Template talk:AfC preload

Automatic signature
Looks like User:Upload found a way to automatically include a signature, by substing another template:

Unfortuately Xyr edit made the instructions next to useless, so I've had to revert it. See this version - the instructions need to be placed on this talk page, and the new sig template will apparently have to be deleted and undeleted to get it to work. Kappa 17:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Headlines
The more energetic article creators often divide their articles into sections. This makes it much more difficult for editors to process and accept/reject the proposed article, because the normal "edit section" command won't display the whole article -- so either the sections need to be edited separately, or the "edit page" command needs to be used instead (which makes it more difficult to find the right article amid all the others). I was thinking of adding an extra comment to the template: "If you divide your article into sections, please use three equal signs (===My Section===) rather than two(==My Section==)." But then I decided that would probably confuse the newbies too much. Can anyone think of an elegant way to handle this, or is it just something that we'll have to deal with when processing the AfCs? Kickaha Ota 21:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a huge problem, and I've been thinking about it for months. I doubt anyone watches this page, though, so I'm going to respond at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation... in a few hours. ×Meegs 21:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, scratch that, my idea — which I already knew was problematic — is also impossible. I'll tell you anyway: it was to change the preload to ask the users to use level one sections (single equal signs) for their submission titles. That way, they could include normal section syntax within their submission.  Of course, the fact that we depend on the section=new function makes this impossible.


 * My only concern with adding to the preload (or the main instructions), is that the additional mass will distract from the far more important guidelines (include a title, don't conpvio, include a source). Most afc readers are absolute newbies, and could also be confused by technical direction.  Is there a clear and short way to say it? ×Meegs 06:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't think of any. And I agree with you that we should concentrate on making the existing requirements clearer and easier before adding new ones.  The majority of users currently don't manage to successfully figure out the "IMPORTANT!  In the box above labeled "subject/headline", put the name of your proposed article.  Place  and  around it, like this." comment. So trying to teach them the subtleties of section headers doesn't seem like a winning strategy. Kickaha Ota 23:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit request

 * Could someone edit the sources section of this template to make it more clear that we need to have information from reputable, third party' sources (I've been getting a lot of submissions with unreliable first-party sources recently, and have been updating all the pages to fix this). Part Deux 09:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I added "THIRD-PARTY"; reputable is already mentioned in connection with websites, and unless we've been having a problem with lots of vanity published books being cited, that should be enough, yes? We don't want to make this too long... For the future, it'd be nice if you provided a specific, copy-able suggested text when you make a editprotected suggestion.  Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested edit
This template is protected, and should be tagged with, or another suitable protection template. Thanks – Qxz 19:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The protection template is showing up on Articles for creation/Today. It doesn't show up on the main Articles for creation page because the noinclude tage are also on the page, and Articles for creation transcludes Articles for creation/Today.  Dave  6 talk 09:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed by reverting my prior edit. "Oops." I've worked with Requests for checkuser/Inputbox/Sample, before, so thought I'd have a better handle. Should have tested it to make sure everything was in order. My apologies. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested addition
editprotected


 * I would like the following addition to this template.


 * Something along the lines of If using an internet source, please provide a URL or link to the specific page you are using as a source. Mr.Z-man  talk ¢  Review! 20:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please state where you would like this added and how.  Cbrown1023  talk  22:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As a comment with the rest of the Sources comments. Mr.Z-man  talk ¢  Review! 00:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅  Cbrown1023  talk  20:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Potential usage problem
The current text for step 3 says: STEP 3: Fill in the empty space below with at least one PUBLISHED, SPECIFIC, THIRD-PARTY, source for the information, like a             book, or a page on a reputable website. If using an internet source, please provide a URL or link to the specific page you are using as a source. Other editors must be able to check the specific sources you used, so "personal knowledge" or "Google" is not enough. IF YOU DO NOT LIST AT LEAST ONE SOURCE, YOUR ARTICLE WILL BE REJECTED.

A lot of submitters are putting their sources between the HTML comment delimiters (&lt;!-- and --&gt;) that exist on the blank line -- the "empty space below" -- instead of after the uppercase disclaimer. Is there any way we can fix this without losing the imperativeness of that last sentence? Powers T 13:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * (For those unfamiliar with the process, I should point out that this is a problem because it means submitted articles with valid sources may appear to have no sources at all and thus be inappropriately rejected by the reviewer.) Powers T 13:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this instead:

STEP 3: All articles must cite at least one PUBLISHED, SPECIFIC, THIRD-PARTY source for the information, such as a book or        a page on a reputable website. Please provide a URL or        link if you wish to use an internet source. WE MUST BE        ABLE TO VERIFY YOUR SOURCE, so sources such as "Google" or         "personal knowledge" will be rejected. IF YOU DO NOT INCLUDE AT LEAST ONE VALID SOURCE, YOUR ARTICLE WILL BE REJECTED. Please add your source(s) below this line.


 * That should alleviate any confusion. Hersfold (talk/work) 17:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks all right to me. Powers T 12:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I wonder if there's any way we can emphasize "third-party" more. =)  I get a ton of submissions that cite nothing more than the subject's own web site.  On the other hand, that makes it easy to reject them.  Powers T 12:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I doubt it. ALL CAPS is about all the emphasis you can make in the edit box. It should be fine as is. Hersfold (talk/work) 18:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

editprotected Note to admin: Please replace the present hidden comments under the "Sources" header with the following code:

Thank you. This should address the concern noted above. Hersfold (talk/work) 18:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 18:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit request
editprotected It would be really good to explain to users that when creating new sections it should be done using 3 equals signs ( === TITLE=== rather than == TITLE == ) when writing their article. It creates a lot of hassles for reviewers having to reformat the page every time someone uses sections like that. Cheers, --Pump  me  up  08:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks. GDonato (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of category from template page
editprotected

Could an admin remove   from the bottom of this template? The noincludes have no effect when preloading this template onto a page, and end up categorizing Articles for creation/Today into that category, which is incorrect. The talk page header I've added above adds this talk page to the same category, so the page will remain categorized. Thanks. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 13:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done --ais523 18:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like this needs to be done again (well, the uncat template this time). --Thetrick (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Bloat of HTML comment in preload
I see we are steadily gaining HTML comment on this page. In the interests of simplicity I would like to trim it down to the bare essentials. Most of this could go probably into the editintro. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead with this. Please bring your discussion on-wiki if you think more stuff is needed here. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The "consensus" we came to over IRC was that people were not reading the Edit notice so we would make the bare essentials clear in the edit window. Blurpeace  20:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)