MediaWiki talk:Newarticletext

Current text (2021-08-26)
It changes:
 * some words in Index: ns
 * link to OCR gadget, additional text for Page: ns, including link to proofreading help text.

Inexistent
In a message to Hesperian, freshly minted user Keilana notes that "inexistent page" is odd. This has been discussed before, most recently at WS:S(2007-12)#Inexistent? by another newcomer Kakofonous, but there is still no wiktionary entry (inexistent). It is odd, and perhaps worth changing in order to simplify the UI, but I also like it as it is a bit dated. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know why we would bother fixing this one word, yet leave the larger metaphysical quandary unresolved - how is it possible to be viewing something that doesn't exist?! Hesperian 10:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I personally think it should be "You are viewing a page that does not currently exist" or something of that sort. Keilana 13:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If I understand Hesperian correctly, the word "viewing" is even more odd, as it doesnt accurately represent what the user thinks they are doing on the new page. Wikipedia uses a very complex setting, which can be seen by viewing the code at w:MediaWiki:Newarticletext.  The settings on Wikipedia usually contain a lot of innovation, even if it doesnt always directly map to Wikisource needs.  Note that there is also a w:MediaWiki:Newarticletextanon which hasnt been customised here. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I was looking for the relevant page to change the wording when I found this discussion. Firstly, "inexistent" is pretty obscure - for example, it is not in the Concise Oxford Dictionary - and I can see no point in using an obscure word when "non-existent" is available. It makes people think we're silly. Secondly, may I suggest "you are trying to view a page that currently does not exist".-- Poetlister 21:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"You are viewing an inexistent page; you can create it by typing in the box below and saving. If no text layer is available, click the Button ocr.png button on the toolbar. If you are new to Wikisource, please see Help:Adding texts. If you are here by mistake, just click your browser's back button."
 * This may be partly outmoded. The "metaphysical quandary" of the first sentence should be resolved :-) The next sentence on OCR is clear enough, but this instruction should precede the typing option. Do we need to explain how to use a browser, or suggest they made a mistake? As for instructions, 'see it' or 'click it' or 'type it' then 'save it' could be given here; we could drop the emboldened newbie message and Help:link. Cygnis insignis (talk) 00:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * How about something like Wikisource does not have a page with this exact title. [Page NS ... If no text layer is available, click the Button ocr.png button on the toolbar.] You can create it by typing in the box below and saving. If you are new to Wikisource, please see Help:Adding texts. If you are here by mistake, just click your browser's back button.


 * I think that the newbie stuff is useful in case someone has clicked a redlink and gets an edit page. -- billinghurst (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Apologies. I was thinking this only appeared in Page:space, my thoughts and comments were focused on that. The help page is certainly useful for mainspace, a simple instruction could given for saving OCR with link to the help page tacked on. This also assumes there will be support for anyone creating an OCR page and that I haven't overlooked a downside. Cygnis insignis (talk) 02:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong png referenced
editprotected

Hi, this message references File:Button ocr.png, but it seems to me that the actual button used is File:Toolbaricon OCR.png. Storkk (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It depends on the User's preference settings under one skin or another. The "button" you point out is suppose to be for those who have WikiEditor enabled ( Enable enhanced editing toolbar [is at the least] selected ) though it is no where near the 23 by 23 (more like 22 by 22) pixel "standard" for that editor while the other one - the blue-ish background - is for the older show edit toolbar [no additional enhancements selcted] variant.


 * The old one 'leaps out' a bit better in my view - and I don't get the feeling this crowd runs with the ' Visual Editor / Vector ' standards much either. But if you can't sleep at night over it, I guess I can swap it out without the need to formalize a proposal or anything IF my explaination did not work for you that is. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, George Orwell III... I tried all the skins, and couldn't get it to match - but I didn't try the various other options. It confused me when I was looking for the "OCR button", because I couldn't find a blue area in which to look for the button, so my eyes didn't even pass over the items in the editor bar where it was. But I guess it should display whatever the default is if the user hasn't changed their preferences. I thought I would be in that group (not having edited my preferences since 2007), but perhaps I am not. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 13:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)