MediaWiki talk:Searchmenu-new-nocreate

New message proposal
Following up from my posting here. The proposed message below is merely my own preliminary suggestion. It is inspired in part by the German Wikipedia de:MediaWiki:Searchmenu-new message which presents the link to Dein erster Artikel (Your first article) to all users.

Feel very free to adjust this proposal, but I believe the link to the non-existing article page (with immediate access to the deletion log) and the link to WP:YFA are highly valuable to prospective new contributors, and I for one would very much like to include them both in this message (especially since the YFA link is no longer being presented to non-autoconfirmed users via MediaWiki:Noarticletext). --213.196.214.196 (talk) 07:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * But it is misleading as the page can not be directly created. Ruslik_ Zero 16:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your valid criticism. Do you have a suggestion on how to improve the wording and make it less misleading? --87.79.210.22 (talk) 20:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "You can ask for it to be created". Ruslik_ Zero 09:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, we could additionally supply a link to WP:AFC (e.g. as in: "You can ask for it to be created"), but the main idea here is to empower IP editors and once again give them quick and easy access to the deletion log for the page they searched for. This will give them an opportunity to see whether the page had been created before and if and why it was subsequently deleted. Since the change of the messages, the quickest access for non-autoconfirmed users to the deletion logs is by manually entering the url; this is the situation I would very much like to amend.
 * How about this then:
 * --87.79.226.158 (talk) 10:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, that is better. Ruslik_ Zero 18:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks a bunch! --213.168.116.251 (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, that is better. Ruslik_ Zero 18:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks a bunch! --213.168.116.251 (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "Ask for it to be created" suggests requesting an article, not submitting one. Tricky to word this message, I know... doesn't help that there's no way to distinguish when displaying interface messages between users who can create articles and users who can't. Gurch (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Imho the link to WP:AFC takes care of any potential confusion; people who follow that link are automatically given an explanation of the AFC process, also including a prominent link to the alternative Requested articles process.
 * Maybe. Perhaps "submit an article for creation" instead? Gurch (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, people can do either. They can submit the material and sources, or they can request an article to be written by someone else. I don't believe that being over-specific wrt the linked process page is helpful to the average newbie (neither would giving both links to AFC and RA, for that matter, it would cause even greater confusion).
 * The more general wording, if technically a bit incorrect since we link to just AFC and not RA, leads the interested and/or confused person to the more in-depth explanation of the possible avenues at the top of the AFC page (WP:RA does not contain such a simple explanation).
 * So, although I don't feel strongly either way, I personally prefer the current wording. --213.168.116.251 (talk) 20:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, technically (although that nuance will be lost on almost all newbies and even many established editors), the message says "The page "$1" does not exist. You can ask for it to be created" -- Which in conjunction with the link to AFC is correct, since that is precisely what AFC is for: To request that the page (not the article) be created by someone else. Just a technicality, but it means that the current wording isn't even incorrect. --213.168.116.251 (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * doesn't help that there's no way to distinguish when displaying interface messages between users who can create articles and users who can't -- Um, isn't this particular message only shown to non-autoconfirmed users (ie. IPs and new accounts)? --213.168.116.251 (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm I did a search and looked at the message and thought it was the same one, but now I see that it is different if logged out. I think I must have looked before the update by Ruslik had taken effect. Gurch (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I do have one minor rewording suggestion. The current message anaphorically refers to "the page" as "it" in the last part: "consider checking the search results below to see whether it is already covered". Imho it would be clearer to differentiate the topic from the page/article at that point.

(This also applies to MediaWiki:Searchmenu-new.) --87.78.238.148 (talk) 02:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Ruslik_ Zero 17:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --87.79.230.11 (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The page does not exist. You can ask for it to be created, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered.
The "ask for it to be created" link go's to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation instead of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles 68.22.251.154 (talk) 00:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

The above request might be a valid complaint about improvable wording, or an improvable link. As article creation requests seem to be rarely processed and we encourage users to be bold, I recommend rewording instead of relinking. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe "you can start the article X" like Template:No article text does. I assumed we were being intentionally discouraging. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌ please continue discussing, once a consensus for a change is reached feel free to reactivate the request. — xaosflux  Talk 20:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 29 March 2022
Change  to. When a new user is linked to Articles for creation they see a big blue button for creating an article via the article wizard, but as of 2017, that article Wizard no longer includes options for creating categories. This change will send the user to the correct location for requesting creation of a category. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE ) 22:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

PAGE ]]) 01:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Ahecht is this message still being used? Can you provide the steps where a user will end up ever seeing the proposed change? — xaosflux  Talk 20:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Xaosflux If a non-logged-in user (or, presumably, a non-autoconfirmed user) searches for something, and there is no page matching that exact title, this message is displayed at the top of the search results. The regular message would be shown on something like Special:Search/PageThatDoesNotExist (if logged out), and the modification I'm proposing would be shown at Special:Search/Category:CategoryThatDoesNotExist (if logged out). --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|TALK
 * ✅ — xaosflux  Talk 01:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Propose link and wording change
I suggest changing this page to. Note that I changed it to the article wizard (which also uses AFC, but is less wordy so probably easier for beginners). And note that I changed the wording away from "ask for it to be created", which implies WP:RA instead of WP:AFC. Thoughts? – Novem Linguae (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - current wording/link is misleading but as WP:RA seams even more dysfunctional than WP:AFC seems like the best advice and target. I had meant (days ago) to propose similar but hadn't got around tuit so thanks . KylieTastic (talk) 19:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * should we change this to an edit request as the existing text vs link is clearly factually wrong? KylieTastic (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure. I went ahead and added the request. Thanks for the follow up. – Novem Linguae (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ this breaks the NS:14 handler added in the prior request above without explanation. —  xaosflux  Talk 13:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Is that a common enough use case to be worth changing the wording to include a requested articles workflow when the goal of this new wording is to remove that workflow? I'm leaning no, but I guess we need more people to weigh in. Note for non-technical people that namespace 14 is the category namespace. Also not opposed to having different messages display depending on the namespace, if someone is willing to code it up. – Novem Linguae (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Courtesy ping . – Novem Linguae (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Notified: WT:AFC, WT:RA. – Novem Linguae (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

