I'll add this article to my watchlist in CDVF. Thanks. Ryan On 5/22/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 6/3/06, Timwi <timwi(a)gmx.net> wrote: Perhaps not. The rate on AFC (I sometimes help out) for rate articles is really quite horiffic. Perhaps one in ten is optimistic. ~maru

On 5/22/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote: Why not set up a system where each article proposed for creation exists as a separate page. And there could be a special page set up which points to each of them. This special page could list the date and time created, the name of the proposed page, the number of bytes of the page, and the username or IP address of the proposer. Anthony

On 6/3/06, Timwi <timwi(a)gmx.net> wrote: No. As the others have pointed out, the dross rate is very high, and "not creating" crappy articles is much less work than deleting crappy articles. However, massaging newbie egos and creating the few salvageable articles does take a bit of work, and isn't that rewarding, as most newbies never seem to come back again... (which begs the question...) Steve

On 6/4/06, Timwi <timwi(a)gmx.net> wrote: Yeah, that was my point. Although, as I thought about it more, there would potentially be one difference - "proposed" articles could live in a different namespace (and have a warning at the top or whatever). Anthony

Where can I find out more about that extension? To others: the whole point of AFC is to help out people who don't want to create an account and still want to submit articles while at the same time filtering out the crap. Allowing anyone to create articles again, would indeed overwork admins who work in deletion. Jimbo called it a temporary test, but he never reinstated anon powers to create articles - probably for a very good reason. Mgm P.S. Thanks for adding AFC to your VandalFighter watchlist, Ryan. On 6/7/06, Magnus Manske <magnus.manske(a)web.de> wrote:

Anthony DiPierro wrote: And then the actual real difference would be what? The warning? The namespace prefix showing up in the article title? Both of those are trivialities. They are still publicly-visible and -editable pages that are primarily distinguished from others by means of that Special page that lists them. Whether that Special page performs a complex query or just lists a namespace, is irrelevant. Timwi

On 6/8/06, Timwi <timwi(a)gmx.net> wrote: There could be a warning. Nofollow could be turned on. The pages wouldn't be downloadable in the article-only db download that some mirrors use. The pages could be automatically deleted after a certain period of time if they aren't promoted. Sure, this could also be done without using a different namespace. What's the difference between the system that exists now and the system that existed before, other than the fact that it's harder to maintain? The proposed pages are still publically visible and editable - in fact they're *more* publically visible. Why aren't the people who were overworked with deleting stuff from the article namespace now overworked with deleting stuff from AFC? I really don't know the answers to these questions. My comment about proposed pages existing in a different namespace was just an attempt to get the benefits of the AFC system without the detriments. But other than being in a different namespace, it not really clear to me what those benefits are (there must be some benefit though, because a lot of people seem to prefer it). Anthony

On 6/8/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote: Why bother deleting anything from AfC? my understanding of the process was that the AfC for a given day hangs around for a few days to see if anyone can find anything redeeming, then the whole lot is flushed down the plughole. If we're preserving archives of AfC, then we're probably doing somethnig wrong. Steve

On 6/8/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote: Flushing the archives isn't a particularly good idea, because good articles *do* get lost in AFC. Now, if we had some mechanism to mark each day as "Done", then that would be another thing. ~maru

On 6/9/06, maru dubshinki <marudubshinki(a)gmail.com> wrote: Done is the same thing as "we have extracted all the good articles out of this mess", isn't it? Marking the page as done would be the same blanking it. Steve

On 6/9/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote: Uh, I didn't really understand the complaint about old article suggestions being stored in the first place. But if we really don't want anons to be able to create articles (in the sense that an entry on AfC is itself an article) that persist, then we should delete them all periodically... Yep. I try and help out sometimes, but it's pretty repetitive... Yep. Also, the created articles tend to meet the basic requirements for a Wikipedia article: - Suitable definition of subject - Basic style (bolded subject) - At least one source - At least one category - Stub tag Which is more than can be said for a lot of articles created by "established" Wikipedians. Steve