When an unregistered user clicks on a link for a non-existent article such as Kansas State Library, you get this, which as of this writing, does not mention Kansas State Library anywhere. For various reasons, including having the "What links here" make more sense, I'd like to request that the "Article not found" text be updated to include the name of the article that the unregistered user is unable to create. Thanks. 64.151.27.18301:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC).
Erm, it does! IT says "Editing (Name)" and "Wikipedia does not yet have an article about Name". That's 2 places. The Land17:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
No, that's only when you're a logged-in user. The message given to anon users indeed doesn't repeat the name of the nonexisten article in question. Log out and try it. CDC(talk)01:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Very nice. One minor problem: can the ===Sources=== line be plain text? As it stands, the Sources subheading means you have to edit body and sources separately, or else the whole page, to manage the entry for an individual topic. Tearlach14:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Note that the article name will be a second-level heading, whereas the Sources section is a third-level heading. Editing the second-level heading will edit body and sources together as one. Uncle G19:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I've been out of the loop for a bit – does the article-creation restriction now apply to really new registered users as well? android7915:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Not as far as I can tell from some quick research. The newest 4% are blocked from editing semi-protected articles, but I can't find anything that says that they cannot create new articles. --GraemeL(talk)16:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I saw some redlinked usernames making requests, and was wondering if a change was made... just people not reading the instructions again. android7916:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
How about we say "sign here if you wish to be credited" (which they don't, or they wouldn't be anons) and if it isn't signed we just say "unsigned AFC date XXXX" in the edit summary? Kappa00:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we can. We need to be able to attribute this to someone. If it turns out to be a hoax, we need to know which IP submitted it and track their other edits and suggestions. - Mgm|(talk)09:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I just think we're underestimating the density of the average internet user. Sure, to even think of contributing a valid article puts them a step above the rest, but I really don't think it's us. -- user:zanimum
Tsk, Tsk. I would cite WP:NPA, but this is an impersonal attack. Still, you really shouldn't bite the newbies. The instructions aren't perfectly clear, even for someone who knows his way around Wikipedia. I had to have a couple of tabs open so I could refer back to the instructions. You know, you could just allow anon IPs to create articles again..... 194.72.54.3413:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
After seeing the entries for March 10 evening: vanity articles, personal attacks, advertisements, HOW-TOs, dictionary definitions, bad jokes, and even completely empty articles, I think we are indeed vastly underestimating the density of the average Internet user. I can not find a single article to even consider creating. Maybe tomorrow will be better. JIP | Talk17:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Don't forget the copyvios! Most 24-hour periods do produce 8 or 10 submissions that deserve some kind of action (a new article, a merge, or a redirect). The good submissions seem to come in clusters – don't ask me why. ×Meegs18:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Removing them as we come across them. I've seen that once one person fails to format a submission correctly more often follow like titles with single brackets and spaces within those brackets where none are needed. - Mgm|(talk)13:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Looks like User:Upload found a way to get {{AFC preload}} to sign automatically but it needs some admin attention right now. Also if it's used, us non-admins won't be able to edit the template directly, so it should be protected. Kappa17:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
For any Administrators wanting to help, I have posted instructions (below) on how to get this automatic signing feature working. Upload12:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Detailed Instructions
Below are what needs to be done, in order to get the automatic signing feature working:
This is where the signature will be (automatically) placed, because it will (soon, in postings preloaded from these templates) be replaced with signature characters ~~~~ (see below for details)
The following {{subst:AFC preload/~~}}s won't be substituted with the contents of the referred template Template:AFC preload/~~ after saving because the referred template is non-existent (was deleted in step 2). They will be saved as-is, instead.
{{subst:AFC preload/~~}}{{subst:AFC preload/~~}}
Edit the line above the (just-added) last line, to make it read:
<!-- The following will sign this submission automatically, please leave it as it is: -->
This should make the last two lines of the template read:
<!-- The following will sign this submission automatically, please leave it as it is: --> {{subst:AFC preload/~~}}{{subst:AFC preload/~~}}
After the template had been restored, in every posting generated by (preloaded from) the template Template:AFC preload, the {{subst:AFC preload/~~}} syntax would be substituted with the contents of the template Template:AFC preload/~~ (because the referred template existed), which will sign the postings automatically
Specifically, in every posting preloaded from the template, the following text in the posting:
{{subst:AFC preload/~~}}{{subst:AFC preload/~~}}
will be substituted with the following, which will sign the postings automatically:
~~~~
Protect the template Template:AFC preload, and Protect the template Template:AFC preload/~~ If the template Template:AFC preload is edited and re-saved, the automatic signing feature would break, because the {{subst:}} syntax in the template is substituted with the referred template (which will turn into editor's signature) permanently. In order to fix the template, the template should be rollbacked to the correct revision (save-an-old-revision kind of revert simply won't work), or these steps should be carried again (both, unfortunately, required Administrator intervention).
What about non-published sources? I have what is essentially a log book that my father kept when he was a sailor on a ship in the South Pacific. It is a source; but it has not been published, either in hard copy or on the web. The ship he was on currently does not have an article, so I would have to start one.
The page to request a new article asks for PUBLISHED sources. I have a source, but it is non-published. How do I reference a non-published source to start an article? Will you allow me to start an article with a non-published source?
To content of any Wikipedia articles should be verifiable by any Wikipedian who cares to check. If the ship you're talking about belongs to the Navy if some nation, that particular organization should also have records of its existence. - Mgm|(talk)10:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Creating new Categories jams this thing
Okay, I tried to follow the directions in the main article, and hoped I was doing it right, but it looks like something went amiss. I wanted to propose a new category. It would be called Category:Seafaring films, soon to be populated with lots of movies about seafaring, as quickly as I'd find them, I'd go ahead and add them in. But by following the instructions, it appears that the "Articles for creation" now belongs to the C. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by198.177.27.22 (talk • contribs) .
You make a very valid point. Due to the very nature of the MediaWiki software, we have often encountered category-related problems here. I'm afraid there's no easy technical solution. However, there are two workarounds:
You can use the {{cl|category name}} template. In your case, you could use {{cl|Seafaring films}}.
The requests here are always looked at by real people and not bots. This means that so long as you can express what it is that you are asking for in the AFC proposal, we can accommodate the request.
You can also make it into a real link and avoid this page being categorized by adding a colon (:) before the word Category in the link. - Mgm|(talk)10:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
And correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't need to register to create new categories as that's done by editing individual articles. I guess maybe you can't give the redlink category a parent, but it's still "there" in some sense, just waiting to be cleaned up. --Dystopos01:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I'll correct you: You actually need to edit the category page, before the link turns blue and linked articles start showing up. - Mgm|(talk)11:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Please Remove Isara
Can somebody please remove Isara from the request list? I've just created the article; but can't find the requested articles in the archive -- it was requested 2-4 weeks ago; i'm really n ot sure, and unsure how to find it and remove it.
I wouldn't worry about it. Requests that old are unlikely to be fulfilled and there's no risk of an article being created twice. However, thank you for your contribution. -- ShinmaWa(talk)02:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I've been trudging through the backlog (I'm almost through December 2005, although at my average rate of a day's worth of processing every few days, I'll fall farther and farther behind). Anyway, when I get to Isara I'll be able to tell if Wikipedia needs an article on that subject or not. --Dystopos01:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Added notability links to page
I added some notability links to the main page in hopes that some of the more common unsuitable submissions can be avoided. I specifically used the 'WP:' shortcuts since 1) they stand out much better, 2) they are easier to remember, and 3) we use that notation nearly uniformly in our responses to submissions and this helps put that in context. -- ShinmaWa(talk)20:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I think there's probably a good way to have the benefits of both. How about a list in the format of "Guidelines regarding articles about musical groups: WP:MUSIC" --Dystopos22:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Too wordy. The words "Guidelines regarding articles about" would be repeated 6 times. As with all instructions, the longer it grows, the higher the chance the user will not read any of it. Our best chance of getting the users to not only read the instructions and to abide by them is to make it as terse and simple as possible. How about this as a compromise?
