MediaWiki talk:Newarticletext/Archive 6

Cruel and unusual punishment?
I think the text as written is cruel and unusual punishment for good-faith newbies. It currently says Before creating an article, please read Your first article. That page is horribly long. Who actually wants to be asked to read something that long before they volunteer to share their knowledge? Yikes! I suggest changing it to Before creating an article, please read the short Your first article simple. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 10:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please replace the first sentence with
 * That title was pretty awkward (what's an "article simple"?) so I've moved it to Simple guide to creating your first article. But yes, I agree that Your first article is, paradoxically, a very intimidating thing for us to be pointing new writers at. —  Scott  •  talk  14:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Then  Scott  •, if you can, could you please replace the cruel and unusual instruction with Before creating an article, please read this short page, if you haven't already.? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 07:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: This may be a good idea, and you have made a good start with the page. But I would like to get some input from more editors before making this significant change. And I think the simple guide may need improving. Could you post your proposal on one of the village pumps to see what people think? If there is support for using Simple guide to creating your first article rather than Your first article I will happily make the change. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * MSGJ, a notification already exists at WP:VPM. Wikipedia really is this slow these days. Please be bold? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 12:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I could be bold, but I am not even sure this is the right approach. It might be a better idea to improve the Your first article instead of creating a parallel one. (You could argue that that page should be a simple introduction to writing an article.) That page is not fully protected and so more open to boldness than this one! Anyhow I would like to see some discussion on this. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want, I'll happily rewrite YFA with the other and call it day. I already posted at VPM and we are the discussion. =) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 13:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 13:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Editprotected request
Could a friendly admin please consider adding


 * If this file previously existed, it may have been deleted locally ([ local deletion log]) or on Wikimedia Commons ([//commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&page= Commons deletion log]).
 * If this file previously existed, it may have been deleted locally ([ local deletion log]) or on Wikimedia Commons ([//commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&page= Commons deletion log]).
 * If this file previously existed, it may have been deleted locally ([ local deletion log]) or on Wikimedia Commons ([//commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&page= Commons deletion log]).

The code would need to be added after the paragraph that begins, with two linebreaks added after the existing paragraph and the new code.

That way, users are not left puzzled when a file is deleted on Commons, such as https:, and the link to the Commons deletion log would be seen when one is sent to the edit form after following a file redlink, as well as when simply viewing the empty file page. — This, that and the other (talk) 05:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 14:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

FYI
A proposal has been made to  create  a Live Feed to  enhance the processing  of Articles for Creation and Drafts. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to create a 'Special:NewDraftsFeed' system. Your comments are welcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Draft Namespace
If I click on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Wainwright_Evans&action=edit&redlink=1 I don't get told about Draft:John Wainwright Evans at all! Apparently we can test for the draft page and choose a message in MediaWiki:Newarticletext. I'd suggest a redirect and suggested move, or something. Josh Parris 10:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No. Before we even begin discussing the MediaWiki message, we should first find a way to express in formal policy, through various consensus building channels (VPR, RFC, etc), what the relationship of the Article namespace even means to the Draft namespace, how we should display it to the new editors, the difference in criteria between "delete" and "move to Draft namespace", and so on and so forth. For this reason I believe we should for the time being put this discussion on "hold"; hammering out the actual policy for Draft namespace is needed before hammering out its technical details. TeleComNasSprVen (talk &bull; contribs) 11:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hm, I suppose we might be able to test some things for a few cases in the Draft namespace. Here's some sample code adapted from the one for the talkpage box:


 * TeleComNasSprVen (talk &bull; contribs) 19:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think a formal policy rewrite is required to start publicizing drafts to anonymous editors or newly-registered ones. There is clear consensus for supporting creation and use of a Drafts namespace, as a result of the RFC. Suggesting we have to wait to write up a new policy seems to violate WP:BOLD and WP:IAR. Especially considering good drafts are already being published (see John Wainwright Evans). We'll write new rules as we need them, not wait to act until rules are written. Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   19:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, I take your point. Since you mentioned the fact that an article may exist for a given draft page, I added in an #ifexist check above to perhaps reflect that, but I think it would require some more checks and balances before this is finalized. TeleComNasSprVen (talk &bull; contribs) 22:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Josh Parris was referring to the reverse situation. Should the mainspace redlink at Jess Heinig for example use  to tell the user there exists a page at Draft:Jess Heinig. Drafts may contain all sorts of garbage and are meant for editors, not readers, so I don't know whether everybody clicking a red mainspace link should be directed to a corresponding draft page. Maybe a message clearly aimed at editors like: "If you consider creating an article here then note there may be useful content in Draft: . Draft pages are not meant for readers and may not have encyclopedic content." PrimeHunter (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * An existing draft may contain useless garbage, or it may contain useful information. It may be better if the editor at the mainspace redlink knows about the draft, to check it and decide himself if it's worth being used or not. In fact, if there is a draft it may have likely be written by some other active editor, and coordinate their work. But this is just a thing of wording, the editor is not enforced to use the content of the draft, and may ignore it if so desires. If there is no draft, the text "You can also start your new article at ..." should link to the draft location as well. Cambalachero (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Firstly, everyone here should check out Wikipedia talk:Drafts, the central location for these things.
 * Secondly, it is very important that we alert editors of drafts if articles of the same name already exist, so new users won't won't waste their time on something that already exists.  Secondly, its important to alert editors (but not readers) of articles to the exists of corresponding drafts, so they can help with the merge.
 * The easiest and simplest way to do that is by updating existing system messages like Newarticletext and others. (See also Template:DraftChecker). --HectorMoffet (talk) 12:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Now that we have had more experience with the Draft namespace i would like to revive 's proposal above. When a new mainspace page is about to be created, a check for a corresponding draft page should be made, and and appropriate link displayed so that the editor can decide whether to work on the draft instead, mine the draft, or ignore it. Note that what was basically the same proposal got significant support at Wikipedia talk:Drafts/Archive 4. Is there any reason not to act on this proposal? DES (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC) DES (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * DES (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. I wasn't notified, maybe because the signed edit [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Newarticletext&diff=next&oldid=680900036] didn't satisfy a part of mw:Manual:Echo: "The diff chunk must be recognised as an addition of new lines of text, not a change to existing lines." PrimeHunter (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine, but it may be better to propose an actual wording for the text and discuss it. Cambalachero (talk) 12:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 25 February 2019
Remove both transclusions of the obsolete Template:Sec link auto (replacing with ... . Pppery, the protection wizard 20:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * let Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 25 complete first. — xaosflux  Talk 23:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Reactivating this, the TfD has now been closed as delete. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * please make your change in this sandbox: MediaWiki talk:Newarticletext/sandbox then reactivate when ready. — xaosflux  Talk 21:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Added to the sandbox &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ — xaosflux  Talk 01:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Also load MediaWiki:Anontalkpagetext on IPv6 user talk pages
When editing user talk pages for IPv4 users then MediaWiki:Anontalkpagetext is shown at top of the page. But when editing user talk pages for IPv6 users that message is not loaded. Compare User talk:201.83.25.59 and User talk:2001:B011:7009:18A0:FC2F:9F5F:5B46:306E. The loading of MediaWiki:Anontalkpagetext is done from inside MediaWiki:Newarticletext.

I ask that this part of the code: }}

Should be changed into this: }}

I have tested this as far as I can on IP-user talk pages and other pages. It only shows MediaWiki:Anontalkpagetext where it should. It keeps the exact same behaviour for IPv4 user talk pages as before, and now adds it to IPv6 user talk pages too.

The  part is so it only shows MediaWiki:Anontalkpagetext on root talk pages such as User talk:201.83.25.59 but not on sub talk pages such as User talk:201.83.25.59/subpage. It was tempting to show the Anontalkpagetext on the sub talk pages too, but all the IP tools links in Anontalkpagetext currently breaks when on a subpage.

--David Göthberg (talk) 07:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ - appears to be working, please let me know if you see any issues. —  xaosflux  Talk 19:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 31
You are invited to join the discussion at Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 31. Sdkb (talk) 09:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We could particularly use some input on the feasibility of tailoring this notice so that it would display differently for users who have never created an article before. Please reply there if you have thoughts. Sdkb (talk) 09:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 February 2020
Per the prevailing consensus at the (still ongoing) Village Pump discussion, please add a link to Article wizard in the first line, like this: text = 'Before creating an article, please read Your first article. We recommend that new editors use the Article wizard.'

Per the same discussion, please also remove this line: To experiment, please use the sandbox. To use a wizard to create an article, see the Article wizard. Sdkb (talk) 09:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅, with the acknowledgement that this discussion was neither well attended nor widely advertised. So I will revert this change on request. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * looks like a syntax error slipped in, made a slight adjustment. — xaosflux  Talk 16:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'd certainly like for more editors (including you all, if you're inclined) to engage with this discussion, so if you have suggestions for where else to advertise it, please feel free to share recs. (Before the invitation here, I sent one to the welcoming committee and another to the New Pages Patrol project.) Sdkb (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * if a substantial support is behind pushing new article creators to something like article wizard, please let the OTRS noticeboard know. — xaosflux  Talk 22:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm, how do I do that? I can't find anything on that page that would seem like the appropriate place to post. Sdkb (talk) 23:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * just "new section" and place it there. — xaosflux  Talk 23:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Notability should come first
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Notability should come first. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 06:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 November 2020
Remove the slashes from both instances of "Did you mean/box". JsfasdF252 (talk) 05:16, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 12:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 December 2020
This notice, when it appears for someone creating a new article, is quite important and something we very much want editors to read, but its current plain white format doesn't draw any attention to it. Please adopt the formatting changes I demoed here, which removes suppression of the icon and colors the box a friendly green similar to Instruction editnotice. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 06:54, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Reviewing. — xaosflux  Talk 16:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ — xaosflux  Talk 16:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd request a restoration of the old version, this is everywhere now and I understand why it exists but it's really distracting (at least for me as an experienced editor, especially with ADHD to have this bright blue box on every new page. I'm not concerned about the text, I understand why it's there but I think the jarring color change warrants at least a discussion since it will impact every editor creating new articles. GRINCHIDICAE🎄  17:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * this has been reverted, I didn't think this would be controversial, however as it has been contested please establish a consensus via discussion if you want to continue. —  xaosflux  Talk 17:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've opened an RfC at WikiProject Usability, since I couldn't think of where else to create discussion around this (VPR would've been a little too high-profile, I think). &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm reopening since the RfC has elapsed. It got disappointingly low participation, but it looks to me like there's enough support to proceed, at least for non-extended confirmed editors. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ including the oppose above, I can't see that a sufficient consensus to support this change has emerged, the sparse attendance didn't help.  Feel free to advertise wider (e.g. at WP:VPM). —  xaosflux  Talk 14:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Can we also remove the similar icon in MediaWiki:Editpage-head-copy-warn then? It was added unilaterally by Oshwah. I don't see the necessity, and the fact the icon links to the file page (which is required by the file's license) is likely confusing to newcomers. Nardog (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Any comment Oshwah? (If no comment please drop open an ER on that page and reference this) and that you want to revert the change. —  xaosflux  Talk 16:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I personally find the icon alright, although it invokes the unanswered question of which house style we use for icons—File:Information icon4.svg might be more popular, or it might be good to have an icon that actually relates to copyright (like File:Anti-copyright.svg or File:Copyright-problem.svg. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 18:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What's the problem with the icon being there? I think it draws attention to the reader, and I believe that it makes it more professional as well.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The oppose above was also made as a !vote at the RfC, but I take the point that the participation was quite low. (I'm a bit worried about RfCs as a system, since this seems to be a trend...) I'll put an invite at VPM and see if that draws anyone. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 18:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)