New template idea to make things cleaner and easier to browse
I've been playing around with something that I think could make things a bit easier to keep up with some of the mess around here. For an example, check out Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2007-01-09 that I applied the new template to. Basically, I figure that by hiding the articles that've already been marked, it's a lot easier to quickly skim down the page finding the articles that still need to be reviewed (since they'll stand out a lot more), and the page won't be so overwhelming for people to review. What do people think? --Maelwys15:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
One word: NICE. Is there a different variant in the outer border for accept vs. decline? It might be nice to see at a glance which ones were accepted or not. However, I think this is great as is. -- ShinmaWa(talk)17:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Harry - My problem is that if I'm scanning the page really quickly, the incomplete ones don't stand out as much as they would with this template involved. Plus, since the page can get extremely long by the end of the day, this helps hide a lot of the unneeded clutter so that it's a lot less painful to scan through the page, everything gets a lot more organized and "clean" looking. Basically my theory is that the AfC can be a pretty arduous and thankless job (since there's a lot of garbage here), but still a necessary one, so why not make it as easy as possible for the volunteers to skim through the page and find what they need? --Maelwys14:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
ShinmaWa - Take another look now, how's that? I think that should be basically what you're looking for. (you should notice the difference right away, since the top two sections are an accept and a decline) --Maelwys14:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Now I've seen it in action for a day, I've changed my mind. Good idea. I've increased the red for the shading of declined articles as it better suits the green of the accepted ones. Harryboyles13:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Ooh, bee-youtiful! A huge improvement, I think. I hope it doesn't confuse new users who don't know to click on "show", though... delldot | talk03:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I have another idea that could help make it easier to review from a glance at the table of contents: at WP:ER we started this thing where people who haven't been reviewed yet have an asterisk next to their name (which exists in the template you use to create your ER subpage), and the reviewer removes it. That way, a glance at the table of contents shows a potential reviewer which users have and have not already been reviewed. I like the system a lot (if I do say so myself!). Anyone object to maybe trying it here? I'd love to be able to use the TOC to skip right to the ones that haven't been reviewed, rather than scrolling. Would trying this out even be technically possible with the request submission process? Other thoughts? Thanks, delldottalk19:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey, if people use this template to turn down an article, could you please provide a further explanation? As it stands, we're telling people that their article is not suitable for wikipedia, and saying nothing else. I'm actually tempted to put the template up for TFD right now, but I'm going to hold back pending on how people respond to this message. Part Deux16:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Something has gone wrong here. Can someone who is familiar with how AfC is supposed to work fix this? Jkelly23:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the AfC tags from it (those only go around the article on the actual AfC page, and should get removed when the article is created), but it still needs a lot of cleanup. --Maelwys23:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Is anybody else concerned about the size of template. It does make it easier to see what was and wasn't reviewed, but once a page is completed the template will have, typically, roughly doubled the size of the page source. Considering that most of this is just archives sitting there taking up space, should something be done about this? -- kenb215talk03:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, this has always been a problem, and it's definitely ok to remove them. We ask people not to include cats, but as things go at AfC, it's far from the most important instruction to get across. I used to remove all of the cats manually, but stopped around June of last year. There was also once some discussion about involving a bot. ×Meegs18:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I've made a bot request here. I have not been involved in AfC for a quite a while, so if others would please review what I've said, that would be great. ×Meegs19:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
There were no takers. If there are any AWB users who could help out by linkifying all of the categories in the AfC archives (e.g. [[Category:Living people]] → [[:Category:Living people]] ), please do! ×Meegs09:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Old reviews?
I was going through the backlog on Articles for Creation, and I've noticed that several articles that were declined in their original AfC have been re-created.
For example, KDSU which was requested on Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2006-01-20. What exactly should we do for such articles? I am doubtful whether it deserves its own article, it could very well exist within the DSU article.
There are several more articles like this. I would appreciate your guidance.
As time goes on, Wikipedia tends to accept articles that it wouldn't have in the past. It is possible that the subject would have been too insignificant back when it was rejected, but can have an article now because either Wikipedia expanded or the subject became more noteworthy. It's also possible that the original reviewer made a mistake, or that the reviewed candidate wasn't good enough to be made into an article, e.g. no sources.
The thing to do would probably be to look at the article on its own merits. If it seems like something that should be kept, then keep it. Otherwise, nominate it either for Articles for deletion or speedy deletion, possibly using its rejection in AfC as evidence. -- kenb215talk11:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, swell - I can't make a simple redirect from Sealane to Sea lane without "adding it to the list". Few years back when I contributed quite a lot to this 'pedia, including several new articles, there wasn't any kind of "anti-vandalism" "safeguard" like this... if there had been, I'd never have bothered with it in the first place. Same as now, I have no incentive of figuring out a whole new system for article submission - and especially not for a simple redirect. Enjoy nazism, fellas, nice knowing WP is heading in an exciting new direction. --62.63.37.16016:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
It is kind of sad, but that's knee-jerk policy changes in response to PR for you. Act in haste, repent at leisure... --Gwern (contribs) 22:43 28 April2007 (GMT)
It looks sad at first, and I'm not happy that people who don't register can't do useful things like that. But any cries that anonymous article creation be allowed again should be stopped by actually looking at all the articles that have to be declined here. Do we really want attack entries going into some corner of Wikipedia until their subject notices that they have been libeled for months? -Amarkovmoo!23:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Given that there are no barriers to creating an account and that it actually makes you more anonymous than editing "anonymously", I can't help but laugh at the suggestion that requiring an account to create an article is "nazism". --Stormie03:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I see what you mean - it is easy to create an account, and there are no barriers preventing me from doing so - but consider this; there's a reason I had my account deleted in the first place, and a reason I do not intend to make a new one. And, as the frontpage so pompously states, "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", anyone should be allowed to edit it without worrying about needing to sign up for an account, whatever their reasons may be. Back in the days, there was at least one prominent editor through several years who refused to sign up for an account - for whatever reasons. His contributions were both plentiful and consistently very high-quality. Now, even if he wanted to, he couldn't make new contributions either. As for the nazi analogy, I still find it quite fitting - forcibly imposing a single set of "do's" and "don't", enforcing a singular pattern upon any- and everybody who wishes to stay a part of the community, and so forth. Also, as a certain poet put it, "First they came for the jews. I was not a jew, so I did not speak up" and so forth - first, they disable anonymous article creation; but where, exactly, will it ever end?--62.63.37.16018:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Anyone can edit. Anyone can create a new article. It is as simple as that. Suggesting that "requiring a pseudonymous identity with no identifying data to create a new article" is tantamount to "killing six million Jews" is.. well, hysterical to the point of hilarity. --Stormie03:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Now, if you remove those blindfolds, you'll notice I never suggested that it was to be likened to the holocaust, but sure. Does this mean that "You look American" sounds like "You look like you enjoy torturing people you've conveniently labeled 'terrorists'" in your ears? Nazism, as in the kind of regime where liberty of speech is restricted in direct opposition to The Way It Used To Be. In closing; Wikipedia used to be free for _ANYONE_ to edit. Now, you may only create articles, and also edit some articles, if you get an account. In a while, that evolves into editing only if you have an account. Then talk pages get the same restrictions. Then what? Invite only? Nevermind, you're just blind. --62.63.37.16020:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I just went through this process to create a simple redirect. Way to bloody hard. I used to do simple fixes all the time without creating an account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.89.235 (talk) 05:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Council of State Governments
I have submitted a proposed article on the Council of State Governments. For students and researchers seeking data on states' rights and issues dealt with at the state level, knowing that CSG exists will be particularly useful and will help them access information that is produced by an organization created by states and sustained with our tax dollars. 200.50.30.4510:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Next time, please read the top of this talk page. People submitting articles are not supposed to edit here to talk about their articles. Thank you. Diez215:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Protection of the Article
Say, if this is the page where to submit content to be created if I don't want to create an account, then how comes this page is protected? If I have an account, I create an article without proposing it, so the deeper sense of a protected "Articles for Creation"-page evades me... --85.181.35.14412:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that is kind of weird. I think the answer is that you're supposed to submit material to Wikipedia:articles for creation/Today rather than to WP:AFC itself. Maybe they protected AFC after too many people were damaging the page or something. But you're right, it seems a little problematic, I'll look into it more. Leave me a message on my talk page if you have any questions or want to discuss anything. Peace, delldottalk16:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Right, those are the reasons. The only cause for editing the main Wikipedia:Articles for creation page is to change the instructions, which rarely needs to be done. Before the page was semi-protected, it was very common for submissions to end-up in the wrong place, or for the entire page to be blanked in favor of a single submission (leaving subsequent visitors without any instructions at all). The semi-protection pushes submitters to use the "click here to start" link, through which they will receive even more guidance from the "wizard" and the preload. ×Meegs21:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Yesterday's Submissions
When you click the link to this, you are told that not all submissions have been evaluated. In actuality, all of yesterday's submissions HAVE been evaluated. Perhaps this is a first, but can someone tell me how to fix it so that it doesn't indicate that there is a backlog on that particular day?--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 00:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
It's been fixed, but for future reference, {{afc c}} is put at the top of a page once all of the submissions are evaluated. Otherwise, {{afc n}} is added until the page is finished. -- kenb215talk20:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The bot seems to be MIA, as no archive was made. I'll wait a bit and then try my hand at a manual archive if no other solution is forthcoming.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 01:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Argh, it's done now, with help from Anonguy. I kinda fumbled it up a bit...yikes. At least I know how to do it now!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 01:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
This is probably somewhere really obvious, but could someone point me to the discussion where we decided to remove the links to the proposed articles in the headers for the submissions? I found them helpful because you can look at them and know right away whether there's something there. Why did we decide to do away with that? Any chance of bringing it back? delldottalk21:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I absolutely concur, and it also provides a handy way to create the article when using tabbed browsers. Shall we pose it on the template talk page for the wizard, as it is currently protected?--Xnuala (talk)(Review)21:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd like to, but it might also be handy to find out why they changed it in the first place. Does anyone know? delldottalk17:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is. It's not very rewarding, there's a lot of crap to filter through, and it's unending. Not that AfC was a good idea in the first place, but that's another issue altogether. --Gwern (contribs) 01:33 19 July2007 (GMT)
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.
User:Jitse's bot archives the AFC requests every day. Currently it just turns /today into /YYYY-MM-DD and a few other housecleaning tasks.
I would like it to do the following:
add {{afc n}} to the top of every page. This will ensure that the list gets examined at least once after it is archived.
add an {{Edit-first-section}} tag to make replacing the {{afc n}} tag with {{afc c}} or {{afc mass}} much simpler.
add a link at the top to the day before's and the day after's archive pages. Of course the day after's archives' link will be red at first. This provides and easy way to walk the list day-by-day. Had these been in place for the last year, the AFC backlog elimination drive would have been a lot easier.
Hm, I think those are great ideas, however, I believe Jitse's bot already adds the {{afc n}} tag. I see no problem asking Jitse about the others though!--Xnuala (talk)(Review)00:27, 24 July 2007 (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.
Rewrite
Perhaps our instructions need a rewrite. I've seen too many ill-formatted submissions where people put the text in the comment bar and whatnot. Also, I propose that certain things are added to the intro to make it more clear on what this is for. I don't even really know why it's here. People just submit articles, get huffy if you decline, but abandon it if you create it. What's up here? ALTON.ıl11:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep the goal in mind: Allow non-registered editors to submit material that is likely to be accepted. If it's just ill-formatted we can work around that. A much bigger win is to discourage submissions that will be rejected out of hand. In particular, further discouraging mere stubs for anything that is only marginally notable, discouraging non-notable material, and discouraging nonsense and self-promotion will save a lot of time. "If the article is about you or your friend, provide at least 3 high-quality reliable sources that are not directly related to you or your friend" and "Is the article about someone or something well-known outside of a local geographic area?" will help a lot. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to try this more forcible tone in the Wizard and on the front page then. Address concerns about it with me, immediately, please. ALTON.ıl06:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
You were a bit WP:BOLD making such a change without discussion. For today, leave what you have, but let's discuss it and see if we can improve it. Here's my 2 1/2 cents:
Suggested major changes: Add a green-checkmark-icon "DO list" including:
Read through other submissions so you get an idea of what gets rejected and why.
Read a few Good Articles. After the article is created, plan on sticking around and turning your article into a Good Article. Better yet, write your article so it meets the Good Article criteria.
Please do not submit a Stub article unless it is a "must-have" article for a paper encyclopedia, such as an animal species. If you found it in your printed encyclopedia, it deserves at least a stub here. If you didn't, think twice before submitting a mere stub. Write up a full article and submit it instead. If you do submit a stub, please suggest an existing stub category for your article.
Before submitting redirects, or alternative names for the same article, read Wikipedia:Redirect. Make sure your alternative name is generally accepted and unique. If it is generally accepted but not unique, request a disambiguation instead.
Suggested minor changes: Change "go here" to "use the Sandbox".
Ok, I fully endorse those. I realize I'm not the only contributor here, but as someone mentioned before, it is a rather neglected area of Wikipedia, so with the few people we've got we can't depend on anyone else. ALTON.ıl17:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Purpose
What is the entire purpose of this page? Instead of submitting an article here (with the correct template etc) and having it reviewed and possibly rejected, one can just create an account (takes less than a half minute), start the article, and never use the account again. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 04:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, it serves at least two purposes
It allows people who, for technical reasons such as blocked cookies, cannot log in
It allows people who choose not to register or log in to submit articles
I agree that this is a very good process, as it prevents articles that would be deleted under CSD from being created in the first place. However, currently, anonymous users are blocked from creating articles, but any registered user (even when the account is 10 seconds old) can create an article. The only purpose of this restriction is that you prevent casual "funny" vandals from creating pages with LALALALA because they don't even take the time to create an account. However, when someone is serious about creating a page, they can just create an account, create the page and dump the account. This page would serve a purpose when there is a restriction on creating pages by registered users (i.e. you have to wait four days, just like with moving pages), but not now. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 14:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't we include something in the Wizard that reminds submitters to use <noinclude> and </noinclude> tags when including categories? The submission pages are getting included in many categories and it's a bit confusing (for example, today's page is in Category:Living people). --Boricuaeddie20:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
How about we just let submitters add their categories, and let the bot clean them up? It will only stay in the category for a day. Unfortunately there would be quite a few around that don't know what this page is all about though, and waste their time cleaning up things like dleted pictures from declined articles. I know when I was a new user, there were just too many instructions to follow. Most submitters don't even know what a category is. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I sometimes see a declined article here where I think an adequate article can in fact be written, and intend to do. Besides simply making the article, how should I indicate this? I am a rather experienced editor & an admin, and am generally confident about this; I know I do not need permission, but how should I modify the article request--just add my comment?DGG (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Undo the decline, mark it {{afc maybe}} and indicate you intend to create the article. When you have created it, remove the maybe and mark it as accept. To undo a decline, remove the afc top and afc b templates. Or, if you are lucky, it was declined as a stand-alone edit. In that case, find the edit in the edit history and "undo" it. Be careful to view the changes before saving any undo of this nature. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I have split off {{afc nn}} from {{afc bio}}. The wording of {{afc nn}} now deals with general notability concerns, while {{afc bio}} retains the old wording about NN people. Let me know if there are any concerns of problems. Caknuck23:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Saigon Inferno
Why doesnt anybody adding the saigon inferno article?
Please excuse me if I did anything wrong, but I removed an addition placed on here by User:164.58.72.21 (a comparatively new user). He added Broxton, England to the Articles for Creation page, having over-written Broxton (already existing), to produce a dab page. He did this because there is another Broxton in Oklahama (he has added Broxton, Oklahama as an Article for Creation today.) I: (a) reverted Broxton to restore the original article; (b) performed a page-move to rename it (to Broxton, Cheshire), thus preserving the editing history; and (c) then re-created the dab page at Broxton. I also had to edit a Cheshire-related template and may well have to do other edits to avoid references to Broxton in Cheshire-related pages now going to the Dab page. I hope this is acceptable to people. The editor who did this seems comparatively new, and was probably unaware of how to proceed in these cases. I'm not entirely sure I followed correct procedure in removing the entry, but I hope I sorted out the problem sufficiently. DDStretch (talk)18:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
"Articles for Creation" and "Requested Articles" don't allow you to request an article to be written for you. Where can I accomplish this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwonga (talk • contribs) 00:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. Let me try to clarify. I work for a private college which is considered a "notable organization or company" and I'd like to see it listed here except I would be a person of interest. I see references where I can somehow request for the article to be written on my behalf from an unbiased third person but I don't see where I can do that unless I post it somewhere (and if so, where?). Hope that makes sense. Cwonga19:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Right, I see what you're saying. Well, you could post it in my sandbox, and I could take care of it for you. I'll probably ask for some help from yourself and others on Wikipedia if I have some questions. J-ſtanTalkContribs21:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
If Anonymous Article Creation were to be reenabled, this page would probably be shut down... but all the people that monitor it would instead have to be busy watching the new articles feed, and flagging all the junk that we turn down here with CSD tags instead, and hope that there's enough admin's around to delete it all. --Maelwys01:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Not 'if' - 9th of November. Going to be quite interesting, and it might be worth planning if there will be an immediate shut down of this page or a short overlap. violet/riga(t)01:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... hadn't heard that before. Will indeed be interesting, I hope the admins are ready for the hit, or things will get messy quickly. They'll probably leave this page around for a while, since it'd still help to filter out some people that need help formatting articles, or hopefully it could still absorb some of the garbage. But we'll have to see how it works... --Maelwys01:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Just remember the result of the re-enabling will be evaluated after one month, so this page might not be technically necessary for that month, but *may* be required again afterwards depending on how things go. Now even if everything goes great and annon. page creation stay, there is still some backlog to clear. KTC09:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Revolution Mother is a punk/hardcore/metal band consisting of Mike Vallelyvocals, Jason Hampton guitar, Colin Buis bass, Brendan Murphy drums, Mike vallely was previously from Mike V And The Rats. Jason Hampton was previously from The Third Degree. Colin Buis was previously from Mean season and Twilight Transmission. Bredan Murphy was previously from Twilight Transmission as well. Revolution Mother began late 2005 by original members Mike Vallely and Jason Hampton, Revolution Mother picked up where Mike v and The Rats had ended. Revolution Mother's debut album was brought out in 2006 enjoy the ride.
Revolution Mother added two new band members Colin Buis and Brendan Murphy and with their help and a reputable manager began to write and record tracks for Glory bound After recording nearly 20 tracks from which the band chose for its album, Glory Bound is a fine-tuned, carefully selected set, highlighting all facets of the incredibly diverse Revolution Mother songbook.
Revolution Mother also tightened its live set for the Vans Warped Tour, performing on its own stage and garnering a few main stage opportunities courtesy of the tour’s founder and longtime skateboarding advocate Kevin Lyman. The act supported the release of Glory Bound on the entire 2007 installment, performing two sets each day for 45 cities.
Mike vallely is a sponsored skater by Element skateboard and Revolution Mother’s recored label is cement shoes
I am an experienced wikipedian with several thousand edits, but I just wanted to quickly add a redirect, and didn't want to compromise my account by logging in from an insecure computer that I am using. After all, wikipedia is a new kind of encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, RIGHT? Well, it's a SHAME, SHAME, SHAME what kind of non-sense one had to go through to create a new article as an anon user, even if it be a paltry redirect. Disgusting how I had to go through all this you are not going to promote yourself, you can submit your IDEA for an article, blah, blah, blah ad infinitum. Well, that'll serve me right: I'll know now how discriminating and intimidating can wikipedia be for new users. Thanks a lot! 74.94.146.24109:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The quality bar is quite a bit higher in AFC compared with autocreation using an account. A far bigger percentage of articles are declined, than new ones are deleted. This is prbably very discouraging, some contributors get upset! Graeme Bartlett20:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I would like to know what happened to the deleated Strike of Lightning comment. The History tab told me to contact someone but that was just too difficult. So i'm asking here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.136.223.186 (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The article was declined as "not suitable." In my own opinion, there was no evidence of notability given. Further, the only sources you provided were websites where one could buy the book, and such websites are not considered reliable sources for confirming that a book is notable. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if anyone else has noticed this. Many times per day I have to edit today's page in order to change this == to this ===. If this isn't done, there is no possibility to use the "edit section" command and everything takes longer.
My proposal: all new requests are begun with a level 1 title, i.e. a single = sign. Then even if the contributors add a ==, the sections will still perform their function. Any comments? MSGJ (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I share the same pain that you do, and it is pretty annoying. My question though, is what prevents them from creating another header below the main one that is also level one? Icestorm815 (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes I thought about that afterwards. I suppose they are just copying the headline style which is at the top. So if we changed to level 1, they would just copy that! I'm not sure ... MSGJ (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Since when did Wikipedia require user registration for new article creation? This must be within the last year or two, at the earliest, since I never remembered requiring to register back when I didn't have an account. Could someone please link me to when this was first enacted? Thanks! (Please post your reply on my Talk page.) Gary King (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks like AFC Helper messed up, and the bottom of the page is all messed up now. Could someone fix this, as I am quite busy right now and I'm not familiar with AFC? Never mind, fixed now. I was in a rush when I typed the last message and so I was a little unclear and forgot to sign. paranomia (formerly tim.bounceback)a door?23:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Syed Muhammad Qalab Hasnain Shah
Syed Ali Asghar Shah
Syed Sajjad Haidar Shah
Syed Hassan Imran Ali
Syed Hassan Turab Ali
Syed Maqsood Haider
Syed Essa Murtaza
Syed Ali Ladhan Imam
Syed Hassan Adnan Ali —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.125.143.66 (talk) 07:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
NVISION article
On this page :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2008-06-07
The NVISION article was denied creation because of lack of reputable/verifiable sources. Yet the official website for the event is listed as the source. Isn't the denial a bit too much ? Does the editor fear that the event will not take place ? Does linking to a third party news source that itself uses the official web page or official press release as a source makes it more reputable/verifiable ? I could do that but that only adds a level of indirection..
