Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wizard-Introduction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note to article submitters: This page is for discussion of the Articles for creation wizard. If you would like to submit an article to Wikipedia, please do not edit this page. Please return to the Wikipedia:Articles for creation page, and follow the "Unregistered users: Submitting an article" instructions there. Thank you for your cooperation.

Contents 1 Wizard discussion 2 Page helper 3 Go-live 4 Minor Considerations

[edit] 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)

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)

That sounds like a good idea. _{J Di}^talk 14:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm intrigued and would like to see the proof of concept. ×Meegs 17:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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 Di}^talk 20:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

• If the acceptance rate is going up, either we're getting submissions from smart people, or it's due to the wizard. I don't particularly care as long as it works. ;) - Mgm|^(talk) 09:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

• 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)