Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mabdul (talk | contribs) at 15:43, 11 October 2013 (→Wrong copy link: trout T13; done). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, List, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Welcome to the Wikipedia Articles for Creation Helper script support page
WPAFC talk pages: Main - AFC Helper script - Reviewer help
AfC submissions
Random submission
~6 weeks
1,013 pending submissions
Purge to update
Shortcut


  • Please post feedback about the AFCH helper script in a new section on this page, or by creating a new ticket on GitHub.
  • To enable us to help you with your technical problems, please provide as much detail and information as possible, such as:
    • Your script or gadget name and version. Does the bug persist if you update (Reload), and if so, does it also persist if you update by clearing your browser cache (Shift-Reload)
    • Your browser's name and version (in your browser's main menu under Help → About) or your browser ID (something like "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.2) Gecko/20070219 Firefox/2.0.0.2")
    • Error console errors (in your browser's main menu under Tools → Error console; push clear, reload the page, and copy and paste the error messages)
    • Which browser add-ons have you installed (in your browser's main menu under Tools → Add-ons)
      • Optional: What happens if you disable your add-ons and restart the browser (close the quick start and the error console too)
    • Which user scripts have you installed on your vector.js page (please state if you use another skin)
    • Which operating system do you use
    • Describe the problem, please be as specific as possible about what is wrong (including when it happens, what happens, what is broken, and what still works)
    • Steps to reproduce your problem and what happens at each step. Without reproducing your problem, we might not be able to fix your problem.
  • Are you in the right place?
Skip to the bottom

RfC: Are the Category:Wikipedians and its subcategories appropriate for Wikipedia

There is an ongoing RfC going on at Category talk:Wikipedians#RfC: Is this category and current subcategories appropriate for Wikipedia that readers of this WikiProject may be interested it. Technical 13 (talk) 12:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Faulty CSD trigger for copyvio declines

Whenever I decline a submission as a copyvio, I hit the Trigger the 'csd' parameter and nominate the submission for CSD? checkbox. However, this doesn't actually tag the page with a CSD template, just the {{afc cleared}} one without the CSD parameter. Here's a recent example. Deadbeef 19:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Now that we have the ability to tag files for deletion and log that to the user's Twinkle CSD log, logging should be added to these as well. Deadbeef, I'll put in a ticket on GitHub for you tonight and for the logging as well. Thanks for your report!  :) Technical 13 (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick action/reply! Deadbeef 20:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I tried out the cv decline with the csd parameter again twice today, and it is still not adding the CSD parameter to the submission. Is the problem local, or is it still a template error? Thanks, Deadbeef 18:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC) (On a side note, it's also not logging the CSD noms on my log page.) Deadbeef 18:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Deadbeef. The fix for this is coded, but is still in the first testing version. It should be pushed to final testing the end of this week and hopefully to the "live" version (the one that you can access from your preferences page) in a few weeks. Feel free to try it out in the beta version or the "develop" version, which may be very unstable at times but has the most current "stuff" including the fix to your bug, by adding importScript( "User:Theo's Little Bot/afch/afchelper.js" ); // [[User:Theo's Little Bot/afch/afchelper.js]] to your Special:MyPage/common.js page. Happy editing and reviewing.. Technical 13 (talk) 00:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, thanks for the info. Deadbeef 01:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where is accept button?

I've improved an article and want to accept it. I try to follow the instructions at this page but cannot find the accept button. Where should this appear? - Shiftchange (talk) 09:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you installed the AFC Helper Script in your Preferences? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't. It still hasn't appeared anywhere. This article is up to scratch if someone else can approve it. I would like this fixed so I can help out with the backlog. - Shiftchange (talk) 10:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Shiftchange: Try bypassing your cache and then clicking the "Review" link (under the upside down triangle menu in the upper righthand corner of the page) as shown in File:Articles_for_Creation_Helper_Script_(version_oed6ac5).png. Let me know if you're still having problems, Theopolisme (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ummm. You probably shouldn't be reviewing and accepting your own drafts anyways... Theopolisme, that would be a good feature to add to the helper script. A big bold warning with instructions and such for those that try to review their own drafts with it. Technical 13 (talk) 16:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, since the editor has a decent editing history, s/he can just use the move feature to move the article into mainspace. I would only recommend against it when its someone who's recently autoconfirmed and the article is likely to end up speedy deleted or AfD. The article seems okay as start-class for me. LionMans Account (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can't review your own submission with the script anyway. The submitter is not User:Shiftchange. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested change to DISCOURAGE newbies from reviewing articles

Unresolved

I'm suggesting this here before I suggest it to the AFC Helper Script maintainers:

Change the AFC Helper Script to prominently display links to the reviewing instructions and the 5 pillars.

Change the AFC Helper Script to spot likely-inexperienced editors and for those editors,

  • Enable big bold notice that only editor with some experience in Wikipedia should accept or reject submissions, recommending that the editor use the COMMENT feature instead of accepting or rejecting the submission.
  • Prominently log any "decline" or "accept" by an inexperienced editor somewhere in the WP:WPAFC or WT:WPAFC project space.

What is a "likely inexperienced editor"? I would say someone with no admin-granted or advanced user-rights

  • who created or moved less than a few articles that are currently in main-space NOT counting articles created or moved into mainspace in the last few weeks, OR
  • who has less than a few thousand edits NOT counting edits in the last few weeks or edits more than a year or two ago,

is probably a newbie or an editor returning after a long absence who may not be familiar with the current policies and guidelines. Exceptions can be whitelisted by the bot.

Change the AFC Helper Script to spot likely-inexperienced reviewers and if those editors accept or reject more than a few articles in a day, ask that they stop and request a review of their work so far before accepting further reviews, but that they are more than welcome to make COMMENTS on submissions to help out both the submitter and other reviewers. Provide a pre-filled "request for review of new reviewer {{USERNAME}}" that would be added to the bottom of WT:WPAFC.

Thoughts? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are all good ideas – one of the easiest to implement technically would be a simple edit count-based check (e.g., < 3K,4K,whatever edits = display notice + instructions). Counting the number of reviews by a certain editor and suggesting that users request reviews of their work is a bit more difficult, and probably out of scope of the actual helper script (without making it unbearably slow and bloated), but I'm definitely in favor of a separate bot that generates a bunch of statistics somewhere, say WP:WPAFC/Review stats, listing things like "new editor reviews", "lots of reviews", etc., etc. I know some data mining has been conducted in the past but consolidating these efforts into one central page, and making it much easier to keep track of reviewers, would be a step in the right direction. Theopolisme (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The edit count will be inaccurate for a reviewer using a shared or dynamic IP address, unless s/he logs in. —rybec 22:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not comfortable with the idea of an IP editor doing reviews at all. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IPs are human too...but in this case, I'm inclined to agree with Roger. This is a non-issue, though, because IP editors cannot actually install the helper script...so there's no way for them to see the notice, regardless. Theopolisme (talk) 23:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes IPs are dogs :). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are a huge number of great IP editors, many of whom have enormous experience. However, I have a real concern reviewing AfC scripts from an IP address. AfC is used by new editors, who often interact with reviewers by going to the reviewing editor's talk page. Reviews from editors at a dynamic IP are going to get lost, at a severe cost to the article submitter. And that is plainly not okay, unless I"m missing something. --j⚛e deckertalk 15:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note: experienced users (IPs) can use the gadget to decline articles by typing in the address bar importscript('User:Mabdul/afc_beta.js'); and hit enter. At a AFC submission the review link will be loaded and works until somebody reloads the page. ;-) mabdul 21:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP's cannot accept articles from AFC into mainspace as only autoconfirmed registered users are able to move pages. As such, an IP AFC reviewer is likely rare enough to be irrelevant... about all one can do as an IP reviewer is reject the most obvious quick-fail WP:COI and WP:SPAM submissions (which just requires changing a template parameter to indicate a reason for rejecting the piece, so the script would be overkill) while leaving usable articles for someone else to move to mainspace. K7L (talk) 00:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving old/resolved threads

For the sake of posterity and future helper script maintainers, I recommend old threads be archived rather than removed, or that they be marked {{resolved}} or {{archive}} or collapsed before being eventually archived. However, I will defer to you and the other current maintainers of the helper script. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Re-reviews of Virgininfatuation's work requested

Resolved
 – no script used. mabdul 21:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion mentions a possible bug in the script. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warning message

Resolved

Someone has problably reported this already, but when reviewing I am frequently presented with this text

Please check the source code! This page contains one or more long (30+ characters) HTML comments! (please report false positives) The hidden text is: --- See Wikipedia:Footnotes on how to create references using tags which will then appear here automatically —Anne Delong (talk) 03:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed in the source code, thanks as usual :) Theopolisme (talk) 11:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Three non-urgent requests for script improvement

Dear script developers: I have noticed two small problem with the script.

  • The drop-down menu that holds the decline reasons has become very long, so that the little triangle on which one clicks to reveal the list is off my screen on the right side unless I zoom out until the text is too small for comfortable reading. The reasons aren't that long, so it could be shortened.
  • When declining a submission as "exists", the script asks for the name of the page, but gives a very small window, so it's hard to tell if the correct article name has been entered. There's lots of spare space to the right; can it be expanded?
  • Someone has decided to break up the decline reasons into groups with group heading. Since the headings are almost the same colour and font as the reasons, it's visually difficult to find the correct reason. Could the headings be distinguished in some way? Maybe by being in bold, or capitals, or possible with the addition of a separator, for example NOTABILITY____________________

None of these are urgent changes, and the script has been behaving well for me so far. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anne, thanks! I've implemented fixes for all three of your suggestions (reduced length of items in the list, increased size of text box, and put the headings in capitals). Keep the feedback coming, Theopolisme (talk) 11:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Theopolisme, do you think the list of decline reasons should be collapsed by header to shorten the list, like what is seen on category pages with sub-cats? This way when the list opens, it is very short (just headers) and clicking on a header would expand the reasons in that section so that they would easily be distinguished from headings. I like this idea... I'll put in an actual ticket and see what I can do if you don't have a quick answer on top of your head (you seem to do that often while I think of solutions). Technical 13 (talk) 13:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Technical 13 Please don't do this without first asking the reviewers if they want it. Not only does it make an extra step for everyone, but some of the decline reasons don't fall into neat categories and we would have to remember where these were hidden. Maybe I am the only one that thinks this and the other reviewers would appreciate the short list, but can you at least ask them (at the main Afc talk page)? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This would resolve both your first bullet request above AND your third bullet request. I'll add a ticket for this dependent on completion of Issue #83 so that it can be toggled on for those that want it, which a toggle state was what I had in mind. Technical 13 (talk) 16:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with my first request, which was about the horizontal width, not vertical length, of the pop-down list. I thought of, and mentally rejected, the idea that you want to implement as soon as I saw that group titles appear some time ago. However, you are missing my point. I am not objecting to the change itself, I am objecting to you making this change on a whim. Everyone but me may like it and it may be a good idea. But you have made no effort to find out. Can't you wait a little and ask around among the non-techie reviewers? —Anne Delong (talk) 16:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As an exercise in futility? This would be an off by default that those that want it can turn on, and if they decide they don't like, uncheck the box. There is a reason the the WMF doesn't put up an RfC for every new thing they push to wiki, there is a reason that Microsoft or Apple, or Google doesn't send out emails asking all of their user if they should add this little feature or not, that's not the way that software development works at any level... Technical 13 (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am personally opposed to requiring even more clicks to select a decline reason...seems like too much abstraction/complexity. It could possibly be added as preference, though, should others want that... Theopolisme (talk) 21:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Technical 13 is correct in this one: we should provide two possibilities: one with many mouse/keyboard clicks and one with well as less as possible. This could indeed something for the user prefs. (a classical one without any real order and headlines and a second one with two drop down menus). mabdul 21:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Theopolisme, I'm also opposed to requiring even more clicks, the proposal is that it would be offered in the preferences settings as an option. The less clicking option would be the default of course.
  • I have taken patronizing comments from several of the technical people (not you, Theopolisme), and tried to limit myself to logical arguments in reply (except once), but this is just to much. I have a masters degree in computer applications, have worked on software acquisition and development committees for large organizations, written two pieces of software that were licensed for use by over 1,000,000 children, not to mention the $200,000 worth of my software that I sold myself in my spare time, and made multiple presentations at conferences about software design. Whichever end of the development process I was on at the time, in every case end users were involved in the design, implementation and testing phases. And those companies do have groups of people that comment on their development plans. This is all I can (and should) say about this now, because I have to go out and give a presentation about Microsoft Publisher. (This was posted before mabdul's reply.) —Anne Delong (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anne, I apologize if I've frustrated you or made you feel patronized. This was not my intention at all, and wiki contributing should be something that is enjoyed by all that do it. The issue is, if two people wants that option (~.1% of our users), then we should offer it. If one of your pieces of software above didn't offer the option that 1,000 of its users wanted, that would be 1,000 less children it helped. If Microsoft didn't offer a feature requested by .1% of its customers, it would lose ~1.1 million users. So... If two users of our helper script (.1%) think it's useful, then it's probably worth implementing. Technical 13 (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dear Technical 13: If you want to spend your personal time on an off-by-default project without checking to see if anyone will use it, that's your privilege. You will notice that my request for you not to bury the list behind the category titles came before you mentioned making it only show up if chosen in preferences. My later objections came because you immediately reconfirmed that you were going ahead with it and ignoring my request to ask the user community. In your next post you called the consensus process "an exercise in futility". This has nothing to do with any personal frustration; it is flouting Wikipedia policy. Only uncontroversial changes, technical or not, are supposed to be made without consensus, and you were ignoring that by dismissing my request for a discussion, and rather rudely too. My later comments about feeling patronized were directed, not at this, but at you attempting to explain the software development process (in which I have been involved likely since before you were born), and downplaying the important role that end-users play in order to support your argument for not consulting them. Your apology would only have been meaningful if (1) you hadn't followed it with more of the same, and/or (2) you had expressed intent to follow consensus in the future. However, I don't think you and I are ever going to agree about this, and we've both made our respective positions clear, so let's just drop it and let the forum get back to its purpose. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Title of this page

Resolved

Sorry, it's me again. I noticed that at the top of this page is says "Welcome to the Reviewer Help Page" and I wonder if this should be changed to "Welcome to the Afc Helper Script Development Page" or some such. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Mdann52talk to me! 10:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Anne Delong, Theopolisme, and Mdann52: Thanks, I overlooked that when I was creating the tab and header and copied over from other page. Technical 13 (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bug!??

Resolved

Look at the Recent acceptions. Is this some kind of bug? I don't see any vandalism in the past history, but what happened?? buffbills7701 23:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Red comments in French

Resolved

User:Henryfrederickonlinemedia!/sandbox —Anne Delong (talk) 03:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anne, that red comment actually isn't generated by the Helper script but rather by the underlying citation logic...it is, however, definitely a bug of some sort, and should reported, although I don't know who to report it to (as usual, I think WP:VPT is your best bet). Theopolisme (talk) 03:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I made a "null edit" (i.e. I made no changes but put something in the edit summary then hit "save," resulting in no change in the edit history) and the red text is now in English. I'm guessing something got fubared and later corrected, but we were still seeing the non-updated version. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; it's the second time today I've seen this, but I'll wait and see if it comes up again, and if not assume it's been fixed. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Priscillia Sari Dewi (2)

Resolved

I tried to review this article, but the following message appeared, and then nothing else:

"Reviewing Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Priscillia Sari Dewi (2)"

Everything seems to be fine with other submissions. What could be the problem. —Anne Delong (talk) 10:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the template submitdraft was wrong. [1]
and thus the script didn't worked until I fixed it here [2]
Regards, mabdul 11:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC) [reply]
Thanks. I wonder how that happened. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like somebody got confused... two years ago. Theopolisme (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Placing submissions under review blindly picks top template

Resolved
 – see explanation at the bottom. mabdul 13:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or at least that's the way it seems. See my recent entries in the edit history of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Donkeshwer for evidence.

It also turns "|D" templates into "|R|D" templates, which is NOT what you want. Worse, you can place such an article under review multiple times, and it winds up erasing entire templates. Not good.

I am using the production script gadget with Mozilla Firefox 23.0.1. I have some Wikipedia gadgets installed and some Firefox extensions installed, but they shouldn't be contributing to this issue. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for this report. I ran the latest version of the development script on the submission and it did this, which appears to be the desired behavior (aside from the ns=55, which I'll fix now). Can verify that everything looks okay there? Theopolisme (talk) 01:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is it you need me to verify? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidwr: The bug that you reported appears to have been fixed in the latest development version of the source code, it just hasn't been pushed to live. This diff is an example of me running the new version of the script on the submission that you had trouble with, and I was just asking you to verify that it performed the correct behavior (as opposed to what it did in your example). Theopolisme (talk) 02:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your diff looks good to me too. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great, it'll be in the gadget in the coming weeks. Theopolisme (talk) 10:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "mark as reviewing" /unmarking system is just getting many improvements and should be finished this week after iron out some last issues. The complete system is getting a revamp and should be fixed shortly. (@theopolisme the bug that the first template is simply used for marking with |r| is caused by the regex cleanup (removing all var afc_re and not using the correct regex. A quick fix could be using var pending_afc_re = /(\{\{\s*afc submission\s*\|)(\s*[||r])+((?:\{\{[^\{\}]*\}\}|[^\}\{])*\}\})/i; for else if (action === 'mark') { if it is not already used in the 'develop' version).)mabdul 13:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Mabdul:...as I've already said above, yes, this is fixed in the develop branch. Theopolisme (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Pitts

Resolved

Hello again... The above submission seems to have a sandbox template that is not removed by the "Clean submission" option. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the report, I've fixed this. Theopolisme (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)
@Anne Delong: Thanks again for reporting, we love to see that some users actually give feedback to the work. Actually we try to improve the helper script where we can, but I don't believe that we can check for that template code (at the moment). The problem is that the user copied the page content of the whole WP:SANDBOX page with doubled content. (which I removed) mabdul 21:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine; it's no problem to remove things manually. Since I don't work on the script, I don't always know which things to report, so I just report everything, and you fellows can ignore anything not relevant. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Mabdul: how were we "not able to check for that template code"? [3]... (Yeah, it doesn't catch the html comments, but it removes the template at least...also, spoiler alert, I'm working on a new feature: a button of sorts next to each >30 chars html comment that says "automatically remove" and will delete it from the page text). Theopolisme (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/October 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive

Resolved

Since a backlog drive is being planned, I tried to start a discussion on the associated talk page above, but an overly efficient filter refused to let me create the page unless I added a submit template. This would be appropriate for "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/pagename", but not for "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/pagename" or for other Wikipedia talk pages. I'd rather not submit the backlog talk page for review. I know that this is not the script, but it seems to be an Afc related problem, so I am reporting it here. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • (sorry typed before the last comment) Thank you, Technical 13 - good workaround. About your suggested fix, though - the filter should be adjusted to only work when the page name starts with "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/", regardless of how many edits they have. Some people edit existing articles for a long time before they decide to create an article; why create a kludge? Hmmm...also, is the submit template the correct one to put on top when the user creates the page? Shouldn't it be the draft template, so that they can work on the article and submit when ready? Or perhaps I am misunderstanding the process... —Anne Delong (talk) 23:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I pinged him on IRC.  :) Technical 13 (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Anne Delong: Technical 13's idea wasn't actually implemented as he proposed (and the reasons you stated were why not, if I had to guess) -- instead, the filter was set to the stricter "page title BEGINS with Articles for creation/ in the WT namespace," rather than just CONTAINS Articles for creation/ (as you said). Theopolisme (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you both. I was able to add my comments on the drive talk page. Can you clarify what happens if someone wants to create a submission starting with Articles for Creation? Does this submit the page for review the instant the first edit to the page is saved? Rather than adding a draft template and letting them work on it for a few days and then press the "Submit" button? I have never done this myself - I have always started articles in my user space, so I really don't know. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The filter only stops you if you don't have {{subst:submit}} OR any variant of {{AFC submission}} on the page – in other words, no, it doesn't stop people from leaving a submission in-progress with a draft template. Theopolisme (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SHORE Solutions Inc.

This may have been reported before, but the script says "Report false positives", so here goes: This article appears to have comments related to being translated from another language. I presume that there is an example page somewhere that has these on it. The script is picking them up and giving a warning. I don't know if this is worth doing anything about. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Those comments are actually nothing more than infobox use instructions. They are indeed over 30 characters, and there is a new feature being worked on in the develop version of the script to show the comments up top that are triggering that warning, and offering options to delete them. Thanks for pointing this article out to use, I've used it as an example in the discussion on GitHub.  :) Technical 13 (talk) 14:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blank sandboxes

Dear script developers: A point of information, please. If blank sandboxes and user pages are declined in place, instead of being moved into the Afc with an artificial title, are there any residual effects related to the script or other automated Afc processes (addition of hidden categories, for example, or a bot that looks for decline templates) that may cause the user problems later if the sandbox is reused (as is likely)? It seems that most reviewers favour leaving the blanks where they are, since there's obviously no chance of objectionable content. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't think I really understand your question. I'm inclined to say that the answer is no but if you had a specific effect in mind I'd be happy to answer to the best of my abilities. Theopolisme (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, I don't know everything that goes on behind the scenes. Here's an example that comes to mind: the Hasteurbot deletes submissions after 6 months. If these sandboxes are submissions, would they be eligible for deletion if the users write something in them and then wait 6 months? I am assuming not, but maybe there are other processes that I don't know about. For example, the blank sandboxes that were declined today are still in the Category:AfC submissions by date/18 September 2013. If Joe's blank sandbox had been moved into Afc, it would be the "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joe's blank article" that would be in the category rather than Joe's actual sandbox. If Joe reuses his declined sandbox, will there be any bad effect from being in this category? I would like to hear that there isn't because not moving the empty articles save work. I am sorry if I am not specific enough - I am probably worried about nothing. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I am going to try one more time, and then I will drop the stick. Here are two sandboxes: THIS ONE was declined as blank as is. Notice that it is in two categories. Now THIS ONE had its contents, including categories, moved into Afc; the sandbox itself has no categories now. Sometimes developers make bots, scripts, etc., that use these categories to make changes to the pages. The sandboxes will be reused, and the categories will be misleading. The software may do inappropriate things. Since you guys don't think this is a likely scenario, I will just assume it isn't. Sometimes I overanalyze. Making software for six year olds, as I have done, makes you realize all of the things that can go wrong. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/October 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive again

Resolved

I understand that there are some changes being made in preparation for the backlog drive. Can someone who is up-to-date on what's being done post an update on the above page? Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/October_2013_Backlog_Elimination_Drive#Helper_script Theopolisme (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for hotfix to gadget - fix putting things on review and taking them off review

Resolved

See my recent edits to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/list of classic analog integrated circuits and User talk:DPRoberts534#Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation.2Flist of classic analog integrated circuits. I recommend that simultaneous to pushing out the hotfix, all pages that are "under review" be checked to make sure they are correctly formatted. After the hotfix is rolled out, those same pages will need to be checked to see if previous edits using the broken gadget didn't cause loss of previous submission templates.

I'm requesting just a single-issue hotfix, NOT a 6-day advance rollout of the code that's scheduled to go out on the 25th. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with that is that the submission template and comment template parsing system was completely revamped – in other words, there was no one fix that resolved the bug (rather, the entire system was written to be much more modular, have automatic sorting by date, etc). Regardless, I agree that this is an important fix, so I'll write a patch for the old code now (that will then be overwritten when the new system is released). Thanks. Theopolisme (talk) 21:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This has been pushed to the gadget, here's a diff of the modifications in action for the example article you linked. Please let me know if you encounter issues, and note that you will need to WP:BYPASS for the change to take effect. Theopolisme (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fix! DPRoberts534 (talk) 00:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto DPRoberts534, thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the gadget is fixed, I've gone through the 10 submissions marked "under review" and fixed those that got munged by the bad gadget script. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beta bug - emptying "recent"

Resolved

This edit earlier today by the beta script erased Wikipedia:Articles for creation/recent. I manually restored the list to the last 10. Looking at the contributions of Zach Vega (talk · contribs), it looks like the Beta script may not always be updating /recent . davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the report, I'm trying to hunt down an admin to fix it now. (tl;dr: mabdul, it appears that your mistake that I fixed shortly thereafter somehow made its way into the beta script) Theopolisme (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"It wasn't me!" (quote by Bart Simpson; It was my evil twin XD).... *sorry* mabdul 14:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem :) Problem is that all the admins on IRC are asleep... Theopolisme (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done [5] Theopolisme (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved

If a submission is declined in User: space the user is told to click on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Username/Usersubpagename. Example diff, created by Technical 13 (talk · contribs) using "AFCH develop."

It would be worth checking to see if similar problems happen if the submission is in other places besides WT:AFC/PageName.

This is a minor error and once fixed, the push to the gadget can wait until after the code is un-frozen on 11/1. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good catch, I never check the user's talk page after review and this would have gone unnoticed otherwise... Theopolisme! Technical 13 (talk) 21:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This would require a change to the template {{afc decline}} (and perhaps meta-template {{AFC submission/location}}). I'm hesitant to do anything yet because of their widespread use – Technical 13, what do you think? As far as in the source code, it's pretty trivial to just use wgPageName rather than afcHelper_submissionTitle (line 777 in submissions.js), but the issue is that we're simply passing a parameter to the afc decline template, which does all the work. Theopolisme (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recommendation - defer fix until end of October backlog drive, and alert all Backlog Drive participants to clean up after themselves if they decline an article without moving it first. This bug shouldn't be triggered very often, as articles should be declined without a move first only if there is a specific reason to do so. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ick... I didn't realize it was a template issue... Theopolisme, what I'm thinking is that we should update develop script to use a new syntax that passes the value as two parameters. Parameter number one will be the actual subpagename only and parameter two will be the namespace and basepagename. I'll rework the templates in the sandbox to accept this and explain more in a bit... Technical 13 (talk) 23:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • [more for my benefit than anyone else's, so I don't have to write the same code twice] Let me know when to push this
-    usertext += "\n\{\{subst:afc decline|1=" + afcHelper_submissionTitle.replace(" ", "{{subst:Sp}}");
+    usertext += "\n\{\{subst:afc decline|1=" + afcHelper_submissionTitle.replace(" ", "{{subst:Sp}}") + "|PARAMNAME=" + wgPageName.replace(" ", "{{subst:Sp}}");

Test template revisions

Extended content

{{subst:afc decline/sandbox|1=sandbox}}

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia!

{{subst:afc decline/sandbox|1=sand|2=WT:AFC}}

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia!

{{subst:afc decline/sandbox|1=sandbox|2=User:Example}}

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia!

{{subst:afc decline/sandbox|1=User:Example/sandbox}}

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia!

{{subst:afc decline/sandbox|1=WT:AFC/sand}}

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! 
var afch_title = mw.config.get( 'wgTitle' );
var afch_ns = mw.config.get( 'wgCanonicalNamespace' );
var afch_basePageName = afch_title.substring( 0, afch_title.lastIndexOf( '/' ) );
var afch_subPageName = afch_title.substring( afch_title.lastIndexOf( '/' ), afch_title.length );
var afch_declineNotice = "{{" + "AFC decline|1=" + afch_subPageName + "|2=" + afch_ns + ":" + afch_basePageName + "}}";
You're right that the magic words wouldn't work, and ^^^ is what will... Technical 13 (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But why on earth can you not simply change the template to accept a full page name, rather than persist in trying to get me to implement this complicated mess? All you have to do in template code: {{#ifeq: {{{full|}}} | | <!-- the old title parsing code --> | [[{{{full}}}]] }} (and all we have to do in the script is `wgPageName`). Theopolisme (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's the status of this issue? mabdul 10:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boldly implemented a |full= parameter in {{afc decline}}. Will convert code to use this shortly. Theopolisme (talk) 03:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done [6] Theopolisme (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New AFCH gadget release pushed

FYI

From the release notes:

The 25 September release brings with it a brand new interface to add WikiProject templates to talk pages, widespread CSD logging, integrated formatgeneral.js cleanup, automatic deletion of redirects in the way of acceptance (admins only), bug fixes, speed improvements, and unicorns.