This actually has fewer words that what we currently have and gives the exact same information as your suggestion. What do you think? -- ShinmaWa(talk)23:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Please now follow the link back to Wikipedia:Articles for creation.
This mesage apears on top of ever archived page, and well the phrase doesn't really work in the english language (no offence to the creator) I suggest we change it. Deathawk00:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Another thing to consider is that this text is transcluded into the main page. Its strange to see: "Please follow the link back to Wikipedia:Articles for creation" when you are already there. Perhaps some page-neutral language? -- ShinmaWa(talk)10:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
i like acting but i dont know were to act please HELP
looks like someone removed the note about stubsfrom the page. please can you make sure that stub templates dont keep cropping up on this page - thanx again :) BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard06:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I was the one that removed it. The message says Please do not label it as a stub (an appropriate stub template will be added when the article is created, if necessary), but is in the section called "Fulfilling Requests". You're right that we don't want stub templates included on this page (i.e. WP:AFC/Today), but that block of instructions is for the people that are actually creating the articles, and those are the people that should be including a stub templates whenever appropriate. If you want to address the AFC submitters, then the instruction needs to go at the top of the page or in Template:AFC preload. ×Meegs07:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Me too, and I love it when people do that, but instructing them to do it is probably too technical for most of the page's users and might distract them from the more important instructions (like observing WP:BIO and providing sources). ×Meegs14:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Semi-protect?
Today, two users mistakingly added their article requests to the AFC page rather than use the addcomment link on the page. One of those users did it by blanking the entire page. I'm quite positive that these were NOT intentional acts of vandalism, but rather new users who are unfamiliar with the system making honest mistakes. The problem is that the issue wasn't fixed for over 4 hours -- and it's not the first time this has happened. This reflects poorly on Wikipedia and leaves a bad first-impression on new users. Given all this, perhaps semi-protection is in order in this case.
I'll grant you that WP:SPP states quite clearly that it "is not intended for pre-emptive protection of articles that might get vandalized.". However, I'm thinking that this is also a good WP:IAR candidate as well. The intention of semi-protecting AFC is not to prevent anonymous users from participating, but to ensure that new users can participate. For 4 hours today, during the Western Hemisphere's "prime time", anonymous users couldn't use AFC at all. -- ShinmaWa(talk)06:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree, it's a serious problem, presenting newbies who click to submit an article with a blank page or one with garbage inserted at the top. I've reverted one of each in the last week too. I'm quite warm to this idea. The page (AFC/Today) averages more than two submissions an hour and who knows how many more visitors, so even a few minutes blanked is too long. ×Meegs11:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Would a rework of the page do a better job that semi-protection?
Looking at how the page source is organized, it looks loke there are several things that could be done that might help as much as the proposed semi-protection. The first thing is to move the header/instructions into a template similiar to Template:PR-instructions or Template:FAC-instructions. This would move information that should be fairly static out of the line of fire and make it easy to watchlist the template to see if any changes occur. The second thing that should probably be done is to move the Today's submissions and Older submissions headers into the transcluded pages instead of having them in the top level page. This would change the behaviour of the [edit] tag associated with the header to cause an edit to be of the transcluded file instead of the top level file. As this problem appears to be caused by newbies, removing this point of confusion should reduce the frequency of problems. --Allen3talk13:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd actually guess that it's the templates and transclusions that are causing the confusion. I think people come to WP:AFC, see other people's submissions on the page (they're actually on WP:AFC/Today), click edit this page, fail to find the place for submissions, and finally get confused and blank the page. If the edit this page link they're accustomed to using on other articles were gone, then they'd look around, read the directions, and click on the big Click here to submit your proposal link. That link is also the only way they get to see Template:AFC preload which gives them even more instructions. ×Meegs14:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Page semi-protected
I have been convinced by Meegs' arguement above that semi-protection is worth a trial to see if it will help resolve the problems. As the purpose is to force anons and new users to use the link provided on the page instead of preventing vandalism, the usual {{sprotected}} template has not been placed on the page. If another admin objects to this decision, please feel free to reverse the protection. --Allen3talk14:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Archiving
We may be on our own with the archiving for a while; Uncle G's 'bot hasn't edited in more than a week, and Uncle G hasn't in four. Is there another bot around that we could ask to help? ×Meegs05:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I've added a note to the instructions of this page about stub templates. It is thoroughly irritating to have to keep removing stub templates from proposals on these pages. I see from looking through this talk page that I'm not the only one whose regularly needed to delete them - I've added it in the instructions template, which is hopefully a better place to where BL Lacertae added them. It's fine to just add plain {{stub}} once they're created, they'll be sorted soon enough (though if you want to add more precise templates, no-one at WP:WSS will object :) Grutness...wha?01:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Given Uncle G's bot is taking a wiki-vacation, I'm in the process of building my own bot. It will run on my dedicated server on a cron job. I'm starting to build it now and when its closer to completion, I'll make the official bot request for it on WP:BOT. Also planned is a utility to take care of stub templates and categories on here as well. -- ShinmaWa(talk)19:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Great, thanks! The first task is far more important, but the second could also neutralize interwiki links ([[it:article]] → [[:it:article]]). If it's going to run hourly, or at some similar interval, I can think of a few other things it could automate too. ×Meegs00:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Failing to give an article title makes the article appear under the same section as the previous article. For example, see "Homer Spit" (or whatever it was) on today's listing. It includes three separate articles. Because the newbies only understand even a very basic instruction if it's written in 72-point flashing bright red in ALL CAPS, should one like this be put on the main AfC page to remind them to actually type a title? JIP | Talk15:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I fix a bunch of those every day, along with the related problem of people using == or = level headlines (or html equivalents) within their submission. Both are annoying, but easy to overlook, and I worry about giving too many instructions. Could it be clarified further in {{AFC preload}}? ×Meegs21:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
My Article
I worked very hard on my article, Uniforms of La Grande Armee. I shortened it in the submission so that it wouldn't take long to copy and I could edit it and expand it once its created. Could someone please create it. --24.247.126.4414:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
List of fictional subterranean countries are not included in the list List of fictional countries. So I created this article.
The list you submitted only has one member more than Fictional countries#Lands inside the Earth. I would suggest that you keep it as part of the bigger article unless it grows too large. Where it is, the list benefits from that article's introduction, and from its close proximity to the superterranean countries. ×Meegs15:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Layout mistake
moved from top of page
I just submitted my first article, the one on GSO. I could have linked to more terms already on wiki, but I just wanted to get something up. This is my first submission.
I think I messed up the layout and it is ruining the Articles for Creation page. Sorry! Can someone fix this?
There are several articles that were submitted days ago, including a couple of mine, that have not been 'created' yet. Will someone please get to work on these?
147.240.236.922:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Please remember that all Wikipedia editors are volunteers, and do not like to be ordered around. If your submission has been so far overlooked, you can either be patient, or you can create an account and start the article yourself. ×Meegs04:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
From what I've seen, the vast majority of the submissions are clearly not worth creating. Some have too little text, some are blatant vanity or obvious jokes, and some are even copyvios. So the reason an article submitted here is not created is usually that the request was reviewed and declined. I myself only find an article worth creating once per a week or two. JIP | Talk17:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
this system is totally and completly unworkable
Someone deleted (vandalized) the page and deleted tens of article creation requests - NO ONE noticed!
The only reason I noticed is that my request vanished.
This system i.e. one big page, just doesn't work. There is no way to track which pages were rejected, or anything.
How about creating some sort of sub namespace, where users can actually CREATE the page. Then if approved the page is copied to the main area, and the page marked done.
Or the page can be marked denied, etc. (Presumably by using categories.)
This way each request is by itself and the whole system becomes far more manageable.
You would just look at the category page for uncompleted requests, denied ones, and if you want completed requests.
I keep submitting articles, but it seems like nobody out there is putting them in. Get Cracking, and start putting them in, guys!
71.13.81.16218:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. Not allowed. This is contrary to regulations. I am not allowed to create an account.
