Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Archive 2: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 05:54, 27 May 2016

Revision as of 10:46, 29 May 2016

Line 484:

===Thank you===

This seems to be working, as of today. Thank you. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 20:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

== Question ==

Is there any way, if the script's automated notification to a draft submitter about the acceptance or rejection of their article is ''creating'' a new user talk page that didn't already exist, to turn ''off'' having that new user talk page ''automatically'' added to my watchlist? These are not generally pages I want to watch as a rule, and the added step of having to manually dewatchlist them after the fact is kind of annoying — I'd much rather manually select the ''extremely'' rare instances where I actually ''do'' want to do that for some reason, instead of having to manually deselect the many more cases where I don't. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] ([[User talk:Bearcat|talk]]) 04:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

:+1 [[User:LaMona|LaMona]] ([[User talk:LaMona|talk]]) 15:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

:I've looked into this a bit. When we send a user a message, it doesn't look like we're asking the API to avoid watchlisting the page; instead, we use the default behavior, which is to look at your preferences and follow them. By default, your preferences tell us to add every page you create to the watchlist, hence all these new user talk pages being added to your watchlist. I'm going to change it so that user talk pages never get added to your watchlist; you can track the progress of this change [https://github.com/WPAFC/afch-rewrite/pull/76 here]. Hope this helps! [[User:APerson|APerson]] ([[User talk:APerson|talk!]]) 17:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

:If you're creating the user talk page, it's generally a good idea to have it on your watchlist in case other warnings/notices come in so that there can be a more reasonable response. [[User:Hasteur|Hasteur]] ([[User talk:Hasteur|talk]]) 18:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

::I've started a poll at [[WT:WPAFC#Should we watchlist newly created user talk pages?]]. [[User:APerson|APerson]] ([[User talk:APerson|talk!]]) 18:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

== "Submission is about a person who does not meet notability guidelines" ==

Hi, we have just had a user posting in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#How_to_delete_AFC_draft_article Teahouse] getting a bit upset at the wording of the edit summary "Submission is about a person who does not meet notability guidelines" which does not match what is actually posted that "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability". They took this quite badly "With that battle mentality, it will not go anywhere" and although I think they are just a bit frustrated I do agree that the wording could be a bit more in-line with the actual decline wording as not to [[Wikipedia:bite|bite]]. Regards [[User:KylieTastic|KylieTastic]] ([[User talk:KylieTastic|talk]]) 14:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

*I fully agree. Can we change this to "Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines", please? That is both more accurate and less [[WP:BITE|bitey]]. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|^(talk)]] 18:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

*:I like that a lot. All of the other "notability" decline summaries should be changed in parallel, too, right? (Note to self: the summaries are stored in the script [https://github.com/WPAFC/afch-rewrite/blob/master/src/templates/tpl-submissions.html#L204 here].) [[User:APerson|APerson]] ([[User talk:APerson|talk!]]) 19:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

*:+1 for [[User:DESiegel|DES]]'s wording. Can it also be changed (albeit shortened) in the tool? I've hesitated to use that option because it did sound bitey, but in fact it's often the right thing to say because it points them to BLP issues, which they need to pay attention to. [[User:LaMona|LaMona]] ([[User talk:LaMona|talk]]) 16:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

::I agree as to the wording of all of the notability decline messages. There are two possible reasons why a draft could be declined on notability grounds, and the reviewer doesn't know which is the case. Either the person, company, process, or thing isn't notable, or the author hasn't established the notability of the person, company, process, or thing. It isn't the reviewer's job to determine which, by doing a lengthy Google search or whatever (although some helpful Teahouse hosts will do that). If the reviewer sees that the sources aren't listed, the reviewer should decline, and doesn't need to determine whether they exist, and the new editor didn't find them, or whether they don't exist, and the new editor should give up on this topic and pursue something else. Change the wording of all of the notability declines. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 16:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

::Oh. That particular flaming combative editor who sees a cabal of anti-feminist gatekeepers. Well, they aren't likely to accomplish anything in Wikipedia, but the templates should still be revised so that they say that the draft does not establish notability, not that the subject does not meet notability. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 16:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

*{{Done}}. The reason summaries in the script have been updated. [[User:APerson|APerson]] ([[User talk:APerson|talk!]]) 18:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

:* Thanks [[User:APerson|APerson]] :)