This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Wikipedia HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Wikipedia Help ProjectHelp
It looks like the discussion has unfortunately gone stale, but I agree with the above that User:Houseblaster/YFA draft is a major improvement over the current version, even if it has some rough edges. Is there still interest in moving it here? This is an information page not a policy or a guideline, so I don't think a full-blown RfC is necessary: consensus on this talk page that it is an improvement would suffice. @HouseBlaster, Folly Mox, Mathglot, S0091, and CactiStaccingCrane: – Joe (talk) 08:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it really is, and it deserves another look and serious consideration. And, yes, there is interest. Thanks for reigniting it. Mathglot (talk) 08:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really dropped the ball on this one. I have the RFC statement and initial support !vote in my notes app, dated 22 August 2023. I don't remember why I never posted it to VPR, although I was helping a friend move that week, and moved house myself the following week.Irrelevant background details aside, and with the declaration that I made 67 edits to that page and 30 to this one, yes please let's get the streamlined version in front of newcomers.Given how frequently newcomers are provided links to Help:Your first article, I was rather surprised last year when not many people seemed to care what it says, but I imagine it's akin to WP:UPPERCASE (kinda how newcomers editing with the Visual Editor are often linked to WP:REFB instead of WP:REFVISUAL, because it's what people are used to linking newcomers to).I evidently proposed a round-robin move in the previous thread, which I still prefer as first choice, to preserve the current contents of this information page, but the draft in userspace should be moved to this title. Folly Mox (talk) 09:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A round robin move would obscure the history and attribution a bit (since the first revision of the new page will be from 29 June 2023 and the attribution link in its summary will become a self-reference). We could instead detach the post-29 June 2023 edits from the old page and merge the remaining history with Houseblaster's draft to form the new page. Then either delete the split history or archive it somewhere else. – Joe (talk) 11:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with almost all the above, with two exceptions. One, I should certainly take as much blame as Folly Mox. I let it linger in my (alt's) userspace for a year. (I used my alt account's user space because I was concerned about the number of subpages in my main user space… which was not a real problem. Live and learn.) My second point of disagreement is that it is not Houseblaster's draft. I started it, but it was truly a team effort.I want to make a few changes before we go live (e.g. we are inconsistent about how you should deal with COIs and there is a MOS:LTAB that needs fixing). But in the interest of not getting stalled, I have every intention of resolving those within 24 hours and if they are not I drop my objection. I think a cut/paste with a WP:CWW edit summary works best, or perhaps a histmerge and moving the last ~year of history to an archive subpage. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 17:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as copy attribution, there is another attribution method that is infrequently used but nevertheless perfectly valid and comes straight out of the ToU, which is simply to name every contributor of the copied source in the edit summary. There are ten total users (four significant) involved in the draft, and the edit summary input field can easily accommodate all of them with plenty of room to spare, if one wanted to go that route.
One other thing to consider: even if hist merge is the best option, we might want to hold off on the merge for some delay after release, in case there is pushback on the new version, and consensus turns against it. It would be annoying to have to ask for a reversal of the hist merge after we had just requested one. Mathglot (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea. There's no harm in keeping the old version around intact for a while, it won't make the histmerge any more or less complicated (I'm also very happy to do the moving and histmerge myself, by the way, if that's what seems like the best route). – Joe (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Joe Roe, would it make a subsequent histmerge more difficult, if the article progressed further during the delay period? We could ask for temp full protection during the interval and just record edit requests at Talk, if that would help any. Mathglot (talk) 22:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No it wouldn't make a difference. Now that there are overlapping histories, it doesn't really matter how long or short they are. – Joe (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Final tweaks
Let's discuss any last-minute thoughts about content before release here. Please add new headings for new subtopics.
