Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial/Archive 4

src: i61.tinypic.com

Video Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial/Archive 4

landing page vs. send users directly to wizard articles

I have one of the WMF designers look at the proposed landing page and he really does not like it. He worries that it's too ambiguous and does not clearly direct users to the Article Wizard, which seems to be where we want them to go if they really want to create a new article. This made me rethink the whole landing page idea and wondered if we should not direct them directly to the Article Wizard instead of giving them another page they had to click. If we get rid of the landing page, here's the workflow that will look:

1. Beginners click on the red link and sent to "Wikipedia does not have articles with the exact same name." page. (This remains the same.)
2. Beginners click on the "Start article XXXX" or "Create" tab and go directly to the Articles wizard.

Does this sound like a better solution than having an extra landing page step in the middle? Please note that we may still be able to collect behavioral metrics in any way. Kaldari (talk) 21:52, August 24, 2017 (UTC)

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

Hmm... does the "start this article" link go to the wizard article for non-beginners? Personally I do not see anything wrong with the landing page: it's friendly, informative and simple. To what extent do WMF designers object to landing pages? Dr Strauss talk 22:12, August 24, 2017 (UTC)

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

I do not mind this proposal personally, because I think any option works well, but the landing page does not have the benefit of letting new users know about sandboxes and tea shops, where some users may go instead of trying to create a new article. - InsertCleverPhrase Here ^{(or here)} 22:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Select the landing page. Part of this idea is that it should lead people who would be better served with not making articles into other options. Letting people know that there is a way to engage with Wikipedia rather than just creating a new page through the AfC process. I just added a little about the expansion stub, because I have heard some feedback by people who disagree that it would be a good option to include. I'm fine with copying or customizing it as needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:24, August 24, 2017 (UTC)

• I like the Stub idea. I have reworked the draft - hopefully improved. The main point is to encourage editors to learn elsewhere before trying to start a page. Perhaps the Articles Wizard page can be modified slightly to fully incorporate the lamding page idea concept. Cutting step. Legacypac (talk) 22:54, August 24, 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the Articles Wizard already has some of these things - links to Teahouse, explanations of notation and verification, encouragement to get the editing experience before creating the article. I'm actually fine with one of these options - one thing that's different to me is giving people links. I do not think anyone in the world will find that list to be a valuable use of their time. - DannyH (WMF) (speaking) 23:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The template is now much longer than the one I accidentally shortened. The whole issue of Wikipedia is that it puts people with rules, rules, acronyms, and a steep learning curve right in their face at the beginning. That's why new users are not fixed - they often complain about our alphabet soup even when we confront them with the reason why their article is removed. Many of them, believe it or not, do not even understand that the blue text is a clickable link - that's why we (and professionally designed websites) use the button. The wizard will face them pretty quickly with a text wall.

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

Yup discards the landing page and goes directly to the Article Wizard. Add some text there to collapse making pages that support 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 points that we do not want to kill people. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:23, August 25, 2017 (UTC)

Where "landing page" should enter right at the beginning, when new account is registered (not much we can do about IP). We must recognize the high proportion of this new account SPA. They are not interested in any article other than "theirs": and whether "they" pages are there or not, they will place their spiel on their "page", or spill it all into some project talk page, or to user or box page sand their users and then index, because VE makes it very easy to do. This is at the registration stage we need to meet, very brief and clear, important messages about "neutral, verifiable, important, not for promotion, not for publicity, not Facebook, not LinkedIn, need a reliable source...". Since the registration process is not directly part of ACTRIAL, I will hold it now: Noyster (talk), 09:42, August 25, 2017 ( UTC)

Strangely (or maybe not so strange) it is one of my original suggestions. But yes, because it is not strictly part of the ACTRIAL the Foundation (for now) will not even listen to it.Kudpung ??????? (talk) 10:11, August 25, 2017 (UTC)

