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 Huon (talk | contribs) at 16:37, 4 April 2013 (→‎Sandbox: 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)    		ShowcaseParticipants
    Apply — By subject    		Reviewing instructions
    		Help deskBacklog
    drives
    Welcome—discuss matters concerning this project!
    AfC submissions
    Random submission
    3+ months
    2,547 pending submissions
    Purge to update
    Shortcut


    Yet Another AFC Helper Script not generating Teahouse invitations

    On two occasions, I ticked the box for inviting a contributor to the Teahouse, but the invitation didn't get added to the person's talk page. Both times, I was declining a draft using the "can be merged" reason and the contributor's talk page was nonexistent beforehand. —rybec 00:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Interesting. Would you do me a favor and name me the user talk pages? I want to debug it, maybe I found the error. In the next week I have easter holidays and I want to push the beta script after a year -.- ... mabdul 16:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for working on this! Here are examples:

    I made several attempts (both with articles I declined and ones I accepted) after posting here and before seeing your request for the contributors' names, and never saw it generate a Teahouse invitation. —rybec 23:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Bad, very bad: all related 3 articles are deleted because of being a copyright violations. Next time when reviewing such articles, please do also a copyright violation check! mabdul 13:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not an administrator, so I can't delete anything myself. You can see from the message I left on Greggar73's talk page that I declined his article as a copyright violation. I declined YLAKSHMINARAYANA's article partly because it contained one paragraph that matched one I found on a Web page, and partly because it was an advertisement. I left a comment pointing out the matching text and giving the URL. Since it was only one paragraph, in my opinion it was plagiarism rather than a copyright violation. I don't remember Jaspreet sohal's article but I see from the author's talk page that you tagged it for CSD G12. Since I'm unable to view deleted documents, perhaps you or another administrator like to remind me of the specifics of what the article was about, how much of it was copied, and what my comments were when I declined it. Is it your position is that every AfC review should include a check for copyright violations?
    Anyway, what I came here for was to add User talk:Djswax (declined) as another example of a Teahouse invitation that didn't get generated. —rybec 23:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "Is it your position is that every AfC review should include a check for copyright violations?" - Yes! Copyright violation is the serious biggest problem of wikipedia, moreover it could create a potential (legal) problem for the Wikimedia Foundation!
    Please try our beta script out (how to is described at WP:AFCH, if you need any help, I will respond). Although the script has some known bugs I hopefully get managed this week, at least this script works for me. Hopefully for you too. (This would be very interesting since I didn't changed any TeaHouse related content). mabdul 04:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Class rating

    Hi, This is just a reminder that you should give every article you accept a class rating - Category:Unassessed AFC articles is up to 1777 items - I am trying to clear this, but I don't anticipate being able to do this on my own, considering 2 of the last 10 articles created were unassessed. Please remember to fill in that one box on the AFCH. Mdann52 (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Would like to lend a hand (have been trying to remember to rate everything I accepted). So just took a look at that Cat and this will sound stoopid, but is there a script or a Plain & Simple page or is there a Template to do ratings with? I'm never sure where to find things around WP... Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The only way I've found to do it is changee the |class parimiter on the Wikiproject tempates on the talk page - if anyone else knows a faster way, then let me know! Mdann52 (talk) 11:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Using WP:AWB? There is somewhere a plugin for it. WP:INDIA is using it a lot if i remember correctly. mabdul 15:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you use the AfC helper script,Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script (all you need to do is to activate it in the gadgets pane of user preferences) the rating box appears at the very top after you've checked that you accept the article. I very highly recommend that anyone doing AfC patrolling make use of this script. The main think to watch out for with the script is that in declining, the pre-built reasons are imo not sufficiently specific for many cases, and I almost always write a custom reason. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The script currently says that assessment is "optional"—should the wording be changed? When accepting articles, I often haven't been assessing them except as likely to survive AfD. Instead I've been adding WikiProject tags to bring the new article to the attention of editors who are more knowledgeable about the topic and could see more readily when important aspects of it are not covered, or when there's a lot of irrelevant material. I noticed at least one other AfC reviewer accepting articles without adding Wikiproject tags. —rybec 00:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I could add a link to a reviewer-help manual regarding assessment in the AFCH interface which would help for new reviewers and who don't know that these kind of assessments means... What do you think? mabdul 04:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    small anomaly in "recent" list