Gather sources
I had one thought about section § Gather sources: I think there's way too much about perennial sources, and way too little about books, newspapers, journals, etc. here. I'm not sure if we want to say anything about perennial sources at all, but if we do, do we want to have that long disclaimer about it not being exhaustive, as in sentence #2? To me, that list is more a list of what not to use, and I only ever go there when there's some source that seems borderline, and I want to know what others think. Do we want really want to highlight this page? I'd rather see some of the text about good sources, such as the list at section § The basics. I think we could mention it in a brief sentence such as, "If you are not sure if a particular source is reliable or not, you can consult this list." Mathglot (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RSP is the only place to send editors for real world examples that has broad community consensus. It is also used by at least a couple source highlighter scripts which are used by many AfC and NPP reviewers so I think definitely think it should be mentioned but I agree it needs careful wording. It already states it is some common sources and is not all possible sources so not sure what needs to be changed. S0091 (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's more about proportion and what is *not* mentioned: what we have, is a section called "Gather sources" in a page purporting to tell new users how to do that, which says nada about books, reputable magazines and newspapers, or academic articles, and the *only* concrete example given is the perennial sources page. That just seems way out of proportion to me. Mathglot (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To add images, templates like infoboxes, and categories, see Help:VisualEditor. You can switch editor modes with the pencil icon.
I'm fine with mentioning Visual Editor, but that statement is a a no-go for me; there is no special connection between VE and addition of images, template, or categories, and they should not be mentioned in that bullet. I think it's fine to say something about different ways of editing, like VE, and given that over 50% of editing is now mobile, we should probably briefly add that, too. Mathglot (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm opening a can of worms but, since VE is the default presented to new users (I think?), wouldn't it be better to write the whole thing assuming that they're using that? At this point anyone who consciously switches to source editing is probably already beyond needing YFA. – Joe (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have a problem writing the whole draft as per VE, but not that images, templates, and categories in particular are added via VE. (I do not use VE except for table column operations.) Also, why would a brand new user using the source editor not need YFA? Of course they would. Mathglot (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just not sure that there are many new users using the source editor. Genuinely not sure... surely the WMF have some data on this? – Joe (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well... in the last 24 hours, non-autoconfirmed registered editors have created a little more than 400 new pages, of which about 225 were in the User: space (a third specifically /sandbox pages), almost 100 were Draft: space, and almost 100 were some sort of talk page.
Looking only at new User: and Draft: pages, 139 were created with the visual editor (includes mobile visual editor), 137 with the 2010 wikitext editor, 1 with the 2017 wikitext editor (i.e., using Extention:VisualEditor, but not using 'the visual editor'), 8 by ContentTranslation, 28 by mobile wikitext, and the last one by the Wiki Edu Dashboard (total of 314).
I'd say that it's pretty evenly split. Also, it's consistent with what I remember from the last time work-me checked the internal numbers, which would have been about a year ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's really good information. Imho, we should take an approach that is agnostic wrt what editing tool a new editor is using. One of the big improvements in the Draft over Help:YFA, imho, was removing a lot of bloat, in particular, things that are better explained elsewhere in detail and can be linked to, rather than explained or even summarized here. Currently, with the exception of the quoted text at the top of this subsection, the Draft already is tool-agnostic, and I think it should stay that way. If we start getting into explanations of how to do this or that in various editing tools, I think this effort will croak from obesity.
That said, I think it would be fine to have a very brief subsection with three or four bullets, merely listing what editors are available, with a link to the main landing page for each tool, maybe as a new subheading after § How to create content, perhaps to be called "Editing tools". What do others think? Mathglot (talk) 01:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree. The more I think about it, the more certain I am that YFA should be about the article writing process, not the editing Wikipedia process. Therefore, I think we should have more of to add an image, you can follow these instructions and less of to add an image, you should first upload it to Wikimedia Commons if it is free... (etc.). HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made a temporary edit (followed by immediate self-revert so we can discuss here first) to add a new "Editing tools" section; you can see it in reverted revision 1236892883, section § Editing tools. I propose that we reinstate this section, or something like it. Mathglot (talk) 02:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree; drop all the stuff about Commons; a link is sufficient. Can you look at the temp edit I did, and see if you think it should be included? I think it might be justified, because if they're going to write an article at all, they're going to have to use an editor to do it, so, what ones are available? Mathglot (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like the section, and feel its inclusion is beneficial. I might spell out What You See Is What You Get (because not everyone is a programmer), and from my time TAing I would avoid describing anything as "easy" because some things are just not easy for some people. But otherwise I agree it is beneficial. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 21:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HouseBlaster, I've added something at § What editing tool to use. I actually think it's about three times too long, and should be just an intro sentence with three bullets and links. The problem is, I looked all over and found no page anywhere that has this information. The closest, perhaps, is Help:Editing#Edit screen(s), but it doesn't really cover this information, and some of it seems outdated. I would favor farming out this section as is, or with whatever improvements are needed, to a better Help or project page somewhere, and then just summarizing it here. In the meantime, please check it out and comment, or adjust as needed. I'll look around some more, and try to find a better home for it, so we can just link to it. Mathglot (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made some small changes, but for the most part I think it looks good. (And I agree that it should probably live somewhere else but until a new home is found it can live here.) My only note is that when logging out and using Vector 2022 I don't see the edit and edit source tabs. I just see an "edit" tab, which has a pencil icon to switch between the source editor and VE. I will investigate by logging into a testing alt, but I think the screenshot is outdated. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which screenshot? The bottom one with the pencil icon was created an hour ago. P.S., if you find a good home for that section, please lmk, or just move it. Mathglot (talk) 00:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that would get us into the business of also talking about the difference between logged-in and logged-out editing, and that seems like a bridge too far (although it would be perfect, if we farm the whole thing out). Probably there's a page somewhere that talks about logged-out editing, and we could add a few words, like, "...but only if you are logged in and link to it. But the image itself is up-to-date; my page looks exactly like that, because I have both enabled in Preferences; obviously if you have only one enabled, it will look different. Do we need more explanation about that? Mathglot (talk) 02:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded two Vector 2022 screenshots for this section and added them (one screenshot is probably better). This was easier than finding them at Commons, although they may have already existed. Folly Mox (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated § What editing tool to use with images and prose that match current defaults (Vector 2022; Mathglot added a screenshot of Minerva just recently). The section looks ok on mobile, but on desktop the edit interface selector screenshot floats way down into the next section. I'd be happy if someone who knows more than the bare minimum about formatting visual elements could have a go at making the section look nice again. Folly Mox (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Folly Mox, thanks for all that. There was a double-wide multiple image due to the {{if mobile}} that took up 50% of my (15" laptop) window, and 60-70% of usable line width viewing the page, sandwiching the text in a narrow column on the left, so I undid that, so they stack vertically. That solved the sandwiching, but left a confusing result, with fused stacked images from two interfaces that kind of looked like just one taller image (admittedly not a problem when horizontal, but that was a no-go). So, I undid the {{Multiple images}} to leave separate images with a slight gap between, and that solved the confusion. The third image (interface selector dropdown) extends into the next section, which seems less than optimal, but maybe okay. (We could try a left image for the last one, if that doesn't sandwich text unduly.) If and when this whole section gets farmed off somewhere (and then expanded) then there will be plenty of room for all of the images. Mathglot (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it to the bottom of the "Don'ts" section. I don't think there's an implication that everything in that section has equal weight. There are other things even more serious (libel, legal threats) that we don't mention at all, and I think that's fine. These are just the "Don'ts" that new editors writing their first article need to know, and COI is one of them, in my opinion. Mathglot (talk) 04:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our PAGs do not forbid it so having a COI should not be a Don't. All we can do is encourage them to use AfC but even that is not a required, only '"strongly encouraged". S0091 (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We could make it a 'do' (e.g. Do disclose any conflict of interests you have with the article subject) – most of the things on that side of the table are also just guidelines, not hard policy requirements. But it seems a bit like splitting hairs to me. Problematic COI creations are something we see often from new editors that don't know better. It makes sense to head it off here. – Joe (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am opposed to recasting it as a "Do" and would prefer eliminating it from the table altogether in that case. As Joe says, those are just guidelines, and YFA is even less than that, just an info page as the box at the top says. And don't we want to head off problematic behavior by new editors? I think we do, and I see nothing wrong with keeping this a Don't. If they can ignore the COI guideline, they'll likely ignore an Info page, assuming they even read it in the first place. Why not recommend best practice? We can reword the Don't as "It is best not to write about blah blah..." and then I think we're in line with the guideline (which we link to and they can go read) as well as best practice, and it's very clear what best practice is, per COI itself, which states: "COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia." I think that easily qualifies as a "Don't", and we should keep it in that column, or just remove it. Mathglot (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would switch the Don't to align with WP:NOTPROMO which is usually the issue with COI (excluding UPE/sock farms which is a different issue and they aren't going care about YFA anyway). S0091 (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean; are you suggesting adding some NOTPROMO verbiage instead of or in addition to COI and linking both? Or are you talking about a physical alignment of bullets from the Do and Don't columns? Or something else? Mathglot (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I mean replacing the Don't write an article if you have a conflict of interest bullet with a bullet about PROMO. Something like Don't write an article for the purposes of promoting or advocating a topic. S0091 (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That section says we can use a wikitable, as long as we use role="presentation" and avoid summary attribute, <caption> or <th> elements. That's a very easy adjustment, and is used that way in over five thousand articles, help pages, and project pages, and I think it's okay if we do, too. Mathglot (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy with it, though as a exercise (I have been trying to work on my CSS skills) I am going to see if I can make it happen with <div>...</div>s. If it does not look (nearly) identical, I am happy to use the role="presentation" fix. It is just a thing that should in general be avoided, but it is not the end of the world. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 21:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I must disagree:How this renders on my deviceIn case it's not clear from the thumbnail, the search box title is hella cramped and wraps three lines, and the input box sticks all the way out past the right hand screen border (cannot side scroll to see how far it goes). Folly Mox (talk) 11:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HouseBlaster,you proved the point that it is doable in CSS, but there are now triply-nested div tags, and even for folks who are reasonably familiar with CSS, I think the current code is unsustainable, or at least, unmaintainable without undue effort, which not everyone will be willing to put in.
