Wikipedia talk:Article wizard/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Recent changes to Introduction

@Kudpung: I reverted back to the earlier version for a few different reasons. First, the new version was too lengthy and was becoming a wall of text. On my laptop monitor, I was no longer able to see the buttons without scrolling down, which I think would be a deterant to people actually getting to the next step of the wizard. Second, a lot of the new text was about what kinds of articles not to create on Wikipedia, which is covered in the subsequent steps of the wizard and thus redundant. Finally, while I appreciate the idea of adding some helpful video content, the two videos that were added were not relavent to article creation and thus I think would only be frustrating for someone hoping to learn how to create new articles on Wikipedia (which is the purpose of the wizard). Let's discuss potential changes to the wizard here before enacting them. Kaldari (talk) 18:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, Kaldari, with buttons that size it's hardly surprizing. The button sections are a total mess anyway. What those pages should have is much smaller buttons with a much shorter legend and a text description next to them, or even radio buttons. The changes I made were as much as I dared without causing a furor or finding and changing the CSS. Preferably I would have liked to change the pages anyway to comply with age old rules of graphic design while combining today's best web practices.

Please don't make it look as if I didn't ask for discussion on those changes, I kept the community informed and constantly invited comment. To discuss such changes, you first need to find people who have the time, the energy, and the initiative to discuss them. When someone comes up with an idea, dozens of people are ready to chime in and rip it apart, but when the time comes to actually carry out changes that get consensus, suddenly no one is around - Xaosflux and TonyBallioni can sing a song about it.

Two days to go, I hope you guys are still on the ball with the technical stuff. You still haven't published a time when the lever will be thrown. And if you don't tell us, there won't be any Wizard because it won't be linked to. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I prefer Kudpung's version because it actually looks less wall of text on my iPhone (desktop version of the site). Bullet points are easier to understand than paragraphs. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we could condense the somewhat long and repetative list ("it will probably be deleted", "it will probably be deleted", "it will probably be deleted") into a single bullet point. Kaldari (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 11 September 2017

Change "souces" to "sources" (in "Article wizard/Not quite yet" page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_wizard/Not_quite_yet) Gcgaudette (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Gcgaudette: Well spotted! -- John of Reading (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 September 2017

There is a spelling error in the second sentence under the subsection "Sources are (nearly) everything" of the Notability tab. I request a change of "Most articoles fail because they do..." to "Most articles fail because they do..." Thanks! TelosCricket (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Done by Jo-Jo Eumerus — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Adding a tour to "Search Wikipedia for alternative titles"

It's been suggested that the dead-end presented by searching for alternative titles on Wikipedia:Article wizard/Subject may not be a good user experience. Off the back of that, I have modified the inputbox extension to allow the addition of a tour parameter. I propose that we include the returnWizard tour. To see what this would look like, you can visit this page. Obviously the tour can be modified to suit -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 10:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Do you have an example inputbox available? I quite get my head round how the tour parameter works. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  12:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

"We can only create a redirect to an existing page on English Wikipedia"

I'm new and I'm a bit confused. What about the #RDIR lang:article as described here? Shouldn't this allow redirects to other languages? SafwatHalaby (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Interwiki links are a whole different thing to interwiki redirects, which are blind. I would strongly oppose a redirect to another language Wikipedia, even if it is a technical possibility. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  16:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Problem with Posting an Article

I read the instructions and my article is ready to post. But, I keep getting forwarded back to the same page I was on. How do I just post the article and go? I have limited time to spend on this. Ddaviswestny (talk) 12:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Ddaviswestny, Please see the header on this talk page: This page is for use of the developers of the Article Wizard only. DO NOT ADD ANY OTHER MESSAGES HERE.

I've checked the Wizard and it's working perfectly. If you have followed the Wizard, read the pages carefully, and pressed the right buttons, you will arrive at Wikipedia:Article wizard/Ready for submission. Your choice will be the first one of the two options. Enter the title of your article and keep following the instructions. Write or paste your page into the template, and keep following the instructions until you are ready to submit it for review. When you have submitted it for review, keep checking back for reviewers' comments - new articles are rarely ready for immediate publication. We are sorry if you don't have a lot of time, but this is an encyclopedia and it may well not be as easy to edit as a social media site - no new article is urgent. There is a button on the Wizard page that links you to our online help chat if you get stuck. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Simplification Proposal

In light of the positive feedback regarding WP:ACTRIAL, I felt the article wizard could use some simplification. I propose this for a few reasons, most of which are the perennial gripes about the outcome of the wizard. As I feel many would agree, the AfC backlog is riddled with troublesome submissions. Paid editing without disclosure, COI without disclosure, poor referencing (if any), etc. I created this proposed alternative (currently only the "A client" path is hooked up). I feel like this simplifies the onslaught of links the current wizard seems to have, and I also think it's gives a more frictionless path to disclosure. Also, it seems the current wizard "technically" has the user admit they have good references and all that, but it reads like a series of questions with very obvious answers. Paired on the back of WP:LANDING, I think this proposal also seems to "flow" more seamlessly. Anywho, I'm happy to talk more about my motivations, but feel it's best to get some initial feedback. Thanks in advance! (P.S. Obviously the content is mostly placeholder, I'm more trying to demonstrate the structure) Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 01:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I like it, and I would support a change to something like this. It essentially is an interactive flowchart pathway, and in doing so it simplifies the process of getting new editors to where they need to be and giving them the information that is essential to them, without overloading them with excess text and links that they are not going to bother reading. I'd suggest continuing work on it. — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 01:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I like it. Just before ACTRIAL went live, I reedited all the Wizard pages as much as I dared without raising contentious comments. If other people think it could do with more slimming down, go ahead! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• I am highly supportive of this, after seeing what Drewmutt has done (I saw it beforehand), I have expanded it slightly at WP:ARTWIZ3. Certain aspects such as the disclose COI mechanism now have preloaded links. I have rejiged the main start page with elements from the mainpage, made the buttons consistant etc. The article request has been directed to a feed (comments on this idea are appreciated). And several extra steps have been put in. The idea is that new users will receive less information, but it will be more targeted. (eg a student would be told about relevant policies for young people. A Professor would be told how our references are not quite the same as used in academia. You will note there is an option for experts, this will focus on WP:OR issues. and so on. Obviously this is more complicated from a design aspect, and may need twice as many subpages as before, so It is not finished yet. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  07:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Drewmutt & Aguyintobooks Looking at both of the mockups from the simplification and UI point of veiw I prefer Drewmutt's mockup. It does flow from the current landing page and contains a lot less wordy outlook. That said the help and go back buttons can be incorporated into Drewmutt's design to make it even better. A button for experienced users may be added to the front page of the design(Like in the current one) Forceradical (talk) 09:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Forceradical: The buttons I did are built on a direct fork of Drewmutts design, you should be able to change the header template to build it in. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  11:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

possible layout of initial pages

I have significantly decluttered the layout (see picture), basically there is the landing page (first page of this wizard, not 'THE landing page'). this gives basic initial information and has three links.

• Link to page request system. (the page request system demoed here is a two page flow to add a page to a page request page).
• Link to 'advanced user' wizard. (this has some options for making redirects, templates etc.)
• Link to continue with the wizard.

The next page gives a sandbox/wizard choice, in case people arn't ready yet.
This is followed by the 'search for an existing article' page. (which will of course use the new tour option by TNT). If the user finds an existing page they are directed to the community portal.
The next page is a simple 3 option conflict of interest test, which sends the user down one of three paths.

• No issue - carry on with the wizard
• paid editor - disclosure of paid editing
• COI editor - conflict of interest disclosure

Each path of disclosure gives instruction and auto-links to allow easy disclosure, and tells the user about policy.

Once the editor has disclosed, or if there was no disclosure, they are sent onto the notability tutorial and referencing tutorial before then creating a draft. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  14:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• I much prefer Drewmutt's version. It is simpler: i.e. less clicks. We want people to know the basics of our policies while still making it as easy as possible to create an article in good faith. It is also cleaner and meshes better with the design of the landing page. If there is a way to incorporate features such as pre-loaded links into his design, that'd be a plus. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• I concur with TonyBallioni. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• It should relatively easy to include the main improvements i made (buttons and links) into Drewmutts work-flow, but I for one would like the see that return button feature that TheresNoTime came up with intergrated also. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  18:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
• I've talked to Drewmutt about having the links eventually point to draftspace instead of the sandbox. I see that this hasn't been done; they all still point to Special:MyPage/sandbox. I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that there is consensus among people who review drafts that it's much better to have people create drafts in draftspace rather than their sandbox. It would certainly be ever-so-slightly less work if people are going to submit drafts through {{subst:submit}}, since the sandbox draft will end up in draftspace if there's any hope for it; also, draftspace has WP:NOTWEBHOST protection through g13, which last I heard, sandboxes lack. People are also more likely to collaborate outside of userspace than inside of it (I realize that there's little collaboration in draftspace, but I notice there's even less in userspace).

