Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Archive 1

message: I'm really confused by the purpose of this page.  Why would someone not post on Requested Articles or just make the article themselves instead of posting a blurb here?  It just seems, based on some of the content here already, that this page will be a magnet for (1) a lot of work keeping it formatted and (2) (cynically) a 10 or 20 to 1 ratio of subsubstub items destined for speedy deletion to something expandable.
I bring this up because I almost speedied this page as nonsense before you put the formatting at the top. :( --Syrthiss 23:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: At present, anons cannot create new articles. -Splashtalk 23:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.  Ok then. --Syrthiss 23:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wondered about this, too. I reminded myself that I used wikipedia for a long time as reference before I ever considered contributing. There are a lot of people who have no interest in contributing. I think Wikipedia should be for them, too. --Elliskev 14:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Confused

message: Did the rules about un-registered Wikipedians change so that only registered Wikipedians now have the right to start articles?? If so, what day to be exact?? Georgia guy 23:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Today, 19:07 (UTC). See Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#Anon_page_creation_restriction. -- grm_wnr Esc 23:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did the rules change?? 

message: I'm inclined to think we should be pretty swift at simply removing the silly requests. There's no need to clutter what is already a busy page. -Splashtalk 00:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The fact that it is so busy, with many good equests, might also say something about this new rule..:)--Sean|Black 01:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It also gives us a way to request for a source upon article creation, which can really help the verifiability problem we have, besides just stopping vandalism. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 03:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When I vehemently objected to Jimbo's decision last night, I hadn't at all thought of the possibility of this page. As it turns out, it's working utterly beautifully, and stopping the creation of much copyvios and crap. Though I agree; we should remove the dreck fairly quickly. Onto my watchlist this goes. Ambi 11:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Took a look at the page and I agree ... needs plenty of attention. I've gone through and started speedy removing some of what would if created by CsD candidates. Can someoen else have a look at what I've done and comment? The Land 11:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Swiftness

message: What exactly is the objection to reminding admins that they are not specially imbued with editorial authority? (See this diff and the page as rendered.) And Splash, if you don't mind, keep out of it.  It's clear you're too emotionally invested in the issue.  You made a mistake.  That happens.  I can forgive that.  But I can't forgive retaliation against those who point out the mistake or those who repair it.  216.237.179.238 16:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's all fair and good, but I fail to see what this has got to do with adminship, since any registered user, not just admins, can fulfil the requests on this page. So why does it, in fact, belong here? -- grm_wnr Esc 17:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Grm_wnr, I don't see what the relevance is to this page - any registered user can create a page, even if it is their first edit. The rejected requests on this page would have ended up beeing speedy-deleted or AfDed anyway so it is not about censorship at all. Thryduulf 19:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I've been thinking about trying to split off a subpage with guidelines and suggestions for users filling requests.  Given that this is such a widely-visited page, and that it's being visited by new users, I think we should try to minimize the material at the top.  I've been trying to assume good faith with my article creations; if I believe an article has some chance of surviving an AfD discussion, I post it, even if I would consider it "borderline".  This is essentially the same view I've taken when I've newpage-patrolled in the past.  Assuming that others agree, we could certainly state that on an instruction page. -- Creidieki 19:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hopefully, there's little need to lay instructions around this. It seems to be working, and I presume the editors looking at this page know what they're doing. There's already too much instruction at the top, and I think adding subpages and the like would risk unbalancing the simplicity. -Splashtalk 19:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When you say "most of the anons are unlikely to read things," you mean admins, right? Because the proposed addition applies to admins, not the anons, and it's starting to look like none of them has read it, nor wants to. 24.221.8.253 15:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This ''does'' belong on this page

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

message: Refresh my memory: can I delete such stuff as Grant Ferrel (vanity) on sight or do I need to list it somewhere?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You delete it as an nn-bio, CSD A7. But I don't think this has a great deal to do with Articles for creation. -Splashtalk 01:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it was created as one of the articles listed here (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation#Grant_Ferrel).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy 

message: There are going to be a lot of anonymous editors reading this page, and most of them will be unfamiliar with our site.  In those circumstances, they aren't going to read the page as thoroughly as we would hope.  We need to try to keep the introduction as short as possible, while still communicating the essentials.  I've removed a few instructions, and reformatted the introduction.  For example, I have yet to see anyone actually sign their posts, and it seems unlikely that we're going to convince them to, so I've removed this instruction.  -- Creidieki 02:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instruction creep 

message: I don't get it. What does this page do that Requested Articles doesn't do better? Dpbsmith (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh? What is Requested Articles for? 

message: ...this is working substantially better than I believed it would. Has the level of pure crap showing up in RC/NP gone down in any measurable way? android79 18:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  You know... 

message: There's a very big problem with this page. IT doesn't result in articles with correct authorship attributions. The editors who create the page do not reference AfC all the time, or reference the sourcing author, nor does it appear on the talk page (which is never created). 
Doesn't this violate some various WikiPedia rules?
132.205.45.148 20:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not every article actually has that kind of attribution in the edit summary. 132.205.44.134 01:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: History / Attribution : Problems due to authorship invalidity 

message: How cool would it be to have a Children: namespace that had articles written by the twelve and under crowd? Like the monkeys and Apes request that's on the project page now. --Elliskev 01:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It wasn't really a serious suggestion. Just one of those what if things. Like 'What if traffic lights were optional?' --Elliskev 02:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh so you've been to Boston? --216.237.179.238 22:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously.  - orioneight (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fleeting thought that will be derided 

message: : What about creating  to post on the talk page of any qualifying articles?  --  user:zanimum
::What for? This isn't really something that needs to be advertised. Ambi 15:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the requests don't have enough information or wouldn't make good articles. android79 17:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a difference between stubs and placeholders. Stubs are useful articles which contain little, but sufficient information. Placeholders don't. - Mgm|(talk) 13:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Template for articles created with process?

message: The AfC page should have a history like the deletion pages do, of past requests, as these requests actually contain content (unlike Requested Articles). 132.205.44.134 01:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is plenty. Fulfilled requests are being archived, as well. android79 01:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be more rigourous and better if done by day, and separated out into historical archives, with a TalkPage template referencing the creation request as well. It can also be used by the curious to examine if some subjects garner many requests and perhaps should be promoted to Requested Articles, seeing that there may be no useful content on AfC. Or be used to combine multiple AfC creation requests that individually lack content but together form something more worthwhile. 132.205.45.148 21:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Just a thought, but should we be compiling statistics for this little experiment?  Like, perhaps, percentage of pages created (pages created with community approval / number of requests), percentage of pages not created with community approval because they'd be AFD material, pecentage of pages not created beacause they'd be speedy material, etc.  Might give us a glance at how effective this idea is.  Well, just a thought, what do you guys think?  - orioneight (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be interested to know how many pages that are requested and created are then edited and expanded by the apparent requester.  Joyous | Talk 21:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: We definetly should. The only statistic I have seen so far was on Jimbo's page. I'll ask around.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Eww!! - orioneight (talk) 01:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: So far, out of 74 requests I've looked at, 26 articles were created by the community (about 35%).  Not a big sampling yet, but I'm tired and going to bed now.  22 of those requests would have met CSD (about 29%). Again, still a very small sampling.  - orioneight (talk) 04:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Bah, sorry I didn't remember this earlier. This should probably be done on Tuesday night, to recreate the conditions that existed in the first survey. Zocky 05:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics 

message: Anons can create talk page, why don't we tell them to make the article they want on the talk page and then list it here? If we like it, we can easily move it into the main namespace, or if it hangs around for 24 hours or so it can be speedied with no fuss. Kappa 01:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: the plus side of this that we could move it from talk to the main and the copyright concern would be lessened because the history would be preserved. Perhaps we should make a template/cat for them to use so we can keep track of the orphaned talk pages. Nice idea. I wish I had the initiative to put it together. Broken S 01:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am perhaps stupid, but I must ask...How is this different than having an anon create an article the old way, before the Great Switch? How is "talk page patrol" really different than NewPages Patrol?  Joyous | Talk 15:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If I write trash on the talk page then you won't/can't accidentaly get to it via links or search. So  there is less urgency to remove the trash (it isn't yet "live"). It's an in between level of restriction. Broken S 16:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Have them create talk pages? 

message: Stupid idea. I wanted to create an article about the Spring anemone Pulsatilla vernalis  as I did for other biological stuff before. See Pulsatilla vernalis, how such a start article would look like, including an image from commons. I got several reasons NOT to work with an account (I do have an account, but don't use it anymore since february - intentionally!) One main reason is that I don't like all the personal discussions with people flooding user talk pages, instead of concentrating questions or criticism on a specific article. I mean Wikipedia ia an awesome project. But if you force people who really want to create an encyclopedia and therefore do that without all the community and teenage babble, to work with an account, I'll leave (certainly, will follow the discussion). - Peter 10:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Peter,  You'd only need to use your account to create the new page.  Or use AFC to create the page.  Everything else could be done from an anon account.  Is that a big obstacle?  Regards, Ben Aveling 11:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is, because I'm used to write non-stubs. I usually prepare texts before creating an article on the wiki and I often edit an article never again afterwards. And articles would be related to a clear account again than - what I don't want. The way round AFC appears as an unreasonable demand to me. It is quite uncomfortable, too (think about categories, inter wiki links, tables). The alternative, that I always and first have to ask someone else to create a silly 3-word-page (e.g. "Pulsatilla vulgaris is a plant") before I can edit or add my text, is also pointless. I don't want to imagine how long I have to wait for such a wished lemma. We will definitely lose good authors, who don't want to reveal a daily profile of their activity or their interests over months/years with such an account, or who don't like personal discussions. You may want to tell me, that I could create a new account for every new article. Of course, I could, but that is no serious solution (think about account maintenance in the future). Regards, Peter 12:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you just put a note on your user talk page and user page saying that you'd rather comments be placed on article talk pages?  Chick Bowen 01:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  As said above: Don't wanna reveal a daily/ monthly/ yearly profile of my activity. An IP is in this way more anonymous. Have you ever heard of data mining? - Peter 15:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's much easier to trace you with your IP, then via a username, whose IP info is restricted and not available to any casual user (or even most admins).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  Indeed. Were I a privacy paranoiac, I'd be much more concerned about leaving my IP address strewn about than having my username farmed for some sort of activity summary. Without a real-life name to attach it to, what value or meaning would such a summary have? android79 14:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  in opposition the whole idea

message: Would increasing the visibility of the "don't copy stuff from webpages" bit in the page header make any difference? I doubt it, but putting it in a nice, big colorful box might be worth a try... android79 19:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvios 

message: I just marked one request probably a not notable biography and another a copyright violation.  Within minutes zanimum had deleted them.
There is no way that the people making the requests will have had time to see the reasons for the rejection and challenge them.  They are probably going to assume that they were removed for vandals, or think that people are exercising vicarious power.
I've noticed this user deleting or archiving prematurely on several previous occasions.  He's also deleted caveated creates (e.g. naming convention changes and warnings about POV and verifiability).
Generally the sort of person who makes use of this page won't understand how to use the history, and even if they do, the articles are being deleted in blocks without an adequate edit summary, so they will have to trawl through the whole history to find out what happened.
There is a secondary benefit in leaving up rejects, in that some requestors may realise that their requests will be rejected.
--David Woolley 14:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Premature deletions by [[User:zanimum|zanimum]] 

message: This page needs the AfC redirect page to be created, to match VfD, CfD, etc deletion page redirectors. I requested this in AfC itself, and it was not fulfilled, so I'd like a discussion on the issue. 132.205.45.148 21:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect, self referencing 

message: Perhaps the text "Click here to request a new article" on the top of the page can be better changed to something like "Click here to submit a proposal for a new article" or something like that, since the current text may be confusing to new users (who wouldn't know the difference between this page and Wikipedia:Requested articles). 131.111.8.102 18:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Request an article" 

message: I've just readded a number of entries which were removed while some looked quite viable. Please explain why it's not a valid topic and leave it up for at least a day, so anons can see what's happening. - Mgm|(talk)
*Aren't fulfilled requests supposed to be archived instead of deleted? I don't see the use, but it would cut down on erronously deleted requests. - Mgm|(talk) 12:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal 

message: If someone asks us to create an article about a non-notable person, clan, cat or whatever, it would be nice to tell them about an alternative that will accept this kind of thing instead of just saying "no". Any suggestions? WP:Alternatives doesn't really help atm. Kappa 04:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Does Wikinfo have any notability guidelines? There's also Wikinerds, as much as I despise its cretinous spamming founder. Ambi 04:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Geocities, Angelfire, ... android79 05:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: http://www.wikime.org, http://www.wikitree.org for example. Note, however, that Wikitree uses a cc-by-nc-sa licence (i.e. not the GFDL) and so only the original contributor can take their work there. Wikime is GFDL so anyone can. -Splashtalk 13:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to send nn-bio requests? 

message: We need a better way to manage this page. Would subpages and transclusion be a bad idea for a page so frequently visited by newbies? android79 14:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Managing requests and archives 

message: As the policy on creating articles has been changed, surely this page should be likewise?
Also - could there be some more organisation of the various requests for creation so we can spot those in our fields more readily?
Jackiespeel 18:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy change

message: The proportion of prima facie copyrght violations here makes me wonder about the ones that got through before and from logged in users.
Although some users may be trying it on to try and get copyright violations laundered into Wikipedia, I think most are from people who just don't understand the concept.  If the proportion here is indicative of the proportion on the rest of Wikipedia, it would seem that an active copyright violation search needs to be done for every new article and every big change.  That's only easy for copying for things in public, indexable, parts of the web.  --David Woolley 18:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: RC patrol and NP patrol catch most of them, I think. At least, the number reported to WP:CP suggests they do. -Splashtalk 19:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do Copyvios signal bigger problem 

message: Wikinews had a scheme just like this for quite a while.  The experience of Wikinews was that a strong sourcing policy is a good idea, and works well.  No article was created at Wikinews unless the submission cited at least one source.  Editors would request sources for submissions that didn't have them, but if no sources were presented within a reasonable amount of time, submissions would be discarded. (Of course, editors processing submissions could go and find sources themselves, too.) Uncle G 08:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this. I don't see why it shouldn't apply for all articles created, rather than just for anons.Stevage 01:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  It should be an absolute enforced requirement.  Perhaps we should even speedily move such totally unsourced new articles out of article space (till sources are given).  Put them in a project page similiar to this (though not this specific page).  Simple rule:  "no source, no article".  Also, in the shorter term, I would suggest a standard approach should be for everyone finding an unsourced article to always contact the author, and tell them a source is required according to WP:CITE.  Now that everybody creating articles has an account, such a talk message is more likely to be read.  Now that I said this, I'll probably be reminded of an article I forgot to source.  --Rob 02:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strong sourcing requirements 

message: The list of articles created up the top looks like it was used on the 11th and 12th, briefly on the 15th, and not since then. Should we scrap it altogether?Stevage 01:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles created list

message: I suggest we create a perfect "proposal" example for anons to use as an example before writing up their proposal. I don't have the inspiration right now to do it properly, but it should look like:
Subject: John Smith
 John Smith is a major league baseball player in the USA.  He plays for...
 
 ==Sources==
 
Stevage 02:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're probably right. Ideally they would at least type 'sources' or whatever down the bottom with their url, then it's very little work for the elf who creates the page for them. Stevage 02:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Use an example to reduce cruft

message: This page is HUGE (currently over 200KB), and presumably can only get bigger as more and more articles are created... possibly not a good first introduction to wikipedia editing for new users. Can it be split somehow into one subpage per day similar to WP:AFD? ... or perhaps even an exception to the "IP users cannot create articles" rule could be made for some namespace so that an IP user can just create something like Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Article I want to create or IPcontribs:Article I want to create or something... this way if accepted it merely needs to be moved to main article space.
--Stoive 23:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split - one subpage per day? or per article? 

message: Half the article was blanked and it said I did it when I did not. I did save it one time and it said it had been changed since. I do not know if that had anything to do with it. But I was not the one that made that edit of blanking anything. All I did was add a article for creation. 68.77.139.51 05:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Tech Error 

message: Any opinions on having a special page similar to this only for templates?? Somebody requested a template on this page, unaware that the name implies it is for articles only. Georgia guy 15:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Templates for creation 

message: Trying to type takes a second or two per letter to appear on the screen--somehow the AFC page needs to be kept smaller. (redirects for Jay Norwood Darling: J.N. Darling, J. N. Darling, J.N. 'Ding' Darling, J.N. "Ding" Darling.) 65.35.49.186 02:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 425K?!? for the AFC page is unusable

message: This page (and probably many other places) has at least two links to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Anon_page_creation_restriction saying that will explain why this page is necessary, but that link no longer works since that Pump discussion has been archived. Seems like that info needs to be posted to a more permanent location that can be linked to going forward (unless, of course, the "experiment" actually ends soon). 65.35.49.186 02:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy explanation links no longer work

message: This page is becoming un-manegable so I  am attempting to start a new system. I copied it here Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2005-12-16. Please comment and tell me if I did it right and if I should continue with the rest of the days.--God_of War 04:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copied content into  new subpage

message: I closed a request with links to the new article and the original request text - which I immediately moved to the archive. Any issues / problems with this procedure? If not then I'm going to start so handling various already 'answered' requests which are cluttering up the page. If we follow this as standard practice then each 'day' on the page should be quickly filled just with links like this and we can delete whole 'day' sections when they pass two weeks old or something like that. Let me know what you think. --CBD ☎ ✉ 18:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning