Are you in the right place or not? Ask for help at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page Give feedback on this wizard at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/feedback The structure of the wizard is documented at Wikipedia talk:Article wizard/Documentation

To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, all wizard talk pages redirect here.

Articles for creation Project‑class

This page is used for the administration of the Articles for Creation or Files for Upload processes and is therefore within the scope of WikiProject Articles for Creation. Please direct any queries to the discussion page.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creation (admin)AfC project pages Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archives

Archive 1 (Oct 2008 - Oct 2009) Archive 2 (Nov 2009 - Dec 2011)

What category out of all on Wikipedia:Article wizard/Subject should I consider a school? I am not sure whether a school would be considered "a company, organisation or foundation" or "something else." Any advice? 174.98.30.117 (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The generic decline ("NN") should not link to the CSD criteria - I feel this is too confusing for new editors (even experienced editors) and I think it shuts them down. We should instead link to a less scary page like WP:GNG.
• We should allow a decline reason for articles which are just absolute formatting trainwrecks such as copy-and-paste text-wall nightmares (such as interwiki) which might not technically fall into any other decline criteria, but would require a lot of effort to cleanup and wikify. It's not really helping the encyclopedia or anyone else if more effort has to go into cleaning up a submissions than effort it took to create in the first place.
• Similarly, we don't really have a decline reason for machine-translated articles which I've been coming across lately. We should have a decline reason for these I think. These don't always fall into other criteria and can be hard to check if you can't read the original language.
• We should add to the "v" decline reason and add something like "or sources that cannot be verified". For instance, sources which might not be in English are going to be difficult to verify on the English encyclopedia.

Just some thoughts for now.    Thorncrag  00:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All these are good ideas. The reasons can be updated by editing Template:AFC submission/comments. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed all references to WP:CSD#A7. From what I gather, the relevant part ("does not indicate why its subject is important or significant") is already covered by the messages, and the rest don't really concern AfC. wctaiwan (talk) 13:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the issue of submissions where more than one issue applies (for instance, the same page may be self-promotional and non-notable). Certainly it would be preferable not to have this ugly template appear more than once on a page - perhaps multiple issues from the same evaluation of a page should be collapsed into one list, and old templates from previous review attempts should be downsized (using a different template) to be just one-line comments ("a previous version of this article lacked references") once the issues have been fixed. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a perpetual backlog at articles for creation. I went to try to review some articles, and I found this template to be intimidating. At /Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Reviewing_instructions the instructions say that the template should look "something like: ((AFC submission|D|reason|ts=20120117172850|u=Example|ns=5)). Please do not remove or edit the ts, u, or ns parameters"

I was intimidated by this and I think many other able editors are also. This was a barrier to my participating in AFC, and thinking back I have come to AFC before and not reviewed articles just because I did not want to take the time to learn this template. Is there a way that the template could remove the ts, u, and ns parameters so that users do not have to see them, since users are not supposed to touch them? If this is absolutely not possible, then I think I would like to include stronger bold language in all instructions saying that there is no reason for anyone to question what these parameters are supposed to mean. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the wording slightly from 'The reviewer left the following comment about improving your draft' to: 'The reviewer left the following comment about this draft'. Dislike the word 'your' as it encourages WP:OWN issues and also, not all drafts can be improved to the point they will be accepted. Pol430 talk to me 17:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these are lost causes, either as WP:HOAX or as clear corporate advertisements. If someone creates user:example.com as a WP:SPA to post WP:COI copying http://www.example.com/about.html verbatim directly to a Wikipedia article for creation (and this is their only edit) odds are that mess can't be fixed (COI, copyvio, advertisement, username policy) as there's nothing there to salvage. Because all of the responses are templated, however, this gets the same responses ("your article has been declined, click here to edit it" and the user talk page "hey, let's everyone come to the tea room" as a new-users forum) which might've almost made sense if this were a good-faith attempt to create an article on an obscure topic but basically look like a joke when templated onto a single-purpose account posting only corporate advertising. These are submitted fairly routinely, by the looks of things. If an article is a valid attempt that just needs WP:RS to establish fact or notability, sure, but a WP:COI typically isn't going to go away on a rewrite attempt by the original corporate author. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 00:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of WP:BRD, I would like people to review the changes I have made earlier and revert them if needed be. Here's a summary and some rationales for what I did:

• Changed all mentions of "third-party" to "independent" and added wikilinks to WP:Independent sources

I think that "independent" is a better description of our requirement, and from experience many new contributors do not understand what we mean by "independent sources".

• For nn, bio and film, changed "Please ... cite reliable, published third-party sources, so that the information in the article is verifiable. Thank you." to "Please ... support it by citing published sources that are reliable and independent."