That being said, if the above wasn't an issue at all, I would prefer this over the current article wizard. It's better to have as few clicks as possible.  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 02:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Drewmutt has assured me he'll change the links I was concerned about (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Drewmutt/ArticleWizardRefactor-Proposal/Create here]) if he were to get consensus. I'm totally okay with it, now. -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 03:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• I don't like this at all. I and many users are vehemently against users earning money on the back of our volunteer efforts. We should not be encouraging paid editors. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

That being said, paid editors are going to edit, regardless of how much we tell them not to. I'd rather have them disclose it than not.— InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 20:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The idea is that we can track their edits with greater ease. Which makes it harder for them to blend in and subvert the community. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  21:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

That's not the point. Disclosing paid editing was a concession that was made. It was not supposed to be interpreted as a licence to practice or that paid editing should be so blatantly encouraged. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I don't think drewmutt means to encourage paid editing, but rather realizes it's going to happen whether or not we acknowledge. As someone who's helped in #wikipedia-en-help, you can trust me when I say that the most we can do to paid editing is drive it underground; it will never be eliminated entirely. It's much better to encourage people to admit they're being paid than to not acknowledge the practice.  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 02:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC) (corrected ping at 02:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC))

I dream of horses, The wording and layout should not appear as if we condone it (which we don't), or that we actively encourage it, which is how this wording and placement will be interpreted. While am heartily in favour of streamlining the Wizard, far reaching changes like this need to be very carefully studied and perhaps by people with experience in communication. Web design is one thing, writing good instructions while keeping them succinct is another - something we at Wikipedia are not very good at. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I'm curious as to how you would word it, or at least how you think the wording encourages paid editing.  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 03:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

My approach to communication is pragmatic: I first look at statements from the perspective of how they can be misinterpreted. I see this as being read: 'Wow! I can make money out of editing Wikipedia? Cool' . We already have admins, New Page Reviewers, Autopatrolled, and OTRS agents advertising their services. I resent spendig 1,000s of hours of my volunteer time giving them a platform to make fast big bucks. (or even slow ones). There are already RfCs on Meta discussing the introduction of more curbs. We should not rush into things, and while keeping the ideas flowing, allow time to see the impact that ACTRIAL is having. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Kudpung I share your frustration, I took another stab at the copy to make it a bit more pointed. At the end of the day, it is a legal thing, so maybe it's worth having WMF take a pass at it as well? Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 03:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

So just because it's legal (barely), why do you want to actively promote paid editing? Did you read what I posted above? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

The WMF don't care two hoots. They are paid already for their work and again it's the volunteers who provide the content and keep it clean that keeps them in business. They laugh at us. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

While I agree that we need to curb paid editing, allegations of its encouragement will not further our work on the simplification of the currently bulky article wizard ,I propose we keep the "A client" link aside for now and focus on the other bits until we have consensus on its exact wording.On the whole I still prefer Drewmutt's design due to it's flow and simplicity and look forward to completion of it's other parts. --Forceradical (talk) 05:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

KudpungI have tweaked the passages slightly could you take a look at them now --Forceradical (talk) 06:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Kudpung: I'm going to have to agree with Forceradical. Saying that drewmutt is somehow encouraging paid editing, and that he didn't read what you said is quite unhelpful, and distracting, particularly when he is trying his hardest to accommodate your request that we discourage paid editing. We're here to comment on the design of the article wizard, not to get into a stalemate over something so easily fixable as wording.

@Forceradical: I reworded your rewording to make it a little more truthful; COI editing doesn't always result in running afoul of the community or with tone-related issues, but getting there is improbable.  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 06:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I am going to be busy the next few days, so won't have much time to comment on this too much: as it stands, our TOU do allow declared paid editing. This is not a license to violate local policy, namely WP:NOTSPAM, which it is sometimes treated as being. I support Drewmutt's attempt to get editors to comply with the TOU. I also appreciate Kudpung's concerns that the current layout could be read as emphasizing that declared paid editing is less controversial than it currently is on en.Wiki. Whether or not it is within policy doesn't change the fact that there is a very strong and vocal contingent on this Wikipedia that are opposed to it in all circumstances. Taking their concerns into account in one of the first pages people see is important, just as giving people correct information about the TOU and our local policies is.

I'd suggest as a compromise that promotes both compliance with the TOU but is also a bit more subtle. Perhaps changing the initial button from "a client" to "Someone I am connected to" or something similar. That way it would cover all COI, and not advertise the fact that some people edit here for pay. I'm going to ask Doc James to weigh in on this as he often has good thoughts on paid editing. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: I'm of two minds.

One concern I have (and I know from a discussion on IRC drewmutt and Oshwah have this concern, too) is that we don't communicate the WMF policy on paid editing very clearly or well. One thing I've noticed while helping in #wikipedia-en-help is that paid editors legitimately don't know they have to disclose, and it get a little tedious on our parts getting them to do so. This is a "new user incompetency" issue, not an issue of good or bad faith. They want to comply but, for example, have issues finding their user page. The article wizard may, at times, be the only time paid editors are informed that they need to disclose the fact that they're paid. We may not be able to be subtle if we want to communicate clearly. Also, not advertising the fact that some people edit for pay won't take away the fact that some people edit for pay; it's going to happen whether or not we talk about it.

