MediaWiki talk:Newarticletext

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also:
MediaWiki:Noarticletext (talk)
Archive
Archives
1, 2


Contents

[edit] Documentation

[edit] Detect IP

{{#ifeq:{{#expr:{{PAGENAME}}}} |{{PAGENAME}}||{{#ifeq:{{#expr:{{PAGENAME}}}}|{{#expr:{{PAGENAME}}+deliberatesyntaxerror}}||..}}}}

means:

Do if {{#expr:{{PAGENAME}}}} is neither giving an error message nor something equal (according to #ifeq) to {{PAGENAME}} itself. See also m:Template:detect IP (backlinks, edit), and #need direct access to the IP info toolbox below.

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Include references

Most articles that end up at CSD, do not have any references. I think that a little bit of emphasis to remind users to include references could result in less CSD work (and maybe in fewer useless submissions). I recommend a small change telling people what TO do, not just what NOT to do. Take the line "Articles that do not cite reliable published sources are likely to be deleted" move it higher, and tweak the wording:

  • Be sure to include references to the source(s) of your information. Articles that do not cite reliable published sources are likely to be deleted.

This would be the result (minus blue links):

-- Sbowers3 (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The message does currently prominently say "Articles that do not cite reliable published sources are likely to be deleted." when creating articles. Test it out. —Centrx→talk • 20:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
My recommendation is to move it higher in the box and to expand the wording slightly. The goal is to make it more visible for newcomers. Sbowers3 (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it is currently more visible. It is currently in bold right above the text entry box. The message would be less visible as one of many unread bullet points. —Centrx→talk • 00:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindenting) Users are creating tons of articles that do not have references. Clearly, the current wording is not working. My proposal might not work any better but it could hardly be worse. Isn't it worth a try? Sbowers3 (talk) 01:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

Hello. I do a lot of new page patrolling, and there is a helluva lot of speedily-deleteable pages being created. I would like to suggest we redesign this page. I have a proposal:

Before creating your article, please read the notes below.

Anyone have any opinions on this? Most people don't bother to read the notice. I think this could grab their attention. Thanks. JetLover(talk)(Report a mistake) 04:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

From WP:VPP, It is typically preferable not to use images in the interface messages. Also, please look at the existing code, if this is going to be a large scale replacement, lets mock up ALL the code here first (including all the namespace selector stuff). Thanks! — xaosflux Talk 04:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This was the latest suggestion at WP:VPP:

Before making your Wikipedia article:

From the preceding comment I'm not sure whether it is essential or just preferable to remove the image, but here it is without the image:

Before making your Wikipedia article:

Next question is do we want to make any changes to the message for other namespaces (e.g. User, Category, Template)? The message source is a bit complicated and varies depending on namespace so we can't just plop the new message in there without paying some consideration to other namespaces.

My inclination is to leave the other messages as is and add this new message with a simple "if" statement, e.g. if article space then this new message else for any other space then the old messages.

Sbowers3 (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd keep the image. One will know that the message is important. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 23:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey come on what happened to this? I thought we were going to get some bold new notices. But I went to a non-existent page in article space and saw the same dull and never-bothered-to-read-it message that's always been there. Has this been forgotten about, or where is the discussion? • Anakin (contribs • complaints) 20:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The new text is ready to go. (See Revised Jan. 8). It's waiting for an admin to install it. The admin who was involved is on a wikibreak. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Text in context

For reference, here is the text in the context of various namespaces:

  • (Mainspace):
  • Talk:
  • User:
  • User talk:
  • other talk:
  • Wikipedia:
  • Image:
  • MediaWiki:
  • Template:
  • Help:
  • Category:
  • Portal:

[edit] Comments

For non-article space (e.g. Talk, Image, Portal) do we really need to include:

  • Wikipedia is not an advertising service
  • use the sandbox
  • To learn more about creating articles

It seems to me that those comments are directed almost completely toward article space and not needed for the other spaces.

If we are going to make changes to the wording for article space (as I hope we will) we can change the wording for other spaces while we are at it. So now is a good time for suggestions to changes besides the article space change. Sbowers3 (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed text

Here is the proposed Newarticletext. I have restructured it with separator selectors for each namespace. This will make it easy to customize the message for each different namespace. I also changed html markup to Wiki markup.

