Talk:Article Creation Workflow/Landing System

redlinks
Probably worth setting up an independent work-flow for red-links since they are generally an indicator of fewer notability issues. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geni (talk • contribs) 00:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Editintro
I've made a start on the editintro HTML/CSS. --Yair rand 08:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Account creation
I don't understand, are you creating a new account creation page/system? How does that interact with the normal one? I ask also because there are several issues about it and seeing them duplicated would be very depressing (e.g. 25815, 30442). Nemo 19:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, not at this time. Those screens and flows are meant to illustrate an "ideal" situation.--Jorm (WMF) 19:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi at En:village pump, we were requested to come and make suggestions
In creating a new article, encourage the user to look at similar articles, perhaps through a category and word search function.

Eg., "Wikipedia tries not to be hidebound but as with anything its good to know what came before (especially if you like examples). If you want to create an article on a new ______  type words related to _________ or categories related to ________, to see how articles like that look and have worked out.  Note, not all the articles you find will be great examples but look at several and try to pick some good examples (while you're there fix whatever you see needs improving)." Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Misguided and out of touch fantasy

 * 1) Inviting the user to create an account if not logged in and making it an extremely easy process defeats the reason why article creation was restricted to accounts only in the first place.
 * 2) This will only improve quality of new articles at the margin. Those that want to add crap will charge through this process and continue to do so.
 * 3) Where's the search functionality?
 * 4) Is there any way to opt out of the tracking?
 * 5) This extension gives a false impression to new users that creating a new article is an easy task. It isn't, not by a long shot. We are already doing this, but this extension makes it worse.
 * 6) I thought we're supposed to be emphasising quality over quantity. Wikipedia has more than enough crap articles as it is, and it goes without saying we don't want any more.
 * 7) The editing community does not have enough resources to deal with the predictable surge of crap that comes with the implementation. This will cause an increase in burn-out and a decrease in useful editor retention.
 * 8) There absouletely must be an abuse filter type thing that keeps out obviously bad pages before they are saved (this addresses some points above). I'd really like to see attempts to create first person spam and attack pages denied.
 * 9) Many userspace drafts end up as crappy WP:FAKEARTICLEs that should be deleted anyway.
 * 10) Where's the community consensus? If you're calling this one of your "experiments", you'd better have clear and strict termination criteria, timelines and goals.

This has all the hallmarks of the fantastic, idealistic and out of touch bullshit that has been coming out of the WMF as of late. WP:COMPETENCE is an essential read -- the authors of a good fraction of new articles show no regard for WP:ENC whatsoever. No amount of "education" or hand-holding will change that. I am open to changing my mind if the "create an account" bit is dropped, but what I see here does not convince me this is a benefit to the encyclopedia.

In the meantime, let's play New Page Patrol Bingo!. How long does it take you to fill the entire card? MER-C (talk) 05:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal at the village pump
There's a proposal at the en.wiki village pump regarding this landing page design. It makes the case that new users should be explained the expected contents of a Wikipedia before they create an account (i.e. at the Anonymous Users screen), not after it. I don't know if this talk page is still active and comments on the design are being heard? Diego Moya (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem to make any sense to me. --Nemo 17:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)