MediaWiki talk:Newarticletext/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

editprotected per discussion at VPP

Please add a link to the Article Creation Wizard (Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Wizard). Thanks, fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 17:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC) {{sudo}}

Where is that discussion at WP:VPP? I don't see it. --Amalthea 17:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant VPR. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Search_Results_-_Article_Creation_Wizard and Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Requested. Editprotected unnulled. fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 18:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

What is the proposal here? The AFC wizard is just going to be confusing for logged-in users, as it tells them that they shouldn't use it and then redirects them to other help pages. Mr.Z-man 18:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Where does the Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Wizard-Introduction wizard say logged-in users shouldn't use it?? Rd232 ^talk 22:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Several places. Right on that page - If you are already a registered user or wish to become one, there's no need to use Articles for Creation then if you ignore that and click the I am a registered user link, you're given 4 options - Log in, "I do not want to log in" - though if the user is seeing Newarticletext, they already are logged in - and the other 2 options link to Wikipedia:Tutorial and Wikipedia:Your first article. In any case, logged in users should be creating their articles directly, not via AFC. Mr.Z-man 23:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see now; not sure how I missed it. It seems that the AfC wizard would need adapting (or probably copying, to make an alternative not excluding registered users and making AfC optional). That's a little more work than I thought, but I think still well worth doing, the wizard's walkthrough is definitely valuable. Rd232 ^talk 00:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Not done:. While I might support this proposal in principle, it hasn't been thought out properly yet and consensus is yet to be established. It is possible that WP:WPAFC might be able to help with this, but they haven't been approached yet. So I am declining this request as premature. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's early days for the original proposal to amend the Search page (principally via MediaWiki:Noexactmatch); this is a separate issue. BTW if you think it might be a good idea, feel free to contribute to developing the proposal! (User:Rd232/Noexactmatch/Proposal) Rd232 ^talk 22:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion to add new line

I suggest adding:

• You can start your new article first here: [[Special:MyPage/{{PAGENAME}}]]. You can get the article in shape, with less risk of deletion, ask other editors to help work on it, and only [[Help:Moving a page|move]] it into the "live" Wikipedia once it is ready to go.

This will help new users particularly. Ikip (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree: Making stuff in userspace should keep it from overly zealous newpage patrollers. If you type in one sentence and save it, it's almost always going to be CSD-A1. (disclaimer: Ikip notified me of his suggestion, based on a conversation we'd had in WT:ARS) Jclemens (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree also.. 100%. This is a way to help new editors and be proactive in creating better articles for Wiki. Nice. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Great Idea! Decreases the potential of rejection right out of the gate. Increases the potential for active participation.--Buster7 (talk) 11:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Fourthed, as someone who works on many userfied articles, as seen at User:A_Nobody#Articles_to_work_on! Anyway, good idea. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey there. I've been talking with Ikip about this one, and it seems like a good idea to me. Is there any way we can get some more discussion going to see what more people think about it? I think this would help from both an inclusionist and exclusionist (and everything in between) point of view; we have fewer brand new articles getting deleted, because some people will take the time to work and improve them first. Naturally, not all, and perhaps not most, people will take the option, but some people just don't even know that starting an article in your user space/sandbox is an option. :) BOZ (talk) 02:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Seems like a reasonable concept. Down the road an effort to clean abandoned userspace articles may make sense. I know I have a few awaiting all my spare time. -- Banjeboi 17:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please add the above suggested text to this protected template. -- Banjeboi 17:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Specific edit: after the line:
<li>When creating an article, '''provide [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|references]]''' to [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable published sources]]. An article without references may quickly be deleted.</li> _please add:_ <li>You can start your new article first here: [[Special:MyPage/{{PAGENAME}}]]. You can get the article in shape, with less risk of deletion, ask other editors to help work on it, and only [[Help:Moving a page|move]] it into the "live" Wikipedia once it is ready to go.</li>

Thank you. -- Banjeboi 17:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Like the idea. Suggested improvement in wording:

You can start your new article first here: Special:MyPage/Newarticletext/Archive 5. You can develop the article, with less risk of deletion, ask other editors to help work on it, and move it into "article space" when it is ready.

