Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Renamed user sIua6RGKd6qO (talk | contribs) at 09:51, 4 March 2006 (Creation of archive). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Anon page creation restriction for information on the new (test) rule. -- Mkill 02:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Archives

Discussion for this page has been archived:

.

If I want to create a template or a category, should I submit it here? --68.74.116.159 01:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for minor enhancement

When an unregistered user clicks on a link for a non-existent article such as Kansas State Library, you get this, which as of this writing, does not mention Kansas State Library anywhere. For various reasons, including having the "What links here" make more sense, I'd like to request that the "Article not found" text be updated to include the name of the article that the unregistered user is unable to create. Thanks. 64.151.27.183 01:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC).

Erm, it does! IT says "Editing (Name)" and "Wikipedia does not yet have an article about Name". That's 2 places. The Land 17:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
No, that's only when you're a logged-in user. The message given to anon users indeed doesn't repeat the name of the nonexisten article in question. Log out and try it. CDC (talk) 01:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Daily pages

As several editors have already noted above, AFC has become so long that it is unmanageable. Building upon God_of_War's work above, AFC now has daily pages. All new submissions are directed to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Today. Every day User:Uncle G's 'bot will rename Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Today to another name (listed in Wikipedia:Articles for creation/List), and then blank the redirect to create a fresh page for today. This at least will chop the submissions up into lumps of manageable size, that don't take minutes to render. There still remains the question of how to archive processed and rejected submissions. Uncle G 09:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Very nice. One minor problem: can the ===Sources=== line be plain text? As it stands, the Sources subheading means you have to edit body and sources separately, or else the whole page, to manage the entry for an individual topic. Tearlach 14:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Note that the article name will be a second-level heading, whereas the Sources section is a third-level heading. Editing the second-level heading will edit body and sources together as one. Uncle G 19:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah: thanks. For some reason I couldn't get that to work yesterday. goes away puzzled. Tearlach 20:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Really new users?

I've been out of the loop for a bit – does the article-creation restriction now apply to really new registered users as well? android79 15:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Not as far as I can tell from some quick research. The newest 4% are blocked from editing semi-protected articles, but I can't find anything that says that they cannot create new articles. --GraemeL (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I saw some redlinked usernames making requests, and was wondering if a change was made... just people not reading the instructions again. android79 16:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Automatic signing

Is there any way we could get the template to sign entries automatically? - Mgm|(talk) 11:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Unclear or unwilling?

I've seen some more problems recently.

  • People failing to put the title in the box above, but rather in the comment itself, or below it.
  • Citing Google as a source.
  • People placing the article text under the sources header rather than under the line that says "put it under this line".

Are we being unclear somehow? Or are people simply not reading the instructions (again)? - Mgm|(talk) 10:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I just think we're underestimating the density of the average internet user. Sure, to even think of contributing a valid article puts them a step above the rest, but I really don't think it's us. -- user:zanimum
Tsk, Tsk. I would cite WP:NPA, but this is an impersonal attack. Still, you really shouldn't bite the newbies. The instructions aren't perfectly clear, even for someone who knows his way around Wikipedia. I had to have a couple of tabs open so I could refer back to the instructions. You know, you could just allow anon IPs to create articles again..... 194.72.54.34 13:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Stubbing

Is there any way of stopping people from adding stub templates to the articles until theyre actually made? Wikipedia:Articles for creation keeps on appearing in all sorts of different stub catagories. BL kiss the lizard 22:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Redirect problem

Not sure if it's just me, but Wikipedia:Articles for creation's Today's submissions and Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Today seem stuck on a redirect to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2006-01-15. Where are all these submissions? Tearlach 13:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Automatic signing

Looks like User:Upload found a way to get {{AFC preload}} to sign automatically but it needs some admin attention right now. Also if it's used, us non-admins won't be able to edit the template directly, so it should be protected. Kappa 17:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

For any Administrators wanting to help, I have posted instructions (below) on how to get this automatic signing feature working. Upload 12:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Detailed Instructions

Below are what needs to be done, in order to get the automatic signing feature working:

  1. Make sure the contents of the template Template:AFC preload/~~ is exactly the following: (two characters only, without newline) 
    ~~
  2. Delete the template Template:AFC preload/~~
  3. Edit the template Template:AFC preload, do the following:
    1. Append the following line to the template:
      • This is where the signature will be (automatically) placed, because it will (soon, in postings preloaded from these templates) be replaced with signature characters ~~~~ (see below for details)
      • The following {{subst:AFC preload/~~}}s won't be substituted with the contents of the referred template Template:AFC preload/~~ after saving because the referred template is non-existent (was deleted in step 2). They will be saved as-is, instead.
      {{subst:AFC preload/~~}}{{subst:AFC preload/~~}}
    2. Edit the line above the (just-added) last line, to make it read: 
      <!-- The following will sign this submission automatically, please leave it as it is: -->
    3. This should make the last two lines of the template read:
      <!-- The following will sign this submission automatically, please leave it as it is: -->
      {{subst:AFC preload/~~}}{{subst:AFC preload/~~}}
    4. Save the template
  4. Undelete the template Template:AFC preload/~~ (which was deleted in step 2)
    • After the template had been restored, in every posting generated by (preloaded from) the template Template:AFC preload, the {{subst:AFC preload/~~}} syntax would be substituted with the contents of the template Template:AFC preload/~~ (because the referred template existed), which will sign the postings automatically
    • Specifically, in every posting preloaded from the template, the following text in the posting:
    {{subst:AFC preload/~~}}{{subst:AFC preload/~~}}
    will be substituted with the following, which will sign the postings automatically: 
    ~~~~
  5. Protect the template Template:AFC preload, and
    Protect the template Template:AFC preload/~~
    If the template Template:AFC preload is edited and re-saved, the automatic signing feature would break, because the {{subst:}} syntax in the template is substituted with the referred template (which will turn into editor's signature) permanently.
    In order to fix the template, the template should be rollbacked to the correct revision (save-an-old-revision kind of revert simply won't work), or these steps should be carried again (both, unfortunately, required Administrator intervention).

Upload 12:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Non-published sources?

What about non-published sources? I have what is essentially a log book that my father kept when he was a sailor on a ship in the South Pacific. It is a source; but it has not been published, either in hard copy or on the web. The ship he was on currently does not have an article, so I would have to start one.

The page to request a new article asks for PUBLISHED sources. I have a source, but it is non-published. How do I reference a non-published source to start an article? Will you allow me to start an article with a non-published source?

  • To content of any Wikipedia articles should be verifiable by any Wikipedian who cares to check. If the ship you're talking about belongs to the Navy if some nation, that particular organization should also have records of its existence. - Mgm|(talk) 10:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Creating new Categories jams this thing

Okay, I tried to follow the directions in the main article, and hoped I was doing it right, but it looks like something went amiss. I wanted to propose a new category. It would be called Category:Seafaring films, soon to be populated with lots of movies about seafaring, as quickly as I'd find them, I'd go ahead and add them in. But by following the instructions, it appears that the "Articles for creation" now belongs to the C. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.177.27.22 (talk • contribs) .

You make a very valid point. Due to the very nature of the MediaWiki software, we have often encountered category-related problems here. I'm afraid there's no easy technical solution. However, there are two workarounds:
  1. You can use the {{cl|category name}} template. In your case, you could use {{cl|Seafaring films}}.
  2. The requests here are always looked at by real people and not bots. This means that so long as you can express what it is that you are asking for in the AFC proposal, we can accommodate the request.
I hope this helps. (P.S. I created Category:Seafaring films for you too.) -- ShinmaWa(talk) 09:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Please Remove Isara

Can somebody please remove Isara from the request list? I've just created the article; but can't find the requested articles in the archive -- it was requested 2-4 weeks ago; i'm really n ot sure, and unsure how to find it and remove it.

I wouldn't worry about it. Requests that old are unlikely to be fulfilled and there's no risk of an article being created twice. However, thank you for your contribution. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 02:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Added notability links to page

I added some notability links to the main page in hopes that some of the more common unsuitable submissions can be avoided. I specifically used the 'WP:' shortcuts since 1) they stand out much better, 2) they are easier to remember, and 3) we use that notation nearly uniformly in our responses to submissions and this helps put that in context. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 20:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Too wordy. The words "Guidelines regarding articles about" would be repeated 6 times. As with all instructions, the longer it grows, the higher the chance the user will not read any of it. Our best chance of getting the users to not only read the instructions and to abide by them is to make it as terse and simple as possible. How about this as a compromise?
"Wikipedia has some notability guidelines on writing about....
This actually has fewer words that what we currently have and gives the exact same information as your suggestion. What do you think? -- ShinmaWa(talk) 23:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
That looks fantastic to me. --Dystopos 01:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Great. I'll leave this disc here for a couple days and if no one opposes, I'll do that. Thanks for your input! -- ShinmaWa(talk) 20:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This mesage apears on top of ever archived page, and well the phrase doesn't really work in the english language (no offence to the creator) I suggest we change it. Deathawk 00:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

To...? -- ShinmaWa(talk) 00:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

i like acting but i dont know were to act please HELP

email me at <deleted>.

My response: I saw your post at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation#i_like_acting_but_i_dont_know_were_to_act_please_HELP
Please repost at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RD/M (the reference desk). The place you posted is for the discussion of the page it is attached to and not for questions such as yours. Personally, I recommend "The Acting Page" by Leslie Wolos (http://www.geocities.com/theactingpage/). Try a local drama group, any well-sized city has at least one such a group. - Mgm|(talk) 12:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

stubbing 2

looks like someone removed the note about stubsfrom the page. please can you make sure that stub templates dont keep cropping up on this page - thanx again :) BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 06:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I was the one that removed it. The message says Please do not label it as a stub (an appropriate stub template will be added when the article is created, if necessary), but is in the section called "Fulfilling Requests". You're right that we don't want stub templates included on this page (i.e. WP:AFC/Today), but that block of instructions is for the people that are actually creating the articles, and those are the people that should be including a stub templates whenever appropriate. If you want to address the AFC submitters, then the instruction needs to go at the top of the page or in Template:AFC preload. ×Meegs 07:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd be happy if they labelled it as a stub, just as long as the stub template is entered using Template:tl or nowiki tags. - Mgm|(talk) 13:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Me too, and I love it when people do that, but instructing them to do it is probably too technical for most of the page's users and might distract them from the more important instructions (like observing WP:BIO and providing sources). ×Meegs 14:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Archive_3&oldid=42178713"