User talk:Blueboar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to Blueboar's talk page... I am away from my computer right now, and can not respond to you. Please leave a message at the sound of the beep.....

(Please note that I regularly delete messages after I have read them. If you have posted a message for me, and no longer find it on the page, it means I have seen it. I do not archive old messages. If you need to retrieve something posted on this user page, you can find it in the page's history.)


Leave Messages and Comments below this line[edit]

Note about citations[edit]

I was just reading what you wrote here about citations.

I learned only a few months ago about the automated citation-creator that is in the plain wikitext editor. If you already know about this, I apologize, but if you didn't, you will find it a revelation.

It lets you create a fully formatted citation in a few seconds - with all those pesky parameters/fields filled out.

When you are in an edit window, up at the top there is a toolbar. On the right, it says "Cite" and there is a little triangle next to it. If you click the triangle, another menu appears below. On the left side of the new menu bar, you will see "Templates". If you select (for example) "Cite journal", you can fill in the "doi" or the "PMID" field, and then if you click the little magnifying glass next to the field, the whole thing will auto-fill. Then you click the "insert" button at the bottom, and it will insert a fully-formatted citation.

As you can see there are templates for books, news, and websites, as well as journal articles, and each template has at least one field that you can use to autofill the rest. The autofill isn't perfect and I usually have to manually fix some things before I click "insert" but it generally works great and saves a bunch of time.

Again, sorry if you already knew about it. For me, it was one of those "How in the world did I not know about this years ago??" kind of things. Jytdog (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

thanks Jytdog... Yes, I did know about it... but I appreciate the gesture of making sure. I actually find these automated formatting tools more confusing to use than the old fashioned hand formatted versions. (And I find they make articles much harder to edit when someone else uses them)... but that's just me. Blueboar (talk) 02:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 :) Jytdog (talk) 08:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


There are four broad types of AfC pages.

  1. Tagged AfC (by the editor who started the page or anyone else) but not submitted for review. Many never get submitted and go G13 stale.
  2. Submitted - if anyone hits a Submit button they go in the AfC backlog until they are accepted and published or rejected for some reason which leads to:
  3. Rejected pages which can be resubmitted or sit in the rejected categoried until they fall stale amd become subject to G13. By far most AfC submissions are rejected and eventually fall stale but quite a few are never submitted at all - often short stubs and bits of text or even otherwise blank pages. You can see a good cross section at User:MusikBot/StaleDrafts/Report
  4. Accepted - at AfC so moved to mainspace.

From a G13 poimt of view submitted vs unsubmitted has never mattered and still does not matter. Only the existence of the AfC tag on any page in Draft or userspace. The recent G13 expansion removed the existence of an AfC tag completely as a factor for Draft space. Hope that helps you out. Legacypac (talk) 02:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

It's number 1 that I don't understand... doesn't tagging for AFC automatically submit the page for review? If not, what is the point of an AFC tag? Blueboar (talk) 09:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
It provides a button to push to submit the page. Some human needs to decide when to submit for review right? Legacypac (talk) 10:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Ah... so the tag does not mean that the material has actually been submitted... it is merely a pointer to the submission process... the mechanism by which a submission is made? Blueboar (talk) 10
42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, and it is inserted automatically when you start a draft in the AfC process. The AfC tag also has a date in it that bots and humans can read to see how long ago the tag was applied. If someone reviews the draft (even comments) it moves the date forward. Examples here Legacypac (talk) 11:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
OK... I am obviously still confused by how the AFC process works in conjunction with userspace and draftspace... to my mind, drafts "started in the AfC process" should start in Draftspace. (ie if you start a draft using AFC, that draft should be located in Draftspace... not userspace.) Drafts started in userspace should not be part of the AfC process at all. That's what Draftspace is for. Blueboar (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)