Template talk:No article text/Archive 1

Archive 1

Initial comments

Writing in Wiki is not very intuitive. It just contributes to the increasing number of mark-up languages.

OK, I have changed the text to Edit and made it a link. It's a bit messy, and I don't know if it will work on all pages. Dori | Talk 14:24, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

Beautiful. ✏ Sverdrup 14:28, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Actually, this does not work on empty category pages ([1]). I think it's okay to keep it, though. ✏ Sverdrup 11:22, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I changed "on this topic": there may well be a page on the topic, but with a slightly different name.--Patrick 00:53, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Namespace in wiktionary link

The new [[Wiktionary:{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}|{{PAGENAME}}]] link results in an extra colon in non-namespaced pages. How about [http://en.wiktionary.org{{localurl:{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}}} {{PAGENAME}}] ? Goplat 19:58, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Strange characters

The "edit this page" link creates wrong article titles in case the page name contains brackets or comma - e.g. "Test (city)" becomes "Test %28city%29)". I guess it was the exchange of PAGENAME by PAGENAMEE. andy 08:47, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Add direct search function to "article does not exist" page

Currently, if an article does not exist, the visitor gets a message with three options:

• Edit this page
• Look into the Wiktionairy
• Look at the candidates for speedy deletion.

I propose to add an option "search for this". When I want to know something about a certain subject, I type it directly into the address bar. Recently, I typed "w are you being served", and received the Article does not exist page. It turned out to be called "Are You Being Served?". I had to paste the text I was looking for into the search form to search for it. If the 'does not exist' message would have had an option "search for this", it would not have been neceserry to do the latter. I'm sure it would be a useful feature, the only minor disadvantage being that the 'does not exist' message would grow. Gerritholl 14:29, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've added a link to the search to this and MediaWiki:Newarticletext. Angela. 13:17, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

Delays?

"If you have created this page in the past few minutes and it has not yet appeared, it may not be visible due to a delay in updating the database. Please wait and check again later before attempting to recreate the page." (formatting removed)

1. Is this a new problem? This message wasn't there until a short time ago.
2. Does this belong on MediaWiki:Newarticletext? Remember that only that message (not this one) wil be seen by those following a broken link (commonly called a red link but this can be changed). Brianjd 08:31, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

1. It has recently been a large problem. There's numerous posts over on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) from people who are seeing this and related problems. Because they don't see their article, they hit back in their browser, and re-save it. This causes the article to be created twice, which creates all sorts of other fun problems with categories and what links here.
2. Yes, it should have been added there too. I just didn't realize there was more than one place it needed to go before I needed to allocate time to other things. -- Cyrius|✎ 12:43, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't get it

Everytime I edit this template, it keeps saying that no article exists. But the template does exist! Do you think I should file a bug report? K. Thanks. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:41, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the people who handle bug reports are very busy lately. You should wait precisely 15 days and then file it. -- Curps 17:37, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, fancruft. (with apologies to Silsor) — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:44, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

remove "yet"?

I suggest that we should remove "yet" from the sentence "Wikipedia does not yet have an article with this exact name." To me, this implies that we don't have the article now but we should have one. If someone types blahblah into the search box and hits "Go" and gets this message, he might feel that he should start the article. I'm basing this off a few isolated comments from users who thought they were supposed to add those articles but which got put on VFD or were speedily deleted. Maybe this word change isn't a big deal. Thoughts? — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'd suggest something along the lines of:

Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name.

Would you like to:

Start the FOO article

<the other options>

I think it would strike a balance between "there doesn't necessarily need to be an article here" and "yes, you can write an article if you want to". -- Cyrius|✎ 15:40, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, although perhaps "Would you like to:" could be something like "You may choose one of the following:" or something. Anyone else have any thoughts? — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:02, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"You may choose..." seems a little too formal to me. -- Cyrius|✎ 13:33, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems too formal to me too. I hesitate using "Would you like to:" for two reasons: One is that as I understand it, colons should normally follow complete sentences. Although I don't always follow this, I feel that this text is "official" enough that it should be written more correctly. The other is, along the same lines, I feel like it is a question and should end in a question mark, which would look awkward. Let me think about other ways to reword it. — Knowledge Seeker দ 17:46, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I removed "yet". We may add "However, you can create one."--Patrick 12:44, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removing the "yet" sounds reasonable. We shouldn't have an article for every single text string someone inadvertantly types into the Search box. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 21:33, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Missing dot

The line "Search for <article> in other articles" lacks a dot at the end. I think this should be fixed. Meneth 15:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks; I added periods to the first two options. — Knowledge Seeker দ 16:49, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Namespace dependent

The German Wikipedia has de:MediaWiki_Diskussion:Newarticletext namespace dependent noarticletexts. This is a good idea: compare de:Bild:Stelvio.jpg and Image:Stelvio.jpg. How could this be implemented for the English language Wikipedia? Gerrit ^CUTEDH 21:58, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

bugzilla:2388

See: bugzilla:2388 – "handling: add a "purge" link to MediaWiki:Noarticletext" Regards Gangleri | Th | T 03:23, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

Good idea, done.--Patrick 13:57, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Link to deletion log

I thought it would be useful to suggest creating a link to the deletion log after the last line, so that new users can more easily find and contact the admin who's deleted the page. This might be handy in case something was speedy-deleted or just voted out. This would be done using the form:

talk:No_article_text/Archive_1 Check for No article text/Archive 1 in the deletion log

[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Special:Log|type=delete&user=&page={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAMEE}}}} Check for '''{{PAGENAME}}''' in the deletion log]

At the same time, please bypass the redirect by changing "candidates for speedy deletion" to "criteria for speedy deletion". -- Netoholic @ 6 July 2005 19:56 (UTC)

Actually the CSD link is already skip-redirected (with pipe). I like the log search link, added it and added it as well to MediaWiki:Newarticletext, which is what people more often see when attempting to reach a deleted article through Go or links. I also added an AfD link, since for AfDed articles this will contain some good discussion of why it was deleted (much better than the deletion summary). Deco 03:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

no offense but...

The new version is quite ugly. --Ixfd64 10:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Remove frame

I'm impressed that no administrator has yet to discover that the frame around this message has been replaced by a frame in the CSS of MediaWiki, thus rendering the current message with a double ugly-bugly frame, could someone with power, please fix it. As you can see from the message above, it has been a looong time.... --Dittaeva 20:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I think they know, it's just that it isn't automatically generated by non-Monobook skins. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

candidates --> criteria

I changed the phrase "See candidates for speedy deletion" to "See the criteria for speedy deletion", as that is where the link goes. New editors might type the term in the searchbar and wonder why they aren't at the same page they got when they clicked the same phrase. Prodego ^talk 22:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Wiktionary link to search?

Wouldn't it be better to have the link Wiktionary:PAGENAME replaced by Wiktionary:Special:Search/PAGENAME? I'll also put the opposite forward at Wiktionary. Vildricianus 15:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Different message for talk pages?

I've had some questions from users about the template messages on talk pages without content of existing articles, e.g. Talk:Raul. It states "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name.", problem is that it does have an article with this exact name, just not a talk page. Can a seperate talk page template be made and used? -- Jeandré, 2006-04-24t12:15z

That's something to request of the developers (unless some sort of conditional, namespace-based construct could be devised). For the time being, I've reworded the message to broadly reference all pages. —David Levy 12:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe ParserFunctions could be useful here. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking, but I'm not familiar enough with the syntax to suggest a specific implementation. —David Levy 14:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. I also hid the AfD link for non-article pages, and the Wiktionary and Commons links for pages that are neither articles nor categories. (Images are handled differently anyway.) I'm almost tempted to use the trick from Template:Exists to hide the AfD link entirely unless the target page exists, but I'm not sure how reliable it is. I also took the opportunity to remove hardcoded instances of "Wikipedia" from the text, and to fix a number of cases where article names were URL-encoded twice. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The rest is fine, but somebody please get rid of the italics; they're really ugly. --Rory096_(block) 03:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The italicized text serves a syntactical function (comparable to quotation marks) in a manner consistent with other boilerplate messages. (See our merger/split templates.) —David Levy 03:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

No need for special cases for the Image: namespace

This message is not used for images at all; the noimage message is shown instead (example). So there's no need to add elaborate conditionals to test if {{NAMESPACE}} equals "Image" — it can't happen. (On the other hand, newarticletext can be shown for images if one tries to edit a nonexistent image page, for example by clicking a link like this. This is arguably a bug.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The same is true for MediaWiki pages as well; those just display a blank page if they don't exist. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

To link "spam" to WP:SPAM, "deleted" to WP:CSD or WP:AFD, and "article policies" to whatever page that is. Thanx. 68.39.174.238 17:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the spam thing should be on MediaWiki:Newarticletext, shouldn't it? æ² ✆ 2006-06-16t19:13z

Frankly it looks ugly and I think it might be a bit abrasive sounding (Direct address, etc), however if nothing else it should probably link to the appropriate policies. However it may indeed belong somewhere else. 68.39.174.238 20:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I also forgot, I'm surprised "is not" wasn't linked to every debaters favorite pages to begin with ;D "LOL"! 68.39.174.238 20:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding removal of new paragraph

Hi all - although I appreciate your intent in adding the new paragraph regarding vanity pages, I don't feel this is appropriate. For one thing, WP:AUTO is only a guideline not policy; speedy deletion does not allow the deletion of such pages; and these pages comprise only some of the poorly-created new pages. I also feel that the wording is excessively verbose. If you can come up with something to replace it that is more true and less wordy I'd be happy to see it added. Deco 04:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Rather than removing it you should have proposed an improvement. We're now receiving legal threats from people who are angry that we've deleted content they paid to have inserted in Wikipedia. I can't disagree with your claim of some, since it would still be true if 99% of newpages were paid advertisements, but I don't see how the fact that not all of the newpages are garbage justifies removing the notice. :) --Gmaxwell 07:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