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

• Objects In my experience, the Article Wizard is very bad. It pretends to be there to assist you in making the article but in fact it raises objections after objecting in a hostile and unhelpful way. If you get past that hurdle, you are then put into a review queue that may take weeks. In my experience, the person managing the editathon, and other similar events, do not teach or recommend the use of the Articles Wizard. Instead, the sandbox is preferred because it gives the new editor more control and better security. The proposed landing page gives the sandbox as the first and main option while the Articles Wizard page passes it completely. Landing pages are therefore consistent with our best practices for our best prospects and should be used. Andrew D. (talk) 16:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Andrew Davidson: What if we add a user's sandbox button to the start of the Articles Wizard for people who just want to start writing something (no warranty will be reviewed)? Kaldari (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Please NO, there are over 30,000 user pages left behind, full of garbage. If directed to Draft and AfC (optional submission) there are at least 6 hours of G13 left for cleaning. Legacypac (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Well that's good but pref. AW. We need to put people through a circle, because the majority of the pages they create are explicitly prohibited by AW. And how many articles are put into en.wiki at any time span comes from least-partial contributors in the editing-outreach event? I also note that our traditional opponents - the sole coordinator of editors worldwide - have arrived. Winged Blades ^Godric 16:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
• Select landing page I like the landing page. I do not understand his complaints. I prefer, as Kudpung says, to push new editors to it right after registration. This is also good (although not part of ACTRIAL) to ensure that something like {{user sandbox}} or {{Userpace draft}} is automatically placed on new sandbox entries so it is not indexed and given a button to send via AfC. Landing pages are a good start. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 17:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
• In a scenario in OP, where new users have indicated that they want to create a new article, straight to the wizard article is the best, for miles. The training wheel is nice. Some people do not like to be mentored, but for most people it will be acceptable, normal, and a good thing for them and others. Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I posted the news below that we needed a final decision on this immediately, no later than 6:00 pm 6 September (UTC). - DannyH (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Do not delay starting! The landing page is just an idea to put in the process. The important people in ACTRIAL's launch have opposed it now. Skip the landing page with the passion of getting directly comparable data. Legacypac (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• original landing page , failed it, wizard article . When I last saw the landing page, it was very clear and simple, and while I'm sure they meant well, it now looks like a text block and is less clear. I prefer users to be redirected to an article wizard if the original version is not refundable. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial/Archive 4

Still have 1 technical blocker, must hold ACTRIAL

I am not a programmer but it sounds like a problem just by blocking some total users. I support to go ahead with whatever we can and capture the rest of the new users on time. Legacypac (talk) 14:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

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

@DannyH (WMF): - It looks like the issue has been fixed. I would also like to ask you to speed up any delayed dkk development tasks (from your side) to prevent the repetition of other weekly delays. Destroyer :) Winged Blades ^Godric 11:13, September 9, 2017 (UTC)

src: www.mariowiki.com

Decision on wizard article vs. landing page

As Kaldari said above, there is a question about the consensus decision as to whether we send users who are not automatically confirmed to the landing page or directly to the Articles wizard. It looks like we have a consensus to go to the article wizard on August 25, but four more comment today, split evenly between landing pages and article wizards.

We need a final decision on this soon - 6:00 pm 6 September (UTC) - because we need to do one test day before implementing a new extension.

When I read it, the main argument for going straight to the wizard article is to cut the step - the article guide already has a link to Teahouse and explains the main policy. The main argument for a landing page is that it encourages people to work in their sandbox before (or vice versa) creating an article.

We can change the text on any page, even after this time limit, so if people want to discuss changes, it's okay. But we need to know which pages will be assigned by the extension. How did we arrive at the 18:00 UTC decision? Ã, :) - DannyH (WMF) (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Hey gang, I have not monitored the development here yet, but I want to chime in the part that I realize. The array of landing pages currently proposed seems to be a good start, but I have some feedback from a design/UI perspective. I know it's still in the air, not we'll be landing page vs. wizards, which I do not have much to contribute to. I love getting all the excuses that motivate me to come up with an alternative mockup, but throwing away the puzzle is definitely on the list. If we learn anything from a bad-tempered Clippy is that anthropomorphic assistants are, at least, out of date, and at worst distractions and obstacles. I know he does not play an important role in the mockup, but I think, unless we do not care about it all over the site, I do not think that makes sense here. Anywho, here is the alternative I propose , this is obviously very rough, but hopefully show the "design" side of my proposal. I know, not surprisingly, most Wikipedians are "content" people, which is pretty much just a placeholder here, so any advice is more than welcome! Thank you in advance for your response. And.. editor editor with deliberate design.. @Ricordisamoa: @Isarra: let me know if you have any feedback. Drewmutt talk 01:08, September 7, 2017 (UTC)

• Drewmutt, thank you for communicating this to us, and for your volunteer time spent on this. If we go with the Articles Wizard do you (or any of the design-oriented editors) think it would be easy enough 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, right? Legacypac (talk) 04:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I like this visual design. I've redirected some links, and want someone who knows how to direct a "sandbox" link to the user's sandbox instead of the public one. I also do not know how the "back" button works but it certainly should not point to Back! - Very important, something on this line can be presented at the beginning of the registration, not just in the experiment to create the article: Noyster (talk), 08 : 12, September 7, 2017 (UTC)

I like the Drew Mutt landing page. It's not the TLDR feature of the current landing page. As an improvement, I want the pictures to be clickable on their own. And the bold and overall font improves would be better for phone people. It should also actively prevent editors from creating articles (good for beginner editors).WP links: TH should be more prominent. I will try and refine such an idea if possible until 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 to the current mockup-like page - as I say more, the mockup is now too much. There needs to be a bit more padding in the bottom half - the text is a bit more and the "start helping" link should have the ideal button, but overall I like the concept. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Thanks for all the feedback so far, I strongly agree with your response, Forceradical, and I will apply the changes today. To be honest, I have not even considered this side of the phone (though I'm a heavy mobile user, heh) but I'll look at it too to make it more responsive. @Jcc: , also agree with your response, and I'll get it there. @DannyH (WMF): Heh, I do not know maybe javascript: history.back () or maybe just a link to the home page? Open to the idea of ​​it. I find that we try to get people to consider that option, but it feels strange to me, and I do not think people are so used to it, nor do I see it done on the previous WP, therefore, I feel the odds with the "get me out from here". Just my thoughts alone. @TonyBallioni: If people like this direction, I would be happier to take a blow to the wizard, because I feel it also needs love. Drewmutt ^? ^ ) talk 18:47, September 8, 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you can bring out "Back", people know how to push the back button. :) And I will personally welcome any improvements to the wizard article. - DannyH (WMF) (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

DrewmuttWell I copied your page and gave it some special effects here by making your own icons clickable and adjusting text size. Please see - ^TM 11:31, September 9, 2017 (UTC)

This is a much better interface. My only criticism (and this is niggly) is the position of the button: in my mind, "Get help" must be under the first paragraph of the text, and "Start" should go down so it is parallel to "Start helping" and "Start making". Like I said, niggly. In all other respects, this is a very good UI. YunshuiÃ, ^? _? 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 edit" ("start x" would be better, to match the neighboring buttons), (3) Add line spacing below "There are various options for editing Wikipedia..." and its icons, (4) It might be better to set the middle of the icons and titles above (and buttons below) each of three columns, (4) Vertical-align " Welcome to Wikipedia! "With its icon (no watch, please {{ping}} if needed) tsar 17:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Czar: I have taken care of # 1 and # 2. Kaldari (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

am == Status updates, need a decision on landing page vs. article wizard == Hi everyone, everything is moving forward with an improvement on the technical blocker we had last week. It will be deployed tomorrow as expected, and we are on track to launch ACTRIAL on Thursday, September 14th, as we said above.

We still need a final decision whether to send people to the landing page or directly to the article wizard. One does nothing, we just need a decision at 20:00 UTC 12 September (about 24 hours from the time I post this message).

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

End location of landing page

I went ahead and moved the last version of Drewmutt with lines to Wikipedia: A new user landing page in preparation for tomorrow. Please make last minute changes there. Once ACTRIAL starts, we need to have an admin to protect the page, but it does not matter letting people edit it for now. Kaldari (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Drewmutt, Czar, Yunshui, Forceradical, and NKohli (WMF): Since you are most actively commenting on design, are there any last minute changes you see need to be made? Otherwise I might request full page protection and move its protection sometime tonight/early tomorrow so we have a stable page that goes into ACTRIAL. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: The only problem I have that I stated above, I do not think it is a blocker, but, for me, it's very easy to reproduce and make it look a bit chaotic. If we can not fix it before you fully protect it, I do not think it is the end of the world. Drewmutt ^? ^ ) talk 21:08, September 13, 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni & amp; Drewmutt. Please see File: Landing_page_screenshot.png to see the visually messy issues I'm experiencing on the big screen. If I zoomed in a bit everything would be fine, but minimize it like this. On my other computers it looks fine unless I zoom in on a laptop. - InsertCleverPhraseHere here ^{(or here)} 02:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Its been downgraded to a protected EC so last minute changes can be made. I do not know how to fix things like that, but anyone who knows how to tweak to launch. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrased here: I've made some formatting adjustments that fix my alignments for me. - JJMC89 (T Ã, Â · C) 03:45, September 14, 2017 (UTC)