I've just tried to make it a bit more formal. Question: would there be any advantage in not displaying this prompt if the page name is [[Special:MyPage/{{PAGENAME}}]]? Otherwise they may be prompted to create [[Special:MyPage/Special:MyPage/{{PAGENAME}}]]! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

That part of the notice is only shown in article space anyway. Amalthea 16:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

As long as the spirit is there which it seems to be! Thank you! -- Banjeboi 00:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Amalthea 16:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

protected edit request

{{sudo}}

Please remove the "Please respect the talk page guidelines, and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes" line from this message when displayed for talk pages.

That exact text already appears in a separate box that is displayed when editing any talk page. So when creating a talk page, the messages look like this:

(Code removed.)

As you can see the exact same line appears twice and is redundant. Gurch (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, well spotted.  Done, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article wizard2.0

Hi, I'd like to include a reference to Wikipedia:Article wizard2.0. There's currently (for the mainspace) a reference to Requested Articles ("add a request for it."). But I can't see where in the wikitext of Newarticletext that is! But I should ask first anyway, and perhaps someone can help. Rd232 ^talk 01:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hang on, I see that text is in MediaWiki:Noarticletext so that's probably where I should ask. Copying comment there. Rd232 ^talk 01:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

search link

There have been some recent inquiries on the Help Desk and the Village Pump about the removal of the search link. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#What_happened_to_the_search_link_in_the_redlink_page.3F ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC) struck out link, as discussion should occur here— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 21:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed it because I was trying to drive traffic to WP:YFA and reduce the number of misguided first-article attempts; since YFA has search details, I figured that'd catch the newbies. I haven't seen very many bad first articles lately, so I think I've been successful in newbie-catching, but instead I've thrown off some more experienced editors.... I've restored the search link, but in a different list-item and at a different emphasis level than the YFA plug. That should reinforce the drive towards YFA, but still allow the search-link shortcut. Is that OK? - Jredmond (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's great. Jan1nad (talk) 14:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a good compromise. Even placing the search function much farther down the list would still suffice. I appreciate the goal of trying to emphasize YFA for new editors. Vassyana (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion copied from User talk:Jredmond#Mediawiki:Newarticletext

regarding your changes to Mediawiki:Newarticletext, Here. i'm not sure i understand your rationale for removing the search, but by doing so, it adds several extra steps to the process. i for one, would like to see it replaced. cheers! --emerson7 17:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Can I please second Emerson's request. Jan1nad (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Please restore the search link you removed in this edit; it is very useful for finding a redirect target. Thank you. --NE2 21:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 65#What happened to the search link in the redlink page?

When you click a redlink, there should be a link above the edit window to search for the title in case there's a place to redirect. Why is this gone? --NE2 21:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Eh, trying User talk:Jredmond first. Wish me luck. --NE2 21:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

See #Edit a new page notice ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I've put the search link back in its own list-item. Hopefully that will continue the emphasis on WP:YFA but still allow easy redirect searches. - Jredmond (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I saw this post earlier this morning, and then just now I had my first real experience with the changed message. I'm trying hard not to say that I don't like it simply because it's different, but... To anyone with more then a couple of edits, I just can't imagine anything in that message aside from the search link as being important. If I could design that message for myself then the only thing that is would include would likely be the search link.

The thing is, I don't disagree with the idea behind the change. The problem is that this is one of those areas where helping the newer editors is negatively impacting those of us who are more regular contributors here. I don't know what the solution to the issue here is, but something should be done to balance the competing interests involved in this change.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 20:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that, for experienced users, the search is probably the only useful part of the message. (Deletion logs and protection notices are kept in different MediaWiki: system messages, so they aren't really relevant here.) Unfortunately, there isn't an easy way to have the full YFA+search+cite+subpage message for newbies but search-only for experienced users, so (for now at least) we're stuck with a one-size-fits-all message. - Jredmond (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I want to reiterate again that I don't disagree with the principle behind this change. It's just that the effect of implementing it is... less then desirable. I understand that there is a technical limitation to deal with (and that is a topic which we should probably seriously consider discussing), but outside of implementing a technical solution isn't there some better solution that we can come up with as a compromise? We should be able to brainstorm something up.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 22:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the link. --NE2 23:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Please put the link for creating a page back at the top of the search results. The change is very annoying, and isn't actually helping anyone. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was talking about the reverse of this: the link from the search results to the redlink edit page. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you're looking for MediaWiki:Searchmenu-new, which has been edited since yesterday's software upgrades. - Jredmond (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

When is this message shown?

I can't figure it out. Anyone? Rd232 ^talk 15:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Its shown above the edit window when creating a page that doesn't exist (if a custom editintro isn't set), note that the actual display varies depending on namespace. Mr.Z-man 16:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Note that Noarticletext (or Nocreatetext or Noarticletextanon) message is shown when you just arived at the page that doesn't exist (example), while Newarticletext is shown already in the edit mode (example). To clarify this for other admins, in ru:MediaWiki:Newarticletext I added something like this:

|{{ns:MediaWiki}} =
 {{#if:{{REVISIONID}} <!--displayed only when viewing [[MediaWiki:Newarticletext]]-->
 |Note to sysops: this message is shown when user is about to create a new page. It depends on the namespace, so look at the source code.
 |(Normal message for MediaWiki namespace; see proposal below) 
 }}

P.S. When creating a MediaWiki page this message could reminder sysops to carefully describe the changes being made because previous value (default Mediawiki value) will not be present in the page history. — AlexSm 17:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

WARNING: double-check XHTML validity when you edit the page

This message was generating non-XHTML-valid code, which broke software that uses AJAX calls. Example: Twinkle. I have fixed it by changing the wiki-style list command "*" to an HTML-style one in this diff. Please avoid using wiki-style lists, since they seem to generate invalid XHTML and the output of this message is not run through tidy before going out. The relevant issue is bugzilla:17486 — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Subpage check

I have just fixed several things in the code of this message. But there remains one odd thing in it:

It checks if the user creates a subpage and then shows this notice:

But it also tries to do that check in File and Category space. But the code used for it doesn't work there since File and Category space don't have the MediaWiki subpage feature enabled. But I know how to code it so the check works even in such namespaces.

So the question is, do we want to check and caution the users when they try to create a "subpage" in File and MediaWiki space? And should we perhaps then use a slightly stronger warning than the above message?

--David Göthberg (talk) 11:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Req. "Consider creating your article on Wikinews instead"

{{editprotected}}

I see a lot of well-written and well-referenced articles about current events put up for AFD. Often editors will find analysis pieces in the news that speak to enduring notability of the situation, and the article is saved. Other times, the article is lost, and even if the article is kept, a lot of time is expended that could have been used to improve existing articles.

It seems to me that there'd be many advantages in adding a message on the order of "If this is about a breaking news event, consider creating your article on Wikinews instead" to the list of tips about creating an article, and put it fairly high up. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a good idea, I concur. I suggest we place your message as item four, after the "To experiment, please use the sandbox" message. Here's the code we should use for it:

<li>If this is about a breaking news event, consider creating your 
article on {{sec link auto|wikinews||Wikinews}} instead.</li>

Which renders this:

• If this is about a breaking news event, consider creating your article on Wikinews instead.

I added a line break in the above example code to make it fit on this page. Remove that line break when deploying the code.

The {{sec link auto}} makes it a secure link for users on the secure server. (If a user doesn't have javascript enabled and is using the secure server, then links to other Mediawiki projects send them to the normal insecure servers.) For this reason we recently started to use {{sec link auto}} in the system messages.

Here's some other possible wordings:

• If your article is about a breaking news event, consider creating it on Wikinews instead.
• If the article is about a breaking news event, consider creating it on Wikinews instead.

I think I have a slight preference for the version starting with "If your article", but all three versions are okay for me. Does anyone else have a point of view?

Squidfryerchef: If this hasn't been deployed within some days, remind me on my talk page and I'll do the edit. (I'm an admin, but I'd like comments from one more user before we go ahead.)

--David Göthberg (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Happy‑melon 13:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"If your article..." is fine with me. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer the wording "If you are writing about a breaking news event, consider creating an article on Wikinews instead." The word "your" can imply ownership. —David Levy 16:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Here are all the variants on top of each other for better comparison:

• If this is about a breaking news event, consider creating your article on Wikinews instead.
• If your article is about a breaking news event, consider creating it on Wikinews instead.
• If the article is about a breaking news event, consider creating it on Wikinews instead.
• If you are writing about a breaking news event, consider creating an article on Wikinews instead.

David Levy is right, we should avoid calling it "your article". So that leaves versions 3 and 4. Both seem to work fine, but I tested it in the full MediaWiki:Newarticletext message and then version 4 (Levy's suggestion) seemed to fit best with the surrounding text. So I have a slight preference for version 4.

Squidfryerchef, in case you wonder: Levy disabled the {{editprotected}} since we are now discussing it, it doesn't mean he denied it.

--David Göthberg (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Version 4 is fine, just pick something. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

As I think I already said at the village pump, we already have too much barrage of instructions when trying to create an article. Just because people sometimes do X when we think they should do Y, doesn't mean we should add yet an other instruction they have to scroll past. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Y Done - I added version four. And I did a whole bunch of other fixes while I was at it.

--David Göthberg (talk) 10:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have just mentioned this at Wikipedia:Your first article, thanks for the suggestion, it was clearly missing from there. That is the place where this kind of things should be mentioned, not here, so I removed it. We need to keep the message short and to the point; a one-line sentence like the one which had been added is necessarily misleading. It can give the impression that Wikipedia doesn't want articles about breaking news events, which is plainly wrong. Just looking at WP:ITN, I see 2010 Nigerien coup d'état, 2010 Madeira floods and mudslides, ... and I know of plenty others. Of course, some go to AFD, and this is business as usual. You'd need to elaborate to avoid giving this wrong impression, but there's no place here, that's why we have WP:YFA and why it's so prominently linked. Plus, there are plenty of other similar things we could mention, some arguably of higher importance (BLP, Copyright, etc), but if we were to go on this road, it would make a massive wall of text and people could not even find the edit window any more, again, that's why we have WP:YFA. Cenarium (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Cenarium: This system message actually has a sentence about biographies of living persons (BLPs). And the edit page does have text about copyright.

Who are you to go around this place enforcing your personal will over what other editors and admins have agreed upon? I see you constantly reverting and breaking stuff that others have added and agreed upon. You are not the ruler of Wikipedia, that's Jimbo's job. And he recently asked us to link to Wikinews in a similar discussion, and I think you are well aware of that since you opposed him in the same discussion. (That discussion will end up in archive 58 or 59 in the Village pump.) I have reverted your removal of the Wikinews sentence in this system message.

--David Göthberg (talk) 06:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not see consensus for this addition. In fact, you seem to be the one edit warring over it, David Göthberg. --Apoc2400 (talk) 09:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there is no clear consensus. The wording issue was resolved to my satisfaction, but Cenarium makes some good points. Such a message—at least in this format—might give editors the wrong idea. —David Levy 10:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Apoc2400: Cenarium has a history of going around deleting or heavily modifying things we create, without asking or discussing first, and contrary to the majority or consensus. I see him do such things every week on pages I happen to have in my watchlist. If we revert him or protest then he often makes quite some noise about it.

When I reverted Cenarium it seemed to be a clear majority for that text. As far as I could see: Squidfryerchef, David (me), Happy‑melon and David Levy supported that text. While Apoc2400 and Cenarium opposed it.

However, now that David Levy has changed his point of view (or made it clearer) then we have no majority either way. So then it is tricky.

--David Göthberg (talk) 12:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

To expand on the previous argument: This is a very intrusive and in-your-face interface message, so it should be kept to a minimum. It gets in the way of writing and pushes the edit box further down. WP:Your first article is a much more user-friendly place for this kind of information, because it is there when you want to read it, but it not forced upon you. Forcing instructions on people may be tempting, but it is fundamentally impossible; it will just be scrolled past without reading. There is also the effect where adding more lines makes people less likely to read the other lines, or the message at all. It takes focus away from RS, BLP, Your first article etc. Articles about news is just not such a big problem, and the issue is too complicated to cover in a single sentence anyway. Many articles related to recent events are in fact within the scope of Wikipedia. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

David Göthberg: You should stop the personal attacks know, those accusations are completely baseless, and I have 'overruled' no one. I don't see why you inject personal stuff in discussions like this. If you have a problem with me, bring it on my talk page, or follow dispute resolution if necessary. If you mean my reversion of your January edit w.r.t. the search interface, then I can assure you that it is certainly justified to revert an edit because it introduced an obvious rendering issue which had been and would continue to be seen by thousands and thousands of users; and there were no consensus at all for any part of your edit, it was actually opposed by Rainman [1], the developer who maintains the search (and it's worth to note, though I hadn't mentioned it at the time: devs have the final say on those matters). After I brought this for further discussion, we had a consensus and I made the edit which no one objected. Here's the discussion - I'll let readers judge. Or is it when I deleted a few mediawiki pages which were for testing but visibly not used for more than a year and part of a deprecated system ? It was simple, routine administrative maintenance and I don't get why you took it personally and seem to hold to it. There's no such 'history' that you allege, and that bit about 'very week on your watchlists, making noise if we protest' is patently untrue, I ask you to retract such wrongful accusations. If you continue to engage in ad hominem and avoid discussing the matter at hand this way, I won't further discuss with you.

(General reply) We need consensus for important changes to high visibility mediawiki pages like this one, and in no way the previous discussion, very short and with minimal input, revealed one. My mention of BLP or copyright were mere examples, as indeed there's no whole point on them (BLPs are just mentioned in the one about references) in this message which is the most visible by far when creating a page. The same can be said from no original research, not a guide, not fancruft, not for advertizing or promotion, not crystal ball, not dictionary, and lack of notability, and countless others which are as strong or much stronger a problem than the occasional article on breaking news - this can be verified in AFD logs. I indeed believe that when such visible changes are made to mediawiki pages outside normal operating procedure, they should be reverted to the prior status quo pending further discussion, regardless of who made the edit. Cenarium (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Cenarium: As usual you are twisting things. The text we added over at the search interface had no rendering issue, and as you mention you yourself later added pretty much the same text in the same place. (I have seen you do that several times, first reverting others then some time later you add the same thing. I can only guess why you do that.)

And no, devs don't have the final say in what texts (and especially not what help texts) we put in the interface messages here at the English Wikipedia. Devs are just volunteer coders, just like us. Only that they have chosen to focus on another part of the system.

And no, this is not about one or two cases. I see you overrule and revert what other users have agreed upon every week, and that is only what I see on the pages I happen to watch so I assume you do it a lot more than that. I usually don't engage in discussions with you about those cases, since I know it is a waste of time since you couldn't care less what others think. And I've been here long enough to know that I can just sit back and watch. When you have stepped on enough toes you will go the same way as other former admins who abused their tools. But the sad thing is that until that happens you will probably have scared away many productive editors and coders. You really should rethink what you are doing here.

--David Göthberg (talk) 03:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little bemused by so much hostility... it seems to me that if I were such a terrible user there would have been some echoes of it ? Plus, I'd need to be much more active than I actually am. About scaring away editors... I'm not the one who made an all-out attack, so to say, against a fellow editor, frankly it doesn't give me envy of contributing to being targeted like this. I recently reverted those two edits of you because I genuinely felt it was for the best of Wikipedia, I don't see why you take all this so personally. In any case, I had asked you to cease from attacking me in this forum and bring any issue you may have with me to my talk page instead, which you haven't done. So I won't further discuss this here, inter-user disputes have no place in such discussions; however, I feel compelled to answer, so I'll do so on my talk page, any input is appreciated.

Quickly now on the search edits: Wikimedia developers' declarations are an exception to consensus, the text I added was significantly different (shorter, no mention of commons, no text in coordinates position), and the rendering issue was very real, reproduced and verified by developers who pointed an issue with local css or templates [2]. Cenarium (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

(unindent: back to the issue at hand) The initial discussion didn't show consensus for inclusion and was largely insufficient in input and consideration for such a high visibility change, who gets the majority doesn't matter, any objection calls for status quo pending further discussion; that's why I reverted the edit and stand by the reversion. The reasons put forward against inclusion have been agreed by three users, and remain unobjected. Obviously I don't want to re-revert and risk an edit war, so I've asked users who already participated to weigh in - anyone wishing to put a notice of this discussion at a village pump or similar places for further input should feel free. Cenarium (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's been no input. In light of my above comment and the time passed, would anyone now object to removing the line about breaking news events ? Cenarium (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I certainly object to removing it. We had consensus to include it a few weeks ago, aside from one user who came from my first post at VPP. This is an ongoing problem, I don't want more stubs like Deer Creek Middle School Shooting which really belongs on Wikinews. Maybe not all users read newarticletext, but I'd bet that even fewer read YFA. If there's any concern about establishing a deletionist stance towards news articles, newarticletext is much less of a risk than YFA, because newarticletext is difficult to link to from debates. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

There were no consensus in the first place, one editor proposing and two editors agreeing isn't consensus, the objections have not been discussed, and consensus is based on objections and their resolution through discussion. It's not about AFD but about user's perception: users reading this may be mislead in thinking that articles about breaking news events are not appropriate for Wikipedia - and so, not create it in the first place. The message is too short to include any elaboration to clarify the point. We don't want to discourage users from creating articles. Plus, there are a myriad of things which could be mentioned: that Wikipedia doesn't accept original research, that it's not a guide, not for fancruft, not for advertizing or promotion, not a crystal ball, not a dictionary, and articles must be notable, all those are as strong or much stronger a problem than the occasional article on breaking news. We obviously can't mention all this here, that's why we have WP:Your first article which is prominently linked from here. As an aside, YFA is not a guideline and so can't be used to justify one's position in an AFD. Cenarium (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I see valid arguments for and against the text's inclusion, and I agree that consensus has not been established (so it should be removed).

I suggest that we consider compromise wording that encourages creating an article at Wikinews without discouraging its creation here. —David Levy 18:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it, then. I should add that it doesn't presuppose of the issue of the discussion. Cenarium (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Phrasing

{{editprotected}} Please change:

• If you wish to ask an informational question, please visit one of our help desks.

So that it reads:

• If you wish to ask an informational question, please visit one of our reference desks.

This will hopefully prevent confusion due to the fact that we have a help desk for Wikipedia-usage-related questions and reference desks for factual questions. The link destination in the first line is also questionable in my opinion, as anyone clicking the link will have a factual question, which should be taken straight to the appropriate ref desk. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 23:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I've made the change. I didn't know that "informational" was a real word. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 16:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

merge

I think this should be merged into {{No article text}} (used by MediaWiki:Noarticletext) with a parameter like is done for MediaWiki:Noarticletext-nopermission. Most of the logic is the same. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

File talk message for commons files

I came here after seeing a confused user at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#WP says "the WP page you came here from doesn't exist" (permanent link). If you click "Talk" at the Wikipedia page for a commons image, for example File:Grafeo.JPG, then you get a page starting with: "Wikipedia does not have a talk page with this exact title. Note that the corresponding subject page File:Grafeo.JPG also does not exist." The file link is blue and there is no mention of commons. This will confuse many users. MediaWiki:Newarticletext uses #ifexist:Media:{{PAGENAME}} to display a message about commons if you try to create the Wikipedia file page for a commons image. There should be something similar for the file talk page. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree—I came looking for this talk page because I just got thoroughly confused by this. It was only after reading the code for the message that I realised the file was on commons and the message was telling the truth. If it's possible to detect that the page exists on commons the message should definitely be updated. —Noiratsi (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Mention VE

At Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback#Article_creation user:PamD mentions that users may want to switch to the WP:VisualEditor. This message is the best hook we have to allow them to switch. I propose adding:

To start editing in the beta WP:VisualEditor, click [{{fullurl:{{PAGENAME}}|veaction=edit}} here].

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

But this isn't the message seen when creating an article in English Wikipedia. Pam[User talk:PamD|D] 09:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've been told that this indeed that message, but it changes according to the namespace where it's seen. So, to get back to the initial point: if a new editor, who has only used VE, clicks on a redlink to start a new article, at present AFAIK they get dropped into Edit Source with no indication about VE apart from the existence of a tab saying "Create" next to the open tab "Create source". Are they going to understand what's going on? Presumably the idea is that they won't know anything about Edit Source, and they're unlikely to spot the subtlety of the two adjacent tabs, so there seems scope for confusion. I suggest that the notice seen at that point should include clear and friendly advice pointing people to the "Create" tab if they want to create an article in VE. The wording should take into account that the editor may not even know there are two different editing schemes around! PamD 19:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)