Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:13, 5 January 2013

• WT:AFC

• Are you in the right place?
  • If you want to ask a question about your draft submission, use the AfC Help desk.
  • For questions on how to use or edit Misplaced Pages, use the Teahouse.
  • Create an article using Article wizard or request an article at requested articles.
• Put new text under old text. Start a new topic.
• In addition to this page, you can give feedback about the AFCH helper script by creating a new ticket on GitHub.
• New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.

FYI: new bot requested

AFD informing bot, see Misplaced Pages:Bot requests/Archive 49#AFC reviewer informing if article is at AfD. Regards, mabdul 12:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Filed BRFA. Noom _talk 23:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

New wizard criterion for corporation AfCs

A suggestion: Plug the hole in the dyke. Stop worthless corp AfCs from entering the system in the first place because once they do, the persistent "employees" keep resubmitting the same non-notables. Why not add/modify a wizard criterion to ask "Have you found 12 independent references?" Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

We don't need to lie to them. If a company really is notable we don't require 12 independent refs. I don't think there's anything we can do preemptively. We could warn or block them if they abuse AfC by submitting the same article over and over without addressing the reason for decline though. Gigs (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely no per Gigs. --Nathan2055 21:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Not lying, rather asking for plenty of references ahead of time to prevent the flood of non-notable company AfCs. I'm talking about trying to filter those out. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

If an AfC article is blatantly promotional and insufficient references are forthcoming, you can try nominating it for WP:CSD#G11 speedy deletion. --Ritchie333 11:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

That's after the AfC has been created. The problem is the amount of non-notables entering the system. Also, as was pointed out at IRC, the time to speedy is before the thing gets submitted and rejected. This is because upon rejection, a notice is placed at the author's talk page asking for improvements. When the author clicks the link, the article has been deleted. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Might be worth looking at the talk page message the script sends out to see if the wording can be modified depending on the decline reason? Pol430 talk to me 18:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Joseph Kaipayil

After reviewing this article, when I accepted the article, added {{Persondata}} and project tags and tried to move it I got the following error message:

Error info:protectedtitle : The destination article has been protected from creation

What's up? Has it been salted (if so, shame one me--while the current version isn't great, I didn't see any glaring reason to decline it)? Miniapolis (talk) 16:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it has been salted. I'd contact WP:RFPP. Huon (talk) 16:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; I've requested full protection. All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 03:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

My request for full protection was declined (which reassures me about my original judgment :-)), and I've now requested unsalting. Miniapolis (talk) 17:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, we will fix this when we implement the enhanced error handling. Until then, mark it as reviewing and leave a comment that you have requested unsalting at RFPP. If the deletion calls for it, you may have to go to DRV. --Nathan2055 19:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Script bug: not recognising redirects

The script does not recognise when the user who submitted a draft page has had a change of user name; and is leaving messages on the redirected talk page, rather than on the page to which it redirects. Here's an example. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, that can't be that common of a bug. I'll file it on the list for v4.1.17, though. --Nathan2055 21:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Andy A. Anderson

I have concerns about Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Andy A. Anderson created by Badboyzshop (talk · contribs). It appears to have been copied out of another user's sandbox User:Andybrevard/sandbox, so attribution is incomplete. -- 65.92.180.225 (talk) 06:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Note, I have asked for a history splice on this to fix the attribution -- 65.92.180.225 (talk) 06:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the histmerge has been done now. I've re-added the AfC tag so the submission doesn't fall into the AFC black hole. I'm reviewing it now. Pol430 talk to me 22:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Script error?

What the? -- KTC (talk) 23:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Haha! Well it was very clean... Seriously though, I've had similar problems with the script malforming ref tags. Also, Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Picinsico which I declined as a copyvio and asked for the optional 'tag for CSD' criteria, is not listed at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as copyright violations. Pol430 talk to me 23:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It's under Category:Candidates for speedy deletion for unspecified reason. I'll have a look. KTC (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess it must be a limitation of way the CSD tag piggybacks on {{Afc cleared}}. Nathan is the script guru; I'm sure he'll drop by this thread soon enough and look into the blanking issue. Pol430 talk to me 00:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah...never seen that one before. Apparently the script decided that that article wasn't ready for creation. Huh, and I thought I left the artificial intelligence functionality out of this update. Seriously though, I can't find anything that could have caused this kind of bug, and mabdul seems to be purposefully ignoring me. The CSD tag is a bug in the existing super-template's code, if there is consensus to modify it I can reprogram it to add to a different category. --Nathan2055 19:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

If the script add all CSD tagged page to the same category, then leave it as not every AFC page tagged for CSD are for the same reason. KTC (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with KTC, now I know that they do show up as pending CSD requests, my mind is at ease. As long as CV submissions are blanked as well, I see no pressing reason to expedite their deletion by ensuring they show up in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as copyright violations. They will almost certainly be deleted within 24hrs regardless. Pol430 talk to me 18:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It did it again Pol430 talk to me 21:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The drive is on!

The backlog elimination drive was quietly started this morning! Everyone get out and start reviewing! --Nathan2055 20:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Reviewer - improving article

Is a reviewer encouraged to improve the article so that it would pass, or is that frowned upon? I was perusing articles for review, when I ran across Sejo John. The subject is obviously notable, he is music director for three films with their own wikipedia articles, and the (bare url) references are full articles in major newspapers. However, as it stands I don't think I can pass the article based on the referencing and the serious MoS issues. I could fix it, and then pass it, but in general I haven't seen it done. What are best practices in this situation? 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 07:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the reviewer can make edits to the article to make it pass (there's no rule that says you can't). The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 08:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, when I revamped the guide, I'm pretty sure I stuck it in there somewhere. After all, nobody WP:OWNs Misplaced Pages pages. Pol430 talk to me 18:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

What standard should articles be before moving to article namespace?

What standard should articles be before they are moved to article namespace? Some of the ones that I have seen recently needed some really basic editing to be presentable. Lawrence Blume is the latest example. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deleting AfCs

We get a lot of AfCs that have zero chance. Can we speedy them before the author comes to IRC pitching, pleading, adding a blog or two, resubmitting, etc?

Current procedure is to google it for copyvios and notability. If it comes up non-notable, we often do a google news archives search to be sure (most are small businesses/business people and not going to get matches at google books). If it's totally hopeless, we tell the author to dig for refs, or decline it, or tell the author it has no hope. Then the pleading and debating starts. It often goes on for weeks, with a blog ref or two added, and more pleading and IDHT.

Can we speedy these? Someone at IRC suggested zapping them before they're declined so the user doesn't receive a decline template with a link that goes nowhere. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• AfCs should not get anywhere near article namespace if they are just goint to be deleted. That just wastes everybody's time. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is, there's no CSD criterion that applies in those cases. There's nothing at CSD for "this is clearly a non-notable thing because the author can't provide sources". See WP:NOTCSD. A7 and A9 don't apply in most cases, because the author makes a credible claim of notability, even if they can't back it up with sources. A1 and A3 don't apply because there's generally content and context in the proposed article. In order to be able to speedy the proposed articles, you'd have propose this type of deletion at Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion and gain consensus there. —Darkwind (talk) 05:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

If it passes through CSD it may be PRODed or go to AfD. Editors who approve AfCs should have some idea of what is likely to pass any deletion process. IMO. LOL! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The wheat from chaff plan

Another aim of weeding out the non-notable company/business people drafts is to expose the notable remainder for review. Then those can be fast tracked.

A solution is to have the wizard ask if the subject is a "company/business person". If not, then auto-add a category. This category will contain much better product -- product I would like to review, but which is right now mixed in the the rubbish. I proposed this recently, and it sort of went stale: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2012 4#Corporation AfCs burying better AfCs.

This category idea is simple, and doesn't change the system. It just adds on a useful feature. Can it be done? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I am no expert on coding but I think it may be possible. There is a similar thing with the upload wizard but in that case it assigns the approp template. Anyway, given that editors are leaving and it is hard to keep them and we struggle with keeping out vandalism and there is a huge backlog of tasks we really should be making it harder to edit WP. Fighting words but that is the reality and that is what has been happening over most of WP history anyway. Given the popularity of WP and the number of WP enemies should we go back to the Nupedia model? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

We must not utter the "Nupedia" word here. :) Make it harder to edit? Better: easier to edit but harder to clog systems. Right now, the entire business world is racing to use Misplaced Pages as free ad space. That should stop. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It would be very easy to add a parameter that subcategorizes future submissions by topic through the use of the article wizard preload and a minor change to the articles for creation template. It would also be possible to create a very tiny template that tags a submission as "new". This would allow us to prioritize newer submissions over resubmits. If there is consensus for it, I could do it in an hour or so timewise. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 07:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We certainly should try and keep the barriers to editing as low as possible to avoid editor bias dictating what is included. But this is exactly the sort of thing that is ruining WP. The barriers are now too low for its popularity. Everyone knows that they can edit WP so they all have a go, with the disastrous results that we are now seeing.

I agree that we have to stop the flood of spam. We are in desperate need of a prescriptive notability guideline for commercial orgs. I have tried but I gave up beating my head against the wiki-brick wall. I don't know if it is me but it seems that getting new guidelines in place is no longer possible. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

One thing I just thought of. If I make the changes to add a "new submission" template, then the AFC script would need to be updated to run a simple find and replace to remove the template. In order to do that, we would need an admin to update it and someone who understands the script to code it. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 07:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

As for technicalities, I can't comment, but I totally agree with Alan Liefting, too big and it's RfCs, bureaucracy, and it will fizzle. Better to get something non-controversial proposed here -- something small and useful that we can get a dozen "supports" for right here and now. Let's go baby steps and get something done that can lead to further improvements. So, can someone make a simple sentence proposal here and ask for a list of supports? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• The one problem with speedy deletion is the fact that it puts the admin on the spot. There are many administrators that don't want to perform a controversial action for fear of community reprisal. They want to see consensus for the deletion of something before they do it, which is understandable. Unfortunately we can't use AFD because the articles are in mainspace. We could use MFD, but then we have to put up with people that will blanket keep votes saying "It's articles for creation. It can be improved with time." Then we have to deal with the editors confused as to why a submission is up for deletion when we can simply decline.

I do believe we need some way to delete submissions that don't have a snowball's chance in hell of ever passing. This is especially true for submissions comprised of badly referenced BLPs which may or may not have invalid information. So, with that said I would like to make a proposal to create a subpage for Articles for Creation at Misplaced Pages:Articles for Creation/Submission deletion. Pages will be eligible for nomination under criteria that will be described below. An entry will be listed for 2 days. If anyone contests the nomination (other than the article's creator), then the deletion process is canceled. If the nominator still believes the article needs to be deleted, then a discussion will be started on this talk page. After the two days with no controversy, the submission is slapped with a specially created CSD G6 tag and deleted by any administrator.

Criteria for deletion would be any one of the following:

1. Unsourced BLPs - The submission is an unsourced or poorly sourced Biography of a living person. There is not a significant amount of coverage in reliable sources and the nominator has done a reasonable job searching for sources.
2. Advertisment for a Non-notable organization - The submission is a promotional article on an organization. The organization itself fails the general notability guidelines (or any other notability guideline) and there is no substantial coverage in reliable third party sources. Note: If the topic has even one (1) reliable source with substantial coverage, then it would be exempt the submission from this criteria.
3. Non-notable object/entity that just won't go away™ - The submission is usually pure advertising with no useful sources or content and the topic of the submission fails the notability guidelines. The reviewer has tried time and time again to explain that the article needs to be neutral, well sourced, and the topic notable; yet the submitter just refuses to listen. This type of article would have died long ago if it had even dared set foot in mainspace, yet it survives for eons in AFC. It haunts the AFC reviewers, coming back like a zombie that just won't die, clogging up the review queue due to a very stubborn submitter who does nothing to improve it. It's the type of submission that makes a reviewer want to ignore all rules and slap a CSD G11 up and hope for an admin who thinks the same way.
4. Pointless spam submissions - Submissions that have been very clearly submitted by an obviously bored school student. This would include obvious hoaxes, vandalism, drafts of love letters for other students, rants about teachers/students/other entities that don't quite meet G10, and similar.
5. Unencyclopedic topics - How-to articles, personal reflection essays, essays about obscure business philosophies, or any other topic covered under Misplaced Pages is not for publishing that non-encyclopedia entry topic you have always had that urge to write about.

I think that covers 99.99% of the articles that will never be accepted. If we can get this passed, our workload would be lightened significantly. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 09:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)