Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GoEThe (talk | contribs) at 21:41, 18 July 2008 (→‎New article guide in Portuguese Wikipedia: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconArticles for creation Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Shortcut

WP:PROD nominations

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)[reply]

Preload problem

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)[reply]

Backlog

The entire Afc place is heavily backloged. We better sort this out... --Hirohisat 紅葉 03:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time for another drive, perhaps? --Pumpmeup 23:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article from Signpost

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-10-29/Page creation

That doesn't seem to bode well for AFC. Temperalxy 00:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We'll just have to see what happens after the one-month evaluation. Ariel♥Gold 00:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should a notice concerning this be added to the project page? Temperalxy 00:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I added it myself. Temperalxy 00:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited to share your views on the topic at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Anon page creation. -- Kendrick7talk 19:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2005-2006 Still A Lot To Do

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)[reply]

I try to help when I can. --EoL talk 01:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Strange...

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Feedback

Hi! As I've recently starting working on this project I would welcome any feedback from other project participants on my performance so far. MSGJ (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was a bit disappointed not to receive any response to this message ... I guess we were all busy clearing the backlog! However this is a serious suggestion: now that the backlog is gone and we have some more time on our hands, it might be worth trying to work together a bit more to make sure we're all roughly working to the same criteria. And it would be worthwhile for people who have been working here a while to give feedback to newcomers to the project. What do you think about this? What if the person requesting feedback was to provide diffs for 10 of their last decisions and someone else could come along and review their decisions and say if they would have made the same decision? MSGJ (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's finish the backlog!

Sign in here if you're working on finishing up the backlog! There's only 10 pages left, so we should be able to finish the backlog soon (finally)! AFC Barnstars to everyone who helps out with this final backlog drive. for more info... Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm in. Icestorm815 • Talk 16:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lets get this done - Tiptoety talk 19:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go hard boys (and girls)! It would be a momentous accomplishment to be such a busy project with absolutely no backlog Pumpmeup 05:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 10 whole pages? Just kidding. One note though: Should we standardize the completion marks? Some have (completed), some have  Done. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 19:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
YES! I do not know why it bothers me so much, but it does. If someone wants to standardize them, i personally like {{done}}. Tiptoety talk 19:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, {{done}} looks more official. And it's shorter. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done ;) Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 20:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have been chopping away at the backlog for a long time now - since the last drive. But I have limited internet access at the moment. So every now and again I will attack a day. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh I'll be in. Bit busy though. :) KTC (talk) 06:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll do a few. It will be good to say I was there at the end. Much credit to those who created the great reviewing tools. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 07:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm on it! CWii(Talk|Contribs) 17:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Im in I was checking my old wiki talk page, and I saw this message, I am coming back to wiki to help you guys. -FlubecaTalk 21:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WE DID IT!!!

The backlog is cleared! Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've handed out the promised barnstars to all who signed in above - if you forgot to sign in, but reviewed part of the backlog within the past few days, post here and I'll send another pointy thing your way. Congratulations to everyone! Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The backlog is slain! Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just attacked a few articles in the backlogs today, before they were done. If I had more time, I would have done more. Either way, I helped clear them. Also, I cleared a few backlogs a few days ago. Soxred93 | talk bot 01:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow I just had time to volunteer, do one article and theneverything is complete. It has taken over two years to get to this point. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Cow! I just showed up and saw my new messages--got ready to jump in, and it's DONE!! I am amazed and impressed.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 01:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Holy Crap batman! Wow guys, just WOW. Am sorry i dodn't log in before today but i'm amazed at the work everyone put in :) Great work ladies n gents, glad to see the hard work over the last... well forever! was worth it. *Cheers* Chebbs (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WPAFC header

Now that the backlog is done and we have significantly less to do, we may want to try to clean up the organization of created articles, and make sure that all those articles that have been created are properly tagged with {{WPAFC}}. I'm doing some work on the template now to include the categorization of lists, featured lists, disambiguation pages, templates, and project pages, as well as condense the code used for each. Here's a quick listing of all the categories used by this template:

Anyone else up for this? Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've finally finished the changes to the template. Everyone please review the updated documentation for Template:WPAFC, as there are some new classes available. When you accept through AFC a template, category, list, or disambiguation page, use {{WPAFC|class=template/category/list/disambig}}. This is different from before, when they were all either NA or Stubs. NA is now reserved for project pages only. We have, during the history of AfC, accepted at least one of every type of page, so these divisions are necessary. Please also note that notarticle=yes only applies for pages that are not created through AfC. Thanks! Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments / question

I'm relatively new to the project. I haven't put my name in the participants section, but that's just a personal thing (I get too stressed out if I "officially" join too many projects, so I just figure I can still contribute without "joining").

In any event, I did help with the backlog, and jumped into the current process, and now have a few things I'd like to bring up. Nothing major, but things I'm curious about.