We have disclaimers, we won't get sued, there's no reason to have it in bold everywhere. It's m:instruction creep. --Rory096 17:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

we won't get sued .. if only that were true. ducks paddling furiosly under the water, and all that ... --AlisonW 20:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine, we won't lose in a lawsuit. Do you really think somebody suing that something they submitted to a private website would win? --Rory096 04:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Caselaw suggests that someone doing so would win if they could show and traceback malice. WP is presently treading a very fine line to ensure as much freedom to edit (and create) as possible whilst protecting our users and good name. There aer, however, regular complaints about content, sometimes via lawyers with threats, which mean that if we can be seen to take sensible steps to reduce the likelihood of spam, etc. then we are in a better position to solve such complaints without actually finding ourselves in court. Someone who desires to create an good article will not be prevented or delayed by these few words, but tidying up after the person who is not here to "do good" will be easier because the status of such miscreations is far clearer. --AlisonW 11:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll put it back. If it needs to be trimmed was can talk about it. --Tony Sidaway 08:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, if you'd rather discuss it, can we first address the very serious problem that it makes the claim that we can speedy delete this type of information, none of which is eligible for speedy deletion? In fact, it is often retained in AfD, since it can be improved into an article. I suggest we simply say that it "may be deleted or drastically modified". Deco 08:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

He did. --Gmaxwell 09:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly. He left in the part about speedy deletion. They will never be deleted in accordance with speedy deletion; there is no such criterion. They may be deleted via other means. Deco 09:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Advertising copy and marketing material is routinely speedied. Would you like some examples? --Gmaxwell 09:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I just added that text to MediaWiki:Newarticletext, not seeing this discussion yet, I do think it should be included, but I didn't want to seem like I was just ignoring other people's opinions. - cohesion 09:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Such deletions are out-of-process. You can raise this on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion if you want - I think consensus is on my side here (regarding the current state of CSD, at least, rather than what should be the rule). Deco 09:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason for me to raise anything on the CSD page because I have no complaint to make there about current practices. --Gmaxwell 09:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me make myself clearer. Currently this box asserts that such material "may be deleted without further notice in accordance with our speedy deletion policies." The policy named and linked there does not authorize or permit such deletions. Therefore, this is a blatant lie that will show up every time anyone creates a new article (the text was copied to MediaWiki:Newarticletext). This misrepresentation of our policies will spread distrust among our new users, encourage out-of-process deletions, and absolutely cannot be tolerated should be removed. I really don't think I'm alone in opposing this wording. Deco 09:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Am I supposed to be convinced by your bold text? How about you propose revised wording here rather than just complaining? For example, the original version of this text did not include mention of the criteria for speedy deletion... Did you find it less objectionable? --Gmaxwell 09:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I wasn't more clear. I'd be happy if the reference to speedy deletion were deleted, and this was what I intended to propose above. I had the impression that you were asserting the truth of this statement and refusing to consider removing it - if you do not hold this position, then I apologise if I came off too forcefully. Thanks a lot for discussing this with me. Deco 09:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Deco is correct—speedy deletion of vanity material and advertising is not policy. This problem could be solved by changing in accordance with our speedy deletion policies to in accordance with our deletion policies.. Spacepotato 10:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Sensible change. Done. --AlisonW 10:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support and this change. I am fully in accord with the text as it stands. I apologize again for overreacting. Deco 11:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No apology needed! The level of spam/SEO/marketing/advertising 'articles' we are getting is close to getting out of hand and we need something in there that might either stop them, or make clear to the creators that we will stop them. Hopefully thyese additional notices will work against the spammers but not put off good editors creating sensible articles ... --AlisonW 11:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I noticed the new paragraph a day ago or so, and just came across this discussion. I support the new paragraph (although Deco's point about speedy issues is a valid one), and I certainly believe we get a terrible mass of spam, but I'd be curious, if it's feasible, if someone would provide some hard numbers on this subject. i.e. how many spam pages we get per day/week/month, how they break down in terms of how they are dealt with, etc. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well there is a nontrivial number that gets missed... but it's hard to count that because it's not missed any more once you've found it. :) In general it's hard because people don't always agree on what is spam. Why not check for yourself. Open up Special:Newpages, jump back 10,000 pages or so and start clicking at random, or just walk through a bunch... There is a lot of okay stuff, but a lot of junk too... --Gmaxwell 23:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Will do, and will post the results. JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I've looked through 40 (in order), starting with 02:56, 21 June 2006 ‎Melodious Thunk, and I find it nearly impossible to decide what's "spam" or not merely based on the content of them. I deleted a few as being obviously non-notable groups, and a few more I was very unsure about, and a few others were depressingly in need of massive cleanup (i.e. they were better than nothing, I suppose, but could hardly be considered articles) and many of the others were filling out members of a set, and some of the rest were excellent short articles.

I suppose, the question I was really asking was more like: What sort of content is being paid to be put in Wikipedia, how much of it do we get, and what sort of "legal threats" are we getting in regards to it? JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

People are paying to have content inserted in Wikipedia? Who/what/where/how/when? And they're making legal threats against US for that? Stifle (talk) 10:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Deco's original concern; I regularly encounter readers (not regular editors) who are baffled by the bold warnings and admonishments which begin to appear as soon as one tries to contribute to Wikipedia. This is an example of user interface recapitulating administrative needs; when it should instead address the needs of most users and find ways to best achieve the goals of the site -- not just ways to make administrative tasks easier. I changed the text to make it less frightening; we're not trying to keep people from contributing here, just clarifying what is and is not acceptable. +sj + 15:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Our readers need a Wikipedia which isn't unreasonably biased by commercial abuse and self promotion. Our editors need to be treated with the basic human respect that comes from not demanding they spend infinite amounts of time deleting content which we should have advised people not to post in the first place. Because your involvement with Wikipedia is mostly within the realm of speculating and talking to people who are pretty smart, you might not be aware... but many people are actually surprised that Wikipedia doesn't permit companies to write articles for advertising purposes. We are frequently offered money to host articles and links(you have an OTRS login no?), and we encounter people who think Wikipedia is funded, at least in part, by articles on products and companies. In any case, your changes are confusing because it implies that we don't want people writing articles on companies or people at all... which isn't the case, we especially want people to avoid starting articles on themselves or on companies who are compensating them.--Gmaxwell 15:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:BEANS

Adding a "don't advertise" clause seems more likely to increase than to decrease advertising/marketing efforts in the medium term. Not sure about the short or long term effects. +sj + 15:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

WP beans only applies if the subject wouldn't have thought of it in the first place. If you're already at the new article page, thats probably not the case... although with your weaked and confusing new text (can we not have articles on companies at all?) perhaps I could see where it might cause problems. --Gmaxwell 15:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Repair it, please

Please... I'd like to ask someone (admin preffered) to revert the changes made by Gruch tooday. It causes crash on empty sites - there's no text visible in template and there are some problems with links... MonteChristof 18:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Odd, it worked fine for me. I also tested it while logged out without any custom CSS. Could you be a little more specific? – Gurch 01:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've reinstated the change I made in August as it seems unlikely that there is a problem with that. I will leave the other changes for now and possibly reintroduce those that don't cause a problem at a later date when I am confident as to which ones they are – Gurch 21:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Preload

At MediaWiki talk:Newarticletext#.22Please_make_a_GOOD_new_article.22 I've suggested adding a pre-load template, Template:Noarticletext preload, to the "Start the article" link on this notice. Uncle G 17:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Is it this easy to implement? —Centrx→talk • 17:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

interwiki bit might need slight changes...

I'd like to comment on the interwiki box added recently, since I think it needs two small graphical adjustments. First of all, shouldn't it be centered vertically with respect to the rest of the "empty page" box? (wait a minute, that's just an optical illusion) Secondly, its contrasting border clashes with the grey outside border of the main box - shouldn't their borders match? I hate to be a nitpicker, but this issue has been staring at me as I go through tagging articles for speedy deletion. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 04:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Formatting and display of interwiki link box

{{editprotected}}

Some desired improvements to the interwiki link box:

• Only display the box for pages in the main namespace (this can be done with {{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}|| [insert markup for box here] }}).
• Make the border and style of the box match the rest of the skin (class="infobox" should do this; failing that, at least use style="border-color: #aaaaaa".
• Don't underline the page name. Underlining isn't used elsewhere in the interface (partly for accessibility reasons, to better distinguish hyperlinks), and having it in bold is quite enough.

