Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category — List (sorting)ShowcaseParticipants
Apply — By subjectReviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives

Welcome—discuss matters concerning this project!

AfC submissions Random submission

4+ months

2,917 pending submissions to update

• Are you in the right place?
  • If you want to ask a question about your draft submission, use the AfC Help desk.
  • For questions on how to use or edit Wikipedia, use the Teahouse.
  • Create an article using Article wizard or request an article at requested articles.
• Put new text under old text. Start a new topic.
• In addition to this page, you can give feedback about the AFCH helper script by creating a new ticket on GitHub.
• New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.

• Top of page
• Table of Contents
• Bottom of page

The Great Backlog Drive

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Can an article be created for Technical Stopover?

The term is used in transport, mainly commercial aviation and is referred to as 'Tech Stop'. Lets ay an airline is operating route A-b-C-D, with no traffic rights to/from b which is a tech stop only, it may involve one or more or even all of the following:

1. refuelling 2. crew change 3. food/drink/supplies restocking and cleaning of aircraft

However the airline is not allowed to tranport passengers or cargo any where to or from b.116.71.19.75 (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Could be an article, but it would have to be more than just a dictionary definition (otherwise you can use wiktionary). You will also need a couple of reliable sources which cover the term, e.g. is it in any dictionaries? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

A crazy idea...again.

I have had the benifit of a few computer programming courses over the past few months, orienting me more to the language of python. We have talked many times about a bot, and I had one going, but it didn't address all the conflicts. I now feel and have rethought how to address the issues that came up and would like to takle the bot idea again. It would realize the difference between new articles in the mainspace and accepted ones just not logged yet, and userpage transfering, for you programming people, I didn't know about the .split(String) and that would help address the issue. Comments? DQ.alt (t) (e) 18:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Since no one is commenting and we have a huge backlog, I will get started. -- DQ (t) (e) 21:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

iPhoneEmu unprotect and move User:Colejohnson66/iPhoneEmu to it

So? This new version is much better and with references! --Colejohnson66 (talk) 03:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

 Not done As there is a clear conflict of interest and the entire article is based on self published sources, with no implication of notability.--Terrillja _talk 05:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Well how do I make it? --Colejohnson66 (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:COI and WP:N. As it lacks any sources other than its own website, it clearly does not meet WP:N at this point in time.--Terrillja _talk 21:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

There is another issue with this article - one that deals with piracy. Since this person has written an emulator to emulate current software, I would construe that as stealing. I wonder what Steve Jobs would have to say about this app? Whose Your Guy (talk) 15:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Just take a look at the WINE project, which is a emulation layer to run Windows programs in Linux. I don't see how such an app compatibility library to run iPhone apps on PC is piracy - Emulation != Piracy (just saying). Some Wiki Editor (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed update of logo

• 
  Original
• 
  New
• 
  Pending
• 
  Declined
• 
  Held

What do you think? Mono (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I like it. I have two more that I uploaded based off of Mono's SVG. They're right below this comment. I think it's high time for a modernization, and these actually look pretty good. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I like them very much, but the grey isn't very appealing. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 4:24pm • 05:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't classify it as minor, but it is excellent. If Ancient's point about the grey stands, perhaps a slightly more Vectory blue-grey tone? sonia♫ 05:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Also I think the W should stay small and in either the top-left or right-hand corners, it doesn't look so good in the centre over the lines, those are just my thoughts. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 4:28pm • 05:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

In reply to Sven's designs, I think those would be appealing as a way to further set off the various subtemplates of {{AFC submission}}; that is, the "onhold" and "declined" variations. Robert Skyhawk ^{(T C B)} 17:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that is what I planned them for. When the overhaul gets consensus, I intend on inserting them into Template:Afc decline and Template:Afc onhold as well. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I like the new ones, too. More smooth. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I like Sven's idea for changing the hold and decline icons. However changing the main logo, it has been historically a green cross. This change will make it a white cross with a green background making it look more like the American red cross only green. And it is Articles for Creation. In the original logo there are two articles, whereas this one only has one. A few adjustments are needed, but the overall proposal is good. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 14:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I did a mock up, and if we invert the colors (green cross on white) it looks terrible. I also tweaked the colors and did a few versions that were closer to what AA asked for, but again, they didn't look as good. It could be that I've got no game, so to speak, when it comes to Inkscape, but the current versions outclassed anything I could come up with. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

•  Implemented - shows half the time, with a link to this discussion. Mono (talk) 23:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

For pending submissions could a new icon be used? For example a circle with a question mark using Sven's and Mono's design. The + symbol is for created submissions, just a thought. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 16:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Mono (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal on Deletion of Blanked AfCs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

 Consensus to implement procedure. --Mono (talk) 02:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Several proposals have been put forward over the years on what to do with the ten thousand or so declined AfC submissions. Most I have seen deal in general terms, proposing to delete large swaths of these. This proposal is very specific, and deals with a much smaller percentage of declined submissions. It is as follows:

AfC submissions that have been blanked for over a month are to be deleted

What this means is that pages declined and blanked as copyright infringements, and left untouched for over a month, would be tagged CSD G12, and more than likely immediately deleted as any other unambiguous copyright infringement would be.

Blanked pages are a small subset of the overall declined submissions, and only cover copyright infringements, attack pages, and personal information/security issues. In most cases, personal information will have been removed via the admin tool revdel, or by oversighters, and the blanked pages are truly blank underneath the templates.

This proposal would result in the removal of a large amount of content that would have already been deleted had it been anywhere else on Wikipedia.

Comments

1. As proposer; Sven Manguard Wha? 22:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Aye. Mono (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Yep, per WP:RD1 and common sense. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Good idea, this crap would have been zapped instantly anywhere else. I've got a list ready to delete this stuff that there's no reason at all to keep around. (From a sampling of it. Wow, there's some bad stuff here.) Courcelles 19:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
5. Support that is a good idea. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 13:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
6. Support I didn't even think we kept blank articles at all but this is definitely worth it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
7. Support Deletion The Earwig nuked Copyvios a long while back, but it's time to shake this again. I would not recommend tagging them each for deletion though, let an admin do it. -- DQ (t) ^{Merry Chrismas}_{and a Happy New Year!} 02:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Would it be worth considering just revdel of the copyvio versions, leaving the 'declined as copyvio' page, so that non-admin AFC folks could see that a previous submission had been declined as copyvio?  Chzz  ►  22:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

RevDel works better when there's something worth saving. There's nothing like that here. A decent entry in the deletion log would be as useful to non-admins as a crossed-out line in history. Courcelles 19:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The deletion log entry would only help if the AFC reviewer checked the logs of each and every AFC. Which I doubt will happen.

If a page exists, and has history, they'd see it.

The 'something worth saving' would be the name of the creator, and the decline rationale (which would include the URL of the site it came from).  Chzz  ►  18:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps RevDel by bot or salting... Mono (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why we would bother to save the creator information and decline rationale. The version they created would be unusable, and the decline rationale would be one of the three variations of it's unusable. Yes, good record keeping is an excellent skill to have, but keeping records of things that realistically have no chance of being used, especially in these cases where using the contents of the blanked pages would break policy, doesn't seem practical.

Also, suppose that someone wants to create an article on some topic, and submits at AfC a passable article, created from scratch, with sources and everything, but six months earlier, someone else created an AfC on the same topic that was entirely cut and pasted in, and then subsequently blanked by the reviewers. The new article should not be tied to the old one at all. It's not like the new, good, article was created from the old one, they are essentially unrelated. Attaching the new edit history to the old one would be inaccurate. Sure they have the same name, but by saving bad content we are attaching a good, clean article, to a tainted one, where the two never were worked on as one item.

I admit that the above was a rather long winded argument, but still, after thinking about what you said, in my opinion, it is a far better idea to get rid of these things entirely. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you're assuming that the entire page is copyvio, which is not always the case - unless this only applies to such cases?  Chzz  ►  00:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

This is (as I understand it) only for articles that have been completely blanked with the {{Afc blanked}} template. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

@ Fetchcomms: Yes, exactly.

