MediaWiki talk:Newarticletext

Comments

I like this new text, but two comments: one, it's showing up on talk pages (can it be restricted to just the main Wikivoyage namespace?), and two, can "Big city" and "Huge city" be removed from the options, and "Small city" be changed to just "City"? From the template descriptions my understanding is that "big" and "huge" refer to the amount of Wikivoyage information, NOT the geographic size of the city, so all city articles should start out as "Small city" articles, right? -- (WT-en) Ryan 14:48, 6 June 2006 (EDT)

It can't be restricted by namespace out of the box, unfortunately. I have no problem trimming the number of links, though; please go to it. I think it might also be nice to have a "User page template", so someone creating their user page has a framework to start with. --(WT-en) Evan 14:55, 6 June 2006 (EDT)

I'd rather not leave "city" (i.e. smallcity) as the only option for cities; it's too small for a lot of them. How about "city" (the smallcity template) and "major city" (the bigcity template)? Might I also suggest that "country" be removed from the list of options? I'm reasonably certain that every existing country on the planet has a templated article at this point, and for those rare occasions when one springs fully-formed out of nothingness (unlike the recent Montenegrin independence, which merely required modifying an existing region article), we can go dig up that template the hard way. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 15:53, 6 June 2006 (EDT)

I like the idea of "City" and "Major City". Go for it. Also, what about changing "Major Park" to "National Park"? That template is used (occasionally) for things other than national parks, but I'd guess anyone writing about a huge state park or something similar would get the idea. -- (WT-en) Ryan 16:02, 6 June 2006 (EDT)

Nice. I like this. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 15:40, 6 June 2006 (EDT)

It's bloody brilliant, innit? - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 16:44, 6 June 2006 (EDT) (feeling English today)

Is the template for a Talk page really useful? If someone's starting a new Talk page, a "==Comments==" header is a bit superfluous. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 16:10, 6 June 2006 (EDT)

I created it because it seemed odd to me when I clicked on the "Discussion" link for this page and a message came up asking me to choose a city, region, park, etc template. Having "Talk" there gives new users one more option that makes sense for use on discussion pages. Perhaps the opening text of the Newarticletext template could be re-worded to indicate that the user doesn't HAVE to choose a template, but that might somewhat defeat the purpose of having template links there in the first place.

As to why the Talk template simply prints "==Comments==" in the edit box, it could be anything, but something has to show up if a user selects "Talk" as the type of page they're creating, otherwise there will be an assumption that the link didn't do anything. "Comments" just sort of seemed like a good catch-all header for the types of discussions most new users create, but any other general heading would work as well. Alternatively, an HTML comment or something else could appear, just so long as something shows up. -- (WT-en) Ryan 16:27, 6 June 2006 (EDT)

I support having the talk page template, even if it is redundant, because of Ryan's reasoning. Some people don't bother reading instructions and if an anon editor comes along and wants to say something at least they won't insert a small city template in the talk page. - (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 16:32, 6 June 2006 (EDT)

Disambiguation template

I find that I'm frequently going to Project:Disambiguation pages to copy the outline disambiguation page, and there are a lot of users who keep that outline in a sandbox in the User: space, so it seems worthwhile to put this template as an option on the "automatically populate" list; disambiguation pages seem to be at least as popular as districts, huge cities or parks. The only concern I had was that the list of templates is getting a bit long and wraps with less than (about) 600 pixels, but hopefully that's not a major issue. Apologies if anyone sees this as a controversial change - I wouldn't think it would be, but I'm wrong a lot. -- (WT-en) Ryan 17:26, 30 June 2006 (EDT)

If horizontal space turns out to be an issue, I'd wager that the Phrasebook template could be removed from the list without inconveniencing too many people too often. On the other hand, people can also type {{subst:Disambiguation}} and save, to autofill a page (new or not) with the disambig template. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 17:45, 30 June 2006 (EDT)

Another idea is to have two rows of templates. --(WT-en) Evan 17:58, 30 June 2006 (EDT)

Talk pages

Anyone object if I remove the Talk Page link from this? I actually find it quite annoying and not helpful, anyone else? – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 21:16, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

