Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation

Note to article submitters: This page is for discussion of the Articles for creation process. If you would like to submit an article to Wikipedia, please do not edit this page. Please return to the Wikipedia:Articles for creation page, and follow the "Unregistered users: Submitting an article" instructions there. Thank you for your cooperation.

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Anon page creation restriction for information on the new (test) rule. -- Mkill 02:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed New Entry Process

Hello I created a test of a new article submitter. My proposed process process would involve each submission getting its own page. Since anon can't create pages this is done by a method of placeholders. For the test only placeholders #101-#105 exist. If you would like to try out my system, see it in operation in my user space at [1]. (Opening editing window) The same link would be put at the end of the wizard. Do you think this would work on a large-scale. Any comments appreciated. Thank you.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 01:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I kind of prefer having it on all one page...easy to see what's happening to each entry without needing to watchlist dozens a day. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I just came here to suggest an idea along those lines! What would be great would be to have the ip be able to edit a page solely, and then have the subpage moved into mainspace, thus retaining the edit history. I'm not really 100% sure on how your idea works, but if the instructions could be simplified, I think this would be great. To keep them viewable on the same page, like how Someguy1221 would like, we could have them transcluded. A lot of the submissions seem to be suggestions for redirects. Perhaps we could have two sections on the page, one for article, one for redirects. This would certainly be a more organised system. Seraphim♥Whipp 12:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the page created could be simply moved into the mainspace. Every entry gets its own page.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 12:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears to me that anonymous editors can create new pages in article talk space. Would it be possible for new page requests to go into talk space and then be moved into main space if they are suitable? MSGJ (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

For today, all new submissions will go to Category:Pending Afc requests. As MSGJ has pointed out, anon are able to create talk pages (I have tested and confirmed this). As a result, I was able to create a simple input box at the end of the wizard, which creates pages at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Submissions/<user created name> and automatically adds them to Category:Pending Afc requests. Thank you.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 13:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's try it for today. Nice work Natl. But I suggest we fully evaluate this experiment and get consensus among AfC reviewers before implementing it permanently. MSGJ (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The test has ended. Post your reviews below.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 22:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Portuguese version of the Articles for creation wizard

Can anyone give a comment to this thread?? Thanks, GoEThe (talk) 14:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Experiment analysis

Yesterday, User:Natl1 boldly changed the process that unregistered users submit articles they want created. The new process was in place for just over 24 hours; it has now been reverted back to the old process so that we can evaluate the advantages/disadvantages of the new process.

Basically, instead of adding all requests to one page as currently happens, new submissions were created on separate pages in Wikipedia talk space (thereby circumventing the restriction of unregistered users creating new pages - they can do so in talk space). These new pages were added to Category:Pending Afc requests. Category:Completed Afc requests was also created for submissions which have been reviewed.

MSGJ's thoughts

Advantages:

1. All history of the article is retained, avoiding the messy copy and paste procedure currently employed. The article is correctly attributed to the IP address of the author.
2. Fewer formatting problems as tends to occur when all submissions go on the same page. In particular sections can use the standard == rather than ===.
3. Would potentially make it easier to have more of a discussion about the merits of a submission. All comments will be kept in one place together with the article.

Disadvantages / possible problems:

1. Talk space is not the appropriate place for these submissions, and it's a messy way to get around the restriction of page creation for unregistered users. (See suggestion below.)
2. Using categories to keep track of pending and completed submissions seemed to work, but
   • I noticed it says "Updates to this list can occasionally be delayed for a few days." It would be inconvenient if it really was delayed by a few days.
   • New submissions do not appear on your watchlist, as they can do if you are watching WP:Articles for creation/Today.
3. Quite often yesterday, requests were submitted without the "pending" category. Presumably, the user deleted this bit from the preload template. This creates a real danger that submissions get lost in a black hole. A complete list of submissions can be seen at Special:PrefixIndex/WT:Articles for creation/Submissions (these are all the submissions from yesterday) but I don't know if it is possible to get a list of all these pages which do not have a category.
4. A possible problem would occur if two submissions had the same title. In this case, the second submitter would be editing the first submission rather than creating a new one. This might be appropriate in some cases if the topic was the same, but would certainly not be if it was, for example, two different people called John Smith!
5. A number of users did not enter their title in the box and were therefore directed to the default WT:Articles for creation/Submissions/my proposed article name here. After several people edited this page, I had it protected.

Suggestions:

1. We try to obtain consensus for a part of the database to have the page creation restriction lifted. I have been assured that this is technically possible. For example unregistered users could be allowed to create new pages in the AfC project space, for the purpose of submitting articles for creation. Another suggestion was that the whole of the project namespace be derestricted, although this would require more discussion and wider consensus I guess.

Natl1's thoughts

As stated above, I created this process and tested it yesterday. As MSGJ will likely confirm the process is much easier for the reviewers. Instead of using three templates and a cut and paste move, the reviewers just has to click the move page button (and format the new page) to approve or add one template and change the category to decline. Since, anons are able to create talk pages this should be relatively simple for them too (at least, compared with my last suggestion). However, I also noticed that the anons sometimes deleted the category but I think this can be solved by adding a bigger warning. Also, some editors are concerned that not all submissions are displayed on one page, and unfortunately I don't have a remedy for this. However, I think that adopting this method will be a good time-saver and organizer.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 22:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting that a script can easily achieve the increase in simplicity that this system may produce (I know there are presently two scripts for AFC, but I have never tried them). Someguy1221 (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really, you still have to do a cut and paste move. And, the script doesn't work for me and I'm probably not the only person.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 00:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If you still have to do the moves with the present scripts, then OK. But that doesn't stop a good javascript writer from fixing that...I'd do it myself, but I don't know that language, or any useful programming language, for that matter :-( Someguy1221 (talk) 04:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I will confirm that this process is potentially easier for reviewers. There are certainly fewer steps to creating articles even with the use of a script. However there are points in my "disadvantages" section (e.g. 2 and 3) which I believe could make it harder for us, (although I don't say that thse problems can't be resolved). MSGJ (talk) 09:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

A bot could eliminate 3; running something like the list-comparer in AutoWikiBrowser, a bot could easily identify new submissions even without the category, so long as the title of the page has the correct prefix. I think it may be a good idea to find someone who can write a bot for this before going through, as I think we all plainly know how many anons have trouble submitting articles, and if this runs for a while, a manual search of Special:PrefixIndex will be essentially impossible. Someguy1221 17:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Graeme's ideas

I quite like the idea of this,

• though I do see a problem arising if a big backlog develops. We could have the assistance of a bot that can recognise the articles that had the category taken off, and add it back on. Perhaps the bot could also make an index for each day.
• The defanging bot could have more trouble removing categories from the declined articles.
• I appreciate the attribution potential and the lack of copying, but copyedition will still be needed.
• Copyright violations, nonsense and attacks can be completely removed,
• We really do have to cater for those people not putting in a title, this happens nearly every day.
• When multiple articles with the same title appear they are nearly always the same contribution, so it is good for the contributor to see that they got the contribution in and can fix it up.
• What do we do with declined contributions that are recontributed (hopefully with improvements)? People will be tending to edit the old articles more. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

To add to Graeme's ideas

• If a big backlog develops, then the "pending" category just gets bigger. I wonder if there is any possibility to sort a category by creation date? Then the older submissions could be reviewed first.
• Possibly, but I don't see why it should be harder necessarily.
• True
• So we just blank the whole submission in the case copyvios or personal attacks? What if the title itself is an attack? In this case we might be able to nominate it for speedy deletion under G8.
• Well if they don't enter a title they will reach a protected page telling them to go back and enter a title. I think this is the best we can do.
• This worries me slightly.
  • If it's the same user resubmitting their article, then it's okay but they would still need to replace the "completed" category with the "pending" category so that it will be reviewed again.
  • If it's a different user then it doesn't seem fair for them to have to edit someone else's (failed) request.
  • It seems to me that ideally all failed submissions should be moved to a different location so that this doesn't occur. But this would increase the work for us.
  • Technical quetion: what happens with the preload template if the page already exists?
• MSGJ (talk) 08:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts on the new process

I unfortunately wasn't actually around to watch this thing happen, so I'm not entirely clear on how this works. I notice that a recent archive is strangely barren...if you weren't already intent on this, I think it would be convenient for a bot to automatically transclude new submissions to today's page, and provide an automatic header if the anon didn't. And if you're worried about efficiency of the process, a bot could also add the top and bottom templates upon seeing a decline notice or a page move. This would also allow everyone to see the creation of new submissions via the transclusions, and allow a quick scanning of the entire day. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Bots: I think there is a little too much talk about bots at this stage. Bots can be used to automate repetitive tasks, but it is too easy just to say "oh a bot can do that".

• Bots can only do things which we can do. They are issues here (e.g. finding uncategorised pages in a particular location) which I don't even know how to do!
• Before considering programming or asking someone to program a bot, we need to do the process ourselves for quite a while so that we know and understand exactly what we want it to do. Otherwise we risk bad programming which could damage the project. Bots also need to go through a rigourous approval process - this won't happen overnight.

In my opinion it is too early to talk about how bots can help us, because we won't fully know what the tasks will be until we have trialled this method extensively.

Alright, so long as Category:Completed Afc requests is added automatically with the decline/accept tempates, I can assemble the list of uncategorized creations myself. In that case, I would probably create Category:Uncategorized Afc requests (ignore the irony of placing that...). Doing that, we've made it impossible for submissions to fall into a black hole unless the title is messed up somehow, and you can replace me with a bot if you like the way this works. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

How do you find the uncategorized ones? I've been looking at ToolServer, as suggested by User:Apoc2400, but couldn't see how to do it.