What's up with the new article reviewer? He's not making the submissions green or red, depending on whether it was approved or not, like the previous reviewers. --71.225.85.57 (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I periodically help out here - I only came here because I saw that an AFC script (my custom one, less cumbersome than henrik's, though it requires textual input) is in my modern.js Sceptre(talk)00:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Explain this please? I use Henrik's but I noticed that you seemed to be using a different one. Sometimes it would be nice to make a more custom response. What's this other script? MSGJ (talk) 07:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
It's mostly User:Sceptre/afc.js. It's an amateur script, really - it prompts you, and you can enter foobar and it would output {{subst:afc foobar}}. The script does nothing unless you call this:
if(document.title.indexOf("Editing Wikipedia:Articles for creation") == 0 || document.title.indexOf("Edit conflict: Wikipedia:Articles for creation") == 0)
I submitted the missing championship title pages for Future of Wrestling earlier today and all were declined with the exception of the FOW Heavyweight Championship. I gave the AFC tutorial a fairly thorough read and I checked existing title pages and those created on AFC as a guide. These championship titles are to a notable wrestling promotion, Future of Wrestling, and one or more wrestlers have held these titles. All these pages were written similarly and used the same source, Solie's Title Histories, so I'm confused why the FOW Heavyweight Championship is considered notable but the rest are not. As I understand it, I'm required to provide at least one reliable source. This particular website is used as a reliable source on hundreds of wrestling pages on Wikipedia. I've seen several history pages that list the website as its only source and most of the other title pages created on AFC also used this website. While I could provide more references, I don't see why this particular situation warrants it when similar articles are created using this same reference. I resubmitted these articles and included my concern, the same reviewer declined them seconds after I posted them without responding to my comment. If I provided a reliable source, one good enough for other articles approved on AFC (and apparently allowed the creation of the main heavyweight title), what exactly is the problem ? 71.184.44.14 (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, if you read the declining comment by the reviewer, a reason was given. In this case it was "No assertion of notability outside the SOLIE almanac ref". This perhaps means that the reviewer wasn't confident that the one source given was reliable enough to verify notability. I would be happy to take another look at these later (no time right now) but a better approach might be to contact the reviewer himself, User:Sceptre, an experienced editor. I'm sure he would be happy to clarify matters. MSGJ (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I realize he gave a reason for initially declining the articles. I was refering to when I resubmitted the articles explaining why they should be reconsidered. They were declined only a few seconds after I'd resubmitted them and without responding to my comment. I'd like to get this straightened out before resubmitting them again. 71.184.44.14 (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Userbox
We need a userbox, but the one I have is really barebones (and really crappy), could someone work on it?
Sure, I can design a logo for us to put in there. I'll also try to work on a template we can use to recruit new members with. Hersfold(talk/work)01:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
2. A running counter of the number of days that are not completed
3. Hall of fame maybe, where articles that we have created from anonymous requests have become good articles
4. Tools section, links to templates useful to Afc, maybe links from stub sorting and category indexes
5. This is probably more appropriate for talk, but somewhere to discuss borderline requests
The other thing I'd like to work on is bringing the project page in line with the WikiProject guidelines, but that could be an ongoing task. I think we are most closely aligned with other Wikipedia maintenance WikiProjects. What do you think of the possibility of linking to similar projects/possibly requesting that other projects link to us?
I've created a new talk page header to use on articles created through AFC. It should help raise awareness of the project as well as allow us to keep track of the articles created through AFC. Here it is:
{{WPAFC}}Template:WPAFC Would this be something we could use? Hersfold(talk/work)23:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Yay. I tweaked the template just now to add a "No rating" code, exampled above. This way we can put the header on project pages like this one without categorizing it. Hersfold(talk/work)23:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I am still wondering how we should rate articles. Maybe on how long the article is since most articles on AFC start out as stubs? Anybody else have any ideas? --Hdt83Chat23:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I am still wondering how we should rate articles. Maybe on how long the article is since most articles on AFC start out as stubs? Anybody else have any ideas? --Hdt83Chat23:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I've copied those two comments down here so that we can start a discussion on that topic. What follows is the "grading scale" template, which I just happened to come across just now. It's quite through, even providing good examples of this that and the other. We can modify as needed to fit our needs, of course... I kind of like Hdt83's suggestion concerning length, but I think we should pay some attention to content as well. Hersfold(talk/work)01:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
A featured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.
It is:
well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process; and
a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and
consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required.
Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style where appropriate.
Professional, outstanding, and thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information.
No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible.
Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
Comprehensiveness.
(a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items.
(c) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists and includes at minimum eight items; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article.
Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
(a) Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked.
Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.
Professional standard; it comprehensively covers the defined scope, usually providing a complete set of items, and has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about those items.
No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible.
The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been examined by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject or elsewhere. Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the A-Class criteria:
Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia:Article development. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources. It should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. Only minor style issues and other details need to be addressed before submission as a featured article candidate. See the A-Class assessment departments of some of the larger WikiProjects (e.g. WikiProject Military history).
Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject would typically find nothing wanting.
Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style problems may need solving. WP:Peer review may help.
it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (though not necessarily equalling) the quality of a professional publication.
Some editing by subject and style experts is helpful; comparison with an existing featured article on a similar topic may highlight areas where content is weak or missing.
The article meets all of the B-Class criteria. It is mostly complete and does not have major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards.
The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.
The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.
The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but does not need to be of the standard of featured articles. The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.
The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher.
A few aspects of content and style need to be addressed. Expert knowledge may be needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines.
The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup.
More detailed criteria
The article cites more than one reliable source and is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but it fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements, or need editing for clarity, balance, or flow.
Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study.
Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and solve cleanup problems.
An article that is developing but still quite incomplete. It may or may not cite adequate reliable sources.
More detailed criteria
The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas. The article has one or more of the following:
A useful picture or graphic
Multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic
A subheading that fully treats an element of the topic
Multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article
Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more.
Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use.
A very basic description of the topic. Meets none of the Start-Class criteria.
Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. Readers probably see insufficiently developed features of the topic and may not see how the features of the topic are significant.
Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. The best solution for a Stub-class Article to step up to a Start-class Article is to add in referenced reasons of why the topic is significant.
Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list or set index article, which is an article that contains primarily a list, usually consisting of links to articles in a particular subject area.
There is no set format for a list, but its organization should be logical and useful to the reader.
Lists should be lists of live links to Wikipedia articles, appropriately named and organized.
Yeah, I've been pondering this one as well. It seems to be adequately referenced, but my concern is for context mostly. Any other opinions?--Xnuala (talk)(Review)17:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello all! I've recently joined this venture thanks to the kind invitation of Xnuala, but I've already discovered how tedious it was to type the templates over and over. So, being a programmer, I decided to do something about it :-)
I've created a small javascript helper that will let you do one-click-declines for most cases. If you install this script, next to the edit button on the section heading there'll be a bunch of links corresponding to the most common decline templates.
It'll look something like this:
Clicking one of the links will insert the top and bottom templates, the reason and your signature and then submit the page with the edit summary "declined" for that section. Accepts will still have to be handled manually.
There are a number of caveats though:
I've hacked this together tonight, and it is not well tested. Keep your fingers near the revert button :-)
It won't work if you have the AFD helper or Twinkle installed, since it is based on the same code. Please disable or uninstall it before trying this.
It's only tested in Firefox 2.0. Please let me know if it works or doesn't work in your favorite browser.
Wow, Henrik, this is phenomenal! I'm happy to test it, and any bugs I find I would be happy to let you know about. If it isn't too hard to code, one thing that I'd like to see is a more detailed edit summary--such as Declined-notability or Declined-unsourced. Is this possible?--Xnuala (talk)(Review)22:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Oops. Which version of Firefox is that, Kwsn? It looks like a 2.0.x, but an exact version might be helpful. Henrik22:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
It appears to be an interaction with Twinkle that is the problem. I'll try to resolve that tomorrow and make it more compatible with other user scripts. But right now it's way past my bedtime in my local timezone :-) Henrik22:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
(Killing indent here) Looks (and so far works) great, Henrik, but two more suggestions - would it be possible to add another button that downgraded a header to a 3rd level header? A lot of people don't seem to be able to read and add a 2nd level header instead, which makes it difficult to close discussions without closing the whole page, and probably botches up the script for the same reason. Sample at right. An example of bad headers in an AFC submission
The second suggestion is a bit simpler, I think - there aren't any acceptance buttons. Not being pessimistic, were you? :-D Hersfold(talk/work)19:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Hm. It would be possible to do add a button to do that, but a bit cumbersome. . You'd probably need to click it once for every section, which isn't ideal. If possible, I'd like a better solution (but I don't know what that would be :)
Hehe. No, there's no sinister motive for the lack of an accept button. Accepts are more complex to implement, as it should idealy open up an editor window with the suggested text already in the edit box at the proper title to be really useful (I've started working on it though, so you shouldn't have to wait too long).
I have one question: Should it automatically save the page or should it just open up an editor? Which would you guys prefer? Henrik20:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there would be an easier way to do the headings. It might work to tell the code to downgrade every header between the top header (where the button is clicked) and the level-3 "Sources" header... but not everyone leaves that in, annoyingly enough, and a lot of them actually type their articles below that, which also wouldn't do any good. I don't know...
I can see your point with the accepts. However it works out is fine, thanks for the hard work.
I like the auto save thing. I can understand where that might be a problem with some of the templates, or where you want to leave an extra comment behind, but generally that's not the case. The only template you routinely have to add additional text behind is "afc not", and there's no button for that anyway, I assume for that very reason. The auto save saves time, IMO. Hersfold(talk/work)17:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I often leave additional comments, especially with {{afc source}}, to explain how the rule applies to the submission (specifically, why the given sources are inadequate). But I also probably won't be using this tool, so ... PowersT23:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Way to go WikiProject! To go from a rather neglected wasteland to a working area of Wikipedia in a fairly short time... simply phenomenal!--Xnuala (talk)(Review)01:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Copy checking, bot for automating declining submissions?
Hello all,
I recently built a system for checking if a block text has been copied. While we decline almost all submissions, it may be useful to test any of the remaining ones if they include big blocks of well written text. Visit http://gtools.org/tools/copy-checker/ and test it out (its still in beta and a bit buggy). Basically, take the text the user has submitted and copy it into the big text area, and type the proposed name of the article (or your improvement of it) into the smaller box. It takes some time, currently up to a minute and a half per check - leave it running in the background and go attack another backlog. Please use my talk page to give me any feedback, report bugs or request features. I designed it for AFC (and WP:WWF) so I'd love to hear what sort of features you would like to see in it.
Secondly, I'm looking into building a system/bot for semi-automated declining of submissions. Basically, it should look through the backlogs and show each unreviewed submission to you in an easy to use format, with quick shortcuts for common decline templates. I'd like to know what you would like to see in such a system, which templates you use commonly and so on. Reply here or contact me via email / my talk page.
Let's face it - with a backlog dating back to Feb 06 - thats right, over a year - there is no way we're going to take care of this backlog. However, most of the old pages are nearly complete and have no useful submissions remaining (User:Where has been kind enough to take care of most of the article creation). To clear out the backlog, we need a new approach, and one that makes use of what little time we have. I propose we mass moderate each one-day archive, looking at all submissions and deciding whether or not any are article material. If any articles can be created, create them and use the templates to quickly thank the submitter (not that he or she is going to receive your message, after a year). Otherwise, put something like this at the top of the archive:
All article submissions on this archive page have been mass moderated, and none of the remaining submissions are suitable for articles on Wikipedia. The page has been mass moderated and can safely be marked as completed.
We then mark the page as completed on the archive page for that month and move on. I can guarantee that not a single user who submitted something before the start of the year and was declined is going to come back and look for some reasons why their article didn't make it. So why take the time to provide individual feedback on requests? Most will never make it to an article, very few could even be improved to article standards, so the time taken to mark each submission is redundant and could be better spent mass moderating other pages. Let me know what you think. Since this is a fairly controversial suggestion, we should get some consensus on it before mass moderating archives permanently. --Draicone(talk)11:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree - something needs to be done. But it seems that it is the borderline cases that are hard to judge that are remaining, the obvious spam gets declined quickly and the well written referenced articles gets posted. Most of the remaining articles may need substantial amounts of rewriting even if they are about a notable subject before posting. Even going through the articles day by day would require significant amounts of time. One option (and the one I'm leaning towards) is that we wipe the slate clean just this once and decline anything over three months old, and then follow your suggestion for anything newer. In one stroke, we've eliminated the backlog and can get on with judging the current proposals. The borderline notable articles that we miss by doing this will surely be suggested by someone else in the future if they are truly notable. Henrik12:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Wiping the slate clean entirely could be a bit drastic, but what if we ignore all pre-2007 archives? Beyond 6 months I doubt anybody cares what happened to their submission, so we won't break any hearts, and I doubt we'll miss anything important. I'm currently working on the Feb 2006 backlogs and I've found one article worth creating (World Currency Unit), and have mass moderated the rest as unverified (which they are). I've finished two days of backlogs already, but its a slow process and I'd rather not tag each submission and explain why its being declined, especially if nobody cares. --Draicone(talk)12:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree and have been considering a similar proposal myself. I think it's time to say that anything submitted before January and not yet reviewed needs to be resubmitted. Some of them may even have articles already. PowersT13:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I know the existing articles problem is really common in the old backlogs, I found quite a few trawling through the Feb 06 archives. How about we wait another day and see who is in favor of ignoring all backlogs until (but not including) the first of Jan 07? All we have to do is removing the reference to the 2006 archive and leave a note somewhere in the history books - "Backlog not worth clearing. See [[abc|archives for 2006]] for more details." Then we attack the Jan/Feb backlogs and hopefully we can get it down to four months. --Draicone(talk)14:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I fully agree. When I've been reviewing some of the backlogs, I've noticed that many of the submissions that are about a notable subject have had articles created on that subject since the nomination was made. We should put a notice on each one of those archives that if people think their really old submission still has merit, to resubmit it in today's log so it gets noticed.
Do we need to start a straw poll or start calling people up on their talk pages to get consensus on this, or do we think four people is enough when the Wikiproject only numbers about 20? Either way, I'll start working on 2007 archives for now. Hersfold(talk/work)19:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we should go through, weed out the good ones, and then have a few dedicated people clean up the non-accepted ones Kwsn(Ni!)19:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
But it will take a lot of time from those few dedicated people, time that could have been spent working on a more useful backlog like Jan 2007. We don't need a straw poll, we just need to wait a couple of days for consensus. And with about 30% of the wikiproject in favour already, that won't talk long. --Draicone(talk)21:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that removing all entries submitted before 2007 might be a good idea. Most submissions then that were notable enough would probably have an article by now and those that don't would probably have been resubmitted. While it may sound a bit harsh or drastic, it would help remove the year old backlog plaguing AFC. --Hdt83Chat19:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I went through a few days in the end of january now and many of the ones that seemed worthwhile (even borderline worthwhile) already had articles. Henrik20:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I would support the mass moderation tag, but am leery about completely abandoning the pre-2007 backlogs. I have found some reasonable stuff in there, and I feel that if someone took the time to submit, it deserves the time we take to review it. Even if it is utter and completely devoid of value.--Xnuala (talk)(Review)02:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
This clearly represents consensus from WPAFC, so I've gone ahead and created {{afc mass}}. Add this to the top of each page you review:
{{afc mass}}
We should be able to clear entire week backlogs in the time taken to do half a day with this. We may still find useful submissions in the 2006 backlogs for articles to be created. Please don't start mass adding this tag to pages though, carefully consider each submission and at the very least think of which template you would have denied it with. Its anything but transparent, but lets not overdo process and create a 'peer-review mass moderation' policy. --Draicone(talk)08:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea of the mass moderation tag, but I do want to voice the opinion that it's important that we not get too free with it, since I think we owe it to the people who put work into their submissions to review them and create the ones that merit it. In the past couple days I've been spending a lot of time on the February 2006 archives, and I've found several articles worth making and a bunch of redirects. But I agree the way I've been doing it, individually reviewing submissions, takes way too much time. It's a shame that the backlog exists, but we're not helping anything by just wiping it, that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In my opinion, people that don't think the old backlogs are worth working on should themselves not work on them. I seen no harm in that, and those folks can be helpful with the newer ones. Anyway, I think the mass moderation templates are a great idea so long as we give the worthy submissions their due. delldottalk11:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
What is the community feeling about not using the mass moderation tag on pages from January 2007 and forward? Also, perhaps we should add the mass moderated pages to a category in case any users would like to re-review those pages.--Xnuala (talk)(Review)09:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
That sounds good to me (the category). Since the mass moderation tag was created as a sort of emergency measure to deal with the most massive backlog in Wikipedian history, I would much prefer to not see it be used anywhere except on those 2006 archives. The 2007 files get reviewed enough anyway (many are complete, those that aren't only have a few holes), and we've got plenty enough people to fill in those gaps. Hersfold(talk/work)13:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
A category would be great. I've added it to the template, and since this template could be constantly reworked, lets not subst it. Remember to use {{afc mass}}, I'll go through and un-subst it from pages its already been used on. --Draicone(talk)13:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
A lot of nomination processes involve the creation of a new page in order for the people involved in the process to coordinate their efforts. WP:RFA and Wikipedia:Translation are a few examples. Of course, this means that unregistered users can't really participate in them... without going through us first. Reason I bring this up is because a couple days ago I dismissed this one entry fairly out-of-hand. It was in an early May archive, and the person was trying to nominate a page for peer review. I figured that since it was a non-registered account, two months old, not really what AFC was here for, and since I couldn't find anything on the talk page of the article discussing a potential peer review, I closed it with a remark telling the person to try their luck at WP:PR. Naturally, the IP address leaves a message on my talk page today asking why I declined his request. Since he hunted me down for it, I went and started the peer review, but it left me wondering this, which I'm asking all of you:
Is AFC intended to create project pages, such as those needed for peer review, translation, and other services, or should we recommend that anonymous users seek the help of a registered user to create those pages for them?
The way I see it, Articles for Creation is intended for articles. An IP address also may not be taken seriously in some cases. If an IP tried to nominate an administrator, the candidate would likely be laughed out of their RfA. And as everyone knows, we've got too much to deal with as it is, without having to fiddle with all this procedural crap. What are y'all's views on this? Hersfold(talk/work)13:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
You bring up an excellent point. I wonder if we need some sort of Wikipedia:Pages for creation noticeboard on the same lines as AfC? Or perhaps a sub-area of AfC? Although, this gets into a bit of an instruction-creepy area I guess...I feel strongly about the "anyone can edit" idea so see the value of allowing those who choose not to register the ability to create articles, but there is no "anyone can participate in the administrative process" idea. The way you dealt with it (after the anonymous editor contacted you individually) might be sufficient. I must disagree with you on the IP nominating an administrator being a precedent for not being taken seriously..perhaps AnonGuy might want to weigh in...?--Xnuala (talk)(Review)22:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, my personal opinion is that we should use editor discretion when it comes to requests like this. I don't think we necessarily should encourage users to post it, but if they do and the request makes sense, why not create the requested article? There are other ways for anons to post procedural requests like that, the help pages come to mind, so I'm not sure a PfC is needed. But still, Most anons aren't (and shouldn't have to be) familiar enough with the various policies and wikiprojects we have to make requests like this common. Henrik23:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Henrik does have a point - this case would actually be the only instance of this I've come across. I don't think that we need to make a subproject on this, so perhaps the "editor discretion" would be enough. *shrugs* Hersfold(talk/work)23:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Anyone can edit articles. Anonymous users simply shouldn't take part in policy because they can't be held accountable for their edits (nor should they be). At least with a username all edits by a particular person can be clearly identified. With dynamic IPs, that gets very complicated. AFC is for articles only and anons should register to participate in policy. --Draicone(talk)02:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Largely, I'm with Draicone on this. I do think, though, that in certain cases (AfDs, for example), it's fairly harmless to allow an IP user to create an administrative page. However, AfC isn't really the place for this. There are enough other ways for an IP user to find someone to create a page for them that we don't need to encourage them to use AfC. We may want to bring this up at the Village Pump, though, to get some more input -- should we be consistent in telling IP users that they should create an account for non-article page creations? Or is that contrary to the anyone-can-edit spirit of the Wiki? PowersT23:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Calling for discussion at VP is a good idea, but lets make sure we avoid instruction creep. We definitely shouldn't create WP:*FC pages similar to WP:*FD counterparts (Templates/Categoryies/Miscellany for Creation...). The main body of Wikipedia is articles, all of which are in the mainspace, and other namespaces are simply supporting material (categories, templates etc.). Users wishing to contribute to maintaining enwiki and contributing at such a level really should create an account, in my opinion, especially as other namespaces often involve policy matters that would benefit from accountability. Any thoughts on this? --Draicone(talk)08:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you; I just want to make sure the community is on board with that. If the community wants to allow IP users to create pages in the "back-end" areas of the encyclopedia, then we can figure out how to allow that. PowersT23:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
When content should be merged into existing article?
Fairly frequently, it seems to me that a suggested article would be better suited to be integrated into a section of an existing article. I haven't found a template for suggesting this, and I wonder if there is a reason for this? Being new to this, I almost recreated {{afc-attack}}, which was deleted for a sensible reason, so I thought I'd ask first. Henrik23:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I think in the past we've declined those types of submissions, with a note along the lines of: "{{subst:afc not}} This information isn't suited to stand in an article of its' own, but would fit best into the already existing article at The weather in London. Please consider adding it there. Thanks! ~4" The only problem with that, of course, is that afc not links to WP:NOT, which wouldn't really apply in this situation. Hersfold(talk/work)23:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Suppose examples might help... these are not substed, so that they reflect any chances made and produce less code. Declined. The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at The weather in London. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you. Declined. The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article on the same subject. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you. Hersfold(talk/work)04:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I started this drive as a way to shoot down the backlog. Is this a good idea? If so, I'll post a message on all the participants' talk pages. If the idea isn't so great, I'll speedy everything. See the "drive's page" link on the template below. :) GrooveDog (talk) 23:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive
WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1st, 2013 – March 31st, 2013.
Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!
You are correct, there is definitely cutting and pasting involved. However, the part of AFC that I believe is instrumental to the existence of the backlog has to do with whether the article submitted fits the criteria to be included in Wikipedia. If the crux of the matter was solely cutting and pasting, then there would be no need to restrict article creation to registered users. Nonetheless, the community feels that registered users are better equipped to make judgements on the notability of a subject matter, upon other concerns, even if the reality doesn't always reflect such. Thanks for your input, and if you have a particular concern about an AFC article feel free to contact me on my talk page.--Xnuala (talk)(Review)05:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Well what is up with Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2007-07-17? Every thing got rejected except for one redirect. The two AFC's that are actually decently ref'd seem doomed to just sit there uncreated forever. Wouldn't create the good AFC's first, and then getting around to rejecting the bad AFC's second actually be a better policy? -- 146.115.58.15221:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC) squeakly wheel, grease?
Actually, thanks for pointing those out. I'm a bit concerned about the POV evident in the second one, whereas the first one is limited in context. Any other editors have input on these ones?--Xnuala (talk)(Review)00:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
NPOV isn't a valid reason for article deletion, per WP:DEL, so I would expect such a concern shouldn't prevent article creation. The same rules should apply to WP:AFC as apply to WP:AFD only, of course, in reverse. The proper response to a WP:NPOV issue is {{sofixit}} -- 146.115.58.15203:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
When I judge an AfC, if I'm prepared to fix it immediately, or if it is only a minor flaw that won't trigger a SPEEDY, PROD, or immediate AfD, I create the article. If it's one of the above and I'm not prepared to fix it the same day, I either let it go for another editor or reject it. If it's not a mass-rejection, I give guidance on how to fix it before resubmitting it. AfC is like a triage in reverse: You immediately reject the hopeless cases and the cases that would take too much work, immediately create those cases that are easy to create, and defer the more difficult decisions until you have time or another editor with time comes along. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, no. AFC has different requirements than AfD discussions. In some ways, we're more restrictive -- we require the article to already be decent quality, and we don't require AFC helpers to fix articles that aren't up to snuff. (If we did, the backlog would be even worse, eh wot?) In other ways, we're more lenient -- we require only one valid, reliable, third-party source, whereas the WP:Notability guideline suggests that multiple such sources are needed to firmly establish notability. PowersT13:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
This strange idea of quality requirements seem to violate the spirit of WP:TIND. You should publish referenced AFC's so other wikipedians can discover them and improve the quality, rather than, I don't know, waiting for a miracle to occur. Speaking of deadlines though, I would appreciate someone publishing WP:AFC/Troy Anthony Davis sometime before his next scheduled execution date in mid-October. Otherwise, someone else will probably create it, and I'll have to merge everything over. Thanks! -- 67.98.206.221:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I do appreciate it. I did have some WP:BLP concerns starting out, but considering the contents of his own homepage (at Troy Anthony Davis#External_Links) I didn't think he'd complain. And besides, when I submitted the article, he was going to be dead in 12 hours, making WP:BLP moot. I never expected the project to be all that quick either! -- 67.98.206.222:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Another idea for mass moderating
What do you all think of putting top and b tags around a large group of articles you want to mass moderate? I ask because I've been having trouble doing a whole page because I'll come to a couple I can't make up my mind on or don't want to mess with for whatever reason. But doing them one at a time takes forever. Do you think it's an acceptable alternative? Or is it not transparent enough? delldottalk00:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
What do you think of this? Or would yellow or orange be better? Any ideas for changes?
Archived discussion follows below. Please do not modify it.
These requests for creation have been mass moderated. They have all been declined unless otherwise marked. Please contact the reviewer on his or her talk page if you have any questions.
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.
blah blah blah
This is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.
Okay. It's at {{afc mm}} at the moment, because I can't write a parser to save my life, so if anyone else wants to put a parser function into {{afc top}}, go ahead and I'll speedy {{afc mm}}. I'll add usage notes in a minute.GrooveDog (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
(Killing indent) Ok, you can now generate the bright blue box like so: {{subst:afc top|mm}}. Ta-da!
Archived discussion follows below. Please do not modify it.
These requests for creation have been mass moderated. They have all been declined unless otherwise marked. Please contact the reviewer on his or her talk page if you have any questions.
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.
This mass-moderated entry is a test. If this were an actual mass-moderated entry, there would be a lot more of these and you would probably go blind from the somewhat hideous shade of neon blue.
This is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.
Note: I have edited {{afc mm}} so that if it gets used, it will redirect to {{afc top}} and use the proper parameter. If it turns out we still need the separate template for something, we can always revert it back. Hersfold(talk/work)02:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Suggest addition of links to WikiProjects to created pages
Just come across this project, and am amazed at all the hard work people are putting in here! I suspect one problem of this approach is that many pages created this way need further attention from experts, and I wonder if it would be possible for you to add links to the relevant WikiProject, if there's an obvious one? I realise it would add to the time taken per accepted request, though hopefully only a few seconds, but it might jumpstart getting the articles improved. Espresso Addict12:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I usually try to add the appropriate talk page banners when I know there is one, but I can add something to the AFC page to let everyone know. Thanks! Hersfold(talk/work)01:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Backlog pages disappearing without being fully reviewed - afc maybe and afc n
Backlog pages with afc maybe or afc n are kept in the backlog category. 2006-12-12 temporarily disappeared from the category when I removed the last afc maybe without putting in an afc n. No telling how many other backlogs left the category that way. It looks like this won't be a problem going forward, but it might be worth going back 6-12 months and flag any daily lists that need an afc n. Any page after a certain cutoff date that doesn't have afc mass or afc n should have one or the other added. I did 2007-04-01 as an example. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC). Update: I spot-checked May and June and they look OK. I know April needs doing. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Barnstar
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the barnstar proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the barnstar proposal was Hersfold's Star, Blue ribbon
With the backlog drive going on, we are in some need of an officially designated Project award. There are currently several designs for the AFC Barnstar, as follows:
Barnstars
GrooveDog's version, consisting of the WPAFC logo superimposed on the Original Barnstar. Votes: 2
Hersfold's version, consisting of five bronze letter A's (for "Article") around the green cross used in the logo. Votes: 7
davidwr's version, similar to Hersfold's version, but with the full AFC logo in the star and the Wikipedia open-book logo in the background. Votes: 1
Ribbons
A ribbon for whichever barnstar design we choose, by Hersfold. The green is the AfC color, the brown is for a barnstar. Votes: 2
A blue version of the same ribbon. Rather than brown for the barnstar, we have blue for the links. Votes: 7
So that we can have a nice award template set up in time for the end of the drive, let's go ahead and have a discussion on this - if you'd like to design another version of your own, please go ahead, this is just what we have right now. Hersfold(talk/work)14:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Great artwork guys (I steal only the good stuff). Can you make a ribbon with green, blue, and grey? Grey for the Wikipedia globe, Green for the AfD plus sign, and blue for blue-links.
Slightly biased, of course, but I think I still like my version the best. It's less cluttered when the whole logo isn't used and the new design shows that we're not your average Wikiproject. ;-) Hersfold(talk/work)23:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I agree with everything that Hersfold said: We are definitely not your average Wikiproject (way too much spirit), mine's is the logo slapped on top of a barnstar (not very creative), and her's actually has significance. I like the hersfold star, and the ribbon with the blue on it. GrooveDog (talk) 13:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to add a tally of votes beneath each image for ease of reference. Carry on. (P.S. - I vote for the brown ribbon.) Hersfold(talk/work)01:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations to Counterpart0 and Hersfold, the first two recipients of the AfC Barnstar awards. I went with the blue but we can change later if brown wins the vote. See the tally board for the awards. I left other awards off the tally board to avoid clutter. The award-list needs images for all of the awards though. I already added the cookie. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Just added my votes for Star #2 and Ribbon #2, for much the same reasons as mentioned above - the star is simple and visually appealing, and the blue link colour on the ribbon is a nice variation that shows what we're about. Confusing Manifestation09:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the ribbon with blue is a bad idea. The ribbon is supposed to be a condensation of the barnstar; there's no blue in any of the barnstars. I think it's very important for the ribbon to accurately reflect the barnstar; eliminating the barnstar-color entirely, especially when it's replaced with a color not even present in the barnstar, decouples them from each other. Don't get me wrong; I like the symbolism of the bluelink, but it needs to be in the barnstar too if you're going to put it in the ribbon. PowersT13:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I have just put in my vote for Hersfold's version; I like the simplicity of just the green cross. Also put in a vote for the brown and green ribbon; I agree with Powers that the brown and green fits the barnstar better. They look great, thank you so much! Cheers, NeraneiT/C15:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Calling the question on the barnstar and ribbon
It appears we are near consensus :). Unless someone objects, I'm declaring the polls will close in 24 hours, at 12:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC). I would say sooner but some interested editors only check in once a day. If no candidate reaches 50%, we can discuss what to do next. I don't think that will be a problem :). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 12:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the barnstar proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Hm. T'was, actually. Closed at 22:03, July 23, in UTC. On the other hand, consensus did seem to be overwhelmingly in favor of the blue ribbon. Oh well. Hersfold(talk/work)03:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I added artwork to the main page as well as to the Backlog Drive page. I also added a new section to the main page describing the Barnstar. Note the meticulous research that went into writing that section :). A subtle way of reminding people that we do have a little fun in this project. By the way, if anyone disagrees with the bit about grey being for neutrality, go ahead and take it out, I won't object. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
User:Jitse's bot archives the AFC requests every day. Currently it just turns /today into /YYYY-MM-DD and a few other housecleaning tasks.
I would like it to do the following:
add {{afc n}} to the top of every page. This will ensure that the list gets examined at least once after it is archived.
add an {{Edit-first-section}} tag to make replacing the {{afc n}} tag with {{afc c}} or {{afc mass}} much simpler.
add a link at the top to the day before's and the day after's archive pages. Of course the day after's archives' link will be red at first. This provides and easy way to walk the list day-by-day. Had these been in place for the last year, the AFC backlog elimination drive would have been a lot easier.
Hm, I think those are great ideas, however, I believe Jitse's bot already adds the {{afc n}} tag. I see no problem asking Jitse about the others though!--Xnuala (talk)(Review)00:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I saw that some people had already awarded the AFC barnstar to participants of the drive who had gotten over the 100 article point. Don't give any more barnstars out, until the end of the drive, so that I can coordinate who's actually going to get one. I am coming up with another prize, possibly the 300 article limit. GrooveDog (talk) 12:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I created a new IRC channel for coordination and discussion, similar to the newly created discussion room. It can be found at #wikipedia-en-afc, on the freenode network. ChanServ is in the channel, and I can be contacted for a voice. GrooveDog (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Minor changes to AFC top template
I tweaked the {{afc top}} template. The mass-moderation template now has 2 "declined" symbols. All now say one or more articles have been reviewed even when the template is collapsed.
If I had time I'd create 3 separate messages, one for accept, one for decline, and one for mass-moderate. I'd also add an optional "number" parameter to the mass-moderate to indicate the number of articles mass-moderated. I would also have a different "declined" icon: instead of 2 normal declined icons, I would have a group circled-minus-signs as a single icon. If you have the time, go for it :).
One or more Articles For Creation have been reviewed. Archived discussion follows below. Please do not modify it.
This request for creation has been reviewed. The reviewer comments appear below the article text.
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.
This is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.
One or more Articles For Creation have been reviewed. Archived discussion follows below. Please do not modify it.
This request for creation has been reviewed. The reviewer comments appear below the article text.
This is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.
One or more Articles For Creation have been reviewed. Archived discussion follows below. Please do not modify it.
These requests for creation have been mass moderated. They have all been declined unless otherwise marked. Please contact the reviewer on his or her talk page if you have any questions.
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.
This is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.
Nice boldship, but I think it might have been better the other way. This indicates that at some point, there are two or more requests which have been handled by the template, and that's not really what we want, is it? I thought that the {{afc top}} template was designed to compress the page because of long requests, not to wrap the whole page in this template. Any other opinions? I've put a banner at the top of the page. GrooveDog (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Ideally, we would have something that looks like this. Unfortunately, putting section headers in #if code doesn't turn out the way you would expect. I'll see what else I can cook up. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
How does this look? I'm a bit concerned that the HTML documentation and the additional section headers may look "cluttered." Note the proposed changes to "afc b" also. Comments? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know how to make a template tell if it's being subst'ed or not? I want to throw up a big red warning label if someone uses afc top or afc b without subst'ing it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
There is a way, but it's kind of complicated, and I'd have to find another template that uses that code to figure out how to do it. I have seen it done before, though.
I agree with Groovedog on the changes, though, for the most part. The "mm" code I added is intended to include multiple entries at once, with additional {{afc top}} boxes nested inside it if needed to show accepted entries. I'd recommend changing accept and decline back to the way they were, but leaving mm with the new changes. Hersfold(talk/work)15:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
P.S. - Aha! Found the subst: code, I'm going to work on how to incorporate it, but will not do so until consensus agrees with the request. Hersfold(talk/work)15:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
P.P.S. - Ok, got it working. The only way the code seems to work properly causes it to display kind of ugly, but it gets the point across and shouldn't be up for long anyway. See examples here (permanent link)Hersfold(talk/work)15:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Boricuaeddie, we should not protect the page, since the potential harm from driving away sincere but confused contributors outweighs the harm from having to revert vandalism in my mind. I prefer the idea of keeping the page on our watchlists. delldottalk16:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
The moment this page is protected is the moment it becomes useless. Vandalism is easy enough to revert, and in the case of severe attacks from an IP, we follow the RBI principle. Hersfold(talk/work)15:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
While I agree it's not necessary to protect the page due to a few isolated incidents, I also don't see how the page becomes useless should it be semi-protected. PowersT16:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Reply to LtPowers's first comment: Oh, whoops. For some reason I missed the "WikiProject." Still, it doesn't send the right message if it gets semi-protected. "You can edit here, but not our 'headquarters' because you're vandals..." you know. Hersfold(talk/work)23:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
By the way, the first user you labeled a "vandal" appears to me to simply be confused between WP:AFC and WP:WPAFC. I think it was a good-faith attempt to submit an article to AfC. PowersT16:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I created this template to use when courtesy blanking a request, or because of a copyvio. You can use this with a parameter similar to {{afc maybe}} linkstalkedit, to give a reason for the blank. Do NOT sign when using this template, to keep privacy. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 21:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I've generally just left a note similar to this: Copyright violation / Attack / whatever removed. Looks good, though. Hersfold(t/a/c)20:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
new template afc inuse
You can use {{afc inuse}} as you "claim" articles on the AFC list, however it probably won't be necessary unless you will be delayed.
I remember a month or two ago when I started the page there were only 7-8 people signed up. Now look at it! Glad to see there's more awareness of this section =D. Kwsn(Ni!)14:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
There's a slight problem with the preload template - when it gets loaded into the edit dialog for the anon users, it completely ignores the <noinclude> tags and sticks a category link in as well, leaving us with about fifty bits of code adding the submissions page to Category:Articles for creation templates. I've looked at it, and I can't find any way to get around this little bug, other than placing the talk page for the preload template in the templates category and removing the actual template from it. I figured I should check with everyone before I requested an admin make the change. Hersfold(t/a/c)18:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey gang, i'm back on wiki and pleasantly supprised that the daily logs are being deealt with pretty swiftly! Awesome work, but we still have a huge backlog in the 2005-2006 submissions. Am ploughing through pages now with help of the mass header but could probably use a couple more hands if anyone's willing? Cheers m'dears! Chebbs (talk) 23:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I dealt with some of those a couple of months back. Just hadn't had the time. Will do more when I do. :) KTC09:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Strange...
The AFC script isn't working for me anymore. The script hasn't been edited in a while, and I haven't changed any settings on my browser (I double checked them in case), but the links just aren't showing up. Does anyone else have this problem? (I didn't know where to state this, so I ended up just trying to ask here.) Temperaltalk and matrix?03:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