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

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

• I went on and asked Oshwah to protect the page. He protects it so that template and admin editors can edit it. It also moves indefinitely protected. We also have beautiful new shortcuts WP: LANDING for ease of use. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Chris, this is a very good web design. Applause to the editors who put it together. YunshuiÃ, ^? _? 07:23, September 14, 2017 (UTC)

• Note : now all the loopholes have been fixed, unlimited temporary protection of temporary editors has been restored to the page to protect it when it goes live. We can still change it if necessary, just need an admin editor or template to apply. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

New dashboard for direct page creation statistics

As part of our work at ACTRIAL, Nettrom has created a dashboard displaying live page creation statistics, which is updated automatically every day. This dashboard includes all page creation events, even for deleted articles. Current available views include:

• Daily Pages Created
• Daily Pages Created in the Main namespace (ns = 0)
• Non-redirect page Daily Made in the Main namespace (ns = 0)
• Daily Pages Created in the Main namespace (ns = 0) by bot
• Daily Pages Created in the Main namespace (ns = 0) by autopatroll users
• Daily Pages Created in the Main namespace (ns = 0) by Authenticated users
• Daily Pages Created in the Main namespace (ns = 0) by users that are not automatically confirmed

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

As a reminder, Articles for Creation backlogs are mapped daily here: [1] - Carwil (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Carwil: Thanks for the link! We have a hypothesis about the size of the backlog on our research page (H17, to be more specific), and it has data about it. Extraordinary! Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 22:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

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

That's a great idea. This is not my graphical tool (only one I use to motivate me to review the AfC article), but I hope it can happen! - Carwil (talk) 02:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mduvekot and Carwil: : I have recorded the size of the NPP backlog since the end of August (data can be queried from Quarry), and I 'am interested to figure out how to estimate historical fluctuations too. Once I have some of it, I'll look to visualize it. Enterprisey also kindly gave me access to the data behind AfC's backlog charts, so I might just combine the two. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 00:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

No link above worked for me, unfortunately. - Paleo Neonate - 05:18, September 14, 2017 (UTC)

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

It's just that they need a script (which should now be disabled for all instances of the browser to turn it off for Wikipedia). Thanks for your attention, - Paleo Neonate - 18:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

src: i.imgur.com

Notice to the new page viewer?

I've created a notification for a new page viewer who will answer questions about the experiment:

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

• Esquivalience, notifications sent as bulk messages in the latest NPR newsletter at the end of August. We decided not to send a separate bulk message not to cause panic or to raise expectations. Enough to be vigilant. I will definitely also include it in the next one as well. I think the above message may also need to be posted on WT: NPR. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• I will post it on the NPR talk page because there is no notification there. Esquivalience (talk) 02:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

AfC backlog

I just finished clearing a huge backlog of non-AfC stale drafts. User: MusicBot/StaleDrafts/Report, which involves pushing every potentially useful page into AfC to give them a chance to be improved and promoted. So when ACTRIAL rolls a new page added to AfC it will generally be a completely new creation, with a strange new DRAFtifyed page from the main room or a weird, potentially potent non-afc potential page that falls out after today. Sure enough this effort is the main reason for the recent AfC backlog. Legacypac (talk) 19:24, September 14, 2017 (UTC)

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

src: i.imgur.com

ACTRIAL live

A few minutes early, but ACTRIAL is now live! Update things to update if you have not already. Kaldari (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Finally. Cruft flood no longer exists! Esquivalience (talk) 22:27, September 14, 2017 (UTC)

I have updated Wikipedia: The article wizard/Ready for submission only displays the 2nd form for the autofected user. Kaldari (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• I recently saw a new user named 'Shiroisnowflake' just created The Line Madder article in their 4th edit (account created today). They do not seem autoconfirmed. is this a bug or everything is not online enough yet? - InsertCleverPhraseHere here ^{(or here)} 23:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The Line Madder has been tagged for COI, Notability, Copyvio and AFD investigations! Legacypac (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Insertcleverph is based here, it's online - but the editor should have started creating their pages before they're enabled. :) People are being redirected when they follow a link or go to a non-existent page; if they've opened the edit window, they sneak right under the wire. - DannyH (WMF) (talk) 23:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, nice to hear. Shiroisnowflake may have dubious honors as the last non-autoconfirmed editor to make articles before ACTRIAL aired, as well as the only non-autoconfirmed editor to create articles during ACTRIAL. I want to know if it will appear in stats ?: D - InsertCleverPhraseHere here ^{(or here)} 00: 07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I do not know what ACTRIAL is but I'm a little curious now. I do not know what I do to create a page in a different way that other people create pages, but it would be really cool to learn something !! ^ - ^ Shiroisnowflake (talk) 00:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Shiroisnowflake: Details on Wikipedia: Automatically authenticated article creation experiments - Paleo Neonate - 00:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the information ^ - ^ How difficult it is. I can not believe I managed to sneak at the right time/wrong for events to be played like they did. Hope everything works fine with ACTRIAL and the page in question (because there is no other word I can find for it). Shiroisnowflake (talk) 00:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

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

I told the Tea House that they may experience a sharp increase in the question. J-Mo 23:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

YES !! As for the tea shop, assuming new users did not know they did not need 4/10 before, there could be no improvement. This will cause repeated repeaters from the blank account. Legacypac (talk) 23:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Should not we have to get a cake right now? But really, thanks to WMF and special editors who are working hard to make this happen.- MrX 00:10, September 15, 2017 (UTC)

Yes... you get a cake.

According to Special: ListGroupRights, the user createpage user's rights are still in the "Users" group and have not yet been moved to the "Autoconfirmed users" and "Confirmed users" groups. Is that supposed to be true? - MRD 2014 ^{Talk Edit help!} 00:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

No. According to Xaosflux (which will now go through the storm-related stuff so I will not ping him), after the configuration is updated, it has to be automatic updates. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Given that the page creation block is only in the main room, it makes sense that all incoming users still maintain rooting permissions. Changes in the volume make it clear enough that no user rights are actually changing. , 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Can we link to the Help Desk, and TH on the landing page? I know this is too late and I'm totally uninvolved, but there is a non-overlapping helper there. talk /sup> 00:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

It should be fairly easy to add to the "Need help?" You can ask questions in Teahouse, Help Desk, or via live chat. " An admin should do it, because the page is locked for editing. - InsertCleverPhrase Here ^{(or here)} 01:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I added a 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 was a time of flood crap that day, and CAT: A7 and CAT: G11 looks much busier than usual. MER-C 10:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes we are being removed from work;) - fortuna velut luna 10:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Eh. RC... recognized net cleaner this morning. Interested to see what it looks like in four days, also whether our NPP backlog has just been transferred to AfC. W ^talk 10:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Spam traps from userspace/dspace are not bulging in the connection as well. MER-C 12:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey, just head - we have event-logging on the landing page so we can measure which links people click on, and how often. I do not think it's a big deal to add another link at this point - I have to check with one of the devs - but it will make data collection easier if we leave the landing page alone for a while. Is that okay? - DannyH (WMF) (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

src: farm3.staticflickr.com

Tumbleweed

For the first time I remember, CAT: CSD is completely blank. I'll keep an eye on it for the next few hours, but if the trend continues, we might be able to conclude that ACTRIAL has a positive result. The other side, of course, is how many new articles we miss - I say maybe not too honest. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont) 19:17, September 18, 2017 (UTC)}

• Another metric that I carefully follow about this is whether it affects the AfC backlog or not. There is fluctuation (up a bit now), but overall nothing looks amazing ahead of it. Of course this is a 6 month trial, but the initial results are looking to be a net positive. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:22, September 18, 2017 (UTC)

Yes. As a prophet of doom, I am glad to see that I am wrong. W ^talk 21:54, September 18, 2017 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Article Wizard Proposal

I just want to tell interested people that I am proposing a refactor of the wizards article here . I mention here because much of what motivates me comes from learning and feedback on WP: LANDING. Drewmutt talk 01:09, September 19, 2017 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia