Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation

Main page

Talk page

Submissions
Category — List (sorting)

Showcase

Participants
Apply — By subject

Reviewing instructions

Help desk

Backlog
drives

Welcome—discuss matters concerning this project!

AfC submissions
Random submission

4+ months

2,247 pending submissions

Purge to update

Shortcut

WT:AFC

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

Top of page
Table of Contents
Bottom of page

We seem to have a problem growing in sandboxes

I'm not sure why this is happening, but we seem to have an increasing number of multiple articles on the same subject being submitted from sandboxes. I have been moving some of them because it is quick and easy when I have a minute or two, but I don't know what to do any more with the duplicates. Do I number them John Smith (1), John Smith (2), John Smith (3)? Get them history merged into one article for submission? We also run the risk of approving a crappy one when there is a really good one sitting there. I'm clueless. Suggestions, ideas, is there a procedure? -- :- ) Don 01:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I normally move these submissions to Jon Doe 2, Jon Doe 3 (etc., so without brackets) if the submission is a new submission; otherwise I tag them with twinkle that the submission needs a history merge. mabdul 11:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wasn't really serious about a history merge, but I guess if someone had the time, it could be done. I'm sure we would have some upset editors when they found their article had been merged and now they have to share it with 1 or 2 others. Considering it is the Wiki's property, let them be upset, if we get a better page. -- :- ) Don 19:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request Edit templates

I'm trying to create a carbon copy of the AfC process (or close to it) for {{request edits}} so editors with a COI can submit content for review for articles that already exist. I need a lot of help on templates to get it up and running and thought someone from AfC might be able to help. I've started it here. The Talk page has some of the template work I've run into so far that I don't have the technical skills to do. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 22:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Nouniquenames jumped into this like a superhero. We're working on about 10 templates here. I think this could be a huge improvement for above-board COI on pre-existing articles (once we get people to use it). User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 06:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Noun and I created some new templates into the {{request edit}} process to create an AfC-like review/approval/implementation process into requested edits by COIs. You can see the new documentation here and the template in use here. If anyone is interested in contributing to the request edit queue, it can now be done in a matter very similar to COI-submitted AfCs. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 18:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feature request for afc tag / afch script - "Submission only contains primary sources"

Would it be possible to add a new category to decline AfC articles that only contain primary sources? I've seen quite a few today - I generally tag them as "unreferenced or referenced by unreliable sources" with some boilerplate text along the lines of "This article only contains primary sources. Wikipedia requires independent, reliable, secondary sources to establish notability of an article." I'm concerned that a primary source isn't necessarily an unreliable source, depending on context, which may confuse people. --Ritchie333 (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a tag for that, but not a decline. -- :- ) Don 15:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's so sad, that some reviewers played at the decline tag for |v= and changed the original decline reason dramatical without gaining a consensus here... mabdul 11:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Black Monk of Pontefract (Poltergeist)

Any thoughts on this one? I'm not a judging anyone's beliefs, but I can't tell if this is a serious article or based on a fictional story. Cheers! Stella ^BATPHONE _GROOVES 18:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't find a reason to fail it, err on the side of letting it through. For me, a BBC article and a commercially published book are just about enough reliable sources to let it through the gates, but I would tag the article as {{npov}} and {{refimprove}}, tag everything bar the two sources above as {{unreliable}}, {{cn}} anything unreferenced that sounds debatable, then put {{WikiProject Paranormal}} (see here) on the talk page which would hopefully pick up second opinion. --Ritchie333 (talk) 08:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nachtblut

Nachtblut, German Metal Band is missing from this wikipedia. See http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nachtblut for informations. --87.158.131.132 (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite welcome to translate the article for us, if you think it is important to have in the English Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Translation -- :- ) Don 15:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nachtblut - the article was deleted 2 years ago. Moreover I highly doubt (even as German after reading the German article) that it passes the notability criteria of the English Wikipedia. (see Wikipedia:Notability (music)) mabdul 15:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is not the correct place to ask, so yell at me.

I find on some of my watched articles, vandalism reverting. But the original vandalism does not show on the watch list. 99.9% of the time they are IP's. Are IP revisions ignored, or what? -- :- ) Don 05:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I THINK YOU MIGHT HAVE SELECTED "HIDE ANONYMOUS USERS"! SOMEGUY1221 (TALK) 05:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, good idea, but not the case. And, no reason to shout. :'-( I'm stupid, but not that stupid. But, I guess I did say yell at me. -- :- ) Don 17:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the recent change patrollers are just really on the ball these days. ;P -- OohBunnies! (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bloody sortable list has disappeared again.

Where is that count Earwig?. I think when this happens, we should just redirect the submissions page directly to the category list instead of changing all the wording in the submissions page. But we still need a metric. Yes, no? -- :- ) Don 05:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lag is gone, so it must be an issue with the bot. I'll tell Earwig. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 01:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no issue with the bot, and you can just go to WP:AFC/ST directly for the list. I've been too busy with other things to add a count feature. — Earwig ^talk 02:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understand, np Earwig. Nathan, there is a limit in mediawiki to the size of total expanded templates on a page. When the statistics gets too large to display, it just doesn't. You can still click on the link to AfC Statistics at the bottom or use that AfC submissions list. I've just been trying to have it take you where you need to be in one click, but we have no parameter for lag or for the size of the statistic template in order to switch the page. -- :- ) Don 03:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checked your list Earwig. They don't pay you enough. -- :- ) Don 03:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Liam McEwan

Just a head's up, I tried to review this (it looked like a perfect candidate to pass, to be honest) and the script threw a wobbly. Turns out that years and years ago somebody tried to create the article multiple times, and got the article name salted after too many speedy deletes. What's interesting is the subject of the article might not have been notable then, but is notable now. I have filed a DrV here - will be interesting to see what happens. --Ritchie333 (talk) 14:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFPP may be a better venue than WP:DRV; after all, you want the page unprotected and don't argue that the old deletions were inappropriate. This should still work, though. Huon (talk) 14:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I went with WP:DRV because the root cause of it was multiple A7 CSDs. As you say, it should still get a response. Per WP:EOTW I don't normally go anywhere near the admin noticeboards and prefer to spend time looking at pictures of small cute animals instead! --Ritchie333 (talk) 14:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean with wobbly? As noted at WP:AFCH and WP:AFCH/DEV the error management isn't perfect, so what was shown? Please improve the doc pages! mabdul 14:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the script reported that the page could not be created. There's nothing wrong with the script - it did what I expected it to do under those circumstances. --Ritchie333 (talk) 14:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

long comment warning

When reviewing, I've been getting a caution, Please check the source code! This page contains a really long HTML comment!

When I do, the only comment is usually this boilerplate:

Can the script be modified to avoid false alarms on this particular long comment? Kilopi (talk) 01:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There was a change recently tht modified the boilerplate comment added, I'll get mabdul to write an exception. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 01:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sry, this is alreay in, but sadly only in the beta script which breaks some other stuff at the moment and I'm searching for a new job and thus not having the time to get the needed parts fixed, maybe I create tomorrow (or on sunday) a partial 'push' of my beta script to fix some nasty bugs before fixing the big ones. mabdul 01:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate, this is stuck in beta until we write a few more patches. You can follow the directions at WP:AFCH to switch to beta, if you wish. Thanks, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 17:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle Autobiography Welcome fixed

Thanks for handling that Nouniquenames. -- :- ) Don 03:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: new bot requested

AFD informing bot, see Wikipedia:Bot requests#AFC reviewer informing if article is at AfD. Regards, mabdul 12:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

standards

I have been reviewing accepted and declined articles, going day by day forward from July 1. My preliminary findings are very distressing. I consider the error rate at least 20%, equally divided in both directions, and even for the ones decided correctly, inadequate help to the new contributors is almost always provided. I'm not going to summarize them till I get further along, but you can see by my user contributions which accepted ones I have sent to AfD, and by my move log which declined ones I have moved to mainspace. (I'm not doing all the 20% I think wrong, just a few of what I consider the clearest examples.) I have for convenience been using the AfC helper tool when I accept, as it nicely cleans up the unnecessary messages. I could of course simply move using the normal move function and clean up manually, as could any Wikipedia editor.

I just now found a town article with adequate primary sources declined at AfC as not meeting notability .I moved it to mainspace, as the WP rule is that towns whose real existence is proven are always notable. Out of the articles on towns challenged at AfD over the last 2 or 3 years, not a single one whose real existence can be shown has been deleted.

My principle is that is that if is good enough not to be deleted by AfD when in mainspace, it's good enough to be accepted. (Some would say if it passes speedy, but I think that's wrong: we don't want to discourage new editors by accepting what will be promptly deleted at AfD .) The same criteria apply as for all WP articles. As for all WP articles, further improvement can and should be done by normal editing. The standards for notability and the other content guidelines are not set by AfC. AfC is not independent of Wikipedia; the general rules apply to everyone. If AfC uses a different standard, they are wrong to do so, just as any other project that uses a standard other than the general standards of the whole encyclopedia --but as far as I can tell, there is no practical AfC standard, for everybody there does just as they please, leaving whatever message they please, without bothering to pay individual attention to what they are doing.

The AfC process has asked for greater participation. They need to realize that if they get people from the experienced wp editors dealing with new pages, we will use our normal standards. I think they do indeed need more such people, for at this point only a minority of the reviewers seem to know Wikipedia well enough to review articles. If we can't get competent people here, we will need some other approach. DGG ( talk ) 21:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]