Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Articles for Creation. The project works to allow unregistered or anonymous users to contribute quality articles to the encyclopedia and track the progress of those articles as they are developed. To participate, please visit Articles for Creation or the project page for more information.
NA	This page is not an article and does not receive an assessment rating.

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Userbox 2 Proposal of New Category 3 Possible things to add on this page 4 Potential issue with {{AFC preload}} 5 Talk page header 5.1 Article Ratings 6 Need a review 7 Noticeboard 8 Javascript helper 9 June 2007 complete 10 Copy checking, bot for automating declining submissions? 11 Mass moderation of backlog 12 Do we really need to deal with this? 13 When content should be merged into existing article? 14 Backlog Drive 15 Another idea for mass moderating 16 Suggest addition of links to WikiProjects to created pages 17 Backlog pages disappearing without being fully reviewed - afc maybe and afc n 18 Barnstar 18.1 Calling the question on the barnstar and ribbon 19 artwork added to main page and main backlog page 20 Suggested chores for Jitse's bot 21 Awards for Backlog Drive 22 Wikipedia Ad 23 IRC Channel 24 Minor changes to AFC top template 25 Vandals struck main page twice in last day or so 26 {{afc discuss}} 27 {{afc cleared}} 28 new template afc inuse 29 Wow...

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 ^(talk/work) 01:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ta-da! How's that look? (Image:AFC-Logo.png) Hersfold ^(talk/work) 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 ^(talk/work) 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 ^(talk/work) 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 ^(talk/work) 01:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Category created. See Category:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation_participants for more details. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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)

• another idea is that maybe we could make a template saying "This page is currently being reviewed by *USER*" Whsitchy 02:29, 3 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 ^T 13:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I've made a suggestion that should help. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 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:

This page was created through the Articles for Creation process, and therefore is within the scope of WikiProject Articles for Creation. The project works to allow unregistered or anonymous users to contribute quality articles to the encyclopedia and track the progress of those articles as they are developed. To participate, please visit Articles for Creation or the project page for more information.

NA

This page is not an article and does not receive an assessment rating.

Template:WPAFC Would this be something we could use? Hersfold ^(talk/work) 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 ^(talk/work) 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 ^T 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 ^Chat 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 ^Chat 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 ^(talk/work) 01:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Article progress grading scheme [  v • d • e  ]

Label	Criterion	Reader's experience	Editor's experience	Example
FA {{FA-Class}}	Reserved exclusively for articles that have received "Featured article" status, and meet the current criteria for featured articles.	Definitive. Outstanding, thorough article; a great source for encyclopedic information.	No further additions are necessary unless new published information has come to light, but further improvements to the text are often possible.	Tourette Syndrome (as of June 2008)
FL {{FL-Class}}	Reserved exclusively for articles that have received "Featured lists" status, and meet the current criteria for featured lists.	Definitive. Outstanding, thorough list; a great source for encyclopedic information.	No further additions are necessary unless new published information has come to light, but further improvements to the text are often possible.	FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives (as of January 2008)
A {{A-Class}}	Provides a well-written, reasonably clear and complete description of the topic, as described in How to write a great article. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, with a well-written introduction and an appropriate series of headings to break up the content. It should have sufficient external literature references, preferably from reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (peer-reviewed where appropriate). Should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. At the stage where it could at least be considered for featured article status, corresponds to the "Wikipedia 1.0" standard.	Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting. May miss a few relevant points.	Minor edits and adjustments would improve the article, particularly if brought to bear by a subject-matter expert. In particular, issues of breadth, completeness, and balance may need work. Peer-review would be helpful at this stage.	Durian (as of March 2007)
GA {{GA-Class}}	The article has passed through the Good article nomination process and been granted GA status, meeting the good article standards. This should be used for articles that still need some work to reach featured article standards, but that are otherwise acceptable. Good articles that may succeed in FAC should be considered A-Class articles, but having completed the Good article designation process is not a requirement for A-Class.	Useful to nearly all readers. A good treatment of the subject. No obvious problems, gaps, or excessive information. Adequate for most purposes, but other encyclopedias could do a better job.	Some editing will clearly be helpful, but not necessary for a good reader experience. If the article is not already fully wikified, now is the time.	International Space Station (as of February 2007)
B {{B-Class}}	Commonly the highest article grade that is assigned outside a more formal review process. Has several of the elements described in "start", usually a majority of the material needed for a comprehensive article. Nonetheless, it has some gaps or missing elements or references, needs editing for language usage or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) or No Original Research (NOR). With NPOV a well written B-class may correspond to the "Wikipedia 0.5" or "usable" standard. Articles that are close to GA status but don't meet the Good article criteria should be B- or Start-class articles.	Useful to many, but not all, readers. A casual reader flipping through articles would feel that they generally understood the topic, but a serious student or researcher trying to use the material would have trouble doing so, or would risk error in derivative work.	Considerable editing is still needed, including filling in some important gaps or correcting significant policy errors. Articles for which cleanup is needed will typically have this designation to start with.	Jammu and Kashmir (as of October 2007) has a lot of helpful material but needs more prose content and references.
Start {{Start-Class}}	The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element. For example an article on Africa might cover the geography well, but be weak on history and culture. Has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including any one of the following: a particularly 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	Useful to some, provides a moderate amount of information, but many readers will need to find additional sources of information. The article clearly needs to be expanded.	Substantial/major editing is needed, most material for a complete article needs to be added. This article still needs to be completed, so an article cleanup tag is inappropriate at this stage.	Real analysis (as of November 2006)
Stub {{Stub-Class}}	The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need extensive work to bring it to A-Class level. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible.	Possibly useful to someone who has no idea what the term meant. May be useless to a reader only passingly familiar with the term. At best a brief, informed dictionary definition.	Any editing or additional material can be helpful.	Coffee table book (as of July 2005)

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^(Ni!) 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 ^T 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^(Ni!) 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^(Ni!) 22:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Kwsn^(Ni!) 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^(Ni!) 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^(Ni!) 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 ^(talk/work) 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 ^(talk/work) 17:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I often leave additional comments, especially with {{afc source}}, to explain how the rule applies to the submission (specifically, why the given sources are inadequate). But I also probably won't be using this tool, so ... Powers ^T 23:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

June 2007 complete

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

Way to go WikiProject! To go from a rather neglected wasteland to a working area of Wikipedia 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 ^(talk) 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 Wikipedia. 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^T 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 [[abc|archives for 2006]] for more details." Then we attack the Jan/Feb backlogs and hopefully we can get it down to four months. --Draicone ^(talk) 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 ^(talk/work) 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^(Ni!) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^Chat 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk/work) 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 ^(talk) 13:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Great idea! --Banana 03:51, 7 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 Wikipedia: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 ^(talk/work) 13:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You bring up an excellent point. I wonder if we need some sort of Wikipedia: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)

Well, my personal opinion is that we should use editor discretion when it comes to requests like this. I don't think we necessarily should encourage users to post it, but if they do and the request makes sense, why not create the requested article? There are other ways for anons to post procedural requests like that, the help pages come to mind, so I'm not sure a PfC is needed. But still, Most anons aren't (and shouldn't have to be) familiar enough with the various policies and wikiprojects we have to make requests like this common. Henrik 23:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

"perhaps AnonGuy might want to weigh in" - Heh, whoops. Ok, maybe not.... X-P

Henrik does have a point - this case would actually be the only instance of this I've come across. I don't think that we need to make a subproject on this, so perhaps the "editor discretion" would be enough. *shrugs* Hersfold ^(talk/work) 23:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can edit articles. Anonymous users simply shouldn't take part in policy because they can't be held accountable for their edits (nor should they be). At least with a username all edits by a particular person can be clearly identified. With dynamic IPs, that gets very complicated. AFC is for articles only and anons should register to participate in policy. --Draicone ^(talk) 02:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Largely, I'm with Draicone on this. I do think, though, that in certain cases (AfDs, for example), it's fairly harmless to allow an IP user to create an administrative page. However, AfC isn't really the place for this. There are enough other ways for an IP user to find someone to create a page for them that we don't need to encourage them to use AfC. We may want to bring this up at the Village Pump, though, to get some more input -- should we be consistent in telling IP users that they should create an account for non-article page creations? Or is that contrary to the anyone-can-edit spirit of the Wiki? Powers ^T 23:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Calling for discussion at VP is a good idea, but lets make sure we avoid instruction creep. We definitely shouldn't create WP:*FC pages similar to WP:*FD counterparts (Templates/Categoryies/Miscellany for Creation...). The main body of Wikipedia is articles, all of which are in the mainspace, and other namespaces are simply supporting material (categories, templates etc.). Users wishing to contribute to maintaining enwiki and contributing at such a level really should create an account, in my opinion, especially as other namespaces often involve policy matters that would benefit from accountability. Any thoughts on this? --Draicone ^(talk) 08:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you; I just want to make sure the community is on board with that. If the community wants to allow IP users to create pages in the "back-end" areas of the encyclopedia, then we can figure out how to allow that. Powers ^T 23:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

When content should be merged into existing article?

