Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:AFC)
Jump to: navigation, search
Main page Talk page
ReviewerAFCH
Submissions
CategoryList
Showcase Assessment Participants Reviewing instructions Help desk Backlog drives
August (talk)
Welcome to the main Wikipedia Articles for Creation project talkpage
WPAFC talk pages: Main - AFC Helper script - Reviewer help
AfC submissions
High backlog
1037 pending submissions
Purge to update
Shortcuts:


Skip to the bottom
WikiProject Articles for creation (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is used for the administration of the Articles for Creation or Files for Upload processes and is therefore within the scope of WikiProject Articles for Creation. Please direct any queries to the discussion page. WikiProject icon
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the quality scale.
 
Centralized discussion
Proposals Discussions Recurring proposals

Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.

Bot flagging of Draft pages that may have been abducted from AFC (Straw Poll)[edit]

WP:AFC/R archives[edit]

Bulbgraph.png Idea: from next month, could the AfC redirects monthly archive be split into groups? Recently there have been more and more requests per month – there were just over 200 in the May 2014 archive, but there are already over 350 in the the June 2014 archive. This makes the pages very hard to load and edit, especially for users with slow internet connections. Perhaps (from July) splitting them into groups of 200 or 300 requests? Ollieinc (talk) 02:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Sections seem to average about 850 bytes a piece. This means that if we want to keep page load times and archive size down to the 150kB line (which is fairly reasonable), we should be keeping it at around 175 requests per page. However, AN and AN/I archives are often 700kB - 1mB in size, and the administrators insist that pages this size aren't a problem. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 12:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I would endorse smaller archive sizes in this WikiProject from a human-factors standpoint (in particular: faster load times or more reliable loading for those with slow or iffy connections), but I also agree with the gist of the AN/I discussion: If large archives are breaking the Wiki on the server end, this needs to be fixed by a code change, not by reducing the sizes of archives. As a "quick fix" can we go with twice-a-month archiving from here on out? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: make AFCHRW our production script[edit]

So, there are about two days left to this backlog drive, and apparently no-one had noticed until a new reviewer came along last night that the production version of the script doesn't work on WP:AFC/R (returns a token error, see this screenshot). As such, I'm asking Theopolisme and all of the reviewers that have been using the AFCHRW version of the script, do we think it is ready to become the production script? I'm ideally thinking it is ready (there are a bunch of feature requests, but no outstanding bug reports for things that aren't broken in the existing script as far as I can tell) and would like to see it rolled out as such on or as close to July 1st as possible. This will give us a month or two to work with the script and find new bugs and whatnot before the next BLD is proposed. What does everyone think of this? — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 12:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - I have been using the new script for some time now. The visual interface is suboptimal on my short, wide screen, but I haven't posted a bug report for several weeks, and it appears to work smoothly. I've been using mainly the "postpone" and "comment" functions, though, so others may have more to say about the submit/decline sections. Does the fact that no one noticed the problem mentioned above with the old script mean that it is rarely used? —Anne Delong (talk) 12:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
    • No Anne, just that WP:AFC/R rarely visited by those using the old version. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 13:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Or maybe making a redirect doesn't necessarily require use of the script? —Anne Delong (talk) 13:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Update: I just emailed Theo (he got a new job and doesn't watch the wiki much right now) and hopefully he'll see that and reply soon either here or via email. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 14:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I updated the reviewing instructions over a year ago to reflect the fact that the helper script did not work on AFC/R and was told it was 'work in progress'. Many scripts ago, the helper script did work on AFC/R. It was very useful and made creating redirects and categories a doddle. There never used to be a backlog at that page, now there is; probably because more effort is required to answer those requests. I have not tried the re-write script and so cannot comment on its 'readiness', but if it works on AFC/R that is support-worthy in its self. Bellerophon talk to me 06:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
    • beta version has a working copy of AFC/R script (which I've posted a PER to get pushed live to fix the current problem), rewrite doesn't yet have support, but it won't be hard to have it call the existing AFC/R and FFU modules. I'll work on getting that ready today, unfortunately it doesn't look like we will be getting enough support for making RW the live version of the script by the 1st atm... Fingers still crossed. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 12:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I've been using the rewritten version for most of the backlog drive and have yet to notice any problems with it. APerson (talk!) 14:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate submissions[edit]

Something to watch out for: I just came across a draft article that was declined because there was another submission about the same topic. I looked at the other submission and it was declined because there was another submission (the first one)! Needless to say, both were abandoned. A third submission and ended up in mainspace, but less developed than the second one. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Those blank submissions are our fault[edit]

If there were one or two I would assume simple error, but there are so many that I think it must be our fault.

What are the folk who create blank submissions expecting to happen?

I suspect the answer is that they are expecting either someone else to create the article (where they provide a basic heading and that is all) or are expecting a placeholder to be created for them to create the article themselves.

