Wikipedia talk:Article wizard/Archive 4

Feedback on WP:Article Wizard
Hello everyone,

Unlike many RFCs, this RFC does not have a particular conflict. Instead, through this RFC, I would like users to answer the following questions:
 * 1) Do you like this article wizard? Please give any suggestions/feedback/comments you may have on this article wizard.
 * 2) How do you think it can be standardized/integrated into Wikipedia's AfC and article-writing WikiProjects? --JustBerry (talk) 06:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Support

 * The Article Wizard is better than not having one at all. I haven't looked at it recently enough to say what I would change though
 * I feel that the Article Wizard is a user-friendly tool for new users. However I have a suggestion, which is to allow users to categorize their articles, so that new page patrollers do not have to do so for them. Also, if the article is submitted as a draft, it can help AFC per this proposal, to allow potential reviewers who only want to review articles of a certain topic do so easily. This can also allow other WikiProjects to collaborate with AfC (eg. WikiProject Science members reviewing Science related AfC articles). Darylgolden ( talk ) 00:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Submitters can already categorize their articles by adding escaped categories (e.g. Category:People) to the bottom of the page, which are detected when the article is being created. Some reviewers also place a notice on the talk page of the relevant WikiProject to ask for a specialized reviewer . However, I agree that a better way of marking submissions as under the scope of a specific WikiProject would be nice. APerson (talk!) 22:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The article wizard is a long-overdue tool. It has its kinks to work out, but it's already in a very useful form. Given the huge success of the file upload wizard in heading off many of the most common file issues, we have good reason to expect that the article wizard can do the same for editors creating their first articles. —Swpbtalk 17:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Neutral/Comment
PAGE''' ]] ) 20:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * One thing I would like to see is a question about what language the article is in. If they select English, allow them to continue. If they select another language, forward them to the appropriate wikipedia. I see lots of articles on New Page Patrol that are foreign-language versions of existing English Wikipedia articles. --Ahecht ( [[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK
 * I support this idea. —Swpbtalk 17:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

 * I find the current system atrocious and confusing to new editors. I strongly believe that it is the number one cause of the majority of the issues that arise for WPAFC and all of the questions scattered all over the wiki in multiple various forums.  I would like to see the UI completely overhauled and redesigned from the ground up and the current system thrown away.  I think that "majority" of the things to help reviewers and established editors are good, but the interface that is suppose to help new editors in creating a draft article which will easily make it into mainspace fails in just about every aspect.  I do believe that the fixes for this will require a fairly large scale project to be undertaken by individuals with more time than I currently have available to be able to do it myself.  It will have to be a collaborative effort, and although I can usually trudge my way through something, I don't have the basics and the background to be able to do something this size on my own.  "/rant off"  TL;DR version: No, the UI for new editors sucks and needs to be redesigned in a way that interacts with the editor to make a feasible draft or draft topic. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 20:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Burn it and start over. Atrocious is too kind, and it isn't just the Wizard.  This is Wikipedia's process for new articles for new editors:
 * Tell new editors "everyone can edit"
 * Allow new editors to start writing articles immediately, without describing, in a manner they can understand, what that article will need to avoid being deleted.
 * New editors then spend a *great* deal of time, writing an article. If they've been around for a while, they might add a reference.
 * The new editor's new work is deleted. Almost always, it gets deleted.  Maybe sooner, maybe after a couple rounds at AfC, whatever.
 * New editor takes their marbles and heads home, aggravated.
 * People freak out about why new editors are leaving.
 * I've described this as "passing out hand grenades to schoolchildren."  It has to stop.
 * Moreover, we need to stop being so stuck on some historical specifics. I've worked at AfC, the vast majority of new drafts that come in have no references, or very improper references.  Many of these drafts will wait days before getting any feedback.  This is (adjectives I would like to use here redacted).  We need to bend whatever we request at this place "anyone can submit a new article to", bend it enough that we can tell if the article is blank, that we can tell if the article has no references, that we can tell if the article has a reference to IMDB or Answers.com or another Wikipedia article or Facebook or IMDB or Twitter... and then give some automated and immediate feedback. I hear all sorts of complaints whenever I suggest this about how hard this is going to be because of CITEVAR.  (redacted interjection).  We're talking about new editors here, they don't know about our citation formats, they certainly don't live and die by CITEVAR.  Make an interface that guides the referencing process and produces some format, ANY format.  And live with it for the Wizard.  And trout (or better yet, site ban) anyone who cares more about CITEVAR than tossing away a good fraction of new editors. --j⚛e deckertalk 02:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated responses would be a big step to giving immediate feedback for editors creating new articles. There must be general cases that can be detected (even in a half assed way) and then a template popping up saying something like "Hey, it looks like you might not be using any sources, have you read this general fact sheet about sourcing and why it's important? Click here for help."
 * More generally, being an editor that has never worked at AfC, and with my minutes of expertise with the creation wizard, I think we need big flashing lights as to why something isn't passable. For example, when I told the creation wizard that I didn't have any sources (yet), the first think I see is a general message saying "Thank you for using the Article Wizard!" What the hell does that mean? I didn't create anything yet.
 * Clicking on a box, it should give an immediate answer to that action. So I click "Write an article now" and it should say something like "Ok, great." in big letters, then ask the next series of "But wait..." questions. I feel like the wizard is trying to cover every case scenario, rather than just giving the newbie editors the bare information they need to understand why it is/is not ok to proceed. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 15:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I generally agree with . The UX for the wizard is a hot mess. Let's say I want to make a new article. I head over to Article wizard (let's forget for the moment how I got there or why I need to go to a project page like this). I'm now faced with roughly 6 options, 3 of which are big blue boxes (web speak for "clicking this will do something). I click on "Write an Article now" because that's what I want to do! But...I'm not writing an article now. I'm directed to search all of wikipedia to see if my topic already exists. If I search for anything I now need to use my browser's back button to return to the wizard. If I don't I have two options: submit a redirect (WTF is a redirect?!) or "continue with the wizard". What happened to writing an article now? Undeterred I continue with the wizard. Now I'm taken to another section on the page where I have 9 options. One is to create a redirect, which I've already said I don't want to do (also what is a redirect?). The remainder take me either to a page on notability or a page on COI. Let's say I want to write about a website. Now I'm at Article wizard/Website notability where I have 3 options (all of which are below the fold on my 1440x900 screen!). My website isn't notable, my article may be advertising (does anyone click on that?) or my website is notable and my article isn't advertising. Leaving aside the notion that basically nobody considers the articles they write advertising even when they plainly are, I still kinda wanted to write an article, so I'll click on the one that looks like it might let me do that. JUMPING JEHOSHAPHAT, I'm still not writing an article! Now I'm on Article wizard/Sources with some info about sources and 2 options. Since my article doesn't exist yet I'm not sure how I could say it has good sources, so I'll click on "My proposed article does not have good sources (yet)". Now I'm at Article wizard/Not quite yet (still not writing an article lol). Every previous page has at least had big giant blue boxes helping me along the way. Now I'm on a page which says "Although your proposed article might not be ready now, it could possibly be improved with some work." How the fuck do they know? I haven't even written it yet! Next I'm told I should maybe go through the wizard again (?!?!) or create a draft. Wait, I thought that's what I was doing (remember, the semantic distinction between "draft" and "article" can be blurry)? Then I've got a text box which I think will let me make an article except when I do that (seriously, try it out) I get a giant ass edit notice which takes up everything above the fold and looks like another wizard page. It's got a bunch of pretty confusing warnings and a bunch of instructions (some of which I've already received more than once). If I scroll down I get to the edit window where I can finally start making my article.
 * So, between landing on the article wizard and starting to edit I've clicked 5 things in a row, choosing between 18 options (just the big blue boxes) along the way and reading hundreds of lines of information on sourcing, notability and some other stuff (sometimes repeated). I've been asked some bizarre questions and I've had a few times where my next action wasn't immediately apparent to me.
 * A few things:
 * Wikipedia isn't likely to build a single page javascript application for the wizard (which is what this desperately needs), so some navigation problems are unavoidable.
 * Why on earth are we promoting Requested Articles on the first page? For one, navigate over to Requested articles and pretend you're a new user. What on that page is a call to action? There's some inside baseball stuff about what redirects where, some admonitions on which articles to request and a link back to AFC. Below that there's a big listing of categories. It's also a process with a backlog. Why make that backlog longer?
 * Why are we asking new users to create redirects? Redirects are meant to be invisible to readers and are largely maintenance projects used to deal with moves, search terms or other stuff. Take all that out of the article wizard. Not only do we ask on the second step, we ask again on the third.
 * I'd prefer that the second step not immediately yank the user out of the flow of the wizard, but that may be out of bounds, technically. Either way, it's a pisser that the second step in the process could flummox someone so easily.
 * I appreciate that we want to inform new editors about COI, NOTNEWS, etc. But the third step has waaaaay too many choices.
 * Again, how many people announce that their new article is advertising?
 * There are too many places where the call to action is unclear or the path forward is buried under a lot of language about policies and guidelines.
 * After confirming that I'm writing about something notable (helpfully defined as having sources which cover it) I'm asked again about sources. Why not combine the two?
 * I didn't notice this on the first run through but if I say my article is notable and has good sources I'm directed to Article wizard/Content where I'm asked again if it is notable. Third time's the charm, I guess.
 * Strangely, Article wizard/Ready for submission is actually pretty direct, although the distinction between Draft and new article is somewhat unclear.
 * Why do we point people to userspace drafts for Article wizard/Not quite yet and Draft for Article wizard/Ready for submission? Shouldn't we be pushing for Draft namespace for both?
 * In general the wizard is too long, repeats itself a number of times and could be confusing to new editors. It presents too many choices, many of which don't seem to matter as they are either offered again or don't lead to creating a new article. Each section of the wizard could benefit by being ruthlessly edited to contain only the information it needs to help someone make a decision about writing a new article and the wizard as a whole could benefit from losing about 50% of the content and probably 75% of the options presented to a new user. If our intent is to steer new editors away from creating new articles (and let's be honest, that's probably some portion of it), we've done our job. If our intent is to help people create new articles simply and directly, the wizard is a total failure. Protonk (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There are too many issues with the article wizard for me to give my support, at least how it currently is. My biggest issue is that if the submitter says their topic is non-notable, the wizard just gives an option for them to create a draft. Of course, there is almost no chance this article will pass AfC review. We should just tell them to try another topic. I see discussion about creating a new wizard, so maybe this can be included in there. Darylgolden(talk) 00:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Question 2

