MediaWiki talk:Searchmenu-new

MediaWiki:Searchmenu-new appears above the search results on Special:Search if the searched-for item doesn't exist and if the user has permission to create that page. The equivalent if the item does exist is MediaWiki:Searchmenu-exists. Note: if nothing at all matches the query, MediaWiki:Search-nonefound is shown in addition to MediaWiki:Searchmenu-new.
This interface message or skin may also be documented on MediaWiki.org or translatewiki.net.
The page forms part of the MediaWiki interface, and can only be edited by administrators and interface editors.
To request a change to the page, add {{edit fully-protected}} to this page, followed by a description of your request. Consider announcing discussions you add here at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) to bring more people to the discussion.

New wording

Somehow this wording, just doesn't seem right, I propose this:

There is currently no page titled "$1" (create this page now)
Consider checking the search results below to see whether a page at this location may be redundant to another page, and if appropriate, you may choose to create a redirect at this title instead.

Or something like this. The "create this page now" link would go to one of those full URL's to the edit page. ViperSnake151 Talk 03:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good until you got to the second line. Part of the reason for the recent search redesign was the unintelligible mess that the old one was due to the many lines of junk irrelevant to readers that appeared at the top of the old one. Let's not start putting that back. Gurch (talk) 09:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"search results below"

This message says "but consider checking the search results below to see whether it is already covered" even when there are no such results. This is confusing. Gurch (talk) 09:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Breakage with fulltext search

The current version breaks badly with searches involving the prefix: search keyword, including the fulltext searches found on many large project-space pages such as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Searching for some text that's not found with the specified prefix will suggest creating some redlinked page like Garbagetext prefix:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, which is just plain wrong. Given that the current text is plenty useful for default searches, is there anything that can salvage it for those projectspace fulltext searches? — Gavia immer (talk) 03:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article wizard2.0

Hi, I'd like to add a reference to the Wikipedia:Article wizard2.0. Current version:

You may create the page "$1", but consider checking the search results below to see whether it is already covered.

Proposed:

You may create the page "$1" (you may want to use the Article Wizard), but consider checking the search results below to see whether it is already covered.

Rd232 ^talk 01:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Italics

I've gone ahead and changed the boldface to italics. It seemed too obtrusive, given all the bold writing already on the typical search page. Please undo my change if you disagree. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While we're being WP:BRD, I've implemented my WP:WIZ2 link. Rd232 ^talk 09:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved down?

Resolved

It appears this text has been moved to below the search results. This is very annoying and makes creating pages harder. Is it an attempt to force people to read the search results first? If so, I think it is misguided. Also "below" is notw wrong. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding request. — AlexSm 14:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found out this wasn't intentional, but a bug. See http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:Code/MediaWiki/55592 --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still, right now the message incorrectly says "search results below", an admin could just remove the word "below" while waiting for a fix. P.S. You can link to revisions like rev:55592. — AlexSm 16:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess the process is much faster when Brion is involved :) — AlexSm 17:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request

{{editprotected}} Please add the following paragraph before the existing one:

For information on all available search options, see [[Wikipedia:Searching]].

(It has been confirmed in discussion with the developer that this - and MediaWiki:Searchmenu-exists, where a similar request has been made - are the messages to which this link needs to be added: see WP:VPT#Search page.)--Kotniski (talk) 12:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: pending outcome of Wikipedia:VPT#Add link to search help. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Renewed request

{{editprotected}} Per the outcome of discussion at WP:VPT#Add link to search help, please add the following paragraph before the existing one:

For information on all available search options, see [[Help:Searching]].

(Similar request made at MediaWiki talk:Searchmenu-exists.) Thanks, --Kotniski (talk) 12:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Replied on the other page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing "Sometimes only the first 51 results are listed below. This is temporary and due to lack of server resources."

Per MediaWiki_talk:Searchmenu-exists. --rainman (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed edit

Please see MediaWiki_talk:Searchmenu-exists#search_message_-_search_help_tidy_up Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 00:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed change

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

See: MediaWiki_talk:Searchmenu-new-nocreate#Post-implementation_feedback (and MediaWiki talk:Searchmenu-new/sandbox) KylieTastic (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see proposal above (thank you KylieTastic, you beat me to it).