Pure CSS version
CSS-only version, from rev. 1237220016 of 18:34, 28 July 2024:
That essentially freezes the search box style forever, as no one will dare touch it. In comparison, here is the wikitable code from revision 1237039575:
Wikitable version
Wikitable code from revision 1237039575 of 20:52, 27 July 2024:
Can you drastically simplify the CSS code version? Because if not, I really think we should restore the wikitable, which is much simpler, more comprehensible, and easy to maintain. (It's easy to make the wikitable-based version mimic the wider padding of the 3-divs version, where I believe extra space was added later.) Also, although this is not one of the biggest changes from the original page, I think complex code could be a gripe-magnet for those who don't like change post-release, and I think we can finesse that with simpler code, whether a wikitable, or something else. Mathglot (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I use them, myself, but so far, only in Templates. Is there precedent for using them on a Help page? Beyond that, my prime concern here is maintainability: if other editors want to adjust the padding or whatever post-release, how hard will it be for them? Secondarily, release of this draft will be a big change, and it's bound to attract some criticism if for no other reason than its newness; I don't want to provide a foothold for that if we don't need to, and I fear the div code could be a focal point for it. Mathglot (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it is in TemplateStyles, it is as easy as changing a number in the style. It is an accessibility issue, so I would really like to avoid using a table if we can. There are 6 uses of TemplateStyles in Help: space, but 3,600+ pages in Wikipedia: space which use them, so it is hardly unprecedented. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 21:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand what you are proposing, you will add classes to the div's, and set up the default styles in TemplateStyles, while retaining the triply nested divs in the search-box code, is that right? Because it is the latter that is my main objection. Also, you've stated a few times that it is an accessibility issue, but is it? The same MOS:LTAB section you linked specifically says that wikitables are okay with the "role" attribute, and there are 5,000 examples of it, so I don't really see what the objection is. It will be much simpler to modify the wikitable code, if needed, than the div code, and for me, that's the decider. We should solicit more opinions; pinging @Joe Roe, Folly Mox, and S0091:. (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a guideline, not a straitjacket. When there are reasons, such as maintainability, to do it otherwise, then we should to it otherwise. Using your logic: if the guideline wanted to prohibit tables with role="presentation", then it would not mention them. Mathglot (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it is just a guideline, but I don't see how the TemplateStyle is less maintainable than the wikitable. Though I would firmly place accessibility over maintainability, if that is the choice we are making. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 23:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want this to stand in the way of release, so I'm fine with just letting this go. If it needs revisiting, that can be done at some later time. See the last section under Release planning. Mathglot (talk) 01:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BLPs
I am wondering if it is worth a short section about the importance of being careful with BLPs. There are currently two short mentions, but it is a really important policy and could do with some more emphasis (imo). I am sensitive to the idea that we should keep the page as short and generally applicable as possible, but I think the added complexity would be worth it in this case. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 21:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BLP is an important policy: no argument on that. But, as someone who works neither AfC nor NPP, it seems to me that new BLPs suffer from issues relating to N or COI orders of magnitude more frequently than issues specific to the BLP policy itself. Moreover, BLP policy enforcement tends to have different outcomes – revdel, oversight, pblock, tban – than an AfC decline / NPP draftification (G10 excepted).The main point is the first: emphasising sourcing to establish notability and calling attention to COI (which, like notability, is both used differently between Wikipedia technical parlance and everyday speech, as well as being not immediately apparent simply from interacting with the project as a reader) uh where was my sentence before that parenthetical?Right, N and COI are high rate of