Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents 1 {{Afc context}} 2 Clearing the backlog. 3 NN giveaway 4 Wow 5 Cleveland Fire Brigade 6 (SITG) (Association of Mining Engineers and Technicians) 7 New template idea to make things cleaner and easier to browse 8 Another idea for reviewer ease 9 {{afc not}} 10 Northern Transcriptionworks, Inc 11 I don't get it 12 {{afc attack}} and {{afc nonsense}} now up for deletion at tfd 13 Size of the new-ish {{afc top}} 14 Categories on AfC pages 15 Old reviews? 16 Redirects 17 Council of State Governments 18 Protection of the Article 19 Yesterday's Submissions 20 Categorise or link to old archives? 21 Help 22 Bot question 23 New WikiProject 24 Human Rights in Canada page 25 Guilherme de Melo 26 Links to pages 27 Lag time 28 Suggested chores for Jitse's bot 29 Rewrite 30 Purpose 31 New template: afc inuse|time=3 hours|msg=Research in progress. 32 Categories 33 Anon AFC submission gets a Barnstar 34 review of declined articles 35 {{afc nn}} 36 Saigon Inferno 37 AARD code 38 Information about a removed addition 39 Updated AFC script 40 Request for Articles on your Behalf 41 Close down? 42 Anon page creation 43 Backlog gone 44 What a bureaucratic nightmare ! 45 A character who should have his own page 46 Deleated Request

{{Afc context}}

I've created this new template. As of now, the wording simply stinks; but it's a start. Please (that's a request, not a nicety) improve upon it. Patstuart^talk|edits 13:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Clearing the backlog.

I've been working on WP:AfC for almost a week now and I have some observations about the backlog situation.

It looks like the editors here are now more or less keeping up with demand - but it's definitely a struggle. But the backlog is so insanely long (an entire YEAR) that it'll never get cleared - we must accept that it's completely impossible. Even the archived pages marked as 'completed' are often not.

I have a proposal that would help immensely:

Split the AfC request page into three categories

So the top level 'WP:AfC' page would say:

1. Click here if you wish to create an article about a living person
2. Click here if you with to create an article about a living Band, a music Album or a Song.
3. Click here to create an article about something else.

By far the majority of the unanswered and rejected entries come from (1) and (2). They are almost all fail because they are very obviously non-notable. We can add a special reminder to contributors in each of these categories by giving a nice simple summary of the rules in WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC and asking people not to request articles that don't meet these criteria.

Hopefully, giving tailored advice for those two categories (which are by FAR the vast proportion of rejected articles) - we can cut down on the huge number of incoming 'junk' articles.

For the first two categories editors are not required to explicitly reject articles on grounds of non-notability

Instead, if a request is not picked up by an editor and turned into an article within 7 days, they are considered to have been rejected. This would save an immense amount of manual editing. It also pretty much reflects the reality of current practice. It's a real pain to have to add all of the justification and the pre/post templates for all of those bazillions of vanity articles.

It's no problem to scan a long list of those article requests and quickly identify the handful that need to be created - but to individually justify the rejection of all of the others is a lot of hassle.

Whilst this may not be the 'pure' approach that we'd like to take, IMHO it's the only thing that's going to keep the backlog down in the long term.

SteveBaker 12:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You would never guess this after reviewing the logs; but there is currently a "wizard-like" interface that starts when you do the "click here to start" button. One of the questions it asks you is the type of article you're creating, and then it beats you over the head with the notability guidelines. In a nice way, of course. The auto-expire after seven days is interesting - how would you word the feedback to the submitter? Kuru ^talk 01:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