Fairly frequently, it seems to me that a suggested article would be better suited to be integrated into a section of an existing article. I haven't found a template for suggesting this, and I wonder if there is a reason for this? Being new to this, I almost recreated {{afc-attack}}, which was deleted for a sensible reason, so I thought I'd ask first. Henrik 23:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think in the past we've declined those types of submissions, with a note along the lines of: "{{subst:afc not}} This information isn't suited to stand in an article of its' own, but would fit best into the already existing article at The weather in London. Please consider adding it there. Thanks! ~⁴" The only problem with that, of course, is that afc not links to WP:NOT, which wouldn't really apply in this situation. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 23:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I use {{afc exists}} sometimes, if the content is largely similar. Otherwise, a new {{afc mergeto}} or something could be helpful. Powers ^T 23:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Ask and you shall receive! The new template has an optional parameter for you to put the name of the article the information belongs in. So, {{subst:afc mergeto|Article}} or {{subst:afc mergeto}} both work. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 04:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Suppose examples might help... these are not substed, so that they reflect any chances made and produce less code.
Declined. The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at The weather in London. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.
Declined. The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article on the same subject. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 04:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the grammar. Nice work. Powers ^T 23:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Backlog Drive

Okay. I started this drive as a way to shoot down the backlog. Is this a good idea? If so, I'll post a message on all the participants' talk pages. If the idea isn't so great, I'll speedy everything. See the "drive's page" link on the template below. :) GrooveDog (talk) 23:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Posting a message on all project participants' talk pages. --GrooveDog (talk) 01:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why there is a backlog. Seems like the task largely involves cutting and pasting? Category:Wikipedia article creation requests needing further review looks way behind. -- 67.98.206.2 19:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, there is definitely cutting and pasting involved. However, the part of AFC that I believe is instrumental to the existence of the backlog has to do with whether the article submitted fits the criteria to be included in Wikipedia. If the crux of the matter was solely cutting and pasting, then there would be no need to restrict article creation to registered users. Nonetheless, the community feels that registered users are better equipped to make judgements on the notability of a subject matter, upon other concerns, even if the reality doesn't always reflect such. Thanks for your input, and if you have a particular concern about an AFC article feel free to contact me on my talk page.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 05:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well what is up with Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2007-07-17? Every thing got rejected except for one redirect. The two AFC's that are actually decently ref'd seem doomed to just sit there uncreated forever. Wouldn't create the good AFC's first, and then getting around to rejecting the bad AFC's second actually be a better policy? -- 146.115.58.152 21:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC) squeakly wheel, grease?

Actually, thanks for pointing those out. I'm a bit concerned about the POV evident in the second one, whereas the first one is limited in context. Any other editors have input on these ones?--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 00:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV isn't a valid reason for article deletion, per WP:DEL, so I would expect such a concern shouldn't prevent article creation. The same rules should apply to WP:AFC as apply to WP:AFD only, of course, in reverse. The proper response to a WP:NPOV issue is {{sofixit}} -- 146.115.58.152 03:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

