Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Articles for creation - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xnuala (talk | contribs) at 22:46, 6 July 2007 (→Do we really need to deal with this?: wafflish answer). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:46, 6 July 2007 by Xnuala (talk | contribs) (→Do we really need to deal with this?: wafflish answer)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
WikiProject iconArticles for creation Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Shortcut

Userbox

We need a userbox, but the one I have is really barebones (and really crappy), could someone work on it?



Sure, I can design a logo for us to put in there. I'll also try to work on a template we can use to recruit new members with. Hersfold 01:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Ta-da! How's that look? (Image:AFC-Logo.png) Hersfold 02:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I like it! Thanks for putting the effort into this!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 02:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Whstchy, not to step on your toes or anything, but I did draft up another version of the UBX: User:Hersfold/Userboxes/AFC Please feel free to modify as you wish. I've also done a first draft of an invitation template here: User:Hersfold/AFC Invite. Hersfold 03:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
One problem, the template only gives your sig. No one elses. Whsitchy 03:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Dammit, I thought I'd fixed that. Ok, try it now. Hersfold 14:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal of New Category

What do you suppose our category should be named (current is at the bottom)? --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 11:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Second that. Whsitchy 13:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 15:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Works for me. Hersfold 01:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Category created. See Category:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation_participants for more details. -- Hdt83 23:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible things to add on this page

Here are some ideas floating around in my head--

1. Current collaboration, much like the one that occurs at Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation pages with links.

2. A running counter of the number of days that are not completed

3. Hall of fame maybe, where articles that we have created from anonymous requests have become good articles

4. Tools section, links to templates useful to Afc, maybe links from stub sorting and category indexes

5. This is probably more appropriate for talk, but somewhere to discuss borderline requests

The other thing I'd like to work on is bringing the project page in line with the WikiProject guidelines, but that could be an ongoing task. I think we are most closely aligned with other Misplaced Pages maintenance WikiProjects. What do you think of the possibility of linking to similar projects/possibly requesting that other projects link to us?

Should we do anything related to the Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for creation debate? Perhaps answer some of the concerns raised there? Some editors feel that Afc is a timesink as the ratio of accepted to declined articles are so low.

Any feedback is appreciated!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 16:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Potential issue with {{AFC preload}}

I've identified a potential usage problem with {{AFC preload}}, and I'm opening discussion on it on the talk page. Powers 13:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I've made a suggestion that should help. Hersfold 17:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk page header

I've created a new talk page header to use on articles created through AFC. It should help raise awareness of the project as well as allow us to keep track of the articles created through AFC. Here it is:

WikiProject iconArticles for creation Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Template:WPAFC Would this be something we could use? Hersfold 23:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I really like that, and intend to start using it as soon as possible.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 23:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Yay. I tweaked the template just now to add a "No rating" code, exampled above. This way we can put the header on project pages like this one without categorizing it. Hersfold 23:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
That was my next question...how would we be rating such articles? This answers it!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 23:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Man, you mean I have to create the talk pages now, too? =) Powers 15:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a good idea since we need more people. --Banana 21:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I am still wondering how we should rate articles. Maybe on how long the article is since most articles on AFC start out as stubs? Anybody else have any ideas? --Hdt83 23:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Article Ratings

That was my next question...how would we be rating such articles? This answers it!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 23:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I am still wondering how we should rate articles. Maybe on how long the article is since most articles on AFC start out as stubs? Anybody else have any ideas? --Hdt83 23:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I've copied those two comments down here so that we can start a discussion on that topic. What follows is the "grading scale" template, which I just happened to come across just now. It's quite through, even providing good examples of this that and the other. We can modify as needed to fit our needs, of course... I kind of like Hdt83's suggestion concerning length, but I think we should pay some attention to content as well. Hersfold 01:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject content quality grading scheme
Class Criteria Reader's experience Editing suggestions Example
 FA The article has attained featured article status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured article candidates. More detailed criteria The article meets the featured article criteria:

A featured article exemplifies Misplaced Pages's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Misplaced Pages articles, it has the following attributes.