I've been working on templates a bit as well. More on that to follow. MSGJ (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

AWB can assemble lists of articles in a variety of ways, including articles contained in a particular category and articles displayed on a special page, such as Special:PrefixIndex. Having done that, AWB can also perform boolean operations on the lists it has created, so finding the uncategorized pages is fairly easy. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

GTstricky's (2) thoughts

• I missed the experiment but wanted to add my 2 cents. I like the idea of submissions having their own page. I am not sure user space is the way to do it. It would be nice if it was article space that is temporarily not included in the active world. Heck, it would be great if the page had an 'accept' and 'decline' button and that was it.
• I also feel that the submissions must be ready for mainspace or declined. I don't want a new system that allows continual updating and discussion. That will lead to a huge backlog and reviewers becoming coaches. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 02:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Response to your points. The submissions are not being created in user space. (Even though creating articles in user space is a common practice, unregistered users cannot create their user page so that would not help at all.) In the experiment, pages were created in project talk space. This is arguably not the appropriate place. Possibly, project space might be suitable, although it would require tweaking of the software to enable unregistered users to create pages in project space.
• I sympathise with your view. There are occasional instances where some discussion is fruitful I believe. Normally when I can't decide on a submission I just leave it to someone else to decide! But occasionally I will add my thoughts which might help the next reviewer. MSGJ (talk) 08:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Randy Pausch

I came here to propose a redirect The Final Lecture to The Last Lecture, but I can't seem to edit the main page. The book is called "The Last Lecture" but some sources such as the online transcript used this alternate title for the event. --82.18.14.143 (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done by Gwern. MSGJ (talk) 08:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Problem with a creation

I marked an entry (Hoover Bridge) as a neologism, and Splat5572, an editor I've been having recent problems with, removed my comment and created the redirect. Can it be deleted or do I have to take it through RFD? --NE2 06:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

1. If you really think it should be deleted, then take it to RFD.
2. I don't see the harm of having this as a redirect; indeed it seems it might be a helpful one to me.
3. Removing your comments could be considered bad manners, but any editor is free to overrule any of our rejections and create an article/redirect. MSGJ (talk) 08:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If you search Google for Hoover Bridge, there are several bridges that actually have that name. If Splat5572 does some more of this, would it ultimately be his responsibility for creating the redirects or the IP's responsibility (and he's just acting as a proxy)? --NE2 08:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

New decline template for excess redirect requests

I created a new template {{subst:afc excess}}. Which states:

removed

Please chime in and feel free to tweak it. My thought here was that there are certain ip submitters that hare hiding behind the AFC process and submitting large amounts of redirect requests. Cheers - Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 18:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I am a bit confused by this. If you don't feel the redirects are appropriate then reject them. But I don't think we should be rejecting submissions just because a particular IP address is submitting a lot of requests! (Indeed we have some prolific anonymous editors who have submitted many great articles.) MSGJ (talk) 09:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is my thought process but know I am easily persuaded...

• 1st: It is ARTICLES for creation and I don't consider redirects as articles. My thinking is redirects are created as a courtesy. (might I suggest Redirects for Creation ?)
• 2nd: It not logical to come here and create 10-20 redirect requests instead of obtaining a user name. (usually my logic is failed anyway)
• 3rd: Many of these requests are project oriented (highways) and could easily be put on a project talk page for discussion and completion. It seems that some IPs are bypassing due process and consensus by using the AFC process.

Well that is it in a nutshell but again... I can be easily persuaded  :) Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If they are good we can accept them. If they are bad we can decline them (eg ambiguous wrong, never used). But if there are too many just leave them, and some one else who is keener can continue the job! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

MarketLeverage

Would someone please be willing to approve this article? I have spoken to a couple of admins about getting it submitted, and [Orange Mike] suggested I put int a request this way.

Here is my draft: [2]

Please help!

Mlrebecca (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)mlrebecca

I will address this on your talkpage. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 18:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to merge discussion pages

At the moment we have two different pages where discussion about the AFC process takes place.

• WT:WikiProject Articles for creation
• WT:Articles for creation

Having two different pages to watch seems unnecessary and it can get confusing if some discussions take place there and some here. I propose to redirect the latter to the former and have all discussions in one place. MSGJ (talk) 10:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If we're physically talking about the AfC, then it should be here. It seems logical as every WP space is discussed on its own talk (e.g. WT:ANI/WP:ANI) Utan Vax (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

True, but there are not many wikipedia processes which are also wikiprojects. I don't really have a preference of which redirects to which, but I really don't think there is any need to have two different talk pages. Discussion about the wikiproject is discussion about the AFC process and vice versa. MSGJ (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Need some help

Some hidden text got inserted somewhere and it's hiding everything after Anthem Rock. Enigma ^message 19:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Seemed to be Gtstricky's decline of Anthem Rock that was causing it so I have undone that and it's sorted. MSGJ (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You need to remember to close the tags properly. That usually screws it up and hides everything. Always remember to do {{afc b}} properly. Utan Vax (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

suggestion

A new selection, request to create a dab page. 70.51.10.38 (talk) 11:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean an option in the wizard for a dab page? We get so few requests for dab pages (I can't recall any) that I am not sure if it would be worth it. Can you just use the standard process for articles? MSGJ (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)