This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Since the 4 templates {{ AFC pending}}, {{ AFC reviewing}}, {{ AFC onhold}} and {{ AFC completed}} were not being called independently it seemed to make sense to move them to subpages of {{ AFC submission}} which does call them. Thus they are now at {{ AFC submission/pending}}, {{ AFC submission/reviewing}}, {{ AFC submission/onhold}} and {{ AFC submission/declined}} respectively. MSGJ 19:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Could we separate not notable from A7?

A7 really only applies to a narrow scope of subjects, while notability is precisely defined by the existence of sources.

As it stands you would want to use one of the more specific comments when arguing from A7, ie. web/corp/band, and source when arguing for lack of notability. However source is not that appropriate when the article is sourced, but solely from primary sources.

It might also be good to get a context comment.

So my suggestions would be;

source:

We cannot accept unsourced suggestions or sources that are not reliable per the verifiability policy. Please provide reputable, third-party sources with your suggestions. Third party sources are needed to establish both the verifiability of the submission as well as its notability.

nn:

There is doubt that this submission meets our guidelines for inclusion. To be considered notable enough to merit an article a topic should have received nontrivial coverage in multiple independent sources. Suggestions for such sources should alleviate doubts about notability.

context:

The submission does not provide enough context for unfamiliar readers to identify the subject.

Taemyr ( talk) 18:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Could we have some code at Template:AFC submission/comments that would return the corresponding language name when the associated language prefix is entered? I mean, if {{ AFC submission|H|lang|ia}} is entered, it should return the following comment:

-- Alexius08 ( talk) 10:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I really like it. It works really well. Nice job! I may have something about them searching & making sure the article doesn't already exist under another name/spelling. Also, I'd maybe add another tab that says "Create" for the actual creation (or change "End" to "Create"). It just seems sort of random & thrown in at the moment. Thoughts? hmwith t 14:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd also suggest moving the name to Wikipedia:Article wizard 2.0 (add a space), so it's more standard, therefore less confusing. hmwith t 14:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough on both points. The "2.0" was bunged in because of the existing WP:Article wizard; we might be able to agree to just replace that. Rd232 ^talk 14:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

PS - The vast majority of the work was done by the creators of the WP:AFC wizard from which it was adapted - kudos to them. Rd232 ^talk 14:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the circumstance, however, I still don't see why there is no space. When there is another version, there is normally a space (such as AOL 4.0, etc). I think when people type in the name, they'll expect the page to be at Wikipedia:Article wizard 2.0. It's not a huge deal, I'm just a wikignome at heart. :) hmwith t 20:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I'll add that to the Outstanding Issues then. Rd232 ^talk 20:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

One of the things that I specifically tried to avoid with the Article wizard was to avoid sounding patronizing. And that's one thing that I've never liked about the AFC wizard. Particularly things like "My proposed article could be considered advertising" - who on earth is actually going to choose that? Someone who's trying to spam is just going to ignore it and someone who isn't is just going to believe that their article isn't advertising, because they aren't familiar with Wikipedia's concept of NPOV.

Though on the other hand, it seems to just copy and paste some things directly from guidelines and policies, rather than trying to explain them in non-legalese.

Additionally, there's too many steps. This was also a conscious decision when making the first article wizard. I can't find any of the discussion about it, it was probably on IRC. Basically, the more clicks one has to make, the more hoops one has to jump through, and the more text one has to read, the more likely they are to start skimming over things or skipping it altogether. This even seems to have a bit of redundancy. Using the "website" wizard as an example, it asks in detail about notability in the notability section, then proceeds in the "content" section to discuss the same issues in less detail.

The "website" wizard seems to borrow heavily from the company one, even calling it a company a couple times. "Even if you wrote it, it may infringe copyright." - This is true, but only in very rare situations (where you wrote it and gave the copyright to someone else). Its confusing, especially when followed by "It is always better to write the article yourself." Its generally simpler to just assume that 99.9% of websites are not public domain or under a free license (and most of the ones that are freely licensed are still not suitable for a direct copy-and-paste) and to just tell people to not copy things at all rather than trying to explain free licenses and copyright infringement.

The preload template and editintro also have some issues. The editintro hasn't been modified from the AFC version so it doesn't really make any sense at all. The preload asks people to read a style guideline just be able to cite sources; there's no reason to be picky and tell people to use ref tags on what's likely their first article, and possibly their first edit. The more difficult something is, the more likely people are to just skip it. A plain list of URLs is better than nothing. While it may be easier for the people making the wizard, I think it might be more useful for new editors if there was a different preload for each article type. With AFC we have the luxury of an experienced editor reviewing the article who can make it look passable before moving it to mainspace, for people creating articles directly we don't have this luxury.

One question: Who is the target audience for this wizard? As far as I can tell, it seems to be "clueless new users with a long attention span." Remember that AFC is designed for people who either don't want to or don't know how to register an account. People using this will already have an account, so the target audience is slightly different. Mr. Z-man 18:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, some fair points there.

1. I'm sure the text can be improved - I haven't really tried to do so; less "legalese". Certainly the points you make about the website wizard are fair; though I suppose some people might click "it may be considered advertising" if that is indeed their purpose and they want to know more about how to get it accepted. Wikipedia:Article wizard2.0/Wizard-Website notability.
2. I'm not sure whether there are too many steps; I make it 7 clicks to get to the editing template. Possibly Sources could be merged with Content, but that would lead to a loss of clarity. More drastically, a fairly radical revision could merge steps 3-5 (or even 3-6) onto a single page. Suggestions?
3. Editintro and preload are probably the weakest area, sure. Got to start somewhere - it's a draft born today.
4. Different preloads and editintros for different article types occurred to me, and is probably a good idea.
5. Reviewing: I've created a category which the preload includes, and the idea is that the category provides a way for more experienced editors to review Wizard-created articles.
6. Audience: I suppose a large part of the motivation is (a) hand-holding new users who really want to contribute and have something to contribute (b) putting off new users from creating articles that would just get speedied (c) helping new users find out what's needed to create a new article, rather than being confronted with a blank page and a vague idea that they're trying to write something encyclopedic on this topic they're interested in.

Rd232 ^talk 18:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't think the number of steps was too large. Only Six, you can click through without reading the (helpful) intro, and what I really like, is you can back up if you realize you ought to read the material you skipped.
• I like the category idea.
• References are hard. Perhaps it is good advice to tell them to start by dropping in urls, but that adds to my point below that the first creation should be in user space, not article space.-- SPhilbrick T 19:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

"Only" six. We're writing an article, not installing an operating system. The more steps there are, the more complicated it seems. Basically the steps are:

1. Would you like to start an article now?
2. What kind of article?
3. Does your article fail? (notability)
4. Does your article fail? (sources)
5. Does your article fail? (notability, NPOV, copyvio)
6. Write the article.

Step 1 might be unnecessary as the page that links to the article wizard will likely link to the same resources. Steps 3, 4, and 5 basically ask variants of the same question, especially since notability is typically tied to sources (and explaining what a reliable source is after we've already asked people if they have reliable sources is a bit backward). Mr. Z-man 21:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Step 2 can be linked to directly if required, depending on the context. Merging steps 3-5 risks overloading the reader with a mass of different problems they have to overcome; breaking the problems down makes it easier to say "yes, it's fine". It's all very well to say there's too many steps, but fewer steps makes each step harder and probably more confusing; there's a trade-off. If merging could be done in a way that really reduced redundancy, sure - but I don't see much potential for that. Compare, for instance, the two step Article wizard: the first page is very simple, the second gives you something like this: Wikipedia:Article wizard/company, which I find it hard to imagine many newbies being willing or able to parse. Rd232 ^talk 22:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Using Einstein's razor (Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler), I don’t see a problem. Perhaps that’s from my perspective – building a system to rate reinsurance treaties – we have hundreds of steps, and we are exactly designing a rocket. Relative to that six seems quite small. If user feedback tells us that six seems like too many, we should consider tweaking, but I’ll be surprised if the typical user thinks six is too many. It’s fewer steps than it takes to describe removing money from an ATM, and many people manage to do that. If it makes it appear smaller, perhaps following your step canonization, perhaps it could be steps 1,2,3a,3b,3c, and 4, Leaving the user with the impression that it is a four step process, with one step having a couple subcomponents. I’m happy with 1-6. Having spent some time watching people struggle with new articles, I think they’ll find this a breath of fresh air. They typically get a few of the steps, but invariably miss some, and while the steps are all in the instructions, there’s a lot in the instructions – if you tell them they need to walk through six steps, I bet the general reaction would be positive. SPhilbrick T 14:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

If we want to go into detail about things, that's fine, but we should go into detail about things that matter. Basically, 3 of the steps discuss reliable sources. Sourcing is important, but that's just redundancy. And introducing the concept of a reliable source after discussing notability is just backward. There's no need at all to teach newbies about copyright here. As I said, basically 99.99% of the text on the web is non-free, and only maybe 1% of the free stuff is actually usable as a direct copy and paste into an article. Its far easier to just tell people "Don't copy from another source" than it is to spend a whole paragraph discussing the GFDL and making vague statements like "Even if you wrote it, it may infringe copyright." Changing the numbering of the steps won't matter (TBH, I didn't even notice they were numbered until just now), what matters is the number of clicks it takes to get from A -> B. Mr. Z-man 03:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering what you think of the wizard after the recent revisions. Wikipedia:Article wizard2.0. Rd232 ^talk 16:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Minor points

• Sample name in COMPANY option

If you pick a person, the article suggests "Nora Smith" as an example. Fine, but it also suggests "Nora Smith" is you start with Company. Consider changing "Nora Smith" to "XYZ Company" (Looks like you use the same last page for all options - it could be customized without much work.)

• Selecting "Website" in Subject

If you select website as a subject in step 2, then move on to notability, it asks if the proposed article is about a notable company. Shouldn't it be website? (Both first and third questions)

Medium sized points

• Screen shot doesn't match text

I like the idea of a screen shot showing them what to do. However, this one is confusing:

• The top line within the edit box refers to AFC pending and says don't remove this line, but the line is not in the live box.
• The screen shot shows a section heading for "Sources" but the live edit box has "References" not sources. You don't want the user entering sources under references (one of the more confusing things for new editors).
• The screenshot shows a warning in the box that is actually outside the box - not a big deal, just more evidence the screen shot should be fixed
• The screenshot shows the Minor edit and watch this page buttons inside they box
• My guess is you copied an old screen shot and it needs updating

• Point them to Feedback

• Not sure where it belongs but it might be nice to remind them they can start an article, then go to WP:FEED for feedback.

More substantive suggestions

• Default creation should be in user subpage

I think it is a disservice to drop someone into a live article, even with the excellent help. There may have been a time when this was good advice, but I think that time has passed. I’d prefer to see the default be a creation of a subpage in the user. I realize this means they cannot move the article into main space until they are auto-confirmed (or get help) but I’d prefer to address that by making the move button work for new users ONLY to move from personal subpage to main space. I can elaborate on why I think times have changed if someone disagrees with the notion that creation in a user subpage is a bad idea.-- SPhilbrick T 19:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. At minimum the end page can present it as an option and explain why it's a good idea. And they may not be able to move the article to main space, but they can copy-paste the wikitext, which (with a single author, as here) is probably OK. Rd232 ^talk 19:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

On the other points - yes, sure (and you're right I just nabbed the AFC screenshot, partly because doing a new one should be left til the template(s) are finalised). PS This Wizard is officially a collaborative enterprise, so people, feel free to fix as well as comment! :) Rd232 ^talk 19:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

To prompt for a user subpage, transclude Wikipedia:Article wizard2.0/subpage:

Wikipedia:Article wizard2.0/subpage

This uses a little trick with {{REVISIONUSER}} to show the current user when transcluded. ---—  Gadget850 (Ed)  ^talk 20:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent)(see also WP:VPR){{REVISIONUSER}} shows the last user to edit the page, not the current user [1]. Try Special:Mypage instead. -- Thin boy 00 @336, i.e. 07:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting some very bizarre magic when I try to put the above comment in... It's trying to create/overwrite User:Thinboy00/new article name here. I suspect this has something to do with auto-preview being enabled in my prefs, but I'm not clicking the "enter title" button, so wtf? -- Thin boy 00 @343, i.e. 07:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I've switched to Special:Mypage. Do you still get problems? Rd232 ^talk 10:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It should have shown your user name. {{REVISIONUSER}} shows the last user to revise the page when viewed directly but shows the current user when transcluded. Special:Mypage works as well, but is not as obvious and does not need to be on a subpage.

We should include {{ UserWorkInProgress}} in the preload for a user subpage. ---—  Gadget850 (Ed)  ^talk 11:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, that only works on special pages and other interface messages like those that are shown when using action=edit. Anything that changed the page display for each page load on normal pages would break caching and would never be used on Wikimedia sites. Mr. Z-man 12:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Really - why? It uses the standard ambox template (like wikify). It might need subst-ing? Rd232 ^talk 15:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Because you can't cache a page that's rendered differently for every user (and I don't see where it uses ambox). It'll work fine transcluded, but the only way to do it would be to use Special:Mypage. Mr. Z-man 04:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think there is confusion on my last two comments. I think Mr.Z-man is responding to my use of {{REVISIONUSER}} and Rd232 is responding to my suggestion of {{ UserWorkInProgress}}.

I still don't understand the problem with {{REVISIONUSER}}, especially since this trick is used elsewhere, such as my talk page editnotice. You should see your name here: User:Gadget850/T1. But I'm going to drop this since it is confusing. ---—  Gadget850 (Ed)  ^talk 11:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I think those last comments clarify things. It is indeed {{ UserWorkInProgress}} I was looking at (ambox); and in your comment you said "You should see your name here: Gadget850." As you can see from my copy-paste, REVISIONUSER (in the wikitext) showed me your name, not mine (initially when I came to this page - in the preview it's now my username). So I think Special:Mypage is the way to go, unless there's a problem with that. (I'm slightly confused though - I thought REVISIONUSER was used in quite a few templates?) Rd232 ^talk 17:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It is, to properly show the user who edited the current revision. The abuse to show the editor looking at some system messages (including editnotices) is a somewhat accidental feature, and is going to be removed sooner or later ( bugzilla:19006), so I wouldn't rely on it in too many places. Amalthea 10:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, it currently uses Special:Mypage, and I've dropped in a substed version of UserWorkInProgress, using the SUBPAGENAME variable. See Template:Article wizard/userpageskeleton. Rd232 ^talk 18:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added a link on the Intro page to Wikipedia:Article wizard2.0/Userfeedback, plus a reminder at Wikipedia:Article wizard2.0/Wizard-Ready for submission. I'd like to get a decent agreed draft of the wizard live sooner rather than later, and then develop it further based on user feedback. Does that sound reasonable? What will we need for a decent enough draft to put live? Rd232 ^talk 11:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• " it will be reviewed by one or more registered editors " are you intending anything special, or just new pag patrol? DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • That was wording copied from the original AfC wizard. There are now hidden categories in the templates which can be used for additional reviewing, beyond the New Page Patrol. I've created a new category which can be removed by such reviewers: Category:Unreviewed new articles. Rd232 ^talk 01:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks great to me. My suggestion would be to tweak the wording so it's tighter.

• I prefer "I want to" over "I would like to..."
• or, if we don't want to encourage wanting, change the question

From "Which kind of user are you?" to "What would you like to do first?"

Then shorten the answers. For example: from "I would like to learn a bit more about editing first" to "Learn a bit more about editing"

This gets rid of the whole "I would like to" bit before each option. Short and sweet I say. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 02:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Good points - done. (Apart from switching from "Which kind of user are you?" to "What would you like to do first?" - I don't think that works given the Registered/Nonreg split). Rd232 ^talk 12:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The first page needs a little work. It literally implies that registered user may want to learn more about editing or creating articles, but unregistered would not. That’s obviously not what we mean. I’m toying with some alternatives, but none are yet acceptable. SPhilbrick T 17:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I see what you mean, but the two unregistered options are to go and register and to use the AFC wizard. Maybe clarifying the latter option would be sufficient. Rd232 ^talk 19:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Clarified - hope that addresses your concern sufficiently. Rd232 ^talk 15:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively, something like this, but I think it looks ugly. It would need some redesigning. I'd rather not bother, I think it's fine as is. Rd232 ^talk 16:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No one escapes the Spanish Inquisition. No one.

The proposed barrage of questions will surely piss off editors (hey, who cares about them anymore) but it actually may be used to bar unreferenced, poorly referenced under-stubs (remember that upload of German MPs). The more I look at the stack of yellow cards the more I like it. It's like taking an oath at the court of law (of the Spanish Inquisition, naturlich). Some will take it lightly, but the perjurors will learn it the hard way!

1. Make it mandatory for any new submissions (hey, even a redir must be referenced), whether it's from today's newbie or from Mr. Wales. This automatically bans bot submissions (bots can't swear).
2. Redesign new page patrol to enforce the minimum standard prescribed on the cards. IMO it equates to B-class (at least).
3. Make it clear, in very fine print, that any violation of the oaths is at least... 24... too long... 12-month block. Which can be shortcut and redeemed by editing the article in userspace to <joke ends here, lets get real> B-class rating confirmed by a credible reviewer. This, of course, assumes that the topic is acceptable; if not, it's a year.
4. Enforce it.

Too bad it won't be accepted, ever. NVO ( talk) 12:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Some point emerges from that, but with great difficulty. What, if anything, are you suggesting we should do with the wizard, either to improve it or in terms of how Wikipedia uses it? Rd232 ^talk 13:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

So far wikipedia does not use it; once it's on, time will tell. But I see no significant benefit unless patrolling elevates to draconian levels outlined above. NVO ( talk) 18:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The second option at WP:Article wizard2.0/Wizard-Company notability, "My proposed article meets some of the criteria above", seems misplaced there: It leads to a page talking about advertising which doesn't really follow from the caption of the button, and it's unclear when to use it with "My proposed article does not meet all the criteria above" directly beneath it.
It's also weird that the "good" answer is "My proposed article meets all the criteria above" when actually only one criterion has to be passed (they are all marked with bold ORs).
Maybe it should be rewritten along the lines of WP:Article wizard2.0/Wizard-Website notability?
Amalthea 20:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely right. Done. Rd232 ^talk 20:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Amalthea 21:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Unless it's just a Firefox thing, the tabs along the top don't work. Since this is now prominently linked from such pages as Wikipedia:Your first article, it seems it might be confusing if it is not fully functional. If it isn't just firefox and those tabs actually are not yet complete, perhaps it would be better to have what does work here while those tabs are further developed in sandbox? New contributors in particular are easily confused. :) -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The tabs work, but only going backwards. Going forwards through the wizard, people have to click links in the body. This is the design of the AFC wizard, which has been around a long time, so it didn't occur to me to worry about that. Perhaps greying the names of the unreachable tabs would help? Making the tabs fully functional forwards and backwards would entail a substantial re-design, because for instance what's shown on the Notability tab (Step 3) depends on which type of article is chosen at Step 2. Rd232 ^talk 13:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, maybe graying would be a good idea. Obviously, it's going to throw some people, because it threw me. :) -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually having thought about it, that problem does only affect the Notability tab (I think), and for that the tab could link to General notability. Would that be helpful though? Do we want users to be able to jump ahead like that? Rd232 ^talk 13:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

None of the tabs are enabled for me from the main screen. I've never gone through the Wizard, so I have no clue how it works. (Maybe I should give it a test run.) If the tabs, subject through end, are supposed to come available as you go, perhaps it would be helpful to just leave a note indicating as much after "This wizard will help you through the process of submitting a new article to Wikipedia"? I'll give it a test run. :) -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, OK. The "Subject" tab could actually be enabled from the intro screen. But that would encourage people to navigate using the tabs, which certainly at Step 2 (Subject) they shouldn't. Rd232 ^talk 13:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I had considered a nice big arrow icon pointing at Create Article Now, but I couldn't find one and then forgot... Rd232 ^talk 13:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The solution to make it really work in a fully tabby way would be to merge the separate Notability pages into one, by section, so that when people choose a link at Step 2 it's a section link. But that would make the notability page quite long. Plus at Step 2 some of the links don't go to a Notability page - they go to a Don't Do That page. Rd232 ^talk 13:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

←Test run: yes, I see how it works now. I don't know if you need to change the way it works. I think a note after "This wizard will help you through the process of submitting a new article to Wikipedia." saying "Additional tabs will be enabled as you complete the wizard" would probably do the trick, if that doesn't create confusion of its own. :) I'm glad to see copyright covered, since that's the drum I bang, but I think that Wikipedia:Copyright problems is not a good forum to send people to ask questions. Typically, listings are not viewed by anybody for a week and a day after they are made, which could be pretty frustrating for people. Sadly, we don't have a general copyright forum like we do for media at WP:MCQ. Perhaps they should go to Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems? We can add a wizard to that page giving instructions on how to question. I think perhaps between "attributed and source quotation." and "Articles violating copyright..." you might want to add something like, "If you own the previously published material or have permission to reproduce it, permission must be verified. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials." -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, I've tried doing this: Wikipedia:Article wizard2.0/Wizard-Content. Not entirely convinced, but I think it's important not to overload the average user with points only relevant to a few. If you think it'll be better to point to Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems, with the addition of some instructions, sure; it was the best place I could find. I'm not convinced about referring explicitly to the tabs, I think that might confuse more people than it helps. A big arrow icon would be better - you don't have one do you? Rd232 ^talk 13:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I've pointed it to talk. I'll add instructions there; we've needed some anyway. I haven't got any arrows, big or little. :) My confusion with the tabs is that I was expecting it to function like Wikipedia:Introduction. If you think reference to "tabs" may be confusing, what about, "As each section is completed, the next will become available"? -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Found an arrow on the Commons, and added it Wikipedia:Article wizard2.0, though I can only get it to work within the button (tried to use a wikitable to align outside the button, but it just breaks). About the tabs, well they do look substantially different from the Introduction ones... I've aAdded your clarifying remarks as well, with a bit extra of my own. Rd232 ^talk 14:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. :) I'm off to add something help to WT:CP. -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd think that either graying out the upcoming tabs, or hiding them completely, would be best. I too wanted to click on a tab right away when I went to the Wizard for the first time, i.e. before clicking through it for the first time.
How about something like this: Wikipedia:Article wizard2.0/Wizard-Subject/sandbox (style hack, looks good in my Firefox with font size of 100%, but will probably display improperly in other browsers). Amalthea 14:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that's also good. I think the point here is to make things as clear and simple for people as possible. -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's good. And it works for me in Windows/Chrome and /IE8. Is it likely enough to cause problems to need lots of testing? Rd232 ^talk 14:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you grey the text a bit too? I think people are slightly more used to greyed-out text being a cue for "can't go there" than just a grey background. Rd232 ^talk 14:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