There are too many words on the interface - it needs to be radically simplified and guided step by step menu system: Something like "Click here if you are doing an article about a person"...new page..."Click here if this person is still alive"...new page..."Click here if the person is a sporting celebrity with no international wins..."...whatever. At the end, it can say "We don't normally accept articles about living sports celebrities unless they have international wins"...or whatever. The vast majority of people who come here are OBVIOUSLY total newbies - so anything remotely sophisticated will fool them. As for what we say if we hit the seven day limit is simply the truth "We're sorry - none of our editors felt that they should create your article.". SteveBaker 02:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Nightmare to maintain, unfortunately. While I understand your concern completely, what you propose would span literally hundreds of pages quickly. Assuming only 3 choices per page, you've got 354 pages to maintain at the 4th level and 1083 at the 5th. As it is, there are 18 pages in the wizard and they are a handful enough. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 06:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been pushing through the backlogged archives a little bit. One thing to note is that On some of the really old pages (from Dec. 2005, Jan. 2006, and so on - I don't know when the templates were introduced), editors weren't really required to comment on unsourced requests, so many of the pages appear incomplete while they're actually completed. I do agree that this backlog is heinous! -sthomson06 (Talk) 23:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea Steve.Johnandrus 17:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

NN giveaway

Anyone else here notice that if someone adds the words "up and coming artist" to a WP:MUSIC submission, that it's a dead-give away that it's not notable? No offense, it's like they're cluing us in. -Patstuart^talk|edits 00:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

We could drop the number of submissions here by at least a factor of ten if only we could get people to check the notability requirements for bands and living people before submitting. SteveBaker 20:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow

I just found this place today. It really is a great catch all page for vandalism and articles that otherwise would be speedy deleted. If only all vandals could be sent here. All this stuff like about a guy you knew who took a picture of his poop, and other stuff that's just miles of gibberish. Anomo 18:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It stands as a testament to the effectiveness of the rule that you have to have an account and to have had it for a few days before you can create an article. I really wish that this rule applied to all editing. semi-protection is a good thing. SteveBaker 20:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Although studies have shown the majority of content on wikipedia is written by anons (with <50 edits) or users with few edits. So semi-protection would stop most of that. We wouldn't want that. Chris M. 04:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, a lot of editors start out as anons, so blocking them would likely prevent the influx of "new blood" into the community. —Dgies^t c 16:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleveland Fire Brigade

Sorry guys I think i messed up the submission and it became 4 different ones, (Staff, Corporate Outcomes, mission etc.. all belong with the one article!)

I don't know how to fix it. 86.22.130.255 01:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Use Three '=' for the sub-headings, two for the main heading. Don't sweat it too much - I'll fix it - this happens all the time! SteveBaker 01:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Aha, I just tried this, I think i got it. 86.22.130.255 01:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

(SITG) (Association of Mining Engineers and Technicians)

I have made somthing wrong, it doesn't look like rest, there is o "title". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 157.158.191.231 (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

Don't worry, I've fixed it for you. Tim 14:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

New template idea to make things cleaner and easier to browse

I've been playing around with something that I think could make things a bit easier to keep up with some of the mess around here. For an example, check out Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2007-01-09 that I applied the new template to. Basically, I figure that by hiding the articles that've already been marked, it's a lot easier to quickly skim down the page finding the articles that still need to be reviewed (since they'll stand out a lot more), and the page won't be so overwhelming for people to review. What do people think? --Maelwys 15:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

One word: NICE. Is there a different variant in the outer border for accept vs. decline? It might be nice to see at a glance which ones were accepted or not. However, I think this is great as is. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 17:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree things are fine as they are. The background already makes unreviewed ones stand out. Harryboyles 11:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Harry - My problem is that if I'm scanning the page really quickly, the incomplete ones don't stand out as much as they would with this template involved. Plus, since the page can get extremely long by the end of the day, this helps hide a lot of the unneeded clutter so that it's a lot less painful to scan through the page, everything gets a lot more organized and "clean" looking. Basically my theory is that the AfC can be a pretty arduous and thankless job (since there's a lot of garbage here), but still a necessary one, so why not make it as easy as possible for the volunteers to skim through the page and find what they need? --Maelwys 14:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

ShinmaWa - Take another look now, how's that? I think that should be basically what you're looking for. (you should notice the difference right away, since the top two sections are an accept and a decline) --Maelwys 14:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Now I've seen it in action for a day, I've changed my mind. Good idea. I've increased the red for the shading of declined articles as it better suits the green of the accepted ones. Harryboyles 13:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, bee-youtiful! A huge improvement, I think. I hope it doesn't confuse new users who don't know to click on "show", though... delldot | talk 03:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

great,, great put it into effectSome thing 00:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Another idea for reviewer ease

I have another idea that could help make it easier to review from a glance at the table of contents: at WP:ER we started this thing where people who haven't been reviewed yet have an asterisk next to their name (which exists in the template you use to create your ER subpage), and the reviewer removes it. That way, a glance at the table of contents shows a potential reviewer which users have and have not already been reviewed. I like the system a lot (if I do say so myself!). Anyone object to maybe trying it here? I'd love to be able to use the TOC to skip right to the ones that haven't been reviewed, rather than scrolling. Would trying this out even be technically possible with the request submission process? Other thoughts? Thanks, delldot talk 19:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

{{afc not}}

Hey, if people use this template to turn down an article, could you please provide a further explanation? As it stands, we're telling people that their article is not suitable for wikipedia, and saying nothing else. I'm actually tempted to put the template up for TFD right now, but I'm going to hold back pending on how people respond to this message. Part Deux 16:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Good call, we need to be explaining further. delldot talk 17:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Northern Transcriptionworks, Inc

Something has gone wrong here. Can someone who is familiar with how AfC is supposed to work fix this? Jkelly 23:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the AfC tags from it (those only go around the article on the actual AfC page, and should get removed when the article is created), but it still needs a lot of cleanup. --Maelwys 23:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it

At the very beginning of the page it says "The easiest way to create a new article, however, is to create a free Wikipedia user account and then log in."

So my question is, "What's the point of this page?"

Why do for users what they can more easily do for themselves?

The Transhumanist   05:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This is addressed at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation. Wikipedia used to allow anonymous creation (and still does on some wikis); this was part of the compromise. Part Deux 14:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

{{afc attack}} and {{afc nonsense}} now up for deletion at tfd

I've proposed these two templates for deletion at tfd, as I believe they're counterproductive. Any input would be appreciated. Patstuart^talk·edits 22:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Size of the new-ish {{afc top}}

Is anybody else concerned about the size of template. It does make it easier to see what was and wasn't reviewed, but once a page is completed the template will have, typically, roughly doubled the size of the page source. Considering that most of this is just archives sitting there taking up space, should something be done about this? -- kenb215 talk 03:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Categories on AfC pages

Just noticed Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2007-04-23 pop up in Category:Video games. Will it eventually be removed automatically, or am I okay to remove categories from the AfC page manually? Marasmusine 17:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this has always been a problem, and it's definitely ok to remove them. We ask people not to include cats, but as things go at AfC, it's far from the most important instruction to get across. I used to remove all of the cats manually, but stopped around June of last year. There was also once some discussion about involving a bot. ×Meegs 18:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info :> Marasmusine 18:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've made a bot request here. I have not been involved in AfC for a quite a while, so if others would please review what I've said, that would be great. ×Meegs 19:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

There were no takers. If there are any AWB users who could help out by linkifying all of the categories in the AfC archives (e.g. [[Category:Living people]] → [[:Category:Living people]] ), please do! ×Meegs 09:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Old reviews?

I was going through the backlog on Articles for Creation, and I've noticed that several articles that were declined in their original AfC have been re-created.

For example, KDSU which was requested on Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2006-01-20. What exactly should we do for such articles? I am doubtful whether it deserves its own article, it could very well exist within the DSU article.

There are several more articles like this. I would appreciate your guidance.

Best regards,xC | ☎ 05:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

As time goes on, Wikipedia tends to accept articles that it wouldn't have in the past. It is possible that the subject would have been too insignificant back when it was rejected, but can have an article now because either Wikipedia expanded or the subject became more noteworthy. It's also possible that the original reviewer made a mistake, or that the reviewed candidate wasn't good enough to be made into an article, e.g. no sources.

The thing to do would probably be to look at the article on its own merits. If it seems like something that should be kept, then keep it. Otherwise, nominate it either for Articles for deletion or speedy deletion, possibly using its rejection in AfC as evidence. -- kenb215 talk 11:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, got it. Thanks for the advice :) Regards,xC | ☎ 11:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Redirects

Ok, swell - I can't make a simple redirect from Sealane to Sea lane without "adding it to the list". Few years back when I contributed quite a lot to this 'pedia, including several new articles, there wasn't any kind of "anti-vandalism" "safeguard" like this... if there had been, I'd never have bothered with it in the first place. Same as now, I have no incentive of figuring out a whole new system for article submission - and especially not for a simple redirect. Enjoy nazism, fellas, nice knowing WP is heading in an exciting new direction. --62.63.37.160 16:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It is kind of sad, but that's knee-jerk policy changes in response to PR for you. Act in haste, repent at leisure... --Gwern (contribs) 22:43 28 April 2007 (GMT)

It looks sad at first, and I'm not happy that people who don't register can't do useful things like that. But any cries that anonymous article creation be allowed again should be stopped by actually looking at all the articles that have to be declined here. Do we really want attack entries going into some corner of Wikipedia until their subject notices that they have been libeled for months? -Amarkov moo! 23:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

With it being so easy to create an account, I am far from sympathetic toward this position. -- tariqabjotu 02:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Given that there are no barriers to creating an account and that it actually makes you more anonymous than editing "anonymously", I can't help but laugh at the suggestion that requiring an account to create an article is "nazism". --Stormie 03:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I see what you mean - it is easy to create an account, and there are no barriers preventing me from doing so - but consider this; there's a reason I had my account deleted in the first place, and a reason I do not intend to make a new one. And, as the frontpage so pompously states, "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", anyone should be allowed to edit it without worrying about needing to sign up for an account, whatever their reasons may be. Back in the days, there was at least one prominent editor through several years who refused to sign up for an account - for whatever reasons. His contributions were both plentiful and consistently very high-quality. Now, even if he wanted to, he couldn't make new contributions either. As for the nazi analogy, I still find it quite fitting - forcibly imposing a single set of "do's" and "don't", enforcing a singular pattern upon any- and everybody who wishes to stay a part of the community, and so forth. Also, as a certain poet put it, "First they came for the jews. I was not a jew, so I did not speak up" and so forth - first, they disable anonymous article creation; but where, exactly, will it ever end?--62.63.37.160 18:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can edit. Anyone can create a new article. It is as simple as that. Suggesting that "requiring a pseudonymous identity with no identifying data to create a new article" is tantamount to "killing six million Jews" is.. well, hysterical to the point of hilarity. --Stormie 03:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Now, if you remove those blindfolds, you'll notice I never suggested that it was to be likened to the holocaust, but sure. Does this mean that "You look American" sounds like "You look like you enjoy torturing people you've conveniently labeled 'terrorists'" in your ears? Nazism, as in the kind of regime where liberty of speech is restricted in direct opposition to The Way It Used To Be. In closing; Wikipedia used to be free for _ANYONE_ to edit. Now, you may only create articles, and also edit some articles, if you get an account. In a while, that evolves into editing only if you have an account. Then talk pages get the same restrictions. Then what? Invite only? Nevermind, you're just blind. --62.63.37.160 20:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I just went through this process to create a simple redirect. Way to bloody hard. I used to do simple fixes all the time without creating an account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.89.235 (talk) 05:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Council of State Governments

I have submitted a proposed article on the Council of State Governments. For students and researchers seeking data on states' rights and issues dealt with at the state level, knowing that CSG exists will be particularly useful and will help them access information that is produced by an organization created by states and sustained with our tax dollars. 200.50.30.45 10:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Next time, please read the top of this talk page. People submitting articles are not supposed to edit here to talk about their articles. Thank you. Diez2 15:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Protection of the Article

Say, if this is the page where to submit content to be created if I don't want to create an account, then how comes this page is protected? If I have an account, I create an article without proposing it, so the deeper sense of a protected "Articles for Creation"-page evades me... --85.181.35.144 12:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that is kind of weird. I think the answer is that you're supposed to submit material to Wikipedia:articles for creation/Today rather than to WP:AFC itself. Maybe they protected AFC after too many people were damaging the page or something. But you're right, it seems a little problematic, I'll look into it more. Leave me a message on my talk page if you have any questions or want to discuss anything. Peace, delldot talk 16:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, those are the reasons. The only cause for editing the main Wikipedia:Articles for creation page is to change the instructions, which rarely needs to be done. Before the page was semi-protected, it was very common for submissions to end-up in the wrong place, or for the entire page to be blanked in favor of a single submission (leaving subsequent visitors without any instructions at all). The semi-protection pushes submitters to use the "click here to start" link, through which they will receive even more guidance from the "wizard" and the preload. ×Meegs 21:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yesterday's Submissions

When you click the link to this, you are told that not all submissions have been evaluated. In actuality, all of yesterday's submissions HAVE been evaluated. Perhaps this is a first, but can someone tell me how to fix it so that it doesn't indicate that there is a backlog on that particular day?--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 00:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It's been fixed, but for future reference, {{afc c}} is put at the top of a page once all of the submissions are evaluated. Otherwise, {{afc n}} is added until the page is finished. -- kenb215 talk 20:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Categorise or link to old archives?

I looked up "Dekatron" in Wikipedia, found Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2006-08-12 and created Dekatron from it.

But I notice there's no category for unfinished AFC pages nor links to them. What's up with that? - David Gerard 20:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Help

Some of the formatting got messed up, someone fix please >_< Whsitchy 16:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks to be ok now!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 22:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Bot question

The bot seems to be MIA, as no archive was made. I'll wait a bit and then try my hand at a manual archive if no other solution is forthcoming.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 01:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Argh, it's done now, with help from Anonguy. I kinda fumbled it up a bit...yikes. At least I know how to do it now!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 01:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

New WikiProject

Hi everyone! You might be interested in checking out the new WikiProject, Articles for creation. Please drop by and take a look!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 15:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Human Rights in Canada page

Please start a Human Rights in Canada page ASAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are likely looking for Requested Articles, located at WP:RA.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 23:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Guilherme de Melo

I don't know why this article was denied for being blank; it wasn't. I created it. Voskoboinikov 22:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Usually blanks result from comments swallowing up the text eg: <!-- lost text -->. Type your article after the > sign. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Links to pages

This is probably somewhere really obvious, but could someone point me to the discussion where we decided to remove the links to the proposed articles in the headers for the submissions? I found them helpful because you can look at them and know right away whether there's something there. Why did we decide to do away with that? Any chance of bringing it back? delldot talk 21:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely concur, and it also provides a handy way to create the article when using tabbed browsers. Shall we pose it on the template talk page for the wizard, as it is currently protected?--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 21:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd like to, but it might also be handy to find out why they changed it in the first place. Does anyone know? delldot talk 17:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Lag time

This seems like a neglected area of the Wikipedia? I mean, I was this close to being able to say regarding Troy Anthony Davis, that he was alive when I submitted the article. -- 146.115.58.152 07:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. It's not very rewarding, there's a lot of crap to filter through, and it's unending. Not that AfC was a good idea in the first place, but that's another issue altogether. --Gwern (contribs) 01:33 19 July 2007 (GMT)

Suggested chores for Jitse's bot

Entire discussion copied to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Suggested chores for Jitse's bot where it belongs.

Rewrite

Perhaps our instructions need a rewrite. I've seen too many ill-formatted submissions where people put the text in the comment bar and whatnot. Also, I propose that certain things are added to the intro to make it more clear on what this is for. I don't even really know why it's here. People just submit articles, get huffy if you decline, but abandon it if you create it. What's up here? ALTON .ıl 11:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep the goal in mind: Allow non-registered editors to submit material that is likely to be accepted. If it's just ill-formatted we can work around that. A much bigger win is to discourage submissions that will be rejected out of hand. In particular, further discouraging mere stubs for anything that is only marginally notable, discouraging non-notable material, and discouraging nonsense and self-promotion will save a lot of time. "If the article is about you or your friend, provide at least 3 high-quality reliable sources that are not directly related to you or your friend" and "Is the article about someone or something well-known outside of a local geographic area?" will help a lot. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to try this more forcible tone in the Wizard and on the front page then. Address concerns about it with me, immediately, please. ALTON .ıl 06:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You were a bit WP:BOLD making such a change without discussion. For today, leave what you have, but let's discuss it and see if we can improve it. Here's my 2 1/2 cents:

Suggested major changes: Add a green-checkmark-icon "DO list" including:

• Read the Five Pillars Of Wikipedia
• Read the Guidelines for writing high quality articles
• Read the Guide to writing better articles
• Read through other submissions so you get an idea of what gets rejected and why.
• Read a few Good Articles. After the article is created, plan on sticking around and turning your article into a Good Article. Better yet, write your article so it meets the Good Article criteria.
• Please do not submit a Stub article unless it is a "must-have" article for a paper encyclopedia, such as an animal species. If you found it in your printed encyclopedia, it deserves at least a stub here. If you didn't, think twice before submitting a mere stub. Write up a full article and submit it instead. If you do submit a stub, please suggest an existing stub category for your article.
• Before submitting redirects, or alternative names for the same article, read Wikipedia:Redirect. Make sure your alternative name is generally accepted and unique. If it is generally accepted but not unique, request a disambiguation instead.

Suggested minor changes: Change "go here" to "use the Sandbox".

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I fully endorse those. I realize I'm not the only contributor here, but as someone mentioned before, it is a rather neglected area of Wikipedia, so with the few people we've got we can't depend on anyone else. ALTON .ıl 17:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Purpose

What is the entire purpose of this page? Instead of submitting an article here (with the correct template etc) and having it reviewed and possibly rejected, one can just create an account (takes less than a half minute), start the article, and never use the account again. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 04:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it serves at least two purposes

• It allows people who, for technical reasons such as blocked cookies, cannot log in
• It allows people who choose not to register or log in to submit articles

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is a very good process, as it prevents articles that would be deleted under CSD from being created in the first place. However, currently, anonymous users are blocked from creating articles, but any registered user (even when the account is 10 seconds old) can create an article. The only purpose of this restriction is that you prevent casual "funny" vandals from creating pages with LALALALA because they don't even take the time to create an account. However, when someone is serious about creating a page, they can just create an account, create the page and dump the account. This page would serve a purpose when there is a restriction on creating pages by registered users (i.e. you have to wait four days, just like with moving pages), but not now. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 14:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:AFC is much quicker than the Wikipedia:Request an account process. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 15:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

New template: afc inuse|time=3 hours|msg=Research in progress.

You can use {{afc inuse}} as you "claim" articles on the AFC list, however it probably won't be necessary unless you will be delayed.

You can also use it on new articles in place of {{inuse}} to alert new-change-partrollers you are still working on the article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Categories

Shouldn't we include something in the Wizard that reminds submitters to use <noinclude> and </noinclude> tags when including categories? The submission pages are getting included in many categories and it's a bit confusing (for example, today's page is in Category:Living people). --Boricuaeddie 20:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

How about we just let submitters add their categories, and let the bot clean them up? It will only stay in the category for a day. Unfortunately there would be quite a few around that don't know what this page is all about though, and waste their time cleaning up things like dleted pictures from declined articles. I know when I was a new user, there were just too many instructions to follow. Most submitters don't even know what a category is. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Anon AFC submission gets a Barnstar

Is this: User talk:70.65.80.72#Thank you for your Articles for Creation work a first? An anonymous editor got a Wikipedia:WikiProject Saskatchewan barnstar for contributing the original version of Ebenezer, Saskatchewan. Too bad the contributor will probably never see his reward, since the submission is from the 2006 backlog. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

review of declined articles

I sometimes see a declined article here where I think an adequate article can in fact be written, and intend to do. Besides simply making the article, how should I indicate this? I am a rather experienced editor & an admin, and am generally confident about this; I know I do not need permission, but how should I modify the article request--just add my comment?DGG (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Undo the decline, mark it {{afc maybe}} and indicate you intend to create the article. When you have created it, remove the maybe and mark it as accept. To undo a decline, remove the afc top and afc b templates. Or, if you are lucky, it was declined as a stand-alone edit. In that case, find the edit in the edit history and "undo" it. Be careful to view the changes before saving any undo of this nature. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

{{afc nn}}

I have split off {{afc nn}} from {{afc bio}}. The wording of {{afc nn}} now deals with general notability concerns, while {{afc bio}} retains the old wording about NN people. Let me know if there are any concerns of problems. Caknuck 23:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Saigon Inferno

Why doesnt anybody adding the saigon inferno article?

http://vietnamnews.vnanet.vn/2004-06/12/Stories/06.htm http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2798725_ITM http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2372201.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.211.66 (talk) 11:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

http://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%E1%BB%A5_ho%E1%BA%A3_ho%E1%BA%A1n_ITC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.211.66 (talk) 11:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

AARD code

I just submitted this, but I have a better source to add: [1] 130.101.20.156 20:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll go ahead and stick this into the submission. Thanks! delldot talk 22:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Information about a removed addition

Please excuse me if I did anything wrong, but I removed an addition placed on here by User:164.58.72.21 (a comparatively new user). He added Broxton, England to the Articles for Creation page, having over-written Broxton (already existing), to produce a dab page. He did this because there is another Broxton in Oklahama (he has added Broxton, Oklahama as an Article for Creation today.) I: (a) reverted Broxton to restore the original article; (b) performed a page-move to rename it (to Broxton, Cheshire), thus preserving the editing history; and (c) then re-created the dab page at Broxton. I also had to edit a Cheshire-related template and may well have to do other edits to avoid references to Broxton in Cheshire-related pages now going to the Dab page. I hope this is acceptable to people. The editor who did this seems comparatively new, and was probably unaware of how to proceed in these cases. I'm not entirely sure I followed correct procedure in removing the entry, but I hope I sorted out the problem sufficiently.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you did fine! Thanks for helping out and cleaning that up!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 12:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Updated AFC script

I've updated the AFC script after suggestions from User:ArielGold and User:MacGyverMagic, adding a manual accept button and the {{afc bio}} and {{afc not}} templates to the declines. If you are using it, you might want to bypass your browsers cache once which will make sure you're using the latest version. Cheers! henrik•talk 14:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for Articles on your Behalf

"Articles for Creation" and "Requested Articles" don't allow you to request an article to be written for you. Where can I accomplish this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwonga (talk • contribs) 00:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. After an article is created, you are free to edit it. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 00:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Let me try to clarify. I work for a private college which is considered a "notable organization or company" and I'd like to see it listed here except I would be a person of interest. I see references where I can somehow request for the article to be written on my behalf from an unbiased third person but I don't see where I can do that unless I post it somewhere (and if so, where?). Hope that makes sense. Cwonga 19:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, I see what you're saying. Well, you could post it in my sandbox, and I could take care of it for you. I'll probably ask for some help from yourself and others on Wikipedia if I have some questions. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 21:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Close down?

What will happen to this page after anonymous article creation is re-enabled? Is there any point in continuing? violet/riga (t) 00:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

If Anonymous Article Creation were to be reenabled, this page would probably be shut down... but all the people that monitor it would instead have to be busy watching the new articles feed, and flagging all the junk that we turn down here with CSD tags instead, and hope that there's enough admin's around to delete it all. --Maelwys 01:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Not 'if' - 9th of November. Going to be quite interesting, and it might be worth planning if there will be an immediate shut down of this page or a short overlap. violet/riga (t) 01:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... hadn't heard that before. Will indeed be interesting, I hope the admins are ready for the hit, or things will get messy quickly. They'll probably leave this page around for a while, since it'd still help to filter out some people that need help formatting articles, or hopefully it could still absorb some of the garbage. But we'll have to see how it works... --Maelwys 01:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Just remember the result of the re-enabling will be evaluated after one month, so this page might not be technically necessary for that month, but *may* be required again afterwards depending on how things go. Now even if everything goes great and annon. page creation stay, there is still some backlog to clear. KTC 09:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

For information for anyone who haven't heard / read about this - Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Anonymous_page_creation_will_be_reenabled_on_English_Wikipedia. KTC 09:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Revolution Mother is a punk/hardcore/metal band consisting of Mike Vallely vocals, Jason Hampton guitar, Colin Buis bass, Brendan Murphy drums, Mike vallely was previously from Mike V And The Rats. Jason Hampton was previously from The Third Degree. Colin Buis was previously from Mean season and Twilight Transmission. Bredan Murphy was previously from Twilight Transmission as well. Revolution Mother began late 2005 by original members Mike Vallely and Jason Hampton, Revolution Mother picked up where Mike v and The Rats had ended. Revolution Mother's debut album was brought out in 2006 enjoy the ride.

Revolution Mother added two new band members Colin Buis and Brendan Murphy and with their help and a reputable manager began to write and record tracks for Glory bound After recording nearly 20 tracks from which the band chose for its album, Glory Bound is a fine-tuned, carefully selected set, highlighting all facets of the incredibly diverse Revolution Mother songbook.

Revolution Mother also tightened its live set for the Vans Warped Tour, performing on its own stage and garnering a few main stage opportunities courtesy of the tour’s founder and longtime skateboarding advocate Kevin Lyman. The act supported the release of Glory Bound on the entire 2007 installment, performing two sets each day for 45 cities.

Mike vallely is a sponsored skater by Element skateboard and Revolution Mother’s recored label is cement shoes

relevant websites

http://www.mikevallely.com/

http://apps.facebook.com/ilike/artist/Revolution+Mother

http://www.elementskateboards.com/team/thisismyelement/mike-vallely/

http://www.ilike.com/artist/Revolution+Mother

http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?id=258240940&s=143441

http://www.reverbnation.com/revolutionmother

http://www.purevolume.com/revolutionmother

http://www.myspace.com/revolutionmother

http://www.revolutionmother.com/

http://www.myspace.com/driveskateboarding

http://www.driveskateboarding.com/

http://www.youtube.com/mikevallely

http://www.myspace.com/mikevallely

http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=143835944 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.192.239 (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Anon page creation

You're invited to share your views on the topic at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Anon page creation. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Backlog gone

Or at least every section of the history has a (complete) next to it. I removed the template. Temperal^xy 01:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

2006 still is not finished! Did you miss the last line? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

What a bureaucratic nightmare !

I am an experienced wikipedian with several thousand edits, but I just wanted to quickly add a redirect, and didn't want to compromise my account by logging in from an insecure computer that I am using. After all, wikipedia is a new kind of encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, RIGHT? Well, it's a SHAME, SHAME, SHAME what kind of non-sense one had to go through to create a new article as an anon user, even if it be a paltry redirect. Disgusting how I had to go through all this you are not going to promote yourself, you can submit your IDEA for an article, blah, blah, blah ad infinitum. Well, that'll serve me right: I'll know now how discriminating and intimidating can wikipedia be for new users. Thanks a lot! 74.94.146.241 09:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Anons make over half of the wikipedia content, despite all the roadblocks people set up. --80.126.238.189 18:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC) (Kim Bruning)

The quality bar is quite a bit higher in AFC compared with autocreation using an account. A far bigger percentage of articles are declined, than new ones are deleted. This is prbably very discouraging, some contributors get upset! Graeme Bartlett 20:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It reduces the addictiveness level of wikipedia. Good for contributors, less so for us ;-) --Kim Bruning 00:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

A character who should have his own page

Rocko from the movie Pebble and the Penguin should have his own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.81.102 (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleated Request

I would like to know what happened to the deleated Strike of Lightning comment. The History tab told me to contact someone but that was just too difficult. So i'm asking here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.136.223.186 (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The article was declined as "not suitable." In my own opinion, there was no evidence of notability given. Further, the only sources you provided were websites where one could buy the book, and such websites are not considered reliable sources for confirming that a book is notable. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry about that, I'm new at this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.136.223.186 (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)