So, how do we set their expectations correctly before they hit submit for review, and they set themselves up for a summary rejection of a blank submission? Fiddle Faddle 09:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

As suggested by isaacl, I have reported my proposed addition to the submission process at WP:Gadget/proposals. If this is approved, it will likely cut down on submissions that don't have any references - including blank submissions and test pages. I know that Technical 13 is interested in this topic as well, and would likely have started a discussion about it already had I not suggested that he wait until the backlog drive was over (sorry, T13). —Anne Delong (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • No worries Anne, I'm not really in a position to do much of anything this week (or probably next) as I have three final exams and a group project due this week in school. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 14:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Timtrent, it doesn't take much time to decline a blank submission, and the decline template directs them to Requested Articles, so it's not that much of a problem, really, but maybe we could tweak the wording in the grey draft template, and a few of them might read it. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
@Anne Delong: It's not our time that I'm concerned about. It's newbie biting by accident. These submissions must happen for a reason, and by no means everyone who creates them is doing it out of madness, badness or idiocy. Fiddle Faddle 14:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, I agree that a pre-notification of some kind would be preferable, mainly because when the submission process is backlogged, the blank submissions may not be noticed for some time, and by the time they are declined and the messages about "Requested articles" sent, the users may have lost interest. There's a good chance that a user who dropped by to leave an article request may never have had any intention of becoming an editor, but timely information may leave him or her with a better opinion of Wikipedia. For the others who really did plan to write an article and just submitted prematurely, it seems to me that after submitting their blank pages they would continue to edit them, whether or not they had yet been declined. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
A pre-notification (at minimum for blank pages) would help all parties - reviewers and newbie users alike. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

A possible mechanism for blank pages[edit]

Try this for yourselves:

  1. Create a blank sandbox and ensure template {{User sandbox}} is in it
  2. Type stuff. Do not save.
  3. Preview the stuff. Do not save.
  4. Submit from the Preview pane
  5. Note there are two dialogue mechanisms between now and saving, but be a new user and 'leave the page' and then 'save'
  6. Voila! A blank submission

I tried this after responding to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Submitted_a_post_-_content_showed_up_empty.3F and finding inspiration. It may not be the mechanism the victim has used, but it is certainly a mechanism

So, this leads me to submission mode. Is there a way that this route can be intercepted and turned into a valid submission? I suspect it explains at least some of the blank submissions. Technical 13, this can wait until your finals are over, but thoughts would be welcome Fiddle Faddle 14:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

  • FF, with that expansion on how you did it, that is certainly a MediaWiki bug and should be reported on Bugzilla or VPT if you wouldn't mind. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 15:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Depressingly, I have no idea how to report it as a bug. I also doubt it to be a bug. I see it as a user workflow error, with the software working as designed. With VPT I have never had a great experience Face-wink.svg Fiddle Faddle — Preceding undated comment added 2 July 2014
    • I'll report it once I'm done with my finals today. The system shouldn't be dumping the page and asking if you want to leave unsaved changes if you clicked on Save page. Core bug for this reason. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 15:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Do check my workflow before you report it as a bug (by repeating it yourself). I still suspect user workflow error, but I bow to your techknowledge. Fiddle Faddle 15:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I've fixed {{User sandbox}} and {{Userspace draft}} to not include the submit button while previewing. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
@Technical 13: There's no bug in MediaWiki here. Everything is working as intended. Our templates were just confusing. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Jackmcbarn, while I agree that may have been a source of confusion for some, it doesn't change the fact that I've personally experienced issues with losing edits when I hit Save page after pressing Preview. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 18:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
@Technical 13: Under what circumstances exactly did that happen? I don't think I've ever experienced that. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I've now also applied the same fix to the {{AFC submission}} family of templates and added messages in place of the submit buttons. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Are we experiencing fewer blank submissions?[edit]

After Jackmcbarn identified a mechanism for 'preventing' folk form submitting from the preview pane, I have noticed fewer blank submissions. The question is, am I alone or am I seeing what I hope to see?

If we now see pretty much only submissions with text, good, excellent, poor or downright dreadful, then an excellent result has been achieved. Even if the number of empty submissions has been cut by a quarter we are alienating fewer new editors. It is an awful slap in the face to have something you think you have submitted declined because it's blank when you are sure it really was not. Fiddle Faddle 20:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I reckon there are indeed less. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Technical 13 has opened edit requests saying that these changes don't have consensus and they should be reverted, but given this discussion, it seems to me that they do indeed have consensus. @Timtrent: @FoCuSandLeArN: @Hasteur: ping. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • They do not have consensus, are disruptive, and they need to be reverted in favor of finding another way of dealing with the situation. There was no consensus to make the change, and I oppose the change so there is still no consensus that experienced editors should have their processes disrupted. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 15:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Four editors (me, plus the 3 I pinged above) all seem to support my changes. You're the only one I know of who doesn't. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Please do not drag me into this. I merely said there were less blank submissions. I have nothing to say about any changes made. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • So I get this right, previously we wanted to have a pretty parade of ASCII arrows to draw users to the save page button that was argued about to protect users from the dangers of forgetting to save, but now we want to enable users to potentially do something destructive by allowing the user to submit and potentially loose their content. Great Irony abounds here. I'd be open to a compromise of having the submit be hidden on the preview page via a collapsed div by default (thereby protecting normal users) but let people override the div's display rule via the CSS (i.e. User:Hasteur/vector.css sysop-show lines) (thereby empowering the power users). Hasteur (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd be open to such a compromise as well, assuming nobody else has objections to it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Technical 13 has now requested that I lose my TE rights for not reverting the changes. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Template Editor Jackmcbarn. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Specifically, which section of WP:CANVASS do you think I violated? Spamming/excessive cross-posting? You can hardly call a single post excessive cross-posting. Campaigning? I factually stated the topic of the WP:AN thread. Votestacking? This is the thread that led to the WP:AN thread, and all involved users are aware of it. Stealth canvassing? Everyone can see the message. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd be open to adding a class to the button of "reviewer-show rollback-show templateditor-show sysop-show" so that it is only hidden from users without some kind of advanced permission that suggests they should be experienced enough to realize what they are doing. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 15:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Rather than reusing an existing class, I'd want to use a new class for the purpose. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't see how a new class would be able to detect how experienced a user is or what usergroups that they are part of, but if you can make that work, kudos. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 16:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
@Technical 13: It wouldn't be automatic. Users who want it would opt in specifically by adding an appropriate entry to Special:MyPage/common.css. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • That's not an acceptable change. Users shouldn't have to add specific code to fix a change to the way the template has worked forever to support what you want the template to do. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 16:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
There's no guarantee that users know that the submit button doesn't autosave just because they have advanced permissions. I also don't think most users with advanced permissions would want it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree, which is why I have no objecting to you adding your specific new class to allow them to opt-out. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 17:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
IMHO the previous version of the template, which allowed people to submit without saving first, broke the wiki, at least for affected editors. This warrants invoking the Wikipedia:Ignore all rules policy and implementing a fix without discussion on an emergency/very-temporary basis, even if it means losing some ease of use useful to reviewers (no functionality is lost - reviewers can still edit the submission template by hand to "submit" the page). Changing BACK to the broken version would re-introduce the breakage and should not be done. However, as there appears to be at least some controversy of whether the current version is the best way to solve the problem, we should be (and already are) discussing better solutions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Solution to "Submit on Preview" problem[edit]