Thanks – Gurch 11:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Gurch, you have some good ideas. Can you code an example in your userspace so that other users can discuss the exact changes you are proposing? Thanks. --Selket ^Talk 16:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree exactly with this proposal - here's a mockup. Try *previewing* a transclude onto a nonexistent article using "{{User:Nihiltres/Sandbox}}". Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 20:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I had in mind. Thanks for taking the time to create that – Gurch 06:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Y Done --ais523 10:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

I'd like to suggest one further change: I created a version of the interwiki box with a table that centres each image relative to the others, keeps the project names lined up, and uses slightly larger (not much difference) images set to a consistent scale. I did this because it bothered me that the Wikinews icon seemed out of line with the others, and the image scale didn't seem consistent (varying image height, for example.) This change would lengthen the interwiki box by 12 pixels vertical as rendered by my Mac OS copies of Safari and Firefox. Again, the mockup is located at User:Nihiltres/Sandbox, though this version currently has its selective display of the interwiki box disabled, a change which should not be copied. I updated it to correspond with recent changes made by Centrx. I'm now an admin, so I can make the change, but I'd like confirmation that this is a worthwhile one to make. Thanks, Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 15:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this would be an appropriate change for you to make if you wanted; it looks better than the current version. --ais523 09:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation, I'll make the change momentarily. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 14:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I tried it, but the formatting was broken so I immediately rolled my change back. I'll be checking the code I used, one moment. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 15:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I figured it out - my preview version didn't take into account the way the ParserFunction interacts with the table notation (breaks it). I'll fix it before trying anything else. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 15:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Problem solved, I added the table as HTML rather than as wiki table syntax. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 20:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion log

{{editprotected}}

The deletion log is now shown directly on the page below this table (for example, see GTAForums.com). The line

If a page previously existed at this exact title, check the deletion log and see Why was my page deleted?.

should be replaced by something like

If the page has been deleted, see Why was my page deleted?.

This issue was brought up at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Deletion log visible by default. –Pomte 17:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 18:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This does not appear to be working for (at least some) anons: see MediaWiki_talk:Newarticletext#link_to_deletion_log. 64.126.24.11 18:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Due to the problem raised above, please revert this edit. –Pomte 18:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No, see my comment here. Prodego ^talk 18:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Resolved (at least partially), thanks Prodego. 64.126.24.11 18:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Although it looks like it's being removed from this page: [2] -- nae'blis 03:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

repeated links

See http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10914 please. Jidanni 08:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see. I am hesitant to change it because the message is organized in this way to be consistent with the messages for other namespaces. —Centrx→talk • 03:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Why no Wikiversity?

Too soon? When someone is directed to a page that does not exist, they get suggestions for searching in most of the sister projects. I can understand excluding Wikispecies, due to its narrow scope, but why no Wikiversity? Could someone please add this? -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, just one question: How should it describe Wikiversity? Give me the text I should use and I'll gladly insert it. Nihiltres^{t.l} 13:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks [logo] Wikiversity "(free educational resources)" or "(free learning resources)" maybe? Many of the sister projects have "free" in their description, which I think is unnecessary. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Y Done - Nihiltres^{t.l} 20:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Search by namespace

In order to simplify searches in the same namespace, I added "prefix:{{NAMESPACE}}:" to the keyword. Before one ended searching in article namespace from the page http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_River (currently not a redirect) -- User:Docu (May 6, 2009)

I wasnt to add the Movie title "ILLTOWN" and the actors and storyline, it is very worth learning about and watching. I have not found it on the website

Wikipedia:Article wizard2.0

Hi, I'd like to include a reference to Wikipedia:Article wizard2.0. There's currently (for the mainspace) a reference to Requested Articles ("add a request for it."). I'd like to amend it so that it says "Start the X article (using the Article Wizard if you wish) or add a request for it." I'm not sure how to do that though, I don't want to muck it up. Rd232 ^talk 01:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Please fix the above link so it's not to a redirect page. Thanks, Majorly talk 18:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Cheers,  Skomorokh  19:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Would someone mind if I transclude the editnotice of the wizard's default page directly into this message if it's displayed on New article name here? That page has been protected now due to repeated recreations, but that means that editors who end up there will be much more confused now and might not find their way back (they won't get the editnotice since "view source" doesn't display it). I initially didn't want the page protected in the first place, but the growing deletion log is certainly not helpful either. So, something like {{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|New article name here|{{Editnotices/Page/New article name here}}}}
Any objections? Amalthea 10:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good idea, now that protection seems necessary. It really needs an explanatory message, and the editnotice (Template:Editnotices/Page/New article name here) doesn't load if you can't edit. Rd232 ^talk 12:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

My main concern is that this is a bit of an abuse of this message, and I don't really want it to serve as a precedent for other cases. Using the messages to show some distinct behavior on one particular page is a bit of a hack. One alternative would be to unprotect it and build a hard restriction into the abuse filter, but that would be even worse, and have a more measurable impact on performance.
I'll just do it then. Cheers, Amalthea 13:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I updated Wikipedia:Article wizard 2.0/Wizard-New edit instructions so it knows not to load the edit instructions. It would be slightly less hacky if the detection here merely suppressed the noarticletext notice, and Wikipedia:Article wizard 2.0/Wizard-New edit instructions showed the editnotice. Rd232 ^talk 14:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

! it doesn't seem to work. I get the editnotice (on top of the noarticletext message) when logged in as me (admin). But logged in as user:disembrangler (non-admin), I just get the View Source / This Page Protected message. So the page needs unprotecting to show noarticletext. Or else this hack needs implementing elsewhere... Rd232 ^talk 14:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You know, we could just transclude the edit notice onto New article name here, protect it and have done with it! Plus we wouldn't be confusing people with the delete log. I could live with that exception. Rd232 ^talk 14:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not an article, and it should be found by Special:Random. :)
I'm off to MediaWiki talk:Nocreatetext to propose the same change there, not sure if I get around to making it till Sunday though, but feel free if to do so yourself if there are no objections. Amalthea 16:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, should be good now, I made the change to MediaWiki:Nocreatetext. Amalthea 10:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Man ... OK, that was just the message if your account generally lacks the rights to create pages. I've changed MediaWiki:Titleprotected now, tested it as IP, normal user, and admin, both when viewing the page and when attempting to edit it (action=edit), and the message finally appears exactly once in every case, either via Template:Editnotices/Page/New article name here, MediaWiki:Titleprotected, or MediaWiki:Noarticletext. This should really be it, now. :) Amalthea 12:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Pages with missing end bracket

We had a discussion at VPT about missing end brackets. I've been researching the hits for those pages and it's considerable, so I added it as a reader service. Examples: Georgia (country has been viewed thousands of times in 2008, to a lesser extent but on a continuous basis, we have Lost (TV series, House (TV series with more than hundreds by month, and so on. This can happen for all pages with end brackets, and they are countless, so I expect that there are on average at least thousands views of pages with missing end bracket a day. Cenarium (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I would change the implementation a little bit. Highlight using the <em> tag and only on the part that is changed. Indicate that the error is where the data is inputted by using the URL. This shows users that the problem is with the auto linking software.

Did you mean: //wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Georgia_(country)

Another possible correction could be checked by removing the last letter if it is a symbol (like punctuation). — Dispenser 05:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Please remove the example article from the code! Majorly talk 18:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I should have tested it on a page besides Georgia (country. :( Thanks, Majorly! Cheers, Amalthea 18:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, tweaked the formatting.
Chopping off trailing characters could be done with {{Str left}} and {{Str len}}, and might help with plurals as well.
Cheers, Amalthea 18:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the same thing be done for MediaWiki:Nocreatetext? Rd232 ^talk 19:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Adding [not found] or something similar to the title

{{editprotected}}

Browsers usually display the window title before the page completely loads. Unfortunately it contains the same text if the page exists and if it doesn't, making it necessary to wait for the page to load. As a counterexample, for redirects you immediately see that you have been redirected.

I'd suggest adding a tag like [not found] in the title bar. Something like:
{{DISPLAYTITLE:{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{NAMESPACE}}:}}{{PAGENAME}} [not found]}}

--htamas (talk) 01:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Fairly sure DISPLAYTITLE doesn't allow this, so disabling this for now. DISPLAYTITLE is supposed to only allow code that doesn't prevent the title from being linkable (like italics or an initial lowercase letter). I've added the code to Test Wikipedia. Doesn't seem to work there. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I see. Should have read the article about DISPLAYTITLE first. Could you suggest some other way to implement this feature? --htamas (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Fix sidebar

{{editprotected}} The sidebar with interwiki links breaks here, for example. While this is not major, given the silly (and salted) nature of that page name, it is still important to have this code working in all cases. I'm not sure why this is happening, so I don't know what should happen to fix it. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Then don't request an edit, I don't know either. Actually, I'm not even seeing the problem? Non-existent pages don't have interwiki links. Amalthea 12:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I am referring to the sidebar with links to the search pages on Wiktionary, etc. What do you mean by "don't request an edit"? The specificity of the request may be minimal, but it is indeed a problem that needs to be fixed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake, I followed the redlink and got to the editing page, which shows a different message. Nonetheless, use the {{editprotected}} if you already have a "complete and specific description" of a requested change, just as it says on the template. If you only see that something is wrong, but don't know how to fix it, just start a thread and ask for input. If the talk page enjoys little traffic, advertise it at the WP:Village Pump (technical). Chances are that the random admin you'll attract with it won't know how to fix it either.
I'm fairly certain that it can't be fixed, actually, since the added characters from the sister project prefix will push titles that are close to the max length over the limit (anything over 240 characters I assume, since "Special:Search/" uses up 15 characters), leading to MediaWiki not rendering them as valid links. I can think of two workarounds, one is to suppress the display of the sidebar if the page name is over a certain length (using {{str ≥ len}}), the other is to use external links instead of wikilinks since the special page we're targeting here actually does accept search requests, i.e. those faux subpages even if the total length of the respective wiki link is too long.
Amalthea 14:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Amalthea is right. I did some tests and a [[wiktionary:Special/Search/Pagename]] link can handle a "Pagename" up to 240 characters but not more. Apparently the "wiktionary:" part does not count towards the 255 total. And you are right that making them [external] links allows using the full 255 characters.

But I changed those links to use {{sec link auto}} so that for users on the secure server they become secure links, just like we have done with the main page and some other system messages. {{sec link auto}} uses [[normal]] links on the normal servers, and [external] links on the secure server. So I think we are stuck with the 240 characters limit. Well, for the users on the secure server the full 255 characters now works fine, check it out.

And yeah, we can use {{str ≥ len}} to hide the sister box when the pagename is too long. But do we really have any pagenames that long? And I am not sure which is more confusing, a broken box or a disappearing box. But I guess it is cleaner to hide the box.

--David Göthberg (talk) 07:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

More notices

I am planning to do several technical changes to this system message:

Since some time now we have the "magic" links Special:MyPage/skin.css and Special:MyPage/skin.js that takes you to the skin file for your current skin, for instance your /monobook.css. But those links fail for IP-users and for users who have javascript disabled in their browser. Those users instead see MediaWiki:Noarticletext for their non-existing /skin.css page. So I intend to add a fall-back: When going to for instance User:Example/skin.css and the automatic redirection fails, {{skin-file disambig}} will be shown instead of the usual content of MediaWiki:Noarticletext.

I noticed that this message has a fix that shows the editnotice for Enter your new article name here, even when just viewing that page. See section "Wikipedia:Article wizard2.0" above. So far so good. But as you guys can see if you follow that link the message gets double borders. If/when I add {{skin-file disambig}} that too will get double borders. That's because the borders of this system message is added in MediaWiki:Common.css instead of here, which means we can't handle the borders here as we need. So I am planning to update MediaWiki:Common.css so this system message has no default borders, and then add the borders locally here.

So, we already load the editnotice for Enter your new article name here and I am planning to add {{skin-file disambig}} which is similar to an editnotice. I can imagine a number of other cases when this could be useful. So I want to add the editnotice loader to this system message, so editnotices are shown also when viewing non-existent pages.

Note that we already load editnotices in more cases than when just editing a page. They are also shown when non-admins are "viewing the source" of protected pages, and they are shown on top of .css and .js pages in MediaWiki space already when just looking at the page without editing or "viewing the source". See for instance the box at the top of MediaWiki:Common.css that says "This is the CSS for all skins", that's the editnotice for that page.

--David Göthberg (talk) 06:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Y Partly done - I have added {{skin-file disambig}} and removed the double borders. Which unfortunately means that more users see double borders during the time the CSS is decaching. And I feel slightly silly, after I deployed it I realized I could have made the transition smoother, but too late now.

I have not added editnotice loading to this message yet. I would like some comments from other users before I do that.

--David Göthberg (talk) 07:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

"Alternate"

{{Editrequest}}

Please change "alternate" to "alternative", which enjoys much wider recognition as standard usage (see also the entry on "alternate" here).

I also request that the same change should be performed on another page, MediaWiki:Titleprotectedwarning. I could create its talk page and leave a message there, of course, but it seems to me rather wasteful, so I have merged the two similar requests. Waltham, The Duke of 10:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done Happy‑melon 16:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! This is a fairly visible message, so I wonder how I hadn't caught this detail before. I suppose I never cared to read the whole thing. Waltham, The Duke of 02:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

First letter of titles IS case sensitive for subpages etc.

Per example copied from Bug 27963: When I visit a nonexistent subpage, for example Talk:Washington,_D.C./archive_1 it reports via this template that the page does not exist and that "Titles on Wikipedia are case sensitive except for the first character." However, the page Talk:Washington,_D.C./Archive_1 does exist, and the only difference is the capital A in Archive.

The expected behavior, especially based on this template, is that the first character after a slash in a subpage name should not be case sensitive. We should either change the actual behavior of the software (my preference) or change the template to help people figure out what happened when they accessed a subpage with an incorrect capitalization on the first letter, even though other areas of Wikipedia will 'correct' that for them.

WBTtheFROG (talk) 04:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The first character of "Talk:Washington,_D.C./archive_1" is "W". Happy‑melon 09:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Per MediaWiki's internal storage, that's true. Per intuitive naming conventions, "archive 1" is the title. (Some people would also use your logic to say that the "T" in Talk is the first character, not knowing about namespaces). The full URL is http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Washington,_D.C./Archive_1. Usually whatever is after the last slash is the intuitive title and everything before that is just context. As somebody with some Wikipedia experience, I think of "Archive 1" as the title of that page, and the other items ("Washington, D. C.", "Talk," "en," and "Wikipedia") as just contextual qualifiers.

When browsing through your computer's filesystem, as an analogy, I think of only what follows the last slash as the name of the current directory. In modern OS interfaces, that last/most deeply nested title is all that's shown by default. See the bug discussion for a more detailed analogy here. WBTtheFROG (talk) 19:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

merge

At MediaWiki talk:Newarticletext#merge I suggested that the very similar message "Newarticletext" be merged into this template. Thoughts? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

nopermission

The documentation claims "an optional parameter nopermission" is present. I can't find it in the template, and MediaWiki:Noarticletext and MediaWiki:Noarticletext-nopermission look the same to me. Is it just me? Rd232 ^talk 04:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

This feature was never actually introduced. The reason MediaWiki:Noarticletext was moved into the the template namespace was to allow the two messages to use a common base, yet customise parts of the message. There is some brief discussion at MediaWiki talk:Noarticletext-nopermission where this approach was suggested by User:AlexSm. However neither of us followed through and added the nopermission parameter at that time. (I wasn't exactly sure what the differences should be ... apart from the removal of the "Start the xxx page" when this is not appropriate. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

That was that bit that I was surprised to see in MediaWiki:Noarticletext-nopermission - it's worth excluding, surely. Rd232 ^talk 12:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, now done. What other differences should there be, if any? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't see any. The complexity of the template doesn't help... :( Rd232 ^talk 22:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The complexity does need to be addressed. I spent about 5 hours looking at this template before finally realising that this template could not be the message I was seeing (i.e. Newarticletext) John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Just realised that I was working in the sandbox with this code last year, but never implemented it! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Rejig layout and add some text

The landing page currently looks something like this:

Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for A page linked from the internet in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings. Start the A page linked from the internet article, using the Article Wizard if you wish, or add a request for it. Search for "A page linked from the internet" in existing articles. Look for pages within Wikipedia that link to this title.

I want to see it changed to something like:

Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Search for A page linked from the internet in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings. Search for "A page linked from the internet" in existing articles. Look for pages within Wikipedia that link to this title. Start the A page linked from the internet article, using the Article Wizard if you wish, or add a request for it. If you are a website administrator your incoming link to Wikipedia will require updating.

This makes it easier for readers who are by far the largest users of Wikipedia and have no interest is creating new pages. "Please" is not needed as well. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Readers of Wikipedia tend to be not logged in, so they would see the message at MediaWiki:Nocreatetext. Perhaps it would be better to make changes there? Tra (Talk) 19:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 June 2012

Please change [[Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted?|Why was my page deleted?]] to [[Wikipedia:Why was the page I created deleted?|Why was the page I created deleted?]] per this discussion. 82.132.248.219 (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit requested

Wikivoyage Please add Wikivoyage as a sister project. If not immediately, then when it's out of beta. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind making the necessary changes to Template:No article text/sandbox? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a modified revision here. But please do not make this change yet; for starters, Wikivoyage doesn't have a new logo at the moment. — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

@Koavf, This, that and the other, and MSGJ:Pinging to remember you that the logo has been announced officially[3]. (I am confused:{{Sec_link/relative_url}} (and hence {{sec link auto}}) does not support for Wikivoyage (and Wikidata) links at present; thus changes must be made to that template also. But at the same time, {{sec link}} will not get transcluded in to articles anymore: Template talk:Sec link#Now obsolete; no use in article namespace.) Thanks ···Vanischenu^「m/_Talk」 22:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikivoyage has now been added. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot···Vanischenu^「m/_Talk」 22:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request 30 April 2013

It would be great to add a link to a page with the foreign Wikipedia pages with that page name. So if the page not exists on en.wikipedia that you can find an article about it in another language. Is that possible? Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

We already have this feature, for several years it was in the form of interlanguage links, but is in the process of being superseded by Wikidata. For example, at Koningslied, you will see that in the left-hand margin there is a heading "Languages" which then has links to equivalent pages in Deutsch and Nederlands. These are stored at d:Q11591302. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes I know that. But, sorry, I think my request was not clear :) I mean, if a page not yet exists on the English Wikipedia, but the page exists in a foreign Wikipedia, that there is a link on the no article text template to that Wikipedia page. So lets say, if you go to the page http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Edwin_Evers that not (yet) exist, that there will be a link to (in this case) the Dutch page that exist: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Evers, or otherwise a link to the Wikidata page. I hope you understand my question now :) Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Please don't use the editprotected template if you're having an explicit change ready: this template should be followed by a complete and specific description of the request.
To the best of my knowledge, what you're asking cannot be achieved trivially. If you want to explore this further, consider brainstorming it at WP:VPT. Personally, I'm not convinced such a mechanism would work well for generic terms, or that the template at hand would be a good spot to place such logic (it is neither shown when you search for a term that has no article nor follow a red link).
Amalthea 21:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Nopermission message

Unregistered users no longer have the "start article" link which pointed them to mediawiki:nocreatetext. There needs to be a way for unregistered users to have information on how to create an article either by registering or asking at AFC. The nocreatetext link may indeed be a bit cumbersome, but then we should adapt something in this message. I suggest:

* [[Special:UserLogin|Log in or create an account]] to start the '''{{FULLPAGENAME}}'''{{ #switch: {{NAMESPACE}} | {{ns:Category}} = | #default =  {{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}|page|article}} }}{{ #switch: {{NAMESPACE}} | {{ns:0}} =, alternatively use the [[Wikipedia:Article wizard|Article Wizard]], or [[{{ns:Project}}:Requested articles|add a request for it]]. | {{ns:Category}} =, alternatively use the [[Wikipedia:Article wizard/Category|Article Wizard]]. | #default=. }} .
Cenarium (talk) 06:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

No objections, so I've performed the edits. Cenarium (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

@Cenarium: I don't like the fact that logged-in users see the "Log in or create an account" link when they can't create an article for some reason (such as it being salted). Can you do something about this? Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 March 2014

It should instead say: You do not have sufficient privileges to start the article, when nopermission parameter is supplied. It would rather be ambiguous that if I am logged in or not. Eyesnore (pc) 02:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done for now: Eyesnore, can you put your proposed changes in Template:No article text/sandbox then reactivate this request? As it stands your request is a little vague, so I'm not confident that I can answer it properly. If you put the code in the sandbox it will make checking it much easier. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Test for ending period

Various software turning unformatted strings into links will cut off an ending ')' or period in a url. Cases of ')' are already handled with this:

 {{#ifexist: {{FULLPAGENAME}})
  | <div class="searchdidyoumean">Did you mean: [[{{FULLPAGENAME}})|{{FULLPAGENAME}}<em>)</em>]]</div>
  }}

It means https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Mercury_(element displays "Did you mean: Mercury (element)". I suggest doing the same for a period. This would for example cause https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/MCA_Inc. (note that MediaWiki itself cuts of the ending period) to display: "Did you mean MCA Inc." There should probably be redirects at titles without the ending period but such redirects are not always created. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

After i submit an edit request at MediaWiki talk:Nocreatetext, i found out that it doesn't work. I am sure that i need to submit an edit request here. Request:When there is a nopermission parameter, it should use PROTECTIONLEVEL to check that if the article is salted. (Same request at MediaWiki talk:Nocreatetext#Edit request)S/s/a/z-1/2 (talk) 07:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done for now: @Ssaz 12: I've been investigating what the different messages actually do. MediaWiki:Noarticletext is displayed for pages that you have permission to create, and MediaWiki:Noarticletext-nopermission is displayed for pages that you don't have permission to create. MediaWiki:Nocreatetext is the message for when you are actually trying to create a page you don't have permission to, i.e. when you type &action=edit into the URL. There isn't a counterpart to MediaWiki:Nocreatetext for when you do have permission to create the page - you get an edit window instead. So the edit to MediaWiki:Nocreatetext did work, it was just for a different message than the one produced by this template. That also means that you are right that you need to edit this template too. When you edit it, you should bear in mind that users will definitely not have permission to create the page when the |nopermission= parameter is set to "yes", and that they definitely will have permission to edit the page when |nopermission= is not set. Could you put your suggested code in Template:No article text/sandbox? Reactivate the {{editprotected}} template when you're done making your adjustments to the sandbox, and I (or another admin) can update the template for you. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I am done. I already put the text into the sandbox.S/s/a/z-1/2 (talk) 01:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit request August 12, 2014

Moved to MediaWiki talk:Nocreatetext § Edit request August 12, 2014

 – I think you were talking about MediaWiki:Nocreatetext, which is the one shown to unregistered users. /~huesatlum/ 21:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 September 2014

Please undo the last edit to both pages, as it causes the "Did you mean" to show up twice (both above the gray box, and in it). @Nyttend: ping. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Where? Can you provide me a link to a page where this is the case? I'm not seeing it at https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Category:Buildings_and_structure or at https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Category:Buildings_and_structure&action=edit, or at https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Category:Buildings_and_structure&action=edit&redlink=1 for that matter. I thought perhaps it's because I was checking categories, but https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Geography_of_Mar produces only one "Did you mean" as well. Nyttend (talk) 02:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Nyttend: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Pizza_%28disambiguation Also, the same happens when creating the page, with MediaWiki:Newarticletext. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Is this perhaps the effect of the {{fmbox}} template? Undoing my edit will remove the "did you mean" for singulars versus plurals. I've removed one of the two bits from the code I added (I hadn't noticed that it checked for a missing closing parenthesis), so perhaps this will fix things. Nyttend (talk) 02:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Nyttend: It doesn't duplicate things now, but it's weird that the parentheses message is in a different place than the plural message. Why don't you move your new code to the same place as the existing code? Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Because I don't understand how the other thing works, and anyway its little message at the top of the box is a lot easier to miss than the bigger one that this gives. What if we simply removed the code from the other place, instead? Nyttend (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Nyttend: That works. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not about to do it — simply because I'm likely to break something, not knowing how it works. Please dump the existing code from these two pages into a sandbox and then remove the code that needs to be chopped, so that I can simply copy/paste the code into the pages. If you too aren't confident making such a change, let me know and I'll request help. Nyttend (talk) 02:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Request disabled, pending further discussion and sandboxing of code. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Please replace the contents of Template:No article text with that of Template:No article text/sandbox, and please replace the contents of MediaWiki:Newarticletext with the following:

Extended content

Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

edit protected 10 September 2014 #2

Please add the following to the top of the template:
<noinclude>{{mbox|text=The message below is just an example. This template does actually exist.}}</noinclude>
Serious, seeing the message caused problems with my brain. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that's actually worth it. It's already clear that the page does actually exist since it has an "Edit" and "View history" tab at the top right, and there's the big green "Template documentation" box underneath. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The template should ideally show its output, so there is no problem here :) I'm sure your brain can accommodate this — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Include visual editor

There should be the additional option to start the article using the WP:VE.

Proposal: change

     |* '''[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} {{#switch: {{NAMESPACE}} 
     | User talk = Post a message to ''{{PAGENAME}}'' 
     | #default = Start the ''{{FULLPAGENAME}}'' {{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}|page|article}}
    }}]'''{{#switch: {{NAMESPACE}}
     | {{ns:0}} = , using the [[Wikipedia:Article wizard|Article Wizard]] if you wish, or [[{{ns:Project}}:Requested articles|add a request for it]].

into

     |* {{#switch: {{NAMESPACE}} 
     | User talk = Post a message to ''{{PAGENAME}}'' 
     | #default = Start the '''{{FULLPAGENAME}}'''-article using '''[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} Wikitext]}}''' or use the new ''' [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|veaction=edit}} Visual Editor]'''. {{#switch: {{NAMESPACE}}
     | {{ns:0}} = Use the [[Wikipedia:Article wizard|Article Wizard]] if you wish, or [[{{ns:Project}}:Requested articles|add a request for it]].

Stratoprutser (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there any discussion related to this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems obvious? Stratoprutser (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: @Stratoprutser: I wouldn't feel comfortable changing this without there being at least a small amount of discussion about it. Perhaps drop a note at WP:VPT to see what people think? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mr. Stradivarius: I have a better solution that shouldn't have any objections. If we make an edit like testwiki:Special:Diff/217226 to our common.css, we can then wrap the VE link here in <span class="veonly">, and only users who have enabled VE will see it (demo at testwiki:Special:Permalink/217227). Then, it will work exactly like all the rest of the VE links here, such as section edit links. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn: Sounds like a good idea to me. Why don't you propose this at MediaWiki talk:Common.css to see what other editors think? I can't forsee any issues with doing this, but I wouldn't be comfortable with adding anything to Common.css without discussion. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've posted there. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn: Logged-out don't have persistent preferences but VE works for them anyway, and I guess these classes will hide the VE-option for them? @Mr. Stradivarius: What are the objections? Stratoprutser (talk) 15:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 June 2015

If only administrators can create the page, it yields "editprotected" and not "sysop". If only established registered (autoconfirmed) users can create the page, it yields "editsemiprotected" and not "autoconfirmed". Can you also please add a condition "templateeditor" for pages that only allow  Template editors and administrators to create?

Examples:

Source	Result
{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:create|Jack Touchton}}‏‎	autoconfirmed
{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:create|Like this one}}‏‎	sysop
{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:create|Sujit Meher‏‎}}‏‎	sysop

Eyesnore (pc) 19:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Well spotted.  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 February 2016

Please update link targets. Mlpearc (open channel) 16:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

| {{TALKSPACE}} = a [[{{ns:Help}}:Talk page|talk page]] Change to | {{TALKSPACE}} = a [[{{ns:Help}}:Using talk pages|talk page]]

| {{ns:Category}} = a [[{{ns:Project}}:Category|category]] Change to | {{ns:Category}} = a [[{{ns:Project}}:Categorization|category]]

| {{ns:User}} = a [[{{ns:Project}}:User page|user page]] Change to | {{ns:User}} = a [[{{ns:Project}}:User pages|user page]]

| {{ns:Portal}} = Please browse the [[{{ns:Portal}}:Browse|existing portals]] to check for similar topics. Change to | {{ns:Portal}} = Please browse the [[{{ns:Portal}}:Contents/Portals|existing portals]] to check for similar topics.

| editprotected = This page is protected from creation, so only [[WP:SYSOP|administrators]] can create it. Change to | editprotected = This page is protected from creation, so only [[Wikipedia:Administrators|administrators]] can create it.

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 01:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mr. Stradivarius: Thank you! Mlpearc (open channel) 04:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 March 2016

I suggest adding {{#ifexist:Draft:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|:''There exists a draft for this article, see [[Draft:{{FULLPAGENAME}}]].''|}} Tested in the sandbox, see Special:Permalink/708378202. The message would be displayed when someone tries to create an article for which a draft already exists. This would greatly help in the discoverability of existing drafts.

103.6.159.71 (talk) 07:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment It would somewhat help, if the full page name were the same. This is not anywhere near as powerful as letting the article title be searchable, but it would be a good first step DGG ( talk ) 07:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

  Putting down an endorsement.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• Tweak: Code should be {{#ifexist:Draft:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|{{hatnote|There is a draft for this article at [[Draft:{{FULLPAGENAME}}]].}}|}}, which applies the standard hatnote styling and has less-awkward phrasing. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 17:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Using a template unnecessarily within a highly visible template is just wasteful expenditure of server resources. :''text'' is formatted the same way as {{hatnote|text}}. 103.6.159.76 (talk) 08:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

No, that's incorrect. The manual formatting produces <dl><dd><i>text</i></dd></dl> while the template (currently) produces <div role="note" class="hatnote">text</div>. While these happen to superficially look the same on the desktop site, with default CSS, they are quite different in practice. As long as the note is semantically a hatnote, we should use the standard, semantically-correct hatnote formatting, implemented by the template for ease of maintenance. Also, performance is really not our concern. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 15:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@MSGJ: Thanks, but could you change the wording from There is a draft to There exists a draft as that sounds more proper? 103.6.159.68 (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Nihiltres didn't agree with you ("awkward phrasing"). Please can you reach a consensus with him/her? I don't really have an opinion on it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I think using the simplest wording possible is better, and that "is" is simpler than "exists", but I don't feel too strongly about it. Is there a comparable rationale to use "exists"? {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 15:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree: use "is" all these notices should be kept as short and simple as possible. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@MSGJ, Nihiltres, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and DGG: See also Template_talk:Editnotices/Namespace/Main#Protected_edit_request_on_8_March_2016. 103.6.159.68 (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

To ensure consistent wording across both messages, I have created Template:There is a draft for this article — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 April 2016

Add the recently implemented extended confirmed protection level (established editors). Also, make sure to clarify that administrators can edit template protected pages.

Example: {{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit|Gamergate controversy}} yields: extendedconfirmed Eyesnore 11:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I have added extendedconfirmed.[4] I don't think we need to specify that administrators can edit all pages. The message links template editors which should maybe state it more clearly. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Template output issues

@MSGJ and Mr. Stradivarius: There are two issues with this template's output that I'm experiencing. FYI, I'm not an admin, so the messages that I see are a bit different.

1. On a salted page like User:UBeR/Administrative watchdog, the first line still contains "Before creating this page, please see Wikipedia:Subpages." I don't have permission to create it, so that line probably should not be there.
   • A fix would be to check |nopermission=yes and switch on PROTECTIONLEVEL:create.
2. On a page like User:Example/common.css, the second line says "Log in or create an account to start the User:Example/common.css page." The reason this is happening is because we're going into the default case of the PROTECTIONLEVEL:create switch statement. Most users will fall into the default case.
   • A fix would be to check if SUBPAGENAME ends in ".js" or ".css".
3. Added on 24 May On a page like MediaWiki:Test123, the note is also "Log in or create an account to start the MediaWiki:Test123 page."
   • A fix would be to check if the namespace is "MediaWiki", and output differently.

I began attempting a fix, but stopped, because this looks like a nontrivial refactor. I'm not submitting an edit request at this time (haven't done sandbox changes) and I don't know if I personally am up for it at the moment. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 08:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

If this is just a minor issue, I understand. If so, sorry to bother you with a ping. :) Cheers, — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 08:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Andy M. Wang: You might want to check out Module:Effective protection level, which takes all of Wikipedia's various protection mechanisms into account, including .js and .css pages. I'm guessing that using it here would make this easier to refactor. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I do have this on a todo list. Probably will be looking into this in a week (?) or so maybe. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 05:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 16 June 2016

Please sync to the template sandbox. The diff is effectively Special:Diff/714226934/725512779. The div that's been extracted to {{No article text/sister projects}} may be useful in other scenarios, and the change makes it easier to trace through logic of the template.

The changes fixes 3 messages that I described in the above talk section.

If this request is satisfied, please also template-protect (or fully-protect) the new subtemplate {{No article text/sister projects}}, as it's transcluded here, which in turn is transcluded in MediaWiki:Noarticletext. Thanks.

— Andy W. (talk · ctb) 00:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Stradivarius, I think you have context into the issues I raised earlier. Does this request seem reasonable? A prospect to split this into two templates is still on my plate, but I might not get around to that for a while. Meanwhile, this does fix the scenarios I described above) Let me know — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 20:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Pressing the "search" link

Pressing the search link does not tak you to a "contains" search, but only reloads the page, if on e.g. User:EXAMPLE_USER_THAT_DOES_NOT_EXISTS.

• It links to https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Search/User:EXAMPLE_USER_THAT_DOES_NOT_EXISTS
• Should link to https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?search=User%3AEXAMPLE+USER+THAT+DOES+NOT+EXISTS&title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=1

(t) Josve05a (c) 18:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

This should resolve the problem, but another editor familiar with templates may want to double-check that I didn't break anything before it's put in the live template. Huon (talk) 20:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Huon, that did it. Primefac (talk) 00:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, put into the live template. Huon (talk) 09:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 March 2017

Please sync with the sandbox. This removes the template from displaying {{skin-file disambig}} when viewing skin.js or skin.css, since common.js automatically redirects such links to the JS or CSS for the current user's skin. To observe the current behavior, visit Special:Mypage/skin.js when not logged in, and notice that the template flashes by for a fraction of a second. — Train2104 (t • c) 15:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Done seems uncontroversial — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 March 2018

Please remove the entire {{ #switch: {{FULLPAGENAME}} | Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Enter your new article name here = {{Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Enter your new article name here}} | #default = ... switch statement (moving the content in the #default up one level), because {{Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Enter your new article name here}} was deleted. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Would you mind making the change to the sandbox? Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Done. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

don't invite posting messages to a user's nonexistent talk subpage

In at least one namespace, user_talk, this template gives a bad response. I tested it for a nonexistent talk subpage (an archive that was well beyond what I have) in my userspace and got this: "No messages have been posted for this user yet."/"Post a message to Nick Levinson/Archive 7." The first part is, of course, wrong; messages have been posted for this user, but on the current talk page, not in the nonexistent archive. The second part invites creating a subpage that won't be on my watchlist and it's not practical for me to add nonexistent archives to my watchlist (and remember what we tell children: "what's the biggest number in the whole wide world? now add one").

Better for this namespace would be this text: "Post all messages on the user's current talk page" ("talk page" linked according to the destination username). And if a new archive is created by anyone other than the user, I hope the user is notified regardless of watchlisting.

This follows up on a topic in the Village pump (technical) and in the Phabricator.

Nick Levinson (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC) (Corrected bad link: 20:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC))

You quote the message on https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Nick_Levinson/Archive_7. The associated non-talk page User:Nick Levinson/Archive 7 doesn't exist so it's unlikely there is reason to post a message to User talk:Nick Levinson/Archive 7. I agree people should be referred to User talk:Nick Levinson instead. But what if the non-talk page does exist? Another user may want to create a talk page for it, but the owner of the userspace may not discover it. For example, User:PrimeHunter/Source links.js exists. Where should https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:PrimeHunter/Source_links.js suggest to post a message? I suggest to give both options. Something like: "This is the talk page for User:PrimeHunter/Source links.js. You can post a message here but it may not be discovered. You can also post to User talk:PrimeHunter." PrimeHunter (talk) 21:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The person posting may be an amateur regarding Wikipedia, even though the example you give is less likely to be carried out by such an amateur. Thus, I'm skeptical of even a vague invitation to that amateur unless creating the page automatically updates the userspace holder's watchlist and automatically notifies the userspace holder of the new creation, content, and watchlisting. Otherwise, I agree with your point. Nick Levinson (talk) 23:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC) (Correction: 23:12, 21 April 2018 (UTC))

Protected edit request on 8 October 2018

Per Dinoguy1000's suggestion here, please sync this version of the sandbox with the live template. Currently, when on pages outside of mainspace, the template presents a link which it says will search the current namespace (for example, "Search for "Template:No article text" in existing pages of namespace Template"). However, the link doesn't actually restrict the search to the named namespace. The version in the sandbox will strip the prefix but then conduct a search in the current namespace. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC) Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done. 「ディノ奴千？！」^{☎ Dinoguy1000} 23:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Remove 'external' class from internal link

When you visit a non-existent page, Monin_(company), for example, you'll see this text in the body:

Search for "Monin (company)" in existing articles.

When you inspect the link, it has an 'external' class, even though the link is pointing to the same wiki. The external class should not be there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmansurov (WMF) (talk • contribs)

@Bmansurov (WMF): Why is the class a problem? MediaWiki automatically adds class="external text" to the html for links made with external link syntax. It's very common and also happened in your post. Omitting the class in "external" links to https://wiki.riteme.site would be a Phabricator request. I think the only way to avoid it now is to make a wikilink like [[Special:Search/...]], but wikilinks don't accept query strings. At Template talk:No article text/Archive 1#Pressing the "search" link it was decided to include fulltext=1 in a query string to avoid a link like Special:Search/User:EXAMPLE USER THAT DOES NOT EXISTS. Such searches in userspace don't actually make a search but just go to the non-existing page. We have adapted MediaWiki:Noarticletext to use this template. The default MediaWiki message is still at MediaWiki:Noarticletext/en-ca (Canadian English). The behaviour on the search link at User:EXAMPLE USER THAT DOES NOT EXISTS can be seen with uselang=en-ca. It currently searches mainspace which seems even worse than staying on the user page. By the way, the default MediaWiki:Noarticletext/en-ca makes three links and only the first is a wikilink. The other two have query strings so they use external link syntax and have the external class. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Thanks for the reply! It's a problem because a link to the same wiki is being marked as an external link. But I see your point of why wikilinks cannot be used. Btw, here's the Phab task: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T217567. Bmansurov (WMF) (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bmansurov (WMF): The general issue is phab:T13477 from 2007: "Don't mark external links to the current wiki as external". Template:No article text uses {{Plain link}} (which uses class="plainlinks") to omit the external link icon. That's the best we can currently do with external link syntax. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, Thanks! Bmansurov (WMF) (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2019 (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.

Moved to MediaWiki talk:Searchmenu-new-nocreate

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Sister project descriptions

The text is inconsistent, where most projects have "... (free [x])" but Commons is just "... (images and media)". Please remove "free" from them all (that should be understood) and furthermore change Commons to just "media" as images are media. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The text is in {{No article text/sister projects}}. I support the request. It would make it more like {{Sister project links}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 14 July 2020

I believe these changes are uncontroversial, so I am directly opening an edit request.

In short: please implement my changes from the sandbox.

In long:

• Change: "[{{fullurl:Special:UserLogin|returnto={{ urlencode: {{#invoke:String|replace|source={{FULLPAGENAME}}|­}} }}}} Log in or create an account] to start the '''''{{#invoke:String|replace|source={{FULLPAGENAME}}|­}}''''' {{ #if:{{NAMESPACE}} | page | article }}" to "You cannot create this {{ #if:{{NAMESPACE}} | page | article }}. You may need to [{{fullurl:Special:UserLogin|returnto={{ urlencode: {{#invoke:String|replace|source={{FULLPAGENAME}}|­}} }}}} log in or create an account] and be [[WP:User access levels#Autoconfirmed users|autoconfirmed]] to start this page.
  • Rationale: Only autoconfirmed users can create content pages. Plus, there are certain namespaces (like the unused Gadget: namespace) that disable page creation alltogether.
  • Remove the comma afterwards and capitalize "alternatively" in both "Alternatively, use the article wizard..." and "Alternatively, use the category wizard".
• Change instances of [{{fullurl:|action=edit}}] to [[Special:Edit/{{FULLPAGENAME}}]] and instances of [{{fullurl:|action=edit|section=new}}] to [[Special:NewSection/{{FULLPAGENAME}}]].
  • Rationale: The fullurl was used as a workaround since it was not possible at the time to create direct wikilinks to edit pages, we would always have to make an external link. Now, it is possible to link to edit forms.
• Change the message visible on red linked talk pages so it reads "[[Special:Edit/{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Start the ''{{#invoke:String|replace|source={{FULLPAGENAME}}|­}}'' page]] or [[Special:NewSection/{{FULLPAGENAME}}|leave a message about ''{{#invoke:String|replace|source={{SUBJECTPAGENAME}}|­}}]]''".
  • At the same time, change the message visible on red linked user talk pages so it reads "{{#ifeq:{{ROOTPAGENAME}}|{{PAGENAME}}|[[Special:NewSection/{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Post a message to ''{{#invoke:String|replace|source={{PAGENAME}}|­}}]]''|[[Special:Edit/{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Start the ''{{#invoke:String|replace|source={{FULLPAGENAME}}|­}}'' page]] or [[Special:NewSection/{{FULLPAGENAME}}|start a new topic about ''{{#invoke:String|replace|source={{SUBJECTPAGENAME}}|­}}]]''}}"
  • Rationale: Talk pages are for discussing article content or for communicating with an editor. By not making the link to start a new topic more obvious on non-existent talk pages, new editors wanting to start a discussion may click on "Start the X page" button and leave a talk page message without an appropriate header.

Please see this for my full proposed changes. Thank you. Aasim 19:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done - if any issues any admin should revert ASAP. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Xaosflux I think you forgot to make my requested edits.  :) Aasim 19:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Xaosflux Aasim 19:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Awesome Aasim: how odd - looks like my save failed (even by browser had my edit summary cached still); in any case it should be live now. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Xaosflux I caught a stray period in the template. Is it possible for you to implement the fix I just made to the sandbox? Thanks. Aasim 15:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Awesome Aasim: of course,  Done — xaosflux ^Talk 15:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Xaosflux you forgot the other period :) Aasim 15:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Awesome Aasim: oops, check now! — xaosflux ^Talk 15:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Thanks :) Have a good day/night! Aasim 15:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 August 2020

Hi. The text: “You cannot create this article.” is quite angry text. Can you change it to “Log in or create an account and be autoconfirmed to start the Template talk:No article text/Archive 1 page.”? Thanks. 2604:3D08:627D:A00:EC1E:112C:3AAC:E791 (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done as that string isn't what would need to be edited there - you may certainly continue to discus improvements to this page here, test them in the sandbox, and resubmit. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 31 October 2020

Gadget pages need more explanation. Take Gadget:Example, which displays the default no article text to non-logged in users. But it doesn’t explain why you can’t or if you can edit gadgets, so can you please add something like: Creation of this page is limited to [[m:User groups#staff|Office staff]]? It more explains why you don’t have permission to edit/create gadgets, instead of just an error message. Thank you. Ituafmq (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done please work up your change in a sandbox first, then reactivate the edit request. Feel free to continue discussing this below. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 14 December 2020

The Wikiversity logo was updated in 2017 to File:Wikiversity logo 2017.svg, but this template still uses File:Wikiversity-logo.svg. Please replace [[File:Wikiversity-logo.svg|30x30px| ]] with [[File:Wikiversity logo 2017.svg|30x30px| ]]. Thanks. GreenComputer (talk) 02:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

TfD merge nomination

Template:No article text has been listed at Templates for discussion (nomination). Feel free to weigh in there; thank you. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)^{Moved here. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)}

Moved from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 December 30 § MediaWiki:Nocreatetext

Propose merging MediaWiki:Nocreatetext with Template:No article text.
I ran into the MediaWiki:Nocreatetext notice when testing out the create page input box from H:YFA while logged out. It appears to be a less well-developed duplicate of Template:No article text (which is transcluded at MediaWiki:Noarticletext). The stated distinction at Template talk:No article text is that one is used when trying to view a non-existent page whereas the other is used when trying to edit a non-existent page, but there seems to be nothing tailored in the notices themselves, and I'm not sure what distinction we would want to make. Could we merge them to the design at Template:No article text? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about venue from TfD

Wrong venue This is effectively an edit request that belongs at MediaWiki talk:Nocreatetext, not a TfD discussion. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC) Pppery, I put a notice there, but the MediaWiki page is effectively acting like a template, and this is the venue for proposing template merges. It's not a perfect fit, but MediaWiki talk:Nocreatetext has a measly number of watchers, so I'm not sure a proposal there would receive adequate scrutiny, and I initially went to XfD but I'm not sure how technical the folks there are or whether they accept proposed merge-and-redirects. You're free to notify VPT if you think it'd help or anywhere else that might be interested, but after that I think we'll be better off if we focus on the proposal itself than on trying to find the ideal venue. So in that spirit: Do you have any thoughts on whether or not we should do the merge? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

---

•  Note: Some details on how these are used:
  • MediaWiki:Noarticletext (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): shown when viewing a page that does not exist and the user has permission to create it; ={{no article text}}
  • MediaWiki:Noarticletextanon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): same as above but for unregistered users; trancludes the above
  • MediaWiki:Noarticletext-nopermission (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): shown when viewing a page that does not exist and the user does not have permission to create it; ={{no article text|nopermission=yes}}
  • MediaWiki:Nocreatetext (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): shown when attempting to create a page that does not exist and the user does not have permission to create it
• — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Agree that these should be merged. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I've updated MediaWiki:Nocreatetext to be {{no article text|nopermission=yes}}. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 December 2020

I'm here because of a justifiably frustrating experience relayed by an IP at the Teahouse of trying to create a redirect while not autoconfirmed. I've added code to the sandbox that should display a You may also request it be redirected to an existing page. sentence when someone sees this notice at a non-category page they can't create because they are not autoconfirmed. Wikipedia:Article wizard/version1/Redirect is a legacy link, but it appears to be what we still use, since it's where the request redirect button at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories goes.

The code for this page is an utter mess, so please let me know if there are any issues, but to the extent the testpage is useful for this template, it seems to work. I don't anticipate that this will be controversial, but I'll post a {{Please see}} at WT:WikiProject Articles for creation to allow for input and possibly inspire others to fix up this template in other regards. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: I definitely sympathize with the IP's frustrating experience, but I'm not sure putting the direct link to the old wizard here is the right answer. Could we work out a clean way to integrate it into the current wizard? Then we don't need to link to a page that's not part of the current article creation "flow", and it helps prevent this interface message from getting too long (or longer, at least). — Earwig ^talk 23:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The Earwig, I just copied and pasted over to Wikipedia:Article_wizard/Redirects. It'll need semi- or TPE protection, as anything else for a beginner help page is asking for immediate trouble. Once we've done that, we can retarget the button at WP:AFC/Redirects and categories and the other incoming links to the old wizard (there are about 20, so could be much worse) and then mark the old page with {{Superseded}}.

There's definitely room for improvement if anyone wants to take on a more fundamental overhaul of the requested redirects/requested categories systems (it isn't great that they both go to the same page), but I'll leave that for others to take on. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@The Earwig: the page has been semi'd and I've updated the link. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry for the confusion, but my suggestion was that we link to Wikipedia:Article wizard/Redirects directly from the wizard, rather than adding it here. — The Earwig ^talk 21:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The Earwig, oh, you mean linking to it from the WP:Article wizard start page? I'm not sure that many users who end up on the first page are really looking to create a redirect, and it's pretty important we keep the wizard as simple as possible, so I'm not sure we'd want to add it there. That's also somewhat tangential to the request here, as even if we add it to the first page of the wizard, we'd still want to add a direct link here to avoid making people click twice.

There is a lot of low-hanging fruit in terms of improving the wizard; see this post I made back in March, which is very much related. For the sake of doing one thing at a time, though, I'd like to see this implemented first before tackling the rest. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, yes. You say that not many users encountering the article wizard are trying to create a redirect, but surely that reasoning applies here to an even greater degree? Most users who see this template aren't trying to create anything, let alone a redirect. That's why I think it makes more sense to put the redirect flow in the wizard itself, where we know we've captured anyone who needs help creating something.

And I certainly agree that we want to keep these things as simple as possible. If anything, I would like to trim this template further—for example, for an IP on a missing article, there are two links to search for the title in the first three lines—but that is also tangential to your request. The old version of the wizard allowed users to create redirects, so it makes sense the current one would as well, though appropriately de-emphasized since it won't be of interest to most users? I'm not sure. — The Earwig ^talk 07:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

The IP's workflow seems plausible enough: they search for a term that didn't exist, clicked on the redlink in the results, were given this notice, and clicked on the Article Wizard. An anecdote of one isn't great, but I'm not sure where we'd get anything more definitive.

At the risk of complicating further, I just remembered that there's also Wikipedia:New_user_landing_page, which is (I think?) the notice given to non-autoconfirmed users instead of this one, and is likely to face a similar issue. At this point my head is spinning quite a bit from all the changes that need to be made in this area. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

 Administrator note discussion is still obviously going on above, feel free to reactivate the edit request when consensus for a specific change is ready. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The Earwig, do you have any remaining objection to this? We updated so that it's using the modern wizard, and there's plenty of room for improvement beyond that but we should let the perfect be the enemy of the good. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Sdkb, sorry to be a stick in the mud, but I just don't like the idea of putting the link here. I linked to this discussion from Wikipedia talk:Article wizard to hopefully solicit more input. I'm willing to make the change if there is consensus, but as it stands I don't think it's the right solution. — The Earwig ^talk 16:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll also cross-post to WT:AFC. Primefac (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is of any help, but a bit ago there was another attempted AfC redirect. Perryprog (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 25 January 2021

Please change [{{fullurl:{{#invoke:String|replace|source={{FULLPAGENAME}}|­}}|action=purge}} try the purge function] to [[Special:Purge/{{FULLPAGENAME}}|try the purge function]] per the reasoning at Template talk:No article text/Archive 1/Archive 1#Protected edit request on 14 July 2020. 54nd60x (talk) 05:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Izno (talk) 06:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Interwiki links fail on long search strings

The interwiki links in Template:No article text/sister projects fail if a search string is nearly the allowed 255 bytes. There is a possible workaround by making external links instead. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Long interwiki links from nonexistent pages break (permanent link). PrimeHunter (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 January 2021

Please change Template:No article text/sister projects to what it looks like on Template:No article text/sister projects/sandbox. In short: add Wikispecies, the logo, and (species directory). 54nd60x (talk) 06:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done your proposed change has unexplained removals of encoding functions for some reason? Why should these be removed? If they shouldn't, please re-sync the sandbox from main, make your updates, then reactivate the edit request when ready. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: I added the encoding functions back again. 54nd60x (talk) 05:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 20:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Xaosflux, in doing so, it seems like you also removed the "Wikipedia does not have a template with this exact name" box, so please re-add it. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 20:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@JJPMaster: thanks - somehow I missed that - bad sandbox syncing :( - @54nd60x: please resync the sandbox, make your edits, test, then reactivate the Edit Request when ready. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Fixed now—the edit request was OK, but you accidentally synced the sandbox with Template:No article text instead of Template:No article text/sister projects (whose talk redirects here). — The Earwig (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, reactivated - and fixed the request template above! Will look back in to this again if noone else gets to it first. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I copied it over, so I think this is  Done. Thanks. — The Earwig (talk) 06:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 July 2021

For nopermission, the "You cannot create this article" message sounds angry. Try changing the message. 41.254.65.154 (talk) 09:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done (not an ER, just a suggestion) - feel free to discuss improvements below. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:23, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

New empty talk page state that will override this

See mw:Talk_pages_project/New_discussion#6_August_2021. It just went live for people using the Discussion Tools beta feature. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect advise given to IPs who try to create template pages

Going to https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=Template%3AT%3ATDYK%2Fpreload&editintro=Template%3AT%3ATDYK%2Feditintro&title=Template%3ADid+you+know+nominations%2Fasdssdfsdkfsdskdsfd&create=Create+nomination while not logged in, I'm presented with a (correct) message that I do not have permission to create the page. However, the message incorrectly states that I must also be autonconfirmed, when actually all I need to do is to create an account. I confirmed this with an unconfirmed alt account. Could we please fix? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't say must but may: "You may need to log in or create an account and be autoconfirmed to start this page".

The template makes a switch on {{#invoke:Effective protection level|create|{{#invoke:String|replace|source={{FULLPAGENAME}}|­}}}}. It returns user for IP's on Template:Did you know nominations/asdssdfsdkfsdskdsfd. The switch currently has no |user= so it falls through to |#default=. I don't know whether it would always be correct to add a |user= which doesn't mention the possibility of needing autoconfirmation. 212.242.97.1 (talk) 00:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh, you are right about "may" vs. "must". I'd still say that we ought to find a way to make it say what the protection status of the page actually is, though, rather than leaving it undefined. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I think this edit in the sandbox should fix it. – SD0001 (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 12 October 2021

Please implement SD0001's sandbox edit from above. Thanks, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done @Sdkb and SD0001: - this has been added, please let me know if any issues. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Coud we add a Draft: option with an internal link?

Could we please add a 4th reason why the page was not found? It is quite possible that the article that we search exist in the Draft namespace. We could show an internal link. The link will become blue or red when the page exists/does not exist in the Draft namespace... Geertivp (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 9 June 2022

Please remove the lines that say "user=..."

The reason is there are multiple reasons why this protection level may show up. Users need to be autoconfirmed to create pages in namespace, and certain namespaces like Gadget: and Gadget definition: namespaces almost no one can create pages in. A generic umbrella message does a much better job at covering cases where protection is not available than a specific message that only applies in one specific case. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 00:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done this request isn't very clear, I'm not worried at all about those unused namespaces - and guidance about editing userspage is useful. Perhaps this can be improved, but not by just deleting parts that seem useful. Any non-trivial change should be worked up on Template:No article text/sandbox first as well. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:22, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 October 2022

Change "You need to log in or create an account" to "You need to log in or create an account and be autoconfirmed". 24.244.23.35 (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done this already appears to be included, please make your proposed change in the Template:No article text/sandbox, test, then reactivate this request if needed. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 March 2023

Please implement my changes in the sandbox.

I added the mainspace detection to keep No article text the same as Wikipedia:New user landing page, which should also be updated with the text {{No article text/mainspace|nopermission=yes}}. For logged in users who can create the page, the No article text remains the same as before.

The other thing I added is a button to request the creation of a page using the submit an edit request form. This is helpful so that established users can quickly request a page be created for whatever reason.

I hope that my changes help to streamline the experience for new users. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 14:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit protected}} template. This removes helpful links in mainspace (search, deletion log, and Special:WhatLinksHere) and reverts the last three edits to this template. Creation of talk pages for nonexistent pages should not be encouraged. Also, please see WP:VPT#Proposed change to the behavior of Wikipedia:New user landing page. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 6 July 2023

Change the text "Why was the page I created deleted?." to "Wikipedia:Why was the page I created deleted?" at the end of the fmbox, removing the unnecessary full stop at the end, as there is already a terminating puncuation, the question mark. Purplemountainman^talk contribs 02:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Done! -- Luk ^talk 21:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 January 2024

Create a detection system for the deprecated name spaces so the no article text page doesn't claim you can create it while logged in. Gadget:example, Gadget talk:example, Gadget definition:example, and Gadget definition talk:example all claim that the page can be created while logged in, even though this is obviously impossible. The template is probably just lacking consideration for gadget name spaces. Related discussion found here. -³²²UbnBr₂ (Talk | Contributions | Actions) 17:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I can throw together something for this in the sandbox sometime in the next couple hours, although I can't think of a good way to test it. LittlePuppers (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

sandbox / diff. LittlePuppers (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done The namespace isn't technically deprecated, more like not supported yet, so the wording you added is incorrect. This is not something anyone not looking for trouble should ever see, so I just went ahead and suppressed the creation sentence entirely for those namespaces since it isn't worth adding more explanation to them. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Yep, that seems like a reasonable solution. I was trying to figure out the history here (WP:NS lists it as deprecated), but I wasn't really getting anywhere. LittlePuppers (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The respective talk pages for these namespaces still give "broken" creation links. I think just removing them would be fine. -³²²UbnBr₂ (Talk | Contributions | Actions) 20:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

That's actually a completely different bug, which affects a lot more pages than just gadget definition talk, i.e Neha Khan 2. I seen no reason to paper over this corner case until the broader bug is fixed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I've emerged from the rabbit hole you lead me into, and fixed a bunch more corner cases, although some obscure ones still remain to fix. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome and thanks! -³²²UbnBr₂ (Talk | Contributions | Actions) 00:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Ns:Gadget

User:Pppery, can we eliminate the transclusion showing at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Ns:Gadget? For some reason, it (along with Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Ns:Gadget definition) just showed up today in the database report. I don't know what changed. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed. Sigh, why do these namespaces keep propping up. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)