MediaWiki talk:Newarticletext/Archive 4

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 Your first article. But click what links here and filter by namespace - - 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)
 * Before creating your article, please read Your first article, or search for an existing article to which you can redirect this title.
 * As you create the article, please provide references to reliable sources. Without sources, the article may be deleted.
 * 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
 * Before creating your article, please read Your first article, or search for an existing article to which you can redirect this title.
 * As you create the article, please provide references to reliable sources. Without sources, the article may be deleted.

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
 * Before creating your article, please read Your first article, or search for an existing article to which you can redirect this title.
 * As you create the article, please provide references to reliable sources. Without sources, the article may be deleted.

Try this:

 Information for editors v • d
 * Before creating your article, please read Your first article, or search for an existing article to which you can redirect this title.
 * As you create the article, please provide references to reliable sources. Without sources, the article may be deleted.

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


 * See Redirect. --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 (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)
 * Before creating your article, please read Your first article, or search for an existing article to which you can redirect this title.
 * As you create the article, please provide references to reliable sources. Without sources, the article may be deleted.
 * Yes, and yes. Sounds good. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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. - auburn pilot   talk  04:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * How's this?

 Wikipedia does not have an Image page with this exact title. Please do not manually create this page. If you wish to upload an image called My test, see Uploading images for instructions.
 * This image may exist on Wikimedia Commons but not on Wikipedia. Look for an image of this name on Commons.
 * 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:← 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: 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)

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:  Wikipedia does not have an Image page with this exact title. Please do not manually create this page. If you wish to upload an image called My test, see Uploading images for instructions. MediaWiki:Newarticletext 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.
 * Before creating your article, please read Your first article, or search for an existing article to which you can redirect this title.
 * As you create the article, please provide references to reliable sources. Without sources, the article may be deleted.
 * This image may exist on Wikimedia Commons but not on Wikipedia. Look for an image of this name on Commons.

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. - auburn pilot   talk  17:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here is the full message text:

editprotected Please replace the entire current message text with the above. Sbowers3 (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. - auburn pilot   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
 * Before creating your article, please read    :Your first article, or search for an existing article to which you can redirect this title.
 * As you create the article, please provide references to reliable sources. Without sources, the article may be deleted.

--  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. ;-) - auburn pilot   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)

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

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)

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)

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:


 * Before creating an article, please read    :Your first article, or search for an existing article to which you can redirect this title.
 * To experiment, please use the sandbox. If you feel the article may been in a development phase for a substantial period of time, consider placing underconstruction on the article, or create the page at Special:Mypage/.
 * As you create the article, provide references to reliable published sources. Without references, the article may be deleted.

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)
 * ✅. 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/ 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/ does work as expected. &mdash; 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.  weburiedoursecrets  inthegarden  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". &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm embarrassed that I did not recognize Special:Mypage/. 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.
 * 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:


 * Before creating an article, please read    :Your first article, or search for an existing article to which you can redirect this title.
 * To experiment, please use the sandbox. Consider creating a page in your own userspace at Special:Mypage/ if it is not yet ready for open editing.
 * As you create the article, provide references to reliable published sources. Without references, the article may be deleted.

Hmm?  weburiedoursecrets inthegarden  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)

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 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)

Typo
editprotected

This talk page is rather confusing, as is the history of the message... That probably justifies the following error:

"Before creating this page, please verify that an page called..."

That should be "a page". The problem seems to only exist in messages for talk pages, but I cannot be sure of that. Waltham, The Duke of 18:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Thanks, - auburn pilot   talk  18:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Link to page move log
Page moves don't have to leave redirects, and although the "redirect suppressed" option is usually used for reverting vandalism it is sometimes used when userfying pages or correcting typos, so it would be useful to have a link to the page move log otherwise it could look like a page has just disappeared. — Snigbrook 00:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit protected per discussion at VPM
✅ henrik  • talk  15:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Per the discussion at the village pump, I would like to propose that the text "An article without references will likely be deleted quickly" be changed to "An article without references may quickly be deleted", given a consensus in the discussion that this form is more grammatically correct. Cool3 (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Wrong code for talk pages
editprotected

Problem description
See the result in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pipe Organ (log out first). The text displayed Wikipedia does not have a talk page with this exact title. Before creating this page, please verify that an article called WikiProject Pipe Organ exists. should be Wikipedia does not have a talk page with this exact title. Before creating this page, please verify that an article called WikiProject Pipe Organ exists.

Wannabe solution
replace please verify that an article called : exists with please verify that an article called : exists

--Yecril (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ Done - Thanks for finding that bug and reporting it here. To fix it took a little more than you suggested. A "Wikipedia:" page is not "an article", it's "a subject page" or just "a page". And  would just give the full name of the talk page with the "Wikipedia talk:" prefix. Take a look at the edit I did.
 * And in case you don't already know it, here is a link to the page that explains those magic words: mw:Help:Magic words. There is some nifty stuff there!
 * And while I was at it I did a bunch of other fixes (see my edits before that last one).
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Auto archiving
I've boldy added auto-archiving for stale threads. -- Banj e b oi   12:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)