Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

RfC: Are the Category:Wikipedians and its subcategories appropriate for Wikipedia

There is an ongoing RfC going on at Category talk:Wikipedians#RfC: Is this category and current subcategories appropriate for Wikipedia that readers of this WikiProject may be interested it. Technical 13 (talk) 12:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Faulty CSD trigger for copyvio declines

Whenever I decline a submission as a copyvio, I hit the Trigger the 'csd' parameter and nominate the submission for CSD? checkbox. However, this doesn't actually tag the page with a CSD template, just the {{afc cleared}} one without the CSD parameter. Here's a recent example. Deadbeef 19:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• Now that we have the ability to tag files for deletion and log that to the user's Twinkle CSD log, logging should be added to these as well. Deadbeef, I'll put in a ticket on GitHub for you tonight and for the logging as well. Thanks for your report!  :) Technical 13 (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick action/reply! Deadbeef 20:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Done -> https://github.com/WPAFC/afch/issues/136 && https://github.com/WPAFC/afch/issues/137 Technical 13 (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I tried out the cv decline with the csd parameter again twice today, and it is still not adding the CSD parameter to the submission. Is the problem local, or is it still a template error? Thanks, Deadbeef 18:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC) (On a side note, it's also not logging the CSD noms on my log page.) Deadbeef 18:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Deadbeef. The fix for this is coded, but is still in the first testing version. It should be pushed to final testing the end of this week and hopefully to the "live" version (the one that you can access from your preferences page) in a few weeks. Feel free to try it out in the beta version or the "develop" version, which may be very unstable at times but has the most current "stuff" including the fix to your bug, by adding importScript( "User:Theo's Little Bot/afch/afchelper.js" ); // [[User:Theo's Little Bot/afch/afchelper.js]] to your Special:MyPage/common.js page. Happy editing and reviewing.. Technical 13 (talk) 00:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks for the info. Deadbeef 01:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Where is accept button?

I've improved an article and want to accept it. I try to follow the instructions at this page but cannot find the accept button. Where should this appear? - Shiftchange (talk) 09:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Have you installed the AFC Helper Script in your Preferences? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't. It still hasn't appeared anywhere. This article is up to scratch if someone else can approve it. I would like this fixed so I can help out with the backlog. - Shiftchange (talk) 10:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

@Shiftchange: Try bypassing your cache and then clicking the "Review" link (under the upside down triangle menu in the upper righthand corner of the page) as shown in File:Articles_for_Creation_Helper_Script_(version_oed6ac5).png. Let me know if you're still having problems, Theopolisme (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• ummm. You probably shouldn't be reviewing and accepting your own drafts anyways... Theopolisme, that would be a good feature to add to the helper script. A big bold warning with instructions and such for those that try to review their own drafts with it. Technical 13 (talk) 16:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

In this case, since the editor has a decent editing history, s/he can just use the move feature to move the article into mainspace. I would only recommend against it when its someone who's recently autoconfirmed and the article is likely to end up speedy deleted or AfD. The article seems okay as start-class for me. LionMans Account (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

You can't review your own submission with the script anyway. The submitter is not User:Shiftchange. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Suggested change to DISCOURAGE newbies from reviewing articles

Unresolved

I'm suggesting this here before I suggest it to the AFC Helper Script maintainers:

Change the AFC Helper Script to prominently display links to the reviewing instructions and the 5 pillars.

Change the AFC Helper Script to spot likely-inexperienced editors and for those editors,

• Enable big bold notice that only editor with some experience in Wikipedia should accept or reject submissions, recommending that the editor use the COMMENT feature instead of accepting or rejecting the submission.
• Prominently log any "decline" or "accept" by an inexperienced editor somewhere in the WP:WPAFC or WT:WPAFC project space.

What is a "likely inexperienced editor"? I would say someone with no admin-granted or advanced user-rights

• who created or moved less than a few articles that are currently in main-space NOT counting articles created or moved into mainspace in the last few weeks, OR
• who has less than a few thousand edits NOT counting edits in the last few weeks or edits more than a year or two ago,

is probably a newbie or an editor returning after a long absence who may not be familiar with the current policies and guidelines. Exceptions can be whitelisted by the bot.

Change the AFC Helper Script to spot likely-inexperienced reviewers and if those editors accept or reject more than a few articles in a day, ask that they stop and request a review of their work so far before accepting further reviews, but that they are more than welcome to make COMMENTS on submissions to help out both the submitter and other reviewers. Provide a pre-filled "request for review of new reviewer {{USERNAME}}" that would be added to the bottom of WT:WPAFC.

Thoughts? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

These are all good ideas – one of the easiest to implement technically would be a simple edit count-based check (e.g., < 3K,4K,whatever edits = display notice + instructions). Counting the number of reviews by a certain editor and suggesting that users request reviews of their work is a bit more difficult, and probably out of scope of the actual helper script (without making it unbearably slow and bloated), but I'm definitely in favor of a separate bot that generates a bunch of statistics somewhere, say WP:WPAFC/Review stats, listing things like "new editor reviews", "lots of reviews", etc., etc. I know some data mining has been conducted in the past but consolidating these efforts into one central page, and making it much easier to keep track of reviewers, would be a step in the right direction. Theopolisme (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The edit count will be inaccurate for a reviewer using a shared or dynamic IP address, unless s/he logs in. —rybec 22:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with the idea of an IP editor doing reviews at all. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

IPs are human too...but in this case, I'm inclined to agree with Roger. This is a non-issue, though, because IP editors cannot actually install the helper script...so there's no way for them to see the notice, regardless. Theopolisme (talk) 23:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes IPs are dogs :). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

There are a huge number of great IP editors, many of whom have enormous experience. However, I have a real concern reviewing AfC scripts from an IP address. AfC is used by new editors, who often interact with reviewers by going to the reviewing editor's talk page. Reviews from editors at a dynamic IP are going to get lost, at a severe cost to the article submitter. And that is plainly not okay, unless I"m missing something. --j⚛e decker^talk 15:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

On a side note: experienced users (IPs) can use the gadget to decline articles by typing in the address bar importscript('User:Mabdul/afc_beta.js'); and hit enter. At a AFC submission the review link will be loaded and works until somebody reloads the page. ;-) mabdul 21:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

IP's cannot accept articles from AFC into mainspace as only autoconfirmed registered users are able to move pages. As such, an IP AFC reviewer is likely rare enough to be irrelevant... about all one can do as an IP reviewer is reject the most obvious quick-fail WP:COI and WP:SPAM submissions (which just requires changing a template parameter to indicate a reason for rejecting the piece, so the script would be overkill) while leaving usable articles for someone else to move to mainspace. K7L (talk) 00:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Archiving old/resolved threads

For the sake of posterity and future helper script maintainers, I recommend old threads be archived rather than removed, or that they be marked {{resolved}} or {{archive}} or collapsed before being eventually archived. However, I will defer to you and the other current maintainers of the helper script. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Re-reviews of Virgininfatuation's work requested

Resolved

 – no script used. mabdul 21:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion mentions a possible bug in the script. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Warning message

Resolved

Someone has problably reported this already, but when reviewing I am frequently presented with this text

Please check the source code! This page contains one or more long (30+ characters) HTML comments! (please report false positives) The hidden text is: --- See Wikipedia:Footnotes on how to create references using tags which will then appear here automatically —Anne Delong (talk) 03:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Fixed in the source code, thanks as usual :) Theopolisme (talk) 11:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Three non-urgent requests for script improvement

Dear script developers: I have noticed two small problem with the script.

• The drop-down menu that holds the decline reasons has become very long, so that the little triangle on which one clicks to reveal the list is off my screen on the right side unless I zoom out until the text is too small for comfortable reading. The reasons aren't that long, so it could be shortened.
• When declining a submission as "exists", the script asks for the name of the page, but gives a very small window, so it's hard to tell if the correct article name has been entered. There's lots of spare space to the right; can it be expanded?
• Someone has decided to break up the decline reasons into groups with group heading. Since the headings are almost the same colour and font as the reasons, it's visually difficult to find the correct reason. Could the headings be distinguished in some way? Maybe by being in bold, or capitals, or possible with the addition of a separator, for example NOTABILITY____________________

None of these are urgent changes, and the script has been behaving well for me so far. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anne, thanks! I've implemented fixes for all three of your suggestions (reduced length of items in the list, increased size of text box, and put the headings in capitals). Keep the feedback coming, Theopolisme (talk) 11:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Theopolisme, do you think the list of decline reasons should be collapsed by header to shorten the list, like what is seen on category pages with sub-cats? This way when the list opens, it is very short (just headers) and clicking on a header would expand the reasons in that section so that they would easily be distinguished from headings. I like this idea... I'll put in an actual ticket and see what I can do if you don't have a quick answer on top of your head (you seem to do that often while I think of solutions). Technical 13 (talk) 13:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Technical 13 Please don't do this without first asking the reviewers if they want it. Not only does it make an extra step for everyone, but some of the decline reasons don't fall into neat categories and we would have to remember where these were hidden. Maybe I am the only one that thinks this and the other reviewers would appreciate the short list, but can you at least ask them (at the main Afc talk page)? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

This would resolve both your first bullet request above AND your third bullet request. I'll add a ticket for this dependent on completion of Issue #83 so that it can be toggled on for those that want it, which a toggle state was what I had in mind. Technical 13 (talk) 16:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with my first request, which was about the horizontal width, not vertical length, of the pop-down list. I thought of, and mentally rejected, the idea that you want to implement as soon as I saw that group titles appear some time ago. However, you are missing my point. I am not objecting to the change itself, I am objecting to you making this change on a whim. Everyone but me may like it and it may be a good idea. But you have made no effort to find out. Can't you wait a little and ask around among the non-techie reviewers? —Anne Delong (talk) 16:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

As an exercise in futility? This would be an off by default that those that want it can turn on, and if they decide they don't like, uncheck the box. There is a reason the the WMF doesn't put up an RfC for every new thing they push to wiki, there is a reason that Microsoft or Apple, or Google doesn't send out emails asking all of their user if they should add this little feature or not, that's not the way that software development works at any level... Technical 13 (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I am personally opposed to requiring even more clicks to select a decline reason...seems like too much abstraction/complexity. It could possibly be added as preference, though, should others want that... Theopolisme (talk) 21:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe Technical 13 is correct in this one: we should provide two possibilities: one with many mouse/keyboard clicks and one with well as less as possible. This could indeed something for the user prefs. (a classical one without any real order and headlines and a second one with two drop down menus). mabdul 21:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Theopolisme, I'm also opposed to requiring even more clicks, the proposal is that it would be offered in the preferences settings as an option. The less clicking option would be the default of course.

• I have taken patronizing comments from several of the technical people (not you, Theopolisme), and tried to limit myself to logical arguments in reply (except once), but this is just to much. I have a masters degree in computer applications, have worked on software acquisition and development committees for large organizations, written two pieces of software that were licensed for use by over 1,000,000 children, not to mention the $200,000 worth of my software that I sold myself in my spare time, and made multiple presentations at conferences about software design. Whichever end of the development process I was on at the time, in every case end users were involved in the design, implementation and testing phases. And those companies do have groups of people that comment on their development plans. This is all I can (and should) say about this now, because I have to go out and give a presentation about Microsoft Publisher. (This was posted before mabdul's reply.) —Anne Delong (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Anne, I apologize if I've frustrated you or made you feel patronized. This was not my intention at all, and wiki contributing should be something that is enjoyed by all that do it. The issue is, if two people wants that option (~.1% of our users), then we should offer it. If one of your pieces of software above didn't offer the option that 1,000 of its users wanted, that would be 1,000 less children it helped. If Microsoft didn't offer a feature requested by .1% of its customers, it would lose ~1.1 million users. So... If two users of our helper script (.1%) think it's useful, then it's probably worth implementing. Technical 13 (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Dear Technical 13: If you want to spend your personal time on an off-by-default project without checking to see if anyone will use it, that's your privilege. You will notice that my request for you not to bury the list behind the category titles came before you mentioned making it only show up if chosen in preferences. My later objections came because you immediately reconfirmed that you were going ahead with it and ignoring my request to ask the user community. In your next post you called the consensus process "an exercise in futility". This has nothing to do with any personal frustration; it is flouting Wikipedia policy. Only uncontroversial changes, technical or not, are supposed to be made without consensus, and you were ignoring that by dismissing my request for a discussion, and rather rudely too. My later comments about feeling patronized were directed, not at this, but at you attempting to explain the software development process (in which I have been involved likely since before you were born), and downplaying the important role that end-users play in order to support your argument for not consulting them. Your apology would only have been meaningful if (1) you hadn't followed it with more of the same, and/or (2) you had expressed intent to follow consensus in the future. However, I don't think you and I are ever going to agree about this, and we've both made our respective positions clear, so let's just drop it and let the forum get back to its purpose. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Title of this page

Resolved

Sorry, it's me again. I noticed that at the top of this page is says "Welcome to the Reviewer Help Page" and I wonder if this should be changed to "Welcome to the Afc Helper Script Development Page" or some such. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Mdann52talk to me! 10:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

@Anne Delong, Theopolisme, and Mdann52: Thanks, I overlooked that when I was creating the tab and header and copied over from other page. Technical 13 (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Bug!??

Resolved

Look at the Recent acceptions. Is this some kind of bug? I don't see any vandalism in the past history, but what happened?? buffbills7701 23:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• The oops is here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• I noticed that the AFCH only blanked 8 submissions. The actual problem happened earlier. buffbills7701 23:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
• It also tripped earlier in the day but was immediately reverted. A couple of minutes ago the page was restored to normal. I'm not marking this as resolved, that needs to be done by whoever will write up the formal bug report and/or fix the code or whoever identifies this as a non-code issue. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
• Yeah, I fixed it once I noticed the bug. buffbills7701 23:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'm fairly certain this is a problem with helper script. Devs? — Earwig ^talk 23:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
• Confirmed that this is a bug with the latest development version of the helper script (this is why we have betas :) ). Looking into now. Theopolisme (talk) 00:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
• Bug fixed; thanks for the report. Theopolisme (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Red comments in French

Resolved

User:Henryfrederickonlinemedia!/sandbox —Anne Delong (talk) 03:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anne, that red comment actually isn't generated by the Helper script but rather by the underlying citation logic...it is, however, definitely a bug of some sort, and should reported, although I don't know who to report it to (as usual, I think WP:VPT is your best bet). Theopolisme (talk) 03:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I made a "null edit" (i.e. I made no changes but put something in the edit summary then hit "save," resulting in no change in the edit history) and the red text is now in English. I'm guessing something got fubared and later corrected, but we were still seeing the non-updated version. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks; it's the second time today I've seen this, but I'll wait and see if it comes up again, and if not assume it's been fixed. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Priscillia Sari Dewi (2)

Resolved

I tried to review this article, but the following message appeared, and then nothing else:

"Reviewing Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Priscillia Sari Dewi (2)"

Everything seems to be fine with other submissions. What could be the problem. —Anne Delong (talk) 10:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually the template submitdraft was wrong. [1]

and thus the script didn't worked until I fixed it here [2]

Regards, mabdul 11:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I wonder how that happened. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks like somebody got confused... two years ago. Theopolisme (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Placing submissions under review blindly picks top template

Resolved

 – see explanation at the bottom. mabdul 13:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Or at least that's the way it seems. See my recent entries in the edit history of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Donkeshwer for evidence.

It also turns "|D" templates into "|R|D" templates, which is NOT what you want. Worse, you can place such an article under review multiple times, and it winds up erasing entire templates. Not good.

I am using the production script gadget with Mozilla Firefox 23.0.1. I have some Wikipedia gadgets installed and some Firefox extensions installed, but they shouldn't be contributing to this issue. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this report. I ran the latest version of the development script on the submission and it did this, which appears to be the desired behavior (aside from the ns=55, which I'll fix now). Can verify that everything looks okay there? Theopolisme (talk) 01:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

What is it you need me to verify? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

@Davidwr: The bug that you reported appears to have been fixed in the latest development version of the source code, it just hasn't been pushed to live. This diff is an example of me running the new version of the script on the submission that you had trouble with, and I was just asking you to verify that it performed the correct behavior (as opposed to what it did in your example). Theopolisme (talk) 02:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Your diff looks good to me too. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Great, it'll be in the gadget in the coming weeks. Theopolisme (talk) 10:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• david, you say that you're using the develop/production version of the script, yet the closest I see is some commented out outdated beta script inclusion. The revisions that seem to be of importance here Theopolisme are Starting point → cleaning moved {{subst:submit}} posting to bottom of the pile of declines → marking as reviewing added an |r to top template instead of bottom, probably due to lack of line feeds between templates → trying to mark as under review again stripped out a chunk of template, again probably due to lack of line feeds between templates. My guess Theo is that we need to do something about templates with no line feeds between them. Perhaps substitute all instances of /\}\}\{\{afc submission\|/gi with '\}\}\n\{\{AFC submission\|' or something on script load. Technical 13 (talk) 02:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'm using the gadget available in Special:Preferences davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Technical 13, I'm sorry; I think you've managed to suitably confuse yourself. The submission/comment parsing was completely revamped (cf. issue #2) and as such the issue that he reports with the gadget is now a non-issue. Theopolisme (talk) 10:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The "mark as reviewing" /unmarking system is just getting many improvements and should be finished this week after iron out some last issues. The complete system is getting a revamp and should be fixed shortly. (@theopolisme the bug that the first template is simply used for marking with |r| is caused by the regex cleanup (removing all var afc_re and not using the correct regex. A quick fix could be using var pending_afc_re = /(\{\{\s*afc submission\s*\|)(\s*[||r])+((?:\{\{[^\{\}]*\}\}|[^\}\{])*\}\})/i; for else if (action === 'mark') { if it is not already used in the 'develop' version).)mabdul 13:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

@Mabdul:...as I've already said above, yes, this is fixed in the develop branch. Theopolisme (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Pitts

Resolved

Hello again... The above submission seems to have a sandbox template that is not removed by the "Clean submission" option. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the report, I've fixed this. Theopolisme (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

@Anne Delong: Thanks again for reporting, we love to see that some users actually give feedback to the work. Actually we try to improve the helper script where we can, but I don't believe that we can check for that template code (at the moment). The problem is that the user copied the page content of the whole WP:SANDBOX page with doubled content. (which I removed) mabdul 21:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

That's fine; it's no problem to remove things manually. Since I don't work on the script, I don't always know which things to report, so I just report everything, and you fellows can ignore anything not relevant. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

@Mabdul: how were we "not able to check for that template code"? [3]... (Yeah, it doesn't catch the html comments, but it removes the template at least...also, spoiler alert, I'm working on a new feature: a button of sorts next to each >30 chars html comment that says "automatically remove" and will delete it from the page text). Theopolisme (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Resolved

Since a backlog drive is being planned, I tried to start a discussion on the associated talk page above, but an overly efficient filter refused to let me create the page unless I added a submit template. This would be appropriate for "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/pagename", but not for "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/pagename" or for other Wikipedia talk pages. I'd rather not submit the backlog talk page for review. I know that this is not the script, but it seems to be an Afc related problem, so I am reporting it here. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• I've created the page for you Anne. I just put <!-- {{subst:submit}} --> on the top to override the edit filter. legoktm, perhaps you could adjust the edit filter to ignore users that are autoconfirmed or have more than 50-100 edits or are over a month old or something? Technical 13 (talk) 23:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

•  filter modified to ignore WPAFC .. and our resident elf has handled this. Theopolisme (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• (sorry typed before the last comment) Thank you, Technical 13 - good workaround. About your suggested fix, though - the filter should be adjusted to only work when the page name starts with "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/", regardless of how many edits they have. Some people edit existing articles for a long time before they decide to create an article; why create a kludge? Hmmm...also, is the submit template the correct one to put on top when the user creates the page? Shouldn't it be the draft template, so that they can work on the article and submit when ready? Or perhaps I am misunderstanding the process... —Anne Delong (talk) 23:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
• Yeah, I pinged him on IRC.  :) Technical 13 (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• @Anne Delong: Technical 13's idea wasn't actually implemented as he proposed (and the reasons you stated were why not, if I had to guess) -- instead, the filter was set to the stricter "page title BEGINS with Articles for creation/ in the WT namespace," rather than just CONTAINS Articles for creation/ (as you said). Theopolisme (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you both. I was able to add my comments on the drive talk page. Can you clarify what happens if someone wants to create a submission starting with Articles for Creation? Does this submit the page for review the instant the first edit to the page is saved? Rather than adding a draft template and letting them work on it for a few days and then press the "Submit" button? I have never done this myself - I have always started articles in my user space, so I really don't know. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• The filter only stops you if you don't have {{subst:submit}} OR any variant of {{AFC submission}} on the page – in other words, no, it doesn't stop people from leaving a submission in-progress with a draft template. Theopolisme (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Great! Would it be helpful to amend the instructions that come up to say something like "add (subst:submit) to submit your article now or (AFC submission|T) to create a draft article"? —Anne Delong (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SHORE Solutions Inc.

This may have been reported before, but the script says "Report false positives", so here goes: This article appears to have comments related to being translated from another language. I presume that there is an example page somewhere that has these on it. The script is picking them up and giving a warning. I don't know if this is worth doing anything about. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Those comments are actually nothing more than infobox use instructions. They are indeed over 30 characters, and there is a new feature being worked on in the develop version of the script to show the comments up top that are triggering that warning, and offering options to delete them. Thanks for pointing this article out to use, I've used it as an example in the discussion on GitHub.  :) Technical 13 (talk) 14:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Blank sandboxes

Dear script developers: A point of information, please. If blank sandboxes and user pages are declined in place, instead of being moved into the Afc with an artificial title, are there any residual effects related to the script or other automated Afc processes (addition of hidden categories, for example, or a bot that looks for decline templates) that may cause the user problems later if the sandbox is reused (as is likely)? It seems that most reviewers favour leaving the blanks where they are, since there's obviously no chance of objectionable content. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think I really understand your question. I'm inclined to say that the answer is no but if you had a specific effect in mind I'd be happy to answer to the best of my abilities. Theopolisme (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem is, I don't know everything that goes on behind the scenes. Here's an example that comes to mind: the Hasteurbot deletes submissions after 6 months. If these sandboxes are submissions, would they be eligible for deletion if the users write something in them and then wait 6 months? I am assuming not, but maybe there are other processes that I don't know about. For example, the blank sandboxes that were declined today are still in the Category:AfC submissions by date/18 September 2013. If Joe's blank sandbox had been moved into Afc, it would be the "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joe's blank article" that would be in the category rather than Joe's actual sandbox. If Joe reuses his declined sandbox, will there be any bad effect from being in this category? I would like to hear that there isn't because not moving the empty articles save work. I am sorry if I am not specific enough - I am probably worried about nothing. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• HasteurBot does not delete drafts. It tags them with {{db-g13}} after 6 months +30 days. It woks like any other page deletion, if they blank the page before starting a new draft, there is no issue. I hope this helps, but I'm not completely understanding the question either. Technical 13 (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• HasteurBot does not touch pages in userspace ([4]). Theopolisme (talk) 23:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I am going to try one more time, and then I will drop the stick. Here are two sandboxes: THIS ONE was declined as blank as is. Notice that it is in two categories. Now THIS ONE had its contents, including categories, moved into Afc; the sandbox itself has no categories now. Sometimes developers make bots, scripts, etc., that use these categories to make changes to the pages. The sandboxes will be reused, and the categories will be misleading. The software may do inappropriate things. Since you guys don't think this is a likely scenario, I will just assume it isn't. Sometimes I overanalyze. Making software for six year olds, as I have done, makes you realize all of the things that can go wrong. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Your concerns make sense – and I sympathize with anyone developing for six years olds – but I don't think they're a problem at the moment. I will be sure to keep an eye and make sure future bot ops understand that userspace is no man's land, though. ;) Theopolisme (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Okay then. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• I had a nasty surprise recently when I ran across a very upset new editor who thought we'd deleted his article (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#Review_of_Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation.2FUser:Freeryde007.2Fsandbox), but it turns out that because I had Decined it in-place as a sandbox, he'd received a bluebox telling him he could work on his article at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/User:Freeryde007/sandbox, when it was really at User:Freeryde007/sandbox. So he was frustrated being told his article was at a nonexistent redlink. I think that's a pretty significant downside to declining in-place at the moment. Is there any way to modify the script so it doesn't assume everything is under Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/? Otherwise we're right back to having to gin up titles for everything prior to Declining it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• MatthewVanitas see #Develop script: Template used for AFC decline mis-links User:-space submissions below... Technical 13 (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Resolved

I understand that there are some changes being made in preparation for the backlog drive. Can someone who is up-to-date on what's being done post an update on the above page? Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/October_2013_Backlog_Elimination_Drive#Helper_script Theopolisme (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Request for hotfix to gadget - fix putting things on review and taking them off review

Resolved

See my recent edits to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/list of classic analog integrated circuits and User talk:DPRoberts534#Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation.2Flist of classic analog integrated circuits. I recommend that simultaneous to pushing out the hotfix, all pages that are "under review" be checked to make sure they are correctly formatted. After the hotfix is rolled out, those same pages will need to be checked to see if previous edits using the broken gadget didn't cause loss of previous submission templates.

