Just a technicality, but it means that the current wording isn't even incorrect. You can ask for it to be created" - Which in conjunction with the link to AFC is correct, since that is precisely what AFC is for: To request that the page (not the article) be created by someone else. 213.168.116.251 ( talk) 20:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC) Reply Also, technically (although that nuance will be lost on almost all newbies and even many established editors), the message says "The page "$1" does not exist. So, although I don't feel strongly either way, I personally prefer the current wording. The more general wording, if technically a bit incorrect since we link to just AFC and not RA, leads the interested and/or confused person to the more in-depth explanation of the possible avenues at the top of the AFC page ( WP:RA does not contain such a simple explanation). I don't believe that being over-specific wrt the linked process page is helpful to the average newbie (neither would giving both links to AFC and RA, for that matter, it would cause even greater confusion). They can submit the material and sources, or they can request an article to be written by someone else. Perhaps "submit an article for creation" instead? Gurch ( talk) 20:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC) Reply Well, people can do either. Gurch ( talk) 18:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC) Reply Imho the link to WP:AFC takes care of any potential confusion people who follow that link are automatically given an explanation of the AFC process, also including a prominent link to the alternative Wikipedia:Requested articles process. doesn't help that there's no way to distinguish when displaying interface messages between users who can create articles and users who can't. Ruslik_ Zero 18:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC) Reply Thanks a bunch! - 213.168.116.251 ( talk) 18:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC) Reply "Ask for it to be created" suggests requesting an article, not submitting one. For search help, please visit Help:Searching. You can ask for it to be created, but consider checking the search results below to see whether it is already covered. How about this then: The page „ $1“ does not exist. Since the change of the messages, the quickest access for non-autoconfirmed users to the deletion logs is by manually entering the url this is the situation I would very much like to amend. This will give them an opportunity to see whether the page had been created before and if and why it was subsequently deleted. as in: "You can ask for it to be created"), but the main idea here is to empower IP editors and once again give them quick and easy access to the deletion log for the page they searched for. Ruslik_ Zero 09:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Reply Ok, we could additionally supply a link to WP:AFC (e.g. Do you have a suggestion on how to improve the wording and make it less misleading? - 87.79.210.22 ( talk) 20:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC) Reply "You can ask for it to be created". Ruslik_ Zero 16:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC) Reply Thank you for your valid criticism. 213.196.214.196 ( talk) 07:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC) Reply But it is misleading as the page can not be directly created. It may be created ( Starting guide), but consider checking the search results below to see whether it is already covered.įor search help, please visit Help:Searching.įeel very free to adjust this proposal, but I believe the link to the non-existing article page (with immediate access to the deletion log) and the link to WP:YFA are highly valuable to prospective new contributors, and I for one would very much like to include them both in this message (especially since the YFA link is no longer being presented to non-autoconfirmed users via MediaWiki:Noarticletext). It is inspired in part by the German Wikipedia de:MediaWiki:Searchmenu-new message which presents the link to Dein erster Artikel ( Your first article) to all users. The proposed message below is merely my own preliminary suggestion.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |