page, but does not bump the last revision timestamp

The membership of the G13 eligible category is supposed to be sorted oldest to newest with the oldest on page 1, therefore, unless someone is sneaking down to the tail end of the category, the nominations are typically the oldest.

ArticlesForCreationHelper Dev I filed and got developed a button that will go through the steps of G13 nomination through the AFCH tool, but made sure to have guards that prevent the button from being displayed if the 6 months check is not met.

The only way a editor could (as far as I know) right now nominate without the underlying rule being true is by Twinkle nominating or by hand nominationg, either of which are beyond the scope of the AfC project. Hasteur (talk) 18:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

This arose, not because of the bot, but because of manual additions to the pile, cf. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Skully Skullz--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
This is a solution in search of a problem. The maximum possible difference between "6 months" and "180 days" is 4 days. The bot tags at 180 days but deletion (by a human editor/admin) happens at least one whole week (7 days) or more after the tagging. Deletion is not done by a bot so if a manual tagging was done too early it can be corrected. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
It isn't a theoretical problem, it actually happened. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Skully Skullz I'm not concerned about the bot, which (if I understand correctly) won't add anything to the list until 210 days (180+30)) so well over six months. My concern arises because I declined a CSD which was manually tagged. My declination was reverted, which surprised me. Hence this thread.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Just a thought, but perhaps it might be appropriate to translocate this discussion to Talk: Criteria for Speedy Deletion. Hasteur (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, 3rd try to add this comment. Right now I can't see this as a problem. One day, though, when the backlog is gone (ha!) it may be. By then, maybe we will have a more straightforward solution. For example, a bot could look for articles that hadn't been edited for (for example) 150 days, and on finding one notify the submitter and add a category "Submissions nearing G13 eligibility". Another bot, or the same one, could look for submissions with this interim category, and on finding one, remove it if the article had been edited in the mean time, and replace it with a G13 category if the six months (or 185 days if easier for the bot) were up. That way there would be lots of warning and no prematurely categorized submissions. Any live editors could rely on the bot's category markings, and go strictly by months if any oddly placed submissions were found that the bot had missed. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm I can't believe I missed that.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Hasteur's description of the Hasteurbot operating principles seems sensible and reasonable; there's no reason to put a complicated formula in there because it is only warning the creator of possible deletion at 180 days. I would also support the suggestion that maybe it should be a bit earlier than 180 days, so for users that are still semi-active there is a bigger gap between the reminder and the article becoming eligible for deletion by a human operative. (Oviously just a suggestion -H can take or leave it). But on people not understanding G13 is six months, well people make mistakes, even in the best defined systems. Just have a gentle word. Rankersbo (talk) 08:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
If we can agree, as it seems from the above discussions, that the eligibility will stay at 6 months, not 180 days, then this is resolved. Right? —Anne Delong (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Bot's need to use the 180 days convienence has been removed. Earwig provided a wonderful solution to the problem. Hasteur (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Mixed up moves

Resolved

Dear editors: I have created a problem that I need help to fix. I found an article, Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Koso Kent Introl Limited (KKI), that was in the wrong space, so I tried to move it to Wikipedia talk: instead. I'm not sure what happened, but it ended up at Portal:Articles for creation/Koso Kent Introl Limited (KKI). I thought maybe my hand touched the glide pad on the way to the move button and changed the space setting, but now I am not so sure. I decided to move it again and fix the double redirect later, but the move was refused because Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Koso Kent Introl Limited (KKI) already existed. I then tried to undo the original move. The software said it could be undone, so I clicked save, but it didn't undo it. Instead Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Koso Kent Introl Limited (KKI) now says that I moved it to Portal:Articles for creation/Koso Kent Introl Limited (KKI). This should have been impossible, and I never edited or even looked at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Koso Kent Introl Limited (KKI). Now I have two redirects whose histories both say that I moved the contents to one page. All I wanted was to move the article to Wikpedia talk: space, but at this point I don't know what to do. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. The page that was in the way was a redirect, so that needed to be marked {{db-move}} which comes under reason g6. In twinkle that interface allows you to put in the page you want to move, so the admin that deletes the redirect can also do the page move. Have a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Koso Kent Introl Limited (KKI) now (if an admin hasn't already dealt with it). Rankersbo (talk) 06:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh, er, actually... Originally there were page at both Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Koso Kent Introl Limited (KKI), and Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Koso Kent Introl Limited (KKI) was (more-or-less) a copy-and-paste move of this. When you did the move, both were shifted to the portal sapce, leaving redirects. So the redirect I mention above wasn't there when you wanted to do the original move, and what I said didn't quite apply in the original case. Rankersbo (talk) 07:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks anyway, Rankersbo. It was apparently a cut-an-paste pair and I usually have no problem with these, but I didn't get to it because this weird problem intervened. In fact, I have dealt with over 200 of them in the past month.
I may have caused the mistake on the original move by accidentally changing the space after selecting Wikipedia talk, but that was the only move I did, so I can't explain how two pages were moved into one. I thought the software would prevent that. I was afraid to do anything else in case things got worse. It looks like RHaworth has fixed it up. (Thanks, RH.) After the incorrect move, I clicked on (undo), and the software informed me that the edit could be undone. This is when the problem happened. Is this a glitch? Can page moves usually be reversed with (undo)? If not, software's message is misleading. Should I avoid doing this in the future? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Basically when you move a page that has a talk page, there's a tick box that says "move associated talk page", and the original article was the associated talk page of the c&p move. Seing as the move to portal space wasn't one you intended to make, you wouldn't have seen that option. Personally I don't like workimg with "tap to click" on touch pads, they causes me grief. Rankersbo (talk) 08:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, I agree that touch pads can be cantankerous, but I don't see how the scenario you mention could have caused this. I'm sure that if that box were ticked, it would have redirected the talk page to Portal talk:, rather than redirecting both pages to Portal:. I appreciate your efforts to help me figure this out. Since this is not really an Afc problem I am going to ask at wp:VPT about the undoing of page moves. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm... looks like you were right about the Portal talk: page. I didn't investigate carefully enough. I did find out though, that although (undo) won't reverse a page move, the software brings up a message saying that it will, which is misleading, but apparently nothing happens anyway, so it's only an inconvenience. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Redirects during the acceptance process

Dear reviewers: I found a redirect Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Jon Charles Altman which was aimed at Jon Charles Altman, and I requested that it be deleted as unnecessary. However, DGG turned it into a redirect to the article's talk page, for reasons stated HERE.

I need to know what the correct procedure is. In my understanding, when a submission is moved correctly from user space to "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Article name" (leaving a redirect), and then later to mainspace (leaving a redirect), a bot comes along and gets rid of the double redirect, linking the article directly from the user's space to the mainspace article, and leaving nothing at all left in Afc space. Is this correct, of should there be a redirect from Afc to the talk page? I don't seem to have these on the articles that I created through Afc. Should they be there?

Now, what happens when :

  • (1) The article is created directly using the article wizard, and then moved to mainspace? Are there redirects left behind? If so, what is their purpose?
  • (2) The article is manually created directly in "Wikipedia:Articles for creation" or another incorrect space and then moved to mainspace? Are there redirects in that case, and what is their purpose?
  • (3) The article is created in a user's sandbox or user space, moved accidentally to "Wikipedia:Articles for creation" or another incorrect space and then moved to mainspace? Does the bot fix the double redirects, or, if it doesn't, are they needed to connect the user pages to the mainspace articles?


I am sorry to be always filling up this forum with questions, but there always seems to be one more thing..... —Anne Delong (talk) 06:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

  • 1) The MOVE operation leaves a redirect from the old location to the new location. Understanding this should answer most of your questions. 2) Leftover redirects from user space and AFC space are rarely deleted, but if they are, all incoming links should be fixed first. A bot will usually fix double-redirects but it may not fix all incoming links. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

"c" parameter

Shouldn't there be a parameter for "created"? There's a parameter for "declined", but why is there none in this case? QM400032 (talk) 02:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by QM400032 (talk • contribs)

Moved from Template talk:AFC submission by Technical 13 (talk) at 00:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello, QM400032. As soon as the article is accepted, the article is moved into the encyclopedia and the Afc templates are removed. There's a banner put on the talk page of each article to indicate that it was created through Afc. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggested change to DISCOURAGE newbies from reviewing articles

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script

17:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

What to do here?

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewer help

17:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Request independent "pre-review" on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/James R. Chelikowsky

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewer help

17:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:AfC submissions with missing AfC template

Unresolved

Dear reviewers: I have been going through the submission in the category above, checking for cut and pastes that need to have history merges, deleting copyvios and junk, etc., and contacting Wikiprojects about ones that I feel are worth rescuing. Occasionally I come to one that doesn't have useful content but doesn't fit one of the other obvious categories for speedy deletion (for example, if an article already exists and has the same information, or if the article has only a couple of sentences and no references), so I have been tagging it for G13 if the article content hasn't been edited for six months. Now I have received a message on my talk page HERE asking me not to do this, because they have not been put in the G13 category by the bot.

I feel that if I just leave these pages in the "without template" category after I've spent the time checking them, other reviewers who are trying to clear out the category will just have to check them out again, wasting everyone's time. Before replying, I would like to make sure that I have the right information. Will Hasteur's bot be tagging these? Or do we even want that, since many of these have never been declined. They've all been recently edited to add the "no template" category tag. Is there something else that I should do with the older useless ones instead of marking them for G13 deletion? —Anne Delong (talk) 13:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to get rid of this one Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/La Lechuza Legend for example. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I would say that on that one, there appears to be an attempt to submit the page (as evidenced by the malformed Submit), therefore we could give the benefit of the doubt and pro-forma submit it on behalf of the user. Hopefully it'll trigger some response from the user. Hasteur (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
You are right; that was a bad example. I was quickly looking for one to illustrate the discussion and I should have taken my time. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Anne Delong: The bot traverses Category:AfC submissions by date hierarchy and does the nominations off of that. What my opinion would be is to go ahead and get them with the draft template or the submission/declined template on it so we can start the 6 month clock and give every user a chance. I think that the admin was more giving you a hard eye because they're more comfortable with the bot's double and triple checks as opposed to having to evaluate the human factor. There was a discussion on my talk page yesterday about the date checking and how the bot works from the 3 admins who handle most of the G13 nominations. Pages that are missing an AfC template will never show up in the submissions by date because the template applies the date logic.
I am working on a new bot task that will go through the members of the category and remove the category if there's a AFC declined/draft/submission template on it as the page no longer meets the criteria of the category. It will also go through and clean out pages where the category is disabled (i.e. [[:Category:AfC submissions with missing AfC template]]) as a subtask. The idea is to unleash as much of the volunteer potential on items that acutally need eyes on them instead of items that could afford to be processed only by rules) Hasteur (talk) 14:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I will give you an example: I found an article that was about a football team. There was already an article about this football team, and there was no new info and no sources. I contacted Wikproject football, and the editors there said it was of no value. No amount of improvement from the editor would have made this article pass, since there was already an article in the encyclopedia about this topic. Now, all the needed work on this article was done. Why should someone else have had to do this all over again in six months? So I tagged it for G13. How is not doing this making anything more efficient? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
If an article exists (and you found it), depending on how the history looked (copy-paste move) I'd either convert the page into a redirect wholesale, or move to decline-exists so that the page creator gets pinged (hopefully they'll improve it). Hasteur (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Hasteur, your reply doesn't make any sense, since you can't redirect two articles with the same name, it was not a copy-paste, and we wouldn't want to encourage an editor to improve a duplicate article.
Shall we give both Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ladies 1%ers MC and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ladies 1%ers Motorcycle Club another six months? Apparently there were three more copies that have already been deleted. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

(3ec)I'll be mortified if my request ends up creating problems. As Hasteur notes, I feel comfortable deleting nominations by the bot with only a random, about one in ten, check, but I want to double-check all nominations by humans. (other admins do it differently). When humans are working at the same time as the bot, it means I have to check who did the nominations, and well as confirming it is a G13, and handle those differently.