@ The AfC community: Now, is six people a consensus to move forward, or should we wait for a few more? Sven Manguard Wha? 01:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

This is sufficent, probally the most users we will get. -- DQ (t) ^{Merry Chrismas}_{and a Happy New Year!} 02:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Procedure for deletion

How? Mono (talk) 02:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Done, initially using AWB. Now, how to keep this going forward... either every month cleaning out transclusions of the blanked template- easy if an admin remembers/is prompted; or by writing an adminbot. Courcelles 02:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I remember talk a few months back about an admin bot, but pages tagged with that are not reviewed before deletion, if that is fine with the community I would be willing to code it (after I finish my backlog of bot projects currently). -- DQ (t) ^{Merry Chrismas}_{and a Happy New Year!} 02:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Is this stuff logged somewhere?  Chzz  ►  22:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Like what the bot would be doing? I could get it to do that. -- DQ (t) (e) 19:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

"Quick fail criterion 4"

This criterion reads...: "No reliable sources: In order to be accepted, all articles must include at least one third-party reliable source. If no sources are listed, the only sources listed are unreliable (such as MySpace or YouTube), or the only sources are not published by a third party (such as the subject's website or any Wikimedia site), the article cannot be accepted. Tag the article with {{AFC submission|D|v|other parameters}}."

I am unaware of any policy that requires Wikipedia articles to include sources. Indeed, we have plenty of articles without them. WP:V obviously requires that the content of an article is verifiable, and WP:DEL#REASON suggests that articles which cannot be sourced should be deleted. However I think it's instruction creep to suggest that articles can only ever be created if they list sources. There is no such requirement on articles which are created the old-fashioned way rather than through AfC!

Perhaps this criterion ought to be removed or reworded so that it fits in with policy? Regards, The Land (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not providing an opinion on your proposal just yet, bit as I recall, the justification behind #4 is that our submissions are theoretically held to a higher standard than a page created by an account in the mainspace. I don't recall where I read that rationale, and perhaps consensus will dictate that it's outdated. Robert Skyhawk ^{(T C B)} 18:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Every article should have sources. In fact there are people, myself included, that would delete any article that has no sources, period. The whole concept of creating a usable encyclopedia is founded upon the principle that the information is accurate and reliable. In order for that to be assured, we need sources. I am strongly in favor of not changing this decline rationale. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

This is fundamental...I personally would support blanking all unreferenced articles, like the BLP proposal. Mono (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

That there are articles already on Wikipedia without sources is not a reason to have low standards. When starting an article from scratch, it should be obvious that sources should be included. It would be understandable for a new editor to get this wrong through inexperience, but as AfC is a venue to get other editors to create articles for those who don't know how standards should be higher. The editor has to get their information from somewhere so that source should be referenced. Verifiability is policy. The only reason being unreferenced is not a deletion criteria is the sheer number of articles that would then be open to deletion as a result; who knows, perhaps one day it will be. This apparent disparity is due to rising standards and shouldn't be used as an excuse to shoo through unreferenced articles. Criterion 4 is certainly a good idea. Nev1 (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

There is certainly a consensus in the community at large that all articles should be sourced. The policy of No original research states: "Wikipedia does not publish original research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis of published material to advance a position not advanced by the sources." Although it goes on to say, "This means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed. The sourcing policy, Verifiability, says a source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. "Paris is the capital of France" needs no source because no one is likely to object to it, but we know that sources for that sentence exist." I would encourage you to read on, "If no source exists for something you want to add to Wikipedia, it is "original research". To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented." _{I rest my case.} ^{Edit 4K! ~}Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 03:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

So much unreferenced content exists because too many new and anonymous users fly by, add content, and never cite their sources. I think requiring that citation as the submission is created is the best time to get users to cite their sources. Time and time again, I see a submission put on hold or declined for lack of referencing, and the submitter comes along and fixes it. Other times, they admit that the content is made up or otherwise unverifiable. So I've always thought this is a great requirement. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the many responses. On reflection I agree it's a useful requirement, particularly given that these are articles you guys are creating on behalf of other people, so it is a good opportunity to ensure only referenced material is added. The Land (talk) 12:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Cooperation with ru-wiki Incubator

Hello. I'm a participant of ru-wiki's Article Incubator (it is important to notice, that we use it not like your WP:Article Incubator, but like WP:Articles for creation). So after creation by new user we check new article and move in mainspace if it is good. And sometimes we have articles written in English in our Incubator. So, I want to ask you - can we move (for example by copy-pasting or another way) this articles from ru-Incubator to WP:Articles for creation or maybe to some other project in English WP? For example now we have such an article: Sanatoria and Resorts of Ulyanovsk Region. Dmitry89 (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You would be welcome to create content in the Articles for creation, but of course it would be good if you don't move over the material that you already know is unsuitable, such as vandalism, blank , or known copyright problems. I believe it may be possible to WP:transwiki move content so as to retain attribution. Otherwise please add a comment when creating the contrution that attributes the IP and time and location of the original content. Are ru licenses the same as here? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

OK checking out special:Import there is no "ru" in the dropdown box, so although special:import is possible for some languages, I will have to investigate further. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

In the past, I've done transwiki'ing between wmf wikis not on the list, but it has to involve Meta (since that *is* on the list). Unfortunately, you have to be (or get) an admin on meta to import it there, then import it here (enwiki). As I'm an admin on Meta, I'd be willing to do this if someone poked me when needed. Killiondude (talk) 08:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

To get ru added to the dropdown list in special:import, do we need to file a Bugzilla report? Anyway all this trouble is only worthwhile if we use the articles. So how about the procedure is to post the links to the potential articles here? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Mmm, posting here links to the potential articles is a good idea. So as I see this idea - we will post on this talk pages a request, and if article has potential (if somebody posts that article is ok), we will ask Killiondude to move it to your project, yeah? Dmitry89 (talk) 08:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

For [[ru:Википедия:Проект:Инкубатор/Статьи/Sanatoria and Resorts of Ulyanovsk Region it is slightly promotional tone and has no references, so it is not acceptable here yet. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The Museum of One Painting n. a. G. V. Myasnikov’s

Here one else article in English, what do you think about it? Dmitry89 (talk) 11:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

ru:Музей одной картины имени Г.В. Мясникова - aleady in russian. --Drakosh (talk) 14:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This one looks acceptable, we just have to start that move process! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, Killiondude promises to help with import. Who will post a request on his talkpage? Or what to do next? Dmitry89 (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, it's all set @ meta: meta:The Museum of One Painting n. a. G. V. Myasnikov’s. What page title do we want it at enwiki? Killiondude (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe "The Museum of One Painting named after G. V. Myasnikov" like Crimea State Medical University named after S. I. Georgievsky or Zaporizhia Region Universal Scientific Library named after A.M. Gorky. Dmitry89 (talk) 05:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay,  Done Killiondude (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Dmitry89 (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Anton Kurakins

One else. Defender of reserve squad of Celtic. Dmitry89 (talk) 06:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

May not yet meet WP:ATHLETE yet, but probably will do so in the future. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

piShaper

New article in English. Is it notable for English WP? Dmitry89 (talk) 08:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks to be a promotion for the PiShaper product. It will need independent references to show notability, and a rewrite to make it less of a promotion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, we've decided to delete it. Dmitry89 (talk) 09:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

AFC Submissions in userspace

Is there a preferred way to deal with AFC submissions that are created in users' own userspace? I see two options:

• Move them to the proper Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/... location
• Review them in userspace as normal, moving them to mainspace if accepted.

Thoughts? Robert Skyhawk ^{(T C B)} 23:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I always move them, as my script doesn't work if it's in the userspace. There's a handy button toward the bottom of the template. Mono (talk) 00:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I, like Mono, just move them too. -- DQ (t) ^{Merry Chrismas}_{and a Happy New Year!} 15:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I would also usually move them to the Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/ space. ^~Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 20:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I move them to Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/ and CSD the redirect with R3. I then review the submission and inform the author. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 21:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm worried by the idea of immediately R3ing the redirect. Firstly it may create confusion for the new user if they can't find their article. Secondly I've started AFCing articles in user space where they've made a requested move as a RM is not the correct procedure. In this instance they may not even be aware of the fact that their article was turned into an AfC submission so they may be even more confused. Can I suggest waiting a while before R3ing the redirect? Dpmuk (talk) 11:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't see any benefits in deleting the redirect ... what is the reason for doing this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

No point deleting the redir, as far as I can see. They're cheap; leave the redir.  Chzz  ►  22:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Assessment

I propose eliminating the assessment function of this project. After articles are created, ths project doesn't have a continuing role with them, and the purpose of assessment is solely to plan for further development of the article. There doesn't seem to be any purpose in this project revisiting articles to reassess them continually. Given that there are now so many subject matter projects, it's easy for the AfC reviewer to provide an initial assessment via one of those projects' assessment schemes. Is there any reason to preserve this project's assessment function given this? --Bsherr (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's useful in keeping track of where AfC content has gone. I personally have taken an AfC-created article and successfully gotten it up to GA-level. We've had other GAs, an FP from FFU and even an FA, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Showcase. I don't see how leaving the assessment bit there hurts—I'm open to developing articles via AfC if I know stuff about the topic. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

For that purpose, I wouldn't object to reconstruing AfC as part of an article's article history rather than the article being a continuing constituent of the project. I don't propose dispensing with tracking FAs and GAs. --Bsherr (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hmm, there are valid points to both comments here. I believe that Fetchcomms is correct in that there is a desire to track what has come out of AfC, however at the same time, the categorizing is a pain. The WikiProject banner that AfC uses, along with exactly every single other WikiProject, incorporates the ratings right in, (although I believe that AfC has set the importance parameter to inactive.) I went through a while back and categorized a whole slew of ones left categorized, however that kind of thing can easily be done by a bot, and I think that there are bots that do that. Should we track one down and implement it for AfC? Sven Manguard Wha? 21:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The question would then become what to do if assessments conflict. It would be easier to reconstrue AfC as a article history milestone. --Bsherr (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with you very strongly on this. AfC is a project just like any other, and the project banner has a multitude of purposes other than bragging rights. Replacing the banners with milestones will cost us much of our tracking and sorting abilities, the milestone system would have a heavy cost in efficiency, as everything would have to be done manually, rather than by the tools we all use at AfC, and swapping out the currently tagged pages would require an inordinate amount of effort to implement. All in all, what you're asking us to do is to make an exceedingly complex and difficult change to swap a useful tool with a less useful one, which will paralyze an already perpetually backlogged project, based off of a reasoning that you don't think the current one is used or needed. I'm sorry, but it is used, it isn't harming anything, and the mess that your suggestion would cause would far outweigh any possible benefits this would have. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Replacing the project banner with a component of the article history template would result in no loss of tracking ability regarding good articles and featured articles, because categories could be created for articles that are AfC created and are GAs or FAs. It's not clear what the benefit of tracking the other class categories is, since they are individual to each project. The current transclusions can all be replaced by my AWB bot, and then the current template can be replaced with a template that substitutes the article history banner with the appropriate parameters. Does this address your concerns? If not, why not?

To say that AfC is like other projects is not correct. Most projects exist to provide ongoing support to the development of articles. AfC doesn't do this. Projects that don't do this typically don't assess their articles. What other purposes does the banner serve? --Bsherr (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Fetchcomms has already made it clear that people do work on the articles that come through AfC. There is also one critical argument I neglected to mention earlier. Removing the AfC banners will disable the Article Alert bot's alerts of AfC articles up for promotion, or more importantly, deletion. Since many of the articles that come through AfC were created by users that might not stay with Wikipedia, and are unlikely to have been seen by many other Wikiprojects or participatns, the Article Alerts serve to warn AfC, essentially the last line of defense, of articles on the road to deletion.

I am curious, however, to find out why you're pushing so hard for this. It does not seem like a particularly critical or important change, nor do I know of any precedent behind it. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: 1988 Roland Gibeault on List Of Major Whistle Blowers Deleted

Hello WikiProject Articles, I had put a very important name of one of the first whistleblowers under the False Claims Act and it was deleted and is in the deleation log by VQuaker for being promotional even though all of the sources and references of this very important case are verifiable including all the thousands of court documents, newspaper and magazine articles along with CNN and 60 Minutes segment. I guess I may have gotten carried away with all the references that I posted regarding this person and the lawsuit that was sucessfully won both criminally and civilly. Could the folks at this section help me undo and restore this article in a more non promotional way? I really need your help and would like to have this put back into the list of whistleblowers, it is of great historical reference, will you please help me/Qui Tam Relator (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy to help you. Can you provide me a link to the log where you see it was deleted? Was the information deleted or the article entirely? Dusti^*poke* 01:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

There was never an article with that exact name here, ever. I did find this however. Perhaps that is what the OP is referring to?   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 04:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for redirect

I submitted a request twice, and am unable to find them despite having cleared cache. Please let me know if I have submitted incorrectly. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.210.148 (talk) 04:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

That request was approved.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 04:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Propose to remove "Hold" status

I've mentioned this before; sorry - can't remember where;

I think AFC would work better if there was no such thing as "Hold". Reasons;

• The "fix it in 24 hours" goes against the Wikipedia ethos of No deadline
• It can be confusing to new users; a black-and-white "yes" or "no" would be simpler; of course, it states they can "resubmit any time"
• Hold is one of the reasons this gets backlogged so easily. Things languish, and it is quite an effort to check the history, see if the issues have been addressed - or if they're still being worked on
• It is a misleading 'backlog' because, as a reviewer, there is often nothing you can do with an article which is held; so the list of "held" submissions makes AFC appear more backlogged than it is; there might appear to be a whole load of submissions, but if the reviewers cannot do anything with them, then there is actually no backlog
• The existence of "Hold" can make it seen that "Decline" is more final. ie, the article was held, and then - it can appear to new-user - that we've decided it just didn't make the grade, and they are disillusioned. If it is clear that the review is merely to decide if, right now, the submission is ready then it might help encourage improvements and resubmissions

Mostly: Keep It Simple.

We can work to make it clearer, and more friendly, that they are very welcome to resubmit if they think the issues can be addressed...but, can we do away with hold?

Comments and support/oppose are very welcome. Best,  Chzz  ►  10:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support removal of "hold" status, as proposer, for reasons stated above. Chzz  ►  10:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
• Hold I have to think on this; will render decision in 24 hours. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Chzz makes a good argument. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I am not sure, new editors don't understand that submissions are simply moved. They assume their submissions are not kept. The purpose of the hold is to allow the author and other editors to work on the submission and address the issues. I agree it is increasing the appearance of the backlog, but the hold is an effective way to get other reviewers to take a look at submissions that are close to being accepted, but still have minor issues. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 00:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment, regarding 'move' ? Submissions are sometimes moved from user subpages to WT:AFC, for review - but whether they're then deleted, held or accepted, I don't see why that affect anything? And there is a redir, of course. Sometimes - less often - an article is moved from live to WT:AFC. Sorry...but I'm just not seeing the connection here; what has 'move' got to do with it?  Chzz  ►  04:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

What I mean to say is most new users assume the Article Wizard is the only way to create an article. Unless they read up on Wikipedia's help pages they wouldn't know. The other day I had someone in IRC asking how they could be promoted to "WP:Good Article Reviewer" status. They assume the Article Wizard is a "form" that is discarded when declined. It would explain why many submitters will rush to resubmit after a decline. My point is, most submitters don't know that submissions are simply moved from one namespace to another. In most places in the real world "declined" proposals are usually not kept, perhaps that should be made clearer with a note of some fashion on the decline template. I think rather than removing hold, the purpose should change. Currently, the reviewing instructions state that if a reviewer is unsure whether the submission is acceptable then they can leave it for the another reviewer. Unfortunately it is impossible to tell which submissions have been looked at by a reviewer and left for another, unless they specifically leave a note. Even then, most reviewers don't browse submissions pending review. Why not use the hold as a way to get a second review, or if the article has minor issues that need to be addressed. (e.x. articles that need to be wikifyed, inline citations...) Thoughts? Alpha Quadrant ^talk 19:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe there needs to be two kinds of declines: "hard" and "soft" (though those names are really inadequate). A hard decline would be for articles that are unlikely to be approved anytime in the near future in anything resembling their current state, e.g. tests/vandalism, articles that violate WP:NOT, articles about subjects that are apparently not notable, copyvios, blatant advertising, etc... Users are, of course, always free to improve articles and resubmit them, but the message on hard declines would more strongly suggest that Wikipedia is not the right place for such material at this time. Soft declined articles ("not yet ready" articles?) wouldn't get a red declined banner, but would indicate that improvements are needed before the article can be improved, but the proposal is fundamentally salvageable.

My concern is that doing away with the "hold" status would be discouraging to new editors who have produced quality articles that are not quite ready for prime time. For example, I came across Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Integrative Medicine in the pending queue yesterday. Go check it out if you have time. It's a great new article that's far better than the vast majority of new pages I see, especially for one from a new editor (so good that I spent a good while trying to find copyright infringement) that could well have gone to the mainspace immediately, but it had some issues that would best be corrected by the original author first (wrong footnote format, a bunch of uncited quotes and facts in the first half of the article, general lack of wikilinks). And yes I know there are some OR concerns, but the goal isn't to get it to GA status before its even approved! I placed it on hold and asked the author to take a look, especially since he/she is in the best position to cite sources for the unsourced information. Declining such a quality new article would be really discouraging to the author and would feel really wrong to me, but if we adopted this proposal, my only alternative would be to approve it and move it to the mainspace (or keep it in pending, but clogging up that queue is even worse). To me, hold seemed perfect for this kind of situation.

