Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial/Archive 4

src: farm3.staticflickr.com

Video Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial/Archive 4

Landing page vs. sending users directly to Article wizard

I had one of the WMF designers look at the proposed landing page and he didn't like it very much. He was worried that it was too ambiguous and didn't clearly direct users to the Article Wizard, which is ostensibly where we want them to go if they actually want to create a new article. This caused me to rethink the whole landing page idea and wonder if we shouldn't just redirect them straight to the Article Wizard rather than giving them yet one more page they have to click though. If we got rid of the landing page, here's what the workflow would look like:

1. Newbie clicks a red link and gets sent to the "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name." page. (This stays the same.)
2. Newbie clicks the "Start the XXXX article" link or the "Create" tab and goes straight to the Article wizard.

Does this sound like a better solution than having the extra landing page step in the middle? Note that we can still collect behavior metrics either way. Kaldari (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Kudpung, TonyBallioni, Nettrom, DrStrauss, and Noyster: Thoughts? Kaldari (talk) 21:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... would the "start this article" link go to the article wizard for non-newbies? Personally I don't see anything wrong with the landing page: it's friendly, informative and simple. To what extent does the WMF designer object to the landing page? DrStrauss talk 22:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

No, only newbies (non-autoconfirmed) users would go to the article wizard. Autoconfirmed users would still go straight to the editor. Kaldari (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't object to this proposal personally, as I think either option works well, but the landing page does have the advantage of informing new users about the sandbox as well as the teahouse, where some users might go instead of going straight into trying to create a new article. -- InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 22:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Prefer the landing page. Part of the idea of this is that it is supposed to direct people who would be better served by not creating an article to other options. Letting people know that there are ways to get involved with Wikipedia than just creating a new page through the AfC process. I just added a bit about expanding stubs, as I've heard some feedback by people off-wiki that it would be a good option to include. I'm fine with copyediting or tweaking it as needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• I like the Stub idea. I've reworked the draft - hopefully improved it. Key point is encourage editors to learn elsewhere before trying to start a page. Perhaps the Article Wizard page could be modified a bit to fully incorporate the draft lamding page ideas. Cuts out a step. Legacypac (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the Article Wizard already has some of these things -- a link to the Teahouse, explanations of notability and verifiability, encouragement to get some editing experience before creating an article. I'm actually fine with either of these choices -- the one thing I'd differ with is giving people a link to. I don't think there's a person in this world who would find browsing through that list to be a worthwhile use of their time. :) -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 23:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The template is now even far longer than the one I deliberately shortened. The whole problem of Wikipedia is that it puts people off with rules, regulations, acronyms, and a steep learning curve right in their face at the very beginning. That's why new users don't stay - they often complain about our alphabet soup even later when when we confront them with reasons why their article was deleted. Many of them, believe it or not, don't even understand that blue text is a clickable link - that's why we (and professionally designed websites) use buttons. The Wizard will confront them soon enough with walls of text.

That said, IMO, Kaldari's suggestion is best and the one I had never dreamed of daring to suggest because I never thought anyone would agree to it. Kudpung ??????? (talk) 23:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Yup dump the landing page and go direct to the Article Wizard. Add some text there discuraging page creation in favor of other options Legacypac (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

If others think it's a good idea I'm fine with it. I appreciate Kudpung's point that we don't want to turn people off. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Where the "landing page" should come in is right at the start, when a new account is registered (not much we can do about IPs). We should recognise the high proportion of these new accounts that are SPAs. They have no interest in any article other than "theirs": and whether "their" page already exists or not, they are going to put their spiel on "their" page, or spill it all on to some project-talk page, or on to their user page or user sandbox and then index it, as VE makes it so easy to do. It's at registration stage that we need to get across, very briefly and clearly, the essential message about "neutral, verifiable, notable, not for promotion, not for publicity, not Facebook, not LinkedIn, need reliable sources...". As the registration process is not directly a part of ACTRIAL I'll hold fire for now: Noyster (talk), 09:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Oddly enough (or perhaps not so strangely) that was one of my original suggestions. But yes, as its not strictly part of ACTRIAL the Foundation (for the time being) wouldn't even listen to it.Kudpung ??????? (talk) 10:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