Since we have a vocal minority attempting to overturn the suppression of the AFC submit button when the page is being previewed, I'm going to explicitly call for a consensus decision on the following Implementation

New logic shall be included into the template so that a CSS class is injected into the div if the page a template is referenced to is in preview mode. For the time being the CSS class will indicate that it is related to the AFC submission template in preview mode and shall by default in preview mode collapse the submit buttons. Instructions will be added to the AFC Frequently asked questions/Template documentation indicating how users who are missing the old functionality may restore their desired behavior.

Now with that said, I'd like a Simple Yes/No to this proposal

Support implemenation #1[edit]

  1. As proposer, and as I think this accomplishes the goal of protecting users who may potentially do something undesirable and also gives power users the ability to restore their previous behavior. Hasteur (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. As identifier of the problem, a user workflow problem, I applaud the solution, a solution which is simple and seems to be effective. Our job is to make life easier for new editors, not to slap them down with a "Your submission is blank" notice. Fiddle Faddle 13:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Simple solution that should benefit the people the template is aimed at. Sometimes, you need to consider who the template is aimed at, and engineer it to meet their needs, just like commersial software. Sometimes, taking choise out of the end-users hands can be a good thing, as it appears to be here. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. This is basically the same as what I suggested above. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. I am unsure exactly what the nature of the contention to this change is? I've read the related discussions, but I've either missed something or the contention is based on nothing more than: "There was no consensus to make the change, and I oppose the change so there is still no consensus that experienced editors should have their processes disrupted." In the case of former then I apologise in advance for my uninformed comments; in the case of the latter then WP:DIVA would seem to apply... Bellerophon talk to me 19:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    We're trying to establish a positively asserted consensus based implementation for how to handle this because the minority is working the "Parlimentary Procedure" rights of the minority to the fullest. Hasteur (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  6. AfC is supposed to be for new and inexperienced users who may be confused by how Wikipedia works, technically as well as philosophically. Therefore any proposal which causes them not to lose their work by accident, and so become frustrated or disheartened, is welcome. It seems to me that saying to new users "make sure you click the right button, because I know which is which but you don't" is surpassed for biteyness only by direct verbal unpleasantries. BethNaught (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose implementation #1[edit]

  1. Oppose forcing undesired new behavior on established editors, support using existing classes that were designed for this exact purpose and an additional new class to allow established editors to toggle it hidden if they so choose. I'm unsure why we are having this discussion instead of just using the solution that produces EVERYONE'S desired result. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 13:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments about implementation #1[edit]

  • Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the goal to have as granular permissions and controls as possible? Therefore attaching the other "privilege classes" bundles new functionality with completely unrelated functions. Us protecting the users and requiring them to positively opt in on this factional of a fractional edge case is no worse than us requiring users who want to use the AFCH* gadget to list themselves on the reviewer list. Hasteur (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    Indeed. I don't see any reason that this should be linked with any permission. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • There is no bundling, and it can't be more granular than adding an additional class to allow established users to opt-out. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 19:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • You do realize you're suggesting is for a complete negation of the entire thread all the way back to the root "Those blank submissions are our fault". Technical 13, I say this with all respect, but you're so far round the bend that you've overflowed your own position and have wraped back around to the other side of the debate. Bottom line is we need to try and prevent newbie users from accidentally submitting blanks while they're in preview mode, potentially costing them their hard work and causing reviewers to have to review blank pages. Making the default of hiding those fields is a reasonable way to prevent this from hapening in accidental cases. Yes a user could still find the submit button in the text and push it, but we make it more difficult to do. Power users who have lost this functionality will ask why the change happened and either adapt or opt-in to a less safe method of the template. Hasteur (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Draft retention[edit]

Hi. I received the following message after I declined an article:

"Thank you for reviewing my article Narrows Center for the Arts (draft). I'm a fairly new Wikipedian, so I'm going to let the draft sit for a while and help with the cleanup of other articles for now to learn more about acceptable articles before trying again. Am I right that my article will not be deleted but will remain in my subpages as a draft? Thanks again!skatoulaki (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)"

Is he right that is article will remain in his subpages as a draft? Thanks. Onel5969 (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The page has already been moved to the draft: space to Draft:Narrows Center for the Arts. It will sit around for about 6 months and then be considered for G13 speedy deletion. I have removed some promotional text, but it is not that much like an essay, so is close to ready for article life. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
In any case, the author has six months and will be warned prior to deletion. The draft can be userfied to keep it in a user sandbox longer than that. I agree with Graeme Bartlett that it can likely be accepted well before that. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
The AfC banners need removing as part of the userfication process- userpages with AfC banners are as eligible for G13 as draft space and wikipedia talk space articles. If the article is edited (other than for bot-like maintenance tasks) it resets the 6 month clock. :::So, I dunno, if the user intends to continue working on it, but slowly, it's OK where it is. If "for a while" means more than 6 months then userfication may be best. The advantage of leaving it where it is will be that if in six months time the article has slipped to the back of the user's mind then they will get a handy reminder that their work exists at that point. Rankersbo (talk) 07:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Commentators (One15969Chris troutmanRankersbo) Couple points of order:
  1. The G13 rule reads: Rejected or unsubmitted Articles for creation pages that have not been edited in over six months. There is no exception for bot-like maintenance tasks. If the edit causes the page to register a new revision, the clock is reset.
  2. The primary automated editing process (HasteurBot) takes the rule further by only operating in 2 prefixes: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ and Draft:. This means that the automated editing process will never be warning users or nominating for G13 on userspace pages.
This means that userspace G13 eligible pages are the perview of manual editors to determine if they should be kept or dealt with by G13. Hasteur (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Reflinks is no more[edit]

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#No_more_reflinks where, it seems, folks have all known about this for some time. Of course it is still in the left hand margin. Click that margin item and see what happens!

The thing is, we need this tool. PLease pile in there to add weight to its return. Fiddle Faddle 08:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Drat - I just finished putting ref tags around several hundred URLs in preparation for running Reflinks - it'll take ten times as long to add titles manually. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
This is an outrage! Some sort of revolution is in order... The single most useful tool ever created for Wikipedia died today. Bellerophon talk to me 20:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I used it extensively for years. My being pissed off threshold has been breached, as you can see from my comments over there, where I see complacency and feelings of superiority. Lucky it did not die during the June backlog drive, but, dammit, this sucks. We need to mobilise! Fiddle Faddle 20:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed the air of apathetic revelry at that thread, which is why I haven't posted there. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is, from time-to-time, stalked by hyenas who will notice your pissed-off-ness and interpret it as weakness. Before moving in for the kill. Best to take a break rather than get too worked up. The only way we'll get it back is if the original creator releases the code or comes to an accord with WMF... Either could take years. Bellerophon talk to me 20:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I am hard to kill Face-smile.svg. I have more stamina than the wonderful ladies and gentlemen there can possibly imagine, and enough wit not to break any of our arcane rules. It is, of course, the act of a very unwise person to allow Reflinks to have died. I blame the alleged wisdom of crowds. Far too often we get the lowest common denominator. I shall now ignore bare links. We will suffer form linkrot. I care, but will not let this affect me. Fiddle Faddle 20:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I understand everyone's frustration here, but I encourage everyone to take a slow. Worst case scenario I create a new tool as part as my Fall C# class. Something WILL come to replace it. So, I encourage you to be virtuous. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 21:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)Fiddle Faddle 21:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Someone with time and technical skills may want to check out the IEG Grants, which may actually pay money for things that will benefit the encyclopedia, but which are not content creation. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

And is back[edit]

It seems to have been migrated and has returned. I found out by an absent minded click on the link. Fiddle Faddle 14:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

What a relief! However, according to the discussion at WP:VPT, it is running on the developer's personal computer through a virtual server, so this may be temporary. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio boilerplate message[edit]

During the Backlog Drive I had several authors ask me why their drafts were declined as a copyright violation when they owned the copyright themselves. I suggested that the boilerplate message be amended to mention such a situation, and Technical 13 encouraged me to post a draft including that, and close paraphrasing as well. So here it is.

The submission appears to be taken from --Website--. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and cannot accept copyrighted content from websites or printed sources. Note that copyright protection is granted to all works automatically, whether it is asserted or not. Unless stated otherwise, assume that most content on the internet is copyrighted and not suitable for publishing on Wikipedia. (Close paraphrasing of copyrighted sources is also not permitted.) Copyrighted content can be cited as a reliable source if it meets Wikipedia's guidelines; however, your submission must be written in your own words, and in continuous prose. If you own the copyright and wish to use the material on Wikipedia, you must first release it under a free licence.

Feedback on whether this is a good idea or how to better reword the message would be appreciated. I'm afraid that at the moment, with the new material, it's a bit dense. Thanks, BethNaught (talk) 12:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

This is good. I would change:
  • "The submission appears…" → "A substantial part of the draft appears…" (as it's not always the entire draft)
  • "cannot accept copyrighted content" → "cannot replicate copyrighted content".
  • "your submission must be written in your own words" → "submissions must be written in editors' own words" (to discourage WP:OWN)
If we're looking to lose some text, the bracket about close paraphrasing can probably go, as its a more nebulous point than the rest. --LukeSurl t c 13:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

This submission appears to be taken from --Website--. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. We cannot accept copyrighted content taken from websites or printed sources. Note that copyright protection is granted to all works automatically, whether it is asserted or not. Unless stated otherwise, assume that most content on the internet is copyrighted and not suitable for publishing on Wikipedia. Copyrighted content can be cited as a reliable source if it meets Wikipedia's guidelines; however, your submission must be written in your own words, and in continuous prose.

