Template talk:New page

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Expanded template[edit]

I've suggested a new version of the page, to help newbies. Eloquence disputes its benefits, calling it "instruction creep". But I don't think newbies would feel the same, being, by definition, new. I think the instructions would greatly aid the mysterious and for some people daunting task of learning how to write an article. This was inspired by a relative newbie's comments on irc.

Anycase, here is what I suggest:

{{date|July 5, 2005}}
<!-- ARTICLE TEXT GOES HERE -->



<!-- CITE YOUR SOURCES BELOW -->
== Sources ==
*{{source|url=
|title=
|author=
|pub=
|date=July 5, 2005}}

*{{source|url=
|title=
|author=
|pub=
|date=July 5, 2005}}

<!-- CATEGORIES GO HERE -->
    <!--In the form of [[Category:South America]]
   INCLUDE at least one REGION category, from:
      Africa - Asia - Central America - Europe -
      Middle East - North America - Oceania - South America
   AND at least one SECTION category, from:
      Crime and law - Culture and entertainment - Disasters and accidents -
      Economy and business - Education - Environment - Health - Obituaries -
      Politics and conflicts - Religion - Science and technology - Sports - Wackynews -->
[[Category:]] 
[[Category:]]
[[Category:]]

<!-- CHANGE THIS TO {{publish}} WHEN THIS ARTICLE IS READY TO PUBLISH OR {{rfc} TO REQUEST COMMENTS -->
{{develop}}
I agree with Eloquence on this --Cspurrier 5 July 2005 01:31 (UTC)
If we can tone it down a bit and remove capitalization and excessive text, I'll support it. -- NGerda July 5, 2005 01:32 (UTC)
I also agree it is instruction creep. -- Davodd | Talk 5 July 2005 15:56 (UTC)


I think the intention is good, but I believe the article text is the wrong place for instructions like this:
1) It makes the page look more complex than it is.
2) It tends to get in the way of editing, especially if you don't understand the difference between comments and formatting.
3) There's a tendency to explain the obvious, such as "Cite your sources below", above a section titled "Sources".
4) Once you've seen these comments once, they can be very annoying. The HTML comments will very likely linger in the article source even after it's published, being annoying to the regulars who will have to make edits here and there.
5) Different users need different explanations. Someone knowing general wiki syntax (very likely the majority of newbies, as they tend to come from Wikipedia), for example, can figure out everything except the root categories easily.
Now, if we had no better alternative, then the benefits of assisting newbies -- which I agree is very important -- might very well outweigh the cost. There is, however, Template:New article intro, which, if we organize it properly, can serve the same purpose -- for example, a thumbnail of the edit screen which, when clicked, leads to an explanation of the key elements. Template:New article intro has the additional benefit that it is shown only on page creation, not on preview (we should still try to keep it reasonably short).--Eloquence 5 July 2005 01:36 (UTC)
I like the idea of the thumbnail showing the structure of the page. I think the main issue brought to my attention was the categories. I brought up that categories were being used kind of sloppily, and amalgam made some good points. At the same time, the categories description is the ugliest part of my suggestion. I think this is a problem that a solution should be sought for. Kevin Baastalk 5 July 2005 01:45 (UTC)
Absolutely. However, we also shouldn't raise the expectation of newbies to get everything right the first time they edit a page. So while I want to provide useful instructions, I also want to send a clear message: Just try it out. If it breaks, we'll fix it!--Eloquence 5 July 2005 01:51 (UTC)
Cool, cool. Great idea. This discussion should probably be moved to Template_talk:New_article_intro. And I got to work tommorow, so I'm calling it a night. Later. Kevin Baastalk 5 July 2005 02:01 (UTC)

How about like this:

{{date|July 5, 2005}}
<!-- ARTICLE TEXT GOES HERE -->



<!-- SOURCES GO HERE -->
== Sources ==
*{{source|url=
|title=
|author=
|pub=
|date=July 5, 2005}}

*{{source|url=
|title=
|author=
|pub=
|date=July 5, 2005}}

<!-- CATEGORIES GO HERE -->
[[Category:]] 
[[Category:]]
[[Category:]]

{{develop}}

Kevin Baastalk 5 July 2005 01:49 (UTC)

These types of explanations are exactly the ones I like the least. "Categories go here"? Well, that seems fairly obvious, since every line there starts with "Category:". "Cite your sources below"? Yes, there's a section called "Sources" there, I can see that. We should focus on explaining how to do things, not on what people see.--Eloquence 5 July 2005 01:51 (UTC)
The article text goes here comment was there originally, and it's the one thing that's non-obvious. So I'm going to insist the template goes back to before either of us touched it, so that newbies know where to write. Kevin Baastalk 5 July 2005 01:56 (UTC)
Eloquence is likely right in that specific instructions on how to fill out the {{source}} template and categories is necessary. A link to existing categories such as the incomplete one I use here Categories would be useful with brief, clear and concise explanations for sources and categories... instructions not easily written on the 1st go at it. -Edbrown05 5 July 2005 02:16 (UTC)
That would mean a long commented out explanation unless it isn't all that to explain. If it is a long explanation, it would be self defeating. -Edbrown05 5 July 2005 02:19 (UTC)

Deprecate Template:Date?[edit]

Template:Date puts the date and the category for that date on a page. It does nothing else. We could avoid this bit of curly braced syntax if we put something like

'''July 8, 2005'''

[[Category:July 8, 2005]]

in the template. This looks cleaner and might be easier to understand for newbies; at the same time, it shows an example of a category in use. Thoughts?--Eloquence 8 July 2005 09:55 (UTC)

Hmmm... when i saw the title, my first impression was, "You've got to be kidding!", but you reasoning is pursuasive. Then, on second thought, as a programmer, I find redundancy to be "dirty" rather than "clean", and this probably has to do with the extra effort involved in changing said thing: When you only have to change it in one, easy-to-find place, and it's obvious where that is, what it will do, and that it will take care of all "hooks", everything is great! On the other hand, when you have to search for multiple instances and replace them every time you make a change, that's a lot more hassle (it adds up), and you run a constant risk of inconsistency. (such as an article being titled june 9, and categorized as june 8). - and this does happen, some articles take over a day to get published, and the date has to be updated accordingly. Though I got nothing against the point that it gives newbies an example of a cat in use. Kevin Baastalk 8 July 2005 23:31 (UTC)

Date issues[edit]

Having the date in the source template alread filled in is beginning to cause some problems - all sources are not created on the day we are writing an article, and if someone doesn't think to change the date, it can be wrong for a long period of time. Now, I don't know if the fix to this is a simple matter of deleting the date in the source template here, or if it's an issue with having the {{date|X}} tag on the top. Lyellin 18:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Using variables[edit]

Using variables in this template does not work. Please don't attempt it. Variables are not expanded when the new article text is generated, and articles end up using {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}} directly, resulting in ever-changing datelines. Uncle G 05:04:10, 2005-08-02 (UTC)

Ahhh, yes. User:Davodd suggested it in channel and I knew there was a reason we couldn't use variables -- I just couldn't remember why. Thanks for clarifying. --Chiacomo (talk) 05:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


well thats just silly. 72.174.2.252 10:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Well actually that is not true anymore. we found a way around it. Bawolff 22:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Add the haveyoursay template[edit]

I propose we add the haveyoursay template to this right above the sources section - it is a useful little template, and provides a link to things that a lot of readers might be interested in but not know how to use. The template looks like this:

Thanks! TheFearow 10:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Why "<includeonly>{{</includeonly>developing}}"?[edit]

Why not "{{developing}}"? Q0k (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

We don't want the template page in developing, only the new articles Bawolff 23:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)