  1. It is:
    1. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
    2. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
    3. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
    4. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;
    5. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process; and
    6. compliant with Misplaced Pages's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing.
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
    1. a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    2. appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and
    3. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required.
  3. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
  4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style where appropriate.
 Professional, outstanding, and thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information. No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible. Cleopatra
(as of June 2018)
 FL The article has attained featured list status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured list candidates. More detailed criteria The article meets the featured list criteria:
  1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
  2. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
  3. Comprehensiveness.
  4. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
  5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
  6. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.
 Professional standard; it comprehensively covers the defined scope, usually providing a complete set of items, and has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about those items. No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible. List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events
(as of May 2018)
 A The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been examined by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject or elsewhere. Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class. More detailed criteria The article meets the A-Class criteria:
Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Misplaced Pages:Article development. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources. It should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. Only minor style issues and other details need to be addressed before submission as a featured article candidate. See the A-Class assessment departments of some of the larger WikiProjects (e.g. WikiProject Military history). 		Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject would typically find nothing wanting. Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style problems may need solving. WP:Peer review may help. Battle of Nam River
(as of June 2014)
 GA The article meets all of the good article criteria, and has been examined by one or more impartial reviewers from WP:Good article nominations. More detailed criteria A good article is:
  1. Well-written:
    1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    2. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
    3. it contains no original research; and
    4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (though not necessarily equalling) the quality of a professional publication. Some editing by subject and style experts is helpful; comparison with an existing featured article on a similar topic may highlight areas where content is weak or missing. Discovery of the neutron
(as of April 2019)
B The article meets all of the B-Class criteria. It is mostly complete and does not have major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards. More detailed criteria
  1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional.
  2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.
  3. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.
  4. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but does not need to be of the standard of featured articles. The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.
  5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
  6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. The article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.
 Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher. A few aspects of content and style need to be addressed. Expert knowledge may be needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines. Psychology
(as of January 2024)
C The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup. More detailed criteria The article cites more than one reliable source and is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but it fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements, or need editing for clarity, balance, or flow. Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study. Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and solve cleanup problems. Wing
(as of June 2018)
Start An article that is developing but still quite incomplete. It may or may not cite adequate reliable sources. More detailed criteria The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas. The article has one or more of the following:
  • A useful picture or graphic
  • Multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic
  • A subheading that fully treats an element of the topic
  • Multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article
 Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more. Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use. Ball
(as of September 2014)
Stub A very basic description of the topic. Meets none of the Start-Class criteria. Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. Readers probably see insufficiently developed features of the topic and may not see how the features of the topic are significant. Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. The best solution for a Stub-class Article to step up to a Start-class Article is to add in referenced reasons of why the topic is significant. Lineage (anthropology)
(as of December 2014)
List Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list or set index article, which is an article that contains primarily a list, usually consisting of links to articles in a particular subject area. There is no set format for a list, but its organization should be logical and useful to the reader. Lists should be lists of live links to Misplaced Pages articles, appropriately named and organized. List of literary movements

Need a review

Here please. If someone could figure it out, it'd be great since that's the last one for that day. Kwsn 23:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been pondering this one as well. It seems to be adequately referenced, but my concern is for context mostly. Any other opinions?--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 17:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
It looks like it has enough context to me. I say create it (at Officer (surname)) and tag it as an orphan. Powers 01:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Noticeboard

I think we could make a separate noticeboard for situations like the above, ask for more help. Kwsn 23:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and perhaps link to it from both the project space and the AFC main page?--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 18:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Javascript helper

Hello all! I've recently joined this venture thanks to the kind invitation of Xnuala, but I've already discovered how tedious it was to type the templates over and over. So, being a programmer, I decided to do something about it :-)

I've created a small javascript helper that will let you do one-click-declines for most cases. If you install this script, next to the edit button on the section heading there'll be a bunch of links corresponding to the most common decline templates.

It'll look something like this:

Clicking one of the links will insert the top and bottom templates, the reason and your signature and then submit the page with the edit summary "declined" for that section. Accepts will still have to be handled manually.

There are a number of caveats though:

  • I've hacked this together tonight, and it is not well tested. Keep your fingers near the revert button :-)
  • It won't work if you have the AFD helper or Twinkle installed, since it is based on the same code. Please disable or uninstall it before trying this.
  • It's only tested in Firefox 2.0. Please let me know if it works or doesn't work in your favorite browser.