As to the replacement, when I said mention paraphrase, I meant in a manner such as: "Editors should summarize source materials in their own words..." A replacement I might suggest is:

The submission appears to be taken from --Website--. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and cannot accept copyrighted content from websites or printed sources. Note that copyright protection is granted to all works automatically, whether it is asserted or not. Editor should summarize source materials in their own words, in continuous prose, and cited as a reliable source. If you own the copyright and wish to use the material on Wikipedia, you must first release it under a free license.

{{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 13:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I misunderstood what you meant. So a draft we could all agree on could be:

Some or all of the draft appears to be taken from --Website--. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and cannot reproduce copyrighted content from websites or printed sources. Note that copyright protection is granted to all works automatically, whether it is asserted or not. Editors should summarize source materials in their own words, in continuous prose, and cite the materials as reliable sources. If you own the copyright and wish to use the material on Wikipedia, you must first release it under a free license.

This seems to incorporate the ideas of all of three of us. BethNaught (talk) 13:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Thumbs up Great! --LukeSurl t c 13:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, this message is usually accompanied by a speedy deletion template, so it is usually a race against time for the author to see this decline message. Furthermore, Template:Afc decline does not encourage users to see the "comments left by the reviewer" if the submission has been marked as a copyvio. In order to be effective, we should update Template:Afc decline as well. Mz7 (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The existing {{Afc decline}} template already supports having different text if there is a copyvio. --LukeSurl t c 16:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
@LukeSurl: I am aware that there are different texts for copyvio. The normal text for all other reasons beside copyvio directs authors to review the comments left by the reviewer at the draft page. If a submission is declined as a copyright violation, the text instead states that copyrighted information cannot be accepted, and does not point the author to see the comments left by the reviewer. In this section, it has been proposed that the boilerplate message for copyvios is updated. This message won't be very effective unless we either direct authors to see the message or we update the Afc decline template with new text. This appears to already be under discussion (thanks Technical 13). Mz7 (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't get how the author can "see the comments left by the reviewer" if the page has been deleted per CV. Face-confused.svg FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
@FoCuSandLeArN: Exactly. It's a race against time for the author to look at the message before it gets deleted. Instead of In addition to updating the boilerplate for {{AfC submission}}, we should update the text at {{Afc decline}}. Mz7 (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'd say in addition to rather than instead of, but yeah, already on the todo list. :0 — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 19:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, I forgot to mention the update to {{Afc decline}} in the OP. Thanks Technical 13. BethNaught (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
AgreeMz7 (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

BackLogDrive page locations[edit]

I was thinking (uh-oh), it would be useful to have an editnotice for editing BLD pages that would include instructions (a copy & paste version of the template) for re-reviewing and other such technical things. The edit notice would serve a similar function as our existing Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation with the collapsible table of acceptable templates to use. In order to most easily accomplish this, I am asking if there would be any objection to me moving all of the existing BLD pages by adding a /BLD subpage between the project and the drive. This would allow me to make a group editnotice that would show when editing all future drive pages. Thanks for your consideration. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 15:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

As someone who has been doing AfC a while, but only just started participating in backlog drives, I can tell you that the instructions on how to do re-reviews were basically nonsensical. Put a template somewhere... where? If they approved the article, put it in a mainspace article? Is that really how it works? (I didn't really dig deeper to find out at that point) So yes, please improve the instructions. Gigs (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
If the instructions aren't clear, then by all means let's improve them. I do seem to remember having trouble figuring out have to work with the reviewers' pages when I participated in my first drive, but I think that they've been improved once since then. However, the question seems to be: where is the best place to put these improved instructions? —Anne Delong (talk) 08:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
It looks like the instructions occur in two places: the current BLD page and {{AFCDriveQC}}.
I don't really see how the instructions could be clarified further beyond improving the explanation of how to find the "backlog drive page of the user". APerson (talk!) 13:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It's not a matter of clarification (even though for some it will serve that purpose), it is about making it easy to click on a link and not have to remember the exact template name, format, or casing and saving typing time. {{AFCDriveQC}} is not the same as {{AFC Drive QC}} or {{AfcDriveQc}} or {{AfcDriveQC}} and doing this seems easier than making 100 redirects for casing and spacing. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 20:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  1. Are you planning to display the edit notice on the main drive page (for example, the June 2014 drive page we just had) or on the individual reviewers' drive pages? I presume the latter, and, if so, how will this affect AfC Buddy?
    • Yes and yes and it won't (as long as Excirial makes the minor adjustment to the path of the pages which will be four characters longer "BLD/") — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc)
  2. What is the benefit that you perceive of having the instructions in an editnotice instead of as a hide/show section in the text of the main drive page, where an editor could have them handy by opening a second browser tab?
    • It will be in a hide/show section in the edit notice of all of the individual reviewers pages, this will make it easy to copy and paste or I could even set it up using <charinsert>...</charinsert> and then you wouldn't even have to copy, just put the curser where you want and click the link of the response you want (I'm lazy and don't like typing them out, don't like remembering the exact casing and the exact template name). — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc)
  3. Would the editnotice actually contain all of the instructions, or would it contain a link to the instructions? If the former, wouldn't it be rather long? If the latter, wouldn't a re-reviewer have to leave the edit window to follow the link? (Or would it open in another tab?)
    • It could contain all of the instructions in a collapsible section so they're easy to get to without having to navigate away from the page and not intrusive for those that remember and don't care. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc)
  4. The individual drive pages are very long already and I often experience significant delays when editing them. Aside from the obvious extra scrolling involved to get past the edit notice, would its existence worsen this problem? I am thinking not, but just checking.
    • Since it would be in a collapsible section (or nested collapsible sections), it would add exactly one line of text to the length of the page which is fairly insignificant. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc)
  5. # Ahem, shouldn't you be studying...Sorry, not your motherAnne Delong (talk) 08:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Don't be sorry, I appreciated it. My exams for this week are over. Face-smile.svg{{U|Technical 13}} (etc)
APerson, the instructions must seem clear to you because you already know how to do it. {{AFCDriveQC}} is pretty clear. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/June_2014_Backlog_Elimination_Drive#Reviewing_Reviews is not clear at all. It gives you no clue where to put the templates. Gigs (talk) 17:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Would you like to suggest some improved wording? —Anne Delong (talk) 17:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I feel like it would be perfectly fine if we were to copy over {{AFCDriveQC}}'s documentation over to the BLD Preload page (which is where we should be putting the improved rereview documentation anyway). APerson (talk!) 13:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I've responded to all of the questions in thread. Face-smile.svg{{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 20:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • We appear to have two topics interspersed here (1) Technical 13's editnotice idea and (2) Gigs' request for clarification of the wording of the instructions. Should we separate them for easier reading/discussion? —Anne Delong (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
    • My editnotice idea should include Gigs clearly worded instructions. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 00:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
      • I don't know where the "proto-page" is for the current backlog drive page, but has someone put the better instructions on it? Gigs (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Gigs, the proto-page is located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/BLD Preload. Are there any drafts of the instructions I should copy over, or should I copy from {{AFCDriveQC}}'s documentation? APerson (talk!) 02:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
APerson AFCDriveQC would be a vast improvement and I'm not aware of any other drafts. Thanks. Gigs (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I just updated the documentation at the BLD preload page. What do you all think? APerson (talk!) 15:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • A very basic start to what I have in mind is Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/BLD. This edit notice will be shown on all BLD pages (once the existing ones are moved and the template to make new ones is updated). Feel free to add stuff in the wrapper template which can be collapsed (or make suggestions and I'll add it if you are unable to edit yourself.) and we'll collaboratively construct this to be something useful to everyone that wants it and non-intrusive to everyone else. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 16:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

What are the "minimum standards for inline citations"?[edit]

I am seeing articles about living people rejected for not meeting minimum standards for inline citations, when inline citations don't seem to be needed. For example, an article was recently rejected with the comment: For a living person we have a higher standard if referencing. Every fact you assert requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS. On reading Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Reliable sources my understanding is that only facts that are likely to be challenged or are contentious (likely to cause an argument) need this level of referencing for a biography of a living person. Otherwise footnotes aren't needed at all, and only references to establish notability are needed for acceptance of draft articles. Do we have a clear statement on this for reviewing articles? StarryGrandma (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, we do have a clear statement on this near the top of the reviewing instructions. 1.Avoid declining an article because it correctly uses general references to support some or all of the material. The content and sourcing policies require inline citations for only four specific types of material, most commonly direct quotations and contentious material (whether negative, positive, or neutral) about living persons. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
The "four specific types of material" policy is spelled out at Wikipedia:MINREF#When_you_must_use_inline_citations, if that helps. It's probably linked in the reviewing instructions, too. --j⚛e deckertalk 23:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Starry, That does sound like a bad decline explanation. The decline might have been fine but you are correct that we don't require citations for every factual claim in a BLP, and whoever left that comment should be left a note. We have a duty not to mislead newbies with regard to policy matters. Gigs (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

It is about[edit]

Teso College Aloet

The school page article was accepted a while back. I have been working on improving it but the comments on top of the page are still there. How do they go away?

Thanks Josire12 (talk) 04:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Josire12: We don't answer this sort of question here. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Chris troutman, I think that is is quite unhelpful to tell a new user that they've asked a question in the wrong place, without saying what the right place is. Josire12, if you sincerely believe that the issues with the article have been resolved, then please remove them yourself. They will be the initial lines in the wikicode. Erase them, explaining your edit in the edit summary. If you want a more friendly answer, please try the Teahouse, where there is an expectation of friendliness and helpfulness. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
The maintenance tags are still perfectly valid, a quick read of the article confirms this. Bellerophon talk to me 16:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Following the deletion of all the tags, I have added {{advert}} since the tone of the article needs quite a bit of fixing. I'll note this on the talk page of the article. APerson (talk!) 13:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

After a 'decline'[edit]

Do we have any stats on what happens after an article has been declined? Fiddle Faddle 14:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Nothing specific that I'm aware of; however, historically it depends on the type of submission/draft and goes something like this:
  1. - Non-notable, overly optimistic articles about uninteresting products/organisations/websites/people. The author realises the error of their ways and goes elsewhere.
  2. - As above, but also includes partisan screeds, blindingly complex word salads and original research or extremely-imaginative-newly-evolved-science-of-truly-epic-proportions-but-nevertheless-based-on-WP:CALC. The author(s) repeatedly argue the validity and notability of their subject and endlessly resubmit them, having made trivial changes, in the hope that shear bloodymindedness will win the day. Reviewers become so disenfranchised with these zombie-like submissions that just wont DIE! That they come to view them with hatred and wish to see them burned with fire in a big pit.
  3. - Stuff that perhaps should not have been declined, or could be rescued. The author(s) have given up, but, just occasionally, a small and secretive cabal of reviewers and ex-reviewers nurtures these into mainspace. And there is much rejoicing...
Ultimately, everything that stays declined ends up going the way of CSD#G13. Bellerophon talk to me 22:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
It would be worth a study. I'm guessing that partisans and crazies make up maybe 25% of the inbound flow and they eventually get