When I judge an AfC, if I'm prepared to fix it immediately, or if it is only a minor flaw that won't trigger a SPEEDY, PROD, or immediate AfD, I create the article. If it's one of the above and I'm not prepared to fix it the same day, I either let it go for another editor or reject it. If it's not a mass-rejection, I give guidance on how to fix it before resubmitting it. AfC is like a triage in reverse: You immediately reject the hopeless cases and the cases that would take too much work, immediately create those cases that are easy to create, and defer the more difficult decisions until you have time or another editor with time comes along. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no. AFC has different requirements than AfD discussions. In some ways, we're more restrictive -- we require the article to already be decent quality, and we don't require AFC helpers to fix articles that aren't up to snuff. (If we did, the backlog would be even worse, eh wot?) In other ways, we're more lenient -- we require only one valid, reliable, third-party source, whereas the WP:Notability guideline suggests that multiple such sources are needed to firmly establish notability. Powers ^T 13:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This strange idea of quality requirements seem to violate the spirit of WP:TIND. You should publish referenced AFC's so other wikipedians can discover them and improve the quality, rather than, I don't know, waiting for a miracle to occur. Speaking of deadlines though, I would appreciate someone publishing WP:AFC/Troy Anthony Davis sometime before his next scheduled execution date in mid-October. Otherwise, someone else will probably create it, and I'll have to merge everything over. Thanks! -- 67.98.206.2 21:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Tenacity and squeaky wheels and all...I will create it, but remind you that it is critical for everyone to keep in mind the issues related to a biography of a living person.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 21:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I do appreciate it. I did have some WP:BLP concerns starting out, but considering the contents of his own homepage (at Troy Anthony Davis#External_Links) I didn't think he'd complain. And besides, when I submitted the article, he was going to be dead in 12 hours, making WP:BLP moot. I never expected the project to be all that quick either! -- 67.98.206.2 22:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Another idea for mass moderating

What do you all think of putting top and b tags around a large group of articles you want to mass moderate? I ask because I've been having trouble doing a whole page because I'll come to a couple I can't make up my mind on or don't want to mess with for whatever reason. But doing them one at a time takes forever. Do you think it's an acceptable alternative? Or is it not transparent enough? delldot talk 00:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea, but think we should have a separate template...Dracione, are you up for it?--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 10:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of this? Or would yellow or orange be better? Any ideas for changes?

Archived discussion follows below. Please do not modify it.
These requests for creation have been mass moderated. They have all been declined unless otherwise marked. Please contact the reviewer on his or her talk page if you have any questions. If your request was declined and you want to make changes and try again, copy and paste your article into a new submission and make your changes there. blah blah blah
This is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

delldot talk 15:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I like it. What's the name of the template? --GrooveDog (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, currently it's User:Delldot/Box of sand, but I was thinking {{afc mm}}? delldot talk 15:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What if it was a parser function for {{afc top}}? GrooveDog (talk) 15:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Could do that too, though I took out all that stuff in this one. Then I'd suggest {{afc top}} or |mass. delldot talk 16:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Working on it right now, but I'm not the greatest at template stuff so it's in my sandbox at the moment.GrooveDog (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay. It's at {{afc mm}} at the moment, because I can't write a parser to save my life, so if anyone else wants to put a parser function into {{afc top}}, go ahead and I'll speedy {{afc mm}}. I'll add usage notes in a minute.GrooveDog (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on incorporating this into the {{afc top}} template now. Hang on.... Hersfold ^(talk/work) 01:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

(Killing indent) Ok, you can now generate the bright blue box like so: {{subst:afc top|mm}}. Ta-da!

Archived discussion follows below. Please do not modify it.
These requests for creation have been mass moderated. They have all been declined unless otherwise marked. Please contact the reviewer on his or her talk page if you have any questions. If your request was declined and you want to make changes and try again, copy and paste your article into a new submission and make your changes there. This mass-moderated entry is a test. If this were an actual mass-moderated entry, there would be a lot more of these and you would probably go blind from the somewhat hideous shade of neon blue.
This is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Let me know if I blew something up, but the code should still work for both accepted and declined entries. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 02:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: I have edited {{afc mm}} so that if it gets used, it will redirect to {{afc top}} and use the proper parameter. If it turns out we still need the separate template for something, we can always revert it back. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 02:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This is great, thanks very much! delldot talk 16:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggest addition of links to WikiProjects to created pages

Just come across this project, and am amazed at all the hard work people are putting in here! I suspect one problem of this approach is that many pages created this way need further attention from experts, and I wonder if it would be possible for you to add links to the relevant WikiProject, if there's an obvious one? I realise it would add to the time taken per accepted request, though hopefully only a few seconds, but it might jumpstart getting the articles improved. Espresso Addict 12:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I usually try to add the appropriate talk page banners when I know there is one, but I can add something to the AFC page to let everyone know. Thanks! Hersfold ^(talk/work) 01:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Espresso Addict 08:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Backlog pages disappearing without being fully reviewed - afc maybe and afc n