To install, add 

importScript('User:Henrik/js/afc-helper.js');

to your monobook.js (located at User:YOURUSERNAME/monobook.js)

I hope you find the idea useful! Any help testing this would be appreciated.

Kind regards, Henrik 21:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, Henrik, this is phenomenal! I'm happy to test it, and any bugs I find I would be happy to let you know about. If it isn't too hard to code, one thing that I'd like to see is a more detailed edit summary--such as Declined-notability or Declined-unsourced. Is this possible?--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 22:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Fixed! Henrik 22:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Bit borked. The options on the far right give back code, will show in a second Kwsn 22:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

File:AfCscript not working.PNG Kwsn 22:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Which version of Firefox is that, Kwsn? It looks like a 2.0.x, but an exact version might be helpful. Henrik 22:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
It appears to be an interaction with Twinkle that is the problem. I'll try to resolve that tomorrow and make it more compatible with other user scripts. But right now it's way past my bedtime in my local timezone :-) Henrik 22:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
It is 2.0.0.4. Kwsn 22:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Hm. Test again, it appears to be this problem, and I've added the suggested workaround. Henrik 22:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Working, thanks. Kwsn 23:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
(Killing indent here) Looks (and so far works) great, Henrik, but two more suggestions - would it be possible to add another button that downgraded a header to a 3rd level header? A lot of people don't seem to be able to read and add a 2nd level header instead, which makes it difficult to close discussions without closing the whole page, and probably botches up the script for the same reason. Sample at right.
An example of bad headers in an AFC submission
The second suggestion is a bit simpler, I think - there aren't any acceptance buttons. Not being pessimistic, were you? :-D Hersfold 19:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Hm. It would be possible to do add a button to do that, but a bit cumbersome. . You'd probably need to click it once for every section, which isn't ideal. If possible, I'd like a better solution (but I don't know what that would be :)
Hehe. No, there's no sinister motive for the lack of an accept button. Accepts are more complex to implement, as it should idealy open up an editor window with the suggested text already in the edit box at the proper title to be really useful (I've started working on it though, so you shouldn't have to wait too long).
I have one question: Should it automatically save the page or should it just open up an editor? Which would you guys prefer? Henrik 20:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there would be an easier way to do the headings. It might work to tell the code to downgrade every header between the top header (where the button is clicked) and the level-3 "Sources" header... but not everyone leaves that in, annoyingly enough, and a lot of them actually type their articles below that, which also wouldn't do any good. I don't know...
I can see your point with the accepts. However it works out is fine, thanks for the hard work.
I like the auto save thing. I can understand where that might be a problem with some of the templates, or where you want to leave an extra comment behind, but generally that's not the case. The only template you routinely have to add additional text behind is "afc not", and there's no button for that anyway, I assume for that very reason. The auto save saves time, IMO. Hersfold 17:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

June 2007 complete

June 2007 is complete! Powers 01:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Way to go WikiProject! To go from a rather neglected wasteland to a working area of Misplaced Pages in a fairly short time... simply phenomenal!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 01:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Very cool! Henrik 07:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Copy checking, bot for automating declining submissions?

Hello all,

I recently built a system for checking if a block text has been copied. While we decline almost all submissions, it may be useful to test any of the remaining ones if they include big blocks of well written text. Visit http://gtools.org/tools/copy-checker/ and test it out (its still in beta and a bit buggy). Basically, take the text the user has submitted and copy it into the big text area, and type the proposed name of the article (or your improvement of it) into the smaller box. It takes some time, currently up to a minute and a half per check - leave it running in the background and go attack another backlog. Please use my talk page to give me any feedback, report bugs or request features. I designed it for AFC (and WP:WWF) so I'd love to hear what sort of features you would like to see in it.

Secondly, I'm looking into building a system/bot for semi-automated declining of submissions. Basically, it should look through the backlogs and show each unreviewed submission to you in an easy to use format, with quick shortcuts for common decline templates. I'd like to know what you would like to see in such a system, which templates you use commonly and so on. Reply here or contact me via email / my talk page.

--Draicone 11:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Mass moderation of backlog

Let's face it - with a backlog dating back to Feb 06 - thats right, over a year - there is no way we're going to take care of this backlog. However, most of the old pages are nearly complete and have no useful submissions remaining (User:Where has been kind enough to take care of most of the article creation). To clear out the backlog, we need a new approach, and one that makes use of what little time we have. I propose we mass moderate each one-day archive, looking at all submissions and deciding whether or not any are article material. If any articles can be created, create them and use the templates to quickly thank the submitter (not that he or she is going to receive your message, after a year). Otherwise, put something like this at the top of the archive:

All article submissions on this archive page have been mass moderated, and none of the remaining submissions are suitable for articles on Misplaced Pages. The page has been mass moderated and can safely be marked as completed.

We then mark the page as completed on the archive page for that month and move on. I can guarantee that not a single user who submitted something before the start of the year and was declined is going to come back and look for some reasons why their article didn't make it. So why take the time to provide individual feedback on requests? Most will never make it to an article, very few could even be improved to article standards, so the time taken to mark each submission is redundant and could be better spent mass moderating other pages. Let me know what you think. Since this is a fairly controversial suggestion, we should get some consensus on it before mass moderating archives permanently. --Draicone 11:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree - something needs to be done. But it seems that it is the borderline cases that are hard to judge that are remaining, the obvious spam gets declined quickly and the well written referenced articles gets posted. Most of the remaining articles may need substantial amounts of rewriting even if they are about a notable subject before posting. Even going through the articles day by day would require significant amounts of time. One option (and the one I'm leaning towards) is that we wipe the slate clean just this once and decline anything over three months old, and then follow your suggestion for anything newer. In one stroke, we've eliminated the backlog and can get on with judging the current proposals. The borderline notable articles that we miss by doing this will surely be suggested by someone else in the future if they are truly notable. Henrik 12:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Wiping the slate clean entirely could be a bit drastic, but what if we ignore all pre-2007 archives? Beyond 6 months I doubt anybody cares what happened to their submission, so we won't break any hearts, and I doubt we'll miss anything important. I'm currently working on the Feb 2006 backlogs and I've found one article worth creating (World Currency Unit), and have mass moderated the rest as unverified (which they are). I've finished two days of backlogs already, but its a slow process and I'd rather not tag each submission and explain why its being declined, especially if nobody cares. --Draicone 12:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree and have been considering a similar proposal myself. I think it's time to say that anything submitted before January and not yet reviewed needs to be resubmitted. Some of them may even have articles already. Powers 13:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I know the existing articles problem is really common in the old backlogs, I found quite a few trawling through the Feb 06 archives. How about we wait another day and see who is in favor of ignoring all backlogs until (but not including) the first of Jan 07? All we have to do is removing the reference to the 2006 archive and leave a note somewhere in the history books - "Backlog not worth clearing. See ] for more details." Then we attack the Jan/Feb backlogs and hopefully we can get it down to four months. --Draicone 14:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I fully agree. When I've been reviewing some of the backlogs, I've noticed that many of the submissions that are about a notable subject have had articles created on that subject since the nomination was made. We should put a notice on each one of those archives that if people think their really old submission still has merit, to resubmit it in today's log so it gets noticed.
Do we need to start a straw poll or start calling people up on their talk pages to get consensus on this, or do we think four people is enough when the Wikiproject only numbers about 20? Either way, I'll start working on 2007 archives for now. Hersfold 19:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we should go through, weed out the good ones, and then have a few dedicated people clean up the non-accepted ones Kwsn 19:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
But it will take a lot of time from those few dedicated people, time that could have been spent working on a more useful backlog like Jan 2007. We don't need a straw poll, we just need to wait a couple of days for consensus. And with about 30% of the wikiproject in favour already, that won't talk long. --Draicone 21:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that removing all entries submitted before 2007 might be a good idea. Most submissions then that were notable enough would probably have an article by now and those that don't would probably have been resubmitted. While it may sound a bit harsh or drastic, it would help remove the year old backlog plaguing AFC. --Hdt83 19:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I went through a few days in the end of january now and many of the ones that seemed worthwhile (even borderline worthwhile) already had articles. Henrik 20:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
So we're all agreed that we should stop working on pre-2007 backlogs? --Draicone 21:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I would support the mass moderation tag, but am leery about completely abandoning the pre-2007 backlogs. I have found some reasonable stuff in there, and I feel that if someone took the time to submit, it deserves the time we take to review it. Even if it is utter and completely devoid of value.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 02:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree. --24fan24 (talk) 04:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This clearly represents consensus from WPAFC, so I've gone ahead and created {{afc mass}}. Add this to the top of each page you review: 

{{afc mass}}

We should be able to clear entire week backlogs in the time taken to do half a day with this. We may still find useful submissions in the 2006 backlogs for articles to be created. Please don't start mass adding this tag to pages though, carefully consider each submission and at the very least think of which template you would have denied it with. Its anything but transparent, but lets not overdo process and create a 'peer-review mass moderation' policy. --Draicone 08:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of the mass moderation tag, but I do want to voice the opinion that it's important that we not get too free with it, since I think we owe it to the people who put work into their submissions to review them and create the ones that merit it. In the past couple days I've been spending a lot of time on the February 2006 archives, and I've found several articles worth making and a bunch of redirects. But I agree the way I've been doing it, individually reviewing submissions, takes way too much time. It's a shame that the backlog exists, but we're not helping anything by just wiping it, that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In my opinion, people that don't think the old backlogs are worth working on should themselves not work on them. I seen no harm in that, and those folks can be helpful with the newer ones. Anyway, I think the mass moderation templates are a great idea so long as we give the worthy submissions their due. delldot talk 11:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
What is the community feeling about not using the mass moderation tag on pages from January 2007 and forward? Also, perhaps we should add the mass moderated pages to a category in case any users would like to re-review those pages.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 09:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
That sounds good to me (the category). Since the mass moderation tag was created as a sort of emergency measure to deal with the most massive backlog in Wikipedian history, I would much prefer to not see it be used anywhere except on those 2006 archives. The 2007 files get reviewed enough anyway (many are complete, those that aren't only have a few holes), and we've got plenty enough people to fill in those gaps. Hersfold 13:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
A category would be great. I've added it to the template, and since this template could be constantly reworked, lets not subst it. Remember to use {{afc mass}}, I'll go through and un-subst it from pages its already been used on. --Draicone 13:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need to deal with this?

A lot of nomination processes involve the creation of a new page in order for the people involved in the process to coordinate their efforts. WP:RFA and Misplaced Pages:Translation are a few examples. Of course, this means that unregistered users can't really participate in them... without going through us first. Reason I bring this up is because a couple days ago I dismissed this one entry fairly out-of-hand. It was in an early May archive, and the person was trying to nominate a page for peer review. I figured that since it was a non-registered account, two months old, not really what AFC was here for, and since I couldn't find anything on the talk page of the article discussing a potential peer review, I closed it with a remark telling the person to try their luck at WP:PR. Naturally, the IP address leaves a message on my talk page today asking why I declined his request. Since he hunted me down for it, I went and started the peer review, but it left me wondering this, which I'm asking all of you:
Is AFC intended to create project pages, such as those needed for peer review, translation, and other services, or should we recommend that anonymous users seek the help of a registered user to create those pages for them?
The way I see it, Articles for Creation is intended for articles. An IP address also may not be taken seriously in some cases. If an IP tried to nominate an administrator, the candidate would likely be laughed out of their RfA. And as everyone knows, we've got too much to deal with as it is, without having to fiddle with all this procedural crap. What are y'all's views on this? Hersfold 13:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You bring up an excellent point. I wonder if we need some sort of Misplaced Pages:Pages for creation noticeboard on the same lines as AfC? Or perhaps a sub-area of AfC? Although, this gets into a bit of an instruction-creepy area I guess...I feel strongly about the "anyone can edit" idea so see the value of allowing those who choose not to register the ability to create articles, but there is no "anyone can participate in the administrative process" idea. The way you dealt with it (after the anonymous editor contacted you individually) might be sufficient. I must disagree with you on the IP nominating an administrator being a precedent for not being taken seriously..perhaps AnonGuy might want to weigh in...?--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 22:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Categories: