Wikipedia talk:Article wizard/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I want to create a article that doesn’t exist on wikipedia? How do I do it ColinBear (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:Tutorial pages which will help. Primefac (talk

) 16:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I still dont understand, after done user page, it told me to add tittle in a box, but which box? I don't understand Negara rawang (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I am Anuj Parihar. I am an animation developer. How do I create an article of my profile. I am also on imdb if you want to confirm . Idk how to do it. Help!! Anujpflash (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Anujpflash, please see the various links that are right above this post (the ones made on 25 Jan 2018). Primefac (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

George Linder I am a film producer and listed on IMDb. Would like a page on Wikipedia. Linderg (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Linderg, you're now the third person that needs to read the reply given above. Primefac (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Isabel Harriisa001 (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Why doesn't she have a page Harriisa001 (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Please read the BIG RED BANNER ABOVE, and this is exactly why she won't have one anytime soon.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

____

This page is for discussion of the Article Wizard only. DO NOT ADD ANY OTHER MESSAGES HERE

I have looked at the Article Wizard and it doesn't help me! Help! Searcher of useful facts01 (talk) 12:49, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Your first article. It might be a good idea to first read that, then if you have a specific query you are welcome to go back to the Teahouse (to help them help you, try to give all the detail you can). On the other hand, improving articles that are already here is often a more suitable activity for the newer editor. The community portal has lots of suggestions – check out the "Help out" section: Noyster (talk),

13:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I cannot click the second 'next' box due to grey sentence. Kpgjhpjm (talk) 03:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay Arno Tieties (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for just bursting in like that: I'm not acquainted with the Article Wizard at all. But I notice at a few places that the instructions seem to assume that the user of the wizard is editing in wikitext mode (and not with the visual editor): see for example Template:AfC draft editintro, which tells people they can resubmit by putting {{subst:submit}} at the top of their draft. There's no separate version of the Article Wizard that gets shown to people who use the visual editor, is there? – Uanfala (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Wait, the template above appears not to be used anywhere at present. Nevermind. – Uanfala (talk) 11:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Uanfala: Actually, that template is used in the code of the InputBox. Because it's not formally linked, it gets missed by the tools. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to Wikipedia:Article wizard/HowToDisclose has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

On Wikipedia:Article_wizard/HowToDisclose, the text Save Changes should be changed Publish changes to reflect the new text of the button. KSFT ^(t|c) 02:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to Wikipedia:Article_wizard/Referencing has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"Your article will be rejected, unless you reference it properly" should probably be changed to something like "Please reference your article properly - otherwise, it will be rejected". The current text seems to assume the creator will not source it properly, especially with the comma before "unless". I don't think it's a good idea for the first real message to newcomers being that their article will be rejected. Kranix (talk | contribs) 22:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a

WT:AFC or start a new one there. The specific page in question is Wikipedia:Article wizard/Referencing. Primefac (talk

) 22:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:Articles created via the Article Wizard was deleted after a CFD discussion. However Article Wizard seems to be continuing to populate it. Please can someone adjust the settings to prevent this. Thanks in advance! Timrollpickering (Talk) 20:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. That seems a bit problematic. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

As near as I can tell the Wiz is not doing this, nor is AFCH. Could you please identify at which point in the process the category is being added? Primefac (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

It's appearing in the initial save of the drafts - e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and [6]. Currently Cydebot removes them as part of the CFD deletion but this isn't a permanent solution. Timrollpickering (Talk) 12:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

This edit may help, along with this one. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Weird, given those aren't being used anywhere that I can tell, but if stuff stops appearing, I guess that would do it... Primefac (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I've also removed it from Template:Article wizard/userpageskeleton, which is used by the inputbox at Help:Userspace draft. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Good catch John. I don't know how I missed that... Primefac (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Currently, the article wizard directs users to practise at Special:MyPage/sandbox. However, this only works if a user is logged in, and not all users who use the article wizard are. I propose adding a link to Wikipedia:Sandbox, something like:

Unregistered users can edit the public sandbox instead.

A button like

Edit the public sandbox

could also be added. Danski454 (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd have to putz about with the backend code to add in another button, but it's doable. Primefac (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Can the search term

@Goveganplease: This was  Done by Primefac (talk · contribs) --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I noticed that yesterday, I thanked him for his swift work with it. :) Goveganplease (talk) 01:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at

@DannyS712: It appears to be an older version of Wikipedia:Article wizard/HowToDisclose, but the template it relies on was deleted. I have redirected it to the HowToDisclose page. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ahecht: Oh, thanks --DannyS712 (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Moved from

Wikipedia talk:Article wizard/version1/basics

 – * Pppery * _{has returned}

00:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Wikipedia:Article wizard/version1/basics has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove {{pp-template}}. Protection top icons and categories are automatically handled by {{documentation}}, which this template transcludes. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Done Izno (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I clicked "Next," and was taken to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_wizard/CommonMistakes

This page lacks a "Next" button for moving on to the next step. Novel compound (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh now I see: the user is expected to click the "I'm not connected to the subject" button. But it's not even clear that this is a button. It's not blue, like the previous buttons in the Article Wizard. So that's an inconsistency that should be fixed. Novel compound (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Wikipedia:Article wizard has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change to:

Before creating an article, you canneed to create a user account. After that, it is helpful to practice by first editing in your sandbox. It's a great way to try your editing skills without affecting live articles.

Right now IP editors that reach this page are going to get confused when they click on "your sandbox". --- Coffeeandcrumbs 11:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I tweaked it to say "draft article" because IPs can create drafts. I was under the impression that IPs could also edit their sandboxes provided they weren't blocked. Primefac (talk) 12:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Primefac: Try logging off and click this link: "your sandbox". --- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I cannot right now, as I am on a blocked IP range, but I will endeavour to do so later. In the meantime, what do you see when you go to that link whilst logged off?

ping

on reply)

It leads to User:[My IP address]/sandbox, which is a page I am not permitted to create or edit. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 15:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Odd, I must be misremembering that IPs can edit their own sandbox. I'll think about tweaking the link to the WP:Sandbox. Primefac (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Primefac (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Wikipedia:Article wizard/version1/Not quite yet has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This page, Wikipedia:Article wizard/version1/Not quite yet, in the "Sources are (nearly) everything" section, has a link to Wikipedia:Article wizard/Sources - yet as can be seen, this is a red link. It has been moved to Wikipedia:Article wizard/version1/Sources - so would it be possible for someone to fix this link, please? (Also, there is a typo just before this redlink in the page, "Wzard", instead of "Wizard"). Thanks  Seagull123  Φ  12:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

added {{request edit}} template  Seagull123  Φ  12:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

added the right template now, {{Edit template-protected}}  Seagull123  Φ  12:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done Primefac (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

The clean-up of the referencing instructions by Headbomb is much appreciated, but the section now includes overly-detailed instructions that no one is going to read anyway. I suggest that the following sentences be deleted:
"The sources mentioned in the above notability section are generally considered acceptable and should be used to support the article's text as much as possible. Some additional sources may be acceptable in limited circumstances to verify basic facts, but do not count towards establishing notability, as they are not independent of the subject, such as the subject's own website, or press releases."
When folks were working on this in preparation for ACTRIAL, the goal was to avoid having walls of text with too many links (so that there was a small chance some people would actually read it instead of just clicking through to the next step). The 2nd step has doubled in size and needs to be significantly trimmed back, IMO, as we are starting to recreate the problems the wizard was designed to avoid. Kaldari (talk) 04:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@

b

} 10:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: That's much better, IMO. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 13:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Wikipedia:Article wizard/Referencing has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

New Zealand Police Agency as described by wikipedia under NZ Police I would like to know more about this agency 103.232.108.10 (talk) 09:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done try Wikipedia:Reference desk. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Depending on the selection "Paid editing", "COI" or "not connected", the final landing page should be different, and the resulting article should contain a notice about the choice. Ideally, the resulting page should contain a notice which instructs the user to disclose the COI on the talk page as well. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Which is your least liked tube stock? Hirdy123 (talk) 13:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM

. This isn't really the correct website for this sort of stuff.

The answer is of course the

- talk

13:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Could you please allow me to post a article on this topic which is subject oriented Aishwarya18 (talk) 05:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome to start a draft using the

WP:YFA. Primefac (talk

) 11:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

How about: "Your article will be rejected if the topic is not notable, is referenced improperly, or it uses copyrighted material copied from another source." and we delete the second redundant part about copyright. Note that I also fixed the grammar and changed "copy-pasted" to "copied" since "copied" is more easily understood and it's still a copyvio even if they copy it by manual transcription rather than pasting. Also, can we please, please try to not expand the instructions further. Every system we build for guiding people through article creation seems to inevitably evolve into a wall of text that no one reads. Kaldari (talk) 04:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay Bundleofgreens (talk) 11:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Wikipedia:Article wizard/Content has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Protected pages should never be inaccessible from view of anyone, since the problem is in allowing unrestricted access to editing capabilities, but those protected pages could contain content that is unfounded, biased, or logically convoluted to the content displayed in any other page under the domain of the rule. That rule goes against what Wikipedia is, which is a site where incorrect information can be refined by anyone who has the ability to refine it, however editing restrictions should at least be viewable to those who use Wikipedia. 107.77.165.40 (talk) 12:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 12:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

The edit notice that appears when you are creating a new page outside of the wizard includes the line "You can also search for an existing article to which you can redirect this title", which makes me think that newbies creating pages for topics that already exist is a problem. Could we add a step (or at least a line) in the early stages of the wizard encouraging users to search for their topic to see if all that's actually needed is a redirect? On the more technical side, I just tried creating Draft:United States and the wizard didn't seem like it was going to stop me. Maybe there should be some function that alerts users who try to do that. Sdkb (talk) 11:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, I agree that there should be some stronger way to notify users than just a notice saying “There exists an article at United States.” On the other hand, even if the page exists, users might be creating a page with a different topic; for example, one wanting to create an article on a footballer called Sarah Jeong might be negligent of the article Sarah Jeong. I believe the thing should first detect the existence of the page:

1. if the page exists, tell them that the page already exists and they should...
2. if the page is a redirect, tell them to make sure that the page is really necessary;
3. if the page has a similar name with an actual page name, tell them that they might be looking for that page instead.

Thanks.

Message

) 07:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. I'd love to see this, but it's probably too complicated to implement unless someone who's a programmer comes along and decides to do so. Unfortunately that's not going to be me, but maybe someone else will pick this up. Sdkb (talk) 07:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Message

) 07:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. Just implementing the first two parts would be fantastic, even without the third. Sdkb (talk) 08:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Message

) 02:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Wikipedia:Article wizard/CreateDraft has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Akash k Vamra is a young indian entrepreneur.

He is the Founder and CEO of offernearme Born: 2 feb 1995(age 25 years), Gaya Bihar Gaya Education: West Bengal University of technology Akashkrvarma (talk) 02:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

 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. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi,

The notability criteria is well documented. Can it be included into the wizard?

• Ask the user which topic they write about ( artist or general or company ) and
• ask them to read the corresponding notability page.
• Then ask them to number which notability criteria is met,
• Ask them to copy/paste these relevant criteria into the draft and write 1-2 sentences for each. With copy/pasted links to supporting sources
• This becomes the ground for first draft. The authors don't have to (and are discouraged from) spending time writing a novel or a promo.

--Gryllida (talk) 05:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Gryllida: This would take some work to implement, but I support the general idea. The more we're able to walk people through each specific step of the article creation process, the less confused they'll be and the more chances we'll have to make it clear to those creating inappropriate articles that they should stop. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

We actually had most of this on the "original" version of the Wizard, and following an RFC (at least, I think that was the thread) we determined that v.1 was too wordy and we should simplify it. Primefac (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article_wizard/version1/Biographical_notability

1. A person who made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the historical record in their field.
2. Political people holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office.
3. Well known people and opinion makers (e.g. members of the Hollywood Walk of Fame)
4. Sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, such as the Olympic Games or World Championships
5. Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work
6. Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field
7. People who achieved renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events
8. A person who was the primary subject of multiple notable published works whose source is independent of the person (multiple similar stories describing a single news event only count as one instance of coverage)

I've found this too wordy also.

They need the BUTTONS. When a button says "It is notable" and "It is not notable", they will without much thinking press "It is notable".

Changed it from un-numbered list to numbered list... so once they are numbered, the user can "tick the boxes" by indicating the numbers and then their draft should look like this:

"2. John Smith is the MP for California. [1]

8. XYZ published a book about John Smith. [2][3]"

This would be a lot easier to review, and possibly for the authors to comprehend? Gryllida (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

It's hard for something like the Article Wizard to handle a concept as complex as notability in any sort of automated way, but it might be easier to introduce some sort of automatic handling of references. Here's the sort of thing I'm envisioning:

• Ask the editor to use the citation tool within the wizard to add the sources they think are notable.
• Compare the source URLs to the list at
  WP:RSP
  . If they're using at least one reliable source and no unreliable source, let them go ahead and insert their citations into their draft.
• If they're trying to use a social media URL, give them an explanation of why that's not sufficient. Ditto for an opinion URL or a source judged non-reliable.
• If both or all of the URLs are unrecognized, give them some brief information on what a notable source is, and ask them to confirm that they think their source meets that criteria. The wording on the buttons should definitely not use "notable", since people don't know that means in the Wikipedia context, and no one trying to write an article is going to think their subject is non-notable. Instead, use something like "my sources meet these criteria" and "I'm not sure", with the latter one directing them to some venue (maybe a sub-forum of the Teahouse) where they can ask.

{{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

As a minimum, if usinga checklst like the one above,you'd have to add WP:PROF, which is an exception to guidelines based on the GNG, and the multiple conditions giving notability in that rule are difficult to summarize,, but possibly, Academics having impact in their field as judged by publications and citations ,or named professorships, or membership in NAS or equivalent, or presidents of national/international societies, or recipients of major national/international level awards. You'd also have to add thea ccepted special criterion for visual artists (woks in major Museums);

But overall, there's a difference between people who are certain to be found notable using well established undisputed criteria, snd those likely to be found notable, which is difficult to assess and can only be learned by watching current decisions at WP:AFD). there are "quick-pass criteria", which are easy to state, but multiple, with a rather long list, , and "quick-fail", which ae more of a problem because the article may not make the notability clear, and because someone who would be a quick-fail as a minor businessman might be a quick-pass as a legislator. If guiding newcomers, it might be more helpful to give the quick-fail--i.e., do not write an article on .... ; if assesing at NPP or AfC, the quick pass need to be kept in mind to avoid the worst error there, rejecting a bio someone who is actually very notable . DGG ( talk ) 15:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article wizard/HowToDisclose looks like it was written before the WMF started requiring disclosure in the TOS. I would like to see the first paragraph updated to the following:

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 and may expose you to legal liability. You are nevertheless encouraged to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia purely as a volunteer.

Is that uncontroversial enough for an edit request, or do we need to vet it somehow with WMF lawyers? - Sdkb (talk) 08:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Mdennis (WMF) Sdkb (talk) 05:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I missed something, but where in the TOU/PAID does it say there is legal liability for not disclosing? This is an internal Wikipedia rule, and not one that has any standing in a court of law. Primefac (talk) 13:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Maggie's not in the office at the moment but I can chase this up. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Joe Sutherland (WMF) asked me to look at this. Thanks for flagging to us, appreciate the heads up when adding something around legal penalties for people. Looking at the change here, I don't think any of the language is inaccurate, but I'd recommend against adding the "legal liability" part because that isn't how we or the community typically deal with paid editing issues, so I think it would come across as a bit scary and maybe misleading. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jrogers (WMF): That neither the WMF nor the community has sought legal remedy before is no excuse. The community has asked WMF to do more to stop paid editing, which I imagine intones using legal means to seek remedy. If the WMF remains sanguine on the issue, I'd like to see a statement from the Board refusing our requests in an honest and forthright manner. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@

WP:PAID, so hopefully we'll get enough input to make some sort of update. Sdkb (talk

) 20:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 3 April 2020

This edit request to Wikipedia:Article wizard/HowToDisclose has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please update the first paragraph of the page to the following, to reflect the TOU disclosure requirement. (see the discussion with WMF legal directly above)

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 and may expose you to legal liability. You are nevertheless encouraged to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia.

{{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Where did "purely as a volunteer" go? It is in the draft text that was discussed above. Edit requests like this are most helpful for uninvolved admins and template editors when they provide a clear diff showing what is being added, changed, and removed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Sorry, I should have explained why I rolled that into the suggested change. I think it more clearly communicates what we're asking of paid COI accounts. Per our policy, it's not that we allow paid COI editors only in areas unrelated to the topic they have a COI about, it's just that we require them to follow the rules about disclosure/etc. Hopefully that's an uncontroversial change, but if not, we can separate it out and I can go try to plug this conversation more elsewhere to see if I can get any more editors to come here to make consensus clearer. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a

WT:AFC. Primefac (talk

) 11:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Primefac: Given that you were the one community editor who expressed opposition above, I honestly would have preferred that you let someone else uninvolved assess the consensus here, as Jonesey95 seemed about to do. I also find your choice of quote a little unrepresentative — the WMF's legal advice was that the update was alright, and the community has (at least so far) rejected their non-legal advice that you quoted. That said, I don't think your reading of a lack of consensus is totally off, so if it's necessary, I'll go bug AFC and see if anyone there is willing to chime in. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I didn't express opposition above, I was wondering where the "legal liability" text was coming from. That was answered by a WMF staffer, which is why I was confused as to this latest edit request. I still think it needs to be discussion, and I suggested WT:AFC because more than twice as many people see changes to that page as they do here. Primefac (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Primefac: Apologies, on re-reading, I see you're right. And I've issued an invite at AFC. To further address your question, per the pump discussion linked above, I'd assume the liability would be coming from infringement of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

so it would, but there has been no instance of its use in this context, certainly no successful use. (and I too have discussed this with the Foundation several times over the years). I do not think we have any basis for making even this tentative a statement of law on our own authority. If there is a successful court decision eventually that can be quoted, that would be a reason to state something like this. Additionally, attempts at scaring people with legal threats as in thousands of public notices tends to be ignored.

Nor do I agree that we should give a wording that implies that we encourage declared paid editing. That is not correct. We permit it under , under stringent conditions. All other notices, and all other messages we have been sending people, are more in the nature. "We strongly discourage paid editing. But, if you do decide to go ahead, our rules require that ... .

About 90% of declared paid editing is declined, or even speedy deleted, at AfC. Very few paid editors have ever been able to write a satisfactory article. If adopted, it will make my work at AfC very much harder.

I think a very broad and well publicised consensus would be needed for this change. And I suspect that we would be more likely to find a consensus to prohibit paid editing altogether. (I've opposed this in the past as impractical--at this point I have become so utterly frustrated with the deluge at AfC that I have come to think it necessary, despite the difficulty of enforcement. ) DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, DGG! My rough understanding is that, at some point in the past few years, there was a decision made to change the TOU so that paid editing disclosure was not merely encouraged but required. My intention with the edit request was to update the Wizard to reflect this change. I can't find the discussion itself, though; could you let me know if my understanding is correct and (if it exists) send a link to the discussion?^{Update: found Signpost coverage}

Regarding the last sentence, I'll defer to your judgement since you're active in this area. I'm normally very active in efforts to be more welcoming and encouraging to newcomers, but I agree that, when it comes to paid COI editing, the approach ought to be the opposite, since (a) paid COI editors are less likely to be scared away, (b) their contributions are less likely to be valuable, and (c) they're being paid, so if they need to put in some work to get used to how things run here, so be it. The line as it's currently written comes off oddly, since I think it's very unlikely an editor who came here to plug the superior customer service at Jim's Auto Parts is going to just decide "oh well, I guess I'll go edit foobar instead". Perhaps we should just remove it, or at least change "encouraged" to "permitted"?

And regarding the usefulness of a legal threat, I agree that they're not likely to be a panacea (especially if any COI editors somehow read this and see us talking about how we don't know of any examples of them being carried out yet), but they might help a bit and I also don't see much of a downside. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@DGG: Just quickly following up, is there anything you'd want to add before I try to start a broader conversation? And any advice on where such a conversation should be? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Just updating to note the terms of use

It looks like the above discussion has bogged down on the phrase "legal liability". But the page still needs to be updated to note that the terms of use require disclosure. Does anyone object to replacing In order to keep a civil relationship with the community you must disclose that you are being paid to edit Wikipedia with Before you can begin editing, you are required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use to disclose that you are being paid to edit Wikipedia. Galobtter (pingó mió) 00:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Reasonable request. Done. Primefac (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad to see this done. There's still more that could be done to improve the wizard and I'd like to see the other proposed changes above implemented at some point, but this is a good start. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add a link in the corner of the article wizard that reads: [[Wikipedia:Article wizard/version1|Old article wizard]] on

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)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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?

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)

Remove formatting to allow copy-pasting with VisualEditor

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit template-protected is being considered for merging. ›

Remove the formatting from the {{Paid}} syntax example on Wikipedia:Article wizard/HowToDisclose, a la the syntax examples on Template:Paid

If you copy-paste the sample template on Wikipedia:Article wizard/HowToDisclose directly into a userpage with the VisualEditor, it does not correctly transclude the template; it surrounds it with nowiki tags. However, copy-pasting the examples on Template:Paid does work correctly. The difference seems to be that there are internal nowiki tags in this code sample, unlike those on Template:Paid.

This does actually trip people up: see Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 33#Paid tag enclosed in nowiki. I fixed about 50 userpages that had this done incorrectly Vahurzpu (talk) 18:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Vahurzpu,  Done. The blue text was weird anyways, as it seemed like a link. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

How should we handle redirects?

Please see this discussion here: Template talk:No article text#Protected edit request on 13 December 2020. — The Earwig ^talk 16:56, 13 January 2021 (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 {{

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)

• Implemented. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm against this change as well. Right now, editors have the choice of sandbox to practice in. It's OK to suppress the personal sandbox for IPs, but I don't see what it gained by removing the community sandbox for logged in users. It's made very clear that one is temporary (e.g. for basic test edits you don't really care about), and the other is something you might want to play in without others interfering. Likewise I'm against the removal to the guide to editing.

b

} 04:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Same, I would recommend making it such that the personal sandbox to be hidden from IP users, or at least if the user is logged in then the personal sandbox link would say "recommended". User3749 (talk) 15:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Vision for a better Article Wizard

Hi all! I recently threw together

User talk:Sdkb/sandbox/Vision for a better Article Wizard. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk

03:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Venue for requesting the creation of disambiguation pages?

An unregistered editor asked

RPGA 989. As they are an IP they are unable to create the disambiguation page themselves, so a draft was created instead, which was declined by Theroadislong, who directed them to Wikipedia:Article_wizard/Redirects, where their request was denied by Qwerfjkl

as the two articles in question [need] a disambiguation page, which the IP is aware of.
If the Redirect Wizard isn't the proper place to request disambiguation page creation, where is? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 11:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:AFCRC is only for redirects and categories. ― Qwerfjkltalk

11:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Draft:RPGA 989 is a request to make a dab, which is not really what AFC should be used for, but as has been mentioned AFCR isn't the place to ask for dabs be created (just redirects). I can see why Theroadislong declined as "asking for a redirect" since the first four words are "Please create a redirect..."

The page is more of a talk page post asking a question than actually attempting to make a draft, so I'm not entirely sure how I would have proceeded if I had been the one to review the draft, but I don't think I would have declined it as "not a redirect". I think context might have been reasonable, and/or a custom decline stating that the page was unclear in its intentions and to potentially ask for help at the Teahouse.

As far as the draft itself goes, I think it's just a case of starting a dialogue with the creator.

In other words, a reasonable decline with a sub-optimal decline reason. Primefac (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Remove the group editnotice?

The big notice at Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Article wizard is pointless as it is visible only to users who can edit the pages – which is just template editors and admins who are not in need of that advice. What normal users see actually is the protection notice at Template:Editnotices/Protection/Wikipedia:Article wizard. – SD0001 (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good, so long as we've confirmed that all pages in the Wizard are indeed template-protected. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@SD0001: These aren't equivalent sets of pages. I'm not a template editor, so when I try to edit Wikipedia:Article wizard/Referencing, for example, I see the generic protection notice and the group editnotice; the protection notice only shows up on the main article wizard page, not any of its subpages. Vahurzpu (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I stand corrected, in that case. It does partially seem weird software behaviour though. – SD0001 (talk) 02:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Rejected

Should the word rejected here be changed to "declined"? – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 07:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Wikipedia:Article wizard/Referencing has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit fully-protected is being considered for merging. ›

Change the wording per above. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 01:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@

WT:AfC or similar? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed}

] (she/they) 03:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's any problem with "rejected". Yeah, there's a difference with AfC between what gets declined vs. rejected, but a problematic draft could get either. I lean toward just keeping the stronger word. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: looks like a

ed. ^put'r there

 11:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Aw" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect

Wikipedia:Aw and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 18#Wikipedia:Aw until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk

) 23:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Can someone Help?

I've been here over ten years. I don't need or want the Article Wizard or all this advice. I just want to create an article. How do I avoid it, it appears to be jumping forward with enthusiasm like it was the Microsoft paperclip assistant. How do I avoid it? I do not want to learn learn how to cope with it. I want to just create an article, and forget it. Victuallers (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

So... create the article? There's nothing stopping you. You have 140k edits, autopatrolled, and have created something like 3000 articles. Why are you worried about the Wizard? Primefac (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

When a new article is created with VisualEditor or the 2017 wikitext editor, there is a notice box from MediaWiki:Newarticletext which starts:

• Before creating an article, please read
  Wikipedia:Your first article. We recommend that new editors use the Article wizard
  .

Is that what you refer to? It can be removed with one click on X. If that is what you mean by "I do not want to learn how to cope with it" then seriously, one click before creating a whole article is too much to cope with? The box can contain other things so I don't recommend trying to remove it with CSS. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested change to Wikipedia:Article wizard/Referencing

This edit request to Wikipedia:Article wizard/Referencing has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit template-protected is being considered for merging. ›

Hello! I recently checked out the article wizard to see what it looks like for new users. I noticed that the page currently states Do not copy-paste or closely paraphrase material from sources. Rather summarize what the source says in your own words.

I would like this phasing changed to Do not copy-paste or closely paraphrase material from sources. Rather, summarize what the source says in your own words. I believe that the addition of a comma would help the wizard to conform with standard grammatical conventions. However, since the page is template protected, I am unable to do so myself. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done Incidentally, I don't see why these pages need to be template-protected; extended confirmed would probably be sufficient. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:24, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps it's because the article wizard is linked from MediaWiki interface messages, e.g. MediaWiki:Searchmenu-new-nocreate and MediaWiki:Searchmenu-new. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)