On the other hand, I agree with you that we need to cover all COI somehow. So maybe "someone I'm connected to" is, in fact, a good idea. In fact, we can tell all COI editors that, from an ethical standpoint, they need to declare their COI on their userpage, or at minimum, on the talk page of the draft. This is being honest; the only COI editors that have to declare from a legal standpoint are the ones being paid, but ethically, we should all declare our conflict of interests, no matter if we're getting income from editing Wikipedia or not.  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 06:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

The issue is that currently declared paid editors often treat the declaration as a license to ignore WP:NOTSPAM, and get mad when their paid status is (legitimately) brought up as a deletion rational combined with lack of notability and tone. Having a client as one of the first things seen could help promote that idea. Having a simpler joint COI page that also covers paid declaration and makes it easier, while making it clear that NOTSPAM is also applicable I think would be good. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• In my experience, people tend to instinctively assume that paid editing is forbidden on Wikipedia and are astonished when they learn that it is not. It's a very bad idea to promote their awareness of the community's inability to put a stop to it. It is also a bad UX design to dedicate the upper half of the page to options of interest to a small percentage of the users - unless the COI and PAID editors are the majority, in which I case I don't know what I'm still doing here. Alternative proposal: remove the COI and PAID options and add a checkbox: "I certify that I have no external relation with the subject of the article" to reflect the fact that the COI editing, while allowed, is not (yet) encouraged. Rentier (talk) 10:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with much of what TonyBallioni and Rentier have said here, I have made this page and have realized that for these purposes editors fall into three groups, Paid, affiliated, and neutral. I personally don't think we should have too much information on one page, so linking to separate pages for each type of disclosure is still my preferred option. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  11:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• I am grateful to Rentier who understands my explanations and who also expresses the same concerns. Every single paid edit or article creation is spam. Spam in some form or another. Articles don't have to be written in adspeak or be full of links to commercial sites to be spam. Any person or entity that benefits in any way from a presence in Wikipedia is a spammer. Paid editors are spam brokers. They are unscrupulous and deceitful. They are like the people on the sidewalk who take pennies out of a bind man's begging bowl. We do not allow spam, and most of the paid articles we identify are spam, spam, spam, and spam, and get deleted as spam. Moreover, there probably isn't a paid editor, declared or otherwise, who hasn't got a drawer full of dirty socks. Look At COIN and SPI just to see what we we are up against. One or two declared paid editors is not going to reduce that massive work load (all done free of charge), so why should we encourage them?

With anything up to $2,000 (or more) being offered for an article, paid 'editors' are not going to be deterred by honesty and ethics, and they won't be affected by the Wizard either. They take their time to study our rules, notability, and MoS scrupulously, They will calmly wait 4 days, rack up 10 insignificant edits and then dump their insidious junk in one edit when they think we least expect it and probably get WP:BOGOF too. Some of them might use their other Reviewer account to patrol it, and their OTRS account (diffs available) to get round any copyright for images. I haven't fought for six long years and spent 1000s of my $$ to get ACTRIAL launched so that we can advertise paid editing in the Wizard where all the new users now have to go. If users are determined to encourage it, all they need to do is launch a watchlist notice: Did you know? You can now earn mega bucks by writing articles to help companies sell their wares. Click here for details. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• I like the page offered by Guy into Books - it is a good, clear breakdown. The COI aspect seems to be missing a COI in regards to a person other than yourself, but works. Making sure people know of their obligations under policy is a good first step, especially with the additional statements about how this is strongly discouraged. - Bilby (talk) 12:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

References

• @@Kudpung:. You are being narrow focused here, paid editing includes various types of paid editor, these changes are not supposed to affect the experts that are paid per article. These changes are to inform the nice man in Mohammed Theriewshheias public relations team that they have to disclose, and that really they shouldn’t be making an article, could they kindly ask someone else? I have spent some time on IRC, and a high percentage of the people that need help are Indian actors, Indian PR teams, Indian CEO's etc. (not picking on Indians here, its just a billion people that speak English well enough to want an article, and not well enough to have read all the policy’s.) These people have no clue how Wikipedia works, and are happy to follow the rules, but right now we are failing to explain the rules to them well enough. New editors create the vast majority of all articles (about 85% i think), and as much as we could perhaps only allow extended confirmed users to make articles or drafts, we need to at least try to make use of their input. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  12:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Just as a point on numbers before the break: that statistic is false. New articles by new editors accounted for 47% of creations by non-autopatrolled editors, and 80% of those were deleted. The percentage of total articles created by new editors is likely significantly lower since these numbers don't take into account autopatrolled creations. See WP:MANPP for more details. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Break

A few things:

1. Everyone here agrees that the current article wizard is non-ideal.
2. IRC is not Wikipedia, and most of our editors who are the most active in dealing with COI/UPE do not use it. To my knowledge I'm the only person who is a semi-regular at COIN that goes on IRC. It's also likely that new users who go to -help display a selection bias: they're the most likely to want to comply. This is not discounting the work that people in -help do, but pointing out that appealing to that experience there is unlikely to move the conversation on-wiki forward because those who have concerns don't have that experience.
3. Rentier's point about UI is very good. The largest issue with the current version is that it makes paid status so prominent.

@Drewmutt and Aguyintobooks: I think a way to take into account the concerns above would be to remove anything COI related from the main splash, and have it at the very end as a question. "Are you connected to the subject or paid?" Then it could take them to a page strongly discouraging directly editing (per WP:COIEDIT) while also informing them that they must declare, and giving them the template to do so (like {{uw-paid1}} does. Finally, please let's remember point 1 and not let this bog us down from simplifying the wizard. It really needs a redo. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

That's actually a good idea, it would make the paid issue less obvious. I feel that what I did to the startpage (WP:ARTWIZ3) works slightly better, and is less cluttered. I do not like the 'tabs' in the existing layout, nor do I like the button style, or the insane group of buttons on the second page, it looks rather mid last decade (probably is). The new header template by Drewmutt/me (copy of at Template:Article wizard 2 header), is also something I am pleased with. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  14:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I think User:Drewmutt/ArticleWizardRefactor-Proposal looks a lot more current and less cluttered than ARTWIZ3, where I honestly can't tell any difference between it and the current wizard when first looking at it. I know it is different, but I wouldn't have known that unless you had told me it was a new version or if I had compared them side-by-side. I like the Drewmutt version better because it keeps it simple and doesn't rely on too much text, which is one of the biggest flaws of the current Wizard. When I go to ARTWIZ3 I'm likely to close the tab and not read because there is too much text. When I go to the refactor proposal, I know what button to press to do what, which is more intuitive for me even as an experienced user. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I see what you mean. ARTWIZ3 has all of the content on the existing article wizard page, but better organized, however it is mostly superfluous and does break at a larger screen width than User:Drewmutt/ArticleWizardRefactor-Proposal. I suppose the next question is how much do we want to say? We have the option of sending new users thorough a full tutorial, or simply linking to other tutorials and hoping they do those first?. NB. I will obviously make alterations to ARTWIZ3, here is a diff of what it is like now.Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  15:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Article wizard improvements graph

• I have outlined a new layout, see picture --:Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  15:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I like that general layout. Re: your question above, the less text the better for new users. The goal is to give them a quick and dirty version of Wikipedia that teaches the basic principles: discouraging articles that shouldn't be created, while making it user-friendly for those creating articles we want. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

In veiw of the stalemate that has been reached I myself have taken the initiative to create a rough blueprint of the proposed article wizard shown above here.The article wizard span @Drewmutt:'s userspace and part of @Aguyintobooks:WP:ARTWIZ space also. I have tried to remix the best of both worlds .Frequenters of this page such as KudpungTonyBallioniI dream of horses .Please give feedback .I will be absent during the core puja days(next tuesday to October 2) so if any problem crops during that time I will allow anyone to ceate delete or modify any pages .--Forceradical (talk) 06:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)--(Ping correction)Forceradical (talk) 06:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I think that version takes into account a lot of the concerns. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Forceradical's version is not free from issues IMHO.

1. It skips the check for similar articles - Is this wise?(open to debate if needed or not)Forceradical (talk) 07:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
2. It tells people about referencing before notability - without knowing why they are referencing, what are new users going to gain?(Created a notability page)Forceradical (talk) 07:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
3. The buttons are encountering problems - this may be a template issue, but they don't look right unless they stack, or are in one line.( Not doneLooking into it,I don't seem to encounter any problem on small screens)Forceradical (talk) 07:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
4. All the buttons on the COI page are red, this is a red flag, since none of the other buttons are.(Purposefully done to make the editor be truthful)Forceradical (talk) 07:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
5. I am not convinced white buttons are a good idea - I think we need more colours, like gray buttons.(No other are available on MW)Forceradical (talk) 07:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
6. Forceradical actually seems to have omitted any mention of notability at all, I assume this is an error? DoneForceradical (talk) 07:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise the blending is not bad, I think this is getting somewhere. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  19:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I have made alterations to the code which allow the wizard to function better on mobile devices. It also works on smaller screens in desktop mode much better. the previous design sometimes broke at tablet and phone screen sizes (mostly the button positioning broke). I have also streamlined the design of the initial two pages. (WP:ARTWIZ3), its currently pointing into the existing wizard, but I will add more pages to it later. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  00:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

TonyBallioni thanks for the break, we needed that. I made another pass at my flow taking Toni's input into consideration, so let me know how you feel about it. Forceradical I dumped your template at the end, it's not that I didn't like it, I just want to include "Live help" in some other way I have yet to think about, also I'm not a huge fan of "starting over" buttons (I hope no user would use that, actually). Paid bad? Start over! Anywho the content is bleh, go nuts on it. Feel like we're getting there, let's keep the momentum going! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 04:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