If I understand Anne correctly, there may be articles which will not be handled by the bot, and if true, of course those must be handled manually. However, it appeared to me that the bot was working with a particular month, then working through that list alphabetically (then moving to the next month). When the bot is working, I was seeing entries in the list in the same alphabet range, which made it look to me like the bot and humans were processing the same list. Or maybe I missed something.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I initially did the initial notifications of eligibility by month, and then switched to by day by day notifications in the middle of 2012 (because a 9 hour bot run for the notification process is too darn long) so that's why the bot seems to be doing a "By Month Alphabetical". Annother source for technically eligible for G13 nominations pages is Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions which does sort Alphabetical by month and is effictively the gold standard for "6 months stale". If individual editors are working that backlog, they shouldn't (IMO) be penalized for beind activist and advancing the process before the bot gets to the record. Hasteur (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
After rereading, I concur with Hasteur's suggestion. The ideal situation, in a case where there has been no activity for six months, is restore the template, make sure the user is notified, then let the bot do the CSD G13 nomination when it gets to it in the queue.
There's so much to do, I don't want to say anything that sounds like I'm complaining about someone pitching in to help. However, because there is so much to do, if we have one gigantic pile that will be handled by a bot, it makes sense to let people know so they can spend time on other gigantic piles. (Plus, we want Anne to apply for admin status so she can have the fun of history merges, which are not bot-able)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I was only checking out ones that I happened to come across while looking for copy-pastes. From now on, I will just ignore everything but this. I am not going to put any work into replacing templates on articles that could never be accepted, and there's no point in contacting Wikiprojects for advice if I can't do any thing about the results. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Sphilbrick, I would think that you would want to check the validity of bot tagged pages more than human tagged ones because the bot isn't checking anything except the timespan since last edit where-as human counterparts are checking (or at least should be, and I know I am) if the topic of the article has become notable (there are new or more undiscovered sources) or there is now lasting coverage if previously it was too new of a topic. I'll go make some adjustments to {{db-afc}} fo you and the other admins to make it clearer if it was bot or human tagged and if it is actually still eligible (someone may have edited and not known how to or that they should remove the G13 tag). Technical 13 (talk) 00:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts on the issue. However, I'm troubled by the process issues. The community has concluded that a failed AFC (or one never submitted) without edits in six months can be deleted. You are suggesting that the admin looking at the article also needs to see if enough has changed to rescue the article. That's a laudable and ambitious goal. But it isn't the CSD rule. I'm concerned I'm going to come across as an unfeeling hard-ass, which is odd, because I lean to the inclusionist side of the spectrum. If I understand the process correctly, no one has touched the article in six months, the original author has been informed that an edit must be made, even if only a single letter, in the next 30 days. If there is still no activity, it sure sounds like not much chance there is something to salvage. The ones I deleted yesterday were last edit in March of 2010. The median length was about two sentences.
I glanced at a few entries in the top of the queue Category:G13_eligible_AfC_submissions. I see a lot of crap, but I do see Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Edward H. Sebesta. That may be the type of article you are concerned about. Someone concluded it hasn't passed the notability threshold, but there's a bit of work here, and perhaps it can be salvaged. However, if you, or anyone who looks at it makes a single edit, then it is reset, and not eligible for deletion for another six months.
I believe user:hasteur has made the selection order of the articles clear, if not is willing to. I think someone glancing at the next group in the queue could make a determination is quick order that it might be worth a null edit to Sebesta to save it for another six months, while in about 2 seconds, could determine that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Erik Greis or Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Erik Greis does not warrant such an edit. However, if you want to argue that an admin should be reviewing the content of each CSD G13, then you are effectively arguing for removal of the criteria. There's no point in having it if the admin has to also make a full review of any possible reasons for rescue.
There's still 62000 in the queue. If we are going through them too fast, let's discuss alternatives, but at 500 a day, it will still take half a year to get through, and that ignores new additions, which are considerable.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
See the below discussion about how to tell which articles are next to be deleted, in case someone wants to rescue them. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't noticed that section until after I posted.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Sphilbrick, I am the one that had the edit request to the {{AFC submission/declined}} fulfilled that populates the Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions and puts them in order of oldest to newest counting in number of months since the start of 2000. I did that before either of the bots were approved so that I could put together a list to go through and review each one manually. If you check my contribs, you'll see that I found about 30-35% of the submissions possibly savable leaning towards the inclusionist side for this first pass. The purpose of G13, whether well documented or not, is to have a valid reason to delete old abandoned drafts that don't fit into any of the other G## series reasons and should only be used as a last resort. I've been working ambitiously with the other AFCH developers (Nathan2055—Mabdul—Theopolisme—Hasteur) to create options in the script to "save this draft" or "tag it for G13" to improve the workflow of humans reviewing these. I'm backlogged with schoolwork (I have 17 hours left to complete 4 weeks worth of work for one class and 11 weeks worth for another unless I can convince instructor to give me an extension which she has been reluctant to do), so I don't have time at the moment to improve that section of the script myself. Soon though.  :) Technical 13 (talk) 13:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I was told you need me. I am too lazy to read this whole talk. Can someone tell me what is needed from me? :P Thanks Petrb (talk) 12:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lee Geoffery Williamson

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewer help

17:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/LB Taylor, Jr

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewer help

17:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MAOP v2

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewer help

17:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Where is accept button?

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script

17:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

How should something like this be handled? (Looks to me like an attempt to use AfC, but not quite knowing how to do it)

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewer help

17:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Edits in AfC not sticking

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script

17:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Submissions with no template

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewer help

17:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Iain Reid

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewer help

17:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mahindra Two Wheelers Limited (MTWL)

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script

17:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mehdi Guliyev

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewer help

17:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Ian Freckleten - Can Someone Take A Look at This?

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewer help

17:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:AfC pending submissions by age

Strange that there are empty categories for ages between 21 and 28 days, but also a category for age 3 weeks with 56 entries. --Noyster (talk) 10:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

  • I'll work on this shortly... It seems the /declined template is populating the "week" categories (which it shouldn't imho) but not the day categories (which is correct). Only /pending and /reviewing should be populating these pending submission categories. Technical 13 (talk) 12:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I'll own up to this: It was a design change a few months back to go from "days" to "weeks" for anything over 3 weeks old, but the "days" categories were never deleted. If the consensus is that we want "day-level" granularity for 21-28 days then the "3 weeks" should be deleted. If we are okay with the current "week-level" granularity for 21-28 days, then it should be deleted. The same goes for any similar categories for 28+ days out. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mona Argan Oil

Resolved

Dear reviewers: The above articles has never been submitted for review. There is an existing article about Argan oil. However, rather than just submit and decline it, I would like to use G11 to remove it as advertising. Is this appropriate since it hasn't been submitted? It does have some information content, but it is well covered in the existing article. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I've tagged it as a G12: copyright violation - Happysailor (Talk) 15:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I missed that. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Split this talk page

I propose the follwing

  1. A subpage related to AFC-Helper based discussions Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script
  2. A subpage for soliciting advice about tough AFCs that the original reviewer isn't quite sure what to do with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewer help
  3. That this page remain a central hub for notices affecting the project/process as a whole (or threads that don't fit any of the subcategorizations)
  4. That threads of interest beyond the subpage receive a 1 sentence summary hook to the subpage

I further propose that threads from this page be translocated (moved) to the appropriate subpage to help clear up this talk page while at the same time try to make sure that interested editors can get questions answered. I intend to set up archiving on the subpages with the same configuration as this page.

Pending significant objection I intend to make the subpages/translocations on the 8th to help make the page more easy to use. Please do not post counter-proposals or significant re-writes of the proposal. Hasteur (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Support

  1. As proposer Hasteur (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
  2. But make it clear that users shouldn't post their own submissions on subpage 2 Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
  3. Technical 13 (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

The first subpage is for the development/improvements/bug reports of the script in addition to help using the tool. Hasteur (talk) 19:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
There appears to already be such a page, although I didn't know about it. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
This makes most sense to me... Also, Kudpung actually already proposed this not all that long ago, but it seems to have fallen off this page. Technical 13 (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
For the second one, how about "Reviewer help" or "Reviewer advice", since the page wouldn't actually have reviews. It looks like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script already exists. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
@Technical 13: I'm rezzing Kudpung's thread and actually doing something about it instead of "We'd like to do this".
@Anne Delong: I was not sure what to call the second one, but I will ammend the proposal to say Reviewer help to indicate it's where the people doing the review of an AfC submission go to get a second opinion about how to deal with a troublesome AfC submission. Hasteur (talk) 19:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Why are we even having this discussion and unnecessary straw poll for something that is blatantly obvious? (that's another reasons why WP gets stuck in its own bureaucracy.). Whatever solution is opted for, it doesn't need a long discussion. the only reason I didn't do something my self already is because I didn't want to tread on anyone's toes. The main and simple thing to bear in mind is: One page for meta discussions about AfC, and one for questions about individual submissions. Using the script itself has been handled adequately already with its own page. These splits need to be done soon because there is going to be a flurry of meta discussion in a couple of weeks. The help page could be designed on the lines of WP:WPSCH/H, for example, and that's where the full set of 'resolved', 'answered', 'etc, mini templates can be sensibly used, and a bot to archive the 'resolved' ones. People will always post questions that are basically repeats of previous ones, but that's a common phenomenon. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
What about a FAQ section too? That would perhaps diminish the amount of repeated questions. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
The FAQ page has already been started at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Articles for creation/Reviewer FAQ. Please feel free to add to it. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay, I don't see anyone arguing against this. As I see it,
  • A page needs to be set up, called "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewer help", and those wanting advice or a second opinion on reviews will leave their questions there. If any are left on this page, I suggest that they be moved to the other page and a single line link left on this page so the asker can find them. Who can do this?
  • There is already a page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script. Is this page intended for questions about both the development and operation of the script? If so, the only action we need take here is to remind people to ask questions there, and to move such questions leaving a one-line link if they are left on this page,
  • On any of these three pages, if a question keeps coming up, a summary should be made of the answer on the FAQ page and a short answer redirecting users there should be left.
Unless there is a sudden flurry of disagreement, the Reviewer help page could be set up right away. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
This page and the two additional help pages now have navigation links to each other. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
That;s great. I have left a request for review help at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewer help. How will reviewers find it? Is there a link to this page somewhere? Maybe there could be one on the reviewing instructions page? Or maybe a short link in the green Talk tab above like there is on the Submissions one next to it? —Anne Delong (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:AfC submissions by date

Unresolved

Is it usual for sandboxes that have never been submitted but have draft templates on them to be included in the Afc submissions by date? For example: Category:AfC submissions by date/24 August 2013 includes User:Trvrplk/sandbox. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mullivaikal Massacre

Resolved

Dear editors: This article has a very specific point of view. It has never been submitted for review. Should it be deleted as an attack page? It is really an essay, unsourced and negative, but not about a specific person. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

IMO, there appears to be articles at Mullivaikal and Mullivaikkal Hospital bombings that could potentially cover the submission, however it's a soapbox/attack so I'd probably submit it for an attack page. If it gets turned down, submit it for MFD along the same lines and indicate that it's never going to make it to mainspace. Hasteur (talk) 12:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks; it's gone. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/ShuntCheck

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewer help

01:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewer help

Well, I've added a couple of questions to this page. Is anyone watching it? Is there a link to it anywhere? —Anne Delong (talk) 01:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I had no idea it existed until now, but I answered one of your questions. theonesean 02:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
User:Anne Delong: I've added a link to the project's page tabs for the new Reviewer help page, in hopes to make it more noticeable. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Theonesean and Northamerica1000 When I look at the top, now, the main "Help Desk" tab is very small, and that might lead people who are submitters to select the wrong help page. Is there a way to make the main help tab larger (maybe pad the text) or make the Reviewer help tab smaller (maybe smaller font)? Also, others here may have opinions about whether it should be over by the talk page, since the two are related, or stay with the other help page, which is related in another way. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
User:Anne Delong: I tried, but couldn't get the tabs to be displayed equally in length with the current style being used. An option is to use different coding that automatically that does so, such as:
 – However, I'm having problems using this code to include the small-text "Category" and "List" links within one of the same tabs. Sincerely, Northamerica1000(talk) 00:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Northamerica1000, I think that the current roundy tabs are very distinctive and I would hate to see them changed, so never mind and thanks again for trying. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
^That looks perfect to me. The other possible page is the FAQ, but it's not a talk page, so when and if people agree that it's ready it should probably be a link near the top of the "Reviewer Help" page. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Nicely done! Just a small point - the acronym for the script is incorrect, it should be AFCH, not AHFC. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks Dodger67 I must have dragged the H over in a lag spike or I was just typing too fast and didn't notice it. Anyways, I've made some modifications to Template:Tabs and Template:Start tab so that the tab header will now recognize up to three links per tab as being "on" and change the background color. I can expand that easily if needed, but don't really see a need for more than 3 links on a tab. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 13:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

AfC Faculty_Of_Engineering_And_Technology/Jamia_Millia_Islamia

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewer help

13:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Second opinion requested (apologies if this is not the right process)

This is partly to prove that I'm not mindlessly deleting G13s :). Can I get another set of eyes on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Providence College Student Advocacy. I fully understand that 19 refs does not automatically make something notable, but I'd like to see what someone else things. I see that prolific and accomplished editor Dusti made the call, I'm not so much overriding it as noting that a lot of work went into creating this, and I think it is worth asking.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem I see with it is there's a lot of coverage of "local interest" in the Providence College area so it doesn't seem to have the broad based notability that we'd really prefer to have. You've given the article a stay of G13, so perhaps drop a line or two on the author (or any editor who appeared to be supporting) talkpage indicating that the submission is in need of improvement. Hasteur (talk) 17:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
BTW: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewer help might be a better location to ask this type of question Hasteur (talk) 17:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I checked out all of the references, and other than the organization's web page, the only mention of the word "Advocacy" is in three references which all lead to the same article in the school newspaper encouraging students to contact the group, each rather deceptively with a different title in the reference list. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Hasteur, for pointing me to the right place for future such questions. Anne, thanks for the prompt review. Again, my concern wasn't so much a full blown analysis, it was simply that an editor put a lot of work into it, which isn't a keep argument, but it is a "let's make sure we are right" argument. You make excellent points, so I'm going to undo my stay and delete it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Preferred space for Afc reviews

Unresolved

Dear reviewers: On the Wikipedia:Wikiproject Articles for creation/Reviewer FAQ that I have started, I think there needs be be a question about why submissions should be moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Submission name before review. Here are points that I have thought of: (1) users can then reuse their sandboxes and user pages, which they may do anyway with strange results (2) drafts are all in one place to be worked on by (3) There are no talk pages to deal with (4)The script is intended for use in this space, helping keep the reviews consistent. (5) Other editors really shouldn't be making major changes in another editor's user space. (6) Users are not supposed to keep "pseudo articles" (7) The move marks the point where the text leaves the user's control and is "donated". Please comment about other reasons or if you think one of mine is wrong.

