Bringing up this past proposal and discussion. The new help pages are very nice, but they still have some holes left from the previous version. I thought I would work on clarifying some of these. There are pieces missing as we have found out from new reviewers attempting manual reviews. One item is the decline template inserted into the author's page is not addressed, or I have not found it. Any other things that may be missing? :- ) DCS18:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Your right DCS, that part is missing. Leaving the author a note is mentioned in the 'accept' section, but not the decline section. Feel free to edit ay improvements in; they were never intended to be a definitive version, more a revamp of the previous version. Do we know why the new reviewers were not using the script? Do we need to promote it more, or was it a personal preference to try to review manually? Pol430talk to me18:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I suggested to the reviewer involved that if he would like to continue with AfC that Twinkle was a good option. Maybe he was just testing the waters. We will see. I know I was totally confused starting out, until I figured out how everything was supposed to work. :- ) DCS20:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I've dona a minor edit regarding the script to make it a bit clearer, and also highlight that it's recommended that reviewers use it.- Happysailor(Talk)20:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I've added "If accepting an article about a living person, please ensure you add {{WPbiography|living=yes}} to the article talk page. This ensures such articles are placed in Category:Biography articles of living people." as a point to note, when accepting BLP articles. I think it's important this is done to ensure some extra level of scrutiny where BLP articles are concerned. It's not always done by the new page patrollers. Pol430talk to me18:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree, it is important that we keep track of BLP articles. With the AfC helper script, all the review has to do is enter the template in the talk page entry field, and the template will be inserted when the AfC talk page template is added. On a related note, what should we do about unsourced BLP articles (i.e. Category:AfC submissions declined as a non-notable biography). It really isn't a good idea having those lie around indefinitely. Alpha_Quadrant(talk)19:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm, 5,628 pages... I think the best solution would be to delete those that have not been edited within a certain timeframe (1 month perhaps), we could probably get away with that under G6 'housekeeping'. Perhaps getting a bot to do it? We'd need a new task request to go through the WP:BAG, presumably? As a lesser alternative, we could blank them all and replace with {{Afc cleared}}. Pol430talk to me19:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
If we delete, we had better put a big RED notice on the decline template with a warning, edit it or lose it. :- ) DCS06:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that's particularly helpful. The purpose of the exercise is get rid of submissions that violate WP:BLP. Giving an open invitation to people, to make edits to submissions they have not touched for x-amount of time, is only going to push those efforts back. If the submission is 'dead' (for want of a better term) then it's deletion should be fairly uncontroversial. Those editors who really want their submission back, after deletion, can have it restored—much like an expired PROD. Of course, if they fail to make any edits to it after restoration, then then it may be eligible for deletion again. Persistent violations can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Pol430talk to me10:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Some time ago I was cleaning up the "merge to" and the "already exist" cases finding many pages needing a history merge, but also had some useful references in which I merged into the mainspace articles. After some CSD declines of uninvolved admins and more or less discussions (some didn't answered), I gave up and stopped doing it. What I want to say: there are articles including some useful information which should/can be merged into mainspace articles (if there is one, there will be one). mabdul18:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
A good point. You mean, if there is one, there may be two? Thanks for ruining all the fun of a massive nuke. :- ) DCS14:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Everything under Category:AfC submissions declined as BLP violations needs to be nuked. The other cats should be manually gone through and have BLP violations tagged and destroyed. To be completely honest, is there any reason why we shouldn't get a bot to nuke declined submissions after x amount of time (a year?) without edits? Is there any need to keep old drafts? A possible reason would be to get WikiProject Userspace Drafts to plow through and try to shape up those declined articles. But, this is all just my opinion. Thanks, Nathan2055talk18:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Moving things round a bit
I have a suggestion that might order things a little better in regards to the tabs etc
Atm, we have the following tabs: Main page Reviewer talk Showcase Assessment Participants Resources Submissions Help desk
My suggestion is to switch it to: Main page Reviewer talk Showcase Participants Instructions Resources Submissions Help desk
Moving the assesment info & article alerts into the resources tab (along with the welcome template, barnstar, templates etc - but in collapse boxes where necessary), and then giving the instructions it's own tab on the top to make it easier to find. This makes more sense to me to how it's a bit scattered atm, and helps highlight the instructions more considering we're starting to get a few new reviewers coming through the door. Thoughts? - Happysailor(Talk)20:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
The reason I suggested to keep resources and get rid of assessment, is that half of the assessment page has nothing to do with assessment (Article Alerts) - so regorganising it under a more general heading seems like the better option. (especially since the welcome template & barnstar has nothing to o with reviewing instructions.
In regards to the order of the tabs, I don't really mind what order they go in - however I think the reason they are in the order they are at present is so that the 'public' side of the project was not 'jammed' in the middle of the project pages. (just my 2¢) - Happysailor(Talk)08:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I think if we move the Bot stuff to the bottom of the Assessment page, it would look more like an assessment page. For the most part, the only things on the Resources page that is not in the new Instructions is the banner and barnstar, they could/should be moved to the Main page. As to the order, I just wanted to get "our" stuff as far out of notice as possible, which I am guessing is to the right. :- ) DCS16:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree in part, though I don't think the article alerts belong on the assessment page at all. IN that case, move the alerts, welcome template & barnstar to the main page, the templates at the bottom should be in the instructions and that empties the resources page, so change it to the Instructions page in it's place.
As I said, I have no particular preference regarding the tab order, as long as it works for everyone - it can always be changed back/around etc if/as needed. - Happysailor(Talk)17:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Is it done yet? I can work on it as I need a break from real work. I noticed previously that the Tabs Page has some templates defaulted to true. Probably for a function that is no longer used. Is it normal to leave these artifacts in case they may be needed in the future, or zap them for speed? :- ) DCS00:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Cool, did we cover all the remaining miscellaneous templates on the Resources Page? I printed it out to check, I can do that, or just forget anything missed? :- ) DCS15:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
The ones that are still being used were already covered in the instructions, except the comment/question one which i added to the bottom of the instructions, the rest I put in the /Obsolete page - Happysailor(Talk)15:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I propose that the contents of this category be deleted. It's almost 2000 pages which are essentially blank and of no use to either Wikipedia or the project. I can do this through AWB fairly easily. Thoughts? - Happysailor(Talk)18:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I say nuke 'em if they haven't been edited in the last 30 days or so, although it might be more efficient to have an admin or adminbot do this, rather than having one user tag thousands of articles for speedy deletion (clogging up CAT:CSD in the process), and then having another user come through and perform the deletion. —SW—chatter18:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Are there any performing a pure deletion run? I could see it needing to go through BRFA (I can't see a bot that could do this at present?) - Happysailor(Talk)19:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah...an admin needs to do this task manually. Having a bot do this would risk the chance of deleting a poorly declined submission. CSD is not an option, as it would overload the deletion backlog. Alpha_Quadrant(talk)19:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
A bot could do it indeed: but this needs a calculation of the actual page size detecting the preload, afc submission templates etc . and if it is really blank then the bot could delete the page... I think if that bot is doing/programmed it correctly, we do not need any manual stuff. (esp if the article is in HTMl comments, which would not be recognized normally by a human!) mabdul14:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Looking at a selection of pages in tha category, about 800 bytes seems to account for the template, added text by the wizard and the bot tag for inline citations. Re: HTML comments, thats why I suggested using AWB as you can see the page source, however if we can get a bot to just do the deletions outright, would save alot of hasstle. - Happysailor(Talk)14:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps we should consider this in conjunction with the final few threads of this dicussion? It may be a good idea to evaluate exactly what we have hanging around in the decline categories; particular emphasis on unsourced BLP's and completely blank submissions. Pol430talk to me19:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I looked through a small sampling in the list. If we are going to clung together a script, I think we can look at date also, some are years old. Seems under 500 bytes is definitely useless and anything over 6 months regardless of size? Hummm, but then we have the problem of harvesting possibly good information that Mabdul mentioned above. Some of them are not really blank, they just appear that way because of bad tags and might be a few days old. In the meantime, we could manually CSD some manually. Not sure that we need an administrator to decide a submission is really blank. :- ) DCS05:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Although I'm strictly against a reviewer-bot, this task could be done by an admin bot regular in my opinion (after of course a big amount of time) - even more it could tag articles which are falsely reviewed as blank, but aren't. mabdul01:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I have started manual deletion with G6 as reason and "blank submission" as extra reason. About 10% have text hidden by a broken comment. I am resubmitting these no matter how old. And those less than one month old can hang around in case submitter actually wants to see the outcome of their submission. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
If they're blank, we should use an AfC bot to nuke them. Also posting above about nuking BLP pages. There's no point in keeping 1,712 blank pages just for sake of metrics or whatever we used to do with them. Sounds good to me! Thanks, Nathan2055talk18:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Just came across this - never seen it or heard it mentioned before - anyone use it? looks like it was created and only used by one or two people? and that it had some bugs. - Happysailor(Talk)14:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I commented out the listing from the Submissions page, but left a link. No sense sucking up server time for a 2 week old list. :- ) DCS21:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
When a reviewer is moving an Article for creation to the mainspace, whereby creating the need for a disambiguation page given the existence of other articles with the same or similar name, can the reviewer both create and approve the disambiguation page immediately and tag the pages. Or, should the reviewer create the disambiguation page and wait for another reviewer to approve it? Dalisays (talk) 05:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
You seem to know what you're doing, so I'd just go ahead and create the DAB page. The AFC project only exists because unregistered users can not create new pages (except talk pages) and because non-autoconfirmed users can't move pages. Pol430talk to me19:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
In the case of no disambiguation page sent to AFC, create it (or depending on the "mass of links") create hatnots. In case of already existing disambiguation pages, add the approve article. mabdul02:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm back
Hello, everyone. If you don't remember me, I'm Nathan2055 and I helped pretty vigorously around here last October. However, I stopped for a while and basically vanished (except for "must fix spelling errors..." edits). However, today I have decided to return! I'm still getting my feet wet with the new draft feature, but I hope to start helping out again soon! Thanks, Nathan2055talk - review20:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
That's good. I've already began to do various edits, including some AfC. I managed to find both an RfC I needed to make and a six-month old userspace draft I needed to move. Thanks, Nathan2055talk17:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
This page is for organizing the WWikipediaProject "Articles or Creation". Please consider asking this question at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. mabdul02:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Categories
Can we have a system of ensuring articles for creation are not placed in content categories? There is a smattering that pop up around the place. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Better still we need some code that allows categories to be added to drafts in AFC but doesn't show them in the category until the article is in mainspace. ϢereSpielChequers09:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
And here I shall take the opportunity to introduce the colon. This lovely symbol, placed at the beginning of the category link, shows the category and links it but does not actually add the page to the category. Amazingly enough, one or two of the scripts look for these colons and remove them in the second edit automatically made to the page. Hence, you can add categories with colons and when accepted by the most common script, they will be automatically removed and the page placed into the category. It's still a little unwieldy, but is that what you're sorta looking for? NoleloverTalk·Contribs13:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
yup that's a workaround, but a tad clunky. I think that works well for category disambiguation pages on Commons, but it is unsatisfactory here. I'm a hotcat user, and I doubt that hotcat would know to add the colon to categories going into AFC. ϢereSpielChequers18:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Cats should be getting delinked automatically om declined submissions by EarwigBot (talk·contribs), however looking at it's contribs, it doesnt seem to have done any in a while. I've raised this with the bot operator. - Happysailor(Talk)19:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Earwig is going to look into the Category delinking (and template de-transcluding) on declined submissions when he gets a chance. He raised a good point about cats in active submissions, in that it would highlight the submission to non-AfC people, and may get them involved - Happysailor(Talk)00:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Translation
In my view AFC should be working to a similar standard to newpage patrol, currently it seems to me to be much more stringent. Translation being an obvious example, if a non-english article turns up in mainspace we tag it for translation, here it gets deleted. Now my preference would be to move them to the language for that wiki, but it does seem anomalous that we aren't trying to translate stuff that comes in here but we do if it comes into mainspace. ϢereSpielChequers09:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think Nolelover said otherwise. The point is: we very very rarely delete things around here. Submissions are declined, with a constructive reason, and the submitter is encouraged to resubmit when they have made improvements. So the concept of a submission being "put on hold" is redundant. joe•roet•c19:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Like Joe says, "holding" a submission is a little redundant (unless you mean holding it in mainspace) but listing it at the Pages needing translation could be a very good idea (especially if there are sources or fairly extensive content). NoleloverTalk·Contribs19:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Just what we need, another to-do list, but a good idea. I tackle these lists from time to time, and I worry about translated, or need to be translated articles all the time, because I have one. Don't we have a list(we have a list for everything) of people willing to do translations? :- ) DCS04:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
@Pol430, that would seem a good step forward. I'd also suggest tweaking the way we communicate to these editors - the basic message being this is the English language Wikipedia, would you rather be on the language version that you are writing in? At present www.wikipedia.org/banana ultimately takes you to the English Wikipedia, which is probably for the best, but does mean we occasionally have to direct newbies to our sister projects. ϢereSpielChequers13:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate that standards are tighter at AFC than for creating articles in mainspace, I'm not sure why they are tighter and its one of the reasons why I wouldn't encourage newbies to use AFC; But looking at a few AFCs I've seen declines not just for being unreferenced, but for references not being inline....... ϢereSpielChequers09:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I do not believe that formatting issues or minor reference problems are valid declines at all, but I think that if this idea is widely held, we need to make it clear in the instructions. I'd be interested in knowing who the reviewer was for the articles you mention, although I think I might already know... NoleloverTalk·Contribs13:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps I've just come across one overly harsh editor, and I'm not going to single them out here as I've brought this to their attention elsewhere. I was assuming that as they were an AFC regular this might be a widespread AFC issue, but if you think this could be rare I'll check for other editors. ϢereSpielChequers18:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I saw where you brought it up, and that was not the editor I was referring to. I had seen a newer editor reviewing large amounts of submissions with less than satisfactory reasons and had brought it to his attention. He has yet to respond. Unfortunately, that decline is not as rare as I may have implied. It is often used as a sort of coverall when an article just has multiple generic problems.
