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 24.47.37.18 (talk) at 00:45, 22 December 2012 (→‎n.y.s personal injury law: new section). 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)    		ShowcaseParticipants
    Apply — By subject    		Reviewing instructions
    		Help deskBacklog
    drives
    Welcome—discuss matters concerning this project!
    AfC submissions
    Random submission
    3+ months
    1,673 pending submissions
    Purge to update
    Shortcut


    FYI: new bot requested

    AFD informing bot, see Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 49#AFC reviewer informing if article is at AfD. Regards, mabdul 12:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Filed BRFA. Noom talk stalk 23:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed change to the reviewer process

    I was looking at the quick-fail criteria and a few of them seem to ignore or subvert the criteria for speedy deletion. Going down the list:

    • The Vandalism or attack page decline is not only confusing, but I worry editors might become content just clearing it and adding the {{afc cleared}} template with the decline notice and not actually tagging the page for speedy deletion. The guide recommends declining it as a "test" edit, but it's not a test edit. Additionally, the AFCH doesn't have a good entry for this type of violation. I believe this entry in the guide should be split into two and more closely follow the relevant policies:
    Vandalism page If a submission is pure vandalism, the page should be nominated for speedy deletion by adding {{db-g3}} to the page. Please follow the instructions on the speedy deletion template to notify the article's author. {{db-g3}}
    Attack page If a submission is an attack page, existing primarily to disparage or threaten its subject, then the page should be blanked and nominated for speedy deletion by replacing the page's contents with {{db-g10}}. Please follow the instructions on the speedy deletion template to notify the article's author. {{db-g10}}
    • The blank submission decline in the guide does not recommend following the policy for speedy deletion of test pages. I think it should be changed to:
    Blank or test submission If a submission is blank or was created to test editing or other Wikipedia functions, the page should be nominated for speedy deletion by adding {{db-g2}} to the page. Please follow the instructions on the speedy deletion template to notify the article's author. Note that if the article awaiting review is located in userspace then the submission should instead be declined using {{AFC submission|D|test|ts={{subst:CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}|u=User|ns=5}} {{db-g2}}
    • The Nonsense or test decline in the guide does not recommend following the policy for speedy deletion of nonsense pages. I think it should be changed to two:
    Patent nonsense If a submission consists entirely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history then it should nominated for speedy deletion by adding {{db-g1}} to the page. Please follow the instructions on the speedy deletion template to notify the article's author. {{db-g1}}
    • The Copyright violation recommends blanking the page and then tagging it for speedy deletion. I think this makes it harder on the admins to check for the violation and serves no real purpose. I think it should be changed to:
    Copyright violation Check that the submission has not been copied from another source. Search for a portion of the text of the article on Google or another search engine. Also check the sources provided, and, if relevant, check a person's or organization's web site, even if not given as a reference or link. If the article has unambiguously been copied and the source is not released under a suitable free license or in the public domain, then the page should be nominated for speedy deletion by adding {{db-g12|url=source URL}} to the page. Please follow the instructions on the speedy deletion template to notify the article's author.