Backlog pages with afc maybe or afc n are kept in the backlog category. 2006-12-12 temporarily disappeared from the category when I removed the last afc maybe without putting in an afc n. No telling how many other backlogs left the category that way. It looks like this won't be a problem going forward, but it might be worth going back 6-12 months and flag any daily lists that need an afc n. Any page after a certain cutoff date that doesn't have afc mass or afc n should have one or the other added. I did 2007-04-01 as an example. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC). Update: I spot-checked May and June and they look OK. I know April needs doing. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Closed 12 hours early, wasn't it? And without my concerns even being acknowledged? Powers ^T 01:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hm. T'was, actually. Closed at 22:03, July 23, in UTC. On the other hand, consensus did seem to be overwhelmingly in favor of the blue ribbon. Oh well. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 03:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

In other news, we now have a template for the award: {{subst:AFC Barnstar|message ~~~~}} Enjoy. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 03:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I closed it early because consensus did seem to point towards the ribbon and star chosen. GrooveDog (talk) 12:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

artwork added to main page and main backlog page

I added artwork to the main page as well as to the Backlog Drive page. I also added a new section to the main page describing the Barnstar. Note the meticulous research that went into writing that section :). A subtle way of reminding people that we do have a little fun in this project. By the way, if anyone disagrees with the bit about grey being for neutrality, go ahead and take it out, I won't object. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL. I thought the grey was a nice background for it. The neutrality makes a nice reason for it, though. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 01:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggested chores for Jitse's bot

User:Jitse's bot archives the AFC requests every day. Currently it just turns /today into /YYYY-MM-DD and a few other housecleaning tasks.

I would like it to do the following:

• add {{afc n}} to the top of every page. This will ensure that the list gets examined at least once after it is archived.
• add an {{Edit-first-section}} tag to make replacing the {{afc n}} tag with {{afc c}} or {{afc mass}} much simpler.
• add a link at the top to the day before's and the day after's archive pages. Of course the day after's archives' link will be red at first. This provides and easy way to walk the list day-by-day. Had these been in place for the last year, the AFC backlog elimination drive would have been a lot easier.

What do you guys think? Should we ask Jitse Niesen to add these changes? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I think those are great ideas, however, I believe Jitse's bot already adds the {{afc n}} tag. I see no problem asking Jitse about the others though!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 00:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. There is a half-hour delay which is why I didn't notice. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Above this line copied from Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation#Suggested chores for Jitse's bot davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Awards for Backlog Drive

I saw that some people had already awarded the AFC barnstar to participants of the drive who had gotten over the 100 article point. Don't give any more barnstars out, until the end of the drive, so that I can coordinate who's actually going to get one. I am coming up with another prize, possibly the 300 article limit. GrooveDog (talk) 12:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I can take mine down temporarily if you'd like. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 15:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that was me. Oops. Very sorry all, didn't know I wasn't ment to. Theone00 12:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ad

I designed an advert to help recruit more members. How's this look, and do we want to use it? Hersfold ^(talk/work) 22:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I LOVE it! Way to go!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 22:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

IRC Channel

I created a new IRC channel for coordination and discussion, similar to the newly created discussion room. It can be found at #wikipedia-en-afc, on the freenode network. ChanServ is in the channel, and I can be contacted for a voice. GrooveDog (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Minor changes to AFC top template

I tweaked the {{afc top}} template. The mass-moderation template now has 2 "declined" symbols. All now say one or more articles have been reviewed even when the template is collapsed.

If I had time I'd create 3 separate messages, one for accept, one for decline, and one for mass-moderate. I'd also add an optional "number" parameter to the mass-moderate to indicate the number of articles mass-moderated. I would also have a different "declined" icon: instead of 2 normal declined icons, I would have a group circled-minus-signs as a single icon. If you have the time, go for it :).

One or more Articles For Creation have been reviewed. Archived discussion follows below. Please do not modify it.
This request for creation has been reviewed. The reviewer comments appear below the article text. If your request was declined and you want to make changes and try again, copy and paste your article into a new submission and make your changes there.
This is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

One or more Articles For Creation have been reviewed. Archived discussion follows below. Please do not modify it.
This request for creation has been reviewed. The reviewer comments appear below the article text.
This is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