It would also be really cool if some sort of wiki-magic could provide a single push button in the declined template that users can press to resubmit once issues are addressed. That would make it more obvious that declines aren't final and would also prevent the many issues users have figuring out how to move their article back to proposed status. Zachlipton (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

No system is perfect - whether we have hold or not, some things slip through the nets. But, I'm convinced it is a net negative. The article you described is far from typical, and in such a case I'd suggest that, if we didn't have 'hold', it would be quite easy to 'decline', and discuss with the user what needed to change. Preferably, working with them to help them.

Often reviewers are not quite sure which decision to make (acceptable or not), and put things 'on hold' as a kinda softer version of turning it down. That means, it sits in a queue nobody can act upon, in the hope the user will do something. It's more confusing to the majority of users than simply saying "Sorry - can't accept that because of X, Y and a bit of Z. Please fix that up and try again, or ask for help".

I do agree that submitting should be easier (wiki magic). Then again, there are over 9000 things on the wiki that I wish were easier...

In fact, I would like to see reform in the whole process for new users joining, and creating articles; I think we need to 'merge' several processes, and make things much more friendly; I've tried to raise that before - see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2010#Why does this process exist?. - Change We Need, but that takes time.

Meanwhile, this is the system we have, and 'hold' is largely not constructive - and it's an easy fix to just do away with it.  Chzz  ►  07:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support. The amount of submissions that are put On Hold these days is huge, and these submissions are often left to languish in the Pending category, artificially inflating our backlog. What's more, these Holds are usually just declined after 24 hours due to inactivity. And even in the case of submissions that are improved, what if it isn't good enough? Do we leave it on hold? Decline it? I very much prefer the idea of a "black and white" system, in which a Pending submission is either Accepted or Declined. Of course, I am in favor of the prospect of resubmission after a Decline. I'm not advocating a "Make or Break" system; that's not the way the encyclopedia works. In short, "On Hold" is an unnecessary step for a submission. Nix it. Robert Skyhawk ^{(T C)} 20:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• I have found the hold useful on occasion but I agree that it is overused. It should only be used on articles which have a decent chance of being created within a short time. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support but... I think we should re-word the templates/wizard to explain where to find submissions. A lot of users in the IRC help channel don't know where their submission is. It's kinda annoying to ask for their username and then have to backtrack through their contributions. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Say hi!} 05:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a link in the decline message, of course - I think we should make it clearer though. Someone wanna edit Template:Afc decline and improve the clarity? I'd think, probably, we could get rid of the "and [link] was not created, and instead put another line after the "...was declined." possibly in bold, saying "See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Name of your article" or something.  Chzz  ►  15:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support Hold is commonly applied when it doesn't need to be. If a reviewer can solve the hold issues themselves in five minutes, then do it. "Hold" is not an excuse to be lazy. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I think 'R' covers that; it makes it very clear that "hold on a bit, I'm working on this" - and there's no reason we can't occasionally leave something as 'R' for hours, even a day - as long as the reviewer is confident they're actively working on the thing. Chzz  ►  09:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't R become the new H then? Sven Manguard Wha? 02:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support I don't see a valid purpose for the hold template since the decline is never final. Most of them end up as procedural declines anyways. [[CharlieEchoTango]] 02:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
• support If you need to fix citations, whatever, or work with the author (and are sure the author is willing to work on it), by all means mark it as "reviewing"; otherwise, decline will do. I think though that the script and templates should be modified so that declines for copyvio/attack pages/clear advertising etc will leave a message like "welcome, here are the rules, your article violated one of these and has been declined" whereas the other declines will say "thanks for your submission, it is not suitable right now, you can find it at __ to work on it". Otherwise, I think declines can be a little bitey. Is it possible for this to be implemented? sonia♫ 07:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with this comment, too; 'decline' should be clearer, for CV/attack/vandalism. It is misleading as it stands. Chzz  ►  11:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support A principle I have always supported +  Comment: I see 9 supports iirc. Time to close? -- DQ (t) (e) 20:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

