User talk:Sdkb/Vision for a better Article Wizard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconWikipedia Help NA‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.
NAThis page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject iconUsability
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Usability, a group of editors promoting application of web and user-interface usability best practices in the presentation of Wikipedia content. For more information, such as what you can do to help, see the main project page.

Preliminary feedback[edit]

Some feedback already sought in a thread on WP:DISCORD. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 03:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sandbox organizer[edit]

I just discovered Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser today, some nice features of it might be of use to glean. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 19:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting; that looks like some nice work from John Cummings! I should note that in my vision, I intentionally removed the "play around in your sandbox" step from the current Article Wizard. My sense is that most people who come to the wizard want to push ahead with creating an article and aren't very keen to just play around in their sandbox. Our editing interface should be simple enough that it's not necessary to spend time in your sandbox to become familiar enough to use it. But as editors become more experienced, most will want to create a sandbox for themselves, and I could see John's tool eventually being adopted at Template:User sandbox/preload. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 20:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks very much Sdkb and EpicPupper, I made it with NavinoEvans who did a lot of the technical stuff, as well as some people who helped from village pump. Any ideas you have for improving it would be greatly appreciated. I'm really pleased that people are using it and find it useful, I think the setup of having as a central version that can be copied to sandboxes with one click is really helpful, I kind of see it a little bit like getting a software update when there are new versions.
I was wondering about having different versions of it or maybe 'sections' you can add for different kinds of users, like a generic one for new users with more help and guidance, then maybe one focussed on more technical work, maybe one for people like me who do a lot of outreach work and documentation, perhaps another for admins and others who deal with specific kinds of problems. I think the main issue currently is that for people like me who have a lot of sandboxes it can be pretty tedious to move the existing drafts into right places.
Thanks again
John Cummings (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Somewhat related to this idea is Wikipedia:Workflow improvements. ― Qwerfjkltalk 11:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feedback from Wakelamp[edit]

 – {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I don't use discord much, but I don't seem to be able to see the thread.

My feedback is I like User:Sdkb/sandbox/Vision for a better Article Wizard

My interest is because I had a friend tell me they rage quit sometime during COVID, because they created what sounded like a non notable article. The deletion was fair, but the amount of time they spent on it (a few hours) annoyed them, and they said why didn't they just tell me in the first place. A better article wizard would fix this.

An earlier version had a decision tree. Wikipedia:Article wizard/version1/Musical notability , but i never used it an I know nothing about it or why it was cut. Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 09:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That sounds like a very justifiably frustrating experience for your friend! The current wizard appears to have a brief paragraph on notability, but it's not enough. That's also interesting to see the decision tree in the old version. My hunch is that the feature wasn't so much intentionally cut as just not ported to the new wizard when the transition was made. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am concentrating on your notability step at the moment on ideas. It's quite tricky to even get rid of the ones with no hope. Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 08:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wizard and landing page development[edit]

  • Comment: Sdkb, Wikipedia:Article wizard/version1 was a far better wizard than the overly simplistic version that replaced it without any wide community discussion, and which is rarely used. At NPP it used to be fairly commonplace to see new articles arriving that had been created with the basic template offered by the older wizard. Sdkb's idea is excellent and surprisingly coincides with the the same time I started having thoughts on a wireframe for a UI that would be truly based on UX and as seen from the perspective of active New Page Patrllers who are the only people who have an accurate overview of what gets created. This is a classic example why input from and collaboration if the community is essential with the WMF before they yet again develop and roll out something that has good intentions but might not quite be what is needed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:12, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Sdkb, I'm sure you had a 3D image in your mind when you created these excellent notes. Perhaps you could draw up some very rough wire frames for the next meeting and we can compare our ideas. As you know, mine are based on interactive article templates from the 60 or so thematic models. I think they could be a platform for your suggestions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:22, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Additional feedback[edit]

See mw:Topic:Wfvnrgubp2zduica. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 06:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Taking what we've learned and moving towards the logical path[edit]

Sorry I've been behind on this stuff. I didn't expect to be asked to step into a leadership role (such as it is). I have been doing some of my own observation of the way. I've recently run into a situation with an energetic new user (User:Elttaruuu) who is determined to create new articles, mostly of dubious notability. They are neither shy nor incompetent but it's only on their ninth or tenth creation they've gotten it right on the first try. BusterD (talk) 02:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC) @Sdkb:Reply[reply]

Definitely good to have examples; looking forward to discussing at the next meeting! {{u|Sdkb}}talk 02:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm concerned that by my actions or inactions I may slow this process down. Could we discuss what we need to achieve and in what order? I want to leave this next meeting thinking we had spent our time well. I can run a meeting; I'd like to develop some short and long-term objectives which are achievable. I'd like WMF to see these meetings NOT as a waste of valuable employee hours. Quite on my own I've been developing a series of small detective stories like "Encyclopedia Brown" in which a teen uses Wikipedia articles and behavioral social norms in older to solve one minute mysteries. An orientation on how wikipedians work together. As a YA detective story. By providing some mentoring to Elttaruuu I've gotten a new very energetic contributor on board. Watching their initial failures (such as they are) has been illustrative. I'd love to engage on what I'm seeing. BusterD (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]