Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Archive 3

message: I have made somthing wrong, it doesn't look like rest, there is o "title". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 157.158.191.231 (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry, I've fixed it for you. Tim 14:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  (SITG) (Association of Mining Engineers and Technicians) 

message: I've been playing around with something that I think could make things a bit easier to keep up with some of the mess around here. For an example, check out Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2007-01-09 that I applied the new template to. Basically, I figure that by hiding the articles that've already been marked, it's a lot easier to quickly skim down the page finding the articles that still need to be reviewed (since they'll stand out a lot more), and the page won't be so overwhelming for people to review. What do people think? --Maelwys 15:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One word:  NICE.   Is there a different variant in the outer border for accept vs. decline?  It might be nice to see at a glance which ones were accepted or not.   However, I think this is great as is.  -- ShinmaWa(talk) 17:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree things are fine as they are. The background already makes unreviewed ones stand out. Harryboyles 11:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Harry - My problem is that if I'm scanning the page really quickly, the incomplete ones don't stand out as much as they would with this template involved. Plus, since the page can get extremely long by the end of the day, this helps hide a lot of the unneeded clutter so that it's a lot less painful to scan through the page, everything gets a lot more organized and "clean" looking. Basically my theory is that the AfC can be a pretty arduous and thankless job (since there's a lot of garbage here), but still a necessary one, so why not make it as easy as possible for the volunteers to skim through the page and find what they need? --Maelwys 14:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: ShinmaWa - Take another look now, how's that? I think that should be basically what you're looking for. (you should notice the difference right away, since the top two sections are an accept and a decline) --Maelwys 14:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Now I've seen it in action for a day, I've changed my mind. Good idea. I've increased the red for the shading of declined articles as it better suits the green of the accepted ones. Harryboyles 13:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooh, bee-youtiful! A huge improvement, I think. I hope it doesn't confuse new users who don't know to click on "show", though... delldot | talk 03:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New template idea to make things cleaner and easier to browse 

message: I have another idea that could help make it easier to review from a glance at the table of contents:  at WP:ER we started this thing where people who haven't been reviewed yet have an asterisk next to their name (which exists in the template you use to create your ER subpage), and the reviewer removes it.  That way, a glance at the table of contents shows a potential reviewer which users have and have not already been reviewed.  I like the system a lot (if I do say so myself!).  Anyone object to maybe trying it here?  I'd love to be able to use the TOC to skip right to the ones that haven't been reviewed, rather than scrolling.  Would trying this out even be technically possible with the request submission process?  Other thoughts?  Thanks, delldot talk 19:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another idea for reviewer ease

message: Hey, if people use this template to turn down an article, could you please provide a further explanation? As it stands, we're telling people that their article is not suitable for wikipedia, and saying nothing else. I'm actually tempted to put the template up for TFD right now, but I'm going to hold back pending on how people respond to this message. Part Deux 16:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call, we need to be explaining further. delldot talk 17:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|afc not}} 

message: Something has gone wrong here.  Can someone who is familiar with how AfC is supposed to work fix this?  Jkelly 23:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the AfC tags from it (those only go around the article on the actual AfC page, and should get removed when the article is created), but it still needs a lot of cleanup. --Maelwys 23:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Northern Transcriptionworks, Inc]] 

message: At the very beginning of the page it says "The easiest way to create a new article, however, is to create a free Wikipedia user account and then log in."
So my question is, "What's the point of this page?"
Why do for users what they can more easily do for themselves?
The Transhumanist   05:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is addressed at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation. Wikipedia used to allow anonymous creation (and still does on some wikis); this was part of the compromise. Part Deux 14:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't get it 

message: I've proposed these two templates for deletion at tfd, as I believe they're counterproductive. Any input would be appreciated. Patstuarttalk·edits 22:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|afc attack}} and {{tl|afc nonsense}} now up for deletion at tfd 

message: Is anybody else concerned about the size of template. It does make it easier to see what was and wasn't reviewed, but once a page is completed the template will have, typically, roughly doubled the size of the page source. Considering that most of this is just archives sitting there taking up space, should something be done about this? -- kenb215 talk 03:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of the new-ish {{tl|afc top}} 