NB: When I said "if this idea is widely held, we need to make it clear in the instructions", "this idea" was that formatting fixing is not a valid decline reason. NoleloverTalk·Contribs19:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree that inline citations shouldn't be something that should automatically initiate a decline from a reviewer (though if there are other problems, I usually point out via a comment that inline citations are preferred). We do seem to be in a process of adapting the instructions (and different aspects of the project) at the moment, especially as we seem to have some new reviewers working in the project that don't seem know how to review correctly due to one reason or another - Happysailor(Talk)19:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
The inline citations decline reason should only be used for submissions that fall foul of WP:MINREF. This is made clear in point 1 of the 'Invalid reasons for declining a submission' section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions. We always encourage new editors to learn about and use inlines, but personally I very rarely decline only because a submission lacks them. Of course, each reviewer has slightly different interpretations of policy and some reviewers are probably more harsh than others. Personally, I lean more towards inclusionism; although, I give short shrift to dodgy BLPs and spammy corporate stuff. Pol430talk to me23:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Is there a way to make the template support having multiple decline reasons? That would be useful in many cases. Oh, and is there a way to append text to the end of a standard message without copying the entire message into a custom reason? A412 (Talk • C) 04:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Multiple declines is reasonable but not easily possible, that is one of the main reasons for the Help Desk. :- ) DCS04:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that most of the declines for inline citations that I've seen are for violations of WP:MINREF, specifically regarding Biographies. Dalisays (talk) 11:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
If there are multiple reasons why an article has to be declined then I'd prefer having all of them communicated to the newbie, otherwise there is a risk that they fix the thing you mentioned but still get declined. If people are saying lacks inline refs when they should be saying "needs a reference (facebook doesn't count), and also the subject is insufficiently notable for a global encyclopaedia" then there is a risk that someone will simply make the facebook link inline.... ϢereSpielChequers13:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Lack of inline references IS, I believe, am almost certain, a currently valid reason for rejecting an article. But when you consider how YouTube videos get counted as valid reference sources, or a whole plethora of bare URLs stacked one after another, I'm inclined to think that that reason for rejection is used more as a catch all for some sloppily strung together article submission. --FeralOink (talk) 05:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
The reasons I had commented at Alex's talk page is because I believe he was doing something wrong - I'm not sure that you want people to come to you with the concerns some had about him... Regardless, I agree that sometimes inline citations is used as a catch all for general formatting issues sometimes, although I believe that only in BLPs should a lack of footnotes actually result in an outright decline. NoleloverTalk·Contribs14:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Nolelover for taking care of that repeatedly appearing Burroughs Payment Systems article submission that was full of copyright violations and advertising content! Thank you for responding to my comment above. I have edited out the emotional outburst and other off-topic sections. In case anyone reads this and wonders what you were referring to! --FeralOink (talk) 05:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'm seeing more and more people who think YouTube counts as a reliable source. I'm also starting to see more articles that use external links as citations (violation of WP:MINREF). --Nathan2055talk15:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Multiple decline reasons would probably be complex and time consuming to program into {{Afc submission}}. It's worth remembering that the 'custom' param can be used (very easily if using the script) and perhaps some of us need to make more of an effort to use that function to explain what the problems are. Example: It's fine to decline the first time with a template that accurately addresses the only real barrier to acceptance, but in the case of multiple issues, or after 2 templated declines, we probably need stop doing that and explain problems more explicitly. I appreciate that templated declines are great when wading through the backlog, but common sense must prevail. One thing I find useful is to identify Notability issues as early as possible. Refs can be added, citations can be formatted, and POV and advertising can be rewritten, but an inherently non-notable subject cannot be made notable though good editing. Pol430talk to me17:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
That is an excellent point/idea...maybe it would be worth setting up a "hierarchy" of sorts for decline reasons, with the notability decline reason always coming first (if applicable). It's obviously very easy (and quick) to say that the article has only unreliable sources (the "v" reason), but it helps the submitter much more if we tell (not template) him briefly about notability...I see a lot of custom messages with links to WP:VRS, which I believe is the best policy-type page on the site, and IMO those are far better then inviting the editor to add more blogs and FB pages. Anyway, perhaps we should change Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Reviewing_instructions to emphasize that even though "No reliable sources" is a quick-fail, it might not be the one you actually want to use. NoleloverTalk·Contribs17:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I've made some modifications to the order of the instructions and removed 'V' from the quick-fail criteria (I've also added attack pages and vandalism to quick-fail). I have amalgamated 'V' and 'N' into one section with some further explanation on these principles. Pol430talk to me18:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
'v' imo is different to 'nn'. If an article doesn't have any references (whether they're inline or listed) then it fails WP:V and can't be proven to pass WP:GNG. SOme things that dont have refs are blatently not notable, but everything must be verifible some how. If you get a submission which is just text, no active or inactive links in it; but it asserts notability, then we need to try and get the submitter to add a reference (inline or just detailed at the end) so it should be declined 'v'.
At present, i'm not sure if your still editing the instructions, or have just forgotten it, but 'v' currently isn't even in there. - Happysailor(Talk)21:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
You're quite right, I forgot to put 'V' back in there, thanks for reminding me. Yes, V and nn are separate issues, the problem seems to be that new editors (and new reviewers) easily confuse the two. Whilst it is true that everything must be verifiable, the superseding policy is WP:N, because it is the most basic criteria for inclusion and submissions can still be entirely verifiable but remain non-notable. The issue I'm trying to overcome is that often a submission is quickly declined (under 'V') because it has no references. This has the unfortunate effect of giving the author the impression that as long as they find some references their submission will be accepted. When in fact, the underlying problem is that the subject is inherently non-notable. The purpose of the exercise is to encourage reviewers to consider the notability of the subject, at the earliest opportunity, rather than lead the author down the garden path, only for them to find out (after X declines) that their chosen subject is inherently non-notable. Pol430talk to me21:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I've tweaked the wording for 'N' and 'V' in the reviewing instructions, to try and make things clearer. Please let me know if it has not worked. Pol430talk to me12:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Much better structure. I think overall the instructions are much better than a few months ago. Two questions:
Is there not a group that deals only with categories?
Would it be reasonable to ask the reviewer to actually check a blank submission for a format error? I think many times people hose their submission at the last second before submitting. :- ) DCS21:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Let's just stick this in here, rather than making a new section. I was looking at some submissions when I came across this decline:
This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, PAGEANT-THE MOVIE, which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one.
The problem is this article was not too bad, the other one really sucked. I don't remember this decline reason. When did it come about? :- ) DCS23:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
A link would be helpful, I can't find the submission in question. The reason has been around a while, it's up to the reviewer to decline the crappier of the two submissions and review the decent one. Pol430talk to me23:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Fixed I have removed the declines for duplication, and changed the decline of the inferior copy to 'duplicate'. There is also a custom decline for formatting! Which does not reflect very well on us. It's currently re-submitted for review. Pol430talk to me11:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for handling that, Pol430. Since I never used that decline before, I was not sure of all the requisites. Now as to my 2 previous questions, I think we should verify that a submission is really blank and not a bad tag before we decline, this will reduce editor frustration because of their mistake and also reduce poking through Category:AfC submissions declined as blank mentioned above. :- ) DCS17:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
As a point of note, I always hit edit on a blank submission before I tag it as such, because it can be so easy for a new editor to put the article between html tags that hide the content. - Happysailor(Talk)17:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Recently, I've been seeing submissions where the creator didn't bother to remove the previous declined review. What is to be done about that? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈14:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Are you referring to submissions that have actually been accepted into the main space but have old decline templates left on them? Or, submissions that are re-submitted for review but still contain old decline templates? In the case of the former, clean up the article and contact the reviewer who accepted it—with a gentle reminder about cleaning up new articles. In the case of the latter, it's normal to leave the previous decline templates in place, it assists other reviewers in establishing the decline history of a submission—and I think the bot uses them to keep track of prev-decs. Pol430talk to me18:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
He means templates including |u=Example and thus somebody should have add this. Or was this AFC bot? (similar to the AWB job some weeks ago/in January) mabdul02:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Or the third thing it could mean, is that some people, instead of fixing the text that was declined, they copy & paste it further down the page, and edit that - leaving the declined article on the page as well as their current article for review - Happysailor(Talk)16:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I've been seeing what *sorry, won't resolve correctly, PurpleBackPack89) pack89 described too. I don't know what is going on, though e.g. whether associated with what User:Pol430 or User:Mabdul or User:Happysailor describes. This is what I'm observing (perhaps due to that recent plage or plag overload enwiki backlog recapitulating the phylogeny ontogeny error message for the past few weeks?): Normally there is the to be reviewed template. I use the script that the nice man, I forgot his name, but it is JavaScript, wrote to facilitate the reviewing process. Okay, so recently, I've been seeing both the AFC bot doing its tidying (which is normal) as well as the seeming detritus of past article review rejections. However, there aren't signatures from previous reviewers, else I would contact them. I've checked the dates, and sometimes they show the article was edited or reviewed on the same day that I am looking at it. There is some sort of Article Creator thing too, which does a pretty abysmal job viz. the Burroughs Payment Systems article. But even then, there is always a user, or more often, a bare IP address, associated with it. Anyway, I can't tell if the article has been reviewed already, and hasn't gotten flushed out of the to be reviewed queue, or if it was reviewed, then resubmitted, then reviewed then resubmitted repeatedly, all within the span of a single day. The most recent article I reviewed, about Burroughs Payment Systems is a good case in point. I hadn't noticed this going on until the backlog got up over 200 though. I'm sorry for my lack of specificity and clarity, but my PC is just about to crash or lose my internet connection, thus the garbledness. So what should I do, when reviewing articles? Just ignore the detritus of past reviews? At what point is it excessive? Or should I just not worry and be bothering you all about this stuff? Thank you, and again, I'm sorry to sound like an idiot here. --FeralOink (talk) 04:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, every editors is free to resubmit a draft, and that was the reason why we recently discussed about a semi protection for extreme cases! A common problem is that the users don't understand the decline reason(s) because they are simply "not simple". "Third party", "independent", "reliable", "non notable", etc. are all magic words getting even experienced editors in trouble. If you recognize many decline reasons, simply check the history since the last review: most drafts won't have any real/big progress so you simply can declining because of "gaming the system". If there is a progress, I recommend a full review. (depending on the length of the article ^^) mabdul09:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
The post I have made above, refers to this article—it needs to be moved from userspace to AFC space. Once a user has requested review at AFC then it is preferable to move the page to AFC project space. An article should only be created in the mainspace (accepted) if it meets the core policies. It does not matter where it comes from. In this case, I can't see that there is enough information present to determine the subjects notability. The submission is also lacking in reliable sources. Personally I would decline it on notability grounds. Pol430talk to me00:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I tried to knock back some of your backlog today. I read the docs and think my BS detector is well-calibrated, but if any of you feel inspired to look over my shoulder and tell me how I fucked it up, my talk page is Kilopi (talk) 05:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Generally, you are doing pretty well. this one should really have been declined for notability rather than verifiability—I've amended the decline reason. This one should not have been declined on verifiability grounds either. I'll have a closer look at that one. Pol430talk to me10:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Since the template is designed for cut-and-paste use, I think "<br/>{{tlx|afc cleared}}" would be a good addition to the "Template to use" column for "Quick-fail reason: Vandalism or attack page". This reinforces the instructions given in the "Description" column.
I did a minor change to the reviewer instructions, I added a sentence explaining how to turn a pending submission into a draft if the need arises (the diff is here). Thanks, Nathan2055talk21:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Suggest a modified wording: "If you would like to start writing a new article, please see: Wikipedia:Starting an article for more information. If you have an idea for a new article, but would like to request that someone else write it, please see: Wikipedia:Requested articles." Make it clear, for the first option, that they will be expected to write it. Avoid use of the word 'own'—We don't want to encourage new authors to have a sense of WP:OWNership over pages. Pol430talk to me22:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Gotcha. Done Pol created the template, and i've linked it into the edit notice of the help desk. Pol - I did change the image at the start to an 'i' image. - Happysailor(Talk)15:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Me, Earwig, and Mabdul just pushed AfC helper script 4.1.2 to all users. The update adds a new checkbox to the decline reasons, allowing you to tell the user about the Teahouse! If you encounter any bugs or have any suggestions, please drop a note here. Thanks, Nathan2055talk21:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Here's a picture of the new update's feature.AfC helper script 4.1.2 includes a new Teahouse invitation option! (Copyright images and name of the article have been blurred for free use reasons.) --Nathan2055talk01:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I Hope you don't mind, but I've fixed your comment which stated you've updated to 4.2, as you haven't - you've updated to 4.1.2. It had me confused for a bit. - Happysailor(Talk)15:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I like the Teahouse-Invite but have run into an issue, not sure what can be done about it. Is there any way for the Tool to check to see if the Teahouse-Invite has already been placed on the draft-submitter's talkpage? I have come across the fact that a talk page can already have the invite on it (from a previous Decline or a post from a Teahouse project member). I don't want to then put a duplicate Invite on the talkpage but with the way the Pending Submissions backlog can quickly mushroom sometimes it doesn't seem like there is time to check each and every draft-creator's talkpage. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I thought I would help with backlog and tidied up an article and then approved it.