    Usually the name of the article's creator is shown, but this edit instead listed the reviewer's name. It would be nice to see who's accepting articles, but I'm sure it was unintended here. —rybec 03:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The reason why that happened is because with this edit, the reviewer (Nonsenseferret) submitted it themselves, after accidentally removing the existing AfC templates with this edit. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 04:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Guilty, your honours - mea culpa mea culpa --nonsense ferret 15:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you ever have to submit a submission in someone else's name (the original author), just use
    {{subst:Submit|user=<name of user>}}
    That way the original author gets notified when the submission is accepted or declined, and the name shows up correctly on the recent list.
    (To be honest, I never knew that the submit template had that functionality until I tested it in my sandbox just now.) The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 17:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted thanks - that's helpful. --nonsense ferret 22:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    backlog suggestion

    I have a suggestion for the backlog. Since it is easier to review disambiguation pages and templates, as they have no pesky references to check, I suggest that they be placed into an additional categorization, Category: non-article AfC pending submissions , which should reduce the backlog by a few tens of pages. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 07:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    That won't really help with a backlog of a few thousand pages - it may make your submissions jump the queue, though. See above. Huon (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, not all my submissions, just the non-article ones. Since I can't really tell how many disambiguation pages are being submitted, I don't know how many that will clear up, I assume it will be some tens. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct, these are really rare cases, but who should do the categorization? mabdul 12:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The substituted template declaring it is a disambiguation or template page {{subst:AFC submission/submit|type=dab}} and {{subst:AFC submission/submit|type=template}} should be able to be modified to autosubst in a category. Just add a subst-if to subst in the category if type is template or dab. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Great idea! I went ahead and implemented a few changes in the sandbox version. Does somebody have a better name for Category:Template and disambiguation AfC submissions? I don't want to move the category later... mabdul 05:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Just got around to signing up - does this project have a Userbox?

    As I have helped out with some of the (easier) questions on the Help page and I have done a few reviews, so I decided I might as well sign up to the project. Is there a Userbox for this project that I can put on my page? I've added myself to the Category as instructed at the participants list but I'd like to have a Userbox to add to my small collection. Roger (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    There's {{AFC status}}. —rybec 19:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    We also have {{User AfC}}. Huon (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    Hand

    Hello there! can anyone give me a hand or advice on what to do? If so, have a look at my talk page under "Vizzini (The Princess Bride) subimission denied". cheers, much appreciated! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    You've given sufficient advice to the new user. I'm not sure what else you'd be expected to do. You've no obligation to continue arguing with them. In my view, you should simply leave them to decide their own course of action. If they move the article to main space themselves they risk running the wrath of other editors ...as you've already pointed out! Sionk (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    cheers. i am starting to get a lot of these, learning how to cope :) FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Note

    The page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Đorđe Branković (count) should be deleted, as the article on this person, Đorđe Branković, Count of Podgorica, was created in the mean time. I'm not sure if WP:AFD is the right place to request the deletion, as this is not a real article. The single sentence in that text with an inline reference misrepresents the cited source. Two other sources are indicated at the end of the text. One of them is a wikipedia article, and the other is a book. I checked the book and found that it does not support claims included on that page. Moreover, some of these claims are directly opposite to what is stated in the book. In short, keeping that page is pointless. (Pay attention that the same text is redoubled on the page). Vladimir (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I wouldn't worry about it. It's still being written on the one hand, and, on the other, it would be rejected by the AFC reviewer.LM103 (talk) 02:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, we cleared the January/February backlog

    Now we need to clear the March backlog :) - or should that be :( ?. I had far less free time this month than I anticipated (I wanted the AFC barnstar, but I'll likely have to settle for an invisible one). I want to thank everyone who reviewed articles and who reviewed reviews this month, as well as everyone who did other things like managing the drive, helping editors improve draft articles, etc. etc. etc. during this drive. Thanks to all of you and most of all to the authors who submitted drafts for review, Wikipedia is a better encyclopedia than it was a month ago. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for comment

    I first want to ask your opinion about this submission and whether or not it was reviewed fairly. Secondly, as Ritchie333 stated before, Wikipedia:Citation overkill and Wikipedia:Masking the lack of notability is a huge problem and most reviewers don't want to spend hours checking 60+ links. Is there a possible way to remind the nominators that they shouldn't include "[s]ources that do not reference the main point of the subject, but rather trivial details that may not even belong. But the number of references does not matter when these sources do not meet the requirements for establishing notability." Not as a decline reason, but maybe as an automated comment which can be added to those bombarded submissions. Nimuaq (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    My eyes glazed over as to whether the review was fair and accurate or not, so I'm going to give the reviewer the benefit of the doubt.
    When I see too many citations for the size of the article, I generally look at the following:
    • The reputation of the source. Have I even heard of it? Is it easily recognized as a WP:RS or, conversely, a clearly-not-reliable source?
    • The number of references for a given point of information.
    • For non-BLP drafts, over-citation in general. For BLPs, making sure every fact about the person has a citation is better than leaving it uncited (but if it's unencyclopedic/trivia, it should be deleted whether it's cited or not).
    • If I can't find a clear claim to notability backed by a reliable source within a minute and I don't know or suspect that the subject is notable, I will usually decline it with grounds similar to what this reviewer did, but in less detail. I will usually specifically request that a clear claim to notability be made. If I have the "dozens of references" problem and might have missed the one reference that supports notability, I may word my rejection like so: "Please provide a clear claim to notability in the opening paragraph, and cite it with a reliable source," along with other general comments about things that need fixing, like "Please consider removing the minor details of this person's life or career, sometimes a smaller article really is better than a long one."
    I hope this helps. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Disambiguating headings

    As can be seen on a page like this one, a series of repeated headings, all saying "Your submission at Articles for creation", is unhelpful. Each heading should be unique, so could we either append the title of the article concerned, or at least a time+date stamp? A better heading might be "AfC: [title]", like the DYK headings higher up the same page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Good idea. Feel free to try your hand at modifying the template. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Strike that. The section header is added by the script we use to decline or accept submissions, not the template. That's a bit trickier. But it is a good idea. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting... I will try to implement this kind of stuff that week. I'm still thinking about adding some kind of monthly headlines and combine the messages for the month (although rear case as most submitters don't submit their works on a regular basis - SPAs...) mabdul 05:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Low Culture

    Dear Editors: Editor Huon suggested I ask questions here instead of at the Afc help desk. Please let me know if this is the right place to ask. Your banner is rather daunting.

    I was reviewing a page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Low culture (2). I noticed that there was already a similar article Low culture. It seems that a user has copied a Wikipedia article into his sandbox, continued to improve it, and then submitted it for review. I moved it to Afc before realizing what was going on. How can we get the two articles back together? —Anne Delong (talk) 01:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, all the nice multicoloured tabs along the top can be bewildering at first glance ;) I've come across the scenario you describe before. Obviously this isn't the correct way of developing existing articles. Decline it as "already exists" and advise the author to edit the existing article. In fact I think they already have, they pasted the new, referenced article into the existing (poor) article and submitted a copy to AfC. Covering both bases! Sionk (talk) 03:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I'll do that. I wasn't talking about the coloured tabs, however, but the giant red "This page is for users working on the project's administration." box which makes it seem as though it's not for reviewers. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just curious: there is nothing different to the mainspace article. So it is technical an "exists" decline! mabdul 05:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Simple decline it as "exists" because the author simply selfapproved the article as you can see at Special:Contributions/Alexprose. mabdul 05:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    A Forest with No Name