DrewmuttI have made the go to start into a go back buttonAguyintobooksI have addressed some of your concerns aboveForceradical (talk) 07:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Forceradical Thanks for doing that, although, to be honest, I feel that "back" buttons are bit out of fashion. To paraphrase what Toni said, we have a limited attention span with folks, and best to push the process forward than to give an option to undo something that got them on the path they're on. I get we want to provide a "oh nevermind" option, but I feel the people who really want to exercise this know how to. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 07:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we could scrap the back button entirely, especially as it adds little actual functionality to the layout, regarding the template (Article wizard header 2), well It does not work brilliantly right now, it seems easier to add the code to the page directly at the moment. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  07:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Break 2

Diagram showing layout

• I have redone the layout of my design, and although the content, headers buttons etc are unfinished, it matches the diagram above quite closely. It is made up of the following subpages: (which have been deleted, but are in my userspace) updated to show userpages

User:Aguyintobooks/Article Creation Wizard

WP:ARTWIZ3 (proposed shortcut)

WP:WIZARD3 (proposed shortcut)

WP:WIZ3 (proposed shortcut)

User:Aguyintobooks/Article Creation Wizard/Check

User:Aguyintobooks/Article Creation Wizard/Request

User:Aguyintobooks/Article Creation Wizard/Advanced users portal

User:Aguyintobooks/Article Creation Wizard/General notability

User:Aguyintobooks/Article Creation Wizard/Citing sources

User:Aguyintobooks/Article Creation Wizard/Confirm

User:Aguyintobooks/Article Creation Wizard/Disclosure

User:Aguyintobooks/Article Creation Wizard/Inform

User:Aguyintobooks/Article Creation Wizard/Summary

User:Aguyintobooks/Article Creation Wizard/New draft

Please don't change the targets of any buttons on these pages at the moment, as I still need to fix alot of the code to make it work on mobiles, but feel free to copy them to create alternate layouts. Spare pages (mostly redirects) are available at Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Article wizard 2. I will remove the back buttons on some pages and deal with the 'summary' page, ideas on dealing with the 'summary' page could be useful. Also the "Advanced users portal" could use some extra options, it could easily be a one-stop toolbox for people who are still learning, but have reasonable understanding of Wikipedia. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  12:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Aguyintobooks--I have looked over your Wizard .I feel you should replace the Clickable button templates with clickable button 2 templates --Forceradical (talk) 08:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)  Done

@Forceradical: :-- What exactly is the difference between them? they seem to work in much the same way. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  08:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

AguyintobooksClickable button is basically a link with mw-ui-buttons css padding where as Clickable button 2 functions like a real button going light when you hover over it and dark when you click it. Also the link is hidden. It works on lua and is sleeker.--Forceradical (talk) 08:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh thanks. If I had realized that I would definitely used clickable button 2's, I will switch them over. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  08:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I have fixed the buttons, also the links between pages were broken, so I updated those and you can navigate the wizard now. (some of the pages are unfinished, ie. have missing content and headers). Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  08:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

TonyBallioni I made some more minor changes to my proposed refactor. Ya feel they address your concerns? Just wanna make sure we keep the momentum going. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 02:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with that version. Less prominent, but also makes people aware that they must disclose. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Drewmutt/ArticleWizardRefactor-Proposal/CommonMistakes does seem to strike a good balance between being firm, and not being overtly off-putting. It is my preferred UI layout so far as well.  --- Α Guy Into Books™ § (Message) -  09:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

DrewmuttAguyintobooksTonyBallioni--I think it would be better if we could centralised this into a single wizard in draft space by amalgamating the best of all the three versions and then we can call an Rfa to ask for community feedback and consensus on the new version.--Forceradical (talk) 10:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Y I concur, what I have done is at User:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver/Article Creation Wizard, please don't move my userpages directly to draftspace! if you want to use what I have done, copy it. Note the headers are generally hardcoded as opposed to drewmutts original templates. Dysklyver 19:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

OWNership

I recommend a change in the wording on Wikipedia:Article wizard/Referencing from "Your article will be rejected" to "The article you wish to create will be rejected". Per WP:OWN, I think it's important we never use language that reinforces ownership concepts. Editors are, in fact, donating their words for free. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

It Is Done

Now that the RFC is complete, I have moved the new/draft version of the Wizard and moved the old version to a /version1 subpage. If there's anything that I've messed up, feel free to either fix it yourself or let me know. Primefac (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I have been though it pressing all the buttons, everything seems in order. Dysklyver 21:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Mandatory?

Hey, sorry if this question is in the wrong pace. I'm longtime editor out of retirement so this wizard is new to me. Is it mandatory for all article creation now or only for user's who don't yet have autopatrol/confirmed status? I love the idea for new users but for someone who already knows what they're doing it's fairly burdensome. Can I no longer create articles from scratch? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 14:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@LargelyRecyclable: No, the wizard is designed to be helpful but it is not mandatory. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:19, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Its basically a tutorial to try and get people to make drafts rather than articles in main-space, if you know what you're doing, you don't need to use it. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  14:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the quick replies. When I attempt to create an article I get redirected to the new user landing page. The only option to create an article there is the Wizard. Am I missing something? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 14:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• @LargelyRecyclable: The reason for this is that you're not quite autoconfirmed yet. This requires a wait of four days for some unclear reason. In a day or two, you should find that article creation works again in the way that you're familiar with. Andrew D. (talk) 14:37, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you for the explanation, that's exactly what I was wondering. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

LargelyRecyclable, the Wizard is not your only option as a non-autoconfirmed user. You have the option of creating using a sandbox as well or creating a draft directly at Draft:Page Name. Once you reach autoconfirmed status, you would be able to move that article to mainspace. The English Wikipedia is currently undergoing a trial for the next 6 months on restricting direct creation of articles to autoconfirmed users. This is because data suggest that pages created by users with more experience are more likely to meet our inclusion standards. If you complete a draft before you are autoconfirmed, I would be happy to review it and move it to mainspace for you. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate that, if I get something put together today I'll definitely let you know. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 21:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

LargelyRecyclable, The reason stated by Andrew Davidson is not unclear and the definition of confirmed and/or autoconfirmed has been policy for a very long time. IP users have not been able to create in mainspace for aons, and recently a restriction was introduced (on an experimental) basis to limit mainspace creation to confirmed users - those whose account is more than 4 days old and have made more than 10 edits. This went into effect a few days ago and has already drastically reduced the vast amount of totally inappropriate new articles without apparently deterring those who have an honest and reasonable project for a new page and can wait four days and do 10 edits.

That said, the Article Wizard is currently undergoing a complete overhaul and we would welcome your feedback here based on your experience. You can find links to the proposed changes in the various threads on this talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I am an autopatrolled user but it seems I can no longer use the wizard to get a new article direct to the main space? TheWarOfArt (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Well unless you are new editor you dont need to use this wizard, just make a link to the desired page in your sandbox, then clicking the redlink will create it. For reasons mainly related to ACTRIAL the option to create articles direct to mainspace via the wizard has been depreciated. Dysklyver 20:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Ch ch ch changes

Hey gang, thanks to everyone who helped roll this over the mountain. I stayed out of it, but I saw some good discussion on the RfC, and so I summed up some of the issues that people had, but feel free to add more.

Adding a link to help

• @Forceradical: I agree this would be a welcome feature, and I created a rough proposal of how this could be implemented. Positive feedback only :P

Like We just need a template editor or admin to implement it.-Forceradical (talk) 06:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Like this is a less obvious link than that button I drafted when this was being thought of. (drewmutt is a template editor right now I believe). Dysklyver 10:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

A page describing notability

• I feel mixed about this. I think the current wizard approaches it from a bottom-up approach as opposed to top down. That is, if they follow all the steps correctly, the subject is notable. I'm open to an argument about it, but I feel the alternative is back to what we had with walls of non-sense. Teaching a new user about notability, at the level we know it, seems a fruitless goal.

Drewmutt- I edited the draft page on reference and added the smallest possible intro to notability in this [edit]. I believe any more than this would clutter up the wizard-Forceradical (talk) 06:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I am unsure about this, we have deprecated both the page to check for an existing article, and the page to explain notability. IMO removing these pages was an improvement to the user friendliness of the process. At one point I did moot the idea of explaining the specific notability guidelines based on what article was being created, but that just created really complex tutorials. Dysklyver 11:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Draft creation page content

• Currently: When you create your draft, it won't be publicly viewable. However, when you finish, you'll be able to submit it to be reviewed by our volunteers. Reviews can take a long time, and are done in somewhat of a random fashion, so please be patient and rest assured that your draft will be reviewed in due course.

• "won't be publically viewable". @Sphilbrick: I get that it's not technically accurate, but I (and I could be wrong) feel what generally people mean by "public" is that it's on Google and shows up in searches. I can't think of a non-kludgey way of saying "When you create your draft, it will be public, but will show up in Google nor will it be search results, although you can share the link to someone". Hmm... Maybe "it isn't private only to you" is better?

 Comment: newbies seem to understand an article being 'live' as when it shows up on google, but this current wording does suggest it will be private - which it isn't. Dysklyver 10:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• "can take a long time". I know there was some concern about this being disparaging. I know there was some tweaks made after concerns were expressed. We still think it needs tweaking?