However, it seems to have disappeared completely.
The name of the article was Greg McKeown (Leadership Author).
Independentwriter (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I moved it to the correct space. Please consider reading our review guidelines and also consider using our "AFC review helper tool" (should also be linked in the review guide, I can help you "installing" it). Regards, mabdul14:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
A hurricane is a tropical storm with sustained winds of 74 miles per hour or more.
Hurricane winds blow in a large spiral around a relative calm center known as the "eye." The "eye" is generally 20 to 30 miles wide and the storm may extend outward 400 miles.
Hurricanes last for several hours and can last for more than 2 weeks over open waters.
A hurricane damages structures through storm surge, rainfall-caused flooding, as well as high wind impacts.
The Atlantic Ocean hurricane season officially begins on June 1 of each year and continues until November 30.
Tornadoes
A tornado is a violent windstorm characterized by a twisting, funnel-shaped cloud. It is usually spawned by a thunderstorm (or as a result of a hurricane).
Winds swirl around in a spiral at 40-320 mph. In the middle is an eye of descending air, surrounded by a strong upward current. The average diameter of a tornado tends to be a mile or smaller.
Most tornadoes last less than 10 minutes. However, some have been known to last over an hour.
Damage is caused primarily from extreme winds and wind-blown debris.
Tornado season is generally March through August. Also, over 80 percent of all tornadoes strike between noon and midnight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.0.58.210 (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
How many sons of aristocracy were in the front lines, or near the front lines of world war one and world war two?
How many of those killed were sons of aristocracy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.30.37 (talk) 02:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. --Nathan2055talk15:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I have working working in AfC, RfC, and FFU. I have noticed that there are two userboxes for this project. {{User AfC}} and {{User RfC}}. I think it would be cool to have a new userbox for WP:FFU. Can I create this for this project? WheresTristan17:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, folks. I was just re-reading the reviewing instructions and noticed a new clause under section two about verifiability. For convenience, the quote is: "If what is written in the submission meets the notability guidelines, but the submission lacks references to evidence this, then the underlying issue is verifiability and the submission should be declined for that reason." I would be remiss not to point out that this appears to abrogate the accepted guideline about notability; from WP:NRVE: "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation." Is this intentional for AfC? NTox · talk07:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
The spirit of WP:NRVE is that 'notability requires verifiable evidence'. With that in mind, it does not appear that requiring submissions to evidence claims of notability, through the presence of references, abrogates that guideline. The purpose of the new clause is to encourage reviewers to consider a submission's notability before lesser factors. This is designed to overcome the problem that new editors submit an article to AfC, that is declined multiple times, for other reasons, only to find it is ultimately declined for notability—much to the fury of the new editor, who leaves us all a nice note at the helpdesk, about how stupid they think Wikipedia is. The issue of verifiability over notability was discussed at the time this clause was added (original discussion here). Both are valid decline reasons. Is there some part of that section of the reviewing instructions that you think fundamentally undermines the spirit of WP:V or WP:N? Pol430talk to me14:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. I think the intentions are fantastic (and I empathize with the submitters who have dealt with what you described), but I am concerned that the distinction has blurred between the meaning of 'verifiable' and 'verified'. i.e., if a statement is verifiable, that means it is possible to find a reliable source to support it (hence, able to be verified); if a statement is verified, that means it actually has been supported with a citation. Thus, when WP:NRVE says that 'notability requires verifiable evidence', it refers to having reasons to believe that one is able to find reliable sources that have covered topics, not actual citations. The reviewing instructions, by saying that when a 'submission lacks references to evidence [notability], then the underlying issue is verifiability' is consequently illogical, since a lack of references does not change one's ability to support statements with reliable sources. (My goodness. Nothing like meta-Wikipedia for some critical thought in the morning!) NTox · talk15:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't agree with your definition of 'verifiable'; it does not appear to gel with the opening line of WP:V (which is included in the WP:5P). I feel the need, at this point, to make it clear that AfC does not require editors to use inline citations unless the material meets WP:MINREF. The presence of general references, external links and bibliographies is just as acceptable. Also, if you are suggesting that it should be the responsibility of the reviewer to add references or search for sources, before declining a submission, then I would point you toward WP:BURDEN. AfC is not AfD and I believe NRVE was written to have more relevance to deletion discussions. Whilst it is true that we do not delete articles based on a lack of references present, that does not hold true for creating articles. To do so, would fundamentally undermine WP:V and by extension WP:N. Pol430talk to me15:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I think this issue is broad enough so that it won't be easily solved here. But, I can say that verifiability has always been about ability to cite sources as opposed to actually citing them. The reason that this currently appears to conflict with WP:V is because one month ago that page was fully protected due to a content dispute. The residue of this 'tweak' edit has thus remained on the page, and further changes to that paragraph have been suspended pending a mediation process. These sentiments are not my own definition; in addition to WP:NRVE, see [2], [3], [4], etc., if you trust those users more. Moreover, I agree that citations in AfC wouldn't need to go beyond the stipulations of WP:MINREF, and I am aware of WP:BURDEN, but I would add that an AfC reviewer has at least some responsibility to use good sense and check sources for really outlandish statements. In any case, I think AfC should make clear to what extent reviewers should be consistent with WP:N, because the current reviewing instructions prescribe reviewers to follow it, and the basis of those guidelines require editors to search for sources outside of Wikipedia. Thanks for reading. NTox · talk17:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
NTox, I understand your issue with the directions, and yes, there is a little cognitive dissonance here but I don't think that the AfC instructions are really out of line. Unfortunately, due to the old low-hanging fruit problem, I think there's a little...well...almost bad-faith necessary to review articles. I generally go into a submission assuming that if the editor hasn't provided sources, I should decline it without searching because it's probably not notable. In fact, a high percentage of the submissions I do accept are somewhat based on offline sources, or places that I would not/could not look. It's very rare that I see a submission that a) is obviously notable, sources or no sources b) I could easily source sufficiently. Hence, I imagine that many reviewers, consciously or not, will think that if something is not verified, it won't be verifiable either. Not that it's right, but...well, does that make sense? NoleloverTalk·Contribs17:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Certainly, and I agree that a form of that methodology is likely the best (albeit temporary) course of action as long as AfC continues to suffer from backlogs. I would merely suggest that the reviewing instructions are modified to clarify that AfC specifically requires submitters to substantiate notability with references, which is at variance with WP:N. It is not a perfect solution, since it is inconsistent with broader protocols—as well the information given to newcomers and submitters (see[5])—but it no doubt speeds up our work. NTox · talk19:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
How about amending the wording of that section of the reviewing instructions to: "If what is written in the submission meets the notability guidelines, but there are no references to evidence this, then the underlying issue is verifiability and the submission should be declined for that reason." This wording makes no emphatic requirement for the references to be present in the submission, but upholds the spirit of WP:V and WP:N? Pol430talk to me18:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Unfortunately, I'm not sure that the meaning has changed from the original. As before, the claim is made that the absence of citations is equivalent to the non-existence of information in reliable sources. Likewise, I get the impression that verifiability is being characterized as a topic issue, which it partly is of course, but it would be better to refer to notability there instead. Note the new suggestion I made above; I'll be online later tonight. NTox · talk19:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
→By the way, I would be negligent not to add that I intend no disrespect with these qualms. I know you recently worked hard on a rewrite of those instructions, many of which are excellent. My interest is merely to make them even better. NTox · talk19:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
It seems like the problem here is that if verifiability is used rather than whether or not an article is verified, this places far too much burden at AFC on reviewers, making it more like WP:RA. A412 (Talk • C) 19:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
@NTox, then please make a suggestion for improving the wording of the instructions—bearing in mind the need to write plainly so that new reviewers, who are not policy wonks, can still understand them. The issue of verifiability vs verified is beyond the scope of this WikiProject and discussion on that matter still seems to be taking place at WT:V, and presumably at the mediation case, which I have not looked up yet. Pol430talk to me20:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to submit an AfC request if you've created a substantial body of work, but there is a small article already? I'm asking regarding Honeywell Aerospace and my draft. I could submit a {{request edit}}, but I think those are usually for smaller edits. Thoughts? User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 03:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Eclipsed and Pol430. And how long does the AfC process take? I'm not asking to rush. I just know it says "a few days," but I also see a queue of 500, so I'm pretty sure the backlog is longer. I have a submission in the queue. BTW if there is some way I can help with the queue on a volunteer basis, I'm up for that. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 21:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Moved tabs so hopefully there will be less spam on Reviewer Talk
If you don't like, you can always revert it. I also changed the Submissions Page so it will automatically reformat with the proper links when the listing template quits working. :- ) DCS19:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
No objections to the changes; except, what's with the help desk tab in red? It looks a bit... Well... scary! Off-putting for newbies? Pol430talk to me20:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Designed to attract their attention away from Reviewer Talk. I can make the text red only, or what would you like? :- ) DCS23:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Well it certainly worked for me! How long have we had a help desk for? I've had no idea. How does it sustain itself? sonia (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm assuming that the OP is trying to craft a witty tweet but kept running into the 140-character limit and is doing the best he can to cut letters whenever possible. Hey, if it works... NoleloverTalk·Contribs23:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Please consider asking this question at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what the Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. :- ) DCS20:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
After my edit request failed (see Template talk:User sandbox#add AFC button), I try to gain consensus here: I want to change {{User sandbox}} similar to {{userspacedraft}} and adding a "Submit!" link. If this link gets included, we get even more work (yes I know that we are heavily backlogged) and we would have to move many more pages by hand because these user space drafts are all located at /sandbox. Any ideas? mabdul11:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, this place is as intuitive as Chinese. I'm not sure how the editor is scripted, but there seems to be acres of room on it's menu bar for the addition of a "Submit" button, or possibly a menu of options, but I'm not sure what else you would do with a page other than submit to AfC. Maybe a "Move to Main Space" button also? :-p The editor is always there, no matter where you are :- ) DCS17:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
While I support the idea in principle, The increased necessity to move pages by hand concerns me. Is there any way the AfC bot could be tasked to check for the bolded title text of a page and then move the page to project space, based on that name? Pol430talk to me21:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I just checked at MediaWiki, and for what it's worth, the WikiEditor appears to be a client side script and the menu is designed to be modified. I'm not sure if this requires an Act of God or not, but there could be another drop-down added when in User Space to "Move this Page". Then, move this page to AfC, RfC, "My Sandbox", "User:Nolelover/", "Delete this Page", etc. :- ) DCS17:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
OTRS tickets
OTRS tickets are normally located on a talk page. Recently, after I userfied an article, I placed the ticket on the appropriate talk page. When the user submitted the page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Annie Khalid the bot left the ticket behind. This could have cause the submission to fail for copyright violation - lucky I spotted it and added the ticket to the top of the page (as there is no talk page!). Could we not have the ArticlesForCreationBot check the talk pages for valid OTRS tickets? Ronhjones (Talk)19:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
We could probably ask User:Petrb to do that, but it wouldn't help when someone moves a submisison from userspace manually through the link on {{Afc submission}}. Honestly this looks like it is going to happen so infrequently it's a waste of time doing anything special. It's not very hard to spot and the tag can just be temporarily moved to the top of the submission. Worst case scenario a submission gets declined as copyvio and the submitter has to point out the mistake. joe•roet•c20:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
James Stewart a Soldier and his wife was Ann Keith
I'am looking for some help in my family back ground, my four fathers was James Stewart a Soldier and his wife was Ann Keith in the year they give birth to Rebecca Stewart who is berried in Glenmuick in the Royal Deeside she died a aged 91 in 1869 and John Riach he was a Labour in Ballater at that time also I do know he was a Jacobite to, Rebecca Stewart was born in the year of 1777 so James Stewart and Ann Keith was still alive - I'am not off King James Stewart and Ann Keith's family tree, I would like to be? so can someone, could help me with my family tree of James Stewart and Ann Keith. yours James Stewart the fourth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.150.195 (talk) 17:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if anyone else is having an issue but since earlier today if I send anyone a Teahouse invite the tool stickts on Checking for Previous invite. Jamietw (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, under which circumstances was the decline? Did the user had already a talk page? An invitation? Any other problems? mabdul19:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Any submission declined v (unsourced) user already had talk page Zusing both Furefox and Safari (not tried other browsers). Hope this helps.Jamietw (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Strange. Please bypass your browser's cache again. I did again two declines, with and without an invitation and it worked here. The new part of the script was now tested by me with Firefox (latest), Opera (latest) and Internet Explorer 9 (latest) on Win7. If there are more reports, get an admin reverting the last revision of the tool. mabdul21:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Despite the fact that my bug fix was wrong (not changed, only makes the script unnoticeable slower, will improve some stuff after that weekend); following the #wikipedia-en-afc-feedconnect channel noticing that many people don't have any problems. So, try another browser and purge/bypass/clear your browsers cache again or try using another PC. (might also help...) mabdul22:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
With the new version I fixed three bugs ("adding TH invitation" to the correct edit summary, no problems any more with existing or non-existing pages, the links are now going to the correct location while declining), don't forget to bypass your browser's cache! Regards, mabdul21:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Citation bot is broken
I was just reviewing some pending articles for creation. First I run Ref Links check, then the Citation checker. Ref Links was fine. This is what was returned by Citation bot:
403: User account expired
The page you requested is hosted by the Toolserver user verisimilus, whose account has expired. Toolserver user accounts are automatically expired if the user is inactive for over six months. To prevent stale pages remaining accessible, we automatically block requests to expired content.