So it sounds like the consensus is leaning towards sending users directly to the Article Wizard at this point. If anyone objects to that idea, please speak now or forever hold your peace (at least for six months). Kaldari (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• Object In my experience, the Article Wizard is awful. It pretends to be there to assist you in creating an article but actually it raises objection after objection in a hostile and unhelpful way. If you manage to get through that obstacle course, you then get put in a review queue which might take weeks. In my experience, people who organise editathons, and other similar events, do not teach or recommend use of the Article Wizard. Instead, the sandbox is prefered because this gives the new editor more control and a better feeling of safety. The proposed landing page gives the sandbox as the first and primary option while the Article Wizard page bypasses it completely. The landing page is therefore consistent with our best practice for our best prospects and so should be used. Andrew D. (talk) 16:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Andrew Davidson: What if we added a user sandbox button to the beginning of the Article Wizard for people who just want to start writing something (without a guarantee it will be reviewed)? Kaldari (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Please NO, there are over 30,000 abandoned userspace pages, full of junk. If directed to Draft and AfC (submission optional) at least there is a 6 month abandoned G13 clock for cleanup. Legacypac (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support--Either is good but pref. AW.We need to put the people through the hoops, because a majority of the pages they go to create are the ones AW explicitly forbids.And how many of the articles which are being inserted into en.wiki on any span of time comes from at-least-partially-clueful contributors in editing-outreach events?I also note that our traditional opposer--the lone coordinator of around-the-world editathons-has arrived.Winged Blades ^Godric 16:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
• Prefer landing page I like the landing page. I don't understand the complaints against it. I would prefer, as Kudpung said, to push new editors to there directly after registration. It would also be nice (although not part of the ACTRIAL) to ensure that something like {{user sandbox}} or {{Userspace draft}} is automatically placed on new sandbox entries so that they are no-indexed and provided a button to submit through AfC. The landing page is a good start. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
• In the scenario in the OP, where a new user has shown they want to create a new article, going directly to the Article wizard is the best thing, by miles. Training wheels are good. Some people don't like to be guided, but for most people it will be acceptable, normal, and a good thing for them and everybody else. Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I posted a heads-up below that we need a final decision on this very soon, by 18:00 6 September (UTC) at the latest. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Don't delay the start! The landing page was just an idea to insert in the process. Key people in ACTRIAL roll out have spoken against it now. Just skip the landing page in the spirit of getting data that is directly comparable. Legacypac (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• Original landing page, failing that, article wizard. When I last looked at the landing page, it was great- clear simple and consise, and whilst I am sure they were well intentioned, it now looks like a block of text and is much less clear. I would much rather users were redirected to the article wizard instead if the original version cannot be restored. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial/Archive 4

Still have 1 technical blocker, will have to delay ACTRIAL

I was hoping we would have this resolved before the deadline, but it looks like intercepting VisualEditor users is still a problem (T173605). Since the current weekly deployment cycle has already begun, we're going to have to push out ACTRIAL by another week. I know this is supremely disappointing, but we should have it resolved soon. In the meantime, hopefully we can reach consensus on the landing page vs article wizard issue and get the article wizard polished up a bit more. I'll keep you updated on our progress. Kaldari (talk) 21:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes that seems like a reasonably solid reason. Not great to hear we are getting a delay, but it is understandable. Edit: is there some reason it has to be a full week's delay? This seems like an issue that should be fairly easy to fix. I'd also like some assurances that this issue really is being worked on as quickly as possible to avoid a "still not fixed another week delay" situation (which would be pretty unacceptable). -- InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 22:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

If its delayed a week, there isn't much we can do about it. If it still isn't working in time for the 14th, we might need to look at other options such as using the blacklist. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps if the Foundation would just stick to technicalities and let the community decide for its project itself based on issues that have already been decided. We are aware that the WMF is not in favour of ACTRIAL and never has been, so 11th hour excuses for the delay were practically expected. We'll roll this trial out ourselves on 14th using local means. Kudpung ??????? (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

If this does get deployment-ready by 14th, it's good.If not, more good! Am pretty sure that the guys from WMF knows that we have the means go roll this out locally.Winged Blades ^Godric 03:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Kudpung ??????? (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm tired of arguing with the Foundation and the way they are gradually taking over, and there has neen no effort to even acknowledge the messages about the required enhancements to the Page Creation system. Someone else - from the volunteers - can take the lead. So on second thoughts I'm now finished with my 6 years of coaxing the NPP/ACTRIAL project along. Kudpung ??????? (talk) 03:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As I've said many times before: we want the WMF help on this. I'm subscribed to that phab task and I saw the positive work they were doing. That being said, I'd like to have as much time with Nettrom as a WMF contractor as possible, and pushing this back much more than a week cuts into that. Recognizing that we have other options to get this rolling while being able to make the most of the resources that the WMF have provided to assist with this is something that needs to be considered, while still hoping for the best on the 14th. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sorry. We're disappointed too. We really want to get this started, and we knew that people would be upset. This is a real thing that we have to fix -- it's currently not redirecting non-autoconfirmed people using VisualEditor to the article wizard, and obviously that's going to be a good chunk of people. You can see phab:T173605 for the discussions and decisions about how we're fixing it. Unfortunately, it has to be a week because code deployment is on a weekly schedule. Once we fix this issue, we can deploy on Tuesday, test on Wednesday and then make the change live Thursday morning.

