Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Rewrite

Archives (Index)

1 2

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Please, DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE. As the Rewrite script has now become the default, all feedback should go to WT:AFCH. Thanks! Theopolisme (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I accepted an article with the new script. It worked fine, but I just wanted to make sure that you have "infobox requested" and "image needed" on your to-do list. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a logical bug (and probably one that has other cases). When cleaning a AFC draft that has a MFD on it [1] the MFD got put under the AFC banner. Hasteur (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Second case where AFC's banner should not be placed above other process banners [2] Hasteur (talk) 11:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In case the CSD gets completed before you get to the diff, the action path was Nominate for CSD, AFC-rewrite clean the page, discover that the AFC banner was above the CSD banner visually on the page. Hasteur (talk) 11:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hasteur: Hmm, this is interesting. Do you know if anyone has generated a list of process banners in the past that we could use? If not, any help in just making a list of the most common would be useful as well... Thanks! Theopolisme (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Theopolisme: At this time the only ones I can come up with are MFD,CSD, and probably page protection templates (though this last one I'm iffy on). Hasteur (talk) 01:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The text bellow is copied from https://github.com/WPAFC/afch-rewrite/issues/6 here by (t) Josve05a (c) 23:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

What to do if the url for a cv is blacklisted, then the script will not decline or CSD the article. -- josve05a

This will probably need to be fixed... The only thing I can think of that we can do is have the actual URL in a hidden comment with a note like: url=Blacklisted URL, see hidden comment<!--http://this.is.blacklisted.com/so-sorry--> -- Technical 13

@Technical-13:, is the blacklist too sophisticated for something simple like http://url<!-- blacklisted -->continues.com? I'm not sure, it will probably required experimentation. -- Theopolisme

Comments are stripped out before it's tested against by the parser, so yes. The only way I know of isn't worth it and it's easier to hide the url in a comment. -- Technical 13

The afch-rewrite (can I call it the script/gadget/tool?) should not send a message to the user saying that an article has been declined, if the article could not actually 'be declined'. it should wait until the declining of the submission been done first, otherwise a user might get a message saying that the article has been declined, when in reallity, it has not. -- Josve05a (t) Josve05a (c) 23:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason not to do this, of course, is that waiting for each edit to finish before beginning subsequent ones will increase the length of time it takes for a review to complete. I'll look into this further. Theopolisme (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We all know of Twinkles CSD-log,could it be possible to make a "AfC-review-log? for three reasons:

1. To help in backlog drives, it makes it easier to collect revies, without te need of the magnificent program that [I can't remember the users name] has made.
2. I want a log to see the outcome of the articles later, if they were denied cop copyvio, then I can see if they have been recreated.
3. It is fun! (t) Josve05a (c) 17:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, thanks for the thoughts. I've added this to my "To Contemplate" list. Theopolisme (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rightly, we offer a Teahouse notification. Even then the talk page messages are not 100% friendly. MIght we also offer a welcome where no welcome exists at present to add some additional warmth? I know Twinkle does this well, and I am not looking for script creep, just, perhaps, an option to invoke the TW Welcome module? Fiddle Faddle 07:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the best way to go about this is to open the user's talk page in a new tab upon posting and letting the reviewer use Twinkle to expand as needed, like what Twinkle itself does when you revert something. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I conceptually like this idea, but if I remember correctly you can't control the way a new "page" displays (i.e. window vs tab). Furthermore I don't think you can call JS in that child window from a parent. Hasteur (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, sending a welcome message from an AfC submission may not work well, because it's not always evident from the submission who needs welcoming. (Just a couple of months ago I received and invitation to the Teahouse...) Maybe there's a way to have a link to the user's talk page appear after a submission is declined (perhaps in that twilight zone display where the page has been refreshed after being declined, and the giant menu bar is still being displayed, but with no options except a backlink to the actual options). The a reviewer who has just declined a submission would then have a convenient way to leave additional information, welcome messages, or whatever. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Anne Delong: What? Doesn't a link to the user talk page already exist, in the list of pages edited? ...Or am I missing something? Theopolisme (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I declined one just now and realized that this is already done. Sorry; I will try to pay closer attention. But in that case I'm not sure why the other suggestions above would be needed, since someone wanting to leave a welcoming message could just click on that link and use Twinkle or write a message or plop in their favourite welcome template. The only thing I can think of that would be possibly helpful might be to have a small message near the user's talk page link suggesting leaving a welcome message, and that seems like a low priority change if needed at all. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Theo: As I've mentioned before, I have a 16:9 aspect ratio on my screen, and by the time the various toolbars and the large script bar are all displayed, only about 1/3 of the screen is left for content. When I open the list of decline reasons, it runs off the bottom of the screen, and I have to scroll up every time. On some of the similar lists displayed by other scripts, the list centres on the screen rather than popping down. I am not sure how difficult this would be to implement, and it's a low priority request, but it would save some people a step. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Theo: I know that when the blue "Under review" template is displayed, normally the script doesn't let another editor accept or decline. What about admins, though? Today I needed to override the title blacklist, which the accepting editor couldn't do. I just did a regular move, which worked, but if I had used the script "accept" function what would have happened? It would be nice if it would accept and credit the person who placed the hold, but would it at least accept? —Anne Delong (talk) 12:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Anne, I find this as a good question. I've not looked at the code much, and I know that there is a fair amount of how to handle this type of situation and the situation when a page is SALTed. What is the status on both of those Theo? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The salted situation is similar, yes, and also the case where there's a redirect at the target location. However, in either case, it wouldn't be good if the script just noticed that the person was an admin and accepted automatically. There's the situation in which the regular reviewer just happens to be an admin (or, I believe, a template editor in the case of the title blacklist), rather than having been called to help, so there should be some kind of very noticeable warning of the need to investigate the situation before accepting. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anne! You say that when a page is under review, the script doesn't let another editor accept or decline – this shouldn't be the case, can you please verify? I just tested at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Artelia (random page in the "under review" category) and the script still let me review it, as intended. I never wrote any code to prevent review of "under review" submissions, for precisely the reasons you specified. A warning notice is displayed, yes, but the user is not prevented from reviewing: if something different is happening, that's a bug. Theopolisme (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK any reviewer can revert the "under review" template state to "waiting for review" - not only the one who put it under review. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have just successfully done "Unmark as under review" on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Artelia - it was "marked under review" weeks ago! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is my mistake, and I've wasted everybody's time (again). Of course until now I had no reason to want to review when the blue box was showing, and I thought from long ago, with the old script, that it was mechanically prevented. Now I can no longer see what things look like for a non-admin (weird, eh?). Maybe it was wishful thinking from that time when Arctic Kangaroo and Bonkers the Clown were grabbing all of the submissions within seconds of creation, and the rest of us could only review when they were asleep... —Anne Delong (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a legitimate question Anne. Just because anyone could revert the change that added the under review template, doesn't mean that the script shouldn't have a mechanism built in that will allow someone to mark a draft as under review and then get a  Template editor or Admin to complete the request (tboverride or bluelock issues). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 22:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, right now anyone can still review an under-review page. I've added "a mechanism for asking for TE/admin assistance" to my todo board... what do you guys think about another talk page that the script could automatically post to and that willing admins and template editors could add to their watchlist? The script would post details to that page (incl. type of protection, etc). (The script could even have some sort of "one-click" functionality built in, or rather a preloader...so in other words admins could click a single link and be brought into the accept interface of AFCH with data prefilled for easy accepting...) Thoughts? Theopolisme (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not as if there would be very many of these each day. A simple talk page would be fine, if a reviewer could click on something that would add a link to the page with a heads-up edit summary. Here's another possiblility: What if the click added a categgory or template to the page, and then a new line was added to the "Submissions" page, saying something like "Submissions needing admin attention". Then every time someone who was an admin started to do reviewing, they could see how many items were in the category and clear it out if not empty. It wouldn't depend on people checking their watchlist, and could be automatically removed when the article was accepted or declined. This would have the advantage of attracting only Afc reviewers, but have the disadvantage that frequent watchlist-checkers may be more likely to see the other kind of posting first. I'm not sure about the preload - the problem is that these need to be investigated: Why was the title blacklisted? Is the redirect empty, or does it already have multiple revisions in its history? Should another title be chosen? Which admin did the create-protecting, and are they willing to unprotect? etc. It may be quite a while before the page can be accepted. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Sounds logical to me. Where would such a page be hosted. My first inclination would be something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation/Pending accepts. What details exactly would be included? I would think the obvious things like the draft link, protection/deletion log for proposed location, which type of issue it ran into (title blacklist, existing page, salted location), link to reviewer that approves of the draft, ??? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 00:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• An advantage to the talk page idea is that users could add a comment (although I guess if a template were added to the page it could have a comment imbedded). Also, it could be used like a log if desired, with each item marked "done" or something, if that is considered necessary. Keeping it updated might be a extra work. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if the feature is in this script, the old one would tag an existing redirect with "db-move" if it was blocking an accept. Perhaps unsalt and blacklist override requests could be handled in a simila or r way? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, because we would be taking advantage of an existing process. It might be good to have this as an option - if there's a problem with a redirect, the script could display the reason, and provide a choice of adding db-move or not, since some reviewers may wish to do their own investigation and some may wish to just tag. Salted pages may be more problematic, since WP:SALT says to find an admin who was involved or do a deletion review. I suppose that an "admin help" template with an explanatory comment might throw the legwork of that onto a random admin that sees it and that might be okay. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In edit I accepted the article, but the script added the categories (category in this case) above the Persondata. (t) Josve05a (c) 13:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the report... trickier than it seems, so I'll be adding this to the todo list. Note to self: only occurs if there are already cats on page, based on logic in AFCH.Text.prototype.updateCategories... Theopolisme (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Theo: There's a thread here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Adding Wikiproject banners to drafts that may be of interest. I remember seeing a request for others to use the ability to easily add Wikiproject banners, without having to be AfC reviewers (NPP people, for example). I don't remember if the request was here, at the old script page, or somewhere else (sigh). Do you know if anything like that has happened? If not, would it be a problem to make that an independent module the could be called by other scripts or just used by itself? ....since you have nothing else to do.... —Anne Delong (talk) 23:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was requested at WP:VPT at some point. I've tracked the request and will look into it. Shouldn't be especially difficult, I just needed some prodding :) Theopolisme (talk) 23:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from User talk:Theopolisme