Also, I remember that in previous discussion when dealing with blank submission, some reviewers were inventing titles and moving them so that they could use the script to decline them, and others were manually declining them in place, and I don't think there was ever a consensus as to which was appropriate. If they are declined as is, are there any downsides? —Anne Delong (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Number 7 is incorrect; as soon as you hit "save", the content is released under CC-BY-SA, no matter where you save it. Mdann52 (talk) 07:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, I shouldn't have used the word "donated". I meant that since it's no longer in userspace, other editors feel free to make improvements. I guess that's the should be combined with point (5) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anne Delong (talk • contribs) 13:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I can use the script to decline blank sandboxes now, although I'm not sure if that's in the current script or just a test feature. If you move it to a spurious title, that means a blank page has to hang about for six months. Rankersbo (talk) 08:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
That's true. If you decline it in place, it is still in the category of submissions by date. Are there any other residual effects, since the editor is likely to reuse the page for something else? I don't know. Comments? —Anne Delong (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Where is that FAQ? I'm seeing a red-link. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Oops! Thanks; I fixed the link above. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
While fixing up many copy-paste pairs today, I thought of another reason for moving articles to a consistent space: It helps detect these copy-pastes so that they can be merged or declined and the submitters informed. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
It seems that the Afc script will now review articles in user pages and sandboxes. Can someone tell me how long this has been te case, and whether this means that Wikipedia talk: is no longer the "Preferred location for articles for creation"? I don't remember reading a discussion about this, but maybe I missed it. If so, adding this to the FAQ would be a mistake. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

New AFCH version pushed

Hi everyone, a new AFCH version has been pushed. Here are the highlights according to Theopolisme:

This new release includes a brand new API framework that makes saving edits up to 5 times faster! Your CSD nominations will now automatically be logged to your Twinkle log; additionally, you can use a new button to postpone G13 speedy deletion via AFCH. Plus, CSD tagging improvements, lots of bug fixes, styling wizardry, and a loading screen.

If you notice any issues, please drop a note here or ping someone in #wikipedia-en-afc connect. Legoktm (talk) 00:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I for one appreciate the notification here at the general talk page as well, since this is important for everyone. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Re-reviews of Virgininfatuation's work requested

New Wikipedia editor Virgininfatuation (talk · contribs) has declined several submissions and accepted 2. I don't have time to review these now but they should be looked at. The list. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The two accepts seem okay, although one probably needs a little more work on it, it would probably pass AfD. Some of the rejections seem questionable though, imho. LionMans Account (talk) 20:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I have to say their username made me think of Gary Glitter and Jimmy Savile. And then this. However I can't obviously point to a policy that says a username that implies or suggests paedophilia is a blatant violation. What does anyone else think? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
My first thought was this was the name of a musical group. Regarding the protection of children, the policy you want is Wikipedia:Child protection. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I notice that these two drafts were declined with different edit summaries:

2013-08-30T13:20:55 (diff | hist) . . (+1)‎ . . Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kapitall, Inc. ‎ ((Declining submission: submission is unsourced or contains only unreliable sources))
2013-08-30T13:19:37 (diff | hist) . . (+5)‎ . . Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Omicron Biochemicals ‎ ((Declining submission: submission provides insufficient context (AFCH)))
...and yet the text displayed in the draft ("This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability...") is identical. Is there a problem with the script or template? —rybec 03:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Template editor user right

Check this out if interested. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

How does this affect AfC? Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Only in that it affects the AFCH developers and those that wish to contribute to our template system. It probably could be moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script. Technical 13 (talk) 15:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
No, I disagree that it only effects developers. The resulting templates are used by everyone. We use a lot of templates here in this project, for almost everything we do. It should also be posted at the script page as well, or course; I assumed that one of the technical types would have already done this. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
They were all pinged from the discussion it self with a {{Pinggroup}} and are all aware of the discussion. I didn't (don't?) see a need to add it there as well and be redundant. Feel free to do so if you think it should be done anyways. I'm neutral on that. Technical 13 (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:AfC submissions by date/11 September 2013

Dear reviewers: The talk pages of a big group of political articles, most predating the existence of the Afc, have appeared in the above category. Any explanation for this? —Anne Delong (talk) 02:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the editor formerly at 76.65.128.222 has a new IP address. I see nothing to be concerned about. [10] —rybec 02:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I am sorry, can you explain what actually happened here, and what getting a new IP address has to do with it? —Anne Delong (talk) 03:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
All these pages appear to be redirects to existing article's. For example, take Talk:Departments of Finance. The redirect page itself was created yesterday (See this link). If you open this page you are automatically redirected to the long-ago created article Finance minister. So it seems someone just created a large batch of redirects that ended up on this list. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 07:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Which should be at WP:AFC/R and not on that list... That is not the processes fault however, and someone is going to have to clean up after this editor. If no-one beats me too it (hint hint), I'll go through and add all the relevant ones to the /R page and clean-up the redirects. That may be a few days out though, I'm pretty busy with requests for other things atm. Technical 13 (talk) 13:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
The link in my first comment was to a request in WP:Articles_for_creation/Redirects for creation of about 164 redirects, made by a prolific IP contributor. The talk pages should have an AfC template but Technical 13 seems to be saying there's a problem with the way the template was used. Looking at one of them [11] I see {{WPAFC|class=redirect|ts=20130911152108|reviewer=Lugia2453}}--exactly what would be produced by {{subst:WPAFC/redirect}}. The "class=redirect" causes it to be categorised in Category:Redirect-Class AFC articles. I don't see anything wrong here. —rybec 23:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

BTW: there is also Category:Aliases_of_76.66 - a long standing editor without an account but knwon. ;-) mabdul 21:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Watchlist sending me to the wrong page

I have Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewer help on my watchlist. Twice today when an item came up on my watchlist and I clicked on it, the link looked correct on the list, but I actually was sent to the main page of this Wikiproject. Does anyone know what could be causing this? Has anyone else had this happen? —Anne Delong (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

If you go back to your watchlist and click the link again, does the same behavior occur? In other words, was it a one-time issue or can you replicate it? Might be worth bringing up at WP:VPT with specifics. Theopolisme (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Looked into this and I believe you were actually seeing Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewer help (not the talk page), which Buffbills7701 redirected to the main project page earlier today. [12] Theopolisme (talk) 01:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, If necessary, I'm fine with having it deleted. buffbills7701 01:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
No, not at all; on the contrary, it was quite a sane and useful redirect (talk page is about the project, hence it makes sense for the associated Wikipedia namespace page to redirect the project as well). Theopolisme (talk) 02:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
No sign of "Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Reviewer_help" in my watchlist, only "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Reviewer_help", which now seems to forward me to the correct spot. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
When you watchlist a talk page, the system automatically also notifies you of changes to the associated main namespace page. Theopolisme (talk) 02:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Ah! Thanks. That must be what happened. Sorry to cause work for nothing. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed change to AFC Draft template

Resolved

Because the interpertation of CSD:G13 includes pages that have never been submitted for evaluation (i.e. Drafts) I propose the following change to {{AFC submission/draft}}. Specifically

This is a draft Articles for creation submission. It is not currently pending review. There is no deadline as long as you are improving the submission, you can take your time writing this draft. If this submission is not edited in more than 6 months, it could be deleted.

This makes sure that the page creator understands that they must work to improve it and what could happen (in 6 months) if they don't. Hasteur (talk) 18:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I tried to simplify your proposed version a bit and also fixed a grammatical error:
This is a draft Articles for creation submission. It is not currently pending review. There is no deadline for submission, but if this page is not edited in more than 6 months, it could be deleted.
I didn't think that the "take your time" or "as long as you are improving the submission" bits were necessary, personally. Theopolisme (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The Italicised parts are what I'm proposing adding. I want to keep it as close to the current language as possible, but have the spectre of the stick visible. Hasteur (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I would be just as happy to see:
    This is a draft Articles for creation submission. It is not currently pending review. There are no deadlines as long as you are actively improving the submission, you can take your time writing this draft. Drafts not being worked on will be deleted as provided in the CSD:G13 guideline.
That's just me... I'm not as nice I guess. Technical 13 (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
The grammar is still bad. Can we have a semicolon instead of a comma? —Anne Delong (talk) 00:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
  • @Anne:
    This is a draft Articles for creation submission which is not currently pending review. There are no deadlines; as long as you are actively improving the submission. Drafts not being improved will be deleted as provided in the CSD:G13 guideline.
There... Cleaned up... Technical 13 (talk) 00:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
The semicolon is wrong now because "you can take your time writing this draft" is gone. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the part of the sentence that needed separating is no longer there. With this wording no semicolon or comma is needed. I also feel that it should be "is no deadline", since I can't see a situation under which the user would be expecting multiple deadlines, but this is not a grammar issue. The truth is that the drafts may be deleted, but the more forceful will has its merits. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Resolved by inserting the new language at [13]. Hasteur (talk) 15:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

"Place under review" is broken in the "gadget" version of the AFC Helper Script

The development script works fine. I'm not sure about the beta script. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/archive%%0#Placing submissions under review blindly picks top template for details. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

{{AFC submission}} and CSD G13

Resolved

When a review hasn't been requested, the template says:

"Article not currently submitted for review.

This is a draft Articles for creation submission. It is not currently pending review. There is no deadline, you can take your time writing this draft."

The new G13 criterion makes the last sentence inaccurate. It could be updated to something like "if no edits are made to the draft for half a year it may be deleted." —rybec 08:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Change to add the spectre of G13 has been added to the draft template. Hasteur (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Are we technically ready for an October backlog drive?

We need a backlog drive, but before we announce a date, all the templates, scripts, and code have to be close enough to solid so we can enter the drive with a "known good, frozen-except-for-emergency-fixes" set of tools.

So, development team, if we want to do a drive on Oct. 1, is it realistic to have the tools frozen a few days before then to shake out bugs? If not, can you work towards a feature-freeze and code-freeze date in early October so we can do an Oct 15-Nov 15 drive?

On a "how to stop wasting time undoing the work of well-meaning but under-qualified reviewers, while still encouraging reviewers to gain experience," do we want to have a "novice" category for editors with under, say, 3 months or 1000 edits in articles or WP/WT:AFC space, where accepts or declines DO NOT COUNT but an AFC comment that suggests "decline, because..." or "accept" AND where a more experienced editor endorses the comment? Can that be coded in time? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey David, "dev teamster" here. ;) The development pattern is this:
write code for a feature → this feature is tested by the script developers for any period of time from a few days to a few weeks → the feature is then released for beta testers, and they test it for a few weeks → then the feature is finally merged into the live gadget file
With this in mind, how does a September 25th release date sound (in others words, on September 25th, bump all the different stages up one: all new source that's been piling up goes to beta testers, and all code that's been tested by beta testers for a few weeks goes to the master gadget)? With out current setup it is very unlikely that bugs are encountered in the live release (since we have so much vetting beforehand), but this would still give us nearly a week before the drive begins on October 1st. Theopolisme (talk) 00:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
The question is, will what is in Beta on Sept. 24 be baked enough to go live? If you can turn Beta into a release-candidate long enough before the 25th so it is rock-solid, then yes. If it's already too late to make that commitment (11 days isn't much time), then we wait. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Beta has been "stable" since 11 September 2013 and will not be changed further before the 24th. I believe the answer to your question is yes – if things change I'll be sure to let you know as soon as possible, but at this point, a (stable) freeze on the 25th is quite doable. Theopolisme (talk) 03:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
  • @Davidwr and Theopolisme: How about if there is a little indicator added to the edit summary (anything maybe a ‡ character) for possibly "inexperienced" users so that when the October backlog drives starts, it will be quick to identify those that may need a quick look over to make sure? This could also be a very useful instructional tool where we would be able to see that such and such inexperienced user kept making this error and we can send them relevant information so they can be more informed and do it better the next time. On this same note Theo, we could shorten the "beta" note to "ß" and developer to "Ð" or something. Yay or nay? Technical 13 (talk) 13:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Ooh, that indicator is quite a good idea! I'd be happy to write the code for that, if we could hammer down exactly what measures we want to use to indicate "inexperienced"... As far as shorting the edit summaries goes, I'm kind of inclined to leave the full words there, if only for clarity's sake. Theopolisme (talk) 14:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay, thinking some more. What if we just used an edit filter to catch something like (I'm not sure if this is possible) "edits with ([[WP:AFCH|AFCH]]) in the summary made by users with < xyz edits" or whatever. That seems like it'd be a lot more effective in that it'd allow people to instantly see possible inexperienced reviewers without having to write any additional code. Thoughts? Theopolisme (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd rather not have it as an edit filter. Too much red tape involved to get that added and would be a pain for us to be able to modify. I think that if wgUserGroups.length > 3 that they should be considered "experienced" or if they are (auto)?confirmed and have more than six months and 500-1000 non-bot-like edits to mainspace? Technical 13 (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I think setting the bar at 100 mainspace edits is kind of on the low side. I would think that at a minimum it should be 200 and at least 1-3 months. Also, that in summary isn't inclusive, they could skip the filter by using the beta or dev version which has been advertised. Maybe something like:
                    article_namespace = 5 &
                    user_editcount < 250 &
                    user_age > 23587200 &
                    "\(\[\[WP:AFCH\|AFCH\]\].*?\)" in summary
What do you think? Technical 13 (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Some submissions are in the Wikipedia: namespace (4), so it should be included as well (but in that case you might want to exclude Wikipedia:Articles for creation/recent from the filter so we don't have two entires for each review). Also, will this filter catch accepted articles (i.e., articles that are moved to the mainspace)? In its current implementation I don't believe so (since the page is moved -- the namespace changes -- before the "cleaning up after move (AFCH)" edit is made), although I could be mistaken. Theopolisme (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I merged in some of T13's changes (I'm still unsure whether checking user_age is a good idea), and set an ignore for WP:AFC/recent. I'll ask a more experienced AF editor on how to check page moves (there are moved_from variables, but im not sure if they will be defined when it's just an edit). Legoktm (talk) 00:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Eh, in retrospect it's kind of a moot point as the script has a "Cleaning up submission after move" edit anyways, which would be caught since it includes (WP:AFCH) in the summary. For those edits to be picked up, you'd need to simply change allow both Wikipedia_talk and the mainspace. Theopolisme (talk) 01:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I have already created the drive page per a discussion on IRC - it can be found at October 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive. --Mdann52talk to me! 07:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