message: Just noticed Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2007-04-23 pop up in :Category:Video games. Will it eventually be removed automatically, or am I okay to remove categories from the AfC page manually? Marasmusine 17:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, this has always been a problem, and it's definitely ok to remove them.  We ask people not to include cats, but as things go at AfC, it's far from the most important instruction to get across. I used to remove all of the cats manually, but stopped around June of last year. There was also once some discussion about involving a bot. ×Meegs 18:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the info :> Marasmusine 18:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I've made a bot request here. I have not been involved in AfC for a quite a while, so if others would please review what I've said, that would be great. ×Meegs 19:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There were no takers. If there are any AWB users who could help out by linkifying all of the categories in the AfC archives (e.g. Category:Living people → :Category:Living people ), please do! ×Meegs 09:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories on AfC pages 

message: I have submitted a proposed article on the Council of State Governments.  For students and researchers seeking data on states' rights and issues dealt with at the state level, knowing that CSG exists will be particularly useful and will help them access information that is produced by an organization created by states and sustained with our tax dollars. 200.50.30.45 10:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Next time, please read the top of this talk page. People submitting articles are not supposed to edit here to talk about their articles. Thank you. Diez2 15:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Council of State Governments 

message: Say, if this is the page where to submit content to be created if I don't want to create an account, then how comes this page is protected? If I have an account, I create an article without proposing it, so the deeper sense of a protected "Articles for Creation"-page evades me... --85.181.35.144 12:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that is kind of weird.  I think the answer is that you're supposed to submit material to Wikipedia:articles for creation/Today rather than to WP:AFC itself.  Maybe they protected AFC after too many people were damaging the page or something.  But you're right, it seems a little problematic, I'll look into it more.  Leave me a message on my talk page if you have any questions or want to discuss anything. Peace, delldot talk 16:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, those are the reasons. The only cause for editing the main Wikipedia:Articles for creation page is to change the instructions, which rarely needs to be done. Before the page was semi-protected, it was very common for submissions to end-up in the wrong place, or for the entire page to be blanked in favor of a single submission (leaving subsequent visitors without any instructions at all).  The semi-protection pushes submitters to use the "click here to start" link, through which they will receive even more guidance from the "wizard" and the preload. ×Meegs 21:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection of the Article 

message: When you click the link to this, you are told that not all submissions have been evaluated.  In actuality, all of yesterday's submissions HAVE been evaluated.  Perhaps this is a first, but can someone tell me how to fix it so that it doesn't indicate that there is a backlog on that particular day?--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 00:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been fixed, but for future reference,  is put at the top of a page once all of the submissions are evaluated. Otherwise,  is added until the page is finished. -- kenb215 talk 20:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Yesterday's Submissions

message: I looked up "Dekatron" in Wikipedia, found Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2006-08-12 and created Dekatron from it.
But I notice there's no category for unfinished AFC pages nor links to them. What's up with that? - David Gerard 20:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorise or link to old archives? 

message: Some of the formatting got messed up, someone fix please >_< Whsitchy 16:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks to be ok now!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 22:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help 

message: The bot seems to be MIA, as no archive was made.  I'll wait a bit and then try my hand at a manual archive if no other solution is forthcoming.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 01:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Argh, it's done now, with help from Anonguy.  I kinda fumbled it up a bit...yikes.  At least I know how to do it now!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 01:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot question 

message: Hi everyone!  You might be interested in checking out the new WikiProject, Articles for creation.  Please drop by and take a look!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 15:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New WikiProject 

message: Please start a Human Rights in Canada page ASAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:You are likely looking for Requested Articles, located at WP:RA.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 23:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human Rights in Canada page 

message: I don't know why this article was denied for being blank; it wasn't. I created it. Voskoboinikov 22:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually blanks result from comments swallowing up the text eg: . Type your article after the > sign. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Guilherme de Melo

message: This is probably somewhere really obvious, but could someone point me to the discussion where we decided to remove the links to the proposed articles in the headers for the submissions?  I found them helpful because you can look at them and know right away whether there's something there.  Why did we decide to do away with that?  Any chance of bringing it back?  delldot talk 21:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely concur, and it also provides a handy way to create the article when using tabbed browsers.  Shall we pose it on the template talk page for the wizard, as it is currently protected?--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 21:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'd like to, but it might also be handy to find out why they changed it in the first place.  Does anyone know?  delldot talk 17:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Links to pages

message: Entire discussion copied to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Suggested chores for Jitse's bot where it belongs.
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  to the top of every page.  This will ensure that the list gets examined at least once after it is archived.
*add an  tag to make replacing the  tag with  or  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)
replies: text: Hm, I think those are great ideas, however, I believe Jitse's bot already adds the  tag.  I see no problem asking Jitse about the others though!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 00:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Suggested chores for Jitse's bot 

message: You can use  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  to alert new-change-partrollers you are still working on the article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New template: afc inuse|time=3 hours|msg=Research in progress. 

message: Shouldn't we include something in the Wizard that reminds submitters to use  and  tags when including categories? The submission pages are getting included in many categories and it's a bit confusing (for example, today's page is in :Category:Living people). --Boricuaeddie 20:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about we just let submitters add their categories, and let the bot clean them up?  It will only stay in the category for a day.  Unfortunately there would be quite a few around that don't know what this page is all about though, and waste their time cleaning up things like dleted pictures from declined articles.  I know when I was a new user, there were just too many instructions to follow.  Most submitters don't even know what a category is. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: Is this: User talk:70.65.80.72#Thank you for your Articles for Creation work a first?  An anonymous editor got a Wikipedia:WikiProject Saskatchewan barnstar for contributing the original version of Ebenezer, Saskatchewan.  Too bad the contributor will probably never see his reward, since the submission is from the 2006 backlog.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anon AFC submission gets a Barnstar 

message: I sometimes see a declined article here where I think an adequate article can in fact be written, and intend to do. Besides simply making the article, how should I indicate this? I am a rather experienced editor & an admin, and am generally confident about this; I know I do not need permission, but how should I modify the article request--just add my comment?DGG (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Undo the decline, mark it  and indicate you intend to create the article.  When you have created it, remove the maybe and mark it as accept.  To undo a decline, remove the afc top and afc b templates.  Or, if you are lucky, it was declined as a stand-alone edit.  In that case, find the edit in the edit history and "undo" it.  Be careful to view the changes before saving any undo of this nature.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: review of declined articles

message: I have split off  from . The wording of  now deals with general notability concerns, while  retains the old wording about NN people. Let me know if there are any concerns of problems. Caknuck 23:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{tl|afc nn}}

message: Why doesnt anybody adding the saigon inferno article?
http://vietnamnews.vnanet.vn/2004-06/12/Stories/06.htm http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2798725_ITM http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2372201.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.211.66 (talk) 11:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saigon Inferno 

message: I just submitted this, but I have a better source to add: 
130.101.20.156 20:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll go ahead and stick this into the submission.  Thanks!  delldot talk 22:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AARD code 

message: Please excuse me if I did anything wrong, but I removed an addition placed on here by User:164.58.72.21 (a comparatively new user). He added Broxton, England to the Articles for Creation page, having over-written Broxton (already existing), to produce a dab page. He did this because there is another Broxton in Oklahama (he has added Broxton, Oklahama as an Article for Creation today.) I: (a) reverted Broxton to restore the original article; (b) performed a page-move to rename it (to Broxton, Cheshire), thus preserving the editing history; and (c) then re-created the dab page at Broxton. I also had to edit a Cheshire-related template and may well have to do other edits to avoid references to Broxton in Cheshire-related pages now going to the Dab page. I hope this is acceptable to people. The editor who did this seems comparatively new, and was probably unaware of how to proceed in these cases. I'm not entirely sure I followed correct procedure in removing the entry, but I hope I sorted out the problem sufficiently.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you did fine! Thanks for helping out and cleaning that up!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 12:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Information about a removed addition

message: I've updated the AFC script after suggestions from User:ArielGold and User:MacGyverMagic, adding a manual accept button and the  and  templates to the declines. If you are using it, you might want to bypass your browsers cache once which will make sure you're using the latest version. Cheers! henrik•talk 14:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated AFC script 

message: "Articles for Creation" and "Requested Articles" don't allow you to request an article to be written for you.  Where can I accomplish this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwonga (talk • contribs) 00:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand. After an article is created, you are free to edit it. J-ſtanTalkContribs 00:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry.  Let me try to clarify.  I work for a private college which is considered a "notable organization or company" and I'd like to see it listed here except I would be a person of interest.  I see references where I can somehow request for the article to be written on my behalf from an unbiased third person but I don't see where I can do that unless I post it somewhere (and if so, where?).  Hope that makes sense. Cwonga 19:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right, I see what you're saying. Well, you could post it in my sandbox, and I could take care of it for you. I'll probably ask for some help from yourself and others on Wikipedia if I have some questions. J-ſtanTalkContribs 21:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Articles on your Behalf 

message: What will happen to this page after anonymous article creation is re-enabled?  Is there any point in continuing?  violet/riga (t) 00:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If Anonymous Article Creation were to be reenabled, this page would probably be shut down... but all the people that monitor it would instead have to be busy watching the new articles feed, and flagging all the junk that we turn down here with CSD tags instead, and hope that there's enough admin's around to delete it all. --Maelwys 01:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not 'if' - 9th of November.  Going to be quite interesting, and it might be worth planning if there will be an immediate shut down of this page or a short overlap.  violet/riga (t) 01:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... hadn't heard that before. Will indeed be interesting, I hope the admins are ready for the hit, or things will get messy quickly. They'll probably leave this page around for a while, since it'd still help to filter out some people that need help formatting articles, or hopefully it could still absorb some of the garbage. But we'll have to see how it works... --Maelwys 01:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just remember the result of the re-enabling will be evaluated after one month, so this page might not be technically necessary for that month, but *may* be required again afterwards depending on how things go. Now even if everything goes great and annon. page creation stay, there is still some backlog to clear. KTC 09:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: For information for anyone who haven't heard / read about this - Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29#Anonymous_page_creation_will_be_reenabled_on_English_Wikipedia. KTC 09:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Close down? 

message: You're invited to share your views on the topic at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Anon page creation. -- Kendrick7talk 19:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anon page creation 

message: Or at least every section of the history has a (complete) next to it. I removed the template. Temperalxy 01:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 2006 still is not finished! Did you miss the last line? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backlog gone 

message: I am an experienced wikipedian with several thousand edits, but I just wanted to quickly add a redirect, and didn't want to compromise my account by logging in from an insecure computer that I am using. After all, wikipedia is a new kind of encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, RIGHT? Well, it's a SHAME, SHAME, SHAME what kind of non-sense one had to go through to create a new article as an anon user, even if it be a paltry redirect. Disgusting how I had to go through all this you are not going to promote yourself, you can submit your IDEA for an article, blah, blah, blah ad infinitum. Well, that'll serve me right: I'll know now how discriminating and intimidating can wikipedia be for new users. Thanks a lot! 74.94.146.241 09:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anons make over half of the wikipedia content, despite all the roadblocks people set up. --80.126.238.189 18:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The quality bar is quite a bit higher in AFC compared with autocreation using an account.  A far bigger percentage of articles are declined, than new ones are deleted. This is prbably very discouraging, some contributors get upset! Graeme Bartlett 20:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It reduces the addictiveness level of wikipedia. Good for contributors, less so for us ;-) --Kim Bruning 00:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What a bureaucratic nightmare ! 

message: Rocko from the movie Pebble and the Penguin should have his own page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.81.102 (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A character who should have his own page 

message: I would like to know what happened to the deleated Strike of Lightning comment. The History tab told me to contact someone but that was just too difficult. So i'm asking here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.136.223.186 (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was declined as "not suitable." In my own opinion, there was no evidence of notability given.  Further, the only sources you provided were websites where one could buy the book, and such websites are not considered reliable sources for confirming that a book is notable. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleated Request 

message: I don't know if anyone else has noticed this. Many times per day I have to edit today's page in order to change this == to this ===. If this isn't done, there is no possibility to use the "edit section" command and everything takes longer.
My proposal: all new requests are begun with a level 1 title, i.e. a single = sign. Then even if the contributors add a ==, the sections will still perform their function. Any comments? MSGJ (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I share the same pain that you do, and it is pretty annoying. My question though, is what prevents them from creating another header below the main one that is also level one? Icestorm815 (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I thought about that afterwards. I suppose they are just copying the headline style which is at the top. So if we changed to level 1, they would just copy that! I'm not sure ... MSGJ (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for sections 

message: can't be bothered with going through the complications of the page, so could someone redirect Testimonial game to Testimonial match? thx --198.185.18.207 (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can't be bothered then neither can I! MSGJ (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Why not create an account and try it out for yourself? It's fast and easy! Icestorm815 (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not everybody wants to create an account just to create an article. 68.229.184.37 (talk) 02:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why you have the option to use AfC. MSGJ (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

text: If you would have added to WP:AFC/T the same as you did hear you would have made a valid contribution! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  can't be bothered 

message: Since when did Wikipedia require user registration for new article creation? This must be within the last year or two, at the earliest, since I never remembered requiring to register back when I didn't have an account. Could someone please link me to when this was first enacted? Thanks! (Please post your reply on my Talk page.) Gary King (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Icestorm815 • Talk 19:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply 

message: Looks like AFC Helper messed up, and the bottom of the page is all messed up now. Could someone fix this, as I am quite busy right now and I'm not familiar with AFC? Never mind, fixed now. I was in a rush when I typed the last message and so I was a little unclear and forgot to sign. paranomia (formerly tim.bounceback)a door? 23:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oops 

message: Too many people have been making stupid requests. It's gotta stop!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy1423 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It can't be stopped...Someguy1221 (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stupid Requests 

message: I'm looking at Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2006-08-26#Ammonium_Dinitramide wondering why this article wasn't created? It's sourced, isn't it? __meco (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It looks like the source was a PDF file but there was no link and without further info it can not be verified. GtstrickyTalk or C 21:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That said, there are hundreds of good sources for such an article  Someguy1221 (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced? 

message: Syed Muhammad Qalab Hasnain Shah
Syed Ali Asghar Shah
Syed Sajjad Haidar Shah
Syed Hassan Imran Ali
Syed Hassan Turab Ali
Syed Maqsood Haider
Syed Essa Murtaza
Syed Ali Ladhan Imam
Syed Hassan Adnan Ali  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.125.143.66 (talk) 07:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous Peolpe 

message: On this page :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2008-06-07
The NVISION article was denied creation because of lack of reputable/verifiable sources. Yet the official website for the event is listed as the source. Isn't the denial a bit too much ? Does the editor fear that the event will not take place ? Does linking to a third party news source that itself uses the official web page or official press release as a source makes it more reputable/verifiable ? I could do that but that only adds a level of indirection..
The event taking place is also listed on the wikipedia NVIDIA page :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nvidia 
and it doesn't seem to cause contention there.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.43.130 (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been removed per WP:NOTNEWS.  If significant links to news coverage which is not on the official site o NVIDIA's (such as CNN or MSNBC), it might qualify.ArcAngel (talk) (Review) 17:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NVISION article 

message: What's up with the new article reviewer? He's not making the submissions green or red, depending on whether it was approved or not, like the previous reviewers. --71.225.85.57 (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's Going On? 

message: Just popping around to say that there is no unreviewed submissions now. Hooray :) Sceptre (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice! GtstrickyTalk or C 20:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, it seems there are a lot of us around on this project at the moment :) MSGJ (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I periodically help out here - I only came here because I saw that an AFC script (my custom one, less cumbersome than henrik's, though it requires textual input) is in my modern.js Sceptre (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Explain this please? I use Henrik's but I noticed that you seemed to be using a different one. Sometimes it would be nice to make a more custom response. What's this other script? MSGJ (talk) 07:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's mostly User:Sceptre/afc.js. It's an amateur script, really - it prompts you, and you can enter foobar and it would output . The script does nothing unless you call this:
if(document.title.indexOf("Editing Wikipedia:Articles for creation") == 0 || document.title.indexOf("Edit conflict: Wikipedia:Articles for creation") == 0) 
    {
        addlimenu(tabs, 'AFC actions', 'afc');
        addPortletLink('afc', 'javascript:afc("accept", "accept")', 'accept', );
        addPortletLink('afc', 'javascript:afc("accept", "redir")', 'redir accept', );
        addPortletLink('afc', 'javascript:afcmaybe()', 'defer', );
        addPortletLink('afc', 'javascript:afc("decline", prompt("Reason from: \n exists, mergeto, nn, source, bio, web, corp, band, dict, cv, blank, adv, neo, lang, attack, joke, not"))', 'decline', );
        addPortletLink('afc', 'javascript:afc("decline", "reason")', 'decline with reason', );
}
Which requires Add LI menu. I don't call it all in once place because they're intended to be used by just me. Sceptre (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absolutely no backlog! 

message: I submitted the missing championship title pages for Future of Wrestling earlier today and all were declined with the exception of the FOW Heavyweight Championship. I gave the AFC tutorial a fairly thorough read and I checked existing title pages and those created on AFC as a guide. These championship titles are to a notable wrestling promotion, Future of Wrestling, and one or more wrestlers have held these titles. All these pages were written similarly and used the same source, Solie's Title Histories, so I'm confused why the FOW Heavyweight Championship is considered notable but the rest are not. As I understand it, I'm required to provide at least one reliable source. This particular website is used as a reliable source on hundreds of wrestling pages on Wikipedia. I've seen several history pages that list the website as its only source and most of the other title pages created on AFC also used this website. While I could provide more references, I don't see why this particular situation warrants it when similar articles are created using this same reference. I resubmitted these articles and included my concern, the same reviewer declined them seconds after I posted them without responding to my comment. If I provided a reliable source, one good enough for other articles approved on AFC (and apparently allowed the creation of the main heavyweight title), what exactly is the problem ? 71.184.44.14 (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, if you read the declining comment by the reviewer, a reason was given. In this case it was "No assertion of notability outside the SOLIE almanac ref". This perhaps means that the reviewer wasn't confident that the one source given was reliable enough to verify notability. I would be happy to take another look at these later (no time right now) but a better approach might be to contact the reviewer himself, User:Sceptre, an experienced editor. I'm sure he would be happy to clarify matters. MSGJ (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rejected submissions 

message: 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)
replies: text: Ta-da!  How's that look? (:Image:AFC-Logo.png) Hersfold (talk/work) 02:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, I like it!  Thanks for putting the effort into this!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 02:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: One problem, the template only gives your sig.  No one elses. Whsitchy 03:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dammit, I thought I'd fixed that. Ok, try it now. Hersfold (talk/work) 14:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Userbox

message: 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)
replies: text: Second that. Whsitchy 13:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Absolutely.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 15:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Works for me. Hersfold (talk/work) 01:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Category created. See :Category:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation_participants for more details. -- Hdt83  Chat 23:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal of New Category 

message: 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)
thread_title: Possible things to add on this page

message: I've identified a potential usage problem with , and I'm opening discussion on it on the talk page.  Powers T 13:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made a suggestion that should help. Hersfold (talk/work) 17:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential issue with {{tl|AFC preload}} 

message: 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:
Template:WPAFC Would this be something we could use? Hersfold (talk/work) 23:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really like that, and intend to start using it as soon as possible.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 23:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: That was my next question...how would we be rating such articles?  This answers it!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 23:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a good idea since we need more people. --Banana 21:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Talk page header 

message: That was my next question...how would we be rating such articles?  This answers it!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 23:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Article Ratings 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Need a review 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Noticeboard

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

text: Very cool! Henrik 07:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  June 2007 complete 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Copy checking, bot for automating declining submissions? 

message: 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 , which was deleted for a sensible reason, so I thought I'd ask first. Henrik 23:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think in the past we've declined those types of submissions, with a note along the lines of: " 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)
replies: text: I use  sometimes, if the content is largely similar.  Otherwise, a new  or something could be helpful.  Powers T 23:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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,  or  both work. Hersfold (talk/work) 04:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: 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  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  Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you. Hersfold (talk/work) 04:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed the grammar.   Nice work.  Powers T 23:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  When content should be merged into existing article? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Posting a message on all project participants' talk pages. --GrooveDog (talk) 01:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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  -- 146.115.58.152 03:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Backlog Drive 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks! Espresso Addict 08:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest addition of links to WikiProjects to created pages 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Backlog pages disappearing without being fully reviewed - afc maybe and afc n 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  artwork added to main page and main backlog page 

message: 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  to the top of every page.  This will ensure that the list gets examined at least once after it is archived.
*add an  tag to make replacing the  tag with  or  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)
replies: text: Hm, I think those are great ideas, however, I believe Jitse's bot already adds the  tag.  I see no problem asking Jitse about the others though!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 00:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Suggested chores for Jitse's bot 

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: I LOVE it! Way to go!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 22:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Ad 

message: 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)
thread_title:  IRC Channel 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Vandals struck main page twice in last day or so 

message: I've made a new template to make discussions in the discussion room a little more obvious. Looks like so:
 (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)
thread_title:  {{tl|afc discuss}} 

message: 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 , 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  {{tl|afc cleared}} 

message: You can use  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  to alert new-change-partrollers you are still working on the article.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent work!  I took the liberty of fixing the spelling :-) --Boricuaeddie 02:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  new template afc inuse 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wow... 

message: * 21 August Goalsneak --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the PROD notice, as the article now has references. I did tag it with wikify and cleanup though.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 02:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:PROD]] nominations 

message: There's a slight problem with the preload template - when it gets loaded into the edit dialog for the anon users, it completely ignores the <noinclude> tags and sticks a category link in as well, leaving us with about fifty bits of code adding the submissions page to :Category:Articles for creation templates. I've looked at it, and I can't find any way to get around this little bug, other than placing the talk page for the preload template in the templates category and removing the actual template from it. I figured I should check with everyone before I requested an admin make the change. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preload problem 

message: The entire Afc place is heavily backloged. We better sort this out... --Hirohisat 紅葉 03:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Time for another drive, perhaps? --Pumpmeup 23:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backlog 

message: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-10-29/Page creation
That doesn't seem to bode well for AFC. Temperalxy 00:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll just have to see what happens after the one-month evaluation. Ariel♥Gold 00:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should a notice concerning this be added to the project page? Temperalxy 00:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, I added it myself. Temperalxy 00:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article from Signpost 

message: Hey gang, i'm back on wiki and pleasantly supprised that the daily logs are being deealt with pretty swiftly! Awesome work, but we still have a huge backlog in the 2005-2006 submissions. Am ploughing through pages now with help of the mass header but could probably use a couple more hands if anyone's willing? Cheers m'dears! Chebbs (talk) 23:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I try to help when I can. --EoL talk 01:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will try helping out here, when I'm not doing New Page Patrol or other things. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 03:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a bit held up dealing with the "daily logs" (I like that term), but chipping away at the backlog is also something I do often... In particular, Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2006-06-02-early is rather enormous. Temperalxy 03:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I dealt with some of those a couple of months back. Just hadn't had the time. Will do more when I do. :) KTC 09:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2005-2006 Still A Lot To Do 

message: The AFC script isn't working for me anymore. The script hasn't been edited in a while, and I haven't changed any settings on my browser  (I double checked them in case), but the links just aren't showing up. Does anyone else have this problem? (I didn't know where to state this, so I ended up just trying to ask here.) Temperaltalk and matrix? 03:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I finally, finally got it working again (after a month and a half). Going to tackle the backlog now... Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange...