Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Article wizard/version1/Old discussion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wizard discussion

I'm going to copy and paste all the various discussions about the wizard here. So it can be discussed in one place. I hope that's okay. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 18:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation and User talk:J_Di:
I've been noodling about some ideas on how to make the AFC more "newbie friendly". I've often said that bombarding users who haven't even created a username with a ton of rules, guidelines, etc is a great way for them not to read of any of it. I still believe that is true. Some of the recent changes to AFC's main page has certainly helped, but I had an idea on how go one step further -- a series of small pages that guide the user through the process, asking a few questions (answered by clicking Wiki-links) to narrow down the kind of article they plan on writing and presenting only the notability information they need to know. I might just put a few pages together as a proof of concept. If they don't work out, I'm sure I can talk Meegs into speedy deleting them for me since I'm mopless. Any thoughts? :) :) -- ShinmaWa(talk) 07:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea. J Ditalk 14:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm intrigued and would like to see the proof of concept. ×Meegs 17:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Proof of concept is complete at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Wizard. Its just a PoC, so there's a few redlinks in there and the whole thing needs a coat of spit and polish, but its current purpose is to demonstrate the idea. I would love your feedback! -- ShinmaWa(talk) 20:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's pretty impressive. The general appearance is good, everything is laid out nicely, but I'm not too sure about the {{policy in a nutshell}} templates, as what's below it is already pretty summarised. The only thing I would change, and it's not even anything major, is the link to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Wizard-Not notable on Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Wizard-Company Notability. I think it might be better if it were changed to two separate buttons, one for non-notability and one for advertising; or if Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Wizard-Not notable were re-written slightly to include advertising. Also, it might help if Image:ArticlesForCreationEntry.JPG included the save page button, unless it was left out for a reason. Oh, and one last thing, perhaps the tabs could link to certain pages so that people can go back? Apart from that, it is really good, I'm sure it'll help a lot of people once it's finished. J Ditalk 20:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like it a lot. We should centralize the discussion somewhere, perhaps Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wizard-Introduction. ×Meegs 05:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From User talk:Shinmawa:
As a regular reviewer of AFC, I think the wizard looks great. Is it intended to appear on the main AFC page? --Alex (talk here) 20:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. Eventually, my hope is that a link to the Wizard will replace the current link to submit an article, but not replace the main page itself. However, right now the Wizard is "not ready for prime time". Before making such a substative change to the process, I'm looking for as much feedback and concensus as I can. The whole idea of the Wizard is to improve the chances that an AfC is successful (our current 95% rejection rate disturbs me greatly) and to not overwhelm new users with the onslaught of information that the main page currently does by offering the same information in smaller easier-to-digest chunks. However, I don't want to inadvertantly WP:BITE in the process. If you have any feedback, I would love to hear it. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 20:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have to agree that 95% is far too many declines. Hopefully this wizard should make it more clearer to users exactly what to do. --Alex (talk here) 21:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the concept a lot and it's one I would wish we can apply to explain copyright to people. The more of this wizards we get, the better. I've heard people complain about how hard Help is to navigate, a wizard like this would certainly help there too. - Mgm|(talk) 09:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page helper

I've made a list page of all the wizard pages, existing and proposed, at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Wizard pages. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 19:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go-live

I'm putting the wizard into production at 2130 UTC to see how it goes -- ShinmaWa(talk) 21:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Should we reduce the instructions on the main AFC page? I guess we don't need to decide right away. By the way, I yanked the "wiki is not paper" statement from a bunch of the wizard's pages; I don't think it'd make much sense to most people. ×Meegs 22:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On reducing instructions -- Yeah... I think we can wait. On "Wiki is not paper" -- works for me :) -- ShinmaWa(talk) 22:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems as if more people come back and change the declined submissions, and some are then acceptable. But has any one done statistics? More people seem to be talking about their submission as well. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Considerations

Rather than seeing something similar to this discussion page, it seems that a wiser thing to do would be do redirect users here and make this the main wizard discussion page -- not redirecting may stem productive discussion about the wizard.

Second, the notability page has a typo. The first mention of what should be "Verifiability", a wikilink on the second line, actually appears as "Verifiably".

Third, I was wondering why it is that the first category is Companies or Corporations, doesn't include Associations or Groups.