If you think you are receiving this page in error, or you have a question, please contact the owner of this document verisimilus [at] toolserver [dot] org. (Please do not contact Toolserver administrators about this problem, as we cannot fix it—only the Toolserver account owner may renew their :account.) HTTP server at toolserver.org - ts-admins [at] toolserver [dot] org
I tried this with two different articles for creation, waited about 10 minutes, purged cache etc. I've never had this happen before, and the tool is an important feature that is valuable for doing Afc reviews! --FeralOink (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
One more detail in case it helps, I should have included it before. This is the URL associated with the 403 error page content I pasted above. I am "obfuscating" the bare URL just well, because I do that to be safe.
hxxp://toolserver.org/~verisimilus/Bot/citation-bot/doibot.php?edit=toolbar&slow=1&user=&page=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/blah --FeralOink (talk) 19:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
To change the tittle of an articlle pending of revision for approval
After have sent, for its possible acceptation in Wikipedia, an article entitled "Hyperia", I have checked there is already a brief article with this same title. So, I suggest this new title: "Hyperia: A superior cerebral function of epileptic nature"
--Japal1950 (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
One of your customers has turned up at WP:NHD. Their article Chicken Boy has a "Article not currently submitted for review" template. Clicking the link to submit it adds a second "review waiting" template, but does not remove the "not submitted template". Is your system broken? SpinningSpark08:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I suggest that topics that are listed as suggestions for submission be shown as such when someone searches (unsuccessfully) for such an article in Wikipedia. There are a number of reasons for my suggestions, but one that should be enough is that the searcher then is saved the time and effort (not always easy, especially for a non-editor who has never done this before) of making a listing suggestion (only to find, perhaps, that it has already been made). Kdammers (talk) 07:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Random Wiki trivia - History is written by the winners
I have been in edit wars, and gave up, after being bombarded by book facts. How can 40+ years of experience compete with last year college book written by the company which wants control of the format, whether it relates to reality or not?
:- ) Don00:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the idea, but 40 years of reference material, most company confidential, with you as one of the primary sources? College boys - 1, Wikipedia - 0. :- ) Don03:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
A flaw in the Wiki, I suppose. I already got trouted for suggesting that Windows does not meet the requirements of RTOS no matter how much publicity Microsoft spews. :- ) Don03:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I came hear a few days ago just to leave a note, saw your enormous backlog and decided to help clear a few of them. I have never worked around here before so I am probably making all kinds of mistakes. My latest disaster that needs to be untangled is Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Qfinance. I marked it as Review in Progress, but then decided that I only wanted to leave a comment and leave it to another reviewer to decide whether to decline or accept. The Review in Progress template needs removing and returning to Awaiting Review, but I do not know how to do this. At least, I do not know how to do it without upsetting your bots. SpinningSpark01:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
We have a backlog number that means little to anyone who does not work here every day. And, it still means little because I don't know what formulas and critera was used to determine when a backlog exists. The natives seem to be getting more an more restless on the help page. The thought occurred to me the other day, and Earwig did not think I was totally crazy, like normal. The statistics page has the number of articles up for review. It also has the accepted and declines over the past 48 hours. If we total the articles for review and divide by the sum of accepted + the sum of declines over the past 48 hours, then multiply the result by 48, we get a real backlog in hours updated hourly because of the 48 hour running totals of declines and acceptances. :- ) DCS20:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
:Not meaning to be an asshole, but everyone who knows me, considers me a total(F...king) asshole. That being said, it sometimes turns out that the Asshole was right, because everyone else has their head up their ass. You are getting on average over 200 submissions a day, anyone with an asshole would know that setting 24 articles as a backlog is an Asshole move. Who are you kidding? Yo Mama? The WMF, that you can probably do, they don't seem to have the sense of a wet rock. But you don't need a Ph.D to cypher 600/24, when you tell people it might be a day or so. I explained how to give people a realistic number, if you want to play your head games :- ) DCS01:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Total retraction, change the template to "Your article will be reviewed in one or two minutes - The AfC Team" :- ) DCS01:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I only skimmed this a few days ago and the numbers flew right over my head, but looking again I think DCS is spot on here. Like it or not, AfC is going to end up more and more like NPP in terms of a perpetual backlog, and the current rating system is completely ridiculous TBH. I have no idea how to implement this, but I'd be in full support. NoleloverTalk·Contribs03:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I've been away for a couple of weeks, so I'm not sure what caused DCS to go wibble in the second post, but his idea seems sound, and I support it also. I also have no idea how to implement this suggestion, so the ball is in your court DCS. Pol430talk to me16:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Pol430 in the above post. Anything (even if it's math calculations I don't understand) to help us reduce this backlog. --Nathan2055talk22:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
It will not reduce the backlog but it will give a number with which people can relate. I gave Earwig, the calculations the coefficients of which already fall out of his statistics program. And, I am sure he understands the above. An exponential moving average would be more accurate if we were a commodities market, but without infinite supply and demand, AfC does not follow supply and demand rules at this time. Sorry for the crap, but my whole life is crap right now. :- ) Don21:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Dear :- ) Don, I am totally sympathetic and can relate. The radio box on my user page that has the number of articles for review has remained an angry, inflamed, deep red color indicating pernicious backlog for well over five consecutive weeks. You are NOT an a**h***! Your suggested formula is probably okay, but make sure to look at a few days of results before implementing, or rather, before having Earwig put it into production. Alternatively, if you just want SOMETHING rather than the angry inflamed user base that exists at present, you could back test it, say, over the past month, and if it looks okay, it could be implemented as soon as Earwig were ready. You are good and virtuous for caring about this situation.
If I were in charge of things here, I would escalate this so that your suggestion were implemented as an immediate stop-gap measure. Even something like Be patient, as it may be days or weeks until your submission is reviewed would be preferable to unrealistic estimates, which are, in effect, as bad as false promises. Don't let this get you too agitated though, because the restlessness among the natives is inevitable, and not as dire as it might seem. This is why: There is little or no glory in doing AfC reviews, but great glory in submitting AfC.
In fact, there are many reasons NOT to do AfC reviews, as it makes one subject to abuse upon declining articles. If you say on your user page: I have CREATED an article on this, and this, and this! you will be perceived with awe and veneration. If you say I have reviewed X,XXX,XXX AfC and accepted XXX,XXX AfC (or more likely XX,XXX as there are so many AfC submissions which are spam, or grossly inadequate and non-compliant with the most basic rules and requirements stated clearly by WP), you will have your page vandalized and/or feel depressed. Economists and commodities markets fans would call this a "perverse incentive", although it is part of human nature, and not WPF's fault. Everyone wants to be a Creator, not an Enforcer of the Rule of Law. Yet it would all fall apart without your efforts (and mine too, as I prefer doing AfC reviews and copy edits, and updates of old stuff rather than writing new things).
Okay, back on topic Feel free to ask for my assistance in checking the results from Earwig's data, if you need any help. Two longer term solutions, once the immediate situation is addressed (neither of which are excessive, when one considers the scope and influence of Wikipedia), are the following:
Use an M/G/1queueing model as the basis for the time-to-wait notification. That is equivalent to a random rate of article submission, with an unknown rate of reviewer service times. Closed form solution is available. Actually, it should be an M/G/c queue where c=number of active reviewers, or a best guess, maybe 10 or 20, as a starting assumption. This is NOT esoteric nor excessively complicated, as my local Piggly Wiggly supermarket, and Walmart's everywhere use queuing theory for determining the optimal numbers of cashiers, and queue layout, so as to keep everything moving nicely. I can provide a citation for that, if any should request. M/G/1 queues are also used to gauge disk drive performance. Please see this non-numeric, non-quantitative overview, teeming with examples, for further details. (I am Feral Oink, of course).
Include a message prior to every article submission that reads as follows, or with equivalent meaning, Your AfC request will be expedited if you review n={1,2,5} other AfC that are currently in the queue, IMMEDIATELY after submitting your AfC. No programmatic action would be needed to implement this, other than the pop-up message. Alternatively, the message could merely be appended to the existing script. It would not be deceptive to do this, because it is factually accurate. However, there is the implication that there will a system-instigated reward, which is a much better motivator, I am certain. There are longer-term, secondary benefits as well, namely, the encouragement of COMPASSION and RESPECT as well as KNOWLEDGE. This is why:
Many Creators of Articles will become more proficient Creators, and less inclined to evil or spammy behavior if they know what is involved in reviewing an AfC.
They will no longer feel as though their articles are arbitrarily rejected by adolescent (age OR maturity) and/or arrogant Wikipedian's and thus feel more empowered.
They will feel less resentful when their articles are declined. There is nothing better for explaining a situation to someone than allowing them to experience it first hand (a metaphor that escape me at present, along the lines of "walking or standing in someone else's shoes", I don't recall exactly).
In fact, they just might find that they enjoy reviewing AfC so much that they would prefer it to creating AfC. We need reviewer-copy editor-fact checker types. Also, it is incontrovertible fact that there are countless articles in Wikipedia that are badly in need of updating or copy editing, but no one wants to do that, as it is thankless and inglorious.
All AfC's CANNOT be accepted by Wikipedia, else it will degrade into a useless mess of bias and debris, chewing up disk space and servers and destroying the environment. Well, that is a little extreme, but you get the idea.
I think this is more than adequate. Or not... (this will be all, I promise). "Why should we listen to YOU?" may be what you are thinking. Well, you needn't abide by all my recommendations, of course! However, I am not one of the afflicted that :- ) Don so eloquently described as having their head up their ass.
I speak with the voice of specialist education, namely a Master of Science degree in Operations Research from Stanford University, and an M.B.A. in Finance from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.
I speak with the voice of experience: I worked as disk-drive (DASD) performance engineer for IBM for three years. I later worked as a state employee providing medical and mental health care to Children with Special Health Care Needs, until the budget cuts sent me to into perma-furlough and unemployment. ("Special" as in children with terminal or severely debilitating conditions such as cystic fibrosis, congenital deformities that impede normal function, cerebral palsy, and more. I'm not trying to get sympathy. Full disclosure: I worked as a statistician and fraud investigator, not as a clinician).
I speak with the voice of understanding, namely, a tendency to act in unproductive ways when I feel frustrated, disenfranchised and/or ignored.
I invoke all of that when I say to you, :- ) Don, that I am sorry to hear that your "whole life is crap right now", and that I sincerely hope things get better soon. I am of a similar mind-set myself, to be honest. Perhaps the WF would see fit to hire us on a retainer basis, to redesign and implement maintenance and utility functions on WF sites? (I can dream...) I commend you and Earwig for your efforts to make things better, I truly do. You should receive a barnful of barn stars, or better yet, a cash award for caring about the feelings of others, and actually taking it upon yourself to DO something about it (e.g. writing this entry, proposing a mitigating solution, identifying others whose work would help accomplish this, and approaching said party with a successful outcome), rather than merely complaining bitterly. --FeralOink (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
The idea about submitters reviewing other submissions is not a good one (IMO). AfC is supposed to be a forum for IP editors to create articles that they do not have the technical ability to create themselves. In reality, it has become a quasi-review process for anyone who does not realise they can just create an article directly in the mainspace (or does not want to). Most of the users that make submissions to AfC are not sufficiently competent to review submissions and either, appropriately decline it or appropriately accept it. Many of them also lack the technical ability to move pages, which is part of the acceptance process; some (the IPs) lack the ability to create non-talk pages and would be doubly stuck. In the past 5 months we have seen many improvements in AfC, but we have also seen some of our most prolific and long-term reviewers quit AfC or leave Wikipedia altogether. The number of submissions has gone up, and the number of reviewers has not increased, hence the perpetual backlog. In some ways, the increase of registered users coming through AfC has been a good thing: it has taken pressure off new page patrol and it has taken pressure off AfD. Nevertheless, reviewing at AfC remains a thankless task, recently I have found that I have not been able to get beyond the basic maintance tasks in this project, like moving userspace submissions that the bot can't move, or 'fixing' duplicate submissions; and CSD tagging those submissions that need to be deleted. In short, we need more good quality reviewers, but I have run out of ideas of how to get them involved. Alternately, we bring AfC back to its original function, which is to assist IP editors. Pol430talk to me15:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Talk page project templates
When reviewers look at articles, do they consider adding talk page templates? For example, I just added templates to Talk:The Old 76 House, as part of my effort to get every Hudson Valley article rated. Overall, 13.7% of Wikipedia articles are unrated by quality, and 42.3% are unrated by importance. Improvement in these statistics is difficult when new articles go unrated. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, most reviewers do rate all articles they accept to mainspace, and we can be pinged on the help desk for a re-review as far as I know. --Nathan2055talk22:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Depends how much time I have/how big the backlog is. I always add {{WPBiography|living=yes}} to article about living people (regardless of backlog), but anything else is a bonus. I do believe the next version of the reviewer script will have a project tagging interface to allow us to select project banners from a list. Pol430talk to me22:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
The templates are only half the battle... the reason why so many articles are unrated is that many of the individual WikiProjects are themselves inactive. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Most wikiprojects are useless. I have worked with ~3 projects since the beginning and see how they failed. It's mostly only a discussion forum on special topics but fail to attract enough (new) users to run the discussion further. Similar to portals, they should be merged and many projects should simply get /nuked/. I'm somebody who is tagging articles with {{reqphoto}}{{reqinfobox}} and many wikiprojects, but sadly I have never seen anybody by the wikiproject improving the article. (only assessment) Not really a big help... But this is the wrong place to discuss this I would guess. mabdul09:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Template suggestions
A number of submissions rapidly build up a large stack of declined templates (at this size 3 is a large stack). Most of the template is duplicated, and it doesn't say who declined nor the time, so it's not apparent wheterh one should look at the top or bottom of the stack. May I suggest:
Display the date and time
Display the decliner's name
Have a "short" switch so that after the first decline a much smaller template can be displayed. Alternatively remove the previous decline.