Edit this section to copy the raw text to the message.

For reference, here is how it appears in the context of various namespaces:

  • (Mainspace):

Before making your Wikipedia article:

  • Talk:
  • User:
  • User talk:
  • IP user talk:
  • other talk:
  • Wikipedia:
  • Image:
  • MediaWiki:
  • Template:
  • Help:
  • Category:
  • Portal:

Sbowers3 (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments about proposed text

  • The article message is essentially the last proposal from WP:VPP except that I omitted the image. I could not get it to work in the message. I think that tables may not work properly in the context of a message.
  • For non-article messages I removed the wording (e.g. read Wikipedia:Your first article) that seemed not necessary for non-articles.
  • I also removed the part about a delay updating the database and trying the purge function. I don't believe database delay is a problem these days.
  • I'm not sure whether to include something about checking the deletion log before recreating a page that was deleted.

Sbowers3 (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The image could be unnecessarily hostile, and the blue border attracts enough attention anyway. It should be made clear that this notice is intended primarily for people creating their first article, hence the first link. It'd be annoying to appear to be told every single time to read that page. Also, "probably will be deleted" may be too discouraging to good faith attempts at creating an article with a notable subject. There's no need to mention the deletion log, because it shows on the page. What about:

Before creating your first Wikipedia article:

–Pomte 00:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
No objection. Sbowers3 (talk) 04:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Is it possible to code this without having to include the same <div> tags in each section, if the selector can be wrapped in them it will make future edits easier. — xaosflux Talk 02:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The div for article space is different from the div for all other namespaces - and I think we want the article's div to stand out as it does now. It would be easy enough to restructure the messages as "if article space then ... else "div begin" switch namespace ... "div end" end if. That would make it harder to have custom divs for each namespace but that might be a good thing - would encourage uniform appearance for everything except article space. Sbowers3 (talk) 04:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revised Jan. 8

Here is the message revised per suggestions above:

And here is how it appears in article space:

Before creating your first Wikipedia article:

Sbowers3 (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Requesting admin edit. –Pomte 00:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

To be specific - edit this section (of the talk page). You will see the proposed message text. Copy it in its entirety and replace all of the current message text. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I tested it, and it seems to work. But I am concerned about the wording on the article pages. Providing references is not something you do before editing, it's something you do while editing. How about this? — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Information for new editors

That's more suitable, though of course it's a better idea to provide reliable sources right away to avoid speedy deletion. One thing though is that it's the reliability of sources that is important, not so much the reference style guide, which is why I bolded the former over the latter. –Pomte
How about "As you create the article, please provide references to reliable sources."? The bold is the same as in the original box above. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

How about this:

Information for editors

I omitted "new" in the title because I want all editors not just new editors to follow these instructions. Similarly I omitted "first" before article. I bolded "references" rather than "reliable sources" because REF has has more information about why references are important, what material should be cited, and what should be in a reference. I agree that the formatting of a reference (the latter half of REF) is not so important. Frankly, I'd be happy to see ANY references, formatted any which way or unformatted, in New pages because so many new articles have no references at all. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revised Jan. 27

Here is the latest version as displayed above:

{{editprotected}} Please replace in its entirety the current message with the above text. Sbowers3 (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I copied it over. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Very nice. Was pleasantly surprised just now, and hunted this page down to say thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Previously deleted" notice

Note that "If the page has been deleted ..." notice was added 2 years ago (see #If Added deletion links above). Since then a new message MediaWiki:Recreate-deleted-warn was added, which appears exactly when the page was previously deleted, click on any deleted page for an example. Please move the relevant text from one message to another ∴ AlexSm 21:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Search link

{{editprotected}} I understand that the old message was too long, but I found the "search" link extremely useful. When I create a red link, I often search to see if there's anything to redirect to. Can this be added after "Before creating your article, please read Wikipedia:Your first article."? Thank you. --NE2 17:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I took the liberty of removing your editprotected request because as I understand the process you should have a very specific request before using the editprotected tag. I am including below a modified version of the current message and I invite you to further modify it to make your request specific. Having said that I hope we avoid WP:Instruction creep in this message.