There's a discussion about the "talk" link above, and the reasoning for it. I don't feel particularly strongly about it, so long as the text is modified so that users don't get confused and start creating talk pages that use the small city template. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:26, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

Ah, nevermind – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 01:25, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

Major City

Looking at Cerrigydrudion, it's clear that a new user clicked on the "major city" link when creating a new article, no doubt due to the fact that Cerrigydrudion is a major city. However, as a result we have a number of sub-headings and sections in this new article that aren't really needed, such as a "By train" section that merely states "No train stations". As I understand it, the Project:Big city article template was meant to be a guide for city articles that have a lot of content and the Project:Small city article template should be used for new articles, so I would propose removing the "Major city" link if others are agreeable. Thoughts? -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:43, 30 June 2010 (EDT)

Embarrassingly I just noticed that four years ago I made the exact same proposal in the above discussion, but with Wikivoyage having grown large enough to now include most of the world's major tourist destinations I think the need for a "major city" link is even lower than it was at the time of the original discussion. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:53, 30 June 2010 (EDT)

Support, Support - Just did a search for the most obscure major cities I could think of; and while I did find some 500.000+ cities not yet on Wikivoyage like Huizhou (pop 2.9 mio) and Bhiwandi (pop. 865,577) if they get created the content would probably be so minuscule that the extra headings are not really necessary and can always be created ad-hoc. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) ^talk 20:20, 30 June 2010 (EDT)

*Bump*. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:16, 1 July 2010 (EDT)

*Bump again*. Any further comment? I'm assuming lack of comment either means people are OK with this change or else haven't seen this discussion. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:43, 2 July 2010 (EDT)

Hadn't seen this, but your proposal makes perfect sense. Please go ahead. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 12:11, 2 July 2010 (EDT)

Done. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:54, 2 July 2010 (EDT)

Customizing message per namespace

Would there be any interest in trying to make this message appear only in the main namespace? Wikipedia's version of this message does so via various coding tricks that allow different code to be executed based on server variables. I could take a stab at trying to make it work here, too. (WT-en) LtPowers 11:15, 30 January 2011 (EST)

Yes. There is no need for it to appear on talk pages, and it currently reads inaccurate for, say, a policy article. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 16:59, 31 January 2011 (EST)

Okay I think it's working. I set up messages for mainspace, Talk, and User. I tried to set one up for User talk too but it isn't working and I can't figure out why. (WT-en) LtPowers 19:16, 31 January 2011 (EST)

I would appreciate some testing if anyone wants to check my work. =) (WT-en) LtPowers 08:38, 1 February 2011 (EST)

Search

WP's version of this has a link to Special:Search/Newarticletext which would allow the user to check whether a page already exists on a topic before creating it again. Perhaps a useful addition? K7L (talk) 01:49, 19 October 2012 (CEST)

Mediawiki:Newarticletext

Swept in from the pub

The Mediawiki:Newarticletext blurb "You've followed a link to a page that doesn't exist yet. To create the page, start typing in the box below..." provides links to create a page, but not the "...or search for this topic in [[special:search/{{PAGENAME}}|existing articles]]" bit. Could this be added, to discourage inadvertently creating pages which we already have under some slightly-variant name? K7L (talk) 13:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, K7L but I don't see anything in Mediawiki:Newarticletext about searching. Can you clarify? Powers ^(talk) 23:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, I appear to have confused Mediawiki:Newarticletext with Mediawiki:Noarticletext. The bit about searching is already in the latter, so no need to change it. K7L (talk) 01:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

"Create new page"

Swept in from the pub

When you create a new page on-wiki, you get a menu of possible templates with which to start your article. The menu reads "City • City District • Region • National Park • Phrasebook • Huge airport • Dive site • Itinerary • Event • Disambiguation • Redirect" currently. There is no link to "rural area" such as Template:Ruralarea skeleton. How do you edit this menu? Or is WMF needed to make this change? New users ought to be aware of all the article templates when creating a new article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@SelfieCity: Done. See Special:Diff/4313111. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 20:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I see. Thanks! You found that page really quickly. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I've edited that page a couple of times (when adding "itinerary" and "event"), so I was a bit familiar with this page. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I saw once I checked the article history. Thanks again! --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)