User talk:Cenarium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Raju Srivastav[edit]

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 08:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Extended for 3 more months. Cenarium (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you're why we're drowning at AfC[edit]

Hi. I started a conversation at AfC and this conversation at Village Pump was pointed out to me, specifically your edit to this template. I can only assume based on your comments here you were trying to solve a perceived problem with unregistered editors finding their way to AfC. AfC has since become inundated and I'd like your comments so I better understand. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. It's an overstatement to say that AFC has been inundated due to this edit, this is but a small contributing factor to the increase in AFC backlog among others. If you look at the article wizard page views, you'll notice that the increase isn't that important (requested articles has a huge increase on the other hand). An edit that has brought many more AFC submissions is this one, since all submissions were made active by default. Cenarium (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your response, though I'm not so sure about your conclusion. I'm not trying to assign blame but I'd like to be sure about some facts. The edit you pointed doesn't seem to change much since created drafts aren't automatically submitted. Perhaps they had at the time but that's not currently true. I'll agree the article wizard makes it easier for n00bs to submit drafts but AfC still does traffic on people writing from user sandbox.
I'd also like to get your opinion on the collective impact of the coding at {{No article text}}, {{AFC submission/draft}}, and the article wizard. I question if making article submission easier is necessarily better. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
You're right on that edit and non-automatic submission, and it was the wrong diff anyway. But my edit still didn't play a substantial role, look at the page views for the article wizard, they didn't change much, AFC is linked from many other places with higher visibility. In fact my earlier reasoning was incorrect since as I pointed out there afterwards, the stats are unreliable. My edit was in late March, yet there's not much difference between the number of AFC submissions in March (70) and April (62). The increase is in May where it jumps to 134, then 173 in June. Which caused the increase then ? Or is it just an artifact from G13 ? In fact, that looks like the most likely explanation : older drafts get deleted. The page views for the article wizard and AFC are a much more reliable indicator and they are stable or decreasing, so there likely hasn't been any significant increase in the rate of new submissions, it may even have decreased. The explanation is more in the process, template redesign, making it easier to resubmit, keeping contact with submitters, not enough volunteers, etc. Cenarium (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's been mentioned that we don't have a solid explanation for the numbers. It bears further study. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
The numbers should be definitely saved periodically so that we can see their evolution in time. If the bump in numbers shifts as time progresses, then it's the side effect of G13 (which has a 6 month period, to which a few months should be added because of processing delays). If the bump remains at May/June 2014, then there's something there but I couldn't identify any precise cause. Cenarium (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)