Information for editors

Is the reason you want to add this so that the title of the article is pre-filled for you at Search? Right now, wherever you are when you see this message, you can type into the Search box on the left and click Search. So the only benefit I see to adding this line is that you can just click instead of clicking in the Search box, typing in the name, then clicking Search. Sbowers3 (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes; it's a pretty big help when writing an article, linking to things like Downtown Los Angeles, California, and then searching to see if there's an article about Downtown Los Angeles when it turns up red. --NE2 17:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdenting) Okay, how's this? The search will be preloaded with the actual pagename. For testing purposes I expanded the message with the article name "My test".

Information for editors

or search for an existing article to redirect this title to.

If this is okay, then I'll insert the full message text here for an editprotected install. Sbowers3 (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's probably better as above, in order to keep the number of lines down. --NE2 21:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Another example: I'm writing Interstate 680 (California), and added a link to urgency measure. It's a red link, so I opened it in a new tab in the hope that I could find somewhere to redirect it to. Before the recent change, I'd click on the search link to look for a target; now I either have to hit save (not actually saving, since it's blank) and use the search link there, or type it into the search box. --NE2 22:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's the latest as displayed in article space, then as the code ready to install.

Information for editors

{{editprotected}} Please replace in its entirety the current message with the above text. Sbowers3 (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. Sandstein (talk) 06:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much! --NE2 16:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Search link editing break

One minor change (after finally figuring out where I had to go to change it) - "... an existing article to redirect this title to" changed to "... an existing article to which you can redirect this title". Neıl ☎ 00:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's better. On this topic Winston Churchill is quoted as saying, "That's the kind of nonsense up with which I will not put." Sbowers3 (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it was a little hard to find this page; what links here didn't even work because of the parserfunctions. Would it be worthwhile to add a link, like template:LA Freeways and most other navboxes have the "v d e" links? --NE2 00:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't follow. Put a link where? And "What links here" worked for me - but I don't see the relevance. Color me confused. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
When you click on a red link, like urgency measure (sadly I couldn't find a target for that one), the message above includes a link to Wikipedia:Your first article. But click what links here and filter by namespace - [1] - and MediaWiki:Newarticletext is not listed. I'm suggesting that maybe on the message there should be a tiny link to MediaWiki:Newarticletext or this talk page, something like "discuss this message". --NE2 01:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I see your point. It's worth experimenting. BTW, if you try namespace MediaWiki talk (instead of MediaWiki) you'll find this page. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
It's only in 'mediawiki talk' because he linked it above just now... ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 04:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdenting) How's this?

Information for editors

MediaWiki talk:Newarticletext

It displays as a link when displayed anywhere except on this page. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It should probably be something like "discuss this text", and we should definitely get more input on a change like this. Would pointing people here be a bad thing? Is it better to point people at the village pump? I really don't know. --NE2 03:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know either. Yes, we should get more input. For now, let's wait and see if anybody else comments here. Then perhaps invite recent contributors to come and comment. If we put the link in at all (with either wording) I'm inclined to have it point here. Then those of us watching this page can decide whether to take a comment to a broader forum such as VP. Sbowers3 (talk) 03:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the standard "v • d" links would be sufficient, and less intrusive. (or "view • talk" if deemed necessary, but that's more confusing for the template's target audience). (standards as shown in template docs.) example following... -- Quiddity (talk) 04:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Information for editors

v • d

[edit] Fix the links to not point to redirects?

{{editprotected}}

To save CPU cycles the links in the message should probably be direct links, not redirects. So instead of this:

Information for editors

v • d

Try this:

Information for editors

v • d

Does that sound reasonable? meshach (talk) 05:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not change links to redirects that are not broken. --NE2 05:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Isn't that the opposite of what I am suggesting? They are currently redirects and I want to make them links. meshach (talk) 06:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
You are asking to change a reidrect link (of WP:REF) into a direct link (Wikipedia:Citing sources). This is exactly what WP:R2D says not to do. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I understand now. I guess I need a break. Thanks for explaining. meshach (talk) 06:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
This says "In other words, readers of Wikipedia would have to use a redirect link about 10,000 times before it would be worthwhile to replace that link with a direct link." Just change it, it's not a big deal either way for one edit, but a global message like this is likely to be clicked more than 10,000 times. The "do not change redirects" thing is mainly to stop people rampaging through Wikipedia with bots changing every redirect into a pipelink. Neıl ☎ 08:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdenting) Okay, I've read up on redirects. The sensible thing is to change them to direct links the next time this message is changed. It's not worth changing by itself. So when we decide on the whether or not to have a link back to this page, we can make both changes at the same time.

A million people are going to see this message and very nearly all of them won't have a clue about anything in MediaWiki space. If we have a link back to this page, a million people are going to see that link and wonder what it does. Some of them will click it end up here and be totally confused or end up making a mess here. So my suggestion is not to have a link but just have the title of this page. For experts that will be all they need to find their way here to make constructive comments. For everybody else we won't be inviting problems. So here is my suggestion:

Information for editors

MediaWiki:Newarticletext

Sbowers3 (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and yes. Sounds good. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images

While I appreciate the work that has gone into creating a new version of this notice, I really don't think it was necessary. If it must stay, can we at least get the "Look for an image of this name on Commons" link back for the notice that appears on image pages? That was extremely useful. - auburnpilot talk 04:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

How's this?
The primary focus of recent changes is article space. We want to encourage people to add references. Far too many articles are created with no references. A side effect would be to reduce articles about non-notable bands, etc. because such groups won't have sources.
In the process we removed some unnecessary stuff in other spaces. And in the case of images a piece that was useful. With the new structure of the code it is easy to tailor the message for each namespace. If you find anything else we left out, let us know here. Sbowers3 (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if the message cannot check with ParserFunction whether the file exists on Commons, at least it could say "→ [[:image:{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]← if this link is blue, this image probably exists on Commons". Yes, I know that the "blue" part depends on preferences, but this would still be better than nothing. Also, the message should say (personally I have no idea) if it's ok/not recommended/prohibited to add some description to a Commons file ∴ AlexSm 19:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

That piece of the message is a link to :commons:Image:{{PAGENAME}} but is piped to "Look for an image of this name on Commons". Apparently a commons link is blue whether or not the image exists at Commons. I don't have an opinion as to whether to have piped wording or an unpiped link with the name of the item. As to additional text in the message, I've hardly ever gone to Image space so I don't know whether users are frequently making mistakes that we could reduce by adding text to this message. It's a reasonable thing to try. Sbowers3 (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 6

I have a new version ready to go. Here is what it looks like in article space:

Information for editors

MediaWiki:Newarticletext

and in Image space:

I have added the name of this page to the boxes in all space, not just article space. If this seems a good idea we might suggest that some other messages be labeled like this.

If this looks ready to go, then I'll post the new text here with an editprotected tag. Sbowers3 (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me; thanks for re-adding the image link. If there are no objects, post the code and I'll move it over. - auburnpilot talk 17:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here is the full message text:

{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:0}}
|
<div id="newarticletext" style="background: white; border: 2px solid blue; margin: 8px 100px; padding: 8px 16px;">
<center>
<span style="font-size: 120%; font-weight: bold;">Information for editors</span>
</center>
*'''Before creating your article,''' please read [[{{ns:Project}}:Your first article]], or [[Special:Search/{{PAGENAME}}|search]] for an existing article to which you can [[Help:redirect|redirect]] this title.
*As you create the article, please '''provide [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|references]]''' to [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]]. Without sources, the article may be deleted.
<div style="text-align:right; font-size: 80%;">MediaWiki:Newarticletext</div>
</div>
|
<div class="plainlinks" id="newarticletext" style="margin-bottom: 5px; border: 1px solid #cccccc; padding: 7px; font-size: 95%;">
{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}
|User talk=
'''No messages''' have been posted for this user yet. {{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|{{SUBPAGENAME}}|
|Before creating this page, please see [[{{ns:Project}}:Subpages]].}}

*To start a page called ''{{FULLPAGENAME}}'', type in the box below. When you are done, preview the page to check for errors and then save it.
{{#switch:{{ns:User talk}}|{{NAMESPACE}}|{{NAMESPACEE}}={{#ifeq:{{#expr:{{PAGENAME}}}}
|{{PAGENAME}}||{{#ifeq:{{#expr:{{PAGENAME}}}}|{{#expr:{{PAGENAME}}+deliberatesyntaxerror}}||<div style="margin-top: -1em;">{{int:anontalkpagetext}}</div>}}}}}}

|{{ns:Talk}}=
'''{{ns:Project}} does not have a [[{{ns:Help}}:Talk page|talk page]] with this exact title.''' {{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|{{SUBPAGENAME}}|Before creating this page, please verify that an article called ''[[{{PAGENAME}}]]'' exists.
|Before creating this page, please see [[{{ns:Project}}:Subpages]].}}

*To start a page called ''{{FULLPAGENAME}}'', type in the box below. When you are done, preview the page to check for errors and then save it.
*Please respect the [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page guidelines]], and remember to [[Wikipedia:Signatures|sign your posts]] by typing four tildes (<tt style="background: white;">~~~~</tt>).

|{{TALKSPACE}}=
'''{{SITENAME}} does not have a [[{{ns:Help}}:Talk page|talk page]] with this exact title.''' {{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|{{SUBPAGENAME}}|Before creating this page, please verify that an page called ''[[:{{SUBJECTSPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}]]'' exists.
|Before creating this page, please see [[{{ns:Project}}:Subpages]].}}

*To start a page called ''{{FULLPAGENAME}}'', type in the box below. When you are done, preview the page to check for errors and then save it.

|{{ns:Category}}=
'''{{SITENAME}} does not have a [[{{ns:Project}}:Category|category]] with this exact title.''' {{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|{{SUBPAGENAME}}|To avoid redundancy, please browse the [[{{ns:Project}}:Browse|existing categories]] before creating this page.
|Before creating this page, please see [[{{ns:Project}}:Subpages]].}}

*To start a page called ''{{FULLPAGENAME}}'', type in the box below. When you are done, preview the page to check for errors and then save it.

|{{ns:Help}}=
'''{{SITENAME}} does not have a [[{{ns:Help}}:Contents|help]] page with this exact title.''' {{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|{{SUBPAGENAME}}|To avoid redundancy, please browse the [[{{ns:Help}}:Contents|existing help pages]] before creating this page.
|Before creating this page, please see [[{{ns:Project}}:Subpages]].}}

*To start a page called ''{{FULLPAGENAME}}'', type in the box below. When you are done, preview the page to check for errors and then save it.

|{{ns:Portal}}=
'''{{SITENAME}} does not have a [[{{ns:Project}}:Portal|portal]] with this exact title.''' {{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|{{SUBPAGENAME}}|Please browse the [[{{ns:Portal}}:Browse|existing portals]] to check for similar topics. To propose a new portal, see [[{{ns:Project}}:Portal]] for instructions.
|Before creating this page, please see [[{{ns:Project}}:Subpages]].}}

*To start a page called ''{{FULLPAGENAME}}'', type in the box below. When you are done, preview the page to check for errors and then save it.

|{{ns:Template}}=
'''{{SITENAME}} does not have a [[{{ns:Project}}:Template messages|template]] with this exact title.''' {{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|{{SUBPAGENAME}}|To avoid redundancy, please browse the [[{{ns:Project}}:Template messages|existing templates]] before creating a new template.
|Before creating this page, please see [[{{ns:Project}}:Subpages]].}}

*To start a page called ''{{FULLPAGENAME}}'', type in the box below. When you are done, preview the page to check for errors and then save it.

|{{ns:User}}=
'''{{SITENAME}} does not have a [[{{ns:Project}}:User page|user page]] with this exact title.''' {{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|{{SUBPAGENAME}}|In general, this page should be created and edited by [[{{ns:User}}:{{PAGENAME}}]].
|Before creating this page, please see [[{{ns:Project}}:Subpages]].}}

*To start a page called ''{{FULLPAGENAME}}'', type in the box below. When you are done, preview the page to check for errors and then save it.

|{{ns:Project}}=
'''{{SITENAME}} does not have a [[{{ns:Project}}:Project namespace|project page]] with this exact title.''' {{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|{{SUBPAGENAME}}|
|Before creating this page, please see [[{{ns:Project}}:Subpages]].}}

*To start a page called ''{{FULLPAGENAME}}'', type in the box below. When you are done, preview the page to check for errors and then save it.

|{{ns:Image}}=
'''{{ns:Project}} does not have an Image page with this exact title.''' {{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|{{SUBPAGENAME}}|Please do ''not'' manually create this page. If you wish to upload an image called ''{{PAGENAME}}'', see [[{{ns:Project}}:Uploading images]] for instructions.
*This image may exist on [[:commons:|Wikimedia Commons]] but not on Wikipedia. [[:commons:Image:{{PAGENAME}}|Look for an image of this name on Commons]].
|Before creating this page, please see [[{{ns:Project}}:Subpages]].}}

|#default=
'''{{SITENAME}} does not have a {{NAMESPACE}} page with this exact title.''' {{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|{{SUBPAGENAME}}|
|Before creating this page, please see [[{{ns:Project}}:Subpages]].}}

*To start a page called ''{{FULLPAGENAME}}'', type in the box below. When you are done, preview the page to check for errors and then save it.
}}
<div style="text-align:right; font-size: 80%;">MediaWiki:Newarticletext</div>
</div>
}}

{{editprotected}} Please replace the entire current message text with the above. Sbowers3 (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. - auburnpilot talk 19:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

That "MediaWiki:Newarticletext" is pretty nice - not sure it needs to be on a separate line, but that may be necessary for formatting/positioning purposes. --NE2 19:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I tried to put it on the same line but I couldn't figure out a way to do it (right justified). Sbowers3 (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoa! What the hell?! I didn't expect to get a big blue box shoved in my face when creating a new redirect. How about this version which isn't so "in your face"?

Information for new editors:

MediaWiki:Newarticletext

--  Denelson83  20:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well the motivation for a redesign was "there is a helluva lot of speedily-deleteable pages being created. I would like to suggest we redesign this page. ... I think this could grab their attention." If people read the message and obey the instructions, then the redesign will have succeeded in a useful result. I'm inclined to leave it for perhaps a month to try to determine (by examining New pages) whether it works. Sbowers3 (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
While I didn't like the change at first, as can be seen from my comment in one of the above sections, I would not support changing it back. Having read through the new version (and having viewed it within multiple namespaces), the new version is much more effective and direct. Of course the irony of the border within Denelson83's signature in comparison to the "in your face" border of the mediawiki message is not lost on me. ;-) - auburnpilot talk 23:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Ha! yes, see my old comments on some of the problems with bold signatures, Denelson83. sorry, pet peeve ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 02:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. Is this sig a little better? --  Denelson83  07:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Link from message to this page

Several users noted that it was hard to find this page to comment on recent changes to the message. So after discussion above, we added the name of this page to the message text. Recently two editors removed that new wording without any discussion here. So let's have the discussion again, perhaps a poll, and perhaps take it to WP:VPR for more visibility.

This message is a significant change from the old message. A million people are going to see it - well maybe not a million, but certainly tens of thousands. Most of those won't have any idea where the message came from or know where to comment about it. Adding a "link" to this page makes it easier for us to get comments from lots of users who otherwise wouldn't go to the trouble of figuring out where to comment. So I recommend that we include that label for perhaps a month.