    Dear editors: I noticed that there was one article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mike Yokohama: A Forest with No Name which has been in the queue for 28 days; it seems that no one could decide whether to accept or decline it. I have added a two more reviews, one bad and one good, a mention of a festival screening and another general reference. Could someone take a look at it, please? I shouldn't review it myself now that I've changed it. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, that was a toughie. Declining it turned out to be my biggest (and I hope only) "oops" during this drive (although technically it was in February so it doesn't count as an in-drive oops :) ). I don't have enough knowledge of the sources or the subject matter to accept it though. We may need to recruit help from the relevant WikiProjects. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Uhm, come' on, if unsure (not clear cases) then simply assume good faith and accept it. We have that many stub articles and articles with questionable notability this one more won't hurt Wikipedia. I accepted the submission and will clean it up in a few minutes. In this case, there might be more (helpful) references which could help determine the notability, written in Japanese... mabdul 06:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    My general rule of thumb is that it's better and less off-putting to new editors to decline an article at AfC and either suggest improvements or show the editor why the article cannot be fixed (e.g. not notable) than see it deleted at AfD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I've seen stuff that's actually notable (albeit marginally so) get nuked at AfD because the only comments resembled "if I can't find any sources, nobody can" which results in a delete consensus. MacWise (AfD here) is a recent example I came across. Sometimes I'll throw in a source or two myself (eg: Lawo) before passing, just to be on the safe side. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Doesn't appear

    Using Google Chrome, I have enabled the script in my preferences and even bypassed my cache. However, when I want to review articles, I need to do so manually as the script did not appear. Even if I try using IE9, which is said to have no bug, I also don't see anything about the script. Any idea why? Arctic Kangaroo 04:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Is the article you are trying to review at "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Somethingorother"? It won't work on sandboxes, but you can move the page out of the sandbox to the right place and then it shows up. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, may I know what you mean by "right place"? Thanks. Arctic Kangaroo 04:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    To be reviewed, articles should be at "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Article title". So if you have an article about Slinkies that is at "User:Freddy/sandbox", the review tools don't work. In the big yellow review box there's a teeny tiny line that says "This page should really be at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/sandbox (move)". Go ahead and click on the word "move", and it will tell you that it can't really move the page to the sandbox. However, if you replace the word "sandbox" with the real title of the article, "Slinkies", and then click on the Move Page box, it will move the page to "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Slinkies". Convoluted, eh? I hope this is clear enough. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I was reviewing articles at "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/XXX", not in any sandbox, but the script didn't appear. Arctic Kangaroo 04:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that was my best guess; maybe someone else will have another idea. I presume that you have looked in the drop-down menu represented by the teeny tiny triangle beside the star at the top of the article page. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see anything like that. Arctic Kangaroo 08:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you using the Vector skin? (Wikipedia's default skin) Did you click the small arrow where the "move" button is hidden? mabdul 07:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Have a look at the screenshot below. Notice the menu next to the "star" at the top. Click on that and you'll get a dropdown menu with "Review" as one of the options. Click on that button, and you should get a box of options as seen in the picture. I do recall one instance some time back, where the button didn't come up, but I think that was a problem with the "Monobook" skin, and came immediately after a breaking change to it, that was subsequently reverted. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    what is cheaper artificial grass or lilydale toppings

    I am thinking of finding a suitable option for my backyard. What is the cheaper option, Lilydale topping or artificial grass.Does any one have any experience of getting quotes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.176.130 (talk) 08:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not the place to ask questions. Please see Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous‎.--Auric talk 14:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "What do you prefer, grass or AstroTurf?" "I don't know; I never smoked astro-turf..." lol Basket Feudalist 15:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear editors:

    I've been reviewing the page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Iminosugars, and I found that several key phrases are copied from this book: Functional Molecules from Natural Sources - Page 129.

    However, only the first page of the article in the book is available for preview at Google Books, and the copied text is interspersed with other text which may be original. Only a small percentage of the article is a copyright violation (that I found), but there may be more further into the book. Do I blank it, or just decline and ask for a rewrite, or should I remove the phrases I found first and then decline it? (It won't make sense without them, they are leading sentences in paragraphs). —Anne Delong (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd say that since there's no clean version to revert to, this one should be deleted as a copyright violation. We know the author copied and pasted from the first source; they may well have done the same with the other sources. Conversely, the sixth source doesn't say at all what it's cited for, so the draft could be declined for verifiability reasons as well. The mention of "novel foods" and the rather promotional tone make me suspect an advertisement. Huon (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks again Huon. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Template modification request.

    As a new WP:TH host, I would like to request some more information on your {{AFC submission}} template. I see that there is a |ts= and am assuming that is a timestamp; however, I do not see any reference to that timestamp display on the template itself. Is that specifically be design, or was that an oversight? I would think that there would be some note such as:

    • draft
      • "This page was started on {{#time: r|{{{ts}}}}}"
    • pending
      • "Someone requested this page be reviewed {{#time: r|{{{ts}}}}}"
    • reviewing
      • "This page is under review as of {{#time: r|{{{ts}}}}}"
    • declined
      • "This page was declined at {{#time: r|{{{ts}}}}}"
    • created
      • "This page was created at {{#time: r|{{{ts}}}}}"

    Possibly even adding the ability to poke certain people:

    • pending -- 7 days?
      • "This article has been sitting in the backlog for a week and may have been overlooked, [[some kind of link|let us know]]."
    • reviewing -- 5 days?
      • "This article may have gotten lost by the reviewer, [[some kind of link|remind them]]."
    • created -- 24 hours?
      • "[[some kind of link|Let us know]] that the bot hasn't cleaned this message up yet."

    I'm just asking/suggesting this because those timestamps aren't the most intuitive things to read and it would make it easier when people come and ask the hosts of WP:Teahouse/Questions. — User:Technical 13   ( C • M • Click to learn how to view this signature as intended ) 12:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    That timestamp is used to sort the drafts chronologically in Category:Pending AfC submissions, and to add the draft to other timed categories. I'd expect the hosts at the Teahouse to be able to read page histories. In particular the "This article has been sitting in the backlog for a week and may have been overlooked" tag would be a joke; the backlogs are so bad that one week would be exceptionally fast. Huon (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Template for a musician

    While reviewing pages, I came across this one: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Template:DJ Krush. The editor has made a template for an individual musician. Since the only place for it is on the musician's own page, is this an appropriate thing to do? Maybe an infobox would be better? Please advise. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks good to me. It's what we call a Navbox, and would go on the foot of all the articles it mentions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Feedback wanted on changes to Template:AFC submission/created

    I've drafted a change to Template:AFC submission/created so that if Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/{{PAGENAME}} exists, a warning appears that this may be a copy-and-paste move and to check for history that may need merging. It also adds the article to the proposed new category Category:Possible AfC copy-and-paste moves.

    Whether the draft article exists or not, it adds the mainspace article to Category:Pending AfC submissions in article space.

    I ran across numerous copy-and-paste moves during the recent backlog drive. If editors doing the pasting had seen this, it might have gotten their attention.

    See this now-reverted edit to see how it looks.

    I wanted to get a little feedback before moving the draft into the actual template. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Updates to Category:AfC pending submissions by age

    I fixed up the date-tracking mechanism so Category:AfC pending submissions by age now puts things in daily categories for only the first 3 weeks, then into weekly categories for the 4th and 5th week, then a "Very old" category for submissions we've ignored for too long. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    AFC Backlog drive - Quick note.

    Since i have not exactly been the shining example of active editing the past month just a quick note to mention i haven't forgotten that the AFC backlog drive has finished now. I'll try to have the final statistics for the drive up somewhere today or tomorrow. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 06:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    And they are up, good job to everyone who helped out! Additionally, i figured i might mention that i am going to see if i can change AFCBuddy to be open source, so that everyone can use it to generate the needed statistics. One drawback i cannot work around is the requirement that one needs administrative privileges to fetch deleted contributions, so any non admin running it will have a count that is slightly off. Even so, i suppose that is still vastly preferable over having a single point of failure called Excirial. Especially if that point of failure is prone to extended away times.
    However, before i do that i need to adres several issues.
    • I need to go over the code and clean it up / document it. Also some minor bugs such as the wonderful "Lets place chinese characters all over the place" encoding issue, and the "if someone forgot to create their drive page i just crash" issue would be nice to fix beforehand. AFCBuddy was written with "Faster is better, and if it works, it works" in mind, so it needs some polish to say the least.
    • Support for an "Manual review" section that AFCBuddy simply copies over, without modifying. (Suggested)
    • Automatic uploading of the edit list for every user. (Suggested)
    Note that this may take some time to get done. This will not be as bad as Duke Nukem (takes) Forever, but it may take a couple of months before i find the time and interest to go trough with this. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 18:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the effort, mate! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for all the great help your contributions have made to this project, Excirial. We can wait, don't worry! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. At least you don't have the "Lets spill Chinese food all over the place while coding" issue like some of us do. Or do you? Hmm, better not answer that. :P davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Wax Fang

    There is a newly created article WAX FANG that has been copied from User:Bandink/sandbox instead of moved. The sandbox is in the Afc queue. I guess the two edit histories should be moved, so will someone who knows how to do this please take care of it? —Anne Delong (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 07:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Gulebakavali

    I want an article on the Indian film Gulebakavali created (The listed link is a redirect, pls change it to a complete article). It is a Tamil language film, and these sources are enough to make it complete: [1] and [2] Additionally, the film is spelled in various ways like Gulebagavali, Gul-e-bakavali, Gul-e-bagavali, Kulebakavali, Kul-e-bagavali, Kulebagavali, all which I have listed to make it detectable on Google search. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 06:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This page is for users involved in this project's administration. If you would like to start writing a new article, please use the Article wizard. If you have an idea for a new article, but would like to request that someone else write it, please see: Wikipedia:Requested articles. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 07:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User contributions showing the "N" in the middle of the sequence

    I just accepted a submission (first time I've done this) using the script, and was surprised by the way the results look in the user's contributions. I see the bold "N" indicating the creation of a page in the middle of the list of contributions, at 16:22 on April 1. Is this what you'd expect to see? It doesn't look that way in popups (though the "Creation" edit summary is there), only if you go to that page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a bug, sort of. At the time it was created, it was indeed new. However, the article was the subject of a history merge so it is no longer the first edit in the article. When you look in the article's history, you don't see the N. The fact that it still shows up as an N in the user's history is either a bug or a feature, depending on how you look at it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the explanation; I thought it must be something like that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Rushton2010

    I am concerned about the editing patterns of Rushton2010 (talk · contribs). I spotted a note on the help desk yesterday, where he had declined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The pUKEs with the rationale "Please see [Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting]". I invited him to leave an explanation on the help desk, which was reverted without comment here. I explained that he wouldn't win friends doing that, and my note was reverted without comment again here. I'm not going to comment on his talk page again, as he clearly doesn't want to know, but in my opinion, while editors can delete stuff on their own talk page, they can't just wish away awkward questions like this in the hope they'll just blow over. What does everyone else think? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll happily clear things up for you as you are reading into things completely the wrong way. I did not revert anything. I delete comments and questions from my talkpage when I have dealt with them to prevent the whole thing becoming clogged up and unorganized. I was not ignoring anything; I had dealt with the issue. I contacted the individual who questioned why I rejected his article directly as I believe in a personal and civil approach to wikipedia. I have subsequently asked the individual if he was happy with my response, help and advice, and he was. My error appears to be that I replied to the individual who asked the question instead of going through Richie who is now making accusations of me ignoring issues and appears to have started a personal vendetta against me because of it. (Not just limited to this incident, but the amount of personal attacks, abuse and vandalism that abounds on wikipedia has lead me to question why I take part over the years; I will yet again use this opportunity to remind people to familiarise themselves with The Five Pillars.) With regards to reasons I reject articles; I usually try to give as in depth explanations as I can; sometimes if the problems are fixable, I do it for people. In somecases it almost feels live I've become a personal wikipedia mentor and helpdesk for certain users. Overall my replies have been a lot more indepth than many who just leave it to the automated replies and give no additional help. As we have been pushed to clear the backlog, during the backlog drive there were times the emphasis changed to clearing pure numbers of articles than giving advice. So my process has been to review the articles, and then go back and give advice via the talkpage later. Thankfully the drive is over now and we're back to normal service. I'm prepared to accept the comment wasn't the most helpful: In all honestly I think I got it confused with an article I had previously been reviewing, as I wanted to reject the article based on the fact I could not substantiate the facts from the references and that it failed notability. However, I explained all this to the author of the article, who was happy with that fact and had no further problems; other people however have made a thing out of it. Long relpy, so to summarize: I have not deleted awkward questions and waited for them to blow over- I dealt with them through the most direct route, by going straight to the Author of the article who had asked the question. If all future correspondence is to go through Ritchie I am more than happy to do that. Just please advise either-way. Rushton2010 (talk) 12:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    All you had to say was "I have responded on the user's talk page and the matter has been resolved" and that would have been the end of it. Chill. I personally prefer to advise the use of the help desk as you're likely to get a quicker response (such as the Easter weekend just gone when I was off-wiki, for example). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your advice. I will remember it for future use. "I have responded on the user's talk page and the matter has been resolved". Many Thanks. Rushton2010 (talk) 12:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Doncram's articles

    Hello everyone! Just a quick one to point out something. Some users have noted suspicion at my accepting several of Doncram's AfC submissions. I reviewed several of them and found that they complied with Guidelines to the best of my judgement (a proof of this is that I wasn't biased by the ArbCom's veredict, having only just read it a few days ago). Please advise if I was wrong. I do not believe a user should be chastised for doing the right thing. Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Where have they noted this suspicion? Sionk (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    My user page and on several others. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, several people have suggested you should vary your diet here. Does that pose a problem? There's many, many articles waiting at AfC apart from Doncram's! Sionk (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all. They weren't an exclusive part of the diet, I just review as I go along, from oldest to youngest, and it just happened I reviewed several of his. Did I incorrectly accept his articles? If so, I need to be told, instead of being warned not to review them (which I also think is quite arrogant and unfair to that user). There are several other user's submissions which I have subsequently declined (as I'm sure most editors have), however unsurprisingly nobody has commented on them! I think prejudice needs to be set aside when reviewing, and we should keep that in mind as we strive to improve the encyclopaedia, that's all. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose the real question here is how thorough one should be when reviewing article's - or rather: If AFC is more similar to vandalism patrol (Either good or bad), or FA review (every letter should be scrutinized). As far as i am concerned AFC review is a safety barrier between a submitter and the main space and its deletion rules, and little more. Thus, if an article meets the main inclusion criteria along with neutrality, verifiability and so on it should be accepted without performing a detailed background check for issues not directly related to the submitted article itself.
    Having said that, i think that most comments on your talk page take issue with the copy editing of the article after it was accepted, rather then taking issue with the actual AFC reviews itself. Since copy editing is not exactly my cup of tea so i cannot really say anything about the validity of these comments. However, unless i am missing parts of the conversation on other pages - which is quite possible - i think that only user:Sitush mentioned AFC in this context ("I, too, have concerns about the sheer number of Doncram's articles that you are reviewing at AfC"). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 17:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That was another issue entirely, indeed about copy editing other (non-AfC) aticles. Ok then, regards. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any reason for "suspicion" about your reviewing and approving a lot of Doncram's submissions. Because he is a prolific creator of pages, it's likely that you see a lot of his work here. Also, his work is presumably better than average for AFC (he is, after all, a highly experienced contributor), which may explain why his work gets approved. It would, however, be useful for you and other AFC reviewers to realize that he is contributing at AFC because of an Arbcom restriction that prevents him from creating new pages in article space, and that there was much discussion in that Arbcom case regarding the issues that caused this restriction to be put in place. If AFC reviewers apply only minimal standards in reviewing his work (for example, approving anything that looks good enough to avoid speedy deletion -- note that I don't believe this sort of thing has happened, but I think it could), you won't be doing Doncram or Wikipedia any favors. --Orlady (talk) 00:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I full-heartedly agree. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also noticed that a lot of articles by Doncram were getting accepted. I looked a few and didn't see any problem: they were about buildings that are listed on the U.S.A.'s National Register of Historic Places. WP:GEOFEAT says that "artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural or national heritage or of any other protected status are inherently notable." The Arbcom ruling specifically says that Doncram may use AfC; to discourage AfC reviewers from accepting his drafts seems like an attempt to informally prevent him from doing so. Is it the "sheer number" of this editor's AfC submissions that is a problem, is it that the articles don't meet Wikipedia standards, or is it something else? —rybec 02:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that there are 500,000-ish listed buildings in the UK alone - therefore I'm not sure that critereon is as helpful as it seems. --nonsense ferret 15:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That might be true, but then this isn't the place to tackle that. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I would certainly find it helpful if AFC reviewers had some discussion here as to how we should approach these type of articles - it isn't obvious to me that accepting all listed buildings is the correct answer - it is not a case that I think we need to reform policy, just better understand how policy should be applied to these sort of difficult cases. If it is not appropriate for AFC reviewers to have this discussion here, then where? It isn't intended to be a criticism of individual reviewers. --nonsense ferret 15:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, I thought you were talking about policy. Let's see if a concensus can be reached. We might even have to invite Doncram's comments as well. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Moving a sandbox

