MediaWiki talk:Newarticletext/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about MediaWiki:Newarticletext. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Red links

It strikes me a lot of "vandalism" is a result of an inexperienced user clicking a red link in an article, finding themselves straight on a live edit page, and then typing-in the first thing that comes into their heads - probably with no real idea that they are modifying the live database, since this is not the expected behavior on an ordinary website.

Is this the best default behavior? Should we make users read a boilerplate page before reaching a live edit page? Might reduce the page deletion load on the sysops.

Similarly, a lot of VfD pages seem to have started out as ill-considered red links which got turned into stubs - so we really should not red-link anything that would not make a suitable article in its own right and we should remove any such red links when detected. I generally do this, but it does not seem to be common practice and I have not seen any guidelines. Anjouli 13:50, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The edit page already contains the following notice:

{{newarticletext}}

I think it's a good thing that users stumble across the editability of Wikipedia by accident. It's a quick introduction into the world of wikis. Deleting nonsense pages is really not a lot of work. I do agree about not creating links to articles which we don't want to be written, of course.—Eloquence 13:59, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

I broadly agree. I just think it is a bit too easy to blindly bang the keyboard without reading the boilerplate. Just making it require a little more thought would keep out the real headbangers but not put off anybody with more than half a brain. Anyway, just a suggestion. Not something about which I have any strong feelings. Anjouli 15:08, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Too much boilerplate and instructions and help and pointers has a way of becoming annoying, so keeping it short is a Good Thing. But anyone who hangs around long enough to find it annoying is also likely to make an account. So I'd say: treat anon users to some more boiler plates, info and pointers, carefully chosen not to be overdone, and keep to shorthand philosophy for people with user names. Zocky 17:06, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Keep in mind that some people deliberately choose not to create an account, or not to use it on certain locations.—Eloquence

That's true. In that case they don't get a watchlist, user page, IP anonimity, etc. We already treat anon users differently. Zocky 17:11, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Of course, but this has technical reasons. We shouldn't annoy them intentionally. :-) —Eloquence

It's just as technical as giving them talk pages. And I'm not talking about striving to be annoying: just push verbosity on the edit page up to the level appropriate for somebody who has stumbled here by accident and has never heard either of wikipedia or wiki concept. Zocky 17:45, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps you could edit MediaWiki:newarticletext to demonstrate what you mean. I have unprotected it for you.—Eloquence

OK, I added a link to the sandbox, plus changed the wording from "page" to "article", which I hope sounds a tad more serious. I would have made it a bit flashier and more explicit if logged users didn't have to look at it.

OTOH, the text on the edit screen for existing pages could say something like:

"Please note that your changes to the encyclopedia will be visible immediately, so you should review Wikipedia's guidelines and policies before making extensive changes."

But I'm not sure that it would convey "It's always OK to correct typoes" enough. Zocky 19:17, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I redesigned it a bit. The message probably shouldn't be displayed for signed in users.—Eloquence

You're allergic to verbosity, heh? :)

I think that it should be somewhat cuddlier, so we don't sound scary. Also, please bear in mind that non-native speakers may have trouble understanding less verbose sentences. "Please do so" is not very good in that respect. Any thoughts? Zocky

I'm torn. The message is shown for signed in and unregistered users alike. I'm not sure it's a good idea to disable it entirely for signed in users. It might be overkill to have a separate message. But if we keep it enabled, we should try to not go beyond a certain maximum number of characters to avoid annoying the users. How these characters are used is another question.

In other words, with the current setup, I'm all for rewording the message, but I think it should not get any longer.—Eloquence

Any objections to changing the colour? It's fairly unreadable on my screen on the pages with a yellow background. Angela . 20:16, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead, it was just an experiment.—Eloquence

How about some tinting?

You've followed a link to an article that doesn't exist yet.

To write the article, type in the box below

(see the help page for more info). If you are here by mistake, just click your browser's back button. Your addition to the encyclopedia will be visible immediately, so if you just want to test how things work, please do that in the sandbox. Thanks!

Do we think it's ugly in principle? Zocky 20:37, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Not at all. I'm mostly concerned about the space as it affects the placement of the edit box on the page.—Eloquence

Well, I think that tinting it will make it look more like a part of UI than like accompanying text, which might be good. If we want that philosophy, it shoud of the same width as the edit box. Zocky 21:11, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Just a thought: Maybe just the warning shoud be in the frame: Zocky

To write the article, type in the box below (see the help page for more info). If you are here by mistake, just click your browser's back button.

Your addition to the encyclopedia will be visible immediately, so if you just want to test how things work, please do that in the sandbox. Thanks!