The argument for removing it seems to be that no other messages have it. Well, no other highly visible message has been changed significantly as this one was. And perhaps we should add similar labels to other messages to encourage users to make comments about those other messages. Sbowers3 (talk) 13:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep the label (at least temporarily)
  • Sbowers3 (talk) 13:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It would have been a lot easier to find this page to request the restoration of the search link had the name of the message (even without a link) been there. --NE2 03:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Get rid of the label

[edit] Bad XHTML in a recent edit

Folks, you have got to be really careful to make absolutely sure that when you make an edit to this page that you do not corrupt the XHTML. Earlier today someone made a careless edit that removed a closing div from the bottom of this message. I have corrected the error, but the result was that pages with this message did not meet XHTML standards which can cause problems with browsers and JavaScripts. This was brought to my attention by someone who noticed that Twinkle and Friendly had both lost their ability to leave messages on new talk pages. Please please please be more careful when modifying this file in the future as it has the potential to affect a huge number of users. Thanks! Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 15:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, someone jumped in and made a change without discussion and without testing. In all of the versions I have prepared recently I have taken the message to Special:ExpandTemplates to test. Sbowers3 (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Link to deletion log

Is there anyway to put the link to the deletion log back into the text? John Reaves 19:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious - what is the sequence of steps you follow that would make the deletion log convenient to have in this message?
The major goal of the redesign is to emphasize what is really important - providing references. Far too many New pages don't have references. A good way to emphasize a point is to avoid WP:Instruction creep. Having said that you might propose a specific new message box and see what others think. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Umm, how is that instruction creep? It's not even an instruction. It's useful to know whether or not an article has been created before, especially so it doesn't get created again or if it has talk page it's useful to know why there is an orphan talk page. John Reaves 03:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The log should show up automatically for deleted pages. e.g. Irken. Do you have an example of it not working? -- Quiddity (talk) 06:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I seemed to remember a link for all pages, thanks. John Reaves 09:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Under contruction?

{{editprotected}} We already have the "check if this exists", "sandbox", and "reliable sources" information, but would it not make sense to inform the user about user subpages, or the {{underconstruction}} template? For example:

I believe this will avoid users leaving the project due to the rather bitey nature of the speedy deletion templates. It should also slow down the volume of very short, instantly deletable stubs in Special:Newpages. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN 21:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please revert the previous change. The smaller reason is that "article may been" is grammatically incorrect. Possibly "may be" was intended. The main reason is that there is no such thing as Special:Mypage/Newarticletext and I don't have a clue as to what is intended. And finally, there should be time for consensus to develop before making a change to a message as visible as this one. I object to this particular change on the basis of WP:CREEP. WP:YFA already mention underconstruction (and I think user subpages). Sbowers3 (talk) 11:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I did remove it. The main issue I see is that every article is in a development phase, indefinitely, so the new text seems to say that no article should be created. In other words, there's no reason not to create incomplete articles in main space. Template:underconstruction doesn't say that the article is in a long-term development phase; it's a warning that you will be editing heavily for a couple hours, to help reduce edit conflicts. On the other hand, the link Special:Mypage/Newarticletext does work as expected. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you're confusing {{underconstruction}} with {{inuse}}. On the former it says "use inuse instead to reduce edit conflicts", so they are not the same thing. What could be used is {{underconstruction}}, which says it is "not yet ready for use". If there is any way to get this across, then I would appreciate a suggestion. Also, it was indeed a typo. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 13:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm - I tried to look up template:underconstruction, but what I saw was template:inuse, you're right.
My main concern is that we never expect articles to stop being under construction; there's no "finished" article. We only expect very minimal standards of new articles. We don't want to encourage editors to tag every new article as "under construction". — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm embarrassed that I did not recognize Special:Mypage/Newarticletext. I clicked it, got a page doesn't exist box, and assumed that something was wrong. I think that creating in a user sandbox is a very good idea - it's what I do - but the message would work better if we piped it. Something like Create your own sandbox for Newarticletext.
On the other hand, maybe the message about a user page should be in a message box before this one. When you get here, you are about to start entering content. Sbowers3 (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

So, what about:

Hmm? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Better. I wonder if a relatively new user will understand the message - and those are the ones who would most benefit from starting in their sandbox. Let's wait to see if other people have suggestions.
Another possibility would be to put it in MediaWiki:Noexactmatch, which is the message they see before they see the Newarticletext message. Sbowers3 (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New suggestion

Hold on. 'Provide references to your sources' is not enough. It can and most likely will be deleted or speedy deleted(for bio's) if you don't provide notabilty. I will raise this again at the WP:VPP if required. Also 'Your first article', implies ownership of the article (obviously not what is meant but still it's not clear) as don't want to conflict with WP:OWN, so better wording on that with be required as well. SunCreator (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(I moved your suggestion here for better visibility because the bottom of a talk page is where most reader look for new messages.)

