Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2013 6

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

Contents

Tail of the queue

For me to start properly, is the tail of the submissions queue at 4 weeks old submissions or is there an older group of submissions somewhere? Gryllida (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

That, or CAT:PEND for the whole list, oldest to newest. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I prefer using Category:AfC pending submissions by age the parent of that category as there's also Category:AfC submissions by age/Very old when it falls out of the 4 weeks old category. This way I can work the tail the hardest.Hasteur (talk) 18:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

HDL-BUS (Protocol)

Somone left the following at my talk page. Perhaps someone from this project can take a look? Fram (talk) 07:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Fram. You edited something in my article about HDL here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/HDL-BUS_(Protocol) So, I appreciate that, but I can't understand why this article hasn't been published yet. Maybe it's just my mistake, or maybe it is waiting for review... for about 3 weeks so far. Sorry, I'm new here and if you give me some advise that would be just nice. The main thing I can't get: I see the big text block at the top of the article and it says "Article not currently submitted for review". But at the bottom it says "Review waiting". I need to say, that I hit a button "submit your draft when you are ready for it to be reviewed" once on 22nd of September. And 3 weeks after that, this text at the top is still there "Article not currently submitted for review"... But the article is absolutely ready to be published on wiki. So, dear Fram, please help if possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vadim.Sorokin.Wiki (talkcontribs) 16:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

(end of copied text)

(note that the strange look of my post is caused by some error in the signature in the preceding section!) Fram (talk) 07:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the error was in a template used in the preceding section. Fixed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 13:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Process question

This page User:JayBeats0610/sandbox may well deserve deletion, but is it a G13? I see that the author requested a review, so in my opinion that makes it a de facto AfC submission, even if in a personal sandbox. I'm inclined to delete, but wanted to see if anyone thought it should be MfD, which is the usual venue for sandbox pages. Is it fair to treat it as if it were on an AfC page? I'd say yes, although I'd feel differently if an editor other than the author asked for an AfC review.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:CSD#G13 is pretty clear on this point. I know my bot doesn't because it was coded with the stricter interpertation regarding what qualifies as a G13 (and expects to see a title starting with 'Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/'). If it's eligible go ahead and exercise admin discretion to move it along to the bit bucket. Hasteur (talk) 13:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Ouch, I guess I should trout myself for not reading the criteria, which are clear. (I understand why your bot is narrower.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

One more time:

This attempt at an article Talk:Horizon Telcom, Inc. was deleted by The JPS as a G8. Not appropriate in my opinion. Same with Talk:Horton Hears a Who 2: Rudy Hears a Who!

This is a common occurrence. There must be a way to move these to AfC space. I tried, I failed, can someone tell me how?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Here's another one: Talk:Miss Kurdistan beauty pageant--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Another one: Talk:Nuestra Señora de la Peña de Francia--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Restore the page and move to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Article name without leaving a redirect? You could then submit it by adding {{subst:submit}}. However, you will need to change the submitter field of the template after saving the page or the system will think you are the author. If the now deleted pages were abandoned by the original author then they will be again deleted if they remain unedited for six months. So, even if the deletion was out of process, there may be nothing gained by restoring them to AfC space. It's a judgement call. Pol430 talk to me 16:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear Sphilbrick: Can you tell me what process you are using to find these errant pages? —Anne Delong (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
They are showing up at CSD.
My concern is that G8 is viewed as a routine, almost maintenance type of deletion request (and it is, when it literally is the talk page of a deleted article) so they are deleted without looking closely.
As for originally finding them, you might contact Aleenf1 who nominates many of them. I've requested a rethinking of the process User_talk:Aleenf1#I_don.27t_see_G8_as_applying.2C_am_I_missing_something.3F, but failed to persuade.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Appropriate titles

Does anyone involved in this project EVER judge whether to edit the title when a new article is moved into the article space? This move was recently done, so I had to move the new article to the singular title and then fix the links to the article. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Not all editors posses a detailed knowledge of the MOS, and the subtle nuances of its naming conventions, and even those that do remain inherently human and may occasionally forget to correct titles. While I'm sure Mathew appreciates you pointing the error out to him, I don't think there is any need to be quite so pointy and bitey about it. No one forces you to go around fixing-up titles, and if it causes you as much stress as your post here and on Mathew's talk page indicates, then perhaps you should consider taking a break from it. The beauty of an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit is that articles within it are working documents, that improve with time and wider input. We all have our strengths and weaknesses. Pol430 talk to me 17:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
It seems to be "rip on MatthewVanitas" week on AfC :-( .... sometimes I just forget to change the title when accepting, and quickly move it afterwards. The temporary name tends to get picked up by {{db-g6}} soon enough. Nobody asked you to do the move, anyone could have done it, and Wikipedia would not crash and fall over in a heap if nobody did. Chill. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
"Does anyone involved in this project EVER judge whether to edit the title when a new article is moved into the article space?" - yes *raises hand.*
Does anyone involved in this project EVER forget to judge whether to edit the title when a new article is moved into article space? - yes *raises hand.*
davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I've forgotten a number of times, and sometimes just been wrong, and someone else fixed it up. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


Backlog

I submitted an article earlier today and noticed that there's 1200+ articles waiting to be reviewed in the queue, and I was wondering if there was anything I could help to get some of this backlog reviewed? obviously, reviewing my own article would be a conflict of interest, but how can I try to help out and what should I read up on before I would be allowed to help? Bumblebritches57 (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Typically we prefer editors who are familiar with the ins and outs of content guidelines before they start reviewing submissions. Based on your latest work (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/DTS Multi-Dimensional Audio) it does not inspire confidence in me of your creation skills. Please take a look at the reasoning I gave for declining the submission. If you want to read up some you can always take a look at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Articles for creation/Reviewer FAQ for common questions and ideas of what to read. Thanks Hasteur (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Unlike some other content-related areas (e.g. GA review, FA review, DYN review, etc.), most articles submitted through AFC are by definition submitted by people who do not have the necessary experience and understanding of the process to help out. The only major exceptions I can think of is if an experienced editor drafted an article in which he had a conflict of interest in or which he just wanted a peer review before putting it on the main encyclopedia.
The best way to help out AFC is to become an experienced editor, then come back here and help out so the people submitting articles a year from now aren't sitting in a long line. I would recommend reading all the content-related policies and guidelines then edit for at least 3-6 months with hundreds if not thousands of edits and significant content contributions to at least 3-5 articles on completely unrelated topics. I would also recommend following and, later, participating in, deletion discussions at AFD. AFD experience is very helpful since one of the goals of AFC is to make sure that none of the articles that get through AFC are likely to wind up at AFC or speedy-deletion any time soon. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Llajali

It comes from a tribe that llajali means light — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.31.220 (talk) 06:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg This page is for users involved in this project's administration. If you would like to start writing a new article, please use the Article wizard. If you have an idea for a new article, but would like to request that someone else write it, please see: Wikipedia:Requested articles. --Mdann52talk to me! 07:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Citation bot is unsubmitting AfC submissions

It appears that Citation bot has joined in the backlog elimination drive by trying to reduce the backlog itself. Unfortunately, it seems to be doing so by unsubmitting submissions, in some circumstances, that have previously been submitted and have not been accepted or declined.

I have filed a bug report at User talk:Citation bot/Archive1#Removes AfC submission template appearing after reflist template. Input there would be appreciated. This might include comments on whether this has happened on more occasions than the one listed, or if not why not, or comments on why it might be happening, or on what might be the best solution. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe this is a known issue. The problem is that it doesn't always take the latest visible revision when it runs. As the edits occurred within a minute, I suspect this is what has happened. Also, if the user launched citation bot before saving, this would cause it to overwrite their edits. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I added two more examples to your bug and added a new bug where citation bot is apparently creating new submissions ignoring edit conflict warnings for a page that was approved and moved to article space. It seems that citation bot needs to get a handle on edit conflicts. Technical 13 (talk) 14:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I occasionally use citation bot. Is it safe if I (1) clean the submission so that the yellow box is at the top, and (2) don't use it when I am in the edit window? —Anne Delong (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
  • (1) would prevent the problem and I'm not sure that (2) makes a difference. Technical 13 (talk) 00:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sympathy Vote

Hi, can someone have a look at this one, the editor doesn't like the fact it was declined for having one source. Rankersbo (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Pol430 talk to me 21:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

82.42.182.178 "submitted" dozens of existing pages in the last few days

Special:Contributions/82.43.182.178 says it all.

This user is blindly (?) submitting pages with an edit summary of "{{subst:submit}}".

It's hard to tell if this is well-meaning or not but it's likely distracting. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I looked at a few. The earlier revisions had no {{AFC submission}}. This activity looks constructive. —rybec 02:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Some of these had declined AFC submission templates in the past which were later removed. I think the general consensus is that a declined AFC template and an AFC comment should generally not be removed, and if it is removed, it should generally be restored. Restoring the declined templates restores the "resubmit" button, so the original editor can easily re-submit it at his leisure (until it dies at G13, of course). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
The problem with submitting old drafts is that after they declined there may be no user on line to follow up on the suggested improvements. It's probably better to just restore any declines, or if there aren't any, add a draft template. If the original creators are still around, they may take notice, and if not, either someone who wants to work on the article will submit it or it will fall under G13. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree completely. However, I'm not going to tell someone they can't resubmit someone else's submission (I may tell them that they *shouldn't* but I won't tell them they *can't*), assuming of course that the issues raised in a previous decline have actually been addressed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I believe that one of HasteurBot's tasks is designed to restore decline templates that were removed from drafts... Technical 13 (talk) 04:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
    • I hate to break it to you, but that's not any of the bot's tasks. The bot flags pages that are missing a AfC template that are in AfC space as part of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 5 so that an editor can evaluate the page to determine what needs to be done. Appropriate results for something like that might be CSD:G7 (Author Request Blank Delete), Restoring AfC banners and removing the category, Slapping a Draft template on it, or submitting it on behalf of the page creator. It's really a judgement call to determine if you think the page is ready for an AfC submission or not. I'd probably slap a 48 hour block on the IP address to coerce some discussion. Hasteur (talk) 12:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Reviewing help

After I hit the review button at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bankstown Bites Food Festival, instead of the normal options, it said this:


Reviewing Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bankstown Bites Food Festival

Comment - Submit - Clean the submission


Why? Ross Hill (talk) 03:08, 17 Oct 2013 (UTC) 03:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Because there is no pending submission template on the page. Technical 13 (talk) 03:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, this is the intended functionality. You can't accept something that hasn't been submitted, so it shows you the actions that you *can* perform. Theopolisme (talk) 10:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Okay sorry I thought it was already submitted because the creator posted on my talk Face-tongue.svg. I'll tell the user to add the submission template if he wants me to re-review it. Thanks! Ross Hill (talk) 12:32, 17 Oct 2013 (UTC) 12:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
      • In the future, you can simply submit it yourself (in their name); just click the "Submit" link and choose "page creator". Theopolisme (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria

Please comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria. As soon as a consensus is reached for a set of criteria, the discussion can be closed by an uninvolved editor. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Devilstone Open Air Festival

A new(?) version of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Devilstone Open Air was pasted here. I removed it. The text can be found in the revision history here. I will leave a note on the editor's talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

CSD:G13 modification proposal

I just came across a new proposal on WT:CSD#Addition to G13: Restored articles at 3 month mark, if unedited; 1 month mark if sill unedited that members of this project may have interest in. It is not my proposal, but since the proposer forgot to make mention here, and I believe it is important for members of the project this criterion is based upon to be aware of the discussion, I'm doing it for the proposer. Technical 13 (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The best place reviewers' comments and a suggestion

There was a recent problem at an AfC for Aggregative games where comments were solicited at WT:MATH, some of us added comments to the article, and the closer approved the article without considering the comments. At least part of the problem is that our comments were not inside Template:Afc comment templates. The problems with the article are now resolved, but the discussion at WT:MATH#AfC submission brought up a question and a suggestion.

The question is: where in the article should comments be placed? I have always placed my comments between the big AfC header and the top of the lead of the article. But the closer, MatthewVanitas, was looking for the comments before the AfC header.

The suggestion is: it would be nice for the AfC header to indicate an acceptable way for a newbie (say, a solicited domain expert) to comment on the article. Right now, as far as I can tell, one has to (1) Expand the "Reviewer tools" box, (2) decide that "Instructions" might be the most likely link, (3) Read instructions until one gets down to the "Adding questions or comments" subsection in the "See also" section, and (4) have to start the installation and learning process for the AfC helper script. Although I'm still a newbie at this, I respectfully suggest adding something like the following to the AfC header: To make comments on this article, please use Template:Afc comment or the AfC helper script to do so. Please place your comment at location XXX.

