Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/July–August 2007 Backlog Elimination Drive

Getting prodded

I guess I'm too much of an inclusionist. Two of the 3 articles I've created have already been PRODded. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Award Changes

Feel free to revert me but I'm going to be bold and make a few changes to the awards. Firstly, I want to replace the "Barnstar Eaten by a Bear" award because it was intended to be handed out "[...]to any Wikipedian who says something very humorous and or random, thus cheering up fellow Wikipedians who read it". I will replace it with "The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar" because it "[...] may be awarded to those who work tirelessly and endlessly on the more laborious or repetitive of Wikipedia tasks".

Also, I think that the top 3 contributers should receive something so I found these:

The Golden Wiki Award - 1st place
The Silver Wiki Award - 2nd place
The Bronze Wiki Award - 3rd place

Finally, what is the AFC barnstar? I do not believe that it is listed as a barnstar. If it does not exist, maybe for 50 articles the original barnstar should be given and The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar should be for 100 articles.

I hope that these changes will be okay! Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, let me clear a few things up. First of all, the awards took me all of 5 minutes to gather, so I didn't actually look at what they meant. Believe me, I was torn between the Hip Hop Award and the barnstar eaten by a bear. =)

Second, there is an EXTREMELY crudely made AFC barnstar at Image:AFCBarnstar.PNG. I made it with Paint, which means that it has the worst possible quality ever.

Therefore, to sum up, I picked awards that seemed humorous to me, because our Wikiproject has the most spirit and sense of humour. =) GrooveDog (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can try to work on a higher-quality barnstar, one that looks a bit more interesting than just something slapped on top of the original. I'll let you know what I come up with. Sorry, but I really hate MS Paint and I'm pretty sure I'll hit the 100-article mark by August. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 02:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the sandwich of exceptional excellence? Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The sandwich of exceptional excellence is a sandwich which is exceptionally excellent". Actual

Actually, it' an award which I found on the awards page, under "Other awards", I believe. GrooveDog (talk) 02:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please add { {afc n} } tag when you remove a { {afc maybe} } tag

When all the {{afc maybe}} tags disappear, the article goes off the list, even if there are unreviewed articles. The cure is to add {{afc n}} until the articles are all reviewed or mass-reviewed. I've done this with 2006-12-12. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding {{afc n}} or {{afc c}} to all old pages. So far I'm back to ~~April~~ January 1. How far should I go? I'm thinking 2007-01-01 is a good place to stop. What say you all? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC) edited davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about recent AFCs or those for today?

Do recent AFC submissions count toward the total? How "recent" (like within the last month?) should we count reviews for the backlog drive? --_Hdt83 ^Chat 04:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make the rules but I think they should. It's the same amount of work, probably more because you'll wind up creating more articles, which is far easier than rejecting one. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a similar note, does it count if you moderate/close a request that had been responded to before they started archiving requests? Personally, I'm for including all of them--i.e. you deal with a submission:you get a point.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 05:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the {{afc maybe}} and other not-rejected/not-accepted posts? Yeah, I say everyone who worked it gets a point. But I didn't make the rules. Of course, once they reject or accept, then it's not yours to work. I had several that were clearly rejected but they didn't use the archive templates. I didn't count those. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I would be fine if anyone counted recent ones, (within the last month or two), but it doesn't really matter. To answer the question above, sure you can count points from before they started archiving requests! I'm pretty sure I've been working on some in the past few days, actually. GrooveDog (talk) 11:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just tagged all 1Q06 with afc c or afc n, 1Q07 up next

All AfC pages from January to March 2006 are tagged with {{afc c}} or {{afc n}}, save one that I tagged {{afc mass}}. Note that some of the c's and n's have mass-moderated articles. Why did I bother with 2006? Call it a typo. I meant to do 1Q07. That's next on my list. ~~April~~ January-July 2007 are already tagged. Can everyone do a month or two in 2006, so we can get the backlog category properly populated? If you just flag "n" or "c" and do nothing else, you should be able to do 1-2 months per hour, maybe more. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC) edited davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, is there a bot we can recruit to perform this task?--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 21:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Bot logic: If AFC tag is at top of page, skip. Otherwise, check for any section after the top that has non-whitespace that is not part of a table. This will falsely tag older pages that did not use the tables to archive discussions as "n." The bot should use modified versions of {{afc n}} and {{afc c}} that clearly indicate the template was added by a bot. It is unlikely this bot will be useful on 2005 and older articles. Alas, January 2006 taught me that 2005 and older will have to be hand-inspected or written off as a loss.

Anyone good at writing bots? Then again, compare this to the 6-12 man-hours to skim less than a year's worth of backlogs. We are only talking April 2006-~~March 2007~~ December 2006 here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC) edited davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm clipping along at a rate of better than a month an hour for adding afc n and afc c tags. I don't think a bot will be needed unless one is written already. Hopefully the backlog category will be populated back to January 2006 by the end of the week. Then we'll have an idea of how much work we really have ahead of us. In the meantime, take the monthly average for Jan-Mar 2006 and Jan-Mar 2007 and apply it to Apr-Dec 2006 to get some grasp of how big the backlog is. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog now tagged afc n, c, or mass for December '06. Only April-November '06 left to tag. The good news is there don't appear to be any pages from before 2006-01-02. That page has nearly a month of submissions in it. Would everyone please sign up to do a month? I'm grabbing November in about 15-20 hours if nobody grabs it first. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you got me. I'll do April, maybe not tonight but tomorrow evening for sure. Anything to avoid the backlog of laundry!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 03:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you get to April 1, give yourself a real

Iron Man barnstar! Just kidding. :) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've mostly been covering March. There's a few I've tagged with "maybes", but I've cleared out almost half of those archives already. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 03:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between clearing the backlog and ~~creating~~ er um I mean identifying the backlog. See the new section at the bottom about adding {{afc n}} and related tags. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2005 and earlier?

Does this project include the backlog from 2005 and earlier? Let's not do that until 2006 is done. We are one week into this project and the projected 2006 backlog should keep us busy well past August 15. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably start going at the 2006 backlogs before you do 2005, because per the comment on the main talk page, no one's really going to care as much if their article gets declined when they submitted it 2 years ago. GrooveDog (talk) 11:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask where you found 2005 entries? I was under the impression that those were complete. I could very well be wrong though.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 23:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for GrooveDog, but I found that the earliest January 2006 page had entries dating back to 2005-12-06. I haven't found anything older than that. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the early days anonymous users could create articles. Therefore there was no need for AFC. Restrictions had to be brought in because of the inappropriate material that was created. Graeme Bartlett 10:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

estimate of backlog size, added burden of afc top|mm

There are currently 126 pages on the backlog. 115 are for Jan-Mar 2006 and Jan-May 2007. June 2007 is clear :). That's about 11-12 pages a month in backlog for 17 months. That's almost 200 pages. If you figure 1 article a page will come out of that, that's almost 200 articles to transcribe and talk pages to update. The {{afc top|mm}} is an additional burden: Adding it around each and every group of mass-moderated articles takes unnecessary time if you are doing the whole page at once. I propose that IF you are closing out a page with {{afc mass}}, you can dispense with putting afc tags around the articles in question. The other alternative is to put afc-mm tags around all the submissions as a single group. I personally don't like that approach, as it hides section names that have nothing to do with the submissions being mass-moderated. {{afc top|mm}} is useful if you are marking several articles on a page but not finishing the page right then. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to use the {{afc|mm}} template when marking Mass Moderated submissions: it was designed to make things easier, not more difficult. Just remember at the least to put the {{afc mass}} template on the page.GrooveDog (talk) 11:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sign up to add {{afc n}}, {{afc c}}, or {{afc mass}} for a month

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We need to get an idea of just what is in the backlog. This means adding {{afc n}}, {{afc c}}, or {{afc mass}} to each and every page. Note that not every day as an AFC archive page.

Please sign up for a month so we don't stomp on each other.

November 2005 and earlier: do these even exist?
December 2005-February 2006: done and no backlog!
March 2006-June 2006: done

Instructions: Type in the URL for each backlog page in the month. For example, http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2006-12-01, http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2006-12-02, etc. to http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2006-12-31. Occasionally there is no page for a day or a group of days, particularly for older dates. For each backlog page, skim the page and add the appropriate {{afc n}}, {{afc c}}, or {{afc mass}} tag. Mass should be used only if someone else has already mass-reviewed at least one article or you are summarily rejecting at least one article without going through the normal "decline" procedure.

Give yourself a wikicookie for every month you complete.

UPDATE: January and February 2006 are marked as completed in the older submissions list, but I marked 5 days with open submissions in the backlog category.

Once a page is marked {{afc n}} someone else can come in behind you and clear the page's backlog. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC), added UPDATE davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC), added Instructions davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC) cleaned up and archiving now that work is done and Jan/Feb 2006 articles are no longer in the needing-review queue. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

subst:afc top an subst afc b

Do I need to place {{subst:afc top}} and {{subst:afc b}} on each suggestion that has already been reviewed but does not have those tags before I close the Archive {{afc: c}}? --Counterpart0 21:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you do--I do it because I'm a wee bit obsessive, but I don't see any requirement for it as long as you close the archive.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 21:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use {{afc mass}} instead of {{afc c}} if the last remaining articles are to be mass-rejected or if anyone used {{subst:afc top|mm}}. If all articles are already processed and none used {{subst:afc top|mm}}, then use {{afc c}}. As for {{subst:afc top}} and {{subst:afc b}}: If you are closing the page and the article is already accepted or declined but doesn't have {{subst:afc top}} and {{subst:afc b}} then it's ok to leave them untagged. If you are NOT closing the page then please mark the articles so it's obvious which articles are closed and which need reviewing. I saw this a lot for early-2006 articles. If you accept an article or want to leave your own comment when rejecting an article, it's probably best to add {{subst:afc top}} and {{subst:afc b}}. If you are mass-rejecting SOME articles but there are still un-closed articles on the page, put {{subst:afc top|mm}} around the articles you are mass-rejecting. For what it's worth, I try to leave a Declined: comment on articles that could be approved with minor changes, particularly if they are less than a few months old. For 2006 though, {{subst:afc top|mm}} is probably the order of the day for rejected articles. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!! --Counterpart0 18:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the top section of an AFC backlog page

If you just want to add {{afc c}} or {{afc mass}} to the top of a page, it's a pain to edit the whole page.

This note on the Village Pump shows you how to add a "0" tab next to the "edit this page" tab. It is like an edit link but just for the top section. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10 days gone, over 700 articles reviewed

We are almost at the 1/3 way point. We have 700 articles reviewed. That probably amounts to 5-10 weeks' worth of submissions. Great job guys.

There are 207 pages in the official to-do list. This represents about 9 1/2 months worth of backlog. I figure 2 out of every 3 days has a backlog, so we should expect that to grow by 100 pages when we add in the 4 months of May-September 2006.

As you can see, we are 1/3 way through our time but probably cleared less than 20% of the actual backlog. If we don't add more people or extend the effort, we are going to have to give up some worthy articles.

My recommendations:

During the next 10 days, work as many of the 2007 pages as you can. For 2006 articles, limit yourself to good articles and mass-reject the rest. Be more forgiving on newer articles.
During the last 10 days, race through all remaining submissions and only pick out articles that as written are at least good article quality. I don't think I've seen an article in the backlog that meets this standard as written, although a handful have come awfully close. In other words, if I'd been following this standard, I probably wouldn't have created any articles. Remember, the goal is to make sure we don't throw out any gems. Although you should try to avoid it, it's okay to lose the stubs, start-class, and even some B-class articles by mistake.
Many reviewers disagree. Until more reviewers chime in, treat archive submissions the same as you do today's submission. Please give your opinion below. It's important that everyone speak up on how to handle the too-big backlog: cut quality, extend the drive, or leave what's left for the future.

Need help rating an article? Try Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC) "Many reviewers disagree" comment added davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 12:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know I've only just started doing this, but my view would be that if we mass reject vast swathes of the archives we are going to loose too many possibly good articals. I think we'd do better to keep chuging away at the archive for longer, rather than race through and potentially loose good stuff.Theone00 10:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also cannot support this. Part of the rationale that I operate based on is due to my belief that every submission deserves a fair shake, regardless of quality. Now, there is no reason that the backlog need to be completely vanquished with this one backlog eradication drive--we could hold them quarterly if need be! Also, for those who don't see the value in dealing with the older submissions, there are plenty of newer submissions available. I do appreciate your goals and ideas though, and hope I haven't come across as unappreciative of your hard work!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 10:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Rather than set ourselves an artificial deadline that we can't meet, and then mass-rejecting anything that we don't get done by that deadline, I think we should either extend the deadline, or once the drive is over just continue to deal with things on our own speed. We've gotten to the point that the backlog isn't growing anymore, we're closing off almost all of the recent days (see June, which has no backlog at all). So if the older backlog sits there for a little longer it's not going to hurt anybody. Now that it's properly flagged within the category (which much of it wasn't before) we can better recognize that there's a problem, and continue plugging away at it even after the backlog is done. I think we should continue to put the quality of our reviews ahead of the quantity of our reviews, and not rush through this carelessly just to meet some artificial deadline we imposed on ourselves. --Maelwys 11:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping Count

I don't suppose there is an easier way to keep track of your review count than recounting, or coming back to add to your score every few reviews? --Counterpart0 18:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to just update once I finish each page of the backlog (count how many reviews I made on that backlog page, and then update the count accordingly) --Maelwys 19:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Idea, thanks. It also just occured to me that I could just count how many reviews from my last update to the tally section and add them to my current count. --Counterpart0 19:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just have a notepad next to my laptop that I keep tally marks on, and update every 15-25. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 22:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I keep a list of what I've done on my user page. I may move this to a subpage later. My total on the main page links to the tally on my user page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any ideas as what to do...

For example, this page here Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2006-02-23 is actually done. Every submission has a comment, either declined or created, so the archive is done. Can one just go ahead and mark it- {{afc c}}? Thanks Theone00 21:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, go ahead! Good catch!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 22:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. "My bad." Sorry. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam Filter

When I try to add the {{afc n}} to the AFC Archive 2006-05-06 I get a notice that there is spam in the page and it cannot be saved - checked my computer no spyware, malware or adware that I can find. And so far I have been able to save to pages before and after. Any suggestions? --Counterpart0 17:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you will have to search for the web address that is causing it in the page and manually remove it. It is annoying but that is the only way to make it work. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 19:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ugh, how tedious. --Counterpart0 19:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that hard. The error message tells you exactly what the offending URL is. Just insert a <b></b> in the middle of the URL and that will block the spam filter. Alternatively, after you click on edit, change the URL in your address bar so it ends

edit&section=0

and hit return. You are now editing just the top section. Insert the {{afc whatever}} tags and save.

Got it! I marked the page as well.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 14:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who will be the 1000th reviewed article?

We will probably hit 1000 sometime Friday!

On another note, there are only two months plus one page that are left to tag {{afc c}}, {{afc n}}, or {{afc mass}}. Let's see if we can get these knocked out over the weekend! davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops Theone00 already passed the 1000 mark at 21:40, 26 July 2007. Who will take us over 2000? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow 30 or so hours later and it's over 1500 already. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Todo: Remove category Wikipedia article creation requests needing further review from April 2006 articles

Much of April 2006 has Category:Wikipedia article creation requests needing further review in the page, usually near the top. This should not be here. Articles are added to this category through the {{afc maybe}} template. As you do the April 2006 articles, please remove this category. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC) done. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats to Xnuala

Xnuala is now an admin. Hand that man a broom! davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"grin" Shouldn't that be condolences? No, thank you very much for your congratulations, and please don't hesitate to talk to me if you need any sort of mop + broom action!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 15:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2006-2007 is categorized, 288 pages to work on

If the 15 of us each take a page a day, that will make a big dent :). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halfway point - all pages tagged with n, c, or mass, about 1771 articles reviewed

I'm creating about 5-6% of articles I review. If everyone else is doing the same that's about 88-105 new articles added to Wikipedia because of this drive. Way to go everyone! I suspect the rate for others is higher since I was in a hurry to put "afc n" or "afc mass" on the entire backlog and tagged a number of articles as "maybe" for later creation. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need to audit 2006/07 for improper { {subst:afc b} }

About 1-2 submission page archives per month are "hiding" submissions with incorrect {{subst:afc b}}s. I've audited July 2007 and fixed 2 mistakes. The rest of the months going back to December 2005 need to be audited also. It takes about 15 5 minutes per month if there are no mistakes.

The easiest way to check is to see if the last article is a "collapsed" accept or reject, and if it is, does it contain any unprocessed articles? If so, it needs to be fixed.

If the last article is a multi-article blue subst:afc top|mm then make sure there is a matching subst:afc b somewhere. If there isn't, it's likely someone made a mistake and the mass-moderation may have been meant for only 1 article. When in doubt, re-review.

signups

Please update as you complete these:

December 2005-March 19 2006 Done
March 20-May 17 2007 Deferred
May 18-July 31 2007 done

Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: March 20, 2006-May 17, 2007 are still being actively worked. Since it's possible to introduce a missing-subst:afc b tag while working the article, I recommend holding off each month until that month's archives have been evaluated.

Minor changes to AFC top template

I tweaked {{afc top}}. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Minor changes to AFC top template for details. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2/3 way in, 2000+ down! Way to go people!

At 18:26, 3 August 2007 we passed 2000 articles reviewed. 3000 is well within reach for the last 10 days. We are down to 200 pages from March 2006-January 2007 and another 67 from February to May 2007. I think we were over 288 at one point. Surely we can clear out everything through August 2006 before the drive ends. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rlest / Qst / Whoever he is

I noticed Boricuaeddie had removed Rlest's total from the board - I realize the guy has been blocked, pending a community ban, but should we really remove him from the list? He reviewed 327 articles at last count, and was in second place. It's not as though the block erases his contributions - the articles still got reviewed. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 03:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His contributions are still valid, and hopefully eventually he will be able to return after deciding to be productive and mature.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 03:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If nobody gives a good reason within 24 hours of Hersfold's raising this issue, I will remove the strike and restore the count. Even if he does bad things elsewhere in Wiki, unless he cheated or sabotaged his work here, his count should stand. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's now been 24 hours - I'll add the total back in, since I intend to add a total count anyway. Please feel free to make further comments if needed. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 03:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia article creation requests needing further review

Is now cleared. Many congratulations to all involved. Now onto it's much larger sub catagory. Theone00 15:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project pride!! -Icewedge 19:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, this is a great idea, but submissions will go unreviewed.

I had an idea. We are doing so well with this, and because every day articles go un-reviewed, maybe in a year we could do this again! We could do it every year! Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 02:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get March and April '06 out of the way before the 15th?

If we could leave "only" 12 months of backlog by the time the drive ends that would be fantastic. Right now there are 243 days' worth of submissions spread over exactly 13 months, plus a a day from this week. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am working through these months, but I leave behind a couple per day of stuff that I cannot verify but may be notable. The decline tools speed things up greatly -- it would be good if there was an accept tab! Graeme Bartlett 06:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Special Working Man's Barnstar Award

We are down to the last 5 days so to celebrate I'll give anyone who Creates 5 or more new articles between now and the 15th a special {{The Working Man's Barnstar}} aka The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar. This is over and above any other award. Put "WMB: number" in the comments on the tote-board so I can keep count. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have new articles highlighted above - is this excluding redirects? I haven't been counting them, but I noticed others have been. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not supposed to include redirects but I'm not checking. I figure people's sense of honor will eliminate the problem: If they have been counting redirects, they'll make 5 real articles by the end of the drive. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Grame Bartlett

You "officially" put us over 3000 articles reviewed since July 15! I know at least a couple editors whose counts aren't up to date so the actual person could've been anyone in the last few hundred reviews or so. If everyone brought their numbers up to date I bet we could show 4000 by the 15th. Even if they don't, I bet we can get to 3500. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

woo-hoo 11 months and 195 days of articles left!

13 more and we'll have less than half a year spread over less than 11 months to do. How much can we do over the next 3 days?

David — do you mean 195 days of articles? There is a risk we will run out of work! Graeme Bartlett 03:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I corrected the title, thanks. I doubt we'll run out of work in the next 3 days, but hopefully the entire backlog will be cleared by years-end by dedicated editors even without another backlog-elimination-drive. At the rate we've been going though, it would only take a 6-8 week extension of the drive to knock this out. I think most people want a break. I'd say let's not do another 1-month drive until we are down below 100 day's worth of articles. Of course, if things stagnate a drive may be the only way to get things going again, but I'm hoping that won't be necessary. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 12:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It'll be quite nice to see that backlog notice gone. Most of the unreviewed articles are from 2006, so can be quickly mass moderated with no trouble. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the "quickly" mass-moderated: I've been doing March 2006 with a mid-single-digit accept rate. Each article deserves consideration. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4000 articles and counting!

Keep up to good work, everyone, only two days left! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's 2 days, 5 hours, 52-odd minutes, and counting. :) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of 2007 is now completed!

I just marked January and February 2007 as completed, after finishing the last few bits - an insignificant effort compared to the huge amounts of work you guys have put in! With that, all of the backlog for this year is gone! Great work everyone, but kudos especially to GrooveDog who organized this drive! henrik•talk 22:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Less than 12 hours left, let's shoot for 5000 articles reviewed

Assuming the drive ends at 00:00:00 August 16 UTC, that's less than 12 hours left.

We are very close to 5000 articles reviewed. Can we get to 5000?

By the way, I think it's OK if you add to your totals after midnight, as long as you earned them before midnight and add them in a timely manner, say, within 24 hours. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 12:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unofficial drive continues until it's over

The official drive and the awards count end at midnight but the unofficial drive continues.

Some of us will be taking a short sanity break from AFC work. Even if we scale our work back to a reasonable pace, together we can easily get this backlog cleared by Christmas, maybe even by Halloween.

I'll create a new toteboard for work done after midnight. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 12:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just ended!

Only a few minutes ago, it turned into August 16th! Please update your count! Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 00:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hallelujah! -The Fat Lady (sings) 00:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4705.49+ articles reviewed by 21 reviewers

That's subject to updates by the way. Way to go team! At least a couple reviewers had "+" next to their numbers. Oh, and speedy-deleted articles count as submissions reviewed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]