I'm requesting just a single-issue hotfix, NOT a 6-day advance rollout of the code that's scheduled to go out on the 25th. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Problem with that is that the submission template and comment template parsing system was completely revamped – in other words, there was no one fix that resolved the bug (rather, the entire system was written to be much more modular, have automatic sorting by date, etc). Regardless, I agree that this is an important fix, so I'll write a patch for the old code now (that will then be overwritten when the new system is released). Thanks. Theopolisme (talk) 21:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

This has been pushed to the gadget, here's a diff of the modifications in action for the example article you linked. Please let me know if you encounter issues, and note that you will need to WP:BYPASS for the change to take effect. Theopolisme (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix! DPRoberts534 (talk) 00:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Ditto DPRoberts534, thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Now that the gadget is fixed, I've gone through the 10 submissions marked "under review" and fixed those that got munged by the bad gadget script. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Beta bug - emptying "recent"

Resolved

This edit earlier today by the beta script erased Wikipedia:Articles for creation/recent. I manually restored the list to the last 10. Looking at the contributions of Zach Vega (talk · contribs), it looks like the Beta script may not always be updating /recent . davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the report, I'm trying to hunt down an admin to fix it now. (tl;dr: mabdul, it appears that your mistake that I fixed shortly thereafter somehow made its way into the beta script) Theopolisme (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

"It wasn't me!" (quote by Bart Simpson; It was my evil twin XD).... *sorry* mabdul 14:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem :) Problem is that all the admins on IRC are asleep... Theopolisme (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done [5] Theopolisme (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Develop script: Template used for AFC decline mis-links User:-space submissions

Resolved

If a submission is declined in User: space the user is told to click on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Username/Usersubpagename. Example diff, created by Technical 13 (talk · contribs) using "AFCH develop."

It would be worth checking to see if similar problems happen if the submission is in other places besides WT:AFC/PageName.

This is a minor error and once fixed, the push to the gadget can wait until after the code is un-frozen on 11/1. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Good catch, I never check the user's talk page after review and this would have gone unnoticed otherwise... Theopolisme! Technical 13 (talk) 21:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• This would require a change to the template {{afc decline}} (and perhaps meta-template {{AFC submission/location}}). I'm hesitant to do anything yet because of their widespread use – Technical 13, what do you think? As far as in the source code, it's pretty trivial to just use wgPageName rather than afcHelper_submissionTitle (line 777 in submissions.js), but the issue is that we're simply passing a parameter to the afc decline template, which does all the work. Theopolisme (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• Recommendation - defer fix until end of October backlog drive, and alert all Backlog Drive participants to clean up after themselves if they decline an article without moving it first. This bug shouldn't be triggered very often, as articles should be declined without a move first only if there is a specific reason to do so. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'm in agreement with you on this. #178 in issue tracker. Theopolisme (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Ick... I didn't realize it was a template issue... Theopolisme, what I'm thinking is that we should update develop script to use a new syntax that passes the value as two parameters. Parameter number one will be the actual subpagename only and parameter two will be the namespace and basepagename. I'll rework the templates in the sandbox to accept this and explain more in a bit... Technical 13 (talk) 23:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• [more for my benefit than anyone else's, so I don't have to write the same code twice] Let me know when to push this

-    usertext += "\n\{\{subst:afc decline|1=" + afcHelper_submissionTitle.replace(" ", "{{subst:Sp}}");
+    usertext += "\n\{\{subst:afc decline|1=" + afcHelper_submissionTitle.replace(" ", "{{subst:Sp}}") + "|PARAMNAME=" + wgPageName.replace(" ", "{{subst:Sp}}");

• along with the parameter name. Theopolisme (talk) 00:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• I've not yet looked at what you've done Theo, but hopefully it fits with what I've done below. Technical 13 (talk) 00:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Test template revisions

Extended content

{{subst:afc decline/sandbox|1=sandbox}} Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved. If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/sandbox. To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window. If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the . Please remember to link to the submission! You can also get live chat help from experienced editors. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! {{subst:afc decline/sandbox|1=sand|2=WT:AFC}} Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved. If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at WT:AFC/sand. To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window. If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the . Please remember to link to the submission! You can also get live chat help from experienced editors. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! {{subst:afc decline/sandbox|1=sandbox|2=User:Example}} Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved. If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at User:Example/sandbox. To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window. If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the . Please remember to link to the submission! You can also get live chat help from experienced editors. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! {{subst:afc decline/sandbox|1=User:Example/sandbox}} Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved. If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/User:Example/sandbox. To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window. If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the . Please remember to link to the submission! You can also get live chat help from experienced editors. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! {{subst:afc decline/sandbox|1=WT:AFC/sand}} Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved. If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/WT:AFC/sand. To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window. If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the . Please remember to link to the submission! You can also get live chat help from experienced editors. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia!

• ...eh, why not just have a full parameter or something that accepts the complete pagename (e.g., "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/sandbox") – if that parameter is defined, then use the full page name; if not, fall back to 1? What you've done right now seems unnecessarily complicated... Theopolisme (talk) 00:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • That requires the script to do more work to figure out where it is which seems more complicated to me. It is easier to just pass {{subst:afc decline|1={{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}|2={{subst:NAMESPACE}}:{{subst:BASEPAGENAME}}}} to me (which gives {{subst:afc decline|1=Helper script|2=Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation}} on this page.)... Technical 13 (talk) 01:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
    • "More work" being calling a variable (wgPageName)? I suppose you have a point (jsperf! ;) ). Theopolisme (talk) 01:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
      • @Technical 13: Your proposed solution does not work. Remember, the message is being delivered to their user talk page...so all those variables are useless. You sure we can't just have a "full page name" parameter...? :/ Theopolisme (talk) 04:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
        • Theopolisme it would have to be:

var afch_title = mw.config.get( 'wgTitle' );
var afch_ns = mw.config.get( 'wgCanonicalNamespace' );
var afch_basePageName = afch_title.substring( 0, afch_title.lastIndexOf( '/' ) );
var afch_subPageName = afch_title.substring( afch_title.lastIndexOf( '/' ), afch_title.length );
var afch_declineNotice = "{{" + "AFC decline|1=" + afch_subPageName + "|2=" + afch_ns + ":" + afch_basePageName + "}}";

You're right that the magic words wouldn't work, and ^^^ is what will... Technical 13 (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

But why on earth can you not simply change the template to accept a full page name, rather than persist in trying to get me to implement this complicated mess? All you have to do in template code: {{#ifeq: {{{full|}}} | | <!-- the old title parsing code --> | [[{{{full}}}]] }} (and all we have to do in the script is `wgPageName`). Theopolisme (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

What's the status of this issue? mabdul 10:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Boldly implemented a |full= parameter in {{afc decline}}. Will convert code to use this shortly. Theopolisme (talk) 03:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done [6] Theopolisme (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

New AFCH gadget release pushed

FYI

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)

Unicorns? Ka-ching! And to think, I would've settled for a pony. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

White space bug in cleaning

Resolved

When cleaning submissions, the script sometimes leaves an odd white space behind. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Barks,_Perry_County,_Missouri&diff=prev&oldid=574950363. If this can be fixed it would be good. Thanks! -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 03:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Numbermaniac, thanks for the feedback! I've fixed this in the latest development version of the script (it will be available in the live gadget in the coming weeks). Theopolisme (talk) 04:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that was very quick! Thanks for such a fast response! :) -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 05:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Another cleaning idea

In submissions such as this, perhaps the link can be fixed to the proper single bracket syntax? Only a cleaning suggestion. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 11:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Hrmm... Interesting idea... @Theopolisme, Mabdul: maybe something like this search /\{\{((http|ftp|irc|gopher|telnet)[s]?):\/\/(.*?)\}\}/gis and replace with "[$1://$3]"? Technical 13 (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

looks good, lemme check some stuff... mabdul 19:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

@Numbermaniac and @Technical 13:  Done Changes are now in the 'develop' branch and should be included in a few weeks(?) in the beta and the stable build; see commit. mabdul 10:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Another suggestion: Fix underscores in wikilinks to have spaces instead? [7] -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 02:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

What do you think of this? :) Coming to a gadget near you soon. Theopolisme (talk) 02:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 08:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Submission bug

Resolved

 – Already fixed.

When submitting my draft, the helper didn't remove the draft template that was already there: see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Numbermaniac/Pocket_Trains&diff=next&oldid=575570276. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 12:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I reverted your changes and tried it with the α version of the script and it worked fine, so this problem is already fixed in an upcoming version of the script (that will be released after the drive likely). Anyone else on the developer team (Theopolisme—Mabdul—Hasteur—Earwig—Legoktm) have something to add? Technical 13 (talk) 13:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

@Numbermaniac: which script version do you use? stable, beta, or develop? mabdul 19:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Stable. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 01:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

This should be fixed in the beta (and develop) version. Thanks for reporting. mabdul 10:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Bug: I was able to over-write a decline from 2 minutes earlier

This should not happen when using a script. I am using the gadget script, not the beta or other pre-release scripts.

Note: I manually rolled back my edit so the person who declined it first will be the "decliner of record." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• dev team (mabdul—legoktm—theopolisme) I'm wondering if this is at all related to https://github.com/WPAFC/afch/issues/194 Technical 13 (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Simple edit conflict. There is nothing we can hardly do about except another API call (so getting the page text AGAIN) and that would slow down the script very much. Why not marking as reviewing or live with the situation? Both have declined the submission, so the result is still good. mabdul 07:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

    Isn't there a relatively fast API that can detect the timestamp of the last edit? If the time of the last edit when someone clicks one of the "action" buttons is different than the time the page was originally displayed to the user, don't save the page, or at least warn the editor that the save may have over-written intervening edit(s). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

    I'll look into the effects speed-wise of adding a check similar to what David proposes. Theopolisme (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

CSD G12

I received the following on my talk page:

If you add a G12 and blank the page, it takes far longer to get it deleted. I have to restore the page back and add the G12 banner to the restored page, so that I can use the very useful script in the banner to test how much data has been copied. Sadly the script will not work with history pages, only the live one.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Per AfC instructions, that is what we are supposed to do, and the AfC Helperbot blanks the page. Alternate suggestions? Thanks! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 00:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe some discussion need to start at the AfC - as far as I can see, there are only a editors few blanking - I'm not saying you are wrong! Obviously some effort went into the G12 template to add the Duplicator Detector system, but it won't work (and I've tried) unless the page is current. Certainly every "normal" article tagged with G12 (often using Twinkle to add the template - and why not, it's so much easier) never gets blanked, and if the Duplicator Detector shows a large copy, then they get deleted really quickly anyway. I'm not sure there is a right or wrong - but I've noticed that the ones blanked always last to get deleted! Food for thought. :-)  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I'll copy this at the AfC Discussion. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 19:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - just had a further hunt - both Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as copyright violations and WP:CSD#G12 do not suggest blanking when applying G12.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

What thinks everyone? 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 20:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

There's no reason copyvios need to be blanked before deletion. The only thing we should be blanking are G10's. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, the copyvio-detector scripts should be rewritten :). In the meantime, see if putting "collapse top" and "collapse b" templates around the copyvio'd text will hide the text without breaking the copyvio-detection tools. I'm willing to forgo blanking on copyright issues for now if it is needed to make the jobs of deleting admins easier.

By the way, for some copyvios the right thing to do is BLANK and NOT DELETE (or blank and request revision deletion). I sometimes do this if I see a notable topic with an editor where WP:AGF still applies AND I think that editor or another editor is seriously interested in creating a valid article about the topic. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

In any case, I have decided to uncheck "blank the submission" when declining for copyright violation, unless it is blatantly obvious to me that 1. the article copies an unreliable source disparaging the subject or 2. the copyright violation is a copy of a source which would very obviously not want their work copied, such as CNN.com or some such. Most copyright violations are probably submitted by the creator of the copied web page (i.e. the article subject). If others feel this is the incorrect course of action, please let me know. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 20:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Assuming you are not going to CSD it, the text that is a COPYVIO should be removed. Whether this is by {{afc clear}}, {{courtesy blank}}, or without a template isn't quite as critical. As a courtesy to an editor who you believe will either rewrite the text to make an acceptable submission or go through the process of donating the text to Wikipedia, you may follow-on with an afc comment that includes a link to the last pre-blank entry in the edit history or, better yet, to the source of the copyvio. Removing the text does two very important things: It sends a clear message that copyright violations will not be tolerated, it provides a copyvio-free version for the few web search engines that see WT:AFC/ pages to pick up, and the sudden shrinkage of the page size in the edit history serves as a marker in the page's history. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Small discrepancy

Dear scriptors: The NPOV decline reason on the list says "formal, neutral tone", but the resulting message to the submitter just says "formal". Since NPOV means "neutral point of view, could someone please make the message template say "formal, neutral" where it says "formal"? I think it used to say this, but I can't really remember. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done, see commit [8] Should be included in the next few updates. mabdul 09:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: Hi, question about this. The decline reason says:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms, that are designed to promote or show-off the subject.

It mentions both formal and neutral...so was any change actually necessary? Theopolisme (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

You may be right, it's been too long and I can't remember what I was looking at then; I may not have read carefully enough. My concern was that reviewers choosing the option would think that they were telling the submitter to be more neutral, and then the template would actually tell them to be more formal (ie, less chatty and folksy), so they would just use bigger, fancier promotional terms. I think the submitters take the text in the first sentence as the actual reason for the decline, and the later text as helpful hints. If you feel that the existing message already does the job, I am happy to go along. Maybe I should create a really bad article, submit and decline it myself sequentially with every decline reason, userfy it, and bookmark it. Then I could check it to see exactly what text was being sent before pressing the decline button. Okay, I am just kidding. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

You may find Template:AFC_submission/comments helpful :) Theopolisme (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Not all Wikiprojects represented.

When I tried to add WP: Alberta to an article I recently accepted, I noticed that Alberta wasn't an option. Was that for a reason? Or did you just forget a couple of Wikiprojects? buffbills7701 01:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

They probably just forgot. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 01:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Apparently there are over 2000 Wikiprojects. One that I wanted yesterday wasn't there either. I'm sure that this feature will be more consistent with time. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi buffbills7701! The reason WP:Alberta was not included is because it does not have its own WikiProject template (for example, like {{WikiProject Science}} for WP:SCIENCE) and instead uses a "sub-template" of sorts, {{WikiProject Canada|ab=yes}}, as its banner. The way I generated the list of WikiProject was by searching for all templates that transcluded {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}, so it picked up WikiProject Canada but obviously had no way of identifying this sub-project. Just for you, I've added Alberta to the menu -- please let me know if there are any other glaring omissions. Theopolisme (talk) 03:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Could you not use Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory? -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 04:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

No, not really. The script works by storing not only simply the name of the WikiProject, but also the name of the template for each project (which varies and can only be gleaned with 100% accuracy from, lo and behold, the template itself). Theopolisme (talk) 05:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

@Theopolisme: Just for the case somebody adds (now) Alberta and Canada, (and other cases when added later): do we cleanup multiple tagging of WikiProjects? (so {{WikiProject Canada|class...}} and {{WikiProject Canada|alb=yes|class=...}}) Should we take care of that? mabdul 07:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Meh; to be honest I don't think it really matters – not like there's any negative effect. Theopolisme (talk) 02:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

It's missing WP:SEGA. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 23:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done [9]. In the future you can request additions at the list's talk page. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Listing of "Perennial AFC Concerns" ?

I know there are several issues that we bring up repeatedly, for which there is not an immediate solution. Could we perhaps make a fixed list of such concerns just so we don't need to re-discuss them, and/or so the folks working the scripts can have that as a reference tool of ongoing top concerns? AFCH has been great overall, and regularly getting better, but there are a few quirks which routinely cause our newbie editors hassle, and thus end up taking attention from the AFCHD and Teahouse to address their worries.

1. The yellow "Submit" box goes to the bottom of the page, and also the purple "Not Submitted" box is not automatically replaced by the yellow box. We have a pretty steady stream of newbies asking "Hey, my article says not pending review, but I hit submit!" And I'd imagine for every one who publicly asks about it, there are a dozen or more who are just confused or discouraged. That's also how we get people posting five different yellow templates at the bottom because they're repeatedly hitting Submit but not seeing anything change at the top. I really think this is an underappreciated problem. It's a small thing, but it adds confusion for the newbies who most need clarity. I'm not a programmer, so I don't at all understand why it's so impossible to have the page only keep one AFC template at a time, have the yellow override the purple, and put the newest yellow at the top.
2. I don't recall the exact phrase, but the red error message that appears when the "user sandbox" template is moved into an AFC page, the huge red "THIS IS NOT A USER SANDBOX, THIS TEMPLATE IS WRONG" thing also tends to alarm users. We've had some posting at AFCHD or Teahouse rather worriedly asking if they've messed things up, what to do, etc. I would hope there would be an easy way to have the "user sandbox" disappear if moved into AFC, or even easier maybe just not display as an error.
3. To save reviewer time, and also let newbies know ASAP there's a problem, can we have a 'bot that notices which contributions have absolutely nothing other than a title and the AFC boilerplate, and just auto-Decline them and post a notice to the originator? That way we'd save Reviewers the 30 seconds it takes to open a blank, hit Edit to ensure there isn't a whole article caught in the hidden text (maybe 1 in 20 has that mistake), and then decline it. Plus an editor wouldn't be waiting for a review for hours or days just to later find out it was a blank.
4. added Is there some way we can ensure that all Submitted items are in AFC-space and have a title other than "sandbox"? It's a small bit of time to manually move each article, puzzle out a proper title, etc, but all those little bits add up, especially with 1000+ articles in backlog. I kind of "specialise" in tackling the "User:Bob/sandbox" mystery articles because I find it a little fun, but without the couple of us that tend to tackle those, they would quickly add up to several dozen improperly-titled submissions per day.

• (transformed the * to a numbered list mabdul)

Those are the top few of concern to me, mostly because they discomfit vulnerable newbie editors. So is there some utility to forming such a list of top recognised quirks in the current code? MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Matthew, please excuse my semi-related rambling. @Technical 13: A thought re Matthew's first suggestion. Could Lua perhaps be used to hide the "in progress" template iff a "pending" template is on the page? No idea if this is possible or not. (I'm aware of your work to revamp the entire AfC program, but this is more of an interim solution.) Theopolisme (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I feel like a possible solution to the template issue is to actually give instruction either in the draft template or either by modifying the submit button to give instructions in a preload above the edit box. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 06:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

So 1) not fixable by the script; either LUA or getting finally a MW fix to add sections to the top (don't ask me AGAIN for the bug ticket)

2) template coding (@Technical 13: is that something for you? Or should we ping somebody at WP:RT?)

3) there were ~3 WP:BRFAs for that. All bot operators gave up before they got approved. Before starting another one you should gain any consensus.

4) What do you propose there? Automatically moved to somewhere? under which name? Do you have any usable solution for this situation (except removing the submit link of {{usersandbox}})

mabdul 09:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

A good solution would be for the software that runs the moving of pages to detect if the namespace is "Wikipedia talk", and the title is "Articles for creation/sandbox", and if so, come up with a pop-up box that would ask, "What will be the title of this article?", or some such, accept an article name, move the article to "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Article name" (provided it doesn't already exist, in which case back to the nasty red message), and, if the new name doesn't end in "sandbox". remove the sandbox template from the article. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: So 1) not fixable by the script; either LUA or getting finally a MW fix to add sections to the top - okay, so not feasible to fix within AFCH, but maybe can we get a 'bot to wander through the submissions and delete redundant templates and move the main ones to the top? I hate to sound like a complainer, and I'm not a tech guy so I don't have solutions, but it's pretty inarguable that this is a continual source of confusion for already-frustrated novice reviewers editors. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

1) Actually we have a bot doing that. It is called ArticlesForCreationBot.

No complainer. Developers who don't use the own application any more for "everyday working" need feedback and feature requests the best indication what should be done. So you're welcome. (And don't understand it as bitey, but with very limited resources we have to check who can do what - at this moment Technical 13 might our man for the template and LUA stuff. XD) mabdul 06:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay, I'm kinda busy looking for a place to live and my time for doing stuff on Wikipedia is low at the moment. It can't be done with templates alone, I will look into if there is a way it can be done with Lua when I have a few more moments. I've looked at most every way to do this, and don't see many options. I would likely prefer to see an on-by-default gadget similar to the Teahouse "ask a question" script that would allow us to have a better ui for submitting and manipulating pages for new page creators, but this isn't in the immediate future and wouldn't likely be a permanent solution once I can get the new extension I've been working on that does all that finished. Anyways, I'll see what I can do in the mean time. Technical 13 (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Anne, do you mean something like what I have in my sandbox AfC "sandbox" replacement if the current page name is "sandbox"? Technical 13 (talk) 22:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that kind of box is what I had in mind. The purpose of it is to prevent the news users from seeing the red you-don't-have-permission-to-move message, so it would need to be a check as soon as the (move) link in the submit template is selected, and then just a straight drop through unless the namespace:filename being sent to the move routine was "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/sandbox". If it was, then replace the word "sandbox" in the string with the new text and continue on to the move routine. I presume that your input box leads to a routine that filters out any input that the move routine can't handle. A number of reviewers have asked for a fix for this problem. I can't think of a downside to this way of doing it (well, unless it crashes), but that doesn't mean there isn't one, so I hope that others will speak up if they see a problem. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Inexperienced users (again)

Resolved

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 to WT:AFC; this talk page is for discussion of the helper script itself. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 01:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Indubious

I don't know if this was a script problem or not, but I tried to decline the above article as a copyvio, but when I clicked on the "Review" option, I got this text:

The page Indubious was deleted 2 times. Here are the edit summaries from the deletion log: Timestamp User Reason 2007-12-10T03:12:30Z NawlinWiki (talk) CSD G1: Patent nonsense: content was: '{{db-nocontext}} {{dated prod|concern = {{{concern|Non notable phrase}}}|month = December|day = 10|year = 2007|time = 02:07|timestamp = 20071210020726}}

It said deleted twice, but only one instance of deletion was listed. Then the rest of the article is shown underneath this, but no decline options. I had to use Twinkle instead, which would be okay but I am missing my vitally important points for the backlog drive.... —Anne Delong (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

 Confirmed @Theopolisme: Actually Indubious was deleted two times, but the tool only shows the one Anne listed. mabdul 08:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the fact that there was a deletion template listed as part of the "nonsense" was causing it to bug out. At any rate, it didn't continue on to display the Accept/Decline/Comment toolbar, so I couldn't put it under review or decline it as a copyvio. —Anne Delong (talk) 10:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Investigating this. Theopolisme (talk) 03:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Silly unescaped HTML entities! Fixed in the source code here. Theopolisme (talk) 03:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That probably won't come up often, but it's best to be prepared... —Anne Delong (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Wrong copy link

Resolved

This edit incorrectly linked to CSD:G12, which doesn't exist. Why not WP:G12 instead perhaps? -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 12:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done see commit. mabdul 15:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

PS: {{trout}} Technical 13

Trouted! :) -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 00:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted text or URL makes script stall

I'm using the production gadget version. I declined a page as a COPYVIO and entered a hulu.com URL in the "copyright of" line. The script silently stalled AFTER updating the user page but BEFORE saving the AFC page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I've worked on improving the error logging in this commit; in the future, errors should be more descriptive. (Also in the pipeline: a way to automatically add "BLACKLISTED" inside the offending URL and then resave automatically.) Theopolisme (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I would settle for ANY error, even a "time-out error." As it was, my browser just sat there right before the point where it usually says "(reload page)" until I got impatient and reloaded the page manually, only to find that the edit was not saved. How about actively aborting after a reasonable time-out and advising the reviewer to either review his contribution history and either undo any recent edits done by the script or complete the action by hand, and provide "bug report number" that matches a unique number (probably a timestamp + sequence number) in the error log. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Er, what is this "bug report number" you speak of? We have no way of tracking errors users encounter while using the script (although interestingly enough recently I was talking to the folks at Raygun, a program that does precisely that, about a free open-source license). Time-out errors aren't really feasible due to huge variation in internet connection speeds (just look at mabdul, one of our developers ;) ). Significantly better error handling (basically just printing the errors whenever we encounter them, as well as offering "retry" links for some functions) is all being worked on, but after the fix I linked above is implemented, it should become quite difficult to encounter a situation like the one you describe. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 01:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Beta - reporting an error but working

Reviewing my first submission using the beta tool I got this:

Getting User talk:MatthewVanitas
Got User talk:MatthewVanitas
Sent User talk:MatthewVanitas an invitation.
User talk:MatthewVanitas. Error info: http
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/W. H. Thornton. Error info: http
Done (Reload page)

But the edit got through. Why did it report an error then? -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 02:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Theopolisme, *cough* #177... Technical 13 (talk) 02:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the report; this is helpful. @Numbermaniac: the issue has been tracked for several weeks but we're still trying to figure out exactly what's going on. Will keep you posted, Theopolisme (talk) 10:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Looking forward to it. :) -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 11:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Should older PENDING script be favored over newer one on CLEAN and related actions?

If a user submits something, then several weeks later, perhaps after he edits it and perhaps after reviewers have commented on it and possibly put it under review then taken it off of review, that person or another person adds another submission template, then the next "clean" action will make it appear that the submission is new rather than old. This has the effect of removing urgency from the review.