    {{db-g12|url=source URL}}

    If these changes are made then the AFCH script should be updated as well to match the guide. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Some editors create a page as a placeholder before actually putting text into it, thus tagging it with {{db-g2}} would be counterproductive. The others sound okay though. A412 (Talk • C) 17:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the reviewer guide process should only carried out on articles which the user submits for review (i.e. clicking the submit button, then saving with the submit tag). So I don't think it should be a problem for users that want to create a placeholder and then add content. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Oppose changes to copyvio process. If it's a blatant copyvio, we want to minimise the time it's on Wikipedia. An admin is suppose to check a page history anyway before deleting, and if they can't click a couple of buttons to see an older revision, then they probably shouldn't be an admin... KTC (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    All the information I've found on dealing with full page copyvios says just to tag it and not to blank it. See WP:DEL-PROCESSES and Wikipedia:Copyright violations#Dealing_with_copyright_violations. What is your opinion on changing the other quick-fail criteria? --Odie5533 (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If you guys want more canned decline entries, that's fine. Simply gain consensus and I'll write it into the template code and AFCH. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 04:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering I'm getting questions from young new editors about some of my decline reasons, I wonder if they fully comprehend anything in the canned entries anyway, especially non-Eng editors? — WylieCoyote (talk) 09:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Copyvios already get blanked and tagged with CSD (and hopefully deleted) by default by the helper tool. (The "new" changes might be stuck in the actual beta, sorry, can't remember since I'm too busy to review submissions) mabdul 09:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Although a quick look at my stats on the backlog drive will reveal numerous articles I immediately CSDed, you really need to think one step ahead. Did an editor create a blank submission maliciously, or did they edit in another window and forget to copy and paste? Did they create a copyright violation out of pure malice, or did they just not understand our copyright rules? Unless there is a very, very obvious case of malicious intent, I try and get the user to understand what the problem is and fix / clear the article themselves first before wandering in with the CSD blunderbuss. There is a time and a place for CSDs, but don't drive away newcomers by doing them, as you'll end up with a gang of elitist wikipedians with an air of "we don't want your sort round here". (PS: Here is something I would (and did) CSD on sight) --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reviewing outside of a drive is always better and more relaxed, giving the global "us" more time to review and help. Most of my suggestions to people have been to study what "notable" means—20 cites as opposed their subject's purpose in the world. Those who get my CSD should know why: 10 re-submissions in a month with few changes; test/vandalism pages; duplicates (thinking we don't know about the first failures), although I just remove the dup AfC tag and suggest working on the first. Bottom line: the easier it is for them to comprehend our decisions, the better for us. — WylieCoyote (talk) 13:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Do you support any of the proposed changes? In regards to creating a blank submission, again, the review guide is only used after the editor submits the article for review. I don't think editors will accidentally submit a blank article, then accidentally click the "When you are finished editing, click here to submit this article" button and then accidentally click save. The CSD criteria are not all intended to punish malicious editing: take a look at {{db-test-notice}}. So even if an good-faith editor managed to create and submit a blank article, we are not admonishing them for doing so. I disagree with you that "there is a time and a place for CSDs". I believe the CSD should remain a firm policy of Wikipedia and be applied as such. The CSD do not, however, require that we use their user-warn notices, so if we wanted to craft our own set of user-warn notices to match the CSD criteria I would consider that a fine option. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The trouble is, you've been around on Wikipedia long enough for these templates not to have a chilling effect on you. But years of usability testing have told me that you will be simply amazed at what people will do, and you'll think they're idiots. I can well believe newcomers to WP hitting "submit" just to check their article's title is okay, and even though you know you're not punishing them, they won't necessarily pick up on that. Seriously - get somebody who doesn't use computers much and sit with them through WP editing - you'll be utterly astonished at what happens. WP:WER has more. Regarding the policies, I'd prefer to keep things simple and just use a good call of judgement. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you opposed to all 4 proposed changes, Ritchie333? I believe reviewers should use their own judgement in addition to being informed of Wikipedia's policies on speedy deletion, and the guides offered by AfC should coincide with established policies. We can create new user-warn templates to ensure we don't push away new content creators. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support CSD is a policy, and doing some tweaks to the AFC criteria to better implement that is a must. Of course, personal intuition and good judgment to manage these CSD criteria well, while doing the correct moves to keep the submitting newcomer awrae of the situation, so that they don't feel discouraged and improve their knowledge on how to edit on Wikipedia. — ΛΧΣ21™ 16:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this is definitely a move in the right direction. I think rather than deleting test pages though, they should simply be moved back into the user's userspace and declined. Other than that, I agree with all of the other ones. Legoktm (talk) 01:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    CSD wasn't recommended initially because we wanted to make sure submitters would see why their submission was declined. That was back when the rate at which people were informed what happened to their submission was pretty low, and most were expected to simply revisit and find out. Now that most people use the script, it's probably redundant to keep unworkable submissions laying around. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose, these good intentions are misplaced. I am curious if this is proposed as changes to improve wp:afc, or is it a proposal to improve wp:csd? I know it was proposed with the best intentions as a thoughtful way to improve both; and Wikipedia overall. It won't however, and it's still true in 2012 that "you can not serve two masters". Rather than describe the gloom I see, and the crippling effect it would bring upon wp:afc, I'll just close by acknowledging that several good points were made, and these areas need tightened up. A task force approach is the way to go, and two or three people making it happen could be done in a week. I'll even sign up since I am a friend of wp:afc. If I had talked to the proposer before he or she vested the energy to prepare such a thoughtful presentation, I'd have said: Let's just fix it instead. And we'd have finished up a couple weeks ago. Let me know how this closes, and if you want to try an editing approach. Otherwise, good luck with the "legislative" approach. Best regards and good cheer.  --My76Strat (talk) 01:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Effecting changes

    I am still a bit confused whether or not I have support to make these changes. Could people please clearly state which changes, if any, they support or oppose? --Odie5533 (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    CSD policy addition

    I'd like to propose a policy addition that articles can be CSDd if they constitute disruptive editing. This means constantly resubmitting with no changes, unworkable submissions, and spam. This would be in addition to the already in place policies involving CSDing BLP violations and copyvios. Anyone support this? --Nathan2055talk - contribs 17:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd support it depending on the wording. --Nouniquenames 04:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought we already did that? — WylieCoyote 05:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I usually only delete if I'm really annoyed with the user or haven't had any breakfast. :P Seriously, however, there is no actually policy on what to do in that situation. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 17:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What policy are you proposing to add this to? The only relevant policy is the CSD policy; changes to which would need very broad community discussion and consensus. Just my 'two-peneth' but it would be far easier, and within existing policy, to start a thread at WP:AN/I about editors who are so pig-headed about resubmitting 'their' article that they actually become disruptive; from there a block can be arranged. Blatant spam can already be CSD'd under G11 and Copyvio's under G12. When you say "CSDing BLP violations" I assume you mean "Wholly negative, disparaging BLP's and attack pages" per criteria G10? Pol430 talk to me 18:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I see at WP:CSD and its talk page, they are very reluctant to add new criteria there. In the 5 years I have been working on those pages we have added 3: A9, "An article about a musical recording that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant and where the artist's article does not exist (both conditions must be true)." and requests that it apply to other forms of creative work have bee consistently rejected by large majorities. ; A10 , "A recently created article with no relevant page history that duplicates an existing English Wikipedia topic, and that does not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article(s) on the subject, and where the title is not a plausible redirect. " and "individual animal" was added to A7. All of these relatively minor decisions required long discussion. I personally opposed one or two of them, but they have all 3 worked quite effectively.
    The reason for reluctance to add criteria is that there must be an unambiguous criterion that nobody could reasonably disagree with. I doubt that one could be found for this. My own experience is that a stern warning is sufficient, and, if ignored, is good evidence for the next step: if it continues and it really constitutes vandalism rather than a mere nuisance, I would suggest using Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism ({WP:AIV]]) rather than AN/I. AN/I creates drama, and any discussion there is apt to expand into a general discussion of AfC, and the topic, and the WP behavior of everyone connected with any of these. AIV on the other hand works very smoothly and quietly. DGG ( talk ) 18:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    v4.1.16b3 of the script is still in beta, we need YOU

    Guys, the faster we test this the quicker the fixes can be pushed. In case you missed it, here's the revised changelog:

    • Major cleanup of the code
    • Preparation for FFU reviewing
    • BLP "wizard" to automate talk page tagging
    • Enabled review tab on all pages in userspace
      • Note that the script will flash an error if you try to use it on an page that's not an AfC submission
    • Improvements to cleanup functionality
    • Interface tweaks
    • Rewrote canned decline comment interface
      • I only got to part one of my brainstormed changes, it will get even better in v4.1.17
    • Rewrote the redirect and category submission review interface
      • Specifically, I cleaned up the code, spruced up the interface, added a few more decline reasons, and generally tweaked it
    • Change to displayed notice when using an incompatible browser
    • Comments can now be added on their own and with a "mark" action without the script crashing
    • Various stability and interface tweaks and patches
    • Removed Herobrine

    Only you can prevent bugs from hitting stable, we need YOU! Please test the script and report any bugs you find. Here are the current confirmed bugs:

    • Bug list temporarily removed pending patch next week. Bugs to be fixed are listed at https://gist.github.com/4242795
    • Yes, the review tab isn't appearing in userspace, I know. I'll fix it soon, I promise.

    To get on the beta build, follow the instructions here! Thanks in advance, Nathan2055talk - contribs 01:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It still always says "There is a long HTML comment, check the source code" even though when I do there is none. Can you fix that??? §h₳un 9∞76 03:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And I check again, and it's gone a minute later... §h₳un 9∞76 03:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Could I have a link to the affected page so I can update the exception list? --Nathan2055talk - contribs 17:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I go back through my history and now, the message is gone... Maybe a glitch between purging my cache and reloading??? §h₳un 9∞76 19:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It could be, but could I have a link to the affected article so I can check it out? It's still a bit buggy. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 21:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Here Apparently it didn't even let me put a decline for not enough references there either... §h₳un 9∞76 23:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Unsure if this is just me, or a bug in the script. When using the beta, the script won't put articles under review at all. Just displays the "Got token" message, then hangs. Refreshing/clearing cache does nothing. Any other reports of this? CharmlessCoin (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    @CharmlessCoin: Crap, I thought I fixed that already. I'll look into it. @Shaun9876: You haven't edited that article, and the script doesn't state any errors (although someone delete several comments with the script's clean-up utility here). Mabdul most likely coded a comment into clean-up and forgot to flag it as false-positive. I'll fix it. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 00:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Nathan I found another, Here §h₳un 9∞76 00:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I accepted it and now, the glitch is not viewable so never mind... §h₳un 9∞76 00:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Two questions:

    1. Does the beta automatically update?
    2. Is there a separate bug page somewhere that we can report? I'd hate to clog this page up with bug reports.

    CharmlessCoin (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I am testing the beta (at least I think I am) and the review tab is not showing up in user pages (such as sandboxes). Any idea why? The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 05:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    @CharmlessCoin: Yes, it should update automatically. You may have to do some purging and cache bypassing for it to work, depending on whether the servers like you or not. As for the bug reports, we do have our development page, but I'm trying to keep the reports in one place. @The Anonymouse: Try clearing your cache, and then purging the page and see if it shows up then. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 17:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I just switched to beta (which may be the issue), but I can't get the review tab to pop up in user:pages. (I have tried clearing my cache.) Relevant pages tested include [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6]. --Nouniquenames 02:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't worry, I know. I need to change the loader for the interface from "wgPageName.indexOf('User:*')" to "wgNamespace == 3" because apparently indexOf doesn't support wildcards. Huh. I'll fix it once mabdul sends me bugfixes for the other bugs. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 19:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    When's the next drive?

    Just over a week since the last one ended and we've gotten over 600 +/- new submissions. — WylieCoyote 09:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, the submissions keep coming, not surprisingly. There seem to be far fewer active reviewers this week - there's often 6 hour gaps between articles being accepted! Maybe some are burnt out, or busy polishing their barnstars. To be honest I quite fancied having a bronze barnstar so I stopped reviewing about 2 weeks ago and only started again this weekend after the drive had stopped :) I notice there is far greater density of 'chewy' articles and far fewer quick wins at the moment. Sionk (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I've noticed the quick fails seem to be decreasing (though I saw a bunch yesterday), with most articles now taking about 10-15 minutes each to check all the references and search for content in them. Consequently I've only got time to do a few, and tend to focus on my specialist subject of musicians and bands. I think we just need more people on the case, full stop. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe the approaching first of the month coming, we should blanket all these talk pages again? Just think of what a few reviews a day from all those would serve. — WylieCoyote 15:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Blanket them with another drive, or just to come help out? Perhaps extend the drive? CharmlessCoin (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not both? Haha. I thought ending the drive on the 20th was a bit odd. Maybe there could be drive committee? A few can close while others start one? Some of us take the time to review AfCs in a more-than-normal routine anyway. If there are those who get "burnt out," maybe they can alternate months or just review the reviews? — WylieCoyote 17:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm all for starting the drive back up on the first, and blanketing talk pages with banners. Perhaps we should reset the count though, still give barnstars to those who participated in this drive, but keep newcomers competitive. As for having multiple drives often, could be interesting! Maybe have one every two months, or when the backlog is too high? (like it is right now)
    You need to notify those on Category:WikiProject Articles for creation participants as well as Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants otherwise you'll miss people like me who's on one but not the other. -- KTC (talk) 09:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If we do a drive, I submit we really have to find a better, automated way to tally the scores. Even after I developed a reasonably efficient procedure to do it (not programming, just a smooth "open the link, copy, paste, multiple tabs open) method, the total labour to fully do my scoresheet would've been a cumulative 7+ hours. Also too, the running scores were often really out of date because the busiest reviewers (including me) don't have much inctentive to stop reviewing to do some boring scoresheet, so it dampens the spirit of competition when nobody knows if JoeBobSmith is actually at 500 reviewed, or actually at 1500 but hasn't bothered to update his score yet as he zips along. In the end, my score was like 700-something on my tally sheet, but I actually had around 1000 reviewed. I just honestly was sick of making the scoresheet and didn't want to spend another 90+ minutes copy-pasting, even if it meant losing the Silver award. I'll do what I can do do a few score of reviews a week for the time being, but the only way I'm going to be in a drive and do 1000 a month again is if there's some way of keeping score that doesn't take up more than a few minutes of my time, or it's just not worth the barnstar. Manual tally is okay for folks who want the award for 25, but not for the folks running over 1000 reviews. Minor sidenote: given how fast a person can knock out a dozen reviews, I think even for a brownie the minimum bar should be higher, like 25 or something. That can still be less than an hour of work even for a novice reviewer if they aim for the low-hanging fruit.MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. The score sheet system could really use some improvement. It simply takes way too long to get the reviews into the score sheet. Is there any chance someone could write up a script to check for the number of reviewed articles? Or possibly modify the existing AfC helper script? I'm not sure how difficult it would be to implement that into the script, but it might be worth taking a look at if someone has the time. CharmlessCoin (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A toolserver tool could be made which automatically handles the scoring for a drive. I don't have toolserver access, but perhaps someone that does might consider writing one. Or else I might apply for access. I thought the time was negligible being only ~20 seconds per review, but even with a 20 second estimate that adds up to over 5 hours (!) of extra work to maintain the score sheet for a person that does 1000 reviews. 5 hours which would be better spend performing more reviews. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, I'll look into getting the script to be able to handle drives. Until then, you have to do it manually. I also got EdwardsBot access a few weeks ago to do the newsletter, so I'll spam everyone later. I'm also going to ask about what happened to the newsletter, the user that was working on it deleted the original draft. Wish me luck, Nathan2055talk - contribs 17:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Sent out another backlog notification to everyone on the spamlist. I'd also like to ask a quick question: Can we set out some kind of a policy that users are commented off the main list after a year of inactivity? I have been occasionally using tools to archive people, but a mainstream policy would be helpful. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 19:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't see why not. Policy at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pink Floyd is if you've not worked on the project for 6 months or more, you get automatically taken off the active list. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice to see my note above was ignored... KTC (talk) 12:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And I just hope they keep my brownie fresh and rotating barnstar oiled. Dec. 4 has come and gone. — WylieCoyote 22:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    @KTC: No, I didn't ignore it, EdwardsBot doesn't like sending out to categories anymore. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 17:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    All barnstars distributed, and I'm all for coordanating another starting on the 1st January, if there is support for one (?) Mdann52 (talk) 13:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Support and thanks for the barnstar! — WylieCoyote 14:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong Support. We definitely need to have another. I'm all for having a two month drive, and blanketing talk pages. I hope the length would help people see that they need to assist the project over time. CharmlessCoin (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Support – We could do something similar to the Guild of Copyeditors, who have a backlog elimination drive every other month. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 19:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Support – AFC is getting more popular, which means more submissions, which means more backlog. Jakob 15:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - Definitely, we need help fast! --Nathan2055talk - contribs 20:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - and Nathan you really should get that newsletter out ASAP, awareness is the key. Go Phightins! 21:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Self-approval

    (Potentially stupid question by user uninvolved with AFC) I've noticed a user approving his/her own AFC submissions - is this allowed? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think so, no. Unsure on the guideline for that, but I'm sure it's somewhere. Link to the articles and user? CharmlessCoin (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • I can't remember anything specific in the rules. If a user is satisfied their article is ready for main space and will survive WP:AfD, then they can self review. They just need to make sure their review criteria is correct, otherwise it will probably come back and bite them. Given the delay with the backlog, I can see why people would do this. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • AFC is not a requirement, so self-approval is not a violation, but it will turn more heads and eyes to a problem, so it could be likely to get swatted. Wikipedia has enough junk articles that won't pass AFC already. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I stand corrected then. Thanks for the answer, I would have assumed it was against the rules. CharmlessCoin (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This reminds me of the American presidential campaign ads, where the actual candidate speaks through the whole ad and, at the end, says "I'm So-and-So and I approve this message." We would assume, by them speaking the script, that they approve it. — WylieCoyote 04:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't want to scare off new editors by immediately deleting their articles through NPP/CSD. I think any user that should be self-approving already is. Though I must say, the AfC for autoconfirmed editors feels like a bit of a ruse; I wonder how many editors know they can just click move and skip the queue. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No one need to join the queue in the first place. One can register an account, which doesn't even requires an email address, and create a new article in mainspace immediately. KTC (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No one with a registered account needs to go through AfC, but many editors might like to have their submission checked by someone else here and get declined rather than get CSD'd/AfD'd in article space. In this way, AfC may be easier and slightly less painful. There are also many editors that create an account but have little/no idea how to correctly create an article, and AfC is the perfect place to get started. Just my 2¢. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 17:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If you've spent a bit of time at AfC you'll discover quickly that even though experienced editors know that if you start from sources you'll avoid the obvious CSD/AfD pitfalls, and there's a great big "put your references here" in the edit window, we still find registered accounts who add completely unreferenced articles, leaving the hooks to add references alone. Their articles wouldn't stand a hope in hell in mainspace. Unless it's a copyvio or a BLP violation, or I think they're a commercial organisation trying to edit (in which case you should know better), we will at least give them a fighting chance. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    In the eventual JavaScript based article wizard, we'll automatically determine whether to dump it in mainspace or create a draft depending on whether they are autoconfirmed. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 17:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure that's a good idea. I've encountered more than one autoconfirmed user who deliberately created a draft because he didn't want the article to go live without a review - say, for COI reasons. Huon (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    there's a related problem to be aware of--I have recently encountered two of three spammers who have simultaneously created the identical article in AfC and in mainspace, clearly deliberately--tho I suppose it can happen by accident too. The solution is for admins to do as they ought to, check the user contributions when deleting G11. whether G11 AfCs or G11 mainspace articles; the odds of detecting some problem is pretty good. Of course they could use different accounts, just as they use different capitalizations, but checking for all possibilities is impractical unless there's been a recurring problem. I mention also that it is possible to place create-protection on an AfC subpage just as in mainspace, when warranted. Non-admins can ask at RFPP. DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Any way to not have the "userspace draft" template turn to that huge error message when moved to AFC?

    Given that we don't have any method to keep folks from submitting "sandbox" articles to AFC without moving them, and given that AFC Helper doesn't work on non-AFC articles, we generally have to move such articles before reviewing. To speed up the process, I've been moving sandbox articles to AFC en-mass, thinking it's more efficient than editors individually moving them as they come across them.

    Unfortunately, the "userspace" template, when moved to AFC, turns into this huge and attention-grabbing red error message saying: This sandbox is in the Wikipedia talk namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the This sandbox is in the Wikipedia talk namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the {{User sandbox}} template. template. Apparently this has concerned several newbie editors, who then ask about it at AFC Help or Teahouse. Sure, I could remove the template from every article I move, but that would make the process of converting dozens of sandboxes to AFC about 30% slower. Is there some way that we can tweak the coding for the "userspace draft"/"sandbox" template so that it doesn't turn into a frightening error message when moved to AFC? Like either have it just not display at all, or display as a small "you're at AFC, go ahead and remove this, no worries" message? MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Cleaning the submission, which is slightly faster than removing the template manually, will remove the template. Personally, I almost always clean a submission after I move it into the AfC space. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 17:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we'll work on automated moving of sandboxes alongside auto-submit in AFCH v4.1.17. For now, run the clean-up program on each sub you move. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 18:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    'Back in the day', I did exactly the same. I used to trawl the submissions table for submissions with userspace titles and move them into AfC space. Petan-Bot used to move these submission automatically, except sandboxes and a few other titles that were black-listed or creation protected. Why is the bot now inactive? There are a large number of userspace submissions, which is inconvenient for reviewers. I used to just remove the template manually and move the AfC tag to the top of the submission. Pol430 talk to me 18:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a specific reason the AfC template has to go to the bottom? I've seen multiple AFC Helpdesk questions from folks who don't understand why they don't see the AfC, even after submitting 5 times, because they're piling up at the bottom of the article. Same way, how the Submitted AfC doesn't override the "this is a draft and not submitted" AfC template. Not that I'm demanding everything be fixed at once, but just pointing out some formatting issues that appear to cause confusion to newbies on a frequent basis. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The tag appearing at the bottom is more-or-less a Mediawiki limitation I believe. This was discussed when the tag was reformatted to allow for 'two clicks, no changes' resubmission. Essentially, when the editor clicks the link to resubmit, they are in fact creating a new section on a talk page with some pre-loaded markup. The software automatically places new sections at the bottom of pages and I don't believe there is a hack to get around this. Pol430 talk to me 22:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No more-or-less, simply it is. There is a bugzilla entry opened by me a year ago, check the WT:AFC archives for the link and !vote for it! @MatthewVanitas 24 months ago (or was it 26?) we system to reload a page was that the user had to post {{subst:AFC template/submit}} at the top which was really not easy for most. Then we added the "automatic link" ("click here") and press save which is much more simple. Then we got the AFC bot to cleanup the page which is regular down :-/ mabdul 22:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the clarification Mabdul. Any idea why the bot can't keep up with moving the tags to the top of the page? Or is it just because of downtime? Also, any idea why Petan-Bot is no longer working? It was useful for moving userspace submissions to AfC space (where possible). Pol430 talk to me 22:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    As the bot is still editing, I would guess a cronjob isn't working any longer, but there are also articles like User:LSalome/Digital Citizenship in Elementary Education which need to be moved by hand (so adding a (2) to the title or whatever). mabdul 00:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW: I have informed him. [7] mabdul 00:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Honestly, I plan to phase out AfC bot and replace it with NathanBot (talk · contribs) once I get AFCH up to the point that it can preform large scale cleanup automatically (?afch=clean). But, that's in the future and this is now. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 03:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking forward to seeing the new 'bot; I hope I'm not coming across as a whiner, but having seen a ton of AFC items the last few months, I've been forming some ideas of common sources of confusion for the new editors. That error message, though minor, appears to cause alarm. Similar issue with how the "Submitted" box does not over-rule the "This is a draft, not submitted" box, causing folks to submit multiple times because the "Draft" box stays at the top while the "Submitted" boxes pile at the bottom. Ideally the "Draft" box would become invisible or be removed by the 'bot whenever a "Submitted" box is present. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Sandbox and Userpages in AFC

    UPDATE: According to Petrb the bot is still moving pages where possible which means all of these either have pre-existing titles, or are sandbox submissions. I'll get on with moving some (only the pending submissions obviously), if anyone else would like to pitch in, feel free! Pol430 talk to me 20:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say I'm happy to help, but there at 1,759 submissions since that category also includes declined submissions (the first one I checked hasn't been touched since July 2012). I'll keep doing the active AFCs that are listed as "sandbox" in the Pending category, which will clear out a chunk of those. I'm glad there is a 'bot to move entitled-but-Userpages articles to proper AFC titles, but I take it there's no pending solution to deal with "sandbox" titles? MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the bot can't deal with Sandbox titles and I don't believe there is any solution to this on the cards. When I was more active here, I used to routinely move sandbox titles to AfC namespace. You usually get about 10 per day, so it's manageable if you keep on top of it. I did about half of the pending submissions in userspace yesterday and found that despite what Petrb says, there are many userspace submissions that the bot could have moved but hasn't; some of them have been around for several days. I'll mention it on his talk page. You can find a list of all pending submissions that are still in userspace by using Template:AFC statistics and sorting the pending submissions by name, then just scroll down to all the 'u' entries. Pol430 talk to me 20:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, I've been working on that and I think I might be able to program the bot to try to pull the first set of bolded text out of the article and use it if it is titled sandbox. It would take a crap load of coding, but I'm up for the challenge. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 21:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    If it's a fun challenge and not an annoyance, that could be interesting. The usual trend is that "sandbox" submissions also tend to indicate a more general confusion about how to work with Wiki, so it's not guaranteed anything will be bolded at all; maybe a fallback "if no bolded words in article, submit first five words as title"? 10 sandbox submissions a day sounds a little low, I've been knocking out like 40 a day for the past week+, and not running short at all. In any case, it's not the single most problematic 'bot issue, but one I was curious about since I think at the moment I'm the main editor shifting sandbox articles to WikiTalk en-masse. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good. I was wondering what a good fallback would be. Just prepare for many subs entitled "Subject of my article is" (:P). --Nathan2055talk - contribs 19:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's taken me 2.5 days, many mouse clicks, a couple of history merges and some deletions... but, I've just finished moving pending userspace submissions to the proper AfC titles. I've cleaned up the submissions to put the AfC tags at the top, and removed any other templates, so we shouldn't have any more submissions that get double-redirected to User:Articles for creation/xxx by confused new editors. Nathan, I'm in full support of a bot that can pull the top line of bolded text (where present) and turn it into a page title. When will it be up and running? :-P Pol430 talk to me 20:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure. You'll have to wait for my new computer in a few months and then it will take a crap-load of coding. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 21:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/K Shortest Path Routing

    For the information of reviewers, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/K Shortest Path Routing was discussed with the author of the most cited academic work on the topic, at User talk:David Eppstein#K Shortest Path Routing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/American_Tamaskan

    This article is currently being discussed over at WikiProject Dogs along with numerous similar articles, and the consensus seems to be that they will all soon be nominated for deletion if sources that aren't the governing bodies of the breeds themselves cannot be found. It was also determined that this article is a duplicate of Tamaskan Dog as well as a WP:POVFORK since there was a recent split within the governing body for the Tamaskan Dog crossbreed (Which has resulted in the Am Tamaskan article, which is actually the same kind of crossbreed with a different name). I don't 'hang out' in this part of WP enough to know what the procedure is for such things, so I'm just going to leave it here. --Tikuko 09:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    For now I've declined the draft as largely unverifiable. Huon (talk) 11:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding people to the AFC "spam" list

    Just thought I'll check if anyone has any objections to me adding all active users in Category:WikiProject Articles for creation participants to the spamlist for newsletters - this should get us a wider audience for any future blankets of notices we do. Mdann52 (talk) 13:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it worth me going through and commenting inactive users out of the list? Mdann52 (talk) 13:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh, the WMF spammed ~100 inactive NPPers when they where doing their survey on how to implement page curation. I say just add them. Once Dispenser fixes his inactivity script, I'll fix it. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 00:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Now just waiting to get EdwardBot access to spam people :) Mdann52 (talk) 13:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I already have access, and plan to use it to deliver the new newsletter in a few days. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 20:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Question from interested potential participant

    Is there any way to tell the "Review wating" article from a "draft" that is not currently pending review? I am looking at Category:Pending_AfC_submissions. Should I be looking elsewhere if I were to join the project? Please pardon the queries of the uninformed. Thanks! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 18:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    All of the submissions that are "Review waiting" should be located in that category (there shouldn't be any "drafts that are not waiting" in the category). Welcome to the project! The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 18:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the reply. For instance Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kevin Cook appears on the list. I must be looking at the wrong place. Where can I find the list of "Review waiting" instead of the list of all articles shown on the main Pending AfC page? 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 18:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The submissions queue is sorted by category. The articles undergoing review are categorised under status R, which appears at the back of the queue. For example, as I currently write this, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/European Young Chemists' Network is undergoing review. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) The review waiting template is at the bottom of that page. The "Click here" link easily allows users to submit the draft by adding a new, preloaded section at the bottom of the page containing the review waiting template. The templates belong at the top, but MediaWiki only allows us to add sections at the bottom of the page. When reviewers or bots clean the submission, we remove the draft template and move the review waiting template to the top. It seems unnecessary, but that's all that we can do for right now. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 18:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a glimmer of understanding is starting to form in my poor addled brain. Essentially, the Kevin Cook article is good to review, it just hasn't had a bot or reviewer move the template yet, and this needs to be done. Correct? 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 18:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct! The review waiting tags often appear at the bottom of the page (for technical reasons too boring to expand upon right now). It is often helpful to move the tags to the top of the page. Pol430 talk to me 19:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, as Pol430 said, there are technical reasons for this. (Sorry if my explanation was a little hard to understand ) The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 19:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I tried it, and it seemed to work. Thanks to all! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 19:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Great! Also, I highly recommend that you enable the Articles for Creation helper script if you are going to be reviewing submissions, as it makes reviewing waaaaay easier. Happy reviewing! The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 19:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, already did that. I've read the Reviewer Instructions, this "draft issue" was just the one area that wasn't clear to me. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 19:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In case, the "Clean submission" button should move the template for you. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 19:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Concerns about prep for next drive

    Since conversation hasn't really started yet on the new Backlog Drive Talk page, I just wanted to note a few concerns that were raised for the November 2012 drive, that appear to be carrying over to the next drive:

    • Competitors are still required to manually tabulate their own scores, by pulling up both the title of every page they review, as well as the link to the diff. I'm sure programmer-y folks have some magic methods, but even after refining my manual practises for smoothest motion, it still takes me on average a good 20-30 seconds to add each title to my score. That's fine for folks reviewing 20 articles, but for those few of us who review 1000+ articles, that's getting into 10+ hours just of adding up the score. In 10 hours I can probably knock out 600 quickie no-brainer reviews (no sourcing, not-notable, blank, advert), so that's reviews lost on administrative minutiae. It's simply not worth it for a lot of high scorers to compete for the top slots, and even if they are willing it's a waste of time they could be using to kill the backlog.
    • The awards bar is set way too low. A brownie for 1 review? With AFC helper, even a total novice can find a clearly unsuitable review, select "non-notable/unverified/advert" and be done in under 60 seconds. That's not helping us, the person giving them the brownie spends more time giving it to them than the person spent earning it. The highest non-competitive award is for 130 reviews, which one can knock out in a couple of hours, or maybe 4 minutes a day. Just me, but I'd suggest at least 15 for brownie, and at least 300 for AFC Barnstar.

    I think there should be some serious consideration to addressing the scoring system. A few editors vaguely mentioned there'd be some easy script-based way to do it. If it will save dozens of hours for 30+ competitors (just in this Drive, much less future ones) I'd submit it's worth writing a script for it and giving an AFC barnstar to the scriptwriter automatically. The award bars is more of a quibble, but for scoring I honestly don't see myself competing if I have to spend 10 hours just proving I did some reviews. For your consideration. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd definitely empathise with Matthew regarding the possibilities for automated scoring, as we spent a significant amount of time calculating our results instead of actually reviewing new submissions. Mephistophelian (contact) 03:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
    I'm still considering the boundaries - I'm thinking of increasing many of them by a bit to encorage more reviews to be done. I agree automated scoring, or at least a log for AFC reviews, similar to Twinkles CSD log, would be good. Mdann52 (talk) 13:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm most likely the only one here like this, but I have no connection to a toolserver, so I can't use the AFC helper script. That means that I have to review all submissions manually. It took me the length of the whole last drive to review 85 submissions. So if you "set the bar" higher, I'm just going to have to drop out, or just accept a brownie. That's just my 2 cents. Jakob 15:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Automated logging doesn't seem that hard, but mabdul has his plate full and can't code it so it would be up to me trying to reverse-engineer Twinkle. @B. Jakob T.: You don't need the Toolserver. If you have an account you can use the script. Read over WP:AFCH. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 21:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I selected the little box next to the "Yet another AFC helper script", but when I go to review an AFC, I don't see any changes to when I did it manually. Would you mind expanding on where I should click to start the script? Thanks, Jakob 23:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be in the same tab as your "Move" one. If you still can't find it, let me know. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It has to be in the project space. If you go to a tagged article in the user's sandbox you won't see it. Gigs (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Review required

    Hi,
    could someone please go through the AfC moves performed by the following two accounts:

    It seems they did not give the articles the required scrutiny, most articles will require cleanup (at least), and I'm not sure whether new-page patrol will catch them after the move.
    Thanks, Amalthea 18:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's a list, it's a manageable task:
    Thanks in advance, Amalthea 18:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, let's do what we normally do when this happens and create a section at ANI about topic banning these guys. Any objections? --Nathan2055talk - contribs 21:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I would propose to move all some back to AFC space where they can either be improved in the fullness of time or committed to the archives... However, I thought I'd mention it here before unilaterally doing it. I see at least one of these is at AfD, the AfD could be procedurally closed if the submissions were moved back. The remaining mainspace redirects can be quite properly CSD'd as R2 and the associated talk pages as G8. Thoughts? Pol430 talk to me 21:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    some are not as bad as I first thought and can probably be cleaned up in place Pol430 talk to me 21:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Many users brought up the point last time this happened that once AfC's are moved to mainspace they shouldn't be moved back to AfC. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 21:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, that must have happened in my absence -- this project has been doing it for years. I don't really see why it should be a problem if there is a consensus that the move to mainspace was inappropriate, but hey-ho! I'll patch up these articles as best I can then. Really, we need some method of ensuring that users don't sign on as reviewers for malicious or tendentious reasons, but such a solution is largely unworkable. Sadly. Pol430 talk to me 22:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Personally, as someone threatened with a Topic ban soon after I started here, think we should give them a second chance before taking it to AN/I, but if they are serious violations of policy, then AN i is the correct place to take this. Mdann52 (talk) 11:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Given other comments left on these users' talk pages, I suspect a spot of AfC vandalism might have occurred, where they just pass any old then. I've had the odd AfC pass I've done land at AfD, where it's been very borderline whether to pass or not, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BBC sexual abuse cases, but they seem to last weeks and weeks resulting in "No consensus", so I'm not too bothered. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The listed ones are not that bad, they don't seem to be using the tools and frankly, we all have different standards. They are far from perfect, but AFC articles do not need to be perfect just good enough to survive AFD and eventually be improved by other editors. Though the deleted one probably was the attempt to push something though as a sock. If that was the real intention, that is. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Newsletter

    So, here it is:

    Delivered ~~~~~ by EdwardsBot. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter, please remove your name from the spamlist.