2nd draft
PAGE ]]) 18:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 14:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Novem Linguae We've had editors showing up at WT:AFC thoroughly confused as to how to create a category. Linking directly to the article wizard would be even worse, since the ability to use it to request a category was removed in 2017, and it bypasses the links on WT:AFC to other similar request venues. If we want to explicitly use the article wizard, we should only be recommending it for articles. We could use something like
 * Courtesy ping to and  from the conversation above. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|TALK
 * Courtesy ping to and  from the conversation above. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|TALK
 * Thanks for the ping :) Limiting the article wizard suggestion to, well, articles does sound good to me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * +1. Primefac (talk) 12:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * +1. – Novem Linguae (talk) 17:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Ahecht,@Primefac,@Novem Linguae: Please see Special:PermaLink/1094413939 - is this large error message expected here? — xaosflux  Talk 13:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Xaosflux That that error should go away when the message is actually used, since the parser will be replacing  with an actual number before evaluating the #ifexpr statement. You can use the following instead, which will work when previewed as well.
 * --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|TALK
 * ✅ - revert if breaking. — xaosflux  Talk 15:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Xaosflux I am trying to figure out why MediaWiki:Searchmenu-new was synced to MediaWiki:Searchmenu-new-nocreate. This is more confusing as it makes it difficult to at a glance tell which titles are protected and which titles are creatable. I would prob have a template for this interface message again. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 17:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Awesome Aasim why I synced them, was because Cenarium asked for it :) Why it was needed all the way back in 2014, I'm not 100% sure. There is some explanation text at the top of MediaWiki talk:Searchmenu-new. These may not need need to be literally "synced", but one may benefit from improvements found for the other. —  xaosflux  Talk 17:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Xaosflux I wonder if the text "You may also attempt to create the page yourself." should be added to MediaWiki:Searchmenu-new to help distinguish protected titles from unprotected titles. I kinda want a standardized message similar to no article text that can be more robust for both. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 17:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * i.e. where the message is different if the page is protected vs unprotected. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 17:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems like there has been some negative feedback on this new verbiage at WP:VPM already as well. Why shouldn't someone be able to just create an article - using "article wizard" might be a good idea for many, but being able to create a new article isn't bad on its own. —  xaosflux  Talk 17:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * And yes the would-be editor should be able to click on the redlink and create - but it isn't clear that is what happens. — xaosflux  Talk 17:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Is this not just an issue with the page notice from 2014 being used as still valid past when we stopped anons from direct creation? I see no reason why 100% sync this with MediaWiki:Searchmenu-new as now they have different functions. The page notice should be that any applicable changes should be synced. I would either keep MediaWiki:Searchmenu-new as it was (clean and simple) or change it to a version stating as it was "You may create the page" and add... OR and the new text here from the "You can..." (and Template:Editnotices/Page/MediaWiki:Searchmenu-new-nocreate should be updated) KylieTastic (talk) 19:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Hmm. Would it be possible to have the template check if autoconfirmed or not, and then suggest the article wizard (current wording) for non autoconfirmed, and suggest direct creation for autoconfirmed (wording something like "The page "Okyoieywowiye" does not exist. Click here to create it.")? Now that I'm seeing it in action, that might be better than nudging experienced editors to draftspace. – Novem Linguae (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Just a note, the "old" verbiage just said: The page "$1" does not exist. You can ask for it to be created. and sent people to AFC. — xaosflux  Talk 20:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Xaosflux I think I may have found something better for MediaWiki:Searchmenu-new that keeps the link to article wizard. It is adapted from the old wording of this message before it was synced.
 * "You may create the page $1, using (name of XfC process if this XfC process exists) if you wish, but consider checking the search result(s) below to see whether the topic is already covered." Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 04:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not exactly sure when a reader gets shown one of these vs the other, it seems to suggest that in general this is about "articles" and that "Searchmenu-new" is what autoconfirmed users will get. If so most "readers" (not logged in) would get this one. Is that what you're seeing? —  xaosflux  Talk 10:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes from the code (lines 592-603) (as added in 1.17) - "searchmenu-new-nocreate" is the default, then for not external titles, if the title is known then "searchmenu-exists" is used else if the user "probablyCan" edit (create) the page then use "searchmenu-new". So "searchmenu-new" really should not be pushing users who can create direct to AfC. The editnotice to keep them in sync was added 2014 by  before WP:ACPERM in 2018 that made having them in sync no longer make sense. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 11:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @KylieTastic thanks - I'm all for improving "Searchmenu-new" - and we do have a lot of inexperienced editors, we don't have any sort of "new article wizard" besides Article_wizard that pushes things to draft/afc though do we? — xaosflux  Talk 16:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Just WP:YFA, and to a lesser extent, WP:TWA. Primefac (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, I think experienced editors would not expect to go via a wizard. Possibly for completeness MediaWiki:Searchmenu-new just needs an additional note that experienced editors can still create directly if they understand the policies and guidelines, but probably on consideration most experienced editors will just ignore the text and create so not a big issue. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @KylieTastic oh for sure, but there is a big different between "autoconfirmed users" and "experienced editors" right? This applies to the both.  Agree that we should encourage new articles to be written though.  I think a Draft->MoveItYourSelf option is actually better for new non-direct articles for "less experienced editors" - but that's just my 2 cents :D —  xaosflux  Talk 18:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Post-implementation feedback
Hi - just a note to say that we've had three different editors show up at the Teahouse, baffled by this change in wording, which seems to have been agreed upon here. I thought I'd drop by to mention the confusion and note that @Novem Linguae's suggestion above about a different notice for autoconfirmed users would apparently be useful (though it seems the discussion ultimately went against including such wording? I don't quite understand why). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I do suppose we could add in an extra if IP clause. The other option would be to reword so that it said "X does not exist. You may [article title|create it directly] or [Wikipedia:Article wizard|write a draft and submit it for review]". Primefac (talk) 09:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * (From my secret lair IP) Would a rewording along the lines of "X does not exist. You may [article title|create it directly] (if your account is [Wikipedia:User access levels#Autoconfirmed users|autoconfirmed]) or [Wikipedia:Article wizard|write a draft and submit it for review]" be acceptable? (Maybe I should ping some of the other folks from the discussion above - @Xaosflux, @KylieTastic, @ToBeFree) 97.126.96.239 (talk) 12:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No, because it would be redundant. If anything, stick the "create it directly" bit inside an If autoconfirmed so that it doesn't show if they're not AC. Primefac (talk) 12:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * We can certainly continue to improve either of these messages - if someone has a new proposal please put exactly what you want it to be, such as in MediaWiki talk:Searchmenu-new-nocreate/sandbox or MediaWiki talk:Searchmenu-new/sandbox first, start a discussion, then open an edit request when it is ready. — xaosflux  Talk 12:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * We already have two interface pages to differentiate between the two groups MediaWiki:Searchmenu-new-nocreate and MediaWiki:Searchmenu-new. The simple answer is not to have the same message on both. The edit notices saying they should be in sync is now not true since WP:ACPERM. This nocreate version is now OK, it's just MediaWiki:Searchmenu-new than needs adjustment. While we continue to keep them 100% insync there will be complaints/confusion. If it was me I would just add or you may create the page "$1" for those that can so per MediaWiki talk:Searchmenu-new/sandbox Regards KylieTastic (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The above looks good to me, and I think this counts as having started a discussion. If I'm understanding the process correctly, I should wait a few hours - maybe a day? - for more input, then make an edit request at MediaWiki talk:Searchmenu-new, pointing to this thread and the sandbox above. Is that correct? I don't know what to do about the edit notices, they do seem out of date. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * – Novem Linguae (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Talk page post made by KylieTastic (thank you!); I've added an edit request tag. 97.126.96.239 (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have always found it a bit jarring that the message is the same for those who can and cannot create the page. Historically I have always used the message to gauge whether a title is protected or not, but now I cannot do that. With regard to this message, I think the text is better as is like this:
 * This is the best of both the old and the new message. I believe the syncing had to do with the last part of the message, not the entire message. The editnotice thus should be reworded. Alternatively, we can take a templated approach to this like what has happened with Template:No article text. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 16:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the best of both the old and the new message. I believe the syncing had to do with the last part of the message, not the entire message. The editnotice thus should be reworded. Alternatively, we can take a templated approach to this like what has happened with Template:No article text. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 16:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Get rid of the disambiguation link
Articles for creation/Redirects and categories is now a disambiguation page. So the interface page should be changed to link to Articles for creation/Redirects instead. Duckmather (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Edit: nevermind, answered by asking politely on Discord instead. Duckmather (talk) 04:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)