Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chzz (talk | contribs) at 21:55, 3 February 2012 (reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
    Category, List, Sorting, Feed    		ShowcaseParticipants
    Apply, By subject    		Reviewing instructions
    		Help deskBacklog
    drives
    Welcome—discuss matters concerning this project!
    AfC submissions
    Random submission
    2+ months
    1,284 pending submissions
    Purge to update
    Shortcut


    Hiccups again?

    The Submissions page is no longer updating itself, hasn't done so for 8 hours or so. Is something being tweaked? It's difficult to know at the moment what the current status is. Sionk (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears that the IRC feed is down also. :- ) DCS 19:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    When this happens, 99% of the time it's because the Toolserver was restarted or had an outage. For future reference, just give me a ping, either on my talk page or on IRC in ##earwig connect, and I'll fix it ASAP (takes about half a minute). — The Earwig (talk) 04:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Submissions page has not been updating/clearing itself for almost 48 hours now. It's difficult to know what has been reviewed and what hasn't. Rather discouraging. Or maybe I'm just being negative :( Sionk (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    {{Toolserver}} replication lag is really high right now, as you can see from that template (~7 hours; check the documentation to see what that means). The bot doesn't run when replag is really high, so we'll have to wait until the servers calm down and catch up. — The Earwig (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Replication lag is 26 seconds as of this time. :- ) DCS 09:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hoorah! I notice we've been receiving over 400 articles a day, much more than any day in the early weeks of January! Sionk (talk) 10:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    New decline categories?

    We need some new decline categories, because there are some that don't fit in any of the standard decline messages (in my opinion):

    • ATTACK, a subcategory of NPOV, because the current NPOV decline message is for positive NPOV, we need a negative one.
    • BOOK, (does not pass WP:NBOOK), the current decline reason for books is just NN.
    • NONSENSE, (WP:Patent nonsense), for the completely random and illogical submissions
    • HOAX (another shortcut for JOKE, which already exists)
    • OR (WP:OR)- Currently can be tagged as essay (not always correct) or no refs (not always true)

    I'll write the decline messages for these if everybody thinks they're good ideas.

    A412 (Talk * C) 02:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm a bit bemused by the existing 'Does not conform to BLP' category too. It currently states that all biographical info has been deleted from the article. But because the article isn't yet in mainspace there is no reason to delete the uncited information. Instead the message should point out the article doesn't conform to WP:BLP and demand reliable citations. Does anyone else agree? Sionk (talk) 02:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll be willing to write these in the coming days, although my only concern is what would become of the "JOKE" decline reason, as it would never be used, and could be absorbed into "NOT". Sionk, it is supposed to be for attacks on people and whatnot, as those can come up in search results. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm for leaving the text in BLP, but default a wipe for a page that is ATTACK.  If the BLP is derogatory, mark it ATTACK and wipe it. That being said, if the BLP was written about me, and not sourced and the article said something I did not like, I might call my lawyer.  So, I can see some rational for wiping BLP's.  Even if they are not in Main space, people could post a link to their user page on Facebook for example.  I'm also in favor default wiping of NONSENSE and HOAX.  Why waste space, get them SPD'd.  --:- ) DCS 05:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Attacks don't get declined (and therefore preserved), they get placed for speedy deletion. That solves one problem. No comment on the rest. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with Sven on the attack front if it meets CSDG10 then tag it for speedy deletion. As for BLP articles that are unsourced: how about a blanking template? Like we have for copyright violations; saying something like: "The content of this submission has been blanked as a courtesy because it contains unreferenced material about a living person. Please add references, from reliable sources, to this submission before removing this template." Pol430 talk to me 13:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Is Speedy Deletion appropriate for AfC? After all, they are not in mainspace. Speedy deletion would also apply to non-notable unsourced articles, and there are plenty of those in AfC! I understood only admins could speedy delete, which rules me and several other AfC participants out of the running. Sionk (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Attack pages fall under CSDG10. The 'G' category applies 'Generally' to Wikipedia pages. The 'A' category pages apply only to article namespace. An attack page is an attack page anywhere in Wikipedia. Non-notability falls under 'A7' which applies only to the article mainspace. Pol430 talk to me 14:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have certainly declined on the JOKE criteria in the past. Some HOAXes may not be Jokes so that sounds OK. The NONSENSE sounds reasonable too as a decline reason as it would replicate a speedy delete reason. It is probably some one just testing the function that will never return to find out what happened. There used to be an attack decline reason, which included blanking the content. OR could also be a possible reason to decline if obvious enough. It would useually be matched by a lack of Verifyability. My only concern with adding some of these in is that it is more to remember for the people here! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    How about NON-NOTABLE SOFTWARE also? :- ) DCS 04:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    We could also use one for "lack of formatting": I've rejected several for lacking any paragraphing, for instance. Mangoe (talk) 05:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    A NSOFT decline reason would be useful, although we easily can use NN (not notable) or mostly WEB. And again: declining because of "lack of formatting" is not a reason! I overruled a few minutes ago a reviewer who stated that the submitter should following WP:MOS. Sry, but there are a) simply to many MOS pages and secondly it is not a valid decline reason! We have enough editors who doing gnomisch work and can wikify and fix such "minor" issues! mabdul 14:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, this is Articles for Creation, not Featured Articles for Creation. The articles we accept just need to be capable of reasonably surviving deletion. They don't need to be able to pass the featured article criteria in order to be accepted. Unless the MoS violation would likely result in deletion (i.e. failing to use inline citations on contentious BLP information), then there is no reason to decline it. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never rejected an article for poor formatting. I have rejected several which consisted of twenty or thirty lines (which on my screen runs to a couple thousand characters) of solid text. It's not a minor issue to have to read through such an indigestible lump to determine whether it contains BLP issues or other such content faults. Mangoe (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I've created some drafts of messages at User:A412/afcmessages. Feel free to edit it. On the topic of attacks, shouldn't it be declined (to remove it from the submission list) and also CSD'ed? A412 (Talk * C) 00:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you make up a mockup of the actual template?  The surrounding text could make a big difference in the way the wording reads. :- ) DCS 15:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it we make reference to CSD 'A' criteria (I'm referring mostly to notability under A7) in the decline templates? AfC is aimed, primarily, at anon users who cannot create pages in the article namespace. 'A' criteria are invalid in the AfC namespace, and so it seems without merit to point to that criteria in the decline templates. It just seems like extra text, and more Wikilinks, for already confused new editors to have to follow. Pol430 talk to me 17:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Although you are correct that the A criteria is for mainspace and not for AFC pages, we cannot move them if they fail the A. But indeed, even experienced users don't understand what #A7 is correctly and thus should be removed from the decline reason and explaining it better. mabdul 17:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    How exactly do I make a mockup of the actual template? I can't find a way to. A412 (Talk * C) 17:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea I'm afraid, it's a complicated template. On a slightly related matter see below Pol430 talk to me 17:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm working on a impotent mockup.  Hopefully you will be able to copy, paste, then redisplay.  :- ) DCS 18:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I have made the current Decline template more or less impotent.  Clicking will take you somewhere, but it will not change or submit anything:  {{Dcshank|Your decline text goes here}}.  Let me know if it has problems.  :- ) DCS 19:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Can we keep this in one thread or the other? I would suggest the thread below is the better venue. Pol430 talk to me 15:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Decline Templates

    Resolved

    While were are talking about decline templates.  Can we copy the reviewer's name to the template?  It's really not very useful to have ArticlesForCreationBot on 4 decline templates. --:- ) DCS 00:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This is simply not possible since the template is checking who has done the last edit on that page. CHeck Template:AFC submission/declined and you will see the old revision by somebody. Regards, mabdul 00:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood, but that is not useful information.  Especially when 4 templates say they were edited by ArticlesForCreationBot 2 hours ago. I don't see any reason the last reviewer and the time could not be copied into the template.  That would be useful information. :- ) DCS 04:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The media wiki software does not have that feature in it, to insert the user of the person editing. Perhaps we can request that feature. I would also like to see the ability to template the article creator. But using the javascript tools should make that possible. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I tried it myself, and there is no variable.  However I did find out that using ~~~~ in the template does copy the review's signature and the time.  Not optimum, but usable and much better than what we have. :- ) DCS 23:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to develop a JS tool, I can give you the API code to get the latest (or the rev before) revision user. Simply ping me in IRC or on my talk. mabdul 11:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The only change needed is a change to the decline templates.  We are already talking about those.  I have not tried it outside of the sandbox, however.  Is there an easy way for a real test? :- ) DCS 15:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, I updated Template:AFC submission/declined, Template:AFC submission, and Tims script (didn't recognized his message down there) and we have now two new parameters: decliner and declinets: really simply: the script adds the information who and when the submission was declined. Feel free to report any bugs to me! mabdul 19:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe we need a page to discuss templates.  One tag in Twinkle says article contains insufficient content, but the tag says "introduction provides insufficient context".  I'm not sure which should be kept or if we need both.  I'm a big advocate of SPS, and I would put a counter in Twinkle to see which tags are never used and get rid of them.  It's a great tool, but there are so many tags to choose from.  Just thinkin' out loud.  :- ) DCS 07:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I have been copy editing the text of the decline templates in my sandbox. You can see the results at User:Pol430/Sandbox3. Any feedback would be appreciated Pol430 talk to me 17:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Before everyone(A412 & Pol430] starts rewriting decline reasons, why don't we make a copy of the current list somewhere, and modify IT.  That is what we are going to have to put back into Template space if we want to update the wording.  I will volunteer to copy & paste the text into dummy templates in my sandbox(or where ever) for review.  :- ) DCS 21:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Too Late!!  I have made a page here with all the decline templates, the existing codes, and the existing text.  You may go ahead and edit these templates if you like for review or testing.  When everyone is happy, we can copy the wording out to the real templates.  :- ) DCS 23:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The list I pointed you to in the first place is a copy and paste of the wordings at Template:AFC submission/comments with modifications. It simply requires copy and pasting into the relevant template if the wording is agreed upon... Pol430 talk to me 15:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm working on it, Pol430.  I faked the 2nd template parameter in mine.  Trying to get it working in yours and mine now.  Any template experts out there, I'm always on AfC IRC. :- ) DCS 17:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I am at a complete loss to understand why you are trying to make a working mock-up... The decline templates already exist, and work, they are all identical except for the text of the decline reason. The only issue is the wording of the individual decline reasons—at least, that is the only issue I am working to address. Pol430 talk to me 17:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Simply to have a sandbox to play in, especially if we are considering adding new templates, or we can work out the appearance and wording using the live templates.  In any case the old and new decline templates using the wording from Pol430's page are here for reference.