I suspect that there are several others in the same boat (so to speak).
This roused my curiosity, which regulations are those you speak of? Certainly Wikipedia has no such regulations, on the contrary, we encourage you to create an account. Does your school, company or family prevent you from creating an account? JIP | Talk17:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
AfC is a service where registered users create new pages with content submitted by people without accounts. If these are articles that you started on your own, they should not be listed here; the overwhelming majority of new articles are not. ×Meegs12:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Daily archiving
As mentioned in earlier topics, we lost the bot that used to archive WP:AFC/Today at the end of February. My attempts at finding a replacement have been unsuccessful; if anyone can provide a bot, or suggest a developer to perform this task, please do.
Also, though I have been doing the archiving manually, I will not be nearly as reliable in the future and it will be necessary for others to take-over. The three-step procedure for humans is the same as the one described in the bot request. ×Meegs06:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
New instructions
Right now, the instructions for submitting a request are fragmented and include many redundancies (albeit mostly for important points). The instructions for fulfilling requests are low-down in the page and often overlooked altogether. I've prepared a streamlined rewrite of the entire page head at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2006 April rewrite. Comments? ×Meegs21:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I like it, but have two suggestions.
The background colour needs changing to something lighter. I couldn't read the text without highlighting it!
Perhaps we could include a link to my templates for responding to requests. Giving good reasons as to why the article creation is not going to happen is sometimes a pain, and this would provide a certain uniformity to the requests as well as making it easier to respond.
I'd used a 12-bit color specification that I saw elsewhere on WP, but have never used before – it must not be interpreted the same in our two browsers. I've now switched to the standard 24-bit spec, choosing D0D0FF and BBBBFF, which are about as pastel as I can tolerate. If the colors are still not great, please edit them yourself (the same goes for any content problems you might see too, obviously). About your templates, if they are to have official status, we should move them out of your userspace. I also have a couple comments on their wording if they're going to be used by others. Can we defer for the moment? ×Meegs07:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Looks very good. I suggest extending the final sentence to Copyright violations, personal attacks and patent nonsense should be removed. Tearlach09:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I took the liberty to add it and provide links to patent nonsense and personal attacks to ensure fulfillers can look up the definitions and that submitters can avoid them when they make a request. - Mgm|(talk)10:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
We really never really get personal attacks on other contributors here, so I changed the link from WP:NPA to Wikipedia:Attack page. I'm not sure which text should be displayed, though, "attack pages", "personal attacks", or "attacks". ×Meegs18:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've copied the new instructions to the main page after affirmation from all three of you. Deskana, could you confirm that the text / color contrast problem is resolved? ×Meegs19:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, no problems with the colours, I am perfectly capable of reading the text now, thanks for the colour changes! I think the green of the "Click here to submit your entry" box doesn't go that well with the blue background, but that's just nitpicky aesthetics!
I have created a set of templates that can be used to respond to requests if users would wish to use them. Any comments anyone could provide would be appreciated. Specifically, I'm looking for any comments on how to improve current templates, and any suggestions on titles/contents of other templates that haven't been created yet. We could move them to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Response Templates if enough users agree with them. Any comments anyone? --DarthDeskana(talk page)22:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
It would make things a lot easier if they are moved to the regular template namespace. It saves a lot of typing. I don't see why we couldn't move them there. - Mgm|(talk)10:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I suggest very short names, perhaps closely tracking the shortcuts of the violated policies. How about {{afc v}} (unsourced), {{afc nn}} (generally not notable), {{afc music}} (fails WP:MUSIC), and {{afc copyvio}} ? They'd possibly be better in allcaps or without the space. ×Meegs11:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
As for the content, I have a number of minor things to suggest once they're in the template space. The very least of them is the Article not created, which, to me, is slightly obnoxious, sort-of mock authoritarian, though I've enjoyed the hearing it from Grand Moff Deskana and Darth Revert personas. For their master page, Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Response templates sounds fine. ×Meegs11:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Most maintenance templates like {{afd}}, {{copyvio}} and variants of {{cleanup}} don't use caps. I think we could do without them. If we have the capitalization consistent with that of other templates, it makes it easier to remember. - Mgm|(talk)16:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'll remember that. I plan on moving them soon, but for the minute have important college work to be getting on with. Infact, I shouldn't even be here! --DarthDeskana(talk page)20:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Cool, thanks! Feel free to edit them and make more, they're not "mine" anymore since they're not in my userspace. Awww.... my babies.... --DarthDeskana(talk page)07:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for putting this request here. I read Help: Starting a New Page which says "Anyone, including you, can write for Wikipedia! Just type a title in the box below, click "Create page", and start writing" and "'Create page' takes you to an edit page to enter the new text" and under "Starting a page through the URL" it says "Using the URL for the new page displays the default 'no article' message (see MediaWiki:Noarticletext). The default page has the usual Edit this page link, which can be used to begin adding content" but it did not. After typing in the title of thearticle I was atempting to create it went to an "Article not found" page which says "As an unregistered user, you may also submit the content that you wish to have created". So I clicked the "edit this page" tab but the identical page just comes up again. So clicking the "submit the content" link I went to "Wikipedia:Articles for creation" where it says "To request the creation of an article with text you wrote, post it here" but I see no way to do this. Wow what a loop!
So anyway the page (or just a stub to start) I was requesting the creation of was on the "National Cattlemen's Beef Association" [1]. I was going to include this quotation from said association (it appears at the bottom of every page of the site) "NCBA... working to increase profit opportunities for cattle and beef producers by enhancing the business climate and building consumer demand" which I find quite telling - especially the "working to increase profit opportunities for cattle and beef producers" and "building consumer demand" part.
Carefully read the left-hand side of the blue instructions box, titled "Submitting an article". At the bottom, there is a link "Click here to submit your entry". ×Meegs11:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Page blanking
Please be on the lookout for page blanking of WP:AFC/Today. The way to spot it is by routinely checking for the line
Please now follow the link back to Wikipedia:Articles for creation.
at the top of the page. It tends to happen about 3 times a week, but can be quite difficult to restore if it happens multiple times in one day.
I'd also personally like to ask for others to help in archiving the page. Ideally it should be done daily, shortly after 0000 UTC. When it is not done, the page becomes less accessible to the submitters, and it becomes harder to fix problems, such as blanking. ×Meegs11:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Have you considered letting a bot perform the daily blanking/archiving? As this task involves nothing more than moving the current file to a new location and then placing an appropriate header line in the new days archive it appears to be a good task for a bot to perform. I believe Crypticbot is willing to accept additional pages to archive. --Allen3talk12:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, in fact the task was originally performed by User:Uncle G's 'bot. Since it stopped, I've posted a bot request and asked several bot developers for help, but have not found any volunteers. Crypticbot was my first thought too, but User:Cryptic has not edited in over a month. ×Meegs14:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, since 0000 UTC is 0100 Local Time for me, I'm not sure I'd be able to archive it. I could archive it at 2300 UTC on Fridays and Sundays if that'd be alright. --DarthDeskana(talk page)09:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The time of day does not matter. If you ever see that the page hasn't been archived for 24 hours, don't think twice, archive! I'll rework the bot instructions for a human and post them here shortly. ×Meegs10:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Below is the three step procedure for archiving WP:AFC/Today. Archiving can be done at any time of day, but only once per UTC calendar date.
Move Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Today to [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation/YYYY-MM-DD]]. Use the UTC date at the time of the archival. Move only the article, not the talk page.
I understand that blocking page creation was an experiment. Is there discussion on how it's doing anywhere? -Dan 05:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
That's interesting; there's no discussion that I know of. Probably the only effect most established, registered users have noticed is the beneficial one of fewer new articles immediately in need of deletion. Aside from the plight of anonymous users, it's difficult to appreciate the downsides to the policy, such as the absence of the good articles that anons might otherwise have started. My guess is that the only people opposed to the policy who weren't during the previous debate are unregistered users (or users who wish return to unregistered status). If you'd like to find out if there is interest in a new discussion, a post at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) is probably the way to go. ×Meegs11:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
One apparent side-effect is the number of schoolyard entries posted here: Joe Blow is a kewl guy, a babe magnet, and the most magnificent person on the planet kind of thing. Any chance of making explicit in the instructions template that obviously NN bios can just be binned instead of wasting time explaining notability guidelines? Tearlach23:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Better not to bite the newbies. Once people understand that we have standards to uphold, they may treat us with a little more respect and contribute something serious. Fwiw, I think it's fantastic that all these schoolkid entries *are* being kept out of WP. It's a brilliant side effect that I don't think people really planned. Stevage12:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
If they have to go somewhere, I'd rather have them here than in the article space. With the ban on anon page creation, I wonder if being able to contribute here discourages anons from registering just to create such articles. I'd like to think so.
As for the instructions, if you want to edit the right half, go ahead. I think that ignoring low-quality (but harmless) entries might be the more efficient way to go, though. As things are now, most submissions go unreplied to. As long as the copyvios and attacks are removed, does it matter whether Joe Blow is a kewl guy remains? We will, by the way, soon have an archiving bot, which will keep the daily pages reasonably-sized, and sweep such entries into the archives daily. ×Meegs08:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
May 2 and 5
What happened to the Articles for Creation for May 2, 5, 7, and 8? They are missing. Probably some others also.
147.240.236.922:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
No one got around to archiving the page in a timely fashion so they're included in the archive that was made the day after. - Mgm|(talk)12:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Missing Submissions
It seems that during an edit, 21:09 hrs 7 May 2006, that 66.31.238.200 erased many entries that were submitted, including some of mine, while editing an article. Whoever submitted entries between May 5 and May 9 needs to check to see if they have been created.
68.61.35.1319:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Is this page still active? While there is certainly a large number of submissions that deserve to be ignored, a quick scan finds that there are also multiple submissions that deserve to be created. Are no new articles being created because people are having problems finding the signal hidden by all the noise or has this page reached the point where it has been completely abandoned by those empowered to fulfill requests? --208.100.200.3512:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the page is still active, though it is understaffed. You're probably right too: the overwhelming proportion of low-quality submissions is probably the reason that few Wikipedians volunteer for this work. Remember, all you need to do to create articles is register an account. Once registered, users can not only create articles with their own content, but they can help-out here by creating articles on behalf of others. ×Meegs08:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
All set now. It wasn't vandalism (i.e. malicious), but it sure did make a mess. The page move left a redirect in its place, causing all of the subsequent submissions (below the #REDIRECT) to not be rendered, no-doubt confusing the hell out of the submitters. What we now have are Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2006-06-02-early, the entries that were moved, and Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2006-06-02, the entries made in the last two and a half hours before archiving, that were previously invisible. ×Meegs16:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't think greater move protection is a good idea, less we want to limit archival to administrators and administrator bots. I guess this is just one more thing to keep an eye out for. ×Meegs17:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Inappropriate submission
I think the article about Jon Lassonde is highly unexceptable! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.203.208.86 (talk • contribs) 2006 June 2 32:10 UTC.
Are we supposed to be listing every article we create pursuant to an AFC request in that little list of created articles? That's kind of annoying if so. --maru (talk) contribs17:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
No, not that I know of. The important thing is that the article gets created. The list just shows some articles that get created so that the people posting get an idea of the info they need to give before something gets created. - Mgm|(talk)21:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Is there some way that a "Declined because subject is not suitable for Wikipedia" template could be made? Many of the suggestions that are being submitted are just utter nonsense and this would speed up the process greatly. I would make one myself, but I am not sure of how to do it. Thank you. --LynnMarie18:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we have {{afc nn}}, as well as a bunch of more specific ones listed Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Templates. It's not too important to respond to the really bad submissions, though, because their authors will likely not return to see our response. In fact, it's generally best to just remove all trace of the truly absurd submissions along with the jokes, personal messages, and attacks. ×Meegs19:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Where to start
I can help out with the backlog here, but where to start? Is it better to go through the older archives forst, or go for today's entries? -- Kevin10:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Great! I'd suggest starting with the newest of the archives or /Today. Particularly in the archives though, it is much less important to respond to the inadequate entries than it is to find good ones, since few submitters will revisit their submissions once they're off the main page. Good luck.×Meegs13:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Archiving
For the {{afc top}} and {{afc b}} tags to work __TOC__ neds to go into the top of todays page, otherwise the first entry includes the table of contents in it's shaded area. I'm not sure how to do that other than manually adding it each day. Does someone know how to do this? Kevin21:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea if, like Articles for deletion, we have a different background for those article requests that have been dealt with. I find it hard to filter through all the ones that are done and those that haven't been responded to because the page has a lot of "noise", because many people don't fully understand the instructions. Shading the completed ones would really help single out the ones still needing to be dealt with and help get this page back in shape. Harryboyles10:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I've created {{afc top}} and {{afc b}} for this. Put the first above the title, and the second underneath your reply. Remember to subst them. Let me know what you think. Kevin11:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks to all those responsible for creating the afc top, afc b, and various afc reasons templates! This should help immensely in getting this list cleaned up faster, by reducing duplication of work. I'd tried to help out here a couple months ago, but the whole page was just a mess, and the only comments really found were the ones saying it'd been created already... so all the proposals I was reading were garbage, and had probably already been reviewed by 3 other people before me, meaning I was just wasting my time. Now with this new stuff, I can quickly skim the page to find the proposals without the little box, and easily insert a reason why it was or wasn't created, standardizing the whole thing. Much easier! Thanks very much to anybody involved! --Maelwys14:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
This same idea came to me a few months ago, and I must admit, I decided it was a terrible idea: that it would burden the reviewers, slow-down the work, and drive away desperately needed volunteers. It also did not seem to make sense to facilitate the rejection process when it did not appear that we had enough eyes to process every submission. I think I was wrong, though. On top of looking spiffy, the templates' prevention of redundant reviewing probably makes it all worth while. Good job, Harry and Kevin. If the test survives a few more days without discord, we should rewrite the right hand side of the blue instructions box.
I also think the template's box would be even more effective if it was colored, as originally suggested. Since it is always substituted, and we don't want to see too many variations in use, let's agree upon a color before making the change. How about a light gray, like #CCCCCC? ×Meegs05:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I see the box is already shaded #F3F9F, which looks absolutely white through my computer's gamma correction. How about
Personally, I think that #CCCCCC is a little dark for easy readability, and that #DDDDDD (shown here) is easier to read while still being dark enough to easily notice on the page.But #CCCCCC (shown here) is all right if that's the consensus.Or maybe we could split the difference with #D3D3D3 (shown here). Kickaha Ota22:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
We non-Windows users really need CCCCCC or darker if we're going with grey. I'm glad now that I didn't propose my true preference, A0A0A0 ;) ×Meegs01:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
AfDs by anonymous users -- what should AfC reviewers do?
I've started a discussion on the Articles for Deletion talk page, asking what AfC reviewers should do when faced with a request for an AfD page to be created. If you have an interest in how those requests should be handled, I'd encourage you to participate in that discussion. Kickaha Ota17:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Users editing rejected submissions
I've noticed several users editing their submissions in response to "declined" comments. This, of course, is exactly what we want them to do. But since we've already marked their submission as "complete", it's highly unlikely that any editor will notice or respond to the changes. What can we do to avoid this problem? Kickaha Ota23:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
One thing: it is not generally a good idea to edit submissions during the first hour or so after they come-in because their authors are often still tinkering with them. The least we can do is wait until they're finished before passing judgement.
