Share to: share facebook share twitter share wa share telegram print page

Wikipedia talk:Article wizard/Archive 3

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 7

Misplaced request

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)

Submission decline template not giving instructions for resubmission

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)

Edit request on 22 February 2013

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)

 Done. Thank you for this suggestion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Please could the same be done at Wikipedia:Article wizard/Not quite yet. 82.132.216.222 (talk) 21:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Done --Redrose64 (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Time of decline

{{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)

WP:AfC

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

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)
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)

Live help suggestion

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)

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)

Readers need a sense of how long they have to wait

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)

Edit request on 27 July 2013

  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • @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)
          • 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)
          • 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)
  • 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)
    • 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>
    • 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)
      • (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)

Edit request on 28 July 2013

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)

 Done — Earwig talk 00:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Putting the Article Wizard in my own MediaWiki Site

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)
    • 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)

Template:AFC submission/tools

Resolved

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

Jack Kuka

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)

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)

Edit request on 6 September 2013

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:

This draft has not been edited in over six months and qualifies to be deleted per CSD:G13.
Thanks Technical 13 (talk) 00:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Done. Sorry for the wait. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
Done. Updated the template. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 September 2013

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)

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

Edit request on 16 September 2013

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)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
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)
Done --Redrose64 (talk) 22:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Something's not right: Template:AFC submission/declined

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)

  • 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)
It's still happening. -- t numbermaniac c 22:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
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)
I think it's my computer, it happens even when I'm logged out. -- t numbermaniac c 00:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I cleared Chrome's cache and refreshed. Still not working. -- t numbermaniac c 00:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Help for students

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)

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

"Subject of my article is"

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)

@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)
  • 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)

WHAT!?

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)

Page Title change required

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2013

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)

Proposed change: wikilink to main namespace article of the same name

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:


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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2013

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

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)
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)
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)
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)

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

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)

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)

Don't submit before saving

If you preview a draft you see a button saying "Submit your draft when you are ready for it to be reviewed!". If you click the button before saving then your additions are lost and you only add the submission box when you then save. New users may not realize this (even though there may be a box with a warning that data may be lost if they leave the page) It probably contributes to blank submissions so I suggest saying something like "Only use this button on a saved page and not a preview." If it's too much to always display it then it can be displayed in {{#ifexist:{{FULLPAGENAME}}||Text here}}. "Text here" will display when no page has been saved, but it will also display on the original page creation before the next edit, purge or other cause of rerendering. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

  • PrimeHunter, the only way we could prevent people from clicking that button would be if we had an administrator willing to put a little snippit of code in MediaWiki:Common.js that would prevent clicking the button if(wgAction === "edit" || wgAction === "submit") (simplified code for display purposes here). If there was an admin that could add the exact needed code, it wouldn't be hard to add a classname to the button in the template for the script to bind to and prevent clicking (or hide the button all together in edit mode). This may become a moot point in a few months anyways as preventing submission of blank drafts will be part of the JavaScript guided tour I'm drafting up to replace the existing wizard (with community approval of course). — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 22:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Mwanyo

Search the disambiguation of Mwanyo. Mwanyo means gods blessing to the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.70.164.38 (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The Wizard is a great help.

It really helped with my latest article creation. My only suggestion is adding an interface where you can submit a bit of information and then have that info be inserted into the editor so you don't have to start from scratch completely. AustralianPope (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Can somebody add in categories a PLACE, CITY OR NATION?? So I can create a page about a city?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerardolagunes (talk • contribs) 15:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2014

This page says its the Article Wizard but it is the Armenian Environmental Network...Am I missing something? Kleisner (talk) 09:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Done No, you are not missing something, and thanks for spotting this. Someone transcluded the template {{Social Science Cyber Library}}. Makes no sense. Best, Sam Sailor Sing 10:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Change to output destination

Per a discussion held at WT:AFC a snowball consensus exists to have the "AFC" output destination be located in the Draft namespace instead of "Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/". As editors are now expecting it to be there, please do not revert the change to Wikipedia:Article wizard/Ready for submission without first raising the issue at the AFC talk page. Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Draft template submit button makes extra template

When a page is marked with the draft stage of the AfC submission template it displays a grey box stating that it isn't pending review but is in draft stage. I'm assuming that only one AfC submission should be on a page at once. Well, clicking the big green button on the draft template brings up a window to add a new AfC submission template, thus, creating two templates. One is a draft template (not pending review) and another is a submission template (pending review). Is there a way to have the button replace itself (the draft template) with the new template (the submit template)? It might be difficult to do with the link syntax that is being used presently. Any ideas? Thanks, -24Talk 03:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Take for example this page. Notice the grey draft template at the top and the yellow pending review template at the bottom. This user probably added the initial draft template with the article wizard and then clicked the green button on the draft template which made the pending template at the bottom. There are now two templates on the page. I hope this shows my problem clearer. -24Talk 04:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 7 June 2014

Undo revision [3]. There is not a consensus for this change in addition to the underlying template being actively objected to in respect to the preload (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#Help_desk_changes). Implementing editor was warned about enacting changes to protected templates of their own devising without first seeking consensus as protected templates are exempted from WP:BRD as it is impossible for regular editors to force the revert. Per Wikipedia:Template_editors#When_to_seek_discussion_for_template_changes template Editors are required to secure consensus prior to changing the content of a template. No proposal to add the change was submitted and in light of the objection above to the underlying preload template, Technical 13 should have known better to implement a contentious action without securing consensus. Hasteur (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This was discussed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk and I was told to keep going because the changes were improvements over the existing system which was plagued with unusable section headers (redundant and no link to a draft). I'd be happy to discuss it, but there have been no objections to the underlying {{Lafc}} template. The only objection so far has been Hasteur who seems to think that new users should know everything before they can ask a question on the help desk per WP:CIR and I think that mentality is way too WP:BITEy and counter productive to new editor acquirement and retention.
In summary, there was consensus for this new template and the adjustments reflected on the help desk page itself, and the only contention here is based on a little simple guidance offered to new editors. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
An objection of 1 is an objection. And I see that you've decided to ignore Isaacl's objection too. You should have stopped and discussed rather than lumbering on. But since you got the userright you can do anything and ignore any objections.... Hasteur (talk) 21:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
And by the way, your claim of consensus is the thread where I'm objecting to your implementaiton. Notice how there was nobody but you commenting, then I objected, then you decided to ignore my objections, and now we have annother editor objecting. Do the right thing, revert, and establish consensus... Hasteur (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
For those of us who don't understand template syntax can you please explain the effect of this change? BethNaught (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
BethNaught I'd be prefectly happy to. The change is to have the link take the user to the AFC Help Desk and load the {{AFC submission/draft/HD preload}} template into the edit box. If you look at the text that is loaded, there is a line of arrows that is supposed do direct the user to the save button. There is a consensus discussion taking place as to if the template should have those arrows. Because the template is contentious (in addition to having just been created yesterday) it is inappropriate to make a change to the AFC status templates to include that preloaded template. Hasteur (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
@Hasteur: Thanks for the explanation, but now the arrows have been removed... We really need to sit back and have a proper discussion before making any more changes, I think. BethNaught (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Not done:
  1. The consensus was on the Help desk page itself, not on the WikiProject talk page.
  2. The only objection was to the arrows guiding the user to the Save page, which have been removed as the editnotice instruction now shows what the button looks like to make it easier for them to find.
  • Since the basis for this request has been modified so that it is as Hasteur wants it, there is no longer a basis for this request and I'm closing the ticket. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2014

Hassebtariqrajput786 (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2014

Please revert the edits by User:DanVanKant, who replaced the wizard with a fake article. 149.160.173.187 (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Done — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


Where on this page can I go on to writing? I have made clear choices in the previous pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basvossen (talk • contribs) 11:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 July 2014

Please undo these edits that prevents experienced editors from using the submit button when in edit mode. There was no consensus for this change and I object. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 13:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Please undo this edit which was made without consensus and of which I oppose this change that prevents experienced users from using the submit button while viewing the edit window of the draft. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 13:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Multiple users showed agreement that this change was a good thing at WT:WPAFC. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
First, you are involved and are disallowed from closing this. Second, you made a bold change and my inability to revert the change itself is the only thing preventing me from doing it, and this is known as abusing the userright to further your cause and is grounds for  Template editor dismissal. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 15:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
First of all, it wasn't a WP:BOLD change. It was a change as a result of discussion. Whoever does end up closing this, please see discussion that led to the change at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Those blank submissions are our fault. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

information Administrator note I have reviewed the discussion. I find there is consensus that there was a problem, but not necessarily consensus that this is the best way of achieving it. Discussion after the event seems broadly to support the change, so I will not revert, but please continue to discuss there to avoid fragmenting the discussion. Jackmcbarn, closing this edit request to revert your own changes was extremely unwise. Please avoid this in future. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a problem, and this template needs to be reverted until the discussion has concluded as the change introduced here is disruptive. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment: – Unrelated to the actual request, but T13's first reply above is remarkably similar to a reply to my "not done" closing of a different edit request. Is there any rule/guideline that forbids involved users from answering an edit request? I couldn't find one, though there is a criterion that edit requests should not be controversial, which they often are in case of a previous dispute on the issue between the requester and the answerer (which is not the case here, but certainly was there). SiBr4 (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • SiBr4 Ideally, you're not supposed to be the one closing a request where the request is related to your edits per WP:INVOLVED. In some cases the involved status of the editor closing the request has resulted in the request being reopened and closed directly opposite to the original close, warnings to the involved closer, and up to removal of the template editor permission. You have to be very careful when closing a request you are involved in as it opens the doorway for calls of Abuse and Grade-A drama threads at WP:AN. Hasteur (talk) 18:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Echoing Hasteur's point, not everything that is allowed is good: Even if there is no specific rule against and "involved" person closing a request that requires tools that the requester doesn't have or (due to COI or other reasons, chooses not to use) in a particular case, it's sometimes a good idea to abstain just to avoid creating a whole new controversy. When in doubt, ask yourself "is my closing this discussion better or worse for the project than waiting for someone else to close it?" Sometimes, such as when the request is a non-brainer "of course we should honor it" or "of course that's a bad idea" it's perfectly fine for an involved editor to close a discussion when there is no established rule that says otherwise. Likewise, it's probably okay to make a decision on an requested edit that goes against your stated opinion (e.g. "I don't like this, but I will honor the request then open a discussion" or "I do like this, but it's controversial enough to require discussion first, so I will reject it") unless an existing guideline or policy says otherwise. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2014

The Contents don't seem to have any relation with the title or its back links. Suniljacob (talk) 10:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as it is not clear what you are asking - what "contents"? and what "back links"?
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". - Arjayay (talk) 15:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2014

Haidenstiles (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Index: pl ar de en es fr it arz nl ja pt ceb sv uk vi war zh ru af ast az bg zh-min-nan bn be ca cs cy da et el eo eu fa gl ko hi hr id he ka la lv lt hu mk ms min no nn ce uz kk ro simple sk sl sr sh fi ta tt th tg azb tr ur zh-yue hy my ace als am an hyw ban bjn map-bms ba be-tarask bcl bpy bar bs br cv nv eml hif fo fy ga gd gu hak ha hsb io ig ilo ia ie os is jv kn ht ku ckb ky mrj lb lij li lmo mai mg ml zh-classical mr xmf mzn cdo mn nap new ne frr oc mhr or as pa pnb ps pms nds crh qu sa sah sco sq scn si sd szl su sw tl shn te bug vec vo wa wuu yi yo diq bat-smg zu lad kbd ang smn ab roa-rup frp arc gn av ay bh bi bo bxr cbk-zam co za dag ary se pdc dv dsb myv ext fur gv gag inh ki glk gan guw xal haw rw kbp pam csb kw km kv koi kg gom ks gcr lo lbe ltg lez nia ln jbo lg mt mi tw mwl mdf mnw nqo fj nah na nds-nl nrm nov om pi pag pap pfl pcd krc kaa ksh rm rue sm sat sc trv stq nso sn cu so srn kab roa-tara tet tpi to chr tum tk tyv udm ug vep fiu-vro vls wo xh zea ty ak bm ch ny ee ff got iu ik kl mad cr pih ami pwn pnt dz rmy rn sg st tn ss ti din chy ts kcg ve
Prefix: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia

Portal : Agama
Agama
Portal : Bahasa
Bahasa
Portal : Biografi
Biografi
Portal : Budaya
Budaya
Portal : Ekonomi
Ekonomi
Portal : Elektronika
Elektronika
Portal : Film
Film
Portal : Filsafat
Filsafat
Portal : Geografi
Geografi
Portal : Indonesia
Indonesia
Portal : Ilmu
Ilmu
Portal : Lingkungan
Lingkungan
Portal : Masyarakat
Masyarakat
Portal : Matematika
Matematika
Portal : Militer
Militer
Portal : Mitologi
Mitologi
Portal : Musik
Musik
Portal : Olahraga
Olahraga
Portal : Pendidikan
Pendidikan
Portal : Politik
Politik
Portal : Sastra
Sastra
Portal : Sejarah
Sejarah
Portal : Seni
Seni
Portal : Teknologi
Teknologi
Kembali kehalaman sebelumnya