help towards acceptance or simply wait until they're autoconfirmed and they edit in the main namespace. The other 75% are people that learn their lesson the hard way and give up. While I know some editors are in the rescuing business I'm of the impression that it's a very small minority. Anything or anyone of real important is either already covered in Wikipedia or will be thanks to existing editors. AfC is just a bug zapper for hapless people with no internet experience pursuing an article because they don't know any better. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to have to dispute the "Anything or anyone of real important is either already covered in Wikipedia or will be thanks to existing editors" comment. There are probably well over a billion notable topics in the world - there is just no way existing editors will ever write all these topics. OK, maybe not everything notable is of "real importance", whatever that means, but even so I have personally written from scratch several articles of "mid" or "high" importance to one or more WikiProjects within the lats few months. Of course, as an existing editor that wouldn't contradict your statement, but does show there are high importance topics left to be written - I just don't see existing users ever writing them all. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I don;t subscribe to the bug zapper concept. There is a technical reason behind, for example, the blank submissions (I've covered it somewhere, maybe ^^^ up there). And most of the drafts I declined during the recent drive had some merit, just not enough merit. BUt there were loads of them. And I am concerned that they go nowhere. No-one has the time or energy to follow them all up. I doubt we even need to, but I am concerned that we are 'just a nicer form of speedy deletion' Fiddle Faddle 22:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately I think there's a lot of truth in Chris' post above. I'd be interested to see a breakdown of how many simply give up after the first decline instead of fixing something that is actually easily fixable. Many of our declines are "this is the problem, here's how to fix it", as opposed to "never going to happen, go away", the latter group of submitters are generally no loss but if our declines are scaring away too many of the fixable submission writers we have a problem. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • EpochFail may have some data on that topic for you Timtrent. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 23:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, Aaron can definitely help answer this question. He's off on vacation in the wilderness though, and won't be able to help until next week. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 19:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • If you would like to see the submissions themselves, click on the word "Submissions" on the third tag at the top if the page. You can see all of the submissions for each day. Ones that begin with "Talk" have been accepted. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I do try and fix up an article if I think it's got a chance of passing, and if it doesn't, I will always try and use a comment to nudge the submitter in the right direction. I think most people want to succeed, and the reason they don't edit existing articles is probably because it's harder - there's a substantial amount of skill to edit a featured or contentious article and make your edit stick. I doubt a newbie would do this.
I don't subscribe to the idea that "anything or anyone of real important is already covered" - I'm convinced there are plenty of historical figures, particularly in Africa who would qualify for WP:POLITICIAN if only somebody knew and cared to write about them. The 2013 meat adulteration scandal came through AfC, and I can't think of a good reason for Rainthorpe Hall or Symphony of the New World not to exist. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, we're still missing several million articles about insect species, hundreds of millions of plants and nobody knows how many millions of articles about bacteria species. At a thumbsuck we're at least a billion articles short just on the topic of living things (which btw are notable just by existing). At our current article creation rate it will be at least a thousand years before anyone could seriously make the claim that "everything important" is already covered. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
There are about 2000 pages every month that have been declined , abandoned for six months and yet not deleted for any obvious flaw such as copyvio. A good proportion of these could be in mainspace with a little TLC, and although DGG and Rankersbo and I, and occasionally a few others are postponing their deletion, it seems a shame that they weren't improved while the original editors were still active and could see it happening and participate. The problem is the sheer number of these submissions compared to the number of editors willing to work on them. Reporting them to Wikiprojects is a good way to recruit help; FoCuSandLeArN has had success with this approach. Maybe during backlog drives each reviewer could pick out and make a note of a few promising submissions to go back and check on after the drive is over. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Can someone stick submission templates on...[edit]

  1. Draft:Vilofoss
  2. Draft:Ashish Hindu (Ashish Kumar Garg)
  3. Draft:Ward Thomas

I'm using the beta script and apparently that won't let me place templates, and I don't want to submit them in my own name. Bellerophon talk to me 15:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, learn something new everyday. All done. Bellerophon talk to me 16:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • For the record, I've just modified the template so the |user= is no longer required... {{subst:Submit|username to submit as}} will now work. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 16:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Technical 13, I hope that this doesn't mean that the old format with the user=, which was less cryptic and is commonly used by many editors, will no longer work. I don't see the purpose of making this change to something that already works well. Bellerophon, I am using the rewrite, and it allows submitting under any username. It also doesn't disable the original script, so you can use them both if you like. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Anne, no worries, it is fully backwards compatible with using the old method as well. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 16:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
@Anne Delong: I'm using Beta rather than re-write, because I want to be able to handle WP:AFC/R using the script. Beta does seem to let me use the script to submit pages with a draft template on, but if the page is missing any kind of template the script just runs autoed and stops. Bellerophon talk to me 16:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:AFCHD/u[edit]

@Technical 13: could you remove the links to the submission/draft from Template:AFCHD/u please. They don't work very well and are not very helpful as all they really do is make the message longer. All the user needs to know is that they have a reply at the help desk. I was going to do it myself, but I'm worried I'll break something in the preload. Bellerophon talk to me 08:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Presumably the template still has the link to the actual thread on the help desk if supplied? That's really important, as just telling a new user won't go to the helpdesk isn't any guarantee that they'll find the answer to their question. I have long been concerned about users not picking up on replies (either on the help desk or my talk). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • What exactly is the issue with it? I can't fix anything until tomorrow night when I get home from out of state. I agree it looks ugly (I thought so before I started working on it). I can make it a piped link to fix that or if there is community consensus I can just remove it. Hopefully there are no protected templates anywhere because I can't edit them. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 11:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
@Ritchie333, Technical 13: Yes, it would still contain a link to the exact section on the help desk where the reply has been given. I'm asking for the link to the submission to be removed or nullified when using the talkback link on help desk questions. The submission link rarely seems to format correctly. Sometimes it has extraneous brackets around it, sometimes it renders as a redlink, sometimes it renders as a link directly to main space. I've no idea why this is, but in actuality, when considered against the purpose of this template, a link to the submission/draft is unnecessary. Bellerophon talk to me 23:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll look into it tomorrow night when I get home to q computer. :) I'll either fix the link or delete it. Are you just using the TB links or are you placing it with Twinkle (which I never got to finishing the patch for). — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 00:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done --Mdann52talk to me! 12:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes check.svg Done, Mdann52, your fix didn't include the links to the section and the draft. I've properly fixed it so it looks better and has both. I need to go to English class for the next three hours, but will work on the finishing the pull request for applying the template with Twinkle after that. Please check out the Template:AFCHD/u/testcases and feel free to add specific cases if you have come across one that still looks "broken" to you and I'll adjust as is necessary to fix it. Thanks. — 16:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC) — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc)
Thanks, and I was only using the TB link on the help desk. Now that exists, I don't need to use Twinkle to place this template. Bellerophon talk to me 17:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Technical 13: It's still broken look. Bellerophon talk to me 17:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the diff link. I know exactly the problem now (it's actually in the TB link preload and not in AFCH/u and I'll fix it in an hour and a half as soon as I'm out of English. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 17:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I've made an adaptation to the preload, which should reduce some errors. The problem you linked I've tracked down and was actually a user error where they forced the prefixing / in the page title (diff then diff). I'll add some error catching for that once I'm out of class.  :) — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 18:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes check.svg Done Bellerophon, I've modified the Lafc template to not include the submission parameter if the link that would be created is to a non-existent page. Let me know if you find any more issues. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 21:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok, that sounds good. I look forward to testing it :) Bellerophon talk to me 21:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
@Technical 13: It works much better now, but contains a grammatical error. See [1] "I have replied to your question the submission at the..." Bellerophon talk to me 14:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay - non-English sources[edit]

Okay, perhaps another silly question, but how do we ascertain notability if we can't understand the sources cited? There's a very brief article, Draft:Başakşehir Living Lab, where all the citations are in (I'm guessing) Turkish. While the citations look substantial, I have no clue as to judge the notability of this entity. What are the standards? Onel5969 (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I frequently call on Wikiproject expertise (in this instance, WT:WikiProject Turkey) for assistance in cases like this. Also, Google Translate can be very helpful, allowing at least an idea of what is being said in the references, although not always giving an indication of their reliability. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
In my experience Google translate works fine for routine newspaper sources in many languages. It is also worth checking for news sources & institutional pages whether they have an English version available: look for the US or UK flag icons at the top of their page. (but these version may sometimes be incomplete). — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talkcontribs) 18:43, July 8, 2014

Ease of using the Help Desk[edit]

Does anyone else who doesn't speak Matrix find these instructions confusing? We get a lot of malformed posts at the help desk and very frequently the link to the draft they are asking about is broken. I submit that this is because {{lafc}} is too confusing for new user the complete correctly. This really should be a lot easier for new users to navigate. The whole reason we originality started using a pre-loaded link for help desk posts is because new users often could not be relied upon to give us enough info in the post to know what they were talking about. I've been thinking about how solve this problem for a while now and the only solution I can come up with is to have a pre-loaded subject/headline field with the date and time stamp and the revision user. Then let them write a free text message in the message box. That way there is nothing that needs explaining to them and very little they can screw up. The worst case scenario is that we are forced to look at their contribs to find the draft. Which is what I end up doing most of the time anyway. Thoughts? Bellerophon talk to me 00:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

In common use (clicking on the "Help Desk" link on a pending submission), the complicated instructions will be skipped and the editor will see clear instructions embedded as html comments in the pre-loaded wikicode that tell him where to put his comments and tell him to click "save." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
this is hardly a satisfactory situation. If we have complicated instructions that people do not understand, but the system works just as well if they do not follow them, the obvious thing to do is to remove the instructions. In my experience, not just this part of the system, but everything connected with afc , would work better if it were free-form--the instructions and procedures are needlessly restrictive and interfere with asking the proper questions and giving the proper advice. Let people submit articles however they please, and let qualified people comment on them., in English, not in templates and checkboxes. I was foolish enough to try to use the system as set up at first, but soon learned better. Anyone who understands WP will do better without it, and anyone who does not, should not be advising others. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Davidwr, the sticking point there is 'where they insert their comments' it's not very intuitive. I had to read it several times and still wasn't sure. Bellerophon talk to me 08:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I guess no-one else has answered the original question because the answer is obvious. My best guess is that "the white boxes below" refers to the four non-pink-background lines of text. I see these as having (what I know to be) templates in them, so I go on to bullet 2, "If they are not empty, please follow the instructions in the box." In what box? I really have no idea. The only thing that looks to me at all like a box with instructions in it is the "Save page" button. Maproom (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)