MediaWiki talk:Nocreatetext

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Add Link to Register ?[edit]

This message is currently rather deliberately vague. With or without a link to Special:Userlogin (and I really don't see why there shouldn't be one), the message should at least explain why the user cannot create a page and how to overcome this. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've clarified it. The Login link should remain out. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-5 23:01
    • The point is that it should clarify that page creation is still available to registered users, e.g. "Wikipedia has temporarily restricted unregistered users from creating new pages." Right now the message is extremely uninformative and would not be helpful for new users in getting on track. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain why the link should remain out? The restriction against unregistered users creating articles is dubious enough as it is -- at the very least, the error message must clearly explain the reason the action is denied and what the anonymous user must do in order to create an article (namely, to register). Most importantly, not dead-end the person into a situation where it's not obvious what they need to do in order for them to create the article... --Mysidia (talk) 03:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I really think it'd be a good idea to link to the signup/login page from the message page. These anon users may be absolutely new and miss the signup link at the top. I'd do it myself if I could. - Hahnchen 03:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree, registration should be encouraged in these cases. ∴ here…♠ 06:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think it not only needs a registration link but also an invitation to register listing how simple it is (what you need, how long it takes). Right now it's just like an error page which is about as unfriendly and uninviting as you can get. Jellypuzzle 11:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Someone please clarify why there shouldn't be a link to Special:Userlogin. Else, let me be bold and add it myself. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 12:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's also a possibility that the user seeing this page really is registered but not logged in, so the login link is helpful: A special login prompt or 'box' that would allow the user to enter the information right then, would be most beneficial too. --Mysidia (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of making second "Recent changes" page which would log anonymous changes but my idea still has some flaws, I have to think about it more --Aperculum 18:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apologize to recipient ?[edit]

Do you think the following clause could be added to this message? "We apologize for the inconvenience, but in light of recent events, this action had to be taken, and we hope it proves beneficial to everyone involved in Wikipedia."

--  Denelson83  04:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't really think we need to justify the new restrictions here, especially with a vague and not-very-elucidating reference to "recent events." It would however be good to finish the message with, "We apologize for the inconvenience." Christopher Parham (talk) 05:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary?[edit]

I feel it might be a little, I dunno, Orwellian to assert that this state of affairs is "temporary". I realize we are currently just testing out this idea, but if it turns out that we and/or Jimbo like it, it's going to stay on, and the "temporary" situation will have been permanent all along. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We are "testing" the idea but no one has mentioned a time horizon or criteria for accepting or rejecting it on a permanenct basis. It seems a little odd to call it "temporary." Demi T/C 18:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I deleted "temporarily". —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

anons can create talk pages[edit]

re-[1] Unregistered editors may, however, create talk pages.

I don't think it is necessary to confuse the issue. I'd rather this be as simple as possible. Either ask for the page, or create an account. ∴ here…♠ 18:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with this: if they get to this page, they weren't trying to post a Talk message. We want to make sure our error messages are as short as possible. Thus, I asked for an admin to remove the sentence. -- Creidieki 01:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Wikipedia:Introduction[edit]

An IP user trying to create an article is probably new here; thus, I think it's appropriate to have a general "welcome to Wikipedia" link. I asked for an admin to add a link to Wikipedia:Introduction. We should try to keep this error message as short as possible, because of the way that people read error messages (skimming). But I think this link really needed to go in. -- Creidieki 02:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion from WP:VPP[edit]

I've changed the text (and MediaWiki:Nocreatetitle as well) per the suggestion at WP:VPP. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to first few sentences.[edit]

This message was a bit confused in the previous version. First, it mentioned that the user could create an article (not quite true), with a link to Help:Starting a new page. Then it linked to WP:AFC, and then *after* that it told them to log in. I've tried to rearrange the message so that it doesn't go back-and-forth, by putting the AFC notice after the "create an account" notice. I hope this was a help. -- Creidieki 19:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Text for the Introduction link[edit]

Since this is, fundamentally, an error message, we should try to make our links verbs, rather than nouns. I originally added the Introduction link with a link around the words "read our introduction", and it was changed to "read our introduction". I think that this is inappropriate for an error message, and have changed it back (with assistance from an admin). -- Creidieki 19:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I too agree with you here. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Include name of page?[edit]

Someone brought up this suggestion: having the message display the name of the page attempted to be created. I tried using $1 to implement this and see if it would work, but it didn't. Thoughts on this and whether we should try to add that in? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Red links now more confusing than they used to be.[edit]