I think that the relation between sources and verifiability isn't immediately clear to new contributors. Linking to WP:Referencing for beginners makes it easier for them to try adding sources on their own.

• Replaced the message for v with "This article is not adequately supported by reliable, independent sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified, and reliable independent sources are needed to establish the notability of the subject. If you need help citing sources, please see Referencing for beginners."

To me, the old message may be misunderstood to suggest that sources connected to the subject cannot be used at all. Furthermore, a more prominent link to WP:REFB is probably more helpful to new contributors than a link to the more detailed WP:CITE.

Thanks. wctaiwan (talk) 12:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The option to create a new article directly in mainspace has disappeared, with no explanation! The option allowed experienced editors to copy-paste from their sandbox or write the article directly (a 'new article for review' box would automatically be added). Any good reason why this has disappeared? I've got myself into knots moving a sandbox article directly to mainspace (using the MOVE button), but it has retained the edit history of everything else I've created in my sandbox, argh! Do admins no longer trust experienced editors to use the new article wizard responsibly?? Sionk (talk) 13:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:AFC#propose_removal_of_the_third_Wizrad_option_to_create_directly_a_page, there was the short but consent to remove the third option. (the edit summary linked sadly to the wrong section). Oh and by the way: don't do copy 'n paste moves, although it might be OK for page where you were the only contributor. mabdul 13:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Obviously I was one of the experienced editors who was still using the wizard. After all, there is a bypass option for 'experienced users'. I've never found any instructions about how to create an article without using the wizard!

As for copy'n'paste, I've only used that for 'my' articles in my sandbox where, like you say, I am the only contributor. In future I presume I should create a new sandbox for each new article and use the MOVE button to make it 'live'. Sionk (talk) 13:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To create an article without using the wizard:

1. Find an existing page where your (as yet uncreated) new article can sensibly be linked from
2. Create a link in that page to your intended new article, and save it. Your new link will appear in red.
3. Click on that red link. You should get a box containing the text "Before creating an article, please read Wikipedia:Your first article." plus the normal edit box.
4. Type in your new article, preview, amend where necessary, and save
5. Go back to the page mentioned in item 1, refresh your browser: your new link should now appear in blue
6. Click that blue link to make sure that your new article is correctly reached

--Redrose64 (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do I actually create a new article? I don't see a button for that. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herbalist2012 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:Article_wizard has plenty of buttons to guide you through the process, if you like buttons. It is actually quite good because it makes sure you've thought of all the possible pitfalls. The final page allows you two choices, either to create your article in a 'sandbox' (if you need a bit of time) or write the article straightway for review at AfC. Sionk (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did see that there is a place at the end to submit an article for review. I'm guessing that is the same as AfC? But what I thought existed was that we could just create an article ourselves, instead of having it submitted first for some review process? So in other words we are not allowed to make our own article go live, just send it to others who get to decide to make it live or not? Am I understanding this correct? If this is true why not allow all our edits to have to be approved first? What ever happened to empowering regular editors? I guess some are more equal than others here on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herbalist2012 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checking your contribution (and having only 10 contributions - 2 here) I would say that you are simply not experienced enough (not signing your comments, not knowing what is the autoconfirmed status, you should really go through The article wizard. To be precise, we are all equal - more or less (of course) - but you have to learn that we have have/had to protect the encyclopedia for vandals and new articles can only be created by editors who has the autoconfirmed right, or going through (even as unloggedin user/IP user) in the AFC/wizard process and getting at least a real review of (mostly) experienced users. mabdul 01:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to add that the reviewers on the review board are acting like little Napoleons. I submitted the following article through the Article Creation Wizard process. Regional Airline Association It was shot down twice for not being notable enough to be a wikipedia article. As you can see the article is riddled with references and citations to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), The United States Congress, the Public Broadcasting Service, Fox News, Business Week and other 3rd party citations. You decide. The mere fact that wikipedians are left to work through loopholes to avoid being obstructed by short-sighted individuals with axes to grind who know nothing of the industry in which the article submissions are written on is ridiculous! --XB70Valyrie (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can I create a template (i.e. Template:Engrish), regarding poorly translated articles? 68.173.113.106 (talk) 01:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably looking for the "Create something else" section of the Article wizard, which should give you that option. Alternatively, you can create an account, which will allow you to create the template directly. However, can you name an article for which neither ((copyedit)) nor ((not English)) would be appropriate in this situation? PleaseStand (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The same anon user later raised a thread at Wikipedia:Requested templates#Template:Engrish which is probably a better place. Suggest we close this as  Not done. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia:Article_wizard/Instruction_image, the Image:Article Wizard 2.0 graphic4.jpg file should really be a png instead of jpg, because it contains text.