 Comment: It would be easy enough to parse the time it will take from the AfC backlog notices and display this properly. Dysklyver 10:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Anywho, thanks in advance for your feedback, and try to keep the comments in thier respective sections, thanks! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 00:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion for CommonMistakes page

Hi all. I proposed some changes to CommonMistakes page and Drewmutt suggested that I add them here. So here I am. Please note that I'm neither a fluent enwiki editor (which may make me a perfect audience for this wizard;), nor a designer. With that in mind:

The page starts by listing 3 common mistakes as bullet points which is cool. Then, I'm offered three options to choose from. It is not clear "why" I'm asked to click on these options. This is a bit confusing for me as the options are logically related to perhaps one of the bullet points above, but not to all. Have you considered bringing the first bullet point to the last position right before the three buttons, and also adding a sentence after that bullet point to give context about the buttons? For example, something like: "Although writing about subjects that you are close to is generally discouraged, there may be reasons that you may want to still write about those subjects. Please click on each of the following options to learn how you should handle each case." (This suggestion is by no means perfect. I'm just putting it here so you know my general line of thought. For example, it's too long, it also gives a feeling that I will be doing something wrong if I write about something close to me which in some cultures may result in people not publicly accepting it.)

I understand that there has been a lot of discussions about this page. Please feel free to use this suggestion if you see fit or ignore it. Thanks for pointing me to this page, and I'm looking forward to learn more about the changes you will observe after the redesign you've gone about. :) --LZia (WMF) (talk) 08:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, and here are my suggestions about how we might flesh it out:

1. Reorder the three bullet points here, so that "Copy and pasting material" comes first, "Overly promotional language" comes second, and "Writing about something you're close to" comes third.
2. Then, before the three clickable boxes, add the sentence: "Thinking about the article you are about to write, please click on the description that best describes your relationship to the article subject."

--Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Someone left some feed back on redirects

I haven't been following this all that much so I don't know how much of this is applicable, but someone left some feedback on the wizard here:

Could you make it somehow obvious that you are supposed to request creation for redirects elsewhere than this? The article wizard that you forced me through made no mention of it at all (it was more concerned in asking me whether I had a conflict of interest!), nor do I see anything on this page. Or pretty much anywhere...

In fact, I couldn't even figure out how to reach the edit screen. I manually edited the URL in my urlbar to the article title to bring up the 'wizard' which apparently is the only way to the editing screen. In the days of yore I just needed to 'search' for a non-existent article to get a 'red link' to create it.

By the way, it is very much not obvious that I need to click a button ('request review') to get the submission actually going anywhere either.

This is all seriously frustrating for someone just trying to improve Wikipedia a tiny bit.

Ah, why do I care. I finally racked up enough edits to gain article creation rights.

The person created a redirect in draft space, which is the second time I've seen that in a few days. Galobtter (talk) 13:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Part of the changes made to the article wizard were to remove the facility for the creation of mainspace articles of any type, this includes redirects. It would be reasonable to assume that all newbies wanting redirects should be sent to WP:AFCRD. Draftspace is for making articles, not for making redirects, categories, templates, userpages or any of the other things that were previously available in the advanced users section. Dysklyver 15:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but I think the problem is that he was not able to find or was not directed to WP:AFCRD. Maybe like simple.wikipedia's article wizard the first option should ask if the person wants to create an article or a redirect. Galobtter (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I think this would be an issue for the landing page, part of the Wikipedia:Article wizard is the assumption people want to make an article. However Wikipedia:New user landing page makes no mention of redirects at all, and this is probably an oversight given that it is a plausible option. Dysklyver 16:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah it needs to be there somewhere, because it isn't there is why that person got confused. And categories too. Galobtter (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Just a minor point, ADJEAD, but the draft space can be used for Templates. Primefac (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Minor corrections

An unclosed <i> tag in WP:Article wizard/Referencing is causing a lint error.(Notability guide linking portion) — comment added by Force Radical (talk • contribs) 08:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done -- John of Reading (talk) 08:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Force Radical, well spotted. Cabayi (talk) 08:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like I hit "save" just after Cabayi made the edit! -- John of Reading (talk) 09:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Just so long as we were both making the same single "/" change? :-) Cabayi (talk) 09:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 January 2018

I'm brand new and trying to navigate the How to Disclose wizard. I'm seeing two issues with this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_wizard/HowToDiscloseCOI

1. Numbered list item 1) The linked "here" in the first bullet point takes me to a page with an alert at the top that says "If you want to draft an article, please create a userspace draft instead of creating it here." I'm going to ignore the alert, but would be nice if the instructions said something like "(you can ignore the alert at the top)"
2. Numbered list item 2) The third/final bullet point says that I need to click the "Save Changes" button, but I see no such button. I'll try the "Publish page" button. Skyav (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Partly done: I see the second point has been fixed, but (regarding the first point) if you're not doing what the warning is warning you about, you can definitely ignore it. Also, a lot of editors have already created their user page, so the warning will not always show up. Primefac (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Masturbation Machines

I don't know how to create an article need an assist. ... to help in contributing my knowledge related to the subject topic. 7alirizvi (talk) 07:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, the first thing to do is not copy directly from another site, as you did here. Write everything in your own words. Primefac (talk) 12:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)