Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation

Main page

Reviewer talk

Showcase

Assessment

Participants

Resources

Submissions

Help desk

Backlog is only going to get worse. Recently with the increase in daily submissions for articles, the backlog has seem to only gotten worse and shows no sign of improving. We need to do something about this. I believe we should make it so when the backlog gets worse to over 200+ articles for submission we should shut it down so people cannot submit articles temporarily until the backlog has improved. This is merely a suggestion, any other suggestions, ideas, comments? JayJayTalk to me 0:58, February 25, 2012 (UTC) I strongly disagree with the idea that we should prevent users from submitting articles because of something out of their control; we might miss some quality submissions that way. The backlog is only an issue in that it takes more time for a submission to be reviewed, and even then, it's only a matter of days. They'll just have to be patient, there is no deadline. Maybe we can make it more clear in the submission template that it can take a few days. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC) Maybe we should make it so there article is saved it their personal sandbox or something similar so they can submit it later. And no the backlog is not because articles need more time to be reviewed it is the increase in submitted articles, repeatedly submitted articles, and lack of reviewers willing to help improve the backlog. JayJayTalk to me 01:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC) I oppose this strongly; the system could be locked for days at a time because of it. We need a recruitment run or something. A412 (Talk • C) 01:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC) Well we clearly need to fix this problem but everyone opposes, I'm only trying to come up with ideas. JayJayTalk to me 01:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC) I have always maintained that a backlog at AfC is expected and acceptable (some submissions are just not likely to turn into articles any time soon and it's okay for them to languish indefinitely) - but that we need a way of effectively prioritizing review work to focus on the submissions with the best chance of getting deployed as good quality articles. Some kind of tool is needed that can "rank" submissions based on how important it is to review them, while also giving a "bonus" to ones that have been waiting for a while, not unlike a CPU scheduler. Dcoetzee 02:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC) Do I hear an echo in here? Been there, done that, JayJay.  :- ) DCS 14:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC) I agree with the time taken.  Someone was going to change the submit template to say days, but I think that got nixed. Maybe I will just do it, seems to be the only way around here. :-p  One temporary or maybe permanent procedure might be to take the first 10 minutes of every hour and decline the unlikely candidates(the shortest articles).  Drops the count quicker and should save time on servers. Maybe I will talk to Earwig and see if he can default sort the article list by submit date, unless there is more than x items, then sort by size, shortest first. I had the idea the other night on IRC of limiting an article's submission to one per 24 hours.  But, I got smacked with a mackerel.  :- ) DCS 14:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC) I was also thinking we should change Talk page at the top tab here to Review Talk, to keep stuff like below out of here.  :- ) DCS 15:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC) Okidoki, that was quick.  Template is done, tab is done.  :- ) DCS 15:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC) After thinking about the idea of getting the no-brainers declined first, it might help us, but just without a limit on resubmitting, does nothing except to reinforce spammers, maybe?  Or, maybe an immediate decline will discourage them?  :- ) DCS 16:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC) We may have been enhancing the submission of spam by reviewing it immediately in order to get it off of the list.  We either have to 1)have a Bot reject it before the editor has time to blink, or 2)we review articles more or less oldest first.  This way the spammer will either get it immediately bounced without bothering us, or he is going to wait in the queue with the good articles for 4-5 days then get their rejection again after changing nothing.  Sound logical?  :- ) DCS 17:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC) When I started on the back log yesterday is was at 505 submissions, I (and other people) got it down to about 400(ish). I come on this morning to find it's at 517... Oh the joys of working at AFC :) Pol430 talk to me 08:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC) New reviewer instructions proposal There is a clear consensus for this proposal. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 08:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC) The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I've finished working on the new reviewer instructions at User:Pol430/Sandbox4/Reviewing articles. I propose that: They replace the current instructions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions That the instructions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions/short be deleted, under a housekeeping rationale, as no longer required. Two sets of instructions are confusing and it is probably beneficial to this project that any new participants read the full set. The existing image upload reviewers instructions at Wikipedia:Files for upload/Reviewer instructions have been incorporated as a page tag link. If supported, I will need some admin assistance to perform a technical page move, or I could just copy and paste... Discussion Nice tidy instructions! However, re accepting, something should perhaps be said about finding similar articles to grab a wikiproject banner and categories off (or, at least, trying to add cats and a relevant banner—especially the BLP one if necessary), since those are crucial to the later maintenance of the article. sonia♫ 19:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC) I agree, feel free to edit those things in :) The crux of this proposal is to see if the notion of a single set of instructions is supported and if the new new layout is deemed better than the old one. Pol430 talk to me 20:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC) Looks good, and it will also replace one-half of the "Resources" page also.  Perhaps the reminder of reviewing stuff on the Support page can be merged or deleted?  Why are not the automatic programs, scripts, etc. in the "Resources" tab?  That is where I went looking for them?  And possible the decline list?  :- ) DCS 15:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC) Draft submissions are not really relevant any longer.  They will simply appear in the submission list when ready.  Am I wrong? :- ) DCS 02:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Correct, we removed the "parallel systems" because they serve the same purpose after they get submitted for the first time. mabdul 09:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Support Pol430 talk to me 12:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC) as proposer CharlieEchoTango (contact) 18:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC) Slon02 (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC) ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC) Hallows AG (talk) 05:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC) A412 (Talk • C) 23:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC) Oppose The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Help Desk templates? The Help Desk seems to be a bit of a hit, What do people think about setting up some standard templates for the Help Desk such as those for the main WP:Help desk? (Like at Template:HD) - Happysailor (Talk) 00:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC) i.e. This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Please consider asking this question at the Wikipedia:Help desk. - This is where editors will try to answer any question regarding how to use Wikipedia. Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for any help related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. Sounds like a good idea.  The Reference Desk we could use for sure.  As to what we need, I think we will just have to watch and see which responses are most common, since the decline reasons are theoretically already on the decline template. :- ) DCS 01:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC) I'll look at drafting some tomorrow (bed time right now ) based on the Helf desk ones, and on what we've been getting though our desk. - Happysailor (Talk) 01:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Take a look at User:Happysailor/Sandbox. I've created some drafts there for now. - Happysailor (Talk) 13:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Why exactly do we need the decline template-esque ones? I'm sure that those asking wouldn't be very satisfied to read the reviewer's message and receive the same reply at the help desk? A412 (Talk • C) 16:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC) I agree, if we're going to use templates I'd say only the first two are appropriate. The rest sort of invalidate the whole point of the help desk, i.e. actually talking to people trying to improve a submission, not just swapping template messages. joe•roet•c 17:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC) As Joe. I would very strongly oppose any answering templates for the help desk since a theme is that the people who come there haven't understood the template in the decline messages. Wouldn't mind the fist three though. Could be very useful. Apologies to Sailor for shooting down his work...but I would never use those. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 17:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Like I said, I just threw some drafts together for comment. I actually agree with you regarding those last few, but thought i'd chuck em in there to get feedback (might have been wanted) I'll look at getting those couple up for now, and if they need tweaking or adding to, that's easy to do. - Happysailor (Talk) 17:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Those look helpful and time saving, especially for tagging it immediately, so we don't have two people working a question, finishing with an edit conflict.  No need to reiterate what is already in the decline templates. :- ) DCS 18:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Y Done located at Template:AFCHD - Happysailor (Talk) 18:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Nice, Sailor. :-)  Can we / us / you / I add the other little table of icons from your sandbox to the documentation, so everything is in one place? Thanks. :- ) DCS 19:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Can do, but the reason I left them off the doc page, it they aren't technically in that template sub-set. If you open up the Help desk to edit, and look at the top, you'll see a green bar (just like it currently is on my Sandbox) with those smaller templates too, so theyre very easy to access. - Happysailor (Talk) 19:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC) That is SO COOL. Nevermind. :- ) DCS 02:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Nice looking templates, should come in handy :) Pol430 talk to me 18:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Templates for Displaying Military Ribbons/Medals as Worn? Are there any templates for displaying a user's military ribbons and medals as worn on his uniform? If not, how can I do it? User:Gadget850 said that he uses the template "Quote box" to place ribbons into. Is that good, or is there a better way? Thank you. Allen (talk) 02:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC) No such template, but you can use tables with the {{ribbon devices}} template if needed, see for example James F. Amos. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 02:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC) If you check User:Morriswa/My userboxes#Military Ribbons I've Earned, you'll see I've done just that, just using the "Quote box" template I mentioned above. Unfortunately, the ribbons still have some spaces between them, and I don't think the stars on my Navy Sea Service Deployment Ribbon are correct. I have earned four, but I thought the fourth award was one silver star, not four bronze stars. If I am incorrect, please let me know (with a reference, please). Thank you for all of your help. Allen (talk) 02:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC) Should this post really go here, or at the Help Desk? A412 (Talk • C) 03:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC) I already asked it there, but only one person answered. Allen (talk) 03:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC) doesn't mean this was the right place to ask , however I've fixed it for you using standard wiki tables. Also, it's the fifth award which is silver. The United States military issues bronze and silver service stars, with a silver service star issued in lieu of five bronze. - Happysailor (Talk) 07:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC) Thank you for correcting my ribbons, however how can the horizontal spaces be removed (from between each row)? Also, how do we get the Operational Distinguishing Device to appear on the Coast Guard ribbon? Thank you, again! Allen (talk) 11:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC) To remove the horizontal space we will have to abbreviate or wrap the title text.  Image for Operational Distinguishing Device? :- ) DCS 16:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC) Sorry looking at wrong page. Can probably photo-shop the other if you have an image or example. :- ) DCS 19:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC) No, I don't have an image. I looked on Commons, but they didn't have one, either. I could look at Google Images, but I don't want the "copyright police" to remove it. Any help you or your friends could provide on all issues would be great. Allen (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The one between the 1st, 2nd & 3rd rows? no idea sorry (it must be a programming glitch with the devices that is causing it. Regarding the ODD which is a silver 0 then we just need a version of it, (like this one } but in silver. It can then be added to the ribbons template for people to use. - Happysailor (Talk) 21:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC) Or you use SVG or a bit of magic with CSS... mabdul 01:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC) I don't have an image of it, whether gif, jpg, svg, etc. (whether a photo or a normal image). If we could find one, that would be great. Allen (talk) 02:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC) I found http://www.iragreen.com/images/upload/sized/074bb4adcd67e9e7dcf00a472a2ce650.jpg, http://64.20.46.230/images/OperationalDevice.gif, and http://militarywired.com/i/dir/Silver-Letter-O. Allen (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC) - Happysailor (Talk) 21:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC) Thanks, dude! I will attempt to get this implemented ASAP! Allen (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC) Did I do it correctly? I added the device code "n0s" for it. Allen (talk) 01:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC) Nomination for deletion of Template:Afc warning Template:Afc warning has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. mabdul 19:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC) A crazy idea I know there's been talk about preventing users from submitting things for one day after it has been declined, but what do you all think of having something where they are unable to go for a week if they are declined three times, with no major improvements? In a way, this would be more like page protection, although we might be able to have something written that goes around this. It's just an idea, but what do others think? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC) Interesting, but how should this be done on the technical side? The only solution which comes in my mind, is by using the new parameter declinets (which is added by the helper tool, not documented) and hiding the submit link, but then? There is no way to manipulate the other submission templates on that page. mabdul 16:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC) I really think this project needs to work on demonstrating there is in fact a problem before we start solving it. We get hundreds of submissions a day... what proportion are re-submissions? How many submissions are re-submitted more than three times? How many of those aren't improving or otherwise have no hope of being accepted? We should be certain we're actually going to reduce the backlog before giving reviewers a lot more work to do and submitters a lot more hoops to jump through. joe•roet•c 16:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC) I thought about doing some research into that, but decided it was not worth the time.  We have all seen the problem.  What percentage it is?  It varies depending on the Moon, or Venus, or the price of gas, who knows.  IMHO, as long as we keep a reasonable, i.e., several days of back log, and the reviewers attempt to work from the oldest first, the spammers will give up.  I think we inadvertently caused the problem by bouncing the spam back immediately because it was easy to see, and of course they immediately resubmitted.  If they have to wait a week to get declined, what fun is that? I'm sure that Mr. Earwig can default sort the list oldest first. :- ) DCS 03:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC) Decline reason COI It looks like the COI decline reason was retired, removed from template and it isn't in the AfC helper template either. But I think "The reviewer left the following comment about this draft: coi." isn't helpful for a user, who latter returns to fix the submission, for example: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Thomas Kraabel. I see two ways to fix this. The parameter is added back to the template either permanently (but it is made clear it shouldn't be used any-more) or temporally (in this case the pages should be re-reviewed with the help of temporary category). Any thoughts? (Hopefully from someone, who knows who the AFC templates work.) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 17:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC) Well technically people aren't prohibited from writing about things where they have a COI, just "strongly discouraged", so I don't think we can decline for COI alone. I tend to decline or accept as I usually would then put {{uw-coi}} on the editor's talk page. joe•roet•c 17:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC) The question isn't whether it's good to decline a submission due to conflict of interest. The question is: What should be done with submissions, which were declined with this reason and now don't have any guidance to the submitter except "coi"? Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 18:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC) Oh, sorry, I misunderstood. I suppose putting COI back in the template but removing it from the table and the helper script should be enough to stop it being used. But since it was "retired" nearly a year ago, is this really an issue? Not a lot of people go back to submissions after a couple of months. joe•roet•c 18:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC) We could change it so that COI is a shortcut to ADV. More than likely if it was declined with COI, it probably also has advertising issues. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) Another option is a redirect to WP:NPOV, but I like the notion of bringing the template back but keeping it out of the helper script. NTox · talk 19:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC) Well, having a COI is not a valid reason to decline an article. It shouldn't be used at all. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC) Correct. What I would suggest is replacing the COI text with something along the lines of 'This submission appears to have been written by an editor with a conflict of interest. Encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view', and so on. The rationale, of course, being WP:NPOV, since WP:COI is merely a guideline—assuming such a change is practical. NTox · talk 20:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC) Mistaken submission Hello all. I'm an online ambassador for this term, and one of the students has submitted what is clearly a draft to you folks. I think he thought AfC was more of a topic approval process. It's here: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Trail Smelter Dispute. If possible, could someone userfy it to the author's page: User:SockeyeSam. I can explain to the user and direct him to the draft. It'll knock one off your backlog at least! Thanks, The Interior (Talk) 17:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC) Y Done. Userfied to User:SockeyeSam/Trail Smelter Dispute. joe•roet•c 19:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC) Thank you, Joe. The Interior (Talk) 19:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)