Wikipedia talk:Article wizard

In Wikipedia:Article wizard/Referencing, there is a missing period in the first entry under Referencing. Thanks in advance had0j (talk) 09:13, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

had0j (talk) 09:13, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorted, thanks. Primefac (talk) 10:23, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Wikipedia:Article wizard/version1/maintenance has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 16 § Wikipedia:Article wizard/version1/maintenance until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

sigh... Steel1943, you know you could have just asked us to look into it; we might have even just deleted it for you ourselves, or found a better use. Primefac (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Asilvering - I saw your revert to the /CommonMistakes page of the wizard. Exactly what formatting did it break? I didn't see any issues when I previewed and after I saved the changes, but if you let me know and tell me what you saw, I'll check it out, figure out what I did, and fix it. (please ping me in your response; my watchlist closet is currently stuffed completely full of old clothes and moth balls...) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Oshwah, it created spurious newlines in a bunch of different places for some reason. I think it might have worked specifically at the screen resolution you used at the time, but not in other resolutions? Regarding the other changes that added a bunch of new wording, imo it's probably better to avoid adding more text, for the same reason it's probably a good idea to add a bit more white space - the more it looks like a wall of dense text, the less likely anyone is to read it. -- asilvering (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Asilvering - I modified the revision, fixed the whitespacing, and shortened the text while leaving the important bits in. Can you take a look and let me know what your thoughts are? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:22, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Oshwah the formatting is not broken this time! I still don't think the additional words are an improvement, though. -- asilvering (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Asilvering - Thanks for taking a look and for your thoughts. I appreciate the feedback. Are there any details that I modified that you agree with? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:35, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Oshwah, if I'm honest, not really. I do think that There are a lot of common mistakes that new editors will make while writing a draft article. Here are a few that you must watch out for and avoid: is better wording than what was there before, but it's also longer, so I'm ambivalent on it. The rest I think adds more words without improving clarity and I think that will just lead to less of it being read at all. -- asilvering (talk) 22:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Asilvering - I went back and shortened the wording down. Let me know what you think. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:27, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Description of suggested change: I'd like to revise the "copyright" section below to add guidance against using LLMs per WP:NEWLLM. I'm hoping this could reduce the flood of unsuitable LLM-generated drafts I've had to reject. (Feel free to come up with a better revised header.)

Diff:

—pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 18:30, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Support this change which could help in decreasing the flood of AI slop that's hitting AfC and NPP. HurricaneZeta^C 18:46, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done Primefac (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2026 (UTC)