The afc helper tool already adds after declining |decliner= and |declinets= - and moreover this was already added to the {{AFC submission}}, but was first modified (removing the direct link to contact the reviewer) and then removed. mabdul09:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion, it is impolite not to display the name of the reviewer and a link to their talk page. Yes, the editor can look in edit mode, or they can look in the history, but why put them to that trouble? I always sign my reviews (when I remember) but I note many other reviewers don't write anything, just leaving it up to the template to insert standard text. I think a signature should automatically be added as default. There could be an optional parameter to suppress this for those who have reason to stay anonymous.
I agree old templates should be combined. I have seen some submitters removing old templates (don't blame them, a lot of them will get in the way) which obscures the review history. Also, I have seen some templates which end up out of historical sequence for some reason. A combined template would fix these problems. SpinningSpark11:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
The multiple old templates are just plain ugly... a huge box saying "this article has been rejected" before the reviewer even gets to look at the actual text to see if the original issue had been fixed. Defacing a page with that mess pretty much ensures its being rejected again; I recall Fanshawe Pioneer Village as one article which was originally rejected as "needs sources", sources were duly added, yet the previous rejections led to subsequent attempts to submit the piece merely being rejected again. (disclaimer: This is one of the few major London, Ontario tourist attractions, I've been there once in 2003, it's about four hours down the 401 from here. I didn't write the article but did add the museum infobox at one point.) Perhaps the common euphemistic use of "needs sources" or "needs to establish notability" on WP:COI pages which more honestly should be "this is an advertisement, please don't do this again" is part of the problem? 66.102.83.61 (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
We have a technical problem: we improved the system so that the user only has to click on "click here" and then on save to request a new review. (which was one of your best inventions, I remember last September when users has to type {{subst:AFC submission/submit}}) We can/could modify our AFC bot that it removes old declines - but we should modify then the AFC submission template so, that the review gets an easy notice that the draft was already rejected. (preventing "REVIEWERHOPPING" by simply resubmitting) mabdul19:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Why is incorporating the previous decline reason(s) into the template a technical problem? Surely that's perfectly possible to have as well as the user only needing to press one button. SpinningSpark22:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
As far as I know, that "resubmit" link just uses "action=edit§ion=new&preload=Template:AFC_submission/Subst" to add a new section pre-populated with a new {{AFC submission/Subst}} template (which just includeonly's the {{submit}} box... again). That's really all it can do. It doesn't (and can't) look at what's already there or try to refactor the old templates into a clean, tidy revision history. Anything more elaborate would require either human intervention or the use of a 'bot of some sort.
In theory, a 'bot could automagically move the draft content pages from Wikipedia_talk:AFC/whatever... to Wikipedia:AFC/whatever... liberating the 'talk' page for comments or revision history if a piece gets a rewrite. No small task. Another possibility is to have the page moved off "talk:" space to project space when an article is declined by a reviewer (much like an acceptance currently moves it from project talk to mainspace), not sure how much is involved in doing so? 66.102.83.61 (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it needs to be quite as complicated as that. There only needs to be one template, just append new review text each time, but probably still need someone skilled in the art to set it up. I don't understand the benefit of moving to project space, and can IPs create pages in project space? SpinningSpark20:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
One idea would be to have the old templates collapsed by reviewers when a draft has been reviewed previously. I'm sure the script (most?) people use could be altered to add a |collapse=yes bit to the old review templates if they are present. Killiondude (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I like the above ideas, a few bot modifications and some template changes would be all we would need to implement. --Nathan2055talk16:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm still thinking on the technical site how that could be achieved. I know what you are proposing and I think, we can do something similar like the {{Old AfD multi}} just without the additional parameter (collapse would be turned off by default, numbered turned on) with a "style of" Template:Old AfD multi#Four AfDs, 2 collapsed, numbered (only one collapsed) with (of course) the actual header of the decline/pending template. Resulting in a major change of the bot, and moreover a not so easy change of the script. (resulting in the question if we want the bot merging "waiting for a review" and already declined messages) I'm still not a big fan of this idea (simply remove the addressed declined reasons or multiple declines of the same reason), but maybe we should send a message to all participants of our project and starting a poll. mabdul12:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I've seen the "this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations" decline reason used a lot recently, and it seems many reviewers misunderstand its meaning. WP:MINREF lists a handful of specific situations where inline citations are required, but I see it used in cases like this one (yes, there is one quote that should be attributed, but surely that's not enough for the decline reason). I worry that reviewers use it as a cop-out to avoid cleaning up a messy article that should otherwise be accepted but is not well formatted. Remember that AFC does not seek to accept perfect articles only, but merely articles that would survive a fair deletion discussion. So what do others think? Should it be removed, kept, clarified, etc? — The Earwig(talk)03:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Support removal Although this template was added in good faith, I too have noticed that the ILC decline is frequently misused. There are many other reasons to decline the example you have linked too. In all the reviews I have done, I can count the number of times I have had to use this decline reason on one hand. If a situation genuinely arrises, where the only barrier to the creation of the article is the absence of inline citations (per WP:MINREF), then I have no problem with writing a custom rationale. Pol430talk to me12:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Support removal I agree it is mis-used by many reviewers. Personally I prefer to add a {{citation needed}} tag to things that need inline citations. Generally these problems are secondary to notability issues, or other primary things that stop the article being accepted. Sionk (talk) 12:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Support removal. This decline rationale is frequently misused as it constantly is used in place of more reasonable rationales - once even when the article in question should have been CSD'd as an attack page. Besides, if all the article lacked was "inline citations", you could properly format them accordingly, or accept the article and tag with {{No footnotes}}. →Bmusician13:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Support removal - Pol nails the explanation. Custom is fine, for the very few instances where MINREF is actually a valid decline reason. NoleloverTalk·Contribs15:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Support removal Lack of inline citations is a reason an article can be tagged; however, it doesn't mean that the article isn't ready to be in the article space.RyanVeseyReview me!02:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Support clarification Unless I was incorrect in using it here, the decline for lack of inline citations is necessary when reviewing biographies. It should be modified to be used exclusively with biographies.RyanVeseyReview me!20:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
(remove whitespaces) This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Science reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. Regards, mabdul14:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
What to do when you have a question for the author
You shouldn't decline because the draft has an incorrect title. If there is no other reason to decline and you are sure of the correct title then move it to mainspace with the correct title. If you are not sure or it is likely to be controversial then discuss first. If you can't agree, accept it anyway and open a discussion at WP:RM. SpinningSpark08:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I went ahead and accepted it and created some redirects. Simply start a discussion at the talkpage (with or without the requested move template). mabdul09:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Mostly fine except for Philip DiTullio. WP:MINREF only requires inline citations for contentious material in BLPs, and I can't see any of that in the article (and if there was some you should have pointed it out specifically). It's a confusing guideline – exactly why we need to get rid of the inline citations decline reason. joe•roet•c07:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I left a comment with my decline, I don't know why it didn't show up. There are a couple contentious things, I will address them now. Thanks by the way.RyanVeseyReview me!13:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I may be asking a silly question as I'm a newbie round these parts but is this something that is routinely done anyway? Or should it be done? I guess there is a risk that you get a rogue reviewer that does quite a bit of damage before anyone realises what is happening. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Are you referring to Ryan's request for comments before he jumps in? It doesn't need to be done of course, but an editor will ask this every once in a while and there's nothing wrong with it (or the advice). Generally someone who will ask for advice is clearheaded enough to know the basics from other things they've done on WP. NoleloverTalk·Contribs12:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
precautions and excercises to improve efficiency of prostate glands in human beings
please advise on the subject so that some preventive steps could be
This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. →Bmusician08:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
The Help Desk is starting to get up there. We have requests from two and three days ago that haven't been answered yet. Remember, if everyone answered one question per day we'd generally be fine. :) NoleloverTalk·Contribs13:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete it as blank. Very unsure about the title, but let's err on the side of caution and get it deleted. Jarkeld (talk) 21:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Quick Help
I'm just poking around at my first few AfC reviews. As I will likely use the service from time to time, I also want to contribute to it. What I'm trying to sort out is that there are submissions that have been rejected three or four times, but still show up in the queue as pending review. Do they need to be rejected yet again? How do I clear them off the queue? User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 04:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Unless the templates are malfunctioning (which they certainly shouldn't be), it means that the submitter put a new tag up to request a new review. I would look at the history of the submission, and see what has been changed since the last decline. We have no policy on how many times a submission can be resubmitted. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Got it - thanks. I did a few. I'll chip in here and there to help the queue a bit. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 05:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Is there any policy on whether the user should try to fix whatever was wrong with the submission before requesting a new review? 66.102.83.61 (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure if there is such a policy, but if they don't fix it, the next review will probably be declined for the same reason anyway, just wasting everybody's time. I doubt those who go the time-wasting route would be deterred by policy. Huon (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I suppose the relevant policy would be WP:DISRUPT. I.e. it is disruptive to simply request a new review without even attempting to fix the problem highlighted in the previous decline (unless the previous decline was completely erroneous). Generally, I treat such cases as a 'procedural decline' and reinforce the comments concerning what the problems with the submission are. If they repeatedly fail to attempt to address the problems and keep resubmitting, I just remove the tags and warn them against disruptive editing. Pol430talk to me17:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe it is always disruptive. If an editor made a remark as to why he believed the reviewer was incorrect and resubmitted, I see no reason why they couldn't. For example Wireless Compliance Institute was declined for not being written from a neutral point of view. I believe the decline was incorrect. The author should, if he wished to, have been able to resubmit with an edit summary stating that the article was written from a neutral point of view and/or requesting a clarification as to what wasn't neutral.RyanVeseyReview me!17:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I was under the impression we were discussing obvious time wasters, as opposed to legitimate concerns about the accuracy of a review? In the case of the situation you describe, I would not be doing what I mentioned in my last post. Pol430talk to me18:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to stick to rejections-only as suggested by a couple editors I know. They felt it may be inappropriate for someone who often edits with a COI to approve the work of other COIs. I think that's reasonable.
My observation as a newcomer is that the quality of submissions are extraordinarily low. Any effort to reduce the backlog from a process perspective would probably be driven towards educating submitters so they don't waste so much of our time, but I don't see anything AfC isn't already doing. Guess we have to grind it out. Would it be possible to have a bot that auto-rejects articles with zero citations/notes, articles with trademark symbols, articles with "solutions" more than three times, blanks, etc. I always felt Wikipedia could make more use of analytics. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 14:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm.... I'm being overly harsh actually. I was clicking around mostly at company/product articles, but there are many much better submissions. Forgive me for being so quick to judge. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 14:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
No need to apologize; this is a valid proposal. It's been made before, and as I've argued, I feel that the "quick declines" are not what's consuming most of our time, but it's the submissions that are almost good enough to accept, but not obviously acceptable. No bot could ever review these. I do find pointers to submissions that may be decline-able useful, though; that's why the statistics page includes its "notes" section with messages when submissions are very short, unsourced, by blocked users, and so on. — The Earwig(talk)22:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
What's the best way to handle this? I approved the AfC, but afterwards the COI author re-wrote the article. I thought I was being helpful in donating my time to help them, but the COI participants aren't exactly appreciative. I've soaked a lot of time at this point in a barely notable article and COI participants refuse to wait for the editor that posted the peacock tag to provide feedback. Should I wait for 3 reverts then submit a request for temporary protection? The whole thing seems like a waste of time. I don't really know how to handle such an aggressive COI, but I feel obligated to protect a page I approved. Any advice is appreciated, as I'm sure seasoned AfC participants deal with it all the time. Also see here on my Talk page if you're interested. Similar instructions were also provided yet again by email. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 04:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Adding the COI tag to the article probably wasn't the best method to encourage cooperation and article improvements. Why not take a short wikibreak from this topic? Lots of other interesting stuff to do around here. -- Eclipsed(talk)(COI Declaration)14:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
The COI author re-wrote the article and added advert and peacock. Isn't that the exact scenario to add a COI tag? User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 16:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
The tags really are not the important thing. The idea is to get the article improved and tags are only one tool amongst many for achieving that. It is way more productive to actually improve the article than to fight over tags. In any case, I have just blocked the COI editor, who simply failed to get the point about COI despite a lengthy attempt at explanation. SpinningSpark18:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. So the answer is, be patient, try to explain 3-4 times, if all else fails ask an admin to block? What's weird is that they don't just create another username. Sorry just learning being on this side of things - gives me some perspective. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 01:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
I would not expect AFC volunteers to always devote the time and patience that I gave to this one, there is simply not the time and SPAs are only rarely open to persuasion. This is just in my nature and it is why I am never going to make a significant dent in the AFC backlog. I do, however, think that it is only polite for reviewers to give examples of the article problems, if not a definitive list, when requested or challenged. Should this user create a new account I would block it for block evasion under WP:DUCK, although they will have some difficulty doing that as the underlying IP address is also blocked. But I don't think they are coming back, they seem to have finally realised that the intervention of the marketing consultant was not helpful - note to all you businesses out there: if you want to write a Wikipedia article, the last people you should give the job to is the marketing department. SpinningSpark07:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Without other changes and/or being resubmitted: I'd change it back (as I did with this one). As it's still in AfC space the banner belongs there. Jarkeld (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I think that's how they distinguish a newly submitted article from an resubmitted article. So ideally I would replace it, but I don't think it's that big a deal. Kinkreet~♥moshi moshi♥~09:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that the article disappears from the AfC radar as no AfC categories are attached to a tagless article. Jarkeld (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Articles that will never be appropriate
What should you do with articles that would never be appropriate. Are they just declined, or is there a system to have them deleted at some point?RyanVeseyReview me!19:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Just declined, except for copyvios and attacks on living people which should also be blanked. In extreme cases we've protected AfCs that were repeatedly re-submitted with no chance of being accepted. joe•roet•c20:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I would also consider applying CSD criteria to attack pages and neg BLPs, we don't really want that kind of thing sitting in the page history. Equally, blatant test submissions and patent nonsense would be better off deleted than sitting in our archives -- which are already very large... Pol430talk to me18:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I've tagged them as "Joke" before and just CSD'd them, as it is much easier that way. It also implies that we are serious about what we do, and not a place for advertisements, and the like. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Backlog too large
cross posting something I wrote at WP:VPM
A short while ago, Wikipedia introduced a thing where whenever you tried to create a new page it pushed you to do it in your userspace first and them move it into the articlespace. Then it pushed you to do it via an AfC request. Now, predictable as anything, we have a backlog at AfC of 818 articles. The template says anything more than 120 is a "severe backlog" so I'm not sure what 818 qualifies.
Wanted to flag this up somewhere prominent as I suggest that the poor people at AfC are being overwhelmed. I suggest we need to either:
Recruit a load more people to help out
Introduce some kind of speedy approval process for AfC
Revise the template to encourage editors to sometimes move articles straight to mainspace rather than via AfC.
Or, of course:
Do nothing and piss off lots of new article writers and AfC people at the same time.
What do you think? AndrewRT(Talk) 22:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
The "excessively humungous severe backlog" seems only a recent thing. Maybe some of the regular 'super reviewers' are away? Unfortunately something in the Template:AFC statistics page slows my computer/browser to a crawl, so I feel powerless to help much! Sionk (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes that's the problem! AQ is breaking, Chzz is retired, CET too, Hallows is breaking because of health, DCS's "whole life is crap right", POL: "I've been away for a couple of weeks" , Nathan is busy in school, Nolelover and others(?) went to the Teahouse... and I lost my faith for reviewing! 100 to 200 new submission is not that much (and sarah is doing a great job regular) and the backlog even went down - the system is broken: we are not enough - even before all named were active (maybe with the exception of CET) we had big backlogs resulting that anybody is doing a "quick review" on ~60 submissions. 60 submissions is a huge backlog (3 days no one was doing a review) if you know the times before September/October - and there wasn't any board to ask questions! So we got really more work by changing many system and populating the AFC - missing to attract more regular reviewers.
"Introduce some kind of speedy approval process for AfC" - please not. S[c|n]ottyWong tried to get a declining bot working with a bad !vote.
"Revise the template to encourage editors to sometimes move articles straight to mainspace rather than via AfC." - nobody have told them to !submit their draft to AfC. Earwig made some stats showing that ~10% (after getting mostly declined multiple times) is going to mainspace... So AfC is not a bad idea. mabdul01:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Once the summer arrives (beginning of July basically) I should have much, much more free time. I promise to keep the backlog below 100 during July through September (as crazy of an idea that seems, I'll try it). I will also push some long-overdue changes to EarwigBot like copyvio detection of AfC submissions as they come in, and hopefully work out some improvements to {{AFC submission}} so that it is less cluttered when used multiple times on a page – both things that should make the lives of reviewers easier. However, this is no long-term solution, and my next year of classes is going to be extremely hectic so Wikipedia will be at a much lower priority then. As far as actually fixing the issue itself, I'm not sure what we can do. I miss the AfC from 2009 when I could actually afford to give each submission a careful review and not worry about the backlog doubling before I have a change to accept it... — The Earwig(talk)04:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm just doing my first few AfCs - the quality of submissions are pretty low and many are just plain out of place. This may be a stupid suggestion, but do we give submitters instructions? What if when they clicked to submit an article, it had a few quick bullets
PLEASE READ
This is for creating new articles only. To request an edit to an article, use {{request edit}}
Articles may only be created on subjects that are "notable," meaning independent sources like the media have chosen to cover the subject
Generally article text must be supported by citations. These can be added using <ref> and </ref> tags.
Or something like that. Maybe we already provide instructions. I'm a newbie here. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 04:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
We do provide instructions. You can follow them yourself at WP:AFC. As long as you don't click "save page" when you reach the edit window, you can navigate the instructions to your heart's content without actually creating a submission. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
"But if you asked it, that means that someone else has wondered too. There Are No Stupid Questions!" - My Biology Professor. Always ask anyway ;) NoleloverTalk·Contribs12:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for the responses - interesting to know the background. Thanks particularly the Earwig for your effort here but I'm not sure that actually solves the problem. Maybe we need some kind of "Criteria for Speedy Approval" (pun intended) which says if the backlog is >100 we drop some of the detailed review items. Alternatively, is there any introduction for potential new AfDers or any way we can run a recruitment & training exercise? AndrewRT(Talk) 22:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure how a "Criteria for speedy approval" would work? I do think that we need more reviewers, and they need to be familiar with policies and guidelines. I while back I sent an appeal to everybody listed on this projects participants page -- it had very little effect. I think a recruitment drive, aimed at reasonably experienced editors, would be a great idea; although, I have no idea where to start with such an idea... Pol430talk to me19:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Well you could ask for help at places where articles are already being reviewed WP:GA, WP:PEER and even WP:FA (those guys need to see what bad articles are really like). Or places where people are familiar with policies and guidelines like WP:ANB and WP:EAR. SpinningSpark21:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I almost worry about reviewers coming from GA or FA being overly critical of articles that should be accepted but aren't perfect. As it's been mentioned before, the threshold for acceptance is roughly whether the article could survive a fair AfD, not whether it is a FA, GA, or even a B-class article. There are too many submissions coming in at this point to do much more, unless we have a massive influx of new reviewers, which I don't expect to happen. I'm also not sure how any sort of "CSA" would work; are you suggesting something like "if the article has at least two reliable sources and no glaring problems, accept"? Isn't that what reviewers are doing currently when there's a backlog, though? — The Earwig(talk)22:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Like Earwig says, my standard is AfD. If I don't think that it would survive AfD, then I need to figure out what exactly is wrong and decline accordingly. As such, I don't know that lowering the standards for inclusion when the backlog is large will really do anything; if the article is bad, someone will just have to look later (and possibly nominate it for deletion, etc). NoleloverTalk·Contribs12:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I have an idea. Why don't we rig up an invite and a training process and try to "recruit" some NPP people in here. With the script, it's almost exactly the same as NPP with Twinkle/Huggle. This is just an idea, what do you guys think? --Nathan2055talk14:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
I had the same thought too, and earlier today I posted a message at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol to see if I could rally some extra hands. Doesn't seem to have had an impact yet. Maybe we could consider looking at the recently patrolled log to find some active NPP people to contact directly on their userpages. France3470(talk)14:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Draft time: Removed per page formatting issues Yeah, I stole code from the Teahouse (but I did it because their invites are awesome). If you would like, you can edit this at Template:AfCinviteNPP (I'm not sure if I should have created it in Template space, user space, or AfC space). Please leave your comments! --Nathan2055talk16:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Great! I also think the reviewer instructions should be greatly expanded and revised ASAP before we start inviting people en masse. --Nathan2055talk16:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
I have noticed numerous cases where the problem appears to be that editors click the submit button and it moves the submission to the bottom of the page while leaving the original not yet submitted tag on the top. Is this a known issue and how can we fix it?RyanVeseyReview me!06:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes and no. It is by design so (and the reason why we created that bot) only because there is a "bug" (or not implemented feature) which allows us to add content to the top. (That should also solve the private question of Nathan) There is also a bugzilla entry... check the archives or WT:TH or dunno, check my submitted. (too lazy too look up!) mabdul22:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Need to delete a redirect before a submission can be moved to article space
Although many editors don't like the IRC (as it can be seen in my RfA), it is really easy to contact an admin directly and request a short and unbureaucratic deletion for a move. #wikipedia-en-helpconnect and #wikipedia-enconnect might help you. Regards, mabdul10:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
In at least one instance, way in the past, I just did a copy and paste over the redirect page. Perhaps a deletion and move is better, but I did not know how to ask for that back then. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, far better to move than copy/paste because it preserves the history. More info here. Cheers — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
New Reviewer - Could someone check up on me please?
Hi there!
I’m new to AfC and so far have done the following reviews. Would it be possible for someone to check that I’m doing okay before I go any further?
P.S. I think the article on Mondira Dutta should probably have been declined on notability not verifiability, but am still a little unclear about this. A lifetime achievement award from an awarding body endorsed by the UN seems like potential ground for establishing notability but the article doesn’t provide – and, despite multiple searches, I couldn’t independently find – any external mention of this award or of the awarding body. Is that notability or verifiability or both?!
I've only looked at Mondira Dutta, but you seem to be doing fine with a good grasp of policy. You correctly declined the article as "unsourced or only unreliably sources". The UN does all kinds of things, much of which is utterly non-notable. However, verification of the award in a reliable source would tend to establish notability since the source has noted it. We do not generally decline articles because every sentence is not 100% verified with sources, but we do decline BLPs which fail to meet WP:BLP which has some stricter rules. SpinningSpark20:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I need some help with this article. The reviewer left the following comment about this submission:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources.
What is exactly meant? I cited 12 Wikipedia sources within the text. In which section do I have to give
more reliable sources? It could be most likely in the section of "Publications", but not sure about it. Please, give me concrete advice. Thank you.Elke Ernsting (talk) 08:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm having trouble installing the script and need help. I added "importScript('User:Timotheus Canens/afchelper4.js'); // Yet another AfC helper script v4." to my vector.js as instructed, but it hasn't worked for me. SwisterTwistertalk21:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Hey guys. So, I've adopted Belinda and have directed her efforts here in an effort to both teach her what is notable, and help clear the backlog. I want her to learn the ropes before going off and doing other things, so I have decided that this is the best route and can also help get stuff done for us. As such, if she does anything wrong, let me know. Also, do not be harsh with her, as she just returned after a long block (for MySpacing, but she didn't know it was bad), and really wants to help out the project. If anyone wants to help, please let me know, as she is the most eager of students, and could easily be a good editor if given the teaching. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I had declined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Local Splash for not having adequate reliable and verifibility sources, but that was before I fixed the formatting errors that caused it not to display properly. Even after that I felt it was at best borderline fail on notability. However the submitter have since argued to me that the subject should be considered notable. So I've undone my decline. If someone could take a look and see what they think and do another review, that would be great. -- KTC (talk) 18:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree that it may have been borderline, but I'm declining it because I think that in addition to not wuite being notable, the lead has potential copyright problems. Millermk90 (talk) 20:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I recently deleted Template:AfCDel as it was requesting speedy delete of older AFC contributions. When we had this discussion before the conclusion was not to delete AFC contributions unless there was a problem (like copyright, attack or vandalism), or it was a no content situation. So at this point I think that using speedy delete criterion F6 is not appropriate as the deletion is controversial. The template appearance follows. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
This declined Articles for Creation submission has been tagged for possible deletion This submission may be deleted by any administrator who is a part of this project under Criteria for Speedy Deletion: G6 - Non-Controversial Maintenance/Housekeeping This page has been tagged because it has not been re-submitted in 1 year (or longer), or violates other policy (Tag with appropriate CSD). Administrators involved in the project may elect to keep or archive this page instead of deleting it, for any reason.
This article may be deleted at any time without further notice.
If you are still working on this article, simply remove the {{AfCDel}} tag, and no further action will take place.
Good call. I am curious as to see his rationale for creating it in the first place, as a lot of times people come back and finish them off after a long break, so it would probably create an issue where people come back and have no idea what happened. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Everything checked out on Andrew's end, and I removed the 170 instances of the template remaining on the pages. Thanks for the help, Robert! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Is it worth writing a little project page that contains this kind of information? Simply so when editors join the project, they don't try to re-invent the wheel. Of course, the information can be found in the TP archives but it might be of benefit to make it more prominent? Just a thought. Pol430talk to me15:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Go for it, although in a way it's a bit sad that it's come to an Idiot's Guide for Articles for creation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktr101 (talk • contribs)
You're right, besides we can't fit it into the projects header tabs, so even if I created it nobody would be able to find it... Pol430talk to me08:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Regardless, we should at least let people know that they should be doing things correctly. We have some editors who unfortunately have either been gone for a few months, or are just joining, and this means that they have missed a lot. In a way, I am one of those people, but I tried to keep abreast last semester a bit, so I didn't completely have no sense of what was going on when I returned. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. User:Zamdrist suggested it be moved into the Gaddafi article. I think that is the best solution. And, if there is new, good, unique information add it to the other mosque articles. :- ) Don22:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like a Golden Opportunity for a newcomer such as I to dive in. I'll take care of it unless there are any objections. I can incorporate the content into the Gaddafi page, but I don't think I can do anything with the Gaddafi Mosque page. I'll report back. Thanks. Zamdrist (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I can't walk away for two minutes...