    Calm down please! I really think we need two major changes: one of the style of the templates (and the general wording) and on the other side a complete rewording of the decline reasons! The WMF started/want to do an A/B testing on the existing ones (link in archives).
    @Pol430: I think we have to reword even more the decline reasons - the average/new user needs a wording which could be used on the Simple Wikipedia. As an example: third party references is "useless" for non-academic users: explain better that they should include newspaper articles. I would also get rid of the A7 - even experienced users have problems to determine what A7 is (and I really thing that many, maybe even most, declines are incorrectly declined as A7!).
    Related to the general rewording: I think adding the decliner and the contact link highly improves the understanding for the normal user who aren't aware of their talkpages (or if they are IP editors, they can have a new IP!) mabdul 19:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh and before I forget: if anybody needs help with a template change or/and the JS helper, feel free to ask here or on my talkpage (or in the IRC channel) and I will try to do it! mabdul 19:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, I am currently away from a decent computer but will continue to try and improve the text of the decline reasons on my return, on Friday. I'm not even going to attempt it on an iPhone... Pol430 talk to me 22:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have done some more copy editing of the decline templates wordings—See: User:Pol430/Sandbox3 for the results. I have tried to standardize terminology and write them in plain language. I was cautious about making the wordings too simple because 1) this is not Simple Wikipedia and 2) editing Wikipedia requires WP:CLUE and the ability to understand complex issues. I have also been cautious to avoid TLDR issues and encourage editors to actually follow the links... Pol430 talk to me 21:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    A stupid question

    When a editor submits an Article for creation, it is moved to Wikipedia Talk:Articles for creation/Article.  Why can it not be moved to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Article with a Talk page?  Then we don't have to clutter up the article page or various User Talk pages with discussions.  As we are rejecting more and more articles, discussions are ending up everywhere.  I believe I even saw a decline template that said to discuss it on the Article's Talk page.  :- ) DCS 07:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Why aren't you able to move the talkpage to the WP namespace? It is totally legit and the "tools" section in the submission template even has a button to do this with a notice for a discussion - although this is really seldom done. mabdul 11:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeap, you're right. I noticed it being done more and more.  Maybe we could make it the default action and remove the option?  I suppose the submission script and any reviewer scripts(e.g. Twinkle) might have to be modified?  That could be a draw back now that it is so busy. :- ) DCS 15:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    They start there because unregistered users can only create pages in talk namespaces. joe•roet•c 18:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the explanation Joe.   :- ) DCS 22:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Now for the Soap Box again.  I just saw an urgent request for help with "New Pages".  They are like a zillion days behind.  I know I keep bringing up the fact that I don't think it is wise to just let anyone move pages to Main space.  But, IMHO, the Wikipedia is becoming to big to stay with the old ideas until we drown.  I looked at the first 10 pages in the "New Pages" list, and this was the best article.  If it takes a month to get an article through AfC, then that's just the way it's going to have to be.  In the time it takes NPP to clean out the chaf, twice as much will have flowed in.   :- ) DCS 22:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    That article was not moved to mainspace, it was created in namespace. Please see WP:ACTRIAL, it has been proposed, and the Wikimedia Foundation rejected it. It doesn't matter how many editors you convince, it isn't going to happen unless the Wikimedia Foundation is convinced. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The result is the same.  I read about Dead Horses and sticks in the Wikipedia, so I will be quiet.  Not happy but quiet. :- ) DCS 23:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Totally agree; see WP:ACTRIAL. Grr.  Chzz  ►  16:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User_talk:Example

    I'm glad to see that after so many years of inactivity (a single edit in over six years), User:Example is now submitting articles for creation. A pity they are all getting rejected. Manning (talk) 10:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    new relevant bot task

    see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ArticlesForCreationBot 5 and comment there ;) mabdul 15:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Article

    Hi, I submitted a stub for publication days ago but nothing seems to be happening with it. It hasn't been posted and I've had no feedback. Can someone let me know what's happening please. There seems to be some massive backlog or its gone AWOL somehow.

