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 Benea (talk | contribs) at 16:10, 16 October 2014 (→‎Recent creation: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
    Category — List (sorting)    		ShowcaseParticipants
    Apply — By subject    		Reviewing instructions
    		Help deskBacklog
    drives
    Welcome—discuss matters concerning this project!
    AfC submissions
    Random submission
    3+ months
    3,299 pending submissions
    Purge to update
    Shortcut


    WikiProject iconArticles for creation Project‑class
    WikiProject iconThis page is used for the administration of the Articles for Creation or Files for Upload processes and is therefore within the scope of WikiProject Articles for Creation. Please direct any queries to the discussion page.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creation (admin)AfC project pagesWikiProject icon
    ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.


      Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used


      Individual Engagement Grants: Notability Detection helper

      Hi folks, My collaborator is proposing an Individual Engagement Grant & looking for feedback Automated Notability Detection. I'd appreciate it if folks could comment there with any feedback, positive or negative. IEG's go in on Sept 30th, so comments in the next 2 weeks would be of particular help.Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 14:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Please explain the purpose of Category:Wikipedians who have received a Teahouse invitation

      An administrative category of 100,000+ users who have been "invited" to the teahouse seems ponderously large for any effective administration. Moreover, the category is permanent - lest the user actively delete the invitation - and migrates through the archives, etc. If the invitation is for everyone (I assume there's no dress code or other reason barring any Wikipedian's entry) then the cat is of no real use. If an invitation to the teahouse is akin to an invitation to detention, then it's clearly impermissible. If it has some useful lifespan, it ought to so indicate, and not be some permanent category for 100,000+ users. What is the explanation? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Hi @Carlossuarez46: - The AfC reviewing tool invites new editors to the Teahouse -- but we don't want them to receive multiple invitations (which would happen a lot here, since editors may be repeatedly contacted about their draft article). This category is used to implement that; see line 1939 of this JavaScript part of the tool. Does that make sense?Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 09:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I cannot read code (humanities major, sorry to say) but it makes sense, I suppose to prevent bombardment, but perhaps it would be better as a hidden category. Any thoughts on that? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      It's already a hidden category, isn't it? -- John of Reading (talk) 20:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      @Jodi.a.schneider, could the code be changed to use getTemplates() rather than getCategories() ? For example I beleive that when code needs to know if a page is a disambiguation page it looks at templates directly rather than at categories. DexDor (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I think this is a good idea. I don't think it's a good idea to be using categories for essentially technical purposes so a bot won't leave a welcome message. Categories are to be used for collaboration, not so a bot knows whether or not to invite them to a particular Wikiproject, in my view. VegaDark (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Surely this would then invite people who had the template but removed or archived it? Sam Walton (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, just the same as detecting the template indirectly (using category). DexDor (talk) 04:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      My point being do users stay in the category even after the template is removed/archived? If so then this is an obvious improvement on just detecting the template. Sam Walton (talk) 08:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      How could that possibly happen? DexDor (talk) 05:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • VD, that is your opinion. I see categories as a tool for maintenance and bot work first, then possibly human collaboration later. Categories are essentially a database, databases are used by bots and computer software, databases need to be formatted to be human readable (just like categories). — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The point here is that the bot wants to know whether a page has the template on it. Using the template to populate a category and then having the bot detect the category is an unnecessarily convoluted way of doing it. DexDor (talk) 04:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Some more points: Do we need a bot going around inviting people to the Wikipedia Teahouse? Wouldn't manual invites work just as well? This looks like a project to support new editors - presumably if someone has archived their talk page already, they aren't new anymore. Is there a way to check on the age of the account before leaving this message? That would fix the archive issue. Another point, I'd be pretty annoyed if someone left something on my talk page that put me in any user category, hidden or not. I can't think of any other categories that do something like this. Ultimately I would support deletion of this category if nominated for these and the above reasons. If you still want a bot to go around inviting people, you can work around that decision easily by searching for the template instead of the category. VegaDark (talk) 00:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      • I couldn't comment on what a bot may or may not be able to do functionally, but I kind of had the same sense that VegaDark's comment mentions. How does newbie get channeled into some category he/she probably doesn't understand and does look a little like an invitation to a woodshed to those who appear to have had some initial problems with their edits (as we all have done early on). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm surprised this discussion is going on as long as it is. You want to know how the bot uses the category, ask the bot's creator/operator. I suppose I could have done this sooner, but I'm not really that active anymore and don't care too much about this discussion. It's now bordering on TL;DR and becoming slightly annoying. Anyways... — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 15:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Template edit needed -- updated tool location for User:Citation_bot