A new beta script has been pushed as well. As usual, you'll need to bypass your cache to see the new features. Please let us know here if anything doesn't work as intended so we can make sure everything is ready for the October backlog drive. Theopolisme (talk) 01:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unicorns? Ka-ching! And to think, I would've settled for a pony. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

White space bug in cleaning

Resolved

When cleaning submissions, the script sometimes leaves an odd white space behind. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Barks,_Perry_County,_Missouri&diff=prev&oldid=574950363. If this can be fixed it would be good. Thanks! -- t numbermaniac c 03:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Numbermaniac, thanks for the feedback! I've fixed this in the latest development version of the script (it will be available in the live gadget in the coming weeks). Theopolisme (talk) 04:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that was very quick! Thanks for such a fast response! :) -- t numbermaniac c 05:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another cleaning idea

In submissions such as this, perhaps the link can be fixed to the proper single bracket syntax? Only a cleaning suggestion. -- t numbermaniac c 11:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hrmm... Interesting idea... @Theopolisme, Mabdul: maybe something like this search /\{\{((http|ftp|irc|gopher|telnet)[s]?):\/\/(.*?)\}\}/gis and replace with "[$1://$3]"? Technical 13 (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
looks good, lemme check some stuff... mabdul 19:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Numbermaniac and @Technical 13:  Done Changes are now in the 'develop' branch and should be included in a few weeks(?) in the beta and the stable build; see commit. mabdul 10:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another suggestion: Fix underscores in wikilinks to have spaces instead? [7] -- t numbermaniac c 02:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of this? :) Coming to a gadget near you soon. Theopolisme (talk) 02:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! -- t numbermaniac c 08:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Submission bug

Resolved
 – Already fixed.

When submitting my draft, the helper didn't remove the draft template that was already there: see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Numbermaniac/Pocket_Trains&diff=next&oldid=575570276. -- t numbermaniac c 12:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your changes and tried it with the α version of the script and it worked fine, so this problem is already fixed in an upcoming version of the script (that will be released after the drive likely). Anyone else on the developer team (Theopolisme—Mabdul—Hasteur—Earwig—Legoktm) have something to add? Technical 13 (talk) 13:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Numbermaniac: which script version do you use? stable, beta, or develop? mabdul 19:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stable. -- t numbermaniac c 01:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This should be fixed in the beta (and develop) version. Thanks for reporting. mabdul 10:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bug: I was able to over-write a decline from 2 minutes earlier

This should not happen when using a script. I am using the gadget script, not the beta or other pre-release scripts.

Note: I manually rolled back my edit so the person who declined it first will be the "decliner of record." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CSD G12

I received the following on my talk page:


If you add a G12 and blank the page, it takes far longer to get it deleted. I have to restore the page back and add the G12 banner to the restored page, so that I can use the very useful script in the banner to test how much data has been copied. Sadly the script will not work with history pages, only the live one.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Per AfC instructions, that is what we are supposed to do, and the AfC Helperbot blanks the page. Alternate suggestions? Thanks! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 00:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe some discussion need to start at the AfC - as far as I can see, there are only a editors few blanking - I'm not saying you are wrong! Obviously some effort went into the G12 template to add the Duplicator Detector system, but it won't work (and I've tried) unless the page is current. Certainly every "normal" article tagged with G12 (often using Twinkle to add the template - and why not, it's so much easier) never gets blanked, and if the Duplicator Detector shows a large copy, then they get deleted really quickly anyway. I'm not sure there is a right or wrong - but I've noticed that the ones blanked always last to get deleted! Food for thought. :-)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll copy this at the AfC Discussion. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 19:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - just had a further hunt - both Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as copyright violations and WP:CSD#G12 do not suggest blanking when applying G12.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


What thinks everyone? 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 20:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason copyvios need to be blanked before deletion. The only thing we should be blanking are G10's. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the copyvio-detector scripts should be rewritten :). In the meantime, see if putting "collapse top" and "collapse b" templates around the copyvio'd text will hide the text without breaking the copyvio-detection tools. I'm willing to forgo blanking on copyright issues for now if it is needed to make the jobs of deleting admins easier.
By the way, for some copyvios the right thing to do is BLANK and NOT DELETE (or blank and request revision deletion). I sometimes do this if I see a notable topic with an editor where WP:AGF still applies AND I think that editor or another editor is seriously interested in creating a valid article about the topic. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, I have decided to uncheck "blank the submission" when declining for copyright violation, unless it is blatantly obvious to me that 1. the article copies an unreliable source disparaging the subject or 2. the copyright violation is a copy of a source which would very obviously not want their work copied, such as CNN.com or some such. Most copyright violations are probably submitted by the creator of the copied web page (i.e. the article subject). If others feel this is the incorrect course of action, please let me know. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 20:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming you are not going to CSD it, the text that is a COPYVIO should be removed. Whether this is by {{afc clear}}, {{courtesy blank}}, or without a template isn't quite as critical. As a courtesy to an editor who you believe will either rewrite the text to make an acceptable submission or go through the process of donating the text to Wikipedia, you may follow-on with an afc comment that includes a link to the last pre-blank entry in the edit history or, better yet, to the source of the copyvio. Removing the text does two very important things: It sends a clear message that copyright violations will not be tolerated, it provides a copyvio-free version for the few web search engines that see WT:AFC/ pages to pick up, and the sudden shrinkage of the page size in the edit history serves as a marker in the page's history. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Small discrepancy

