Looking at non-existent pages that have drafts, such as
D. Franklin Neal, it appears this template is currently appearing twice, once above
MediaWiki:Newarticletext and once below it. Courtesy pinging
MSGJ, as I know you work in this area—could we figure out what's happening and stop the duplication? {{u|Sdkb}}talk20:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Let me see if I can figure out what's causing it. @
Snood1205, I feel like this notice should also be a lot more prominent, since what it means 99% of the time is "don't create this page, you want to edit/move the draft instead". Would you have any objection to me making the design bolder (bold, larger text, colored background, etc.)? {{u|Sdkb}}talk20:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)reply
That edit caused the second notice to be displayed, yes. I didn't realize it was already being displayed via an edit notice (it never even occurred to me to check for anything like that).
I noticed the anomaly earlier but didn't consider it worth fixing – exactly for the reason
Sdkb mentions above, "this notice should also be a lot more prominent". Well, having it twice makes it prominent :D –
SD0001 (
talk)
07:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)reply
I've altered the design to make it much more noticeable. @
Dinoguy1000, removing it from the editnotice would mean that it's no longer displayed on created articles that also have drafts. {{u|Sdkb}}talk08:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)reply
...Which is why I only made a suggestion. In that case, the editnotice could be changed to only display the notice if the page does exist (thus the notice would be displayed by {{New page DYM}} if the page doesn't exist, and by the editnotice if it does). 「
ディノ奴千?!」☎ Dinoguy100021:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)reply
I'm just passing through this area, which means I'm not super-comfortable making these types of decisions for it, but if there are no complaints about the suggested fix, I can go ahead and do it if no one else does. 「
ディノ奴千?!」☎ Dinoguy100023:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)reply
@
UnitedStatesian, you have
manually reverted the design change, going against the prevailing consensus from myself,
Snood1205, and
SD0001 above that it ought to be made more prominent. In your edit summary, you state that you'd like further discussion, but you
do not articulate your objections and you have not posted here on talk. Please do so. I'll notify
WP:UX and you're welcome to post elsewhere if you think others ought to be involved. {{u|Sdkb}}talk01:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Apologies, as I had not yet had a chance to open a discussion broader than would fit in an edit summary; my objection is based on my opinion that have very few edit views that have a typeface so large as the one upon which the three of you agreed. I will also let
WP:AFC know about the discussion; it would be helpful if you could put the old view and proposed view here for users to compare.
UnitedStatesian (
talk)
01:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)reply
We didn't agree on the specifics of how it can be made more prominent – I think a 200% font-size is way too big. I
edited to make the font color a shade of red, which IMO is a better way of attracting attention. Not sure if we need a "much broader discussion" as this notice is not that highly visible. –
SD0001 (
talk)
03:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Sorry, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, SD0001. I think it's better now, although unbolded red with an orange background may raise some accessibility issues due to insufficient contrast. {{u|Sdkb}}talk19:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)reply
I've removed the coloring for now. Bold or not, it does not have sufficient contrast at this size. Please verify at least WCAG AA before restoring any color. —
JJMC89 (
T·C)
05:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Let's use the standard interface styling then (
edited) – this style is shared by other notices such as the one saying "This page is protected so ...". –
SD0001 (
talk)
09:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Tamzin: that was follow up from
this VPT discussion. It was to make it "technically" correct from a verbiage perspective, however that discussion also mentions use cases where it could still be useful from an editing perspective. `I don't really feel strongly about it either way. —
xaosfluxTalk10:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Danbloch: I've merged the change, although I've made one tweak to accommodate the point that
Xaosflux made at VPT: If the redirect's target is in draftspace, the message will still show up, as can be seen in the "Redirect to draftspace" testcase. --
Tamzincetacean needed (she/they)00:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)reply