I know that WMF folks have backtracked on promises before, in general and specifically about ACTRIAL, so naturally people are going to be suspicious about this extra delay. All I can say is that if this was an elaborate hoax -- participating on this page for a couple months, building an extension, hiring a researcher who's got an ongoing work log -- just to mess with everyone and not do it, then that would be a huge waste of time, and there is not enough time in my schedule to mess around like that. :) -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the visual editor problems are understandable. Thanks to everyone working on that ticket to get it fixed. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I came here after I wondered why CAT:CSD was so full after ACTRIAL was enabled .... I don't mind taking Danny's word that a bug is stopping the rollout, but also if we can work around this via the edit filter, we should do that as a temporary fix and absolutely categorically commit to going live on the 14th. The community needs assurance that this is going to happen. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie333, we're in agreement. The technical means here if the current visual editor bug isn't sorted out would likely be the title balcklist rather than an edit filter, but if for some reason there is also a bug with the blacklist and VE, an edit filter would be able to do the trick. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I realise the devs are scrambling around for a fix, but I'd like them to consider a scenario where, say there was a trade fair on the 14th and the brief was that the sales force are gearing their major revenue drive on leads taken at said show. If the devs don't finish the product in a totally shippable and bug-free state by the time of the fair, sales can't drive the cash intake in the business, and so management might have to decide to lay the devs off and focus only on sales to keep the bottom line going and stop the business going under. The devs might think "fuck, what am I doing working for these clowns" but they've got a basic choice to ship or be laid off. In this scenario, the customer is the newcomer to Wikipedia, the sales force is us, the community, while the revenue increase is the goodwill from both of us towards the WMF development. We will ship on the 14th. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm no programer but it sounds like the issue is only with blocking some slice of total users. I favour rolling ahead with whatever we can and catching the rest of the new users in time. Legacypac (talk) 14:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

There are three people currently working on this, it's top priority to get this out so that we can start on the 14th as planned. I agree that this is really important, especially with building trust. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@DannyH (WMF):--It looks like the issue has been resolved.I would also like to request you to speed up any pending developmental tasks et al (from your side) to avert a repetition of another weekly delay.Cheers:)Winged Blades ^Godric 11:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

src: pbs.twimg.com

Decision on article wizard vs landing page

As Kaldari said above, there's a question about the consensus decision on whether we're sending non-autoconfirmed users to the landing page or directly to the Article wizard. It seemed like we had consensus to go to the article wizard as of Aug 25th, but four more people commented today, split evenly between landing page and article wizard.

We need a final decision on this very soon -- by 18:00 6 September (UTC) -- because we need to do a day of testing before deploying the new extension.

As I read it, the main argument for going directly to the article wizard is that it cuts out a step -- the article wizard already has links to the Teahouse and explains the main policies. The main argument for the landing page is that it encourages people to work in their sandbox before (or instead of) creating an article.

We can alter the text on either page, even after this deadline, so if folks want to discuss changes, that's okay. But we need to know which page the extension will point to. How do we get to a decision by 18:00 UTC? :) -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

If we don't have a clear decision by tomorrow, we'll have to delay the start of ACTRIAL by an additional week (since MediaWiki deployment is on a weekly deployment cycle). Kaldari (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• There is good enough consensus to go with the wizard. Please do that. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Don't delay the start! The landing page was just an idea to insert in the process. Key people in ACTRIAL roll out have spoken against it now. Just skip the landing page in the spirit of getting data that is directly comparable. Legacypac (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• I'm fine with either option. I think adding the user sandbox option will hopefully help Andrew Davidson's concern with the AW. I was under the impression before today that there was already a rough consensus for the AW directly. If my voice is worth anything in clarifying the consensus here, I'd say go with the article wizard and don't delay. If more opposition emerges I might reconsider as I don't have strong views on this particular question.TonyBallioni (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • To clarify in case that was too vague: I support moving forward with the Article Wizard option. As Danny mentioned above, we can change the text as needed after the trial has started. I've struck the reconsideration part above because I think starting this on time is important, and since this seems the easiest option I'm in favour of implementing it. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
• Go with the Wizard, it can be changed later if a consensus develops for the introduction of a landing page, but for now the status quo is the Wizard anyway. -- InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 20:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere, to clarify: This can't be changed later. We can make changes on the text, but either the extension points to the landing page or to the article wizard. We're not going to significantly change the experience mid-experiment. We need to make a final decision on that. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I imagine if there was a solid consensus midway through the experiment that a change was needed/desirable it could be changed. However, I agree that such changes are best avoided if possible. It looks like this decision is a bit moot, as we need a delay anyway (per below). -- InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 22:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• I definitely think we should use a landing page here - there needs to be that initial "buffer" which can help direct people to where they may need to go. Not everything should be forced into the Article Wizard (having a link explaining what Wikipedia is for may help people decide that actually their "X" doesn't need an article). That being said, don't delay the start of ACTRIAL again -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 20:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
• Sorry to be back and forth here. After reading some of those arguing in favour of a landing page above and here. I'm moving to landing page since we have a bit more time before implementing as compared to last week. As TNT points out above, having a buffer as compared to going directly to the article wizard could be a major plus for someone. I also think that because the original plan was for a landing page system, that should be the default unless we get a consensus otherwise. I also think Drewmutt's design below makes the landing page option much more attractive as something first greeting new users than the previous landing page or the current article wizard. @Jytdog and Legacypac: since we have a bit more time here on implementing than we did last week, you all might consider supporting the landing page option (but don't feel obligated to). To the WMF staff: the one thing that is abundantly clear here regarding consensus is that everyone agrees that ACTRIAL should not be delayed and that they are willing to accept either option if it means that the trial goes forward on time. As above, I think the landing page was the status quo suggestion and that baring consensus otherwise, we should just use it as the default if there continues to be a split here. Also, I'd again urge using Drewmutt's version below, per the graphics concerns I've had for months about the old landing page. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• Not everyone. I think that it should be delayed because these discussions indicate that the details haven't been thought through or fully tested. I don't get the impression that adequate communication has been done either. For example, what about the people who train new users? Have they been consulted and warned? Have the training documentation and help pages been updated? As it doesn't appear that the design of the pages has been frozen, I don't see how any of these things can have been done properly. Andrew D. (talk) 22:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I am happy to support the revised landing page. Yes. Jytdog (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm happier with the new three button version. @Andrew D. your post is out of order. This page is for discussions about implementing ACTRIAL not for arguing against (or delaying indefinately) implementation. Legacypac (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with LegacyPac. Andrew Davidson your views are way, way, way outside consensus here. You obviously have no clue how onerous it has been get to the edge of launching this, nor how utterly the WMF fucked over the editing community six years ago, nor how deeply angry many of us still are over that. Your showing up here at the last minute and raising "concerns" is so thoroughly dunder-headed that I do not have profanity to even describe it. I will not be paying attention to anything further you write here and I can only imagine that others will ignore it as well. Jytdog (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support Drewmutt's landing page We do need a design freeze so that we can reach a consensus on what to use. jcc (tea and biscuits) 10:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

src: www.mariowiki.com

Landing page mock-up design

Hey gang, I admittedly haven't been keeping a close watch on the developments here, but I wanted to chime in on the part that I was aware of. The currently proposed landing page mock-up seems a good start, but I had some feedback from a design / UI perspective. I know it's still in the air rather we're going landing page vs. wizard, which I don't have a lot to contribute to. I'm happy to get into all the reasons that motivated me to come up with an alternative mockup, but dumping puzzly was definitely on the list. If we learned anything from the ill-fated Clippy is that anthropomorphic assistants are, at best, out of fashion, and at worst an annoyance and hindrance. I know he's not playing an essential role in the mockup, but I think, unless we're disinterring him site-wide, I don't think it makes a lot of sense here. Anywho, here is my proposed alternative, it's obviously very rough, but hopefully demonstrates the "design" side of my proposal. I know, not surprisingly, Wikipedians are mostly "content" folks, which is pretty much just placeholder here, so any suggestions are more than welcome! Thanks in advance for your feedback. And.. obligitory design-minded editor pings.. @Ricordisamoa: @Isarra: lemme know if you have any feedback. Drewmutt (^?^) talk 01:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Drewmutt, thanks for bringing this to our attention, and for your volunteer time spent on this. If we go with the Article Wizard do you (or any of the design oriented editors) think it would be fairly easy to bring the layout and design of those pages into this decade? TonyBallioni (talk) 01:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Tony, anyone can edit that page, no? Legacypac (talk) 04:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I do like the visuals of this design. I have re-directed some of the links, and would like someone who knows how to direct the "sandbox" links to the user's own sandbox, not the public one. I also don't know how the "back" button should function but it certainly shouldn't point to Back! - Crucially, something on these lines could be presented at initial registration, not only on attempting to create an article: Noyster (talk), 08:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I like the landing page of Drew Mutt.It hasn't the TLDR feature of the current landing page.As improvements, I would like the pictures to be clickable themselves .And a bolding and increase of fonts as a whole would be better for the phone folks. It should also actively discourage the editor from creating an article (good for the newbie editor).The WP:TH links should be more prominent .Ill try and refine such an idea if possible by next week in my sandbox and see if I can pull it off.(User:Forceradical)--RADICAL SODA^(FORCE)TM 10:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• I prefer this over the current landing page mockup- as I've said further up, the current mockup is too wordy. There needs to be a bit more padding in the lower half- i.e. text spaced out a bit more and the "start helping" links should be buttons ideally, but overall I like the concept. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I have a question: where should the "Go Back" button lead to? -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for all the feedback so far, I totally agree with your feedback Forceradical, and I'll implement those changes today. Truthfully, I haven't even considered the mobile side of this (even though I'm a heavy mobile user, heh) but I'll take a look at that as well to make it more responsive. @Jcc:, also agree with your feedback, and I'll get that in there. @DannyH (WMF): Heh, I have no idea maybe a javascript:history.back() or perhaps just a link to the home page? Open to ideas on that. I get that we're trying to make people consider that option, but it does feel odd to me, and I don't think people are terribly used to it, nor have I seen it done on WP before, hence, I feel at odds with a "get me out of here" button. Just my thoughts. @TonyBallioni: if people like this direction, I'd be more than happy to take a whack at the wizard, as I feel it too needs some love. Drewmutt (^?^) talk 18:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you could take out the "Go back", people know how to hit the back button. :) And I would personally welcome any improvements to the article wizard. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

DrewmuttWell I copied your page and gave it some special effects here by making the icons themselves clickable and tweaking the text size.Please take a look--RADICAL SODA^(FORCE)TM 11:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a much, much nicer interface. My only criticism (and it's a niggly one) is the position of the buttons: to my mind, "Get help" should be below the first paragraph of text, and "Get started" should drop so that it's level with "Start helping" and "Start creating". Like I said, niggly. In all other respects this is a very nice UI. Yunshui ^?_? 09:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Much improved. Some UI suggestions: (1) Align the horizontal buttons at the bottom, (2) Rename the sandbox button to "Try editing" ("start x" would be even better, to match the neighboring buttons), (3) Increase line spacing beneath "There are different options for editing Wikipedia..." and the icons, (4) Might be better to center-align the icons and titles above (and buttons below) each of the three columns, (4) Vertical-align "Welcome to Wikipedia!" with its icon (not watching, please {{ping}} if needed) czar 17:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Czar: I've taken care of #1 and #2. Kaldari (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

am==Status update, need a decision on landing page vs article wizard== Hi everyone, everything's moving ahead with the fix on the technical blocker we had last week. It's going to be deployed tomorrow as expected, and we're on track to launch ACTRIAL on Thursday, Sept 14th, as we said above.

We do still need a final decision on whether to send people to the landing page or directly to the article wizard. Either one is okay, we just need a decision by 20:00 UTC 12 September (about 24 hours from the time I'm posting this message).

I believe the current version of the landing page under discussion is Forceradical's mockup. Can we get consensus on this? -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

If there's no clear consensus by tomorrow, we'll just pick one option or the other and move forward with it. We won't delay ACTRIAL (barring any other technical issues) in case anyone's worried about that. Kaldari (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support the above mockup of the landing page. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support the one above (pretty sure I supported it before). Legacypac (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support - It looks good.- MrX 00:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support the above markup. I like the landing page rather than just going straight to the Article wizard. -- InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 00:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Obviously biased, but I think it provides a lot more avenues for editing, and perhaps even more context of Wikipedia to a new user. Going right to the wizard is a bit contrary to what I feel we're trying to accomplish with this trial, again, haven't been terribly involved, but just my thoughts. Drewmutt (^?^) talk 03:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support new landing page, gives new editors a friendly nudge in the right direction: Noyster (talk), 08:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support This is very good UI; clean, minimal and accessible with enough information but not enough to overwhelm. Gets my vote. Yunshui ^?_? 09:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support More buttons than the other one, less wordy. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 09:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support @DannyH (WMF): I thought the definitive version was at User:Drewmutt/ACTRIAL-Mockup-Idea-WithStubs; it appears that User:Forceradical merged his changes into Drewmutt's version. Noyster edited Drewmutt's version today presumably thinking it was the version we're using. jcc (tea and biscuits) 15:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Just as a note, Czar had linked to the old landing page on the main WP:ACTRIAL page. I changed it to the Drewmutt version per jcc's comments. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

    That's fine--didn't see the update czar 17:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, cool -- landing page it is. Thanks very much for pulling together and making this super clear. TonyBallioni, thanks for maintaining version control. :) So this is the definitive: User:Drewmutt/ACTRIAL-Mockup-Idea-WithStubs? -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

DannyH (WMF), yes, based on the edit history, that is the definitive version. I'll redirect Forceradical's to it for now so people don't get confused, and so it retains the history. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Yunshui and Czar still have similar as yet unaddressed feedback to the design above. I'm not technically proficient enough to make their requested changes myself. Should the sandbox button be changed from "get started" to something more like "try editing"? We want users to go through the Article Wizard hand-holding process to make their drafts as opposed to just starting an article in their sandbox. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Jcc, I left Drewmutt a note on his talk page asking that he pop over here to see if those tweaks can be made. Re: sandbox. Some of the feedback we've been getting from editathon coordinators is that they prefer the sandbox to the Article Wizard, and in some ways it is a lot more friendly. I think its probably best to keep that part like it is now, and then continue discussions to see if we want to change it after the launch (the benefit of it being a Wiki ). TonyBallioni (talk) 19:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Czar that "Get started" is kind of confusing for the sandbox button. "Try editing" seems to make more sense with the text, i.e. we are encouraging them to use their sandbox to experiment and get experience. Kaldari (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

We've been getting the landing page set up, and the three-column layout makes things really awkward for smaller browser windows & screens. The buttons line up and look good for some people, they look out of whack for others. Niharika came up with a different version, which shows the three options vertically instead of horizontally: User:NKohli (WMF)/mockup. What do y'all think? -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I think that it is better, but the buttons should all be the same fixed width.- MrX 23:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey guys, loving the feedback. I also like Niharika's mockup, but I'm marginally in favor of the previous version, since it seems to flow a little better, and visually connects the buttons with the column of text better, but like I said, marginal, so happy to leave it to consensus. Also, the mobile version is a bit rough on my version and smaller windows (as DannyH (WMF) mentioned), so I'll be tweaking that. Also, and I'm happy to table this until after launch, but I'm not in love with the current position of the "Get help" button. I was thinking, at least, in my version perhaps having a help button per column, so we can better direct them to the help they need. Oh, and minor point how do you guys feel about the "Try editing" > "Start editing"? I ask so it makes it consistent with the other options. I dig the centered approach, by the way, lookin' great! If you guys have concerns, let me know, I'll be at a computer for the rest of the night. Drewmutt (^?^) talk 01:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey again y'all so, you're right, Kaldari's version is much better shrunk down, so I made a version (sorry trying not to muddy up the waters) that I think combines the best of both worlds here. The only thing I think could be nice is a smidge of breathing room between the copy and the action button, if anyone knows how to do that.. Thoughts always welcome! (oh, and side point, this version translates to mobile quite nicely). Drewmutt (^?^) talk 01:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

This version goes a bit wonky when you view it on a large screen or when zoomed way out. Not sure how to fix. -- InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 02:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: Looking into it.. Drewmutt (^?^) talk 02:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I added more <br/> tags on User:Drewmutt/ACTRIAL-Mockup-Idea-Rows to space out the buttons but I still prefer User:NKohli (WMF)/mockup. It's visually more pleasing to me. (Also hi drewmutt!) :) -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 05:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I personally prefer Drewmutt's version (like the buttons underneath the text better for some reason), but I also miss Windows XP, so take it for what its worth. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the version mix up. As for the comparison between N.Kholi's mockup and Drewmutt's one it is probably best to toss an unbiased coin.( Though as noted by TonyBallioni above, I also for some inexplicable reason I feel more at ease with drewmutt's version) --Forceradical (talk) 06:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+Hold on to your butts, we're almost there! Well, with my version, I snugged up the spacing and shifted things around a bit, now it feels more clean and "breathable" to me. Seems to focus the user on the important bits and all that. Yet, I'm still not opposed to NKohli's way of doing it. Either way, both of our versions suffer from the same issue Insertcleverphrasehere brought up: If you spread out the window, so the content is one line, the spacing gets off. I made an clearer example of this if anyone else wants a whack at the pinata. Oh, and hi back NKohli! Drewmutt (^?^) talk 09:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support: Better than the old design. Esquivalience (talk) 02:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Probable Phab ticket at T175613.Forceradical (talk) 11:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Final location of landing page

I went ahead and moved Drewmutt's final version with rows to Wikipedia:New user landing page in preparation for tomorrow. Please make any last minute changes there. Once ACTRIAL starts, we will need to have an admin protect the page, but it's fine to let folks edit it for now. Kaldari (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Drewmutt, Czar, Yunshui, Forceradical, and NKohli (WMF): since you all were the most active in commenting on the design, are there any last minute changes you see that need to be made? If not, I'll likely request full page protection and move protection of it sometime tonight/early tomorrow so we have a stable page going into ACTRIAL. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: The only issue I have the one I stated above, I don't think it's a blocker, but, for me, it's pretty easy to reproduce and makes it look a bit messed. If we can't fix it before you full protect it, I don't think it's the end of the world. Drewmutt (^?^) talk 21:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni & Drewmutt. Please see File:Landing_page_screenshot.png to see the visually messy issues I am experiencing on a wide screen. If I zoom in a bit everything squares up, but zooming out it stays like this. On my other computer it looks fine unless I zoom way out (laptop). -- InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 02:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Its been lowered to EC protected so last minute changes can be made. I have no idea how to fix stuff like that, but anyone who does know how can make tweaks until launch. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: I've made some formatting adjustments that fixed the alignment for me. -- JJMC89 (T·C) 03:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Good work. That issue is fixed now. -- InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 06:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• I like the end product. Thanks to all who contributed to this design. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• I went ahead and requested that Oshwah protect the page. He's protected it so that template editors and admins can edit it. Its also indefinitely move protected. We also have the lovely new shortcut WP:LANDING for ease of use. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Chris, this is a really nice bit of web design. A round of applause for the editors who put it together. Yunshui ^?_? 07:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Note: now that all the kinks have been fixed, indefinite template editor protection has been restored to the page to protect it when it goes live. We can still make changes to it if need be, will just need an admin or template editor to implement. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

New dashboard for live page creation stats

As part of our work on ACTRIAL, Nettrom has created a dashboard showing live page creation statistics, which are automatically updated on a daily basis. This dashboard includes all page creation events, even for subsequently deleted articles. Currently available views include:

• Daily Pages Created
• Daily Pages Created in the Main namespace (ns=0)
• Daily Non-redirect Pages Created in the Main namespace (ns=0)
• Daily Pages Created in the Main namespace (ns=0) by bots
• Daily Pages Created in the Main namespace (ns=0) by autopatrolled users
• Daily Pages Created in the Main namespace (ns=0) by autoconfirmed users
• Daily Pages Created in the Main namespace (ns=0) by non-autoconfirmed users

Stats are available for other wikis as well. Kaldari (talk) 01:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

As a reminder, the Articles for Creation backlog is charted day-by-day here: [1]--Carwil (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Carwil: Thanks for that link! We've got a hypothesis about the size of that backlog on our research page (H17, to be specific), and this tool has data on that. Awesome! Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 22:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Carwil would it be possible to combine that graph with one for the size of the NPP backlog? Mduvekot (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

That's a great idea. This isn't my graphing tool (just one I use to motivate me to curate AfC articles), but I hope it can happen!--Carwil (talk) 02:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mduvekot and Carwil:: I've been keeping track of the size of the NPP backlog since the end of August (the data can be queried from Quarry), and I'm interested in figuring out ways to estimate the historic fluctuations as well. Once I have some of that, I'll be looking to visualize it. Enterprisey has also been kind enough to give me access to the data behind the AfC backlog graph, so I might just combine the two. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 00:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

None of the above links work for me, unfortunately. --PaleoNeonate - 05:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate: That's weird; they work okay for me. What browser & OS are you using? -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

It is just that they require scripts (which now need to be disabled for the whole browser instance to turn them off for Wikipedia). Thanks for the concern, --PaleoNeonate - 18:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

src: www.mariowiki.com

Notice to new page reviewers?

I've created a notice for new page reviewers that would answer questions about the trial:

Esquivalience (talk) 02:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Esquivalience, notice was sent out as a mass-message in the last NPR newsletter at the end of August. We decided against sending out a separate mass message to not cause either panic or raise expectations. Just enough to alert. I'll definitely also include it in the next one as well. I think the message above might also be worth posting at WT:NPR. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• I'll post it at the NPR talk page as there is no notice there yet. Esquivalience (talk) 02:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

src: pbs.twimg.com

AfC backlog

I've just finished clearing a huge backlog of non-AfC stale drafts User:MusikBot/StaleDrafts/Report, which involved pushing any potentially useful pages into AfC to give them a chance to be fixed and promoted. So as ACTRIAL rolls out new pages added to AfC will generally be truly new creations, with the odd new page DRAFtifyed from mainspace or the odd potential good non-afc page that falls stale after today. Pretty sure this effort is the main reason the AfC backlog is up recently. Legacypac (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: An AfC backlog graph that might interest you can be found here. jcc (tea and biscuits) 15:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

ACTRIAL is live

It's a few minutes early, but ACTRIAL is now live! Please update the things that need to be updated if they haven't been already. Kaldari (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Finally. Deluge of cruft no more! Esquivalience (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I've updated Wikipedia:Article wizard/Ready for submission to only show the 2nd form to autoconfirmed users. Kaldari (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• I just noticed a new user called 'Shiroisnowflake' just created an article The Line Madder on their 4th edit (account created today). They don't seem to be autoconfirmed. is this a bug or is everything not quite online yet? -- InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 23:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The Line Madder has already be tagged for COI, Notability, Copyvio investigation and for AfD! Legacypac (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere, it's online -- but that editor must have started creating their page before it was switched on. :) People are being redirected when they follow a redlink or go to a nonexistent page; if they already had the edit window open, they slipped through just under the wire. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 23:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, good to hear. Shiroisnowflake might just have the dubious honour of being the last non-autoconfirmed editor to create an article before ACTRIAL went live, as well as the only non-autoconfirmed editor to create an article during ACTRIAL. I wonder if it will show up in the stats? :D -- InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 00:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what ACTRIAL is but I'm kinda curious now. I have no idea what I did to create the page in a different way that other people create pages, but it'd be pretty cool to learn something!! ^-^ Shiroisnowflake (talk) 00:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Shiroisnowflake: Details at Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed article creation trial --PaleoNeonate - 00:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the information ^-^ How tricky of a thing it all is. I can't believe I managed to slip in at just the right/wrong time for the events to play out the way they did. Hopefully things all go well with both ACTRIAL and that page in question (for there are no other words I can find for it). Shiroisnowflake (talk) 00:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks to Danny and Kaldari and their team for getting this up for us. It should be an interesting experiment. Hope everything goes well. :) TonyBallioni (talk) 23:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I notified the Teahouse that they may experience a sharp uptick in questions. J-Mo 23:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

YES!! As for teahouse, Assuming real new users don't know they did not need 4/10 before, maybe no increase. This will trip up the repeat creators of throwaway accts though. Legacypac (talk) 23:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Aren't we supposed to get cake now? But really, thanks to WMF and the dedicated editors who worked hard to make this happen.- MrX 00:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes... You do get cake. -- InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 01:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

According to Special:ListGroupRights, the createpage user right is still in the "Users" group and has not been moved to the "Autoconfirmed users" and "Confirmed users" groups. Is that supposed to be correct? --MRD2014 ^{Talk o Edits o Help!} 00:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

No. According to Xaosflux (who is now going through hurricane related things so I am not pinging him), once the configuration is updated, it should autoupdate. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Given that the page creation block is only on mainspace, it makes sense that all logged in users still retain createpage permissions. The gerrit change makes it pretty clear no actual userrights changed. FACE WITH TEARS OF JOY ^[u+1F602] 01:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Can we link to the Help Desk, as well as TH in the landing page? I know this is late and I've not been at all involved, but there are non-overlapping helpers there. TJW^talk 00:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

This should be pretty easy to add to the line "Need help? You can ask a question at the Teahouse, Help Desk, or through live chat." An admin will have to do it though, because the page is locked for editing. -- InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 01:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I added the link to the help desk. Alex Shih^Talk 01:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Hooray! Thanks to everyone who made this happen! Somewhat related: it's that crap flood time of the day, and CAT:A7 and CAT:G11 are looking a lot less crowded than normal. MER-C 10:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah we're getting put out of a job ;) -- fortunavelut luna 10:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Eh. RC is... admittedly surprisingly clean this morning. Interested to see what it looks like in four days, also whether our NPP backlog just gets shifted to AfC. TJW^talk 10:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The userspace/draftspace spam traps aren't bulging at the seams either. MER-C 12:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey, just a heads up -- we've got event-logging on the landing page so that we can measure which links people are clicking on, and how often. I don't think it's a big deal adding another link at this point -- I'll have to check with one of the devs -- but it would make collecting the data easier if we leave the landing page alone for a while. Is that okay? -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

src: 31.media.tumblr.com

Tumbleweed

For the first time I can remember, CAT:CSD is completely empty. I'll keep an eye on it for the next few hours, but if the trend continues, we may be able to conclude that ACTRIAL is having positive results. The flip side, of course, is how many new articles are we missing out on - I'd say probably not that much to be honest. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• The other metric I've been following closely on this is whether or not this is having an impact on the AfC backlog. There are fluctuations (it is up a bit now), but on the whole nothing appears to be out of the ordinary on that front. Of course this is a 6 month trial, but the initial results are looking to be a net positive. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. As the prophet of doom, I'm happy to see I'm wrong. TJW^talk 21:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Article Wizard Proposal

I just wanted to let interested folks know that I proposed a refactor of the article wizard here. I mention it here because much of what motivated me, came from learnings and feedback regarding WP:LANDING. Drewmutt (^?^) talk 01:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia