[16:28:57] halfak, Morning [16:29:19] Hey tos2! I was just in #wikipedia-en-afc asking questions. [16:29:38] Was anyone replying? :P [16:30:01] Nope. [16:30:44] Thought so. The channel's usually empty. Try #wikipedia-en-helpers [16:30:55] There might be an AFC reviewer or two around [16:32:18] No worries. I figured out my mistake. [16:32:48] (y) [16:33:49] BTW, word from StevenW is that he'd rather I don't spend a bunch of time working on AfC's quirks and just perform the most simplistic analyses that I can. E.g. what proportion of submissions make it to ns=0. [16:34:27] But I'm not totally satisfied. In the meantime, I'm working on documenting what we've worked out so that I can come back to this. [16:35:22] Did Steven mention any reason why? [16:35:51] Sure. Have me take a look at the documentation when you're done with it [16:35:53] Waste of time and the obvious conclusion that AfC sucks. [16:36:54] * tos2 is of the opinion that even if AFC sucks, anything we want to replace it needs to be atleast as good as it is now [16:37:32] NPP is too bitey, and we do not have any ready alternatives yet. [16:37:40] Agreed. It would be nice to know exactly why/how AfC sucks before we try to design an alternative. [16:38:09] If you keep collaborating with me, you'll find that I fight this battle a lot. [16:38:53] Steven is game for more analysis usually, but I've gone a long time without any useful data on this project, so it's reasonable that he wants some insights soon. [16:39:55] Design an alternative OR redesign AFC [16:40:05] See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Halfak_(WMF)/New_page_creations,_deletions,_and_drafts#Articles_for_Creation for my summary of our work. [16:40:18] I'm still hacking on this, but I'd appreciate any edits you've got. [16:40:24] But yes. I agree. [16:40:27] * tos2 checks [16:40:57] I'm working on documenting the AfC submission template now. [16:41:22] Did you run the check for how many of the article selected have that AFC submission template? What did it return? [16:42:18] I haven't yet. That got squashed by the need for quick data. [16:42:43] If you ask me, it's unnecessary too [16:42:58] I'm confident we would be getting 99+ on that [16:44:10] Yeah... That was just a step towards getting the data that we wanted. [16:44:19] It's not like it would be a significant side-project. [16:44:20] Btw, do you see the articles now, halfak? [16:44:30] What articles? [16:44:39] The G13ed ones [16:44:43] Yup. [16:45:14] ok [16:47:20] Shall I call to quick mention a couple things? [16:47:41] Hmmm.. You should give me a little bit longer to hack on this if that's OK. [16:48:25] In that case, okay. Ping me when you're done hacking, so we can see how far things have reached [16:48:44] OK Sounds good. [16:49:13] Meanwhile, let me gather all the AFC hypothesis that I can locate via the Draft namespace opposes [16:50:08] Awesome :) [17:36:17] tos2: ping [17:36:25] Just a moment [17:36:29] Sorry I got side-tracked for a bit, but I am done hacking. [17:36:31] No worries [17:36:36] About to complete my bit [17:36:40] Excellent. [17:40:05] Added whatever I could find from the opposes [17:40:16] Not much, and kindof side-tracks the points [17:40:29] But I think we've covered the basics [17:40:50] Awesome. I'm going to refactor a bit. One sec. [17:44:09] I moved the hypotheses up to the top of the Articles for Creation section. [17:44:29] Did you still want to get on a call or did we cover what you wanted to talk about? [17:45:09] On a call. [17:45:18] Just a sec while I finish a couple other stuff [17:45:28] Hokay. [17:46:32] Interestingly, I only found 86 G13 deleted pages. [17:48:29] Apparently G13 isnt that well checked of a category [17:48:53] Could you quick-check how many of AFC articles are G13 tagged as of now? [17:48:59] *well-monitored [17:49:16] Sure. Do you know the category name off-hand? [17:51:27] No. You might want to just check some old AFCs randomly [17:51:46] Or try all the articles we discussed in the previous hangout, if you can find the hangout [17:52:20] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion_as_abandoned_AfC_submissions [17:52:25] No articles. [17:52:46] I have seen some tagging template around [17:54:06] * tos2 digs [17:54:11] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Db-g13&hidelinks=1 [17:55:40] There we go [17:55:48] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Technical_13/Userboxes/G13 [17:55:59] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:G13_eligible_AfC_submissions [17:56:48] lol WTF. undocumented :( [17:57:46] Oh! It's not using the G13 template. [17:57:50] I could ping T13 to get the documentation, but I think it's self explanatory [17:57:54] It's using a custom category. [17:58:12] Well if the intent is to flag them for speedy deletion, this is failing. [17:58:31] If the intent is to give a clear indication that others should do so, then it may be successful. [17:58:55] I think it's the latter [17:59:06] By policy it should be deleted, but it isnt [18:29:31] 3 additions to the google docs pic, halfak. Check whenever free, and add it [18:32:21] Done [18:32:44] tos2: Seen T13 around recently? [18:32:57] He's lurking [18:33:10] Not always there, but pops in once in a while [18:33:14] Why [18:33:38] Just wondering. I missed the company in -snuggle. While you were busy with classes, we chatted a lot. [18:33:46] I see [18:34:04] from his talk page: "Due to certain personal issues, Technical 13 will be away from Wikipedia for an undefined period of time, but Technical 13 hopes his leave of absence will be short" [18:34:04] I'm hoping he'll be back soon enough [18:34:28] * tos2 nods [18:48:44] Looks like Wikipedia died. [18:48:54] s/died/hiccuped [18:50:27] :? [18:51:09] Yay! Meta is still alive. [18:53:36] Over the last 5 years of studying Wikipedia, I've become very familiar such downtime./