The image is also used at protected pages A and D that are in turn used by &editintro=Wikipedia:Article_wizard/Wizard-New_edit_instructions_userdraft that is appended to all URLs pointing to new page creation in own userspace from redlinks. Example: ... start your new article at Special:Mypage/Redlink ...

Once the png version is created, we'll need to use Template:Edit protected to have it changed on all relevant templates.

Also, looking into the Article wizard further; this whole system is currently a mess with redirects from Wikipedia:Article Wizard 2.0/* to Wikipedia:Article Wizard/*. All templates using 2.0 should be updated to use the versionless pages instead. •ː• 3ICE •ː• 01:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on the image. PleaseStand (talk) 04:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Working on recreating a similar image in markup. Rough draft at User:Gadget850/h. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the image I created at right. PleaseStand (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In what situations would an editor get Wikipedia:Article wizard 2.0/Wizard-New edit instructions C thrown at them as the preloaded template? It seems to me that the only possible end situations are either that your article already exists (in which case the Wizard spits out Wikipedia:Article wizard 2.0/Wizard-New edit instructions B), or it's in userspace as intended and you get Wikipedia:Article wizard/Wizard-New edit instructions D. Am I just missing something obvious? I tried mucking around with the page titles and urls to get it to produce option C, to no avail. Thanks, Steven Walling (WMF) • talk

Older versions of Ready for submission, Not quite yet, and Help:Userspace draft required the user to enter, for example, Special:Mypage/sandbox instead of just sandbox, as the inputbox extension did not originally accept a prefix option (Template:Bug). Since that was implemented, Rd232 made a change to the userspace draft help page (and similar changes to AfC) to make use of it. So now no user should see page C. PleaseStand (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay, so I wasn't completely crazy. ;) Would it work to just remove it then? Thanks the quick reply, Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even the rest (A-D) can't be accessed since we removed the direct option to create a mainspace article and we also removed the userspacedraft. All these pages can be safely deleted. mabdul 23:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can remove the instructions which are related to the main space article since this is (as far as I know) not longer in use and can be safely deleted:

• Wikipedia:Article wizard/Wizard-New edit instructions
• Wikipedia:Article wizard/Wizard-New edit instructions A
• Wikipedia:Article wizard/Wizard-New edit instructions B

as described at Wikipedia_talk:Article_wizard/Documentation. mabdul 23:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

mmmh, interesting: Template:Editnotices/Page/Enter your new article name here looks very similar... mabdul 23:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no big deal, but feel free to ping my volunteer admin talk if you want anything taken care of. Cheers, Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 23:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think the link to Wikipedia:Requested templates should be removed. Editors using the wizard are likely too new to need or understand a template in this point of their editing careers. As you can see from the recent reverts on the requested templates page, new users are attempting to add their article content there, not understanding what the page is for. The word "template" has various meanings outside of Wikipedia, so as a non-intuitive place for new users to go, can we remove it? — Bility (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really I think that we a) should popular more this page and b) that this addition is at the right place. We can talk about improving WP:RT's editnotice and/or the intro of the page. At the moment we have only one "wrong" request since I created the editnotice (ok, and this edit was posted multiple times). Regards, mabdul 20:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I still don't anticipate brand new editors needing a new template right away, but hopefully the editnotice will cut down on the misplaced edits. Cheers, — Bility (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mhh, the edit notice seems to do a really good job - no useless edit since 4 days. FYI: experienced users don't need to use/create an account. Follow a few days at WP:TFD and you will notice one IP who is regular commenting on these discussions. We even have a tracking category (not longer active) for an IP user who was submitting new articles using the wizard - so I still believe that there is a need to populating that "RT" page since even I only found this page by accident. mabdul 16:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've given it a few weeks and we're still seeing tons of non-requests at Requested templates. The edit notice is not a deterrent, as we are dealing with brand new people who don't yet understand how wikis work and what they're doing. A user's first few edits aren't going to be requesting a template, so once again I am asking that the link to Wikipedia:Requested templates be removed. It's not just an annoyance to the watches of that page who must do the reverting, it is also confusing to new editors who are adding article content only to have it removed. — Bility (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I still don't see the problem: yes we have many more "requests" and most of these edits get reverted, but that aren't really that many. mabdul 11:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, silly idea. I removed the button again. I still don't understand why so many simply clicking something without reading the manual mabdul 12:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I think our definition of a template is probably unguessable to someone unfamiliar with wikis. Going by the normal English definition of the word, I would expect a template to be a standardized article layout I can begin editing immediately. I imagine they were confused by where the link took them, and rightly so. Thanks for removing it. — Bility (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is a down ballot race. I have been all over the cloud and there are no explanations to just what a down-ballot race is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.85.47.64 (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should use our reference desk - this page is for discussing the wizard. mabdul 09:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Article Wizard currently prohibits editors from writing articles about themselves.^[1] I wonder if this is advantageous for the encyclopedia. Since WP:COI does not actually prohibit users from writing about themselves, I wonder if the Article Wizard should. After all, this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Thoughts? Note that this has been suggested once before. NTox · talk 07:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. Most accounts def. have a problem of the following list:

• are WP:SPAs,
• violating WP:UPOL,
• have clearly a COI issue,
• trying to use Wikipedia to advertise

likely that I have missed some other points, so, the ones who ignore all rules are mostly getting the best results... mabdul 14:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WIZ links to Wikipedia:Requested articles, which is largely stagnant. I think it is probably worth removing that link, since requests filed at WP:RA are not likely to be fulfilled for years, if ever. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No objection; I have made the change. I'm still open to being proven wrong, though. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's problematic that WP:RA overlaps the to-do lists for the individual WikiProjects, which typically also have somewhere to request a topic. One title could easily fall into two or three different "wanted" lists (for instance, an Ontario museum article could be requested on WikiProject Canada, WikiProject Museums, GLAM (galleries, libraries, archives, museums) and WP:RA ... plus an individual city's WikiProject if available). Sadly, some of the WikiProject pages are just as stagnant or worse. I'd tried both the "Travel and tourism" and the "Hotels" wikiprojects to ask why the only page we have for honeymoon suite is about not the motel/hotel room type but some 1980's rock band in Niagara Falls, Ontario but couldn't raise anyone... 66.102.83.61 (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted a suggestion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Additions to the sidebar to addd a link to this Wizard on the left hand nav bar. Kumioko (talk) 13:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presently I need to go to the Categories: Wikipedia article wizard link at the bottom to get to the next section of the process, "Subject". I do not see any obvious way that "the next will become available." Was this intended this way? If not, then I suggest that someone insert links to the other sections.

I cannot find the "Notability" section at all. Anita5192 (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just changed Template:Article wizard/userpageskeleton, per WP:USERNOCAT and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BattyBot 9 (prompted by this edit in my user space). Does that seem OK, or do we need to do something else for userspace drafts? Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 11:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me - thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, you may want to look at the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval#BattyBot 9. GoingBatty (talk) 00:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the redirects page in the sentence with "...reflects poorly on you or diminish your value to the project," "diminishes your value" or just "your value" would read better. 98.154.180.102 (talk) 04:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I changed it to "diminishes your value". Superm401 - Talk 04:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i apologize if it's not the right place to ask my question but i couldnt find a better place. can i have the "article wizard" plugin installed on my personal wikimedia installation? or is there similar plugins that can do the trick? thanks and apologies again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxybeirut (talk • contribs) 21:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An IP user added something that seems like a misplaced AFC request here. It seems like an attempt to recreate the deleted Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi article, though. --101.109.214.224 (talk) 10:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A question was raised at WP:HD today regarding the status of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SOI. It turned out that edits had been made after the submission had been declined, but the decline notice had not given instructions as to how to resubmit. I struggle to understand template syntax, so could someone please explain which switch was causing this not to display resubmission instructions whereas the standard Template:AFC submission/declined does display the instructions? I have seen numerous similar cases in the past where editors were confused by the lack of instructions, so I'd like to understand the circumstances which cause the instructions to be omitted. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

At Wikipedia:Article wizard/Ready for submission, please change default=Enter your new article name here to placeholder=Enter your new article name here in both of the InputBoxes. 82.132.229.118 (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thank you for this suggestion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please could the same be done at Wikipedia:Article wizard/Not quite yet. 82.132.216.222 (talk) 21:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

((AFC submission/declined)) says how long ago the submission was declined and how long ago the page was edited. For example, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/A Midsummer Night's Dream by William Shakespeare: Act II currently says: "Declined by FoCuSandLeArN 72 minutes ago. Last edited by FoCuSandLeArN 72 minutes ago." It was actually 8 hours ago. Due to caching, the stated time is often wrong until the page is purged. New users cannot be expected to know about this and may be confused by claims like declined "0 seconds ago", as it starts out saying. If the computed time is less than 1 day then I suggest using ((Purge)) to make a link with text like "(click here to update time)". PrimeHunter (talk) 03:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In /Not quite yet, there's no link to Articles for creation. Should one be added? - Ypnypn (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a link in ((WPAFC/project)), which displays "This page is used for the administration of the Articles for Creation or Files for Upload processes..." GoingBatty (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that Ypnypn was referring to Wikipedia:Article wizard/Not quite yet rather than the talk page that he/she linked. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFC is getting articles from students whose instructors don't seem to be giving them complete advice about things like notability, etc.