    Why did the procedures get changed? It used to be relatively straightforward to post an article but now it's become very difficult. I dont understand the reasons. Overall the new procedures seem to be working against the aims of the whole Wikipedia project.

    Can someone get back to me please.

    Thanks, Manticore83 (talk) 09:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    As far as I understand, the new procedures were introduced to stop the large amount of inappropriate new articles being created without review. I agree, there is quite a backlog at the moment. This a partly to do with the recent significant increase in submissions and partly because some of the more prolific AfC reviewers are not around temporarily.
    Articles are still getting reviewed, but it's taking 5 or six days, rather than 2 or 3. I see someone has reviewed your article but forgot to inform you! Sionk (talk) 13:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Checking his contributions, I recognized that his draft was already reviewed, but the reviewer missed to inform him. I will leave a message on the reviewers talk page that he/she should use the helper script ;) mabdul 13:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    On a serious note, when it comes to a backlog of near two weeks, please let me know. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Things have changed a bit?

    Hey guys. I decided to come back to AFC after being gone for about a year. Things have changed a bit? Wondering if someone could kindly give me a quick rundown of how things are going, and how the process changed, if at all. Thanks. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It depends. Yes, it changed dramatically in some ways, some didn't changed.
    • The wizard as it is didn't really changed:
      • The userspace option was replaced with a pending draft system which creates "a userspace draft at WT:AFC/ space"
      • The option to create directly a mainspace article was removed
    • The design and wording of the templates/comment were improved and we added feedback links and contact links to the reviewer
    • Tim's AFC helper script was updated (the best to use that one ;) ); feel free to report feature requests/bugs
    • the {{userspacedraft}} template was "improved" - the move button was replaced with a "request a review" button
    • because of the above mentioned changes we have now ~200 submissions a day (WP:AFC/S)
    mabdul 12:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    EditFilter

    I don't know how many people are aware of this, but I created filter 167 quite some time ago to catch malformed submissions to AFC. I used to peruse through the hits manually to uncover AFC submissions that did not show up in the category, but I guess I was the only one doing that. So anyway, there's probably now a years worth of uncategorized submissions in there. Is it possible for one of the AFC bots to go through the hits and tag the articles? I'll be doing so myself in the meantime. Thanks. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm also following that filter and luckily I was aware that Chzz changed our preform to subst:userspacedraft :( (and a second problem.) Now the filter should not catch that many. Our AFC bot also runs every month (?) and filling a cat containing articles without any submission template (which was cleared a few days ago)... mabdul 15:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I guess I was worried about nothing then. Thanks! Someguy1221 (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong suggestion we change submission template.

    The Submission Template now says, "This might take several hours, or even days, at busy times."  The articles we care about are taking several days, minimum.  The editors of articles we don't care about are getting upset if it takes 2 hours.  I suggest it says "several days", because that looks like the future.  Reasonable people will be reasonably accepting of the change, unreasonable people will never be reasonable. :- ) DCS 04:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    How about we go with "This might take some time", to save us changing it back and forth in future? joe•roet•c 18:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds reasonable.  Several hours is most unlikely at this time. :- ) DCS 20:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I also saw an interesting thing in my Watch List, someone CSD's an article that was in the AfC directory.  Maybe there is a way we can stop the template from doing that.  Just another saved headache.  :- ) DCS 15:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    "someone CSD's an article that was in the AfC directory.  Maybe there is a way we can stop the template from doing that." ? All "CSD criteria" of G (for General) apply also to the AFC stuff and really should be deleted. dunno what you are talking about a template, maybe you are talking about {{afc clear}}? if so, this is the only correct thing! mabdul 16:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a {{db-spam}} template. :- ) DCS 16:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is actually a redirect to {{db-g11}}, one of the general templates that can validly be added to spam in whatever namespace. So what? Huon (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If the article is in AFC space awaiting review, isnt's it our decision?  But, it might be a good clandestine idea to reduce our backlog. :- ) DCS 20:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    We have been CSDing submissions under the general criteria since mid 2010 after a discussion. Not all reviewers use CSD though. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I do get upset myself when I see people tagging AfC stuff with db-spam, but WP:OWN applies to projects as well as to articles. Attack pages, vandalism, and copyright violations should of course be blanked or deleted, but not spam. And I say that because even in the case of spam, the author actually came to our project to ask us if the content is OK, and possibly expecting feedback on how the article can be improved. Slapping the submission with db-g11 just looks bitey in that regard. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I just reverted one of Alpha's speedy's, as it could possibly be improved. Please do not bite the new users! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that 'routine' spam AFCs don't need CSD, but if something simply says e.g. BUY VIAGARA HERE!!11eleven! then I tend to use CSD. BTW I cleared the backlog.  Chzz  ►  03:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    (Pokes Chzz) Hey buddy, are you alive? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Copyediting

    A bit of a concern here. If you accept a submission, at least make sure that it complies with the WP:MOS and doesn't have some common errors. Many of these fixes are trivial- I've fixed quite a few.

