Template talk:WikiProject Articles for creation

Template:WikiProject Articles for creation is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.

Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

Notarticle

Notarticle: what types of articles would qualify for notarticle=yes? I know that a page created in the Wikipedia: namespace would be not-an-article, and likewise a redirect is not an article, but what about a disambiguation page? 69.143.80.200 02:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the recent re-organization, notarticle applies to any page that was not created by AFC, but for AFC. This template, for example, uses the notarticle parameter because it is used by the project. This template, however, was created by AFC, and so does not use that parameter. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is now {{WikiProject Articles for creation (admin)}} or {{WPAFC/project}}

"Template" category

Can its functioning be revised? I.e. so the category can be moved to the template page? Currently, all the templates are needlessly shoved into Special:UncategorizedTemplates because of it. And it'll complicate the task of anybody attempting to clean them. Circeus (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons

I would like this template to be working on commons at commons:Template:WPAFC so that we can label IfU images as part of the project. I gave t a go, but it includes other templates too, so that is was not just a copy an paste for me. Does someone want to give it a go? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest just adding the banner to the file talk page on wikipedia, as currently happens. There is no way that this template could be made to work on commons. As you rightly observe, it relies on dozens of other templates! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 13 October 2018

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Removal of the text This ... was created via the article wizard as it is not always true. It also doesn't give additional information to reviewers and could be removed. Proposed replace : This ... was submitted to AFC and reviewed by ... Meow^STC (Meow back) 10:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done Primefac (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 22 November 2018

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "AFC articles" to "AfC articles" in the ASSESSMENT_CAT parameter. Making the cats consistent (Category:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation). Flooded with them hundreds 18:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done @Flooded with them hundreds: Please ensure that any followup edits are made (e.g. creation of the new category/deletion of the old category). Izno (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 19 November 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Description of suggested change: Add the parameter |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom to the banner, and create a Template:WikiProject Articles for creation/class to suppress the following warning message: "The |QUALITY_CRITERIA= parameter is set to custom but there is no custom class mask held at Template:WikiProject Articles for creation/class. Therefore the quality scale has been switched off."

Rationale:

Following a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_198#Project-independent_quality_assessments which closed with a consensus to move ratings to the banner shell, wikignomes are working to move the ratings to the banner shells where possible, with a BRFA currently open to speed the process up: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Qwerfjkl (bot) 26.

However for AfC ratings, these are done for a particular revision therefore should not be changed post review. Putting onto the banner shell can create the impression that particular revision that the rating was given for may be of a higher grade in the future than it was initially rated for.

Setting the QUALITY_CRITERIA parameter to custom is the way to opt out from the generalised rating. However, in doing, a custom mask page should be created as well, otherwise the abovementioned warning will See Template:Class mask/doc. If so, we might as well set the custom mask to disable the options for classes that we usually don't rate for through the AFCHelper script: FA, A, GA, and FL.

Diff: For the banner: Special:Diff/1182518062 (sandbox edit).

For Template:WikiProject Articles for creation/class:

{{Class mask<noinclude>/templatepage</noinclude>|1={{{class|}}}
 |topic=AfC
 |fa=no
 |fl=no
 |a=no
 |ga=no
}}

– robertsky (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#Updating_the_WikiProject_banner. – robertsky (talk) 05:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for the time being so the project can reach a consensus on this change. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 08:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate banners

There are quite a lot of AfC banners in Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates (all filed under "A"). I know this has been discussed previously, but I'm not sure if there is any resolution on how to deal with multiple banners and if it is valuable to keep track of multiple timestamps and/or reviewers. @Primefac: can you give any insight? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. I thought someone had sandboxed adding in a "reviewer 2" parameter so that if a draft was (for some reason) accepted multiple times, we could combine them in order to preserve the history. This has apparently not been done though. There aren't a ton of pages that likely fall into that category, but but I'll look into doing so (and then combine the necessary pages).

I will note that there are likely a lot of pages looking like Special:Permalink/1162572034 where the duplication does not fall into this category. I've got some free time over the next few days so I'll see about cleaning out the cat. Primefac (talk) 13:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Do you need to track those different timestamps or can we keep the newest? Kanashimi has prepared some code to clean these out. It was just the AFC ones I wasn't sure about. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are <100 so I will do them manually - I have already discovered basically every variant of what is possible (same reviewer multiple times, same reviewer duplicate tags, different reviewers multiple times, etc) so they'll need human intervention anyway. Primefac (talk) 15:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay great, thanks. And then how to prevent it recurring in the future? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The duplicates seem to fall into two categories: pages that were re-draftified and old pages that had the template before it was accepted (causing duplicates because the script wasn't that smart then). After this is cleaned out, theoretically any new instances of duplicate banner usage will be from a second accept following re-draftification, meaning they can just be combined without needing oversight to see if it's necessary. Primefac (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Novem Linguae, I was checking through the list of git issues and didn't see this as being something that AFCH should be doing - did we just never actually get around to making it an issue or did we end up scrapping it because it didn't have a strong enough consensus? It should reduce the chances of this sort of thing happening in the future.

On a related note, I have now removed all of the extant duplicate instances of this template either by merging or removal. Primefac (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd be in favor of just deleting old AFC banners, only keeping the newest one, and not bothering to track old accepts via parameters. I think that'd be simplest, and the information being discarded doesn't seem that important to me. Sounds like there's only 100 cases out of tens of thousands of accepts?

I agree that AFCH could be programmed to help with whatever we decide.

The AFCH algorithm that adds banners currently isn't in great shape, and can result in duplicate banners, no banner shell, etc. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I suppose "do nothing" works fine for me. I wasn't necessarily looking in too much depth when I was making the edits, but I think I only saw a single 2023 double-accept, so these are definitely few and far between. Manually updating them via the above-linked tracking category is probably the easiest way to go, with no need to update AFCH. Primefac (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]