One or more Articles For Creation have been reviewed. Archived discussion follows below. Please do not modify it.
These requests for creation have been mass moderated. They have all been declined unless otherwise marked. Please contact the reviewer on his or her talk page if you have any questions. If your request was declined and you want to make changes and try again, copy and paste your article into a new submission and make your changes there.
This is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice boldship, but I think it might have been better the other way. This indicates that at some point, there are two or more requests which have been handled by the template, and that's not really what we want, is it? I thought that the {{afc top}} template was designed to compress the page because of long requests, not to wrap the whole page in this template. Any other opinions? I've put a banner at the top of the page. GrooveDog (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with GrooveDog. --Boricuaeddie 21:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, we would have something that looks like this. Unfortunately, putting section headers in #if code doesn't turn out the way you would expect. I'll see what else I can cook up. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

How does this look? I'm a bit concerned that the HTML documentation and the additional section headers may look "cluttered." Note the proposed changes to "afc b" also. Comments? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to make a template tell if it's being subst'ed or not? I want to throw up a big red warning label if someone uses afc top or afc b without subst'ing it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a way, but it's kind of complicated, and I'd have to find another template that uses that code to figure out how to do it. I have seen it done before, though.

I agree with Groovedog on the changes, though, for the most part. The "mm" code I added is intended to include multiple entries at once, with additional {{afc top}} boxes nested inside it if needed to show accepted entries. I'd recommend changing accept and decline back to the way they were, but leaving mm with the new changes. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 15:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. - Aha! Found the subst: code, I'm going to work on how to incorporate it, but will not do so until consensus agrees with the request. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 15:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

P.P.S. - Ok, got it working. The only way the code seems to work properly causes it to display kind of ugly, but it gets the point across and shouldn't be up for long anyway. See examples here (permanent link) Hersfold ^(talk/work) 15:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandals struck main page twice in last day or so

Please keep Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation on your watch list for the next few days. If this keeps up, semi-protection may be in order. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 10:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

NO! No protection to the page. Revert, block, ignore. --Boricuaeddie 15:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Boricuaeddie, we should not protect the page, since the potential harm from driving away sincere but confused contributors outweighs the harm from having to revert vandalism in my mind. I prefer the idea of keeping the page on our watchlists. delldot talk 16:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

2 IP vandals is nowhere near enough activity to justify semi-protection. Don't protect the page. GrooveDog (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The moment this page is protected is the moment it becomes useless. Vandalism is easy enough to revert, and in the case of severe attacks from an IP, we follow the RBI principle. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 15:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

While I agree it's not necessary to protect the page due to a few isolated incidents, I also don't see how the page becomes useless should it be semi-protected. Powers ^T 16:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply to LtPowers's first comment: Oh, whoops. For some reason I missed the "WikiProject." Still, it doesn't send the right message if it gets semi-protected. "You can edit here, but not our 'headquarters' because you're vandals..." you know. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 23:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Even if it was WP:AFC, IP users shouldn't be editing that page anyway. They only need to be able to edit the /Today page. Powers ^T 14:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the first user you labeled a "vandal" appears to me to simply be confused between WP:AFC and WP:WPAFC. I think it was a good-faith attempt to submit an article to AfC. Powers ^T 16:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

{{afc discuss}}

I've made a new template to make discussions in the discussion room a little more obvious. Looks like so: {{ afc discuss }}
links talk view (siggy goes here) The template also adds the page to that dreaded Category:Wikipedia article creation requests needing further review, but as the template says, it probably won't be there for long. That's mainly so it gets noticed. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 15:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

{{afc cleared}}

I created this template to use when courtesy blanking a request, or because of a copyvio. You can use this with a parameter similar to {{ [[Template:|]]|afc maybe }}
links [[:Template talk:|talk]] [[[:Template:Fullurl:Template:]] view], to give a reason for the blank. Do NOT sign when using this template, to keep privacy. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 21:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This request has been blanked for privacy, security, or copyright reasons. The request was declined, and should not be restored.

This request has been blanked for privacy, security, or copyright reasons. The request was declined, and should not be restored. The prior reviewer left a reason for blanking: Personal attacks, and a copyright violation

Ok. I've generally just left a note similar to this: Copyright violation / Attack / whatever removed. Looks good, though. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

new template afc inuse

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

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

Excellent work! I took the liberty of fixing the spelling :-) --Boricuaeddie 02:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I also modified it to look like other inuse templates, so it's much more bright now. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 01:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow...

I remember a month or two ago when I started the page there were only 7-8 people signed up. Now look at it! Glad to see there's more awareness of this section =D. Kwsn(Ni!) 14:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)