return areas to invest verbiage into. BLP could certainly use a "plain and simple introduction to" like some other topics (I looked for one to link to before composing this comment), but people usually brush up against it in editing existing articles. Just my cold and rambly take as a non–AfC/NPP bystander. Folly Mox (talk) 11:16, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was a discussion a year ago about whether to drop or modify the wording about sources serving two purposes (i.e., notability, and verifiability) and it sounded like we agreed to remove that, but there was low participation, and it didn't happen. Things have moved on, so the wording and formatting isn't quite the same as it was then, but have a look at User:Houseblaster/YFA draft § The basics in the light of that discussion, and see what you think. Should we reword anything in that section? Mathglot (talk) 01:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should have something, though I don't think it needs to be its own section. I think we should make it clear that citing sources with trivial mentions is okay – it is just not okay to write an article if you only have trivial mentions. Same thing with independent sources, with all the caveats about non-independent sources. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I was unclear above. What I am referring to, is specifically this wording in the middle of the top section:
Haha you and I just made the same edit at the same time. The software saved yours, but I didn't get an ec notice because the change was identical. I haven't seen that in years. Folly Mox (talk) 15:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By which I mean removing the language under discussion here, not that I made a comment in this thread using the exact same phraseology and signed it with your name. Folly Mox (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, I think. I don't always get these dark mode fixes right, as they seem to be somewhat capricious (i.e. I don't really understand them), but the page no longer shows errors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of WP:AFTERFIRST and WP:AVOIDCREATE is in itself a good argument for retaining the current page as a subpage somewhere: we don't want all that in the new version, but it's good information to be able to point people to should the need arise. I'm not sure we have any default messaging (e.g. hardcoded into templates) that links those shortcuts, which I suppose would be good information to here. Folly Mox (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It may be worthwhile counting, and maybe fixing, the in-links to page sections where there are not a huge number of them. Although there are >2M links total, there are only 108 redirects, and of those, only five to sections. Fixing those five would be a good start. I would be inclined not to fix any of the others (other than templates/modules), and see who complains. There are 73 links from templates (mostly Welcome and Did You Know templates), and none from Modules. Mathglot (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Twenty-five of them are welcome templates, and I spot-checked five of them, and all five are page- (not section-) links. I contribute a fair bit WP:WT, and I'm fairly sure all 25 of them are to the top of the page, so none of those need updating. I know little about DYK, but willing to bet that all eighteen of those are to top of page, also, and ditto the four EFFP templates, which leaves about 25 to examine individually. Interestingly, there are only 32 section links of the form [[Help:Your first article#...]], so all of those could be fixed if needed, but they are all old Teahouse or Help desk questions, or in User talk space, with a smattering of others, and I don't think any of them need updating. Mathglot (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We summarize such high-quality, published sources in Wikipedia articles. That is all we do! Please make sure that anything you write on Wikipedia is based largely on such sources, ...
Why largely? That seems like an escape-clause to me, diminishing WP:V. Is the intent here to say something about how a few PRIMARY sources are allowed here and there, or what is it trying to say? And, it's even emphasized in the original. I think I would just remove the word, unless there is a connotation I am missing, and then maybe we could reword it so it sounds less like a get-out-of-jail-free card wrt verifiability? Mathglot (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are still some open issues above, but I think we are close, and we should start a parallel track here to think about what's next, once we come to a stopping point on further changes. This was looked at a year ago at § Welp: Your forked article without a firm conclusion, and then things went quiet.
