Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Question I couldn't answer

I got a question from User:LM103 that I wasn't 100% sure of. It is linked here. If someone could drop by and help him out, I'd appreciate. My guess would be yes, but I didn't want to tell him the wrong thing. Thanks in advance. Go Phightins! (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, the link doesn't seem to be working, but the question is on his talk. Go Phightins! (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The link should be User_talk:LM103#New Article Question and I'd think the answer is that the WP:AFCH script (were it actually working) normally removes any leftover AFC submission and comment templates, along with the associated HTML comment, so there's no need to fix this manually. Just be sure to leave the "submit" template on the article until it's reviewed. :) K7L (talk) 23:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

requested categories in which list of proposed members contains a subcategory

Unresolved

 – Added to bug list, will work on a patch for v4.1.17 (currently in alpha). Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 01:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Another odd WP:AFCH result, a request for this:

Category request: Category: UKIRT Infrared Deep Sky Survey

Example articles which belong to this category:

• UKIRT Infrared Deep Sky Survey
• Category:UGPS objects
• Category:ULAS objects
• United Kingdom Infrared Telescope

Parent category/categories:

• Category: Astronomical surveys

(which was recently created from a request by 65.92.180.171 at 07:36 today) got an auto-generated parent category of Category:UGPS objects (the first valid category listed, even though it's not being requested as a parent category) instead of Category: Astronomical surveys (which presumably was what the original poster requested) and needed to be fixed manually. The same condition occurred when creating Category:People associated with Saint Eunan's College. K7L (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Is this a problem or a question? --  :- ) Don 18:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks to be a problem, albeit just a minor bug as the erroneous result produced usually ends up being fixed manually by either the reviewer or the original author of the request. K7L (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Why do we have a category Category:UGPS objects when we don't have a page UGPS objects? We do have a page for Astronomical survey. Sounds like something need tweaked somewhere. --  :- ) Don 19:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

This does appear to be a bug in the AFCH, I'll add it to the dev sheet. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 00:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

unable to use WP:AFCH script

Resolved

 – Fix pushed to Tim's library. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 01:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The script was working earlier today, but now all of the buttons seem to have moved to inaccessible locations (such as behind the Wikipedia logo and tabs) where I cannot select them for use. I can't accept or decline but can only comment. Is anyone else seeing anything abnormal in WP:AFCH today? K7L (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I see the same thing. --Mysterytrey 22:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Me too! Seeing the exact same thing... this is rather useless. I'm unable to accept, decline, and comment... it may just have to do with screen size though, I suppose. Theopolisme 22:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I have also experienced this error. SwisterTwister talk 22:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I tweaked them on IRC, but no response. --  :- ) Don 23:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, the source code revision history looks normal, so it's probably not a script problem. Might it be a MediaWiki problem? A412 (Talk • C) 23:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

It may be MediaWiki. If so, relevant thread. However someone said those changes wouldn't have done it. Also, apparently it's at least monobook and vector. --Mysterytrey 00:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The last release was 8-31-2012. Should have broken then. --  :- ) Don 00:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Odd.... It's working for me..... Mdann52 (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the problem went away around 03:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC) although I'm not sure what was changed to fix this. K7L (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

This may all have been due to the recent upgrade to MediaWiki 1.20wmf11, which has been rolled back to wmf10 because of several issue related to jQuery. See this wikitech-l post. — Edokter (talk) — 17:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I see the script is broken again and special:version is indeed wmf11. K7L (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll check on it later if I get the time. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 23:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It works occasionally, but I'm also back to doing things 'manually', pasting the decline script. Has the Template:AFC statistics gone haywire because of the size of the backlog?? Sionk (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

A template listing every article in the queue (if the individual entries are each templated) will have broken far before the 1000-page level (where we seem to be whenever the script breaks) is reached as there is a limit in MediaWiki to the number of templates which may be transcluded on one page. The extra backlog likely breaks more things (for instance, last time templates on individual articles claiming that there were " -2 articles currently awaiting review ") but backlog is an issue even without breaking the scripts. K7L (talk) 01:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

One or more people have been hacking Template:AFC statistics. I'm guessing that Earwig has his hands full with real life right now. Someone may correct me if I'm wrong, but I think AfC has outgrown Template:AFC statistics. It appears to be very expensive, processor wise, at anything over a few hundred submissions, if it was working, which it is not. --  :- ) Don 03:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

A while back User:Steven Zhang proposed making daily subpages for each day as opposed to one huge template. Seeing as the current single template is way too large on it's own, what if we divided it up into multiple pages? The template provides detailed information which makes it extremely easy to find submissions which are likely to be denied or approved. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 03:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Also this comment from Earwig is relevant as he pointed out to me on IRC. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 04:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

This should be fixed now - see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD.js. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem appears to have been a bug in Tim's library, not the script. As it's fixed now, I'm marking this section as resolved. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 01:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Reviewing user requests for new templates

I notice a few common errors are taking place when reviewing submissions with names like Wikipedia (talk):Articles for creation/Template:...whatever... proposing a template on {{whatever}} topic. These submissions are relatively rare (most submissions are for articles, not to propose new templates) but some do turn up and are routinely rejected due to incorrect evaluations such as:

• "This is a template, not an article. All users can create these directly without going through WP:AFC."

False. Only a talk page can be created by an unregistered user. The restrictions on creating new articles and on creating new templates are the same.

• "This is a template, not an article. It belongs in Wikipedia:Requested templates, not WP:AFC."

Incorrect. Wikipedia:Requested templates is like Wikipedia:Requested articles in that it's for requests that *someone else* write or design the desired template or article... eventually... one of these years... maybe. It is not for requests which already contain the desired wiki code. Wikipedia:Requested templates actually says on its main page that users who already have a template designed come here, to WP:AFC. The requests are rare (as most templates are from experienced, registered users and therefore created directly) but they're perfectly valid.

• "This submission is lacking reliable sources" or "this submission fails to establish context".

These are article criteria. A template is normally a carefully-formatted box with a list of items in one narrow category, such as train stations on one rail line or players on one major league ball team. It's up to the individual article pages (not categories, templates or disambiguations) to provide the sources to claim the station is on the line or the player was put into the game by that team.

• "This submission is blank" or "this submission is nonsense" on a page containing nothing but a carefully-formatted box with a list of items in one narrow category.

A template that looks like a valid template is going to be smaller than an article, but that doesn't mean that these should be rejected as stubs (an article criterion). If the page genuinely is blank, or is an article or essay text submitted for Template: space then yes, quick-fail it. Also be aware that some templates are intended to be a row in a table and are nonsensical taken on their own, like {{jct}} which displays nothing (or just its parameters with a few symbols) on its own. Its purpose? One row in a table of highway junctions, meaningless without the parameters and the {{jcttop}} and {{jctbtm}} header/footer to make the table. Good luck trying to guess from the wiki source code alone what it was intended to do, it's {{esoteric}}. It would be valid, however, to reject a template as "lacks documentation, purpose is unclear" if its just one table row with no instructions and no obvious explanation of how it fits into a table. A template whose purpose is not immediately obvious should have a "Documentation" section enclosed in <noinclude> tags, as should a template which depends on another template in the article to be of any actual use. K7L (talk) 00:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You are quite right. There should probably be some mention of this in the reviewer instructions. The article wizard contains specific options for creating templates, categories, etc. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks like Wikipedia:Article wizard/Additional ("I would like to create something else") populates the new page with a blank disambiguation {{AfC editintro/disambig}} or template form {{AfC editintro/template}} and adds a parameter to {{AFC submission}} indicating type=template or type=disambig. The {{AFC submission}} template ignores the type= parameter entirely; the only warning to the reviewer that the original author wanted a template is the Wikipedia (talk):Articles for creation/Template:... in the page name. Perhaps {{AFC submission}} should display text that indicates that the submission is not an article and link to the appropriate manual of style section for whatever the user had asked to create? Templates and disambiguation pages do *not* contain references as they're on the listed target pages linked, for instance. K7L (talk) 23:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Moving the "reviewing" tray

Request unclear

 – Please explain exactly what the bug is in the script. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 01:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Considering that the AfC reviewing tray has been experiencing troubles recently (it moves to the Wikipedia ball causing nearly of all the buttons to be rendered useless), I'm curious if we should move the tray to prevent any future troubles. Perhaps if we moved it to the "toolbox" tray as a pop-up? I have nothing against the current location but I'm concerned with the recent software troubles. SwisterTwister talk 02:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Please. Anything will work. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it's the MediaWiki software. The problem appeared the other day when they moved to 1.20wmf11. The reverted to 1.20wmf10 and the problem went away. For some reason we are back at 1.20wmf11. I'm manually reviewing for now. --  :- ) Don 06:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You are correct that the MediaWiki upgrade did cause the problem, specifically gerrit:19008. As I described at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD.js, Timotheus Canens or another admin will have to change User:Timotheus Canens/displaymessage.js to fix it, unless the MediaWiki developers reconsider their change. PleaseStand (talk) 10:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I've updated the page, so it should be working now. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I currently have the release candidate included from user:K7L/vector.js (and the gadget turned off in special:preferences) and cannot currently review with WP:AFCH. On WP:AFC/R the list of proposed redirects comes up (accept, decline, ignore for each) but clicking on "Done" does nothing. On WP:AFC proposed articles, the buttons are no longer behind the WP logo but submitting even a comment on a submission gets as far as "got token" and then stops. Is this broken for me as my configs are set to try the release candidate (which does fix the problems with multiple redirects to one target in one WP:AFC/R request) or is this still broken for everyone else? K7L (talk) 14:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I'm guessing that this comment is about WP:AFCH. If so, exactly what is the bug? I will test redirect reviewing soon, but I have been so busy I have not been able to code any of the necessary bug fixes. Secondly, the bug that was causing the box to be warped was an error in the script's UI library, it has been fixed now. Please clear your cache and purge any pages and try again. Marking as unclear. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 01:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

a small parameter

Howdy all,
We have a new parameter in the submission template called "small". It does not seem to be documented, but it disables the resubmit link and help information in the decline template, so that an editor has no way to resubmit. Whoever is responsible, please raise your hand. --  :- ) Don 23:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• Aha!! It's in Nathan2055's script. --  :- ) Don 00:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Safe Machine

Unresolved

 – High priority bug, I will ask mabdul to fix it when he gets back. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 01:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Would another user please decline this AfC submission and submit the following message for me? I have tried two times now and one "mark as reviewing" but it never goes through.

"I will explain why I and the other reviewers have denied this submission. This submission has been denied multiple because you haven't provided any reliable third-party sources to establish notability. I took the liberty to search for appropriate sources myself but alas, found none. For articles to be notable, they must be supported by reliable third-party sources such as news coverage."

I've been noticing this issue with other AfC submissions. Has this been caused by a software issue? Thanks! SwisterTwister talk 02:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I note that this was templated with {{afc submission}} instead of {{AFC submission}} and corrected this; could you try again? K7L (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

That must not have been the problem because I tried again and it wouldn't go through. SwisterTwister talk 02:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The template should normally look like {{AFC submission|||ts=20120829095639|u=Ritchie333}} but instead is {{AFC submission|ts=20120829095639|u=Ritchie333}}. The two blank parameters immediately after "AFC submission|" are where the script needs to put |D| (first field, if declined) and the reason (second field). The script does *not* like them being missing from the template on an article. K7L (talk) 02:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a major bug and high priority. When mabdul gets back I'll tell him to work on it. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 00:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

(at work) This is a known bug (and already listed at WP:AFCH/DEV). It happens seldom, but this is more or less a bug by Earwigbot (and Earwig wanted to fix this a long time ago). Moreover: I will add a check for that later. I should get my new net access this week hopefully, I only need a new router and splitter now. mabdul 08:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

requests for multiple redirects at once

Resolved

 – Implemented in v4.1.16rc1. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 01:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm seeing things like == Redirect request: [[Kuehtai]], [[Kuehtai Saddle]] and [[Kuhtai]] == being proposed at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects with multiple proposed names redirected to the same target page. This is breaking WP:AFCH as it fails to see this as a request for three different redirects to the same target, instead processing it as == Redirect request: [[Kuehtai, Kuehtai Saddle and Kuhtai]] == (which probably was *not* what the original user intended to request). Is this a bug, or should I be requesting the user break these into separate, independent requests for each redirect? K7L (talk) 04:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:AFCH and requests

Should all requests be formatted in a manner that WP:AFCH knows? K7L (talk · contribs) seems to be implying that on WP:AFC/R ; if that is the case, the number of headers and repetitive text on AFC/R could greatly increase, and possibly trigger the spam edit filters. -- 65.92.180.171 (talk) 07:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:AFCH seemed to want the request for Kuehtai, Kuehtai Saddle and Kuhtai → Kühtai Saddle to be three separate requests for three individual redirects, one at a time. Put them in one big request and it makes Kuehtai, Kuehtai Saddle and Kuhtai → Kühtai Saddle (which I actually did inadvertently create with WP:AFCH yesterday, only to have to ask that the admins speedily delete it as it's obviously not what the original poster intended). I don't see anything here which would trigger a spam filter, though, as those are usually watching for links to known-problematic external sites (the usual payload for spambots) or clear vandalism (such as blanking huge chunks of article text with expletives). K7L (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

You're asking people to break the request down into a separate request for each redirect. That will trigger the spam filter, because of multiple repetitive similar additions over a short period of time. It will also increase the number of sections and headers by a large amount if there is a flurry of such requests. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 05:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

---

These bugs (both the multi-redirect request and the empty request) are fixed in the development version. See below for why they are delayed. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 00:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Empty requests too? o.O mabdul 08:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I do wonder how this got broken in the first place. The last AFCH version I wrote did support multiple redirects in the same section. T. Canens (talk) 08:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

That was my fault: i tried to change the code so that it also understood/understands wrongly placed AFC submissions and empty requests, but sadly I broke the code. I reverted the change in any beta, maybe the code was also reverted in the stable (don't ask me, it is "ages ago). I will work on that when I have stable internet access and my flat moving is over. mabdul 09:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

release candidate

Unresolved

 – Working on all three for v4.1.16rc2. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 16:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm currently running a "release candidate" version of the AFCH script (importScript('User:Nathan2055/afc releasecandidate.js');) and am able to review at the moment but am seeing the following issues:

• The 'comment' button, when reviewing an article, allows me to enter a comment but then stops at "got token..." when I try to save that comment to the page
• Requests for any new categories on WP:AFC/R review are appearing at least twice on the list when prompting to accept/decline/comment/ignore. This only affects categories, not redirects.
• The 'done' button on WP:AFC/R review intermittently stops working entirely. K7L (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The old one with the jumping decline button seems to be working fine for me now. --  :- ) Don 01:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks to be a problem with the release candidate... when reviewing redirects, the titles appear blue even if the proposed names don't already exist and the 'Done' botton does nothing at all. I see that at least one reviewer is still running some version of AFCH at WP:AFC/R so it's likely the old version is still at least usable. K7L (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I did modify some of the code for AFC/R, that could have busted something. As stated above, I will test it. As well, the fact that comments aren't working is a known bug, and I have the code to fix it, but I haven't had time to implement it. I will attempt to write and push both later today. If there are any more bugs, please don't hesitate to report them so I can make sure the release is working. Thanks, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 16:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

biography of non-living persons

I'd reviewed a biography of a non-living person using the release-candidate script, checked the "is a biography" and set "is a living person" to dead, dead, dead. I put the dates of birth and death in the respectful pine boxes. The article was created with all persondata except the date/place of death and the subject placed in category:living people. Is this some sort of zombie script that brings dead biographical subjects back to life? Yikes. K7L (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Mmh, thanks. That part of the script was mostly untested... Easy to fix, maybe nathan does it, otherwise "we" have to wait until I get net access... mabdul 08:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

biography of non-living persons

PLEASE RELEASE ENTRY OF ANDREAS GEORGIOU THOMAS

I have cited references. Let me know if there is anything else that needs doing. Many thanks, Christos Christos Evangeli (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

You're in the wrong place but the Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Andreas_Georgiou_Thomas question was addressed at the help desk on September 9: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#Andreas_Gergiou_Thomas. Any further discussion should remain there. K7L (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Having troubles submitting declines again

My decline never went through at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Deborah Perry Piscione, my attempt at adding a "marked as reviewing" tag also never went through. SwisterTwister talk 04:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:JSERROR. T. Canens (talk) 05:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Shall I note #5 here? SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Usually, yes (only things related to the helper script, of course). In this case though, it's because the AfC template was broken. Fixed. T. Canens (talk) 06:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I assumed that may have been the problem. Thanks! SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Robin Andrews

Robin Andrews is currently the Supervisor for the Town of Claverack in the heart of Columbia County. In 2010, after serving as a Philmont Village Board Trustee for three years, Robin defied the odds and was elected the Claverack Town Supervisor in a town with an overwhelming Republican majority. She became the first Democrat to hold the position in over 35 years, and is also Claverack’s first female Supervisor. As a Supervisor, she sits on the County Board of Supervisors and serves there as Deputy Minority Leader of the Columbia County Board of Supervisors and Deputy Chair of Health/Medical Services Committee. She also sits on the Economic Development/Agricultural, Negotiations, Insurance and Budget & Salary Committees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Politicker51 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, this is the wrong place; the draft User:Politicker51/Robin andrews is already awaiting review (but since there's a massive backlog of unreviewed submissions, that may take some time; please be patient). Secondly, you need to show Andrews has received significant coverage in reliable sources (such as newspaper coverage, preferably not just the local paper) to establish her notability and to allow our readers to verify your draft's content. Huon (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The Jayden Show

the jayden show welcome to jayden valley a 10 year old boy name jayden ali taylor my show is on september 6 2002 and the show was over on june 8 2007 but the evil verison of jayden try to rule the world the logos where brookwell mcnamra dna and walt disney television animation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.6.14.253 (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia will not accept silly joke articles, please visit Wikipedia:Introduction, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Tutorial to learn how to properly edit Wikipedia. However, if you truly are 10 years old, please visit Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors and return when you have matured. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

When they just won't give up

What do we do when the submitter just won't give up? The creator of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Taming The Restless Mind continually submits this article, with hardly any reformatting. I learned that this person actually wrote the book that the article is for, which I believe to be poor Wiki form to begin with? — WylieCoyote (talk) 16:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I tagged it. Let's see what happens. --  :- ) Don 17:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Had I slept in the past 24 hours, I would've known to do that. — WylieCoyote (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Might be of interest

Reviewers might be interested in Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Can an Article for creation submission be speedied under an A criteria?. France3470 (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I gave my $0.02! — WylieCoyote (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I have commented on that discussion, with some interest. What I'm now curious about is what happens to articles that are declined and stay declined. I can see that Category:Declined AfC submissions has 68,166, which is a lot. Are all of those really actively being looked after right now? Is there any easy way of sorting that lot by date? --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Just added this to the CSD discussion but I'll put it here to. Category:AfC submissions by date contains all the submissions. Excluding active submissions (which is essentially just the September 2012 cat) all those submissions will be declines or draft articles not submitted for review. France3470 (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Current status of things

So, where are we now? I have gotten information on how to fix the major bugs in v4.1.16rc1 of AFCH, but my main computer gave in a few days ago and is completly down until we find a computer store who has graphics cards for a ~6-year old computer. However, I really am most likely not going to be able to make many edits until I get my programming machine with GNU/Linux on it around Christmas. I've given mabdul much of the info he needs to patch the release candidate and hopefully go for an October release of v4.1.16. Sorry for any trouble, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 18:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Good news! We've patched the system and I'm ready to rock and roll for v4.1.16rc2. I will get it out in a few days. Happy testing, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 03:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

How to accept an article

Hello! I am a new participant of this project, and I just finished reviewing an article. I read the instructions for accepting an article, but I don't know how to "move it into the main space". I would appreciate some help :) Thanks! AFisch99 (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Which article are you working on? The last one I can see is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/9front, but that's got a number of primary sources, and only the SD Times reference has any real "meat" to contribute towards notability, so I personally would probably decline that as "v" (Unsourced or unreliable sources) or "nn" (not notable). The Reviewing instructions page tells you what to do, but by far the easiest way to review stuff is to install AFCH, instructions of which are on that page. Then it's just a matter of clicking a few buttons. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Like I said, I'm pretty new. That was the one, so I guess I'll do like you said. :) AFisch99 (talk) 18:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

To answer the initial question about moving a page, the button to move a page is rather well-hidden to the left of the search bar. When you move a page, you can change both its name and, as a separate option, the namespace (in this case from "Wikipedia talk" to the main article namespace). Huon (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Huon. That's definitely good to know. AFisch99 (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Moving accepted/declined submissions out of the pending category

Hi, all. I was browsing through the articles in the AfC:Pending category and noticed that a lot of them had recently been changed from "pending" to "declined." I'm not sure what the protocols are concerning non-admins editing things like this, but would it be acceptable/appropriate for me (or any regular user) to go through these and move them from one category to another? Without making any judgment calls regarding the article's worth, of course. RunnerOnIce (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Never mind-- I just figured out that there isn't an actual category for declined pages. Sorry about that-- again, new to this. RunnerOnIce (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

How to tag in this situation?

This article for creation has been submitted and rejected SEVEN times: Singdam_Kiatmuu9. What is the appropriate course of action? I thought three times was the limit, given that the re-submissions don't address the problems cited by prior reviewers. --FeralOink (talk) 09:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I've just blanked it - they can either start again, or just give up. Mdann52 (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Someone smarter than me please deal with this?

We have two totally different articles about the same person moved to AfC from the same User/sandbox one month apart and both being edited. One declined and one awaiting review. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Atiya (2) & Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Atiya --  :- ) Don 20:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)  Editor dealt with problem. --  :- ) Don 17:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

AFCH messed up

I don't think this is supposed to happen... What's going on, how can I fix it? Rcsprinter (yak) @ 11:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Aww, crap. I thought I fixed that. Are you running the stable or the release candidate? --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 15:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't know, but probably the stable because I haven't touched my js page in ages. Rcsprinter (constabulary) @ 17:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed, will push in the next update. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 01:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Script problem

Hi, anyone else having the problem that declining as a duplicate or copyvio doesn't present you with a requester to input a URL or article name? Jarkeld (talk) 12:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

That's not a bug, as that isn't implemented as a feature yet. However, I'll put that on the list for the next update. In the meantime, just put the URL in the comment box. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 01:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

'Cause it should be one, two, three declines, you're out!

Jokes aside, as visible by many talk page comments here and elsewhere we are getting submitters who are resubmitting articles SEVEN TIMES IN A ROW with no changes. I believe we need a rule for this, how about after three declines with no changes we slam down some kind of protection where they have to demonstrate their edits in some kind of a sandbox before they can resubmit? Any suggestions would be appreciated. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 15:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that would work, now your reviewing chain submissions of a sandbox, to see if they can resubmit the AfC? Either the sandboxes become a purgatory that are ignored in favor of the queue, and a death sentence for the article, or the same work is done reviewing them as the regular submissions. Monty₈₄₅ 15:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

If they submit it three times and it is declined for the same reason each time, I automatically CSD tag the page, as it constitutes disruptive editing. It works, and I cannot recall ever hearing a complaint from anyone about this practice. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

So, I guess we should just CSD the article if there are more than three declines? I'd be happy to work on implementing that into AFCH if there is consensus. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 16:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I've tried "Three times your out" twice in the past. Good luck. --  :- ) Don 17:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I also suggested one submit per a 24 hour period. --  :- ) Don 18:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• While I agree in your idea in principle (I might even cut it to two with no changes), I also echo the sentiments that there isn't a good technical way to do it. I think the best way would be to CSD the articles that are continually resubmitted pbp 19:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

If you can't get a CSD to fly, then you have to go through MFD. Been there, done that. --  :- ) Don 05:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• Or if it is repeatedly resubmitted without changes, than you also ask semi-protection at WP:RFPP with that rationale. I have done that one time. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 18:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Weirdness at User talk:Example

Hello AFC reviewers! First off thanks to all of you for your work here, this is a vital project and you efforts are very much appreciated.