...without something new happening in the world of Wikipedia. I got sick, and archive bot went ahead and threw the previous discussion in the Recycle Bin, so I'm reviving it.
So here is where we stand now on the invite-NPP-people to AfC thing:
The reviewing instructions need to be updated and made easier to read. Right now they are really an eyesore, sadly.
Create a invitation template. I was working on this, but AndrewN (talk·contribs) beat me to it with an awesome template you can see on my talk page. I will work on a few minor modifications and publish a new version of it on Monday (or sooner).
Can somebody help out with updating the reviewer instructions? I'll help out with this when I get a chance, but I'm a bit busy at the moment. Thanks for everyone's help, Nathan2055talk00:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
So...given that we just did a bit of an overhaul on the reviewer instructions, what do you think is eyesore-ish? I'm entirely open to convincing, but I just don't quite see what you mean atm. NoleloverTalk·Contribs02:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
To be frank Nathan, I put a lot of time and effort into revamping those instructions to make them easier to navigate -- it is slightly insulting for you describe them as an eyesore. Particularly, when they were !voted in by most of the active AfC participants at the time. The use of collapse boxes was designed to make the instructions easier to navigate and prevent the new reviewer from being confronted with a wall of text. The use of the colors was designed to help new reviewers associate the color of the template with the status of the submission. I am quite open to anyone improving them further, but please don't decimate hours of hard work without some consensus. Ironically, the template you refer to strikes me as an eyesore and looks remarkably familiar. Pol430talk to me09:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to have to echo Pol here on the coloring. Although Andrew did a good job modifying a bit of the other template, the color scheme is a tad weird. What is weird to me is that essentially the template was that the template was modified by no discussion, and slapped around on a bunch of talk pages with no consensus. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Relatively new to AfC, but the instructions have served me well so far. Most of my questions were easily answered with a quick glance. Wouldn't call it an eyesore, either, but that's an individual opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nouniquenames (talk • contribs) 22:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
To be honest, I actually don't think I worded the above right. What I meant to say was that the page isn't structured well. What I mean by that is it really seems to say "install the script and go" without actually reading the information about the decline reasons and such. I think the page should be restructured a bit to teach users instead of saying "install the script and go". Sorry if I insulted you, Pol. On the topic of Andrew's changes to the template, I see that he did a very good job improving the content, but Pol's colors are a lot easier on the eyes. May I suggest a merger of the two templates? --Nathan2055talk01:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps rewording the first collapse box to something like "How to review a submission: Stage one" which features all the steps to go through do determine if the submission is 'declineable'. And then the accepting collapse box becomes "Stage two" to cement the idea that if you have not highlighted a valid reason to decline, then the submission should be accepted?? (or some variation of this theme) Pol430talk to me23:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Should I blank this article?
I am somewhat new at this, so any input would be helpful. User:Yusuf_Hamzah_Anwar was submitted to AfC (article about Yusuf Hamzah Mohd Anwar). Looks like article is about user (based upon similarity of name). Deemed not notable based upon sources, declining. Would be a BLP, and does not follow Wikipedia:BLP. Should I have blanked it when I declined? --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
No, they are only blanked if they don't have at least one source (in relation to the BLP criteria). Attack pages, of course, are also blanked.RyanVeseyReview me!09:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Even though the article is well written by an obviously intelligent person, are we seriously considering approving the autobiography of a 14 year old Malaysian student? I restored the submission template and bio declined it. Sorry, looked at history and already handled. Claiming to already know 10 languages, I have the feeling he will be back and notable some day. :- ) Don17:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
We aren't talking about approving it. He was asking if the page should be blanked. I'll leave a note on the author's talk page explaining that working on the article is basically a waste of time.RyanVeseyReview me!18:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I was commenting about Zamdrist's comment. :-) I thought about moving the article back to user space rather than restoring the template. I have been gone for a while. Did anyone ever figure out what to do with the zillions of declines eating up server space? :- ) Don18:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I requested this page be oversighted when I realized what it was, for child protection reasons -- a bit too much info. I didn't post here specifically to avoid drawing attention to it. Don, I've removed that link. Pol430talk to me19:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleting declined articles only takes up more server space. But I don't think server space is a problem we have to wrotty about. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
How does a deleted submission takes more space on a web server? I know it is still there, but the deletion is only a bit of visibility and a new small revision with the text of who deleted it when and why... mabdul14:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I think I've heard this before, and I believe it is because the entire content and edit history of the submission is still stored. Nothing gets deleted into nothingness.RyanVeseyReview me!16:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Birds: How many times do they lay eggs each Spring, number of ? clutches each Spring
Have a wild bird couple :) that has chosen to build a nest outside above my entry way and have already had one nest full (4 hatchlings) which they have raised and offspring have since grown and left the nest. The parent couple left for approx a week and have now returned, minus their offsprings and have laid 5 new eggs. Just curious how many times a wild bird couple lays eggs each Spring? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.108.58.21 (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Could a more experienced editor please have a look at the helpdesk question about Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Holistic versus Analytic Cognition? I have no idea how to answer that one. On the one hand, the author is correct in noting that his article draft is supported by multiple reliable sources which do seem to cover its subject in detail - notability is no hindrance. On the other hand, I don't think we really do "X vs. Y" articles, but I could not find a specific policy against it. The author also asked AndrewN who declined the submission, but he has not answered yet. Huon (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I think this is covered by NOT, and NOTESSAY: such an article can be 'published' at wikibooks, but is def. not an encyclopedic article. mabdul14:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Please do not just approve a submission. Consider what categories the approved submission can be placed in as well and add the categories either in the "Append to page (optional):" box during approval using the AFC Helper Script or afterwards. Thanks! -- KTC (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
After watching this on and off for a few weeks, I think the sortable list is going to be too large to display more than maybe 10% of the time in the future, in its current state. Task for Earwig(maybe): I've been looking at the template expansion numbers in the web sources and it appears, we either have to cut it back to 24 hours instead for 48 or break it into sections, i.e., Submissions, Accepted, Declines, Under Review, etc. Unless Media-wiki has some magic we don't know about, but at this time there are hard limits we are hitting. :- ) Don21:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Desperately need some Mandarin help here: Peter Huang Taiwanese guy with zero English is trying to make a point, which resulted in him being blocked for 24 hours. And, my Mandarin level is about 0.01.
I've had a read through but I'm not sure where my input is needed. All the sources seem to be in English and the editor who started that article doesn't seem to have written much in Chinese. Pol430talk to me09:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Up until yesterday, the entire article was one sentence in English, but resulted in 2 pages of edit war. I'm not sure that the original author understands any English. I'm chalking it up to lost cause. Thanks. :- ) Don00:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
We seem to be having a few articles submitted to AfC and then being move to Main space by the authors. Some seem fine, so I just deleted the submission tag, some are not so great. Move them back, CSD them, or PROD them?
I tend to move them back. If they are hideously inappropriate then I CSD them. If the author engages in a move war, take it to AfD. Pol430talk to me09:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Probably because the AFC template has external links coded into it for google, the toolserver etc. etc. so it thinks IP's are adding external links. - Happysailor(Talk)06:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Help them out?
The poor guys at Hill & Knowlton have been engaged on their Talk page for two years. They tried to remedy the situation with an AfC submission proposing a revised article, which was rejected several times for advert, before I rejected it for 'exists.' Instead of indefinite AfC submissions, I've tried to remedy the situation here. As a frequent COI contributor, I dare not swoop in and cleanse controversy for other COIs, so if anyone has a chance to review my suggestions and implement what they deem appropriate, I think it would make the world a better place. User:King405719:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
If I were you I would suggest that Amb2015 bite the bullet, give up his article, and get his good information into the existing article so that he gets credit for it and help clean it up. Neither appear to be shining lights of Wikipedia content. It appears that the existing editors are adding his material as their own. :- ) Don00:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
A couple editors swooped in and helped out a bit. I think there is still one unreliable source used for POV pushing and another more complicated issue in the Controversy section. I'm not really taking the initiative to make it a decent article, but at least to make it factually accurate and reasonably neutral. User:King405723:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Ah okay, thanks. I wanted to see how it would do in its current state. The page is the same as the spanish version but more sources and information, i'll continue working on it till its improved but if you know anyone who has more knowledge on the topic could you please let them know, Thanks :) Ericdeaththe2nd
Concern
We seem to be demanding more of newbs than we do of established editors. Teahouse is full of people who have had their articles rejected, and while some of them need to be rejected, a lot would survive in the wild, and just need improvement, as do many articles. How can we address this? RichFarmbrough, 13:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC).
I would suggest that the Teahouse hosts refer bad declines to this page, so that a wider input can be given by other reviewers. There are a number of new editors who like to try and help out AfC -- they don't always get it right. Equally, sometimes even the most experienced reviewers make mistakes. This notwithstanding, the majority of submissions we see are non-notable corporate profiles, non-notable bio's, BLP vio's, vanity pages and spam. The number of declines will always be greater than the number of accepted submissions. Pol430talk to me16:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I have seen some really bad declines lately, (i.e. "Expand. Good start.") from people who haven't been here for months. Honestly, I would suggest that we let them know where they went wrong, and help the reviewers learn how to be more polite. I'm not blaming anyone, but I try to be as nice as possible, as it is better to keep one editor than scare off many more just because the wording is literally more user-friendly. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Chiswick Chap and I having the same discussion another way round (accepted although not suitable) at User talk:Chiswick Chap. The simple rule I always follow: accept if it survives every CSD tag and would survive an AfD/*fd.
And @Rich Earwig created some stats this early year and founded out that ~10% get into mainspace (mostly after several declines)... if we remove the worst and CSD stuff (likely 50% if not higher)... I really thing thats not a bad number. mabdul18:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I've been seeing bad declines as well. What I believe is that we should always use a template decline, and place additional comments on the side, as "Expand. Good job." doesn't really help anybody. --Nathan2055talk01:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
If you're wondering re: delinking cats in declined pages, then it's on my todo list, and it will get handled soon. If you're wondering re: delinking cats in pending pages, then my thoughts on that have been echoed by Happysailor in that discussion ("it would highlight the submission to non-AfC people, and may get them involved"). Also, I'd like to point out that the AFC helper script delinks categories when declining a submission, so that aspect shouldn't be a huge problem. — TheEarwig(talk)05:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm working on an update for the AFC helper script which will delink cats while doing a review, commenting on a submission or placing it on hold. (For the ones who are interested in: the script has and will get many small changes, see the changelog within the script. Feel free to report issues or feature requests!) mabdul08:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Question about notability of record labels raised at Notability in music talkpage (can anyone from here chip in?)
Hi there,
I raised a question about guidelines for the notability of record labels on the Notability in music talkpage ( here), after someone asked a question about it at Teahouse. I wondered if any more experienced reviewers might be able to chip in?
Moments ago at Talk: A Monster Calls, I added the wikiproject banners Novels and Children's literature. Today the author and illustrator won their respective British "year's best" children's literature awards, the first double in 58 years, so I boldly called it a Mid-importance novel although I am not a member of that project. And I initiated the Talk.
Previously that Talk page has served only to log AfC project activity. Should the AfC banner remain at the top untouched? (There are thousands and I have visited thousands of Talk pages, but this is our first meeting.) --P64 (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand what you are asking. If you are asking whether the banner should be removed then definitely no. Whether it should be updated, for example to list the quality as Start, then sure. If you worry about too many banners, then it can always be moved into {{WPB}} or {{WPBS}}. -- KTC (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
All three. I wondered whether it should be deleted when someone (or more) content appropriate projects have come along. --as Literature asks for replacement by Novels and Children's literature in case of an article about a particular children's novel. I wondered whether upgrade by outsiders is welcome (done by User:KTC in this instance) and wondered about the parameters wholly new to me (which I now understand roughly).
Having now read the documentation by visiting the banner {{WPAFC}}, easy to overlook, I suggest that those "full instructions" should include a list of parameters. Evidently the project welcomes nonmembers to revise class= but, I infer, ts= and reviewer= are not revised at all after the article is first created. That is worth saying in project space, not only in template documentation --but even there I have inferred what is not said.