The third "Goal of the project" states Repair format issues that occur on the Afc page that prevent easy resolution of requests. I'm not sure how vigorous people are with that objective. Some of the things I've seen, in both the backlogged and the current submissions:

  • missing section headers, which end up "merging" multiple submissions. I've seen several declined requests which "suck up" those malformed submissions
  • unbalanced headers, where submitters will use a level-two header inside a submission, like when providing "External sources", which causes this section to appear as a separate submission. And again, declines based on that.
  • submitter includes text wrapped inside the direction comments of the template (lack of proper terminology, as I think that is not really a WP:Template). This appears as a "blank" entry, and is declined as such, but may contain a valid submission.

The AFC "Start Here" instructions contain a Extra tips for advanced users, which addresses some of those, and from looking at the backlog, the template has evolved over time, but I wonder if there may be some verbiage that could be more standout. I realize that some people will just simply ignore the instructions, so I don't know if any of these things I bring up are even valid.

And finally, this last one should really go at the top. I've also seen several declines based on WP:V, when the material is actually WP:CV. That makes me raise my eyebrows, since WP:CV is a higher enforcement rather than WP:V or WP:RS (CV is pretty much black&white cut&dry, whereas RS maybe judgemental), and may prompt the submitter to re-submit the copyvio'ed material.

Or am I just being overly critical? I enjoy this project, and it appears to be focused on quality. I'm sure others can agree, my new page patrols shown me more than enough "IRTHELULZ" type of articles, which AFC can "siphon out" rather than going thru the (sometimes painful) CSD. Anyways, enough of my hot-air. Yngvarr (c) 22:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are some useful comments here! Regarding the first and second of your 'formatting' concerns, I am always careful to make sure the standard headings are used, i.e. level 2 heading between submissions and level 3 inside submissions. This is generally a bit of a nuisance but should be done, I think. However I've never even considered your third point - do you mean their submission could be in the comment section? I'll certainly think about this in future.
Part of me thinks it would be nice if each submission had its own page like at AfD. However I suspect this might not be technically possible, as then the anon would have to create a page which of course they can't!
Regarding your final point, yes I suppose you are right but I'm not sure how important this is really.
One of my concerns (by the way I'm a relative newcomer to the project as well) is that I suspect we are judging submissions by different standards. In other words I think sometimes the required standard is too high at AfC, which might not be fair to anonymous contributors. MSGJ (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An example of the submitter adding their text inside the comments would be [1]. See how tricky that is? Myself, I personally gloss over the comment markers, parsing them visually until I see the end-of-comment. And if you were using the automated script, the page may reload faster than you can notice. But in this particular example, the submitter started to include their text inside the start-of-comment and end-of-comment. That's a good example, because even tho it was declined, I'd bet if sources were brought forth, it would be suitable. Yngvarr (c) 23:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its usually easier to decline on verifyability than copyright problems, once declined, who will check for violations? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good call, we need to be checking for CV's for every submission, because we need to be removing the offending material, just declining it isn't enough. delldot talk 13:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Afc double-check

This is a copy of a post I've made a few minutes ago to Graeme Bartlett talk page, it explains the doublechecking i've been doing to most of the archives


Anyway, back in january I was tackling some of the backlog and one time I accidently opened one of the days that had already been marked as completed, to my surprised the green ribbon that goes at the top of completed pages was missing. I decided to check the submissions and found two or three that could be accepted, which led me to believe that someone had wrongly marked that page as completed when it was not. I figured that if it had happened once it might aswell have happened twice or thrice so I decided to double check all of 2007's submissions. The result was that not only did I find other pages that were missing the green ribbon but also a few that had the ribbon but were not complete, and were clearly not mass moderated. (almost none of the 2007 pages were mass moderated).

After a while I kinda of standardized the process like this:

  • First I check for the green ribbon, if its missing then I review all the submissions that havent been accepted or declined.
  • If the ribbon is there then I check which one it is, if its the standard one(Ie. not the mass moderated one) then I check the page to see if indeed all the submissions have been accepted/rejected.
  • If the page has the mass moderated tag at the top then I assume that it was indeed mass moderated and move on.

so thats basically it, I've created over 40 articles as part of the double checking process of the 2007 archives and now I'm starting to double check the 2006 archives, wish me luck :P RIP-Acer (talk) 12:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant! Not a job I would have relished, so well done indeed. MSGJ (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FA-FL drive?

Now that the backlog is cleared, maybe we should go for a FA or FL. Didn't we have we have some sort of backlog drive? Maybe we can have a "featured content" drive. Who's up for the featured redirect? ;) Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 03:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go ahead and be bold and create this:
WikiProject Articles for Creation Featured Article Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long featured article drive!
The goal of this drive is to fill the empty Category:FA-Class AFC articles category. Good articles are welcomed as well.

Awards to be won range from the AFC barnstar to... well, the AFC barnstar. The drive page is located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Featured Content Drive.

This drive was organized by Nousernamesleft. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 03:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 03:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are only two GA articles Jay Barbree and On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog, and no A class articles. Do you want to start from one of these. There are 16 B class, 308 Start class, 395 stubs, 419 not assessed! Could there be a FA hidden in there? Somehow I doubt it. AFC work sttracts those with a short attention span, so I ma not surprised that we don't go on to develop the articles. Usuall all I do is wikify, add cats, perhaps find a reference if I wnat some thing to pass that should have failed WP:V.

So the steps I propose is:

  1. assess all the unasssessed wpafc articles to see if there is a FA potential article in that lot.
  2. reassess all the article in the project
  3. Find active projects for as many wpafc articles as we can and add them to the talk pages to get others interested.
    1. I supposes there are some mega projects like WPBiography and schools there the workers are too thin on the ground.
  4. In order to select the article to work up, find what may be a top or high importance article, so that we can get the most enthusiasm for working on it.
  5. Some one who likes double checking can look at afc articles and see if there are project tags on the talk pages. For some old articles the contributers figured out how to create an article themselves, so we will have to look athe work of the embers of the project. Does any one admit to creating articles without tagging the talk page?

I have only ever got an article to B grade, and perhaps help a bit get to GA. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK I am starting to look at the unassessed articles, and guess what, I am partly responsible, hoping that someone would rate them. The best of the unassessed so far is Walking with Monsters. With a bit of fixing up this could make a GA! or FA if you want to go that far! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The candidate for FL is List of shipwrecks in 2008 - as the only list! So there may be more lists, but this could be the more insteresting one, It will not qualify for a B rating until 2009 when it could be considered complete. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments on this. I always tag the talk page, but I don't really know enough to rate the article. So it gets stub if it's stubby or start if it's a bit longer. Perhaps I should go read the criteria. Secondly I fully support and could get enthusiastic about developing an AfC article to FA status. It would certainly help the reputation of the project and reinforce the idea that it is about quality. Thirdly I'm not sure trawling through the talk pages re-assessing every article is a good use of our time ... if something has potential it will be recognised by someone sometime. MSGJ (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, maybe not a FL, then. I'll update the template and create the drive's subpage now. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 00:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
During my gnomish wanderings, I'll start going thru the unassessed category. I've done a few. It's kind of fun, actually. I'm also guilty of not assessing on creation... Yngvarr (c) 14:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it's any help, the header template has been updated recently. It should be able to accept these parameters for class= :
Unranked types:
  • redirect (please tag redirects too, so there's a record of what's been made!)
  • template
  • category
  • disambiguation
Actual article/list rankings:
  • Stub / Start / B / GA / A / FL / FA
DO NOT use notarticle, even if it isn't an article. This should only be used for pages relating to this WikiProject. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going on a wikibreak 'til April. Hopefully you guys can organize this. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 21:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Other possible good quality articles are Ralph J. Bunche Library and Structure relocation. These may be upgradable to GA. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, this has kind of died, but I'll try to revive it. I'll try to get structure relocation up to par. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have found a high importance article Seed hibernation. It is high importance in the plants project. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now found an even more important article a vital article: Letter (alphabet). This means that the article is so important it is in the top 1000 articles. It looks to me as if this is the one to work on to get the most readers to see the work. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the template above should be placed onto the main WP:AFCP page, so that people can see it directly. We should also open the talk page so that nominations for the drive can be considered. Yngvarr (c) 14:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I know replying to ones-self is bad form, but /shrug. I did some (hopefully agreeable) startup work for this. Feel free to run with it in any manner considered more appropriate. Yngvarr (c) 14:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow.... I can't believe that a vital article was AFCed! Going off to work on structure relocation now... Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood

Categories

Guys we need to be carefull when reviewing the daily archives to be sure that Cats are removed. Some of this months pages have mainspace cats. See for example:

I'm going to check the whole bunch of them later on, but its better if the person, who reviews the last submission on a given page, also checks for active cats.. Or perhaps the archiving bot can be modified to automatically remove cats fom pages that are archived? The only cat we used in the archives was the mass moderated one but since all the new submissions are individually checked then we wont be using it anylonger. Acer (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the daily archive bot removed cats? Yngvarr (c) 15:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like this [5] Yngvarr (c) 15:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your right, but then why didn't it do the same thing to those other pages? Acer (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I checked the edit history of the exampled I gave above, it did remove some cats but for some reason failed to remove others.. Acer (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2008-03-09, which still has a cat listed at the bottom. The archive bot did remove some cats [6], but the odd thing is, I can't find the listed cat inside the actual file here! Yngvarr (c) 15:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got it. That cat was being placed there because of the {future game} template, I've removed it and now the cats gone. I'm guessing that the cats on the other pages are also due to templates. Acer (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the archive bot can {{tl}} templates? The templates used to decline, accept, etc, are all subst:'ed, and don't appear in the raw markup. I'll post a note on User talk:Jitse Niesen, as the owner of the bot... Yngvarr (c) 15:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok good that'll save us some trouble if its doable. As for the archives that exist already, I'll try to fix the templates later tonight. Acer (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Yngvarr's request, I cooked something up. However, I'm not at all sure whether it works, so please let me know if the bot messes up. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jitse, we'll see in a short while! Yngvarr (c) 23:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Fun Orchestra

Two things 1. It looks solid but an article was previously deleted as a copyright vio. I can't seem to figure out if this suffers the same problems. 2. The AfC is all messed up in the formatting, can someone with more experience than myself take a look at it and attempt a fix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torchwoodwho (talk • contribs) 17:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles with their notability questioned

Hello,

of the articles that have been created through the "Articles for Creation" process, 14 are currently tagged with notability concerns. I have listed them here. (Note: this listing is based on a database snapshot of 12 March 2008 and may be slightly outdated.)

I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFC stats bot?

I am wondering if anyone would have any comments on an AFC stats bot or script? Basically count completed days and report the numbers of submissions and the numbers of accepted submissions for each day, or a particular day, or whatever.

I'm looking at some of the completed archive pages, and they're fairly well-structured in terms of consistent data:

A completed day is listed in Wikipedia:AFC/LIST with the {{done}} template.

For each day that is listed as {{done}}, the individual pages are:

  • existence of {{afc c}} template for verification of completion
  • the number of level two headings is the number of sumissions
  • the existence of the parser #switch:accept identifies an accepted submission (as opposed to #switch:|accept for a declined submission)

I'm fairly technically inclined (I'm an admin in Real Life), so could probably learn whatever language involved, but as long as there is no disagreement, I'd probably actually post over at WP:BOTREQ and see if there's some existing bot that can do this, or something similar. Yngvarr (c) 13:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not crediting the source

How often do Wikipedians create an article from WP:AFC and not credit the anon who submitted it? Happened today with John Gabriel Jones and Edward Worthington, for example. This is not the first time I've seen someone essentially sign their name to someone else's work by creating an article without mentioning that it actually came from WP:AFC. Does it matter? Does anyone care? —Kevin Myers 15:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It matters, not only because it is the right thing to do but because not doing so may violate copyright law if text from the AFC is used in the article. If you see such a thing, there are several options. If the article is fresh with only a single edit, you can blank and re-create the article with the correct attributions in the log file. Another way is to add then undo something like "the following is from an AFC request [link] by Joe Blow on 2008-04-02 01:23:45:" [body of text from AFC] "end text from AFC request." A third way is to add a comment to the Talk page. Typically when I create a page from AFC, the very first edit is a verbatim copy of the AFC text preceeded by an under-construction template and text pointing back to the AFC. I also put the AFC info in the edit history. The second edit is the rewrite to make it suitable for Wikipedia. This isn't the only way to give proper credit, it's just my preferred style.
From a copyright perspective, if you rewrite the article based on sources rather than the text in the AFC, you do not need to attribute the AFC. But it is still a nice thing to do and highly recommended. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The GFDL license opens with this License preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work. If you don't credit the initial contributor, which is not the person who actually creates the article, you're taking the credit from the submitter.
I've been doing it in a similar manner that davidwr mentions. I just copy the entire AFC into the new article, remove any boiler-plate text and save it. I just say "created from WP:AFC by Special:Contributions/IP#. I can edit it afterwards, even if it's effectively to re-write.
Also, big peeve of mine that I pointed out above: copyright text needs to be removed from the submission. Don't forget, these pages are indexed via Google, et. al., and if you were to search for the copyright text, you'd get a hit here. Just having the text on Wikipedia may cause issues, even if it's not in mainspace. Yngvarr (c) 10:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silly little template

While not very important in the grand scheme of things, I created a new template at Template:UnsignedAFC. My reasoning is on that talk page, but basically, sometimes the IP deletes the boiler-plate signature. I've used template:unsignedIP, but that is for talk pages, so it's not entirely accurate. Just subst: like always. Yngvarr (c) 14:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New article guide in Portuguese Wikipedia

Hi, We at Wiki-pt are trying to implement a wizard very similar (we copied it, actually) to the Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Wizard. However, we haven't been able to implement it yet, because, simply put, we don't know how you did it. We have the wizard pages all done and ready, but I haven't found anyone who knows who to change the MediaWiki pages so that anonymous users are directed to the wizard when they try to create an article. Any help will be appreciated. Thanks! GoEThe (talk) 21:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation&oldid=226524543"