Consider making the code "smarter" so if the oldest n afc submission templates are all in review state and they are all submitted by the same person, keep the oldest. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not really certain I understand what you are saying here david, but I'm going to take a stab at it. Do you mean that if a person clicks "submit" or "resubmit" and doesn't see that the fact that it is now submitted at the bottom of the page and clicks submit multiple times (maybe even over the course of a few days), then when someone finally gets around to cleaning the submission to move stuff to the top and get rid of the draft template, it should make sure to only keep the oldest {{Afc submission}} template? If so, you are absolutely right, and I would expect this is already the current behavior. If it is not, then I'd be happy to look into why that is not the case and make the necessary adjustments. Technical 13 (talk) 04:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oh I know. I understand. Yeah, I have to look how I can implement that. mabdul 10:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Technical 13, you understand me just fine. Looks like Mabdul does as well. No hurry, as I use the production script and I expect that to be pretty much frozen until November 1 ("Stability, it's a good thing" -me, channeling Martha Stewart). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 12:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• By the way, the hard part is going to be not doing this naively and thinking though exceptional cases, like how to handle a corrupted or invalidly-labeled (i.e. not "T", "D", or one of the other standard letters) templates (do you count it as "pending" or not?) when looking for "consecutive" templates. Also, if you have two templates with the same date but different statuses (possible if someone has done some cut-and-paste with earlier versions in the history) this needs to be handled intelligently. I expect this to be more of an opportunity for bugs to sneak in than some of the other thing you guys are doing. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 12:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Right now our template parsing is subpar to say the least – I've been working on a Javascript template parsing engine (code) so we can get away from regular expressions which, as we've seen time and time again, do not aptly handle the huge variety in template formats... but like a lot of things, it's still in the making. And yes, the code freeze is most certainly in effect. Theopolisme (talk) 20:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I recently proposed a new bot task for the HasteurBot to run the clean on submissions that are 7 days or less pending. The idea is to reduce the number of oddities that submitters and volunteers have to deal with. Hasteur (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Hasteur, I think it would be more likely to be helpful to this submission if it cleaned all "new" submissions instead of ones that have already been sitting around for 2-3+ weeks. The new ones are the ones where people are more likely to have not noticed that it is actually submitted and click resubmit a hundred times, wouldn't you agree? Technical 13 (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Technical 13 I think you have misunderstood. The base action for the bot is to "clean" every submission that is 7 days or less old in terms of last submission. The extension is that during the first portion, the bot will also clean all the older submissions that are more than 7 days old. So during the first few days it'll clean every pending submission, then we'll only do the most recent 7 days. Hasteur (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Ahh... I most certainly did read it and understand wrong, I though it read 7 days or less pending (as in "to go" literally) instead of have been pending for 7 or less days. I would even go so far as to say 7 days is too long and 3 or even 1 should be considered. Technical 13 (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

As I explained at the bot proposal, the bot will spin up 1x (or twice) a day and troll the categories for "Up to 7" days that the submission has been pending. Need to ballance the servicing of users with the idea that this is effectively cosmetic, so it should take a significant backseat to other requests on the system. Hasteur (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

If there are multiple submit templates I have been editing manually, but I don't always notice, and I sometimes don't bother- say if there's a submit already at the top and the editor is being impatient. Rankersbo (talk) 07:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

CSD log "notified"

Since Time Warner is being a twit and not letting me into GitHub (I'll create a ticket when it lets me in), I'm going to make some notes here.

• Logged as user notified
• User was not notified
• "Notify" was unchecked as it was a script test so it is just the logging that needs to be fixed removing "; notified {{user|1=Username}}" or replacing "notified" with "not notified" (and maybe a link to notify) when notify is not checked. Technical 13 (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done (commit). Thanks! Theopolisme (talk) 16:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Since it's already done, not bothering to make a ticket now that I can get into GitHub. :) Technical 13 (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Feature request - notify any editor of any action

For any action, add "notify submitter" and "notify last reviewer" checkboxes and a "notify fill in the blank" box. Alternatively, just list the submitter's name and last reviewer's name and offer the fill-in-the-blank box.

Justification: I frequently notify the submitter or immediate-past-reviewers when I add a comment and sometimes notify them if I put something on hold. Having these for all actions would be useful. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Feature request - add "suggest decline" and "suggest accept" buttons

Add an explicit "suggest decline" button with the same options as decline but instead of it becoming a real decline, it becomes an AFC comment with the same text that would be in the pink box and it would add the page to a special category of "submissions recommended for decline" or some such. The "afc blank" and "csd" options would be turned into text-statements recommending these actions as well. There would need to be an easy way for reviewers to reject the suggested decline, which would mark it as "suggested decline deferred" or some such and remove it from the special category.

Add an explicit "suggest accept" button with the same selections as "accept." The result would be an AFC comment recommending acceptance along with markers that would pre-load the suggested-acceptor's responses to the "accept" questions when another reviewer clicks the "accept" button. It would also add the page to a special category "submissions recommended for acceptance." There would need to be an easy way for reviewers to reject the suggested acceptance, which would mark it as "suggested acceptance deferred" or some such and remove it from the special category.

Justifications for both:

• I frequently use a plain-old AFC comment for these purposes, but a more formalized and uniform method would be useful.
• When the RFC related to AFC-reviewer permissions is adopted, this will give those lacking AFC reviewer permission a chance to contribute to AFC in a meaningful way, allow them to demonstrate competence, and allow them to demonstrate incompetence with much less harm.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Option to not watch talk pages

Every time I review a submission it always watches the talk page of the submitter. After over a month of not visiting my watchlist, I went there yesterday to find out I had 543 pages on my watchlist. Today I removed a majority of the user pages on my watchlist and I went down to 213, although there's much more to go. There needs to be an option to not watch these pages. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 11:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, it would be a shame if the submitter were to reply on their talk page and for you to miss the message, though... I'm not sure about this -- anyone else want to weigh in? (From an implementation standpoint, this would be trivial. Simply requires adding a preference that, when enabled, sets the watchlist option in the API request to nochange...this way previously manually watched pages wouldn't be affected.) Theopolisme (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

No harm in making that an option, but please leave the default as it is now, for the reasons you stated. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'm actually kind of opposed to the idea of making this an option at this time. I would be more open to the idea of it being an opt-out option if there was a modification to the accepted/declined template placed on the submitters' and/or creator's talk page that added a [Respond to reviewer] button that would either start a new preloaded section on the reviewer's talk page (less preferred but possibly only option at this time due to technical restrictions) or that would start a new preloaded message in the current section on the submitter's talk page (may not be technically feasible at this time) that would ping the reviewer through the notification system to alert them that there is a question or comment on a draft they reviewed. Technical 13 (talk) 22:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Documentation too complicated for me

I have reviewed articles in the past with AfC Helper Script but when I come back after some time to review more, I am always confused at what to do. Often I have come back, tried to review more, and just failed to operate the tools. The documentation on this tool is not simple enough because it does not give step-by-step instructions and expects that I have some information which I do not have.

I clicked the "review" tab at the top of an AfC article and it told me to expect buttons. I do not see the buttons. Here is the step when I failed to proceed - [10] - no buttons for me that I saw.

I just wanted to post and say that if I look at this and feel confused, then probably other people are also. I have been blaming myself and I put off reviewing anything saying, "I will make time to read the documentation later..." but then I forget, and when I come back and try again later, the same thing happens. If anyone could make a guide for the simplest person, even if it had lots of steps which seemed trivial, then I think that would not be too simple for me. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Odd. Which page were you trying to review? You may have stumbled upon a bug. By the way, if the page you are trying to review is in "Draft" state you may not have any buttons. Also, if it is in "Declined" state you will have fewer buttons. If there is NO "afc submission" template on the page then you may not be able to review it at all, or if you can, it may not have any buttons. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The comment button should always be available -- so, as David says, it seems like a bug. The specific page title where you encountered the problem would be useful to investigate this further. Thanks! And yes, when I have more time available, I'll definitely work on simpler documentation; it's been on our todo list for a while. Theopolisme (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

What's unique about pending submissions that the search engine can pick up?

Hello again! I am trying to create a search using the standard Wikipedia search engine that will only search pages inside the :Category:Pending AFC Submissions. Unfortunately, according to the folks at VPT, the search engine function "incategory:" won't pick up template generated categories. This search: "football prefix:Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation" will pick up any page in Afc with the word "football", but I would like to only pick up pages waiting for review, rather than all of the old declined ones, unsubmitted drafts, pages with missing templates, etc. Searching for the {{AfC submission}} template doesn't select out the pending ones. Is there anything else that the script puts on every pending submission but not on any other page, and then removes when an article is accepted or declined, that the search engine might pick up? I am trying to find a way to make it easy for Wikiproject people to check to see if an article in their area of interest is pending. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You can try http://tools.wmflabs.org/catscan2/catscan2.php or read more options at Help:Searching#Special searches. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Been there, done that! Catscan doesn't have a field for "text in article". I even tried using Google, but the pages are all "NOINDEX". I'm sure learning a lot about the search engine, so even if there is no solution it hasn't been a waste of time (well, mine, anyway). —Anne Delong (talk) 22:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

News from VPT is that a new search engine which will solve this problem is on the way. Soon. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Buttons squashed on mobile

When using the script on Firefox for Android on my phone, the buttons look like this. (Sorry, flickr and the standard m.flickr.com are blocked at school, so this is the old mobile version. I'll give the proper link at home.) Why is it like this? -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 02:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

For the record it happens with stable AND beta. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 02:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, it's called magic CSS. :-P @APerson and APerson241: want to have a look at it (as CSS was your bad code. XD)?

BTW: Which Firefox version do you use? (mainly which gecko version is installed, maybe it is a bug in Firefox) mabdul 09:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, I've been aware of this issue for months now, and I've researched it some. Our script isn't the only thing that does it, all scripts/buttons have this issue. I'm pretty sure there is nothing we can do about it, or at least I've been unable to find an answer. Technical 13 (talk) 10:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Why not asking at VP/T? So only FFmolbile, or other mobile web browser, too? mabdul 13:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Firefox 24 on Android 2.3.4. I think the problem is that Android Firefox is absolutely horrible when it comes to font sizes and getting them right. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 02:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• Did it with FF22/23 as well... Unable to test on Chrome at this time. Will do tomorrow though. Technical 13 (talk) 02:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Two questions:

1. What was the result with Firefox?
2. Was it Android Firefox?

Regardless, Firefox has a habit of completely messing up font sizes. Two paragraphs the same font size will be different sizes here. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 04:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Another suggestion

Fix this to the proper notation. Just a suggestion. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 02:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I sounded rude here, I was in a rush. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 05:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem (== not possible). But how should we "fix" that? What should the result look like?

@Theopolisme: what do you think of removing (always) the copyright symbol, the trademark and the registered? they should be removed and it is horrible to do this by hand. (lol and autodecline the article as advertisement) mabdul 09:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Um, I meant changing {ref} to <ref> . What were you thinking? -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 10:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Err, but then it would be still a) at the wrong place (not in the content) and b) the user missed many end tags {/ref} then. or do you have seem more of such wrong tags (on multiple (submission) pages)? mabdul 12:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'm inclined to agree with Mabdul here -- {ref} fixing is too localized a correction, and too difficult to catch with 100% accuracy (or even 90%). The same goes for Mabdul's suggestion about ©/™/etc -- there are valid uses for the symbols, and the script is not intelligent enough to distinguish between correct and incorrect usage. Theopolisme (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I thought regex would catch it, but meh. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 20:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a regular expression could be made to catch {ref}, sure, but then what would it be able to do to correct the issue? Replace it with <ref>? But what if there's not a closing tag? What if it is intentional? I'm afraid there are just too many unknowns. Theopolisme (talk) 20:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Didn't think about that before. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 20:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

"The same goes for Mabdul's suggestion about ©/™/etc -- there are valid uses for the symbols" - really? any guide or policy on that? (or real example?) mabdul 21:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

"Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, in either article text or citations, unless unavoidably necessary for context (for instance, to distinguish between generic and brand names for drugs)." - WP:MOSFOLLOW

Give me one example you had seen at WP:AFC o.O mabdul 21:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't have an example offhand, but I do feel that reviewers themselves should make the final call on that sort of alteration, not some automated script. Theopolisme (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not at AFC, but articles that relate to typography, fonts, character-encoding, symbols used in industry, HTML markup, etc. may use these symbols as examples. Also, articles that deal with what these symbols mean would also use them. Trademark, Trademark symbol and Registered trademark symbol are probably the canonical examples of such article with respect to these two symbols. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed changes to Template:Afc decline and decline-action of AFC Helper Script

Instead of just two hard-coded messages in the box that appears on a user's talk page after a submission is declined, allow for customized messages.

Currently, this template either displays the normal "keep working on it" text or, if there is a COPYVIO, it displays different text and it does not encourage the user to keep working on it.

Instead of having just these two options, have the template include at least two blocks of arbitrary text that can be passed to it by the AFC Helper Script. This first block of text should basically mirror what shows up in a "declined" AFC message. The second would be a copy of any AFC comment the reviewer left.

Give the reviewer a check-box to set a flag that determines if the template invites the user to continue to work on the submission (as normal) or not (copyvio, non-English, exists, attacks, hoaxes, hopelessly-non-notable stuff like "my little brother's dog", certain custom-decline reasons, etc. etc. etc.). NOT encouraging editors to continue with such submissions should speed up future backlog drives. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Recommend adding subst:welcome to newly-created user talk pages

Add a checkbox that says "Welcome user" which, if checked, will add {{subst:welcome}} ~~~~ to the user's talk page if that page does not exist. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• I support this request. If I had some more time I would implement it myself. If it's not done before I get a new home and stabilized I'll add it. Technical 13 (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• I like this as well. Theopolisme (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  • @Theopolisme I would like that we're using the one which is turned on by default in the twinkle prefs ("Template to use when welcoming automatically:"). What do you think? mabdul 22:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Add "notify user" for afc comments and taking a page on- or off- of review

Add a "notify submitter" check-box and "copy comment to user talk page" sub-check-box options to the "mark as reviewing," "unmark as reviewing," and "comment" options. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

 Doing... Theopolisme (talk) 04:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I've created the basic template for the notifications at Template:AFC notification (testcases, which show the current output). If you'd like to write some better copy, that'd be great. Theopolisme (talk) 04:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I envisioned a generic blue-green template called "AFC message" or some such to act as a shell for the last 3 examples. This "AFC message" should look very similar to the "declined" box (and may later replace it, at least for normal, non-copyvio declines). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm actually inspired to merge the current existing {{Afc talk}} and {{Afc decline}} into this template, so we can have a more consolidated notification system. I'll work on this some more (including a uniform look), and get back to you. Theopolisme (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

@Davidwr: I've done some work; take a look at your leisure. Theopolisme (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

This is workable, let's get the ability to use these, along with the additional comment, into the development script then remind me how to install it so I can give it a go. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

 Doing... Theopolisme (talk) 00:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Thinkin' aloud... should the comment notification include the comment itself? I think that'd be helpful... Theopolisme (talk) 00:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

It should be put on the user talk page by default but there should be a check-box to suppress it (there are occasionally good reasons to not put things on user talk pages). The same goes for comments in the other boxes, e.g. under-review, taking off being under-review, and if they are merged into this system, accept and decline, especially a decline that will result in the page's speedy deletion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Bot to reject blank submissions

Create a bot to scan recent submissions and determine if they are blank, and if so, summarily reject them.

"Blank" means only afc-related templates, ----, html comments, whitespace characters, and anything else the bot could determine with 100% certainty would not appear as a visible part of the page nor have any side-effects (e.g. some templates have side-effects, like categorization). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• This is a perennial proposal that has been shot down many times. After my proposal for this same sort of thing was shot down not all that long ago, I can see the argument that everything should be reviewed by a human as it would be impossible to code a bot that would know the difference between a blank submission and a misplaced RA (that a human would have to research to see if there are any sources to support notability). Technical 13 (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• Requested article or not, blank is blank. If someone created a blank article Nerd Weekend (Special:WhatLinksHere/Nerd_Weekend shows RA request) I'm still going to "mechanically" decline it as "this is a blank submission." How do I know it's blank? By viewing the source and mentally ignoring anything in an HTML comment or AFC submission template, and sanity-checking that against the article's size and the number of AFC submission templates present. A bot can do the same thing faster than me and at least as accurately. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• How does the bot determine if the topic is notable so it can properly choose whether to decline as blank or decline as "more appropriate for RA"? Technical 13 (talk) 00:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• I don't, unless it's obvious (e.g. blank submission titled "President Obama"). Nobody would expect a bot to do it. It's perfectly fine for a new editor to get a bot-generated messages saying "Your submission was automatically declined by a bot because it was blank." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• There in lies the rift. I entirely disagree. If it is a plausible article with no content/context, then we should be sending these to RA and not letting them fade away and be deleted by CSD:G13. Part of the goal of AfC is to help and guide new editors to doing things the right way and doing so in as friendly ways as possible. Not just dismissing their ideas and sending them on their way. These are exactly the kinds of people that need that extra "welcome" message on their talk page that you requested and I supported above. If there is a real person that created such a blank page, then they probably know the page is blank and it is probably because they don't know what they need to do or are afraid they are going to break something, and I feel that a message that only tells them the page is blank is disheartening and discouraging to them. Technical 13 (talk) 15:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• @Technical 13: Can you give an example of "a plausible article with no content/context" which is literally blank as described in the "pseudo-code" section below? That is, where the only text entered by the editor is the title of the article? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Pseudo-code for detecting a blank submission with only 1 edit

This code will have no false positives but some false negatives. With a bot, it's okay to miss a few but don't do anything that has to be reverted.

• Does the page have more than 1 edit? If so, end processing, let a human deal with it.
• Is the page more than a few bytes longer than the longest possible (or longest realistic) blank page that the article wizard or {{subst:submit}} would create (i.e. a few hundred bytes)? If so, end processing, let a human deal with it.
• Is the page created less than an hour ago? If so, it may be under active edit. End processing but re-list it for later processing.
• Using an in-memory "working copy," go through a canned list of hard-coded or template-ized text that are placed by the article wizard and/or {{subst:submit}} in blank submissions and "remove" them, then go back and remove spaces, tabs, carraige returns, and other whitespace. With template-ized items, make sure there is nothing that could be intentionally provided by the user other than the page name. Common items that might be placed by the article wizard or {{subst:submit}} might include afc submission templates, html comments, a boilerplate reference section, ----, instructional text, etc.
• Is what is left a zero-length file? If so, automatically decline it as a blank submission.
• Optionally, if [[Special:WhatLinksHere/{{SUBPAGENAME}}]] includes a page whose name starts with Wikipedia:Requested articles/, thank the editor and invite him to add content THEN click on the "resubmit" button.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

A very signficant conesnsus was established that bots should not be declining aparently blank pages, the error rate is just too high (even when it's humans doing the evaluation). I know I speak for myself but I've looked through the RfBot requests and I see that "Decline blanks" has been tried multiple times. How many pages would this realistically touch? I think there's other ones that are more eligible at this time. Hasteur (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

@Hasteur: Can you show me where this discussion happened? I want to check to see if it's relevant to the very narrow case outlined above. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Add 4-minus-sign and "do not delete above this line" when cleaning

When cleaning a submission, if ---- does not exist, place it below the AFC templates and right above or below it put an HTML comment saying "do not remove anything above this line" or some such. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the horizontal rule was only to be added if there were {{AFC comment}}s on the page...is this not the case? Theopolisme (talk) 03:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

That's probably the case now, but with the number of people who delete old afc submission templates, we really need a visual "line of demarcation" and some clearly-visible-when-editing instructions of "don't mess with this." Note: After writing the above request, I realized that the visual editor won't show html comments, so an actual visual (i.e. not html comment) instruction that tells people "put your text below this line, don't delete anything above it" may be necessary. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Until the visual editor gains traction (if it ever does), i don't think we need to worry about the so-called "uselessness" of html comments. So you're just suggesting something like "---- <!-- Do not delete anything above this line -->"? @Mabdul and Technical 13: thoughts? Theopolisme (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

@Theopolisme we already have such a line. we simply should remove it :-p (check the removal of old html comments, it was original used to determine where to place the new afc comments) mabdul 16:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Er, did you read the thread? We're talking about always including a horizontal rule and "do not remove" notice, even if the article doesn't have comments. Theopolisme (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

@Theopolisme Yes I read. I said: simply don't remove the HTML comment. adding always the 4 minus headline isn't a no brainer. I have no objection to this. mabdul 23:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Theopolisme: Yes, what you said at 15:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC) is what I had in mind provided the Visual Editor isn't being used a lot by submitters. Unfortunately, I've seen a few October submissions that were tagged "Visual Editor" or similar in the edit summary.

• I was actually thinking of proposing something similar as a next step to #203. I was just thinking the change should be made in baby steps that people could get use to instead of a bunch of big changes all at once. If others think it's a good time to do this now, I'm obviously for it. Technical 13 (talk) 21:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Postponing deletion of draft articles

Hello script writers: Articles which are eligible for G13 deletion but have draft templates on them are often good candidates for rescuing because they have never been declined. However, the script will only nominate them for deletion, not for postponement. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

And hello Anne! :) Could you give me an example of where this would be applicable? I'm pretty sure it's fixed in the latest develop version, but I'd like to confirm. Theopolisme (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

As happened the last time I came across this, the article I was hoping to rescue has now gone under G13. I took the time to find some sources to add, then added the manual postpone template, but it was too late. I don't have time today, but as soon as I do I will try to find one much further down the queue that won't disappear before I can show it to you. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Which article was that? We can easily get it refunded... Technical 13 (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed. In the Production version, the "Postpone G13 nomination" button is not available. It is available in the Dev tracker version, so I'm going to wager the Beta probably has it too. Since we've past the end of the drive, I think we can go ahead and unlock the tool for some updates. Hasteur (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's an example of the problem; an article with hidden references that's never been submitted. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gender inequality in the Caribbean I hope the bot doesn't get it before you see it. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Write to user talk pages last, or purge them

Sometimes user's talk pages are left with a red-link to an accepted article's talk page. Purging the user's talk page fixes the problem. Consider re-ordering the file-writes or doing a "purge" of all files at the end. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Request alert if non-AFC items are above the 4 minus signs

Mistakes like this will be very hard to reliably prevent, but it should be easy to put a post-edit warning message up if anything other than whitespace, html comments, or AFC-related templates is before the first ----, so the reviewer can inspect the edit and manually correct it if needed. Bonus points if the warning message includes a diff. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Uhm. Wait.Let me guess: the gadget is not "up to date"... XD Actually you are using the "stable" build. This is resolved in the beta / develop version as we don't rely on the minuses any more! mabdul 22:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Request for post-edit report changes

Right now, when you do something to a submission, you get a "post-edit" report that says what files were modified, whether the user already has a tearoom invitation, etc.

It would be nice if each edit were followed by a diff.

For those places where the script does some analysis and detects possible problems (see "Request alert if non-AFC items are above the 4 minus signs" above), either put a note right after the diff indicating there may be a problem, and/or a list of problematic diffs at the end with their matching potential problems. This way we can check the diff immediately. Occasional false-positives are acceptable. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Bug: If AFC comment ends in blank line, signature should not have a space before it

If I put a blank line at the end of an AFC comment, the last line of the comment is a space followed by my signature. Spaces at the start of a line are interpreted as wiki-markup. Consider either removing them or replacing them with &nbsp; or something else that won't be mistaken for wiki-markup. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• The script should be stripping empty blank lines from the top and bottom of comments unless I'm mistaken. Technical 13 (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• • Err... I thought I had done that when restructuring the comment system, but I simply forgot that (already reported by User:Anne Delong ages ago ). I will do that in ... well in 3 weeks ... if nobody take care of it. (Codepointer: update function afcHelper_addcomment(comment) in submissions.js) mabdul 22:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done commit Theopolisme (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

New beta, old beta

I see a new beta just came out or will roll out very shortly.

Was the previous beta stable enough to become production? If so, please consider promoting it. If not, can you work towards a release candidate version so we can 1) have all of working/well-baked late-September and -October changes in production soon and 2) have another release-candidate (or beta-to-go-direct-to-production) 7-10 days before the end of the month so it is in production if we do a December backlog drive?

Also, when it comes to scheduling code changes and backlog drives, keep in mind the many November and December holidays in the English-speaking world. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The previous beta had some bugs, so I went ahead and made the executive decision not to promote it. If all goes well with the new beta in the coming weeks, we'll definitely have it in production by (completely arbitrarily selected date) November 20th, so as to be ready for a December drive. Sound okay? Theopolisme (talk) 03:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I guess that will have to do. What's the saying about programmers and deadlines: Never ask a programmer to shorten a deadline, you'll just waste his time and delay the milestone that much further, or something like that? OK, I just made that up, but it sounds good, doesn't it? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Ha! WP:DEADLINE all the way. Real life for me has been busy over the past month, so it's not like you're missing out on too much. Hopefully I'll be able to return to my usual activity levels soon. Theopolisme (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Changelog? -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 05:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't typically do a changelog for the beta, only the production gadget. It's beta, after all ;) But... here are the changes, and I'll write some actual English sooner or later. Theopolisme (talk) 15:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Nothing to compare? -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 21:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's a corrected permalink. Theopolisme (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The script doesn't have a "unmark as under review"

I took a long look at a draft, so I turned on the "under review" but when I decided that I couldn't go through with a decision I had to undo the "under review" manually - the "under review" button didn't switch over to "unmark as under review" like it used to when I last did it (quite some time ago). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Roger, the unmark button is available and working in the developer version of the script. It is only a matter of time before it filters back into the version you are using and I'm not sure why it disappeared or broke in the mean time. Technical 13 (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

AFCH - Cleanup problem.

Recently i accepted an article that contained a large amount of "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scutellum_%28insect_anatomy%29 scutellum" style links to Wikipedia pages. The cleanup on the page seems to handle those links incorrectly though. Instead of converting them into wikilinks it seems to add three leading square brackets and one trailing square bracket. This revision displays the (manual) correction that was required to repair these broken links. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Able to replicate this -- will look into later today. Thanks for the report! (I think it's a problem with AutoEd conflicting with our built in wikilink correction.) Theopolisme (talk) 16:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed [11], will be available for end users soon. Theopolisme (talk) 05:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Afc comment

Hello tech folks!

I have been away from reviewing for several weeks working on the G13 backlog. Today I declined an article, [[12]], and added a comment. Instead of adding my comment under the decline box, my comment replaced the text in the box, removing the decline reason, which is valuable since it contains help links, etc. Is this a bug, or a deliberate change? —Anne Delong (talk) 01:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, it worked on the next article, although I had to do it twice, so likely the bug was in me rather than in the script. Sorry. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Deauxma

Hello again; I tried to nominate this article under G13, and it came up with an interesting deletion log, but did not display the row of option buttons. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Unable to replicate using the latest development version @ User:Theo's Little Bot/afch (everything works fine there, so I assume whatever the bug was, it's been fixed). That reminds me, it's probably about time to release a new version... Theopolisme (talk) 05:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Script stopped working

Earlier today, I reviewed a submission with no problems; however, when I tried to review a second one I get this:

Reviewing Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Autoimmune autonomic ganglionopathy

...with no buttons to mark as reviewing (or to accept, decline or comment on the submession). I checked my .js page, and whatever AFCH scipt was there seems to be gone (although I have the Purge/Review dropdown arrow at the top of pages, so the script must be somewhere). Tried to add Theo's script to my .js, but it won't save. Next stop is my preferences, to uncheck whatever AFCH gadget box is there before I try installing Theo's script again. Am I on the right track? All the best, Miniapolis 20:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

You probably need to bypass your cache between installs. Let me know if things still aren't working, and I'll investigate further -- might be an issue with the Wikimedia servers, as Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Autoimmune autonomic ganglionopathy works correctly for me with develop, beta, and the gadget. Theopolisme (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be good now (Hasteur reviewed that submission). Purging my cache didn't help before, but I'm not sure if purging and bypassing are the same. Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 23:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah... wasn't sure what was going on, I reset the submission template, and then re-reviewed it. Hasteur (talk) 02:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Deletion logging

Sorry for the delay. I have twinkle installed and the CSD log set to on, and AFCH seems to log my G12s and G13s there as well. In the last couple of weeks, it's been stalling around the time of writing to the log. I was reminded because of Technical's problems with AFC buddy chucking up 503 errors, and wondered if it was a related server side change that is causing problems for twinkle and AFCH as well. I'll gather some specific info on what happens and update this later if you want (or just tell me it's a known issue if it is).Rankersbo (talk) 10:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

@Rankersbo: I think this may be due to the fact that your CSD log is quite large -- try archiving old entires and see if that speeds things up. Theopolisme (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks that sorted it, suspected there was something I was doing wrong. Rankersbo (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Post proposal here?

Dear script developers:

I want to make a proposal for an addition to the script. Should I post it here, or would you prefer that I post it on the general Afc talk page so that this page is mainly for implementation discussions and bug reports? —Anne Delong (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• Anne, here or on Github is fine. Technical 13 (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• As far as I know, Github is not part of Wikipedia. I will post it here and notify the Afc talk page. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to add a new checkbox and button to the decline process at Afc

Proposal:

Button

• That a new button be added to the pink decline template, with text “Author requests deletion of this submission”
• That the button only function when pressed by the original author of the submission (not the submitter)
• That the button only appear when the checkbox described below is checked.
• That when the button is pressed by the author, a db-author template be added to the top of the submission.

Checkbox

• That a new checkbox be added under the “blank the page” checkbox during the decline process, with the text “Include option to delete under db-g7”
• That for blank submissions and test edits the box be pre-checked.
• That the reviewing instructions indicate that the box should be checked in cases where the article as written is not only currently unacceptable, but that the subject itself is likely non-notable, the article would need a major rewrite, the submission is declined as “article exists” and has no additional usable content, etc.

Rationale:

• So far the Hasteurbot has identified over 50,000 abandoned submissions. The problem is that when a submission is declined, there is no way to tell which new editors intend to improve their submissions and which don't want to. Many who accept that their submissions are unsuitable would clean up after themselves if they only knew how. Adding the button to every decline template would be a bad idea because new users might delete submissions that could easily be improved. Allowing the reviewer to choose on which ones the button would appear avoids that, and only takes a moment of his/her time.

Benefits:

• Potentially gets rid of many spammy, essaylike, non-notable, etc., submissions six months sooner than by using G13.
• Avoids discouraging new editors by giving them a choice to delete or not.
• Will likely shorten the G13 queue, making it easier to check on stale submissions before they are deleted.

Feedback

• Support as proposer - I've had a number of conversations with users who replied to my queries with "Wasn't that deleted long ago?" or "I would have deleted it myself, but I didn't know how." —Anne Delong (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support with modifications - It would take either custom JavaScript or modifications to MediaWiki to make the button only work for one user. Also, once in a while, an initial user makes a basically blank page, and then a second user adds all the content. I think that requirement should be dropped. Also, I think the text on the button should be shortened. "Author requests deletion of this submission" sounds too long. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't think of another way to make it so that anyone at all couldn't request deletion - but maybe just a heads-up edit summary to the deleting admin, so that he/she could turn down requests that weren't from the main contributor would be enough. A shorter button text - "Author requests deletion"? —Anne Delong (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that this isn't something that can simply be done in the realm of templates. I also believe it is fair to offer "something" to make it easier for those that don't have Twinkle (maybe not autoconfirmed yet or just haven't turned it on) to request such deletions. I "could" create a button that would apply a {{Db-author}} template to the bottom of &section=0, it would "look" a little out of place, but would categorize the page as the right CSD so would be functional. There is no way to restrict viewing of such a thing to any certain user, or group of users for that matter (except for admins in most cases and that's not useful here). The other possibility is to offer something via JavaScript as part of a new "Article Wizard" guided tour idea I've been considering as a stop-gap to a new Extension for Drafts and whatnot. As far as your checkbox ideas go, they have been on mine and mabdul's todo list for sometime as I suggested similar quite a while ago. So, those are just a matter of time. Technical 13 (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Technical 13, would it make it simpler if the button could be pressed by anyone? Would the admins be able to see who pressed it? After all, the admins must already check to see that the db-author templates have been added by the article's authors and not by someone else. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Ambivilant about this. On the one hand I can count on two hands the number of times that a AfC submitter/creator has come to my talk page announcing that they're giving up on the submission and/or want it deleted. On the other hand, empowering editors is good. I'm weakly opposed to this for the simple reason that I could see where a different editor might stumble into the partial draft and actually finish working on it to get it to acceptance. Hasteur (talk) 02:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I didn't want it to be generally on every decline template, only ones selected as having little usable content as is, such as blank, test edits, articles about one's cat, etc. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with Hasteur, in that I too am ambivalent about this. Also, I fear the law of unintended consequences would rear its ugly head: How many users would press the button just to see what it did? Then we have even more help desk requests asking how to 'stop deletion of my page' and such things... Bellerophon _{talk to me} 14:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

List of decline reasons

Dear script developers: Some time ago I pointed out that the "joke" and "hoax" decline reasons, previously separate, had been combined without any discussion. These are not the same because one is an attempt to be silly, and the other is an attempt to deceive, a much more serious problem. They used to have separate messages to the user. The change was reverted, and for a while the two were separate, but now they have been combined again.

Also, I asked for a change in the list itself to make it easier to read. The titles are mixed in with the reasons. Couldn't they be bolded or indented or have underscores after them or something? Today I wanted to decline a submission as an advertisement and it took me nearly a minute, first trying to guess where in the list it might be, and then starting at the top and moving my mouse down the list one item at a time, until I found it. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to add the decline reason to {{Afc decline}}

Would it be feasible to get {{Afc decline}} to duplicate the actual text of the reason for declining when the script places the template? Something like the example shown in fig A at User:Bellerophon/Sandbox2. Moreover, can the script be tweaked to support the change of {{Afc decline}}'s cv=yes parm into a general delete param, that is triggered by checking the CSD checkbox, in conjunction with a supported decline reason? So that the template will present itself something like the one shown at Fig B in my sandbox? Bellerophon _{talk to me} 15:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Script needs to be modified to put {{orphan}} tags in the talk namespace following RfC

The proposal was closed as having consensus to move the {{orphan}} tags to the talk namespace. AFCH currently places them automatically in the article if it is orphaned. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 20:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

If this is too complicated, then it should just not put them. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 18:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• This is no longer necessary per the WP:VPR#Alternate idea? discussion. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 13:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

While I support that, there's already a enough editors participating for it to override the previous discussion. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 22:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Review articles appearing as "Draft:Threat Matrix (fire service)" rather than AFC prefix?

Hello, I was cleaning up the Category:AfC_pending_submissions_by_age/0_days_ago, and saw there are a number of articles which have the prefix "Draft:" rather than the standard AFC. I cannot review them in that space, so I have to move them to AFC. Is this some new format, a coding mistake, a sudden popular trend? MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Draft is a new namespace that has recently been enabled. The reviewing tools have not been updated yet to work with drafts in the Draft namespace. The AFC submissions template were changed by MSGJ to use this new namespace earlier today before I reverted it about 3 hours later. In the mean time, drafts will either need to be reviewed manually or move to WT if you are desperate to use AFCH. -- KTC (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Standalone WikiProject template selector

I've requested that the AfC helper script's very useful WikiProject template selector be made available as a stand-alone tool. Comments welcome at WP:VPT#WikiProject template selector. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect links in CSD logs

While reading the source code at MediaWiki:Gadget-afchelper.js/submissions.js, I noticed that AFCH places links to "CSD:G12" and "CSD:G13" in the CSD logs. These should point to WP:CSD#G12 and WP:CSD#G13 instead. Guess who introduced this. Keφr 14:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Draft namespace

Can you add the Draft namespace to the helper? I'm trying to review an article in the draft namespace, but the script won't let me. buffbills7701 01:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Draft namespace is actual already in a development version of the script, but where as AfC is currently in a backlog drive, it would be unwise to release a new potentially bug ridden of the script until the drive is over. It will be released on the first of February unless most (down to less than 100) pending submissions in WT:AfC have been reviewed. Feel free to use the development version of the script in the mean time (directions can be found on WP:AFCH IIRC). Thank you for your understanding. Technical 13 (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission implementation

Dear script developers: Please comment on the above proposal, and in particular on the technical ease or difficulty of limiting access to the Afc script. Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup — Incrorectly placed section headers

Here,(Edit: in line 42) the cleanup process confused the == in the ref link with wikimarkup, breaking up the whole page.-- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 14:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'd say this is an edge case... How many URLs use double == in them? I'd say the reason it is set up to try to "fix" that is because new editors accidentally put spaces or other marks in front of == headings == which causes them to fail rendering. I'm going to further guess that the code that does that fix is actually in autoed which we use to fix a lot of formatting. mabdul, Hasteur, or Theopolisme might have some further insight... Technical 13 (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, the link was wrong/rotten, and I have removed it. Still, the script may be changed to overlook such markup inside references and infoboxes.-- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 11:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Can't accept Elyar Fox submission

I've tried to accept the article three times, and for reasons I can't figure out, it's not getting published. Can someone check it out? (And explain why it's happening so I don't make the same mistake in the future)? Thanks, Julie JSFarman (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

What does your javascript console say? Hasteur (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I am so busted, Hasteur (talk)- I have no idea how to even find the console. Oops.

• Nope... Nothing you or the script did... Page protection says it is salted. Technical 13 (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, T13. An admin just moved it.JSFarman (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Processing internal links on Beta

Sorry to paste and run, but I had this comment User_talk:Rankersbo#Screwed Links on my talk page after clean-up in AFCH beta messed up some links. Rankersbo (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Apparently either AutoEd is finding the raw external links to internal pages but not noticing that they are wrapped in square brackets with alternate text to display or it's line 1076 of the AFCH that needs to be better thought out and implemented. Not entirely sure. Technical 13 (talk) 01:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Also submitted a draft in my name [13] Rankersbo (talk) 01:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Here AFCH seems to have replaced the origional submitter and timestamp with the clearer and timestamp. That is an AFCH issue. Dev team, PING! (mabdul—Theopolisme—APerson). Technical 13 (talk) 01:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Ideally this should be on the dev page, but I'm being dull at the mo and can't figure out where it is. Rankersbo (talk) 08:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Please post feedback about the AFCH helper script in a new section on this page, or by creating a new ticket on GitHub.

Hence, this is the correct page Rankersbo. :D Technical 13 (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

When declining as 'cv'

Whe decling an article as a 'cv' is there anyway to post multiple url's (as in the Twinkle-tool), because sometimes an article includes cv's from diffrent websites. -(t) Josve05a (c) 10:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I just add it as a comment with the declines. Get the main url so the admin can verify the cv. LionMans Account (talk) 03:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll add itve added it to the issues list on GitHub (issue 214) and we'll see if we can't add a button that will allow adding of more URLs. Thanks for the suggestion! Technical 13 (talk) 15:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Notification

Sometimes when another user declines a review that I already have reviewed, I get a notification saying: USERNAME mentioned you on the Articles for creation/Manthan Shah talk page. (it does not say 'USERNAME') Like for instance with this edit an this edit. It does not botter me, but it can get a little anoying if it happens a lot. (t) Josve05a (c) 16:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• I've changed the /declined template to use {{Noping}} so this shouldn't happen anymore. Although I'm wondering if there might be consensus that it might be a good idea to be pinged when something you reviewed gets re-reviewed so that you can see if any of the original issues you saw had been fix and be able to offer a comment if they had encouraging the new user. It would be sort of a secondary watchlist of thing you declined. The only downside is it would be difficult to ignore a specific thread. I's like some feedback from others on this and will look into the technical implications of making it be available for both. Technical 13 (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

  Can we add a "Turn ping on/off" button to the AFCH Helper Script. This button would only show up if our name was in a "declined" or similar template where this is a problem. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• That was what I had in mind as an option, but I need to play with the idea and the technical feasibility. It "might" be possible. Technical 13 (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• I tend to watchlist drafts I've reviewed and would like to follow so for me the ping is redundant. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments with broken signatures

Hello script developers. There is a small problem with the Afc comments that may or may not be easy to fix. If the commenter presses the enter key after his or her comment, the script includes the newline, then adds a space and the signature. This effectively disconnects the signature from the comment, and if more comments are added by others they are inserted after the existing comment, but before its signature. A solution that occurs to me is to have the script check for a newline or carriage return or whatever character is causing the problem and, if it is the last character of the comment string, remove it before adding the signature. Here is an examplet where the signature of the first commenter is misplaced: Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/Moves (album). I was going to fix it, but I thought that I would leave it as an example. Thanks in advance for taking a look at this. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Seems like it would be simple to .trim() the comment before attaching the signature. Should be an easy fix. Could you make a note of it on github or would you like me to try and remember to do it? (My memory has been really bad lately as I just have too many concurrent projects going on.) Technical 13 (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mickey Sheen

Dear script developers: This draft was never submitted, and the editor eventually gave up and made a mainspace article. To my surprise, it has two "subst:submit" templates on it. I edited it to postpone deletion (so the history could be merged), but the templates did not convert to a yellow submit box. This isn't of any consequence for that particular article, but I wonder what happened there. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

trouble with From the Diary of Sally Hemings

I wanted to promote this unsubmitted draft. When I chose "submit with the original submitter" the script showed me an error message; I didn't write it down (sorry) but I think it may have been "error: could not find a submission template". The custom submitter option let me proceed; it added a second AfC template. After I clicked "accept", one AfC template remained (I've left it in place but someone may come along and remove it). —rybec 04:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

no "comment" option for unsubmitted draft

I like the commenting feature. Just now I wanted to add a comment to Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Divided_visual_field_paradigm, an unsubmitted draft, but the only buttons shown were "submit" and "clean submission". —rybec 23:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

User Space to Main Space -> User name is being included in the scripted move

I don't find the archives to search them to see if this problem has been reported. But on the few articles I've accepted from the user space area, the user's name is put in front of the article name by the script. I didn't figure it out until the third note I got saying I was doing it wrong. So I guess the current work around is to move it to the articles for creation area before accepting, but that seems like it creates extra re-directs on the way.The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk)

• Farthest back in your move log I see this issue was the 06:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC) moving of User:Kingofthepings/Thit Kho Tau (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Kingofthepings/Thit Kho Tau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Strangely, not "all" of the page accepts do this as the 15:33, 15 January 2014 moving of User:KreyszigB/Harald Penrose (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Harald Penrose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) worked properly. Based on your edit summaries, I'm guessing you are using the "production" version of the script. Will have to do some more digging to see what is causing this. If anyone else is having this issue, let me know so I can dig out diffs and see if I can figure out what is happening and why. Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You do not have to move it to AfC-space before accepting - you can simply edit the name during the accept process. Many userspace drafts are simply name "Sandbox" and they all need to be corrected during acceptance so although it is a cause of errors this isn't really an extra step as reviewers should verify the new page name during the acceptance process anyway. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• Roger, I didn't see him move any to AfC before accepting. This is an issue with approving directly from userspace to mainspace... Still looking into it and thinking... Technical 13 (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• User:Aggie80 suggested it as a "work around" - I was merely pointing out that it's not necessary to do it that waybecause checking and correcting the title is part of the accept process anyway. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:AFC submission/multi/testcases

Hello - I found this old Afc submission that's about to be deleted. I don't know what this is, but I thought you tech guys might recognize it. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Funny colours on the grey Afc draft template

Hello script developers! I noticed today that the grey Afc draft template has white text, slightly offset, overlaying the green text on the "Submit" section. It's not really a problem, it is still readable, so whenever.... —Anne Delong (talk) 02:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• It was a set of changes that seemed unfinished to {{Clickable button 2}} that was being worked on by Edokter. I've reverted it for now, and I'm sure he'll finish it up later and make it look right. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 03:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Technical 13, Please don't do this! Point me to issues and I will fix them; reverting the template is getting us nowhere. Also, caching may not have caught up yet, which may result in weird display, but all my tests are displaying properly. This change is according to MediaWiki talk:Common.js#Fixing Template:clickable button. Discuss there. — Edokter (talk) — 12:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Wrong link prefix for userspace

The heading of [14] correctly links to User:Gfcibandadvisors/sandbox, but the following message links to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gfcibandadvisors/sandbox. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Elvedin Škrijelj

Dear script experts: I have tried twice to accept the above submission, since I have been told by the football experts that it is ready for mainspace. I used the Accept button on the script menu. After typing in all of the biographical information, I once more chose Accept. Each time the script reports that it is moving the page to the new name, and the reports that it is done. However, the page is unchanged. Is something malfunctioning, or have I just made some silly mistake after using this same script thousands of times? The only thing that I can think of that could be different is that I tried to submit the article with the name of the original submitter, and the script reported that it couldn't find him/her, so I instead submitted it with a "custom" submitter - the person who asked for it to be accepted, which seemed to work. —Anne Delong (talk) 06:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The page is create-protected (logs). Administrator action is required. If no AFC reviewer with admin rights removes the protection and you can't reach Causa sui in a reasonable period of time, post a note at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and ask for un-protection and link to all relevant discussions to justify the un-protection. Please read the two AFDs before asking for un-protection and make sure the concerns raised there no longer apply. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, davidwr. The only script related problem, then, is that the script didn't give an error message, and just said "done", but since a new script is under development likely it's not worth fixing in this one, since it doesn't come up that frequently. The title was salted because the player didn't pass notability as a football player, but now the Wikiproject Football members say that he does. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Bug - handle create-protect situations better

Per the thread immediately above this one, please modify the code so that it either prevents acceptance or gives a reasonable error when "accepting" a page that cannot be moved-onto (i.e. a destination page that is create-protected). A generic post-accept message along the lines of

The page is not at the destination with the expected size, please check all modified pages and undo any edits as needed. Checking for common error cases: Destination is protected? [YES or NO]. Source is move-protected? [YES or NO]. Error code: [UNKNOWN or NOT PROVIDED or error code]. Error logging successful? [YES or NO]. If the error code logging was NOT successful, please leave the following note at [Wikipedia discussion page monitored by script maintainers]: "Unknown error not logged property. Editor = [editor's name], timestamp = [timestamp]."

Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Numbermaniac/Logs/CSD...um...

Take a look at listing 130 onwards because I want to know if you see what I see: If the page is messed up from there, then you're seeing what I see. Whether it's this script or twinkle that has caused this, I do not know. Just a bit...shocked. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 08:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• I guess I don't see what you see. This does not mean there isn't something out of place however. Can you be more specific about what you see or give us a screenshot? Thanks... — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • It seems to be my iPad and Safari, if a page is too long, halfway through the page will be completely screwed up, like as though the < in a HTML tag was missing or something and the entire code was displaying as a jumble. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 06:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I just checked it on an iOS device (Safari, current version of iOS and Safari) and it looks fine to me. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
      • http://www.flickr.com/x/t/0097009/photos/numbermaniac/13019847695/ -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 23:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• I can't replicate the issue. I've even loaded your common.js on that page through the console, so I'm going to say it is nothing in there... What do you have enabled for gadgets? I'm particularly interested in beta features you have loaded (like typography refresh perhaps). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 01:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

How did this article get submitted?

Dear script developers: I postponed this old G13 eligible Afc submission, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Star Furniture, and added some references, and now it has been submitted for review. I checked the page history and the automatically created edit summary is the correct one for a postponement, not a submit. Also, I don't think the submit lets you add a comment, so I don't think I could have pressed the wrong button. Is this a bug, or have I done something incorrectly? I'm not sure that this page is ready to be submitted. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is another case: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bad Things. It reports that it was declined today, but the edit summary indicates that it was postponed, not submitted, and the edit history lists a different decliner than the decline box on the page. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Project adding

I noticed this recently, but it hasn't become a big issue until now. I know that we can add projects to the site, but why can we only add some sub-projects? In the United States, many of the state projects are not able to be added due to how they are now implemented under the United States project's template, so it creates a gap of projects that we are allowed to add to the reviews. Additionally, we also are not able to add project importance's to the script, which means that some person has to go back in and add them at a later date. Would there be any way to address these issues over the coming months, or is there something that I may have missed. Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sorry Kevin, I'm going to need some more background on what you mean. Can you please clarify in some way or offer a detailed example of what you mean? I'd love to be able to help you and add whatever needs to be added. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 19:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  • There are many projects, but the Massachusetts and New Mexico ones are two of the many out there that are not able to added when reviewing an article. Essentially, when you try to add in these sub-projects, it doesn't accept them as being valid, so there is a problem there if you want to add in the projects that have been sub-templated into larger ones. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Kevin, adding them where? The only place I'm aware of in the script is an input box where you can type anything (and it pulls an ajax list of all the projects using a specific "correct" form or are on some list someplace (not exactly sure of the mechanics that Theopolisme implemented for that). Are we talking about the same spot? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 19:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Adding them in the review box where you accept it, so yes. Not all the projects are being included, including the Military History project, which is a major issue, since it is one of the largest projects on this site. In terms of project importance, it would be nice to be able to add it to the project, as there is no way to do so. I know the newer editors might not be able to make a judgement on this, but it would be nice to have for us older editors who know more. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• What happens when you just type it in the box (and ignore the fact that it doesn't pop up on its own) and submit? Does it still add it as you typed it in (I'm expecting it should or will)? If not, we may have to wait for Theo to know how the code determines what is on the "autofill" list. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 19:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Nothing. If you type in an unaccepted project, it won't be added to the review when it is completed. Additionally, you cannot add another project after it, which presents a problem if you want to add two unrecognized projects. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks, I know I can be a pain trying to understand the issue, but I think I have enough info now to dig into this a little deeper while we wait for Theo... — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 20:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• No worries, as I am glad to help out with anything that I can on this site, including descriptions of issues like this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, Kevin, I've found the list of projects that is used to populate that via ajax call on User:Theo's Little Bot/afchwikiproject.js which means that only Theopolisme (talk · contribs) or an administrator can add to that list. This pretty much holds the project hostage in that aspect, and I'm not particularly keen on that. You could post an edit request on the talk page (make sure to ping Theo in the request) and maybe an admin would add the projects you want. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 23:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I honestly wouldn't know where to begin, but only because we would end up creating a flurry of edits every time we realized that we were missing a project or task force. I think we should wait and pull up a list of all projects and merge them together, otherwise we won't make much progress by adding in a few at a time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion here. Yeah, the WikiProject feature uses a list of WikiProjects which was generated by my bot based on pages using the standard WikiProject template wrapper. @T13, re I'm not particularly keen on that: it was initially in a .js page to prevent malicious editing which obviously would disrupt AFC reviewers. The importance suggestion is a good one -- thanks, I'll be implementing that soon! As for a more extensive project list, I agree that would be nice. There's not really any problem with a "flurry of edits"...feel free to post additional project requests on the the talk page and I'll add them. Theopolisme (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Theopolisme There is a a bot which compiles a list for project statistics, and using the list of what the bot grades would be a good start, as we'll otherwise miss many of the smaller projects. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware, I'm a co-maintainer of the aforementioned bot :) That's not a bad idea, it's just a matter of interfacing between the two systems. Theopolisme (talk) 11:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

If you could do that, that would be great, although there is no rush on this in my opinion. In terms of what could be done in the meantime, adding the remaining states and then the MilHist project would be awesome! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Weird submission error

Does anyone know what is up with this edit? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• I assume you are talking about the script's attempt to fix the internal reference that is wrapped in a cite template with some parameters confusing it? It's just one of those things you'll need to fix manually. The script saw "http://en.wikipedia.org/stuff" and tried to replace it with [[stuff]]. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 11:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • They really shouldn't be using Wikipedia as a ref anyway. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 06:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

URLs to wikilinks not working properly

I declined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/NetDev Ltd a few days ago, and as you can see there are a load of bad wikilinks throughout the article. They got added with the decline edit, in which AFCH attempted to convert URLs to wikilinks, but didn't realise how they were formatted. Samwalton9 (talk) 10:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the report, Samwalton9. I'd love to look into the issue but it looks like the page was deleted. If any admins watching this talk page can use Special:EmailUser to send me the page contents in order to further investigate this issue, that would be great. :) Cheers, Theopolisme (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes I missed that it was copyvio when I originally declined. If you want more info now, the issue was with URLs like [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Samwalton9 Samwalton9] being converted to Samwalton9 Samwalton9 if I remember correctly. Samwalton9 (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

There were no namespaces in the page so I don't know how that would have been treated. It was the same type of error in all cases: A working url link to Wikipedia mainspace of form y was turned into a red wikilink of form x y instead of the piped link y. In some of the cases x and y were equal or the only difference was that x started with a capital. In those cases it would be best to just make y. See also the diff [15] in the above section for another type of error where pipes between citation parameters were confused with piped links, for example turning |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey|work=Republic of Turkey into |url=[[Turkey|work=Republic]] of Turkey. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks. This is verified as fixed in the rewrite script, about which more information will be released in the coming weeks. Theopolisme (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)