That link was actually a redlink. Hope you don't mind me fixing it. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 11:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Null-edit bot turned off?

There should be a bot doing null edits at least every day on all pending submissions so they stay in the right "age" category. Is it turned off? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/October 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello reviewers! With Technical 13's help, I've kicked off the October backlog drive discussion at the above talk page. If you are planning to take part, please feel free to leave your comments, and remember to sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/October 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive. 13 days to go.... —Anne Delong (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hope you guys and gals will manage without me this time. ;) October is a very busy month for me so my Wiki-time will be very limited. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I am concerned about "son of Arctic Kangaroo" appearing and declining tenured professors of Yale University because a paragraph didn't have inline cites .... but we'll see what happens. All in all, I think we might just need to keep the backlog drive going permanently and come down hard on anyone making too many mistakes. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm concerned with that as well, however there is a new edit filter that should be able to help us detect that sort of thing happening. legoktm, can rate limits be set on the edit filter so that individuals below the threshold can only do like 12 an hour or 1 every five minutes specifically? I think that once they realized they are forced to spend a little time on each, they will actually look at the drafts as a "might as well" if they really want to help or they'll say "the heck with it" which isn't bad if they were just going to click-decline, click-decline, click-decline... If legoktm can set that 5 minute requirement, would everyone else support that? Technical 13 (talk) 12:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, five minutes may not be needed to decline a blank page, but for anything else it's not a bad limit. Is this going to be complicated? —Anne Delong (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Should everything here except the announcement be moved to the backlog drive page? —Anne Delong (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

G13 bot too fast

can the G13 bot be slowed down a bit? There are around 200 nominations in the CSD cat right now. I don't know how other admins process these, but I review each one individually, and it takes time... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Kudpung Please Review Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot. Bot is staying WITHIN processing limits. I've declined to add further restrictions on what I consider an unreasonable request. The bot checks the count of CSD:G13 nominations and tries to nominate enough payments to get the category up to 50 nominations. Please open a request at BRFA requesting a modification as I am unwilling to further restrict the bot's hands. At one period the bot was doing up to 75 at a time per admin greenlight to move faster. Hasteur (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/is [redacted] an idiot??

I found the above page. This would be declined anyway, but I thought I would notify you. George8211 19:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I have marked it for speedy deletion as an attack page. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Just being WP:POINTy, but I modified the title so this page isn't violating policy. Yes, I realize the text had to be there but now that the issue is resolved, it doesn't. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
A way to handle this in the future: Bury the actual title under a pipe, like so: this link. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Backlog drive changes

Hey, just wanted to alert you to some suggestions Anne Delong made over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/October_2013_Backlog_Elimination_Drive. Excirial has said that he will make the changes if support is indicated. So, please check out the suggested rule changes and make your comments. theonesean 20:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

New reviewers

Dear reviewers: There have been several new editions to the reviewers' list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants in the past few days, including one whose very first edit was to sign up for reviewing, and then submitted an article for review that shows some expertise. I hope the problems during the July drive are not cropping up again already. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

New topic - Editor retention and encouragement

In reply to Anupmehra: What you are describing is a serious problem, (not related to whether the drafts are moved to Afc space or reviewed in the user space). Many of the reviewers have been discussing ways to encourage new editors to keep working on their drafts and not give up. Here are some things that are being done:

  • One great improvement this year is the Teahouse. Recently our reviewing script gives us a way to send new editors an invitation, and many of them are taking advantage of it.
  • Reviewers are leaving extra comments with very specific information, telling everything that needs to be fixed, rather than just mentioning one problem on each decline. That way the articles are not declined over and over unless the submitter doesn't take the reviewer's advice.
  • If there are minor formatting problems or a missing "reflist", we fix these up ourselves.
  • We notify interest Wikiproject about submissions in their area of interest, and sometimes editors there will fix up a submission or take a new editor under their wing.
  • We don't insist that articles be perfect before accepting them, only that they are good enough that they probably won't be deleted.

However, with 2,000 articles waiting for review, sometimes there isn't much time to help each new editor the way we would like - we need to recruit more reviewers! That's one of the reasons that we are having a backlog drive next month. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I would be in favor of creating an automated way of listing active, experienced editors. For example, a bot that creates such a list might define "active" as "editors with at least 10 edits in the last 30 days and at least 100 edits in the last 90 days" and "experienced" as "having at least 50 edits per month in 3 to 12 different months with a total of 600 edits over those months (e.g. 50 edits/month for a year, or 2 months of 50 edits + 1 month of 500 edits, or some other combination) and at least 2000 edits total." Such a bot would probably exclude edits more than, say, 3 years ago, from his counts, to avoid picking up long-time editors who have only edited minimally in recent years. Deleted edits would not count of course. Such a list would be valuable for recruitment purposes for all WikiProjects, not just this one.
The resulting list could also be the starting point for an AFC-specific recruitment-list-generating bot that discarded those editors who, in the last few years, hadn't created at least 10 articles and/or moved at least as many articles into "main space," not counting recently-created or -moved articles or articles which were later deleted or which are currently tagged for possible deletion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
You may want to check out this page: Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of recent edits. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
It looks like something like this is already being done. See Wikipedia:Database reports/Potential reviewer candidates, which is an auto-generated list of candidates for the "reviewer" permission. See also Wikipedia:Database reports. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC) Clarification: "Reviewer" in that list has absolutely nothing to do with being an AFC reviewer. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Does that mean a decision has been made? I don't see a closing of the Rfc, which wasn't very specific anyway. Did I miss another discussion? —Anne Delong (talk) 03:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
(and by the way, the criteria on that list eliminate me, although I have over 20,000 edits). —Anne Delong (talk) 03:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Me too (too new). —rybec 03:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
davidwr, I am wondering why you are saying that deleted edits don't count. My edits are always being deleted because I am nominating copyvios, test edits, attack pages, my own old user pages that are now articles, etc., for deletion and requesting history merges. These edits all died in a good cause. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, I hadn't thought of that. Also, it's obvious that the criteria I put up above won't work very well if they are an absolute minimum for participation at AFC. However, they might work well for the purpose fo sending out invitations to potential reviewers as part of a recruitment drive. But to answer your question: An editor with 1000 deleted edits plus 1000 non-deleted edits probably has had some of his own creations deleted, and should be treated more like an editor with 1000 non-deleted edits and 0 deleted edits than someone with 2000 non-deleted edits and 0 deleted edits. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Expression error: Unexpected < operator....

I clicked on the "Backlog Drive" tab and this error message was displayed next to the letter-i-in-a-circle icon at the top of the page. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

@Technical 13: It seems to come from {{AfC backlog elimination drive|start|event}}. I see it when viewing some of the old revisions, such as this. There were some recent changes to Template:AfC_backlog_elimination_drive. —rybec 23:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
It's fixed: I changed Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Backlog_elimination_drives to use the new syntax. —rybec 23:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
What exactly did you change? I just fixed all of the old backlog pages and hope that we didn't undo each others fixes. Technical 13 (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
diff —rybec 23:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation for all submissions or not?

Dear reviewers: I didn't get an answer to my question above at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Preferred space for Afc reviews, so I am reposting. It may effect the pass/fail results in the backlog elimination drive, so I think we need a consensus one way or the other about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anne Delong (talk • contribs) 21:18, 20 September 2013‎ (UTC)

Should submissions be moved to "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Article name" before being reviewed? (Likely blank submissions would be an exception to this.)

If the submission has a chance at being accepted, Move it to AfC space. If not, manually decline the submission and don't get credit for the submission being done by you. Personally, (and I've mentioned this elsewhere) it really doesn't matter for how many you do, just that you do quality reviewing. Hasteur (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Hasteur. I don't move submissions that I don't think will ever be accepted, because they just waste the name if they're in AfC space. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
If my vote does count, then it is Yes. Submissions should not be moved to "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Article name". I'm agree to all points well listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Preferred space for Afc reviews. I'm elaborating the no.3. Related problem presently being discussed on the creator and review's talk pages, if it could be onto submission talk page, more editors would be able/available to give their consent related to the submission and creator's query. New editors(I'm one of them) sometimes fail to solve concerns raised by the creator on their respective talk pages, though they try to and consequently it results into frustration of new contributors of Wiki polices and guidelines as they were not explained to them in most efficient manner. More editors at one place would lead to a consensus on disputed submissions. This applies on i.p contributors too. Wikipedia loses a good number of articles and contributors( and active contributors) regarding this vexation. AnupMehra ✈ 05:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I feel that everything with any content should be moved out of user space and into Wikipedia talk: once it's submitted. That way it can be eventually deleted by G13 instead of hanging around in sandboxes, and user pages for years. Material declined in sandboxes and user pages is left with several categories attached, whereas if it is moved out the user has a clean page to reuse. Jackmcbarn, can you explain what you mean by "waste the name"? Do you mean because another person may make a submission about the same topic? If so, this isn't a problem. In Afc, the second article is just called Pagename (2) or something like that, and when accepted the article name is changed anyway. I also find that when I try to move them and can't it's usually because of a cut and paste situation that has to be dealt with and otherwise may have been missed. I agree with Hasteur about the quality reviewing. However, it seems that some people do enjoy a little incentive, and we haven't so far found another way to get the backlog down. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I know you can just add the (2), but it still feels like polluting the AfC space for no reason. At the very least, if something is declined as a copyvio or BLP violation (or something else speedy deletable) don't move it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 12:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Anupmehra, your answer is a little confusing. You say yes, but then you say the articles should not be moved. Did you mean yes, they should be moved, or no, they should not be moved? —Anne Delong (talk) 05:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Ha! I changed it to Yes from No to not confuse and to read, Yes, they should not be moved. Unfortunately, Despite my efforts to make it less confusing, I made it more confusing.This is what I was talking about. AnupMehra ✈ 05:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
@Anne Delong: There have been many cases when some article was deleted multiple times for unambiguous/advertising, was later improved in the sandbox, re-submitted, reviewed and moved into article space. related to, "That way it can be eventually deleted by G13 instead of hanging around in sandboxes, and user pages for years." AnupMehra ✈ 06:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
This is all true, but doesn't really affect the issue. Whether the article is left in a sandbox or is moved to "Wikipedia talk", it is just as likely to be deleted as advertising, and it can still be recreated in a sandbox and resubmitted, no matter where it was when it was deleted. —Anne Delong (talk) 06:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
How does it affect is, It seems to discouraging new contributors who doesn't have an idea what does Wikipedia stands for and what its policies and guidelines are. For example, If you delete something, I submit to AfC. I might re-create and re-submit it second and third time but I probably would not do the same fourth time, as I would supposedly be annoyed by reviewer of my submission and hence Wikipedia. And in turn, Wikipedia would have one less contributor and a new article. There are 4,332,045 articles, 19,722,384 user accounts, and only around 20,000 active contributors on English Wikipedia2007 data. Wikipedia statistics, Have you stoppped editing Wikipedia, theguardian, technology blog, 2009.Just an example from a new contributor perspective. AnupMehra ✈ 08:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  • PENDING userspace submissions which have any hope of becoming an article should be moved OR the submission should be changed to DRAFT ("T" state) and the editor notified. Which to do should be at the reviewer's discretion.
  • PENDING userspace submissions that have NO HOPE of ever becoming articles (e.g. blank submissions, hoaxes, "my best friend is a" submissions, etc.) should either be speedy-deleted if warranted (e.g. copyvio, attack, etc.) or of speedy-deletion is not warranted, stripped of the AFC submission template entirely and the editor notified.
  • Userspace submissions that were recently put UNDER REVIEW ("R" state) by an experienced reviewer should be handled by the reviewer who placed them under review. In general, this should never happen but reviewers are entitled to WP:Ignore all rules if a situation calls for it.
  • Other userspace submissions in the UNDER REVIEW state should be treated on a case by case basis by reviewers, depending on the state of the submission, who put it under review (e.g. the submitter, an inexperienced reviewer, someone not familiar with AFC but not the submitter, etc.) and when (e.g. recently or long ago), and the submitter's intent (does he intend on this being submitted and reviewed, or is he just testing the templates?).
  • Userspace submissions in the DRAFT state should be left alone unless the presence of the template is causing technical problems or it will cause undesired behavior in the future (e.g. a G-13 deletion where that may not be desired).
  • Userspace submissions in other states (e.g. declined/"D" state) should be handled in a case-by-case basis, with any action driven by the goal of avoiding technical problem, helping the encyclopedia, complying with policy, and helping the editor, not necessarily in that order.
Bottom line: Any consensus we develop will need to leave room for "reviewer's discretion" as user-space is considered to "belong" to the user, but a legitimately placed submission template put on by a submitter who knows what he is doing, and who is not experimenting should be treated as a request to review the page, which (at least for submissions that have a snowball's chance of ever being accepted) means moving them to WT:AFC/ space. Bear in mind that some users don't know what they are doing, and some are experimenting with the templates, and none of us are very good at mind-reading.
davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
davidwr, when articles are submitted, some categories are attached to them. In cases where it seems that a sandbox or user page was submitted accidentally or through misunderstanding, should we delete those categories as well as remove the template, so that it's as if it never happened? Or should the categories be left for some reason? —Anne Delong (talk) 03:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Categories for article-space shouldn't be in user-space pages anyways. I think at one time a bot went around and added a colon to such categories. In any case, I routinely add colons to categories if they are inappropriate for that "space" (e.g. user-space, user-talk-space, etc.) independent of the AFC process. I do give the page "owner" or major contributor a heads-up though, just as a courtesy. The issue of templates that categorize pages can be a bit tricker, but this applies in both "WT:AFC/" space and in user-space. Yes, such categories are bad, but sometimes not showing the template as it is meant to look is worse. So this is going to be an editor-discretion thing. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have been more specific. I was talking about categories added by the Afc submission process. For example, "Category:Afc submissions January 1 2013", "Category:Afc submissions declined as advertising". I don't think removing these will mess up the page, but it might mess up the statistical data that the category was meant to collect. However, since a lot of old submissions are now being deleted, that data will be lost anyway. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Technical 13, There are about a dozen submissions in user space just from yesterday, as can be seen at Category:AfC submissions by date/24 September 2013 (There were more, but I moved some.). I am presuming that your count is just for today. At any rate, the problem is not in finding the submissions, the problem is with what to do with them. Until recently, all of the submissions were in "Wikipedia talk" space (with the exception of a few that were sent back to user space with agreement from the submitters). We have a good process going for these ones in project space: They are either being improved with the idea that they will be articles one day, or they are deleted for one reason or another, or they and ultimately fade away under the G13 process. If the poorly written, unsourced or unsuitable ones are left in user space, when the submitters had intended to create an article, there is no process for purging them except the cumbersome one-by-one Mfd process, taking up a lot of everyone's time. Also, they are being picked up by mirror sites and indexed by Google with the word "Wikipedia" attached. Something that might work might be if blank sandboxes and test edits with just a few words were declined and, if not submitted with real content after a period of time, the Afc categories were stripped away, maybe using the above new category to find them. Everything with actual content, no matter how bad, would be moved to project space an dealt with according to the processes we have set up. However, before the backlog drive starts, we should (1) try to get a consensus on this, or if it's still up in the air, (2) agree not to fail reviews based on whether they were in user or project space. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Anne, that is a live count of the number of active submissions in userspace as populated by the templates themselves. I've been going through and dealing with about 30 of these a day, so I'm thinking that there is something wrong with the process that we need to figure out where these are coming from. If there is any context on the draft, regardless of hope, it should be moved to project space (need some kind of context to know what to name the page). Blank, patent nonsense, whatnot should be simply tagged as CSD:G1 (nonsense), CSD:G6 (cleanup - since these are drafts in the wrong namespace), CSD:G7 (technically blank), CSD:G11/CSD:G12 (should be obvious anyways)... Technical 13 (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with you, Technical 13, but there have been some other opinions expressed. As to where the user space submissions are coming from, I think that people who make an article in their user space, without using the "Your first article" process, just type {{subst:submit}} to submit their articles. Then large yellow Afc box appears, which has a small message suggesting they move their page to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Whatever. Some notice the message and do it, others don't. However, if the article is in a sandbox, it rejects the move until a new article name is typed, and the process requires knowledge that new users don't have. I don't mind moving the articles for them, although sometime in the future it would be nice if the page move software could be modified to recognize when the article name is "sandbox" and pop up a request for an article name. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Hrmmm... I have an idea for that... It is easy to detect if the subpagename == sandbox. I could have it replace that suggestion with an mw:Extension:InputBox that would prompt them to enter the title of the draft before trying to move, I think.... Let me research that, otherwise I'm afraid this is back burnered until either the AfC extension is done being created and implemented or there is an on-by-default gadget (Bawolff—[[User:{{{3}}}|{{{3}}}]]) that can do that with JavaScript. Technical 13 (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Changing the way the move function works is beyond the Afc scope and affects all of Wikipedia, so it is probably something that would need one of those Rfc's and not something to do on the fly....here is one person who would speak in favour. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Template:Courtesy blanked

As an alternative to {{afc cleared}}, consider using {{courtesy blanked}} for pages where no policy has been violated but it's in everyone's best interest to suppress the content. Examples would be non-notable autobiographies or autobiographies that are not policy-violating but which the submitter is naive about the consequences of putting such information online. Remember, some web sites do mirror AFC submissions and Google does index some of them them (I know of only one such site up right now, but others could appear at any time).

This template must be subst:ituted to work. It will warn you if you forget. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

This is an interesting idea, davidwr. I do worry about those mirror sites. Is there a policy that covers this? I tried this in a sandbox, and although it leaves a message, it doesn't actually blank anything. I presume that you would have to do that manually. The message also doesn't explain the reason for the blanking, or how to get the text back for further editing, so maybe a note to the submitter would be a good idea to prevent misunderstanding. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
The mirror sites don't always respect the NOINDEX, and the blanking message in the script is a little daunting. It would be nice to have a way of making the text invisible to the mirrors, but indicate to the submitters "click here to continue improving this article" which would undo the blanking. A radical approach might be to do this with all declined submissions (but I am not suggesting this).—Anne Delong (talk) 14:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit requests on 22 September 2013

Please update Template:AFC submission to use the code in the /sandbox to remove pages in user space from the Category:AfC submissions in userspace category. This is cleanup per WP:SUBCAT (A page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category) after the below two requests are completed. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Please update Template:AFC submission/declined to use the code in the /sandbox to add pages in user space to the Category:Declined AfC submissions in userspace category. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Please update Template:AFC submission/draft to use the code in the /sandbox to add pages in user space to the Category:AfC drafts in userspace category. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Not done for now: I do not wish to action (2) & (3) as they stand, since both would change one link from WP:G13 (which works) to CSD:G13 which is presently not functioning as a redirect. I cannot carry out (1) either, since that depends upon (2) & (3) - but not because of CSD:G13. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Redrose64, this edit resolves that problem. The redirect now works properly. Technical 13 (talk) 17:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
CAUTION - I was proposing changes in those sandboxes in the last week or so. Make sure that my proposed edits are NOT merged in without discussion (see #Accept- and decline-by-date-of- to help in the review-the-review process above). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Done two fo these, there is still a CSD: link in /draft/sandbox. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

  • I just checked and see no CSD:G13 in /draft/sandbox (and ctrl+f — C+S+D+: couldn't find it either). Please look again. Technical 13 (talk) 12:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
    My mistake. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Anne Delong/G13 Rescue

Dear editors: I have started a page to keep track of which G13 articles I have checked to see if they have salvageable content and should be removed from the path of deletion. The bot nominates submissions by month and then alphabetically, so if anyone wants to take a letter of the alphabet in any month and check through it (or knows that it's already been done), I would appreciate it if he or she would then mark that off on my list (if you want to) so that I won't be checking ones that others have already been through. If this becomes useful to others besides myself I will move it to project space. Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I have finished checking the November 2011 entries - is anyone working on December 2011? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately I have university exams in October so my participation in this - and WP in general - will be very limited until November. Enjoy the dumpster diving! When I get back I'll try to join you. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
The lists are being extracted from the bot. You can find the index of the bot's ordering at User:HasteurBot/G13 notifications. I'm reading out more from the database and will have more records as I get more data. Hasteur (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I picked up the list and had a look. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Clark Tibbitts (a seemingly notable academic, never submitted for review) seemed salvagable, so I started copyediting it into shape. I then realised I'd got the wrong end of the stick and we're merely flagging them like the passover (for want of a better analogy) so the G13 bot misses them, rather than actually improving them to an acceptable standard. Or are we? I think we need to move this to project space and am happy to "do the deed" unless somebody else gets there first. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
The passover is what is effectively done by applying the "G13 deferrment", obviously we'd prefer if the saving also included some inprovement, but with 50k, eligible articles that would advocate for extra eyes on them, passing the ones that do appear to have potential (so that we can look again in 6 months) is a reasonable way to extend a good faith save. If the submission goes up for review and declined it's been passed over as well and the bot will be happy to come back in 6 months to start the process again. Obviously if we see the same articles being perennially put through the 6 month expiry period (Notify of G13 eligibility, put on the list, passed over) then we ask outside of the bot's operations why do we think there's something to save, but no progress or effort is being made on it. Hasteur (talk) 13:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Please watch for the following editors in about a month

Please watch for either Khalibali (talk · contribs) or Viii007 (talk · contribs) to re-appear and start reviewing articles when he comes off block a month from now. He was banned for a month for sockpuppetry, but it's not clear which of the two accounts is the "master" yet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Viii007.

I mention this because a number of articles this person has approved using his multiple accounts have wound up at WP:AFD, which indicates he is clearly not ready to review articles. Any articles he approves in the first few weeks after he comes back should be re-reviewed and sent to AFD if necessary. I will put a link to this discussion on both talk pages. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting reviewer information 15:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

This morning I found THIS in a new tab on my browser. It's interesting, but I don't remember clicking on anything to get this and I wonder what it is exactly. Is it related to this discussion, or a coincidence? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I added this to the reviewer list page, to allow us to easily keep the inactive list up-to date. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks you. It looks useful. I must have clicked on it by accident, but now I will know where to find it again. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:AfC submissions with missing AfC template

This category is now empty. Are there really no AfC submissions with missing AfC template, or is the process for finding them inactive? —Anne Delong (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Anne Delong, this was still unresolved from the last time that the question was asked Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2013 6#AfC submissions with missing AfC template Discussion 1. Can we agree not to fragment conversations? In fact the bot runner responded less than 10 hours ago to the previous discussion. Hasteur (talk) 16:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, Hasteur. Shall I delete this thread and ask questions at the previous one? —Anne Delong (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


Accept- and decline-by-date-of- to help in the review-the-review process

Unresolved

I've drafted some changes to some templates to make it easier to check for recently-accepted and recently-declined submissions. In addition to helping out with the contest, this will make it easier to track the accepts and declines for new reviews so we can guide those who need help them sooner rather than after days of damage has been done.

See this since-reverted edit to Talk:Parotidectomy and this since-reverted edit to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sweaty Neck Syndrome to see how it looks.

Here are the other files I've changed to make this happen:

Thoughts? Anyone see any problems with the changes or anyone who would recommend a different way of accomplishing the same goal (and who has the template-coding skills to make it happen)?

Work that will need to be done:

  • A bot will need to create the categories each day.
  • The categories will need to have appropriate parent categories and appropriate descriptions.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Marking "unresolved":
  • Do we want to do this for the October drive or defer discussion until later?
  • Are there any bots/scripts/categories/counters that depend on the existing category structure, and if so, will the existing categories need to be maintained as well (they are NOT maintained in the above diffs)?
davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Here are some existing ways to look at submissions: Template:Afc statistics and Afc submissions by date. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 16:11, 24 September 2013

there should be a page for plays — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.135.86 (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Roll Call - Backlog drive score changes

A quick notification for people who might have missed it: There have been some proposed rule changes for the AFC backlog drive in regards to its scoring system. Summarized the changes are:

  • Users will receive 1 point for every review or re-review of an article.
  • Inaccurate reviews (Reviews marked as "Fail" by two re-reviewers) will result in a 2 point deduction.
  • Submissions accurately marked and deleted as copyright violations will result in 1 bonus point. (1 for the review, another 1 for the copyvio detection).