I'd favor bringing this to a centralized discussion to achieve consensus to release the Draft, and I think the most logical place is WP:VPR. What I think would work is a one paragraph statement of what we've been up to, and containing a firm proposal to replace H:YFA with the Draft. (We could perhaps also link the histmerge discussion above, or just ignore it; no real reason to mention it if there isn't consensus to go with the draft.) I think it would carry more weight if signed at VPR at least by all the principals, starting with HouseBlaster, and then the other three or four main contributors in any order: @FollyMox, S0091, JoeRoe, and Mathglot:, and why not all of the editors or non-editing supporters if they're willing; a mega-signature at VPR certainly would not hurt. But having four or five sigs at least would lend it some gravitas as a proposal. We could either word it together, or HouseBlaster, as initiator, you should have first refusal if you feel like pulling the ripcord on the release proposal. I'm fine if you speak for all of us, and use "we" pronouns. Once we see your sig there, we could just jump in and add ours on the same line. Mathglot (talk) 01:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that we need to make a formal proposal unless there is pushback to the new version – I am very fond of WP:PGBOLD edits (even though this is not a P or a G, the principle applies). However, if we are going to make a proposal, the wording should be made as a team. We wrote the draft as a team, and so we should propose it as a team. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, I didn't know about WP:PGBOLD, and it's tempting; very tempting. Will wait for further feedback here, but did I mention that it's tempting? Maybe in that case, when we are ready, you can do the round-robin and let us know, and then the rest of us can do a dummy edit just to sign off on it with our userid's on an edit summary claiming support and co-responsibility for the move as well, so it's seen to be a group effort, and not just you alone. Mathglot (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we decide to go that route (i.e., PGBOLD) then I'd just ask this of Joe Roe (because of his histmerge expertise): normally in a round-robin, live endsy up in Draft (at least, when I do them) and Draft (user subpage, in this case), ends up in live. In this scenario, were we to go ahead with a bold round-robin, any problem with moving Help:Your_first_article to Draft:Your_first_article, wrt a possible later histmerge request? Is that the destination you would recommend if we go that route? Mathglot (talk) 02:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we want to add a {{For}} hatnote to the top, in order to link the historical page at /old, for those who might be surprised and wonder what happened to it? Mathglot (talk) 09:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest a bold action when we're satisfied with the page, and no RFC unless BRDed. People had numerous invitations to contribute and criticise last year, and we're having this current discussion on the talkpage of the page we're sunsetting rather than that of a low profile userspace draft. If we end up moving the current H:YFA out of the way as a precaution against a possible future histunmerge, I think a subpage would work better than using Draftspace. Folly Mox (talk) 15:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it tempting Mathglot? :) Let's be BOLD! I have no opinion on the mechanism used other than it needs to be easy(ish) to back out if needed. S0091 (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, this isn't even bold. We've got affirmative consent from five editors and over a year of discussion, that's way more prior consensus than most existing PAGs had, if you look in their histories – and as you say, this isn't even a PAG. – Joe (talk) 13:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ready, steady, ...
I think we are pretty much good to go. There are recent unresponded comments on this page (but silence is always okay), and recent edits at the Draft. I suggest we let everyone make whatever last-minute changes are needed at the Draft and mop up any loose ends on this page that need to be, let it go quiet for a day or so, and then do the switchover. (It can still be improved some more post-release, of course.) What does everyone else think? HouseBlaster, I nominate you to flip the switch at the appointed time. Mathglot (talk) 01:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've half written and then fully deleted at least four or five comments in various subthreads, and now consider myself lost in the sprawl. I work all week, so will be mostly unavailable. The draft – already an improvement before we started improving it more – looks good to me. I'm not 100% clear on the technical implementation of the replacement, but I imagine between the five of us we should be able to tie up any loose threads or trim them with fabric scissors. Folly Mox (talk) 10:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That leaves only Joe Roe, should he decide to weigh in. Joe may be approving/acquiescing via silence, as he has made several dozen edits in the 50 hours he's been active following the OP of this subsection (and the {{talkback}} template at his Talk page just to make sure), or maybe he is just busy. Maybe wait till tomorrow, in case Joe still wishes to contribute, and then cut over? Adding HouseBlaster. Mathglot (talk) 23:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like retargeting WP:AVOIDCREATE to WP:BAD, as was suggested in a subthread earlier, but if we're going to move the page instead of just overwrite it, we can retarget the section shortcuts to /old#Section.I don't think we want "For the older version, see /old": the guidance is targeted to new editors, and it seems fairly obvious that most experienced editors look at the page only rarely. A hatnote on this talkpage might be a better idea. Also I don't think it's necessary to mark the old guidance as {{Historical}}: it's not like it's completely out of date or out of sync with current practice, it's just so long and bloated that people aren't reading it so it's no longer effective. We could even just move it on top of one of the "trivial history" inbound redirects. Helpspace is already hopelessly disorganised and duplicative so whoops late for work Folly Mox (talk) 11:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all good points, and you've shifted my stance on this: now I'm uncertain whether I favor moving the old page to a historical one or just overwriting it. If there isn't a strong consensus one way or the other, It might be that that decision would rest on histmerge issues: on the one hand, if we don't retain it, we could always extract it later from the pre-cutover revision, but what about that ne page's history, could it be copied over from that point? So maybe the easier path is retain it somewhere with original history, new page gets merged history, and then six months later if we don't need the historical page, we nom for Xfd? Would appreciate Joe Roe's thoughts.
As for marking/not-marking {{historical}}, you've convinced me; I'd say don't mark it, and TP hatnote sounds fine to me.
Would you kindly excuse Folly Mox's lateness today and recently. Follow Mox is engaged in tasks of great importance in their volunteer work here. Your consideration would be appreciated. In fact, a day off would be appreciated even more.
I don't want to add anything new while we are so close to cutover, but I just realized we don't have a See also section, and I found a good page to add to it: Wikipedia:Ten simple rules for editing Wikipedia. No doubt there are other useful pages like that we could add, but let's leave it till later; just wanted to mention it now while I'm thinking of it. Mathglot (talk) 02:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing to attend to later: what happens with the Talk pages? Do they get content-merged, so we end up with the union of discussions from both pages on one page? Or, the /old subpage gets to keep its original TP (which would mean, this discussion as well)? Or maybe the Draft TP gets entirely moved into an archive, and then this page stays put? I think I like that last approach best, at first glance, but I'm not sure what the issues are. Also, this page has archives, but thank goodness the Draft doesn't, so at least there's no Archive-merge involved. Not looking for a solution to this now, just mentioning it. Mathglot (talk) 09:10, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since I think we were all just waiting around and I had a spare moment now that I might not have later, I've gone ahead and replaced the contents of this page with User:Houseblaster/YFA draft as discussed above. The talk page of that draft is archived at Help talk:Your first article/Archive 4. I merged the history up until the two versions diverged on 29 June 2023. The history of the former version between 29 June 2023 and today is at Help:Your first article/old, but I've left it deleted following the history merge because I don't want to forget to do so later. If anybody wants to see the deleted history or otherwise feels strongly that we should retain that history (I don't really see the point?) then just let me or another admin know and it can be easily undeleted. I think I did all the other things on Mathglot's list above, but please do check if you have the time. – Joe (talk) 13:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding protection level: see MusikBot's edit here: can we restore pp-semi-indef and
pp-move-indef? If this means setting/logging a protection level somewhere else however that's done, can we do that before it starts attracting vandalism? Adding @Joe Roe and HouseBlaster:. Mathglot (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I should add for the record, I don't believe the intent here was vandalism; due to the name of the article, brand new editors, such as this one, misunderstand its purpose and make test edits to this article as if it were a sandbox; that is undoubtedly what happened here, and why the page deserves indefinite protection. Mathglot (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidata: somehow the page became unlinked from Wikidata during the switcheroo (guessing the db uses a meaningless int primary key, and page title is alt?), so I reattached it to the other 67 pages at d:Q7008524. Mathglot (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rjjiii, this issue transcends English Wikipedia, imho, and is the kind of thing that folks at mw:MediaWiki look into (or maybe it's meta:Meta?). You might want to either link, or even move the whole discussion there, and redirect your subpage to it, if you can find the right place. Can't remember which team I've seen looking into this, but maybe Growth? A message at mw:Talk:Growth should either get you some good responses, and/or a pointer to a better venue, if that is not the right one. Mathglot (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
P.S., if you find a good home for that section, please lmk, or just move it. Mathglot (talk) 00:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Folly Mox (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Resolved
Courtesy link: User talk:Houseblaster/YFA draft § Should we drop the RS "dual function" wording?
Verified everything is visible in both dark modes. Folly Mox (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Fixed, I think. I don't always get these dark mode fixes right, as they seem to be somewhat capricious (i.e. I don't really understand them), but the page no longer shows errors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