   Done. Now H will be treated the same as pending. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• • I just informed Timotheus Canens and he has updated the helper script to reflect this. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks to all, for taking the time and trouble to discuss this, in such a friendly manner  Chzz  ►  07:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we should canvass the talk pages of all Wikiproject members with news of this consensus? Otherwise confusion among reviewers who are not aware of it may ensue. Robert Skyhawk ^{(T C)} 00:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I have already fallen victim to this. Perhaps we should also notify developers of AfC tools such as WP:ACH. (Just saw the comment above.) Krashlandon ^(talk) 20:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Editing AfC

I am in the process of reviewing an article requested for creation, and I was wondering if I am allowed to edit an article requested there. Or must I read it and accept or deny it?

Respond quickly!--RayqayzaDialgaWeird2210Please respond on my talkpage, i will respond on your talkpage.    22:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

YES you can edit it. If you can fix all the problems yourself, do so! Sven Manguard Wha? 23:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Of course you can edit it! [[CharlieEchoTango]] 23:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Be bold. Feel free to edit and improve. It's a wiki. If anyone objects, they can always undo things and/or discuss it with you, or others. Thanks!  Chzz  ►  16:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The Incident (video game)

Looking through Category:2010 video games, I saw Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/The Incident (video game). After a quick search in WP:VG's RS search engine, I found loads of coverage. So, since articles don't have to actually use sources to be considered notable, but the sources have to actually exist, should this article be moved into the mainspace with this search result on the talkpage? I fell it would garner more attention there, and would be expanded quicker. Thanks, _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

As a side note, why is this AfC listed at "Wikipedia talk" instead of "Wikipedia"? I was going to put the sources on the talkpage, but found out that the actual article was on the talkpage. That makes no sense. Is this how all articles are positioned? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It is in the Wikipedia talk namespace, because unregistered users can create pages there - they cannot create pages in Wikipedia namespace.

The criteria for making an article live isn't really just "is it notable" - although of course that is important. If a submission doesn't show notability (ie WP:VRS), then I'd normally decline it asking for the user to add references, or I'd add them myself. We generally only move things live if we thing they are reasonably well-referenced, and in a decent shape. If facts don't have inline footnoted references, it's impossible to tell which facts are original research.

For that specific submission - apart from the lack of refs - I would also probably edit the tone a bit, e.g.

• There are literally hundreds of objects - doesn't need 'literally'. And is this verifiable, or original research?
• You must avoid getting hit - this sounds too much like a manual

My suggestion to you, Blake, would be to boldly edit the page, adding facts referenced to reliable sources, and then move it to the live area. But it is entirely up to you - anyone can edit. If you want, feel free to just move it to the live area.

Hope that helps. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  17:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Feedback

I just discovered Wikipedia:Article wizard/Userfeedback, which is getting plenty of comments from new users and various article attempts. Is any one here responding to user's concerns? Or even snagging an article contribution from there? By the way it probably needs archiving as it is getting big. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Didn't know about that. It's a bit pointless asking people for their feedback if we're not going to use it! We've also got Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/feedback which I look at occasionally and try to reply sometimes. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Stale drafts in Category:Declined_AfC_submissions

I posted a discussion thread at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#Declined AfC submissions indefinitely host page for which your input would be appreciated. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Adele Morgan

Is an older one that has not been reviewed. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Sometimes they remove the submission template from the top, and then it gets lost. (We used to have an edit filter to detect these ... not sure what happened to that.) I've submitted it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Automatic delivery of Template:Afc decline

As part of my WP:NPP efforts, I have been substituting Template:AFC submission/submit into AFC pages to complete the final submission step that the article creators forgot to do. This has resulted in my incorrectly receiving the Template:Afc decline notice. See my talk page.[2] I understand that this notification is delivered automatically.[3] Can you change the automatic delivery of Template:Afc decline so that it is delivered to the AFC submission page creator. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 22:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think it's all part of the AFC script I installed: importScript('User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD.js');. Bejinhan talks 10:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Martin (MSGJ · talk) provided the answer on my talk page. On substituting Template:AFC submission/submit, the template adds the name of the template poster to the |u= parameter. See, for example, these posts In the future, I will change the u parameter to be the username of the author rather than my username after I post the template. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)