134.250.70.81 03:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll break this down into the numbers:
  1. Excellent idea on the redirects. I'll start on those redirects right away. Done.
  2. Good catch on the typos. It ended up that I replaced the paragraph altogether so the problem went away.
  3. There are special guidelines on companies and corporations, presumably for-profit organizations that include items that don't make sense for the broader construct of "Association or Group". One example of this is the impact on the stock market. At one point, the "I'm writing about myself" was longer, reading "I'm writing about myself or a group that I belong to". Somewhere along the lines that got shortened. As rather a fallback, there's always the general notability button at the bottom.
Thanks for your input! -- ShinmaWa(talk) 05:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Should the "create an account" (the third option on this page) link to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&type=signup instead of Special:Userlogin? SpencerT♦C 20:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done MSGJ 12:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wizard for dabs

I'm suggesting a "create a new dab page" option, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Wizardfordabs. 62.147.39.194 (talk) 21:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Martin 22:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isoteric

please ad the word isoteric, which means in physics : of equal or constant specific volume with respect to either time or space. And it is a pity that I can not do this myself anymore! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.147.121.244 (talk • contribs)

Hi, this is not the place for new reqeusts. This is for discussing the actual wizard! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Musical notability

The following rules are notable even among the fertile fields of wikipedia for their arbitrariness. One day, somebody should do a study of the correspondence between Asperger's or autism, and the number of wikipedia articles rejected or deleted. You people have ruined what could have been a great pop culture reference, by making it into a less-than-mediocre piece of scholarship. Try telling your sped teacher how much time you spend on wikpedia and ask if that's too much. You'll be told that it is, so give the rest of us a break.

"A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: 

   * Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes school newspapers, personal blogs, etc.).
   * Has had a hit on a national music chart in at least one large or medium-sized country.[1]
   * Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one large or medium-sized country.
   * Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster including several notable performers).
   * Has won a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno or Mercury Music Award."

71.188.23.65 (talk) 01:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC) GAH[reply]

If you have any constructive comments to make about the AfC process then we would be pleased to hear them at WT:WPAFC. Or is this just a general rant? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous user page creation

Hi, I'm an occasional anonymous contributor, and I attempted to create a page using the wizard. Unfortunately, after going through the six steps, entering the name of the new page, and clicking the button that was meant to allow me to submit new content, I seem to have been sent to a page which only allows me to view the (essentially blank) content of the new page, not to actually submit the content of my page. 86.177.159.214 (talk) 00:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You probably forgot to enter the name of your submission in the box. Please try again. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sophitessa: I was following the instructions for Wikipedia:Articles for Creation. MSGJ: I've repeated the process again and was sent to exactly the same page, which allowed me to view the (essentially blank) content of the proposed page, but not to edit it, which means I was unable to submit content for the page I was proposing the creation of. The page also wasn't making it to the list of Pending AfC submissions. I was able to submit the page for submission by directly creating a page in the talk name space, but either the wizard wasn't working or I was doing something wrong. By the way, the page that the wizard sent me to was at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_who_owned_slaves , not in the talk name space. 86.177.159.214 (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
88.177, the wizard should include the default title WT:Articles for creation/my proposed article name here in the box. You are supposed to delete the "my proposed article name here" bit and add your title. Therefore the correct submission location for your article is WT:Articles for creation/List of Presidents of the United States who owned slaves which is in talk space. But I wonder why you are trying to create a new article if there is already one there? — Martin (MSGJ · talk)10:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I ran into the same problem. I just wanted to add an article on SHAvite-3, to match the stub articles that exist for several of the semifinalists in the NIST hash competition. There appeared to be no way to add the article without creating an account, which is a lot of overhead for basically adding a 10-line or so missing piece to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.155.218 (talk • contribs)

You have two options. Both are pretty easy.
  1. Go to WP:WIZGO and use the first option.
  2. Sign up for an account.
— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too much instruction

What a horribly convoluted process! Please, do you really think forcing people to read all this instruction creep and promise to follow it in triplicate is the way to teach Wikipedia norms? Just let the newcomers submit their articles for creation, and we'll take what good articles come in. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By all means have a go at simplifying them. You might like to ask for others' opinions at WT:WPAFC. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added a shortcut. We'll see how long it lasts. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the idea was that anyone who had anything decent to contribute would be able to follow their way throuh the wizard successfully, and this was a way to stop some of the rubbish getting through and adding to the backlog. There is already an option to bypass the wizard on Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Wizard-Advanced. So I'll probably revert your shortcut link, unless someone else does! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Able to, yes, but shouldn't have to. Any logged in user can create an article right in main-space with little hassle. Why should users without an account have to pass so much bureaucracy just to submit an article that will be reviewed anyway? --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I am already registered"

Can the link to "I am already registered" be made to mesh with the wizard for registered users, and save them a few clicks? Intelligentsium 03:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are planning to merge the two wizards shortly ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

edit

I added a note by the redirect about case because there have been a lot of request for redirects that are not capitalized to articles that are capitalized. This way they know that this happens automatically. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 02:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Article_wizard/version1/Old_discussion&oldid=1229771589"