 * Of course in principle it can be integrated into other projects. I assume you are asking if I think it's feasible and desirable.  I don't know enough about the other article-writing WikiProjects to even guess.  As for AFC, go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Rewrite and ask the opinions of the AFC participants who are good at coding if they think it's feasible.  If it can be integrated into the AFC process with little or no effort, I would say it is desirable.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  20:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * How do I think it can be done? A few - six months ago I would have said that it would require a new extension specific to "collaborative new topic development", but now I'm leaning towards the idea that it can very likely be done using the existing Extension:GuidedTour extension.  This is basically a JavaScript wrapper extension that makes it possible to guide the new user through the process of creating a new article or even just submitting an idea for an article (that another new or established editor can find and develop at a later time). — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 20:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Once the kinks are worked out, the wizard should be made the default starting place for all non-autoconfirmed editors. Despite our wide array of content guidelines, intro pages, and draft spaces, it's too easy for enthusiastic new editors to breeze past all that, click "create", then get discouraged when their page is speedied. If new editors have to affirmatively assert that their new article is (1) in English, (2) on a plausibly notable topic, (3) not covered by an existing article, and (4) not copied from somewhere else, before the article finds its way into mainspace, it will significantly cut down on discouragement of new editors, with the secondary benefit of easing the workload at new pages patrol. —Swpbtalk 17:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I've added Rfc and put it at WP:CENT, due to the number of editors who commented on the last Article Wizard RfC. APerson (talk!) 22:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Some actionable suggestions (which may duplicate a few of my comments above):
 * Remove the link to Requested Articles, or at least move it to where it isn't on the very first page.
 * Remove links to create redirects. They're largely an insider concern, difficult to actually create (I've been here years and I still look it up when I do) and not related to the core concept of creating an article.
 * Pick a format to deliver information or ask users for action and stick with it. e.g. On the first page we have two blue boxes, two sort of blue boxes (which take you out of the wizard) and a tiny link at the bottom to just go ahead and create an article. The same page has a big box on the right with the same links as our sort of blue boxes. This redundancy appears in nearly every step of the wizard. Did we put something in a big ox summarizing its content and linking to resources? Awesome, now don't waste my time by repeating that in paragraph form.
 * Remove the sections on Article wizard/Conflict of interest, Article wizard/Neologism and Article wizard/News. These are endpoints for editors, not steps in the wizard. An editor only lands on the COI section if they've (presumably) read the admonition to not write about themselves but still click "I'm writing about myself". I don't think the Neologism case matches enough use cases for the article wizard to merit a ramp off and the section on news is inaccurate. We have plenty of articles on news events, often written within minutes of the event transpiring. The problem with an editor writing about News via the article wizard isn't that we don't accept such articles but that by clicking through the wizard they'll probably not be the first to make one. :)
 * Remove verbiage that isn't germane to the article wizard. For example, the Article_wizard/Sources section talks about outlandish claims requiring strong sourcing. Great, but that's more of content guidance than getting an article started. The same section also includes the phrase (paraphrasing because it's in a bulleted list) "Good sources have a reputation for reliability: they are reliable sources" ... no.
 * Article wizard/Content seems mostly redundant. the copyright part is important, but the notability section has been covered twice and the neutrality section (which repeats itself with a section on puffery, to an extent) has been covered once before. People are either going to read this stuff or they won't. They're not going to refuse to read it the first time but decided to do so on the second.
 * make sure calls to action go above the fold. Always.
 * Send people to the draft namespace in Article wizard/Not quite yet. that's what it is there for.
 * Less actionable suggestions and more things which should be guiding principles:
 * Don't waste my time.
 * Don't assume that a wizard should cover all cases or pathological cases. this is perhaps one of the biggest UX sins committed by the wizard. We want to get people from "I want to create an article" to creating an article. It may be tempting to provide information on pitfalls which, if not avoided, could lead them to have a bad experience, but let's not give everyone a slightly crappier experience in order to accomplish that.
 * Don't be afraid to summarise policies and guidelines into words for human beings.
 * Say what you mean. Looking at Sources are (nearly) everything in Article wizard/Not quite yet we see that sources are probably not even close to everything because 4 of the 5 bullet points in that section are about something other than sourcing. And by the time we've reached "not quite yet" we've presumably read all of those statements in one form or another.
 * Consider throwing out 90% of the links to policy we have in there. Send people to article tutorials or projects where people can help. Don't presume that our policy pages are so awesome that someone is going to want to read "More about the neutral point of view" at the end of an article wizard. They're not awesome. They're a necessary evil.
 * More to come, maybe. Protonk (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What if we reversed the thinking, and assumed that the person attempting to create an article actually has a legitimate article subject, and all the associated content to make it go. Then the wizard is just a checklist rather than a large scary warning about all the reasons not to make an article. After reading all of your well founded criticisms, I am thinking that we should call this version 1.0 and work on a version 2.0 with other editors over at AfC. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 23:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good way to look at it. As I see it, people are always going to write shit articles, just like some will always right great ones. We can nudge people to avoid the most obvious things, but we have to accept that a wizard like this isn't responsible for forewarning people about every major concern they'll run into. It's a laudable goal--we don't want people using the wizard to get bitten by an overzealous editor. But we seem to have traded that for making the whole experience a slog and in doing so gotten neither (paraphrasing Franklin, badly). Protonk (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2014
كتيبة سلاح الإشارة في عمان