So, I've just started reviewing with the new baby and noticed some of the submissions get stuck after "saving ***author's*** page". I have to manually reload them. Is it a problem on my side? E.g. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jhanvieh and Draft:Aaron Morris (comedian) to list just 2. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@FoCuSandLeArN: Hmm, I'm not able to replicate this on my end. For debugging's sake, could you tell me what your user agent is? ([3] is a website which easily provides this information). Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/34.0.1847.137 Safari/537.36". FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that is useful. I will investigate further. Theopolisme (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having that problem with most submissions now. I include an example of one that doesn't pose that issue. Thanks for your help. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 12:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The puzzling thing is that I cannot replicate this behavior at all on my end. This problem has been reported before by others, though... Technical 13 (who has experienced the issue), do you have anything you can add to this bug report? I'd really like to figure out what's going on here before publicizing the script, since it's quite an annoying problem for all who experience it. My apologies, and thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've had similar issues with other non-related scripts as well and think it has something to do with parsoid, api editing, or some other thing out of our immediate control. I've not had the time to figure out what the exact cause is, nor have I had time to experiment and see if it only happens on specific browsers. I'll do some independent browser testing next week if I have a moment. It's the start of the summer semester and I'm trying to find out what I need to get done in all my classes so I can get ahead of the assignments a little before I spend too much time on wiki. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 22:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After a few hours of debugging, I think I may have found a possible fix... Will post more details shortly. Theopolisme (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@FoCuSandLeArN and Techncial 13: I've done some blind experimentation and hypothesizing...if you have a moment, please try the script again and let me know if anything has changed. I'm kind of shooting in the dark, but I have to start somewhere... :) Theopolisme (talk) 11:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems to be still happening. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the other issue has been dealt with, I'll have some time to return to this one. :) @FoCuSandLeArN: Could you please provide me with a page that you've recently reviewed which has had this error (as well as, if possible, the exact actions you performed)? Thank you, Theopolisme (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet. Draft:Frank Broomell Jr., just opened the page, clicked review with the new script, decline, inserted some comments into the box, decline, then stuck at "saved User talk:Jbeich8" "declining submission...". I noticed doing that adds a "#" to the URL, which I assume means that the article has been reviewed. It persists after I refresh the page, however if you go directly to Draft:Frank Broomell Jr., it no longer shows; I also assume this is somehow part of using the script, because it always appears. Hope this helps! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@FoCuSandLeArN: Could you possibly take a screenshot of what your window looks like when this happens (on the panel where the "saved <pagename>" stuff is shown)? (You can then upload it to somewhere like imgur.) Thanks for your help with this -- I'm just trying to ensure I can exactly replicate your scenario. Theopolisme (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If you can manage to open up your developer console as well before you review a draft, there may be a key piece of information Theo or I will see there that can help figure out the problem... — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 18:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I hope this satisfies both requests. I didn't know what tab to click on the console, so I took screenshots of the "Console" and "Elements" (which was the default one) tabs. Let me know if this is not enough. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ahh. yes, I believe that will be kind of helpful... It is saying that there is an undefined function and "pages" can not be found in this function which makes me think it is an api call of some kind. Theo, what do you think? User:Technical 13

• @Technical 13: Those errors (at least the first) are from the old helper script, though (gadget-afchelper)... Theopolisme (talk) 01:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• FaL, you don't happen to have both the rewrite AND the gadget enabled, do you? If so, please disable the gadget on Preferences → Gadgets and then see if you can recreate the issue. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 01:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Issue still present. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 02:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it possible to delete the three images left without the original delete link? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Has this been fixed? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from User talk:Theopolisme

Reviewers will also appreciate a box to append maintenance templates at the beggining of articles, which at the moment seems only possible for categories. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- on the top of the todo list! Theopolisme (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want it to automaticly open while in "Editing-mode", only when viewing the actual draft. (t) Josve05a (c) 09:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the report. Given that (at least when I was doing research 6 months or so ago) a fair number of editors reviewed using edit mode, I'm not sure if autoopen should be restricted to view mode. If it's an important concern for you, we can certainly solicit feedback from other reviewers as well. Theopolisme (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another way could be "checkboxes" in he prference-menu, so that every user can personally decide if they want it to open automaticly n different places:

Automatically open the review panel on AfC submissions

• When viewing the submition
• While viewing the history
• While checking diffs
• While editing the submition

That way, we can make sure that everybody is happy (except you who has to code it...)

(t) Josve05a (c) 14:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I don't follow. What does Josve mean exactly? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• He means that he wants to be able to select what views the script automatically loads in (it's a user preference). Josve, I feel that is option bloat and should be avoided. That being said, I agree there should be "some" compromise. Perhaps a dropdown with "never autoload", "only when &action=view", "always autoload"? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 14:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I used AFCHRW to do a "custom" decline, but the field returned blank: [4]. Cheers (Google Chrome Version 35.0.1916.114 m, Windows 7, Vector Skin). --LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LukeSurl, thanks for the report. I couldn't replicate this when I tried it; could you try again (use WT:AFC/sand if you'd like) and let me know if the problem still exists (along with details for reproducing it)? Thanks, and sorry about that, Theopolisme (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know I have said this before... The arrow ('<') Next to the "comment"-button is out of place for me on Firefox. It is inside the yellow button and not in the "white space".

