Wikipedia talk:Article wizard

About

{{editprotected}} Since the protection of this template has been made full, please change the protection template to {{Pp-template|small=yes}}. Debresser (talk) 11:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is a template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Martin is right this isn't a template, I've added {{pp-protected|small=yes}} instead. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

That's right. My mistake. But the main thing is we fixed it. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 21:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Extraordinary addition to WP:ATH

This article has widened the scope of WP:ATH in a rather startling manner, by changing highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships to or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States. Whence is authoruty for this derived? Baseball, American Football and Basketball are not mainly amateur sports, and the notability of college participants in other sports is far from established. Kevin McE (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This refers to Wikipedia:Article wizard 2.0/Wizard-Biographical notability, 4th bullet point. Rd232 ^talk 17:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well it was adapted from the WP:AFC wizard, which says the same thing ([1]). It might be that the wizard wasn't revised to keep up with changes in WP:ATH, or something. So update to match, I guess. Rd232 ^talk 17:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Like that. Rd232 ^talk 20:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:New unreviewed article

Template:New unreviewed article has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. RL0919 (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Layout

I like the Wizard 1.0 layout better (Wikipedia:Article wizard). It's SIMPLER, and KISS is an important principle if we are designing a wizard for n00bies and otherwise challenged folks. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Unable to create an article Gogo (currency)

I am unable to create an article. This never happend to me before. I'm going crazy. It seems, that it is saved however, as it appears, when clicking on "show changes". Really strangee. Do you know what's going on? <article text misplaced here so removed>—Preceding unsigned comment added by Saippuakauppias (talk • contribs)

Hi Saippuakauppias. There's seems to be a very recent sitewide problem (it's not just you). Just give it a bit of time. By the way, future posts like this are better placed at either the new contributors' help desk or the help desk, or you can post the template {{helpme}} on your talk page and post a question below it and someone will stop by. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Categories in Userspace drafts from Article Wizard

I have been cleaning up many categories on Wikipedia recently. A large fraction of the contaminations (maybe 5%) come from categories in user space created with the Article Wizard. I think many of the users that use the Article Wizard will not understand how categories function and know that user space articles should not be put into the encyclopedia categories. How to fix the problem? The presently used sample code dealing with the categories looks like this:

<!--- Categories --->
[[Category:Articles created via the Article Wizard]]

Perhaps it would be better if it where something like this:

<!-- Add categories below and read note afterward
[[Category:Articles created via the Article Wizard]]

Articles in user space do not go in the encyclopedia categories and are presently commented out.
When the article is published in name space (that is as a regular page) uncomment the categories.
See http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Main_namespace for an explanation.
-->

Also, the Article Wizard should use the correct number of dashes in the code comments. Many users will be learning wiki-syntax from its generated source and there's no reason to give them potential confusion about the number of dashes needed in comments. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

returnto

{{editprotected}} (editprotected request) Please add returnto parameter to the link "Register as a new user" (more accurately, change the link to: <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Special:Userlogin|type=signup&returnto={{urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}} Register as a new user]</span>, Register as a new user), so newly registered users can return to this page directly. --Liangent (talk) 09:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Great idea, but not done, because it doesn't work inside the {{Article wizard/button2}} template. If you can figure out how to make it work inside, great (try the help desk, maybe). If not, it may be worth redesigning the page to accommodate the link outside the button, as having users come straight back would certainly be helpful. Rd232 ^talk 10:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It should work: {{Article wizard/button2|[{{fullurl:Special:Userlogin|type=signup&returnto={{urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}} Register as a new user] <small>(no personal info required)<br />then come back here. See [[Wikipedia:Why create an account?]]</small>}}

Register as a new user (no personal info required)
then come back here. See Wikipedia:Why create an account?

--Liangent (talk) 09:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Huh. That looks like what I did when I tried to add your code initially... except it works. I must've made a mistake somehow. Anyway, sorted now. Rd232 ^talk 10:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Add shortcut please...

{{Editprotected}} Please add WP:AW2 to the shortcut template at the top of the page. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Aren't three shortcuts enough? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Not when the most obvious one isn't listed... – ukexpat (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:WIZ2.0 doesn't seem very helpful (given that we have WP:WIZ2), so I replaced that. Rd232 ^talk 22:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Steal this template!

I was unaware of this nice looking tool. What would it take to copy it to Wikinews and adapt to news writing? The general stages it goes through pretty much match up with Wikinews' checking process, I'm happy to work on redoing site-specific texts for those, so it's just a case of "what changes from CSS/Javascript/Mediawiki namespace do I need to copy?" --Brian McNeil /^talk 17:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately

The current text needs tweaking:

• "Unfortunately you need an account to create new articles yourself. You have two options:"

The word "unfortunately" is unnecessary. Please remove it and stick to a simple style without that controversial editorial opinion. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:Article wizard

As this template was blatantly "stolen" from WikiProject Articles for creation I have merged them and moved ours across to retain the history. To give due credit, most aspects of the design come from Shinmawa's efforts in 2006, although I like the few changes that you made to it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. I was going to suggest (but didn't get round to it) that there may be changes to the content, originally adapted from the AFC wizard, which might be usefully adopted back into the AFC wizard. Rd232 ^talk 11:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I am actually going to look at merging the two different wizards because they basically serve the same purpose. The only difference is that the place where the articles are created needs to be in project talk space (because anons can't create articles in mainspace) so we could perhaps add that as an option to the ready for submission page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Article wizard 2.0

I was wondering why this page is protected, as it seems to go against standard practice. You could put those links in a {{notice}} at the top and then allow discussion on that page. You might even get suggestions on how to improve the wizard coming in. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It's semi-protected; it just seemed a good idea, to ensure users go to pages that are actually widely watched (help pages), and to separate user feedback (Wikipedia:Article wizard 2.0/Userfeedback) from experienced editor feedback. We could try it that way, but I predict people will use it as a general "er, what do I do now". That might be useful feedback too I suppose... Rd232 ^talk 11:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Only one way to find out! Unprotected — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Neither of these talk pages are receiving much traffic lately, so I think it might make sense to merge them and keep all discussion in one place. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

"New article name is"

I think "New article name is" should be reformatted to something like "INSERT YOUR NEW ARTICLE NAME HERE", because I see some articles created with the wizard, whose opening sentences say something like "New article name is John Doe..." Some newbies may not understand they have to replace "New article name" with the actual name of their article. Intelligentsium 20:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I see this quite often, and I agree with the above suggestion. DES ^(talk) 17:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge with AfC wizard

I propose that the AfC wizard be merged with this one. The simplest way to do this is probably to change the first page, which sends unregistered users away and to add a third option to the last page of the wizard to allow the editor to create the article in project talk space where it will be checked by WPAFC reviewers. I have made a draft copy of the proposed changes:

• Wikipedia:Article wizard 2.0/Wizard-Ready for submission/sandbox

Are the three options too wide to fit on people's monitors or does that look okay? Any comments would be welcome. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reformatted the page and think it looks better now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If there are no comments I will probably implement this in a day or two. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced; the advantage of reduced maintenance is clear (assuming that AFC then points to it); but I fear it complicates things a little for the user. It's not just adding an extra choice at the final stage; it's adding a choice which is of a fundamentally different category of logic: the existing two are "are you ready?" The additional one is "do you have an account?" Anyway, these pages aren't muchly watched - I suggest a WP:VPR posting. Rd232 ^talk 12:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't suppose there's any clean way to direct users based on detecting whether they're logged in or not? Rd232 ^talk 12:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but it is not really fundamentally different because AfC accepts registered users as well (we get quite a lot of them actually) and so it is really just another choice of where to put the submission. (Of course unregistered users can only choose that option ...) Can you think of a clearer way of achieving this aim? The problem with asking the question at the start is that there is no way, as far as I can tell, of "remembering" their answer at the end of the wizard and so you'd have two separate wizards like we do currently. I doubt there is a way to detect this automatically, but I know the right person to ask about that. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if you could use help:magic words to hack an equivalent of HTML's GET? If every "next-step" link within the wizard checked whether the URL included #unregistered, and then if it was in the current URL, sent the user to a "next-step" link including it too. Rd232 ^talk 18:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

MSGJ asked me to come here and comment since I coded up the function to show some text only if a user is an admin or an accountcreator.

In javascript we can detect exactly what kind a user is: IP-user, normal user, autoconfirmed user, accountcreator, admin, etc. We can use this to do all kinds of things, for instance we can selectively insert, hide, or unhide things. I use this in the editnotice system to show some links only to admins and accountcreators.

There are some limitations to this: Browsers that doesn't have javascript enabled will only see the default text. And unfortunately more users and browsers than you might think runs without javascript. So things should be built in such a way that they are still usable even if our detection fails due to lack of javascript.

And browsers that don't understand CSS (mostly text based browsers and some really old browsers) show all the hidden items on the page. These browsers are rare, so we don't need to cater that much to them, just see to that things don't get terribly broken for them.

So for the Article wizard the best approach seems to be to have the default to show both alternatives, then use javascript to hide the item that is not relevant to the current user. Note that users without javascript see both alternatives, so they need to make sense for such users. This also means that both alternatives should be short, since some users will see everything.

Technically what I can supply is this:

I can make MediaWiki:Common.js load a special CSS page for each kind of user. Then in those CSS pages I can put code for classes like "user-hide" and "IP-hide". Then if you mark an item with "IP-hide" it will be hidden when an IP-user views the page. Like this:

<div class="IP-hide">
This text will not be seen by IP-users.
</div>

I'll make those classes work for <div>, <span> and <table> tags. That should cover most usage cases.

That's the opposite to what I do in the editnotice system, there instead per default the items are hidden, and then I just unhide them for admins and accountcreators. Like this:

<div class="sysop-show accountcreator-show" style="display: none;">
This text only shows for admins and accountcreators.
</div>

By the way, isn't it so that only autoconfirmed users can create articles? Thus we need to select on autoconfirmed or not. Not on IP-user vs. logged in user. Right?

Note that those classes can then be used on any page anywhere in Wikipedia. Adding this ability to Wikipedia is controversial. We used to have it long ago but those classes got heavily abused, so there will probably be some resistance to add this again. See Wikipedia:HiddenStructure and the current discussion MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Hidden items.

--David Göthberg (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, if that's acceptable technology in general, it sounds like a good enough solution here. How good depends of course on the proportion of users without Javascript; "low" I think we can agree, but how low? And what do you think about my "HTML GET" equivalent idea? Is it feasible? Rd232 ^talk 19:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately there are quite a lot of users who visit and edit Wikipedia with javascript disabled. The reason is that many schools, companies and libraries etc. have javascript disabled for security reasons. (Many of the ways to hack web browsers need javascript.)

I wrote my message above at the same time as you wrote yours about the HTML GET idea (I got an editconflict when saving), so I didn't look into it then. But looking at it now:

As far as I know we can't use template code to detect what anchor was used when calling a page. Anchors are a client side thing, the server never sees the anchor. So we can't use anchors to "remember what the user answered on the first page".

But your basic idea is good, we can make it work. Like this:

We can send the user to different pages depending on which options he did choose. But we can put the actual page content on one page that is transcluded into the different pages. Then you can add code that checks what page the user is on when creating the links to the next page in each step. Like this:

If on the "Start" page the user clicks "Logged in", then we send him to the page "Step 2/logged in". While if he clicks "Not logged in" we send him to "Step 2/not logged in". The entire content of page "Step 2/logged in" is this: "{{Step 2/shared}}". And the content of "Step 2/not logged in" also is just "{{Step 2/shared}}". So the actual page content is in the /shared page. And that page will make links to "Step 3/logged in" or "Step 3/not logged in" depending on what the current subpage name is. (It simply adds "/{{SUBPAGENAME}}" to the links it has to the next step.) Reusing the subpage name like that for the next step makes it easy to add more paths in the future. Or even make the paths split into more branches further down the steps, so we can actually remember more than one option!

And in the /shared pages we can of course use parserFunctions to check the subpage name if we want to display some things on the pages differently.

We can do many variations of this...

--David Göthberg (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This is an excellent idea. But if we are going to do this then it would make sense to ask this question on the previous page, so we only have to remember the answer for one step and not for six steps, which could get quite complicated! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That would mean changing this page: Wikipedia:Article_wizard_2.0/Wizard-Content. I think that can work, and be made not too confusing, even if we introduce a "by the way, you can register and come back here if you want" note. (If we didn't do that, it might cause frustration when AFC visitors see the other options and want them.) Rd232 ^talk 00:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

But that page is about the article's content ... which is completely different to whether the user is logged in or not. Perhaps that would be more confusing than putting a third option on the final page. I think, on reflection, that if DG can implement the javascript detection, then that might be the easiest solution.

• If the user is logged in, we show them only the "go live" and "userspace" options.
• If the user is not logged in, we show them only the "AFC" option.
• And if they don't have java enabled, then they will see all three options. (No big problem I think.)

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I imagined it as part of the Next Step bit at the bottom. But, even using Javascript on the Content page in the same way as you suggest, maybe it's just simpler on the final page. Rd232 ^talk 14:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I've asked DG to implement the javascript detection when he has the time. Then we can move forward with that method. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well the anchor's part of the URL, so I thought we could parse it that way. But if it were feasible it would surely be more complex than your approach. Rd232 ^talk 00:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

An AFC Editor Opinion: (I will notify afc's on the irc channel in minute) Is there anyway to detect the number of edits a user has? Then we can forward new editors to afc. Although it creates more work for us, it saves peoples time on speedying. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 22:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that would be possible. Anyway I think it is wrong to say that new editors should use AfC. The article wizard is wholly designed for new editors. New registered users can create in article space or their userspace. The purpose of AfC was to accept article submissions from unregistered users. (It's just that we have never turned away registered users before.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Very true there, didn't mean to diminish new users or talk against the article wizard. But your orginal preposal sounds good. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 00:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Implemented

As this discussion has dried up and we still do not have the capability of selectively showing content to different users, I am proposing to implement my initial suggestion (Wikipedia:Article wizard 2.0/Wizard-Ready for submission/sandbox) on a trial basis to see how it works. If there is any negative feedback we can revert and discuss, but I feel having one more link on that page will not significantly add to its complexity. If we gain the the selective content display in the future this can certainly be added at a later stage. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I have now edited the front page of the wizard to reflect the fact that unregistered users can also create articles through the wizard. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sample articles

The thought crossed my mind before, and it came up in feedback recently - can we include some "sample article" links for people to look at? Ideally these would be good, shortish new articles perhaps from a year or two ago, so we can link to "how it began" as well as "how it is now", for different types of article (biography, company, etc). Thoughts? Rd232 ^talk 11:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable idea. Do you mean linking to old versions of articles so that people can see how they've progressed? Where do you propose to put these links? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I do mean that, and I wasn't entirely sure. Perhaps on the "Notability" pages because they're broken down into categories (eg Wikipedia:Article wizard 2.0/Wizard-Company notability), so a sidebox with several relevant examples could work well. Or (maybe in addition), Wikipedia:Article wizard 2.0/Wizard-Content, the last step before drafting. Conceivably the examples (or more examples) could be listed on a separate page, perhaps even with a brief summary of the example (i.e. why chosen; what to look for qua example); with the page linked from the Wizard. Rd232 ^talk 17:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Article wizard 3.0

Article wizard 2.0 was a success IMO, but the environment it is build on has its limitations. I'm thinking that an Article wizard 3.0 should be a tool hosted in Toolserver. Sole Soul (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

What are the limitations? What would be the advantages of your proposed method? How could it even work having an off-site article wizard? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

On the toolserver, you can use a full range of PHP and other stuff (I don't know the details). On Wikipedia, you've got to work within MediaWiki, which is severely limiting. For instance, a fully flexible version could take some data from the user entered in an HTML form, and convert that into wikitext to be saved into the new Wikipedia page. Showing the user the relationship between the fields and the resulting wikitext would help them go up the learning curve more quickly. Ultimately, it could also lead to a full-featured editor that hides the wikitext from the user, much like HTML editors hide the text (but allow you to see it if you need to). The main downside, I think, would be the additional load on the toolserver if the tool becomes widely used. But in the long term, this is the sort of direction we should be going in, to make WP editing much more user-friendly. Rd232 ^talk 10:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Shortcut

Given that wizard 1.0 is defunct, I think it would be more sensible for WP:WIZARD to point to this page. Any objections? Gonzonoir (talk) 09:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. And I think we could move the entire wizard to Wikipedia:Article wizard. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, yes, moving the whole thing over to Wikipedia:Article wizard (to which WP:WIZARD points) sounds like a better idea; I'd endorse that. Anyone else? Gonzonoir (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'm planning to move it over shortly. It will require a lot of care however, because preload templates have a habit of breaking unless all incoming links are updated. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This has now been done. Hopefully without any side effects ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks good from here - thanks very much. Gonzonoir (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:New unreviewed article

Template:New unreviewed article has been nominated for merging with Template:Newpage. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. DES ^(talk) 17:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:NA

FYI, {{NA}} has been nominated for deletion again. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 07:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Request

{{editprotected}} Please add <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags to the protection template, because the page is transcluded on other, non-protected pages, causing an error category. Debresser (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the one page which was transcluding this page and don't see any need for other pages to transclude it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for what you did, but please be a little more responsive next time. All kinds of pages are transcluded (I saw a transclusion of WP:BIO e.g. today). Better be safe. Debresser (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Editintro templates

For the sake of simplicity, I moved Wikipedia:Article wizard/Wizard-New edit instructions to Template:Article wizard/editintro. I propose to move the others as well but I'm not sure what names would be best. How about something like:

• Wikipedia:Article wizard/Wizard-New edit instructions A -> Template:Article wizard/editintro/regular
• Wikipedia:Article wizard/Wizard-New edit instructions B -> Template:Article wizard/editintro/exists
• Wikipedia:Article wizard/Wizard-New edit instructions userdraft -> Template:Article wizard/editintro/userspace
• Wikipedia:Article wizard/Wizard-New edit instructions C -> Template:Article wizard/editintro/userspace/regular
• Wikipedia:Article wizard/Wizard-New edit instructions D -> Template:Article wizard/editintro/userspace/wrong namespace

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

fine by me - enhances clarity. Wikipedia talk:Article wizard/Documentation will need updating. Rd232 ^talk 18:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You Pussy

suck my dick and balls you faggot ass bitch!!!!!!!!!!!