97.126.96.239 (talk) 13:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@KylieTastic: just making sure, you are asking for the contents of MediaWiki:Searchmenu-new to be replaced with that of MediaWiki talk:Searchmenu-new/sandbox, correct? — xaosflux ^Talk 15:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Xaosflux, yes per the discussion over at MediaWiki_talk:Searchmenu-new-nocreate#Post-implementation_feedback. So it's the same as now and MediaWiki:Searchmenu-new-nocreate just with the addition of , or you may create the page "$1" directly to differentiate between those that can create themselves (here) and those that cannot over at MediaWiki:Searchmenu-new-nocreate. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done @KylieTastic:. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remove link to the article wizard

Since this message is only shown to editors who can create an article themselves (i.e. logged in to an autoconfirmed account; the rest get MediaWiki:Searchmenu-new-nocreate), there's no point directing them to the article wizard, which just ends up creating extra work for AfC reviewers. If there are no objections I would like to remove the link to AfC and use the same start page link format as Template:No article text, so it will become:

The page "$1" does not exist. You can create it.

And so on for different namespaces. – Joe (talk) 13:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was added in 2022 and been stable for a couple years. Perhaps it is helpful for newer editors to have draftspace as an option? Will let WT:AFC know and get some more opinions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFC is not required, but I know a good number of editors who want to go through AFC, mainly because they still want an extra set of eyes before it gets put into mainspace. In other words, I would argue against the "no point" statement.Primefac (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was coming here to express the exact same sentiment that Primefac has. I believe it has value. I do not feel strongly enough to argue passionately against its removal, but I feel it would be unhelpful to remove it 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can leave the pointiness argument for another day, but surely the subset of editors that know they don't have to use AfC but choose to anyway do not need to be pointed to it here? NPP still provides an extra pair of eyes for articles created directly in the normal way. – Joe (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming I was an editor checking to see if a page existed, and it didn't, and I wanted to use AFC (via the Wizard) for my creation, I would much rather have a direct link to the Wizard than have to either type in the Wizard's URL manually or find a bookmark or whatever. Primefac (talk) 21:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't have to: if you follow the link to edit a red link, the first line on the page is Before creating an article, please read Help:Your first article. We recommend that new editors use the Article wizard. – Joe (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...which is two clicks instead of one, and slightly less prominent being buried in the editintro. Primefac (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but as AfC is an optional process aimed primarily at new editors, I think that's justified. Also note that this was the status quo until a little over two years ago and nobody seems to have struggled with it. – Joe (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because someone can create directly does not mean they have the knowledge/experience/confidence/desire to do so. I certainly reached the level to be able to create way before I knew enough to do so. The current message gives them the option of either route. I really don't believe anyone who has the ability to create the most basic of main-space articles would be fooled by having options. Is there any indication that editors are currently confused and feel pushed to AfC? I've never looked into the stats of what percentage of AfC submissions are from editors who don't have to use it to even guess if this could be an issue? KylieTastic (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've no stats, but anecdotally I encounter a lot of new editors—and some surprisingly old ones—that don't realise that AfC is not required. They get the message to use it when they first start and just keep doing that, because nobody tells them otherwise. I think interface messages like this might play a role in that. At the very least we should consider putting "create it" first, because creating directly is and always has been the preferred method for users that aren't brand new and don't have a COI. – Joe (talk) 21:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting Joe because I have had the opposite experience. Over the past couple years I have reached out to editors who had at least one draft accepted and had at least another pending (or I had just accepted), probably a dozen or so, to let them know they did not need to submit their drafts to AfC. Some of them I found using @KylieTastic's AfC accepts/decline per submitter Quarry query who had several drafts recently accepted. While the Accept notice does tell them as Primefac states below, I figured they had not read it. To my surprise all except one told me they preferred to have the review. I also reached out to a prolific creator a couple times who had been blocked from Article space because their articles had been deemed poor quality so were forced to use AfC to encourage them to appeal because their drafts were always accepted but they stated submitting drafts did not bother them. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ S0091 (talk) 16:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few years ago, I talked to one editor who didn't know this, and tried directly creating his next article. Someone yelled at him and sent the article to AFD, where it was deleted. His main interest area was firearms manufacturers, and I think that people who create articles about controversial subjects might appreciate the "endorsement" from AFC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The message is neutral, and gives two options. It does not say that AFC is required, nor does it say you must use it; if anything, the "may create [it] directly" makes it sound like the more useful option than going through the draft process. I will also note that every talk page notice for accepted drafts includes the message of "you do not need to use AFC and can create pages manually" (for AC users of course). Primefac (talk) 21:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think with interface messages it's important to remember that most people follow the path of least resistance – in this case likely the first link. That drives people through AfC who don't need to use it. Simplifying the message to present only one link presents a clearer path for them, is in line with what Template:No article text does, and still presents the option to use the article wizard in the next step (see above). – Joe (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are there multiple, different, message depending on how you got in to the search function? When I search for a nonexistent page I get the message: The page "Things about stuff" does not exist. You can create a draft and submit it for review, or you may create the page "Things about stuff" directly, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered. - giving both options. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes @Xaosflux the message changes depending on namespace, also for those that can not create the target themselves there is MediaWiki:Searchmenu-new-nocreate. KylieTastic (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I don't think that is a good idea. The create the page now option is already clearly present, but some editors may want to start it in a draft space. I'd think that if you felt like starting an article right that second you may not have it ready for readers on your first click of the save button. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the draft option should be removed but if your theory is people are selecting draft because it is the first option, we could try flipping the order so creating in mainspace is the first option. S0091 (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea.

I was thinking that it'd be nice to show it to people who are autoconfirmed but not extended confirmed, but I don't think that's technologically possible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why we would remove the option for anyone. At the time I wrote the above note, out of the most recent 10 AfC submissions 7 were EC with hundreds if not thousands of edits. S0091 (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That might be the result of the fitness gym paradox (everyone at the gym is fitter than you, because the people who spend the most time exercising at the gym are seen more by the other patrons due to their long hours).

My thinking is basic UI: Only the most important/used things should be shown up front, because if you keep cramming all the possibly and occasionally useful things into the page, it becomes harder to find anything. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't follow your analogy but I am going to assume I am the fittest in that pretend world where I go to a gym.:) The cramming of things is not an issue in this situation because there are only two options presented in one short sentence. The entire message someone receives is three short sentences, 29 words not counting the proposed article's title as that can obviously vary. S0091 (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually WAID, I wonder if being presented with a red linked option is confusing for a newer editor. So the message is (if no search results):

The page "Ghhhnk" does not exist. You can create a draft and submit it for review, or you may create the page "Ghhhnk" directly.

First the message does not make it clear you need click on the red link to create the article directly which might seem like common sense to some but I could see someone not being sure what to do. I think most people understand blue links but because it is a red link and red often means no/stop (or be very cautious) I would be hesitant to click on it unless instructed to do so. Given the choice, I likely I would select the blue linked option because it seems like the safest.

I am not sure how to help someone feel ok clicking a red link but I think this would be a little better:

The page "Ghhhnk" does not exist. Click on "Ghhhnk" to create the page directly or you may create a draft and submit it for review,

S0091 (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is sound reasoning. (In case anyone's thinking about copying that, the terminal punctuation needs fixing first, and there should be a comma added in the middle: "directly, or you".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good compromise. – Joe (talk) 09:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No change. After reading this discussion, I am not convinced this needs fixing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Per the discussion above, please change the output of the template to read:

The page "$1" does not exist. Click on "$1" to create the page directly, or you can create a draft and submit it for review.

With the second clause adjusted to fit the namespace, as it is now. The syntax is a bit intricate so I don't want to fuck it up by trying to do it myself. – Joe (talk) 09:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Primefac (talk) 10:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]