Page semi-protected

Wikipedia talk:Article wizard

Jump to navigation Jump to search

WikiProject Articles for creation (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is used for the administration of the Articles for Creation or Files for Upload processes and is therefore within the scope of WikiProject Articles for Creation. Please direct any queries to the discussion page.WikiProject icon
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the quality scale.

Add a link to the old wizard

Please add a link in the corner of the article wizard that reads: [[Wikipedia:Article wizard/version1|Old article wizard]] on Wikipedia:Article Wizard. This can also be hidden so that only extended confirmed users can see it.

I think this may be uncontroversial because some users may prefer the old wizard. Aasim 21:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. The main reason why the old version was saved is for posterity (as well as pointing to the old version by some for how it was "sub-standard" or "not as good as what we have now"). Those who know the location of the old Wizard are likely not going to be the ones using it, and those who don't know it exists likely don't need it. Primefac (talk) 13:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request: Removing a possibly-misleading sentence

Wikipedia:Article wizard/HowToDisclose says, in part:

"Before you can begin editing, you are required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use to disclose that you are being paid to edit Wikipedia. Additionally you must comply with the rules listed in our policy page about paid editing. Failure to comply with the above terms may lead to a block. You are nevertheless encouraged to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia purely as a volunteer."

I worry that newbies in a hurry might misread that last sentence, "You are nevertheless encouraged to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia purely as a volunteer", as encouraging paid editing.

Do you agree that it would be a good idea to delete the sentence entirely?

Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 14:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree. No one that comes to Wikipedia as a paid editor is going to decide instead to contribute knowledge for free. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I think the intention is that a paid user can still make non-paid edits (e.g. "I'm being paid to edit Foo, but I like bar so I'm going to edit that while I'm here"). If there's a way to succinctly phrase that by rewriting that sentence, then I think it should stay. If not, it's not the end of the world to nuke. Primefac (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. I tried to change it above to You are nevertheless encouraged to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia., but some objected to that. I do think it would be nice to have some sentence that communicates in essence "if you are here to help us build an encyclopedia, then welcome," since not all COI editors are going to be evil. But they certainly don't need the encouragement as much as regular newbies, and no sentence is better than the one we have there currently. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 17:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Why not be crystal clear, as in You are nevertheless encouraged to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia as an unpaid volunteer. or use "non-paid" if that's better? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 21:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I feel like that sentence (or the current one) might be read as "wink wink, if you say you're doing it on your own time, then it's okay", which is definitely not the idea we want them to get. As Chris asked above, do we know if any paid COI editors actually make volunteer edits on the side? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Disabled TPER since a consensus will be reached and someone (probably me) will implement. Primefac (talk) 00:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Dear Primefac: The conversation has died out. Perhaps let's just delete the entire sentence for now? Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 06:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done. Primefac (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Improving sandbox link for first page

Pretty much every logged in user will be better off going to their personal sandbox, but IP users who try to go to their personal sandbox will be locked from editing it. Therefore, I'd like to make this page use {{If IP}} to display the most appropriate sandbox link for whoever is viewing the page and reduce the burden of choice. I've demonstrated the code at User:Sdkb/sandbox/testpage (view it logged in and then logged out). I'd also like to remove the link to the general editing guide, as users at this page are looking explicitly to create an article and thus will be best served by WP:YFA, so we don't need any other page. I will implement in a few days if there are no objections. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 06:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of removing the link to the community sandbox for logged-in users. I'm 50/50 on removing the link to WP:CTW. Primefac (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Primefac, is there some reason that a logged-in user would want to use the community sandbox rather than their own? It seems all negatives and no positives, since their own sandbox is easier to find and won't be overridden/reset by others. Jackmcbarn and I recently did something along these lines for the user talk warnings using {{Sandbox link}}.
Whatever we decide is best, I think that no more than one sandbox should be presented to any given user: the number of links on WP is overwhelming for newcomers, and we want to present them with the fewest possible choices to allow them to do what they want to do, not a comprehensive menu of options ("options" being a polite way of saying "forks") with analysis of their pros and cons. That same rationale applies for making WP:YFA the sole help link (it links back prominently to CTW anyways, so editors who want it will find their way there). {{u|Sdkb}}talk 00:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@Primefac: Do you still have any concerns about this? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
My opinion hasn't changed, if that's what you're asking, but I appear to be in the minority on this one. Primefac (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Seems all reasonable to me....less is more. Should get rid of the read more non-action action bottoms if we want more to go to the next page....turn them into normal links in bold big text so we are not so scary.--Moxy 🍁 23:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)