Much of the time, a person following a red link is not intending to create a new page, but rather is interested in the information that might be found if the link were not red. They may be unfamiliar with Wikipedia conventions, or they may simply have forgotten that red links go nowhere. Search functionality is probably the most important thing to include here. I know this functionality used to be found in the MediaWiki:Noarticletext template. I can't find the template that is currently being used when one removes the "&action=edit" from a the URL of a red link, but that template's functionality is ideal, and ought to be added here. As an alternative, red links could all have the "&action=edit" bit removed first, and only added when the user then verifies that they would like to create the article. Coelacan 19:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added in a link now to search for that title. Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can search for it if... oops[edit]

If an anonymous or non-logged-in user follows a red link, the standard page that they get now reads:

We don't have an article with this title, (title here), but you can either search for it or create it if you log in or create an account. As an unregistered user, you may also submit the content that you wish to have created. Please read our introduction for more information about Wikipedia.

There are several problems with these few sentences. In decreasing order of importance:

  • The most natural reading of the first sentence is that the scope of the if-clause includes everything after "you can": in other words, it seems to assert that you have to log in before you can do a search. Oops!
  • The wording "search for it" implies that the article exists, even though you've just been told that it doesn't.
  • The words "wish to have created" relate grammatically to the content, but it should be the article.
  • The words "as an unregistered user, you" seem to imply that you are known to be an unregistered user rather than one who is not logged in.

My redraft also attempts to clarify the distinction between writing the content and creating the article:

We don't have an article with the title (title here), but you can write it. You can create the article yourself if you log in or create an account; otherwise you can submit the content to be put into the new article.
Also, you can search for existing articles containing "(title here)".
Please read our introduction for more information about Wikipedia.

I'm not really happy with "You can search", either -- I think something like "Click here to search", but that doesn't flow so well after "but you can create/write it". I also think that since the search is what most people will want to do, it should logically come first rather than the cheerful "you can write/create it". But I presume the way it's done now was a policy decision.

I don't expect to come back and check for responses here; if the people with the power to edit this message disagree with my opinion that changes are needed, I'm fine with that. But I think it's pretty clear-cut that they are needed, and I hope they'll be made.

207.176.159.90 08:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've revamped the whole thing. What do you think? —Mets501 (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"You need to be logged in to nominate an article for deletion."[edit]

I've added a special check to the template in order to make the message clearer if an anon tries to nominate an article for deletion. I've made it a #switch: so that similar messages for other processes requiring page creation can be easily added if desired. Feel free to tweak the wording. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

automatic transclusion of deletion log[edit]

Since I'm not very savvy on where to discuss the new 'transcluded deletion log' effect that works on MediaWiki:Noarticletext and MediaWiki:newarticletext, it should be mentioned here that this page does not currently have that functionality enabled. 64.126.24.11 18:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What makes IPs unable to create non-talk pages[edit]

What makes IPs unable to create non-talk pages? Dagoth Ur, Mad God (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An edit in the default user group rights settings. The createpage feature is disabled. Compare Special:Listgrouprights and [2]. I guess it is that way because of vandalism, I don’t know. :) — H92 (t · c · no) 12:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was changed following the Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography controversy in 2005. Read about it in the Signpost here. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article Wizard[edit]

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? I've made that change at MediaWiki:Noarticletext already, but this is the page that actually should show this notice. Amalthea 16:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, did that. Amalthea 10:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, undid it here, see MediaWiki talk:Noarticletext for more. Amalthea 12:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reword[edit]

Change the text:

Wikipedia does not have a talk page with this exact title.

to:

Wikipedia has restricted the ability to create talk pages to logged-in users.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by M'encarta (talk • contribs)

 Not done - This message is not displayed when a user tries to create a page, it's displayed when they try to navigate to a page that doesn't exist. They may have no desire to create the page. Telling them that WP has restricted the ability to create the page when they are just trying to navigate to it is confusing. —SW— communicate 14:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 29 June 2012[edit]

Please change [[{{ns:Project}}:Why was my page deleted?|Why was my page deleted?]] to [[{{ns:Project}}:Why was the page I created deleted?|Why was the page I created deleted?]] per this discussion. 82.132.139.138 (talk) 12:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IPs to be redirected off to Draft namespace[edit]

I suggest we point IPs to the new Draft namespace. Josh Parris 10:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Frankly I'd suggest we take the opportunity to do a redesign of the message. Recent redesigns such as that of MediaWiki:Anoneditwarning have been pretty successful, so my team can work on something similar. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 19:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request[edit]

Sometimes, a article is "salted". If a user views a "salted" page, this message will appear. But this message includes a "Login or create an account". So, when a registered user view a "salted" article, a "Login or create an account" will appear. I think:A parser function should be used on PROTECTIONLEVEL. If the article is "salted", it should say "This page is protected from creation."S/s/a/z-1/2 (talk) 03:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: @Ssaz 12: Could you put your suggested code in the sandbox at MediaWiki talk:Nocreatetext/sandbox? After you have got the code working and tested it, then we can update the main message. If you need help with the coding, you can ask at WP:VPT. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I already put the text into the sandbox, and i tested using Special:ExpandTemplates. If you like,you can also change the text a little bit. S/s/a/z-1/2 (talk) 01:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done @Ssaz 12: I added links to the administrator and autoconfirmed user help pages as well. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request August 12, 2014[edit]

 – Request originally left on page displayed to logged-in users. /~huesatlum/ 21:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When an unregistered user accesses a page that does not exist on Wikipedia, the user does not see a space after the name of the page. Please put a space after the name of the page that does not exist on Wikipedia. Sam Hnri (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Exactly which "name of the page" are you talking about? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Facepalm Apologies, I misunderstood. The error is actually in Template:No article text, where a space should be added after the closing bold and italic marks, before the #if function in to start the '''''{{FULLPAGENAME}}'''''{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}. /~huesatlum/ 00:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Puzzled. If Template:No article text is the page to be amended, why was this request moved from Template talk:No article text? --Redrose64 (talk) 08:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That was the misunderstanding, I think. Anyway, this is now Done. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 27 October 2014[edit]

When I come across a salted page, I generally want to know why, but the interface doesn't currently give any obvious method of getting to this information. The link to "View full log" works, but is misleadingly placed within the deletion+move log, and there's no indication that it works for the protection log too. Also, it would be helpful to be able to access the protection log individually.

I'd suggest changing these lines: 

* {{#switch:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:create|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}
|sysop=This page is protected from creation, so only [[Wikipedia:Administrators|administrators]] can create it.
|autoconfirmed=This page is semi-protected from creation, so only [[Wikipedia:User access levels#Autoconfirmed users|autoconfirmed users]] can create it.

to this: 

* {{#switch:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:create|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}
|sysop=This page is protected from creation, so only [[Wikipedia:Administrators|administrators]] can create it. You may wish to check the [{{fullurl:Special:Log/protect|page={{FULLPAGENAMEE}}}} protection log].
|autoconfirmed=This page is semi-protected from creation, so only [[Wikipedia:User access levels#Autoconfirmed users|autoconfirmed users]] can create it. You may wish to check the [{{fullurl:Special:Log/protect|page={{FULLPAGENAMEE}}}} protection log].

This would be analogous to the current link to the deletion log for deleted pages. (I apologise for the lack of newlines; nesting templates inside bulleted lists is always a little hairy, and this method has the advantage of being unlikely to disrupt the page layout.)

--ais523 13:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you give an example where this message appears that isn't accompanied by MediaWiki:Titleprotected, which displays the most recent protection message right on the page? Anomie⚔ 00:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: Marking this as not done pending resolution of Anomie's concern. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Like_this_one (which shows the deletion log, but not the protection log). Can you give an example where it is accompanied by MediaWiki:Titleprotected? I'm worrying that we may be looking at different things. (Perhaps there's a difference between the views shown to administrator and non-admin accounts?) --ais523 10:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
When I view that link as an administrator, it displays MediaWiki:noarticletext, not this message. When I view it as an IP or non-admin, it displays MediaWiki:noarticletext-nopermission, not this message. When I view [3] as an IP, it does display this message, but in combination with MediaWiki:titleprotected. Anomie⚔ 18:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! I think MediaWiki:noarticletext-nopermission is the message I'm actually getting, and I failed to distinguish between that message and this one because they look basically identical. I miss the days when Special:Allmessages was just one page and actually contained the text of the messages in question, rather than everything being devolved to a network of separate templates. I might have to give up MediaWiki-space copyediting; Wikipedia's moved on since I left, and I can't keep track of everything I used to be able to any more. --ais523 22:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for update[edit]

Please change the page content with this:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.150.143 (talk) 01:59, 2 November 2014‎

Not done: Why? --Redrose64 (talk) 11:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's important to let IP users know that they cannot create it. 98.180.150.193 (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your proposal would break the first #switch: statement, and remove a lot of the template for no clear reason. This includes messages that the person needs to be logged in. Logging in is also the critical factor, merely registering is insufficient. I am registered; if I log out, I'm still registered, but can no longer create non-talk pages. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then try this:

TfD merge nomination[edit]

MediaWiki:Nocreatetext 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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Nocreatetext&oldid=1108874369"