Now to what brought me here today. I just noticed several postings about declined AFC submissions at User talk:Example. I'm assuming this is some sort of good faith error as this account is.... an example and has but one edit from 2005. What I am not clear about is why it is happening at all, maybe someone more familiar with the AFC process can find the issue and rectify it? It would be a shame for users who submitted here not to get the important messages about the reviews of their submissions. If it is testing, which it doesn't actually look like, note that there is a dedicated space for testing user talk messages at User talk:Sandbox for user warnings. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. My guess is that some people manually reviewing, are following the Example Documentation a little to closely, since the user name in all the documentation is set to Example. I will update the documentation ASAP. And take care of any current misplaced templates. Thanks again. --  :- ) Don 04:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

It can't be just that. I've used the script before and accidentally templated the example page in the past. Unfortunately, I can't recall specifics as to when or why it seemed to happen. --Nouniquenames 06:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's a pair of diffs. I was using the gadget and declined here, resulting in this note to the example talk page. --Nouniquenames —Preceding undated comment added 06:31 23 September 2012

Smells like a bug. --  :- ) Don 20:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

That's not the script. The edit summary isn't correct for a script edit, and the script can't decline in userspace (yet, working out the bugs to release that in v4.1.16rc2). Are you sure that's AFCH? --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 01:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I think I get it. Pges not in the Wikipedia talk namespace can't be declined by the script. I copy and paste decline templates (in whole) from the reviewer's guide. Those templates contain the username "Example" (as a placeholder, I assume). Any notification attempt then causes notice to User talk:Example instead of the appropriate user's page. Completely pebkac. --Nouniquenames 16:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, not very many of the templates work well outside of WT:Articles for creation.

Well I'm glad to see my update to the reviewing instructions worked well. Now they are all being added to User:user instead of User:Example. I even put one each header "DO NOT TOUCH" the "u" or "ns" parameter. The instructions at this point say "Use this template", it should say "modify the existing template to look like this", or "add the parameter so as to look like this". I need to add to the instructions, modify the existing template do not copy it. I hate to be a biter, but I think people with 23 edits should not be reviewing at AfC. --  :- ) Don 00:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I fixed up the decline instructions. Could one or more people have a look to see that they are now exactly explained and no ambiguity exists. Please. --  :- ) Don 00:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Question about quality of writing

If an article under review is just written poorly, is that reason enough to decline it? CharmlessCoin (talk) 17:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

As long as it's understandable, a cleanup tag seems a better solution that declining it. Huon (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Accepting an article

Hey, so I've spent a decent amount of time today going through submissions, marking ones for decline, etc. I found one that I thought should be accepted, and tried to move it accordingly, but I couldn't figure out how to do it. Am I missing something somewhere? Is it that only admins can move pages? If so, is there a way to flag it? RunnerOnIce (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

You should be able to simply use the 'Move' feature at the top of your browser (if you don't yet have the fancy AfC reviewer script). You just need to make sure the name of the article is appropriate and also manually add the AfC project template to the new article's Talk page. Sionk (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Awesome, got it. Thank yoU! RunnerOnIce (talk) 21:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

KESHAVRAOJI SITARAM SONAVANE

Please don't spam this page with article submissions - it has been added to the "to review" list. Mdann52 (talk) 10:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

This cite keeps showing our AfC submissions

[1] Anything that can be done? --  :- ) Don 18:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Nothing we can do. They don't have to comply with noindex. (BTW, you seem to be referencing too much for your own sanity) --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 21:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Is it not possible to "NOFOLLOW" the AfC directories? They ignore that also? --  :- ) Don 22:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

They get database dumps and thus mirror Wikipedia with all the organization stuff. See also WP:MIRROR: Through our license (GFDL and CC-BY-SA) they are simply allowed to do this. And it doesn't harm. mabdul 11:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

AFAIK the CC-BY-SA licence means I could cut and paste any article and append why I completely disagree with it, throw a bit of foul language on top, and stick it on a website, without breaking it. Of course, I'd hope most people have the nous to see that for what it is and ignore it! --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Okidoki, curious. Thanks. --  :- ) Don 17:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Help!!

Can someone explain what a hybrid case means? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.97.3.254 (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but without further context this question is essentially meaningless. A hybrid case of what? If this is in relation to a specific Wikipedia page, please indicate which page you are concerned about. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Clarify which help desk, etc

I'm not an AfC regular but have observed the muddle at the help desk about a recent AfC decline. Looking at the templated display in the declined article, I wonder whether the suggestion "If you require extra help, ask a question at the help desk." could be made clearer by saying "If you require extra help, ask a question at the Articles for Creation help desk." Yes, the link goes there, but it might be useful to draw attention to the fact that this is a different place from the general Help Desk. The editor involved here would have been more likely to get useful advice on the project Help Desk, rather than the general one, but may not have been aware of the former. PamD 08:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

And the same applies to the user talk page message. PamD 08:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

And is there any way that the link to the Reviewer's talk page could create an automatic subject heading linking to the article (as it does for the AfC helpdesk), so that Reviewers know why they've got the message? Or alternatively, add to the template a reminder: "Please be sure to provide a link to this article in your message". By definition we are helping inexperienced Wikipedians here, who aren't yet familiar with good practice like this: let's help them, and the readers of their messages. PamD 08:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done PamD's first suggestion.  Not done the last one - it looks like we need a template for it, or each individual editor needs a special "User talk:Example/edit intro" page for it. Mdann52 (talk) 10:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for speedy response and action! Sounds as if my second suggestion isn't practical. Perhaps the low-tech option I suggested would be worthwhile, then - put a note in that template to say "Please be sure to provide a link to this article in your message" (or something more concise) alongside the suggestion to email the reviewer? PamD 10:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Mdann52 (talk) 12:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem with encouraging "e-mail the reviewer" is that users will submit a corporate autobiography, it will be rejected, they will complain to the reviewer and then resubmit the same WP:SPAM again... only to complain to the next reviewer when it's rejected as advertising again. I've seen the same poster go to three different users' talk pages after an advertisement has been rejected by three different reviewers, wasting the time of each of these people to explain and re-explain WP:ADV and WP:COI. Sending all of these to one place (AFC help desk) instead of having them backscatter to the individual reviewers may reduce the temptation to make duplicate protests on having an ad declined as a Wikipedia article. There's a lot of "reviewer shopping" by which the same copy is merely resubmitted repeatedly without fixing the original problem (in some cases, like a biographical subject or a company of mercenaries writing about themselves, the only fix is to leave the task of writing the page to someone WP:NEUTRAL.) K7L (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

braegen and the hand- the band

i just recently found this new band online and i would like to know more about them besides just their music. like, where did they come from? and what their real names are. im sorry if i put this in the wrong place. ive never used wikipedia for anything except looking up stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.73.159 (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I doubt there's enough from reliable sources for Wikipedia to create an article on this topic; a web search finds plenty on Youtube, Facebook, DeviantArt or the band's own sites but no coverage in mainstream news outlets. You could try the reference desk (as this page is for reviewers of new articles from new users to discuss WP:AFC itself, and is not a reference desk). K7L (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

copyvios in articles being posted for creation

Rgdem999 (talk · contribs) has been an enthusiastic contributor here on the subject of V and W class destroyers (see as per his contributions). However while working through some of them I have come across a number of copyright violations. See for example HMS Valorous (1917) (the version before my edits here) and this source). Lines like

'HMS Valorous was one of the unsung escorts which protected coastal convoys throughout WW2. This work received little detailed publicity but was very hazardous, as evidenced by the number of ship structures which could be seen off the East coast for many years after the end of WW2. She was paid off and placed in Reserve after VJ Day. She was put on the Disposal List in 1946 and sold for breaking-up on 4th March 1947 at Thornaby.'

have been lifted and pasted in verbatim. It is only recently, and at other users urging, that Rgdem999 has begun to properly cite his submissions, and these copyvios have started to be picked up on. A full Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations may need to be launched. In the meantime, and seeing that this user has a number of articles pending for creation here, can users be very careful in checking these submissions for copyvios, and perhaps consider pausing the creation of articles the user is submitting, until this can be checked out in detail. Benea (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyright checks

Does the workflow here involve any checks for copyright issues? e.g. using tools like Duplication Detector. Have seen a few articles come through here recently that have proved to be problematic. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

IIRC, The Earwig is working on it. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 15:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah... — Earwig ^talk 02:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Astrological aspect (Hindu Astrology)

I recently rejected this article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Astrological aspect (Hindu Astrology), and the user who wrote it is arguing that it should be accepted. As I'm new on this part of the wikipedia project, I request if anyone can help out a bit, trying to give a more clear feedback on the article (which will also help me to understand this decline/acceptance idea).Jorgecarleitao (talk) 11:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I dealt with that article and its creator on the help desk some time ago. I agree that the content should be merged into Hindu astrology. The current draft relies on sources that are extremely difficult to find (the source for the definition of "aspect" is available in the British Library, but not in the Library of Congress, for example), it still does a very bad job of explaining what aspects in Hindu astrology are in the first place, it has multiple other issues. I don't even think all the sources provided agree on the astrological significance of aspects - a fact that's ignored by the draft. I'm almost tempted to write a short, well-sourced article on the subject myself, but I know too little about Hindu astrology to do so. If this draft were to be accepted, it would immediately have to be plastered with cleanup tags, and the Hindu astrology article should contain a summary anyway. It seems better to start with that summary and to spin off a new article only if it becomes too large for that place. Huon (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

It appears that in the article Hindu astrology many of the sections are expanded by a main article. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Astrological aspect (Hindu Astrology) would seem to fit as a main article for section 2.7 (Drishtis – the planetary aspects). However the term "Drishtis" does not appear in the "Astrological aspect" article. If the articles don't belong together or are unrelated is something I don't know. Perhaps the author could enlighten us? --  :- ) Don 16:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)  author contacted --  :- ) Don 16:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

After discussing this with the author, unless there are major objections I will approve this article and link the aspect section Indian astrology to it as a Main article. That was basically the idea the author had when they read the Article on Indian astrology, the conversation is here. --  :- ) Don 04:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Interlanguage links and other questions

I'm new to AfC review. In reviewing Cape Town Spurs, after cleaning up some bare URLs I can't get an interlanguage link ([[pt:Cape Town Spurs]]) out of the article body into the sidebar where it belongs. Think it's a formatting problem, but I can't figure out what's wrong. When I tried to move the article into mainspace, an error message said the title was a redirect (I know, I forgot to check first). While I ended up declining (with a suggestion to merge), what should I do with a redirect page in the future? One more thing—should redlinked categories be removed? Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Interlanguage links only are moved to the sidebar if you're not on a (whatever)_talk: page, so that can be safely ignored. Once the article is moved out of talk space, "in other languages" will work. If you need to make a redirect go away to make way for a new article, drop {{db-move}} on the redirect page and an admin will take care of it. Redlinked categories should likely be replaced with valid categories or removed. In this case, Category:Defunct soccer clubs in South Africa‎ appears to be the one that replaced the redlinked category on the draft article. K7L (talk) 18:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Miniapolis (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Declined AfC posted as accepted in main article space

I went to decline Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sierra Media (Dup 8) (Originally titled Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dup 8) using the automated review tool gadget "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", provided a reason for the declination from the pull-down menu, saved and then the article published in mainspace. This occurred using Google Chrome. I've noticed some changes to the appearance of edit pages (the page that appears when content is being edited) when using Google Chrome. Perhaps this is due to changes occurring in Google Chrome. When declining in the future, I'll do so manually until this matter is cleared-up, or try using another browser. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

This may be your imagination in that I keep finding the same article in AfC, sandboxes, and Main space. --  :- ) Don 01:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't understand anything you are saying. Could you explain the bug a bit more so that I try and fix it? --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 18:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• Update - Just declined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Humber Students' Federation (HSF) using the "Yet Another AFC Helper Script" with Google Chrome, and it worked fine this time around. Seems to be in order. Struck the header above per the functionality at this time. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

American Ninjutsu?

Is there a way to just ask a silly question here? Seriously?

Just looking for an article on american ninjutsu. I know it exists. It was around in Ohio and KY back in the 1980s, but I can't find anything on it today. Your "Modern Schools of Ninjutsu" article has stuff that started from 1996 to today, but nothing going back to the 1970s or 1980s, back when the martial arts were really growing in this country.

Seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poekoelan (talk • contribs) 18:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

This is the wrong place. Try the reference desk instead. But the Modern Schools of Ninjutsu article does seem to cover some 1970s and 1980s schools in the US, such as Frank Dux' school. Huon (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Dude, how did the Frank Dux article even make it here? It does not even tell where the guy was born or raised or anything. There's nothing about the guy's life to lead up to his becoming a martial artist.

And, back to the point, that Modern Schools of Ninjutsu article gives no info on all of the splinter schools and rivals that popped up around the initial focus here in the US. The ninja craze here started pretty much in the Mid-west, where Stephen Hayes grew his org, so there were dozens of other schools touting ninjutsu in that area, as well as the hundreds that sprouted up in the surrounding states of that region, like Kentucky and Indiana and Illinois.

Based on your article, there would be no other schools of this kind started in Ohio between Hayes in 1981 and that fake Christa Jacobson in the 1990s. That's a big gap for such an active period.

Plus, you've got schools listed all the way down in South Carolina, but not in any of the states between Ohio and SC. How did the migration occur?

Also, if you look at the article on Ronald Duncan of the "Way of the Winds" school, he was actually in the US teaching ninjutsu before Hayes! He is even referred to in your own article as the "Father of American Ninjutsu." So, why is he not in your list of modern ninjutsu schools?

Poekoelan (talk) 12:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Poekoelan

You're definitely asking this in the wrong place; it's unlikely that an individual reviewer on WP:AFC is going to just happen to be the author of every Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts article on the site, or of the specific articles you want to expand. You could try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts (which looks at least semi-active) or on the talk: pages of the original articles; you could also try researching the missing information from other sources outside Wikipedia, then adding the info here with a WP:CITE indicating where you got the data. If there's nothing between OH and SC, likely that's just because no individual user (which could be anyone, even you) has bothered to dig up the info and write something up. K7L (talk) 13:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Do Newbies have too much power?

How are users doing this: [2]? Can we stop it?

Another issue for which nothing can probably be done, is Newbies moving pages. I have seen moves to 3 or 4 different namespaces before they got it moved into Main space. Where it promptly gets CSD'ed.

The sandbox submission was a good idea, but it has had many bad, unintended consequences. I'm not sure what can be done at this point, but I seem to be doing more disaster recovery than reviewing. --  :- ) Don 16:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Auto-confirmed users have always been able to move pages to article space, haven't they? Well, if they want to risk the wrath of the NPP or passing deletionists, so be it. As for the sandbox issue, it's a fairly simple job to move the draft to the correct place, using the link on the 'review request' box. I can live with that. Sionk (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the problem with the linked edit. Sure it was not what the user wanted, sure it required some sort of revert, but unless you want the user unable to edit his own userspace, what could possibly be done to prevent it? We cannot expect new users not to screw up, and we cannot (and should not) prevent every possibility of a screw-up - that would be much too restrictive.

Regarding page moves, my experience is rather the opposite: Newbies users who can move pages still tend not to do so. The option is rather well-hidden, and most probably aren't even aware of it. Regarding those who manage to move their own articles into the fangs of CSD: Too bad, but we cannot hold everybody's hand. I'd be more concerned about users whose bad submissions manage not to be spotted by NPP. Huon (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I look at a pathname like "User:Ngpkate/New_Generation_Publishing" and see "Kate from NGP (New Generation Publishing) is submitting an ad for NGP (New Generation Publishing)". It's problematic as WP:COI with or without the sandboxes. The "submit from sandbox" concept is problematic, though, but for other reasons. It's creating duplicates of failed article proposals (user creates a sandbox article, it's moved to WP:AFC space and rejected, user creates the same thing again as another sandbox page so we now have two versions of the same proposal) and the WP:AFCH script refuses to even look at these as proposed articles until they're moved to the proper location. There's also the problem that article proposals named 'user:whomever/sandbox' can't be moved automatically (for want of a proper name) as we already have a page titled sandbox in both mainspace and AfC. In retrospect, I'd prefer that the "my sandbox" template didn't contain links to put {{subst:submit}} onto sandbox pages.--K7L (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm missing something somewhere. How was the user able to submit a user page to AfC(apparently automatically)? It is not a sandbox there is no template or script. What am I missing?

I have been replacing sandbox submissions with the text shown, so they don't continually resubmit. Using the template link to move the article creates more problems. The user wonders, "What the hell happened to my sandbox?' Thanks. --  :- ) Don 22:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Copy and paste seems one possible explanation. Looking at an old version of the page which still had a sandbox template and using its "submit" link probably has the same effect. Huon (talk) 02:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, but I think they would have had to save an intermediate revision and then clicked submit, because the time stamp is correct. I hate mysteries. --  :- ) Don 07:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Scary. You can do it by going back to a page with the submit link, do a copy link, and then paste it into the address bar. Mystery solved, maybe, but what will they figure out next? --  :- ) Don 07:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It's still happening...

Um, right. :P Theopolisme 21:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that was my mistake which I rectified at the time it happened, but I did a copy and paste instead of a cut and paste. I have cleaned the page. Thanks. --  :- ) Don 22:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, the one you did... Hummm. --  :- ) Don 22:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

In this edit [3]. Then user name was changed to User. --  :- ) Don 23:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, brilliant. That makes sense. *headdesk* Theopolisme 03:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

pre-populate biographies with 'infobox person'

Would it be feasible to have the Article Wizard automagically drop an empty {{infobox person}} onto every new biography, ready for the page author to fill out? It would seem that Wikipedia:Article wizard/Subject asks whether the user wants to create an article on a company, a person, a website, a musician or something else but that information is soon discarded. All of these target wizard pages (once one ignores the various malicious dead ends) ultimately follow the same path through sources and content to Wikipedia:Article wizard/Ready for submission without "remembering" what exactly the user wanted to create.

The {{infobox person}} is the most relevant of this set as most of what is submitted to WP:AFC seems to fall into this category.

In the absence of an extension like #arg: (which is not available on Wikipedia) there's no clean, easy way to pass info to the subsequent pages in the wizard to indicate that the new page should be pre-populated with a skeleton {{infobox person}}, {{infobox company}}, {{infobox musician}} or {{infobox website}}. It looks like the only way to "remember" that the user wants to create a biography is to create duplicated versions of every subsequent wizard page Wikipedia:Article wizard/Sources/bio, Wikipedia:Article wizard/Content/bio and Wikipedia:Article wizard/Ready for submission/bio which would differ from the existing steps only in that the {{AfC preload}} or {{Afc preload/draft}} used to create the page is replaced with a customised version at the end. K7L (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• While this might be a good idea for articles on (for instance) cities, where an infobox is usually appropriate, I would strongly oppose this in the case of biographies. It would give new editors the impression that infoboxes are preferred, or even mandatory, which simply isn't the case, and the new editors would then potentially be confused and upset when they "did everything right", and someone else then came along and removed the infobox as inappropriate. Infoboxes are intended for those situations where the article topic can be summarized as a few key indicators - while they work for athletes, pop singers etc where their career can be defined in terms of statistics, they're just not appropriate for biographies of people with a complicated life story that doesn't easily 'boil down'. See articles as varied as Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, Benjamin Mountfort, George Washington Dixon, Daniel Lambert, John Barbirolli, Fairfax Harrison, Charles Domery and Robert Sterling Yard for instance - all infobox-free, and all Featured Articles. From a dip-sample of WP:FA it looks like the majority of non-sporting biographies are infobox-free - while FAs certainly aren't the be-all and end-all they can reasonably be taken to represent Wikipedia standard practice on article formatting. Mogism (talk) 10:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

For new biographies, the box serves as a checklist for basic info (such as hometown or date of birth) which may be missing. That doesn't mean that the article on Fairfax Harrison (which has the box) is better or worse than others you list which do not, because usually before an article gets to FA any missing info would have been tracked down and added long ago. The templates generate the hCard microformat and make it easier to do things like calculating age from date of birth or placing biographies into categories like Category:1900 births, but the calculated age may only be of use on WP:BLP pages. K7L (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Concern

Currently, AfC seems to require submitters to prove notability with citations, and if they don't, their work can be declined. Take a look at this decline reason in the AFCH template:

"This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the general guideline on notability and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia."

I'm wondering why this is, since this is exactly opposite of what WP:N requires. See WP:NRVE:

"The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable."

Also from NRVE:

"Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet."

And WP:NNC:

"...if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability."

Is there something to explain this discrepancy? I don't always bring things like this up, except I think I am objective in saying that it is a pretty big, and obvious, issue. There seems to be a legitimate concern that we have stepped into WP:CONLIMITED territory. NTox · talk 15:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Most likely, the suggestion to attempt to keep an article where sources exist but were not cited is aimed at some other forum, such as WP:AFD, where the existence of sources can be used to argue to delay a deletion for long enough that these problems can be fixed. That would include pages like Pnivne, an utterly useless substub on en: but likely salvageable by stealing uk:Пнівне and ru:Пневно's content and sources were someone who knows the language to intervene. To have WP:AFC accept articles which aren't yet ready (as they're missing references) only to have them land on WP:AFD, WP:PROD or WP:CSD is not constructive. It's best to fix problems before they get to mainspace. K7L (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

If that is the case, the notability guideline should probably be modified to inform that the principle of verifiable evidence is not broadly endorsed at AfC, and there it's more about verified evidence. Compare with how BLPs are described in WP:PERFECTION. I see the point that assessing notability more strictly before mainspace can pre-empt problems, and that may be a consensus, but for it to so clearly challenge larger practice should be explained - in part because this has the potential to really confuse a lot of people. NTox · talk 15:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I have seen cases where a decline has been challenged by an IP because, although weakly sourced by a single reference (usually enough to decline on notability grounds), the article's subject implicitly meets some other guidelines such as WP:NFOOTY. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd expect most WP:NFOOTY articles would also fall within WP:BLP, which imposes some of the most stringent requirements for sourcing and citations of any Wikipedia category. An improperly-sourced biography of a living person is a quick-fail. K7L (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• I support the current wording there. The point of AfC is to get an article that will stay in WP, not an article that the new editor will have to immediately defend. Articles at AfD which are challenged as unreferenced do routinely get deleted if nobody can find anything after a reasonable effort, or give some good explanation why the refs are temporarily unfindable. The present wording of the notability guideline is intended to prevent people from deleting stuff because of fixable omissions--the ultimate policy remains WP:V, just as it should, because without it we'd just be a web directory or a gossip site. The Notability guideline is how we go about interpreting it. It is true we do not immediately delete articles which lack references , nor should we, but neither should we encourage people to make them. When I (and every single admin I know) explain things to people whose articles we've deleted as A7, we don't just say, make sure to assert something so it doesn't get speedied, but be sure to include references so it stays in Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I understand. And I think those are good reasons, with a nice holism. I am only concerned about the implications of oversimplifying guidelines and the effects that can have on editors, especially new ones, which are more impressionable. I see articles prodded routinely for 'not having citations that prove notability'. This is a labor cost (because people must de-prod if these articles are simply missing citations), and these misunderstanding often derive from someone having bended the guidelines to educate newcomers, even in the best of good faith. +The point about preventing people from deleting stuff when there are fixable omissions, as you describe -- the intent of the current wording of WP:N -- is precisely a concern I have about AfC. People declining articles when there are only simple omissions that if rectified could make a good article. After all, many submitters don't muster the effort to try again when their stuff is declined, but their articles could have worked. Something to think about. NTox · talk 06:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

If these are minor formatting errors ( such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link instead of [[ link ]] or section header instead of == Section header == ) on an otherwise-viable article, those are normally fixed instead of rejecting the piece and having it languish for a week or two on the bottom of the pile as a resubmission. The same is not true if an article needs extensive work (for instance, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Children's Museum of the Lowcountry is a mess of unsourced, POV or irrelevant text and reads like self-promotion, but a search of the local fishwrap in that town says the topic itself is perfectly valid). Rewriting the entire page, sticking to the info actually in the newspaper or the couple of brief local TV mentions, would likely salvage the piece... but it's not the sort of task one can expect to be done during a WP:AFC review when there are over 1200 articles awaiting review. It's unfortunate that a problematic article on a valid topic gets the same tags (needs sources, is worded like an advert) as that great article about my new garage band that really deserves to be on the main page right now... but if a salvageable page needs a full rewrite that can't be done trivially in a few minutes, about all that can be done is decline and ask the author to fix the issues. Creating a problematic article on a valid topic, only to have it land on {{db-promo}}, only makes things more difficult for subsequent editors who must try to establish that the next attempt at a page is not merely a recreation of one prematurely moved to mainspace and then deleted. K7L (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Error with the template

Good day, I'm not a reviewer, but I try to help as I can on the IRC channel and that same question came up often. The user clicks to mark his article ready for review, so the appropriate template is added at the bottom of the article. However, the old article saying the article is not yet submitted for review remains at the top. Could somebody look into that please? See [4] or [5]. Thanks, Amqui (talk) 03:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

That's normal - it just adds a new section to the end of the page, and leaves the old template - I think a bot sorts it out eventually... Mdann52 (talk) 12:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

It is normal, but it is confusing to new users... some of whom will re-submit the same page repeatedly or even copy-paste the entire text of their article again under the new box so that the mess awaiting review is multiple copies of the same article on the same page. Another thing to watch: if a page opens tags such as <ref> and then fails to close them, everything beyond the mismatch tag (including the resubmission tags and the list of references for the page) will not appear. That happens often enough to be something to watch for. I suspect the implementation of these tags is kludgy because what we have is all MediaWiki can easily do, though. K7L (talk) 12:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

We added a huge notice explaining this in the templated edit notice. The ref tags will also appear on the radar in the new version of AFCH. We also have AfCBot manually fixing that, though I eventually hope to get an automated AFCH implementation going under NathanBot. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 21:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

It is indeed very confusing for beginners. All they see is "you're article had been rejected", while what they wanted to do is resubmitting it for review. The first thing that a beginner thinks when he sees that is "oh, the submission didn't work". It should be look at. Amqui (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Absurd group of pseduo-explanations above. This is fixable. It should be very easily fixable. Why on earth leave it for a bot? Is the software incapable of positioning a cursor? (And I cannot imagine the designer to put the keep the old information highly visible and hide the new information at the bottom in the first place. ) DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, short of running JavaScript on the user's machine (the way, for instance, HotCat or other gadgets do), all we can do is "edit page", "edit section" or add a new section at the end of the page. In all cases, the cursor position is at the upper-left (beginning of whatever is being added or edited). That said, however, perhaps the default position for *all* of these boxes (including the previous rejections) should be at the end of that page. That big red box at the top of the page is ugly. K7L (talk) 15:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I am wondering, though, if the JavaScript for "collapse this box by default unless it's the only one on the page" which appears on many of the mainspace infoboxes could be applied to collapse all of the previous rejections on a resubmitted article so that they occupy just one line each? K7L (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, you guys don't appear to be understanding so I'll try to explain it better. Currently, we use a special link system to open a new section page similar to what you use on talk pages. The user then files the submission and a few hours later, one of our bots updates it. We have two giant notices stating that it won't delete it. Because the WMF seems to be spending it's time on stupid things such as Wikilove, AFT, and the new edit window they haven't found the bug that multiple WikiProjects filed to have this changed and sections addable to the top of a page. This could be changed if we did what I wanted to do and rewrote the article wizard in JavaScript similar to what they are doing at DRN. Any suggestions? --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 19:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The editor who posted about this issue does have a point... Many times, people who are trying to create an AfC come in to the -help channel asking if their draft has even been submitted (because they miss the box at the bottom of the page) or I'll go to do a Review and find multiple *multiple* AfC Requests at the bottom of a submission. These new editors write their draft up, click the submit button, don't see the "Pending Review" template (where the grey AfC draft box appears), and then hit the Submit button again. (And sometimes it is several agains.) I don't pretend to be a coder or understand much of what goes on in terms of technicalities around Wikipedia, but there is one thing I do understand...how utterly frustrated new editors can get when trying to navigate the AfC process. If we could just fix this one thing? It would really help. Just come and hang out in #wikipedia-en-help for a good long while or do a fair number of AfC Reviews. If this one thing could just get adjusted to the reality of how people actually react to the Wikipedia system, it would lessen a lot of editors' workloads and probably be a step towards helping to increase editor rentention. Shearonink (talk) 03:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, please see [6], 4 templates, very confusing especially for beginners, there must be something to do to make it better even with the tools we have now. The warning message in comment in the edit box is really inadequate for beginners. Amqui (talk) 03:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

A quick update on the development status of AFCH v4.1.16rc2

I'm sorry about the wait, but here is a short update. So far the following fixes have been implemented in the current release candidate (v4.1.16rc1):

• Major cleanup of the code and functions; striking doubled and tripled functions and thus preparing for the FFU functionality
• BLP talk page marking
• More stuff is fixed when running cleanup
• Updated decline interface for the new reviewers
• Updated AfC/R declining
• Fix the color coded buttons
• A small amount of code cleanup in preparation for future updates
• Change to displayed notice when using a non-AJAX compatible browser
• Full implementation of Tim's library
• Fix for the jQuery update bugs

I am working on developing the following fixes for the next build:

• Implement the review tab on all userspace pages
• An about box for when the script is relicensed (will also display the current build of the script)
• Removal of the resubmit buttons until mabdul fixes them
• Rewrite the comments system so as to fix the bugs in leaving comments through the comment system and the mark as under review system

I plan to have the next release candidate (v4.1.16rc2) finished no later than October 3, 2012. Once again, I am very sorry for the delay. Thanks, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 16:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

some real problems

but what about the things we really need:

1. a built-in way of notifying users we have put comments on their candidate articles
2. a built-in way of placing our comments on declines and accepts and comments on the user talk page as well as the article
3. A way of seeing and modify the messages that go onto the user pages before they are placed
4. a way of applying multiple reasons
5. The categories by date need to indicate the status, so previous work can be reviewed
6. The pending submissions needs not just to be sorted with oldest first, as they seem to be at present, but indicate in the category the latest status, including reviewer and date, so work does not get duplicated

The first two of these should be very easy to program. Users need to be informed fully and politely, and when this can be done by software, it should be, The third should be easy also: many templates do it. The fourth of these may be difficult, but it is essential. Most unsatisfactory articles are unsatisfactory for several reasons. If a reviewer gives just one. then there are likely to be repeated rounds of submission, adding to the backlog. If we could deal with the unsatisfactory articles once only, things would be much simpler. I care enough to do all these things manually, which takes much more time, but almost all reviewers just use the built in features. The 5th and 6th will need converting into an actual list. It should be programmable. It's worth it, for it would speed up the work--an urgent need. DGG ( talk ) 22:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Okay:

1. Why do we need that?

   We need that so people will see that they have advice so they can use it to fix their articles. That's the point of the whole project. DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

2. They get a notification on their talk page, it doesn't make since to be redundant.

   Getting the information directly is not being redundant. (It still does need to be on the article page for others to see later. If it were a matter of copying it out in longhand every time, I'd agree the redundancy was harmful). DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

3. That's templated. Once again, that seems redundant.

   Adding something is templated. Checking that it reads the way you want it to is not. DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

4. An interesting idea, but we would have to rewrite the template.

   so go ahead and do it--that;s exactly what I'm asking. DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

5. Not related to the script, but should be relatively trivial to implement.

   Good. Implement it. DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

6. Impossible.

This is another case where people are getting mixed up with the script's capabilities and what's handled by MediaWiki. The only thing I can fix is how the script automatically reviews the submissions. Most of the work is done using MediaWiki. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 23:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

1. Would you care to explain why it's impossible. It could, for example, be done by subcategories. DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Comments:

1. Talkback.
2. It works the way it is, provided review is done AfC and not User space.
3. Edit page is what I do.
4. Too much work right now, IMHO.
5. I don't understand what it is, or it's purpose.
6. Was handled by AfC statistics, but it is currently dormant. It took so much processor time, it could only be run once per hour. It's expanded size was so large, it failed at about 500 submissions over 36 hours. I believe some thought is going into a solution. As an aside, I was planning on ripping out links to AfC statistics, it only sucks up processor and Apache time at the moment.

It appears AFCH is too large to do wholesale fixing. The future for AFCH should be one small upgrade at a time, IMHO. --  :- ) Don 17:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

---

I'd love to re-write AFCH from scratch, but we just don't have enough time or developers right now. If we were able to get more people involved in coding we'd have bigger and better updates. Only time will tell. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 19:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion in your answers here. I am not discussing an ideal wishlist--I'm trying deliberately to limit it to what ought to be quick fixes. I specialize in reviewing troublesome articles, and I do it by the thousands each year at the multiple venues. I think i know what's needed to do my job, though I recognize it can take a while, and I can usually figure out how to work around the deficiencies of anything for my own use, including all the above, though it doesnt help others. But if I took the approach you seem to take I'd never make a serious effort at reviewing anything, but give up in despair, saying , it cant be done perfectly so we're going to leave WP a mess. What you have provided at this point is a procedure that tempts brand new users to wade right it and do things wrong by giving simple off-the-cuff inadequate answers, and makes it hard to learn how to do what is necessary, which is to offer personalized comments that meet the situation where they are seen. Why did I wait two weeks before coming back here to look at the answers to my queries? Because I knew in advance the reception they would get, because I've tried previously and the response has always been some version of we'll fix it someday in the eventual next release which is so far ahead we can't even give you a schedule. It sounds very much like the phone company. I'd suggest a time distribution of half working on major future releases and half on actually fixing immediate issues. Remember, you're not trying to deal with a customer who has nowhere else to go. YYou're trying to write key software to prevent one of the major sites on the web from deteriorating quality. DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

More news

I can't do it. I've tried a half a dozen bug fixes, and I can't get comments to work. I'm going to have to simply compare the script to the last stable version and just start striking stuff that's unstable. I know it's not the best thing I can do, but I have to get these fixes stable enough to work with. Any help here would be appreciated! --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 16:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Don, and Nathan, I just noticed above: One of you says the program is too large to make major fixes and will have to be improved by small changes, and the other says it needs a complete new writing from scratch. Which is it, or are you working at cross purposes? DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure to which quotes by whom you may be referring, but I have a feeling we are both saying the same thing. Anyone who has done major programming knows that after a while a program gets so patched and spliced that any little fix may break everything, so wholesale fixing is asking for a disaster. Sometimes it's easier to chop out and redo entire sections. Sometimes, it easier to scrap the whole thing and start from scratch knowing what you now know that you did not know when you originally started some months or years ago. --  :- ) Don 01:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Tim forked the script from Close AfD about two years ago. It now consists of 1000 lines and has so many minor syntax errors that JSHint crashes when I use it. It's huge and has become very difficult to implement whole sale fixes. Even though it looks original, it's really a script based on a script based on a script. Rewriting it would take months, but would fix many bugs. The problem is that there are only two people working on the script actively right now and both know very little JavaScript. I'll post below it a few minutes with more info about the issues I'm facing ATM. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 15:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm an experienced software developer, with JavaScript in my arsenal (which can be proved easily enough by visiting SABRE Maps, for which large quantities of front and back end code is mine), but I can't hand on heart say I have the time, unless I specifically drop development of that. I have a sandbox installation of MediaWiki on my Linux box at home, and if I can figure an easy way of getting a test / debug version on there, and an understanding of the problem, I'll see what I can do. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The backlog...

AfC submissions Random submission

~6 weeks

1,265 pending submissions to update

(At the moment:1348 pending submissions) ... is unacceptably big. Any ideas?--Müdigkeit (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

How is the determination of unacceptably big made? Six months ago, 300 was unacceptably big. The best idea would be to review/decline articles. I'm only declining articles at the moment. There appears to be a group out there with no time to review articles but enough time to PROD and CSD everything that comes out of AfC. --  :- ) Don 01:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I do miss the accept and decline lists from Earwig's AfC Statistics, in that it provided a barometer as to if we were making any headway with submissions. --  :- ) Don 01:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

That's another thing too, some reviewers are too chicken to accept an article where they have the slightest doubt, and they can't swallow their pride and leave it for other reviewers to deal with. I think that's the reason for most reviewers only declining articles. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

At least that's what I feel, a sense of "Is this article really up for the mainspace? Will it be sent directly to AfD?", etc. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I was being facetious about only declining articles. When I don't have time to read, just looking for quick declines is a way to get rid of a lot of chaff, which seems to be increasing by the minute. I feel I have a responsibility when I approve an article that it is not going to be PROD'ed or CSD'ed, because some person may have spent hours, days, weeks or months working on it. A fact of life is that there are people out there who enjoy attempting to destroy the efforts of others. --  :- ) Don 01:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's be honest, the vast majority of AfCs are declined because the vast majority of AfCs are terrible. "Is this article really up for the mainspace? Will it be sent directly to AfD?'" are exactly the sort of questions you should be asking. Having a potentially salvageable article get PROD'd or AfD'd immediately is far more alienating for new editors than being asked to work on it a bit more while it's in AfC.

Also, I think the backlog has been "unacceptably big" as long as I've been reviewing AfCs (although between then and now what constitutes unacceptably big has definitely gone up by a thousand or so). There's no magic bullet. We need more volunteers. joe•roe^t•c 07:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I've been picking out obvious declines to keep the backlog down, but a proper review of a borderline article where I know nothing about its subject is almost like a mini GA review. As Don says, we just need more people on the case. I notice people are quick to smack AfC reviewers down when they screw up, but not so many are prepared to help out with the task themselves. That doesn't exactly foster an environment to encourage contributors. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't a CSD, that was a lynching. I've seen a lot of those names before at similar events. --  :- ) Don 18:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Don, I've seen far worse aimed at me on my years on the internet ;-) ... still, I maintain that is not an A7, it's a snow delete. I really get brassed off when people A7 stuff that doesn't apply. Meanwhile, the backlog is still severe - what other options do we have? --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm new to AfC, but have noticed that declined articles remain in the backlog. I wonder if many editors simply "walk away" from a declined article; if so, how can we remove those abandoned articles from the backlog? Miniapolis (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Odds are, if it has an ugly red "decline" template but is in Category:Pending AfC submissions, it has been resubmitted for review. The "resubmit" link just adds a new section at the end of an article with another {{subst:submit}} but leaves all the old rejection templates still in place (usually at the head of the page, so one must scroll past them to check the actual article). K7L (talk) 13:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

as discussed below, this is exceptionally silly and exceptionally confusing. I'm a little beyond the beginner stage, but it took weeks for me to figure this one out. The current status has to go where people will see it. It should be a trivial fix. Trying to explain it, let alone defend it, is harder than getting it right. DGG ( talk ) 03:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe it's often fixed by a bot who moves the new submission to the top, but the bot apparently does not always do so. I have no idea why not - possibly it's insufficient on its own for the bot to care, or maybe the bot is too busy to reach all drafts. I believe we have this effect in the first place because we can only automatically add the "{{subst:submit}}" we need by adding an entire new section, and we can only add new sections to the bottom of the draft. I don't see how that could be fixed directly; I contacted Petrb, the bot operator, about a related issue but apparently wasn't clear enough and didn't care enough to follow up on that. Huon (talk) 03:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

@DGG No it isn't. Either by bot or by bugfixing a bugzilla but: there is no technical possibility by clicking on a link to "post" a section at the very top. Keep in mind: over a year ago the user hat manually put {{subst:Afc submission/submit}} to the top. There wasn't any subst:submit nor any direct link to click and then save. That created us so many new submissions that we simply need more reviewers. I'm on your side to improve the existing system, and yes I will help, but we have many restrictions given by the MW software we simply can't solve. !Vote at the bugzilla ticket and ask for the status so that the developers will add the 5 row-code... mabdul 15:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

AFCH and teahouse invitations

I presume WP:AFCH is not supposed to place a teahouse invitation if the user already has one? User talk:Beaulieurise has duplicated TH templates - but one was placed by user:HostBot and the other by WP:AFCH. One places Category:Wikipedians who have received a Teahouse invitation and the other Category:Wikipedians who have received a Teahouse invitation through AfC with minor differences in subst:'ed code, but these are duplication. K7L (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. we will add the additional category check in the next update. (That was exactly the reason why I didn't wanted to separate the category!) mabdul 06:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Nice catch! I'll work on it. Also, please see below for updates on the update (eventually when I get it up). :P --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 14:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the wait, but I am writing the update info now and I will then work on fixing this. Thanks, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 15:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

 A patch is in the beta candidate. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 17:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

So, on hold?

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Play Pickle. What's with that? It appears to be a cross between the draft template and the decline one. Exactly what is going on there? --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 23:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed --  :- ) Don 00:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The declining user used |t instead of |d in the template :). Mdann52 (talk) 10:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah. I imagine the issue involved code for on hold templates remaining in the core of the draft template. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 17:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

More decline rationale

I've been nipping away at the backlog for about a week now and have found many reoccurring reasons for declining submissions that don't fit neatly into the predefined descriptions offered by the AFC Helper Script. I've been using the "custom" option for these, but I'm not sure how many reviewers take the time to write detailed rationale when such a large backlog is looming overhead. Here are some rationale I feel should be added to the script:

1. Memorials: Since we're talking about contributors writing about the recently deceased, we needed something less blunt than the standard bio-notability option and something more direct than the vaguely-worded NOT option. Including a link to the appropriate listing in what Wikipedia is not would make sense.
2. Resumes/CVs: With links to what Wikipedia is not and COI
3. Notability books/comics/other print publications: A modified version of the current descriptions for film and music notability could cover all print publications and possibly artwork
4. Crystal ball: Upcoming events, forthcoming media, and unreleased products that run into issues with both notability and what Wikipedia is not
5. No content: Different from "no context" and less forgiving than the "test edit" option, it is a criteria for speedy deletion for pages that are only external links, chat-like comments, a rephrasing of the title, or gibberish.

Some of these could easily be offered as more-specific offshoots of the NOT option, like how the notability option has been broken down into specifics. –Mabeenot (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Would definitely make life easier, I think we also could use "software notability". I'm not sure where the AFCH people are at in work load. If they are still behind the eight-ball, this should probably be a low priority at this time, but I believe these mods are basically table entries.

Apparently I missed the discussion resulting in the lack of "inline citations" on BLP's being removed. Could someone summarize or point me to the archive? Thanks. --  :- ) Don 21:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

If I may make a suggestion. I believe the latest revision of the new helper script is coming along. I'm not sure because I am using an older revision probably, but rumor has it being so. Once the current upgrades are stable, perhaps we should all get together and decide priorities for any future enhancements, and implement them in an orderly fashion one at a time where possible. I know sometimes several things must change at the same time, but it appears that too much was attempted a one time, IMHO having some years in software. --  :- ) Don 17:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Re. no content. Isn't that basically the blank option that's currently on there? KTC (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

A page with no content is not necessarily blank. It may just be a list of external links, chat-like comments, a rephrasing of the title, gibberish, etc. –Mabeenot (talk) 02:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Please add COI and SELF (WP:COI and over-reliance on WP:V#SELF-sourced pages) as quick-fail criteria. There needs to be be a rejection reason "This page appears to violate our conflict of interest guidelines. Please do not write about yourself, your company or organisation or other entities in which you may hold a vested interest.". It's not just curriculum vitae submissions which are WP:COI problems, we're routinely getting pages like User:Sagenextinfo/SageNext Infotech where the username and the name of the article match, or where the only cited source is the subject's own website. Also "This article relies entirely on sources published by the article's subject. Independent, reliable sources are needed to establish notability of the topic and ensure neutrality." I could see *that* being used frequently as a reason to decline a page, were it on the list, as it would catch a lot of self-promotional text. K7L (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Strong Oppose adding of COI decline criteria. Someone editing with COI is strongly discouraged not because of the COI, but because the edits often ended up not being NPOV, reliant on primary sources etc. We "strongly encourage" editors with COI "to submit proposed edits for review" instead of making the edits themselves so that a pair of hopefully unbiased eye can check for problems first. If such a decline criteria is added, reviewers are likely to end up declining submission with which they perceived to have been written by someone with a COI instead of actually reviewing whether the submission has any problems or not. A secondary effect would be to drive the very people we want to submit creation for review to creating the article straight into mainspace themselves. KTC (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose COI reason. COI and SELF can become good articles. Going back to original list. "Memorial","Resume", and "Crystal ball" are covered by "WP:NOT". We just need a generic "Not notable subject", to cover all the miscellaneous stuff, like software, books, blenders. IMHO, we are fine now with the possible exception of general "Subject not notable" and "ILC" for BLP. --  :- ) Don 19:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

In the past, I've suggested a "submission has only primary sources" decline after seeing several articles which either fail on 'not reliably sourced' or 'not notable' and using a canned phrase along the lines of "you need to get your sources from somewhere outside of the article subject". --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference between "submission has only primary sources" and "submission is primarily sourced from material written by the article's subject". There are primary sources that are independent of the article's subject in many fields (for instance, the 'least publishable unit' which routinely appears in the academic press to advance one professor's theory is primary, but is not autobiography). K7L (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, as far as I know we don't get that many memorials, try nn or bio for those. For resumes you should use bio. I believe we have a notability for books option, if not that sounds good. For crystal ball articles use nn. No content is pretty much blank with modifications. ilc was removed per a previous talk page discussion about it being misunderstood, but I am going to re-add it with a slightly different purpose in the next update. COI is a no, AfC is the place to file COI articles. SELF is v or ilc, depending on the subject. The other reference based declines are covered by v. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 15:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL is a different issue from WP:GNG, as it applies primarily to proposed or future activities not yet materialised. SELF isn't just verifiability as it also affects neutrality and raises issues of notability if the author's subject is the sole source cited for basic claims. Where do you get "AfC is the place to file COI articles"? The article wizard actually dead-ends with Wikipedia:Article wizard/Conflict of interest for "I'm writing about myself"; filing these is not encouraged. Wikipedia:Autobiography also strongly discourages these, but does not mention AfC per se. The templates for a rejected article blindly encourage its re-submission without regard for whether the original problems were fatal (self-promotion or WP:SPAM for a non-notable company or organization) or fixable (a valid topic that actually does just need better sourcing) but nowhere else is the user advised "Please write an article about yourself in WP:AFC". K7L (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Who reviews re-submissions?

Moved to WP:AFCHD

 – Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 15:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Please DO NOT REVIEW in sandboxes

1. The templates do not work correctly.
2. I find an article declined several time in the sand box and when I try to move it to AfC, I find a slightly different article declined several times in AfC. We just keep making more work. At least 1/4 of our backlog is duplicates or sandbox goof-ups, I will bet... --  :- ) Don 02:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I know that there are issues. I have enabled userspace reviewing in the next version of the script, but if it causes too many bugs I would be willing to disable it. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 17:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I know it can be done, but will that not just scatter things even worse? --  :- ) Don 19:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

1. The template does work. All that matters are that it were declined and the declined reason. The missing bits like the decliner and timestamp are merely nice to have.
2. We would actually be creating more work for reviewers by insisting on them moving sandbox submission to WT: before reviewing. If there's duplicate in UT: & WT:, then whether you move the sandbox version or not, the duplicate still exist. -- KTC (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I said the template does not work correctly. We will never be able to stop clever editors. When I move to AfC, I leave a soft redirect in the sandbox, so they don't think their sandbox has disappeared. If we leave it in User sandbox the user has no sandbox unless someone moves it. With an article in two place, I have seen extensive edits with declines to the article in the sandbox and to the one in AfC. No history merge was possible since people were editing one day here, the next day, there. More work in order to maintain order is a fact of life. Less work that promotes chaos is not likely a good thing. Everyone who does programming knows that the more options you have account for, the more complicated and undependable the results are (ask the AFCH people), and you don't keep you databases in 4 or 5 different places. The articles for review should be in User or WT: space. --  :- ) Don 23:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree that the majority of sandbox submissions should be moved before be reviewed, and I have moved many of these as of late. However, there's simply no point in attempting to move entirely blank sandbox pages or clearly gibberish test edits. In these cases where there is absolutely no apparent subject, I decline the submission manually by adding the d|blank or d|test parameters. I would suggest that this is preferable to moving it a pointless title. I very much like the idea of using a soft redirect once the page has been moved and will certainly give that a try in future. However, what I feel would be most useful is some kind of standard template which could be used to alert editors that their submission has moved to AFC space. I know when submission were (are?) moved by a bot there was some kind of template notification. Ideally, something similar should be available for using when manual moved are done. France3470 (talk) 03:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I think there are two templates out there, the one I'm using was made by Mdann52, which I have tweaked a bit, {{subst:R to AfC namespace}} or {{subst:R to AfC}}. It should be subst: so if the sandbox problem gets resolved, we can delete it. --  :- ) Don 16:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Problems with declining

I was chatting to someone at the London Meetup today, and they mentioned that they felt users would be better off going straight to creating articles than coming to AfC first, as they've found articles get declined here for overzealous reasons, such as a single source (their terms, not mine). I disagreed with that, and felt that keeping stuff incubated here so people can understand policy at a gentle pace is far better than subjecting a newbie to all the horror a CSD template (for example) can inflict on them. Does anyone else have any thoughts? --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I guess it depends on priorities, users or Wikipedia? I was reading a Foundation article on Vital articles. As an extreme example many of our vital articles with 100,000+ hits a day are class-B, C, or stub. The FA articles we have get 20 hits a day. I get the impression that the Foundation expects an FA out of one or more IP's per day. If the Foundation was a person, they would be on strong meds and locked up. Let IP's start articles, I have an FA to make. --  :- ) Don 23:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Rant finished. This is not the first time the idea has come up. It gets mentioned in every other AfD discussion. At this point in time, AfC provides a vital function. NPP would have to double or triple their volunteers if we went away. --  :- ) Don 16:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, registered users can still create articles, except that the Article wizard points users to AFC directly. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 01:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I tend to to agree with he guy you spoke to in london. If anew article goes directly to NPP, the author will get a rapid judgement and quite possibly a definitive verdict. If he wants to engage in an argument about ot, then Afc is more suitable. if he honestly does not know what to do and wishes advice the old method of writing it in user space and asking a trusted editor in the subject to look at it and help him will usually work best. But sometime a venue is good becuase of the indiviudals who happen to be there : at the moment the affc help pagecis a very good place to get assistance. DGG ( talk ) 07:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to interpret this as a case as you saying you want to close off AfC to registered users like me, and have it only be used by IPs and new users. If so, we would need a major proposal with a decent amount of consensus. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 15:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Message from Curtaintoad

Hello guys. I am new to WikiProject Articles for creation, and I would like some help. Thanks, Curtaintoad (talk) 07:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• First of all, make sure you're au fait with Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and related topics such as notability and reliable sources. Then have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions to see what you need to do to review articles - getting the AFCH script will make reviewing much easier. Then, go to Category:Pending AfC submissions, pick an article and review it. I'd recommend something that matches your interests to start with. Bear in mind if you decline an article, the creator will probably contact you to try and understand why, so be prepared to give some follow up. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. :-) Curtaintoad (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

How can I access this script? Curtaintoad (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hack into the Pentagon's computer system, click on my preferences, click on "gadgets" and check the box for "Editing: Yet Another AFC Helper Script: easily review Articles for creation submissions and redirect requests". Hit "save". That should cause "review" to be listed alongside "move" and other options in the pulldown tab the next time you're looking at a Wikipedia(_talk):Articles_for_creation/ page. (Outside AfC, the script does nothing). This does require JavaScript, so if you have Firefox's "NoScript" extension be sure to make exceptions for "wikimedia.org" and "wikipedia.org" for WP:AFCH to work. K7L (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Bot inactive

Due to a Mediawiki bug, Scsbot, who used to archive the help desk, is currently inactive: See Ummit's talk page and the discussion here. It's probably easiest to just archive manually for now. Huon (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I was just looking at the way the archiving is done. Nice, therefore complicated. I will work on it. Help is getting pretty long in the tooth. --  :- ) Don 00:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Honestly when I saw just how complicated it is I thought we could do without for a few more days. That looks like some serious work. Huon (talk) 01:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The relevant MediaWiki bug has been fixed; for now, the bot seems to be working. PleaseStand (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Then my job here is done. --  :- ) Don 21:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

A hearty cheer to all those who fixed the MediaWiki bug, and to Don who did the job in the bot's absence! Thanks! Huon (talk) 01:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Huon, but it appears Scsbot is not quite healthy yet. It has been adding new dates, but not archiving. Perhaps the config file is not set correctly? I just put away items in October 7 and October 8 older than 7 days. It's not hard once you get a system. But, not the job security I was looking for. --  :- ) Don 16:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

WP Advertisment

Just wanted to let yoiu guys know that I created a new ad for this WikiProject that you can add to your user page and talk page to help promote this WikiProject.

--Dom497 (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advertisment! :) Curtaintoad (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done Added to my userpage. Go Phightins! 01:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

 Added slightly smaller. --  :- ) Don 17:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

How about a sequence: Do you want to help others contribute to Wikipedia? || First. learn our basic rules || Second, write some articles yourself || Then, learn to review articles || Click now to learn how || Then join Wikiproject AfC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 23:43, 2012 October 16‎

afc decline userpage template for duplicate articles?

The current wording of {{afc decline}} is this "...You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit...". That makes no sense if the reason for declining a piece is that another article on the same topic exists in mainspace. What's needed is something more like this ("As an article on the same topic... already exists it would be best that you combine your text with the existing article on this subject instead of creating a second article.") because inviting users to maintain the duplicated pages instead of merging them to one main article is the problem, not the solution. Would it be possible to have the template match the decline reason in these sort of cases? I think it was looked at once for copyvios (as the original page might not still exist) as there's still code there, but that was the only special case handled. K7L (talk) 03:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately the user page decline template is canned, there is only one model. The templates that appear on the article are customized. I think this is a requested change DGG has been asking for. To customize both would require major revamping of AFCH. Nathan may correct me if I'm wrong.

If you can think of better wording that would cover all issues, the template is here: Template:Afc decline --  :- ) Don 18:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if you were to build custom user talk responses it would be a nightmare. But all in the line of duty! :P --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 18:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Script stuff

So, I have some bad news. The commentary bug that was discovered a few weeks ago is pretty serious and will take at least another month to work out (which is why my old deadline was missed). I know you guys are asking how big the backlog on us is. There are currently two editors working on the script, me and mabdul. Mabdul is the lead developer and knows more JS than me, but is in the process of moving IRL and is very busy. I'm pretty much acting as the release coordinator and bug squasher. We have about 4 or 5 issues to fix before we can push the update and after that would have 15 remaining critical level issues. Other than that, we have editors wanting better declining, updates to AfC/R, and FFU reviewing. It's pretty much impossible to get many things implemented with only two developers. If anybody knows any JS at all, PLEASE sign on to help with dev work. We can't really keep this up for much longer. Okay, now that I'm done with that, let me talk about what will be implemented in the next update:

• Major cleanup of the code
• Preparation for FFU stuff
• BLP tagging
• Improvements to cleanup
• Updated interface
• Modified decline interface
• Updated AfC/R declining
• Change to displayed notice when using an incompatible browser

A pretty good set of updates. These will be pushed as is to beta in the form of v4.1.16b2 as soon as I can prove they are stable enough. Thanks, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 16:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I just spoke with mabdul, and he said he would be willing to fix the script. Other than that, it's looking like we will have to stall development temporarily after this update until we either get more time or more developers. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 16:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

As I write, I'm picking through a load of C++ code converting Irish Bonne projection to WGS84 projection that needs optimising, and combining with a JavaScript utility that pulls the information out and works out if a point intersects in a polygon. I feel your pain - if I had time to help I would. Sorry. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Poking around I found a request from Mabdul for a Son of Chzzbot and a request for a Talk Back from AFD/XFD to AfC submitters. Might that be something for me to do rather than getting into AFCH. As I told Nathan, my plate is full for a few weeks to a month. I may have time to start something, but jumping into the middle of a project takes a lot of time just to come up to speed, unless that is really #1 priority for warm bodies. --  :- ) Don 16:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm coding Son of ChzzBot and XFD Talkback Bot is at BRFA. AFCH is priority #1 right now. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 18:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed AFC newsletter

It was suggested that a newsletter be used to promote AFC. Dom497 and I are willing to head up such an effort. We would like some input as to what would be included in the newsletter. I assume that we'd list the number of pages currently in the backlog and some other statistics, but other than that, I'm drawing a blank. Thoughts please! Go Phightins! 00:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Well we could mention articles nominated for GA or FA, or actually making the cut. There also seems to be heaps going down the gurgler, getting prodded or speedy delete for various reasons. If someone want to write bout that I would read it. Also we could mention what gets listed at DYK. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I was more listing out open proposals here, and a section listing details about script patches, and so on. Also, the current mock up is located here and open to editing by interested users. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 15:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Recap the important stuff that happens on this page since the last newsletter. I often miss discussion conclusions that are highly indented when finished. --  :- ) Don 17:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thus far, we seem to have GA, FA, and DYKs that originated at AFC, results of discussions, open proposals, and backlog information. (To summarize--I agree Dcshank) Go Phightins! 19:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

MessageDeliveryBot (talk · contribs) could deliver the newsletter if you don't want to go through wiring up EdwardsBot. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 14:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Scratch that. I went back and checked on that bot and it appears to be offline, and the op retired. I also am doing a few changes to the newsletter, see if you like them (revert if you don't). --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 14:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to send a newsletter now. I've finished one here, what do you guys think? --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 19:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not ready. In my opinion, having a news letter that short is almost pointless. We can wait till November, there's no rush. I also have one or two more ideas to include anyhow.--Dom497 (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Vandals, vandals everywhere

IP 188.25.55.7 really trashed this page here. A few edits since. Should I attempt repair?   --  :- ) Don 18:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I hope I've repaired it. I wasn't too thorough at checking if any of 188.25.55.7's changes were worth keeping; those I looked at seemed useless. Huon (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

 DoneI checked all the others. Thanks. --  :- ) Don 18:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Template: AFC statistics

Template: AFC statistics hasn't been updated since the 19th, which makes sifting through the submissions rather painful. Any chance this might be resolved? Everything else seems broken at the moment, so I wouldn't be surprise if this was just another in a long line, but I thought I might as well ask. France3470 (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I feel like I need to create a templated response to this question, since it gets asked so much. tswiki:replag has been high lately; you can view the current lag at {{Toolserver}} or this graph. There's nothing we can do about this. It looks to be going down and the bot will resume generating the statistics automatically when it goes under ten minutes. — Earwig ^talk 20:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Answers my question excellently, although I wish it wasn't so. Guess I'll just have to twiddle my thumbs today and wait for the repag to go away. Thanks Earwig. France3470 (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Update: After a reboot of rosemary today, it looks like replag is slowly falling. Hopefully it'll be back to normal tomorrow. Legoktm (talk) 03:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Help with a review

I was reviewing this article on CAST (Computer Aided Simple Triage), and can't quite decide to accept it or not. The citations are there, but the article seems to make some claims that the sources say nothing about. Should I accept it and fix it myself, or decline it and move on? Perhaps suggest a merge into Triage? Thanks. CharmlessCoin (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like some WP:OR. If notability is met by citations and it does not have major problems, you can fix it or approve it and tag the problems. -- :- ) Don 19:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I'll do that now. CharmlessCoin (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Proper Procedure?

Reviewing Field Station: Dinosaurs, and attempted to accept it. It said that an article already had that name, but it's a redirect. What's the procedure for turning a redirect into an article? CharmlessCoin (talk) 04:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll nominate the redirect for deletion under WP:CSD#G6 with {{Db-move}}. -- KTC (talk) 10:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. CharmlessCoin (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Multiple decline reasons

What does everyone do when they find a submission that needs to be declined for several reasons? There is some overlap between the explanations attached to each reason, but it's easy for an article to be A) Unreferenced B) non-notable and C) written in a spammy tone. Would it be good for the template to be able to list multiple reasons, or do you think that would make it too cluttered and overwhelm the submitter? Thanks. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally I would decline it for notability, since that's the most important. I like to go in an importance order of notability > writing style (advert, essay, etc) > sources. Legoktm (talk) 03:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Backlog Elimination Drive

Has anyone ever thought of doing a Backlog Elimination Drive to reduce this backlog? It could be something in the lines of what WikiProject:Good Articles does for their BED's click here for an example). Anyone think this is a good idea?--Dom497 (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The last one was 23 September 2012. Or are you talking about giving away money or cars this time? I'm in. --  :- ) Don 21:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh I never noticed that so just disregard this topic. And no... absolutely not, that was never part of my "plan".--Dom497 (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Damn, we need an incentive... But it would have to be based on retained articles, not just reviewed or accepted. We can send out the AfC invitations again, but I think we need a better mailing list. It seems the last list went out to all AfC members. Is there a way to generate a user list by criteria? -- 02:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what kind of incentive you'd be talking about. I have never gotten a newsletter, though I think I am a member of the project. Anyway, AFC is what I do when AFD, ANI, or edit conflicts make me angry, which is probably not the best system in the world, but it's what I use nonetheless.--Go Phightins! (talk) 02:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I guess I never formally signed up. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd be willing to give a gift card or two, if the Foundation would allow it. It is still a donation, just a directed one. --  :- ) Don 02:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Does this WP even have a newsletter?--Dom497 (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

No one has time to write one. As to the above, research shows that in many situations, things like Barn Stars work just as well as money. --  :- ) Don 03:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I can right a monthly newsletter, I just don't know enough things to include to actually make it a newsletter. Anyone have ideas to what to include?--Dom497 (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

You know that would be cool. Suggestion:  A synopsis of important things that has happened or been discussed here or on the help page recently, discussions in other projects that impact AfC (sounds like a reporter's job). You will need to write the newsletter before you right it, however. --  :- ) Don 16:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I've been wanting to do that for a while. With all the stuff that happens in AfC, it's hard to keep up with it all. I also support a backlog elimination drive. (I would be willing to head up both, if you need) --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 17:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Don mentioned that the last BED was in September. If so, did you guys create a page for it that I can see (juts curious)? I can help "coordinate" the drive if needed. Also, if we were to do a drive I say we can start it around the beginning of November and go for about 2 weeks. And if anyone wants to help with a newsletter, please leave a message on my talk page (or here) though nothing is etched in stone as of now.--Dom497 (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I can help with whatever's needed. Let me know on my talk. Go Phightins! (talk) 17:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so I will begin a draft of a newsletter in my user space later and post a link to it here so everyone can contribute. In terms of the layout of the newsletter, I write newsletters for WP Good Articles and me and another user are scrapping the current layout for that which I think we can use here.--Dom497 (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I have created the draft (its more of the outline of the template). It can be found here.--Dom497 (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

If you decide to start publishing a newsletter, be sure to leave at note at the WikiProject desk so we can mention each new issue in the Signpost. –Mabeenot (talk) 19:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I suck at writing. Maybe grab a page here Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Newsletter and archive at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Newletter/Archive/October 2012 --  :- ) Don 19:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I like the draft. Again, I could help with this or with anything else that needs done. Go Phightins! 22:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeap. Looks nice. Want to do some of my web pages? --  :- ) Don 00:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Um...If you read above, I literally copied and pasted the template from WP Good Articles. We (I am part of that WP) are scrapping that template so I thought we could use it. I'm no techy.--Dom497 (talk) 00:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks nice. As I said above, I would be willing to coordinate the newsletter if you guys need to. I already have a lot on my plate (AFCH mainly, but also the Teahouse and some other personal things). I'll mess around with the code and see what I come up with. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 01:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: I have started a new thread below regarding the newsletter as to what would be included. Please provide your input--Go Phightins! 01:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Is everyone good with a November backlog elimination drive?--Dom497 (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Go Phightins! 20:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so here is the official drive page.--Dom497 (talk) 19:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

This backlog is going crazy!!! I am pushing the start date of the drive to the October 22, 2012 and end date to November 22, 2012.--Dom497 (talk) 20:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I've read the 'drive page' and it makes no sense to me!! Guess I'll have to wait to see how it works next week. In the meantime, I'd better stop reviewing, so there's plenty of backlog next week ;) Sionk (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Ahhhh. The law of unintended consequences has kicked in. Dom497 I really respect your initiative and enthusiasm, but I think your idea is a little premature and requires more clarification and structure in order to be a viable tool. Over the last year the paradigm of the Wikipedia has changed considerably, and unfortunately a 1000 article backlog and 3 weeks to review may be the new norm. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Originally when you brought this up to me, I thought a couple of months time frame was realistic, not two weeks. I am willing to help also, but I think it is too much too soon right now. A two month time frame I think is realistic for a project this size. --  :- ) Don 19:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

That sounds good. Any objections to making it October 22, 2012 to December 22, 2012? --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 21:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC) I meant not starting until all the ducks are in a row. Quite honestly, I don't have a clue as to how this is supposed to work either. But if Dom is confident that he has a handle on things then "GO FOR IT". I'm behind you. --  :- ) Don 08:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

If it makes it less confusing for some of you, I can scrap the "reviewing reviews" part of the drive and we can just use the honor system that no one is lieing.--Dom497 (talk) 12:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

19 Hours to go. Nice job Dom497. My name is in the Totals list. Who's next?? If I get 10 points, can I have 10 Brownies? --  :- ) Don 04:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

It just occurred to me, but one month is a rather long time. Over the course of a month I wouldn't be surprised if one reviewer could fairly easily review somewhere near a thousand submissions (I counted I did about 20 in the past hour). Keeping a running total for such a large number would be rather overwhelming. The current awards numbers, by this reckoning, also seem far too low. (Alternatively I'm just been spending way too much time at AFC.) I think the backlog drive is a fun idea and I'm totally willing to give it a go, although I do agree with the others that a bit more planning mightn't have hurt. France3470 (talk) 06:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the reward targets seem very low. I suppose they may encourage new editors to 'have a go' in return for a brownie. But AfC is different from reviewing GA articles. Many AfC reviews are very simple and quick. I expect an undesirable result of this 'numbers' strategy will be AfC reviewers ignoring the complex, time consuming AfC drafts! Sionk (talk) 18:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but when all the easy ones are wiped out you are going to have to do the hard ones in order to beat the #2 competitor right behind you. -- :- ) Don 20:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

This is very popular. We're down to 200 already! Keep it up! --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 17:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Schizophrenia is a wonderful disease

I just found an reasonably good, considering the subject, AfC submission for a football player. The article was declined four times. The first three times because the player had not yet played a Pro game. The forth time because a three sentence article has existed for months. I'm tired of looking and feeling like an idiot. One time I go to AfC to defend an article with reasonably good references on a company, and it gets snowball deleted. I submit a BLP article which is only WP:OR with exactly zero references, and it is defended by everyone on the Wikipedia except for a few who didn't have access to a computer at that time. I'm starting to believe the rumors, "Don't trust the Wikipedia". If it can't be trusted to be reasonably fair and consistent, then it's time to reevaluate the way I spend my free time.-- :- ) Don 17:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• I can relate. I'm personally submitting an article that has been declined a couple of times, but I've noticed some Afc (and non-AfC) articles that were accepted have sources that are a bit iffy; so yes, I do agree, Wikipedia is somewhat of a joke. It's good if one wants a general overview on a subject, if that subject is notable even on an accepted article; but to see if the article holds weight, one would have to verify the sources, which may or may not be trustworthy.--Joel Kirk (talk) 02:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Rather than being critical without offering anything, I really don't see an obvious cure for the disease without going back to what I tired to push almost a year ago. That being, we can not have two totally differing unpoliced routes to getting a live article on the Wikipedia.

1. Every article goes though AfC.
2. Standards at AfC are improved and consistent. The Backlog drive has inadvertently done that I believe by reviewers checking each other.
3. AfC reviewers need to have SIGNIFICANTLY more that 10 live edits.
4. Change review. Which I believe is in the works.

-- :- ) Don 17:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Reviewing AFC's

I'm trying to review an AFC, but even though I installed the script, I don't see a tab for reviewing. What do I do then? Thanks, B. Jakob T. (talk) 20:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Clear your cache. That should fix it. Also, you have to be on a page in AfC space. Thanks, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 20:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Blanking

While processing the History of Psychology journal, an editor inadvertently blanked the entire article via the helper, probably signifying an isolated glitch, as their preceding edits appear correct. Mephistophelian (contact) 22:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC).

Yeah, thanks. We know that there is some kind of special blanking bug which occurs in really rare cases, but sadly not under which conditions as it is random. (see also Heisenbug) mabdul 13:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Be Specific...!

This may sound obvious, but "be specific" when you decline articles. While I'm volunteering for AfC, I'm also trying to get an article I created on Wiki accepted, and either the reviewer doesn't give reasons for the decline, or they're very vague. Moreover, I've had the experience where one reviewer may give feedback on how to get the article accepted, and another reviewer may have entirely different criteria to get the article accepted...creating an situation where one is "jumping through hoops" and, aforementioned in another post, making Wikipedia look like a joke. In any event, I will try to practice what is preached.--Joel Kirk (talk) 02:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

To build on this, please use the canned decline reasons when you can instead of writing your own. The canned ones have policy links and stuff in them to help the noobs. Thanks, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 20:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Requesting backup

Just came across a strange one: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Marlene Aguilar. Is there something here that should be salvaged? --Cerebellum (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Whew. I looked at that one earlier and just let it be. I don't know. That's a tough one. Go Phightins! 19:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Gonna have to skip that one too. I'd just blank it next time it lands in the system. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 20:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I just had a closer look; apparently Aguilar has received some newspaper coverage. There's a Manila Bulletin article about her, and while a Facebook photo isn't the best of sources (heh), the print edition of the Manila Standard probably is. There are also some ABS-CBN articles covering her in some detail: Example. So she's notable enough for an article. But the current draft is beyond salvage. Major parts are based only on primary sources, and what cites secondary sources twists them beyond recognition. See for example her son's arrest: The draft only reports her side of the story, leaving out such details as her hysterics (for which we do have a reliable source), the fact that her son was armed and shot at police, or even the fact that he's a murder suspect. Her allegations of torture against the police are treated as fact in the draft. That would have to be rewritten from scratch.

I'm not sure the draft's author would be happy if we did write a well-sourced NPOV article on her. Huon (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree. I opened a section over at COIN about it. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 21:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Erm, why? We've no reason to think the author of the article has a COI, and even if they did posting an AfC submission to any of the noticeboards is pointless – we just decline bad submissions, there's no need for further action.

I agree with Huon that Aguilar is probably worth covering but that this submission isn't going to see the light of day unless someone else puts some serious effort in re-writing it NPOV. joe•roe^t•c 21:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

To merge or CSD, that is the question...

Another example of someone who just doesn't get it: David Gold (vocalist). I admire the editor's attempts but I think six weeks of declining/suggesting merging is enough. — WylieCoyote (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I would CSD it, but only if they submit it again, have it declined for the same reason, and do it again. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, the submitting editor and I are discussing it on my talkpage. I don't think he/she understand what "notable" means. We'll see what develops. — WylieCoyote (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Should be a "page" for author Paul Garrison

I know there is a reference to him for Robert Ludlum. But he has also written the following books (that I know of): The Ripple Effect Sea Hunter Buried at Sea Red Sky at Morning, and Fire and Ice.

Just a suggestion. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.204.124 (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

If you know reliable sources which cover Garrison in some detail, the best venue for such a suggestion would be a subpage of WP:Requested articles, probably Wikipedia:Requested articles/Culture and fine arts/Literature#Authors (poets, dramatists and fiction writers). If no such sources can be found, Garrison probably isn't notable enough for an article. Huon (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Non-notable US football players

I declined Steven Johnson because I just don't think he's done enough to be "notable" and article-worthy. However, other AfC'ers have approved other similar articles: Trevor Robinson (American football), for example. Why do we have/allow possibly hundreds of articles on athletes who have yet to do anything notable? Thanks. — WylieCoyote (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

If they've played in at least 1 pro game, they're considered notable. See WP:NGRIDIRON. Legoktm (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I was unaware of that and that still does not make Johnson article-worthy. Thanks. I passed the info along to the editor who takes it upon himself to create these. — WylieCoyote (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Subject of my article is...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Main page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/October - November 2012 Backlog Elimination Drive § Subject of my article is...

We have a discussion going on about some problems with the submission process. For example, the improper use of the "Subject of my article is..." line and duplicate content in submissions. Feel free to join in (I should've posted that discussion here in the first place, but I accidentally posted in a slightly less correct location). Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Subject of my article is...

moved from WT:AFC/BD Mdann52 (talk) 11:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I am continually finding submissions that are improperly using the "Subject of my article is..." line, similar to the following (the article is named Test, let's say):

Subject of my article is... Test

Test is a really cool article bla bla bla...

...when it really should be:

Test is a really cool article bla bla bla...

Any suggestions on how to help contributors better understand what this line is supposed to be used for? Maybe a comment (like the many others within the submission that are created when submitting an article)?

–– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed the same thing, but I'm not sure what the best way of rectifying this would be either. Go Phightins! 19:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a minor annoyance, but I'm far more annoyed by how many folks double-up their article, ending up with two copies on the same page. That can actually get disruptive, because if they're not exact duplicates then the reviewer needs to puzzle out which is the later draft and with the superfluous earlier draft. I'm not sure if there's any easy way, since I'm not clear in the first place why people have 2-3 versions of the article on the same page. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

That's definitely another major issue. BTW, I realized that this discussion should probably been at the main talk page. I'll think from there to here. Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I hate this too, and I've ran into some submissions that just say "Subject of my article is foobar", with foobar being the title. Useless stuff. I'd also like to disable having submissions go straight into the backlog and have everything start as a draft, but that might be another discussion. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 00:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

You can only idiot proof things so much, I suppose. joe•roe^t•c 11:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Right, but having some auto-kickback for "blank" or "too short" would knock out about 10% of each day's submissions. There are absolutely zero blank articles which merit an AFC review, and the odds of a 1-2 sentence article (all-told, not 1-2 plus footnotes/ELs) from a new contributor being legit are near-zero. I'm not an AFC old-hand or anything, but an auto-reject for those would save a lot of space, and a full requirement in the coding that AFC submissions convert to WTAFC and a proper title vice just "sandbox" would be great so I don't have to go into all the sandbox articles convering them to WPAFC. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Template overhaul

I'm going to start overhauling all of the AfC templates. I know this might seem a little sudden, but considering the good work Earwig did on the new decline template I'd like to modernize the rest of them, starting with the talk page notice for declined articles. Take a look at this. The top is the before, bottom is after. The changes are still sandboxed at Template:Afc decline/sandbox, but I'd like your opinion. Thanks, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 21:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

If I recall correctly that template has already been "overhauled" quite recently and personally I don't have any problems with the current iteration. You've just made some minor changes to the wording in the top part (and to be blunt not for the better: "as to what" is poor style and "moved to article space" is incomprehensible jargon to newbies). And you've removed the links to the reviewer's talk page and IRC, and added a reminder to sign messages on the help desk. What's the reasoning behind those changes? joe•roe^t•c 21:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, the removal of IRC is a bigger plan I had to try and move the strain of all the AfC help requests out of the face of the -help people and to the help desk. The removal of the reviewer's talk page is for the same reason, look through any big reviewer's talk archives to understand why. I agree on the matter of the lead, I'll reword that later. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 22:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea (again) to remove the reviewers talk page directly. I remember when we hadn't the AFCHD and thus Chzz (talk · contribs) was "spammed" with around ~50 "helpme requests" a day. The part with/about the IRC I don't understand although I believe that we talk about that ages ago how to improve the situation for the helpee to remove much of the confusion of multiple discussion for them by hiding most/many messages for them. (correct me if I'M wrong, but then answer why now the first step before having developed such an extension?) mabdul 21:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

If I remember rightly that was a one-off, though. Somebody changed {{Afc submission/declined}} to prominently display the reviewers talk page so nearly everyone he reviewed went there. I haven't been reviewing much recently, so I don't know, but do you actually get the same problem with the current, small link on {{Afc declined}}? joe•roe^t•c 08:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I'm going to oppose the removal of the IRC link - it is a helpful tool for many newbies, and I have no doubt helps get many ideas up to standard. Mdann52 (talk) 13:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's annoying many of the helpers to death. The Teahouse is also getting a bit fed up with the number of AfC related requests coming in. I think we should at least try to coral these into our help desk. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 18:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

AFCH feature idea

(separated the sections, mabdul 21:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC))

On a side note: we can/should restrict the AFCH to exclude the reviewers who are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants to report the messages similar as I did with example (talk · contribs). mabdul 22:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

@mabdul: I'm sorry? I didn't really understand that. Do you mean only let signed up reviewers operate the script? --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 16:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Uhm, no. I mean that independently of who is using the script, shouldn't be able to inform the "experienced" users listed at that participants list. In really rare cases these users want to be informed and mostly missed to get informed by accident because of submitting the draft for somebody else (missing to change the "submitter" parameter). What do you (all) think? mabdul 21:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

This has happened to me a few times (apparetly I keep forgetting that parameter), and I just paste the message to the true author's talk page. It seems better to inform somebody than no one at all. Huon (talk) 21:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I disagree. First off, some reviewers actually submit articles. Secondly, I used the AFCH to add a notification template to my page to test the new design earlier. It would solve the 1% of cases where this bug occurs, but would also cause trouble for that 1% of cases. I'm not sure which is better. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 18:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Patrick McGovern

Extended content

Dr. Patrick E. McGovern is the Scientific Director of the Biomolecular Archaeology Laboratory for Cuisine, Fermented Beverages, and Health at the University of Pennsylvania Museum in Philadelphia. He is also an Adjunct Professor of Anthropology. His academic background combined the physical sciences, archaeology, and history–an A.B. in Chemistry from Cornell University, graduate work in neurochemistry at the University of Rochester, and a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Archaeology and Literature from the Asian and Middle Eastern Studies Department of the University of Pennsylvania. Over the past two decades, he has pioneered the emerging field of Molecular Archaeology. In addition to being engaged in a wide range of other archaeological chemical studies, including radiocarbon dating, cesium magnetometer surveying, colorant analysis of ancient glasses and pottery technology, his endeavors of late have focused on the organic analysis of vessel contents and dyes, particularly Royal Purple, wine, and beer. The chemical confirmation of the earliest instances of these organics–Royal Purple dating to ca. 1300-1200 B.C. and wine and beer dating to ca. 3500-3100B.C.–received wide media coverage. A 1996 article published in Nature, the international scientific journal, pushed the earliest date for wine back another 2000 years–to the Neolithic period (ca. 5400-5000B.C.). His research–showing what Molecular Archaeology is capable of achieving—has involved reconstructing the “King Midas funerary feast” (Nature 402, Dec. 23, 1999: 863-64) and chemically confirming the earliest fermented beverage from anywhere in the world—Neolithic China, some 9000 years ago, where pottery jars were shown to contain a mixed drink of rice, honey, and grape/hawthorn tree fruit (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 101.51: 17593-98). Most recently, he and colleagues identified the earliest beverage made from cacao (chocolate) from a site in Honduras, dated to ca. 1150 B.C., and an herbal wine from Dynasty 0 in Egypt. He is the author of Ancient Wine: The Search for the Origins of Viniculture (Princeton University Press, 2003), and most recently, Uncorking the Past: The Quest for Wine, Beer, and Other Alcoholic Beverages (Berkeley: University of California, 2009). In addition to over 100 periodical articles, McGovern has also written or edited 10 books, including The Origins and Ancient History of Wine (Gordon and Breach, 1996), Organic Contents of Ancient Vessels (MASCA, 1990), Cross-Craft and Cross-Cultural Interactions in Ceramics (American Ceramic Society, 1989), and Late Bronze Palestinian Pendants: Innovation in a Cosmopolitan Age (Sheffield, 1985). In 2000, his book on the Foreign Relations of the “Hyksos,” a scientific study of Middle Bronze pottery in the Eastern Mediterranean, was published by Archaeopress. As a Research Associate in the Near East Section of the Museum, he has also directed the Baq`ah Valley (Jordan) Project over the past 25 years (described in a University Museum monograph, The Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages of Central Transjordan, 1986), and been involved with many other excavations throughout the Middle East as a pottery and stratigraphic consultant. A detailed study of the New Kingdom Egyptian garrison at Beth Shan, an older Museum excavation, also appeared in 1994 in the Museum Monograph series, entitled The Late Bronze Egyptian Garrison at Beth Shan. As an Adjunct Professor in the Anthropology Dept. at Penn, he teaches courses on Molecular Archaeology.

Source: http://www.penn.museum/sites/biomoleculararchaeology/?page_id=10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.193.65.86 (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

What are you trying to od? If you are trying to create an artilce, use the article wizard. Mdann52 (talk) 13:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

At first glance, I thought they wanted us to do the article for them. — WylieCoyote (talk) 19:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Help Desk Archive

I'm not sure if it matters or might be an issue, but since I was doing it for a time, I checked a recent archive, had it has Archived an article that was posted to yesterday. -- :- ) Don 17:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

If it was Rollingwagon's reply to the October 31 archive we can probably ignore it. Otherwise please provide a link. Huon (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not archiving any longer. The bot put it away. I did not archive anything newer than 8 days.-- :- ) Don 19:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

AFCH v4.1.16b2 now available (in beta, that is)

Yes, I have fixed the major bugs and it's ready for beta! Changelog:

• Major cleanup of the code
• Preparation for FFU stuff
• BLP "wizard" to automate talk page tagging
• Enabled review tab on all pages in userspace
• Improvements to cleanup functionality
• Updated interface
• Rewrote canned decline comment interface
• Rewrote AfC/R declining to be easier to use
• Change to displayed notice when using an incompatible browser
• Bug fixes
• Removed Herobrine

This is the largest update since mabdul and I became developers. "Bug fixes" really doesn't do justice to the amount of issues fixed in v4.1.16b2, including the pesky commentary bug and the odd labeling bug. It also includes the new and improved decline interface, the option to automatically add BLP tags when accepting a submission, and the long awaited usability updates to redirect and category reviewing. If you wish to use this version, please delete the reference to the old release candidate and follow these directions. I will be away for a little while, so please just reply with any bugs you find and I will work on them when I get back in late-October and/or November. Thanks and happy testing! --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 18:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Cool. I will check it out. Thanks for all your efforts. Son of Chzzbot will miss you. --  :- ) Don 18:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm back now and I'm rather surprised no one has reported any bugs. No news is good news, but I can't see how many people are currently piggybacking on this build due to how JavaScript works. Can everybody currently testing please give me a status report? The faster it's tested, the sooner it hits stable. Thanks, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 17:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I've begun work on v4.1.16b3 which will have minor interface improvements and bug fixes. PLEASE go ahead and test this build! I can't move anything to stable unless it has been tested by many people and the only testing that I have to work with was a small session with Legoktm earlier today. It would be a big help and I'm sure the new features would help with the drive. Thanks in advance, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 00:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

For those of you who haven't tried it yet, the new biography wizard is amazing. Definitely worth trying. Legoktm (talk) 04:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's a bug Nathan. When reviewing WP:AFC/R, category requests show up twice (see http:// cl.ly/image/432j2n2p1w33) even though they're listed only once (http:// cl.ly/image/3s191E1z1p0V). Also once it finishes, it says it couldnt find the section, even though it closed it properly, and the reload link doesn't show up even though everything finished (see http:// cl.ly/image/371Z0o2H1S2x). Also, your memoserv inbox on IRC is full! Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 19:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I will start to develop again on that unfinished stuff ^^ Next week I might have some spare time for checking that beta code and the cat stuff. I want to get pushed that beta with that many improvements. mabdul 19:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Found a submission which demonstrated all of the known bugs: Corey William Large. See the history of it and it's talk page. The main issue is that it's not adding |living=yes to the BLP template and is having random crashing bugs when reviewing where it freezes and doesn't finish editing. Not good, and I'm not sure how to fix it. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 17:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Per Backlog Drive

I have probably reviewed more than are needed to meet the Working Man's barnstar requirements, but don't care to tally the totals while work remains to be done. If anybody would be a hero and take a leap of faith I would be grateful, but in the mean time, back to work. We're beating this backlog! Cheers! T.I.M^(Contact) 22:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Same here. Just make sure to jot down your diffs in your progress page and handle the rest when the drive is over. Keep up the good work! --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 20:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

If someone could write a bot for this, I would be eternally grateful. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

We intend to write this functionality into the script soon. Until then, you have to log it by hand. I know it's annoying, but quality assurance is crucial for WP:BITE reasons. Keep up the good work! --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 02:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

"Insufficient context"

This draft on a member of the Russian Duma has now been twice rejected by different reviewers for "insufficient context". That seems to me a severe mis-application of that criterion. If anything, parts of the draft are too long and detailed, not too short. It also seems an example of systemic bias; I was once told that members of the US House of Representatives were inherently notable and a source proving they were indeed members of the House was sufficient to have an article on them, even if nothing but the length of their term in office was known. If that's our stance on American parlamentarians, then a deputy chairman of a Duma committee is definitely notable enough and we don't need to show "how he's made contributions that would make him stand out", as one reviewer suggested - he's a member of parliament, that alone makes him stand out. I'll tidy up the draft, and if the sources are sufficient I'll accept it outright. Huon (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Satisfying the criterion for ‘insufficient context’ requires a rudimentary thought experiment to determine whether a reasonable layperson could identify the subject, where the article isn’t blank, nonsensical, or a probable test. I would agree regarding the invalid rationale, but I’m not sufficiently familiar with the subjects to evaluate whether the inaccuracy is illustrative of a straightforward misunderstanding or systemic prejudice. Mephistophelian (contact) 21:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC).

Seems to be a lot of this going on. An article which began with the text "IDEA Office is an architecture firm based in downtown Los Angeles" was rejected by Nathan2055 just a few hours ago. I'm not sure whether the firm meets notability requirements or not (it might well do, and the refs are well laid out at least), and the article could have been better written, but the article as rejected certainly did not "provide insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, according to the link provided in the decline notice context is "...The surroundings, circumstances, environment, background or settings that determine, specify, or clarify the meaning of an event or other occurrence...". Slowly reading the lead I can make out that it is an architecture firm, but in my judgement context should be the ability to reasonably identify the subject matter within a few seconds of glancing at the lead. Correct me if I'm wrong there, but look at the wall of text here and see how long it takes to identify the subject. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 02:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with your characterisation of the article as an indefinite wall of text, and, to reiterate an earlier observation, applying the 'insufficient context' criterion to IDEA Office is definitely mistaken. Since the opening paragraph states that 'IDEA Office is an architecture firm based in downtown Los Angeles', I concluded directly that it's an article concerning a Californian business specialising in architecture. After glancing superficially at the composition and referencing, my impression is that there aren't any violations, and that the author's first major contribution to the encyclopaedia is a credible attempt. Mephistophelian (contact) 04:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC).

AfC helper script sends thank you message to users when submission declined as a joke

It may be functional to refine the template message sent to people when their submissions are declined using the AfC Helper script and utilizing the "joke" parameter in the Reason for decline pull-down menu. Another editor recently brought this matter to my attention, and considers it inappropriate to send a thank-you message to editors who submit obviously unencyclopedic content. The template messages are sent automatically when using the Helper script. Rewording the template in ways to discourage the submission of unencyclopedic content, while also not discouraging editors from contributing appears to be in order. Posting this here to request discussion regarding potential changes to the template message sent in these cases. For convenience, below I've included the template as it appears on the submission page when declining under the joke parameter using the Helper script below. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• A simple solution is to omit the "Thank you for your submission" part and simply have the template read as

“ It appears that your submission is either an attempt to be humorous over being factual, or is an obvious hoax. As Wikipedia strives to contain only factual entries, we can not accept your submission at this time. ”

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:AFC submission/comments

 Done. Mephistophelian (contact) 09:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC).

Thanks! The "Thank you for your submission" part is gone now, as indicated in the (now revised) template above. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Also, below is the (generic) template that people receive on their talk pages when the above circumstances occur. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:Afc decline

That template won't differentiate the rationale unless it's a copyright violation, and there are recent instances where I've declined submissions as defamatory: 12.208.59.130, yet the resulting template simply appears inappropriate for the offence. Mephistophelian (contact) 10:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC).

Where joke submissions have been negative or defamatory in content, I've sent them straight to speedy deletion. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Another solution is to suppress 'Notify author'. Mephistophelian (contact) 10:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC).

search engines

I would like the community to give as much info as possiable about Modzilla Firefox. History, reliability, and speed search comparison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.4.173.233 (talk) 04:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is the place to ask this request, but there is already an article on Firefox. You may request more info about it at its talk page. Thanks! — WylieCoyote (talk) 11:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Updating the Reviewer instructions with links to copyvio detectors

The Reviewing instructions for accepting AfC submissions should be updated with more information about additional methods to detect copyright violations, along with the addition of copyvio detector links. Some links include:

• Copyvio Detector
• Duplication Detector
• Wikiblame
• Contribution Surveyor

This would certainly improve the likelihood of copyvios being detected more accurately. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Wikiblame and Contribution Surveyor are all that useful for AFC reviewers; and having too many links increases the chances for confusion, or just that some reviewers will use none of them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I've used Copyvio Detector, and it appears to be pretty accurate. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it would be a bad idea to include a link to Copyvio Detector -- Like Northamerica1000, I've had fairly good results from it. —Theopolisme 02:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - I didn't know Copyvio Detector existed, so I've never used it before, but I have used Duplication Detector. It's pretty accurate, but requires a URL of the copyrighted document and the page. I'd add the both. (Also, copyvio detector is down, I'm nagging Earwig about it right now.) --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 02:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it's back up and running for me. Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I just tested Copyvio Detector and it was operating correctly. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Heh. I just tried running it through a few pages on WP:CCI and got a python error. I'll send Earwig a bug report. Legoktm (talk) 08:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• There's also this page, from which I found the resources listed above: Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Resources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Including a Duplication Detector report in the template for declining submissions due to copyright violations is also worth considering, primarily to direct the author's attention to the specific issues. Mephistophelian (contact) 08:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC).

Well since copyvios get blanked and deleted per CSD G12, it wouldnt help much. Legoktm (talk) 09:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Whenever an editor tags an article for a copyright violation via the AFC helper, the resulting CSD template doesn’t include a Duplication Detector report, and merely references the website that Wikipedia is infringing. In comparison, the standard {{db-g12}} deletion template actually does include the duplication report, and seems preferable, at least subjectively, in providing more information to the observer than the AFCH alternative. Mephistophelian (contact) 10:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC).

Are you saying perhaps make a variant of the CSD G12 notification (the one delivered on user talk pages) that would include a link to the duplication detector? —Theopolisme 12:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

We could add the actual revision link to the template including the duplication detector. This should be technical possible... mabdul 13:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, it would be cool to be able to use AFCH and simply have a box show up when you select copyvio, give it the link, and have a complete report with a duplication detector link. But, it would take some work. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 17:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

No, Theopolisme, the existing template for notifying contributors that their article infringes on a website doesn't actually include a Duplication Detector report, and the link would become redundant following the deletion anyway. Wherever the rationale for declining a submission includes the parameter for copyright violations: cv|Website, I would prefer it if the template also included reports: {{Dupdet}}, thereby resulting in the following alteration:

"This submission appears to be taken from Website."

"This submission appears to be taken from Website (Duplication Detector report)." Mephistophelian (contact) 22:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC).

Any other thoughts/comments? @Nathan — I think the "simply have a box show up when you select copyvio, give it the link, and have a complete report with a duplication detector link" idea would definitely be useful. —Theopolisme 15:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

yes, this would be helpful--especially since the notice the submitter gets otherwise gives no specific information, and the article is not there for them to see it.

In fact, the template they get says, illogically, to see the article to continue to edit. This is of course nonsense & confusing--the article is not there for them to see, and in most cases they should be starting over, not editing. I've asked before that this template be changed, and told it was changed, but it's back again. The Wikipediaprocess is confusing enough if we give the right instructions. DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John W. J. Cho

The author of this once userfied draft, now moved to AFC, has posted an AFD tag requesting its deletion. There's an IP editor who made changes, so it's not a G7 candidate, though I don't think it would be much of a controversial deletion. The username matches the name of the subject (User:Johnwjcho). How do we usually delete AFC's? Could someone sort this? Thanks. UltraExactZZ ; ^Said ~ Did 13:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm just going to put it up for MFD, as that is what they wanted to happen. Mdann52 (talk) 13:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Silas KANYABIGEGA

Article draft

Introduction Pastor Silas Kanyabigega is an Ordained Minister (Elder) of the Free Methodist Church USA – Website: http://fmcusa.org/, World Ministries Center Indianapolis, Indiana, Membership is held in the OHIO Annual conference of the Free Methodist Church. He is also President of the International Movement for Christ. Website: http://www.movementforchrist.com www.movementforchrist.com. Born in Rwanda, silas Founder of the MOUVEMENT POUR CHRIST AU RWANDA, MPCR, founded in 1992. His Technical Formation: Enginer Radio-TV-HIFI (Belgium). His Theological Formation: Master of Divinity (USA) His activities in Rwanda He was Pastor of the Free Methodist Church in Rwanda since 1991. He started the Parish of Kinyinya of the Free Methodist Church in Kigali. He was ordained as Reverend by the Free Methodist Church in Rwanda. He worked to the Germany Radio “Deutsche Welle“Technician Operator and President of CESTRAR in Deutsche Welle Kigali. Before going to the USA, he worked as Technician at Campus Crusade for Christ in Rwanda, as Pastor Ordained (Reverend) in the Free Methodist Church in Rwanda until May 21, 2007, the date of moving to the USA, where his family joined him in May 2011. Early life Silas Kanyabigega was born on May 10, 1958, at Hillside of Mugozi, Municipality of Rwamatamu, Chief town of Kibuye. His Father, Thaddée Buhake of Ntamuvurira, of Kanyoni, of Ndorimana, of Segatake (Umugesera) who resided in “Gisaka cy’ Abazirankende” (Kibungo), was born in Mugozi. Buhake’s Father “Ntamuvurira” and his brother Mbonyinshuti were born at Mugozi too. Kanyoni was born in Gisaka cy’ Abazirankende after he moved to Rubengera, Kibuye before moving again in Mugozi, Rwamatamu, Kibuye. Buhake was born in 1920 and passed away in 1994. Buhake’s Mother is Nyirashyirambere. His Mother is Julie Nyirumulinga. She was born in 1922 and passed away in 1994. Her parents lived at Kibuga – Rwamatamu. Her Father is Mpabuka (tall). Her Mother is Nyirasikubwabo (tall and bigger). His Career Silas Kanyabigega attend Sunday School at Bweza, Mugozi, in the Free Methodist Church. He attended Nursery School with Frederic Buguru at Karambo - Mugozi. He attended the Elementary school at Kigarama, he attended Musengesi Primary school at Rwamatamu, the last 6th Year of primary school at Bugarama - Cyangugu. He attended High School at Official Technical School “E.T.O – Kicukiro”, He has Diploma of G3 in Theology and Religious Sciences of Protestant University of Christian Churches of Congo RDC. He has Engineer Formation in Radio-TV-HI FI of Belgium; He has a Theological Formation of America, as Master of Divinity to the United Theological Seminary (UTS). Outside Rwanda He is Founder of Mouvement Pour Christ in Rwanda – M.P.C.R. Later, he started the Mouvement pour Christ au Burundi, the Mouvement pour Christ au Congo, the Movement for Christ in Tanzania, the Movement for Christ in Uganda, the International Movement for Christ in the USA. His Writings He wrote some books and Articles which are available at http://www.movementforchrits.com www.movementforchrits.com 1. Book “Les Charismes Spirituels à la Lumière du Nouveau Testament, cas des Eglises du Rwanda. 2. La Prédication Centrée sur Jésus Christ 3. Livre KWIZERA Yesu Kristo, n’ Iherezo ry’ abatamwizera, Tumurikiwe na Bibliya. 4. Charismatic mainfestations, Case of the Chuches of Rwanda. Family and personal life His wife is Vénantie Nzavugankize, born in Kinyinya, Rubungo, Kigali Ngali, on June 6, 1966. Her Father is Alexandre Gatabazi. Her Mother is Anastasie Nyirabaforomo. His children are: 1. Joyce Mushimiyimana 2. Josue Nsengiyumva 3. Evanyse Manishimwe 4. Judith Niyimpa 5. Fortunée Nishimwe 6. Samuel Silvain Sezerano 7. Tite Niyonshuti Silas Kanyabigega and his family live in the USA. Religious views Silas KANYABIGEGA is a Christian who is characterized by Faith in Christ during all his Christian life. He wrote a Book “ KWIZEARA Yesu Kristo in Kinyarwanda language which means FAITH in Jesus Christ. You can find it to the Website of the International Movement for Christ, http://www.movementforchrist.com www.movementforchrist.com. He is also Founder (July, 2012) of the Radio KWIZERA online , wich means FAITH Radio. Please, listen to the Radio Kwizera, using this Link: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/international-movement-for-christ1

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.215.241 (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Article drafts should be submitted via the Article Wizard, not through this talk page. However, the draft doesn't cite any reliable sources that are independent of the subject; without significant coverage in such such sources we cannot accept an article. Huon (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Attempt to create a spin-off article

Everytime i re-submit "List of Ghost in the Shell Chapters", members continue to shoot it down because it doesn't have enough third party sources. I continue to say that it is a spin-off article of the Articles Ghost in the Shell and Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex, and it resembles articles such as List of D.Gray-man chapters articles.

Both ignored this, and refused to answer me back. I find it uncivil the way i'm treated when no one provides answers. So i come here, to get help and allowing to be reviewed once again. To keep in mind it is a SPINOFF.Lucia Black (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, reviewers are swamped in questions about their reviews and may not find the time to answer every single one of them. There's a dedicated help desk for questions on reviews. Nevertheless, both Ritchie333 and Jethro B replied to your queries.

Secondly, as Jethro B explained, spin-off list articles must still show notability via coverage in secondary sources. See also the notability criterion for lists; the term "stand-alone list" in that notability guideline doesn't refer to lists that aren't spin-off lists, but to lists that are not part of a larger article. Notability is not inherited. The list of D.Gray-man chapters shows quite a bit of such coverage, discussing the publication history in detail. If similar coverage doesn't exist for the Ghost in the Shell chapters we should probably include the list in the main articles instead of creating a separate article for them - in fact, the Ghost in the Shell article already has the relevant information.

I also doubt whether it's a good idea to mix the original manga chapters and what appear to be graphic novel adaptions of the anime in the same list. The latter aren't really chapters, are they? Huon (talk) 14:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

There are several articles like it that hold only first party sources and not only that but they are featured lists and ive checked several of them and hold no third party source. Also this in order of summary style. WP:SPLIT. there are continuos ammount. Its a child article, its still connected directly to those articles, its creation is not based on being independent article.Lucia Black (talk) 04:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

on amother note. The list.does contain a third party sources. Granted not a whole lot. But it does.Lucia Black (talk) 04:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, other insufficiently sourced articles exist, and I was pretty shocked to see that some of those articles have managed to be designated featured content. That's still no reason to create more. Secondly, correct me if I'm wrong, but your draft has a single third-party source that doesn't even mention chapters, the Anime News Network article. Is that really what you claim makes this list topic notable? Thirdly, WP:SPLIT is a how-to guide, not a policy or guideline, and it say that articles of less than 40k need not be split anyway. Huon (talk) 05:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

List of chapters is just a title we use in WP:ANIME, the article is to show it's serialization/release history, in which the main article already covers that information on why it's "noable".Lucia Black (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you're arguing that certain list articles should be exempt from notability considerations, in particular those outlined at WP:LISTN. This is the wrong page for such a discussion; if you want that guideline changed, please suggest such changes at Wikipedia talk:Notability. Huon (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

How did you get that out of one sentence? I'm saying this is a child article off of Ghost in the Shell and Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex, asking for the "chapters" to be notable is asking if the entire manga is notable (in which is proven in the main article).Lucia Black (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Then you are saying that this list article should be exempt from WP:LISTN, aren't you? Huon (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

it has notability, just not directly into the article. Because its a child article directly related to the main article.Lucia Black (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

That's what I understood, and it's in conflict with WP:LISTN which currently doesn't have a child article exception but requires all lists to establish their own notability. As I said, the place to discuss such proposals is Wikipedia talk:Notability. Huon (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It does. Just not in the article.Lucia Black (talk) 03:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but by now I cannot even follow your grammar. What is "it does" supposed to mean in this context? WP:LISTN currently does have a child article exception? That doesn't seem to be correct, or could you quote the relevant part? Or are you saying that the chapters have been discussed as a group or set as required (and as opposed to the manga as a whole), but the list doesn't show they have? In the latter case, why not add evidence of such coverage to the list and clearly show the list topic is notable? Huon (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The latter more or less. Its notable due to the reception in main article. Again its a child article, LISTN says stand alone. The chapters are the manga as a whole.Lucia Black (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

As I said above, "stand alone list" is not in contrast to "child list", but to "list embedded in a larger article". A child list is still a stand-anlone list for the purposes of WP:LISTN. Anyway, if the chapters have been discussed in sources provided in the main article, why not carry over that coverage into the child article? That would elegantly resolve the issue, wouldn't it?

This page is certainly the wrong venue for a discussion on notability of lists. How about choosing a better venue where other interested persons are more likely to find the discussion? Wikipedia talk:Notability or maybe Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga seem more promising. Huon (talk) 05:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Im ppretty sure i would win easily with WP:Anime. The only issue is they tend to ignore alot of topics. Again...the naming of it is actually just shorter for serialization and release history of the manga because each chapter release was indivodually in magazines. If i moved the info, it wouldnt be a list article, it would be an article.Lucia Black (talk) 05:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that you seem to be trying to spin out a portion of an article arguing that the notability of the parent article automatically is conferred to the child article. Per WP:SPINOFF: "Editors are cautioned not to immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criterion nor the specific notability criteria for their topic. Instead, editors are encouraged to work on further developing the main article first, locating coverage that applies to both the main topic and the subtopic." The subtopic does not (yet) show that it meets the notability criteria. --Nouniquenames 05:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Lord Krishna bansuri

I want to know that how lord krishna bansuri get, what is the story of lord krishna bansuri. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.187.211.139 (talk) 13:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

This page is for issues concerning WikiProject Articles for creation. Please see the reference desk for questions that the encyclopedia can't answer. Thanks, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 20:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it's time...

...to MfD David William Parry. I tried to CSD this morning and was told that was for already-created articles. I hate to bite newcomers, but this editor just does not seem to understand that we cannot keep tutoring him. There are plenty of other issues for us to face than this. — WylieCoyote (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll courtesy blank it for disruption. I wish we didn't have to deal with these people, but that's life in a WikiProject dealing mainly with noobs. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 20:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is a discussion about these types of people. WylieCoyote (talk) 05:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Uncategorized

Of the 18 recently accepted articles, 6 were uncategorized: [7][8][9][10][11][12]. Can people who accept articles please try to get at least one category on every article? Fram (talk) 13:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's an idea, how about adding auto support for {{uncategorized}} when AFCH doesn't unmask any cats? (And yes, we do eventually plan to bundle HotCat support into the system eventually.) --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 17:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

This is more an educational problem of the reviewers. Automatic tagging with {{uncat}} would be a partial solution. Integrating HotCat? How should this look like? Have fun to do this. ^^ mabdul 23:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at the categorization system implemented in the WMC upload wizard. See how it auto-completes like HotCat? That's my idea of what we should do. Simply add another form and a lot of the backend could be copied over from HotCat. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 02:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Except for articles on topics I understand very well, I've been labeling articles "uncat" manually. I don't think this is necessarily lazy, just a division of labour. Having AFC reviewers also do cats would either slow down the already backlogged AFC process, or would lead to shoddily assigned cats, or a single (often over-large) cat with a "more cats" tag, but since "more cats" probably doesn't get anywhere near the cleanup attention "uncat" does, ironically a "more cats" might linger far longer in category limbo, never quite properly filed. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

@mabdul: Well, how about a big red uncategorized notice like with HTML comments in the beta? --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 22:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. I will do it at the end of the week (please post me the actual beta page) and I will try to digg out the other outstanding bugs. Moreover I will tag the article (if getting moved) with uncat. mabdul 12:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Great, I'll make sure I have nothing I want to keep in my alpha and prepare a copy for you to work on. Thanks, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 20:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I cleaned up my existing build and found out the only thing I needed to push was updates to the release notes. Anyway, the beta build is ready for you to work on. Good luck fixing those bugs! Thanks, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 20:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Other-language Wiki-translated AfCs

I was asked about sources for Grigoriy Nosko, when I suggested more adequate references there, via this message on my talk page. Is this article fixable as it appears to translated from other-language Wikis? It was declined this week for lack of reliable sources. Thanks. — WylieCoyote (talk) 08:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I was able to find liks to the translated data here and here and it seems good to go. I'll see if I can get it finished tommorow. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 04:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Bug report for AFCH – commenting

I hope this the right place to report bugs for AFCH (Articles for Creation Helper script).

When AFCH adds a comment for you in a submission, it doesn't add a space between the comment and the signature. For example:

• Comment: This is my comment.The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 07:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

It has happened to me and appears to be happening to other users as well. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 07:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

After taking a look at the template, it seems that the problem is in the script. I can see 2 possible solutions -

1. Make the comment template have a signiture added automatically
2. Change the script , which may be easier. Mdann52 (talk) 11:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Is already fixed in the beta,a lthough this beta has other bugs... mabdul 15:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed it in the beta. ATM you'll have to wait for the next round of bug fixes in v4.1.16b3 before we can even consider pushing this (such is the sad life of a programmer). Wish me luck, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 04:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Error with the template

Good day, I'm not a reviewer, but I try to help as I can on the IRC channel and that same question came up often. The user clicks to mark his article ready for review, so the appropriate template is added at the bottom of the article. However, the old article saying the article is not yet submitted for review remains at the top. Could somebody look into that please? See [13] or [14]. Thanks, Amqui (talk) 03:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

That's normal - it just adds a new section to the end of the page, and leaves the old template - I think a bot sorts it out eventually... Mdann52 (talk) 12:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

It is normal, but it is confusing to new users... some of whom will re-submit the same page repeatedly or even copy-paste the entire text of their article again under the new box so that the mess awaiting review is multiple copies of the same article on the same page. Another thing to watch: if a page opens tags such as <ref> and then fails to close them, everything beyond the mismatch tag (including the resubmission tags and the list of references for the page) will not appear. That happens often enough to be something to watch for. I suspect the implementation of these tags is kludgy because what we have is all MediaWiki can easily do, though. K7L (talk) 12:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

We added a huge notice explaining this in the templated edit notice. The ref tags will also appear on the radar in the new version of AFCH. We also have AfCBot manually fixing that, though I eventually hope to get an automated AFCH implementation going under NathanBot. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 21:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

It is indeed very confusing for beginners. All they see is "you're article had been rejected", while what they wanted to do is resubmitting it for review. The first thing that a beginner thinks when he sees that is "oh, the submission didn't work". It should be look at. Amqui (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Absurd group of pseduo-explanations above. This is fixable. It should be very easily fixable. Why on earth leave it for a bot? Is the software incapable of positioning a cursor? (And I cannot imagine the designer to put the keep the old information highly visible and hide the new information at the bottom in the first place. ) DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, short of running JavaScript on the user's machine (the way, for instance, HotCat or other gadgets do), all we can do is "edit page", "edit section" or add a new section at the end of the page. In all cases, the cursor position is at the upper-left (beginning of whatever is being added or edited). That said, however, perhaps the default position for *all* of these boxes (including the previous rejections) should be at the end of that page. That big red box at the top of the page is ugly. K7L (talk) 15:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I am wondering, though, if the JavaScript for "collapse this box by default unless it's the only one on the page" which appears on many of the mainspace infoboxes could be applied to collapse all of the previous rejections on a resubmitted article so that they occupy just one line each? K7L (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, you guys don't appear to be understanding so I'll try to explain it better. Currently, we use a special link system to open a new section page similar to what you use on talk pages. The user then files the submission and a few hours later, one of our bots updates it. We have two giant notices stating that it won't delete it. Because the WMF seems to be spending it's time on stupid things such as Wikilove, AFT, and the new edit window they haven't found the bug that multiple WikiProjects filed to have this changed and sections addable to the top of a page. This could be changed if we did what I wanted to do and rewrote the article wizard in JavaScript similar to what they are doing at DRN. Any suggestions? --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 19:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, please see [15], 4 templates, very confusing especially for beginners, there must be something to do to make it better even with the tools we have now. The warning message in comment in the edit box is really inadequate for beginners. Amqui (talk) 03:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm bringing that topic back. This question still arise so often on the IRC Channel... Amqui (talk) 05:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• There are two issues here: 1) The AFC Bot is not currently working right and will often not remove the old template, ever. and 2) Is this really the best method for submitting articles to AfC?

1. Is being addressed, at least hopefully. I contacted User:Petrb on his talk page to notify him of the problem and I spoke to him about it in IRC. An alternative to this method would be to make another bot or rewrite Petrb's bot. Any of these options are possible.

2. I tend to agree with DGG that this shouldn't need to be left to a bot. We need a better method for submitting new articles to Wikipedia through AfC. The submission workflow was even discussed as a major issue at the RfC regarding requiring confirmed userlevel to create new articles. This can be accomplished through changes to the MediaWiki software, or possibly through more complicated templates, or possibly even through a default Gadget (although this would require the end user to have JavaScript enabled–which almost all users do). I think the best way to accomplish this type of improvement would be to decide what we want to happen, and then figure out how to make it happen and then from there make compromises with the software if necessary. --Odie5533 (talk) 06:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, let's face it. AfC bot is trash. What I'm working on implementing is a bot framework run through the script to automatically clean-up submissions. Even better, we could also use JavaScript to create an updated article wizard that does the process for us. Either way, that requires more developers than we already have (ATM it takes us two weeks or more to handle small bugs). To take a quote from Toy Story: "We need more monkeys!" --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 04:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Can I please urge the AfC reviewers to take more care to avoid that copyright violations get moved to the main namespace? I first encountered this when researching NorthAmerica1000s contributions, but decided today to check some other recent promotions as well. I have deleted three more pages, Margaret E Lyttle, KGiSL Institute of Technology and Paul B. Wiegmann (all moved to the mainspace today), as copyright violations. None of them were very hard to find.

Could you, please, restore the article Paul Wiegmann into my user space. It is very easy to remove that simple glitch of copyright violation but I do not have a backup of the page (I am sorry...). Awwriter (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I was the reviewer guilty of having accepted all three--my error was working too late into the night--but the article on KGISL was not entirely a copyvio, for I had rewritten some of it and consequently was not technically eligible for deletion as G11. Had it been a regular submission at NPP, it should have been labelled and sent to copyright violations for a decision of whether to clean it or throw it out altogether. (The end result was however right, as I think it would have been too much work to clean it completely)

As for Wiegmann, everything except the awards list was copyvio, so it is not a simple glitch. Awwriter, it shou;d not be restored for tinkering with the wording--you need to rewrite it altogether. DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Jacqulyn Buglisi is less obvious, but it is much too closely paraphrased from sources like [16], [17] and [18]. More research should have been done before this was brought to the main namespace, it now reads like an updated press release instead of a copyright-violation-free, neutral encyclopedic article.

I haven't checked all articles in the recetly promoted section, never mind older ones, but the amount of problematic ones is worrying.

I additionally note that Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions claims that I "accepted" Denny Randell, when in reality I changed it into a redirect... Fram (talk) 14:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Fram, that problem of indicating acceptance is part of the nature of the system--as far as the computer is concerned, you edited it and accepted it. What else could it call it? To make a redirect out of it and label it properly you would have had to decline it,and then make a new redirect in article space DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

That page was never in AfC space, and already was a redirect before it was expanded into an article. If removing a misplaced AfC template means that the bot thinks I accepted it, then there is something wrong with the bot logic. If you look at the page I redirected, it has no indication of what an editor is supposed to do or how it should be declined: "This article has recently been created via the Articles for creation process. The reviewer is in the process of closing the request, and this tag should be removed soon." This looks simply like an old tag, forgotten by the reviewer (since it had been on that page for three days). This was not an article in AfC space waiting to be accepted, this was an article in the mainspace which according to its tag was already accepted. IF I was supposed to do something different than what I did, then the template needs to be modified, or the bot logic. Fram (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Be careful out there!

Any errors in detecting copyright violations can lead to opposition in future requests for adminship, as evidenced at my recent RfA (See oppose #5 and subsequent oppose rationales based upon this oppose at opposes #18, 20, 36, 37). Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Odaine Demar

...appears to have more notability than last year to have an article. Yet, his article space has previously been AfD'ed. How do we remedy this? — WylieCoyote (talk) 16:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd say his notability is still dubious with just a single secondary source covering him in detail although he played in a fully professional league. If you intend to accept the submission, we'll probably need an admin to un-salt the page Odaine Demar; WP:RFPP would be the correct venue. There's no general rule against accepting submissions on topics where a previous article had been deleted if the past issues have been resolved. Huon (talk) 17:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

A single source that covers WP:NGRIDIRON is good enough for me! There are far less notable player articles out there: Adewale Ojomo, Matthew Conrath, and Hayworth Hicks, to name a few. — WylieCoyote (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I've encountered articles that have been salted before and the correct route is usually deletion review. Administrators typically don't like unsalt requests at WP:RFPP, but it depends on who you get. Just be sure to link to the AfC so the admins can make a decision. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 20:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Sent to this deletion review. Thanks, folks! — WylieCoyote (talk) 09:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Someone should create a Barnstar...

...to give to those diligent ones who take the time to move a bunch of AfC's from sandboxes. Haha. — WylieCoyote (talk) 05:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The template has a link on it that does the whole thing for you. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Try this one out! --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 04:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

"The template has a link on it that does the whole thing for you." Yes, it wants to send it to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/sandbox, forcing us to add the title's name to it, taking away those valuable seconds where we could be out in the sunshine. As for the suggested barnstar, that would work but it's part of the drive's 110-minimum-reviews award and would probably confuse some partaking in it. If I was an artistic type, I would create a star sinking into a kid's sandbox or even add it to the actual image. — WylieCoyote (talk) 09:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of removing AfC tags...

Are we allowed to remove submission tags from articles that are obvious tests/vandalism, rather than go through the longer CSD process? For example, only one line: "WylieCoyote is da bomb!" I think this should okay, as long we let them know these would never get through. But I guess that warning/ban system is handy, too. — WylieCoyote (talk) 13:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please follow CSD policy. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

AfC Bot Issue

I've noticed a slight problem with the AfC helper bot, namely that it will only work on 'Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/article_name' pages. Quite a few articles are in User space, so one must manually accept or decline submissions. Frankly I can't be bothered doing this, as it takes far too long. I could probably come up with a hacky fix for the script, but surely it would be better for whoever develops the bot to add it to the main source code? Jdp407 (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

You can move the submission from the userspace to the Wikipedia talk:AfC space, which can be done easily with the "move" link in the submission template (Full message: "Warning: This page should probably be located at <page name>"). Once that's done, you can accept/decline using the script. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 22:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

No worries, hacky fixes aren't necessary. I patched it to work in userspace in the next update, see below if you want to test it for me! --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 17:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Resubmitting articles

I was left a message on my talk page about someone working on an article after a decline. They wanted to resubmit it, but there wasn't an option for that on the template. What should I advise them to do? CharmlessCoin (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Good question! I have the same problem because I've only ever used AfC once myself as a punter. Will be interesting to know the answer :) Sionk (talk) 23:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh great, that's another bug relating to the small=yes feature we implemented a few weeks ago in the script. Could I have a link to the article so I can work it out (and have a diff so I know what's broken)? --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 00:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Here it is. CharmlessCoin (talk) 03:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed the article. There were two "small declines" on it. I made one of them normal, which included the option for re-submission. And here's the bugaboo. — WylieCoyote (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the issue occurred with this edit. Either way, it's on the list as a high priority bug, hopefully we will patch it soon. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 17:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

SkyFx Broker

Hello dear community!

Can anyone here who is more familiar with Wikipedia create an article about the forex broker SkyFX? There is very little information avaiable about the company it seems, but it is recommended on many websites.

Where are they located? Do they comply with laws? How much responsibility do they have against costumers? Can they be trusted?

Best regards,

We cannot offer risk management advice. Please see the general disclaimer. Contact a risk management professional. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 17:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

An idea to update a message

I recently received this message on my talk page. It is important that people be made aware about the significance of detecting copyright violations and plagiarism, so I propose that the following be added to the message:

“ 2. Are you able to detect copyright violations and plagiarism? ”

I've added the new information below for people to preview this proposal in the actual message. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Articles for creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 1274 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our help desk. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Are you able to detect copyright violations and plagiarism? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. Plus, reviewing is easy when you use our new semi-automated reviewing script! Thanks in advance, (signature)

• Support as nominator. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• support Seems obvious, as a minimal start. I think we might want to modify this to say

1. Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and aware of discussions about how we apply them?
2. Are you able to detect copyright violations and plagiarism; have you carefully read and understood our rules about it ?
3. Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not ?
4. Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions?
5. Can you review submissions based on their individual merits according to our policies and guidelines, not your own opinion about the importance of the subject?
6. Can you communicate clearly in friendly language what is right or wrong with a article, and answer questions from new users?

I would also like to add, though I know there may be some disagreement about it:

• Do you know how this all works in practice by having written at least one or two satisfactory articles?
• Do you understand that an article good enough to pass WP:AFD is good enough to be accepted? DGG ( talk ) 15:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

---

Alright, based on these comments I modified the template to look like this:

WikiProject Articles for creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 1274 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our help desk. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and are aware of discussions about how we apply them? Are you able to detect copyright violations and plagiarism and have you carefully read and understood our rules about it ? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not ? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits according to our policies and guidelines, not your own opinion about the importance of the subject? Can you communicate clearly in friendly language what is right or wrong with a article, and answer questions from new users? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. Plus, reviewing is easy when you use our new semi-automated reviewing script! Thanks in advance, Nathan2055talk - contribs

Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation at 00:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC). If you do not wish to receive the newsletter and the notifications from WikiProject Articles for creation, please remove your username from this page.

How does that look to everyone? --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 00:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. Slightly wordy, perhaps, but being specific is better than a lack of specificity. I'd add commas to the first two points, after the phrase "Wikipedia's policies and guidelines" in point 1 and after the word "plagiarism" in point 2. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Duplicated submission

An ip user at the University of Oklahoma submitted Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Climate change in South Korea at Afc today, made one large (18,348 bytes) edit to it, and then about 15 minutes later User talk:Ji.h.nam created Climate change in South Korea using the same content, including the Afc tl. They have now apparently abandoned the correctly submitted draft and turned their attention to the page in main space, which, of course, now bears the message: "The reviewer is in the process of closing the request, and this tag should be removed soon." Worth keeping an eye on what is going on with this one, I have already had to mark the 3 images used for deletion under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. And the topic itself can be a bit of a hot potato: The climate change topic, broadly interpreted, is placed under discretionary sanctions. I'm not saying that the editor is deliberately attempting to bypass review process, but perhaps he should be encouraged to move his work back into Afc space? Keri (talk) 11:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

As AFC is not a requirement, I see no problem with that action. The IP user may be the same person as the one who registered an account in order to publish it directly. Either way, it is in the main space and it is subject to the same governance of the ArbCom sanctions, but that typically involves not AFC to mainspace actions itself. Now that it is live, its content and such are the same as any other page about climate change and can be dealt with as needed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

There might be some licensing problems; we should probably merge histories to credit 129.15.131.204 as the author. Other than that, bypassing AfC is not in itself a problem. I've removed the AfC template and done a little copyediting. Huon (talk) 15:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Appears to be a simple case of cut-and-paste moves, or perhaps the user forgot to login. Either way, I'll notify the correct noticeboard and get the history merged. Thanks, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 00:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I also notified Ji.h.nam and asked if they were the same person as the IP, but they probably won't respond. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 01:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Appears to be the same person, see their contributions. — WylieCoyote 04:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

El Elegido (wrestler)

El Elegido is a Mexican Wrestler that has been in only Asistencia Asesoria Administraction(Real name unknown).Elegido has a well known partner named,Gronda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.195.22.14 (talk) 21:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Article drafts should be submitted via the Article Wizard, not through this talk page. — WylieCoyote 16:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Not much improvement

Looking at the 10 articles listed now at Wikipedia:Articles for creation as being recently created, I notice:

• St. Mary's College, Chilaw is not a B-class by far, and is a copyvio! I have deleted it accordingly
• Climate Commission is uncategorized, and starts of with editorial commentary which doesn't belong in an article
• The Romeo and Juliet Effect is uncategorized, should probably be at Romeo and Juliet effect anyway, and needs a rewrite ("a considerable amount of curiosity has been examined"? Indentation, capitalization of section headers; basic cleanup)
• Public Administration (journal) is uncategorized
• Archer (company) is only categorized through its stub tag, not by real categories
• Jeffrey Ajluni seems allright
• Random indexing has no categories
• Paperless Post has no categories
• Jeremy Boreing seems allright
• Major Cities of Europe IT Users Group seems allright

So; again one copyvio, and at least half the articles uncategorized. Can some extra effort be made to address these basic requirements? Fram (talk) 10:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• The basic requirement is "is the article subject notable". Cleanup isn't a reason to fail an article. Not categorising isn't a reason to fail an article, though it's poor practice to not specify one on a pass. Even if the article is poorly written English with no inline citations and atrocious violations of WP:MOS, but the references do actually satisfy WP:GNG or some specialised notability reason such as WP:NFOOTY, WP:PROF or WP:NMUSIC, you should tag it and pass it. The Romeo and Juliet Effect does actually raise an interesting question about what you should do if an article only cites book references - my general pattern is to insist on ISBN numbers (so I can check the source actually exists and looks reliable) and do a web search for references myself. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The assessment page says for such problems as uncat: " fix it yourself, or accept and tag the article to alert other editors to the one or two issues that you believe are the most urgent issues." In most of these cases, it wasn't fixed and wasn't tagged either (I believe one was tagged as uncat). Considering that pages that are moved from AfC to the mainspace don't enter the New Pages Feed (correct me if I'm wrong on this please), this means that the AfC reviewer has to take on the basic tasks a new page patroller does, like tagging obvious problems. Fram (talk) 11:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Ah, right. Yes, they should be tagged and categorised appropriately, and assigned a WikiProject if appropriate. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I'll generally tag and WikiProject, but categorisation really needs to be done properly (and dumping into a over-broad category like "Religion" or "History" is disruptive to the cat system), so I see no problem with tagging "uncat" rather than spending a large amount of time properly categorising every article. If something is a no-brainer, where it's in just one or two cats that I can think of off the top of my head, I'll put those in. But I don't see any shame in just tagging "uncat" and moving on. AFC is terribly backlogged, and delaying new editors who want feedback and get impatient. WP:UNCAT has an active community that is rarely more than a few weeks behind, and doesn't have people waiting on them so much as they're just helping flesh out the Wiki structure. WP:UNCAT is great, I've worked there a lot too, but I don't see a problem with having a division of labour where AFC just reviews articles as expeditiously as is practical. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
        • I can live with tagging as "uncat", but most of these didn't have that tag either. I should have made that distinction in my original post though. Fram (talk) 13:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
          • The problem is, do you want reviewers spending large amounts of time cleaning-up articles, or do you want the 1500 backlog cleared? I don't think you can have both at the moment. I've recently taken to adding the 'uncategorized' tag on non-biographical articles. There are also some dubious decisions being made at the moment. This will be the result of the call to editors to lend a hand - they're not all experienced in the basics. Where I've come across these editors (well, only one recently) I've left a polite word of encouragement and explanation on their Talk page. Sionk (talk) 12:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

No worries. In the next update mabdul plans to automate {{uncat}} and eventually implement HotCat directly into the accepting interface. We got you covered. The copyvio is what scares me. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 17:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Wierd things going on

I don't know whether its just me or whether everyone has the same problem... all the drafts at AfC seem to have an article about Predestination Records added to them! Random examples here, here, here and here. Sionk (talk) 12:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Sometimes I wonder how they find these obscure subtemplates to edit. That template is semi-protected which I think is appropriate, but this particular editor is autoconfirmed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Blimey! How they managed to do that I don't know :) Sorted, at least. Thanks! Sionk (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

As a precaution for future events, would it be a good idea to add Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Your first article in the edit notice? Legoktm (talk) 15:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Or just semi-protect them. ;) --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 17:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/K Shortest Path Routing

For the information of reviewers, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/K Shortest Path Routing was discussed with the author of the most cited academic work on the topic, at User talk:David Eppstein#K Shortest Path Routing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/American_Tamaskan

This article is currently being discussed over at WikiProject Dogs along with numerous similar articles, and the consensus seems to be that they will all soon be nominated for deletion if sources that aren't the governing bodies of the breeds themselves cannot be found. It was also determined that this article is a duplicate of Tamaskan Dog as well as a WP:POVFORK since there was a recent split within the governing body for the Tamaskan Dog crossbreed (Which has resulted in the Am Tamaskan article, which is actually the same kind of crossbreed with a different name). I don't 'hang out' in this part of WP enough to know what the procedure is for such things, so I'm just going to leave it here. --Tikuko 09:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

For now I've declined the draft as largely unverifiable. Huon (talk) 11:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Adding people to the AFC "spam" list

Just thought I'll check if anyone has any objections to me adding all active users in Category:WikiProject Articles for creation participants to the spamlist for newsletters - this should get us a wider audience for any future blankets of notices we do. Mdann52 (talk) 13:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Is it worth me going through and commenting inactive users out of the list? Mdann52 (talk) 13:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Meh, the WMF spammed ~100 inactive NPPers when they where doing their survey on how to implement page curation. I say just add them. Once Dispenser fixes his inactivity script, I'll fix it. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 00:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done Now just waiting to get EdwardBot access to spam people :) Mdann52 (talk) 13:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I already have access, and plan to use it to deliver the new newsletter in a few days. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 20:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Question from interested potential participant

Is there any way to tell the "Review wating" article from a "draft" that is not currently pending review? I am looking at Category:Pending_AfC_submissions. Should I be looking elsewhere if I were to join the project? Please pardon the queries of the uninformed. Thanks! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 18:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

All of the submissions that are "Review waiting" should be located in that category (there shouldn't be any "drafts that are not waiting" in the category). Welcome to the project! The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 18:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. For instance Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kevin Cook appears on the list. I must be looking at the wrong place. Where can I find the list of "Review waiting" instead of the list of all articles shown on the main Pending AfC page? 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 18:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The submissions queue is sorted by category. The articles undergoing review are categorised under status R, which appears at the back of the queue. For example, as I currently write this, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/European Young Chemists' Network is undergoing review. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The review waiting template is at the bottom of that page. The "Click here" link easily allows users to submit the draft by adding a new, preloaded section at the bottom of the page containing the review waiting template. The templates belong at the top, but MediaWiki only allows us to add sections at the bottom of the page. When reviewers or bots clean the submission, we remove the draft template and move the review waiting template to the top. It seems unnecessary, but that's all that we can do for right now. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 18:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I think a glimmer of understanding is starting to form in my poor addled brain. Essentially, the Kevin Cook article is good to review, it just hasn't had a bot or reviewer move the template yet, and this needs to be done. Correct? 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 18:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Correct! The review waiting tags often appear at the bottom of the page (for technical reasons too boring to expand upon right now). It is often helpful to move the tags to the top of the page. Pol430 talk to me 19:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as Pol430 said, there are technical reasons for this. (Sorry if my explanation was a little hard to understand ) The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 19:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I tried it, and it seemed to work. Thanks to all! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 19:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Great! Also, I highly recommend that you enable the Articles for Creation helper script if you are going to be reviewing submissions, as it makes reviewing waaaaay easier. Happy reviewing! The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 19:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, already did that. I've read the Reviewer Instructions, this "draft issue" was just the one area that wasn't clear to me. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 19:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

In case, the "Clean submission" button should move the template for you. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 19:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

v4.1.16b3 of the script is still in beta, we need YOU

Guys, the faster we test this the quicker the fixes can be pushed. In case you missed it, here's the revised changelog:

• Major cleanup of the code
• Preparation for FFU reviewing
• BLP "wizard" to automate talk page tagging
• Enabled review tab on all pages in userspace
  • Note that the script will flash an error if you try to use it on an page that's not an AfC submission
• Improvements to cleanup functionality
• Interface tweaks
• Rewrote canned decline comment interface
  • I only got to part one of my brainstormed changes, it will get even better in v4.1.17
• Rewrote the redirect and category submission review interface
  • Specifically, I cleaned up the code, spruced up the interface, added a few more decline reasons, and generally tweaked it
• Change to displayed notice when using an incompatible browser
• Comments can now be added on their own and with a "mark" action without the script crashing
• Various stability and interface tweaks and patches
• Removed Herobrine

Only you can prevent bugs from hitting stable, we need YOU! Please test the script and report any bugs you find. Here are the current confirmed bugs:

• Bug list temporarily removed pending patch next week. Bugs to be fixed are listed at https://gist.github.com/4242795
• Yes, the review tab isn't appearing in userspace, I know. I'll fix it soon, I promise.

To get on the beta build, follow the instructions here! Thanks in advance, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 01:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It still always says "There is a long HTML comment, check the source code" even though when I do there is none. Can you fix that??? §h₳un 9∞76 03:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

And I check again, and it's gone a minute later... §h₳un 9∞76 03:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Could I have a link to the affected page so I can update the exception list? --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 17:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I go back through my history and now, the message is gone... Maybe a glitch between purging my cache and reloading??? §h₳un 9∞76 19:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It could be, but could I have a link to the affected article so I can check it out? It's still a bit buggy. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 21:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Here Apparently it didn't even let me put a decline for not enough references there either... §h₳un 9∞76 23:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Unsure if this is just me, or a bug in the script. When using the beta, the script won't put articles under review at all. Just displays the "Got token" message, then hangs. Refreshing/clearing cache does nothing. Any other reports of this? CharmlessCoin (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

@CharmlessCoin: Crap, I thought I fixed that already. I'll look into it. @Shaun9876: You haven't edited that article, and the script doesn't state any errors (although someone delete several comments with the script's clean-up utility here). Mabdul most likely coded a comment into clean-up and forgot to flag it as false-positive. I'll fix it. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 00:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Nathan I found another, Here §h₳un 9∞76 00:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I accepted it and now, the glitch is not viewable so never mind... §h₳un 9∞76 00:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Two questions:

1. Does the beta automatically update?
2. Is there a separate bug page somewhere that we can report? I'd hate to clog this page up with bug reports.

CharmlessCoin (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I am testing the beta (at least I think I am) and the review tab is not showing up in user pages (such as sandboxes). Any idea why? The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 05:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

@CharmlessCoin: Yes, it should update automatically. You may have to do some purging and cache bypassing for it to work, depending on whether the servers like you or not. As for the bug reports, we do have our development page, but I'm trying to keep the reports in one place. @The Anonymouse: Try clearing your cache, and then purging the page and see if it shows up then. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 17:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I just switched to beta (which may be the issue), but I can't get the review tab to pop up in user:pages. (I have tried clearing my cache.) Relevant pages tested include [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], and [24]. --Nouniquenames 02:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, I know. I need to change the loader for the interface from "wgPageName.indexOf('User:*')" to "wgNamespace == 3" because apparently indexOf doesn't support wildcards. Huh. I'll fix it once mabdul sends me bugfixes for the other bugs. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 19:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

When's the next drive?

Just over a week since the last one ended and we've gotten over 600 +/- new submissions. — ^Wylie_Coyote 09:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the submissions keep coming, not surprisingly. There seem to be far fewer active reviewers this week - there's often 6 hour gaps between articles being accepted! Maybe some are burnt out, or busy polishing their barnstars. To be honest I quite fancied having a bronze barnstar so I stopped reviewing about 2 weeks ago and only started again this weekend after the drive had stopped :) I notice there is far greater density of 'chewy' articles and far fewer quick wins at the moment. Sionk (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed the quick fails seem to be decreasing (though I saw a bunch yesterday), with most articles now taking about 10-15 minutes each to check all the references and search for content in them. Consequently I've only got time to do a few, and tend to focus on my specialist subject of musicians and bands. I think we just need more people on the case, full stop. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the approaching first of the month coming, we should blanket all these talk pages again? Just think of what a few reviews a day from all those would serve. — ^Wylie_Coyote 15:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Blanket them with another drive, or just to come help out? Perhaps extend the drive? CharmlessCoin (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Why not both? Haha. I thought ending the drive on the 20th was a bit odd. Maybe there could be drive committee? A few can close while others start one? Some of us take the time to review AfCs in a more-than-normal routine anyway. If there are those who get "burnt out," maybe they can alternate months or just review the reviews? — ^Wylie_Coyote 17:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm all for starting the drive back up on the first, and blanketing talk pages with banners. Perhaps we should reset the count though, still give barnstars to those who participated in this drive, but keep newcomers competitive. As for having multiple drives often, could be interesting! Maybe have one every two months, or when the backlog is too high? (like it is right now)

You need to notify those on Category:WikiProject Articles for creation participants as well as Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants otherwise you'll miss people like me who's on one but not the other. -- KTC (talk) 09:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

If we do a drive, I submit we really have to find a better, automated way to tally the scores. Even after I developed a reasonably efficient procedure to do it (not programming, just a smooth "open the link, copy, paste, multiple tabs open) method, the total labour to fully do my scoresheet would've been a cumulative 7+ hours. Also too, the running scores were often really out of date because the busiest reviewers (including me) don't have much inctentive to stop reviewing to do some boring scoresheet, so it dampens the spirit of competition when nobody knows if JoeBobSmith is actually at 500 reviewed, or actually at 1500 but hasn't bothered to update his score yet as he zips along. In the end, my score was like 700-something on my tally sheet, but I actually had around 1000 reviewed. I just honestly was sick of making the scoresheet and didn't want to spend another 90+ minutes copy-pasting, even if it meant losing the Silver award. I'll do what I can do do a few score of reviews a week for the time being, but the only way I'm going to be in a drive and do 1000 a month again is if there's some way of keeping score that doesn't take up more than a few minutes of my time, or it's just not worth the barnstar. Manual tally is okay for folks who want the award for 25, but not for the folks running over 1000 reviews. Minor sidenote: given how fast a person can knock out a dozen reviews, I think even for a brownie the minimum bar should be higher, like 25 or something. That can still be less than an hour of work even for a novice reviewer if they aim for the low-hanging fruit.MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The score sheet system could really use some improvement. It simply takes way too long to get the reviews into the score sheet. Is there any chance someone could write up a script to check for the number of reviewed articles? Or possibly modify the existing AfC helper script? I'm not sure how difficult it would be to implement that into the script, but it might be worth taking a look at if someone has the time. CharmlessCoin (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

A toolserver tool could be made which automatically handles the scoring for a drive. I don't have toolserver access, but perhaps someone that does might consider writing one. Or else I might apply for access. I thought the time was negligible being only ~20 seconds per review, but even with a 20 second estimate that adds up to over 5 hours (!) of extra work to maintain the score sheet for a person that does 1000 reviews. 5 hours which would be better spend performing more reviews. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll look into getting the script to be able to handle drives. Until then, you have to do it manually. I also got EdwardsBot access a few weeks ago to do the newsletter, so I'll spam everyone later. I'm also going to ask about what happened to the newsletter, the user that was working on it deleted the original draft. Wish me luck, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 17:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Sent out another backlog notification to everyone on the spamlist. I'd also like to ask a quick question: Can we set out some kind of a policy that users are commented off the main list after a year of inactivity? I have been occasionally using tools to archive people, but a mainstream policy would be helpful. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 19:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't see why not. Policy at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pink Floyd is if you've not worked on the project for 6 months or more, you get automatically taken off the active list. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Nice to see my note above was ignored... KTC (talk) 12:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

And I just hope they keep my brownie fresh and rotating barnstar oiled. Dec. 4 has come and gone. — ^Wylie_Coyote 22:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

@KTC: No, I didn't ignore it, EdwardsBot doesn't like sending out to categories anymore. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 17:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

All barnstars distributed, and I'm all for coordanating another starting on the 1st January, if there is support for one (?) Mdann52 (talk) 13:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Support and thanks for the barnstar! — ^Wylie_Coyote 14:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Strong Support. We definitely need to have another. I'm all for having a two month drive, and blanketing talk pages. I hope the length would help people see that they need to assist the project over time. CharmlessCoin (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Support – We could do something similar to the Guild of Copyeditors, who have a backlog elimination drive every other month. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 19:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Support – AFC is getting more popular, which means more submissions, which means more backlog. Jakob 15:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Support - Definitely, we need help fast! --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 20:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Support - and Nathan you really should get that newsletter out ASAP, awareness is the key. Go Phightins! 21:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Review required

Hi,
could someone please go through the AfC moves performed by the following two accounts:

• Harsh N. Patel (talk · contribs)
• Rkjtc (talk · contribs)

It seems they did not give the articles the required scrutiny, most articles will require cleanup (at least), and I'm not sure whether new-page patrol will catch them after the move.
Thanks, Amalthea 18:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's a list, it's a manageable task:

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Save Your Voice against IT Act Section-66A -- redirected to Save Your Voice. Pol430 talk to me 22:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rutvik Oza -- nominated for AfD Pol430 talk to me 22:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Andy Chun -- cleaned up by User:Theroadislong Pol430 talk to me 22:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Multibrands International Limited -- copyright violation, deleted. Pol430 talk to me 22:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rob Keyloch -- nominated at AfD Pol430 talk to me 22:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rohit Srivastwa
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Knowlton Hall
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Active heave compensation
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Digital Collaboration
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Children with Special Healthcare Needs in the United States
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Modernization plans of French universities
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alex Venditti
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sylvan (Sholom) Kalib
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Egalet

Thanks in advance, Amalthea 18:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, let's do what we normally do when this happens and create a section at ANI about topic banning these guys. Any objections? --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 21:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I would propose to move all some back to AFC space where they can either be improved in the fullness of time or committed to the archives... However, I thought I'd mention it here before unilaterally doing it. I see at least one of these is at AfD, the AfD could be procedurally closed if the submissions were moved back. The remaining mainspace redirects can be quite properly CSD'd as R2 and the associated talk pages as G8. Thoughts? Pol430 talk to me 21:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

some are not as bad as I first thought and can probably be cleaned up in place Pol430 talk to me 21:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Many users brought up the point last time this happened that once AfC's are moved to mainspace they shouldn't be moved back to AfC. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 21:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I see, that must have happened in my absence -- this project has been doing it for years. I don't really see why it should be a problem if there is a consensus that the move to mainspace was inappropriate, but hey-ho! I'll patch up these articles as best I can then. Really, we need some method of ensuring that users don't sign on as reviewers for malicious or tendentious reasons, but such a solution is largely unworkable. Sadly. Pol430 talk to me 22:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Personally, as someone threatened with a Topic ban soon after I started here, think we should give them a second chance before taking it to AN/I, but if they are serious violations of policy, then AN i is the correct place to take this. Mdann52 (talk) 11:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Given other comments left on these users' talk pages, I suspect a spot of AfC vandalism might have occurred, where they just pass any old then. I've had the odd AfC pass I've done land at AfD, where it's been very borderline whether to pass or not, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BBC sexual abuse cases, but they seem to last weeks and weeks resulting in "No consensus", so I'm not too bothered. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The listed ones are not that bad, they don't seem to be using the tools and frankly, we all have different standards. They are far from perfect, but AFC articles do not need to be perfect just good enough to survive AFD and eventually be improved by other editors. Though the deleted one probably was the attempt to push something though as a sock. If that was the real intention, that is. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed change to the reviewer process

I was looking at the quick-fail criteria and a few of them seem to ignore or subvert the criteria for speedy deletion. Going down the list:

• The Vandalism or attack page decline is not only confusing, but I worry editors might become content just clearing it and adding the {{afc cleared}} template with the decline notice and not actually tagging the page for speedy deletion. The guide recommends declining it as a "test" edit, but it's not a test edit. Additionally, the AFCH doesn't have a good entry for this type of violation. I believe this entry in the guide should be split into two and more closely follow the relevant policies:

Vandalism page	If a submission is pure vandalism, the page should be nominated for speedy deletion by adding {{db-g3}} to the page. Please follow the instructions on the speedy deletion template to notify the article's author.	{{db-g3}}
Attack page	If a submission is an attack page, existing primarily to disparage or threaten its subject, then the page should be blanked and nominated for speedy deletion by replacing the page's contents with {{db-g10}}. Please follow the instructions on the speedy deletion template to notify the article's author.	{{db-g10}}

• The blank submission decline in the guide does not recommend following the policy for speedy deletion of test pages. I think it should be changed to:

Blank or test submission

If a submission is blank or was created to test editing or other Wikipedia functions, the page should be nominated for speedy deletion by adding {{db-g2}} to the page. Please follow the instructions on the speedy deletion template to notify the article's author. Note that if the article awaiting review is located in userspace then the submission should instead be declined using {{AFC submission|D|test|ts={{subst:CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}|u=User|ns=5}}

{{db-g2}}

• The Nonsense or test decline in the guide does not recommend following the policy for speedy deletion of nonsense pages. I think it should be changed to two:

Patent nonsense

If a submission consists entirely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history then it should nominated for speedy deletion by adding {{db-g1}} to the page. Please follow the instructions on the speedy deletion template to notify the article's author.

{{db-g1}}

• The Copyright violation recommends blanking the page and then tagging it for speedy deletion. I think this makes it harder on the admins to check for the violation and serves no real purpose. I think it should be changed to:

Copyright violation

Check that the submission has not been copied from another source. Search for a portion of the text of the article on Google or another search engine. Also check the sources provided, and, if relevant, check a person's or organization's web site, even if not given as a reference or link. If the article has unambiguously been copied and the source is not released under a suitable free license or in the public domain, then the page should be nominated for speedy deletion by adding {{db-g12|url=source URL}} to the page. Please follow the instructions on the speedy deletion template to notify the article's author.

{{db-g12|url=source URL}}

If these changes are made then the AFCH script should be updated as well to match the guide. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Some editors create a page as a placeholder before actually putting text into it, thus tagging it with {{db-g2}} would be counterproductive. The others sound okay though. A412 (Talk • C) 17:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe the reviewer guide process should only carried out on articles which the user submits for review (i.e. clicking the submit button, then saving with the submit tag). So I don't think it should be a problem for users that want to create a placeholder and then add content. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oppose changes to copyvio process. If it's a blatant copyvio, we want to minimise the time it's on Wikipedia. An admin is suppose to check a page history anyway before deleting, and if they can't click a couple of buttons to see an older revision, then they probably shouldn't be an admin... KTC (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

All the information I've found on dealing with full page copyvios says just to tag it and not to blank it. See WP:DEL-PROCESSES and Wikipedia:Copyright violations#Dealing_with_copyright_violations. What is your opinion on changing the other quick-fail criteria? --Odie5533 (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

If you guys want more canned decline entries, that's fine. Simply gain consensus and I'll write it into the template code and AFCH. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 04:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Considering I'm getting questions from young new editors about some of my decline reasons, I wonder if they fully comprehend anything in the canned entries anyway, especially non-Eng editors? — WylieCoyote (talk) 09:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Copyvios already get blanked and tagged with CSD (and hopefully deleted) by default by the helper tool. (The "new" changes might be stuck in the actual beta, sorry, can't remember since I'm too busy to review submissions) mabdul 09:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Although a quick look at my stats on the backlog drive will reveal numerous articles I immediately CSDed, you really need to think one step ahead. Did an editor create a blank submission maliciously, or did they edit in another window and forget to copy and paste? Did they create a copyright violation out of pure malice, or did they just not understand our copyright rules? Unless there is a very, very obvious case of malicious intent, I try and get the user to understand what the problem is and fix / clear the article themselves first before wandering in with the CSD blunderbuss. There is a time and a place for CSDs, but don't drive away newcomers by doing them, as you'll end up with a gang of elitist wikipedians with an air of "we don't want your sort round here". (PS: Here is something I would (and did) CSD on sight) --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Reviewing outside of a drive is always better and more relaxed, giving the global "us" more time to review and help. Most of my suggestions to people have been to study what "notable" means—20 cites as opposed their subject's purpose in the world. Those who get my CSD should know why: 10 re-submissions in a month with few changes; test/vandalism pages; duplicates (thinking we don't know about the first failures), although I just remove the dup AfC tag and suggest working on the first. Bottom line: the easier it is for them to comprehend our decisions, the better for us. — WylieCoyote (talk) 13:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Do you support any of the proposed changes? In regards to creating a blank submission, again, the review guide is only used after the editor submits the article for review. I don't think editors will accidentally submit a blank article, then accidentally click the "When you are finished editing, click here to submit this article" button and then accidentally click save. The CSD criteria are not all intended to punish malicious editing: take a look at {{db-test-notice}}. So even if an good-faith editor managed to create and submit a blank article, we are not admonishing them for doing so. I disagree with you that "there is a time and a place for CSDs". I believe the CSD should remain a firm policy of Wikipedia and be applied as such. The CSD do not, however, require that we use their user-warn notices, so if we wanted to craft our own set of user-warn notices to match the CSD criteria I would consider that a fine option. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• The trouble is, you've been around on Wikipedia long enough for these templates not to have a chilling effect on you. But years of usability testing have told me that you will be simply amazed at what people will do, and you'll think they're idiots. I can well believe newcomers to WP hitting "submit" just to check their article's title is okay, and even though you know you're not punishing them, they won't necessarily pick up on that. Seriously - get somebody who doesn't use computers much and sit with them through WP editing - you'll be utterly astonished at what happens. WP:WER has more. Regarding the policies, I'd prefer to keep things simple and just use a good call of judgement. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Are you opposed to all 4 proposed changes, Ritchie333? I believe reviewers should use their own judgement in addition to being informed of Wikipedia's policies on speedy deletion, and the guides offered by AfC should coincide with established policies. We can create new user-warn templates to ensure we don't push away new content creators. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• I am neutral and have no particular strong opinion on any policies. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support CSD is a policy, and doing some tweaks to the AFC criteria to better implement that is a must. Of course, personal intuition and good judgment to manage these CSD criteria well, while doing the correct moves to keep the submitting newcomer awrae of the situation, so that they don't feel discouraged and improve their knowledge on how to edit on Wikipedia. — ΛΧΣ21™ 16:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• I think this is definitely a move in the right direction. I think rather than deleting test pages though, they should simply be moved back into the user's userspace and declined. Other than that, I agree with all of the other ones. Legoktm (talk) 01:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

CSD wasn't recommended initially because we wanted to make sure submitters would see why their submission was declined. That was back when the rate at which people were informed what happened to their submission was pretty low, and most were expected to simply revisit and find out. Now that most people use the script, it's probably redundant to keep unworkable submissions laying around. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, these good intentions are misplaced. I am curious if this is proposed as changes to improve wp:afc, or is it a proposal to improve wp:csd? I know it was proposed with the best intentions as a thoughtful way to improve both; and Wikipedia overall. It won't however, and it's still true in 2012 that "you can not serve two masters". Rather than describe the gloom I see, and the crippling effect it would bring upon wp:afc, I'll just close by acknowledging that several good points were made, and these areas need tightened up. A task force approach is the way to go, and two or three people making it happen could be done in a week. I'll even sign up since I am a friend of wp:afc. If I had talked to the proposer before he or she vested the energy to prepare such a thoughtful presentation, I'd have said: Let's just fix it instead. And we'd have finished up a couple weeks ago. Let me know how this closes, and if you want to try an editing approach. Otherwise, good luck with the "legislative" approach. Best regards and good cheer.  --My76Strat (talk) 01:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Effecting changes

I am still a bit confused whether or not I have support to make these changes. Could people please clearly state which changes, if any, they support or oppose? --Odie5533 (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

CSD policy addition

I'd like to propose a policy addition that articles can be CSDd if they constitute disruptive editing. This means constantly resubmitting with no changes, unworkable submissions, and spam. This would be in addition to the already in place policies involving CSDing BLP violations and copyvios. Anyone support this? --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 17:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd support it depending on the wording. --Nouniquenames 04:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I thought we already did that? — WylieCoyote 05:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I usually only delete if I'm really annoyed with the user or haven't had any breakfast. :P Seriously, however, there is no actually policy on what to do in that situation. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 17:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

What policy are you proposing to add this to? The only relevant policy is the CSD policy; changes to which would need very broad community discussion and consensus. Just my 'two-peneth' but it would be far easier, and within existing policy, to start a thread at WP:AN/I about editors who are so pig-headed about resubmitting 'their' article that they actually become disruptive; from there a block can be arranged. Blatant spam can already be CSD'd under G11 and Copyvio's under G12. When you say "CSDing BLP violations" I assume you mean "Wholly negative, disparaging BLP's and attack pages" per criteria G10? Pol430 talk to me 18:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

From what I see at WP:CSD and its talk page, they are very reluctant to add new criteria there. In the 5 years I have been working on those pages we have added 3: A9, "An article about a musical recording that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant and where the artist's article does not exist (both conditions must be true)." and requests that it apply to other forms of creative work have bee consistently rejected by large majorities. ; A10 , "A recently created article with no relevant page history that duplicates an existing English Wikipedia topic, and that does not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article(s) on the subject, and where the title is not a plausible redirect. " and "individual animal" was added to A7. All of these relatively minor decisions required long discussion. I personally opposed one or two of them, but they have all 3 worked quite effectively.

The reason for reluctance to add criteria is that there must be an unambiguous criterion that nobody could reasonably disagree with. I doubt that one could be found for this. My own experience is that a stern warning is sufficient, and, if ignored, is good evidence for the next step: if it continues and it really constitutes vandalism rather than a mere nuisance, I would suggest using Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism ({WP:AIV]]) rather than AN/I. AN/I creates drama, and any discussion there is apt to expand into a general discussion of AfC, and the topic, and the WP behavior of everyone connected with any of these. AIV on the other hand works very smoothly and quietly. DGG ( talk ) 18:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Self-approval

(Potentially stupid question by user uninvolved with AFC) I've noticed a user approving his/her own AFC submissions - is this allowed? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so, no. Unsure on the guideline for that, but I'm sure it's somewhere. Link to the articles and user? CharmlessCoin (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• I can't remember anything specific in the rules. If a user is satisfied their article is ready for main space and will survive WP:AfD, then they can self review. They just need to make sure their review criteria is correct, otherwise it will probably come back and bite them. Given the delay with the backlog, I can see why people would do this. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• AFC is not a requirement, so self-approval is not a violation, but it will turn more heads and eyes to a problem, so it could be likely to get swatted. Wikipedia has enough junk articles that won't pass AFC already. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I stand corrected then. Thanks for the answer, I would have assumed it was against the rules. CharmlessCoin (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

This reminds me of the American presidential campaign ads, where the actual candidate speaks through the whole ad and, at the end, says "I'm So-and-So and I approve this message." We would assume, by them speaking the script, that they approve it. — WylieCoyote 04:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

We don't want to scare off new editors by immediately deleting their articles through NPP/CSD. I think any user that should be self-approving already is. Though I must say, the AfC for autoconfirmed editors feels like a bit of a ruse; I wonder how many editors know they can just click move and skip the queue. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

No one need to join the queue in the first place. One can register an account, which doesn't even requires an email address, and create a new article in mainspace immediately. KTC (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

No one with a registered account needs to go through AfC, but many editors might like to have their submission checked by someone else here and get declined rather than get CSD'd/AfD'd in article space. In this way, AfC may be easier and slightly less painful. There are also many editors that create an account but have little/no idea how to correctly create an article, and AfC is the perfect place to get started. Just my 2¢. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 17:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

If you've spent a bit of time at AfC you'll discover quickly that even though experienced editors know that if you start from sources you'll avoid the obvious CSD/AfD pitfalls, and there's a great big "put your references here" in the edit window, we still find registered accounts who add completely unreferenced articles, leaving the hooks to add references alone. Their articles wouldn't stand a hope in hell in mainspace. Unless it's a copyvio or a BLP violation, or I think they're a commercial organisation trying to edit (in which case you should know better), we will at least give them a fighting chance. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

In the eventual JavaScript based article wizard, we'll automatically determine whether to dump it in mainspace or create a draft depending on whether they are autoconfirmed. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 17:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a good idea. I've encountered more than one autoconfirmed user who deliberately created a draft because he didn't want the article to go live without a review - say, for COI reasons. Huon (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

there's a related problem to be aware of--I have recently encountered two of three spammers who have simultaneously created the identical article in AfC and in mainspace, clearly deliberately--tho I suppose it can happen by accident too. The solution is for admins to do as they ought to, check the user contributions when deleting G11. whether G11 AfCs or G11 mainspace articles; the odds of detecting some problem is pretty good. Of course they could use different accounts, just as they use different capitalizations, but checking for all possibilities is impractical unless there's been a recurring problem. I mention also that it is possible to place create-protection on an AfC subpage just as in mainspace, when warranted. Non-admins can ask at RFPP. DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

hoax alert

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Discussion from AfC

 – Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 02:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorting reviews by date

I just came upon this draft via the help desk. When I saw it, it bore multiple submission templates, and apparently the more recent templates interfered with the submission's place in the category - although it was first submitted on November 21 and not reviewed since then, it was nowhere near the oldest unreviewed submissions.

While I find it deliciously ironic that people too impatient to wait for a review unwittingly punish themselves and delay the review of their draft all the more by repeatedly re-submitting it, I doubt that's a feature. Is there an easy way to fix this so that re-submission of an already submitted draft doesn't cost it its place in the category? Huon (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, this might warrant a patch in the cleanup service of the script to keep the oldest instance of the super-template intact. I'm not sure how it currently does it. I'll do some experimenting and report back to you. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 20:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Any way to not have the "userspace draft" template turn to that huge error message when moved to AFC?

Given that we don't have any method to keep folks from submitting "sandbox" articles to AFC without moving them, and given that AFC Helper doesn't work on non-AFC articles, we generally have to move such articles before reviewing. To speed up the process, I've been moving sandbox articles to AFC en-mass, thinking it's more efficient than editors individually moving them as they come across them.

Unfortunately, the "userspace" template, when moved to AFC, turns into this huge and attention-grabbing red error message saying: This sandbox is in the Wikipedia talk namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the {{User sandbox}} template. Apparently this has concerned several newbie editors, who then ask about it at AFC Help or Teahouse. Sure, I could remove the template from every article I move, but that would make the process of converting dozens of sandboxes to AFC about 30% slower. Is there some way that we can tweak the coding for the "userspace draft"/"sandbox" template so that it doesn't turn into a frightening error message when moved to AFC? Like either have it just not display at all, or display as a small "you're at AFC, go ahead and remove this, no worries" message? MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Cleaning the submission, which is slightly faster than removing the template manually, will remove the template. Personally, I almost always clean a submission after I move it into the AfC space. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 17:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, we'll work on automated moving of sandboxes alongside auto-submit in AFCH v4.1.17. For now, run the clean-up program on each sub you move. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 18:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

'Back in the day', I did exactly the same. I used to trawl the submissions table for submissions with userspace titles and move them into AfC space. Petan-Bot used to move these submission automatically, except sandboxes and a few other titles that were black-listed or creation protected. Why is the bot now inactive? There are a large number of userspace submissions, which is inconvenient for reviewers. I used to just remove the template manually and move the AfC tag to the top of the submission. Pol430 talk to me 18:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there a specific reason the AfC template has to go to the bottom? I've seen multiple AFC Helpdesk questions from folks who don't understand why they don't see the AfC, even after submitting 5 times, because they're piling up at the bottom of the article. Same way, how the Submitted AfC doesn't override the "this is a draft and not submitted" AfC template. Not that I'm demanding everything be fixed at once, but just pointing out some formatting issues that appear to cause confusion to newbies on a frequent basis. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The tag appearing at the bottom is more-or-less a Mediawiki limitation I believe. This was discussed when the tag was reformatted to allow for 'two clicks, no changes' resubmission. Essentially, when the editor clicks the link to resubmit, they are in fact creating a new section on a talk page with some pre-loaded markup. The software automatically places new sections at the bottom of pages and I don't believe there is a hack to get around this. Pol430 talk to me 22:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

No more-or-less, simply it is. There is a bugzilla entry opened by me a year ago, check the WT:AFC archives for the link and !vote for it! @MatthewVanitas 24 months ago (or was it 26?) we system to reload a page was that the user had to post {{subst:AFC template/submit}} at the top which was really not easy for most. Then we added the "automatic link" ("click here") and press save which is much more simple. Then we got the AFC bot to cleanup the page which is regular down :-/ mabdul 22:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Mabdul. Any idea why the bot can't keep up with moving the tags to the top of the page? Or is it just because of downtime? Also, any idea why Petan-Bot is no longer working? It was useful for moving userspace submissions to AfC space (where possible). Pol430 talk to me 22:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

As the bot is still editing, I would guess a cronjob isn't working any longer, but there are also articles like User:LSalome/Digital Citizenship in Elementary Education which need to be moved by hand (so adding a (2) to the title or whatever). mabdul 00:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
BTW: I have informed him. [25] mabdul 00:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I plan to phase out AfC bot and replace it with NathanBot (talk · contribs) once I get AFCH up to the point that it can preform large scale cleanup automatically (?afch=clean). But, that's in the future and this is now. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 03:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Looking forward to seeing the new 'bot; I hope I'm not coming across as a whiner, but having seen a ton of AFC items the last few months, I've been forming some ideas of common sources of confusion for the new editors. That error message, though minor, appears to cause alarm. Similar issue with how the "Submitted" box does not over-rule the "This is a draft, not submitted" box, causing folks to submit multiple times because the "Draft" box stays at the top while the "Submitted" boxes pile at the bottom. Ideally the "Draft" box would become invisible or be removed by the 'bot whenever a "Submitted" box is present. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Sandbox and Userpages in AFC

UPDATE: According to Petrb the bot is still moving pages where possible which means all of these either have pre-existing titles, or are sandbox submissions. I'll get on with moving some (only the pending submissions obviously), if anyone else would like to pitch in, feel free! Pol430 talk to me 20:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I would say I'm happy to help, but there at 1,759 submissions since that category also includes declined submissions (the first one I checked hasn't been touched since July 2012). I'll keep doing the active AFCs that are listed as "sandbox" in the Pending category, which will clear out a chunk of those. I'm glad there is a 'bot to move entitled-but-Userpages articles to proper AFC titles, but I take it there's no pending solution to deal with "sandbox" titles? MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

No, the bot can't deal with Sandbox titles and I don't believe there is any solution to this on the cards. When I was more active here, I used to routinely move sandbox titles to AfC namespace. You usually get about 10 per day, so it's manageable if you keep on top of it. I did about half of the pending submissions in userspace yesterday and found that despite what Petrb says, there are many userspace submissions that the bot could have moved but hasn't; some of them have been around for several days. I'll mention it on his talk page. You can find a list of all pending submissions that are still in userspace by using Template:AFC statistics and sorting the pending submissions by name, then just scroll down to all the 'u' entries. Pol430 talk to me 20:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I've been working on that and I think I might be able to program the bot to try to pull the first set of bolded text out of the article and use it if it is titled sandbox. It would take a crap load of coding, but I'm up for the challenge. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 21:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

If it's a fun challenge and not an annoyance, that could be interesting. The usual trend is that "sandbox" submissions also tend to indicate a more general confusion about how to work with Wiki, so it's not guaranteed anything will be bolded at all; maybe a fallback "if no bolded words in article, submit first five words as title"? 10 sandbox submissions a day sounds a little low, I've been knocking out like 40 a day for the past week+, and not running short at all. In any case, it's not the single most problematic 'bot issue, but one I was curious about since I think at the moment I'm the main editor shifting sandbox articles to WikiTalk en-masse. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. I was wondering what a good fallback would be. Just prepare for many subs entitled "Subject of my article is" (:P). --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 19:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It's taken me 2.5 days, many mouse clicks, a couple of history merges and some deletions... but, I've just finished moving pending userspace submissions to the proper AfC titles. I've cleaned up the submissions to put the AfC tags at the top, and removed any other templates, so we shouldn't have any more submissions that get double-redirected to User:Articles for creation/xxx by confused new editors. Nathan, I'm in full support of a bot that can pull the top line of bolded text (where present) and turn it into a page title. When will it be up and running? :-P Pol430 talk to me 20:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure. You'll have to wait for my new computer in a few months and then it will take a crap-load of coding. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 21:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Newsletter

So, here it is:

Delivered ~~~~~ by EdwardsBot. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter, please remove your name from the spamlist.

Dom497 gave up on the idea, but I requested a copy of the newsletter code and finished it. What do you guys think? --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 20:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it looks great! Jakob 15:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a good idea! Is there some way of revealing how many submissions were received in the last month and how many reviews were made? Sionk (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Everything's possible. I'll look into seeing if I can tally the log categories and add it to next months newsletter. Either way, I'm sending this one out now. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 00:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

 Sent! --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 00:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Um... I didn't get it - not sure if something wen wrong... Mdann52 (talk) 11:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It didn't get sent (according to EdwardsBot's contributions). The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) ^{[Merry Christmas!]} 12:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe because that "Start" was used instead of "start"... ? Mdann52 (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Nope, that's how it usually works. I'll wait a few more hours and if it continues I'll notify someone. Thanks, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 23:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It did finally get sent (I received it). The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) ^{[Merry Christmas!]} 03:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like the bot is lagged. The bot took almost exactly 24 hours to activate the delivery service.. Weird, I'll report it. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 20:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Oops... --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 21:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Corporation AfCs burying better AfCs

Can't we split the categories, or add an extra "non-corporation" category or something that's automatically added somehow? Maybe even one for persons. If you have a cat that excludes corps and people, I will personally review each and every one of those. But to be honest, I'm sick to death of these promo articles clogging up the works.

And the politically correct "all AfCs deserve to be treated equally" argument doesn't wash with me. The same goes for the authors of these articles. Authors of corporation articles are almost always one-article-and-walk employees of a company. Someone with an AfC for a species or a national park is someone I want to help become an editor. I don't want them to be discouraged, but instead, instantly rewarded and recruited.

Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

One of the many reasons I'm not active at AfC is that I open up the list of AfC articles needing review, open five in browser tabs and they are all either YouTube celebrities, spammy business articles about companies offering "solutions" and so on. It's so utterly depressing to deal with, I just don't bother and find other things to do with my 'pedia time. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Same here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. I did AFC for a while but I just can't bring myself to wade through all the self-promotional stuff to find the couple of articles that seem worth my time. Mangoe (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

When AfCs are created via the wizard, an option is "I'm writing an article about something else". I would like for AfCs, where that was clicked, to automatically have a category added to the bottom of the template that's provided at the end. A category like "non-corp-non-person". Then I can get a listing of those items. Can this be done? Please? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Why not give companies there own option i.e. "I'm writing about a company, corporation or organization". Opinions? -- Cheers, Riley 15:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

They already have their own button/option, my mistake! Splitting into categories would be the best thing to do. -- Cheers, Riley 15:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• • Agreed. Separating all bios into one category, and corps/orgs into another (and everything else in a third) would be nice. Bios for their stricter requirements to references and corps/orgs for their generally speaking more spammy nature. Bjelleklang - talk 15:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The technical change required is to branch the Wizard and have a separate Template:Afc preload/draft for each branch (bios, companies, etc.) The branching shouldn't be too difficult if you use the main content of the wizard as a template and just embed it into each branch with the necessary company/bio tag. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, how about an update to the article wizard itself? I was thinking we could fork the DRN wizard and use that kind of thing. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 21:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)