This page is used for the administration of the Articles for Creation or Files for Upload processes and is therefore within the scope of WikiProject Articles for Creation. Please direct any queries to the discussion page.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creation (admin)AfC project pages
Please note: This page is for users working on the project administration. If you would like to submit an article, please follow the "Unregistered users: Submitting an article" instructions on the project page.
I asked User:DoriSmith a while ago to take a look at Henrik's tool to see if it might be updated to work with the new processes. I wonder if he has made any progress with it ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, I haven't gotten very far . That's partly because WP's JS is somewhat odd, and partly because I'm having trouble figuring out how to test it without mangling pages or freaking people out when a bunch of crud suddenly appears. Any ideas? What's been done before? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦22:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC) (who prefers "she," btw...)[reply]
Before i created a sandbox copy of the contributions with the same prefix and tried it out. I created a js User:Graeme Bartlett/js/afc-helper.js for this purpose, but when trying to use fancy template format as well it was beyond me (I can write js but not template). Graeme Bartlett 00:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I've been seeing a lot of articles showing up in Category:Uncategorized Afc requests recently, and it appears to me that that's because registered users are beginning the AFC process, but then somehow saving the article in mainspace instead (i.e., new mainspace articles with the AFC template). Is there any good way to minimize this happening? If we catch them first, we can move the article then rate it, but when others find them, they're either CSD'd or Prod'd—neither of which is a friendly way to handle contributions by newbies. Is there maybe a way to force articles containing {{AFC submission}} to only be saved at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦22:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should not hide the template when it is in article space, but advertise it's presence in some way so that the contributor will clean it out themselves. The idea was that registered users do it all themselves if they can. Graeme Bartlett 00:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps an abuse filter could be created to warn users if they are creating an article outside project talk space with the afc submission template...Someguy1221 (talk) 01:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The best way to solve this, if it were possible, would be to automatically add the prefix Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ to all titles. However the InputBox extension does not currently support this. I think I requested it once, but it might be worth asking again because it would be very helpful. Given that this is not possible, I see no compelling reason to treat these pages any differently to any other new pages. The fact that it is an AfC submission is invisible and I think this is right. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New message box for recently created articles
I have found a way of distinguishing between
Submissions which are created in the wrong namespace, i.e. the ones discussed in the section above
Submissions which have been accepted and moved in article space but haven't had the {{AFC submission}} template removed yet
In the latter case, there is no reason why these should be going into Category:Uncategorized Afc requests. I also thought it would be useful to have the links to preload the talk page and the author's talk page in these cases. Therefore I have created a message box {{AFC submission/created}} which is designed to be displayed temporarily while the request is closed. I would welcome any comments or improvements to this. If there are any concerns, feel free to revert and discuss! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed this today, and I like it. It helps those of us who move the articles to mainspace remember that we need to remove the AFC template (I'm pretty forgetful so I sometimes need the reminder). And it's a nice notice for anyone doing recent changes/new page patrolling that these pages may not look quite right yet, but whoever's just moved it to the mainspace is likely in the process of cleaning up the tags and comments. Raven1977Talk to meMy edits22:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. I would like a make a further suggestion. Occasionally, submissions attract a lot of discussion from reviewers and/or contributors, and this can get confusing as it sometimes is hard to see what is discussion and what is the actual article. I suggest that, in cases like this, we move the submission to the subjectspace (i.e. the project page) and then use the talk page for the discussion of the submission, which is what talk pages are for after all. Of course, we should have some way of drawing attention to this, when it has been done. This could probably be achieved using the submission banner. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like a good idea. If a long discussion starts, sometimes I find it hard to see where the discussion ends and the prose for the article begins. ƒingersonRoids00:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I support the idea that these article submissions should probably have their own talk page. I'm not sure exactly where you are proposing these would be moved, however. Are you proposing that these submissions which end up having a bit of discussion are moved to a sub page of WP:Articles for Creation, rather than keeping them at the current title of WP Talk:Articles for creation/page name? If I'm understanding you right, I think it's a good idea; although I would suggest making sure that this new area is accessible when looking at the category page for pending submissions. (And if I'm reading your suggestion incorrectly, please explain further what you mean by moving them to subjectspace. Thanks!) Raven1977Talk to meMy edits21:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I think you've understood correctly. Every page has a talk page. At the moment we have been using just the talk pages and the subject page (that's the name of the other one) is not created. There is now a link on the toolbar (Move: Proj) to move the submission to its subject page. Then the resulting redirect on the talk page can be removed and discussion begun. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent, reply to MSGJ) I noticed that on the template today, and yeah I think it's a really good way to handle certain submissions that can otherwise get too cluttered with comments. Raven1977Talk to meMy edits17:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a few edits to the onhold and declined banners. If a submission has been moved to the project page (see the thread higher up) then the banner will now say "Please check the talk page for discussion about this submission." See Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Dalibor Perković for an example of this. I've also removed the message "The reason can be seen below" if no reason is entered, because it occured to me that the reason might be on the talk page and below. Any comments welcome. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Template to use on AFC's talk page, when actual submission has been moved to project space
Whew, what a mouthful, sorry. But yesterday, I saw that in one instance of where a submission had been moved to project space, so that discussion could take place on the talk page, someone put a nifty new template that identified the page as the discussion page for an AFC submission. However, I can't remember who placed the template, or what the template was called. Could it be added to the list of templates pretty please?
And in a related subject, I think the reviewing instructions should be updated to include the "how-to" for moving a submission to project space so discussion can take place on the talk page. (I'm not saying "Someone else do this!" I'll be glad to do it myself, but I wanted to make sure there was no objection to the idea first.) Raven1977Talk to meMy edits22:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did make a nifty template Template:AfC submission talk header. But on further thought I decided that it would probably make more sense to adapt the {{WPAFC}} template for this purpose. Otherwise we would have to change the templates over if/when the article was created. So that's why I haven't documented this anywhere yet!
WP:NOT#PLOT: There is an RfC discussing if our policy on plot, WP:PLOT, should be removed from what Wikipedia is not. Please feel free to comment on the discussion and straw poll.
Sorry, didn't notice the reply. I don't really know Javascript yet, and don't plan on learning it for at least several months. So no progress, but something may happen eventually. -- kenb215talk00:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Using the abuse filter to catch botched submissions
I've just created Special:AbuseFilter/167 to (hopefully) catch submissions to AFC that do not contain the submissions template. I invite anyone who's interested to help test this filter to make sure it logs such submissions, and maybe write a friendly notice to show to users who trip the filter. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright; the filter is now set to warn users who delete the submission banner when creating a new submission. They'll see the warning at MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-AFC. Since my last modifications to the filter, it has caught two botched submissions and no false positives. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is brilliant. Where does it put on the warning - on their talk page? I'll have to get this abuse filter flag and have a play :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When they try to save the page it sends them back a window, as if they never hit "save page." The warning will then appear above the edit box where you'd expect an edit notice. If they click save page again, however, it will bypass the filter and actually save the changes the second time round. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right on all counts. When you look at the list of hits, the "details" link will show the diff that the filter actually caught, regardless of whether the edit was ultimately saved, or whether any changes were made before saving agian. test3 wasn't saved after receiving the warning, nor was Seth Moturi. And the original version of Sweetspot.ca contained no submission banner. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, makes sense. So my only remaining question is how we deal with these. To to share the workload, ideally we would have an editable list where we can remove the ones as they have been checked. I don't think this is possible though, so maybe just a date somewhere so people can say "All checked up to (date)". — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation-checking bot
Hi all. I recently went into bot programming, and for my first continuously-running bot, EarwigBot II, I decided to give it the task of checking Category:Pending Afc requests, and checking each member of the category against Yahoo's API to see if the submission is a copyright violation. If it is, it tags it with User:EarwigBot II/Template, which displays a message explaining that the submission has a suspected copyright violation, and waits for other users to confirm it. I'm sorry that I didn't run it by you guys here earlier, but I seem to have forgotten to do so... anyway, the bot's BRFA (Bot Request for Approval) is currently active, here, and the bot is in trial. As of writing time, it has caught five copyvios from only one run. For more information, you can see the bot's user page, or the BRFA itself (I must warn you that it's long, though). Opinions? Does this seem like a good idea? TheEarwig(Talk | Contributions)00:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for pete's sake yes. This is great. I've been trying to run a few submissions through the CorenSearchBot's manual function, but it never caught anything. I don't know what other people may think, but thanks a ton! TNXMan01:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This bot is great! I've made a comment on the BRFA. It's good that we have a bot programmer in the project - I'm sure we can think of more tasks if you are willing. Two occur to me straightaway:
A page which lists the status of recent submissions, perhaps something like DumbBOT produces for proposed deletions. (This is proposed by someone higher up the page.)
Adding timestamps to undated submissions to ensure correct categorisation.
Thank you very much for your comments here and on the BRFA, they are much appreciated. Both of these seem like great ideas that I haven't even thought of, and shouldn't be too hard once EB II is approved and all of the necessary tweaks are made. Thanks again, TheEarwig(Talk | Contributions)20:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Help with misplaced REDIRECT
Hi there. I need some help with the following request:
First, this request is for a redirect, but it was put in as an article request (not a redirect request). Second, the existing article was Joe bar team, which has incorrect capitalization (it's the name of a comic book). So, I moved the article, which created an automatic redirect.
My question: what do I do with the AFC request now? It's not in the Redirect area, so I can't do {{subst:afc a}} (can I?). For now I've placed it under review. The only thing that needs to be done is to close out the request.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some background to this: I approached User:Mikaey with some concern when I realised that his bot was redirecting talk pages of redirects to the talk page of the target, thus removing all project banners from the pages and negating our efforts in tagging redirects. (I only happened to notice because one of the redirects - Talk:Emanuele Filiberto, Duke d' Aosta - hadn't been classed as Redirect-Class and so the disappearance turned up in the quality log.) I have no idea how many have been lost in this way but I am trying to get this process stopped. A bot cannot and should not decide that redirects are of no interest to WikiProjects. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Offer of help from the Opera Project
I ran across James Westman, a recently created article via the AfC Project, and cleaned it up. It was in a pretty poor state.[1]. If you get any more proposed articles relating to opera, opera singers, or classical musicians, WikiProject Opera can give you some help in reviewing, cleaning up, referencing, assessing notability, and spotting copy vios. Just post a note on our talk page or give me a shout on my talk page. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 07:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is a great offer. We don't often get opera singers but I'll remember to come to you next time. It's always great to get WikiProjects involved with new submissions, but because of the inactivity of a lot of them, it doesn't happen that often. I've found WP:FILM and WP:PLANTS very helpful in the past. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a proposal for the {{Afc cleared}} template. What if we made it function similar to {{Copyvio}} in that any content below the template is automatically removed from being displayed? This would use the code <div id="copyvio" style="display:none;"> to make all content below the template disappear. That way, we could ensure that all content that needs to be removed is removed, without having to delete it manually. Opinions? TheEarwig(Talk | Contributions)19:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would only be good if there was doubt or the whole thing was going to be deleted, otherwise someone editing , removing the heading will get it all back. I think that deleting the text rather than just making it invisible will display better good faith the copyright holder. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... In most cases when {{Afc cleared}} is used the declining reviewer blanks the rest of the page— this of course being the purpose of the template. I still think that the submission should be blanked completely nonetheless; what I was talking about was that there are some pages in our declined submissions archives that aren't blanked when they should be, but have that template on them. My proposal is to use this as a quick way to remove content from archived submissions that we aren't going to manually remove it from. An example is this submission: the template's message and the fact that the page still has content on it seems a little counterintuitive. TheEarwig(Talk | Contributions)23:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We should be very judicious when blanking content. If it's copyrighted, it should go. If not, it can stay. I don't think that creating a template that lends itself to blanking of non-copyrighted material is a good idea. In the example you gave, the prose was a copyright violation, but the infobox contents weren't. Someone could certainly come along later and salvage the infobox contents and add non-copyrighted prose.
Your nomination at Articles for Creation was declined, and [[Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] was not created. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer, and please feel free to request article creation again once the issues have been addressed. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia!MacMedtalk to me!what have i done?01:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I always thought that the reason we don't have a declined submissions template, but we have an accepted and hold submissions template, is because the user is likely to realize that their submission has been declined, and in some cases (with joke submissions, copyright violations, et cetera) the user probably doesn't even care. It definitely seems like a good idea, though! TheEarwig(Talk | Editor review)01:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to find the decline reason if you don't remember the exact title of your submission (when some articles have plenty of choices) or if you submit several at once, and some are declined and some aren't. Especially if they stay unprocessed for a while. 76.66.196.85 (talk) 07:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An automated filter has identified an error in the formatting of this submission.
It appears you have removed the first line from the top of the submission, which is needed for tracking purposes. Its removal may delay the review of your submission by several weeks.
Please copy paste the following bold text to the top of your submission: {{subst:AFC submission/submit}}
But I didn't touch the first line at all. It contained:
{{subst:AFC submission/submit|type=dab}} <!--- Important, do not remove this line before article has been created. --->
I've been playing out with these templates, {{afc a}}, {{afc b}}, {{ifu a}}, etc. etc. which are used on Articles for creation/Redirects and Images for upload As they all have a similar function I've combined them all into one {{AfC-c}} and centralised the documentation. All the old templates will still work. I can't really see any reason to substitute these onto the page - it just makes the code messier on the submissions pages. The full instructions are at Template:AfC-c, but basically it's {{afc-c|a}} for accept, {{afc-c|d}} for decline, and {{afc-c|b}} for the bottom. Hope this is okay. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this is a good idea. Just one question: why do {{AfC-c|ma}} and {{AfC-c|md}}, both of which seem like they deserve an extremely similar message, have completely different ones? Why does {{AfC-c|md}} note that the submissions were mass-moderated, while {{AfC-c|ma}} does not? I suggest changing {{AfC-c|ma}}'s message to "These requests have been mass-moderated and accepted, unless otherwise marked," which is more in line with {{AfC-c|md}}'s "These requests have been mass-moderated and declined, unless otherwise marked," instead of the current "These requests have all been accepted." Just a minor suggestion to make it look a little more professional. Thanks, TheEarwig(Talk | Editor review)20:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of editors have nicely posted articles and redirects for me that I requested here. However, when I requested another simple and appropriate redirect, instead of posting it, along with posting the article I spent about 10 hours writing, my request was rejected by a self-important editor, because it was a redirect request, which should have gone somewhere else. What bureaucratic pointless nonsense. You do realize that your forms that take you to where you post a redirect do not offer that option?
How about, in the future, you simply create the redirect then post a nice note with a link to the page for requesting future redirects, as if the purpose of editing on wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia rather than a playground?
Save us, everyone, some time: define what is important around here: a usable, accurate, and efficient encylcopedia.
I've created your redirect now. I suppose there is no reason why we can't accept redirect requests in that form, although I admit I have rejected them in the past for being in the "wrong venue". Please avoid making judgements such as "self-important editor"; these are not helpful. And remember we are all volunteers just like yourself. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a few redirects seem to come through the article creation wizard every day. There might be an argument for including a link to the redirect process on the first or second page of the article creation wizard, and perhaps making the link to the redirect page a little more obvious on WP:AFC. I have to admit I originally made two redirects before I even discovered that there was a separate redirect page, or a redirect template for declining requests. Perhaps it would be useful to create a new automatic userpage template informing the user that their request for a redirect through AfC has been accepted, but in future they should use the AfC/redirect wizard. Sound feasible? Alexrexpvt (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your nomination at Articles for Creation was accepted, and [[Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/{{{1}}}]] was created. However, as this was a redirect request, please take the next such request to the redirect wizard. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia!
I definitely support this template (I made a small change to the size of the image, hope you don't mind). I think the fact that we decline redirect requests to be rather absurd. TheEarwig(Talk | Editor review)02:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They can be declined for a reason that would result in their speedy deletion, such as a BLP violation, unlikely mistyping, totally irrelevent (May need a source to prove a connection), vandalism. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The bot will function by retrieving all current pages in Category:Pending Afc requests, and do some calculations based on them. It will produce a chart listing all of the pending submissions (submissions using {{AFC submission/pending}}) that would list the submission name, creating author, time since it was created, and a few other optional things, such as size in bytes, or if it was previously declined. It would have a separate chart for submissions on hold (submissions using {{AFC submission/onhold}}), that would list the above information, as well as the reason the article is on hold, the user that put it on hold, and a note if the article was on hold for more than 48 hours (generally the threshold between allowing a submission to stay on hold, and denying it because the requested changes haven't been made). It could also compile useful statistics for declined submissions, such as the most common declining criteria (ranked in order), the percent of submissions that are accepted, and maybe even a graph of submissions over the past month. The bot would auto-run every hour by updating a page, maybe something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Statistics, and that page could be transcluded (in part, probably) to the main WPAFC page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation.
For a little more detail, I've created a collection of sample charts that the bot would compile at User:EarwigBot/Temp/AfC StatisticsBot. Of course, I'll need to make a lot of changes to the design before it's any good, but I'm interested in hearing WPAFC's opinions on the idea before anything else. Thanks, TheEarwig(Talk | Editor review)16:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a nice idea. I wonder if it might be clearer if you could put all submissions from the past 48 hours into one table, in order of submission time, and then color the rows based on status. (The colors could match the colors we use the submission templates.) I guess this might be harder to program than your suggestion though! It would also be nice if it showed the reviewer who put on hold or declined each submission. Again, this might be hard to program because it won't in general be the latest editor of the page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting idea, to color the rows. But one thing, what about submissions that have been pending or on hold for longer than 48 hours? Maybe we could keep those in the table (and note them as being unreviewed for a long time), and remove the ones that have been approved/declined.
Yes, you're right; this will be a hard bot to program. Some parts will be easy, such as the status of the article, creation date, and creator. Some will be hard, such as the declining/holding reviewer. I updated the chart page, hopefully to something a little clearer. Thanks, TheEarwig(Talk | Editor review)17:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to begin programming this. It will take a long time, and I should probably start early. I will do this in Python, like my other bots. Because it's so complicated, and there's a lot of classes and functions to write that aren't even related to the end result, so it doesn't matter if the design changes before I decide to put this up for approval. Code will be at User:EarwigBot III/Source, and the request for approval (when ready) will be at WP:Bots/Requests for approval/EarwigBot III. (Gosh, I wish I had Toolserver access!) Thanks, TheEarwig(Talk | Editor review)19:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, so how about all of the pending submissions, plus the last 48 hours of declined submissions? (To make it easier you could use the daily categories ...) By the way, would anyone have any problem if we renamed Category:Pending Afc requests to Category:Pending AfC submissions to match the other categories? I'm never quite sure which acronym to use: sometimes it's Afc, AfC or AFC! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, using daily categories was what I was planning, actually! It wouldn't be exactly 48 hours, though, but it doesn't have to be exact, does it? And by the way, massive support for the Category:Pending AfC submissions renaming idea. As for the acronyms, I always preferred AfC, while I have noticed that many others use AFC. Our project's name is Articles for Creation, not Articles For Creation, right? Although I'm not even sure if that's true... TheEarwig(Talk | Editor review)21:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work, that was a smooth transition. About the name, I notice that our banner says "WikiProject Articles for Creation" but the name of this page is "WikiProject Articles for creation", so I don't know. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway... The bot is basically done, and I've had it compile some results at WP:AFC/S. Of course, I made the save, but those are results compiled by the bot's program, and that is very similar to what the page would look like if the bot was approved. So, what do we think? I don't see any major problems with it, but I have a feeling that a) there are too many declined submissions listed, and b) the chart is rather ugly. Of course, the 30-day stats and the all-time stats are not compiled, but those are rather minor and can be held off for a while. TheEarwig(Talk | Editor review)00:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well done with this. I have a few comments:
By compacting some entries I think we could get every submission to take a single line in the table. For example, the "Submission time" is very long. Perhaps a single number for how many hours ago would be sufficient.
For submissions which are resubmitted, the "Held/declined on" seems to show the original decline rather than the most recent.
Is there any way we could have the last two days worth of accepted submissions as well? These will cheer us up!
Maybe you can separate the formatting of the table from the bot code, so that we can tweak it ourselves. (For example, put the colours into a subtemplate which the bot uses.) Maybe the red warning colour is too bright.
How is the table sorted currently? Would it make sense to sort by the time of the most recent activity (i.e. most recent at the top).
I thought 龗 was a bug, but User:龗 seems to be a real reviewer :)
OK, let's see what I can do about this. Comments made in order of the above bullets.
I have changed the code to only use the {{time ago}} template, instead of the extra stuff.
Wow, I didn't realize this. It will require a change, but shouldn't be difficult.
Hmm. Good suggestion, but is there any category that lists accepted submissions by date? It might be difficult to have the bot search for the last 48-hours worth of accepted submissions. I'll see what I can do.
I think we can add a timestamp to accepted submissions as well. I've made a few edits so that the project banner will categorise if the ts parameter is defined. See Talk:Ken Itō for an example. And I've adjusted the preload so that it automatically adds the timestamp. What do you think about it? (It will also define a reviewer parameter but I don't know if we want to use that or not.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Check this out: {{AFC statistics}}. I've done what you suggested, and split the code into another template, {{AFC statistics/row}}. Let me know what you think! I'm thinking about switching the date from "xx hours ago" to an actual date, because I personally find it a little hard to understand. I've also disabled the warnings feature for now, because it was causing some trouble. I'll re-enable it later when I have time to update the programming. Two important things, though: my attempt at fixing the sorting does not appear to be working, and I have not yet updated "Held/declined on" to show the most recent. The second one might be rather difficult to program, and it does not appear to be working when I try it. I've been pretty busy lately, so I haven't really had a chance to spend a lot of time programming the bot. Anyways, TheEarwig(Talk | Contribs)02:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure whether I should comment here or at the BRFA but
Love seeing the accepted submissions. Glad that's working. I'm wondering whether we should use a more descriptive parameter like timestamp instead of ts. When it's in project space it doesn't matter, but now we're using it in the main article talk space, people might get curious about the long number and its purpose.
Can we squeeze it a little more in an attempt to get most submissions onto one line of the table? Obviously if there is a long title then it will be impossible, but most should fit on one line (depending on monitor size!)
I love the fact that you can sort the table by any column you like. Unfortunately it doesn't work well when you sort by time (because it is using the hour instead of the day). Perhaps a simpler column like (submitted n hours ago) would solve this?
I know I suggested putting everything in one table, but now I'm starting to worder if having three separate tables for pending/declined/accepted would be easier. Apologies for being indecisive - what do others think?
I notice you used AFC instead of AfC in {{AFC statistics}} although you said you prefered the latter :)
Using a parameter named timestamp is a good idea. It doesn't matter to this bot, of course, but it does matter to the next one I'll be doing.
My browser window is approximately 1500 pixels wide, and the chart displays on one line. How wide is your browser window? I have an idea to make the chart smaller, and I'll see what I can do about this.
I've made the change, but that raises a problem that I'm not sure how to solve. Because of the way the software works, 111 will be sorted before 33, and 33 will be sorted before 4, et cetera. Do you know of a way to fix this?
I tend to support the current format, but I could go either way. Remember, you can sort by submission status if necessary.
The bot has been approved by Quadell (talk·contribs), so that gets this task out of the way. Anyone is welcome to suggest new features, and I'm happy to implement them. After I'm done with this, I should get started on the accepted submissions timestamp task that you mentioned above. TheEarwig(Talk | Contribs)18:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Articles created by editors with a conflict of interest
207.68.238.39 (talk) 01:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Red Carpet Grave is an up-and-coming rap group out of Iuka, Mississippi. There are four members; Andre Bonds, a.k.a- Jenocyde, Logan Putnam, a.k.a Holyhood, Nick Cannon, a.k.a Baby-face Nelson, and last but not least Ryan Pendergrast, a.k.a Crypt. Baby-face Nelson started the group and recruited members, while Holyhood came up with the name. As of right now they have eight songs out on www.myspace.com on their profile Red Carpet Grave. Techno Twins and Haunted Dreams are their two most palyed songs. This band has quite alot of credibility in thier hometown of iuka, but like most good things there are haters and dicks who want to put them down. They have only been a rap group for a short while and they have already been asked to do shows. This group has a large amount of "role models" such as I.C.P, Twiztid, Hollywood Undead, and Kottonmouth Kings to keep the list short. Everyone in the group are juggalo brothers and homies that's what makes it easy for them.[reply]
We actually used to have Category:Queued Afc requests for the ones which were pending but not held. So I'm not sure which word is best, but I agree that it might be a little confusing. Personally I think I prefer the word "pending" for the category itself, but would support a move to Queued or something else for the ones that haven't been looked at yet. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This request is waiting to be reviewed. This might take several hours, or even days, at busy times.
You can see how many requests are waiting for review at Category:Pending AfC submissions.
If the request is accepted then this page will be moved into the article space.
If it is declined then the reason will be posted here. You may like to check back here later to see the outcome of your request.
In the meantime, you can continue to improve this article, by pressing the "edit this page" tab at the top of the window. You may also wish to look at:
Warning: This submission is not timestamped, please replace this template with {{subst:submit}}.
I originally made that queued category because I wanted to distinguished the held from the unreviewed, there used to he a held category to go with it, and queued was the supercat. I was frustrated with looking at a submission, only to find it was held awaiting the contributor to respond. Anyway for what I wanted the heading letters in the category now completely satisfy what I need! Pending means that the final result is not yet known, so it is still suitable enough for held as well as unreviewed. Perhaps the links need a better explanation accompanying them. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone gets a chance could they have a look at Mikola Abramchik. It is a misplaced AfC submission. I'm a bit concerned because I get zero search hits on this person. I'm just wondering if it might be a hoax or something. Cheers — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about the B-class, A, GA, FA? Or the low-medium-high importance ratings? An article wouldn't be appropriate unless there were reliable sources on Wikipedia's rating systems. Or were you asking about a project page explaining the ratings? Each WikiProject has its own system for assessing importance, documented on the project's main page or a subpage, although AFC does not use importance assesments. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To answer you question, my idea is to have an article explaining tham, because when the disgussion page has Wikipedia's ratings, i dont know what they mean.--98.151.241.73 (talk) 04:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have removed pages that are of no use to Wikipedia. I would prefer, however, to keep this conversation in one place. I will be leaving any further comments in the ANI thread. Nakon01:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Following MSGJ's suggestion, I have created Special:AbuseFilter/183 to catch attempts to add the submission template to any page outside of the wikipedia talk namespace (but only in the form that the AFC Wizard uses, {{subst:AFC submission/submit}}. The filter seems to be working perfectly and consumes almost none of Wikipedia's resources, so I think it would be OK to enable the neater features. I was wondering what everyone else thinks it should do. Block the attempts outright, or just warn the user? Also, what should the warning template say? Feel free to create one if you're bold, and if you're not an admin I'll happily move it to the MediaWiki namespace. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to add that looking at the list of additions of this template outside of namespace five, the majority were new pages that were deleted. Another was redirected, and another two were at the very least not ready to be in the mainspace. Yet another is up for proposed deletion. One was actually vandalism or a test edit to an existing article. Only a few of the thirty hits so far are decent articles. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and set the filter to warn users using this template. The pagetitle in the inputbox is uneditable, so the submitter should have no problem getting to the right page. Also, I've narrowed it to only look at submissions to the article namespace, since this is where virtually all of them land, and the only other submission caught by the filter was close enough (A WP:AFC subpage). Someguy1221 (talk) 10:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this is an excellent idea. I've noticed a lot of AfC submissions in the article namespace, and they usually end up getting speedied before we even have time to look at them. It seems that, out of the current 50 hits the filter has, all of them are from before you set it to warn instead of do nothing, so it's hard to tell how this will work in the long run. My only concern is about what will happen if the submission is submitted in the Wikipedia talk: namespace, but withoutArticles for creation. I've seen them occasionally, and the filter won't be able to catch them. They're probably small in number, though... Anyway, thanks! TheEarwig(Talk | Contribs)14:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. I just tried it and it seems to be working well. I suggest we try it for a few days and if there are no false positives then we can enable the "Prevent the user from performing the action" option. Just to clarify, does it detect all submissions in the wrong namespace, or only those that go into mainspace? And is the type=dab thing at the end necessary? (This parameter is not actually in use yet, but could be used later for other types of submissions, like templates, etc. to customize the reviewers' tools section.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the looks of it, it only detects submissions in Namespace 0 (the article namespace), not any other namespace. Are you sure the dab parameter is not in use? I could've sworn that it's been used before. TheEarwig(Talk | Contribs)20:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen it before too. Actually, submissions that used it have been caught by the other AFC filter by accident. I changed it to just mainspace for efficiency reasons (for those first fifty hits, only one was in a namespace other than article space). I could change it again if it needs to start catching more. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I checked all of the hits and there were no false positives, so I have set the "disallow" option. I'll still keep an eye on it occasionally to make sure its working well. Yes, the type parameter to the template is added by the wizard but as far as I know, is not used by the template yet. I thought about using it to modify the reviewer tools (e.g. it could automatically set "class=disambig") but didn't get round to implementing it yet. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was not. Jennavecia (talk·contribs) decided recently to nuke a bunch of empty categories that did not have {{empty category}} transcluded onto them. Of course, there is nothing wrong with this general maintenance, and I applaud the user for cleaning out the namespace. However, it resulted in several accidental deletions. I contacted the user earlier today about this, specifically concerning Category:Undated AfC submissions, which I was made aware of due to my bot. I didn't know that there were other categories belonging to this project that were also deleted. As an admin, you may restore it. Thanks, TheEarwig(Talk | Contribs)02:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized something. We lost almost all of the empty Category:AfC submissions by date subcats that we had made at the beginning of the year! I checked quickly to see the status of them. As it turns out, all of the empty month categories are remaining, as well as the year categories, and every day category before today. However, we lost the following:
All categories needing creation are available in a convenient table format at my personal sandbox. Please excuse the absence of months, and any categories that I missed. Clicking on any redlink will automatically create the category. TheEarwig(Talk | Contribs)03:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At one point in time, the submission template was placing submissions in the wrong namespace into the uncategorized category. Is it still doing that? I've seen them show up in the pending category, so I was thinking maybe not. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. It did use to go in there, but doesn't anymore. I did propose to change it in April (see Category talk:Pending AfC submissions) and got no response (I guess not many people watch that page) so I went ahead. It seemed to be more helpful to keep in that category. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Backlogged
We're getting a bit backlogged. I reviewed quite a few yesterday but it's building up again. I'm thinking about sending a circular "all hands on deck"-type message to our participants. Thoughts? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one. I think perhaps we are putting too many submissions on hold, and these can hang around for a long time. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, seeing as we've got a bit of a backlog, I've made an offer at Wikipedia:Reward_board#Active_requests, requesting some help reviewing AFC nominations in exchange for the AFC barnstar. Hopefully I'll get some takers who aren't participating in the project yet, because we always could use some more help. If you guys want to get in on this too, I'm giving an afc barnstar for the first five users who accept 15 articles that meet the Wikipedia standards for new articles; articles that were created that had problems don't count towards the 15. Previous articles that were created don't count towards the reward, it all starts right now. Hopefully the people who take up the offer decide to stick around AFC for good. Fingerz03:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, the last edit by the bot seems to be on 8th June. That's around the time when I adjusted the collapsing templates, so it might have some connection. I'll look into it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just found this link. Where can we put this? As a see also hatnote maybe? Or should we just have it redirect straight to here? -- Ϫ23:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above strikes me as falling beneath the threshold for verifiable sources, but I'm a little hesitant with my decline: there's a fair bit of not-entirely-incidental mention in coverage of high-profile events, and I've not a lot of experience covering business topics. Where do we draw the line? Why isn't WP:CORP more explicit about what kind of coverage counts? — Charles Stewart(talk)14:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to agree with you. The sources which are reliable don't give significant coverage, and the others seem to be not reliable and/or not third-party. It's also written a bit like an advertisement. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mean this page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=Template%3AAFC+redirect+preload&editintro=Wikipedia%3AArticles+for+creation%2FWizard-Redirect+edit+instructions&preloadtitle=Redirect+request%3A+[[+]]§ion=new&title=Wikipedia%3AArticles+for+creation%2FRedirects&create=I%27m+ready+to+submit+my+redirect
Thanks, I had a go at it, hope you like it. I think it could have been a bit confusing talking first about the brackets on the first line, since there are brackets in the subject box as well as in the actual "body of the message" box. The italics really didn't appeal to my aesthetic sense. The use of "double brackets" was a bit funny since there only are _double_ brackets, actually 2 of them. Thanks for helping me find the page too! --88.148.221.103 (talk) 08:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to bring to your attention that an article recently created by this project, Rawhide Boys Ranch, has twice been speedy-deleted, the most recent time only a day or so ago, for a version that appeared identical to the one you just recreated (deletion log), and is the subject of a recent COIN posting (WP:COIN#Rawhide Boys Ranch). I would suggest that it's likely that you have been used as a 'screen' in an attempt to obfuscate that COI. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a lovely userbox to display the number of articles you have created, e.g. see mine on the right. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
George Taylor (gardener), submitted in February and declined. The same author came back and improved the article this month and I created it. Yesterday it appeared on the main page through DYK.
We have occasionally discussed whether to keep old submissions which are declined. I believe there is usually no advantage in deleting these and the above example shows a case when there was a real benefit in keeping it! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Martin, you're missing the point entirely. The proposal I made at AN was not very concrete, but essentially stated that we would keep most submissions for three to six months before deleting, but delete copyvios, jokes, BLP violations, and the like after only one month, perhaps less (see here). Yes, we have a good deal of potential in these declined submissions, as you've illustrated above. However, for every declined submission that has potential, there is another that can be deleted without debate. There is simply no reason why we should keep a submission like Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Submissions/Barack Oboma or Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Movie Magic (TV series), because they have no content to build on. Furthermore, a random passer-by who happened to Google that subject could easily find the submission. You don't have to be an admin to view these old submissions, just know how to navigate through history. This presents an obvious problem. What if a famous celebrity decided to Google themselves to see if they had a Wikipedia article (when the did not), and instead found a declined BLP violation as a submission through an AfC category? Now assume that they knew how to navigate through the page's history. What would happen then?
Hypothetical, yes. But why do we delete regular BLP violations, block the article's writer, and enforce strict policies on Biographies of Living Persons, Copyright, and others, but not even delete old submissions that violate these policies? These are significantly less likely to be viewed by people, but there remains a risk, especially with a site as popular as Wikipedia. And if we weren't concerned about people viewing the history of a page, then what would be the need for Oversight? It is for these reasons that I believe that old submissions that meet certain criteria should be deleted automatically by a bot without discussion or hesitation, while others can stay for six months before being deleted. (By the way, the submission you've mentioned would have not yet been deleted under this system.) TheEarwig(Talk | Contribs)15:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A few points:
I believe that {{NOINDEX}} solves the concerns about these submissions being found via search engines. We could, and probably should, add it to Template:AFC submission category header as well, which would take care of the google search you linked to above.
A bot could not decide which submissions are worth keeping and which are not.
Getting human editors to go through old submissions to decide which were worth keeping would add to our workload considerably as we would effectively be reviewing submissions twice.
Reviewers have always been strongly encouraged to blank inappropriate (copyright violations, personal attacks, etc.) submissions on sight.
I have no problem with any submission being deleted under an elegible general speedy deletion criterion, although in most cases I believe that blanking is sufficient.
The vast majority of vandalism on Wikipedia is reverted rather than deleted - typically we do not concern ourselves about the versions which people can find in the page's history.
Personally I have never found the "there is no reason to keep it" argument for deletion particularly compelling.
Finally, another reason why I am concerned about old submissions being deleted is that reviewers could put a lot of work into the process and have rather little to show for it. It is an unfortunate fact that, although edit count officially counts for nothing, unofficially it counts for rather a lot around here.
Done - that should solve the previous concern I had.
No, obviously it could not, but it could look at the reason a submission was declined, it could judge whether there is anything worth saving. For example, if the decline reason was for verifiability, there is possibly some potential room for improvement. On the other hand, if the declined submission is a joke submission, there is most likely no, or very little room for improvement. But you are correct that that a bot would not be completely accurate.
I do not recall saying that we should have human editors go through old submissions, and I also think that this is a bad idea.
Yes, they have. See point #6 below.
That's very true. Perhaps we can do that to submissions that we decline for those certain reasons, but see point #8 below.
That is also true. Even so, that is usually when there is stable content to revert to in the past - with AfC, this is often not possible.
Hm, interesting. I'm all for receiving credit for the work I do, but if I'm able to do work that I can not get credit for, but will improve the encyclopedia's various processes, then I'll do it as well. Another area in which this sort of thing would happen is through speedy deletion patrol. But that point you just brought up is true.
The original reason I wanted this was because I felt that it would clean up the declined submissions category, and allow interested users to go through it and improve potential articles. This is much more difficult in the current state of the project, because a good deal of declined submissions have little or no salvageable content. I still think a bot would be a good idea, but you've convinced me enough that there is little to worry about under the current system. It seems that it is more difficult than I initially suspected to find these old submissions, and the {{NOINDEX}} helps in this respect. So while there are things we can do to clean the process up, a bot such as this one will require a good deal of time and effort, as well as maintenance. Finally, I suppose we should be fine right now, and there isn't much of a reason to go and change the process too much. TheEarwig(Talk | Contribs)14:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why are articles for creation done in the Wikipedia talk: namespace, rather than the Wikipedia: namespace? Doesn't this prevent discussion of proposed articles? Andrew Grimm (talk) 07:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is because new users are unable to create pages in any other namespace besides the talk namespaces. If submissions were in the Wikipedia: namespace, no unregistered users could create them, which would defeat the purpose of the project. Occasionally, a submission will be moved by a reviewer from the Wikipedia talk: namespace to the Wikipedia: namespace to allow discussion on the talk page; this will normally only be done if it is complex or there is debate over whether it should be accepted. An example of this happening is Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Corey Landis and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Corey Landis. Thanks! TheEarwig(Talk | Contribs)14:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how many people within the project actually use IRC, however I've registered an IRC channel at #wikipedia-afc. If you're quite active or not as active with AfC, feel free to pop in the channel for help reviewing submissions. I'll be idling in the channel and hopefully a few other reviewers will be as well. :-) GrooveDog (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about the rest of the project, but I think that this is a great idea! I've been discussing the idea with GrooveDog, and I've requested that SoxBot III idle in the channel and report news about updates to submissions, project pages, and others. The IRC channel could really have three purposes, one is to support discussion between reviewers on certain submissions, one is to support discussion between the submitters of articles and the reviewers so they can work on improving them together, and one is to watch the bot feeds. I'm currently working on a module for EarwigBot to enable certain status-reporting features. Regards, TheEarwig(Talk | Contribs)01:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I'm fully understanding the concerns here and why they can't just be assessed separately. I normally find I can create the gangster articles by this author without further ado. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly, they are usually much better sourced than that. But still, hundreds of articles are created every day by registered users which don't have any sources. Having one reliable source is usually adaquate to create an article. I think we need to guard against raising our standards unduly. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. We simply noted that all the articles shared that same issue, and that the tone of some might not be appropriate; we thus thought it would be expedient to deal with that issue wholesale. It's worked out quite well thus far, because in a few hours, quite a few people have jumped in and helped read through the articles to check for neutrality. I'm sure that this won't delay things much, and we certainly don't intend to put anyone off - I'm hoping quite the reverse. I have pointed out on the discussion that the comments are mostly intended for future development of the article, and will not hold up creation. Personally I'd like to see at least one other RS for each of them - mostly because they do make rather bold negative statements about people not-that-long-dead - but I'm fairly confident that we can find refs quite quickly. We certainly didn't intend to exclude anyone from the process, and I'll make sure now that that is clear. Chzz ► 18:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's fine. I don't feel excluded and I don't think anyone else would take it that way. I just worried you were creating extra bureaucracy for yourselves. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit filter false positives
I was asked to bring the issue of Special:AbuseFilter/183 here. I had disabled it because I had seen three complaints at the false positives page in just four days: [2][3][4] Why would we disallow the creation of these pages? It seems very WP:BITEy and is obviously frustrating people. I notice some people in the filter's logs are just giving up and never editing again. How can that be a good thing? Wknight94talk14:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some background might be useful here for others. In the wizard, users are prompted to give the name of their article. In the input box, there is a prefix WT:Articles for creation/my proposed article name here and users are instructed to replace "my proposed article name here" with their article name. Unfortunately what sometimes happens is that users replace the whole title with their name, therefore creating their article in article space. In June 2009 Someguy1221 created an edit filter to warn users about this. After a week of testing I also set it to "disallow" such edits. In the warning box (MediaWiki:abusefilter-warning-AFC2), they get a clear instruction about what is wrong with their submission and how to fix it.