      One of the "reviewer tools", User:Citation_bot, has moved to a new location.

      Based on this note from the tool maintainer, I've updated the link as a test edit in the tools sandbox, could somebody please check this and apply it to the real template?

      Thanks! Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 10:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      • Created the edit template-protected structure to get this on the track to being accepted on behalf of Jodi.a.schneider Hasteur (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hail ToolLabs the toolserver is dead. A cosmetic change that I see no reasonable argument for not speedy applying ;) Hasteur (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
       Done -- John of Reading (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      More than the past 10 articles?

      Currently, the past 10 accepted articles are shown in Wikipedia:Articles for creation/recent. This is a useful list on the main AfC project page (though also used elsewhere).

      I'd prefer if we showed the last XX hours of accepted articles (e.g. 24 hours, 12 hours, 2-days). That would have the advantage of showing the ebb & flow of acceptance -- and would make sure that the recent articles don't "scroll off" the list in heavy reviewing periods. Anybody else have thoughts about that? Both the concept, and whether it would be difficult to change? Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Assuming it to be technically possible and that someone is willing to do it I like the idea a lot. Fiddle Faddle 12:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I believe the following is correct, but please excuse any misunderstanding. The current script submission.js edits the recent page when you accept a submission. To do this it looks at the list of afc templates on that page and loops through them using "matches.length >= 10" in order to delete the oldest but 9 before adding a new one. This presents a few challenges. If you want to show the last XX hours - when do you want to measure that from, when you viewed the page or when the page was last updated? It would seem a small change to swap the number 10 for a larger number. This might be complicated however if you can't guarantee there is anyone using an older version of the script which on submission would cut the list down to 10 again. It might be easier compromise to output the recent acceptances to that page in a table format, say the last 100, and include a column with date/time of acceptance. The table format rows would not be deleted by older versions of the script as they wouldn't match the expression "/{{afc contrib.*?}}\s*/gi" used. --nonsense ferret 13:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      It would be great if we could make the list longer. ~KvnG 14:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Duplication in mainspace and Draft: space

      What's the procedure when a page originally in Draft: space also gets created in main space, at a later date? See

      Should I put a {{histmerge|Draft:Jonathan Solis}} on Jonathan Solis? or is the later creation a WP:CSD#A10 candidate? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      The two articles are completely different, by different authors. Drafts are no A10 candidates. If the main article is going to stay, then a content merge would be a good idea, and then the draft can be redirected to the mainspace article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Why do you say "the two articles are completely different"? Here is a direct comparison - the Draft: one has two instances of {{AFC submission}}, an extra heading and a {{reflist}}, the mainspace one doesn't, but does have a new row marker in that table. Any other differences are insignificant; but crucially, the article text is 100% identical.
      The creators are different, yes: but the last person to edit Draft:Jonathan Solis is the same person that created, and made most of the edits to, Jonathan Solis. I suspect that Gellocsin1 (talk · contribs) made a copypaste from Draft to main, contrary to WP:CWW. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which one is "better"? Is the copy in article space worthy of being an article or would it fail an AfD? If you can't say that you think it would, put the article up for AfD and if it passes, then merge whatever extras there are from the draft into it and delete the draft, but if it fails then delete it and WP:SALT the page pending acceptance of the draft. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 13:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • What has happened here is that an editor has started an article in mainspace, had it marked for deletion because it was unacceptable, noticed the draft in AfC, and copied the other editor's work into their own. There are overlapping timelines, so a history merge can't be done. However, if the resulting mainspace article is okay, a content merge giving credit to the original author would work. Alternatively, if the topic is thought not to be notable, the mainspace article should go to AfD, and the draft should be left alone for now, until the results of the AfD are seen. So, is it a notable topic? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      We seem to have gone off the boil