For the general problem, I'm not sure what we can do; they may be out of luck. In my declinations, I sometimes encourage the authors to resubmit their articles once they've addressed my comments, but I'm not certain that's something we want to direct at everyone. If you think this is a big enough problem — and worth the extra volume — we could add 'do not edit, resubmit if improved' to the top/bottom templates. ×Meegs00:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
The best way might be for us to encourage the user to put a note on the closing editor's talk page. Kevin00:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
that's certainly the thing to do for the true borderline submissions, but this problem probably extends across all quality of entries. ×Meegs01:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I've made some experimental changes to {{afc top}}, trying to warn the users about this problem without adding too much size to the template. Yes, talking to the reviewer would be a great approach, but it might be too confusing for the newbie submitters. (And the experienced users can just remove the markup from the completed article, so I'm not too concerned about them.) Kickaha Ota00:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't seem right to order them not to edit it without suggesting the alternative. Or maybe it is obvious? What's there now is nice and clean. ×Meegs01:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Here's the revised template so everyone can see what we're talking about:
This request for creation has been reviewed. The result is below.
If your request was declined and you want to make changes and try again, copy and paste your article into a new submission and make your changes there.
It does suggest resubmitting as a new article. I thought about telling them to remove the "complete" markup instead, but those instructions would be very confusing, especially since the {{afc top}} markup winds up in the previous section.
Another alternative that I hadn't considered until now: Could we create a new "Hey, I've made more changes!" template, that would look like {{afc maybe}}? Something like this?
Attention, reviewers: The submitter has made further changes to this article.
Please re-review the article, then remove this tag.
Then the instructions could just say "If you want to make further changes, please add "{{afc changed}}" to your article." Kickaha Ota01:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah yes, I think the afc top template is just great. I think the "further changes" template is therefore not necessary, and adds complication. One option is enough for the submitters. ×Meegs01:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay. I created the proposed template, but I won't link anything to it or mention it in the instructions, and I'll get rid of it in a few days if we're satisfied with the way the current solution is working. Kickaha Ota01:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I dislike the "please do not make changes" clause. While I understand the intent, it does place a finality to it that I think is inappropriate. Declines were never meant to be absolutely final in the AfD sense. Any editor who wishes to create an article that another reviewer has declined should have the ability to do so. The template gives the false impression that once any reviewer has declined the article, that it is the end of discussion. I strongly oppose that. Because of that, I'm removing that clause pending further debate or resolution. -- ShinmaWa(talk)19:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the small-print instructions to resubmit a modified request are sufficient. It did not occur to me that "do not edit it" could be interpreted as binding to reviewers. ×Meegs02:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
"Maybe" template
The new templates really speed things up. But there still seems to me to be a problem: When I can't make up my mind whether an article is appropriate, I usually just skip it. (And looking at other editors' patterns, this seems to be a common reaction.) The {{afc top}} and {{afc b}} templates make it easier to pick out the unprocessed ones, but it still seems pretty easy for an unprocessed article to get visually lost in a crowd of processed ones. So I've experimentally created an {{afc maybe}} template, which displays an alert box in the article. {{afc maybe|This seems like it's on the very edge of notability}} displays this:
Attention, reviewers: A previous reviewer could not decide whether this article is appropriate for creation.
The prior reviewer left the following comment: This seems like it's on the very edge of notability.
Please review the article carefully and, if possible, render a decision on it. If you do render a decision, please remove this tag.
The parameter is optional; if you omit it, the "reason" line gets omitted from the infobox.
So reviewers looking for problem articles left by previous reviewers could either scroll down the page and look for the alert boxes, or just do a quick browser search for "Attention, reviewers".
Naturally, comments, enhancements, and patient "This will never work" explanations are welcome. Kickaha Ota02:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's necessary, but let's give it a spin. I just changed-around the use of italics, so let me know what you think. It is a really nice design. ×Meegs04:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I like the look. A potential functionality enhancement: What if the template also included the page in a "Article creation requests needing attention" category? Currently, an editor has to page through the whole archive if he or she wants to find old requests that weren't handled. So any request that isn't resolved within a few days of its creation is probably going to fall through the cracks. Putting the archive pages containing problem requests into a category could lead editors right to the appropriate archive pages; and once all the "afc maybe" tags had been handled and removed, the archive page would automatically disappear from the category. Or would this be an inappropriate self-referential category? Kickaha Ota17:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Yep, people look subst'ing the template. I may get slapped down for self-referencing, but I've now added a category to the AfC template code, so that pages containing unfulfilled problem requests automatically appear in Category:Wikipedia article creation requests needing further review. I believe I've done all the proper technical things for safely using a self-referential category (putting the new category into Category:Wikipedia article lists, for example); and the template will only get used on pages in the Wikipedia namespace in any case. But if need be, I'll put things back the other way. We'll see how it goes. Kickaha Ota00:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Revised AFC preload template instructions
I revised the HTML-comment instructions presented to users when they use the link in the instructions to start their article. I tried to simplify things, make it clearer where the article and the sources should go, and emphasize that they should LIST AT LEAST ONE SOURCE IN THE SOURCES SECTION AND NO "GOOGLE" DOESN'T COUNT AS A SOURCE ARGH DAMMIT.
Okay. I have released the tension. I am now calm and placid like a gentle lake. :)
Also, I removed the instruction that tells people to put [[]] around their headline. The theory is good, but the majority of users were getting it wrong, I couldn't think of any clearer way to explain it, and it seemed to me that the inconsistency resulting from users' varying attempts to comply with this were making things harder than if they just didn't do it. Besides, the less thought our beloved newbies give to where the brackets should go, the more brain capacity they'll have left over for listing something in the "Sources" section. Kickaha Ota19:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
While we're making changes, do you think it'd be too much to include something about header levels? It drives me crazy when people use level 3 (
While we're cleaning up the top of the page...
... is there any reason we really have to keep the "Recently Created Articles" seciton? Personally, I find it to be useless, since it creates an extra step of work for the volunteers maintaining the page (ie: us ;-)) and as not everybody (ie: me ;-)) actually adds the articles there, it's incomplete anyway... meaning that it's of very little use as a reference to anything. So why bother even having it at all, at that point? Just curious if there's any good reasons that I missed... --Maelwys17:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I was going to suggest the same thing. It's irregularly maintained (I often forget to do it). And now that we're using templates to process articles, it seems like a clearer and faster way to mark the approved ones would be to have a variant of {{afc top}} used for approved articles, that would create a box shaded in green instead of grey. That way someone looking for approved articles could scroll down the page and look for the green boxes. Kickaha Ota18:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
As an experiment, I've created a new "accept" mode for the {{afc top}} template. So if you say {{subst:afc top|accept}} instead of the usual {{subst:afc top}}, you'll get the friendly green box without the "If your article was declined..." text, like this:
This request for creation has been reviewed. The result is below.
I knew this was coming from day one. A two-color, gray/green, scheme is fine with me. The downside is that it'll add complication to the documentation. ×Meegs19:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
All this new fangled stuff is starting to get out of control. Its getting to the point where I have to keep a page open to the talk page to look up all the templates and whatnot that we're using now. We really need to KISS this back into the realm of manageability. -- ShinmaWa(talk)22:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that we need to watch out for overcomplication, and I'd love to hear ideas for streamlining, especially on the declines. (I'm happy enough when I find a good article that I don't mind spending a few extra seconds on it. :) ) But I'll also point out that many people seemed to think that the system was unmanageable before as well. Yes, approving or declining an article was somewhat easier without the templates; but it took so much longer to find the unprocessed articles in the first place that it wound up being a slower process overall. And there's only two templates that are really important -- {{afc top}} and {{afc b}}. The templates for the various decline types are just there for convenience; if you find it faster or easier or more enjoyable to write your own accept/decline methods than to use the templates, then by all means do it. Kickaha Ota23:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Inappropriate articles by registered users
When a registered user submits an article that's blatantly inappropriate (an advertisement, a personal attack, etc), I would encourage reviewers to decline the article in the normal way, rather than using the {{afc reguser}} message to tell them that they can create their own articles. Yes, you're stating the obvious, but a lot of these people wouldn't otherwise bother to learn the obvious. :) This would seem to be a logical application of the WP:BEANS principle -- if someone appears to be trying to damage the encyclopedia, don't educate them as to how to do it better. Kickaha Ota18:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Proposed change in placement of afc top
Currently, we've been placing the {{afc top}} marker above the section header in users' articles. This looks nice. However, I'm going to suggest that we instead place it just below the section header, even though it doesn't look as nice there, for two reasons:
It keeps all the markup related to a submission within that submission's section. Currently, the "afc top" markup winds up in the previous section, making it more confusing to edit or remove the markup later.
It makes reviewing long pages quite a bit faster. With the current MediaWiki engine, if you edit a section and place new content above the section header, then when you save your changes, you'll find yourself at the top of the page. Then you need to scroll back down and find your place. (You can avoid this by doing all your section edits in a new window, but this is a pain too.) If you edit a section and leave the section header at the very top of the section, then when you save your changes, you'll be placed back at the section you just edited. (Note that this only works for sections with unique titles; if you edit, say, a "Sources" section, you'll be placed back at the first "Sources" section in the article when you finish your edit.)
By the way, this is also another reason not to ask users to place their article titles in [[wikilink brackets]]; if the section's title contains brackets, the section IDs wind up mangled in such a way that IE and Firefox won't correctly place you back at that section after you finish an edit. Kickaha Ota18:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Andeh just asked me on my talk page about this edit. He thinks (I hope I am paraphrasing correctly) that we should decline all submissions from registered users, and points-out a new reply template, {{afc reguser}}, that exists for just this purpose. I presume the template's creators agree, but I do not.
Well over ninety percent of what comes into AfC is not suitable for Wikipedia. For just the reasons that anonymous page creation was disallowed and this service created, we are lucky if registered users submit their crap here instead of creating new articles. It is a bit sinister, I know, but this is one tremendous practical benefit of this page. In the past, there was even some discussion of encouraging all new users to use AFC as a filter.
That's one reason. The other is that when the rare article-worthy submission does come along, we should make sure it is created, no matter who submitted it. In all of my time at AfC, there has not been a registered user who habitually uses AFC. In other words, they all leave the project, figure it out, or are told within a very short time. A comment in the accept response is just as effective at educating these inexperienced users as a declination. A note on their talk page is even better.
I strongly suggest that we get rid of this template altogether. When used on poor submissions, it encourages something we don't want and neglects to give constructive criticism; when used on good submissions, there is a chance that it will not be seen or heeded, and that the quality article will never be created. Creating the article and educating the user is the way to go. ×Meegs23:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, I agree completely. We should let the user know that they can create their own articles, but also create the article anyway. (This would particularly be so if the article wound up in the archive before being reviewed.) Kickaha Ota23:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Your thoughts there really changed my decision on whether to just reject regusers AfC's. I didn't create the template by the way. I'd have to agree with you on getting rid of the template as it may be used on the rare good article that comes along once in a while.--Andeh01:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I've rewritten the {{afc reguser}} template from a "Declined; please create it yourself" to an "Article created; by the way, you can create future ones yourself". Kickaha Ota12:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we should have a template to put on the registered users talk page as they may not check back. How about {{afc-reguser|articlename}}?--Andeh14:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
If a registered writes a great article, take a few seconds and write them a personal message, that's my advice. Chances are they're new and will greatly appreciate the attention. ×Meegs14:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Linking AfC title
Hi, I think it would be better if the titles of proposed pages were linked, but as noted above there were prblems with inexperienced users incorrectly placing the [[ ]]'s. I was wondering if there was a way to put into the link which users use to propose a new page some text which makes [[Insert page name here]] appear in the subject bar. I couldn't find a way to do this (in the very limited time I spent searching), but I had another idea: It is not compulsory to use the subject box to make a headline, so if the template included in the body of the request were to be changed to have the page title, as a level 2 headline, included in it, with instructions, the request would appear properly and with a link. To see what I mean, go to [2] (on my user namespace to leave a message on a test talk page. To see the code itself, go here. Is it worth including do you think - I'm aware of not making it too complicated, so I've tried to make the headline stand out and provide clear instructions. Let me know what you think Martinp2323:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that unfortunately there's a couple potential issues with this idea. 1/ It's something else in the already-cluttered text box, which could just confuse things even further. 2/ It means that if somebody fills out the top header, and then fills out the instructions in the textbox, we end up with 2 headers on each section, which will just make things very jumbled on the page. 3/ As somebody else mentioned above, having the header as a link confuses Firefox and makes it a lot more work to markup long pages one section at a time, because it prevents Firefox from jumping back down to the section you last editted. So all in all, I think it's a lot of extra potential confusion for a fairly small benefit (that's of even less benefit to those of us using Firefox, since it just makes our lives harder). --Maelwys13:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Splitting up the AfC instructions differently
Currently, our great-looking instruction boxes at the top of the AfC page have the "how to submit your article" instructions on the left, and the "how to review articles" instructions on the right.
From looking at the AfC queue over the last few days, it looks to me like we have two distinct audiences:
Newbies. These are people who use the AfC mechanism because they get herded towards it when they try to create an article. They sometimes have good ideas, but they have very little understanding of Wikipedia.
Experienced anonymous users. These are people who understand perfectly well how Wikipedia works, and can write elaborate articles, but they prefer to remain anonymous when they create their articles.
I think the two audiences need different instructions.
The newbies need extremely simple directions: "Click here. Write the name of your article here. Write your article here. Write your source here. Click the save button." For these users, every extra concept that we add to the directions could be counterproductive, because it could draw their attention away from the really important stuff that they need to understand. For example, the current Step 5 in the creation instructions, which talks about stub templates, probably flies about 30 feet (10 meters) over these users' heads, and just distracts them from the important stuff in the earlier steps.
The experienced anonymous users can handle more complicated instructions, and there are a number of extra things that we could and should tell them in order to make our lives easier, like "If you include stub templates and category references, please comment them out," and "Please use '===' rather than '==' for your subject headers."
Meanwhile, I think the instructions for reviewers should be rewritten and expanded a bit as well, to better reflect our practices. (As an obvious example, they currently give little attention to how to correctly decline an article.)
So here's what I would suggest we do (I'll try to draw up a mockup tonight): Rather than putting article-creation instructions on the left and article-review instructions on the right, we instead put newbie-level article-creation instructions in a box of their own. Then, below that, in the current two-column box, we put the information meant for more experienced users -- the advanced-level article-creation tips on the left, and the article-review instructions on the right. Kickaha Ota20:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to echo and amplify this. Two sets of submitter instructions sounds like a very bad idea to me. I do agree, though, that the existing instructions may already be too complicated for many. I propose just simplifying them; take out the "no stubs" step, for example. Let's have just the newbie instructions. There aren't nearly as many experienced submitters as you think – most are just matching patterns and emulating existing articles. Instructing them not to use stubs or == headlines, will decrease the effect of the critical instructions (notability, copyright, sources).
Also, regarding the reviewer instructions, rewriting them is fine, but I strongly suggest that they not be moved from the top of the page. In the months before they were moved there, I spoke to many editors who said they could not find them and as a result made critical mistakes. If anything, they should be simplified too, if you ask me, though it is not nearly the priority it is for the other side. The essential points are a)credit the submitter when creating an article and b)remove copyvios. ×Meegs10:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I've done a rewrite of the top of the page that I hope reflects everyone's consensus. It keeps the current structure (submission instructions on the left, review instructions on the right), but separates the advanced-level submission instructions into a separate area below the "Click here to start" link. It also revises the review instructions a bit to reflect our current practices; hopefully I haven't fallen victim to instruction creep here. As always, changes and corrections are welcome. Kickaha Ota18:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
In order to make it easier for reviewers to find unfulfilled requests in the backlog, I've flagged the recent archive pages that haven't been completely reviewed yet with a new template, {{afc moretodo}}. That template will add the page to Category:Wikipedia article creation requests needing further review, just like the {{afc maybe}} template does. So reviewers can look in that category to find the archive pages that need their attention.
Here's the current look of the template. As always, feel free to make changes, but please try to keep the "Attention, reviewers:" intact.
Attention, reviewers: There are article submissions on this archive page that still have not been reviewed.
Please look through the page and accept or decline the unreviewed requests, or add the {{afc maybe}} tag to requests that seem particularly troublesome. When all article submissions on the page have been accepted, declined or flagged with the {{afc maybe}} tag, please remove this notice from the page.
Would it not be easiest to also flag all archives with pending requests as emboldened on the main project page? --Robdurbar10:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
That would certainly be very slick; but I don't know of any way to do it other than manually. And history would seem to show that any reviewing process that requires manual updates to the main page as well as the archive pages won't get done reliably. Kickaha Ota16:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
We could run it as a trial, and scrap it if people stop doing it? As long as three or four committed users are happy to check on it a couple of times a day, it could work. Would be easiest to start at the beginning of August and see how it goes...? --Robdurbar16:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
===) headers within their articles, because then it sets the inner-article header at the same level as the article-header, making it a lot more difficult to markup (since we've gotta edit multiple sections to drop everything to level 2 so it all fits within the same section edit). Just a little pet peeve of mine... --Maelwys19:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
My pleasure! Just take a look at how many times I've posted with an edit summary of "formatting"... that generally means changing header levels. Including the 6-section bio I just turned down, that only took me 7 edits to do so, when it should really be a quick single edit. Not so fun. --Maelwys20:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Just as an aside, in the case of a multi-section article, I usually don't bother changing the header levels; I just add the decline template and the {{afc b}} to the bottom section, then add the {{afc top}} to the top section. It momentarily causes a minor glitch in the page display, but it's so much faster than editing every section in a long article that I think it's worth it. Kickaha Ota23:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Sigs in Articles
I have come across several articles that seem to have gone through this process. The problem is they seem to be copied with everything under the request (including the hidden stuff, like "You must submit sources), and even the signature. WP:SIG states there should be no signatures on article pages. Just wanted to alert you. -Royalguard11Talk18:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Deletions
Anon user 66.177.176.228 (presumably accidentally, possibly as a result of the Firefox bug) cut off a number of contributions here, so I've restored them to the bottom of the page. Ziggurat03:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
existing articles?
I tried to add an article on former CT congressman Jim Maloney , but was told the article already exists. Well, the existing article does not link to articles from other CT politicians even when a wiki link is in the article...how to fix THAT?
The existing Jim Maloney article is on the baseball player, not the congressperson. So you would need to propose the article with an alternate name like "Jim Maloney (politician)". Kickaha Ota19:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't forget to sign your notes!
When you leave your note in an AfC article explaining why you accepted or declined the article, make sure to sign it with ~~~~, so that the submitter (or other reviewers) can get back to you with questions or comments if need be. I've updated the instructions. Kickaha Ota17:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Section-header instruction in the AFC preload template
Someone added an instruction to the AFC preload template, reminding users to use three equal signs instead of two for their section headers. It's a bit confusingly worded. Also, I thought we'd agreed that we wanted to keep the instructions built into the template as simple as possible, and this seems a bit too advanced. (It's in the "extra tips for advanced users" section of the instructions on the AfC page itself.) I'd suggest removing it; any objections? Kickaha Ota17:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The article has been created as a talk page (unregistered users can create talk pages, even of non-existent articles). - Mike Rosoft15:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
As everybody seems to use level two headings when writing up their proposed articles, would changing the template used so that it uses level 1 headings by default be any sort of problem? Would make this a heck of a lot easier when dealing with mega-fragmented proposals. talk toJDwants e-mail00:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me why the AfC entries are archived on dates that are basically one day after the dates on which they appear? It's only 03:40 UTC on September 4 now, yet the "September 4" entries have already been archived. For that matter, in the USA it's still September 3. --Metropolitan9003:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The submissions come in at a tremendous rate; WP:AFC/Today is archived every 24 hours in order to keep it at a functional size. Submitted articles can still be created one they have been moved from the main page. As for the date, Wikipedia operates on Coordinated Universal Time throughout. ×Meegs03:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The easy answer is that the date of the archive is the date when the archive is made. The reason for this is that is much easier for the bot that makes the archive to slap down today's date on it when making it. Therefore, the archive made on and dated 4 Sept will contain submissions from 3 Sept. -- ShinmaWa(talk)04:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Apparently the bot is on vacation, but I have left a note with its operator, Jitse Niesen.
In the meantime, if on any day the bot has not archived by 00:30 UTC, someone needs to do it by hand. It's a simple three-edit process. There are instructions here. ×Meegs10:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Limbo?
I submitted some articles about CT public officials and websites about a motnh ago and they have not been reviewed. Is thre a protocol here or are some articles more readily approved than others?
I've been noodling about some ideas on how to make the AFC more "newbie friendly". I've often said that bombarding users who haven't even created a username with a ton of rules, guidelines, etc is a great way for them not to read of any of it. I still believe that is true. Some of the recent changes to AFC's main page has certainly helped, but I had an idea on how go one step further -- a series of small pages that guide the user through the process, asking a few questions (answered by clicking Wiki-links) to narrow down the kind of article they plan on writing and presenting only the notability information they need to know. I might just put a few pages together as a proof of concept. If they don't work out, I'm sure I can talk Meegs into speedy deleting them for me since I'm mopless. Any thoughts? :) :) -- ShinmaWa(talk)07:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed that entries here show up on google searches, and I don't think it's a good thing. Entries here are essentially premptively deleted content and include a lot of copyvio, nonsense, unverifiable information about real people etc. Perhaps search engines should be asked not to index it. Kappa18:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
However, I have a caveat to that. I was reviewing an AFC entry which seemed familiar today and wanted to find where it had been submitted before. A Wikipedia search didn't turn it up, but Google did. --Metropolitan9004:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
"AFC Closer" Program
Hi everyone - I've been writing a program for the past while to help closing AfCs quickly and easily. At the moment, it can only decline requests (I know - very negative) and has some minor bugs (which I hope to fix when I change the program later (if I can)). If anyone would be interested in Beta testing for me, could you ask on my talk page or on IRC (nick Martinp23). Thanks - Martinp2319:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
.NET framework 2.0, IE6 or above. Apart from that, in terms of hardware, nothing too much really (its a small app). In terms of linux, you could try with mono or dotgnu, but I've had problems in the past with a different program - not tested this one yet. Martinp2320:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the program works fine for now (there's one bug I know I need to smooth out), and at the moment can just decline edits (though it shouldn't be hard for me to complete it soon, so it will create new pages too). If you;d be interested in testing for me, please email me (that way I can send you the download link shwnever I update, keeping the links secure (at least until I decide whether I need a checkpage). Martinp2321:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Heh.. Sorry - perhaps yours would work on linux? (I doubt mine will :( ) - Perhaps you could beta test for me? Martinp2322:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Backlog!
Wow, it' so time consuming here at WP:AFC... It' neglected so no one checks it.. some of the articles (about 2 per day) are pretty good (near B-class) articles, yet no one cares about the anons. -- Chrischateditsessays05:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Jeff Sucks
Please create this article soon as the world needs to be notified of the suckage of Jeff.
I wrote a replacement for the original using the critisms incurred by the orignal (unknown to me)author of this important topic.
If the article is not put up, I can only conclude
goverment operatives or a culture of censorship exists
amoung "serious" "week"-pedians.
This is just a logical observation not a threat.
After all, where is the 5-part (or onepart) Frontline or Dateline
on the crony capitolism and facism that this accounting system
is supposed to have prevented.
Everything from insurance companies to Motorola and Microsoft is up to 50-85% institutional funds. That is a defacto government operation whether or not it has agency status.
I have encountered graduating accounting students that claim CAFR doesnt Exist or cant be found and was not taught in school.
Sum of human knowlege free? (Unless it could be,maybe,perhaps labeled anti-goverment?) == over n out ==
I don't know which topic you are referring to. However, if it is something that clearly deserves to be a Wikipedia article, then register an account and wait four days, and then you can post the article yourself. --Metropolitan9006:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
It would also help if you spell correctly and write complete, coherent sentences. If your article is/was written like you wrote this section, it won't last long. KrakatoaKatie03:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Me thinks thou doth protest too much? Nit pick on something else for a change or just correct the grammer/spelling in question. Or are you in the running for GOD as you are sooooooo perfect. CAFR duh?
You want us to take you seriously, and yet in your second sentence you suggest that all serious "'week'-pedians" are part of a mass conspiracy, which is simultaneously insulting, stupid, and paranoiac. Further, why would we volunteers spend much time on you if you don't make it easier for us by using English correctly, when there are so many other worthwhile things that need doing on Wikipedia? You may want to read Eric S. Raymond's "How To Ask Questions The Smart Way", which encapsulates a good deal of how to work in Wikipedia, in a cultural sense. --Gwern (contribs)16:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that this page serves to tie up editors in catering to those who should get a user account in due course. By removing/decommissioning this page, we would provide incentive for anonymous users to create an account. As for the wait, a few days isn't going to hurt. In the meantime, they can edit existing articles. The Transhumanist 08:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, being stuck on deleting bad submissions is so much better. </sarcasm> The restrictions were put in place for a reason. At least now people have to make an effort to create an article, the more lazy vanity creators and spammers won't bother. That's a good thing. With this page in place we can ignore bad submissions instead of having a huge CSD backlog that requires us to take action. - Mgm|(talk)11:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't mean to be trolling here but it seems to me that if we keep tags like these on archived request pages it clutters up the Articles which may contain original research category. I know we are not supposed to edit archived requests which is why I left it untouched but could we agree to remove such tags? It will get increasingly annoying as more and more of these start to appear on the list. The category should be easy to walk through when trying to resolve these original research disputes. I understand that sometimes the tag itself is the reason the article was declined but that should be clear from the discussion and not the tag itself. MartinDK08:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I definitely agree with you Martin. The AFC page is flagged as having a backlog, and I think that clearing that tag counts as dealing with the backlog. That request was rejected, it will never exist in that form, therefore it should be detagged. Chrisfow18:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I removed it now. That backlog is hard enough to work through as it is ;) One more down, too many to go yet... MartinDK18:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Marking backlog pages as completed
Am I supposed to do this? Is there anyway to do it? In the list of backlog pages for AfC, some say completed after the page title in the summary list... I've just closed the last article on a backlog page, but can't seem to find a way to now mark it as completed... Any suggestions? Thanks! QuiteUnusual21:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I am not quite sure about this. I am not working on the AfC but on the backlog at Category:Articles which may contain original research which seems to work different. Also I am a bit new at this but what I do is I inspect every page on the backlog and see what I can do to either resolve the issue myself or motivate the editors to work towards having the {{originalresearch}} tag removed. The reason I was interested in the AfC archive was because sometimes the tag gets stuck on the proposed articles and aren't deleted when the request is denied. Well, it happened on that one article anyway and I wanted to be sure of how to deal with it. But basically judging from the response I got it seems like it would be a good idea if you remove such tags when patrolling the AfC backlog so the tags don't clutter up the other backlogs. Happy editing and thanks for the help! MartinDK22:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Can't you just choose edit at the top of the page and edit it like any other page? Seems like what everyone else is doing. MartinDK22:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
How bizarre - there wasn't an edit button (it looked like a watchlist, for example), it just had a "special page" tab. Now I've gone in again it can be edited. Must have found some other way of listing the backlog last time. Thanks! QuiteUnusual22:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
RTS
Can someone edit the RTS table for me, I saved the page but forgot to get a preview.
I've created this new template. As of now, the wording simply stinks; but it's a start. Please (that's a request, not a nicety) improve upon it. Patstuarttalk|edits13:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Clearing the backlog.
I've been working on WP:AfC for almost a week now and I have some observations about the backlog situation.
It looks like the editors here are now more or less keeping up with demand - but it's definitely a struggle. But the backlog is so insanely long (an entire YEAR) that it'll never get cleared - we must accept that it's completely impossible. Even the archived pages marked as 'completed' are often not.
I have a proposal that would help immensely:
Split the AfC request page into three categories
So the top level 'WP:AfC' page would say:
Click here if you wish to create an article about a living person
Click here if you with to create an article about a living Band, a music Album or a Song.
Click here to create an article about something else.
By far the majority of the unanswered and rejected entries come from (1) and (2). They are almost all fail because they are very obviously non-notable. We can add a special reminder to contributors in each of these categories by giving a nice simple summary of the rules in WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC and asking people not to request articles that don't meet these criteria.
Hopefully, giving tailored advice for those two categories (which are by FAR the vast proportion of rejected articles) - we can cut down on the huge number of incoming 'junk' articles.
For the first two categories editors are not required to explicitly reject articles on grounds of non-notability
Instead, if a request is not picked up by an editor and turned into an article within 7 days, they are considered to have been rejected. This would save an immense amount of manual editing. It also pretty much reflects the reality of current practice. It's a real pain to have to add all of the justification and the pre/post templates for all of those bazillions of vanity articles.
It's no problem to scan a long list of those article requests and quickly identify the handful that need to be created - but to individually justify the rejection of all of the others is a lot of hassle.
Whilst this may not be the 'pure' approach that we'd like to take, IMHO it's the only thing that's going to keep the backlog down in the long term.
You would never guess this after reviewing the logs; but there is currently a "wizard-like" interface that starts when you do the "click here to start" button. One of the questions it asks you is the type of article you're creating, and then it beats you over the head with the notability guidelines. In a nice way, of course. The auto-expire after seven days is interesting - how would you word the feedback to the submitter? Kurutalk01:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
There are too many words on the interface - it needs to be radically simplified and guided step by step menu system: Something like "Click here if you are doing an article about a person"...new page..."Click here if this person is still alive"...new page..."Click here if the person is a sporting celebrity with no international wins..."...whatever. At the end, it can say "We don't normally accept articles about living sports celebrities unless they have international wins"...or whatever. The vast majority of people who come here are OBVIOUSLY total newbies - so anything remotely sophisticated will fool them. As for what we say if we hit the seven day limit is simply the truth "We're sorry - none of our editors felt that they should create your article.". SteveBaker02:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Nightmare to maintain, unfortunately. While I understand your concern completely, what you propose would span literally hundreds of pages quickly. Assuming only 3 choices per page, you've got 354 pages to maintain at the 4th level and 1083 at the 5th. As it is, there are 18 pages in the wizard and they are a handful enough. -- ShinmaWa(talk)06:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I've been pushing through the backlogged archives a little bit. One thing to note is that On some of the really old pages (from Dec. 2005, Jan. 2006, and so on - I don't know when the templates were introduced), editors weren't really required to comment on unsourced requests, so many of the pages appear incomplete while they're actually completed. I do agree that this backlog is heinous! -sthomson06 (Talk) 23:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Anyone else here notice that if someone adds the words "up and coming artist" to a WP:MUSIC submission, that it's a dead-give away that it's not notable? No offense, it's like they're cluing us in. -Patstuarttalk|edits00:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
We could drop the number of submissions here by at least a factor of ten if only we could get people to check the notability requirements for bands and living people before submitting. SteveBaker20:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow
I just found this place today. It really is a great catch all page for vandalism and articles that otherwise would be speedy deleted. If only all vandals could be sent here. All this stuff like about a guy you knew who took a picture of his poop, and other stuff that's just miles of gibberish. Anomo18:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
It stands as a testament to the effectiveness of the rule that you have to have an account and to have had it for a few days before you can create an article. I really wish that this rule applied to all editing. semi-protection is a good thing. SteveBaker20:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Although studies have shown the majority of content on wikipedia is written by anons (with <50 edits) or users with few edits. So semi-protection would stop most of that. We wouldn't want that. Chris M.04:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, a lot of editors start out as anons, so blocking them would likely prevent the influx of "new blood" into the community. —Dgiestc16:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Cleveland Fire Brigade
Sorry guys I think i messed up the submission and it became 4 different ones, (Staff, Corporate Outcomes, mission etc.. all belong with the one article!)
Use Three '=' for the sub-headings, two for the main heading. Don't sweat it too much - I'll fix it - this happens all the time! SteveBaker01:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