P.S. Two of the four subpages show the template code by omitting the initial brace; two function and show the regular display, so to speak. --P64 (talk) 22:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Documentation updated. FYI: The banner of the Wikiproject Biography has many more and different parameters than most projects. Many projects using custom parameters serving their needs! mabdul10:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Luna Lovegood
178.16.14.102 - This page is for Reviewer discussions. I have submitted your article "Luna Lovegood" for review and is located >here< :- ) Don14:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
The redirect for "Cosma" was rejected only because it went through AfD for an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT reason
Here are a few thoughts from what I can see: Cosma exists as a dab already (so it shouldn't become a redirect). The dab contains a link to Magna International. You also already created a redirect at Cosma International. Further, when you go through AfD/R, you do so with the understanding that your submission may not be accepted. Any editor could review and accept or decline, there is not a list of people authorized to decline submissions. Also, should you need it in the future, questions here are usually answered more quickly on the AfC Helpdesk. --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I was attempting to decline this, and suggest the good info be merged into the existing article, which is approved and not so good. Something is broke, and I can not fix it. Help and thanks :- ) Don15:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I have declied it for that reason. Ironically the existing article is worse than the previously declined version of the draft. Well, maybe a merger will fix that. Huon (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Did you figure out why it kept giving me an error when I tried to decline? Maybe it doesn't like me? Thanks. :- ) Don19:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually, it's because it doesn't have an extra two "|"'s in it. I have come across this issue before, where the script will say that it cannot find the template, and will not go further, so if you add them in in the proper spot, it works. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
v4.2.7 - Copyedited TH invite messages in widget, automatically remove left-over comment from re-submitting upon accepting or declining an artcle, submission is now cleaned up automatically upon declining, code cleanup
v4.2.8 - Fixed bug when accepting templates, categories, and certain specific talk pages through AfC
Please thank Mabdul, Earwig, Excirial, and Tim for coding these patches! The script will automatically update, just make sure the code
importScript('User:Timotheus Canens/afchelper4.js'); // Yet another AfC helper script v4.
Earwig and I have also been hard at work with updates to the {{AFC submission}} template. The template has been cleaned up and TONS of junk code removed. As well, we have cleaned a lot of the actual template up and even have written a prototype "short=yes" parameter into the decline template (per the discussion from a few weeks back), which is automatically triggered in v4.2.7 and up of our script thanks to a huge amount of coding work by Mabdul!
Don't forget, it's your work that helps lower our backlog by a little bit every day! Keep up the good work all! Thanks, Nathan2055talk00:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
P.S. - I'm working on a place to report bugs in the script and suggest new features! It's not finished, but I've rigged a small discussion page here you can use to report bugs. --Nathan2055talk00:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
As mentioned on the discussion page, I'm working on the reordering of the templates (should be done today). I think I have still some bugs in the code. (please report any on that discussion page!) If the bugs on that discussion page are resolved, I still have the FFU reviewing script on the to do list, but please report any bug or request more stuff. ;)
@Nathan: you have used the wrong version numbers (I plan that the FFU script is version 4.24.3), but good that somebody is handling the documentation. ;) mabdul10:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the version numbers in the source code are wrong. They won't be needed once I get my documentation page up and running. It will have release notes! --Nathan2055talk16:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
That depends. I plan that the script can following stuff:
Informing the user,
Redirect(open in a new tab/window) the reviewer to the Flickruploadbot
update the /recent page
closing threads, commenting in them, etc; maybe even archiving
unless Commons/enwp won't change the configuration and allowing the upload by URL, I doubt that I'm able to add the upload of a local file/url driven file but that might depend on my time and experience on JS/Ajax - I'm rather new to that stuff
wishlist, bugreports, etc. can be added here. I will ping you Armbrust after I have a working FFU beta script (with at least some functionalities). mabdul12:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
While we're here, would someone be willing to code the script so that it will add in missing "|" parameters should they be missing. For example, if the template says this: {{AFC submission|ts=20120505020240}}, it will not be read by the script, but it it says this: {{AFC submission|||ts=20120505020240}}, the script will read it just fine, and allow for a review. I suspect that not properly adding it will cause it to do this, but it would save the novice reviewer a lot of frustration if that could be figured out. Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for reporting, will be in the next release I'm preparing for tomorrow (or the day after). mabdul19:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Another new patch is out for the script:
v4.2.9 - Decline templates are now auto-sorted when clean-up is triggered, horizontal line is added under AfC templates, more HTML comments are removed automatically upon accepting a submission, interface copyedits (including a fix to the redlink bug with the Teahouse invite feature), ALL decline templates are now shrunk when clean-up is triggered, and clean-up is now triggered when declining, adding a comment, or marking the submission as reviewing.
Mabdul has done a great job with this patch and plans to release another one tomorrow with more features and bug fixes. PLEASE report bugs at this page for tracking.
Finally, I have almost finished the new subpage for the script. It will have advanced documentation, patch notes, a bug reporting page, and more. Keep an eye out for it! See you soon, Nathan2055talk - contribs01:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
OK, the script is waiting for another push: cleanup button (only does a cleanup) and a wikilink correction (will be improved as noted at nathan's sandbox page). @Kevin: interestingly the list isn't going down, but today I don't have any more time to implement your request. I will do it tomorrow. ;-)
@all: If you have bypassed your browser's cache: please report your ideas, feelings and experience with the newest updates: how does the sorting of decline templates work? How about the comment sorting? Does all work properly? Any bugs? Any other observation? Room for improvements? Please, paste them either here, at my talk or at nathan's sandbox page! Regards, mabdul16:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Another new patch by Mabdul was pushed late last night:
v4.2.10 - Wikilinks created using external link coding will now be corrected automatically, a new button to only preform a cleanup task, a fix for the comment created by the "My Sandbox" link gadget
The weather report for Wikipedia? More patches and a chance of updates! v4.2.11 is in the works, and will include buttons to submit an article and create a draft hidden under a "Misc." button, and more patches and bug fixes. Stay tuned! --Nathan2055talk - contribs22:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
AFC Statistics Evarose at the top...still..
Hi everyone - an AfC that links to Matthewbroker's talk page is still listed at the top of the AfC statistics page. I failed to fix it. Anyone able to remove it? It'd be nice to see it off my radar.. :) Thank you. Sarah (talk) 05:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Fixed. Sorry about this! An interesting and rare error where the bot didn't pick up the removal of the template when it was placed in <nowiki> tags. This type of thing should be corrected in the coming weeks. Just a heads-up that (as you probably guessed) manual changes aren't picked up by the bot; it'll just overwrite them in its next edit. Let me know if anything similar happens in the future. — TheEarwig(talk)22:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
My opinion of the William A. Whitcombe submission is that the subject isn't notable. I declined it, but the submitter left me a message saying that he was told Whitcombe was notable (which I think was this comment on User talk:Simonevans680, though I haven't confirmed this). What is the community's opinion Whitcombe's notability? Callanecc (talk) 11:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I asked the contributor to prove it with references. He had one independent reference but could only find further ones from second parties, so not quite meeting the notability requirement (yet). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
It's probably telling that the top of a Google search on his name is a Wikipedia help desk request. On the other hand, there are three sources on the AfC page with no links. They appear to be some kind of niche papers not available online with an affiliation with media sources we would consider reliable. It's probably not notable, but it might help to get some context on these sources. User:King405713:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Could someone please double check an article for me?
You are correct--such projects are usually notable only when they have actually produced results, not just when they have been commissionned. I have commented on the user's talk p. DGG ( talk ) 06:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I chimed in and provided significant sources from the Associated Press among others that have just been published over the last couple days. User:King405713:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Time to invite new users!
Howdy everyone! Considering the MASSIVE backlog, I have taken Pol and Andrew's invite templates, merged them to together, and placed the result at {{AfCinvite-urgent}}. PLEASE go to Category:Wikipedian new page patrollers and invite active NPPers to AfC. The template is designed for use through Twinkle's welcome system, but it can be used on it's own, just subst and don't forget to sign. Lastly, please check each users contribs and talk page before inviting them (By the way, all NPPers got a survey poll about New Page Triage about a year ago, that was automated so ignore it) to make sure they really are active. Thanks in advance, Nathan2055talk - contribs22:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
That's a good idea, but I think we should be monitoring new users to the project as well, just so it would provide them help in the long run. The backlog isn't currently a bad thing, as it is staying steady, so I would be more concerned right now if it was to go up by two hundred or so each day. All things considered, we're doing pretty well, but it wouldn't hurt to have some users do a concentrated effort to make it smaller (although I'm starting to think if we do that, 800 articles is now becomming the new norm, so it might not last for long. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that yes while we are keeping about even on a good day, if we have a bad day it'll go up by quite a bit. We were down to just over 200 not so long ago and a few bad days later we were up to 700s. If we can get it down to the tens and stay steady there, that would be great. :) KTC (talk) 12:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I was shocked to see how many hundreds of articles AfC processes a week. I think considering the volume and processing rate, it's unfair that it constantly says "severe backlog" even if it only takes a week or two to get a good AfC approved. Is it possible to adjust the numbers? Maybe 1,000 should be severe, 800 should be a backlog and 400 should be normal. A better (yet impossible) measure of the backlog would be the amount of time it takes from submission to feedback. User:King405713:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
So, after some careful consideration and scientific testing, I fixed it so that it now doesn't have us in a permanent backlog. I was checking out the talk page of the template when I discovered this fun discussion. I guess it is all in perspective. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Sleeping Child Fire Aug 1961 near Hamilton MT
Could someone research and write an article on the Sleeping Child Fire of Aug 1961 near Hamilton, MT? My late husband was the head medic on that fire and I woud like to know more about the fire than what I found on the internet.
Thank You
Kathy Stephens
<E-mail redacted by Nathan2055 (talk·contribs)> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.119.199.21 (talk) 18:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. --Nathan2055talk - contribs20:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Bypass your browser's cache again. It was fixed shortly after the last push. Sorry, I will keep an eye on such mistakes - it works fine in IE9/Opera (even without reporting any error!). mabdul12:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I have a question, when you create an article using the AFC Helper script, does it mark it as patrolled? If it doesn't it should if it is technically possible. Although it was recently rolled back, (or should be rolled back soon), unpatrolled articles are no-indexed currently. This will start again once they work out a few bugs. RyanVeseyReview me!12:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Recognized. A Firefox only problem. working on a workaround - if i don't find one within 10 mintues, Earwig will revert the changes. mabdul17:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
FYI: The ref tag test (too many open <ref> tags with missing </ref>), a check for long HTML comments (20+ characters), small bug fixes and marking as copyvio (and other decline reason) don't alert - a new texfield pops up! mabdul16:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I need some information about this Ochratoxin...When is found in a human what is the level that can put in danger your health? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.166.221 (talk) 03:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
It's quite common for there to be new and or inexperience users asking questions here that should be asked at the AFC help desk, general help desk, reference desk etc. While there's a notice at the top of the displayed page, there isn't any editnotices. Should there be to attempt to reduce the misplaced questions? KTC (talk) 08:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
It couldn't hurt. We seem to be getting misplaced questions and submissions here on an almost daily basis. joe•roet•c08:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I added an edit notice here a few weeks ago. Apparebtly I didn't put them in the right place. However, your editnotice looks better KTC. Go ahead and install it please, mabdul. Thanks, Nathan2055talk - contribs16:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Erm, I said "copy" instead of move for a reason as that page is my user sandbox with a little bit of unrelated history. Nevermind... KTC (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
It seems it was declined on grounds of non-notability (I would concur) some time ago;
the contributor appears to have been working on it, to what end I can't make out.
I can't see a resubmission in the history, unless the bot put it back on the list?
(I just started reviewing; I figure the quickest way to get my own contributions approved
is to get the backlog out of the way so another editor can get to my stuff!) David FLXD (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I see - thanks! (I'm still getting used to this.) I declined it agains with this comment:
"I am sorry, but it seems very unlikely that this article will be acceptable.
I must advise you to consider a different contribution, perhaps dealing with a band, or bands, or musical genre in which Kraller excels or makes a significant contribution. An article which deals only with her seems too limited at this time."
Usually I refrain from advising people to find another topic (to avoid biting someone) unless there is clear conflict of interest (and even then, be very tactful). Personally, I would have explained that the sources don't establish notability, and linked to WP:GNG (general notability) and WP:NMUSIC (notability guidelines specific to music) to help the contributor understand my reasoning. That said, I'm relatively new to this. Perhaps a more experienced editor would be able to give better guidance. --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
New documentation plus updates!
Howdy everyone! The new documentation for your favorite script is out! You can see it and learn more about the script at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script. As well, there have been a few new updates to the script. Instead of going over them here, I've added a version history section in the documentation that will explain about it. Also, there are now beta and alpha versions available for you to test! Please report bugs and suggest features on this talk page and we will do our best to fix/add them! Keep up the good work everyone! Thanks, Nathan2055talk - contribs18:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
After installing the script, and checking a couple of times that I hadn't somehow missed anything, and then some hours of going back and forth and changing java / script permissions on my IE8 browser, intermittently checking samples from the Pending files, I eventually found the Review button. According to the Documentation: "If the installation was done properly, you should see a "Review" tab on the top of the page when viewing a submission in CAT:PEND or when reviewing redirects; it may be a drop-down tab in certain skins...." Yes, hidden below what is normally just the 'Move' tab!" I was expecting to see a new tab somewhere. Maybe include something in the documentation saying where to look? Thanks! David FLXD (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
This depends (of course) on the skin you are using. Feel free to update the documentation so that it is clearer! I hope somebody will do some screenshots - at the moment I don't want to do them since I expect some major changes which would make the screenshots obsolete. mabdul09:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Working :- ) DCS 18:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
This page is for organizing the WWikipediaProject "Articles or Creation". Please consider asking this question at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. mabdul 02:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Happysailor (Talk) 17:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Fixed I have removed the declines for duplication, and changed the decline of the inferior copy to 'duplicate'. There is also a custom decline for formatting! Which does not reflect very well on us. It's currently re-submitted for review. Pol430 talk to me 11:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Resolved
WheresTristan Let's talk·Contribs 23:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Done It this what you had in mind? Pol430 talk to me 19:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Please consider asking this question at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what the Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. :- ) DCS 20:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
.png)
This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Science reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. Regards, mabdul 14:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