      What is perturbing me is the number of easy catches that have remained unreviewed for over four weeks. I've just spent a happy 30 minutes or so handling 10 of the oldest submissions to find that most were unreviewed submissions. I normally expect only the difficult ones to be in this category. Fiddle Faddle 14:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Not sure it speaks to this at all, but I find that the "randomizer" is anything but: I get the same articles after about 5 or 10. It might help to have a tool that would load the Draft with the fewest pageviews + no comments. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 10:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Why review random drafts? Shouldn't they be handled FIFO? ~KvnG 16:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Being "on a boil" seems undesirable! Gigs (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I tend to review selectively drafts in fields I know something about, or which I work with most on WP. DGG ( talk ) 17:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      @DGG:, how do you find those? @KvnG: if I have 5 minutes, it's the easiest way to get something in front of me. I prefer looking at older stuff that has a chance of rescuing through editing when I have time... I'm really open to better procedures, curious to hear others' draft-finding strategies! Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 08:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      SInce the categories sort into date order, I start at the top and look for ones I feel competent to review. Each one I feel I am able to accept or decline I accept or decline. Many I find I am not competent to and pass on by Fiddle Faddle 13:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Specifically, go to Category:AfC submissions by age/Very old and click on anything or look for something fun. The random article button was reimplemented a few months ago after it stopped working due to toolserver issues. I think the new implementation may have problems. ~KvnG 13:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I never knew, apart form the main sidebar, we had a random article button. I just start at the top left hand corner and go down the list. I try very hard to avoid drafts I've reviewed before. I've just thinned 10 or 11 drafts out in the very old category, and a great number, still, are previously unreviewed. We really do need to get this oldest category under control or we'll be under huge pressure to have another drive, something I oppose for the moment. Just cracking through 10 each and reaching a verdict on them each day by us all will help. More is great, but who has the time for that? Fiddle Faddle 14:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Sometimes I do browse by category (often starting with "very old" or "4 weeks ago"). Agree with KvnG: the new implementation of random has problems. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 09:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      The oldest submissions category is starting to be unreasonably full. I've done a good few, honest! But it fills at present faster than we are emptying it. All hands to the pumps, chaps. Fiddle Faddle 16:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      I have now done this edit to the template that is shown on top of e.g. Category:AfC_submissions_by_age/Very_old, to allow users to get random drafts in these categories. (t) Josve05a (c) (on a break) 16:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      For those who like this random thing it;s excellent, thank you. I prefer the other approach which is also fine.
      We seem to be just about keeping pace in this oldest category. A good few of us are attacking the backlog, which is great. More, please
      What I can't get my head round is the number of new folk who add themselves to the list of reviewers and who proceed to review very little, if at all. If they would join in wholeheartedly after finding their feet we could be in a good state all the time. Fiddle Faddle 19:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

      Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      @Harej: I've left a comment but I don't think many editors watch meta.mediawiki.org so don't expect to reliable have a two-way conversation there. ~KvnG 13:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Maintenance category for articles whose names are duplicates of mainspace?

      Maybe we should generate a maintenance category for articles whose names are duplicates of mainspace? Some of these (mainly proper names) will just need a move -- but many may be actual duplicates we could get out of the queue. Thoughts? Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 09:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      This would be useful if we could get a bot to maintain it. Otherwise, it's just as easy to reject these submissions as dups as it would be to add them to the proposed category. It may help you to know that the reviewer tools in the Awaiting review box contains a mainspace link to the proposed article. That link will be red if there's no duplicate. ~KvnG 13:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I've just set this up in the AfC banner template. It will fill Category:AfC submissions with the same name as existing articles. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The reviewer tools & its usefulness is part of what suggested this to me. Thanks @Jackmcbarn:!Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      In fact, @Kvng:, I'd suggest making that "Awaiting review" box larger & at the top -- since if the article exists there's no reason to look further. Drawing the eye to this would help, for me at least. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 16:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Ok, one more question here, now that we have the category. Should we be tagging the actual duplicates under G6? Or is this already being handled as part of the G13 project?Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 16:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      @Jackmcbarn: -- to the extent that it's the queue we're worried about, it seems like it would be helpful to show the subcategory that are submitted for review...Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 16:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      @Jodi.a.schneider: I've just updated it to only categorize pages awaiting review. Note that you won't see this right away because the job queue takes a while, but it should become active soon. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      @Jodi.a.schneider: The job queue has now caught up. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Cheers! Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 09:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Button change

      I've tweaked the button to give articles from Category:AfC_submissions_by_age/Very_old. I realize this will need to be adjusted again when we get the backlog under control. I will keep an eye on it. I don't know what the issue is with (non) randomness. The button uses Special:RandomInCategory to pick something random so the problem must be in there. ~KvnG 13:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      • If you want to make a new button that only picks from a population of the very old submissions, go for it. Changing the existing button that just picks a random submission trying to trick reviewers into reviewing the ones YOU want reviewed is not the way to go. If you are interested in a new button, I'd be more than happy to help you code it. Happy reviewing! — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      If I was actually trying to trick anyone, I certainly would not have announced my change here. ~KvnG 14:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      I got a popup but don't know why

      Hello there,

      I am a fairly experienced editor but I am not used to AfC. I hang out in WP:RfD and WP:PNT and tend to be a bit of a hyena in that I scavenge the things that others aren't interested in – which are usually the tastiest bits. And that I laugh too much and too loud. A strange popup came up just now asking me to review or whatever this article. I don't know why that should be.

      So, an RfD something came up for Edifecs Inc., which is still open but likely we will reverse the redirect (so that Edifecs is the article title) per WP:NCCORP. I edited and changed the references (often they were both raw in the article and as a cite ref) and added stub tags and placed into categories, various bits of gnoming, which did not impinge on other editors' opinions on whether it is the right title for the article or not (essentially what we do at RfD). I didn't remove the AfC tags cos I don't know process; as the last editor it would seem odd to review one's own work, anyway. Remove them if that's right. If I need to do anything else, let me know. 03:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

      go away

      This is the second time now in a bit over half an hour that your script has popped up asking me to register for your script. So these comments I wrote before, but you understand my frustration:

      I do not want to be an AfC reviewer with your script. I edit at RfD. A new article, created badly after two requests at AfC, Edifecs Inc., is currently being discussed at WP:RfD. I edited the article to fix the constant double repetition of refs (i.e. an inline raw ref followed by a cite to the same ref). I added stub templates and fixed the categories, which for some reason were all predecessed with colons. I did various other markup on it. It is still very much a stub, so I marked it as such. I noted EDIFECS was in a deletion discussion in 2012 and went under WP:CORP. I have done my homework. I didn't remove the AfC tags because I don't know the AfC process. And if you bug me with popups, I don't want to.

      — Si Trew (talk) 04:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

      Si Trew (talk) 04:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Hello, Si Trew. AfC doesn't usually pester people to join up. It's possible that sometime in the past you may have enabled the AfC script in your preferences, before we had our sign-up list. If so, you can just de-select it and that will make the reminders go away. Sorry if this has inconvenienced you. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks Anne, I'll look into that. Sorry if I am a bit grumbly. Nothing else pops up like thatl, I didn't realise it was even possible. Si Trew (talk) 04:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I hope that fixes it. We had to create a list of AfC editors because a lot of new users, who come through AfC, were starting to review other people's pages when they themselves have only a few dozen edits, and, of course, making a mess of it. Thanks for taking on a draft and improving it. There are so many.... —Anne Delong (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah I can see why you have big banners etc. per WP:NEWBIES. Wikipedia editors are a club, like any other, and is getting to be an exclusive club sometimes. So all power to your elbow, or keyboard.b I just didn't know what to do: and apparently did the right thing.
      What worried me a little with the draft, is that whoever did take it on did a bad job of it, could have hand-held through here is how you add references, here is how you don't put inline citations, here is how you sign your edits. It seemed a little left high and dry. Up in the heady realms of RfD, where we oversee all that come before us without actually changing copy but dictating from on high who is to be saved and who is to the slaughter, we forget occasionally that people do what Wikipedia is for: adding constructive content, however badly, to make it the Wikipedia that everyone can edit. And read. Si Trew (talk) 12:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Nope, still popping up. Three times now in ten minutes, when I list something from RfD at AfD. Stop it please. Si Trew (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately, Si, you had to initiate it at some point, and as such, only you can make it stop. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 02:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Righty ho. It seems to pop up almost randomly. There is probably a bit of Javascript lurking around somewhere, I dunno. I ain't having a go at any of you personally. I still edit on ye olde plain text editor etc, so it came as a bit of a surprise to have these things. Don't worry I'll sort it out. Really I just wanted to let you know — if I am the only editor being annoyed about it that's fine, but if it were a more general problem I am sure you would want to know. Si Trew (talk) 05:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I got it: says right at the top! Disable it in prefences/gadgets! I am an idiot.
      But I wanted to ask, after CE'ing the draft, which I came to by a different route (something at RfD I recall) I would have liked to have marked it as reviewed or whatever to take it out from your stack, but I didn't know how I should do that, or whether I should. So I just left it. It had two RfC tags on it, which seemed a bit unusual to me. What should I have done? Si Trew (talk) 07:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      AfC & Draft -- potential for improvements?

      Is anyone else troubled by the universal encouragement to resubmit? "You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved." To give this "advice" when we mark something as a duplicate is disingenuous.

      I think of draft articles as falling into three categories
      -- unfixable (duplicates, ...)
      -- presumed junk (probably not fixable inside WP:CRYSTAL)
      -- probably fixable: notability is plausible but not clear, needs a rewrite but has promising content, too soon (sports players who will probably cross the threshold soon, future films, ....)

      I think that the G13 trawling shows that there's a lot of abandoned stuff in Draft that has potential. In my opinion, we don't want to "reject" this -- we want to mentor creators, or at least tidy up the content. Using the mainspace tags to indicate problems (and maybe also indicating NON-PROBLEMS, like copyright checked, notability ok, ...) might help in Draft.

