Wikipedia talk:Article wizard/version1/Old discussion

message: I've made a list page of all the wizard pages, existing and proposed, at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Wizard pages. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 19:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page helper 

message: I'm putting the wizard into production at 2130 UTC to see how it goes -- ShinmaWa(talk) 21:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great!  Should we reduce the instructions on the main AFC page?  I guess we don't need to decide right away.  By the way, I yanked the "wiki is not paper" statement from a bunch of the wizard's pages; I don't think it'd make much sense to most people. ×Meegs 22:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On reducing instructions -- Yeah... I think we can wait.   On "Wiki is not paper" -- works for me :)  -- ShinmaWa(talk) 22:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems as if more people come back and change the declined submissions, and some are then acceptable.  But has any one done statistics?  More people seem to be talking about their submission as well. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Go-live 

message: Should the "create an account" (the third option on this page) link to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&type=signup instead of Special:Userlogin? SpencerT♦C 20:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: MSGJ 12:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: I'm suggesting a "create a new dab page" option, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Wizardfordabs. 62.147.39.194 (talk) 21:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: . Martin 22:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wizard for dabs 

message: please ad the word isoteric, which means in physics : of equal or constant specific volume with respect to either time or space. And it is a pity that I can not do this myself anymore! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.147.121.244 (talk • contribs) 
:Hi, this is not the place for new reqeusts. This is for discussing the actual wizard! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Isoteric

message: The following rules are notable even among the fertile fields of wikipedia for their arbitrariness.  One day, somebody should do a study of the correspondence between Asperger's or autism, and the number of wikipedia articles rejected or deleted. You people have ruined what could have been a great pop culture reference, by making it into a less-than-mediocre piece of scholarship. Try telling your sped teacher how much time you spend on wikpedia and ask if that's too much. You'll be told that it is, so give the rest of us a break.
"A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
    * Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes school newspapers, personal blogs, etc.).
    * Has had a hit on a national music chart in at least one large or medium-sized country.[1]
    * Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one large or medium-sized country.
    * Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster including several notable performers).
    * Has won a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno or Mercury Music Award."
71.188.23.65 (talk) 01:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have any constructive comments to make about the AfC process then we would be pleased to hear them at WT:WPAFC. Or is this just a general rant? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Musical notability 

message: What a horribly convoluted process! Please, do you really think forcing people to read all this instruction creep and promise to follow it in triplicate is the way to teach Wikipedia norms? Just let the newcomers submit their articles for creation, and we'll take what good articles come in. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means have a go at simplifying them. You might like to ask for others' opinions at WT:WPAFC. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added a shortcut. We'll see how long it lasts. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the idea was that anyone who had anything decent to contribute would be able to follow their way throuh the wizard successfully, and this was a way to stop some of the rubbish getting through and adding to the backlog. There is already an option to bypass the wizard on Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Wizard-Advanced. So I'll probably revert your shortcut link, unless someone else does! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Able to, yes, but shouldn't have to. Any logged in user can create an article right in main-space with little hassle. Why should users without an account have to pass so much bureaucracy just to submit an article that will be reviewed anyway? --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much instruction 

message: Can the link to "I am already registered" be made to mesh with the wizard for registered users, and save them a few clicks? Intelligentsium 03:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We are planning to merge the two wizards shortly ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "I am already registered" 

message: I added a note by the redirect about case because there have been a lot of request for redirects that are not capitalized to articles that are capitalized. This way they know that this happens automatically.  --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 02:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit