Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Proposed new entry process

Proposed New Entry Process

Hello I created a test of a new article submitter. My proposed process process would involve each submission getting its own page. Since anon can't create pages this is done by a method of placeholders. For the test only placeholders #101-#105 exist. If you would like to try out my system, see it in operation in my user space at [1]. (Opening editing window) The same link would be put at the end of the wizard. Do you think this would work on a large-scale. Any comments appreciated. Thank you.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 01:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I kind of prefer having it on all one page...easy to see what's happening to each entry without needing to watchlist dozens a day. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I just came here to suggest an idea along those lines! What would be great would be to have the ip be able to edit a page solely, and then have the subpage moved into mainspace, thus retaining the edit history. I'm not really 100% sure on how your idea works, but if the instructions could be simplified, I think this would be great. To keep them viewable on the same page, like how Someguy1221 would like, we could have them transcluded. A lot of the submissions seem to be suggestions for redirects. Perhaps we could have two sections on the page, one for article, one for redirects. This would certainly be a more organised system. Seraphim♥Whipp 12:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the page created could be simply moved into the mainspace. Every entry gets its own page.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 12:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears to me that anonymous editors can create new pages in article talk space. Would it be possible for new page requests to go into talk space and then be moved into main space if they are suitable? MSGJ (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

For today, all new submissions will go to Category:Pending Afc requests. As MSGJ has pointed out, anon are able to create talk pages (I have tested and confirmed this). As a result, I was able to create a simple input box at the end of the wizard, which creates pages at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Submissions/<user created name> and automatically adds them to Category:Pending Afc requests. Thank you.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 13:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's try it for today. Nice work Natl. But I suggest we fully evaluate this experiment and get consensus among AfC reviewers before implementing it permanently. MSGJ (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The test has ended. Post your reviews below.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 22:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Experiment analysis

Yesterday, User:Natl1 boldly changed the process that unregistered users submit articles they want created. The new process was in place for just over 24 hours; it has now been reverted back to the old process so that we can evaluate the advantages/disadvantages of the new process.

Basically, instead of adding all requests to one page as currently happens, new submissions were created on separate pages in Wikipedia talk space (thereby circumventing the restriction of unregistered users creating new pages - they can do so in talk space). These new pages were added to Category:Pending Afc requests. Category:Completed Afc requests was also created for submissions which have been reviewed.

MSGJ's thoughts

Advantages:

1. All history of the article is retained, avoiding the messy copy and paste procedure currently employed. The article is correctly attributed to the IP address of the author.
2. Fewer formatting problems as tends to occur when all submissions go on the same page. In particular sections can use the standard == rather than ===.
3. Would potentially make it easier to have more of a discussion about the merits of a submission. All comments will be kept in one place together with the article.

Disadvantages / possible problems:

1. Talk space is not the appropriate place for these submissions, and it's a messy way to get around the restriction of page creation for unregistered users. (See suggestion below.)
2. Using categories to keep track of pending and completed submissions seemed to work, but
   • I noticed it says "Updates to this list can occasionally be delayed for a few days." It would be inconvenient if it really was delayed by a few days.
   • New submissions do not appear on your watchlist, as they can do if you are watching WP:Articles for creation/Today.
3. Quite often yesterday, requests were submitted without the "pending" category. Presumably, the user deleted this bit from the preload template. This creates a real danger that submissions get lost in a black hole. A complete list of submissions can be seen at Special:PrefixIndex/WT:Articles for creation/Submissions (these are all the submissions from yesterday) but I don't know if it is possible to get a list of all these pages which do not have a category.
4. A possible problem would occur if two submissions had the same title. In this case, the second submitter would be editing the first submission rather than creating a new one. This might be appropriate in some cases if the topic was the same, but would certainly not be if it was, for example, two different people called John Smith!
5. A number of users did not enter their title in the box and were therefore directed to the default WT:Articles for creation/Submissions/my proposed article name here. After several people edited this page, I had it protected.

Suggestions:

1. We try to obtain consensus for a part of the database to have the page creation restriction lifted. I have been assured that this is technically possible. For example unregistered users could be allowed to create new pages in the AfC project space, for the purpose of submitting articles for creation. Another suggestion was that the whole of the project namespace be derestricted, although this would require more discussion and wider consensus I guess.

Natl1's thoughts

As stated above, I created this process and tested it yesterday. As MSGJ will likely confirm the process is much easier for the reviewers. Instead of using three templates and a cut and paste move, the reviewers just has to click the move page button (and format the new page) to approve or add one template and change the category to decline. Since, anons are able to create talk pages this should be relatively simple for them too (at least, compared with my last suggestion). However, I also noticed that the anons sometimes deleted the category but I think this can be solved by adding a bigger warning. Also, some editors are concerned that not all submissions are displayed on one page, and unfortunately I don't have a remedy for this. However, I think that adopting this method will be a good time-saver and organizer.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 22:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting that a script can easily achieve the increase in simplicity that this system may produce (I know there are presently two scripts for AFC, but I have never tried them). Someguy1221 (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really, you still have to do a cut and paste move. And, the script doesn't work for me and I'm probably not the only person.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 00:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If you still have to do the moves with the present scripts, then OK. But that doesn't stop a good javascript writer from fixing that...I'd do it myself, but I don't know that language, or any useful programming language, for that matter :-( Someguy1221 (talk) 04:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I will confirm that this process is potentially easier for reviewers. There are certainly fewer steps to creating articles even with the use of a script. However there are points in my "disadvantages" section (e.g. 2 and 3) which I believe could make it harder for us, (although I don't say that thse problems can't be resolved). MSGJ (talk) 09:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

A bot could eliminate 3; running something like the list-comparer in AutoWikiBrowser, a bot could easily identify new submissions even without the category, so long as the title of the page has the correct prefix. I think it may be a good idea to find someone who can write a bot for this before going through, as I think we all plainly know how many anons have trouble submitting articles, and if this runs for a while, a manual search of Special:PrefixIndex will be essentially impossible. Someguy1221 17:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Graeme's ideas

I quite like the idea of this,

• though I do see a problem arising if a big backlog develops. We could have the assistance of a bot that can recognise the articles that had the category taken off, and add it back on. Perhaps the bot could also make an index for each day.
• The defanging bot could have more trouble removing categories from the declined articles.
• I appreciate the attribution potential and the lack of copying, but copyedition will still be needed.
• Copyright violations, nonsense and attacks can be completely removed,
• We really do have to cater for those people not putting in a title, this happens nearly every day.
• When multiple articles with the same title appear they are nearly always the same contribution, so it is good for the contributor to see that they got the contribution in and can fix it up.
• What do we do with declined contributions that are recontributed (hopefully with improvements)? People will be tending to edit the old articles more. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

To add to Graeme's ideas

• If a big backlog develops, then the "pending" category just gets bigger. I wonder if there is any possibility to sort a category by creation date? Then the older submissions could be reviewed first.
• Possibly, but I don't see why it should be harder necessarily.
• True
• So we just blank the whole submission in the case copyvios or personal attacks? What if the title itself is an attack? In this case we might be able to nominate it for speedy deletion under G8.
• Well if they don't enter a title they will reach a protected page telling them to go back and enter a title. I think this is the best we can do.
• This worries me slightly.
  • If it's the same user resubmitting their article, then it's okay but they would still need to replace the "completed" category with the "pending" category so that it will be reviewed again.
  • If it's a different user then it doesn't seem fair for them to have to edit someone else's (failed) request.
  • It seems to me that ideally all failed submissions should be moved to a different location so that this doesn't occur. But this would increase the work for us.
  • Technical quetion: what happens with the preload template if the page already exists?
• MSGJ (talk) 08:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts on the new process

I unfortunately wasn't actually around to watch this thing happen, so I'm not entirely clear on how this works. I notice that a recent archive is strangely barren...if you weren't already intent on this, I think it would be convenient for a bot to automatically transclude new submissions to today's page, and provide an automatic header if the anon didn't. And if you're worried about efficiency of the process, a bot could also add the top and bottom templates upon seeing a decline notice or a page move. This would also allow everyone to see the creation of new submissions via the transclusions, and allow a quick scanning of the entire day. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Bots: I think there is a little too much talk about bots at this stage. Bots can be used to automate repetitive tasks, but it is too easy just to say "oh a bot can do that".

• Bots can only do things which we can do. They are issues here (e.g. finding uncategorised pages in a particular location) which I don't even know how to do!
• Before considering programming or asking someone to program a bot, we need to do the process ourselves for quite a while so that we know and understand exactly what we want it to do. Otherwise we risk bad programming which could damage the project. Bots also need to go through a rigourous approval process - this won't happen overnight.

In my opinion it is too early to talk about how bots can help us, because we won't fully know what the tasks will be until we have trialled this method extensively.

Alright, so long as Category:Completed Afc requests is added automatically with the decline/accept tempates, I can assemble the list of uncategorized creations myself. In that case, I would probably create Category:Uncategorized Afc requests (ignore the irony of placing that...). Doing that, we've made it impossible for submissions to fall into a black hole unless the title is messed up somehow, and you can replace me with a bot if you like the way this works. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

How do you find the uncategorized ones? I've been looking at ToolServer, as suggested by User:Apoc2400, but couldn't see how to do it.

I've been working on templates a bit as well. More on that to follow. MSGJ (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

AWB can assemble lists of articles in a variety of ways, including articles contained in a particular category and articles displayed on a special page, such as Special:PrefixIndex. Having done that, AWB can also perform boolean operations on the lists it has created, so finding the uncategorized pages is fairly easy. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

GTstricky's (2) thoughts

• I missed the experiment but wanted to add my 2 cents. I like the idea of submissions having their own page. I am not sure user space is the way to do it. It would be nice if it was article space that is temporarily not included in the active world. Heck, it would be great if the page had an 'accept' and 'decline' button and that was it.
• I also feel that the submissions must be ready for mainspace or declined. I don't want a new system that allows continual updating and discussion. That will lead to a huge backlog and reviewers becoming coaches. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 02:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Response to your points. The submissions are not being created in user space. (Even though creating articles in user space is a common practice, unregistered users cannot create their user page so that would not help at all.) In the experiment, pages were created in project talk space. This is arguably not the appropriate place. Possibly, project space might be suitable, although it would require tweaking of the software to enable unregistered users to create pages in project space.
• I sympathise with your view. There are occasional instances where some discussion is fruitful I believe. Normally when I can't decide on a submission I just leave it to someone else to decide! But occasionally I will add my thoughts which might help the next reviewer. MSGJ (talk) 08:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Modifications and proposal for new trial

I have given some thought to the new process and the possible drawbacks, and believe that all the problems can be surmounted and the process made more efficient. It is largely based on the system that User:Natl1 designed for the last trial with the following differences:

• The preload puts the following template {{AFC pending}} at the top of the submission along with a clear instruction not to remove it. This automatically adds it to Category:Pending Afc requests.
• One concern was that if the category was deleted somehow, that the submission would get "lost". This is still true, however, each new submission with the same title will go on a new section of the page. Therefore if the article is resubmitted the template will be re-added and the submission will appear in the category.
• A copy of the proposed version for the last page of the wizard is at User:Msgj/Sandbox1. Please have a look and try the "submit" button after typing something original into the box.
• The method of creating the page is to use the InputBox extension with the following features:
  • type=comment: produces a new section on the page, so the template will be preloaded even if the page already exists;
  • preload=Template:Afc new preload: a new version of the preloaded template is used (with a lot fewer confusing comments inside);
  • default=WT:Articles for creation/Submissions/my proposed article name here: this produces the default text in the box, which users have to edit with their article name;
  • editintro=WP:Articles for creation/Wizard-New edit instructions: the name of a page which appears at the top of the edit window to provide instructions on how to enter the article.
• If the user does not change the default title they will end up at the page WT:Articles for creation/Submissions/my proposed article name here which is protected. Hopefully then they will go back and read the instructions properly.
• If the article is accepted the actions required are:
  • Move the article into the main namespace;
  • Remove the {{AFC pending}} template;
  • Remove any earlier submissions with the same title that were not accepted;
  • Put the {{WPAFC}} template on the talk page as usual;
  • Inform the submitter as usual.
• If the article is rejected,
  • The {{AFC pending}} template is replaced with the {{AFC completed}}. This automatically adds it to Category:Completed Afc requests.
  • Remove any copyright violations or personal attacks, as usual.
  • Remove categories and defang templates.
  • Type the reason and reviewer's signature at the bottom as usual.
• If a reviewer is not sure, they can add comments as usual to the bottom of the submission, as usual.
• If a reviewer needs some time to consider a submission they can replace {{AFC pending}} template by {{AFC reviewing}}. (This keeps the page in the pending category.)
• I see no benefit of this method for Redirect requests so they can go on the Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Today page as usual.

Proposal

If people like the look of the above, I propose we trail it for a full week and then discuss whether we want to permanently implement it. MSGJ 09:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

GTStrickys thoughts for today

I think there still would need to be a dated category system for completed requests. Would that be possible? Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 00:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean so you can tell when an submissions was reviewed and accepted/declined? This could be seen from the page history. I don't think it is possible to sort a category by creation date though/ MSGJ 06:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is a big problem I see... google: Karaga Guitar. It was a declined submission that now shows up. By creating individual pages we create a searchable page which defeats the whole idea of declining the request. Our current method is also searchable (google: Zak Freckelton) but it is obvious that it is not a real article where the new method gives the appearance of a legit article. So my thought is that the pages are deleted after a defined period of time (30 days?). We get over 25 submissions a day so at 30 days we would have over 750 pages in the category. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 15:05, 25 August 2008

That problem is easily solved. We could implement the {{noindex}} template. I very much like the proposal, especially that the new submissions will contain the author's name in the edit history. Seraphim♥Whipp 15:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. We should added the {{noindex}} into our closing templates or include it on all pages as part of the submission system. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

So is there no opposition to adding {{noindex}} to {{AFC pending}} and {{AFC completed}}? Someguy1221 (talk) 08:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Someguy1221's question

Is there a way to bypass the need for the prefix in the submission creator? Such as would allow the anon to just enter his proposed article name, and the creator automatically adds the prefix? Someguy1221 (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be nice but if there is a way I don't know it. InputBox is quite basic and very much lacking in useful features like this. An alternative proposal would be to put it on the talk page of the proposed article. But then the failed ones would generally have to be deleted and we'd have no record of them. MSGJ 16:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

PS, there are MediaWiki extensions that will do this, but they are not installed on Wikipedia. CreateBox and CreateArticle will do it with the prefix parameter. MSGJ 16:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Legoktm's question

Could SineBot screw this up, as it is in the Wikipedia talk: namespace?

Good point! I hadn't thought about it. Maybe there is a way to opt out of sinebot. If not, it wouldn't be such a pain. MSGJ 06:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

We can add {{bots|deny=SineBot}} to the tag which is added to each page. MSGJ 06:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well Sinebot did get involved here. So I'll try adding the bots tag now. MSGJ 23:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Review of the week long trial

• firstly the instructions were not visible on the top of the page (they are on this one) so I did not follow the correct procedure. Perhaps we need more in the pending template to explain what to do to new reviewers. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I linked it from the main instructions page. Perhaps a link to this on the pending template would be a good idea. MSGJ 12:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• It is much easier to create articles. However doing the move, does not show up the delete history that we get when recreating deleted articles. Some have been deleted previously for relevant reasons that reviews should be aware of. Perhaps the pending template could include a delete history link, andr an afd discussion link. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Only admins can delete revisions. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 00:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

What I meant here was not to delete ourselves, but to see the reason for a previous delete. Some people have proven non notability, and we can do without creating an article and having it deleted a week later. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Can you add these links? MSGJ 12:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• The space is going to gradually fill up with declined articles, thousands of them. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yea, we should delete declined ones after a month? LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 00:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It is nice to hang on to old stuff that has potential, some just needs a good reference included. Perhaps there should be a new category for promising declines, that may be easily fixed by another enthusiast. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with keeping all the old submissions. They were all kept on the previous system anyway. MSGJ 12:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• There is now a timeless aspect to the articles, now they are not being organised by day. This means that the day complete idea is no longer valid. The List should probably get some enhancement to show pending articles by day in some kind of report. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe something like a WP:AFD log?. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 00:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this seemed like a big issue to me. I could see some articles sitting for weeks or months as editors skip the hard ones. A day listing would keep us all more honest. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 04:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

May be we could have a category for hard articles, if editors are encouraged to tick of the requirements, perhaps it cvould inch forward to acceptance. I am imagining a check list with copyvio, already exists, refs, notable etc. Otherwise the comments will probably only highlight one issue when there may be several that are checked over and over. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the prefix could be changed to include the day? Or the submission creator changed to use a category that includes today's date? Then we could have a list of links to those dates and uh...be more honest. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think having a list will add tremendously to the beaurocracy of the process and is unncessary. There is a simple way to find older submissions: look at the bottom of Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Pending Afc requests. MSGJ 12:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• A backlog is developing - does that mean we have frightened off reviewers? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No, we just dont have a javascript :P. I am working on it though. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 00:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

See User:Legoktm/afcnew.js, still in trial, please be careful. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 00:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• In one case after I declined, the contributor improved the article by removing the afc templates and adding some more text, this could have easily got lost (but it showed in my watchlist). I can't keep everything on my watchlist forever, whereas I was keeping all the old day pages on my watchlist for a year or so. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

On the completed template, there is an instruction to replace the {{AFC pending}} template if they want to resubmit. MSGJ 12:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• In another case multiple pending templates were added by a contributor. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This will happen if multiple submissions are made with the same title, as each submission goes into a new section of the page. This was deliberate because it ensured that the pending template would be added to a new submission even if it had got lost from a previous submission. MSGJ 12:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• It is also good that the bot is not defanging the templates and cats as it saves work for the accepted articles. Howa bout the bot (when it starts operation) just neutralizes the declined articles? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. We could ask Jitsie whether this will be possible. MSGJ 12:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Tracking lost pages

I just populated Category:Uncategorized Afc requests with potentially lost pages. For the record, I counted 10 uncategorized submissions amongst 160 submissions that were not redirects. Looking through them, these all actually seem to be completed requests that were simply left uncategorized. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean there were no pending requests that weren't in the pending category? That's great. MSGJ 12:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. I assume this stemmed from the replacement of the cluttered hidden comments of the old system with the single-line warning of the new system. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you do this manually or will it fill up again by itself? There is nothing in it now! I went back and labelled the pages I decline properly, these would have been in that lot too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It has to be done manually; it's empty because I went through and took care of the ones I found. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Update: Upon another run of the system, of 317 properly titled submissions, only two had the submission template removed by the submitter. Compared to the amount of reformatting we needed to do under the old system, I'll declare this aspect of it a dramatic improvement. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of submissions

It occurs to me that as seperate pages, all general speedy deletion criteria now apply to AFC submissions, which was probably no one's intention, thus placing this entire project outside the spirit if not the purview of the general criteria. It seems to me that criteria 5 (banned user), 7 (submitter blanks page), and 10 (BLP violations) should be deleted, but deleting under other circumstances may needlessly confuse submitters who can't find either an article or a declined submission. So specifically, I'd ask what people think should be done with 1-3 (types of vandalism), 4 (recreation of an AFD'd page), 11 (advertising), and 12 (copyright violation). I'd say that 11 and 12 should be left so that the submitter will know why his submission was declined, especially considering that many users are on dynamic IPs and won't receive messages, and/or return to AFC weeks later. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not convinced about the banned user reason 5. It is unlikely that we would know about the banned user situation. Certainly if they were causing the same kind of trouble that caused the ban in the first place, we should not accept the article. For recreation of AFC'd pages, this has certainly happened in AFC. Each contribution should be considered on it's merits, but an AFD or prod or speedy reason should be looked at too if it is relevant. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

MSGJ's thoughts / proposals

Is everyone happy with the new process? If so, I propose we continue with it while we tweak things to improve further. If there are any serious concerns we can revert to the old process while we discuss them. Personally I think it's a vast improvement.

Proposals:

1. Talk space is not the right namespace. Sinebot was messing things up at the start (I don't know if that is still a problem?) and the users are instructed to sign their posts (~~~~) which is not appropriate. I propose we petition the developers to allow anonymous page creation in the wikipedia namespace. (The restriction was never meant to stop unregistered users creating project pages.) If this is deemed too radical, then we could ask that at least pages with this prefix are derestricted.
2. I am lazy, and it occured to me that we could give the decline reason as the edit summary when adding the {{AFC completed}} template. I realised that I was giving the reason twice: once at the bottom of the page and again the ES. We could add a sentence to the completed template to instruct users to look in the history to find the reason their article was declined.

   I have changed my mind. However it seems to me that the decline reason would be better placed at the top of the article along with the template. I cannot see any advantage in putting it at the bottom; this is probably just a relic from the old process. Maybe the {{AFC completed}} template could take the reason as a parameter?

3. Again I am lazy and got bored changing {{AFC pending}} to {{AFC completed}} all the time. Could someone who is clever at template programming create a single template {{AFC submission}} which takes a parameter? Then we would only need to change one letter.
   1. {{AFC submission|P}} produces the pending banner {{AFC pending}}
   2. {{AFC submission|R}} produces the reviewing banner {{AFC reviewing}}
   3. {{AFC submission|D}} produces the declined banner {{AFC completed}}
   4. Perhaps {{AFC submission|H}} for some cases when we want to put the request "on hold" and give the submitter time to add more sources or make some other minor improvement?
4. As only redirect requests go on the Articles for creation/Today page now, archiving them every day seems unnessary. I propose we ask Jitse to stop his bot. We can manually archive them whenever the list gets too long (maybe weekly or fortnightly). In stead we could ask Jitse if he could look at making his bot remove categories and templates from declined submissions from the new process.

MSGJ 12:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As for the location of the decline reason, I believe the presiding concern must be the ability of the submitter to find out why his article was declined. I've been performing the declines as usual so they can immediately see the reason at the bottom, but yes, placing it inside the decline banner seems like it may be a good idea. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

And as for a lazy-man's AFC template, I've created exactly what you want at {{AFC submission}}. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to go to work now, but later today I'll modify it to include decline reasons inside the completed banner. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I reckon that a completely new kind of name space could cover our requirements, but otherwise allowing our prefix Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/ to have things created sounds a good suggestion, certainly better looking than the "talk". One other aspect is that the prefix is so long that a single name always overflows the rename box on the move page. This means it is extra complicated to rename, compared with if we had a short prefix that was entirely visible in the new name box. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

How about allowing lower case letters too, then you don't have to press the shift button! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)The "lazy" template is fantastic and has been implemented. About the long names, we could maybe take out the "Submissions" part, so new pages would go in Wikipedia:Articles for creation/XXXXX. This wouldn't cause any problems unless someone actually used a name that already existed, such as Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Today but this is unlikely I think. MSGJ 00:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

OK guys, I've updated {{AFC submission}} to include the decline reasons. Now, after the first parameter (D, P, or R), you can include, after a pipe ( | ) any of the same decline labels from our old templates (such as {{afc '''empty'''}}, or {{afc '''nn'''}}). Just include the part after afc, and it will place the decline text inside the completed banner. If nothing is included after the D, it will just display the text that had been there before. Decline templates that took parameters themselves, such as afc exist, and afc cv, still take those parameters. Just include them as a third parameter. i.e. try out {{AFC submission|D|cv|http://example.com}}. You can also include a custom reason inside the banner, by using the parameter reason after the D, and then your reason as the third parameter. I have to run now, be back late tonight...let me know what you all think. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

In case the new template seems too complicated for anyone, I've written an extensive documentation you can all read at Template:AFC submission. But keep in mind that decline reason parameter is entirely optional. If you don't include it, then the old decline banner will appear instead. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This new template is genius. Just one comment. Instead of {{AFC submission2}}, why not add the functionality to the {{AFC completed}} template so that we don't have two templates for the same purpose? MSGJ 14:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I made the seperate template so people could go back to the old one if there was a problem. Of course, I have no problem with moving it over. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done MSGJ 12:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

{{AFC submission}} has been changed, so it will not show up in the mainspace if not removed. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 22:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

More issues

• We still have users swallowing up their contribution inside a comment, but at least they don't wreck everyone elses too.
• I have had one article Hajvery University accepted and then deleted so there is no trace left, I am asking for it to come back so it can be declined instead. The topic was notable, but the article quality was poor. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• Some registered but inexperienced users manage to rename their article to the appropriate title, but still have the pending template on. In this case I add the notability tag or clean it up as for a new article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• A page was protected against recreation: Scene kid so I could not create it. Administrators would not deprotect, unless the article was a better quality. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Update

• I have made a proposal on the Village pump about allowing unregistered users to create pages in project space. Perhaps you could keep an eye on it and help answer queries that come up.
• The instructions for reviewers needs to be overhauled and the new instructions merged into the main instructions. I'm not sure when I will get a chance to do this ...
• I'm still waiting for a response from Jitse about possibly switching off his bot and turning its attentions to the new submissions.
• I propose the WikiProject Articles for creation/Discussion Room be depreciated, as discussion can now take place on the page. (If the first proposal gets the nod, protracted discussion could take place on the talk page of the submission ...)

MSGJ 16:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I am told that Jitse's bot has now stopped archiving. It was getting pointless as there were only 1 or 2 redirect requests on most days. I have moved Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Today to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects. MSGJ 11:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

extra feature

On the AFC submission/decline or onhold templates can we get an extra parameter so that we can put in an extra text that is inserted in an AFC comment as well as the normal decline text? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Maybe it would be better to have a named parameter, e.g. reason=This is complete nonsense which can be added to any other decline? Also, I noticed that at the moment, if you give a parameter which the template doesn't recognise it says The reviewer left the following comment and then gives no comment, which doesn't seem right. MSGJ 10:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That's from {{#ifeq:{{{1|}}}||The reason can be seen at the bottom.'''|The reviewer left the following comment:''' The second phrase is used as long as any non-blank parameter is entered, regardless of whether it is valid. I suppose we could move that phrase inside the comments, or (to keep the addition of new comments simple) have the default comment be a big red warning: INVALID PARAMETER ENTERED. The ifeq already handles the issue of no parameter, so I think this could be safe. Someguy1221 (talk) 16:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Why not have new articles or new content added to articles be screened by authorised editors before being appearing on the site, it would mean that editors would kind of take ownership of articles so no one can mess about or over edit add or remove content without approval, meaning even content being removed would be reviewd along with reason for removal, before being removed. But choosing the right editors might be an issue, some a very uncouth and bitchy in attitude116.71.17.157 (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Not really sure what you're suggesting, but it would be better to post somewhere more central like WP:VPIL because this is an old page not used anymore. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)