Right now there changes seem to have universal support so i am planning to add these to AFCBuddy for the next drive (Changes still dependent on technical feasibility). This section is mostly a roll call for people who might have missed this change and disagree, or might want to voice alternatives / agreement to these changes. Also note that i've altered the re-review instructions to accommodate these score changes. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 20:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Sounds fine to the me. The only other (possibly controversial) thing I'd throw in, more to see what people think than anything else, is some penalties towards "son of Arctic Kangaroo" for accepting submissions that subsequently get deleted, which causes untold aggravation for the user. Something like :

I want to thank you, Excirial for taking this on with short notice. I know it wasn't likely what you had planned to do this week. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

New AFCH gadget release pushed

From the release notes:

The 25 September release brings with it a brand new interface to add WikiProject templates to talk pages, widespread CSD logging, integrated formatgeneral.js cleanup, automatic deletion of redirects in the way of acceptance (admins only), bug fixes, speed improvements, and unicorns.

A new beta script has been pushed as well. As usual, you'll need to bypass your cache to see the new features. Please let us know here if anything doesn't work as intended so we can make sure everything is ready for the October backlog drive. Theopolisme (talk) 01:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/New Dock (Leeds)

This submission is an edited copy of Clarence Dock (Leeds). I have reverted the redirection on this page as it should probably be a page move and the changes in this submission histmerging above this. Keith D (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

After checking the revision histories and comparing the mostly-copied-and-pasted pages, I concur. There may need to be a revert to the "AFC submission" version after the history merge. Since this is a complex page merge, it would be best to explain what is going on at Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen and let an admin sort it all out. If you are an admin and have it sorted out in your head, just make it happen. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Sock notification

I'm dubious regarding what this will achieve but there was a request at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Reema_Welling for the AfC project to be notified if a sock was found. There were loads of them and the master will certainly return in due course: they are promoting a connected group of movie actors/producers/directors etc. - Sitush (talk) 08:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I made that request because at least some of the now-blocked accounts participated in AFC, either as submitters or reviewers. Their edit histories will need to be checked for submissions and reviews. Unfortunately, there has been at least one un-related new editor doing some poor-quality reviews so some of the submissions by this sockpuppet made it through. I've tagged those that I've seen for notability or PROD but not necessarily WP:CSD#G5 (block-evasion new articles). Please help if tag-and-bag if you can. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Please check for existing articles when nominating, delaying/rescuing, or deleting G13s

Before nominating or deleting a G13 please check to see if the article has been created, as a history merge may be needed.

If the article was created and deleted the submission may need to be speedy-deleted under another criteria and/or a comment added before it is deleted, e.g. "an article on this topic was deleted in a deletion discussion, its content should be checked before this page becomes part of the encyclopedia (this edit is NOT intended to stop the "G13 countdown clock")."

Before delaying or rescuing a G13-eligible submission, check to see if the page exists. If it does, a history- and/or content-merge may be needed. If it is a copy-and-paste and the mainspace-article creator is the only significant editor of the submission, just G13-delete it.

Last night I went through a handful of 6+ month old submissions that were "rescued." The majority of them were copy-and-pasted into the main encyclopedia so I just declined them as duplicates. They will die to g13 in another 6 months. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I've added instructions and helpful links to Template:Db-g13/sandbox (diff). To try it out, go here and add replace the db-afc or db-g13 template with db-g13/sandbox and preview it. Any objections to making this go live? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm strongly opposed to it being added as is. The code is broken and doea not render as intended and it clutters up the interface for all users to display a note to administrators. I'll add the function to the anote= section later that only admins can see and fix the coding so it is not broken. Technical 13 (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I've tackled a few of these simply by changing the submission into a redirect to the article in mainspace, as we do when regular submissions pass.. This seems to be the ideal compromise. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay, David, I've moved the code to the appropriate area. "if" the page doesn't exist, the response is kind of long (takes two whole lines on my screen), can it be reworded to cut it down? Is it even needed? I can see warning if the page already exists (although that information is already in the afc submission template. Technical 13 (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
The G13 submissions are being deleted very quickly, and while I try to check for copyvios and existing articles, I may miss one occasionally. The copyvios are no problem, because they can be deleted as soon as anyone finds them, but I'm sure that some "rescued" articles will be found, after careful checking, to be indeed non-notable or unnecessary for one reason or another. Since they will only have been edited by those rescuing them, do they need to wait another six months? Can we nominate them again now, or maybe to prevent confusion as soon as the backlog is gone? Which reminds me that the "postpone" option doesn't seem to work on unsubmitted drafts (unless it was fixed this afternoon). —Anne Delong (talk) 23:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
General reply to all above: I have no objections to re-wording and to making some text only visible to admins. If there is a way to show the "please check deleted versions" text only if the deletions exist, that is even better. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
The problem of articles in Afc which are either copy-paste remnants or resubmissions of existing article subjects isn't unique to the G13 situation. Has anyone in the past created a "bot" that is triggered when a new article is created or moved into Afc space which searches the encyclopedia for an article with the same name and reports it? I know that the move software checks for identical names, which helps with duplicates inside the Afc, but not with duplicates in mainspace. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I have checked as many of the December 2011 submissions that I could before they disappeared. Now the January 2012 ones are going, and I have only checked ones beginning with the letter A so far (see my list). I was keeping up for a while, but had to (1) eat (2) sleep (3) attend four jam sessions. If anyone else has been checking them, please leave a note on either my list (if checking with the handy infobox) or DGG's list if checking by date, so that we can cover as many as possible before the backlong drive starts and our attention is split! —Anne Delong (talk) 04:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

G13 template: Suggest adding a 24-hour clock

There seems to be a problem with the G13's being deleted as soon as they are templated.

How about replacing the existing template the bot uses with a dated template, like {{dated prod}}. This would immediately put templated submissions in a "about to go to csd" category so the rescue team could look through them and de-template them, then they would go to an "active" csd category where admins could delete them.

If 24 hours isn't enough, I have no objection to a longer time period, but let's keep it no more than a week, to be consistent with other "slow" speedy-deletions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe that Hasteur already has figured out a process for letting people know which ones will be next to be nominated. However, if we can get organized to the point where we are working on the month ahead of the bot, it won't matter exactly which ones will be next, because the whole month that the bot is doing will have been checked. The bot already gives the submitters a 30 day notification. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
@Anne Delong: He is on about people tagging it manually. I support this idea - lets just put a 30 day delay on all G13 nominations, so people have time to trawl through the manual tags too. --Mdann52talk to me! 06:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I may be wrong, but my understanding is that this is already the process. We'd have a month to look through each month's new "eligibles". But because of the two year and more backlog, a huge number were tagged at once. The oldest ones were checked out by several reviewers, but these are gone now. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Anything that is in the Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions has had at least 1 notification made to the creator that the submission is in danger of being deleted. As new children (and sub-children of Category:AfC_submissions_by_date become eligible, the bot checks the category membership and does a null edit on the page (to ensure it picks up the most up to date version of the template), drops a notification on the page creator's talk page warning them, and adds it to an internal list of what page has been notified on (with who was notified). The bot checks the list and picks up the oldest notifications first so as to follow a procedural order. There's 30 days between when the new submission lands in the Eligible pile to when the bot nominates. This does not disclude an editor of getting antsy and nominating before the bot would process it. Hasteur (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

AfC sorting

After some discussion, I have become enthausiastic about the idea of categorising AfC submissions. I think it is a good idea, as it might encourage reviwers to select articles for review that they are interested in, which could help with the backlog, and also maybe get wikiprojects more involved in reviewing new articles. I would propose to add categories for:

  • History
  • Geography
  • Biographies of living people
  • Other biographies
  • Organisations
  • Products
  • Music

and an additional category for the author having a COI. I could imagine the categories first being created, and than the following supporting actions can be taken in any order, independently of eachoter:

  • Support in the helper script to add and remove these categories
  • Support in the article wizard to let the creator mark these categories
  • Support in Earwig bot to order {{AFC statistics}}
  • Make different pages/links in the wikiproject for reviewers.

What do you folks think? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Before everybody blames for for this being a terrible idea, I have to note that it originally came from User:FireflySixtySeven. Unless of course you like it, then I came up with it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like a very good idea to me. Unfortunately I lack the technical skills to help with implementation beyond creation of the categories themselves. The only drawback I can see is that we'd end up with even more of a backlog in the "boring" categories. Huon (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Add this to the article Wizard instead. Even if we asked the submitter to select "one or more" of the broad notability sub-categories listed at Template:Notability guide and Wikipedia:Notability (people), that would be a big start. For articles that used the Wizard but bypassed AFC, it would also allow the Wizard to suggest WikiProjects and Categories and it would allow New-Page Patrollers to hone in on specific notability guidelines quickly. As far as the huge list of old submissions, in 6 months most of them will be G13'd anyways. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
The article Wizard should definitely be adding a category or other indicator to submissions and new articles that bypass AFC that are self-reported to be conflicts of interest. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC) Update: It should also tag BLPs and biographies of possibly-living people and insist that the submitter tag all biographies as living, dead, or maybe-living. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I would be rather appalled if G13 would stretch to articles that are still pending review. But apart from that, yes, using the article wizard is indeed one of the ways to do this (it's already mentioned as the second item in the implementation list). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Anything still pending review 7-8 months from now would likely either be a "delayed/rescued from G13" submission or it would have been created with an updated Article Wizard. Yes, there would be a few non-Wizard submissions, but the point is that by then the number of active submissions that weren't categorized by the submitter using the Article Wizard will be small. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose until there is factual data evidence that this won't be a waste of reviewer time. Currently, we have a backlog of 1,227 submissions waiting for review. Of these, there is a high probability that 75%-80% are blank, copyvios, promospam, or strong COI issues that that submitter lied about so they could try to push their idea on us. Reviewers shouldn't be wasting their time to "re-categorize" these properly, and they should be just reviewing them. I don't see how it adds any value to the project for reviewers to limit themselves to "only reviewing" certain kinds of drafts, and I actually think it would be detrimental. Having this categorized type of reviewing creates an opportunity for reviewer COI where they are accepting things based on a like of the topic or declining them because of a dislike of the topic. Anonymity offers the ability to review based on the facts. Is it copyvio? No, move on. Are there enough RS? Yes, move on... There's no "ohh.. but I really like history articles" or "I really like sports articles"... Now, I'm not saying all (or even most) reviewers would do this, but there have been some that have done this, and this just makes it easier for them and makes more of a mess for us to clean up. Technical 13 (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think that it'll take more than a second of a reviewers time to fix a mis-categorised submission after review. If 80% of COI articles don't get tagged as such by the author, that is already 20% of the COI articles properly identified without any extra work for the reviewer. In the 80% case there is no change: they don't get categorized now either. If the self-categorisation turns out to be problematic after a run, then we can always decide not to do it. Also, it is a-priory impossible to get factual data about this before we attempt this. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Before we add more instructions to the already complicated reviewing instructions, let's try to keep the Pending Review articles backlog under 2 weeks for 3 months. We shouldn't be in a perpetual state of backlog, yet we can never seem to get enough people to review... Hasteur (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The only way that categorizing would be helpful in reducing the backlog would be if Wikiprojects were automatically notified of something in their area of interest. That might draw in new reviewers from the Wikiprojects. I asked about this some time ago and was told that there are over 2000 of these, so it wouldn't be practical. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I still think that AfC doesn't get enough reviewers (like NPP) because there is not an interesting hat to collect. This is the conundrum however, because the although I have proposed a 'permission' (which still needs to be worked out now that the RfC is headed for a consensus), it is unlikely that the WMF will agree to a MediaWiki 'user right' that may not be of cross-Wiki interest. I still see it a protected script of some kind in the way that permission has to be sought for using Stiki or AWB. This might nevertheless attract more people to reviewing. I know I keep dragging NPP into the topic, but after having worked on NPP issues for over 3 years, there are clearly some parallels in the problems and even some sharing/overlappiing of the tasks.
Where (in my experience) up to 80% of submissions are uncategorizable junk - except as possible immediate cases for CSD - I do not believe that an appeal to the various Wikipedia projects would be forthcoming. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Modifying Article Wizard to pre-sort new submissions and articles

This is a "split" form the section above, AFC Sorting.

The WP:Article Wizard can create both AFC submissions and articles without going through AFC.

In order to assist those dealing with new afc submissions and new articles created with the Article Wizard, the Article Wizard should be changed so it STRONGLY SUGGESTS common broad categories that the editor can choose (he can choose more than one, or none, if he wants).

Among the categories that may be offered are:

As listed in WP:Notability

  • Academics
  • Astronomical objects
  • Books
  • Events
  • Film
  • Music
  • Numbers
  • Organizations and companies
  • People
  • Sports and athletes
  • Web content
  • Other People

Additional categories suggested in the original proposal above

  • History
  • Geography
  • Products

In addition, the submitter will have to answer these questions:

  • [mandatory BLP certification]: This page DOES mention a living, real, person / This page does NOT mention a living, real, person / I do not know if this page mentions a living, real person.
  • [mandatory COI selection]: The submitter DOES have a conflict of interest / The submitter does NOT have a conflict of interest / The submitter is NOT SURE if he has a conflict of interest. Yes, people may lie about the COI. See WP:ROPE.

