Help talk:Your first article

When not "first article"

A link to this article always shows up whenever an editor attempts to create a new article, no matter how experienced in creating articles. This is probably unnecessary: if the editor in question has already created an article (or 10, or 100) then why offer them a link to this page? Can we not set a flag so that a link to this does not show up for experienced editors? Does anyone know how to do this? A loose necktie (talk) 09:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

A loose necktie, that text is generated from MediaWiki:Newarticletext, which any admin can edit. As far as I'm aware, only user access groups and device types can act as switches for toggling visibility. I suppose the message could be hidden for autopatrolled if it's really that annoying. No other user perm can accurately identify experience with article creation (even pulling someone's "articles created" like at xtools:pages – which I'm pretty sure is an API hit that can't be implemented clientside – might return false positives for editors who have created a bunch of SNG-compliant stubs but nothing more substantive / difficult).

MediaWiki talk:Newarticletext would be the proper venue for this edit request. Folly Mox (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

By the way for clarity I didn't mean to associate your personal xtools:pages link with my description of what a possible false positive might look like. I haven't actually checked what types of articles you've created or imply any inexperience on your part. I just like linking xtools reports. Folly Mox (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

2 questions

Should this page include information in the lede about article creation being restricted to autoconfirmed users, like in Wikipedia:Article creation, which was soft-merged into this page? Also, can someone fix the mobile template? It generates a red thing on desktop, but normally on mobile. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 04:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

JuxtaposedJacob, the red thing you mentioned was from I guess an accidental copypaste in your edit, which broke a template. CanonNi fixed this earlier, and I undid much of your change to the Short description, which I felt was a little inaccurate and not particularly illuminating.

Obviously we want to guide new editors towards AfC without giving the impression that it's mandatory. That's a pretty important function of this page, and one reason we try to route people here to read the instructions and set themselves up for success.

There's already a paragraph towards the bottom, which displays for autoconfirmed and above, that they can publish directly in mainspace. Lots of people are directed here after an AfC decline; putting text in the lead paragraph to the effect of "don't bother reading the rules and resubmitting: just publish in mainspace"— this seems counterproductive.

And I don't think I like your change of which you can help out with → with which you can help out. Dangling participles are not a big deal, and the prose of this help page is geared towards accessibility for people who may not have a high level of English fluency. [T]asks with which you can help out doesn't even really strike me as idiomatic English: it's mixing a formal with which and informal help out, consequently leaving the register all incongruent and stuff. Folly Mox (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for assistance and feedback @Folly Mox. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 04:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Apologies if my tone came off as unpleasant. I was having a grumpy day yesterday. Folly Mox (talk) 13:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

No worries, friend, hope you have a good day! JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 16:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

How do i make an article?

PLEASE TELL ME HOWWWWWW Starmaglclove (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The instructions on this page (Help:Your first article) are pretty decent. Figuring out the topic and whether it would make a useful article is the first step. CMD (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Ty but how do i open it? Starmaglclove (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Starmaglclove, the draft article you created previously was deleted as test content. If you want to experiment, you can use your sandbox.

I'd encourage you to stop screwing around before attempting article creation. Edits like removing references, introducing typos, adding unsourced content, mislabeling terms, whatever this is— these give the unfortunate impression you're not here to help. Almost every edit you've made has been undone, so I'll not spend any more time linking them here. Folly Mox (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

"Your first article" Hatnote

Moved from User talk:Sdkb § "Your first article" Hatnote

 – Sdkb ^talk 03:36, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

The hatnote for this article (Help:Your first article) that I added linked to the Wikipedia:How to make a redirect page, and the reason that I added it was so newcomers who wanted to make a redirect wouldn't confuse the latter page with the former page. You are right that the "Your first article" page is in very high demand, but that is all the more reason why clearing a misunderstanding is needed. I don't see a good reason why that hatnote shouldn't be there other than "it's a risky edit in a very prominent article", and Wikipedia's guidelines do say to be bold with your edits so I don't see why that's necessarily an issue. If you think it stands out too much for a hatnote, then it can alternatively be put into a "see also" section, or just as an extra line in the middle of some paragraph. I understand the concept of due and undue weight of where an important text should be placed, and I see your point, but redirects are, nonetheless, an integral part of wikipedia. Senomo Drines (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

For context for anyone else, this refers to the back-and-forth Senomo Drines and I had in the summaries of the most recent edits to the page.

Some brief things to add: We should follow the Wikipedia:Hatnote guideline, which establishes that their purpose is navigational. I would have no issue with a link to it being in a see also section; that seems appropriate. Beyond that, interested in hearing from others. Sdkb ^talk 03:40, 13 March 2025 (UTC)