The existence of references usually is enough to show notability. Also WP:Your first article says more about notability. I know you don't like "Your" but think of "your" as modifying "first" not as indicating ownership. And it is "yours" alone until you click Save page. This message box will use whatever name that article has. I notice that there is no consensus at WT:Your first article to change the name. You could try at VPP but I doubt that you will have much success there, either. Sbowers3 (talk) 03:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, references is certainly not enough as articles require notability. Sho_Dozono was almost deleted recently for lack of notability but has 14 references, Thong_in_the_news has 58, and have seen other articles with over 30 references get deleted. Articles with references but fail notability are deleted daily. Here is another Joseph_St._Pierre which correctly will soon to be a redlinked, as will Ceiling server,Lobotomy pop,The Halo CE chronicles,The Neglected band. A common misconception about references really wants to cleared up before the article is created not later in the cycle causing wasted time for editor who starts it, editors that work on it, anyone involved in it's deletion, including the admin who finally deletes it. That's without the potential drama spinning out from someone trying to stop the article being deleted and the bad experience that at least the article starter has had with wikipedia. By the way numbers (and time involved) is not small, around 39% or articles created in 2007 were later deleted, not all for notability (break down not known) but many will be for this reason.
Will raise issues of wording and name of Wikipedia:Your_first_article at WP:VPP. SunCreator (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The existence of references goes a long way toward demonstrating notability. I've seen a whole lot of new articles that have no references at all and most of them will be speedily deleted. A user who tries to write about his friend, or his band, etc. won't be able to find any references. The demand for references may deter a number of useless articles. Conversely, if there are enough reliable sources to provide all the information of an article - in other words if there are more than trivial references - there is a good chance that the references will establish notability. It may not be enough but it is a big first step. If authors reads WP:YFA as we suggest then that page has more to say about notability.
One problem with emphasizing notability in this message box is that its meaning is not obvious. Some authors will just say to themselves, "Well, of course he is notable" and proceed to write a useless article. References are easier to understand. When we tell them to provide references to the sources of their information they know what we mean without going somewhere else to figure out what it means. So they are more likely to do what we say.
We have to worry about instruction creep. If we have too many items in the message box, many people won't read any of it. That's one of the reasons we whittled the message down to the simplest, easiest to understand, most useful directions. It would be great if authors read and followed all the instructions but quite obviously, many don't. Some won't read any of the message box so it won't matter what we put into it. But for those who will pay attention I want to keep directions short and easy, and point them to something else (i.e. YFA) which has more information. Anyway, those are my two cents. Sbowers3 (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
References don't demonstrating notability. Please make yourself familiar with the rules of notability. Such common misconception is a good reason to make notability very clear to everyone, if established editors keep making this mistake then how are newer editors suppose to have a chance to understand?
Articles with references but without notability are regularly speedily deleted, see Criteria for speedy deletion A7 - here is an example for speedy deletion now The_Young_Muslims_UK
Instruction creep, yes, it's good to prevent this, which is why the proposal is a great deal shorter then the existing wording. See for yourself at the village pump. here. SunCreator (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdenting) I do understand the Notability guidelines and I do understand that there can be references without notability and that there can be notability without references. I have done my share of CSD, PRODs for non-notability, tagging for questionable notability, etc. All I'm saying is that good references often - certainly not always - go hand in hand with notability. As a New pages patroller I'm tired of seeing articles that have no references. It's easy for even a brand new editor to understand the idea of references and to provide a list of his sources. It's harder for new editors to understand the concept of notability. I prefer a bright line rule (i.e. references) that is objective - there are references, yes or no - to a demand for new editors to satisfy something subjective (i.e. notability) that they often will misunderstand.

I think we should just agree to disagree on this point and not continue the discussion here. I may have something to say over at VPP. Sbowers3 (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)