Hallo,
I think there is a potential bug with AfC helper script, when processing the named references.
Specifically this script removes line breaks in the list of the named references, this in turn renders the list of named references unreadable for human in Wiki mark-up language.
One can see what I mean, if one checks the between 2 versions of my article, before and after clean up.
I did not try to reproduce the problem myself, but the feedback, which I got from Sintaku is that such changes were introduced by AfC helper script.
Ev2geny (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
In this edit the script cleaned up the page, bu broke a ref. It converted: |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Groovey.TV%27s_Twin_Galaxies_Award.jpg|accessdate=March 25th, 2014 to |url=[[File:Groovey.TV%27s Twin Galaxies Award.jpg|accessdate=March]] 25th, 2014. (t) Josve05a (c)23:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
To assist in using the "ping" function in AFC comments or custom-decline messages, please list the first editor of the page plus all editors who have submitted the page in the past. I view this as a "low-risk-of-breaking-things" request.
Alternatively, modify the "decline" message template to include the name and date of the submission that is being declined. To avoid having a an editor feel "ashamed" at seeing his name in the pink box, this probably should be hidden behind a "show/hide" template of some type. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Blank the Submission
Am I the only one who finds when checking Blank the Submission on an article, the script freezes up and never goes all the way through the steps to actually blank the page and put up the speedy deletion tag? LionMans Account (talk) 01:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Request custom decline reason change
When using a custom decline reason, provide a way to pre-fill it with one or more of the canned reasons.
The simplest way to do it would be for the helper script (NOT the decline template!) to link to a single static page (or perhaps even the actual code) that had the wiki-markup for all of the custom-decline reasons listed in a single location, so reviewers could copy-and-paste them from that location into our custom decline reason ourselves.
The idea is that if I want to provide a "customized" version of one or more of the canned decline reasons but keep it looking "nearly identical" to the boilerplate reasons, it should be easy for me to do so.
There are of course other ways to do this, but since a simple, low-risk-of-breaking-things way exists, I'll ask you to get at least something this simple in the next alpha release and hopefully have it in the production code whenever the upcoming alpha release makes its way into production. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I started using AFCH a few days ago, without adding myself to the participants list. Then today a message appeared in the top right corner saying that I couldn't use the tool because I wasn't on the list. I've joined now, but is this a bug letting non-participants use AFCH? --AmaryllisGardenertalk17:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
The whitelist feature was only turned on in the last few days. Before then, anyone could use the tool without adding themselves to the participants list. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Review tab on userpages and other pages not pending submission
Recently, I've been seeing the review tab on user pages and other pages outside of the article namespace that are not pending AfC submission, or are eligible for G13 deletion. What's going on? hmssolentlambastpatrol records05:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
"Accept" is not working
I just tried to accept a new article into mainspace but the script failed. Is there a problem with it or the server? User:Timtrent also tried to accept the same draft with the same result. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
@Dodger67: Hi, do you have a link to the page in question? Also, let me invite you to take a look at WP:AFCHRW if/when you have a chance -- it's a rewritten and redesigned from the ground up version of the helper script, and as an active reviewer your feedback would be invaluable. Theopolisme(talk)21:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I was recently the second reviewer to decline Draft:Paid-Crowdsourcing on the basis that the topic was not sufficiently distinct from an existing article to warrant an independent entry. For this I used the "mergeto" option of AFCH. All well and good, but the edit summary left was "Declining submission: submission is too short but can be merged". This is inaccurate, the draft was actually quite lengthy. --LukeSurltc10:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
CSD logging
Hi there,
When tagging some copyvios for deletion using the script I've noticed that the link to the G12 criterion in the log entry it generates is broken and I have to fix it. example This seems to be because it and similar redirects were deleted pursuant to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 September 10#CSD:G1 a few months ago. If someone could tweak the code I'd be grateful. Nevertheless, thanks for the great script! BethNaught (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Decline templates directing "Draft:" authors to incorrect redlink "Articles for creation/" pages
I just put in place a fix for this issue a few hours ago, and you may have found a flaw. Wish I had known sooner. Looking into it. — {{U|Technical 13}}(e • t • c)18:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Seems to have been a short term intermitent issue while I was tweaking the template to work correctly for all use cases (I hope). This diff shows how they are coming out now, and other than the word "Draft:" isn't prefixing the visible link in the header (it still links there), everything seems to be in working order. — {{U|Technical 13}}(e • t • c)19:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
The old version. I held off trying the new one because I'm generally averse to betas, but I guess I can give it a go. Thanks, BethNaught (talk) 08:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Add WikiProject Physiology to the list of projects?
When leaving a talk page message, the script should make sure there is a blank line inbetween the last talk page message and the new one or else things run together like so:
==Message 1==
...
* You can also get [http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=#wikipedia-en-help real-time chat help from experienced editors].
--[[User:...]] (talk) 10:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)</div><!--Template:Afc decline--></div>
== Your submission at [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation|Articles for creation]]: [[Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/...]] (June 6) ==
<div style="border: solid 1px #FCC; background-color: #F8EEBC; padding: 0.5em 1em; color: #000; margin: 1.5em; width: 90%;"> [[File:AFC-Logo_Decline.svg|50px|left]]Your recent article submission to [[WP:AFC|Articles for Creation]] has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.<br />Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the
...
which makes it hard to see where one message ends and another starts when editing the user's talk page. Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Thaddeus, which version of the script are you using? May I suggest trying the rewrite version? I have looked at the template code, and based on what I'm seeing, I'm guessing the script is using §ion=new&preloadtitle= which means that there should be a space there. Otherwise, we may have to wait a couple weeks because Theopolisme who has been doing most of the developing as of late is without a computer/internet until the 19th. — {{U|Technical 13}}(e • t • c)19:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm using the version available from gadgets. I didn't know there was a new version in development, so I'll switch to that and let you know. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Point at which script decides to add tags, and whitespace issues
When accepting an article I've had an issue a couple of times when the script executes its cleanup edit. The script seems to be fond of leaving large gaps at the top of accepted articles and removing blank lines before a section header, but insisting on inserting a blank line after a section header. If anything, it should surely be the opposite? See [1] also the script added a linkrot tag based on the presence of a single bare URL ref. Can this be watered-down so that it only adds tags to articles with multiple bare URLs -- at least two perhaps? Bellerophontalk to me14:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Theopolisme, the space below instead of above the header thing has been an annoyance to me as well. That should certainly be reversed. The large gaps at the top of the article, I'm assuming, has to do with incomplete cleaning of the submission template space (yet another reason this stuff should be moved to the separate /editnotice page and included via a guided tour (JavaScript)), which I'm sure is usually caused by malformed submission templates, comments, or some other intervening factor which would be very difficult for the script's cleanup code to detect and fix. I personally like the adding of linkrot tags even if only one bare URL exists, although I wouldn't be opposed if it ran the citation expander and reflinks in seperate tabs to try and fix the issues before doing so, if that is possible. I'd think it is, although it would slow processing down some, not sure if that is worth the trade-off. Perhaps there needs to be a community discussion about whether or not this should be done? Actually, if it adds the tags and then runs those tools in separate tabs, those tools should remove the tags if it fixes the issue I think, so it wouldn't slow anything down... Hrmmm.. Sorry about the thinking out loud... — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c)14:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I admit to only using fully released tools here. I imagine the rewrite script will replace the released script at some point soon? Please ping me if replying. FiddleFaddle17:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Frozen
Using the beta script, on WP:AfC/R, when I click More▼ then Review (old), the page freezes, as if it's stuck in a loop or something similar. Ollieinc (talk) 10:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Apparently the script attempts to clean up external links to Wikipedia and to use wikilinks instead. That mechanism, however, is less than perfect: See for example the "Kharkiv Conservatory" link in the draft's second paragraph here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kharkiv_Conservatory About Kharkov Music Conservatory] is turned into [[[Kharkiv Conservatory]] About Kharkov Music Conservatory]. If such a mechanism is considered desirable, it should be able to create piped links when necessary. Huon (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Copyright violation stuff
The script allows us to add two source locations. The template it uses seems only to list one. An example is Draft:IMerit Technology Services where I wanted to flag three, flagged two because that was the limit and added a third in the comment, and one, only, is displayed in the decline box. There ought to be a pair there FiddleFaddle17:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Timtrent, would that solve your concern about listing multiple pages? Maybe I'd even go so far as to have the comprehensive Copyvios report be there by default and still offer one additional URL in case it wasn't something on the page or something a Google search found? If I hear no objections from anyone, I'll start working on this change in about a week. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c)17:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure. I use Earwig's tool anyway, and transfer the matches, once I've inspected them, to the AFCH tool. I'll be interested to see what you have in mind. FiddleFaddle19:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
@Technical 13: I'd oppose using this tool to do this; It's generally easier to present the links, and allow the reviewer to decide; I've seen a lot of false positives getting overly-high ratings, and if the reviewing admin comes across one of these high-up, they may just decline the speedy. Earwig's tool is useful for information, but it should be up to a human to double check themselves before tagging. --Mdann52talk to me!12:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Wasn't what I said Mdann. I said having a link to the tool by default (which gives a breakdown of a compassion of the page to all the linked URLs on the page and a Google search then gives an overall rating based on a calculation of all of those scores) AND still having an option to have the one URL, exactly like it is now. What I'm planning on doing is adding a default link to the comprehensive Copyvios report using The Earwig's tool instead of completely redoing the whole template to try and add the ability to add multiple URLs (which is a slippery slope as currently there is one a change would make it so there are two, then someone will want three, then someone will want five, then someone will want ten...). — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c)14:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
When proposing a merge, the merge-to page defaults to "Milkshake". Is there an inside joke that I'm missing, or wouldn't it be better for this field to default to blank? --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 14:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that was kind of an inside joke. As I said on WT:AFCHRW, nobody told me that the rewrite was becoming the default script for review... so the whole "now-everyone-is-using-afchrw" sort of took me by surprise! We can certainly scrap this default, although it's not really doing any harm at this point. Theopolisme(talk)22:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Including the decline reason in the talk page is buggy and should be reverted for now
The new feature to include the decline reason, while a great idea, completely fails in implementation. In the best case it ends up including the entire switch statement from Template:AFC submission/comments in the source of the talk page, and it completely fails if there is a custom reason such as here, where the decline reason just shows up as {{{2}}}. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 00:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
@Ahecht: Is this still an issue? (I didn't see it moved to AFCHRW.) Sounds like it may be a problem with the {{Afc decline}} template... (Although, to be fair, the code for including the decline reason in the decline template is pretty much the only code in the repo not written by me, so it may very well be a bug there – pinging APerson, who I believe implemented that.) Theopolisme(talk)22:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
@Theopolisme: As I was moving it, I noticed that my requested changes were implemented to the {{AFC submission/comments}} template which fixed the major issue of translcluding the entire switch statement, which was the main issue. Custom reasons just show up as blank now, which I did bring up on WT:AFCHRW. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 22:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Proposal to not blank submissions that are copyright violations
Sorry if this has been brought up before... looks like this is different than the "Copyright violation stuff" section above. Anyway we (generally) don't blank copyright violations in the mainspace, and the real reason that it's a problem is I need to go back a revision in the page history to verify it is in fact a copyright violation. That then means I can't use the duplicate detector or copyvios report tools. Or if I understand correctly the tools simply take two different full URLs, so we could alter the script to use URL of the previous revision. Then the report would match the source url against the correct version of the draft. Thanks — MusikAnimaltalk04:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi MusikAnimal! While I can't speak for the rest of the project, what you've stated here certainly sounds reasonable. However, the idea of blanking copyvios is not specific to the helper script... it's rather an WP:AFC-wide policy, and as such I think it would be useful for you to bring this up at WT:AFC, first... if the consensus there is to not blank copyvios, then I'll be happy to implement that in the script. Cheers, Theopolisme(talk)22:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
@Theopolisme: Thanks for the reply. What if we instead changed the script to use the URL of non-blanked revision (which would be the current one when the user declines the submission) in the copyvios report tool? I don't know how difficult that would be to implement, but that would address any concerns others have in wanting to keep the submission blanked. Thanks — MusikAnimaltalk22:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I added support to {{Db-g12}} to support an oldid parameter, which should allow Theopolisme to call out an oldid with the tool if he decides to. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 00:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
[0.7] Feedback about logs
We all know of Twinkles CSD-log,could it be possible to make a "AfC-review-log? for three reasons:
To help in backlog drives, it makes it easier to collect revies, without te need of the magnificent program that [I can't remember the users name] has made.
I want a log to see the outcome of the articles later, if they were denied cop copyvio, then I can see if they have been recreated.
Good start with the warning the page is SALTed. But... Where the "accept" button should be, there needs to be a "recheck" button, and it wouldn't hurt if there was a button or link to allow the user to request unprotection directly from the form. I'll expand a little later on my ideas of how this would all come together, need more coffee... — {{U|Technical 13}}(e • t • c)16:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
@Technical 13: Yeah, we have talked before about a button that auto-posts a message to WT:AFC -- or at least, it's in trello :) If you can firm out a spec for how it should work (i.e., create a template it should amend to the page), I'll be happy to implement this -- seems like a very useful feature. Cheers, Theopolisme(talk)14:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Wouldn't it make more sense to submit the request directly to WP:RFPP like Twinkle does to request the page be unprotected or the move be made? When I have a little free time, I can pull the code for this out of MediaWiki:Gadget-twinkleprotect.js and reflow it a little for our use. The major part of this request is to have it be a clickable "recheck" button so that the reviewer can get everything ready and keep rechecking to see if the page is protected (once they make their request for unprotection) and submit their accept once the protection is removed. — {{U|Technical 13}}(e • t • c)15:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Notification of a change to the preload template comment that AFCH(RW) removes
Hey Theo, I know you won't be back for a couple more weeks, and it "shouldn't" be too big an issue, but I'm notifying you per the editnotice nonetheless that I have editedTemplate:AFC_submission/Substdraft to wrap the comment in a {{subst:Void}} so that the comment should disappear on its own when they click save and I changed the case of a couple key words like "new template will appear on the BOTTOM of the page" and "the draft template will still be on the top but IT IS OKAY TO IGNORE IT" (not exactly the words, but conveys the jist of the changes) so that we won't get so many "I'm confused by the two templates contradicting each other" type reports. Anyways, hope to see you back soon and figure you should know of the changes (which I expect the RW removes the comment /i anyways). — {{U|Technical 13}}(e • t • c)14:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Is there a functionality to mark a page as "under review" while it is being processed similar to the old AFCH? I'm having to just use the generic tags for now. Deadbeef04:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Category field acting up - text obscuring, picky about capital letters
Hello, I really enjoy the recent improvements made to AFCH, but I've been finding the Category field to be getting quirkier and quirkier.
In the past, it wasn't picky about capital letters, but now it won't recognize cats if I don't get the capitalization exactly right. Also, very recently I'm having this trouble where as I'm typing in letters into the Category field, when the dropbox appears for options, it blanks out my cat field after a second, so I need to add or subtract a typed letter to be able to see what I'm typing, which is kinda hinky. I'm using Mozilla Firefox 33.1.1 right now, never had this problem until (IIRC) a few weeks ago.
Hi MatthewVanitas! In re to the temporary blanking-out of the input... sorry, that's completely my fault. I accidentally removed a line of code that I thought was not longer necessary but, as is now apparent, absolutely is! I've reverted my changes, and the fix should be live onwiki in a minute.
In response to the your first issue, though, about capitalization... that's going to be a harder problem to fix, since it sounds like a potential change in the categories API. I will investigate further in the coming days, and get back to you.
Hi--
I don't know if this is feasible, but when moving a userspace draft to the Draft namespace, could it also remove a {{User sandbox}} template if it's present? The red error message at the top of the page post-move is annoying to see. Origamiteⓣⓒ05:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Greetings, Origamite! I could have sworn this feature was already in the script. Do you have an example for when the {{User sandbox}} template was not removed, so that I can figure out what exactly went wrong with the removal? Cheers, Theopolisme(talk)05:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
@Origamite: In these cases, you weren't actually using the helper script – you just clicked the link in the submission template. Using the move link does *not* modify the page content, just the title. Hopefully this explanation is satisfactory! Theopolisme(talk)21:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello! Love the script, just wanted to report a bug (or maybe feature?) I ran into earlier today: the script deleted a couple of my categories. Diff. Thanks so much for all your hard work on this! --Cerebellum (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Cerebellum! First, thanks! I tried to make something useful :) That's... weird. Is it possible that you accidentally removed the categories from the Categories input field on the "Accept" screen of the helper script? Given the limited details about the scenario, I'm unable to really hypothesize about other potential flaws in the code – if you encounter this issue again, please do let me know, and hopefully we can narrow it down! Thanks, Theopolisme(talk)05:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
This script is not working correctly on Articles for Creation/Redirects. I'm using the latest version of Google Chrome and the tool consistently loads the individual article script rather than a special AFC/R script. Alpha_Quadrant(talk)05:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Despite multiple requests to fix this, the only version that supports WP:AFC/R, WP:AFC/C, and WP:FFU is the unmaintained beta version of the script. I will fix this myself once I get settled into my Spring semester of classes, but that will be a month or two from now. Just too busy to get into much ATM. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c)05:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Problems with AfC cleanups?
Hello, while checking some maintenance categories, I came across this diff of an AfC cleanup: [3]. I know little (nothing) about the helper script, but it seems that it introduced several problems:
Several existing categories were duplicated.
A second (incomplete) persondata tag was created, but a better more complete one already existed.
defaultsort tag was duplicated (that's what I was checking initially)
A wrong category "Category:Year of birth missing (living people)" was included, despite existing birth date data.
One AfC comment "Comment: added contemporary authors and reviews from Gale" was not cleaned up (assuming, this should be done for all "old" comments).
The same problem can be seen with a second diff: [4], where persondata, categories and defaultsort tag have been unnecessarily duplicated. Could someone please check those changes? GermanJoe (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I might recognize some of the issues with that diff. So far as I know, the script does not check for existing categories as the reviewer enters new ones to add to the page; so, it looks like DGG just typed in those two categories and the script added them. Also, (although I may be wrong), I don't think the script checks for existing Persondata tags. Finally, it doesn't look like the method we use to detect AfC comments picked up on that particular comment due to the weird capitalization and spacing (AFC comment versus afc comment - probably a regex failure). APerson (talk!) 00:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the information APerson. I wasn't aware, that the cleanup is a mix of automatic and manual changes. Both articles' tags have been corrected meanwhile. GermanJoe (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
When a draft article is accepted with categories in the form [[:Category:Something]] they are sometimes maintained and sometimes deleted, seemingly at random. See for example: [5][6] (some added by me) [7] (some added by me). Ideally, it should remove duplicates and maintain the rest. Secondary option is just to retain all. The current behavior is surely due to a bug in the code.
While on the subject, the ordering is wrong. Persondata should go above all the categories, but for some reason is placed above the directly related ones (living, birth, death) and below the rest. Ideally, categories should be alphabetized too, minus perhaps "living people" going first. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
It seems someone made changes to this code recently, as today I saw the pre-existing categories populated into the categories box - somethign I'd never seen before. That's a nice improvement, but the weird removal problem still exists, only now instead of deleting some (when it shouldn't) it fails to remove some that it should. Most likely it is the same as before but the populate the category box function changed the net result. See [8] - I didn't touch the pre-populated box & as you can see this caused many cats to be duplicated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I've reverted back to Beta now, but from memory when you review an article the whole of the top of the page was dominated by green, yellow and red buttons (for accept, comment, decline) that spanned the entire page width and were colour coded more or less like a traffic light. It was a big jump from the much more subtle interface found in beta and previous versions and I just found it a bit overbearing. I just prefer the more twinklesque appearance of previous versions. Also, the absence of support for AFC/R struck me as a loss of function rather than progress, that remains unresolved for more than a year. Which probably accounts, in part, for the backlogs developing there. Bellerophontalk to me21:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
WikiProjects
I'm not entirely sure where to go with this, and it might not be a helperscript function, but sometimes it won't let me add a valid WikiProject. For instance, I want to add WP:WikiProject Classical music, which I know to be a valid Project, but helperscript is not recognizing it. Not a big deal, I can add it manually later, but I am curious as to where the disconnect is. Thanks! 78.26(spin me / revolutions)15:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
78.26 and MatthewVanitas: The script looks at User:Theo's Little Bot/afchwikiproject.js for its list of wikiprojects, so you'll need to get that updated if you need a new WikiProject. It looks like Theopolisme last ran the bot to update the list on 27 August 2013, so it might be a bit out of date. We can move the list to project space, in which case we would have to make a new page, copy and paste everything on the existing list over, add your suggestions, and PADLOCK it. So long as we put TE or higher on it, I don't see any potential objections; just the same, we might want to poll WT:WPAFC first. APerson (talk!) 20:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
This has been nagging me for some time, so I'm finally going to ask: How do you use AFCH to review submissions at WP:AFC/R and WP:FFU? I see other people doing this, but I can't seem to figure out how to access it.
Several times in the last couple of days I have accepted a draft, and the script has reported an error in adding the article to the list of recently created articles. I'm not sure if this is a script error, and it's not so important, since the article seems otherwise to be correctly created, but I am reporting it in case anyone is interested.—Anne Delong (talk) 07:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
AFCH should follow redirect on User Talk: pages
Often a new user will create an inappropriate username and then submit a draft. By the time the draft gets reviewed that user has changed to a new username and redirected their User: and User talk: page, but AFCH leaves a message on the redirect page instead of the user's new page. Twinkle successfully handles such cases, and if you use Twinkle to, for example, nominate a page for deletion, it will follow the redirect and leave a notification on the user's new talk page. Is it possible for AFCH to follow redirects as well when leaving notifications? --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 15:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I commented on an unsubmitted userspace draft. See this diff where I then had to reinstate the {{Userspace draft|source=ArticleWizard|date=April 2015}} which had been removed. I know it's not usual to comment on unsibmitted drafts, but I think we need the script to understand this and not removed that (or similar) templates. FiddleFaddle10:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Duplicate information being added on acceptance by the script
Hello! It was brought to my attention that the script occasionally adds extra stuff when accepting a draft. An example is Joseph Brent, where an extra persondata template was added. A clue as to why that happened may be in the fact that the original default sort template had the wrong name in it.
I am sure the script used to check whether a teahouse invitation had been given before? Now, not. I'd prefer it to be intelligent about it, check the target page and not invite if they have been invited already. FiddleFaddle16:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, I've been away for a few days and just reviewed an article. However, my submission seems to be hanging at "Declining submission"; it won't proceed to editing the user's talk page with the review notice, and it won't refresh. I tried manually refreshing the page, which gets the review to stick but doesn't alert the user. Is anyone else experiencing this? wia (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Never mind. I just uninstalled and reinstalled the script, and it works fine. Should have been the first thing I tried. wia (talk) 13:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
It is happening to me again. I have found that sometimes unchecking the "Teahouse" option helps occasionally, but not always. wia (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok, noticed a new tab, a picture of a smartphone. That was ticked in Gadgets. Unticked that and the problem has gone away. Back to reviewing FiddleFaddle15:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
That "works" but is imperfect. It fails to link, and slows things down. We need someone who can work out what is going on to work out how to provide a complete fix, or I do. FiddleFaddle17:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
@Timtrent: It looks like our friends at GitHub have fixed the issue. I just reviewed a submission and it worked fine! wia (talk) 01:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Please refer to Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_4#Some_redirects_containing_wiki_markup where there is a discussion that includes some redirects "of ours" initiated by the script amongst the redirects nominated for deletion. A nice technical person needs to consider, please, whether the script or the move function or something else has created what the nominator has assessed as a problem. If it is a script problem it needs a fix, please. If it is a MediaWiki problem, please will a competent person report it. In either case please would they let us know here (and, presumably there) what has taken place? FiddleFaddle08:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Fiddle Faddle, In December 2014, the creation of titles that contain at least two consecutive apostrophes was added to MediaWiki:Titleblacklist with me asking it to be added to the blacklist after a successful nomination of 357 similar redirects in November 2014. Also, immediately deleting a redirect left over from a page is a function only available to administrators, so if there is an issue with any leftover redirect created due to a page move that may require it be deleted, it would have to go through the proper redirect-deleting options (WP:RFD or WP:CSD). Steel1943 (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Seems to be happening to the Teahouse invites I'm automatically appending to my reviews as well. Wonder what's going on. wia (talk) 19:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I just checked both of the templates responsible - no changes there, so it must be the script's fault. Going through recent changes made to the script right now. APerson (talk!) 13:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
To the other AFCH devs: either there's an issue with the AFCH.msg list, or there's a problem around here. Maybe we're passing the parameters in the wrong order? APerson (talk!) 13:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
"Nominate the submission for speedy deletion" not included in hoax criterion
While I was declining Draft:Eggs Touché as a potential joke or hoax article, I noticed it lacked "Nominate the submission for speedy deletion", even though it would meet G3 as a hoax as I couldn't get any hits for the "recipe" nor the person who "made" it. The following other criteria for declination should also have this action:
A10 is not valid for drafts, its scope is limited to mainspace. In any case an "exists" decline should not be followed by deletion as that denies the author or any other editor the opportunity to merge the draft content into the existing article. If a draft is actually an exact copy of an existing article (duplicate) it should be speedied as a copyvio (I've never seen such a copy to include proper atribution as required by the licensing conditions). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Declining a submission for multiple reasons
Hi, I recently joined AFC project and reviewed some submissions. I found that AFC helper script is very easy to use and has all features we expect. I think it can be helpful for submitters if we can reject a submission for multiple reasons. If a submission is non notable and as well as copyright violation or advertisement, we can reject it for multiple reasons but now we can only reject for one reason. We can save lot of time with this feature. I will give you one example: A user submits a draft about a company which is not notable and is also written like an advertisement, then a reviewer reviews the draft and declines it as advertising. The user removes the advertising material and submits it again but it gets rejected as non notable. This wastes lot of time and effort for the submitter. This is good live example, where this feature could have been useful.
This problem can also be solved by adding some more options for declining like "This submission is about a company which is non notable and reads like an advertisement" , "This submission is about a company which is not notable and is a copyright violation" and "This submission is about a person who is not notable and not written in NPOV", but I think choosing our own reasons from existing list is more easy.
I don't know if this has been discussed before. I read archives but I didn't find anything related to this. Wikiisawesome said that this is not a bad idea and told me to post this idea on script's talk page to get more opinions. What do you think? Is this feature helpful enough? Thanks - Supdioptalk06:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
It comes up fairly often, but apparently the technical difficulty of doing it in the script is considerable (I'm not a coder so please don't hold me to this). In any case you can easily mention other issues in a review comment. Btw, if a draft is a copyvio none of the other issues matter, as it must be blanked immediately and speedily deleted. Please take a look at the Workflow chart in the Reviewing instructions, the decline reasons appear in order of precedence there, you decline for the first applicable reason in the flow and may mention/explain the others in the review comment. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we can mention other issues in comment but some users don't take comment seriously, see this for example. If a draft is copyvio and non notable then we blank the page and speedy delete it, then user only gets a message on talk page that draft is copyright violation not about notability issue, then they write the draft with their own words and resubmit it but it gets rejected again for notability issues. Here comment wouldn't help. If the user had been notified about other issues at the same time then it would save lot of time.
If we mention the other issues in comment then user may see them as low priority or small issues while infact they are equally important.
Yes, maybe writing it in script is difficult but adding more options(two in one) to decline will be relatively easy, I think. Supdioptalk03:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Every time I open a user page or user sub page I get a pop-up message in the top right corner saying: "AFCH error: user not listed etc." It's really annoying. How do I get rid of it? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 09:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: There's no big mystery here. When User:Depakmuniraj manually declined the article in 2012, they copied and pasted the decline template without changing the username parameter from u=Example. The script then did as it was told and posted the notice to User:Example's talk page. That user only had about 20 edits under their belt when they started reviewing articles, and that wasn't the only review that they messed up. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 15:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Small little bit that'd be nice to add to the script
Preface, I'm not a coder, so if this would even be remotely hard to do, I'd say it's not worth it. But in the same way that the date and month pops up when you put a year in for the biography field, it'd also be nice if you put in a certain year of birth and it automatically marks the one dropdown menu as Dead. I mean, we could play it safe. Say if you enter 1870 or earlier it automatically marks the dropdown menu as dead. Like I said, this would maybe save five seconds per instance, but if it's something that will only take a couple minutes to code, that'd be nice. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi there! I recently declined an article, but I initially clicked on the wrong reason in the dropdown. I didn't notice, and wrote up a fairly long paragraph for my decline comment. When I realized the dropdown was wrong, I changed it -- and my comment disappeared.
From a usability standpoint, there's no reason to clear an existing text area when changing the dropdown. From a technical standpoint, I haven't looked yet to see what the script does if you change dropdown reasons. If it re-creates the text area, that would be the problem. It should check first to see if the text area for the comment exists, and if it does, do not re-create or overwrite it. —Darkwind (talk) 07:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Darkwind, I just located the offending function. The script will reset the HTML of the decline form every time the dropdown is changed. I suspect the reason it does this is that some HTMl manipulations are done on the form every time, and it's easier to just start with a blank state and add elements. I suppose we could add some sort of confirmation dialog when the user changes the dropdown while they have entered text, but I'm not sure if that would interrupt the workflow too much. APerson (talk!) 00:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Given that most web forms don't clear when changing one element, I personally would rather have a pop-up "copy your text first" alert than sudden loss of something I may have spent several minutes typing. Alternatively, can the contents be assigned to a variable and then re-inserted into the box after the reset? –Darkwind (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Can we do something about the teahouse invite? I just visited one persons talk page, who has had their article declined 5 times, and there were 4 teahouse invitations on the page. It's starting to look like spam.
Can the script check if an article has already been declined once before, and if so, not have the teahouse invitation box ticked? - Happysailor(Talk)09:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
You can blame me for this, actually. In short, I monkeyed around with the logic that put the marker category on users' talk pages. The script checks for the presence of that category here. On 10 June 2014, I decided to apply a template "design pattern" to {{Wikipedia:Teahouse/AfC Invitation}}, which, unknowingly, borked the logic and resulted in the category not being applied on pages where it was needed. On 7 August 2015, I reverted this after realizing the consequences.
I can run a bot task to fix the user talk pages missing a category and the user talk pages with too many invitations; coding that up right now. APerson (talk!) 20:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, FoCuS. Here's an example of the bot fixing a user talk page. Most of the difficulty lies in the fact that we're dealing with a user talk page notice, so it's subst:'ed; thus, there's no easy way to find all of these substitutions without grinding through every page in the user talk namespace. (Unless I've missed something terribly obvious.) BRFA: coming soon to a project administration page near you. APerson (talk!) 03:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Cheers for that. In any case, it's not such a big issue if you don't get all of them. The main point is that new repeated declines don't place duplicate invites. I appreciate your pursuit for perfection nonetheless. FoCuScontribs; talk to me!13:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
If I decline a draft for not having footnotes and post that comment to their talk page, the talk page comment like this includes a hidden comment to Category:AfC submissions declined as needing footnotes. This makes sense for the draft but the category is filled with the author's talk pages because that hidden link is also there. I suspect this isn't the only one like this. Can it be removed from the postings to the authors so it's only filled with the draft pages with the relevant problems? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I have declined at least three autobiographies in the past 48 hours. Can a decline reason be added to the Helper Script either to indicate that the article is an autobiography, or more generally that the reason for the decline is conflict of interest? I declined the submissions either as inadequately sourced BLPs or as not providing notability evidence, and included a comment stating that the submission of autobiographies is strongly discouraged. It seems to happen often enough that the script should include that as a reason. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Let me be devil's advocate for a moment, though I support your proposal in very general terms.
For reasons I am not sure I have ever understood, AFC allows things the rest of Wikipedia does not. COI is tolerated up to the point of acceptance of a draft. AFC applies the rules pragmatically, in that we, as reviewers, decline material that fails all rules except COI, and insist that COI puffery be stripped out prior to acceptance.
Some people, albeit very few, are capable of writing a autobiography that is well referenced, neutral and verifies notability
The reason why AFC allows things such as COI that are not tolerated elsewhere is simply that AFC is, among other things, a learning mechanism. We don't require the editors using AFC to know all of the rules, because we, the reviewers, apply the rules pragmatically. However, I don't understand how you are saying that COI differs from anything else that is not permitted. We insist that COI puffery be stripped out prior to acceptance, and we require that anything else "wrong" be corrected prior to acceptance. To the best of my knowledge, AFC reviewers do not accept drafts that contain COI. I don't. So maybe we need a more general COI tag for declines. As I noted, I have declined autobiographies as either failing to identify notability or as inadequately sourced BLPs. I decline other COI articles with "reads like an advertisement", which is a non-WP explanation of what COI policy is all about. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
However, if COI is a reason to decline, but we allow COI at AFC then we have an interesting disconnect. I prefer to decline as though to were not written by a COi editor, explaining issues to an autobiographer in the exact same way that I explain to a biographer, for example. I make a lot of use of the ability to leave a comment. I have no idea iff you do or not, coz I don't stalk your work FiddleFaddle15:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Notify author specified in template if present and not the page creator
See Draft:Maria Dakake, a draft I moved to the draftspace on behalf of the author. When this happens, we add the author username in the |u= parameter of the {{AFC submission}} template. When using AFCH to mark for G13 speedy, it should first look for that parameter and notify that user and not the page creator (which in this case was me). Cheers — MusikAnimaltalk17:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
The AFCH script appears to hang when a reviewer tries to decline Draft:Daniel Clitnovici or to comment. The subject appears not to meet association football notability guidelines. He has not played in a fully professional league. He is an assistant coach, not a manager (head coach), in a fully professional league. If I attempt to decline the draft with that rationale, the decline process hangs. This happens using either Google Chrome or Internet Explorer. (I haven't tried Firefox.) This has happened at least three times with Chrome and once with IE. I also tried Commenting, and the same thing happens. Is there something wrong with the history of the page? I have also posted about this problem at Village pump (technical), but then it occurred to me that this is the page for help with the script, and it appears that the script is having a problem with this page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I declined the draft. Is a script coder following this page who can address the bug, in particular, that a missing end brace causes the script to hang? (Also, was the missing end brace due to a bug, or due to reviewer entry error?) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
It looks like the end brace was accidentally removed by the author in this edit, when they moved their own comments above the existing AfC comments. So if I'm looking at it correctly, the initial error was not caused by the AfC script. Of course, there is still the problematic consequence that removing an end brace causes the AfC script to malfunction. /wia/tlk18:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
We are in agreement, then. The malformation was due to good-faith user error, but the script hanging on a malformation is a bug. If the script becomes so confused that it can't figure out what to do, at least it should crash with an error message, so that the reviewers would know that they need to request help or maybe that they need to try to fix the notes. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
When I referred to good-faith user error, I was distinguishing it from bad-faith user error, which we do occasionally see, such as the removal of a record of declines. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
You have to make a GitHub account to open issues there. (If we had the project on Phabricator, you could use your Wikipedia login.) APerson (talk!) 13:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Talk page overwriting when a page is published
When a page gets published, the script adds AFC to the talk page (which is fine) but it does it by overwriting the text already there (see here). I'm guessing it's just doing the projects, not the entire page. The problem is a number of drafts do already have WikiProjects assigned to them and there are some draft talk pages where this is actual discussions about the content (maybe even an old MFD notice), none of which should be immediately lost. Is it possible for the script to check on an AFC Wikiproject notice only and then just otherwise just add the project to the top? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Ricky81682, looking at the source code, the script is supposed to move the existing draft talk page first (if it exists), then add the AfC template. It isn't immediately clear why this isn't working, but I'll look into it. APerson (talk!) 13:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I know I'm a minority in doing the work of adding in WikiProjects for draft pages but I do think it can be useful if projects integrate drafts into their requested articles sections. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
There is a function of the AFC Helper Script that cleans or cleans up a submission. What exactly is the effect of this and when should it be done? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
It "normalizes" the format of the page. If there's a pending template at the bottom of the draft, it moves it to the top; it also removes extra whitespace, does some formatting fixes, removes some HTML comments, and removes inapplicable templates like {{User sandbox}}. You can see the full code here. APerson (talk!) 13:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Something is wrong with Draft:Dixien LLC. I don't mean that the draft is promotional and contains peacock language and is badly formatted. All of those are true. What I mean is that if I try to clean the draft, to comment on the draft, or to decline the draft for any of those reasons, nothing happens. There may be something wrong with the AFC script notations in the draft. Can someone please look at it? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm having nothing happen when I try to review other drafts also. So there is something wrong with Draft:Dixien LLC, but those are just issues that can be dealt with by declining, and there is also apparently a problem with the script. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
AFCH totally not working for me. Was working up to about 3-4 hours ago. Meaning work on AfC pretty much at a standstill. I'm making edits, but can't review. Will check back here for hoped-for solution. LaMona (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Can the AFCH script be given a feature to allow the reviewer to select multiple decline reasons (as is the case, for instance, with speedy-deletion for multiple reasons)? Very often a draft is a BLP that does not have in-line citations and so does not establish biographical notability, or reads like an advertisement because it fails to establish corporate notability. I think that, as a result, some submitters correct the one identified issue and think that is all that they needed to do. Can the script be modified to allow the reviewer to select two or more reasons? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I hope that this isn't considered forum shopping to report a bug and ask for help in two places.