Dear scriptors: The NPOV decline reason on the list says "formal, neutral tone", but the resulting message to the submitter just says "formal". Since NPOV means "neutral point of view, could someone please make the message template say "formal, neutral" where it says "formal"? I think it used to say this, but I can't really remember. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, see commit [8] Should be included in the next few updates. mabdul 09:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Anne Delong: Hi, question about this. The decline reason says:
This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms, that are designed to promote or show-off the subject.
It mentions both formal and neutral...so was any change actually necessary? Theopolisme (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right, it's been too long and I can't remember what I was looking at then; I may not have read carefully enough. My concern was that reviewers choosing the option would think that they were telling the submitter to be more neutral, and then the template would actually tell them to be more formal (ie, less chatty and folksy), so they would just use bigger, fancier promotional terms. I think the submitters take the text in the first sentence as the actual reason for the decline, and the later text as helpful hints. If you feel that the existing message already does the job, I am happy to go along. Maybe I should create a really bad article, submit and decline it myself sequentially with every decline reason, userfy it, and bookmark it. Then I could check it to see exactly what text was being sent before pressing the decline button. Okay, I am just kidding. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may find Template:AFC_submission/comments helpful :) Theopolisme (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not all Wikiprojects represented.

When I tried to add WP: Alberta to an article I recently accepted, I noticed that Alberta wasn't an option. Was that for a reason? Or did you just forget a couple of Wikiprojects? buffbills7701 01:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They probably just forgot. -- t numbermaniac c 01:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently there are over 2000 Wikiprojects. One that I wanted yesterday wasn't there either. I'm sure that this feature will be more consistent with time. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi buffbills7701! The reason WP:Alberta was not included is because it does not have its own WikiProject template (for example, like {{WikiProject Science}} for WP:SCIENCE) and instead uses a "sub-template" of sorts, {{WikiProject Canada|ab=yes}}, as its banner. The way I generated the list of WikiProject was by searching for all templates that transcluded {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}, so it picked up WikiProject Canada but obviously had no way of identifying this sub-project. Just for you, I've added Alberta to the menu -- please let me know if there are any other glaring omissions. Theopolisme (talk) 03:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you not use Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory? -- t numbermaniac c 04:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, not really. The script works by storing not only simply the name of the WikiProject, but also the name of the template for each project (which varies and can only be gleaned with 100% accuracy from, lo and behold, the template itself). Theopolisme (talk) 05:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Theopolisme: Just for the case somebody adds (now) Alberta and Canada, (and other cases when added later): do we cleanup multiple tagging of WikiProjects? (so {{WikiProject Canada|class...}} and {{WikiProject Canada|alb=yes|class=...}}) Should we take care of that? mabdul 07:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Meh; to be honest I don't think it really matters – not like there's any negative effect. Theopolisme (talk) 02:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's missing WP:SEGA. -- t numbermaniac c 23:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done [9]. In the future you can request additions at the list's talk page. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Listing of "Perennial AFC Concerns" ?

I know there are several issues that we bring up repeatedly, for which there is not an immediate solution. Could we perhaps make a fixed list of such concerns just so we don't need to re-discuss them, and/or so the folks working the scripts can have that as a reference tool of ongoing top concerns? AFCH has been great overall, and regularly getting better, but there are a few quirks which routinely cause our newbie editors hassle, and thus end up taking attention from the AFCHD and Teahouse to address their worries.

  1. The yellow "Submit" box goes to the bottom of the page, and also the purple "Not Submitted" box is not automatically replaced by the yellow box. We have a pretty steady stream of newbies asking "Hey, my article says not pending review, but I hit submit!" And I'd imagine for every one who publicly asks about it, there are a dozen or more who are just confused or discouraged. That's also how we get people posting five different yellow templates at the bottom because they're repeatedly hitting Submit but not seeing anything change at the top. I really think this is an underappreciated problem. It's a small thing, but it adds confusion for the newbies who most need clarity. I'm not a programmer, so I don't at all understand why it's so impossible to have the page only keep one AFC template at a time, have the yellow override the purple, and put the newest yellow at the top.
  2. I don't recall the exact phrase, but the red error message that appears when the "user sandbox" template is moved into an AFC page, the huge red "THIS IS NOT A USER SANDBOX, THIS TEMPLATE IS WRONG" thing also tends to alarm users. We've had some posting at AFCHD or Teahouse rather worriedly asking if they've messed things up, what to do, etc. I would hope there would be an easy way to have the "user sandbox" disappear if moved into AFC, or even easier maybe just not display as an error.
  3. To save reviewer time, and also let newbies know ASAP there's a problem, can we have a 'bot that notices which contributions have absolutely nothing other than a title and the AFC boilerplate, and just auto-Decline them and post a notice to the originator? That way we'd save Reviewers the 30 seconds it takes to open a blank, hit Edit to ensure there isn't a whole article caught in the hidden text (maybe 1 in 20 has that mistake), and then decline it. Plus an editor wouldn't be waiting for a review for hours or days just to later find out it was a blank.
  4. added Is there some way we can ensure that all Submitted items are in AFC-space and have a title other than "sandbox"? It's a small bit of time to manually move each article, puzzle out a proper title, etc, but all those little bits add up, especially with 1000+ articles in backlog. I kind of "specialise" in tackling the "User:Bob/sandbox" mystery articles because I find it a little fun, but without the couple of us that tend to tackle those, they would quickly add up to several dozen improperly-titled submissions per day.
  • (transformed the * to a numbered list mabdul)