    1. Bold the title the first time it appears in text.
    2. Correct the headline hierarchy. (2 equal signs, then 3, etc.)
    3. Make sure headlines are not double-bolded.
    4. etc.

    Would help everybody out a lot! A412 (Talk * C) 00:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed, I tend to run newly accepted articles through AWB for a spot of clean up (but some stuff you have to do manually). Pol430 talk to me 21:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Question about the icons at Wikipedia:Articles for creation...

    What exactly do the various icons mean? Is there any way to perhaps have a caption appear when one hovers the cursor on top of them or maybe have a link to "These icons mean/A key to these icons..."? Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 14:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Unless someone wants to have a go at {{AfC contribution}}, a key would be an excellent idea, IMO. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 14:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    They're from {{Class/icon}} and denote the article's class, if it's been assessed. I've raised adding a tooltip at the template talk, because I think they're intended to have them but they got lost at some point. joe•roet•c 18:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have looked into this, and the capability to add alternate text has to be done at the point of HTML generation, which is a few levels lower than templates.  I don't think we have access to those programs. :- ) DCS 18:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you can do it quite easily: joe•roet•c 18:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Help with AFC's

    After I reviewed about 650 AFC's yesterday, I've had lots of queries on my user talk page. Not too surprising, I suppose...there have been about 40 to date. And I've tried to answer them all. But, any and all help would be appreciated; see my talk from 1-Feb onward, ie from User_talk:Chzz#Your_review_at_Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation.2FSeichim down. Ta.  Chzz  ►  20:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I think a lot of that is the prominent link added to {{AFC submission/declined}} to contact the reviewer directly. I must have missed when that was changed (I'd appreciate it if someone could point me to the discussion) but it seems seriously ill thought out. One or two every now and again is fine, but I don't want to become the single point of contact for every one of the people whose articles I decline. joe•roet•c 21:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I was looking for a discussion as well, I get the impression it may have taken place on IRC. I think the box is a good idea, to increase the visibility of the decline reason, but I'm not sure about the prominent contact link that open a new section for your talk page. It will cause all questions to circumvent the info banner at the top of my talk page that directs people with questions to my faq's page Pol430 talk to me 21:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Really? I would think it would be better, as there are times when another reviewer would disagree and you are the only one who can explain exactly why you felt a certain way. Regardless, I don't think that the "single point of contact" is really a problem...-en-help gets far more angry AfC'ers then I think I ever will. As a side note, my thanks to Chzz for his work as a one-man wrecking ball yesterday. Incredible. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 22:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait a second...I just realized that what you're referring to. This must have happened in the last couple days, no? Urg...dunno if I like that... Nolelover Talk·Contribs 22:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the diff of the template being changed. Take it up with Mabdul, I guess. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 22:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, I'm the bad! We did last week change the template (earlier diff) and the script to add the reviewer to the template so that the "submitter" (normally unexperienced) doesn't have to click on the history - and later I get the "idea" to add a direct contact link since IPs doen't have any real talkpage and thus not gettting the decline template with this contact link (which the registered already getting on their talkpage). And through the feedback (I'm "stalking" some reviewers, I realize that this a really good addition since mostly the workding of the decline messages are simply bad! Most (even experienced) editors don't know what #A7 means and other phrases... So to get less messages, simply change the wording :/ mabdul 22:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC) BTW: I have to fight with the same problem, although this is not that dramatically as in Chzz case (of course) because I'm not reviewing that much! mabdul 22:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    An amazing effort by Chzz! My computer's too sluggish to do more than a dozen reviews in one session! The contact link is no problem for me either. If it creates a new section on my Talk page that is all the better, much preferable to having random comments scattered about by new authors who don't understand WP page formatting. In any case, when we notify the authors on their page, the link to our page was already part of the message. Sionk (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes...it's a little...garish, but I think it will be for the better. I'd prefer that they ask someone to it just sitting there, and if I can take the time to review it I can take the time to answer their question. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 23:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Just my personal preference but I would prefer it if it was just a link to the reviewers talk page rather than a new section edit link -- for the reasons I mentioned above. On a related note I have been further copy editing the decline reasons (text) at User:Pol430/Sandbox3 feel free to edit them or make suggestions. Pol430 talk to me 23:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks -to Nolelover, Joey Roe, Pol430 and anyone I've missed who helped respond to some of them.  Chzz  ►  15:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't necessarily think the link is a bad idea. In fact, I think it's good - despite the fact that I've had about 70 messages on my talk, in the last 2 days, beginning with "Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/...". That's kinda my own fault, for reviewing so many. It's better that they have a 'real person' to ask.

    I think we're addressing the wrong problem, in worrying about that.

    The real problem is, there's not enough people to offer genuine help to the new users seeking it. WP:FEED was another fantastic system, but failed due to lack-of-helpers, and now redirects to helpdesk. Unless there's a paradigm shift on Wikipedia from template-warning/blocks to help/guidance, then I fear AFC could go the same way; it could quickly end up so backlogged that it's unusable.