There are only slight display differences, compare my monobook display with my vector display: The active tab is either one pixel too high and shows a small border at the bottom, or one pixel too low with extremely big font sizes. All other browsers I just checked display it like my vector skin does. Both look acceptable I think, it's really a hack though, I merely tweaked two style values until it happened to look like what I was going for (my monobook version). :)
I tweaked the gray values to show the same shades my Firefox does with a disabled button, but feel free to tweak it as you like yourself. Amalthea 14:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks good enough to me - could be marginally prettier, but I wouldn't worry about the odd pixel... Do you want to go ahead and implement it? Rd232 ^talk 14:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Y Done then. :)
Are you planning to add the green arrow to all wizard buttons? I'd like that, I think it helps to figure out where to continue. Amalthea 14:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I wasn't, because you'd end up with 2-7 green arrows, which I think would visually overwhelm the page, and perhaps encourage people too much to click without reading. It works on the first page because there's only one choice within the wizard (the other links exit the wizard). Rd232 ^talk 14:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

← Compare WP:Article wizard2.0/Wizard-Subject with WP:Article wizard2.0/Wizard-Subject/sandbox. You may be right that it might encourage people to just read the buttons if it's obvious where to continue, but on the other hand, if they are inclined to do that, they are probably going to either way. The wizard is already in danger of being WP:TLDR, I'm afraid. To me, the list of buttons isn't particularly appealing, and I'd rather change it somehow. I like the arrows, or we might be able to style nicer buttons with some site-wide css in Common.css, but it's your call. Amalthea 15:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, I'm on the fence. Anyone else have an opinion? About WP:TLDR - well of course you can wave TLDR at a TLA ... :) the question is what can be done to improve the balance between giving too much info and too little, or otherwise finding ways to improve the tradeoff (presenting info better). Suggestions welcome. Rd232 ^talk 15:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I find the green arrows visually appealing. Avoiding TLDR is always going to be hard when there's so much information to convey. I think the wizard does a pretty good job of it, though I don't doubt that things can always be done more succinctly. -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, green arrows it is. Don't forget to update the image links, if you haven't done already (so clicking the arrow goes to the right place). Rd232 ^talk 15:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like I'm doing it? :)
 Doing... Amalthea 16:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmpf, I made more mistakes than I should have, but  Done now. I think the nice green arrow should somehow be worked into the last page Wikipedia:Article wizard2.0/Wizard-Ready for submission as well, to present a clear flow to the eventual article. Amalthea 16:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, good stuff, and you're right about the last page. But how to make the green arrow align with anything is a mystery to me: eg the wikitable doesn't work in the wizard. Rd232 ^talk 17:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

? Whatever strange thing you did, it clearly works. :) Rd232 ^talk 21:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh, yeah, passing tables as template parameters is a huge pain. You have to escape pretty much everything, which is what {{ !}} and {{ !-}} are for. Trying to use them directly gets the pipes misinterpreted as template parameter separators.
I've added the arrow to the last page as well, with rather big arrows – feel free to tweak as you like, of course. Cheers, Amalthea 21:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah I get it now you've explained. NB not that it matters but the alignment on the lower arrow's not quite right. Arrow size seems good - the user's earned a big arrow by then! Rd232 ^talk 21:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Category:Welcome templates / Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates. There are loads of these, but some are more obvious candidates than others: {{ Firstarticle}}; {{ Welcome}}; {{ W-graphical}}; {{ W-basic}}; {{ W-screen}}
• Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace / Category:User warning templates. In particular {{ Uw-create1}} and 2; most of the CSD nomination and deletion templates
• Help pages. eg Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Introduction 2; Wikipedia:Maintenance; Wikipedia:Starting an article; Wikipedia:Your first article
• MediaWiki messages ( Special:AllMessages); notably MediaWiki:Searchmenu-new; MediaWiki:Noexactmatch; MediaWiki:Newarticletext.
• Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Wizard-Already Registered (done); maybe other pages in WP:AFC.

Rd232 ^talk 17:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Help desk template: {{ HD/new}} ---—  Gadget850 (Ed)  ^talk 22:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Done

• Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Wizard-Already Registered, WP:AFC
• {{ Uw-create1}} to 3.
• CSD: {{ nn-welcome}}, {{ nn-warn}}; {{ test1article}}/2, {{ spam-warn}}, {{ empty-warn}}, {{ nonsensepage}}, {{ nn-warn-deletion}}, {{ empty-warn-deletion}}, {{ nonsense-warn-deletion}}, {{ Nn-warn-reason}}, {{ Db-nonsense-notice}}; db notices: bio/test/spam/web/notability/inc/club/band/nocontent/nocontext {{ bio-warn}}, {{ Autobio-warn}}, {{ Web-warn}}, {{ Nocontent-warn}}, {{ Nocontent-notice}}
• {{ Firstarticle}}; {{ W-graphical}}; {{ W-screen}}
• Wikipedia:Introduction 2; Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Tutorial (Wrap-up and more info); Wikipedia:Article creation; Wikipedia:Starting an article; Wikipedia:Your first article; Help:Contents/Getting started; Wikipedia:FAQ
• Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia talk:Starting an article; Template:Editnotices/Page/Help talk:Contents
• {{ HD/new}}
• {{ Creation}}
• MediaWiki:Noexactmatch; MediaWiki:Noarticletext; MediaWiki:Searchmenu-new
• {{ Welcome}};

Future

• {{ W-basic}}
• Help:Starting a new page

Done

• I've just noticed I've left in references to the old Article Wizard on the relevant notability pages. Probably they should come out. Rd232 ^talk 13:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• On Wikipedia:Article wizard2.0/Wizard-Sources I'd like to boxout the good/bad source examples on the right-hand side, to make the page cleaner. Can't see how to do it. Rd232 ^talk 17:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Done that - {{ quote box2}} does the job. Rd232 ^talk 20:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Trying to summarise and move forward:

1. Are there too many steps? What, if any, steps can be usefully combined, bearing in mind WP:TLDR?
2. Are the steps in the right order? In particular, should Sources precede Notability?
3. The template currently refers to the <ref></ref> system; should this be dropped as confusing for newbies, or supplemented with a Sources section ("use whichever you're comfortable with", perhaps?)
4. Is it worth doing different templates for different article types? Is it worth doing before putting it live? Either way, which article types, and how would the templates differ?
5. How can the edit instructions ( Wikipedia:Article wizard2.0/Wizard-New edit instructions) be improved? It certainly needs the image updating ( Image:ArticlesForCreationEntry2.JPG, now commented out, was borrowed from the original AFC wizard and is perhaps more confusing than helpful now) - but the image can only be done once the template has been finalised.
6. Copyediting and general improvement, of course.
7. Encourage editors to search for alternatives first? See section Wikipedia:Article wizard#Does the page already exist? in the Wikipedia:Article wizard.
8. Name: currently housed at Wikipedia:Article wizard2.0 (to avoid clashing with the original Wikipedia:Article wizard). It's been suggested that an additional space would be better ( Wikipedia:Article wizard 2.0), but alternatively, it could replace the Wikipedia:Article wizard, which seems not to be under particularly active development or promotion what links there (and currently has shortcuts WP:WIZ and WP:WIZARD).
9. What else needs doing to the wizard?
10. How/where will the wizard be promoted once finished? Welcome templates and various parts of the MediaWiki interface (eg search results) seem a good start.

Rd232 ^talk 18:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Well on point 7 I've added a Search First section to Wikipedia:Article wizard2.0/Wizard-Subject. On points 43 and 5 I've tweaked the edit instructions a bit - good enough now perhaps. I've also added an External Links section to the preload template; I wasn't sure whether to do it before; but I guess articles that don't need it where the editor doesn't delete it, someone else will. Perhaps one for the user feedback. Rd232 ^talk 13:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding #2 (order of notability and sources) – I like the current order. I’d hate to have someone do the effort to dredge up sources, then find that the subject isn’t notable. (obviously, the reverse can happen, but IMO, it is slightly less likely.) This path is less burdensome.

Regarding #4, I hope to work on something on Friday, if that isn’t too late. SPhilbrick T 17:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, we can wait for that - WP:Deadline... I'll try and make a list of places to promote it by then. Rd232 ^talk 15:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thought: at least some of the "fail" pages (not-notable, no-sources, etc) can be merged, using sectionlinks ( bla#bla). Rd232 ^talk 01:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: see Category:Articles created via the Article Wizard. Rd232 ^talk 15:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Todo

• I've also added a shortcut ( WP:WIZGO) to Wikipedia:Article wizard2.0/Wizard-Ready for submission, as some more experienced users who don't want to walk through the steps might find the preload template useful. And I figure the less experienced users won't notice the shortcut, and therefore won't use it to skip steps they shouldn't. Anyone disagree? Rd232 ^talk 16:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Another thing: we could do with an explanatory image on the edit instruction template ( Wikipedia:Article wizard2.0/Wizard-New edit instructions), like the AFC wizard has: Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Wizard-New edit instructions. Any volunteers? Rd232 ^talk 15:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Please comment at the relevant MediaWiki interface talk pages, where I've proposed adding a reference to the Wizard: MediaWiki:Noexactmatch; MediaWiki:Noarticletext; MediaWiki:Searchmenu-new - especially Noexactmatch as it's part of a redesign proposal. Also because {{ Welcome}} is fully protected and widely used I've posted on talk there first - please comment there too. cheers. Rd232 ^talk 16:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Should the mainspace and userspace create boxes (at Step 6) be the other way round? Rd232 ^talk 17:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

New article name here has now been salted, since it was already created once (by an established editor, weirdly enough). However, I'm wondering whether it shouldn't be unprotected with an Editnotice at {{ Editnotices/Page/New article name here}} to bring people back to the wizard. It's a dead end ATM.
Amalthea 12:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well people often ignore editnotices, and the people rushing enough not to change the name in the box before submitting are more likely than most to do so... How about making it a page that explains what they've done wrong, and leaving it protected? I know technically it's in mainspace so we shouldn't, but, that aside it's the best solution I think. Rd232 ^talk 12:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that won't be possible in main space. I personally would oppose it, and I can't see it survive an AfD/MfD.
You're certainly right that editnotices are ignored often enough. If it's made intrusive enough, i.e. even more so than Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia talk:Questions, then it should stop most people I think, and if enough admins keep this page on their watchlist (like I preemptively did) to react to the ones who don't ...
I don't know. Was just a thought. :) Amalthea 13:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I suppose we'd need a new MediaWiki notice or something to replace the Deleted Page notice - MediaWiki:ArticleThatShouldn'tExist... :) But OK, if you can make an edit notice that dramatic, go for it... You could also ask Help Desk regulars to watchlist it, and see how it goes. Rd232 ^talk 13:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Editnotices are a technical solution to a social problem, thus will never be a total solution. I think Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia talk:Signatures is a good compromise— no garish icons, but a noticeable color and long enough to make the editor scroll past it. ---—  Gadget850 (Ed)  ^talk 16:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

In this case a massive garish icon seems called for: Template:Editnotices/Page/New article name here. Unprotected, let's see how it goes. Rd232 ^talk 21:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

General questions

1. Name: currently housed at Wikipedia:Article wizard2.0 (to avoid clashing with the original Wikipedia:Article wizard). It's been suggested that an additional space would be better ( Wikipedia:Article wizard 2.0), but alternatively, it could replace the Wikipedia:Article wizard, which seems not to be under particularly active development or promotion what links there (and currently has shortcuts WP:WIZ and WP:WIZARD).
2. Are there too many steps? What, if any, steps can be usefully combined, bearing in mind WP:TLDR?
3. Are the steps in the right order? In particular, should Sources precede Notability?
4. The template currently refers to the <ref></ref> system; should this be dropped as confusing for newbies, or supplemented with a Sources section ("use whichever you're comfortable with", perhaps?)
5. Is it worth doing different preload templates for different article types? Which article types, and how would the templates differ?

Todo

1. I've added a shortcut ( WP:WIZGO) to Wikipedia:Article wizard2.0/Wizard-Ready for submission, as some more experienced users who don't want to walk through the steps might find the preload template useful. And I figure the less experienced users won't notice the shortcut, and therefore won't use it to skip steps they shouldn't. Anyone disagree?
2. Another thing: we could do with an explanatory image on the edit instruction template ( Wikipedia:Article wizard2.0/Wizard-New edit instructions), like the AFC wizard has: Image:ArticlesForCreationEntry2.JPG at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Wizard-New edit instructions. Any volunteers?
3. Please comment at the relevant MediaWiki interface talk pages, where I've proposed adding a reference to the Wizard: MediaWiki:Noexactmatch; MediaWiki:Noarticletext; MediaWiki:Searchmenu-new - especially Noexactmatch as it's part of a redesign proposal.
4. Should the mainspace and userspace create boxes (at Step 6) be the other way round?
5. Category:Articles created via the Article Wizard and Category:Unreviewed new articles. Is this approach good? What can we do to advertise these as cat's that need processing?

I've archived some threads pretty quickly ( Wikipedia talk:Article wizard2.0/Archive 1) to help focus on Things That Need Doing. If I missed anything, sorry. Rd232 ^talk 19:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Suddenly spotted a flaw in the Wizard: [2] [3] when the "New Article" clashes with an existing one (particularly the case for common person names, perhaps). How can we deal with that? We need to adjust the guidance, at minimum. Rd232 ^talk 20:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

What about changing "You will be taken to an edit page where you can enter your article and sources" to something like, "If there is not already an article there, you will be taken to an edit page where you can enter your article and sources. If there is already an article there, and it is not about your subject, you may need to "disambiguate" the title by adding a description in parentheses after the name. For example, "Nora Smith (author)"" A link to Wikipedia:Disambiguation can help. I wouldn't be surprised if you can find a less wordy to say this. :) -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm quite pleased with myself (hence changing the header!): I've got it so Wikipedia:Article wizard2.0/Wizard-New edit instructions now loads an "oh no, the page exists!" ( Wikipedia:Article wizard2.0/Wizard-New edit instructionsB) if appropriate, otherwise it loads the edit instructions (now at Wikipedia:Article wizard2.0/Wizard-New edit instructionsA). Rd232 ^talk 21:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Which leads to how to deal with disambiguation. ---—  Gadget850 (Ed)  ^talk 22:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ye-es. What do you mean exactly? Wikipedia:Article wizard2.0/Wizard-New edit instructionsB currently points people in the right direction without going into detail. Rd232 ^talk 22:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Slight not-so-coolness: semi-protected pages give an unfriendly "semi-protected" message. Which incidentally is a bit confusing for newly registered users, it says in top in big bold letters "established registered users" can edit, but only the registered users part is wikilinked. Test03984102834 ( talk) 20:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Folks, I cannot emphasis this enough, on this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_wizard2.0/Wizard-Ready_for_submission

Can you all change this to redirect to the editors userified page please? I know how to do it if you would like me too.

On average 67% of all new articles which are put up for deletion are by new editors, and this is not including the speedy deleted articles.

Allowing editors sometime to work out the problems before the article goes live, will help retain new editors, and lower the amount of work that editors have to do in Speedy deletions and in AfDs.

If you notice, the MediaWiki:Newarticletext‎ above all new articles already states:

You can also start your new article at Special:MyPage/Shgfsahdgiuoh. You can develop the article, with less risk of deletion, ask other editors to help work on it, and move it into "article space" when it is ready.

For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Shgfsahdgiuoh&action=edit&redlink=1 Ikip ( talk) 18:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've thought about that. I don't think we should take away the option to make new articles live, but we could direct users more strongly to the userspace draft option. In conjunction with that we should also improve the "after care" - clearer directions on what to do once they've created a userspace draft and how to put it live (perhaps Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft...). Rd232 ^talk 18:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft would be a very good link for the userspace template that's preloaded for userspace drafts - if anyone wants to make it. Rd232 ^talk 18:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how new of project this is, but how many editors have used this page to actually create an article? Of those editors who have used this page how many editors contributions have been speedied or deleted? Is there anyway to measure such numbers (maybe I should ask at WP:VPT)

I LOVE this concept BTW. Ikip ( talk) 18:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The only way I can think of to track this is to preload a hidden category such as Articles created with the Article Wizard. ---—  Gadget850 (Ed)  ^talk 18:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

We currently have (preloaded) Category:Articles created via the Article Wizard, Category:Unreviewed new articles, and Category:Userspace drafts created via the Article Wizard. There's a limit to how much that helps with tracking deletions though. Rd232 ^talk 18:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I will start on the Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft. Ikip ( talk) 20:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I just started: Wikipedia:So you made a user subpage draft I will ask some other editors to help, they are better and writing policy. I welcome any help you can provide. Ikip ( talk) 20:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest leaving "how to create" out of it - this is covered elsewhere (can link to it) and the target audience (for me) is people who've already created one. Rd232 ^talk 22:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, but where is that covered elsewhere. Maybe I can beef up WP:Subpage? Ikip ( talk) 01:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I've expanded Wikipedia:So you made a user subpage draft a lot, enough to justify adding it to {{ Userspace draft}}. Comments/amendments welcome. Rd232 ^talk 20:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, I've tried creating {{ New unreviewed article}} to make it easier and clearer how to review new articles (in particular by making it easier to remove articles from the Category:Unreviewed new articles since it's now part of the template). I've added it to the article skeleton ( template:Article wizard/skeleton). I'm not totally sure about this in its current form; perhaps it can be improved. Any thoughts? Rd232 ^talk 17:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I actually don't like the function of it at this point. Take a look at WP:FEED. Even before this template was made, there were requests that were posted that went unanswered and are now in the archives. In the past two days there have been probably a dozen requests, where normally there might be 1 a day. I understand you'd like to see somebody review the articles that these people are creating, but that's sort of what new page patrol is for (to an extent). I actually posted on your talk page, too. Killiondude ( talk) 03:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, so it seems there are two main questions arising. (a) should we have a template like this at all; is it a supplement to New Page Patrol, or duplication? (b) If we have the template, should it link to WP:FEED, or perhaps somewhere else (eg Wikipedia:New contributors' help page)?

My answers would be that in the short term at least, Category:Unreviewed new articles has been and continues to be useful in developing and improving the Wizard, to track new pages made through it (as distinct from the category Category:Articles created via the Article Wizard which covers all pages made through it). And a template is a better way of adding/to removing from the category than just adding the category directly, as was the situation initially. In the longer term, the duplication of NPP arises, but I could still see advantages to having such a template, both for readers and for new contributors. The question is perhaps more about the additional cost imposed on new page patrollers - what proportion of pages are simply marked "patrolled" without editing (once editing, removing the template is very little cost, and if adding a cleanup tag it actually saves typing the curly brackets)? And what proportion of those patrolled-without-editing pages should actually be tagged for cleanup in some way?

Secondly, if FEED is undermanned and can't handle the new traffic, my inclination would be to try harder to get more people involved. But maybe directing to Wikipedia:New contributors' help page or even to a completely place would be better. I don't have a strong opinion on that, as long as the template sends people somewhere where they can get an appropriate response. Rd232 ^talk 10:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

While Wikipedia:New contributors' help page is probably staffed better than WP:FEED, I don't see that as a food reason to change the direct. While I expect that the Wizard will be sued by new contributors, it is very possible it will be used by established ones as well, maybe existing established ones, or new ones who become established and continue to use it. While a minor point, they might still want feedback, but are no longer new contributors. Plus, both Help and NC Help are more for specific questions, while Feed is more for generic feedback. So Feed is the right place, we just have to figure out how to staff it correctly.

I'll try talking to the NPP, but if you have other thoughts, I'm listening.-- SPhilbrick T 21:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I actually already had the idea of creating an intermediate page, rather than linking straight to WP:FEED. A first stab at it looks like this: Wikipedia:Where to get feedback on your new article which seems good enough to replace the direct FEED link in the template, so I did. Could be much improved though I'm sure. Rd232 ^talk 00:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That's good and should help. I like the idea of directing them to project pages. Mulling over how to expand that a bit.

Having seen it on some new articles from the Alexbot new article search, I went looking for info on it. I think it's disappointing that it has it been deployed, but Template talk:New unreviewed article is blank and so is the /doc page? Why did I need to do a "what links here" search on the template and then look at 3 or 4 pages to find this discussion page? Come on, get your documentation in place before you release something like this. Not everyone knows about these parts/projects and why/how/where this template pops up. Explain yourself! The-Pope ( talk) 15:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Touché. That didn't occur to me - thanks for pointing it out. Done. Rd232 ^talk 10:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I see that you've changed up the template a little bit. I like this better than how it was. FEED certainly has been getting a lot of requests still, but it appears that helpers (maybe from the help desk?) have been responding very quickly. I'm liking it. :-) Killiondude ( talk) 20:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I made an image for the edit instructions Wikipedia:Article wizard 2.0/Wizard-New edit instructions A ( File:Article Wizard 2.0 graphic.jpg). The labels seemed a bit hard to read so I then did File:Article Wizard 2.0 graphic2.jpg. What do people think? Rd232 ^talk 15:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I have seen more mistakes and blank pages (e.g. this and this) created out of this wizard then useful new articles. Of course, I generally patrol edits by new users, who may not be the best audience for the Wizard, but in general, I think it's doing more harm than good. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 17:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

New users are exactly the audience for the Wizard. How we can improve it to reduce this issue? Perhaps we should try harder to direct users to userspace drafts? At present the "live option" is presented first (at the final step), with the userspace option below. Rd232 ^talk 19:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added an Are You Ready box [4] to the Intro page. I'd like to shunt it off to the right-hand side, but it mucks up the button formatting. Can anyone make that happen? Rd232 ^talk 19:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorted by Gadget850. Rd232 ^talk 10:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see much more encouragement to place the article in user space first. In fact, I'm leaning toward saying it ought to be the only option, but there's one technical nit—if it goes into user space, and the editor gets it to the point it is ready, the way to move it to article space is a move, and a brand-new editor cannot move for four days. Yes, I know others can do it for you, but I've seen dozens of examples of new editors asking about the move button, then having to get someone else to do it for them. I think I understand that the four day limit is because a move can create some problems, and we don't want day one editors trying to move pages around. If I were to go to Village Pump and propose that newly registered users could see the move button on day one ONLY on user subpages, so they could create an article and move it when ready, would that be a stupid idea? Other than the technical issues involved, are there bad things that could happen if a user had the ability to move an article into main space on day 2? It isn't the main space issue, as we will let them create a new page in main space on day one, but are there any down sides to allowing moves only from user space to main space (but not allowing moves from main space to main space on day one?-- SPhilbrick T 15:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The move restriction could be weakened, to allow users to move pages out of their userspace into mainspace. That would be helpful, I think - why not propose it? As for making it the only option in the wizard - I don't think that's a good idea; but I'll try a sandbox version of making the userspace option more prominent and desirable. Rd232 ^talk 10:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering about adding a new category to Step 2: "Something I invented or created". We see a lot of this with new pages (new drinking game, new drink, new software, etc.). Singularity42 ( talk) 20:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That could be an expansion of Wikipedia:Article wizard2.0/Wizard-Neologisms, currently linked as "I'm writing about a NEW PHRASE/WORD". It could become "I'm writing about a NEW PHRASE/WORD/IDEA" or perhaps "I'm writing about a NEW THING I'VE HEARD OR CREATED". The target page would need re-writing accordingly. Rd232 ^talk 20:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking that as well. The problem I run into sometimes is some of our new editors try to distinguish between "idea" and "object" (probably because of their own involvment with the subject) - i.e. "This article is about an idea I have for a cool game" vs. "This article is about this cool game (I happened to invent yesterday)". Maybe "I'm writing about a NEW PHRASE, WORD, IDEA, INVENTION, OR CREATION", with the necessary expansion of the subsequent explanation? Singularity42 ( talk) 21:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Never mind, my proposal is too wordy. "...NEW THING I'VE HEARD OR CREATED" sounds about right :) Singularity42 ( talk) 21:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

How about "NEW PHRASE/WORD or NEW CREATION"? Rd232 ^talk 08:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds about right. Singularity42 ( talk) 03:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

OK - do you want to draft a new page? You can copy Wikipedia:Article wizard2.0/Wizard-Neologisms to Wikipedia:Article wizard2.0/Wizard-Neologisms/Sandbox. Rd232 ^talk 09:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

This would be a good resource: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. (You're probably aware.) Rd232 ^talk 10:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll see if I can come up with something this weekend. Singularity42 ( talk) 19:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

copied from User talk:Viriditas

thanks for the comments! I'm not entirely sure what you mean by tailoring it for WikiProject Hawaii though. What do you have in mind? There has been some discussion ( WT:WIZ2) about adopting templates for different types of article (eg companies) but I'm not sure how adopting for a topic would look. I suggest raising this at WT:WIZ2; you could copy an existing part of the wizard (see the documentation link at the top of that talk page) to a sandbox if it helps. cheers, Rd232 ^talk 05:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

What I'm talking about is using Article wizard 2.0 for project-specific article creation, such that the subject, notability, sources, and content parameters can include entries that are populated by a file in WikiProject space. This would allow our new and technically-challenged editors to work with prompts, such as stub tags (Hawaii politician, Hawaii radio station, Hawaii geography, Hawaiian royalty) categories ( Category:Hawaii), sources (many of our Hawaii articles use a limited set of sources, and we have resource pages that could be used to lookup pre-formatted references to add them to the page) and content (we could recommend creating a DYK and provide a wizard for that process as well, and have a "proofreader" script check information for accuracy and compliance). Depending on what Hawaii subtopic the user is writing about, we could recommend contacting a specific user on the project for review or questions. For example, if someone not too familiar with Maui was creating a stub, it would be nice for my name to come up as a contact person for questions or help if they needed it, etc. The members of WikiProject Hawaii have specific skill sets and interests, and users should be able to tap into it for help. If a project wanted to use the article wizard in their project, they would simply maintain a file with the appropriate parameters, and the wizard would use that file to populate the fields for that project. That way, any project could use the wizard customized for their project/topic. Eventually, with enough connections, you could turn this into an expert system, and given enough input, the system could write an outline, create an infobox, check against assessment criteria, etc. Viriditas ( talk) 05:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That sounds pretty tricky to implement (especially given the limitations of the MediaWiki software - its not designed for this sort of thing), and I'm not entirely convinced it would be worth the effort to standardise that much. I can see contacting specific users (or at least pointing to wikiprojects for certain topics) being useful though, and that can be tacked on relatively easily, in the form of a post-creation step where users choose their topic to get specific help/contact pages (including stub notice links etc perhaps). Do you want to move this discussion to WT:WIZ2? Rd232 ^talk 05:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it's ok. I think the best way to address my point is to expand the "What is your proposed article about?" section. You've got a really limited set of topics listed there. Granted, you're trying to appeal to a very limited user subset, one who wants to write about their business or favorite band, but I think you should also make an effort to attract users who are experts in their fields but lack the technical knowledge to create articles. Right now, the user is presented with choices for creating articles about companies, biographies, websites, phrases, and music, but that is really the lowest common denominator. In my experience, there are many experts who would love to contribute to topics in history, science, math, and art, but lack the skills to do so, and I think this tool could help them, which is why there should be a way for WikiProjects to provide wizards for their subject area that would link into the primary tool. Viriditas ( talk) 06:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

We have a suggestion here to expand the way the wizard works to allow it to be adapted much more specifically to different topics. I'm not sure about how to do that without complicating things and/or lots of work. I do like the idea of pointing people to wikiprojects for feedback/follow up, in addition to WP:FEED; maybe we can link this with the new user-subpage-draft guide being created above. It could be an extra page mentioned in the edit instructions, as a sort of What Next page. Rd232 ^talk 06:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually one thing I'm seeing is a need perhaps to help people make redirects - that's currently not covered and you see people creating redirects with the whole preload template in there. Rd232 ^talk 01:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Whilst the {{ tooltip}} thing is undeniably cool, I'm nonetheless not convinced this expansion of the Subject page [5] is entirely a good idea. NPOV is something that comes later (and isn't all that important at the creation stage, really, for the level of competence of users we're aiming at), and Verifiability and OR are basically variations on the theme of the Sources page. I think this is complexity which is better hidden, to focus on the notability issue which that Subject step is about. I'm a bit wary of the natural tendency for Wikipedia pages to complexify and grow over time - this will gradually reduce the Wizard's usability if we're not vigilant. Anyone else have views on this particular change? Rd232 ^talk 01:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, pages have a tendency to sprawl sometimes and start including more and more side notes but if this page was a meal, we forgot to serve the main dish. In other words, being vigilant to keep this as simple as possible but include the bare necessities is a valid concern but without something like this, new users were presented with a gaping hole because the content I added is the heart of the set of minimal information to provide people if we're describing our "content inclusion" policies in an introduction and overview, as the page functions and should function as the first page they meet. I did it, I think, in an extremely parsimonious manner (purposefully so), mindful of the same concern you are expressing here. The page actually was deceptive in implying that our content inclusion guidelines are limited to and called "notability" (which is the subject of the next page, not this one). This wizard is set to function as a person's first contact with what articles are required to include (and not include), and I can't see how we can do that properly without at least mentioning our core content inclusion policies, again, done here in a minimalistic fashion. Two more things: human nature being what it is, many people will more thoroughly read, and click through to the links provided, on the first content page of the wizard than the second page, and more of the second page than the third, and so on down the line. Getting the core out there on the overview page at least gets people to look at the heart of what we're about before being funneled into other matters about process. Second and relatedly, in later pages of the wizard there are numerous other guidelines and policies linked and we, as experienced users, know which are the core and which are lower echelon explanation pages and subsets of those core policies. New users haven't a clue. This is the only way we start them on understanding a hierarchy because all or most of those later policies/essays/guidelines/process pages flow out of and relate to the wellspring these policy pages represent.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 23:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's a well-argued reply, but you're missing a key point I think: that page (and the entire focus of the wizard) isn't on content inclusion generally, it's on subject inclusion (i.e. notability of the proposed article's subject, and the sourcing needed to demonstrate that notability). Everything else is secondary from the point of view of the user; WP:V and WP:OR are specific policies on the idea of Thou Shalt Source, which we don't need to present at this point (Step 2), because the wizard is not the WP:Tutorial. The wizard is fundamentally about notability, because it's fundamentally about getting an article started if an article on the subject is justified. We can (probably should) expand the fifth step ( Wikipedia:Article wizard 2.0/Wizard-Content) to note V, OR and perhaps clarify NPOV - but these, WP:5P or not, are secondary in the wizard's purpose. So I'm still inclined, when I have the time, to migrate these things from Step 2 to Step 5. Rd232 ^talk 11:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I've removed it from the Subject page where it clearly doesn't belong, but I really can't see where it needs to be included. WP:NOT is too unfriendly to newbies; don't want to direct them there (and judging by the Wizard output, it's not really needed). Verifiability is already linked from the Sources page. WP:NOR is clearly covered on the Sources page, and I'm reluctant to introduce the terminology and link there, because it will (a) complicate things and (b) weaken the force of the "Thou Shalt Source" point. Also, again, judging by the Wizard output, it's not that big of an issue. I've expanded the NPOV paragraph on the Content page slightly. Rd232 ^talk 11:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(moved from Wikipedia:Article wizard 2.0/Userfeedback)

This should be removed, or at least commented out. Far, far too many new articles are showing up with this as a link. 98.248.33.198 ( talk) 19:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well it's a case of "you're damned if you do, you're damned if you don't". When there was no External Links section, there were too many people squishing external links whereever, usually mixing them up with References. I think this is a little better now - and "example.com" is a lesser problem I think. Perhaps the edit instructions should be clearer somehow? Rd232 ^talk 20:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

At least place the link within <!-- ... --> comment brackets. That way people can see the example without it showing up when they save the page. 98.248.33.198 ( talk) 20:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I just tried doing that, and I couldn't see how to do it without it being even more confusing to newbies. I've revised the Wikipedia:Article wizard 2.0/Wizard-New edit instructions A though to hopefully make this clearer and more prominent. Rd232 ^talk 20:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You could make an edit filter that flags those sorts of edits, where a page is created with example.com in it. The filter could still allow the edit, while giving a place where more experienced Wikipedians can see which articles have it, and they can fix it. I'm not too savvy on how those filters are made, however. Killiondude ( talk) 21:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

One can already see which articles have such a link via Special:LinkSearch/*.example.com. It doesn't allow namespace filtering due to some pretty ancient optimization, manual filtering just lead to the following 134 articles: User:Amalthea/Sandbox. Some of them use it legitimately, of course. Amalthea 21:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know that special page existed. Learn something new everyday. :-) Killiondude ( talk) 22:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Nor does it seem to be completely accurate - User:Peregrinusss, User:Octane/userboxes, User:Guardians611, Template:Infobox martial artist, etc. don't contain the word "example", for example. 98.248.33.198 ( talk) 22:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it is, look at the HTML source of the pages you named and search for example.com. Template:Infobox martial artist for example transcludes its documentation page which is displaying an exemplary infobox with the link. Links are counted on all pages where the external link is rendered as an active link, not where it appears in the page wikitext. Amalthea 22:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't go as far as the HTML - I just opened an "edit this page" window and did a search for "example." It may appear on a related/transcluded documentation page, but it doesn't appear on the page itself. The basic point is that the LinkSearch page is pretty much useless for identifying and removing random instances of example.com showing up on articles created with the Wizard. 98.248.33.198 ( talk) 23:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not perfect, but not useless either, if you limit yourself to the pages in mainspace. You'll get a couple false positives like on example.com or Hyperlink, but most others are wizard pages or accidental insertions via the edit toolbar (the latter should mostly be tagged as test edits via Special:AbuseFilter/18 as well). Amalthea 23:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

<-- outdent -> But given there is no namespace filtering, one would have to slog through thousands of results that are there and hope one doesn't miss the mainspace entries as one's eyes glaze over. Not unlike the Recent Changes page. :D 98.248.33.198 ( talk) 23:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively, use Google: [6]. There you've got to slog through speedy deleted entries not yet eliminated from Google though. Which leads me to the suggestion that we could include {{ NOINDEX}} in the {{ new unreviewed article}} template. Good idea? Maybe combined with some kind of date-dependent template or bot so the noindexing is only temporary, in case {{ new unreviewed article}} stays in the article for a long time? Rd232 ^talk 11:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

__NOINDEX__ doesn't work in main space. Amalthea 11:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I guess you're right, but I can't find this recorded anywhere. (Like, say, {{ NOINDEX}}, where it would be helpful!) Rd232 ^talk 11:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. It's a configuration issue, controlled by $wgExemptFromUserRobotsControl, which defaults to $wgContentNamespaces, which is set to main space on almost all WikiMedia projects – see here and here. I've added something to the template doc. Amalthea 12:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. I guess if we wanted the functionality suggested, we'd need to file a bug and be very patient... Rd232 ^talk 12:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Could apply it to the userspace drafts, though. Rd232 ^talk 20:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Which I've now done (via {{ Userspace draft}}. Rd232 ^talk 14:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Noting User:Black Kite's comment [7] on WT:CSD: "I have noticed that there has been a large increase in G11s since the New Article Wizard came into use; I'm guessing that previously people didn't understand how to write an article at all, and so they got deleted under other criteria, but with the NAW they're now writing articles that are flagrantly promotional, but otherwise hit the guidelines." This suggests an area we can try and improve - suggestions welcome. Rd232 ^talk 08:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

As previously threatened, I've redesigned Wikipedia:Article wizard 2.0/Wizard-Ready for submission to give more prominence to the userspace draft option. Unfortunately I couldn't get my table to work right - I wanted a {{ tmbox}} style box around the two options (not including the tmbox icon though, obviously). Also, in reducing the window width, the page breaks somewhere between 1024x768 and 800x600 resolutions (due to the fixed width of the input boxes). I think this is OK, it's still usable at 800x600, and we can't worry about iphones etc, can we? Anyway, feedback on this redesign? Rd232 ^talk 16:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(Moved from Feedback page).

• Wikipedia:Article wizard 2.0/Wizard-Biographical notability probably could benefit from having WP:BLP mentioned somewhere. bahamut0013 ^words _deeds 06:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I've added a reference to WP:BLP1E. Referencing BLP policy is exactly the sort of thing which adds massive complexity (if the newbies start reading it) with little conrete applicability, because it's mostly either a general sense that existing policies are applied more strictly (and nobody really knows what that means), or quite specific things not likely to be relevant at this stage. Rd232 ^talk 11:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion at WP:VPR leads me to say that we should explore talking to WikiProjects about creating specific Guides for Newbies for their topics. These will be helpful in all sorts of ways, linked within the Wizard and from {{ new unreviewed article}} and WP:So you made a userspace draft. Does anyone know if any projects already have such a thing? If not, does anyone want to create an outline template or guidance for wikiprojects to draw on in creating these? Rd232 ^talk 11:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

A comment on VPR leads to me look again at Wikipedia:Article wizard 2.0/Wizard-Not quite yet, and note that the {{ find}} template is less helpful than it might be, because it doesn't know what the user's looking for. Is there a way to use a search box and/or some Javascript so that the template can be loaded with the right search term? Rd232 ^talk 09:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(moved from Feedback)

Suggestion: Merge the "subject", "notability" and "content" tabs and simplify them a bit. Include a list of places to find good sources in the sources tab (Google scholar, Google news etc) and link to Help:Footnotes. Cut down the policy explanations and expand on how to do what the tab topic deals with. Tim Vickers ( talk) 20:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that merging would be a good idea in general - I think it's important to keep a balance between few steps, but each step understandable and clear, and that seems about right to me now. Additionally, there are five Notability pages at present, with substantial differences - merging these is not a trivial task and I don't think the result will be an improvement. That said, things that don't sound good when described may seem better when presented in draft form, if you want to have a go. cheers, Rd232 ^talk 20:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If you search for a term, like http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special%3ASearch&search=asfd+sadf+asdf&go=Go at the bottom of the page is an invitation to create the article. This really ought to link to the Wizard with the article title pre-populated, to cut down on the number of new articles that are being created without knowledge of the policies (which the Wizard at least tries to make a new editor understand). The reason I raise this is because of the RFC on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/new_users#Drive-by_tagging which identifies that a lot of new articles are being tagged. I believe less tagging of new articles would happen if this avenue for article creation went through the Wizard, so new editors were less likely to be ignorant of policies. BTW, how does one find the Wizard at the moment? Josh Parris 04:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I actually did this in mid-September, and it was undone a couple of days later. I think it bears more discussion on how to reference the Wizard on the Search page - I originally thought this would be quite important, and maybe it is. It is linked from the message shown when people are starting an article ( MediaWiki:Noarticletext), but by then it may already be too late - once presented with the editbox, I don't know that people pay much attention to the Noarticletext editnotice. Perhaps this should be specifically proposed to a wider audience at WP:VPR - if you'd like to do that. PS I've thought about how to get the article title prepopulated from a link like that to the edit box at the end of the Wizard - and I believe this is currently impossible using wikitext alone (Javascript might well be able to do it, or we could ask for a software tweak, but that's another ballgame). Rd232 ^talk 12:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)