    Dom497 gave up on the idea, but I requested a copy of the newsletter code and finished it. What do you guys think? --Nathan2055talk - contribs 20:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it looks great! Jakob 15:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like a good idea! Is there some way of revealing how many submissions were received in the last month and how many reviews were made? Sionk (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything's possible. I'll look into seeing if I can tally the log categories and add it to next months newsletter. Either way, I'm sending this one out now. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 00:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
     Sent! --Nathan2055talk - contribs 00:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Um... I didn't get it - not sure if something wen wrong... Mdann52 (talk) 11:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It didn't get sent (according to EdwardsBot's contributions). The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) [Merry Christmas!] 12:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe because that "Start" was used instead of "start"... ? Mdann52 (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Nope, that's how it usually works. I'll wait a few more hours and if it continues I'll notify someone. Thanks, Nathan2055talk - contribs 23:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It did finally get sent (I received it). The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) [Merry Christmas!] 03:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like the bot is lagged. The bot took almost exactly 24 hours to activate the delivery service.. Weird, I'll report it. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 20:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops... --Nathan2055talk - contribs 21:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    hoax alert

    Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Discussion from AfC
     – Nathan2055talk - contribs 02:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorting reviews by date

    I just came upon this draft via the help desk. When I saw it, it bore multiple submission templates, and apparently the more recent templates interfered with the submission's place in the category - although it was first submitted on November 21 and not reviewed since then, it was nowhere near the oldest unreviewed submissions.

    While I find it deliciously ironic that people too impatient to wait for a review unwittingly punish themselves and delay the review of their draft all the more by repeatedly re-submitting it, I doubt that's a feature. Is there an easy way to fix this so that re-submission of an already submitted draft doesn't cost it its place in the category? Huon (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm, this might warrant a patch in the cleanup service of the script to keep the oldest instance of the super-template intact. I'm not sure how it currently does it. I'll do some experimenting and report back to you. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 20:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Corporation AfCs burying better AfCs

    Can't we split the categories, or add an extra "non-corporation" category or something that's automatically added somehow? Maybe even one for persons. If you have a cat that excludes corps and people, I will personally review each and every one of those. But to be honest, I'm sick to death of these promo articles clogging up the works.

    And the politically correct "all AfCs deserve to be treated equally" argument doesn't wash with me. The same goes for the authors of these articles. Authors of corporation articles are almost always one-article-and-walk employees of a company. Someone with an AfC for a species or a national park is someone I want to help become an editor. I don't want them to be discouraged, but instead, instantly rewarded and recruited.

    Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    One of the many reasons I'm not active at AfC is that I open up the list of AfC articles needing review, open five in browser tabs and they are all either YouTube celebrities, spammy business articles about companies offering "solutions" and so on. It's so utterly depressing to deal with, I just don't bother and find other things to do with my 'pedia time. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Same here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ditto. I did AFC for a while but I just can't bring myself to wade through all the self-promotional stuff to find the couple of articles that seem worth my time. Mangoe (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    When AfCs are created via the wizard, an option is "I'm writing an article about something else". I would like for AfCs, where that was clicked, to automatically have a category added to the bottom of the template that's provided at the end. A category like "non-corp-non-person". Then I can get a listing of those items. Can this be done? Please? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    They already have their own button/option, my mistake! Splitting into categories would be the best thing to do. -- Cheers, Riley 15:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed. Separating all bios into one category, and corps/orgs into another (and everything else in a third) would be nice. Bios for their stricter requirements to references and corps/orgs for their generally speaking more spammy nature. Bjelleklang - talk 15:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The technical change required is to branch the Wizard and have a separate Template:Afc preload/draft for each branch (bios, companies, etc.) The branching shouldn't be too difficult if you use the main content of the wizard as a template and just embed it into each branch with the necessary company/bio tag. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, how about an update to the article wizard itself? I was thinking we could fork the DRN wizard and use that kind of thing. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 21:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    New wizard criterion for corporation AfCs

    A suggestion: Plug the hole in the dyke. Stop worthless corp AfCs from entering the system in the first place because once they do, the persistent "employees" keep resubmitting the same non-notables. Why not add/modify a wizard criterion to ask "Have you found 12 independent references?" Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    We don't need to lie to them. If a company really is notable we don't require 12 independent refs. I don't think there's anything we can do preemptively. We could warn or block them if they abuse AfC by submitting the same article over and over without addressing the reason for decline though. Gigs (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely no per Gigs. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 21:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If an AfC article is blatantly promotional and insufficient references are forthcoming, you can try nominating it for WP:CSD#G11 speedy deletion. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Template too large?

    Template:AFC statistics is full of links to a template at the top of the page. I have a feeling that the page is too large to transclude those templates. What can we do to fix that? (Anyway to make it smaller, maybe?) The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) [Merry Christmas!] 17:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem is that the template can't handle the current submission count. That's why we had to remove it from the old tracking page (which was eventually phased out and replaced with a link to CAT:PEND). Either way, I'll nag Earwig about it. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 21:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Helper script decline menu

    Could the rest of the templated decline reasons be added to the dropdown menu? Danger High voltage! 04:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    What decline reasons do we not have implemented currently? --Nathan2055talk - contribs 21:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh my god, it was a problem with my browser and scrolling I feel so stupid now I'll just go put my head in a bucket of water for a while so sorry. Danger High voltage! 02:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It happens. I'm a programmer with lots of experience and stuff like that still happens to me on a regular basis. Gigs (talk) 14:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Same here. The script is the most annoying thing in history to code. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 20:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Something fishy here...

    See AfC - John Belk and AfC - Joe Beck, both of which I just declined as not notable. However, it appears on the face of it that two different users (Aichelman and Willjarvis)are doing exactly the same thing (including submitting from their sandboxes), and how many more of these are there in the 1200-plus pending AfC's? How can I find out where they're coming from? David_FLXD (Talk) 19:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    n.y.s personal injury law

    what dose n.y state specify on personal injury law

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation&oldid=529196577"