At Articles for Creation, I requested a random article, and got Draft:Maryse Warda. I reviewed it, and found it to be ready for acceptance. However, Accept was not one of the options from the AFCH tab. I had to Submit it. I then apparently made the mistake of submitting as myself rather than as the page creator. I then accepted it. I was then notified of its acceptance, but now I can't identify the page creator to notify them of acceptance. Can an administrator please help me? I don't think that the script should destroy the history of the draft article, which it apparently has done. If it is meant to do that, then I should be warned that submitting it as myself is a drastic action that may have unintended consequences. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
It is intended that the script should remove comments from a draft talk page when moving a submission into mainspace (e.g. as seems to have happened here). If so, please could this be stopped as a matter of urgency? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
MSGJ, strangely enough, that doesn't seem to be the desired behavior for the script, at least according to this comment. Setting mode to prependtextshould force the new text to be added to the top, so it's mystifying why the script isn't behaving properly. I'll look into this a bit more. APerson (talk!) 18:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
SwisterTwister confirmed that he/she didn't intend to remove those comments, so it seems the script is misbehaving. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Put Comments on Talk Pages
Is there a specific reason why AFC comments cannot be put onto originator talk pages? Sometimes the comments provide more useful information than the decline reason, and may be friendlier than the decline reason. For example, on a blank draft, the comment "You may have hit submit by mistake" is friendlier than just saying that we do not accept blank drafts. Even unfriendly comments may be more helpful than just decline templates. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm following the discussion on the main WT:WPAFC page; at the moment, I'm working on a couple of other features for AFCH, but I'll get on it as soon as I can. APerson (talk!) 17:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Is there any way, if the script's automated notification to a draft submitter about the acceptance or rejection of their article is creating a new user talk page that didn't already exist, to turn off having that new user talk page automatically added to my watchlist? These are not generally pages I want to watch as a rule, and the added step of having to manually dewatchlist them after the fact is kind of annoying — I'd much rather manually select the extremely rare instances where I actually do want to do that for some reason, instead of having to manually deselect the many more cases where I don't. Bearcat (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I've looked into this a bit. When we send a user a message, it doesn't look like we're asking the API to avoid watchlisting the page; instead, we use the default behavior, which is to look at your preferences and follow them. By default, your preferences tell us to add every page you create to the watchlist, hence all these new user talk pages being added to your watchlist. I'm going to change it so that user talk pages never get added to your watchlist; you can track the progress of this change here. Hope this helps! APerson (talk!) 17:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
If you're creating the user talk page, it's generally a good idea to have it on your watchlist in case other warnings/notices come in so that there can be a more reasonable response. Hasteur (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
"Submission is about a person who does not meet notability guidelines"
Hi, we have just had a user posting in the Teahouse getting a bit upset at the wording of the edit summary "Submission is about a person who does not meet notability guidelines" which does not match what is actually posted that "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability". They took this quite badly "With that battle mentality, it will not go anywhere" and although I think they are just a bit frustrated I do agree that the wording could be a bit more in-line with the actual decline wording as not to bite. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 14:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I fully agree. Can we change this to "Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines", please? That is both more accurate and less bitey. DES(talk)18:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I like that a lot. All of the other "notability" decline summaries should be changed in parallel, too, right? (Note to self: the summaries are stored in the script here.) APerson (talk!) 19:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
+1 for DES's wording. Can it also be changed (albeit shortened) in the tool? I've hesitated to use that option because it did sound bitey, but in fact it's often the right thing to say because it points them to BLP issues, which they need to pay attention to. LaMona (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree as to the wording of all of the notability decline messages. There are two possible reasons why a draft could be declined on notability grounds, and the reviewer doesn't know which is the case. Either the person, company, process, or thing isn't notable, or the author hasn't established the notability of the person, company, process, or thing. It isn't the reviewer's job to determine which, by doing a lengthy Google search or whatever (although some helpful Teahouse hosts will do that). If the reviewer sees that the sources aren't listed, the reviewer should decline, and doesn't need to determine whether they exist, and the new editor didn't find them, or whether they don't exist, and the new editor should give up on this topic and pursue something else. Change the wording of all of the notability declines. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh. That particular flaming combative editor who sees a cabal of anti-feminist gatekeepers. Well, they aren't likely to accomplish anything in Wikipedia, but the templates should still be revised so that they say that the draft does not establish notability, not that the subject does not meet notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Is there a viable alternative to the currect copyvio detection routine built into the script? This is obviously an urgent problem as stopping copyvios is one of our main tasks. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
In declining Draft:Igboanugo Chukwunonso Samuel, I entered a lengthy comment. Can someone please take a look to see whether I "broke" the AFC comment template, so that the curly braces are displaying in the commentary? If there is a limit on the number of characters, maybe the template should warn the reviewer. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
There was a missing bracket in one of the wikilinks; adding it seems to have fixed the template. However, I'm still curious to see if there is a practical limit on the length of an {{Afc comment}}. /wiae/tlk12:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Script breaking a reference
Please check out this edit. It appears the script, while trying to tidy up a reference, inadvertently breaks it. Possibly this is due to an edit conflict; the immediately preceding edit was this. Huon (talk) 00:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Definitely due to an edit conflict. When you open it, the script read in the wikitext, so when you hit "Decline", the script took its (outdated) wikitext, applied the decline, and saved the result. APerson (talk!) 00:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Can this be fixed or at least made less likely? Can the script be made to only read the wikitext when you hit "Decline", minimizing the time between reading and writing the text? Huon (talk) 00:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Looked into it a bit; a lot of the interface is based on that initial wikitext read, so it would be hard to move the read to the moment that the user chooses to decline the draft. However, it seems like it should be possible to make the script do another wikitext read and refresh of its internal state right before it applies the decline. I'll try to start working on this. APerson (talk!) 14:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I moved this draft from a sandbox to its present location, and now it doesn't display the AFCH tab, so that I can't make a comment indicating minor actions to be taken before acceptance, and I can't accept or decline it. (I think it needs a few edits and then accepting.) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
I tried several drafts with opened JS, enabled gadget and I am a participant of the AFC, but it still doesn't work. 333-blue03:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi folks. Past main developer here. The user who took control of the script following my inactivity, User:APerson, recently changed their username to User:Enterprisey. This broke the tool, since APerson stored the script in their own personal userspace: essentially what happens now is that when the script attempts to load, rather than fetching the needed code, it just receives the text of the redirect page. @Enterprisey: you can fix this by reuploading the script to your (now renamed) userspace using the upload.py script. The specifically offending line is the hardcoded AFCH.consts.baseurl = AFCH.consts.scriptpath + '?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&title=User:APerson/afch-master.js';, which will be fixed when you redeploy. Hope this helps - now back to lurking - Theopolisme(talk)13:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Does the script have to be tied to a user? It would be better if the script can exist without being dependent on any particular individual wikipedian. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
No, not the use of the script, I mean the fact that it "belongs" to Enterprisey - and when he changed his username it became non-functional for all reviewers. See the post by User:Theopolisme above. Does it really have to be hosted by one specific user? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
No, it doesn't have to be; it just makes it more convenient. Me changing my username was pretty much the one way the current setup could fail. AFCH has been hosted in userspace since this November 2014 edit. The alternative is that we put it in MediaWiki space and I, as one of the current maintainers, file edit protected requests every time there's a change (however minor) to the script. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson)03:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
JJSC
I would review this, myself, if I was comfortable with the guidelines. The script ran on one page, but the one I was going to decline as a duplicate led me to believe I should know all of the guidelines before I declined for any reason, so I'll leave it to those who do: Draft:JJSC (currently declined) and Draft:JJSC NEW are duplicates of Draft:Jinnah School and College. There are 3 infobox templates for this draft, which should probably be merged with the article. I'm adding the one the seems the best {{JJSC}} and tagging the worst {{Jinnah Jam-e School and College}} for deletion. There is also {{Infobox JJSC}}, which I'm leaving for now, though it should probably be merged/deleted as well. Thanks. —PC-XT+01:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
JJSC
I would review this, myself, if I was comfortable with the guidelines. The script ran on one page, but the one I was going to decline as a duplicate led me to believe I should know all of the guidelines before I declined for any reason, so I'll leave it to those who do: Draft:JJSC (currently declined) and Draft:JJSC NEW are duplicates of Draft:Jinnah School and College. There are 3 infobox templates for this draft, which should probably be merged with the article. I'm adding the one the seems the best {{JJSC}} and tagging the worst {{Jinnah Jam-e School and College}} for deletion. There is also {{Infobox JJSC}}, which I'm leaving for now, though it should probably be merged/deleted as well. Thanks. —PC-XT+01:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Two or More Decline Reasons
This question has been asked before. Can the possibility be implemented for a reviewer to select more than one reason for declining a draft? The most obvious example would be that it fails corporate notability and reads like an advertisement, but there are other combinations of reasons. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
It's probably possible, but it would definitely need a rewrite of the AFCH script. I personally would love the idea of having more than one decline reason. Tseung Kwan OLet's talk22:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh yeah, this. Multiple decline reasons has been suggested in the past, but not only would it require a rewrite of the script, it would also require a rewrite of the entire AfC ecosystem of templates (submission template, talk template, recent listing) and various tools. I do have code that pulls it off for the script - see this diff for a successful multi-reason decline - but it's not an easy job. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson)03:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
It would be a good idea. (Making this comment possibly to avoid archival.) With poor-quality submissions, there are often at least two problems. The inability of the reviewer to specify two reasons in those cases means that either the reviewer has to identify the other reason in the comments, or the author tries to address the named issue, gets declined for the second reason, and then the author complains. (Yes. The way to avoid that is for the first reviewer to provide additional comments, but the script is meant to help the reviewer. It does, but not as much a modified script and "ecosystem" would.) Robert McClenon (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
It should not require a rewrite--it would be utterly trivial to add a few of the most frequent combination reasons, by making them a specific reason among the others on the list--this is not an elegant solution, but it can meet at least some of the need. I think we should start with the very common "no evidence of notability, and promotional" ,What does it take to have it done? This particular one could have been implemented years ago, Enteprisey. what is necessary to do in order to add it? If it is not something I can do myself, what is necessary in order to rjsure that it does get done. Do we need an AfC? Who exactly is in charge of maintaining the script? Who needs to give permission? DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
DGG, Facepalm I didn't think of that solution. It's very easy to add new decline reasons at {{AFC submission/comments}}, and then I can add it to the big dropdown. Sorry for not acting on this faster; I'm doing quite a few things at the moment, in addition to real life. To respond to your questions: progress towards implementation is tracked on GitHub; we don't need an RfC (in my opinion) because nobody is against this idea; at the moment, Theo and I are the two (very inactive) maintainers, although all these people are listed on GitHub (and are theoretically pingable); and I don't think anybody needs to give permission. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson)15:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Good idea as a short-term solution - Specific combinations of decline reasons. The most common ones, implied above, are a combination of CORP and promotional, and a combination of BIO and peacock language. I will mention others as I encounter them. In the long run, I would prefer to be able to choose multiple reasons. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
This happens sometimes. It looks like the AfC submission template didn't have a user specified, and the script defaulted to using you as the author. This is probably a bug, so I've filed it. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson)03:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I am trying to decline this submission on the grounds that it doesn't warrant a separate article but should be added to Brucella abortus. However, the script fails and leaves the draft in a pending state. Can someone please look at it and see what is confusing the script? Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
There seems to be something wrong with the page. If I try to edit it, Google Chrome hangs and I have to kill it. There seems to be something wrong with the page. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Looked into this a bit. It's most likely the size of the page. A manual decline probably should happen here; I don't think we really need a fix for this case, because it's not every day that I hit gargantuan drafts like these. Enterprisey (talk!) 23:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Did AFCH stop adding the bio template with description/birthplace?
I see that AFCH still asks for birth/death place and personal description, but I'm not seeing the little template at the end that lists those things like it used to. Are those filed deprecated now? The bio AFCH does still add the birth/death categories and the Defaultsort so still good there. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:30, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Add draft template option
When viewing an unsubmitted page in the draft namespace, there are currently two buttons, Comment and Submit. I would like there to be a third button to add an AFC draft template that works exactly as the submit button does, just with a different template. This would be useful when draftifying pages, or when someone is wondering about submitting their page. -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 19:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
The following appears in two browsers on a Mac OS,
AFCH error: user not listed. AFCH could not be loaded because "Leprof 7272" is not listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. You can request access to the AfC helper script there. If you wish to disable the helper script, click here. If you have any questions or concerns, please get in touch!
Can you please advise what I must do to correct this, so I can dive into the backlog? I've identified a potential mentor I respect, and so I believe once the tool begins to work, I can make rapid progress. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
As I mentioned elsewhere, this is most likely a case of AFCH not being in sync with the Participants page. The API has been acting squirrely lately so some things are taking longer than normal. You should have access in the next few hours. Primefac (talk) 13:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I am unaware of any issues with having more than one user right. SwisterTwister and a few other users are members of both categories and are clearly operating without issue. Phab ticket time? Primefac (talk) 12:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Social Media Profile
I would like to see a decline reason for drafts that appear to be written like social media profiles. I see a lot of them, evidently from users who don't understand that Wikipedia is not a social medium. I usually decline them as bio, but provide a comment. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Hopefully this is the correct location for a suggestion and if not that someone will let me know. I would like to suggest that a declination reason be added to AFCH for tendentious editing resubmissions. For instance, the editor made insignificant changes (changed a couple words) and then resubmitted or just resubmitted without making any other changes. What do you think? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I feel like declining it for the same reason that the previous reviewer used, together with a comment explaining that repeated resubmissions won't result in a different result, would probably work fine. Of course, if the number of resubmissions on a draft is truly excessive (near 10 for sure, although lower might be appropriate), MfD is another possibility for it. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
AFCH script errors
it's been over 24 hours since I added my name to the project members,a nd it's still giving me the error saying that i'm not listed. -- Aunva6talk - contribs01:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Aunva6, sometimes it takes a while. There have been some server/API issues the past few days, so it could just be taking a while for everything to get updated. Primefac (talk) 01:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
No, several elements of the script are referring to mediawiki.util and not enforcing their dependency on this RL module. I updated the gadget definition and also added this, because i noticed a few older script redirecting to this gadget, which would cause all dependencies to not be enforced. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
for the last 3 or 4 years
For the last 3 or 4 years I have asked that the template be modified to permit multiple templated reasons. If Twinkle can do it, AFCH can. At the very least, a prebuilt reason for the most common of all "insufficient sources for notability" and "promotional" can just be added as another line. For that, no programming required. DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
This is tracked on GitHub. I'm pretty busy IRL (as my onwiki inactivity shows), but you can see from that issue that since it was opened, some progress has been made. I actually declined a testwiki draft with multiple reasons in March of last year, but there's some remaining work for it to happen on this wiki. Enterprisey (talk!) 18:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Removal of MFD tag when using afch
Now, I noticed this at Draft:Zebronics which is at WP:MFD. When it was declined by a reviewer, the mfd template got removed. I think it should be programmed to automatically detect such templates and avoid removing them. Also,an option to decline and send it to MFD through afch itself would help as well as generally the decline reason would be the same as the reason to MFD it. Yashovardhan (talk) 05:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The devs actually talked about this two years ago, but I said that nobody would ever try declining something with an active MfD. Maybe it's time to revisit that and disable declining, but we'd have to ask the WikiProject as a whole on WT:WPAFC. Enterprisey (talk!) 19:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Yashovardhan Dhanania & Enterprisey I routinely "suspend" such drafts from the review queue by placing it "under review" with the script and then posting a review comment "Suspending this draft from reviewing until the MFD is resolved". Most other reviewers do respect such a suspension, even though it's not actually a documented procedure. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
As do I. I'm rather surprised it's not written somewhere, given the widespread following of this line of thinking. Primefac (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
I think I picked up the practice from one of you as well. Maybe we should codify it in the reviewing instructions? /wiae/tlk23:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. It should be included in the reviewing instructions. I never thought of this and this draft was the first instance I encountered as such. Thanks for the suggestion Dodger67. Yashovardhan (talk) 11:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
That's a good idea. How would the script need to change if we all followed that? One idea is not allowing someone to undo your "suspension" by disabling the "unmark as under review" button if there's a MfD tag on the page - would that work? Enterprisey (talk!) 15:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
AFC Helper script gives me a message instead of author
Shadowowl, if the submission template isn't placed properly (i.e. there are no parameters provided), when AFCH accepts (and later cleans up) the draft it notifies the last editor who changed the page. Since that was you, you get the notification. Primefac (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Disable watchlist-ing user pages
So I finally got my watchlist useable again, except for when I use AFCH, it watchlists a bunch of rando's talk pages. Any way to not have it do that? Drewmutt(^ᴥ^)talk02:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Does AFCH script have a problem with edit conflicts?