Visually I think that's very ugly. Semantically I'm not sure the two are so different.—Eloquence

Well, the second one is a warning, the first one is just accompanying text. I was thinking that it's more prominent tinted (and easier to ignore when you get used to it), but if the whole box is tinted, it looks pretty bulky.Zocky 01:21, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think that this is not what we need --ilya 05:45, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I have two points re the new text:

How will older/different browsers handle the formatting? (I've yet to check, but will)
Should the DO NOT UPLOAD...PERMISSION text be moved here? I think that's a good idea - I think too many people miss the copyright text down the bottom.

Dysprosia 01:04, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Please not more text into the box. In low resolutions the edit box will then be too far down at the bottom and because of a JavaScript that puts the cursor in the box, we might cause some involuntary screen scrolling.—Eloquence 01:10, Dec 20, 2003 (UTC)

I agree. Anyway, copy vio is a far less common problem than testing, and people who are guilty of copy vio are usually easier to deal with. Zocky 01:21, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

May be "so you may want to experiment in the sandbox first" instead of "so if you just want to test how things work, please do that in the sandbox" (too crude)

That might encourage people to start writing their articles in the sandbox, which is not a good thing and does happen quite a bit already. Angela . 05:42, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, if somebody cannot tell sandbox from regular article how can we be sure he won't mess things in an article? And Sandbox in its present is clearly not the place where one may want to write about Shakespeare. And current message is too bold --ilya 06:22, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

What about requiring anonymous users to do preview before saving new articles? Previewing new articles is a good idea in any case so it won't harm good users. And on the preview we can notify about copyright etc. --ilya 05:45, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

That's not something we can change with this namespace, so needs to go to Sourceforge as a feature request. Angela . 05:42, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Still [what is] your opinion? --ilya

What do you mean? It wasn't an opinion. We can't make it so edits by anons don't go through without them pressing preview using the MediaWiki namespace. That's a change beyond sysop control -- nothing to do with my opinion. Angela . 07:25, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hm, I was sure everything on Wikipedia is to do something with everyone 's opinion... still you don't need to answer. ilya

Oh, what is my opinion. I don't mind either way but it's not up to me as I wouldn't be the one coding it. Anyway, my point was that it shouldn't be discussed here in the MediaWiki namespace because it isn't something that can be changed using this namespace. Angela . 21:11, Jan 3, 2004 (UTC)

Bad idea in any case. You don't want to preview when making spelling correction, which is something that anons do a lot.—Eloquence

I said, when writing a new article. --ilya 14:33, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

People will be more responsible if they see 'Oh, I click Yes and this will look that way'; at least they will understand what happens ilya

Please let's not forget the difference between an article and any other wiki page. Pages like this need to use "page" and not "article". --mav 05:20, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Mav, I don't get the point. ilya

The point is that MediaWiki:Newarticletext said "article" before when this same message is displayed in every wiki page namespace. An empty page even in the article namespace is not an article either. --mav 23:57, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Tweaked the formatting/bold/it a little. If you don't like it, feel free to remove/change. Dysprosia 12:58, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

New article text, and draft of guide (from the village pump)

I've just changed the new article text—the text that appears when you edit a page that doesn't yet exist. It now reads:

You are at a page that does not exist yet. To create an article on this topic, type in the box below (see the help page for more info). If you are here by mistake, just click your browser's back button. Your addition to the encyclopedia will be visible immediately, so if you just want to test how things work, please do that in the sandbox.

Please do not create an encyclopedia article about yourself, or an article whose main purpose is to promote a product or business. See What Wikipedia is not for more guidance. Articles in serious violation of Wikipedia's policies may be removed without notice.

I've also create a rough draft of a simpler guide to use instead of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not—one which concentrates on the most common reasons why things end up on VfD. Dpbsmith 23:58, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC))

Too long

This message has gotten way too long. It's almost pushing the edit box below the first screen (especially for low resolutions). Dori | Talk 02:06, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. It's quite off-putting at the moment. I don't think we need to repeat what is already covered at Wikipedia:Your first article. Could it be shortened to:

Wikipedia does not have an article on this topic yet. Read Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:Tutorial, then create your page in the box below. Your addition to the encyclopedia will be visible immediately, so please only test in the sandbox.

