Template talk:Article creation editnotice

Template:Article creation editnotice is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories. Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. This template does not have a testcases subpage. You can create the testcases subpage here.

Template-protected edit request on 1 August 2018

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

Please change the contents of the <noinclude> tags as follows, replacing the following:

}}<noinclude>
[[Category:Editnotice templates]]
</noinclude>

with this:

}}<noinclude>
{{documentation}}
</noinclude>

The category is included in the documentation, and will be transcluded into the main template page. Thank you. — Newslinger talk 08:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Cabayi (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 26 March 2020

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

I propose a change to the 13th line of the template:

If you would like to go back to reading on how to edit your first article, either click the "template" tab in the top left or click here.

Into:

If you would like to go back to reading on how to edit your first article, either click the "template" tab in the top left or click here.

Note the change to the magic word. This is because if a new user presses into "View source" in, say, Wikipedia:Article wizard/Referencing, the link "click here" would bring the new user to Wikipedia:Referencing instead of the Article Wizard page. This is surely not what is intended. Thanks. TLOM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 10:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 31 July 2025

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

−

'''To make a first draft of your article''', consider using the '''[[Wikipedia:Article wizard|Article wizard]]'''.

+

'''To create your first article''', use the '''[[Wikipedia:Article wizard|Article wizard]]'''.

This is more direct. If someone ended up here, they most likely are not fmiliar with Wikipedia and need the article wizard. The language needs to be direct. FaviFake (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Creating one's first draft of an article is not the same thing as creating one's first article. The meaning is different. There may be a way to improve the language, but the above is not yet it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:19, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. what about this one? I mostly only care about making the suggestion more direct, I don't mind if the initial part is different.

−

'''To make a first draft of your article''', consider using the '''[[Wikipedia:Article wizard|Article wizard]]'''.

+

'''To make a first draft of your article''', use the '''[[Wikipedia:Article wizard|Article wizard]]'''.

FaviFake (talk) 06:27, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current wording is fine as is; you aren't strictly speaking obligated to use the article wizard so "consider" is acceptable. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:29, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I just wanted to make it slightly more obvious, since the target audience for this message is the people who think editing an article about creating an article will create their article. What aboutr replacing "consider using" with "you can use"? It's more direct but it still sounds like a suggestion rather than an obligation. FaviFake (talk) 07:58, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reopening since the last reviewing editor hasn't responded to the updated request (which addressed their concerns). FaviFake (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I dislike your tendency to be so pushy and argumentative with edit requests, but whatever, that specific wording is fine. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:22, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it's also annoying for me. I saw other people reopening their own ERs because an editor hadn't responded, so I assumed it's standard practice. Is there any way I can improve the way I handle my own edit requests in the future, especially for these minor edits? FaviFake (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]