Those are the top few of concern to me, mostly because they discomfit vulnerable newbie editors. So is there some utility to forming such a list of top recognised quirks in the current code? MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew, please excuse my semi-related rambling. @Technical 13: A thought re Matthew's first suggestion. Could Lua perhaps be used to hide the "in progress" template iff a "pending" template is on the page? No idea if this is possible or not. (I'm aware of your work to revamp the entire AfC program, but this is more of an interim solution.) Theopolisme (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like a possible solution to the template issue is to actually give instruction either in the draft template or either by modifying the submit button to give instructions in a preload above the edit box. -- t numbermaniac c 06:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So 1) not fixable by the script; either LUA or getting finally a MW fix to add sections to the top (don't ask me AGAIN for the bug ticket)
2) template coding (@Technical 13: is that something for you? Or should we ping somebody at WP:RT?)
3) there were ~3 WP:BRFAs for that. All bot operators gave up before they got approved. Before starting another one you should gain any consensus.
4) What do you propose there? Automatically moved to somewhere? under which name? Do you have any usable solution for this situation (except removing the submit link of {{usersandbox}})
mabdul 09:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A good solution would be for the software that runs the moving of pages to detect if the namespace is "Wikipedia talk", and the title is "Articles for creation/sandbox", and if so, come up with a pop-up box that would ask, "What will be the title of this article?", or some such, accept an article name, move the article to "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Article name" (provided it doesn't already exist, in which case back to the nasty red message), and, if the new name doesn't end in "sandbox". remove the sandbox template from the article. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re: So 1) not fixable by the script; either LUA or getting finally a MW fix to add sections to the top - okay, so not feasible to fix within AFCH, but maybe can we get a 'bot to wander through the submissions and delete redundant templates and move the main ones to the top? I hate to sound like a complainer, and I'm not a tech guy so I don't have solutions, but it's pretty inarguable that this is a continual source of confusion for already-frustrated novice reviewers editors. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1) Actually we have a bot doing that. It is called ArticlesForCreationBot.
No complainer. Developers who don't use the own application any more for "everyday working" need feedback and feature requests the best indication what should be done. So you're welcome. (And don't understand it as bitey, but with very limited resources we have to check who can do what - at this moment Technical 13 might our man for the template and LUA stuff. XD) mabdul 06:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the delay, I'm kinda busy looking for a place to live and my time for doing stuff on Wikipedia is low at the moment. It can't be done with templates alone, I will look into if there is a way it can be done with Lua when I have a few more moments. I've looked at most every way to do this, and don't see many options. I would likely prefer to see an on-by-default gadget similar to the Teahouse "ask a question" script that would allow us to have a better ui for submitting and manipulating pages for new page creators, but this isn't in the immediate future and wouldn't likely be a permanent solution once I can get the new extension I've been working on that does all that finished. Anyways, I'll see what I can do in the mean time. Technical 13 (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anne, do you mean something like what I have in my sandbox AfC "sandbox" replacement if the current page name is "sandbox"? Technical 13 (talk) 22:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that kind of box is what I had in mind. The purpose of it is to prevent the news users from seeing the red you-don't-have-permission-to-move message, so it would need to be a check as soon as the (move) link in the submit template is selected, and then just a straight drop through unless the namespace:filename being sent to the move routine was "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/sandbox". If it was, then replace the word "sandbox" in the string with the new text and continue on to the move routine. I presume that your input box leads to a routine that filters out any input that the move routine can't handle. A number of reviewers have asked for a fix for this problem. I can't think of a downside to this way of doing it (well, unless it crashes), but that doesn't mean there isn't one, so I hope that others will speak up if they see a problem. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inexperienced users (again)

Resolved

With only 67 edits to mainspace, I think this is demonstrative of what we are up against. Perhaps someone can review his/her reviews (if any) and drop them an appropriate line. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Moved to WT:AFC; this talk page is for discussion of the helper script itself. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 01:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Indubious

I don't know if this was a script problem or not, but I tried to decline the above article as a copyvio, but when I clicked on the "Review" option, I got this text:

The page Indubious was deleted 2 times. Here are the edit summaries from the deletion log: Timestamp User Reason 2007-12-10T03:12:30Z NawlinWiki (talk) CSD G1: Patent nonsense: content was: '{{db-nocontext}} {{dated prod|concern = {{{concern|Non notable phrase}}}|month = December|day = 10|year = 2007|time = 02:07|timestamp = 20071210020726}}

It said deleted twice, but only one instance of deletion was listed. Then the rest of the article is shown underneath this, but no decline options. I had to use Twinkle instead, which would be okay but I am missing my vitally important points for the backlog drive.... —Anne Delong (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed @Theopolisme: Actually Indubious was deleted two times, but the tool only shows the one Anne listed. mabdul 08:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]
Perhaps the fact that there was a deletion template listed as part of the "nonsense" was causing it to bug out. At any rate, it didn't continue on to display the Accept/Decline/Comment toolbar, so I couldn't put it under review or decline it as a copyvio. —Anne Delong (talk) 10:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved

This edit incorrectly linked to CSD:G12, which doesn't exist. Why not WP:G12 instead perhaps? -- t numbermaniac c 12:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done see commit. mabdul 15:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS: {{trout}} Technical 13
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Helper_script&oldid=576735555"