I noticed in this edit that my comments edit clobbered some recent (2 to 5 minutes earlier) edits by the submitter. This doesn't seem right. Can the addition of comments or a review be made more atomic (or if not atomic, at least confined to a few seconds)? Or am I doing something wrong? — jmcgnh(talk)(contribs)04:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Bear in mind the script takes the version of the page you last loaded as current. Example, you load the page wait 10 minutes and fire up the script, which is working on how the page was 10 minutes ago, if you spend 5 minutes writing your comment, that comment will be inserted on the version from 15 minutes ago. A workaround is too refresh the page before commenting (after reading it) and to spend a limited amount of time actually writing your comments. I hope this makes sense, I would test it further but I don't have access right now. --- Α Guy Into Books™§ (Message) - 13:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
A recent change I made to the script might stop this behavior, because I figured it was causing more confusion than it was worth. Enterprisey (talk!) 03:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Small mistake in link for random afc submission
When one accepts or declines a submission, it gives choices of random AFC submission ("Continue to next random submission (1937), GFOO submission (67), or very old submission"). But the very old submission links to an incorrect url instead of the correct url. A fix would be appreciated. Galobtter (talk) 07:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I was wondering if that might happen. I changed the name of the category recently and apparently missed one. Thanks for the update, I'll make sure it gets passed along. Primefac (talk) 13:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
My guess would be either ST closed the page before the script was done editing, or there was a script error client-side, because I see nothing strange as far as the code on the page goes. Primefac (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
yes. i actually tracked down the bit of code that's causing it, as the script is case sensitive. probably easier to use an editnotice or hat to tell adding admins to ensure capitalization is correct. -- Aunva6talk - contribs18:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Apparently, the "Add categories" box now only lists categories that are already listed in the draft. For example, for Draft:Avant Festival, only 4 categories are allowed in the categories box and any other category name will just display "No results match Foo" regardless of whether the categories actually exist or not. Is there a recent change somewhere in the code that causes this to occur? Is this intentional, or is this a bug that should be reverted? PrimeHunter suggested at WP:VPT#Categories in AFC script that I should post the problem here instead of there. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
There's been a few times where there's a passable draft but there are some next steps I'd like to provide the author to improve the article further. This can be done by the talk page, but it would be super cool if there was a "reviewer note" field to easily provide article feedback before pressing "accept & publish". – by AdA&D at 02:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I would think on the Talk page. There have been a couple of instances myself where I've been on the fence, and wanted to leave further notes on the talk page (usually saying "I'm okay with AFD for this one"). Obviously there are those will find it useful, but it also becomes a question of effort-to-return; is it easier for the devs to implement this extra suggestion, or easier for the reviewer to just go to the talk page? As I'm not one of them I cannot say which holds more sway. Primefac (talk) 14:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
A talk page note would be pretty easy. I'm busy right now getting stuff together for Wikipedia Day, but after that I should be free to get this done. Enterprisey (talk!) 23:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Similar to the 'cv - Submission is a copyright violation' dropdown selection, where there is a checkbox for 'Nominate the submission for speedy deletion', could there be the same checkbox for 'adv - submission reads like an advertisement'. I've lost count the number of times I've has to also nominate the submission for deletion. Thank you David.moreno7206:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
The Teahouse invitation that the tool adds begins "Hello! User, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing." That looks odd – and a bit sarcastic – when it comes from the same person who declined the article. Could we change that to something like "Hello User! I know that having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing."? Mortee (talk) 02:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Reporting Draft:Katharine von Bora as a copyvio (Earwig report), I see the instructions say "ensure you select the checkbox to blank the submission using {{afc cleared}}", but I don't see that as a checkbox (Chrome, v. 63.0.3239.84, Windows 7). I did check the CSD checkbox that appeared. I've since deleted the contents of the page and added that template manually. Would the checkbox have done anything else that I should do manually?
The instructions for negative unsourced BLPs mentions a similar checkbox that I also don't see if I try selecting that option. Mortee (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Actually in this case I think Earwig may be confused; it strips off the "Draft:" and compares the existing Wikipedia page, which I hadn't yet seen, to Geni.com, which is presumably mirroring us. I'll sort out the mess I made, but I'd still like to understand what I should do about the hidden checkboxes. Mortee (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm... glad you sorted that out? To answer your original question, the reason why the check box does not appear for copyvios any more is by my request - if you blank a copyvio draft then I (or any other admins addressing the G12 issue) have to go and find the older version of the page to run the copyvios report and I got tired of doing that. I'll update the instructions accordingly. Primefac (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Blank Submission
One of the reasons that a reviewer can check for a decline is that the submission is blank. We need that. However, the text that is provided then isn't really appropriate to the cases where we get blank submissions. The text says that we do not accept blank submissions, and that the user should go to Requested Articles. That seems to be oriented to a case where the editor has provided a title, but nothing else, such as James Z. Smith. I don't see that at AFC (a title and a blank page). What I do sometimes see is a completely blank page, in the sandbox, with no title, but that has been submitted. In this case, I don't think that the editor is requesting an article. I think that the editor is trying to do something, and we don't know what the editor is trying to do, or may just be playing. I have said that the submission has no content, and that if they are trying to create a draft, they may want to ask for help at the Teahouse. However, I don't see the situation where a blank submission has a title, and so can be viewed as an article request. Thoughts? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
For reference, the text of the |blank| decline is:
We're sorry, but we cannot accept blank submissions. Please consider submitting to Wikipedia:Requested articles instead. If in fact you did include text within the article, but it isn't showing, please make sure that any extra text above your entry is removed, as it may be causing it to hide and not be shown to the reviewer.
WikiProject Military History is not an available option on AFCH?
Longstanding issue that I'm finally bringing up: it appears that WPMILHIST is not an automatic option in the WikiProject field of AFCH. Tried to find it under a number of renderings and it's just not there. MILHIST is a huge and very active project, so tagging articles properly with it is actually really productive and practically guarantees an assessment visit by a project member. Am I missing something, or is this an oversight that can be corrected? Thanks! MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, neither is Pop Culture (and a few others that I discovered yesterday). Enterprisey will know more - I thought it had something to do with how the projects were searched/filed, but I'm not really sure. Primefac (talk) 01:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
@Primefac: not to be ungrateful, but I'm still not seeing MILHIST pop up in the WikiProjects field when I type in "military". Am I doing something wrong, or has it not processed yet? MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
And I should probably document what I did, for posterity. The script caches the list of WikiProjects very aggressively, only updating it when the AFCH version is bumped. To do this, we generate a key (variable name: lsKey, near the top of showAcceptOptions in src/modules/submissions.js) that is tied to the local cache. Whenever you change the list and want to trigger an update to everyone's caches, change the number on the end. This is a bit of a hack, and I'll see if I can get a "last time of modification"-based approach going eventually. Enterprisey (talk!) 21:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Resolved