62.231.206.82 (talk) 05:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also obtain consensus for your proposal. - Arjayay (talk) 08:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change, and as this page is only for discussing changes to Article wizard I suspect you are in the wrong place.

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2014


103.230.104.3 (talk) 11:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC) Aminpur is a city of middle Bangladesh.It is surrounding by the greatest river Padma and Jamuna. Aminpur is 50 miles west from Dhaka city.

Heading text
Aminpur,Bangladesh

If you want to suggest a change, please request this on the talk page of the relevant article in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources, to support your proposed change, or your change will not be made. - Arjayay (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This page is only for discussing changes to Article wizard so you are in the wrong place.

New editnotice
I just set up Template:Editnotices/Protection/Wikipedia:Article wizard, which will keep users from accidentally submitting edit requests to this page. I'm not sure if I worded it the best way possible, though, so please improve it if possible. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 4 November 2014 for Template:AFC submission/comments
Template:AFC submission/comments currently isn't substituted, which breaks Template:Afc decline. I have tested the following change in my sandbox, and it doesn't introduce any regressions in Template:AFC submission and fixes Template:Afc decline.

Replace the first line of the template with:

Ahecht ( TALK PAGE ) 14:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

In Template:AFC submission/comments, if the parameter is missing you end up with two commas. Now, its a given that there always SHOULD be a parameter for a duplicate, but it should either give an explicit warning or fail gracefully as other parameters such as "exists" do. A proposed change is below:

Change

to

Ahecht ( TALK PAGE ) 14:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: I made the safesubst change in a more semantically-correct way, and I also put the first comma inside the #ifeq for grammatical correctness. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The  should be   if the template is going to be subst:able... — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 05:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Jackmcbarn (talk) 05:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

What about noncommercial groups?
Summary: The Article wizard should include non-commercial organizations and foundations in its text.

The first button under What is your proposed article about? is labeled "I'm writing about a company, organisation or foundation", but the page that it leads to, Article wizard/Company notability, starts
 * Very few companies and corporations are suitable for inclusion into Wikipedia.

and continues to talk entirely about companies and corporations, as its title suggests. The subsequent buttons ad pages in the wizard also talk only about companies and products.

I'm working on an article about the Dorsai Irregulars. This group was already mentioned on eight pages: six redlinks (one describing them as "venerated"), one where I just now redlinked the existing mention, and one that mentions them only in the title of an external link. I've got their own website as source, and I'll be adding more; notability and reliable sources won't be a problem. But it's a fan organization, not commercial.

The asymmetry between the button label and everything that follows it is obviously unintentional, and I've been proceeding on that assumption. But I've been on WP for nine years; a newcomer may well be daunted or put off by that inconsistency. I'm not prepared to edit the wizard myself because it involves a lot more than just the type of group (company, corporation, foundation, organization, [others?]). The content is also focused on these commercial entities:
 * In order to be included in Wikipedia, the company must be:
 * the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself, OR
 * listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications, OR
 * used to calculate stock market indices. Being used to calculate an index that simply comprises the entire market is excluded.


 * If you are writing about a product or service of a company, that product or service must:
 * have been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company offering the product or service, OR
 * be so well-known that its trademark has suffered from genericization.

This page, and any others that follow in the thread, should be rewritten to include the promised foundations and organizations. That job should be done by somebody familiar with the WP principles behind the wizard's rules and guidelines, as I am not.

I'm putting a link to this comment onto the Village Pump (Editor assistance/Requests). Please ping me if you want me to join the discussion. --Thnidu (talk) 02:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2014
Jeason John

the most handsome man in the world.!!!

112.198.90.125 (talk) 15:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Hasteur (talk) 15:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

edit question
Can anyone tell me why made ? It seems to remove an option to create a draft without submitting it. I don't see any archived discussion that seems to address it (conversation here seems limited to arguing consensus doesn't exist) but it looks like this edit was since overrun by succeeding edits. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 00:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC) nevermind; wrong edit  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 04:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 7 January 2015
Currently the BLP message indicates that the article was blanked even if the "blank submission" checkbox wasn't checked in the AFCH. I recommend changing the following to allow AFCH to customize the message:



to:



Ahecht (TALK PAGE ) 21:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Is this functionality in AFCHRW yet? Using  for this is undesirable and blanked would be less ambiguous and preferred.  Do you have any objection to using a named parameter instead? — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 22:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 19 January 2015
There is currently a discussion at Template talk:AFC submission/declined. Thought I should post about it here in case anyone watches this page and not that one (since the sibling templates’ Talks redirect here). —174.141.182.82 (talk) 11:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 February 2015
8.37.228.90 (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Untitled
The 'conflict of interest' rule makes no sense in my case. Also it can easily be cheated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wouter Drucker (talk • contribs) 19:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Create a separate "failure" page for notability from sources
Hi, I've noticed that if you state that your topic may not be notable, you are linked to this page with a large button in the middle stating "create new userspace draft". I think that the article wizard should not be encouraging new users to create articles that are not notable - the article was just get deleted/draft will get declined if submitted as a draft. Frankly, it's quite cruel to suggest creating a page about a topic that may not be notable, because the user may spend several months fruitlessly working on their draft about a non-notable person which has no chance of getting accepted anyway. This only drives them away from Wikipedia, while clogging the AFC workload with non-notable subjects, a lose-lose situation in the end. In fact, although I started this message with the idea of differentiating the failure pages for sources and notability, without sources a draft will have no chance of getting accepted as well. I think it would be a better idea to encourage new users to write about another topic, or edit a couple of existing articles instead. If people agree with this I can draft up a different failure page for both sources and notability. Thanks! Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 14:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I support this, as we have a ton of people come into the IRC channel where we tell them their declined article will never be accepted. Cutting them off before they start seems like a good way to prevent people from wasting their time. Primefac (talk) 14:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Per this discussion, and my own opinion, I've BOLDly removed the "Create a userspace draft section". —  16:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2015
Mohd Saquib is a entrepreneur.

14.98.41.227 (talk) 03:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Article wizard. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Stickee (talk) 05:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I want to crate an new article relative with constitutional ceremonial monarchy. Can you help me please?176.92.231.100 (talk) 12:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Add COI to the Wizard
Recently someone came to REFUND and asked for a draft article to be restored. They have a conflict of interest but said that they never saw any COI notices. I know that this process will post about a conflict of interest if you choose to write about certain subjects (companies, writing about yourself, websites) but not on all of the articles. The problem here is that COI editors aren't restricted to writing about specific things - a lot of them will write about general topics rather than the company. (However many of them will include their client's name in the article.) I really think that the COI warning should be on all of the wizard subject selections and it should be repeated in the content tab under the section about neutrality. A one sentence mention would probably suffice there. Basically I want to ensure that there's no way that a COI editor could miss something about having a COI. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If nobody minds, I'll add it myself but I wanted to ask here first. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2015
RAJAN SHAH (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC) If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Given the nature of this page, you will also need to reach consensus before any significant changes are implemented. - Arjayay (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ as you have not requested a change, but I suspect you are in the wrong place, as this page is only to discuss improvements to Article wizard.

Possible bug report
Can anyone reconstruct what happened at psychedelic sidebar? It was created with the new unreviewed article template at the top, which didn't work out too well, because it made any article wherein psychedelic sidebar was transcluded appear to be a "new unreviewed article".

I've been guessing that this happened automatically somehow because the creator (user:Mangokeylime) used some sort of wizard, possibly this one. But I have not been able to reproduce this result. (I suppose an alternative possibility is that Mangokeylime had created an article previously using the wizard, saw the code invoking new unreviewed article, thought it should be included in all new pages, and added it manually.) --Trovatore (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I did use this wizard, but I am a newbie, I may have screwed something up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mangokeylime (talk • contribs) 22:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2015
198.217.64.23 (talk) 05:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 05:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I was surprised that there wasn't an article on Lorna Jane Clarkson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.115.135 (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2015
Dominos India is India's fastest growing fast food service restaurant for casual and fine dining

65.175.243.206 (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Article wizard. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. --Stabila711 (talk) 23:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I want to know this word's meaning.
These days I am learning about concentrating solar power, I met a word "Sunshape", I want to know what is that means, would you please find the answer, I will be so glad to hear your reply. Thank you! Best wishes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.200.158.254 (talk) 11:05, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but this is not a service that Wikipedia or its volunteers provide (see WP:What Wikipedia is not), but I'll give you what general help I can. If I were you, I'd look for places online where people specifically discuss solar power. You could also try that Yahoo page where people can ask anything, or join http://www.quora.com/ or http://stackexchange.com/ and ask there. http://about.com is often useful. You could also simply search in your preferred search engine with various search strings (different sets of words to search for) such as:


 * https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Sunshape+solar


 * Your local library might also have a service helping people find answers to such questions. Good luck! --Geekdiva (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * There's actually a place on Wikipedia for this, Reference desk. This would fall under science, so if you have any further questions you can always go to Reference desk/Science. I did try doing a quick search, but I couldn't really find anything definitive. I'd have to see the word used in context, but I have a feeling that they're talking about the curvature of the sun. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambig?
As requested, could we get an option for creating disambiguation pages? Chris Troutman ( talk ) 19:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Spicy World Recipes
Spicy World (http://spicyworld.in) is a unique blog hosting various recipes. The recipes are easy and simple to cook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitava3.g (talk • contribs) 05:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to write an article about this website? It looks like you started one at Draft:Spicy World Recipes, so your best bet is to continue to write it there. However I need to warn you that you will have to show how the website passes notability guidelines for websites (WP:NWEB) and you will also need to avoid using promotional terms like "delicious" (WP:PUFFERY). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Article wizard, so if you have any questions about content for your specific article I'd recommend that you check out the WP:TEAHOUSE. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

page
How to create new page? Shyaaam (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2016
Cosmos Herbal Products is a company that makes herbs in india

Pvtled2399399292 (talk) 23:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * ❌, it is not clear what you want to see changed in the wizard. If you want to create an article, click the blue button on Article wizard. Gap9551 (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Ludwigia polycarpa
Amadeus960 (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Studley Oak
My article was deleted and it said to request it to be created here. Also I wish to have the material I used before it was deleted. Studley Oak (talk) 09:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * . If you would like to get a deleted article back, please see WP:REFUND. If you'd like to request an article be made, see Requested articles. This talk page is for discussing the article wizard. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 01:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Restriction on editing this page
I am somewhat confused by the recent addition on this talk page of the notice: "This page is for the use of the developers of the Article Wizard only. DO NOT ADD ANY OTHER MESSAGES HERE". By what consensus was this added, and where are other users supposed to discuss any matters related to the Article wizard page? --David Biddulph (talk) 12:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Changed it to reflect what I assume was meant Noyster (talk),  11:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit request - amend link
Please amend the last sentence of the top para of the Introduction, which reads "or go through this brief tutorial." The tutorial linked is no longer being maintained and the originator recommends removing incoming links to it. Please replace with a pointer to Tutorial or similar <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b> (talk),  18:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- John of Reading (talk) 18:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Revert vandalism
Please revert edit 751143712 -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 08:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks! Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 08:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletion query
Please help my Friend who is a Indian Celebrity and miss India worldwide runner up her own Wikipedia page has been deleted by some user because they are jealous her page still exist but after clicking on link it shows that page has been deleted Arwa Rangoonwala (talk) 10:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If you wish to pursue this, please post your enquiry on Help desk, not here, and state the title of the article you refer to. Pages are only deleted by administrators in accordance with Wikipedia policies. Oh, and we need to make it clear that no-one has "their own page" on Wikipedia. We have articles, including articles about people considered "notable" <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b> (talk),  14:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

COI disclosure
Could we have some steps where people have to say "I have a conflict of interest" or "I am being paid for my contributions to Wikipedia"? I've tried adding advice about disclosure, but telling them where to put it depends on whether they're creating an article or draft. It would be easier if there were a series of steps to guide them if they said yes to those questions. SarahSV (talk) 07:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Add interactivity to the Subject (search) screen
Hi all,

I would like to add interactivity to the Subject screen so that the users don't need to leave the Wizard to search whether the page already exists.

To do that, the following edits could be done:


 * 1) Create MediaWiki:CustomAdditions/ArticleWizard/Subject.js -- put the contents from testwiki:MediaWiki:CustomAdditions/ArticleWizard/Subject.js (Revision 297783 at the time of this writing).
 * 2) Edit Article_wizard/Subject -- wrap the inputbox tags into "  " and "   " tags. Like this.
 * 3) Edit pages at Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Article_wizard/Subject -- amend all links: replace
 * with
 * to load the JavaScript into the page.
 * to load the JavaScript into the page.
 * to load the JavaScript into the page.

You can see this in action here.

As a side note, I would rather not use an on-by-default gadget for this, because doing so clutters the users' lists of gadgets with things which they probably never need or care of. Such on-by-default gadget would need a different set of steps to implement, but the source code linked in step 1 would still be useful.

--Gryllida 02:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Since the time of this writing, I fixed one bug (incorrect URLs being displayed in the list of search results) in the script. Current revision; diff. --Gryllida 22:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Drafts with wrong header tag
I seem to be seeing an increasing number of pages in draft space with headers like which I would expect to see only on articles created through the wizard directly into in mainspace. I would have expected drafts to have a tag such as. Is there some feature in the wizard that is giving rise to these apparently misplaced templates? One arbitrary example was this first version of what was then Draft:Hares on the Mountain (subsequently submitted for review and moved to mainspace). --David Biddulph (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Template protect everything?
I've created a group editnotice for the Article Wizard after noting that a user had created an article at Article wizard/Not quite yet and moved it away. I've requested protection for that page, but perhaps every page of the article wizard should be template protected? – Train2104 (t • c) 14:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 June 2017
At Article wizard/Ready for submission, the first option has been changed from AFC to use the Draft namespace, but the wording in the second option hasn't been changed to match. Please change  to   -- John of Reading (talk) 06:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * FYI, I've asked the protecting admin about a downgrade to TE. – Train2104 (t • c) 13:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done clpo13(talk) 16:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

+Module?
Hello there, I need to have a Module created (contents is in Module:Sandbox/trappist_the_monk/bob). How would I go about this please? Discussion about it is here. Thanks. 2A02:C7D:DA0A:DB00:B4B0:9105:E933:D3B1 (talk) 06:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Never mind, this is done. Still would be good to have an option for new Modules - or at least some text to explain why that's not supported. Cheers. 2A02:C7D:DA0A:DB00:E457:BDD3:5F5D:A905 (talk) 06:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Bad sources should include Newswires
An article I recently authored was speedily deleted for citing posts from Prnewswire, pehub.com and globenewswire.com. It would have been useful to know they weren't going to be considered as reliable sources before going through the trouble of authoring an article. Zaurus (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Third option
I notice that the article wizard basically gives two options when searching for the topic to see if it already exists 1) create a new article (if it doesn't), or 2) create a redirect (if it does). We should probably include a third option: 3) create a section in an existing, related, topic (if the proposed topic is a subtopic of another related parent subject). I say this because new editors won't be able to create new articles anyway during ACTRIAL and adding sections to another article can be a much better way to start than trying to create a new article on the topic. We should encourage this by making it an additional page between the "Subject" page and the "Notability" page. This page would make it clear to new users that adding material as a new section in another parent topic might result in more people seeing their additions, and would have two options along the lines of "My proposed article could be added as a standalone section in an existing article" (which goes to a page that prompts the user to enter the topic that it would work as a section in and sends them to that article) and "My proposed article is better off as a standalone article" (which then proceeds to the "Notability" page).

What do you guys think? —  InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here)  03:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * (Trampling over the "This page is for use of the developers of the Article Wizard only" message): It takes some skill and experience to know when new material is suitable to be added to an existing article, finding the most appropriate article, and integrating the new material into it. The suggestion would best come from a reviewer or experienced editor in a particular case, rather than opening the door wide to unsuitable additions to what may be high-profile existing articles <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b> (talk),  09:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Change the lead of Article wizard/Not quite yet
The lead section of Article wizard/Not quite yet is very confusing and misleading. It states:


 * "Although your proposed article might not be ready now, it could possibly be improved with some work. When you feel your article is ready, please consider using this wizard again (just go back to the beginning). In any case, we encourage you to continue to participate in the project in other ways, such as working on improving existing articles."

The bolded sentences above indicate the sentences I feel need to be rephrased. Keep in mind that this page is reached after a user has indicated that their subject might not be notable or does not have adequate sourcing. Stating that the "proposed article might not be ready now, it could possibly be improved with some work" is completely irrelevant because (1) the user does not even have an article yet and (2) there is nothing the user can do about lack of notability. Moreover, asking the user to use the wizard again just encourages the user to pick the "correct" options where it might not be true. I propose changing the lead to:


 * "Your proposed topic is not notable enough now to have a standalone article. However, it may become notable in the future if it receives substantial attention in reliable sources. If this is the case, you can write an article about the subject at that point in time. Meanwhile. we encourage you to continue to participate in the project in other ways, such as working on improving existing articles."

Thoughts? <b style="color:#FA0">Darylgolden</b>(<b style="color:#F00">talk</b>) Ping when replying 06:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

My take:


 * Your proposed topic is not notable enough to have a standalone article. However, some topics may become notable in the future if they receive substantial attention in reliable sources. If this is the case, you can write an article about the subject at that point in time. Some topics are best covered by expanding existing articles. We encourage you to continue to participate in the project in other ways, such as working on improving existing articles.

How do we edit this page? Legacypac (talk) 07:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've inserted 's suggested change. Feel free to do any re-editing, reverts, or changes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I've been working on reacting these wizard pages for many hours now. You can review what's in my user pages already, but make suggestions please because we cannot deny attribution to to the original authors unless someone is prepared to do some complex hist merges. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've nearly finished all  the most  important  pages. They do not conflict with the present situation. I will incorporate my edits into the existing  pages probably later today. Any re-editing, reverts, or changes anyone would like to make will be able to be done from there without disturbing the existing histories. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * My changes are now complete. The pages I have changed are:

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Article wizard
 * Article wizard/Advertising
 * Article wizard/Biographical notability
 * Article wizard/Company notability
 * Article wizard/Conflict of interest
 * Article wizard/Content
 * Article wizard/General notability
 * Article wizard/Musical notability
 * Article wizard/Neologism
 * Article wizard/News
 * Article wizard/Not quite yet
 * Article wizard/Ready for submission
 * Article wizard/Sources
 * Article wizard/User page
 * Article wizard/Website notability

More suggestions
There should be additional clarification on notability academics (need not be the subject of secondary sources, as long as they are influential), species (automatically considered notable if it can be proven to exist), chemicals, biological molecules, astronomical objects, geographic features and scientific concepts as well. Given that all non-autoconfirmed users will be sent to the article wizard with the start of WP:ACTRIAL, I think it's important to explain these in some way. <b style="color:#FA0">Darylgolden</b>(<b style="color:#F00">talk</b>) Ping when replying 06:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Don't make it too complicated. Legacypac (talk) 07:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I concur with . Even after my  changes, in  order to  reflect  recent  trends some of my  changes are already a sentence or two  more rather than shorter. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Typo?
Hello. I just noticed that the project page says "making jokes - it will be deleted, and you might nor be allowed to edit the encyclopedia again..". Does it mean not instead of nor, and one fullstop instead of 2? If so, please could someone chanage it. (Apologies if I am wrong:) ). Regards - Heptanitrocubane (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. Good catch, . Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Glad to be of assistance. Heptanitrocubane (talk) 10:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)