User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:32.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/32.0 (t) Josve05a (c) 00:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I actually have this same cosmetic issue. I'm guessing a minor adjustment in the margin or padding would fix it. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a screenshot of how it looks like. this time I ran it on User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:33.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/33.0a1 (2014-06-29) (t) Josve05a (c) 16:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Josve05a: This seems to be completely fixed in the very latest version of the script (available as of this post at User:APerson/afch-dev.js.) APerson (talk!) 03:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried twice to clean Draft:Leighton Pierce, but the script just said "Working..." for a long time. I eventually reloaded the page, but it was not cleaned. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have a hunch this has to do with our other problem with declines above. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It certainly does, and if you can check your error console and report back any error messages for JavaScript or Security that you see (screenshots are awesome, feel free to email them to me at my wiki username at yahoo or post them on commons or something). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 14:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see the rewrite doesn't offer any link for the "next" draft or to "review another" I'm thinking about this, and it would be nice to offer a small selection of possible "next" drafts. I'm thinking; "Next oldest", "Next smallest", "Next largest", and possibly (if there are any) "Next misplaced". — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have implemented this (at the moment, it only gets the newest one) and it's waiting in a pull request right now. APerson (talk!) 17:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit it changed [1]. to .[1]. (t) Josve05a (c) 00:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've tracked this and will be investigating soon. Theopolisme (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good start with the warning the page is SALTed. But... Where the "accept" button should be, there needs to be a "recheck" button, and it wouldn't hurt if there was a button or link to allow the user to request unprotection directly from the form. I'll expand a little later on my ideas of how this would all come together, need more coffee... — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Technical 13: Yeah, we have talked before about a button that auto-posts a message to WT:AFC -- or at least, it's in trello :) If you can firm out a spec for how it should work (i.e., create a template it should amend to the page), I'll be happy to implement this -- seems like a very useful feature. Cheers, Theopolisme (talk) 14:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Wouldn't it make more sense to submit the request directly to WP:RFPP like Twinkle does to request the page be unprotected or the move be made? When I have a little free time, I can pull the code for this out of MediaWiki:Gadget-twinkleprotect.js and reflow it a little for our use. The major part of this request is to have it be a clickable "recheck" button so that the reviewer can get everything ready and keep rechecking to see if the page is protected (once they make their request for unprotection) and submit their accept once the protection is removed. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from user talk:Theopolisme. Theopolisme (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Theo, I know you won't be back for a couple more weeks, and it "shouldn't" be too big an issue, but I'm notifying you per the editnotice nonetheless that I have edited Template:AFC_submission/Substdraft to wrap the comment in a {{subst:Void}} so that the comment should disappear on its own when they click save and I changed the case of a couple key words like "new template will appear on the BOTTOM of the page" and "the draft template will still be on the top but IT IS OKAY TO IGNORE IT" (not exactly the words, but conveys the jist of the changes) so that we won't get so many "I'm confused by the two templates contradicting each other" type reports. Anyways, hope to see you back soon and figure you should know of the changes (which I expect the RW removes the comment /i anyways). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 14:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from WT:AFCH. Theopolisme (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed two small ordering "problems". First, added categories seem to be placed before the default sort instead of after it (where living person and DOB are placed): [5] Second, biography should always be the first WikiProject tag (ahead of the AfC tag) on talk so that the BLP message appears on the top of the page instead of in the middle of other tags: [6].

Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 19:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the report! I've tracked both of these issues and will be getting to them soon. Theopolisme (talk) 14:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from WT:AFCH. Theopolisme (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've accepted a couple stubs today, and I'm noticing there is no longer a tagging feature built into AFCHRW that allows me to add stuff to the top of the page (yes, it's a pain to remember them all and properly format them sometimes, but it was nice to have the option). I'm also noticing that when I select "Stub-class", it's not applying a general or wikiproject specific stub template to the bottom of the article like I would expect it to. I know Theo is gone for another 10-11 days, and maybe I'll have a moment to try and add some of these abilities myself (but don't hold your breath :p). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 19:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I second re-adding these features if it can be done reasonably easily. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have tracked the append/prepend text option in trello and will be getting to it soon -- it's at the top of the todo list. I think that we should think some more about a "stub tagging" workflow. It would be a hugely useful feature: I envision an input similar to the add categories one, except (of course) for stubs. @Technical 13: Are you at all familiar with current stub tagging scripts (which we/I could study for ideas on how exactly this would work)? Theopolisme (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not aware of any, but I'm sure we could find one or two. I'm guessing we could use morebits to post to the top of the page like Twinkle does when tagging. This would reduce the number of wheels that need reinvention I would think. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Theopolisme and Technical 13: One tagging script I am aware of is User:MC10/stubtagtab.js, however I am unsure how easily this will intergrate with the script. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See this. (t) Josve05a (c) 12:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Josve05a, could you change the link in your post to the clean you're talking about? The cleaning by Revent doesn't seem to have anything wrong with it; neither does the one you did. APerson (talk!) 22:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember this....hmmm. I might have been talking about Special:Diff/615009710. Note the <!-- Do not remove this line! --> and the blank line at the top... but I'm nbot sure...(t) Josve05a (c) 22:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please make the category list case insensitive, so when I type "companies of the united states " for example it works. It would also be SUPER helpful to have categories "search" like Wikiprojects do. That way I can fidn the correct category without having to know the exact name of it (using the same example, if I type in united states companies it should find "Category:Companies of the United States"). --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to supress the popup opening automatically when you are using the edit form? I find the feature useful, but irritating when it opens every time I hit the "edit" button after cleaning the submission! --Mdann52talk to me! 13:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is up with this edit? (t) Josve05a (c) 05:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Special:Diff/626142851&oldid=626142722. (Might have been deleted. Please ask an admin for assistance to see the diff.) But if t has been tagged with e.g. {{db-copyvio}} and then reviewed as cv, it removes the template. (I had the nominate for deletion-tag turned off, since it was already tagged for deletion). (t) Josve05a (c) 22:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The previous script checked for orphans and added Template:Orphan as necessary. That would be a good enhancement to the new script; "orphan" is a useful maintenance category that draws attention to articles that need more integration into the encyclopedia, and the template gives one-click access to a script to find links from other articles. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea, as long as the script does not suggest that the reviewer de-orphan the page. The reviewers have enough to do already, and each new expectation (such as adding Wikiprojects, wikidata and categories), while desirable in the long run, slows down the reviewing and makes the backlog larger. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just want it to place Template:Orphan on the accepted page (as it used to). Anybody can come along and de-orphan. (As a reader, it's easy to run Edwardbot if it's a one-click operation; we don't need reviewers to do this ahead of time).Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Classical music doesn't appear on the list of projects to add. Also, whenever I guess at the name of a Wikiproject and it turns out not to exist or not to be on the list, I then try to use the backspace key to remove the letters I've typed so that I can try again. At this point FireFox says "not responding", the page is greyed out and there is a 30 second or so delay. By the way, this script in general works very well. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is so user friendly. I'm just breezing through them. Thank you! Origamite^ⓣⓒ 04:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMichaelwongPMNCH&diff=630027750&oldid=626217692 (t) Josve05a (c) 20:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Theopolisme to make sure he hasn't forgotten about this project of his. (t) Josve05a (c) 21:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What do you want the script to do about it? Even Twinkle doesn't follow userspace redirects. The reason for this as I understand it is that the number of these edge cases doesn't outweigh the coding bloat and to accommodate following the redirect. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 18:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Technical 13: maybe not tag at all, and ask the reviewer to do it manually. And the tool could give the raw code for the reviewer to copy+paste to the "right" talk page. (t) Josve05a (c) 18:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I would like to choose as a reviewer to message the original account or to message both accounts, the redirected and the original. Fiddle Faddle 19:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Let me clarify... The number of these edge cases doesn't outweigh the coding bloat and to accommodate detecting the redirect. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 21:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After I enter a reason and hit "Decline submission", it says "Decling submission", not "Declining submission". Origamite^ⓣⓒ 14:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed this in the code. Only waiting for Theo to merge the pull request, and port it to Wikipedia. Thanks! (t) Josve05a (c) 17:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The tool should warn if a talk page exists. (t) Josve05a (c) 18:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would like to see an option which allows multiple reasons for denial. This has been discussed here, where there is consensus. Thanks! Darylgolden^(talk) 01:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A recent change started supporting the "reason" tag in Template:Afc decline, but this didn't work with reasons such as a custom reason or the "dup" reason that require a second parameter. I have changed Template:Afc decline to support a "details" parameter that passes a second parameter to Template:AFC submission/comments. This parameter is already collected by the AFCH script for use in Template:AFC submission, but needs to be passed to Template:Afc decline as well. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted an untested pull request at https://github.com/WPAFC/afch-rewrite/pull/25 --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused, as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script says that feedback on the AFCH script should be posted either there or to the afch-rewrite github, but the feedback link in AFCH rewrite points here. Is the intention that the other page be for the non-rewrite version (in which case it shouldn't link to the rewrite github), or is the intention that that page be used for general comments but this page be used for bug reports (in which case the intro to that page should link here)? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Uh, yeah, about that – although I created the rewrite script, I was actually taking a (several month) wikibreak when it was made the default script. It certainly looks like there's a fair bit of overlap/confusion/etc surrounding the scripts... there should ideally only be *one* talkpage, I agree. If I have a second I'll look into consolidating them... Cheers, Theopolisme (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]