Wikimedia's Outreach has an education project. I've made-and-reverted this edit to the first page of the Wizard to link to the information they have for students. The only "downside" can think of to making this "go live" is that the Outreach page itself has a prominent link that is broken (reported), and I'm not sure if we want to point to it while the glitch is in place. Other than that, I'd like to make this go live. Your thoughts? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This may be very helpful and accessible to many users.--Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 12:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a good idea, to create a class directly open IRC chat box without jumping to another page? Asiaworldcity (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some web browsers aren't technically able to open chat windows or, if they can, the user is running a low-power PC and a chat window would be impractical to use. Besides, from a usability perspective chat is one of the few things where opening a new window actually makes sense. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I added the "2 weeks, 1 week" backlog information, it was to give new editors a sense of how long they had to wait.

Please consider either restoring the old text or adding text like "the current backlog is over n weeks long" or something similar. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to Template:AFC submission/declined has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

• Please replace:

<includeonly>((NOINDEX))[[Category:Declined AfC submissions|((SUBPAGENAME))]]</includeonly>

• with:

<includeonly>((NOINDEX))[[Category:Declined AfC submissions|((SUBPAGENAME))]]((#ifexpr:((#time:U|(({declinets))} +6 months))<((CURRENTTIMESTAMP))|((#ifexpr:((#time:U|((REVISIONTIMESTAMP)) +6 months))<((CURRENTTIMESTAMP))|[[Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions|((SUBPAGENAME))]]))|))</includeonly>

• so that the ~80K G13 eligible drafts will be easier to find. Thanks Technical 13 (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This edit request is for Template:AFC submission/declined and I'm not sure why that talk page redirects here... Technical 13 (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Like many wikiprojects do, it was probably redirected to point all discussion from smaller subpages to this main talk page. Killiondude (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Killiondude:@Technical 13:Please undo the change. Please read the CSD rule: Rejected or unsubmitted Articles for creation pages that have not been edited in over six months. This criteria applies to both rejected AfC pages and unsubmitted AfC pages.. The edit only takes into account the decline stamp of the AfC. The submission's advocate could have done more effort, and not have understood that they need to re-submit. Also the configuration of the edit appears to be broken see [1] as an example where the G13 eligible AfC submissions is included but is not valid. Hasteur (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not done: The new code added checks both the decline date and the date of the last edit. For the category to be added, the decline date must be at least six months ago, and the date of the last edit must be at least six months ago. That seems to cover the wording of the G13 criterion to me. On an unrelated note, this code might fall foul of bug 5382, where the category won't display without a null edit to the page. Joe Decker has a bot that goes and makes null edits for this kind of thing, but I'm not sure whether it would be efficient or not in this particular case given that I've heard that there's going to be another bot going through and tagging these pages with ((db-g13)). — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, I had a look at the category, and it seems there is a bug, so I have Done the edit request after all. This looks like some kind of coding error rather than a failure to take the G13 wording into account, though, so I think we can reinstate it once we have found and fixed the issue. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • And I've found the bug - 20130727235313 is a timestamp for yesterday, but ((#time:U|20130727235313 +6 months)) produces 1390866793, which is a lot less than the current timestamp of 20130728054214. Technical 13, could you find a fix for this? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Will do. I actually just realized my code was flawed due to another timestamp issue I've encountered and rushed to IRC to find an admin to undo my request and found it was already done. The logic does indeed check that there have been no edits for six months after a decline, and is actually a little more stingy than is needed. I'll dig up my workaround and post the new request here in a few moments. :) Technical 13 (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I'm back home on the computer. Timestamps don't calculate correctly sometimes when you try to +/-time to/from them, so it is normal to change the format of the output to U which returns the number of seconds since 1-1-1970 and not a timestamp. My previous code (although it appeared to work in my sandbox for some odd reason) only converted the half of the equation I was adding time to and ended up trying to compare apples to oranges. The following code shouldn't have that problem:

<includeonly>((NOINDEX))[[Category:Declined AfC submissions|((SUBPAGENAME))]]((#ifexpr:((#time:U|((REVISIONTIMESTAMP)) +6 months))<((#time:U|now))|[[Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions|((SUBPAGENAME))]]))</includeonly>

• ^^^ Modified code says "if the article is declined and hasn't been edited in six months (the decline would have counted as an edit), then add to category." Technical 13 (talk) 12:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Edit: I've removed the test for the declinets... It was redundant since this is the /declined template, all drafts using the template are declined. Technical 13 (talk) 13:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Partly done: @Technical 13: I had actually posted a fix in the sandbox, but I had to rush out so I didn't have time to mention it here. I've simplified your code even more - thinking about it, the very fact that this template is transcluded on a page means that it is a declined AFC submission, so we only need to check that the page hasn't been edited in 6 months. I've also refactored the code to make it more readable, and moved the categories to the /doc subpage. By the way, next time it would be really helpful if you could use the sandbox rather than the above code snippets, as that makes testing the changes so much easier. It might even have helped you catch the errors in your first version here. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks Mr. Stradivarius. I actually did test the logic in my sandbox and it seems to be working for some reason. Your (edit conflict) there actually says they same as my edit above lol. Technical 13 (talk) 13:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Technical 13: Yep, great minds think alike, obviously. ;) I'd say it's probably best to test in the template's sandbox rather than your own, as most of the time the test cases are already set up to use it. Also, you can also see if people have been working on the same thing as you, which would have helped in this case. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to Template:AFC_submission/declined has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like:

((padleft:((#expr:((((#time:y|((REVISIONTIMESTAMP))))*12)+((REVISIONMONTH1)))))|3|0))

added to the "G13" eligible categorization section created in above request as seen in the sandbox so that the oldest ones should be the first ones listed in the category and the new ones will be added to the end of the category. :) Technical 13 (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Earwig ^talk 00:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can I put the Article Wizard in my own MediaWiki Site? Jared Bates 22:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Hello Jared. I would be happy to help you with your request. I have a few questions though as the article creation wizard would require tinkering and adjustment to be used on other wikis. Is your MediaWiki powered wiki open to the Internet? (Would make it easier for me to help you export it from Wikipedia and import it to your wiki.) Are you aware that the Article Wizard is in the process of being deprecated on this wiki by at least two or three other potential improved versions that I am aware of? If you had not known that, would you prefer to wait to see these other proposed versions or are you set on wanting this particular model? I look forward to your answers! Technical 13 (talk) 12:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Technical 13! Thank you for responding so quickly! My site is open to the internet (at http://jaredbates.dyndns.org/computerwiki), but I just started it, so I need to work on it a bit. I just saw the Article Wizard a few days ago, and thought it was an awesome way to start new articles. I did not know that that it was being updated, but I would like to know how to do this anyway. I would like to use the current version, if possible. Thanks! Jared Bates 16:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

@Technical 13 This edit is borked, see WT:AFC/sand. mabdul 06:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks mabdul, I can see what is causing it, and I'll see if I can figure out the best way to fix it when I get up.. (4 am here now...) Technical 13 (talk) 08:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Fixed. :) Technical 13 (talk) 12:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to Template:AFC submission/declined has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please apply this change to Template:AFC submission/draft and this change to Template:AFC submission/declined which will create a visual cue inside of those templates if the template is adding the draft to Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions that looks like:

Thanks Technical 13 (talk) 00:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sorry for the wait. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and I hate being a pain... On Template:AFC submission/declined the (({noresubmit))} parts weren't part of my request (and I have no idea what they do if anything). Technical 13 (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you put the changes in the sandbox? And I mean the exact text that you would like added to the template; please don't make me second-guess your request. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done Technical 13 (talk) 11:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Updated the template. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Kuka is born on August 29, 1960 in Montenegro. He lives in United States of America since 1985. He is a project manager at CBS. On October 1986 he was cofounder of Albanian American Cultural club "Shpresa" In Brooklyn New York. On January 5, 1989, He was cofounder of radio show Voice of Kosovo. Jack was editor of the show. When the war escalated in Kosovo, in 1998 he was a cofounder of the radio Voice of Albanian Nation. He was a host of the show. Voice of Albanian Nation was one of the main supporters of the a Kosovo Liberation Armi. Radio show Voice of Albanian Nation, gethered 100 of thousand of dollars for KLA. After the war in Kosovo he was elected as a chairman of foundation Plave - Guci. Under his presidency foundation was one of the strongest Albanian, Amerikan associations in USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.17.118.156 (talk) 23:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page is for discussion of the Article Wizard itself, not for creating new articles. For creating new articles, use Wikipedia:Article wizard instead. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

While CSD:G13 is being discussed as a candidate for deletion, it may be better to change all links to that on this template to WP:CSD#G13, but possibly say the text "CSD G13". -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 02:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant this should be replied on the AfC draft and declined templates. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 02:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I object to this. The nomination has not been closed, the evidence is clear that CSD: is more intuitive that WP: for CSD criterion, and the nomination is in the wrong venue since it is a nomination to delete an entire pseudo-namespace and not just a simple redirect. Technical 13 (talk) 03:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As this is a template which will generally be edited by editors who know what they are doing, the difference between CSD:... and WP:CSD#... isn't important. Intuitiveness comes into play when people are trying to guess what to type into a search box, as in "what is the criteria for speedy deletion G1 say? I know, I'll type Speedy deletion into the search box and see what comes up." In that case, CSD:G1 might provide value as a intuitive shortcut, but otherwise, not so much. Recommend either changing now or being on standby to change if the result of the discussion is either "delete" or, as I'm recommending, "depricate." Also, the CSD: shortcuts are in fact very new, so there is no implied historical consensus for their use. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. I've changed them now rather than after the discussion closes, so that in the meantime editors aren't confused when they click the link and arrive at the TfD banner. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to Template:AFC submission/draft has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Per the consensus at the maintaining project's talkpage (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Proposed change to AFC Draft template), please replace line 8 (which currently contains

This is a draft [[WP:AFC|Articles for creation]] submission. It is '''not''' currently pending review. There is no deadline, you can take your time writing this draft.)

with

This is a draft [[WP:AFC|Articles for creation]] submission which is '''not''' currently pending review. There are [[WP:NODEADLINE|no deadlines]] as long as you are actively improving the submission. Drafts not being improved will be deleted as provided in the [[CSD:G13]] guideline.

Hasteur (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On this request: would somebody replace ((Documentation)) with ((Documentation|Template:AFC submission/doc)), please? (And delete the old documentation page) mabdul 22:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 22:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source code is currently:

((#ifexist:((SUBPAGENAME))| 
*'''Warning:''' A page with this title exists. Please make sure that this proposed article does not already exist or that it does not need to be moved to a different title.

   |))

The proposed code revision is to replace the word "exists" with a wikilink to [[((SUBPAGENAME))|exists]]. The advantage is that the reviewer could easily click through to see if this is a copy-paste fork, an independent fork, or an independent subject, and respond accordingly.

The new source code, which I have informally tested by previewing it on an exitsing submission, is:

((#ifexist:((SUBPAGENAME))| 
*'''Warning:''' A page with this title [[((SUBPAGENAME))|exists]]. Please make sure that this proposed article does not already exist or that it does not need to be moved to a different title.

   |))

Output:

• Warning: A page with this title exists. Please make sure that this proposed article does not already exist or that it does not need to be moved to a different title.

Dovid (talk) 02:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be better to make the link more explicit, such as A page called ((SUBPAGENAME)) already exists. GoingBatty (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. Another matter: If the page is in userspace and ((SUBPAGENAME)) is "sandbox" then the message probably shouldn't be displayed at all. This could be extended to anything starting with "sandbox" or "Sandbox". PrimeHunter (talk) 01:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we remove the expensive parser function?

* Please verify that [[((SUBPAGENAME))]] does not already exist and that it does not need to be moved to a different title.

Doing this should be pretty quick for the reviewer, if the link is red, no need to check, if it is blue, then it is worth looking into. Technical 13 (talk) 01:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done since this has just sat here for a month undiscussed. Technical 13 (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with this since it adds unnecessary bulk to the template most of the time, in exchange for removing a single parser function (I don't see the advantage). I've boldly undone the change and applied what was discussed above. — Earwig ^talk 19:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On my iPad and on my phone, the declined box has a red background. Using Chrome on my Windows XP computer, it's white! Inspecting the element it seems to be inheriting

background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0)

from somewhere. Where? -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 10:22, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I just cleaned up the color code from

  background-color: #ffeeee;;
  

  to

  background-color: #FEE;
  

  and it seems to be working in Chrome for me. Check it and let me know if there is still an issue for you. I'm assuming that in-line css styling was (is?) being dropped leaving just the div#content -- background-color:rgb(0,0,0,0) Technical 13 (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's still happening. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 22:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Which version of Chrome? What skin are you using? Can you get me a screenshot of your css error log? Technical 13 (talk) 23:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Defualt skin, Chrome 30.0.1599.101m, and all I see in the error log is that it couldn't load two resources related to geoiplookup. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 23:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually it also says there is an invalid property called "break-inside". -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 23:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't seem to reproduce the effect. The break-inside error comes from:

div.columns li,div.columns dd dd{
  -webkit-column-break-inside: avoid;
  page-break-inside: avoid;
  break-inside: avoid-column
}

Since I'm seeing it as red even with that warning/dropped declaration, has nothing to do with it. I'm assuming it has something to do with a userscript or gadget or some other preference you got going on. Can anyone else reproduce this so the cause can be isolated? Technical 13 (talk) 00:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's my computer, it happens even when I'm logged out. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 00:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Try BYPASSing while logged out and see if it clears up. Technical 13 (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cleared Chrome's cache and refreshed. Still not working. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 00:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While patrolling the new pages, I have noticed that articles created through the article wizard has "Subject of my article" in bold, intending the editor to replace it with their article. However, this is largely unsuccessful as quite a large percentage of users do not understand this even when it is accompanied with a HTML comment. I think it would be more effective to simply have the starting text as "Subject" or "Replace this with your subject". Thanks. Darylgolden^(talk) 10:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Darylgolden: I agree. I'm not sure as to the best mechanism for handling this, though. IIRC in the past we had a "sample lead section" in an HTML comment...my gut feeling is that we should model what an article should look like, but I'm open to other suggestions. Theopolisme (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What if... @Ocaasi: PING! Think you might be willing to work with Theopolisme and I to create a guided tour for AFC that will offer input boxes for people to start building their draft (and get it to a minimal stub status) and then get them started on improving it from there? If we can build the guided tour, based on the article wizard, then I'm sure we can find consensus to replace the article wizard with it. I actually like this idea better than the extension I had been working on in PHP because it seems more practical and would utilize existing tools instead of recreating one from scratch. Any comments on this guided tour option? Technical 13 (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What if you do not know if a article your creating is a redirect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.74.52 (talk • contribs) 11:05, November 25, 2013

Hi 71.230.74.52. If you don't know, then you're probably not creating a redirect. A redirect is a page that takes you to another (target) page. So, for instance, if you type in barack obama in the search bar, you will be taken to Barack Obama (with capital letters). Killiondude (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change the page title in Wikipedia "Gunadala MaryMata Church" to " Gunadala Mary Matha Church" Chinnitalli (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Not the right place for the request, but moved anyway. Regards, Celestra (talk) 23:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

EASE, it is noun, And please suggest on Wikipedia for the means of "Ease" for the help of wiki users. Thanks, 182.68.184.126 (talk) 14:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Article wizard. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Technical 13 (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

WIZA needs to be on the shortcuts. 173.77.159.60 (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why WP:WIZA is a reasonable shortcut to Wikipedia:Article wizard/Ready for submission when we already have WP:WIZGO, but since the newly-created incoming redirect exists and there doesn't appear to be any controversy, I listed it. If any reader does not think this is a reasonable shortcut, please open a discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's illogical that WP:WIZA goes to the last page and not the first like WP:WIZ, WP:WIZARD and WP:AWIZ. I think it should be retargeted, but is not worth mentioning in any shortcut box. Pages often have many more shortcuts than those shown in the shortcut box. See for example [2] for redirects to Wikipedia:Article wizard. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I now see it is part of a system at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects#Redirect request: Wikipedia:WIZA, where WIZA stands for Wizard Article. That almost makes it more illogical that it isn't the same as Article wizard. And do we really want users to skip all the advice pages for articles when they don't use a shortcut hinting so like WP:WIZGO? PrimeHunter (talk) 01:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With only 5-6 views a day, I'd be inclined to delete not only all of the recently-created redirects but also WP:WIZGO as well. If not deleting them, at least removing the advertising for them. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I requested these. It couldn't be more logical:

• Wikipedia:WIZA -> Wikipedia:Article wizard/Ready for submission (the "A" denotes "Article")
• Wikipedia:WIZC -> Wikipedia:Article wizard/Category
• Wikipedia:WIZD -> Wikipedia:Article wizard/Disambiguation
• Wikipedia:WIZI -> Wikipedia:Article wizard/Infobox
• Wikipedia:WIZR -> Wikipedia:Article wizard/Redirect
• Wikipedia:WIZT -> Wikipedia:Article wizard/Template
• Wikipedia:WIZU -> Wikipedia:Article wizard/User page

The users who shouldn't be skipping the advice pages won't know they exist. By all means remove the "advertising", but PLEASE do not delete the shortcuts - I use WP:WIZR most days (I‘d been using a bookmark but this is much better) and it saves a LOT of time and inconvenience. Thanks. 92.40.249.216 (talk) 09:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some users (myself included) are not seeing essential links such as "Request an article be written on a topic". This is being discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Article wizard also broken. Please comment on the issue there. Thank you. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 22:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]