Based on these information provided, the Article Wizard will

  • Add "real" encyclopedia categories (e.g. Category:Living people) as appropriate,
  • Add "project maintenance" categories (e.g. "Articles created with the Article Wizard submitted as biographies") as appropriate, and
  • Add talk page templates (e.g. {{BLP}}) as appropriate, or add an "afc comment" with recommended wikicode if the article is being submitted to AFC.

This will all be done by the Article Wizard, not the AFC Helper Script. Later, once most of the non-deleted AFC submissions have gone through this process and almost all future ones will go through it as well, we can start taking advantage of the categories that the Article Wizard adds to AFC submissions. WP:New page patrol can also take advantage of these categories as they are added to new articles that are not submitted through AFC.

Thoughts? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Backlog Drive - A few notes.

FYI

Just a little heads up before the backlog drive starts. Due to the changes to the scoring system for the drive a relatively large amount of changes have been made to AFC Buddy in order to accommodate this change. Nothing world-shattering, but i suppose a warning in advance is always convenient.

  • The Re-review format was changed to a new format. As a direct result AFCBuddy can now automatically count reviews and generate the reviewers section (Including {{tick}}ing people over 25 reviews and a review count).
  • Any review re-reviewed using the {{AFCDriveQC}} template will be moved to a subsection on the reviewers page (Similar to what we used to have, though due to the template the accuracy should be a lot higher).
  • A new scoring system was implemented:
  • +1 score if a user marked a page as a copyvio, and the next deletion was marked as a copyvio by the deleting admin.
  • +1 score for every re-review an editor makes, tied to the {{AFCDriveQC}} template.
  • -3 score for every review that two other editors mark as failed. The editor still receives 1 point for the review itself so effectively this will result in the agreed-on -2 score. Why i use -3? Since it was a lot faster to implement then excluding failed reviews from the score count.

Those are the main changes, though these also resulted in a few auxiliary changes:

  • The leaderboard now lists "Total score", defined as "Total reviews" + "Adjustment", with adjustment being the total value calculated by the score system.
  • The User Totals List now contains some extra text in the header, listing the users review count, their positive and negative score adjustments. (Below example would normally be a header under the user totals section).
  • Example: Anne Delong (250 / 29 / 0) would mean that Anne did 250 reviews, earned 29 bonus points and received no penalty points.
  • The "250 / 29 / 0" part is a wikilink that will point to a page detailing the adjustment(s) themselves. An example of this page can be seen here. Note that the data on this page is partially bogus - the entries marked COPYVIO should be accurate for the July drive, but the ones marked REREVIEW and FAILEDREVIEW are based on a test run i executed on one of the old reviewers pages.

Please note

The above changes caused quite some changes throughout the entire codebase, so it is quite possible that a bug or two might have slipped in, or that i might have overlooked something. If possible, keep an eye out for anything odd in the results AFCBuddy generates, and please do let me know if anything seems off. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 18:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that sounds like a lot of work, Excirial. One good thing is that since only the reviewers will see this, if a bug should appear it won't affect the submitters. Thanks again for taking this on. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
After squashing a few minor issues the drive results have now been uploaded. If anyone notices anything odd, please let me know. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

HasteurBot Task 1 suspension

To allow editors more time to review, I'm going to be suspending the 2 triggers that the bot uses to nominate submissions. The bot will still notify users with respect to pages that just became eligible for G13, but won't make any nominations until October 31st. Hasteur (talk) 21:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Articles about subjects that don't meet notability guidelines

Dear reviewers: This point has been brought up before during the last backlog drive, but it is archived now, so with the drive possibly attracting some new reviewers I thought I'd mention it again: If an article is about a subject that doesn't meet notability guidelines (for example, aspiring musicians and actors, the local diner, someone's favourite cat, a self-published and unreviewed book), we should be letting the submitter know this right away rather than asking them spend their time fixing up an article that will never be accepted. The "notability" decline templates all mention the need for reliable sources, so if this is also a problem you get two-for-one. The "improperly sourced" reason should only be used alone if the subject is obviously notable, either from the contents of the article ("she won the Pulitzer prize"; "he's a university professor") or from a quick search of the internet. —Anne Delong (talk) 08:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The trouble is, you can never be absolutely certain that a subject is non-notable in cases. Historical figures might well be notable through offline sources. Bands formed in the last decade, however, probably haven't got a chance. If they're neutral enough to avoid G11, they just tend to get left until a G13 picks them up. Nevertheless, that does give them a grace period to understand our guidelines, which A7 just doesn't do. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Ritchie333, that may be true that there are off-line sources or that there may be sources in another language that a Google doesn't easily pick up without some hint of it being that language; however, I agree with Anne that in those cases it is more appropriate to at least point the submitter to the proper N guideline so that they can know exactly what the criteria are to add the appropriate sources to establish notability. If in the decline logs below it's obvious that they have been shown that but aren't following it, then it is perfectly acceptable to top it with a "sources" tag. To be honest, I'm not entirely impressed with our current system for tagging and such and when I have some more time (I'm dealing with my lease running out in a few days and being homeless), I'll update it to something more comprehensive and helpful to the submitter.
I envision a tiered decline reason that allows for multiple decline reasons in an orderly fashion. I'm aware "similar" things have been proposed, and the only way for me to differentiate from those will be to throw together a couple examples which, again, I've not the time at the moment. Technical 13 (talk) 12:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I've seen the odd example where somebody cites yet another Twitter, Facebook or Tumblr post before the reviewer declining it the sixth or seventh time says "just forget about it and edit something else" - but those examples are pretty much in the minority. Most people either "get it" by the second or third try, or give up in despair. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
The decline reason doesn't say that the subject is not notable. It says that the references don't show that the subject is notable, and then the template suggests how more sources could be added to show it, and pointing the submitter to the information about notability requirements. This allows the submitter to decide for him/herself if enough references can be gathered to show notability. The idea is to prevent this type of sequence:
  • A submits and article about his favourite teacher
  • B declines the article as too promotional
  • A rewrites the text in a more neutral tone
  • C declines the article as having no references
  • A finds and adds some links to facebook, a school staff list, teacher's web page, etc.
  • D declines the article as needing more reliable references
  • A adds a link to the school yearbook and two news articles with one sentence about the teacher
  • E declines the article as having no inline citations
  • A after much difficulty figures out how to make the references be inline
  • F finally declines the article as about a non-notable person
  • A decides everyone at Wikipedia is insane and never returns
This type of thing really did happen last time. If the last decline reason had been given first, and it turned out that the teacher was notable, having written a new national curriculum and been voted teacher of the year and rescued a child from drowning, etc., the submitter, after reading about notability of people, would likely have added this to the article and then cited some sources. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I like to priorize some templates over other templates while declining an article:
  • (1) Anything that had legal implications (Copyvio, BLP violation, attack pages)
  • (2) Anything that permanently disqualifies the article's subject due to external issues (Duplicate submission, Already exists in mainspace)
  • (3) Anything that permanently disqualifies the article's subject (Notability, Joke pages, WP:Not, WP:DICDEF an so on)
  • (4) Anything that is related to the article's content (Promotional text, formatting).
Some exceptions apply though. If an editor submits a 10 page promotional article i prefer to decline it for advertising while adding a comment that they might want to read the notability policy, rather then reading trough those 10 pages to guess if might be a notable topic. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 12:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
The review procedure flowchart does run through the decline reasons in order of priority, so the sequence is already established. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
This canned pre-decline template may prove helpful: User:Davidwr/afc comment - nn
User:Davidwr/afc comment - nn
davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
On a similar note, sometimes the formatting is so bad that the reviewer really can't tell if they can meet notability or not. If they say something that could make the individual notable if they can back it up, I try to tell them so. If I'm not sure if they can make it or not, I try to let them know it. I wish there was a "May make notability requirements if statements can be backed up with proper references" template.The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 01:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Luckily, the script gives an option to leave a comment, and I use this quite a bit, especially if a submission has more than one problem. I frequently encourage users to submit again if the article is likely notable. Also, you can always contact a useron their talk page and start an encouraging dialogue. Sometimes I suggest that they contact an appropriate Wikiproject for help. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm really big on the Teahouse. If I recommend it in my comments, I believe the subject is notable or it is at least a good possibility. If I don't put any comments, it is because it is so obviously not going to make it to a good article anytime soon.The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk)

Header bug

Resolved

@Technical 13: The template for the countdown ("The backlog elimination drive ended on October 31, 2013 (UTC).(refresh)") is incorrect. Theopolisme (talk) 10:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Theopolisme, I'm aware of that. I was getting frustrated with working on that template so took a few days away from it. I'll fix that today. Technical 13 (talk) 11:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Marking an article for copyright violation.

Hi all, I'm new to reviewing but I have experienced some problems with marking Afc's for decline and deletion because of a copyright violation. I provide the URL from which the information is taken and I check all the boxes (blanking, CSD parameter, notifying author and teahouse) When I press Decline only the author is notified but nothing changes on the Afc talk page. Have I missed something which I should have done? Crispulop (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Hello Cris. According to my testing, this issue seems to have already been resolved in an upcoming version of the script. I'll try to get a hotfix (theopolisme—mabdul—legoktm) pushed through to the version you are using as soon as possible due to the high importance of such a thing working. Thanks for your report. Technical 13 (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Looking at the October Backlog elimination with for example user Aggie80 I see that other reviewers are able to file Afc's for Speedy deletion CSD G12 with AFCH. For me it does not (yet) work how it should. Is there a way to circumvent the problem I mentioned before? Except for just adding the CSD tags manually, which I am doing currently. Crispulop (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hayat Akbar

Hayat Akbar (Urdu: حیات اکبر) (also called Babar Bacha was born on Thursday, March 5, 1987 in a small village Dandoqa where he grow up in a family of having his parents 4 sisters and a brother. He started his basic education in the year 1992 from his village. He was graduated in law and economics from University of Peshawar and Later got Degree in Master of Economics of the same university. Later in the year 2012 he devoted his life for Social Welfare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.47.218.146 (talk) 21:27, 4 October 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. theonesean 15:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Submissions tab overhaul

I've revisited the way that our "Submissions" tab up top works and added some stuff. Most of the stuff that was on the "List" page has moved to the main "Submissions" page and I've added a new feature that will allow you to search through all AfC submissions/drafts for keywords. I'm more than happy to move more stuff around, so don't feel like you shouldn't tell me if you don't like it or if you want it rearranged or whatnot... :) Technical 13 (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Technical 13: Before, the submissions tab was divided into two logical sections: the first was for pending submissions only, with various options for viewing them, for the reviewers to work on. The other, called somewhat cryptically "list", dealt with all of the submissions, whether accepted, declined, draft, missing template or pending, which was useful for those who were trying to keep the project organized, fix up problems, find older submissions and create statistics. Now they are all mixed together. The "List" is the section that I use the most and you have gutted it. Instead of moving the list stuff, all that was needed was to change the two little words to "pending" and "all" to make the distinction clear. I hope you will put everything that's not about pending submissions back where it was. That way everyone won't have to relearn where to find the items they need, and the people who just like to review won't have to wade through options that don't apply to them.
The search feature sounds useful, because when there are over 200 submissions a browser search will only search the current page, so thanks - I will use this. Does is search all submissions, or just the pending ones? That would determine which page it would be on. A small search box which didn't cause the header to be so long would be an improvement; with the 16:9 screen shape that many new computer monitors have, if the header is too big, the submissions don't show on the screen at all.
I don't see the purpose of the "Pending by age" item in the header. There's already a perfectly good "Afc pending submissions by age" which has more detailed information. Also I clicked on one of the entries and it went away the the servers for over a minute and then did nothing. Am I missing something?

Problems with article review buttons

Not sure if this is just a glitch for me, but struggling to decline an article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zang Nawar Lake Noshki. Get halfway down so it notifies the author the page has been declined, but doesn't complete the process and reload page showing it as declined. Article is a copyright violation and I've managed to get a note on the page to that effect but nothing more.Libby norman (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Now working again. Libby norman (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

YangSlique (rapper)

Eddie Anoziva Sosera jrII also known as YangSlique born: 2002 2 august. Is the youngest artist to sign to tienic tee reetad s record label TOP $WAG REEGADZ RECORDS. He signed to the label early in 2013 and then he realesed his first single titled motive and then made a remix with the TSR's and it was a hit. yangslique and tienic tee reetad are brothers and yangslique is also in the TSR and yangslique started rapping in 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.111.255.224 (talk) 09:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission

Resolved

This Rfc is well over the 30 days. Is it scheduled to be closed soon? And will a more specific proposal follow? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

It's already in the pipeline and the regulars here will be invited to comment on the proposal before it goes live to the community. See below. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Declined → Not ready

TL;DR: Could we not-ready submissions instead of declining them, please? The intent is to have the newcomers work more on them, not to give up.

One name for status ”assumes” the submission would not ever be eligible, while the other name ”assumes” it could be possible to get it published with additional work. I like the spirit of the latter more. (This is another instance of similar thought process.) At Wikinews, there is a need in urgent work, while news is still fresh; at Wikipedia, the need is smaller, and the change could be merely friendly. I suspect that the newcomers' reaction would be less frustrating and more collaborative, were the change made; it would be nice to many, while we would barely see a difference in our workflow.

Such change may require community discussion. I would like to encourage your feedback here. Thanks! Gryllida (talk) 09:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The 'declines' already offer advice to the creator as well as the opportunity to resubmit. IMO, adding a 'not ready' category would be simply to add more bureaucracy to the process and/or instruction creep for the reviewers whose task is already complicated enough. Stay tuned however, because there are new proposals coming up that will simply the system even further. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I think that for "some" of the decline reasons, this is actually a very good proposal. We would have to make a list of stuff that should say "not-ready" as opposed to "declined". Stuff that is clearly notable, but just hasn't had enough sources put into the draft would be good not-ready candidates where-as copyvios and spam and blank would be better as declined. Those cases we want the writer to give up and walk away because it could never be appropriate and would be CSDable if in article space. Technical 13 (talk) 12:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
And they'll be 'CSDable' when we get the draft namespace for AfC submissions. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
In the meantime, it's good to leave a supplementary message along with the decline template. If I am worried that a user might be discouraged, I sometimes add "Please submit this article again after (whatever fix needs to be done)", or "Wikipedia needs an article on this topic;, I hope you will resubmit", or something like that. One problem, which has been pointed out in previous discussions, is that it isn't always possible to tell from the initial submission which subjects will turn out to be notable and which will not, so we end up encouraging people at first and then discouraging them only after a lot of wasted work has been put into improvements. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Aye, there's the rub! I hope that what is now cooking in tha back kitchen will address some of these issues. 'Sigh' - if only we could get some of the regulars to collaborate here as a small software development team instead of each of them going off at half-tack on their own ideas, otherwise we'll be getting another top-down solution forced upon us by the well-meaning WMF. Next think-tank RfC coming very soon. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

As an alternative, may it be reasonable to change the color and icon of the existing declined templates (AFC submission|d, and whatever is added to users' talk pages) from red to blue, and from a cross mark to a brush and a pen, with the same intentions in mind as I described in my first message? Gryllida (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

can't save a page, asked to post here if I received an error message.

having trouble creating new pages. The system seems to have changed dramatically from when I started the LXLE page. different format of editor. different rules. not sure what to do... noob here.

I just started talk page for uDuck

and now trying to start Libreante. Trouble with the latter. Mint Lulu (talk) 04:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

@Mint Lulu: what error are you getting? Try adding {{subst:submit}} to it, or copy paste the error message here. --Mdann52talk to me! 07:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if this is somebody who used Visual Editor when it was the default choice, and is now confused because (by extremely popular demand) we've gone back to the source editor. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 Done to some degree. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/uDuck now has a draft template, which the user appeared to be trying to put on. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Geeky project self-notability?

I conducted a review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Influenza A Segment 7 Splice Site (2). If you aren't a microbiologist, you'll have a great deal of difficulty going through the article. In addition, the subject didn't seem like it was notable. The main reference twas to journal article written by the author of the AfC WP article himself, so it lacked independent verification.

I declined it for non-notability, and sent a message explaining both the notability issue and the fact that a WP article needs to be approachable.

The author's response was:

  1. Journal: It is documented in journals, so notable
  2. Rfam database: It is part of a project where all entries to the Rfam RNA database have matching WP entries, per the WP:RNA project
  3. Partnership: This linking of Rfam and WP was announced as a partnership on wikinews:RNA journal submits articles to Wikipedia

I'm not sure what to do with this.

  • Does the partnership override notability concerns? Does the Rfam database provide notability?
  • If the database provides notability, then there's hardly a scientific subject, no matter how obscure and inactive, that would fail notability, since almost all science is in a collection somewhere -- is that policy? Do we want it to be policy?
  • Finally, if the above fails to satisfy notability, is independence an issue when the article is published is a noted journal

Really, all the above is about notability of a very technical subject. Do we need to be punctilious about notability when there is deep question like this just for creation? Or do we sometimes give a pass if it might be notable but hard to tell without subject expertise, and let the community shake it out later once published?

- Dovid (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

If the average reader isn't going to understand the page, I would say go with your judgement. The Parthnership does not overrride notability. It's only a directive to the external site's membership that in order to publish on their site, a summary must be submitted to wikipedia. We are under no obligation to accept the submission.
The database confers some notability but how does this one particular subject merit a inclusion nod over diseases?
Without having looked at the merits of the submission I'd also probably call out Original Research. Hasteur (talk) 16:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm not comfortable making the decision on this one. ANyone care to take it over? Be sure to read the existing AfC review comment on the article page, author Walternmoss's response on my talk page, and a response I placed on Walter's talk page. Dovid (talk) 04:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Try asking for expert help at one of the medicine- or microbiology-related WikiProjects. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I would like to point out that there was already an article about this topic,Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Influenza A Segment 7 Splice Site, and it was moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ebv-sisRNA by Walternmoss, after being reviewed by FoCuSandLeArN. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

  • This is a particular case. I've had a chat with said user, and gave him some tips on how to address these issues (e.g. secondary sourcing, lay encyclopaedic tone, notability, etc.). I lean on accept for these specific articles, as those pieces of RNA are notable in the field. There's extensive research on them and there's a WikiProject currently looking after them, so they have more potential than many of the other articles coming from AfC. I'd also like to point out that the B-Class criteria states "but a serious student or researcher trying to use the material may find it incomplete or perhaps too high-level"; so the key here is language and how to approach the topic for it to be suitable for all audiences. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I would again suggest asking at a specific WikiProject. As far as I know a page being too advanced for an average reader is not a reason to decline, on its own, although it is something to tell the submission author for him to introduce the subject properly. Gryllida (talk) 20:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Accepted. The problems with this article are somewhat outside this project's remit. If the notability is highly questionable then AfD is the proper community discussion venue. If the technicality of the article is too high, then it needs attention from a subject-matter expert; that is not a barrier to its mainspace creation. Pol430 talk to me 16:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Moving article back to AfC?

A reviewer moved Access Control Technology to main article space, but I can't see any evidence of notability (certainly not WP:NCORP). Can this be moved back to AfC, or should I nominate for AfD (it claims it is the first of its type in Ireland, which may mean it doesn't meet speedy criteria)? Sionk (talk) 10:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The referencing certainly seems weak. I think an Afd is the usual process at this point, but others may disagree. —Anne Delong (talk) 10:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I thought this article sounded familiar, then realised I'd declined it myself earlier. I would first ping Zach Vega (talk · contribs) and ask him to comment on this thread, as it might just be a mistake. (One of my first AfC reviews got dinged because I mistakenly thought clearing CSD was good enough for a submission to pass - it isn't!) If it is, Zach needs to draft an explanation / apology to the article's creator and get an admin to put it back in AfC. If none of that's acceptable, then Sionk (or indeed anyone) is free to take the article as it is to AfD at any time, which won't go down well with the creator. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Ah, my bad. It appeared to be notable because of its collaboration with the Office of Public Works, however considering that's not in any of the sources, it doesn't pass. Zach Vega (talk to me) 14:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

A10 is not for copy-and-paste moves from AFC to main space

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ytech International was copied-and-pasted to Ytech International and nominated for WP:CSD#A10, "A recently created article with no relevant page history that duplicates an existing English Wikipedia topic, and that does not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article(s) on the subject, and where the title is not a plausible redirect."

While this was a plausible application of WP:Ignore all rules the criteria as written does not apply to cases like this. I did leave it alone though, if an admin deletes it, it won't be a big loss.

The "official" way to handle these where the AFC submission hasn't been further developed is to either decline the AFC submission as "already exists" or, if necessary for attribution reasons (i.e. more than one author with non-trivial edits to actual content), do a WP:HISTMERGE, then nominate the page for deletion if appropriate. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

It hadn't been nominated when I checked it. Rankersbo (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Inexperienced users (again)

With only 67 edits to mainspace, I think this is demonstrative of what we are up against. Perhaps someone can review his/her reviews (if any) and drop them an appropriate line. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC).

Moved from WT:AFCH Theopolisme (talk) 01:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I checked the last few reviews. They seem fine. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Have you checked his other edits and his talk page? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it looks like he lost patience and jumped the gun on his own submission. Well, it will be a learning experience. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
For whom? For him or for us? ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

How to handle an IP attempt to create an article in Talk space

I saw two more examples today of IPs attempting to contribute an article, but not appreciating that they should use the AfC template.

The problem is, if an IP starts an article on a talk page, it often gets deleted as a G8. Because legitimate G8s are common, and occur when someone deletes an article, but not the associated talk page, it is not standard procedure to notify the creator when deleting a page as a G8 (the assumption is they were notified when the article was about to be deleted.). This means than an IP is attempting to contribute to Wikipedia, has their contribution wiped out, and gets zero notice. We claim that we welcome edits by IPs, but this is a rude introduction to Wikipedia (let me emphasized, it will be viewed as rude by the recipient; those deleting are not intending to be rude, but perceptions matter.)

I asked before for a solution, but got no answer. I will ask it a different way.

If I see such a page, can I move page "talk:foo" to "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/foo" and that will move it into the AfC universe, where someone will take a look at it, welcome the editor and provide feedback? Is it that simple, or does something else need to happen.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm interested in this one too. At the moment, I just leave alone G8s that I think might be of use because I have assumed someone else would know what to do. (Not many, by the way - they're usually junk.) Peridon (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree that a large percentage of such submissions are useless. However, I think it is polite to have a brief conversation with the creator, so they know why it was not acceptable. If I can move it to AfC "space" then that discussion will happen naturally. If not, they'll get no notice.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
If there is an AFC submission template, then I would say absolutely. Otherwise, it's a case-by case: If it's clearly got a real shot at acceptance, go ahead. If it's clearly never going to be accepted, I'd be tempted to "find a way" to speedy it that is less POINTY than G8. If it's in the middle ground I'm not sure what I would do. I would bear in mind that every minute I spend agonizing over this is a minute that I'm not spending reviewing articles that are already in WT:AFC/...-space. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I think SP's query is how to get something to AfC (I know that's what I don't know...). Peridon (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
It isn't simply that a CSD G8 is "pointy". It is that the contributor gets no notice whatsoever. If a contributor writes a draft article, and someone feels it deserves a speedy for many reasons, the editor placing the speedy tag will also inform the contributor. For obvious reasons, a G7 is an exception. For acceptable reasons, a G10 or G6 doesn't get a notification. But in other cases, even G3, it is usual practice to notify the creator.
However, it is not usual practice to notify the creator in the case of a G8. The problem isn't that the creator is getting a pointy G8 notice, the problem is that a submission is deleted with absolutely no notice whatsoever.
Ah, well, perhaps that should change so that if the talk page were created after the date that the corresponding non-talk page was deleted (or if the non-talk page never existed) the editor would receive notice. The larger issue of IP-users whose IP address changes and therefore they don't see the notice is a much larger problem. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
For example Talk:La Prensa Hispana was an attempt by 98.150.105.58 to create an article. Not much of one, to be sure, but User talk:98.150.105.58 is a red link, meaning that IP tried to create an article, cannot now find it, and has no idea what happened. I don't think it is unreasonable to let the editor know why it was deleted.
My proposed process is to move the draft to an AfC page, and let it be handled by AfC. (But I haven't heard yet whether this is workable) I'm open to alternatives, but I think out current process is rude. And if moving to an AfC page is an option, I'd like to alter taggers, so that they move it, rather than mistagging as G8.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Here is my not necessarily completely informed opinion: If it looks like the IP is trying to create an article, I wouldn't feel guilty about moving an article into Afc, and putting a draft template on it, as long as a redirect is left so that the IP can find it to improve it. I am assuming (correctly?) that as long as the redirect actually points at something, it won't be deleted. Then if later the Afc article is deleted, the redirect would go too. If an IP has created a talk page that is clearly not an article, and is using it for useful discussion about Wikipedia topics, I think it should be okay, but I couldn't find anything definitive written about that. I did find that to prevent a talk page from being deleted with G8, you can add a {{G8-exempt}} on it. If you can't tell if it's an article or not, and can't contact the user, you could always post a message at the top if the page asking the page's creator to contact you and explain. If nothing happens, it's probably abandoned . One thing to remember is that a deleted page cal always be brought back if it has a purpose. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
OK, I tried, as an experiment to move the title list above. I fully expected the move to work, then I was going to ask which template to add, as I do not see a list of draft templates identified. However, the move failed, so like Peridon, I'll ask, how do we do the move?
If I see one of these, even if tagged with G8, I will move it to article space with the appropriate name, decline the G8 and let the taggers discover it again and treat it in the proper way. THough we should be warning prople who tag article attempts with G8, that don't make any effort to treat it as the contributer wanted (as an article). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to Anne - but I still want to know HOW to move a G8 to AfC. OK, I know how to detag it, but what is the procedure. <8-( Peridon (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Move the page without leaving a redirect to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Article name (if it's a deleted page you will obviously need to restore it first). Once moved, add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page and save. Then, re-edit the page and change the 'submitter' field of the AfC template to the name of the original author. If you don't do this the AfC template will think you are the original submitter and you may get unexpected messages on your user talk page. Pol430 talk to me 15:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
At last - someone who answers the question we ask instead of the question we don't. Thanks for this. Peridon (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Archive_16&oldid=1147994646"