      Are there ways that we can make AfC quality control more like the process in mainspace, in order to attract more attention to drafts and their authors? And where are bigger discussions about Draft happening (since we're just one of the contingents using it...) Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 10:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Here's an example. Draft:World Chess Championship 2015 is clearly not ready for mainspace, but it needs to be incubated here in Draft. Sending a rejection notice to the author is no more helpful than sending a comment. No?Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      We do need to be able to kill off unfixable trash without encouraging the resubmission. We do need to put things in the pending shelf like your example. We do need not to piss people off. Fiddle Faddle 22:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I personally like your suggestion. Some pages are just not fixable and we need a way to tell people to stop wasting time on them. It's quite hard to do that without making people angry though. Thoughts? Darylgolden(talk) 03:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Often would-be contributors get told "Sorry, this article about your favorite band is not acceptable as it stands. You need to provide evidence that it is notable". This does not make them angry, but it is cruel. They then waste their time (and ours) dredging up inadequate references. It would be kinder and more honest to add "and personally, I don't think there is any". Maproom (talk) 07:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I also think there should be an option for multiple decline reasons. Most of the time an article has multiple issues. Darylgolden(talk) 01:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Multiple decline reasons do make sense. @Maproom: I usually add something like that in the comments, e.g. "There is no point in continuing to submit this until other content is available from reliable and INDEPENDENT sources; I don't expect that to ever be the case." However, I'm not sure whether people *see* the comments -- they're not directly copied over to the submitter's talk page, and they appear below a bunch of templates. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 10:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Support multiple decline reasons. Fiddle Faddle 10:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      And I'm particularly interested in pending stuff. For instance, this Draft:Years & Years is nearly or barely notable (you decide) -- but in the future it probably will be. In these cases I am currently trying not to "reject" (because I don't think it helps) -- but from the point of view of our queue, that's a problem. We need to be able to mark the promising stuff and get interested experienced editors involved. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 10:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2014

      114.79.12.123 (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 20:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Template:AFC submission

      Suggestion regarding Template:AFC submission. Maybe make the "Click here to get assistance via live help chat" link open in a new tab (target="_blank"). It's probably more difficult for the group of editors who click that link to find back their drafts than it is for editors in general. Even if they understand they can press the back button, they may prefer not to do so if they're already engaged in a chat session. (I've noticed several times that visitors of #wikipedia-en-help were wondering how to return to their drafts.) --82.136.210.153 (talk) 23:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      • Support This is an excellent suggestion. Most new editors are unfamiliar with computers sufficiently to not open new tabs/windows themselves. Fiddle Faddle 10:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Woe! Woe! and thrice WOE!

      For the past many days several of us have been working at the coalface of the least easy seam to mine. While the overall backlog of some 2,700 drafts seems to remain broadly stable, the oldest submissions are rising, rising, rising. I've just reviewed some 20 or so and it's still at 762 right now. See Category:AfC submissions by age/Very old for the bad news.

      Please roll up your sleeves, decide on a number you will review come Helen Highwater, and please do that number. And do it again tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow. Our authors deserve your attention.

      Even if you raise your game by a single review in the oldest category, that is one more that we do not have to make wait any longer. Fiddle Faddle 10:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      WP:WPAFC shortcut

      Maybe mention the WP:WPAFC shortcut at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Template:WPAFCInvite

      This new template may be useful to somewhat diminish the severe backlog. It can be used to invite experienced editors to become draft reviewers. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Edit request for Template:AFC submission/tools

      The Template:AFC submission template currently links to Dispenser's no-longer-working Reflinks tool under "Reviewer Tools". It should be updated to instead use the User:Zhaofeng Li/Reflinks version. --Ahecht (TALK
      PAGE      ) 22:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Done — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 23:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      To make the Decline templates more friendly

      A symptom of lack of editor-friendliness is the quantity of questions at the AFCHD "WHy has my thing been declined?"

      I believe that we need to add to the decline template a simple line:

      "To see the reason your draft has been sent back to you, please CLICK HERE" (linking click here to the draft concerned)

      It needs to be screamingly obvious. The words may be discussed, but we need something, please. My hope is that it will reduce the pointless questions at the help desk, all of which must be answered, and all of which remove time when we might be reviewing.

      Please would an appropriate person make a bold change? We can titivate it at leisure later. Fiddle Faddle 10:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      The decline template itself already contains the reason for the decline. If users won't read it, they won't read a page linked from it either. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I think it is not a matter of 'will not', rather a matter of being too upset to notice. So we need to grab their attention. It has to be worth a shot, surely? Fiddle Faddle 15:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Recent creation

      Devastation Turret Class Ship was recently created. The topic already exists at Devastation-class ironclad, so the article ought to have been declined under the Quick-fail criteria. Benea (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation&oldid=629866963"