    And I'm disappointed by the WMF take on this - which seems to be focused on attracting/keeping new editors. We do, of course, need new editors. But we need GOOD editors. Thousands of new editors who are not going to help each other can drive off some good ones. Adding 'social networking' bollocks can attract lots of new people - as can sugar-sweet messages instead of warnings, and not clearly stomping down on spam...however, that can attract users who are "more trouble than they are worth". But, I digress...

    But this is a generic, core problem with the project. Too many people need help, not enough to give it. I feel it's because the focus of the project is incorrect; there's massive efforts go into the 'bad side' of Wikipedia; we've kinda forgotten that the goal is to create quality content, and not to play a WP:MMPORPG. I hope/wish we could move to a more academic atmosphere, where people help each other to write articles. I don't know if/when that will happen.  Chzz  ►  16:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Members of this project might be interested in watching the progress of the WP:Teahouse, which I'm sure many of you received invites to. If it succeeds, well, I hope it will fill the large hole the FEED left, although I'm doubtful. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 16:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I object to that project; I find it sexist and patronising. The solution to a gender-bias is not to condescend and offer quaint, stereotypical assistance; it's simply to treat people equally - which that singly fails to do.  Chzz  ►  18:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be interested to hear to expand on your concerns, wherever you would like (my talk or email). I do agree that there will be some problems off the bat, but how the outside of the project looks can easily be changed, if the basic premise works. Either way, we'll find out very soon. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 20:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued help at User talk:Chzz would be appreciated. There's now over 100 requests for help on there, and I've only got three pairs of hands...  Chzz  ►  18:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    No good deed goes unpunished.  The new decline templates are too high vertically.  Is there any way to remove some of the white space(in this case pink space)? :- ) DCS 20:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I want to help new people add to the "sum of all human knowledge". And I do my best - see my talk.

    I want to tell them "you can get live help, here".

    But, that place is not in control of the community. In the past, I've been 'admonished' there for such things as saying "crap" and posting 6 lines ('flooding'). I can't accept that, when the people who 'tell me off' are not chosen through consensus.

    When the people who 'tell me off' don't actually participate in helping the new users.

    When the community has no say in what is, and is not, acceptable.

    IFF the community of helpers told me I couldn't say "crap", I wouldn't say "crap". If I then did, and they admonished me, or banned me, I'd actually accept it. And I could appeal.

    But, I will NOT tolerate a wikipedian service where I have no right to appeal; where decisions are made by an oligarchy. And if that is the only "live help", I will give up; I can't in good faith tell new users how wonderfully fair we are, in an environment where the rules do not apply.  Chzz  ►  21:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    IRC

    A sincere, and I believe important, complaint from Chzz. Please read; I'll try and keep it short.

    Many Wikipedians offer help, especially to new users, via Internet Relay Chat. We use Freenode, and a channel called #wikipedia-en-help. You can visit it via http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=wikipedia-en-help

    That channel is linked from templates including {{helpme}}, and AFC templates. That's great.

    However, the channel is not controlled via the community, or consensus.

    The people "in charge" of the channel are called "Founders". As of right now, there are two; Thehelpfulone (talk · contribs) and Deskana (talk · contribs).

    They were not chosen through cosnensus; they weren't "elected". It's hard (impossible?) to know where to challenge any decisions they may make, or where to apply for the position.

    There are 'group contacts' between Wiki?edia and Freenode; meta:Group_Contacts. They haven't been chosen by the community that use the thing, either. They're chosen by the previous GC's...who were chosen by the previous...who were people who 'happened to be around' in the early days.

    It's an oligarchy. It's "non-wiki". People who have ultimate control over the way things are run, for helping new users.

    This affects AFC - why? Because, I find it hard to give advice about how important 'consensus' is here, on a medium which does not abide by consensus.

    I apologize - I've grumbled about this in the past. For years. I've tried to address the issue. For example, in Wikipedia:IRC/wikipedia-en-help founder proposal - which resulted in a change of "F", but unfortunately, those new "F" were unable to fulfil the role.

    I want our help to improve. I want it to be excellent. But, this issue continues to frustrate me greatly.

    Why is this important aspect of helping new users under control of an oligarchy? And why can't I seem to do anything about it? I've tried - I've asked everyone I can think of, for years.

    I've "indefinitely stopped editing" several times, out of frustration about this. I'm close to doing that again. It's simply "wrong" that a process for helping new users is outside the control of people who help new users.

    Some - lots - think it's a non-problem; that "if it isn't broke, don't fix it". Well, it's broke. Without wishing to be alarmist, if it can't be fixed, I'm outta here.

    Some say, it's not part of Wikipedia - it's separate. Well, the clue is in the name - #wikipedia-en-help. And the links from our many templates. Either it is, or is not, part of our help service. If it is...hey, great; let's decide how best to use it (through discussion/consensus). If it's not - hey, great, I'll set up my own channel on another network, and change links.

    I believe deeply in the core values of this project, and I want us to help new users appropriately. The people who can decide how we can best help them, are those that help them - not people selected by their friends, off-wiki, with no onus.

    I don't know if this message will help, or not. I don't know if it's the right place. I'm posting it here, because I think/hope some readers here will recognize that it needs action. What can we do? How can we challenge it? I really don't know. I've tried. Tried 'moving' the help service elsewhere - to have an admin threaten me with a block. Tried asking WMF - who say it's not them. Tried asking Freenode, who say it's WMF. Tried asking GC's, who say it's not a problem. Tried asking F's, who either say it's not a problem, or pass F to someone else who does, or give up.

    I'm frustrated by it; enough to quit the project until it's resolved.

    </rant> - thanks to anyone who listened.  Chzz  ►  20:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    What can a poor peon like me do exactly, Chzz?  I've worked help a bit when I needed a break, it was fun. :- ) DCS 20:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the best course of action might be to start a Request for Comment. This is a problem, and it is long past the time since we should have addressed it. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm also somewhat active on en-help and various other wikipedia IRC channels. I agree with Chzz – it's about time that things changed so that the systems for running the IRC channels fit with those for running Wikipedia. We say that IRC is a separate beast, but when we link to it from help pages, etc., it becomes part of Wikipedia's responsibility. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I'm extremely new (both to AfC and to -en-help), so I really can't make any contributions to this discussion, but I have a couple questions. After reading this, I see multiple references to "IRC rules", including what seems to be a "IRC is censored" thing. Can I get some elaboration on that? In my little time there, I haven't any major bowdlerizing; I once helped a person with an article about a transvestite whose claim to fame was "taking it 10 inches", if I recall right. Also, what is the role of the Founder/channel contact, and do they have any relation to the founders in other channels (-en, other languages, etc)? Nolelover Talk·Contribs 20:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In brief - I can't say too much, without it getting long - but, in the past, I've had disagreements over the way the channel is run, between myself and F and/or GC. I don't want to be elusive, so I'll be clear as I can - example - at one time, an F who had not edited >10 times on enwiki and had said almost nothing in the channel for >year, challenged me when I a) told a friend to 'remove that crap' and b) posted 6 lines (he said it was 'spamming'. As you may imagine, I was indignant, and wanted to appeal; however, due to the aforesaid, there's no way to appeal. Hope that helps clarify; I'd show diffs and stuff, but that's hard 'coz of IRC not logged, and so forth.  Chzz  ►  21:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood...but that leads to another question. Why aren't the channels (at least the main ones) publicly logged? I can understand the reasoning for smaller groups, but for heaven's sake this is Wikipedia. Everything done on IRC immediately becomes shadowy because, as you point out above, no one can provide real "diffs". I'm sure there's a very obvious reason I've missed...? Nolelover Talk·Contribs 21:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Great question - because it illustrates this whole issue. Should they be logged? Or not? I don't know...but that decision belongs in the hands of the community. Ie, we should discuss it; weigh up pro/con, and decide what WE - the users of the channel - think is best. Whether most of us want it logged (good for new users), or most don't (it's informal; we want to give help without being too accountable for every word we type without necessarily thinking) - well, that's up for discussion through that magical consensus - or, it SHOULD be.
    But right now, it is not; it's an arbitrary decision, taken by a person who has never been chosen, in an important role which the community cannot challenge. And that's just shit. Oh - can I say 'shit' here? who decides? see?  Chzz  ►  21:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please explain a list of exactly what you have seen go wrong in the past month in-channel, that you would like to have changed, and what you would change it to? 208.180.95.99 (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect, specifics do not matter. Example, is it OK to say "fuck" - well, clearly, depends on context. Hard to help improve WP:FUCK without. This is mostly covered by things like WP:NOTCENSORED but, we could adapt things for 'live'. That's not the major concern right now; we could discuss that; however,
    The community should decide - not some arbitrarily appointed oligarchy. I'll accept the choice of the community, no worries; if consensus is that I cannot say "shit" in the channel, I won't - and if I do, ban me; that's fine. But I will not accept the decision of someone who is not answerable to the community, and can make decisions that I cannnot appeal.
    Indeed, I feel so strongly about that principle, that if it cannot be done, I will retire. Not threat, not DIVA, not blackmail; I cannot in good faith support a project where the community may be over-ridden by a person who the community has not chosen.  Chzz  ►  21:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think specifics do matter. "If it works, don't fix it" is very applicable here. Are there specific problems that arise out of the way it is run, or are you just unhappy about the way it is run, without regard to the fact that the end result is perfectly acceptable? 208.180.95.99 (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi. This seems to be a fairly ongoing issue and I would like to make a few things clear.

    All Wikimedia channels are under the jurisdiction of the Wikimedia IRC group contacts, but each channel effectively runs themselves, with its own team of operators. #wikipedia-en-help has active channel management, with trusted Wikimedia users and admins serving as operators.

    freenode channels run separately to Wikimedia. Operators are selected for their knowledge of IRC, not solely for their Wikimedia experience. I absolutely welcome offers to improve the channel, but there are no current plans to change the management system. The current system works. Requests are dealt with fairly and properly, and in a timely manner. The management of the channel does not and should not distract anybody from the help offered to new users.