Thanks for your comments and guidance, --Mark viking (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. We often assume too much. I couldn't even handle templates when I started out in Wikipedia! Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps, in the future, the reviewers will have a handy tool which will (1) create a new section on the talk page of a Wikiproject with the title Submission name; (2) Leave a generic message saying that the members of the project are invited to review (if an Afc reviewer) or comment on the submission by adding {{subst:afc comment|Comment text}} to the top of the article. By adding to the top, when declined the text will be right under the pink box (I hope). —Anne Delong (talk) 05:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the following might be a cool idea. Comments can go in a subpage, which the AFC template can automatically include. For page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/foobar, they can go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/foobar/afcreviewercomments. The template can test and include. {{#ifexist:{{FULLPAGENAME}}/afcreviewercomments|{{ {{FULLPAGENAME}}/afcreviewercomments}} }}. The link for adding comments could be similar, something like {{#ifexist:{{FULLPAGENAME}}/afcreviewercomments|[{{canonicalurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}/afcreviewercomments|action=edit}} Add reviewer comment]}} Dovid (talk) 03:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The list

Until recently, there used to be two pages for looking at submissions. One was for the pending submissions, for the reviewers to work on. The other was a more general page, and had statistics about past submissions, details about recent submissions, and links to various categories related to submissions, including the category of submissions without templates. This page was useful to people trying to keep the project organized, and helped keep the "Pending Submission" page uncluttered and true to its title. I used this page extensively, but now I can't find it. It was under the Submissions tab, under the word "list". Now this link points somewhere else. Is there some reason this useful and informative page has been removed? And where can I find the link to the submissions without templates? —Anne Delong (talk) 01:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

This page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions? — Earwig talk 01:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Anne, the "list" page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions/List, "transcludes" the page you were looking at, Template:AFC statistics. Transcluding large pages doesn't work well, so the transclusion fails when the backlog is large. In early October a lot of the functionality was taken out of the "parent" page entirely, but it remains in the template. Sometime in the last few days the "parent page" was turned into a redirect to the template, which is why you are puzzled. I undid the redirect, so now you can see things as they were as of October 4. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
The last 36 hours list sub tab is up there, and it says that the list won't be displayed there if it is too large and to click a link through to the template davidwr mentions. The template is supposed to be compiled by EarwigBot, but it hasn't changed since last thursday. In any case the template doesn't load for me in this browser because it's too big, I think it actually goes back further than 36 hours. Rankersbo (talk) 07:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
This is a known problem with the Wikimedia Labs server that EarwigBot runs on. See User talk:The Earwig#Earwigbot stopped updating Template:AFC statistics again and User talk:The Earwig#Template:AFC statistics for more information. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Baryayanga Andrew Aja

Resolved

He is the member of parliament representing people of Kabale municipality. He is a mukiga by tribe. He recently took the IGG to court concerning procurement of Karuma hydro power project and won the case in the high court. He is known for his elaborate explanations on electricity in Uganda in parliament and national media.

He is married to Kembabazi Doreen with whom they have 2 daughters.Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). New vision. Daily monitor , observer, Red pepper, the independent magazine, NTV WBS tv U tv. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.202.240.13 (talk) 09:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

This page is for users working on the project's administration. If you would like to submit an article or redirect, please use the article wizard. Hasteur (talk) 13:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Additional examples

Resolved

I'm frustrated, because I asked what I thought was a simple question - how to move these into AfC space.

Is it really that hard to answer?

These are NOT G8 eligible:

Some of these will certainly not survive as article, at least not in their current form. I'm not arguing that we are losing quality articles. However, we are being rude to brand-new editors by not even welcoming them and explaining the shortcomings of their submissions, we are just blowing it away with out a comment. That's rude.

--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

  1. Go up to the little tab next to the Watch/Unwatch button.
  2. Click on the Move
  3. Fill in the right information to get the page relocated to the AfC address
  4. Notify the creator of the page that you've moved their attempt to the AfC space
  5. (As an admin) Delete the redirect from Article Talk space.
I guess that's pretty easy, but without pouncing on all the G8s out there to look for potential (which would be outside of my normal looking) we'd miss these. Hasteur (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
(ec) I tried again, and successfully moved Libero Cecchini to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Libero Cecchini. I suspect it needs some templates. Can someone tell me which templates to add?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
{{subst:submit}} though that'll submit the page under your name/dated today. If you have the AFCH gadget used you can use the "Draft => Page Creator as submitter" to put it in draft mode with the page creator as the person who claims it. Hasteur (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
(ec)I had tried to move into AfC space before, and I couldn't get it to work, but I must have specified something wrong, because it worked this time. I've now deleted the redirect. I still need to notify the creator, and will. I still think it needs a template.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Would you like me to go ahead and slap the draft template on it, or would you like to do the honors? Hasteur (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd love it if you would, as I did not completely follow. I'll watch and learn.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Sphilbrick [1] is the diff that was generated when I clicked the Review link, Clicked the "Mark as Draft" button (which is green) and chose the "Select Page Creator as submitter" option. Hasteur (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's shoot for a 500-backlog reduction by Nov. 1.

We started the month at over 2000. After 1 week we were below 1500. That was a 500+ drop.

Since then we've been making small progress.

We are almost to the the 3-week mark and we are still above 1250.

Can we get down to 750 by the end of the month without sacrificing quality? I think so. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I thought the goal was a completely clean backlog? Why does it seem like we're already back into loosing-battle-maintenance mode? Hasteur (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Because I really do not think we can get it down to zero without sacrificing too much quality in 11 days, unless either we get an good influx of experienced editors and/or those of us who have been doing this take a few days out of our lives to do a blitz-drive. The former is unlikely and the latter is more than I can ask of anyone here. What I do NOT want, what I doubt ANY of us want, is to lower the quality standards and start accepting things that shouldn't be accepted or declining things that should be accepted or which should be declined for an obviously better reason or for obvious multiple reasons.
Having said that, if you know some experienced Wikipedians who want to help out, great, maybe with their help we can hit zero by 11/1. Likewise, if you have some vacation days saved up and want to take a holiday to blitz this thing, great. By the way, I was going to extend my blitz of re-reviews yesterday and add a few hours of reviewing but for the good of the project I quit when I started getting too tired to maintain the quality that AFC requires.
What IS realistic is to go into "steady pace wins the race" mode and try to get the backlog reduced at a rate of about 500 a week until it hits zero, then keep it near zero through ongoing maintenance. We will of course need to recruit additional experienced editors to avoid burn-out and just to give people a break, but that can extend into November and beyond. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't think the backlog will ever be zero, because there are bound to be some complex reviews that take time or need special knowledge, and while these are being dealt with more will come in. But it would be nice to have just a small number to work on. I don't know if anyone has noticed, but the backlog is not going down at all lately. Maybe we can recruit new helpers to notify Wikiproject while we continue to review. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
For what it's worth, it looks like October's incoming count is about 5100-5200 so far, and the backlog drive participants have reviewed about 4300-4500 submissions this month. Obviously, there are people doing AFC work who aren't participating in the drive. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the stats, davidwr. That's a lot of reviews! I have been notifying Wikiprojects about some of the submissions, and I know that others have been, too. I'm sure that at least a few of these have resulted in reviews. And there are likely some people who just like to do a few reviews now and then. Imagine where the backlog would be if the drive hadn't brought in some extra reviewers! —Anne Delong (talk) 04:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I just pulled those stats from existing WP:WPAFC-related pages. I assume the stats I used were automagically generated. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Help desk backlog

There's a bit of a backlog on the help desk at the moment. Could somebody please take a look at the questions, as there are a bunch building up. I'm off wiki for most of the next 2-3 days, otherwise I'd do it myself. Cheers! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I spoke to an editor on behalf of WP:AFC

Just letting everyone know that I WP:BOLDly spoke out in the name of the project, here. Established team members are free to revert or clarify if they see fit to do so. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Good for you! Dovid (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

New template!

Shortcut:
WT:AFCBUTTON

I've made a template that should make it faster to articles needing review! I hope you like it.

Button Icon GreenForest.svg

Click this button
to review
an AFC submission.

(っ◔◡◔)っRoss Hill 10:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's hope it does not attract editors to the process who have insufficient experience for reviewing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Not sure if that was a hint Face-tongue.svg. Feel free to double check my reviews if you want. Ross Hill (+???) . . 00:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
One of the things that is wrong with Wkipedia is that too many users deliberately look for innuendo and double-entndre. Personally, I prefer our AGF pillar ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)e
I have created a shortcut to this button for your convenience, at WT:AFCBUTTON -- of course, you can just create a bookmark to the same link, but this works from any browser. Dovid (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually, you have created a section shortcut to this talkpage thread, which will become broken once this thread is archived. Bellerophon talk to me 13:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

OTRS question

Resolved

I'm trying to answer some questions sent in to Wikimedia.

One of them involves an AfC submission. I don't know enough about the process to answer the question. The submissions is: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/If You're Not Here At Christmas (song)

The question is: Also, when I try to submit this for review, I'm asked to save it. When I comply I end up in a continuos loo[p]

Can someone tell me the status? The top box says it hasn't been submitted for review. but below it looks like it has.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that it's not SPhilbrick that's asking the question but Rhamelmann. I'm responding at the user's talk page. Hasteur (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I've responded to the email, just in case they see that before their talk page.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
And, notably (!), the article got its AfC review right after the user received the explanation saying that it could take some time. Oh, the ironies of serendipity! Also, the reviewer did a couple of no-nos specifically called out in the first-pass guidelines, i.e., don't beat up on lack of inline cites, except quotes and BLPs, and don't beat up on formatting/style. Dovid (talk) 02:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Oi! That is just not true! The reviewer was nothing but friendly and encouraging. It was rejected for lack of reliables sources, the rest were things the editor could be dealing with while they were fixing the article up. I encouraged the editor by pointing out that the editor was over a major hurdle the single was notable- if the claims in the article were proved and- and it was only a matter of finding independent sources and tidying up a bit. I beat no-one up over anything. Rankersbo (talk) 16:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, it's true that inline citations are not always required, but if by formatting you mean the request to remove the external links, this is not a formatting issue; these are considered advertising and against policy (see WP:ELPOINTS). —Anne Delong (talk) 03:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
@Dovid: I cautioned the user on their talk page that it may take a while to get their article reviewed. I wanted to discourage the "Run to OTRS because I want action now" response. There are 1200 or so pending reviews in the backlog so rewarding people who jump the line only encourages more line jumpers. Hasteur (talk) 12:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
@Hasteur: Hence the irony of the serendipity. It's all good, really, all good. Dovid (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I did start on doing pre-review prep of artcles that were both drafts and submissions, but I ran out of morning after only doing a third of them. Is there a bot that could do auto clean up on the articles that have lasted a day without a review or clean-up? Rankersbo (talk) 16:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Hrm... I'll have to see if I can extract the logic that AFCH uses to clean submissions and to something to the effect of cleaning submissions that are 7 days or less submitted so that recent changes get appropriately cleaned. Thoughts? Hasteur (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
@Rankersbo, Sphilbrick, Dovid, AnneDelong: I've proposed a new bot task at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 6 to run the "Clean AfC submission" logic on all the submissions that are 7 days or less (normally) with a sidebar for all currently pending AfC submissions. Please feel free to respond/opine at the submission. Hasteur (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
To be fair to the editor, they didn't run to OTRS to jump the queue, they contacted OTRS, because they realized that had mal-formed the review request. They were rightly concerned that it would never get reviewed. Thanks to Hasteur that aspect got straightened out. Not surprisingly, the author is not happy that a song about a number one record was rejected. I think that is curable, but I don't work with music articles, so hope others can help. However, I'm off-topic, so back on-topic, thanks to Hasteur for automating a process to address this issue.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Help and encouragement was given when the article was rejected. The probelm was lack of independent sourcing, the hit was notable and this was made clear. I'm puzzled as to why for a number 1 hit finding coverage in reliable sources should be so hard Rankersbo (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

New wording on the templates

Ok, this is a question that we get all the time over at the IRC help channel. Helpees are confused because they've submitted a draft for review but there's still a box on the page saying that their draft is not submitted. So, I'm proposing that a new bullet point be added to Template:AFC submission/draft that says "If there is a box that says "Review waiting" anywhere on this page, you can ignore this box." Further, a bullet point should be added to Template:AFC submission that says "As long as this box is somewhere on this page, your article is correctly submitted for review regardless of what any other boxes on this page say." What do you all think? I think it would be a lot less confusing for editors submitting drafts. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 17:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. If you know how to edit templates without breaking anything, please draft something in the relevant templates' sandboxes for us to look at. If not, ask and someone else will. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Ideally a bot should be able to fix the duplicate draft templates. I was planning to also look at the template messages. As well as what Howicus describes, I don't think {{Afc comment}} is widely publicised. I've made a small change on the sandbox that says "look below for comments" but I plan to go further and structure the appearance of the comments so they appear as part of the box and grab the submitter's attention. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
For those not already aware, AfC bot is down due to technical problems, so the automatic cleaning of submissions is not happening at the moment. As for adding AfC comments inside the template, we tried this once before and found that long comments distort the size of the template to weird proportions. Pol430 talk to me 16:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Please see Also Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 6 as the bot that will do some of the cleanup. Hasteur (talk) 16:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
The AFC Helper Script has a "Cleanup" funcion wich removes redundant review boxes and arranges the necessary one(s) neatly at the top of the page - is there a way that it can be triggered to run immediately after the "Submit" process? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Pending AfC submissions

This is related to Anne Delong's Help Desk[2] and VPT[3] request to find articles in Category:Pending AfC submissions that are about football. I think that articles listed at Category:Pending AfC submissions should be further subcategorized. So that there is consistency, I think the AfC subcategorization can track the subcategories listed at Category:AfD debates but in the sense of Category:AfC disussions. This will allow editors who are interested in a particular area to focus on expanding potential articles in the area of their interest. -- Jreferee (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Please don't do this on my account; this is not what I am trying to accomplish. It makes more work for the Afc reviewers, who are already swamped with new reviews coming in about every five minutes. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Machete Kills Again...in Space!

Can I create the article, "Machete Kills Again...in Space!"?, I have a plot, Machete is tasked by President Rathcock (Charlie Sheen) to take out Voz (Mel Gibson) after trying to start a nuclear holocaust on Earth. Before his mass exodus to a space station which he built. While kidnapping revolutionary Luz (Michelle Rodriguez) who is frozen in carbonite. Along with a bunch of Mexican-Americans who are forced to work/build on the space station. Even a link, [4]

76.188.116.60 (talk) 01:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Unless primary shooting has already begun, it will almost certainly not be accepted. Even if primary shooting has begun, if it does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (films) or Wikipedia:General notability guidelines, you should not try to create an article, as it will not be accepted. Remember, for purposes of notability, reliable sources exclude promotional materials such as press releases and routine announcements even if they appear in an otherwise-reliable publication. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Reminder: G13 nominations

I've had Hasteurbot on hiatus for the past several weeks while the AfC backlog drive was rolling along. Now that we're getting down to the tail end, I intend to reactivate the bot in approximately 10 hours. Assuming there are no objections there will be some nominations while the bot clears out it's backlog of articles that have already been nominated that were not beeing watched over by the bot. Hasteur (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Please hold off until after the drive is actually over with. Given we have 1400+ backlog, you can/should assume all AFC reviewers will be very busy through the end of the month. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Suresh Apex Bhandari


Apparently, Davidwr and I were doing the same thing at the same time :) The good thing that came of it is allowed me to find and report a bug in OneClickArchiver Dovid (talk) 04:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of Articles for Creation at Jimbo's talk page

See: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 146#Discussion of Articles for Creation. It's about using AFC as a filter for articles created by PR companies and other COI editors. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Academy

has been created. This isn't intended as a precursor to any obligatory requirement for training. Like the Counter vandalism and the NPP schools (of which it is effectively a clone), it's really for anyone who would like to review but feels they would like some training, and for those who have been recommended to go on a course because they are getting their reviews wrong too often.

It doesn't mean there is going to be a storm of people wanting to enroll, so any regular project members who would like to add themselves to the 'active trainer' section, please feel free to do so. It's very low maintenance and like the other two schools, it practically runs itself. Candidates for training simply contact an instructor. There is an outline curriculum from which instructors can develop their own syllabus on a case-by-case basis. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Very nicely done Bellerophon talk to me 23:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

An example of how inexperienced and/or bad-faith reviewers can break the AFC process

FYI and possibly for use any future reviewer-training program:

See Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Ashura In Kashmir (likely future archive home 55 or 56) and the final outcome of the newly-opened sockpuppet investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sharafat99 for more information.

I'm bringing this here at the suggestion of Abecedare in the India noticeboard discussion linked above (diff). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

To summarize the events:
  1. User A creates Article X and Y at AFC; several experienced reviewers decline them.
  2. User B (possible sock of A) recreates Article X at AFC under different title X'.
  3. User A reviews X', approves it, and moves it to mainspace!
  4. User B in turn reviews Y, approves it and moves it to mainspace!
To add gravy to this mess, article Y is an autobiography of user A. I am unfamiliar with the details of the AFC process, but regulars may want to see if such apparent abuse of the process can be prevented. And thanks David, for your attention and help! Abecedare (talk) 15:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Note that some of this happened long enough ago (in terms of subsequent edits) that "undoing" the accept would be disruptive, and either improving the article (if the subject is notable) or using AFD or other deletion processes are way to handle these specific cases.
However, the general lesson to watchlist articles you decline and acting immediately if someone accepts it while it is in a clearly-unacceptable state is a lesson AFC reviewers can take to heart. I've also found it helpful when I see a blatantly promotional submission to check the submission's history and all editor's histories and selectively watchlist pages and/or selectively review other submissions and review mainspace articles that I think might be in need of cleanup-tagging or deleting. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Baby-step categorizations for article wizard

Yes, I realize this will have to go through the Article Wizard developers as well as the AFCH Helper Script developers, but I wanted to run it by here first...

If we could have the Article Wizard and the AFC template structure work together to flag very commonly submitted-and-rejected' categories such as "living people," "music and musicians," and "companies and organizations" it would allow us to immediately do some broad-scale grouping for reviewers who like to specialize, and it would allow future customizations to templates, such as forcing "living people" submissions which lack in-line citations to stay in "draft" state until they have them.

For the sake of simplicity, I'm thinking of just adding "broadcategory=yes" parameters to {{afc submission}}, where broadcategory is arbitrary but the only ones we would recognize initially would be the three above, "living people," "music and musicians," and "companies and organizations."

This same mechanism can be used for non-content-related flags like "COI=yes," which a future version of the AFCH script can turn into a {{connected contributor}} template on the talk page if the submission is eventually accepted.

Thoughts? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a great idea! I think there are enough submissions about sport teams, events and athletes that a "Sport" tag is also justified. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/G13 rescue

Now that the backlog drive is over, the G13 submissions are being deleted again. I have been checking the February 2012 ones, which are next to go, and I have rescued a few, but I will be busy with the Individual Engagement Grants for three days, by which time the Feb ones may be gone. If anyone would like to look these over and maybe save a few, just pick a letter, put your name next to it, then click on the infobox and start checking ones starting with that letter. When you've checked them, mark off that letter. The Afc script has an option that will let you easily postpone any that you think are worth saving or have history that should be merged into existing articles. Happy hunting... —Anne Delong (talk) 15:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

AfC submissions by subject

Is it possible to see a list of AfC submissions on a particular subject, e.g. geography, mathematics, theology, linguistics etc.? If that can be done, it would immensely speed up reviews and editing because people could look for AfC submissions on which they have expertise. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Yep, there is.
Simply go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions#Search for AfCs based on topic and type whatever subject you want to review based on in the input box. Then click on the AfC submissions topic search and it will take you to a list of afc submissions that mention your subject. I've included the search box here in my post so that you'll know exactly what to look for. (it's a working example, but you should bookmark the one on the AFC/S page since this one will eventually be archived)... Technical 13 (talk) 19:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Backlog page is confusing

What has happened to the backlog drive page? It appears to be starting a November drive all by itself, and the pointer to the October drive is gone, even though the re-reviews aren't finished yet. Can someone check this out please? —Anne Delong (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Ditto that. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 Working It was part of a page redesign that I did. I'll look into it promptly. Technical 13 (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Fixed (I think). It no longer assumes that the current month is a backlog drive month. The link to the October drive has been in the "Past drive" section. Let me know if there is anything else that looks out of place. Also, since we never got down below 1300 for October, and it's already back up to almost 1600, I don't think setting up a December drive right now would be a bad idea. Just click the "new drive" link on the tab and hit save IIRC the preload will do most of the work for you. Technical 13 (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done --Mdann52talk to me! 08:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Mdann52 how did the preload work for you? Did you have to make any changes that I need to roll into the preload or was it a simple click and save as I expect it should be? :) Technical 13 (talk) 11:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
@Technical 13: problem? Theopolisme (talk) 11:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Fixed... Let me know if any other issues are found. Technical 13 (talk) 12:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Need 2 people to fail an October botched acceptance

See the last entry in Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/October 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive/Davidwr#Checked reviews, "48. (Accepted) Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Matvei Igonen". If you are the 2nd person (3rd, counting my self-fail), please delete mine, it's just there to make it easy for you to copy-and-paste. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Actually, it passes NFOOTY IMHO. He is playing in the highest level in his area, which is what the 1st bullet in NFOOTY requires. I've opposed (and removed) the PROD and posted my thoughts on the talk page about this. Technical 13 (talk) 01:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
    We'll know in a week, the article is now at WP:AFD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

best way to remove soffit insulation screw

can you answer my question please? apologies for being so formal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.78.62 (talk) 23:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

What question? This page is a page related to the administration of Wikipedia, not a page to ask questions about "the real world." If the question is related to the use of soffit insulation screws, you might try asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk. You might also have some luck using your favorite Internet search engine. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 00:25 7 November 2013

(174.52.233.163 (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)) They need a page on the Apprenticeship of Colonial America. (@_@) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.233.163 (talk) 00:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It is unclear what you are asking. As you are halfway around the world from the non-logged-in editor in the section above I am going to assume your edit was unrelated to his. Please clarify, how can we help you? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

@Steven (WMF): is asking for help

Please see this edit on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria#Research needed? as well as my reply at m:Research talk:Wikipedia article creation#En's Articles for creation question. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I want to get all email address of Bangladesh union parish ad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.234.94.187 (talk) 04:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

AFC BED Barnstars

These will be given out today or tomorrow. As I have just re-wrote the template, can you let me know if there are any bugs in it... --Mdann52talk to me! 15:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Special *UNofficial* 1-week mini-drive for ACCEPTING articles only - Monday until next Sunday

This will be on the honor system, with brownies given out by yours truly throughout the week and barnstars given by yours truly late next week. The delay is to allow time for people to nominate improperly-accepted pages for deletion.

Rules:

  • Brownie: Accept two articles. Ping me when you do.
  • Barnstar points: One point for each article which you correctly accept.
  • Keep your own score. Post your tallies with links on your user talk page or one of your user sub-pages. Ping me at the end of the drive for scoring.
  • I will be the final judge and arbitrator and scorekeeper.

Incorrect acceptances should be obvious, but they include:

  • Deleted, unless I'm notified by an admin that it was for something no reviewer could have foreseen (e.g. created by banned user returning under another name).
  • Nominated for deletion for any valid reason that you should have foreseen. Obviously-bad-reason deletion nominations won't count against you but borderline cases probably will. This isn't just AFD, speedy, PROD, BLPPROD, with a reasonable and valid reason disqualify the article for points.
  • Anything I see that I would have nominated for deletion but for the fact that someone other than you cleaned it up before I saw it. I won't be checking every article in this way, so ask yourself, "do you feel lucky?" When in doubt if someone will nominate it for deletion upon acceptance, don't accept unless you are going to do the cleanup immediately.

Brownie:

  • As soon as you do your second acceptance, ping me and get your brownie. Don't bother waiting to see if anyone tags it or nominates it for deletion, as long as it's still up when I check, you'll get your brownie.

Barnstar points:

  • 5 - an invisible barnstar
  • 8 - a working wikipedian's barnstar
  • 13 - the tireless contrinbutor's barnstar
  • 18 - the afc barnstar
  • 35 - an afc barnstar with a recognition for working twice as hard
  • 53 - an afc barnstar with a recognition for working 3 times as hard
  • 70 - an afc barnstar with a recognition for working 4 times as hard

and so on.

There are no Golden/Silver/Bronze wikis for this competition.

Why the weird scoring?

  • The scoring is based on 10% of the count needed for a regular backlog drive, since declines aren't scored. BUT to get an acceptable article you will probably need to decline a nearly-good-enough page more than once and work with the submitter to get it cleaned up.

Start time: 00:00:00 11 November 2013 (UTC). End time: 23:59:59 17 November 2013 (UTC).

By the way, I will be reviewing articles during this time but I will not be participating in the scoring. After all, I might be biased :) . davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I did roll this out AFTER the start time. Correctly accepted submission since about an hour ago will count for points. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't suppose you'd consider bonus points for getting a submission accepted through Did you know?, which requires a higher quality of article, including an above-stub size, entirely cited to reliable sources via inline cites, and good writing? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
@Davidwr: gimme brownie :P --Mdann52talk to me! 14:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
@Davidwr: i can has brownie plz b4 teh delete?
  1. Ogden Kraut
  2. Dells of the Eau Claire County Parkrybec 03:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
@Davidwr: Stumbled on this by accident, but I have my fork all ready!
  1. John Kent (hymnist)
  2. Doc Halo -- 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 19:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  1. Segal–Bargmann space
  2. Dirofilaria Tenuis
  3. Learning Resource Server Medicine
--LukeSurl t c 13:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

AFC assessment

Why is the {{WPAFC}} template added to the talk page of pages created through AFC? After the article has been created, I don't expect much involvement of the AFC wikiproject anymore; so the importance and quality ratings seem totally unnecessary, only functioning as an advertisement for AFC. It does create a burden upon the people trying to keep the ratings up-to-date. --WS (talk) 09:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

It shows that the page came into being through WP:AfC. A lasting acknowledgement- I think the extra "effort" in upating a few characters is absolutely trivial, and not too much to ask. Rankersbo (talk) 11:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
That could be done with a simple banner without any importance or quality ratings. The effort is not big when there are only one or two projects, but some articles list 5-10 different wikiprojects. --WS (talk) 11:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
It also makes scripts such as the Article Alerts work properly, as it's easy to write a bot that picks up this dataset. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Beyond the first few weeks (deletion requests of created articles), I don't really see the merit of that. Also that as well can be done without any quality/importance ratings. --WS (talk) 11:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
AfC submissions may be sent to AfD at any time, even years after they were first accepted. As to incorrect assessments, that happens on pretty much every project on Wikipedia full stop. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
At least there is the intent of keeping them up-to-date with other projects. As this project is concerned with creation of articles almost exclusively I doubt anybody is even going to try to keep the already >35,000 articles' ratings up-to-date. Nevertheless, if consensus is that they are useful, I'll keep it at this and ignore them, but personally I find it frustrating to find so many useless and out-of-date templates on talk pages. --WS (talk) 12:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Afc does have an assessment page and I know that a number of reviewers do work on assessments, but I agree that the more time passes, the less involved the reviewers are with the accepted articles. Here's an idea: What if the banner were to give the date of the first assessment after acceptance and the rating at that time? Then the information would be historical, showing what condition the article was in when accepted, and the other assessments would then be a measure of improvement from that condition. The information on the template wouldn't then get out of date. (only an idea, not necessarily a good one) —Anne Delong (talk) 13:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Not really necessary. We could reduce it to a tiny notice that it went through AfC on such and such date. You want it to say "with an initial rating of X?" Fine, except then why not include all the reviewer comments? They're irrelevant. Hopefully, the initial class is also irrelevant.
I can see a compromise where if there are no other projects assigned at acceptance time, give it an initial AfC rank and display it. We could have a bot look for, and remove it, after any other project is added or after a certain number of edits have passed. Dovid (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Submission template proposed edit

I'd like to change part of Template:AFC submission (or, more accurately, Template:AFC submission/pending). Currently, it says "If you require extra assistance, you can visit our help desk. / Click here to ask a new question at the help desk / Click here to get assistance via live help chat". However, many users appear to misunderstand this prompt and are visiting the live help chat (#wikipedia-en-help on IRC) to ask for a reviewer to attend to their submission because they're impatient. This greatly inflates traffic to that channel and benefits "queue jumpers" to the detriment of every other AFC submitter, considering the reality of limited reviewer time.

I'd like to tweak the wording of the template to emphasize that the help links are there for help editing or submitting AFCs, not as a shortcut to get one's article reviewed. My proposed wording, though I'm very much open to other ideas, is to change those lines to say (bolding mine, for emphasis here, not for use in final template): "If you require extra assistance editing or submitting your article, you can visit our help desk. / Click here to ask a new question at the help desk about editing or submitting your article / Click here to get assistance editing or submitting your article via live help chat". Ideally I would also add some language to the effect of "please note that these help venues are not for requesting that your submission be reviewed", but I can't think of a way to distill that enough to fit neatly into the template. The upshot here is that I'd like to make clear to submitters that helpers are there to help with editing, not to help you jump the queue.

Thoughts on this? I don't generally edit templates, especially commonly-transcluded ones, so I'd like to make sure both that my proposal is generally agreed with and that I edit the template in as non-breaking-things a manner as possible. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Is it too obnoxious to just add a notice underneath the help links similar to the one visible at Template:AFC_submission/pending/sandbox? The wording could of course be modified as we see fit, but I think a notice is preferable to making the links longer. Theopolisme (talk) 01:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
That would definitely work just as well for my purposes, Theopolisme. It's possible that users might skip over reading small text like that, but that's by no means a sure thing and I'd say the smaller, less-disruptive version is worth a try before deploying any bigger, more link-cloggy options. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll be happy to deploy the sandbox version if there aren't any objections in the next day or two. @Technical 13, Davidwr: ? Theopolisme (talk) 01:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Looks good to me. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Template updated. @Fluffernutter: If in a few weeks you haven't seen any decrease in IRC whining, post another message here and we can experiment with other solutions. Theopolisme (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

  • As some of you may or may not have noticed, I've been away about a week now. I don't think this is the proper solution for this problem. The proper solution is for the helpers in IRC to refuse to do reviews out of turn. However, I've got just way too much rl stuff going on to discuss this in much detail right now. In the mean time, I hope this isn't deterimental to those needing help and being unable to find it as easily. Technical 13 (talk) 13:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Guys, dumping more warnings and notices onto the template isn't helping anyone. It just makes things more confusing for submitters. — Earwig talk 20:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

New reviewer

See list. 79 edits to mainspace. registered for only two weeks one month. In particular, see concerns raised on the user's talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Warned. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

New reviewer

4 weeks/192 mainspace edits. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

This review is particularly problematic, especially given the above conversation. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I have advised him to stop reviewing until he gets more experience. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Minimum standard for inline citations

I have been looking through Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions to see if there is anything worth saving. I have been moving at least one in ten pages I review into article space. That means that there are probably four to five thousand articles rotting in the category that should be in artice space. I am seeing a lot of pages that have been declined for not meeting the minimum standard for inline citations that as far as I can see have not failed the minimum standard. The minimum requirement is actually zero except for a limited set of specific circumstances. It is perfectly possible that an article with no inline citations at all could still be accepted, and I have moved a number into article space.

This is not the only grounds on which I am seeing reviewers being overly strict. Your backlog would be significantly smaller, there would be fewer potentially decent editors abandoning drafts and walking away from Wikipedia, and we would have a larger cadre of editors to do more reviewing if only people would look past the scraggy formatting of a submitted article to the actual useful encyclopaedic content.

Thanks for listening, SpinningSpark 19:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Lack of citations can be a lazy way of saying "I, the reviewer, am not convinced the topic is notable, but it might be so I don't want to slap a non-notable tag on it. But if I were to accept it as-is, someone else would send it to AFD for lack of notability, and you'd have only 7 days to improve it. If I decline the submission, you have 6 months to improve it."
I usually decline it for lack of notability anyways, because the "declined" template is nice enough to say that the references do not demonstrate notability, they do NOT say the topic is not notable.
davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Or it could be just damn lazy not bothering to look at even the refs provided, let alone search for refs yourself. Too many people on Wikipedia have got the little blue number disease. It is way too high a bar for AFC to be setting. You are supposed to be helping people post articles, not be an obstruction to it. SpinningSpark 23:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry Spinningspark, but I just can't agree with that. If ever you have worked at AfC or reviewed 1,000s of G13, or NPPd 1,000s of new pages you will realise just how damn lazy our regular, competent reviewers are not. A huge percentage of the submissions are unmitigated crap and pure vandalism, while many more are from WP:SPA who just hit and run, never with any intention of returning to see what happened to their draft. The tasks at AfC, just like NPP, are twofold: to help new users with some brief advice on how they can improve potentially keepable articles, and to tell the vandals, spammers, and trolls in no uncertain terms that their junk is not wanted - and tag such pages for deletion. While some reviewers might, it is not within the remit AfC and NPP to repair substandard articles for lazy creators or simply park the pages somewhere else.
There are huge backlogs at both processes, and there is obviously going to be some collateral damage, but AFAIC, that minor damage is acceptable until the community wakes up and understands that these issues can only be addressed by 1) finding ways to insist that reviewing and patrolling is only done by experienced, competent users, and 2) after all these years, finally designing a proper landing page for new users that tells them clearly what kind of articles are wanted, and what are not.
The opinions of regular reviewers/patrollers vary between 50 and 80% of all new articles being totally unsuitable; even taking the lower number, it's still far, far too many. The idea of AfC is not to rescue pages back from deletion and plonk them somewhere else where they will remain maintenance tagged to infinity, or create another new graveyard. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Lack of citations is not the same as a lack of inline citations. I'm with Spinningspark on this one, not just because we risk losing articles, but because it is important to communicate accurately with article creators. I'm also worried that people are declining AFCs because they think they might not survive AFD. AFD is a consensus based deletion process, AFC declines are typically done by one editor. would probably be deleted by AFD is not a speedy deletion criteria and should not be an AFC one. ϢereSpielChequers 04:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Spinningspark: Endorsing Kudpung and Davidwr viewpoints, I have to say that there has been a significant groundswell from outside of the AfC community to change the way we do things here, and removing the traditional protections to the point of throwing true new editors to the wolves by putting their attempts at creating a article in the most hostile of environments (Mainspace) where many editors have little patience for problems. I know I like to use the tag point of inline citations often, but it's one of the quickest evaluations that can be made. If there are are end references, but no inline citations, we can give guidance to the user on how to convert to inline citations (as it makes verification of facts easier). Frankly I see it this way in my mind AfC: You don't have the ability (or knowledge) how to create an article in mainspace or you want a independent check on the submission. NPP: You know how to create the page, but haven't yet attained the Auto-Patrolled (indicating that you haven't created many pages or haven't found the permission request). The 2 processes act as gateways for newer editors to potentially get their writing added to the great body of wikipedia. Hasteur (talk) 04:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
WereSpielChequers: If you had read the AfC volunteer guide you would see that it is expected that anything you accept out of AfC needs to have at least a 50% chance of surviving a AfD discussion. Speedy is one portion of deletion discussion, but if a AfC volunteer consistently accepts articles that get brought up as being below Wikipedia's standard (and get deleted after a CSD or AfD discussion), they're going to be asked to not do any more reviews until they gain more knowledge. Some volunteers have a higher threshold on what they'll accept, but that's why we have multiple volunters and give the submitter multiple opportunities to get the submission up to par before acceptance. Declining is not a permanant no, it's a "Not Yet" with an invitation for the submitter to improve. The greater harm is to Wikipeida's reputation if great quantities of sub-standard articles get passed out from AfC. Hasteur (talk) 04:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that declining an AFC comes across as any less of a rejection to newbies than having it tagged for deletion. One of the reasons why I wouldn't recommend AFC to any good faith editors is that it seems to me much more deletionist even than mainspace. We've had proposals in the past to make "would be deleted by AFD" a speedy deletion criteria and they rightly get shot down has a fifty % chance of deletion by AFD is a much more deletionist standard, we shouldn't operate AFC that way even if all AFC reviewers were admins. ϢereSpielChequers 04:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty confident that accepting an AfC submission, only to then see it end up at AfD is bitey in the extreme, regardless of the actual merits of the article or the procedures. User talk:Davidtardis describes a very appropriate reaction to all this, and he is quite understandably frustrated. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I worked with DavidTardis on his article both times it went through AfC, and I am very frustrated too. First time it was lept on by an over-eager NPP and marked for deletion when a tag would have been more appropriate. Then, after I worked hard at copyediting and sourcing and let another reviewer pass it, it was nominated for deletion, and I was too timid to challenge. Rankersbo (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I just want to be sure that I have not been misunderstood here. AfC is neither WP:EAR nor WP:HD, nor the Teahouse, it is a filtering system, like NPP. Spinningspark's issues could be resolved if Wikipedia had a proper landing page, but the creation of one is a larger project than the volunteers can be expected to do themselves; unfortunately after all this time and WP:ACTRIAL, the WMF does not see this as a priority. In the meantime, we are trying to do something about it by 1) attempting to set some criteria of competence for reviewing, and 2) attempting to get a 'draft' namespace created that will allow for cleaner and more equitable reviewing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

You probably have misunderstood. I am not suggesting that AFC should be "Editors' Help". I am suggesting that articles that contain solid encyclopaedic facts should be promptly moved to mainspace warts and all without giving the contributor a hard time over what are essentially MOS issues. It is not the role of AFC to twist the arms of contributors into polishing their articles. If you guys can get any of the articles I have rescued deleted at AFD I might reconsider and look for what I am doing wrong. So far, none of my rescues have been challenged on any grounds whatsoever so I continue to think that absolutely I am right. SpinningSpark 10:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I think what you're seeing, Spinningspark, is the fallout of earlier problems we've had. You're right that a lack of inline cites is generally not a reason to fail an article (Farnham Road Hospital is a recent example I passed), but the problem is communicating that to reviewers generally, enforcing it, and then cleaning things up. Arctic Kangaroo (talk · contribs) had a notorious reputation for declining submissions "due to a lack of inline citations" completely erroneously, and has probably left thousands of incorrectly declined articles sitting around gathering dust waiting for someone such as yourself to notice them. I'm not sure of a suitable solution other than going through the pile of old declined submissions and re-reviewing them, but I don't think there's any motivation to do that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Well I'm doing it. SpinningSpark 13:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I completely agree with you, Spinningspark! The reviewer has the obligation to look at the general sources provided, even if they are not inline citations, and make a judgement as to whether they are reliable, independent, generally support the article's contents, and attest to the subject's notability. If a reviewer is not willing to do this or is incapable of doing this, then they should not review that particular draft. If the general sources pass muster and the subject is not a living person, it is wrong to reject the draft, and probably loses yet another new editor for Wikipedia. I simply don't understand what is going on with this project. Today I moved Juuso Walden into article space. Absurdly rejected for "No footnotes", when it had high quality general sources. To be on the safe side, I moved a couple of those to inline citations, but even that was not necessary. What is necessary is sometimes to spend 10 or 20 minutes evaluating the sources. If people are too lazy to do that, then they shouldn't be reviewing here. Voceditenore (talk) 12:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
The problem is, as I've mentioned before, that while you or I might spend half an hour on cleaning up and passing an AfC submission (The Minories, Colchester took half a day to retrospectively source to DYK standards), or pass on a submission we're not familiar with, less experienced reviewers used to race through submissions with a mindset of "decline - I don't like it" at a far faster rate. So all else being equal, a submission is more likely to be picked up and handled by an inexperienced reviewer. We're clamping down on that now, the problem as I've mentioned above is the huge backlog of incorrectly declined submissions that's been left behind. I admire your enthusiasm for tackling the problem, but have you really got time to go through 40,000 articles? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
No, I don't have the time, and I do not intend to go through those 1000s of "lost" articles. But Juuso Walden was rejected two days ago for "no footnotes" by a reviewer who is an inexperienced editor (total of 507 edits to article space, created one stub on a football player, and had another one deleted), and as far as I can see has been taking a maximum of two minutes to review each draft. So clearly the "clamping down" hasn't had much effect yet. I haven't actually checked their other reviews, but the one I found doesn't bode well. That's why I think this project should seriously rethink its approach along the lines SpinningSpark originally suggested. If it's good enough not to be speedied, pass it. You simply don't have the volunteer time to turn AfC into an inferior version of peer review, and the backlog that approach has generated leads in turn to sloppy reviewing which is virtually impossible to patrol. New editors are being discouraged and the encyclopedia is losing valuable articles. When asked, I personally advise new editors never to use AfC unless they have a conflict of interest with the subject. Voceditenore (talk) 13:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I have already warned the reviewer in question; If you find any more, please ping me/let me know on the talk page, and I will investigate and take action accordingly. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

@Mdann52: The one you warned had also left a "no footnotes" comment on the draft. The reviewer I'm talking about [5] declined it 2 days ago for "submission is unsourced or contains only unreliable sources", presumably because it had no footnotes even though it had multiple reliable general sources listed. Voceditenore (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: took half a day to retrospectively source to DYK standards. That about sums up what is wrong with the mindset here. It is not necessary to get an article to DYK standard for it to be in mainspace (and in many ways DYK has become a tougher standard to pass than GA nowadays). If you want to get the article to DYK standard then fine, go ahead, I certainly won't object, but that should not be stopping you from moving it to mainspace first. SpinningSpark 16:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what I meant. I like to improve new submissions to DYK standard if I can, but that's an added bonus. Indeed, as you can see from the history of The Minories, the first thing I did was accept it, then I started improving it afterwards. As well as the reasons you cite, an additional reason to move it into mainspace as soon as possible is that other editors will notice it and help improve it as well - as was the case here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
In that case keep up the good work, you have my every support. SpinningSpark 16:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I think the issue is that the newest G13 eligible AfC submissions are over six months old, with some hanging about from April 2012. A lot of effort has been put in to tightening up procedures. In-line citations is only appropriate to BLP's and even then only if there is no clear way to link the sources to the key facts. Of course people still make mistakes, the process has to be administered by human beings, and it would be complacent to say there was no room for improvement, but the rather dark picture of an entire team doing shoddy work, and mindsets isn't fair or helpful. Rankersbo (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Spinningspark, for looking through and improving the old submissions. A number of us are doing the same thing, but there are so many (about 41,000 which haven't been edited for over six months and are slated for deletion) that mainly what we've been doing is checking and postponing possibly notable ones among the next to be deleted. You can see which ones we haven't looked at yet :(Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/G13 rescue) (Watch out - there are a lot of copyvios). Or, if you want to see a selection of the better ones that the rescuers feel could be moved with a little effort, that list is here: Postponed G13s. Every one that you can handle is appreciated. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't see a lot of benefit in postponing. In most cases I'm coming to a decision myself one way or the other. I've postponed and contacted the original poster in a few cases where they are still active and some I've brought to the attention of a Wikiproject, but that usually just ends up with someone summarily deleting it. SpinningSpark 21:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
The ones that we are postponing would all have been deleted within a day or two, so it's an emergency measure while the bot is rapidly deleting the old backlog. Once the two year backlog is gone, the pace should slow. I've postponed about 400 so far. If the article is short of sources I add a few. I usually find that if I do that and then notify a Wikiproject the article is less likely to be deleted. No way would I have had time to have cleaned up 400 articles, so many of these would just be gone now. The submitters of all of these G13 eligible articles-to-be have all been contacted at least 30 days ahead of time, and some have started fixing up their articles again (which accounts for the larger than usual backlog of active submissions). —Anne Delong (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Anne Delong/Proposal to reduce the AfC backlog

Dear reviewers: Please feel free to add your opinion on the above talk page. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

User talk:KuwarOnline/Archive 6

Please see the above example of why the G13 eligible submissions should be checked before being nominated for deletion. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

(Anyone want to rescue this poor talk page?) —Anne Delong (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Done. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Pages that consist of content OTHER than an AFC submission should NOT be G13'd. Rather, the "afc submission" template should be removed or, as I did above, deactivated. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm sure that this happened by accident, but I hope the deleting admins are at least glancing at the G13s because despite the best efforts of a number of editors, some are going under before they can be checked. Also, I may have to drop out of the checking for a while because (1) I have a conference report, a powerpoint presentation and a five part musical arrangement to do this week, and (2) after checking thousands of submissions, they are all starting to blur together. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Don't wear yourself out, or you'll wind up doing a five-part powerpoint arrangement and a musical presentation. That could get ... interesting. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Geography भूगोल

भूगोल हा विषय फार प्राचीण आहेँ जगाच्या आधुनिकी बरोबर या विषयाची गुणवत्ता वाढत आहे. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.98.98.43 (talk) 08:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Google translate says this is Marathi. The title translates as "Geography" and the body translates as "The modernization of the world in a matter of geography or subject parameter ahem quality is increasing". davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Geography भूगोल MORE

भूगोल हा विषय फार प्राचीण आहेँ जगाच्या आधुनिकी बरोबर या विषयाची गुणवत्ता वाढत आहे. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.98.98.43 (talk) 08:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Please do not post your submission here, but instead use the Article Wizard to create your submission. I hope this helps. Darylgolden(talk) 01:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Also please only post article that are written in English, thanks. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Problem

Can someone have a look at this article submitted here here: Pathfinder (band).

When I tried to move it into mainspace, it simply stalls on the 'moving' stage. Perhaps someone else could have a go? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk) 10:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi The script tells you what the problem is. Anyway, I feel you lack enough experience to review, as you have less than 200 edits. --Mdann52talk to me! 11:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Just to let you know it was created but then moved to Pathfinder (band). --Clarkcj12 (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Help Desk backlog

There are many help desk posts that have not yet had any replies, some are even being archived without having received any attention. I'm trying to deal with the ones I feel I can handle. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Blacklist

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, WikiProject Articles for creation. You have new messages at MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

mabdul 06:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

G13 and old drafts and submissions

Thanks to the editors who helped with the checking of the March and April 2012 G13-eligible submissions: Rankersbo , phoebe, DES, Darylgolden, DGG and others who have helped a little here and there. The ones not postponed, accepted or otherwise edited have mostly been deleted now. In spite of the backlog drive in October, we managed to check six months of old submissions in less than three months, so we are gaining on the backlog. May 2012 is next! —Anne Delong (talk) 19:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

With help from Rankersbo, the submissions A-F have been checked, but now they are beginning to disappear. I am going to be in an Internet-free zone for three days (bluegrass festival - too busy pickin' anyway), so I hope that others will pick up the slack and save a some of the better ones. Good luck! By the way, if any of you have interacted with Jackson Peebles, you may wish to read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention#Sad news about one of our best. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Using (deliberately) a somewhat different method of identifying them that overlaps with Anne's, (going by dates of submission, not alphabetically) I've made a quick pass through all of the May submissions, looking mainly for academics and authors and books, and politicians and schools and historical figures. One of the problems is that after clicking postpone, if I enter something in the reason box, the procedure often aborts. Then I've been adding it separately as a comment. Sometimes it won't accept comments , so then I enter the reason in bold at the top. I'm about to start on June 2012. But because of the time pressure, I'm doing it inefficiently: When there's a little more time, I try to improve at least some of them for accepting immediately, but the last few days I've just postponed. I'm really trying to get 1 full month ahead of the deletions. DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
The script has been working well for me except in the case where the article is a draft that was never submitted. Then it lets you enter your comment, but won't save it. I have reported this on the script development page, so maybe they will fix it up. I agree about the pressure; I feel that if I spend time on one, others will be gone. Thanks, DGG, it's good to know that at least some of the ones we missed have been picked up. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I've currently done through the July 2012 submissions. (I'm working with submission dates, not last edit dates). But I am not checking sports or most entertainment. I am also rarely checking companies, unless I recognize the name, since practically 100% of them are never going to be acceptable. I've stopped postponing schools or villages where there isn't even a website--there's nothing worth saving. I intend to go on till I get to the 6 month point. We will then have a different sort of problems. Even now, I look at a few marked as accepted when I think it unlikely, and have been sending 1 or 2 a day of them for deletion usually at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions

I have changed the text on the above page, which said to look below for submissions (they're not there since the pages were changed all around for some reason). However, the text also says that there are 33 declined submissions. This used to show the number of declined submissions since 2008, but now it erroneously just counts the 33 categories of declined submissions. Can this be changed back to show the actual number of declined submissions instead?

Also, I can't seem to find the link to the list of submissions without a template. It was there before, so maybe I just can't see it for looking? —Anne Delong (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should the titleblacklist be set up to prevent AfC submissions from being created in the wrong location?

Please comment at MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist#RfC: Should the titleblacklist be set up to prevent AfC submissions from being created in the wrong location?. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Confusing "save page" button

The graphic of a "save page" button on Template:AFC submission/Subst/Editintro is very confusing. I keep trying to press it myself if I'm not paying attention so heaven knows how confused our new editors get. I suggest removing the graphic and replacing simply with the words "the save page button below". Alternatively, turn it into an actual save page button so it can be pressed. SpinningSpark 00:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Spinningspark, I'm not even sure where that template is used... Can you give me an example of how to get to it on a real page so I can see what the context is and see if I can't make it a real "Save Page" button which is what is preferred to me anyways... Technical 13 (talk) 01:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • It's the template editors see when they try to submit their draft article. I've been seeing it a lot recently in rescuing stale drafts that have potential. So to see it for real, go to an AFC draft press "submit" in the template (or resubmit if it has already been declined). Nothing will actually be submitted unless you press the save button. SpinningSpark 01:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I can't make it an actual save page button (for the same reason I can't skip that step altogether and have the submit/resubmit button just do it without a confirmation step), so I made a couple of little adjustments to hopefully make it clearer. Spinningspark, what do you think? Technical 13 (talk) 02:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks, that's much clearer. I could have done that myself of course, but there were dire warnings about the effect on tens of thousands of transclusions so I thought it best to discuss first. I don't think we should skip this step altogether even if it were possible, it's a useful safety trap. SpinningSpark 08:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

A

I'M SORRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What did I do wrong did i copy paste text do I have no references and now I can't request it ever again!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandharrison (talkcontribs) 13:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you talking about the deletion of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/This Article Needs to be reviewed? Were you trying to create a help page? AFC only deals with the creation of articles, not pages in other namespaces. I suggest you discuss this at the Tea House (just follow the link they put on your talk page). SpinningSpark 14:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The old October drive.

I presume the other participants in the October 2013 backlog drive have received their awards by this point, but I have not. Unless there was an issue with one/more, which should have been reported to me if so, I did review 15 AFC submissions, so with the next drive occurring soon I'd appreciate if this could be wrapped up. If I said "I'm miffed!", would you come running or go? (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)#

@Wilhelmina Will: hmmm... I'll check My AWB logs. do you have {{nobots}} on your talk page or anything? --Mdann52talk to me! 13:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
No, not that I know of. I didn't even know there was such a template. If I said "I'm miffed!", would you come running or go? (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Issue with AFC reviewer

Moved to the Helpdesk page - Sionk (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Drive moved to January

Hi all, Per a discussion on the December drives talk page, the next Backlog Elimination Drive is now between 1st January - 31st January 2013. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The tab is still labelled "December" but I can't see how to fix it. Are the tabs a transclusion? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done (needs to be reverted by next month, when it will work properly with the default coding; The redirect messes it up, but is better than nothing to move people to the correct month... --Mdann52talk to me! 09:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Undid the hack and simply tagged the redirect for CSD. Once that is carried out it will show January properly (once December gets here as it only looks at this month and next). I'm actually opposed to doing this in January instead of December as I have 2 weeks free in December for school vacation and have no family or life (or I wouldn't be a Wikipedian if I did) and think the drive should be in December. In January it is the end of the semester and I'll be too busy cramming for finals. I'd say have the drive in December and if that doesn't clean it up do another in January. Technical 13 (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Started a December drive. The October drive only managed to reduce the backlog by about 800 submissions and since we are over 2100 now, I see no harm in letting it run from December 1st to January 31. (hopefully reducing it to under 500 submissions). I also expect that there may be a need for a March drive as well to get us dang near 0 submissions. Happy reviewing! Technical 13 (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • @Technical 13: Is it worth merging the 2 to a "December/January" drive, and do you still want to coord it? --Mdann52talk to me! 08:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Cookies52 that actually didn't ping me, yes we can merge the two, and we can both coord it. Sound good? Technical 13 (talk) 23:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

New reviewer

Registered 29 Oct. 39 mainspace edits. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Warned yet again. Anyone think it may be worth a WP:SPI into the recent batch of newbies? --Mdann52talk to me! 08:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I think it's just inexperience - people thinking if they've submitted one submission through AfC, they can review anyone else's to satisfaction. I've put Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants on my watchlist so if I spot any more inexperienced reviewers signing up, I'll drop them a note. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I haven't looked into "the recent batch" enough but any call for an SPI will have to rely on more than coincidental timing. Basically, you'll need to overcome WP:AFG, which is and should be a "high bar" to get over. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Problem

I'm having to decline or comment on every submission twice before the script actually does what it has to. What's happening? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

@FoCuSandLeArN: What version are you using (develop, beta, gadget)? Theopolisme (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
The one enabled on settings. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Try disabling the gadget via settings, adding

importScript('MediaWiki:Gadget-afchelper-beta.js'); // AFCH beta script [[MediaWiki:Gadget-afchelper-beta.js]]

to your Special:MyPage/common.js page, and then bypassing your cache. Please let me know if this resolves the problem. Theopolisme (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

A simple log-off/in solved it. Bizarre...but thanks! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

[[6]]

Dear reviewers: The text on this page should really have been on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk page. I thought of moving it in among the archived discussions from last year. Is this a good idea, or is modifying the archive inappropriate? —Anne Delong (talk) 03:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I guess the bot got it. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ronald Reagan Airport Buševo

This appears to be a hoax - references don't mention it, and the coordinates are in the Adriatic Sea - but has not been submitted. I found it when looking at contributions of an IP range that appears to be only used for vandalism. Is it acceptable to decline before submission? Peter James (talk) 17:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Blatant hoaxes fall under the general criteria for speedy deletion. So I guess you could try CSD'ing it. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
It was deleted per CSD G3, as a blatant hoax. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Backlog drive - current lack of statistics.

By now its probably rather obvious that the AFC backlog drive statistics aren't updated regularly - or not at all for that matter. The reason for this is that the code responsible for uploading the generated data to Wikipedia is consistently receiving an HTTP 503 as a response to the upload attempt. After initially assuming this was something temporal it would now seem that there is an underlying issue somewhere. The issue itself is actually quite problematic for a few reasons:

  • The upload code and any code calling this code hasn't been changed since the last drive, or in fact: At all for during the past few months.
  • At first glance AFCBuddy seems to be sending data properly - though the server persistently returns an error. If the same data is send to the API sandbox everything seems to work well though.
  • The 503 errors provide no detail at all. All it replies is that something goes awry, without a clue as to what that would be.

Long story short: It may take some time to figure out what is happening, why this is happing and subsequently preventing it will happen. Hopefully i will have some time during the weekend to sit down and analyze what is going on. Note that the statistics themselves are correctly generated - in a worst case scenario i can upload them manually but I'd rather not do so as it is both tedious and time consuming work. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Could it be due to the change to HTTPS? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I've been manually updating information and statistics at the December 2013 - January 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive page. Hopefully fixes can occur so this can resume with the script. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Please save yourself that hassle! AFCBuddy still generates the output for the various pages just fine, it just doesn't upload the results automatically. The worst case scenario would involve me opening several text files manually and subsequently copying their contents in an edit window. There is no need to track reviews manually since I actually have those at hand - and even if that would not be the case all of them can be retroactively generated at any point in time.
Actually, I would advice against logging reviews manually. It is a waste of time since they are still generated automatically (Just not uploaded), and due to the many different formats currently used to log edits it might be possible that re-reviews cannot be correctly detected. Just ignore the stats entirely till we are past this weekend - ill look into the issue, and if for some reason fixing it turns out to be more complex i'll upload the generated results manually. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 08:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I think the problem is also being seen with twinkle and AFCH for those with the CSD log enabled. Rankersbo (talk) 13:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
No, sorry, red herring. I checked and that problem was my own settings. Rankersbo (talk) 06:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
User:Excirial: Thanks for looking into the matter. Automatic generation is sure easier than manual updating. Hopefully everything can be worked out to work smoothly. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 05:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Slow down the G13 bot please

There a re now 163 pages in the CSD cat. Too many for us to be expected to take a proper look at them and resucue any. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

With respect to Kudpung The bot hasn't nominated any pages in over 3 hours Special:Contributions/HasteurBot). It appears that the large glut of nominations is currently from JMHamo. Hasteur (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Well according to his contribs, he's nominating them at a rate of 3 or 4 a miute, so he must be using a scsript of some kind. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
No script used by me, but I will cease the nominations for the moment. JMHamo (talk) 18:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Probably best if you would just leave it to Hasteur and his bot. He knows how to pace the nominations so that we admins can cope with them and give them the attention they deserve before finally deleting them or rescuing them. . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Kudpung I find your comment very offensive, I am sorry if I am too efficient for the Admins. I am not new to Wikipedia and think that I (a real human being) can do a better job than a bot. I know the difference between a good article that should be moved to the Main space or one that should be deleted. Rather than discourage editors from clearing the huge backlog, you should be encouraging. I will slow down my nominations if you can not cope but I will not stop. JMHamo (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not in the slightest bit concerned whether you know what to tag or not - although the speed of it certzinly gives me pause. As deleting admin, even I can't review then that fast, and we just don't have the capacity to fight a new backlog that is the issue of another one. We don't know from the cat which are your carefully selected CSDs and which were produced by Hasteur's bot. The danger is, that there are some admins who will simply do a batch deletion when they see that number, and they won't get reviewed again at all. So lighten up a bit before you use expressions such as 'offensive' - we're all doing our best, and expressing concerns when appropriate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Good luck with the other 29,943 then. Your attitude has lost a volunteer. JMHamo (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
JMHamo We've been growing this herd of potential nominations for 4 years. If you had slown down and looked at previous discussions, you would have seen that there was a agreed to consensus of how many the bot will nominate in a time frame and work with the Admins working the cleanout. Since the bot has started I think it's worked close to 20k nominations. We are making progress but there are other places you could focus your attention, such as the Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions to look for submissions that deserve annother chance, to the Category:AfC pending submissions by age which has 2k pages that are begging for an experienced editor to look over them to determine if they can be promoted to article space or if they still need work. Your combative and hostile demenor when asked for an accounting, suggest that you still don't understand the collaborative nature of wikipedia. Hasteur (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── No thanks. I'm out. I wish the project well. JMHamo (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

(Re to JMHamo)This is a shame, I think. In wikipedia we are told to assume good faith that is not to judge people too much by tone, so as (I presume) to accomodate people from different cultural and social backgrounds. But I think even so it would be, shall I say, productive to use a little bit of "sugar coating" in order to avoid incidents like this happening in the future. Starting a note on a user page with something like, "Hi there, thanks for your help at the AfC project. However..." comes across as advice that is more likely to be heeded than a bland statement of a mistake.
Tact isn't pointless, or a form of lie, and valuing tact is not bad faith. Contrary to what is written above people who react badly to extreme tactlessness are not taking things too seriously. Rankersbo (talk) 09:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
(Re to Kudpung of 18:56) The nomination for g13 template has an indicator as to who did the nomination (which is popped open for admins). I would assume that the Admin is clicking into the page and can easily see who nominated the page during their "1 last review" before deletion. Hasteur (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
very true of course, but knowing that your bot was doing the tagging I have been generally concentrating on the actual content. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Kudpung, you're welcome for that feature. JMHamo, I've done a great number of G13 nominations as well (part of the reason for my updates to {{Db-g13}}, the AFCH, and my creation of {{User:Technical 13/Userboxes/G13}}. Generally, I try to keep the backlog to below 75-100 (the bot is throttled at 50 and admins have the option to poke it to make it pump out 50 more). I personally agree with you that humans can do a better job selected those fit for CSD and those fit for rescue, but there is no reason to get the queue over 100, ever... I hope you do reconsider giving up on this project, and instead simply slow down a little. Hrmmm... That kind of gives me an idea... Theopolisme, Hasteur, and mabdul, what do you think about a warning attached to the "Tag for G13" button that is given asking if the user is sure when the backlog is already say 80+? Technical 13 (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Technical 13: let us discuss this in another thread (on this page), but the idea sound not bad... ;-) mabdul 07:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Technical 13 The bot doesn't pump out 50 more if there's already 50 in the queue. User:HasteurBot/KickoffNom is designed to wake the bot up early and run the base nomination process that normally runs at the top of the hour. (i.e. If the admins exhaust the G13 nominations in 15 minutes past the hour, they can request another filling up to 50 at that page). I think it would be a good idea to have the G13 button Alert nag at 60 and full disable (without some clever poking around) at 80 pages in the G13 queue. Other than that I'd like to see Twinkle also implement the same type of logic so that it makes it that more difficult for lone wolf editors to go out and cause a ruccus. Hasteur (talk) 23:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I have been leaving most of the ones that I check for the bot to nominate, but occasionally I nominate one that is completely useless, to prevent others from the trouble of checking it again. [[Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]], I don't know enough about how the deletion process works. Does a big backlog of G13 nominations cause a problem of some kind? —Anne Delong (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
All pages tagged for CSD are lited at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, that's where I belive most admins who work through deletion work from. At any given time there are usually areound 50 or so candidates in the cat, but it depends very much on who is working and what time zone they are in. Obviously my time zone is the oppposite (12 hours ahead of the USA and 7 hours ahead of Europe) so I'm mostly active when others are sleeping. Among the CSDs there are some that need to be deleted very quickly, while perhaps others are not so urgent. If done properly, and allowing time for the pages to load, reviewing them, clicking the delete button and waiting for the 'Action completed' page, it can take up to a minute to delete a page and sometimes much longer if one comes across something unusual that requires further research. It's boring routine work and frankly I would rather be spending my time doing something else, but deletions are also what admins are expected to do. When I open that cat and see up to 160 tails in it, I think 'OMG!' and then get to work, and when I do, I'm usually the only one there. My greatest fear is that some admins do not thoroughly examine each page and I'm failrly sure that some do batch deletions when they see a lot of G13. What we really need is some input from DGG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm in the situation of being too busy rescuing articles to talk much about how we should rescue them, which is the reason I haven't been commenting here much. I think the basic strategy behind the bot is rational, though I would adjust the parameters further in order to go more slowly. I've suggested that the possibility of letting individual nomination go faster than the bot does need change, and I'm glad Hasteur sees the problem also. The danger in this is not just the numbers, but in someone deciding to go out of sequence and thus confuse the process of systematic checking. As for my own practice, I do just as Anne does-- when I check, I just rescue, I only list for G13 in special cases (when I think there's a more important reason than G13, or I think that it's a field I know and can tell it isn't conceivably worth rescue but others might think it ambiguous.) I also sometimes put on an additional speedy tag to a G13 tag, even for something already in CAT:CSD, as a warning against accidental undeletion.
I agree with Kudpung that many admins see to go thru the G13s much too rapidly, much more rapidly than they would ordinarily check speedys. For ordinary speedys, almost all of us are fairly deliberate, getting rid first of the G10s and G12s., and then going a few at a time, leaving any we're not sure about for someone else. (and when I nominate for speedy and nobody has deleted it 24 hours later, I conclude I may have been too quick to judge, and use another method.) But for the large number of G13s, almost everyone does it too quickly. Large amounts of backlog, or more exactly anything that looks like large amounts of backlog, tend to intimidate us into going too hastily--it's rather a reason for slowing down, and going carefully but thoroughly to avoid error. If I see 100, I'll clear maybe 10, and leave the rest to others, in order to avoid the tendency I know that I have of getting a little careless in such circumstances--in fact, looking back at my log, I have almost never deleted more than 10 articles at a time, for I learned soon after becoming an admin that I was capable of overdoing it. I urge those who go faster to consider whether they are actually as infallible as they think they are, as I once though I was.
When I do check the G13 nomination, out of a batch of 50 G13s , I usually find one or sometimes two or three that should not be deleted, by which I mean that they might possibly have promise. Maybe once or twice a day I even find one ready immediately for mainspace, but anything even slightly dubious can be deferred until we've removed the 90 or 95% of undoubted junk. In other words, if it takes thinking, it shouldn't be deleted. That's supposed to be the rule we use for all speedies, actually.
I once a day even try to check the deletion log. using intuition to find a few to review. Obviously my yield is lower, but I do generally find one a day to undelete. I make a list for what I want to work on later, but I expect that others will work on most of them, in the usual WP manner.
I've noticed that humans in all sorts of things have a tendency to overspeed when they're getting near then end, trying to complete everything. I know I get quite impatient when I'm driving home, and have almost gotten there. And all sorts of really strange things get done in the last 5 minutes of a meeting. DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
What level of pending candidates for deletion should human reviewers be aiming for? I tend to use the human eye to weed out the no hopers (school kids writing about their mates, two liners, and insubstantial drafts for articles that were created in mainspace independently to give 3 examples)- but often the buffer is over the 50 mark. I think admins should concentrate on clearing cats other than G13 and G2, and leave those cats backlogged before going for the G13 mountain, but I'm not about to wade in to the admin baord with my size 44s telling them that. Rankersbo (talk) 09:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
The Tip Threshold is 50. That's when the Category reports as a Backlog item on the Admin dashboard and the right side of {{User:Technical 13/Userboxes/G13}} turn into "Concern issues". If we're below the threshold and there's technically eligible G13 records available that haven't been picked up by the bot, then go ahead and make the nominations, otherwise it's only overloading the Admins unnecessarily. Hasteur (talk) 09:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Hmm... so the bot and the human checkers are using the same allowance then? Human's don't have more leeway. Then all things considered- the fact that the bot has caught up with the human team, and that the buffer is often full- I would support slowing down (reducing the frequency between checks), or even pausing the bot for a while. We were on about 80000 before the bot was created, and are down to less than 30000 from 48000 in the few weeks since it was restarted.
A rest may now be in order, or (if it doesn't involve any beuorcarcy) a refocussing on articles smaller than, say half a kb? Rankersbo (talk) 09:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
We've had 2 rests already (October Backlog drive and 2nd week in november when I was on vacation). Re working the bot to only nominate pages that are under a arbitrary threshold size is going to be a very significant undertaking. And the burn down doesn't mean that we've deleted that many, it means that for one reason or another (deletion, editing, deferment, etc.) they're no longer eligible for G13. If I had to wager, I'd bet that the users were given a jolt to remind them and we'll see them show back up in around 6 months. Hasteur (talk) 14:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
One thing to consider when discussing the numbers is that as the months pass, more submissions become eligible and are added to the category, so if none were being deleted, the total would fairly quickly begin to rise again. In a couple of months, the early postponements will start to reappear on the list, and so when the backlog gets down to these, the rate of checking will slow down, since these should be on the average much better quality than the ones we are checking now. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

AFCH script and custom submitter

I wanted to promote Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/PACT programming model as Parallelization contract. The author's user page has been changed from another account, with a claim that the other account belongs to the same person [7]. Believing the claim, I chose "custom submitter" in the script and gave the new account, Physikerwelt, as the submitter, rather than the original author, Schubi87. Unfortunately, when I chose "accept" in the script, the notice went to User talk:72.200.84.87, notifiying someone who had previously inserted an AfC submittion template [8] into the draft. —rybec 00:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Well the script always takes the oldest submitted template. mabdul 07:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Categories for Deletion Notice

I have proposed that Category:AfC pending submissions by age/21 days ago through Category:AfC pending submissions by age/28 days ago be nominated on the grounds that they are not being used nor are they procedurally being used. The nomination is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 9#Category:AfC pending submissions by age/28 days ago. Please feel free to weigh in on the debate if you feel it is appropriate. Hasteur (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Kafziel and his reviews

Kafziel seems to be making especially troublesome reviews - he either accepts or deletes drafts - he doesn't "decline" them, just deletes them. Some of his deletions is especially problematic, for example deleting an article per a csd criteria in the article section. To game the system, he has sometimes "accepted" articles by moving them into mainspace and then immediately deleting them. Huon has left him a message on his talk page, but Kafziel has declined to change his reviews, citing that he is not a member of AfC, and thus does not need to follow their rules as it is not policy. User talk:Kafziel#Skimlinks may explain the rationale behind his actions, which is completely against consensus. I am at a loss of what to do, can someone help? Thanks! Darylgolden(talk) 01:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Always they reach for IAR without reading the preamble (If a rule prevents you from improving wikipedia, ignore it). I've asked Kafziel to explain themselves per the Administrator Actions clause. But I don't have access to the articles that they've been mucking with. Darylgolden if you disagree with Kafziel's actions, as an administrator, you could bring them to AN for review. Hasteur (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Is this the editor who tried to cut down the backlog by just accepting all the articles that were still in the system after 4 weeks? Rankersbo (talk) 06:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has now moved to WP:AN/I at this thread. Bellerophon talk to me 15:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
The matter is now at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case and will probably be an open ArbCom case before long. (5 arbs have so far voted to accept the case, and none to decline.) I restored some of the deletions, and left a statement on the case request. Others may want to make a statement also, or later provide evidence. DES (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Articles like this

Is there a simple way to move this back to AfC or NPP? If not, there should be. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 12:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

It is not patrolled, so it is in the NPP queue. As far as I can see, this article was never in AfC, so there is no way to move it "BACK" there. In any case, no one is ever required to use AfC, and any autoconfirmed user can move a draft out of AfC space. If that user is the original creator, i see no grounds for objecting to such a move (it might be a problem if another editor moves it when the creator wanted to use AfC). In theory anyone could move it INTO AfC space, but I would object to that strongly, unless the creator had requested it. DES (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
It didn't seem to be in the NPP queue because I didn't see the toolbox pop up. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
After my edit here I added various tags and marked it as patrolled. DES (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to add a new checkbox and button to the decline process at Afc

Reviewers and others, please weigh in at:

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/archive%%0#Proposal to add a new checkbox and button to the decline process at Afc

Thanks —Anne Delong (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Draft namespace

Suggest we start thinking about the changes that will be required to start using the new draft namespace when it is launched. (See mw:Draft namespace.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

according to bugzilla, draft is now being tested at (http://en.wikipedia.beta.wmflabs.org). I jsut went there and it seems that IP users and new Beta logins cannot yet create drafts. Or if they can, I don't see how. DES (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Dealing with duplicates

It sometimes happens that when a reviewer starts to review a draft, s/he finds that it has been cut&paste-moved to article space already. Our decline reason of duplicate doesn't really handle this well, it is set up for the different case when the AfC submitter has duplicated a previously existing article. A history merge would be the ideal result, but that takes an admin and may be more trouble than it is worth, particularly if there is no other editor to credit. Should these be tagged for G6 (housekeeping) speedy deletes? or just declined and left until they are deleted as stale? Or should we seek some other way of handling them? I don't favor a cross-namespace redirect for such, as one poster on WT:CSD suggested. DES (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

This has to do with my previous post too. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
If the article in Afc space has a significant part of the article's history, you could ask for a history merge between the two articles. Then there would only be one article.
If it's just a few diffs by the same author as the one who moved it, that's not necessary. If the article in mainspace is unsourced or spam, it may be deleted, so it's sometimes good to wait a few days and see what happens. If the article survives, then the old one can be deleted as a G6 (housekeeping). If the article is deleted, the editor may come back to improve the Afc version. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
A much bigger discussion on this topic is happening at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G13. In the past I have declined on the basis of exists, but now I am suggesting that we redirect to the article space from the AFC one. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Deleting AFC submissions that were later duplicated by main space entries

I have had a couple of CSD nominations declined because an AFC submission has subsequently been duplicated by a main space article. Which criteria should I be using? Hack (talk) 03:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Hack What CSD rationalle are you using? Why are there duplications? Was it a copy paste move? IMO, I'd let the submission linger as a Decline because duplicate and let the eventual drogue of G13 clean it up so that the creator can be directed to the existing article. Hasteur (talk) 03:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Hack. If the article in Afc was by a different user from the mainspace one, the usual process is to decline it as a duplicate. The message suggests to the editor that he/she should instead work on the mainspace article. By leaving the article in Afc, the person has time to move any useful content and references to the mainspace article, which also transfers the attribution of their work to that document. The six months before G13 eligibility should give lots of time for that to happen. That's presuming, of course, that there isn't some other pressing problem such as blatant advertising, negative BLP, attack page, etc. I have had success in nominating some of these under G6 (housekeeping) if I can report that the submitter has been editing the mainspace article and that there was no useful content to be moved. Also, sometimes I have contacted the submitter and asked it it's okay to delete, and then use G7 (author requests deletion) —Anne Delong (talk) 03:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
This seems like a pointless exercise in bureaucracy. There are often speculative AFC submissions created on non-notable sports people. When they meet our requirements, an article is usually created in main space. It seems strange that you would leave a poor quality AFC submission when a better version already exists in main space. If I place a comment to the effect that there is already a main space article, the clock is reset for another six months. Hack (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Hack, are you saying that it is normal practice for a editor from a sports Wikiproject to see a poorly written or incomplete Afc submission, and then instead of improving it, deliberately write a different article about the same topic? Or am I misunderstanding your last post? —Anne Delong (talk) 05:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
No, usually the editors creating the main space articles are unaware there is an AFC submission for the same subject. I forget the article but there was a main space article created for a footballer after two separate AFC submissions had been created. Because generally AFC contributions tend to be of a lower standard, there was nothing salvageable from either AFC submission. Hack (talk) 05:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Hack, in those cases what I have been known to do is to simply add a redirect to the article on the top of the page. I leave everything else there so that the author can move any information that may not be in the article and it leaves the afc submission declined template on the page which allows it to still categorize when eligible for the G13 queue. That is the best that can be done because there is no (and likely never will be) {{Db-redundant}}. Technical 13 (talk) 13:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I redirect to the main article - normally these days I find the duplicate is because the author has got fed up with the backlog and gone straight to mainspace instead. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
If it's an article that was well developed in Afc, it should probably be put back together with a historymerge, especially if there is more than one editor involved. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Ready/Not ready

Articles like this have popped up when I push the {{AFC button}}. Is there a problem with the button or a problem with the banners on these submissions? ~KvnG 03:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Kvng The problem is that there was a Pending submission template at the very bottom of the page that qualified the submission to be landed on. I cleaned the submission so that the draft banner would be removed and the AFC banner at the bottom would be moved to the top. Hasteur (talk) 04:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I assume I should treat other articles in this state in the same way. ~KvnG 13:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
That would be good, unless you want to outright review the submission due to the fact that the clean actually is executed as well. Hasteur (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I would definitely also be reviewing. Accept and reject scripts seems to clean this up somewhat. I mostly wanted to be sure that I was not reviewing articles that were not actually ready for review. I will trust that the button does the right thing and review any article that shows a pending banner anywhere (potentially in addition to other banners). ~KvnG 15:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Moving article to WT:AFC after it is declined breaks the link from the user page message

There is a problem when an article submitted to AfC from a userspace page is moved to WT:Articles for creation after it has been declined, like this: the link from the userpage message that says "If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at... " no longer works, see this version (I have fixed this one manually). I don't understand the complex syntax of the template, and I would have expected the redirect to simply pass one through to the new location, but the actual result after User:Hsanchez6/Virtuous Records was moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Virtuous Records, was a redlink to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hsanchez6/Virtuous Records. JohnCD (talk) 15:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

That is a weird thing to have happened. It could happen if the page were to be first moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hsanchez6/Virtuous Records and then to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Virtuous Records, and the intermediate redirect was then deleted; however, I am the one who moved the page, and I am 99% sure that I didn't do that (although my brain is slowly turning to jello from working the G13 backlog), so how that incorrect link arrived on the page is a mystery. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
The syntax of {{Afc decline}} was changed not that long ago to render the link to the submission differently. Like John, I have no idea how that new syntax works, but I'm sure one of the script devs does. Hopefully they will chime in here soon Bellerophon talk to me 20:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, this looks like a problem with the old {{AFC submission/location}} template. Interestingly enough, the edit you linked was me removing its usage whenever possible, due to bugs like this ;) I'm pinging a user who I know has worked on the borked template in the past to investigate a temporary fix -- new versions of the script (from <4 months ago IIRC) use the {{subst:Afc_decline/sandbox|full=User:Hsanchez6/Virtuous Records}} syntax, which alleviates this problem. Theopolisme (talk) 22:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

  • While I understand the frustration such an issue can cause, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ should be going away shortly. Once the move to Draft: is in progress, I'll be going through re-writing most of all of those templates I'm sure. As for this particular case, I believe it is mostly just an issue of moves and missing/changed redirects causing a gap someplace but I don't have much time to investigate right now... I hope this explanation helps and happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, it's because the template assumes all submissions will be in either the Wikipedia or Wikipedia talk namespace. Theopolisme (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget the really old stuff

Backlog from 21 to 28 days ago is cleared! Don't forget the older stuff. ~KvnG 23:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal

Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal, a renounced columnist in world affairs Hr writes mainly in English in many newspapers and non-print media portals. He edits "Foreign Policy Issues and " International Opinion" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdulruff (talkcontribs) 06:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Abdul. Your submission was declined and later deleted because you did not provide any references to verify the content. It is insufficient to simply say that there is a source in some newspaper - you have to either provide a full citation (author, title, publication, date) or a link to the source itself. These also have to be sources written about you, not sources you wrote yourself. Ultimately, I recommend you try not to write about yourself at all. It is basically impossible to be objective about oneself (see WP:COI). Someguy1221 (talk) 07:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion re backlog

My name is noticeably absent from those who do the heavy lifting with the reviews, so I'll understand that I may not have the qualifications to be making suggestions on process. In my defense, I do field a lot of OTRS questions, many of which relate to AFC, so I do see the process, and in ways that some of the regulars might not see. As is well-known, there is a backlog. Recruiting more volunteers would be an answer, but that isn't an easy sell. I did a fair amount of work at the predecessor to AfC, the Feedback forum, and frankly, it twas largely thankless work. So I can't really imagine an easy way to attract new editor to AfC in general. Of course, I could volunteer, but I'm struggling to find enough volunteers to help out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Basketball/Women's basketball. While I'm not ready to sign up as a general volunteer, if someone ran across an article related to women's basketball, I would be happy to get involved.


That reminded me of something Anne Delong did, which I hope can be formalized? I don't remember where I saw it, but she posted a link to an AfC submission to a Wikiproject page. In short, rather than recruiting generalists for AfC, why not strong arm Wikiprojects into agreeing that they would review submissions in their area?

I'm here because of an OTRS issue. After helping someone process permission, she asked when the submission about her might be done. My heart sank, because I knew the answer was not a short period of time. Then I decided to check with a specific editor, and if that failed, try the relevant Wikiproject. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that the first request will work, but it reminded me again that it might make sense to reach out to Wikiprojects.

In principle, the process is simple. Craft a plea directed at Wikiprojects, letting hem know how backlogged the process is and that many potential articles in their area of expertise are not getting the attention they deserve. They would be hard-pressed to turn you down, how can they argue that their main goal is articles about X, and turn down helping with articles about X? If they agree, someone can work out the details, but one approach would be to add a section to the main Wikiproject page for relevant submissions, then create a list for AfC volunteers, Then part of the triage could be to see if the draft fits in to any of the Wikiprojects who signed up, turn it over to them (with a name who can help with the review process,and then reviewers can concentrate on drafts who don't have a participating Wikiproject.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I and a number of other Afc reviewers have been pointing out specific submissions to Wikiprojects, but this is a laborious process and many times there is no response. What's needed is a way to search only the current submissions for a specific keyword. I spent some time trying to figure this out and asked for help at VPT, but to no avail so far. The search engine won't pick up variations in the template (I think because it's transcluded, but it's been a while, so I may have the reason wrong), so it picks up all of the declined submissions with the current ones. Catscan picks up the category and the submission template, but doesn't have a keyword search. Google won't work because the submissions are NOINDEX. If Wikiproject members could do a keyword search on only the active submissions, then, for example, football enthusiasts could visit Afc, type in "football", and see if there were any current submissions of interest. It's not reasonable for editors from special interest groups to check thousands of submissions in cast five or six might be relevant; nor is is reasonable to ask them to check hundreds of submissions with a certain keyword, when most of them have already been declined. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Now I remember your VPT request; I'm not sure it sunk in at the time. My thinking is that it might be valuable to get buy-in from the Wikiproejct first. In theory, if you drop a submission relevant to them in their main page, someone should take a look at it, but sometimes we fall into the "someone else will do it". If one starts a discussion on the project talk page, and some member s agree they should be responsive, maybe there will be more action if an article is then added to a list. Anne, you probably have a good sense of typical categories - what might be a good pilot? I'm pretty sure your answer won't be women's basketball. Biographies is too general, but maybe something like bands or music or football?--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, I have another idea, this one is better. You weren't able to get a software solution to the keyword identification, let's try a wetware solution. I assume there is some general information provided to editors who start articles. Why not tell them that, then current backlog is roughly x days, but can be reduced to y days if the article falls into one of the following categories? There's a bit of a cart and horse problem here, but if we got a few Wikiprojects to agree to do a review in, say 30 days, we could list the eligible categories. The problem might be if we start with only a couple categories, editors will be tempted to pick one, in hopes of a shorter review period. I think we can address that, but let's start by seeing if the general idea has any merit.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
This idea has been suggested before (I'm sorry, I don't remember where), and should be technically feasible since the code for a list of Wikiprojects has already been added to the "accept" process in the Afc script. The problem is that not all Wikiprojects are active, and that we really can't promise anything because editors at Wikiprojects come and go and do what they like. A simple software solution, which maybe we could request from our helpful script developers, would be to add to all active submissions, at the time the Afc template is added, some small identifying text that the search engine could pick up (maybe AFC_SUBMISSION <!--do not delete this line--> or some such). Then when the submission was declined, this text could be removed. If this were done, a custom search would pick up only the active submissions when a person typed in a keyword, such as "opera" or "basketball", and we could ask interested Wikiprojects to post a custom-custom search including this keyword on their Wikiproject page so that a simple click would let them check for new interesting submissions. The only flaw I see is that the text might be deleted by submitters who don't follow instructions. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
It was proposed here by me, suggested by another editor, and I still very much support it - though there seemed to be little support last time. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Probably should have done my homework first. After posting, checked a few wikiprojects, and was surprised to see how inactive they are. Too bad.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Don't feel bad. It took me 15 minutes to find it, and I wrote it. I still believe the marjority of the counter arguments are not really reasonable, and solvable really easy (ask WikiProjects if they want to be notified, and ask, don't oblige reviewers and AfC creators to select possibly interested WikiProjects from the List(tm)). Demanding evidence of effectiveness before trying it out is beyond silly to me. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
That might be caused by sour grapes and grumpy old wikipedian syndrome though. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

In my mind there's nothing with poking some of the most active projects (like MILHIST/ROADS/Anime) and seeing if they're willing to take over the job of reviewing the submissions for their subject. Hasteur (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I have been notifying a number of Wikiprojects about submissions in their area. The results are mixed, not only because of lack of response, but because sometimes there are people willing to give opinions but lacking in knowledge of how to use the review script or not wanting to go through all of the instructions. What would be most immediately helpful for these people would be an easy way for editors who don't want to learn the ropes at Afc, but have subject knowledge, is an easy way for them to use the Afc comment template to add their opinions about notability or source reliability at the top of the submissions. Then the usual reviewers could read the comments and be saved the time of going off to find someone knowledgeable. Of course, some Wikiprojects have members who know all about reviewing, and don't need this. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Now that the AfC helper script has been gadgetified and can be used in other namespace, I don't really see why even uninitiated Wikiproject members wouldn't be able to use it to add comments. Perhaps they just need the idea selling to them more. Bellerophon talk to me 00:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
A possible workflow could be to ask Wikiprojects if they would be interested in receiving notifications for AfC's, compile a list of interested wikiprojects, incorporate a step in the article wizard and review gadget where they can tick subjects it might fall under. The AfC should then be added to a category per subject, for example, a submitted draft would then end up in Category:AfC submissions for MILHIST and Category:AfC submissions for Anime I don't know what article would fall in these two categories, but I definitely would want to see it. As part of a review step, reviewers would be able to add and remove wikiproject categories. I remain of the opinion that this will definitely not be harmful, and is potentially very useful (though this is still to be proven). If it turns out to be useless, no harm done. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I doubt if it would work. Of the 400 or so registered members at WP:WPSQCH for example, AFAIK I'm the only editor who systematically works on school articles other than the ones I created myself. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
As someone who wants to focus on particular topics, it's very frustrating not being able to distinguish between unreviewed submissions and rejected submissions. For example if I search for "football -redirect", there are about 1800 articles, most of which are low quality dead-end articles. There needs to be some way of categorising articles by genre - even if it is relatively broad. Hack (talk) 05:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm asking a WikiProject about a related situation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology#A bombardment of new psychology articles at Articles for Creation - class project? - in particular, whether that Wikiproject would prefer acceptable-looking articles to be simply accepted by non-specialists and dropped into their Wikiproject category for remedial tidy-up, or whether they would like us to confer with them about acceptance on a case by case basis. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


Since the backlog is not organized by topic, soliciting the involvement of WikiProject members to help with the backlog would amount to an awareness campaign targeting all WikiProjects. This feels a bit like spam. I would suggest an awareness campaign targeted to the assessment departments of any WikiProject that has such a department. We can post an appeal to the assessment department's talk page. The starting point, if we want to pursue this idea, is to identify which WikiProjects have assessment departments. ~KvnG 18:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

It would be much easier if you could give a project a list of articles that fall under their scope. Hack (talk) 04:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Emerging discussion re Draft: namespace

Please see and join the emerging discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Drafts#Deletion_and_Draft: regarding part of the potential usage of the Draft: namespace. Fiddle Faddle 19:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

"And so it begins..." Bellerophon talk to me 23:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
It does, and we can make it whatever we want. If we don;t make it what we want it will turn into something we deserve. These are not necessarily the same thing. I want that last donut but I do not deserve to get fatter! Fiddle Faddle 11:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Accepting over redirect

I attempted to accept Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paul Pesco. A redirect exists for this person. I got a "Can't find AfD template" error from the script when I went to accept. Not sure what to do next. ~KvnG 14:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Yunshui and Yulia Romero for helping with this. ~KvnG 15:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

FYI

User talk:Rebecca1990#Article help, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Danica Dillon. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Am I the "anti-porn friend"? Face-sad.svg Sigh...porn COIs and PR people. At least he's doing what was asked and following the process. I seriously think the porn BIO guideline is seriously flawed and hope the current discussion yields some results. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

separating a category requests page

I've noticed that category requests slip off and are archived without being accepted or rejected, or even queried, much more often than with redirect requests. I have a mind that this may be because they are being lost in the sea of red and green accepted and denied redirect requests, and bad article requests, and that they are more complex so require more thought.

So I'm proposing that category requests go to a separate WP:AFC/C page apart from WP:AFC/R, with a different and longer archival time limit (say two weeks instead of just 1 week).

-- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

2-3 Articles to be reviewed

I got about 2-3 articles, that are yet to be reviewed/patrolled. I think they have been overlooked. Can I submit them here? Bladesmulti (talk) 04:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Adding {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page will add it to the "to be reviewed" pile. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Appreciated. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Prof. Mahavir Saran Jain

Dear contributor:

This is not the place for draft articles. You are probably looking for WP:AFC. I have "collapsed" the content of your comment so that you can copy it to a "real" submission at your convenience.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

"This may take over 3 weeks."

This text on the template should read "more than" not over. Please can someone fix it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Standalone WikiProject template selector

I've requested that the AfC helper script's very useful WikiProject template selector be made available as a stand-alone tool. Comments welcome at WP:VPT#WikiProject template selector. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)