    Dear reviewers:

    I have been reviewing a lot of articles that are in sandboxes. In order to use the review script, I have been moving the article to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Whatever. Each time I then have to go in and manually remove the sandbox template. Is there a better way? —Anne Delong (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    If i recall correctly, the clean option in the AFCH script will automatically clean sandbox headers from a page. Besides from using the clean button itself the script runs the same procedure if you decline / accept an article. So moving a page and afterwards reviewing it should take care of the sandbox header automatically. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 18:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I don't always review the pages after I move them; sometimes I am doing it just to save more experienced reviewers a step. At least this will save me time on the ones that I do review. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving the sandboxes is very helpful. IMO there's no harm in leaving the sandbox templates in place until the draft is reviewed. —rybec 02:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Sandbox

    Dear reviewers:

    I think I have accidentally caused a problem. While trying to move a submission from the user's sandbox to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation, I have somehow managed to instead redirect Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/sandbox to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Frederator Books. It seems to be in use in some arcane way. Can someone fix this up? Thanks. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I've moved Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/sandbox back over the redirect and tagged Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Frederator Books for speedy deletion. Once it's gone you can move the user sandbox to that title. Huon (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    science and technology (projects)

    is there any science laboratory??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.24.111.253 (talk) 13:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Reform of AFC process

    Having participated in the AFC backlog drive for March, and having seen the substantial efforts put in by many reviewers during this period, and noting that there doesn't seem to have been much of a reduction in the backlog over this period, I can't help thinking that it is worth seriously looking at ways to make the process more efficient. What is the correct forum to open up a discussion to collect together people's ideas, whether it be for minor tweaks here and there or more substantial reform? How can we obtain empirical data to establish where the problems lie (or indeed if there is no objective evidence of any problems)? (I'm thinking that it would potentially be useful to know how many times each individual candidate article is reviewed during its time at AFC, how many of the candidate articles as a percentage eventually make it to mainspace? Are there categories of article that are much more/less likely than others to make it to mainspace? How many times is each article viewed before it is reviewed?)--nonsense ferret 15:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Title blacklist

    While going through AfC submissions I found a band that appears to be notable called "SEKAI NO OWARI". However I was unable to move it to the proper title and got the error "Error info:hookaborted : The modification you tried to make was aborted by an extension hook" so I moved it Sekai no Owari instead. From there I tried to move it to the proper name but an error message came up saying it was on the title blacklist, can I get some insight on this and can an admin take the proper course of action i.e. either move it to the correct title or delete it if there's some reason it shouldn't exist? Thanks. --BigPimpinBrah (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation&oldid=548688608"