    We are always open to suggestions for improving the current channel management. However, the above post does not adequately explain what needs to change; if there are genuine suggestions for improvement, we are happy to hear them.

    It has always been common practice to resolve issues related to IRC on IRC, and off Wikipedia. The management is very different, and as such, discussing it on-wiki does not always work out. However, in my role as a Wikimedia group contact, I have discussed this issue with the #wikipedia-en-help management team, and they would not like to pursue a different approach to how the channel is managed. The IRC group contacts will support their decision. -- PeterSymonds (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll bet the -en-help management team doesn't want to change the management. </dry> Could/should that be rephrased, or do you mean it like how it sounds? Nolelover Talk·Contribs 21:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the irc help channel plays a vital role in the Wikipedia ecosystem and we should use it (or another integrated live chat module) more and not less. In order to do that, I agree with Chzz that governance needs to be transparent and responsive to the community. I have no idea what actual problems Chzz thinks we need to fix once that change happens, but I guess I'd support it on principle alone. It would be particularly important as AfC and links to live-help are expanded, which I anticipate and support. Chzz, I think you should draft an RfC, figure out the best place for it, and see what happens. Ocaasi t | c 21:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello. I don't really understand why this has been posted on a totally unrelated page instead of the discussion page for the channel, which is at Wikipedia talk:IRC/wikipedia-en-help.

    In any case, let's try to address the issues that have been raised here.

    First, I see complaints about the channel contacts. The current channel contacts are an Arbitrator Emeritus and respected user of great experience, Deskana, and Thehelpfulone, a very experienced irc operator and administrator. Both are, in my opinion and based on my experience, doing a fine job, and I don't see why you're here complaining about them.

    If there is an issue with the behaviour of the current contacts, please contact the rest of the ops thru the appropriate channels and we'll gladly help mediate the dispute :) As far as I know, please correct me if I am mistaken, you have never raised issues regarding the current contacts with the rest of the ops regarding the contacts' decisions, inactivity, behavior or the like.

    If you have a specific problem with how the channel is run, please do come forward and tell us, and I'm sure a reasonable discussion can be had about it between all of the moderation team.

    So far, no issues have been raised, you only brought up some old story that is completely irrelevant and really pointless, for you know very well that if you got an issue with the founder you can discuss it with the rest of the ops and come to a solution.

    I've been in this channel since its founding back in 2007, and have been an op in it for almost two years now. My interactions with the channel contacts, from werdan7 times to the current set of contacts have always been positive and professional, and I've never had an issue with how the channel was run. In any case, as with all wikimedia channels, the main decision body, if you want to call it that way, regarding channel rules are not the contacts, but the consensus of ops. In any case, I find this point moot as really the current founders are both excellent and clearly well suited for the job.

    Regards, Snowolf How can I help? 21:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict × 2)[reply]

    Who chooses GC?
    Who chooses the people who run channels (F)?
    How can a wikipedian appeal a decision by them, or choose who they are?
    If it's separate from Wiki?edia, why is it called "#wiki?edia..." - and linked from our common templates for helping? That seems to confer authority. Can we redirect them?
    "Operators are selected for their knowledge of IRC" - by who? Who decides if they know about IRC? I know of selections of ops who have little/no knowledge of IRC, and have demonstrated incompetence with its commands - how do I appeal those?
    "The current system works" - no, it does not. Often, new users are ignored or abused. Logs available from me - except, I can't publish them here...due to rules set by yourself?
    "Requests are dealt with fairly and properly, and in a timely manner." - refs, please. I know that, many times, new users are ignored. That could be improved. It should be improved. The community could/should improve it. But, how can we, when the decisions over control are outside their remit?
    "The management of the channel does not and should not distract anybody from the help offered to new users." - yes, it absolutely DOES. It distracts ME. That's why I've stopped using it for several protracted periods. If this cannot be solved, I won't be able to use it - for reasons stated.
    "We are always open to suggestions for improving the current channel management." - great; so; where/how can I suggest who should be in charge of it, or challenge this oligarchy?
    "However, the above post does not adequately explain what needs to change; if there are genuine suggestions for improvement, we are happy to hear them." - Sure. OK. So; the #wikipedia-en-help channel "F" are TheHelpfulOne and Deskana; I do not believe that adequately reflects the users of the channel, and I ask that the control be put to the community'; ditto GC.
    "We are always open to suggestions for improving the current channel management. However, the above post does not adequately explain what needs to change; if there are genuine suggestions for improvement, we are happy to hear them." - who is that then? who chose it?
    "they would not like to pursue a different approach to how the channel is managed. The IRC group contacts will support their decision" - according to whom?
    SURELY, helping new users is vital, and the community should decide how it is best approached - not just "you"?  Chzz  ►  21:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation&oldid=474858627"