Now, in my experience and generally speaking, the users who can't follow the instructions are more likely to be users who don't have a suitable article to contribute. Therefore what tended to happen is that their article was speedily deleted, sometimes within minutes of its creation. This is more BITEy in my opinion. If we can get the submission in project space, they have time to work on the article and they get feedback from one of our reviewers. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But it sounds like we replaced one bitey process with another bitey process. At least the former bitey process resulted in bad articles being deleted - this one may result in good articles never being created in the first place. What is probably needed is a bot of some sort to fix the bad submissions rather than either of the two processes that have been tried. Or can the input form be fixed (I haven't played with input forms here so I don't know)? Wknight94talk15:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What would be great is if inputbox could automatically add the prefix so this problem could never happen. Unfortunately it can't do this as far as I know. As for a bot, I'm not sure if it would be worth it because it only happens 2-3 times per day ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mr.Z-bot (talk·contribs) is already set up to act on triggered filters. I imagine it could be modified to fix these errant AFCs. Sure 2-3 times per day doesn't sound like much but it's 2-3 people per day that may get alienated from Wikipedia forever. Wknight94talk16:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of preventing creation, we should just have the flag in the log, and someone checks the results. If the Mr.Z-bot mad a list up for attention that would be good too. Already if the template s left in, it shows up in the category nicely, so that it can be cleaned up no problem. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A few suggestions:
We adjust the filter so that it only warns and doesn't actually disallow the edit.
We add a visible tag to the top of misplaced submissions to tell new page patrollers that instead of tagging for deletion they may move the submission into project space where it belongs.
I am not a new page patroller (IANANPP?) but I do know that those who are often try to give articles in danger of deletion some time to be built up before slapping 'em with a CSD tag; usually they use the {{underconstruction}} template. In various deletion discussions, I've usually seen the suggestion to be about an hour-long wait for questionable articles, and some research done on the subject suggests between 30 and 60 minutes. It's a good idea, and I'm glad they do it.
Well, I was looking for a similar guideline for WP:AFC and couldn't seem to find one. WP:CSD itself mentions the fact that "Contributors sometimes create articles over several edits, so administrators should avoid deleting a page that appears incomplete too soon after its creation." That is often the case for the submissions I see at AfC, so I think adding a suggested minimum wait time before reviewing articles that are Works-In-Progress would be prudent. I usually try and wait at least an hour, maybe two, for those that seem in progress - how about you guys? What's the consensus for a good length I could list? Clearly this wouldn't be a steadfast rule, and would be up to the reviewer's discretion, especially regarding the best and the worst (copyvio, attack, etc.) submissions. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs)18:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like this. Mind you, just to keep the queue clear I often find myself reviewing submissions as they happen. I guess I'm being a little {{hasty}} when I do this, however like you said it's at the reviewer's discretion. AfC guidelines have a list of quick fail and IMO if they meet any of those at any time, they should be declined. This includes copyvios. Decline and blank at first sight. We've discussed this on IRC before, however I still think it's a good idea. Once again, a set minimum of time is a bad idea, a bit of WP:CREEP, however the reviewer should exercise caution when reviewing an article within minutes of it's creation as it may get better or worse in a short period of time. GrooveDog (talk) 08:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I mean when I say "especially regarding the best and the worst" - copyvios and attacks should be blanked as quickly as possible. Submissions that fall into WP:NOT and jokes should be dealt with appropriately as well, but for pages failing WP:RS or that are too short, a little time is helpful. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs)13:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:SoxBot stalks edits to AfC related pages at #wikipedia-en-afc. Not to advertise the channel or anything, however when we get down to 0 submissions it may be helpful to stalk edits by SoxBot itself, so that we can review submissions quickly. If we're looking at the submission minutes, maybe seconds after it's creation, reviewers could possibly leave a comment requesting a wait time, or could mark the article as held if they think it has a good chance of being accepted, so that they'll have 24 hours to develop the submission. GrooveDog (talk) 08:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article wizard 2.0
Hi guys, I hope you don't mind, but I've nicked your AFC wizard for more general use - Wikipedia:Article wizard2.0. I hope no-one objects to that (well imitation is the highest form of flattery :)! Now there's some discussion about the design of the wizard, and I just wondered if anyone could comment from experience with the AFC original - Wikipedia talk:Article wizard2.0, in particular on there perhaps being too many steps (compare Wikipedia:Article wizard). Thanks. Rd232talk15:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. We may even be able to merge the two wizards somewhat. There are some useful comments coming up at that discussion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The correct place for you to have this sort of discussion is WP:Drawing board. There is already an article called Planetary habitability covering a similar topic. So a merge would be in order. The way to get others to help you is to put it in article space. In your own user space you will be left to your self. The opening sentence does not look promising! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a template for declining a submission like we have for holds and accepts? I made a sort of template myself, but its kind of awkward copying and pasting it from a text editor. --Kraftlos(Talk | Contrib) 01:08, 16 September 2009
(UTC)
Real estate managers are primarily engaged in the practice of handling, supervising and controlling an immovable proprietary. Purchasing real estate requires a significant investment, and each parcel of land has unique characteristics, so the real estate management industry has evolved into several fields.
An immovable property is a legal term that encompasses land along with anything permanently affixed to the land, such as buildings. Real estate is often considered synonymous with real property, as contrasted to personal property. However, for technical purposes, some people prefer to distinguish real estate, referring to the land and fixtures themselves, from real property, referring to ownership rights over <[a href="http://pakistanirealestate.blogspot.com/">realestate</a>].
With the development of private property ownership, [<a href="http://pakistanirealestate.blogspot.com/">Pakistani real estate</a>] has become a major area of business. This paved the way to the birth of real estate management. Also called real estate development industry, it is primarily engaged in the practice of handling, supervising and controlling an immovable property.
Purchasing [<a href="http://pakistanirealestate.blogspot.com/">real estate</a>] requires a significant investment, and each parcel of land has unique characteristics, so the real estate management industry has evolved into several distinct fields. Among these fields are appraisal, brokerages, property management, and relocation services.
It would be really nice if there were a legend/key to the symbols associated with the different types of new articles (stubs, something about copyright, and something else). -Pete (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
. That's partly because WP's JS is somewhat odd, and partly because I'm having trouble figuring out how to test it without mangling pages or freaking people out when a bunch of crud suddenly appears. Any ideas? What's been done before? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC) (who prefers "she," btw...)
Done.
Done, with exactly 184 cats created. The only thing remaining, as far as I am aware, is Category:Uncategorized Afc requests. Someguy, you (or whoever) may undelete the category. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 03:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: You should be making this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Pakistani real estate or Pakistani real estate if you register. However note that blogs do not count as a reliable source. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)