Angela . 19:56, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've rephrased and shortened it. Please do not push this button type notices are not very effective, so I've toned down the rhetoric a bit.--Eloquence *

It seems like this message has been constantly changing over the past couple of weeks so I thought I'd come in here and put in my two cents. I agree with some others above that the message should be succinct - I definitely didn't like the very long version that has since been changed. As far as the current version goes, I'm not sure we need a link to the test wiki. Since this message primarily applies to newcomers who don't know how Wikipedia works, I think it's more confusing to send them to an entirely different project... the sandbox works well enough for any testing they'd want to do IMO. – Jrdioko (Talk) 21:13, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The sandbox is good for testing editing functionality, but you can't use it to test stuff like templates or the creation of new articles. Many nonsense pages which are created are actually links from the sandbox. Having a clear distinction here - a small, isolated test page vs. a large demonstration wiki - makes sense, IMHO.--Eloquence *

Ok, that makes sense and sounds like a good idea, but I still wonder how obvious that distinction is to the newcomers who would be reading the message. Maybe we could just link to the sandbox from this page and then adjust the sandbox template to explain that if they want to create new pages to go to the test wiki rather than en:. – Jrdioko (Talk) 17:38, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That would work for me, too.--Eloquence *

Proposed changes

I'd like to change the sentence "If you are new to Wikipedia, you may want to read more about how to write your first article." to "If you are new to Wikipedia, you may want to take a look at the tutorial before creating your first article." Also, if the community agrees to my proposed change to Template:Sandbox (see Template talk:Sandbox), and a page linked to from the Sandbox mentions the test wiki, I'd like to change "Please use the sandbox or the test wiki for experiments." to "Please use the Sandbox for experiments." I'd make these changes myself since they're relatively minor, but I'd like to ask the community before making any changes to an interface message. – Jrdioko (Talk) 23:54, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It seems there were no objections, so I made the changes you suggested (more or less) and added a link to the test wiki in the sandbox template. Angela . 18:37, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I would like to ask about the capitalization of "sandbox." I don't know the exact rule, but it was my understanding that the lowercase word referred to a "sandbox" as explained in the sandbox article, but that when the word is made into a proper noun (such as our Wiki Sandbox), the word would be capitalized. I suppose there's also a possibility that the plural "sandboxes" in contexts such as "sandboxes on Wiki project" is lowercase and "the Test Sandbox on the Test Wikipedia," for example, is uppercase. I personally don't care what it is, but I think this should be standardized throughout the various pages that refer to the sandbox. I encountered this when trying to figure out what should be capitalized in Wikipedia:About the Sandbox (which now might need to be moved to Wikipedia:About the sandbox or Wikipedia:About The Sandbox *smiles*). I'm not sure where this should be discussed, but I thought I'd start here. Thanks! – Jrdioko (Talk) 00:07, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I see no reason for capitalizing it. I don't think the Wikipedia sandbox is a proper noun. Sandbox is a generic term used on nearly every wiki to describe a testing area. And "our Wiki Sandbox" would be very wrong as the capitalized version of wiki is generally taken to mean the Portland Pattern Repository, not Wikipedia. :) Angela . 21:50, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good to know :). That brings up a whole different host of problems since I know I've seen "Wiki" in several places (such as "Wiki markup" on Wikipedia:How to edit a page). I see now that sandbox, when used as a general term, should be lowercase. However, it still seems to me that "the English Sandbox" should be capitalized since we are pointing out that sandbox as opposed to the others. Does this sound right? Also, since Wikipedia:About the Sandbox describes the English Sandbox rather than sandboxes in general, it seems like it too should be in uppercase. I've never been the best at figuring out what needs to be capitalized, though, so perhaps I'm not the best person to be thinking about this. Maybe I'll have to take a look at a grammar book. – Jrdioko (Talk) 22:52, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As the Main Page is capitalized but the Village pump isn't, it could go either way. I don't actually mind too much anyway. Angela . 00:37, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ok, and it's not a big deal, I just have a thing for standardization :). – Jrdioko (Talk) 03:10, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have added a link to search for the title. See MediaWiki talk:Noarticletext for the discussion on this. Angela . 13:16, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense for talk page

The newarticletext message does not make sense for a talk page. I went to add comment on the scarity article that did not have a talk page. So I got this message:

Wikipedia does not yet have a Talk page called Scarcity.

To start the article, begin typing in the box below. When you're done, press the "Save page" button. Your changes will be visible immediately.
Please do not create an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business (see Wikipedia:Policy).
If you are new to Wikipedia, please read the tutorial before creating your first article, and only use the sandbox for editing experiments.
Search for Scarcity in Wikipedia

Problems with the message in the context of a talk page:

It's not an article
You shouldn't have to read the tutorial before making a comment on a talk page.

As the message stands in the context of a talk page, I think that a new visitor to the site would be seriously discouraged from making a comment on the talk page. Reading a twelve page tutorial just to make a comment is seriously out of line.

I would recommend that the software should be improved to have different text for a new article and a new talk page. For a stop gap measure, I would recommend that the new article text include a disclaimer that it refers to creating an article, and that it can be disregarded in the context of creating a new talk page. Jrincayc 15:25, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Proposed patch:

diff -ur mediawiki-1.3.8_orig/includes/EditPage.php mediawiki-1.3.8/includes/EditPage.php
--- mediawiki-1.3.8_orig/includes/EditPage.php	2004-10-30 05:18:19.000000000 -0600
+++ mediawiki-1.3.8/includes/EditPage.php	2004-11-26 21:54:31.000000000 -0600
@@ -116,7 +116,11 @@
 		$isCssJsSubpage = (Namespace::getUser() == $wgTitle->getNamespace() and preg_match("/\\.(css|js)$/", $wgTitle->getText() ));
 
 		if(!$this->mTitle->getArticleID()) { # new article
-			$wgOut->addWikiText(wfmsg("newarticletext"));
+			if( Namespace::isTalk( $this->mTitle->getNamespace() )) {
+				$wgOut->addWikiText(wfmsg("newtalktext"));
+			} else {
+				$wgOut->addWikiText(wfmsg("newarticletext"));
+			}
 		}
 
 		if( Namespace::isTalk( $this->mTitle->getNamespace() ) ) {
diff -ur mediawiki-1.3.8_orig/languages/Language.php mediawiki-1.3.8/languages/Language.php
--- mediawiki-1.3.8_orig/languages/Language.php	2004-11-06 18:27:45.000000000 -0600
+++ mediawiki-1.3.8/languages/Language.php	2004-11-26 21:37:37.000000000 -0600
@@ -542,6 +542,11 @@
 To create the page, start typing in the box below
 (see the [[{{ns:4}}:Help|help page]] for more info).
 If you are here by mistake, just click your browser's '''back''' button.",
+'newtalktext' => 
+"You've followed a link to a talk page that doesn't exist yet.
+To comment on the article, start typing in the box below
+(see the [[{{ns:4}}:Help|help page]] for more info).
+If you are here by mistake, just click your browser's '''back''' button.",
 'talkpagetext' => '<!-- MediaWiki:talkpagetext -->',
 'anontalkpagetext' => "----''This is the discussion page for an anonymous user who has not created an account yet or who does not use it. We therefore have to use the numerical [[IP address]] to identify him/her. Such an IP address can be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user and feel that irrelevant comments have been directed at you, please [[Special:Userlogin|create an account or log in]] to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users.'' ",
 'noarticletext' => '(There is currently no text in this page)',

Jrincayc 02:49, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Uploaded the patch to bug 948 (Combined with fix for bug 626 and re-uploaded) Jrincayc 23:58, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I asked a non-wikipedian what they thought about the English Wikipedia newarticletext message including Patrick's if namespace addition. Their comments were:

What is a namespace?
I thought I was going to a discussion.
What is a sandbox?
What is the definition of an experiment? I am new to wikipedia, so everything I do including typing in a box is an experiment.
The whole thing (including more than just the new page text) has been so discouraging that I am never going to do anything with Wikipedia even though I have enough knowledge to edit some things.

Is this what we want people to think who have never used wikipedia before? Jrincayc 17:18, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Different new page text for each namespace

Bug 626 has a patch to split the newarticletext to be different for different namespaces and talk. If you have suggestions or ideas, incorporate them into the following ideas, and/or comment on them if you like. Note that these can be customized for individual wikipedias and so these defaults should be short and generic. Jrincayc 02:38, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As is now explained in the bug page, no software patch is needed. See also the German Wikipedia (use the link at the top of this talk page and see the edit and talk page there), where this has been applied.--Patrick 16:10, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

newarticletext

You've followed a link to a page that doesn't exist yet. To create the page, start typing in the box below (see the help page for more info). If you are here by mistake, just click your browser's back button.

Comments?

I would change the first sentence into "You are about to create a page that doesn't exist yet." This gives a clearer distinction with MediaWiki:Noarticletext for the view page as opposed to the edit page. Ditto for the other namespaces.--Patrick 14:41, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

newuserpagetext

You've followed a link to a user page that doesn't exist yet. To create the page, start typing in the box below (see the help page for more info). If you are here by mistake, just click your browser's back button.

Comments?

I reccomend saying something along the lines of "Wikipedia is not MySpace". Perhaps providing a link to BluWiki, so that people don't continually abuse Wikipedia as social networking and say "BUT IT'S THE ONLY WIKI!" ~ Flame viper 16:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

newwikipediapagetext

You've followed a link to a project page that doesn't exist yet. To create the page, start typing in the box below (see the help page for more info). If you are here by mistake, just click your browser's back button.

Comments?

newimagepagetext

You've followed a link to a image description page that doesn't exist yet. To create the page, start typing in the box below (see the help page for more info). If you are here by mistake, just click your browser's back button.

Comments?

"You are about to provide the description of an image. To do this, start typing in the box below (see the help page for more info). If you are here by mistake, just click your browser's back button."

"Create the page" is confusing, because if there is an image, it just adds an editable part.--Patrick 14:50, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

newmediawikitext

You've followed a link to a mediawiki page that doesn't exist yet. To create the page, start typing in the box below (see the help page for more info). If you are here by mistake, just click your browser's back button.

Comments?

newtemplatetext

You've followed a link to a template that doesn't exist yet. To create the template, start typing in the box below (see the help page for more info). If you are here by mistake, just click your browser's back button.

Comments?

newhelppagetext

You've followed a link to a help page that doesn't exist yet. To create the help page, start typing in the box below (see the help page for more info). If you are here by mistake, just click your browser's back button.

Comments?

newcategorytext

(This category has no description. See the [[{ns:4}}:Help|help page]] for more information.)

Comments?

"You are about to provide the description and/or parent category of a category. To do this, start typing in the box below (see the help page for more info). If you are here by mistake, just click your browser's back button."

newtalktext

You've followed a link to a talk page that doesn't exist yet. To comment on the page Newarticletext/Archive 1, start typing in the box below (see the help page for more info). If you are here by mistake, just click your browser's back button.

Comments?

For user talk pages, the present text should be expanded thus:

Before creating this page, please verify that the user account exists. Also, check to see whether any contributions have come from this account.

Who agrees with me? --Slgrandson 17:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop the dicdef madness

Seems like we've been getting more dicdefs than usual lately. I propose adding, at least temporarily:

- Please do not create dictionary definitions. These belong on our companion project Wiktionary.

Adding a speedy deletion warning

I think it would be a good idea to add a notice to this template telling new users about the Wikipedia:Speedy deletion policy. I know some new users get baddly bitten by innocently creating articles that fall into the speedie deletion criteria without knowing of their existance. Here's an example of a new user feeling attacked due to getting a partially written article speedily deleted. A well-formed warning would, assuming it's read, alert new users to the existance of Speedie deletion and warn them to save articles on subpages of their user page if they are not done working on them.

Possible text could be: "Due to the volume of worthless content created, newly created articles may be [Wikipedia:Speedy deletion|speedily deleted]]. If you are unable to finish a significant part of a planned article, do not save it to the article space, save it as a subpage of your User page. (link to a page describing how to do this)"

If you think this is a good idea, please comment in support. I'll try to respond to any objections. JesseW 04:28, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Worthless" sounds a bit mean and saying newly created articles may be deleted is off-putting. Maybe this is better:

Please make sure your article is not a candidate for speedy deletion before submitting it. Also, if you are unable to finish a significant part of a planned article, do not save it to the article space. Instead save it as a subpage of your user page.

It warns people about the speedy deletion without threatening with deletion outright. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:21, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I like your wording better. I think it would be nice to mention to people *why* we have CSD, but doing that on the CSD page is probably just fine. Thanks! JesseW 16:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I like this. One thing: I would change the link to be on "subpage" rather than "user page" -- or maybe both -- since that's what's more likely to cause confusion. Perhaps add the suggestion that you can save unfinished articles in your own external text editor, too. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Since you two are both admins, would one of you be willing to make this change (using Mgm's text with the addition of a link from subpage to an explanatory page.)? Or should we wait a few more days? JesseW 21:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Is that the only example you can come up with? --Golbez 22:42, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Should we not link to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, instead of just Wikipedia:Speedy deletion? I think it's more important to tell new users what kind of articles get speedied, not just the existance of the process, and I don't think we can count on new users following several links to get to the criteria page.

Maybe something along the lines of

Newly created articles often meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Please make sure... etc etc.

Either way, I think the link should be in there. — Asbestos | Talk 16:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I like the suggestions that have been made. Here's an updated text incorporating them (and one of my own):

Newly created articles often meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Before hitting the save button, please make sure your article does not. Also, if you are unable to finish a significant part of a planned article, do not save it to the article space. Instead save it as a subpage of your user page.

JesseW 02:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a very good idea, and I would just be bold and implemet it if i was an admin. A minor suggested revision:

Newly created articles often meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Before saving your work, please make sure your article does not. Also, if you are unable to finish a significant part of a planned article, it is often better not save it to the article space. Instead save it as a subpage of your user page.

What do you think? but I could live with any of the last few versions. This is particularly inportant with the recent expansion of WP:CSD so that some articles must now explicitlyassert grounds for notability. DES 22:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to Mgm, it has now been implemented.. JesseW 19:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately the current warning does not reflect existing policy. Incomplete articles are very much allowed in the main namespace. Admins should not delete them as they are NOT CSDs. We should be correcting rogue admin behaviour rather than forcing users to work around it. Pcb21| Pete 15:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think most "incomplete articles" are speedied under the following criteria: "A1. Very short articles providing little or no context", and "A7. An article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance.". These are CSD criteria. On the other hand, I'm all for correcting incorrect deletions - let me know how to help. JesseW 16:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm tricky. We can't stop people CSDing stuff like that just in case it gets expanded (quite why people have this mania to delete new stuff so quickly I don't know, but they do), because a lot of it won't be expanded. However this mediawiki text is now too wordy and smells "instruction creepy". People won't read stuff this long.. and in which case our exhortations are in vain :(. Pcb21| Pete 16:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I know some people will, as a few days after this was added, somone asked how to create a user-subpage on the Help Desk, and indirectly mentioned they wanted to because they read this notice. So it does get read. [1]JesseW 16:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

New text for each namespace

Here is the default : MediaWiki:Newarticletext

Templates need to be created under each of the following names; then the MediaWiki message for "newarticletext", above, should be updated to use the namespace variable to insert the appropriate template (trick borrowed from de:). +sj +

The new body of MediaWiki:Newarticletext would just be this:

{{MediaWiki_Newarticletext_NS_{{NAMESPACE}}}}

MediaWiki Newarticletext NS
MediaWiki Newarticletext NS User
MediaWiki Newarticletext NS User Talk
MediaWiki Newarticletext NS Image
MediaWiki Newarticletext NS Image Talk
MediaWiki Newarticletext NS Diskussion
MediaWiki Newarticletext NS Hilfe
MediaWiki Newarticletext NS Hilfe Diskussion
MediaWiki Newarticletext NS Kategorie
MediaWiki Newarticletext NS Kategorie Diskussion
MediaWiki Newarticletext NS MediaWiki
MediaWiki Newarticletext NS MediaWiki Diskussion
MediaWiki Newarticletext NS Vorlage
MediaWiki Newarticletext NS Vorlage Diskussion
MediaWiki Newarticletext NS Wikipedia
MediaWiki Newarticletext NS Wikipedia Diskussion
MediaWiki Noarticletext NS
MediaWiki Noarticletext NS Benutzer
MediaWiki Noarticletext NS Benutzer Diskussion
MediaWiki Noarticletext NS Image
MediaWiki Noarticletext NS Image Diskussion
MediaWiki Noarticletext NS Diskussion
MediaWiki Noarticletext NS Hilfe
MediaWiki Noarticletext NS Hilfe Diskussion
MediaWiki Noarticletext NS Kategorie
MediaWiki Noarticletext NS Kategorie Diskussion
MediaWiki Noarticletext NS MediaWiki
MediaWiki Noarticletext NS MediaWiki Diskussion
MediaWiki Noarticletext NS Vorlage
MediaWiki Noarticletext NS Vorlage Diskussion
MediaWiki Noarticletext NS Wikipedia
MediaWiki Noarticletext NS Wikipedia Diskussion

Inputbox

I tried

 <inputbox>
 type=search
 default={{PAGENAME}}
 </inputbox>

but that gives

Patrick 07:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Div ID

Can an admin just add a unique id to the div, like <div id=newarticletext style=...>? This would allow non-newbies to turn the display of this box off in their monobook.css file. Thanks, Func( t, c ) 06:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes please! That would be very helpful. JesseW 07:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Done.--Patrick 11:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Func( t, c ) 23:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Length of message

Does anyone else think this message is a bit long? At lower resolutions (i.e. my browser) it takes up the whole screen, and the edit box is not visible. JYolkowski // talk 22:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

That is an issue. As one of the people who campaigned to get one part added to it, I can't really claim to want it to be short, but it shouldn't take up the whole screen... It would be delightful if you wanted to hash out a shorter version that covered the same ground in your user space, then announce it here... JesseW 23:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Looks like someone fixed this while I wasn't paying attention (-: I noticed that even more stuff got added to the template just now so I removed most of it. JYolkowski // talk 23:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

JYolkowski just removed most of the text I just added to this message. While I don't object the spirit of wanting to make the message shorter, I do see two problems. One, linking to Wikipedia:Copyrights is awkward as it spends the intro and more than half the page discussing the copyright of Wikipedia, not the effect of other people's copyrights on contributing to Wikipedia. Are there any pages that cleanly lay out copyright law with respect to articles? Secondly, I really think it deserved the bullet point and bold Caution text. The majority of copyvios in article space are created as new articles copied from somewhere else, and calling someone attention to this when they go create a new article is useful. Some people even support the idea of big flashy warning boxes, i.e. this discussion. Dragons flight 23:44, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the link to Wikipedia:Copyrights, I've changed it to point to the "Contributors' rights and obligations" section in the page. I agree that copyright violations are a significant problem; however I'm not sure that spending four lines of text is the best way to solve the problem because:

The message already tells people not to create vanity pages, CSDs, etc., but people do anyway so I'm not sure that they won't create copyvios because we've added a message.
I'm concerned about new users being confused if they attempt to start a new article and all they see on the first screen is this message, with the edit box not visible (like the previous message was at 800x600).

Since there is a lot of information that makes sense for new users to know, I'm wondering if a better solution might be to put something at the top of the message, in bold that says something like: Before creating your first article, please read Wikipedia:Starting your first article to ensure that your article will not be deleted. Of course, that means that we'd to create something about copyvios, vanity pages, CSDs, etc. in Wikipedia:Starting your first article, but I'd volunteer to do that if there's enough support for the idea. Thoughts? JYolkowski // talk 13:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Any objections? If not I'll add it tomorrow (except that Wikipedia:Your first article is probably good enough, so I'll use that instead of the page I proposed to create). Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 16:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree it is a good idea to concentrate what people need to know in one place. Dragons flight 17:01, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't object earlier, but I consider that having an explanation of Speedy deletion in the message is critical. Newbies do get upset and confused by having their articles deleted without any notice. We need to do this, but mentioning it, and providing a link to the deletion log, is a very important help. I've added a proposed wording for this, merging it into the line about database delays; let me know what you think of it. Thanks for working on pruning the message, though. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

If you don't want to see this message at all...

Please note that this message can be disabled by adding the following to your monobook.css:

#newarticletext { display: none; }

— Dan | Talk 23:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Height of this page

Whenever you click on a link that leads to a non-existent page (including talk pages), you will see this box before the actual edit box. Tom has significantly increased its height; I strongly object to these changes. I do not think they significantly add to the usability of Wikipedia, but they increase the annoyance factor for regular users significantly.--Eloquence * 22:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe it improves the useability of wikipedia a lot and may cut down on some of the nonsense pages. See the subsection above on how you can suppress it. --Gmaxwell 22:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

There's a hierarchy of users on Wikipedia: newbies, those who edit away regularly, and those who know every little nook and cranny of Wikipedia and the MediaWiki software. Any solution that involves editing your stylesheet is only acceptable to the latter group. The large "middle class" of users who know nothing about these things will be annoyed by these changes, and not know what to do about it.

But the users most likely to care tend towards the third. Perhaps we should wait for some complains from people who haven't had a customized CSS for over a year? :) I measured it here as a 3% increase in height. --Gmaxwell 05:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The notion that any message, however elaborate, will significantly reduce nonsense pages is naive at best. That's because many newbies who create these pages do not want to read the big book of instructions. They want to just click "Save" and see if their text appears in the great Wikipedia. It's like newbie vandalism, which for many is also just a way to discover how Wikipedia works. Yes, it's annoying to us, but you're not going to stop it by "explaining" things. We're giving people a big red button and an even bigger sign that explains when to push and when not to push the button. That is not going to work.--Eloquence * 22:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The old message was a confusing mess, which didn't prioritize what users actually needed. The main point of the message is that of a "page not found" notice, which was well and truly lost amongst a bunch of same-sized text. It's also the only time we get to explain why some links are a strange red colour, which is far from a standard on the web.

Thus far the fast consensus from the people I've talked to is that the new version is better, and it's still undergoing improvements. I'm trying to make it shorter vertically, but it's hard to do without making the message all crammed together.

The new version has increased the size of the message in IE at 1042x768 by exactly 25 pixels, number will hopefully shrink even more.

As you correctly point out, nobody wants to read a big book of instructions; but that's exactly what the old message was. Tom- 22:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

As I have clearly and strongly objected to your changes, it would have been preferable for you to accept the revert and discuss it, instead of re-reverting. If there was a visible, overwhelming consensus in favor, that would be different, but that is obviously not the case. Please invite the users you have talked to to participate in this discussion so there's a real record of what people are saying.

I think we are in agreement that the old message tried to say too much, it was a victim of instruction creep. Simply reducing the amount of information should be sufficient without filling the whole box up with whitespace to make it "less crammed". Whitespace is a design element, but one that should be used with care, especially in an area whose size should be limited.--Eloquence * 22:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could join in with collaboratively editing the message in order to come up with something better. The message is now indeed shorter than how it started. I have already invited people to comment on the talk page. Tom- 23:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I propose this alternative version. Simple, short text.--Eloquence * 23:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe the top line should be bigger than the rest of the text, similar to the message you get when entering an non-existant article title into the search box and pressing go. The bottom text is also almost unreadable and that size. Tom- 23:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The bottom text refers to a rather unusual situation, namely that a page doesn't exist after saving. It should be smaller than the standard text, if it needs to exist at all, though the size could certainly use tweaking.--Eloquence * 23:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I strongly prefer Tom's version to the alternative proposed here. The proposed version is all squished and cluttered, while tom's guides your eye to the important info. --Gmaxwell 05:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Gmaxwell; I think Tom's version is much more clear, visually, as to what the important information is. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

If everyone saw this message only once, I might agree with you. As it is, the message is shown everytime anyone clicks on a red link, including experienced users, including links to discussion pages; for this reason, it needs to be a compromise between clarity and brevity. It already has quite a lot of whitespace in this version and focuses on the four key points, so I think it's pretty close to achieving said compromise.--Eloquence * 11:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

How about if have different messages for logged in and anonymous users? That way we can make the message smaller yet for people who are logged in. Tom- 12:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, MediaWiki doesn't support different messages for logged in and anonymous users.--Eloquence * 23:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't at the moment, but I could quite easily make it so we had MediaWiki:Newarticletextanon too. Just wondered if you thought it was a good idea? Tom- 00:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks like you've already done it. :-) I would certainly have far less objections to a larger box for anons only.--Eloquence * 01:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, just implemented it. We can probably cut down this template even more now. Tom- 01:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I like what you've done. I have a question . Since the option of searching for the title in the text of articles has been disabled for a while (and it doesn't seem like it will be back soon), could we add a link in this and MediaWiki:Noarticletext that says "Search Wikipedia for PAGENAME using google." ? - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 03:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've again reverted the unilateral rewrite of this template. It is one of the most highly viewed pages on Wikipedia, and thus major changes to it really do need to be discussed first. I understand that Tom sees that there are issues with the present template, but there's also quite a few of us who see the new template as being very, very ugly. Furthermore, it's impossible to gauge any consensus at all when it is taking place on a very obscure MediaWiki page. If you're seriously interested in working out what the community wants with this, please advertise the discussion and put forward a proposal, as has sensibly been done with the equally controversial Main Page proposal. If Tom and Jesse just want to push through their own idea without consulting anyone else, however, then expect it to be reverted. Ambi 02:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok. I agree. The principle, AFAIK, is WP:IAR until and unless someone objects, as you are, then go slower. So, Tom- if you still want to pursue this, go forth to a proposal page. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

"but there's also quite a few of us who see the new template as being very, very ugly"

Could you please point me to another user other than yourself who has complained about the new version of this template being ugly? I count 5 users who have been in favour of it, and you who has disagreed with it. I presume there is some long discussion on somewhere like the Village Pump, but alas I have been unable to find it.

Instead of reverting without adding to the discussion with what it is you dislike (when several people -- not just myself -- have indeed agreed there are problems with the old template), you could help us increase Wikipedia's usbility by suggesting ideas, telling us what you find so ugly?

And I really do struggle with the idea that removing a bit of instruction creep from this template is "equally controversial" as redesiging the Main Page. Tom- 11:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, there at least three of us - Ixfd64, Dysprosia and myself, who have commented on how ugly these changes are. The lack of comment on either side, however, is unsurprising considering how obscure this talk page is. Secondly, there's still little, if any justification for the change in the first place. What instruction creep? What problems? And how the heck does the change make Wikipedia more "usable"? Thirdly, I'm prepared to accept the change if there is a consensus to do so, but 5-3 on a very obscure talk page is just not good enough. It's a major change, so it'd be nice to see the discussion held somewhere where people can find it - I'm a Wikipedia veteran and I had to ask around to find out where the hell to complain about this. I'm beginning to wonder what is up with this "usability" crusade that has suddenly come out of the blue - first there is the terribly ugly rewrite of the main page, and now this - and in each case there's very insistent users determined to push it through. Ambi 15:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The link to "your first article" should still be changed or capitalized, becuase "read the tutorial and your first article" is a bit silly.--Eloquence * 23:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)