Template talk:Welcome

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:Welcome has been protected indefinitely. Use {{editprotected}} on this page to request an edit.

This template is in the collection of greetings templates maintained by the Wikipedia:Welcoming committee. For other templates in the collection, see Welcome templates.

Archives September 2004 – July 2005 July 2005 – December 2005 January 2006 – May 2006 May 2006 – December 2006

[edit] Wikify my talk page

I saw in the archives where this was discussed before, but I think it would be helpful if "my talk page" could be wikified automatically. By simply inserting {{#if:{{{1|}}}|[[user talk:{{{1}}}|my talk page]]|my talk page}} into the code, this could be done. The extra code wouldn't effect usage if a username isn't specified, but will allow a direct link to the user talk pages of the people who don't have one in their signature. AuburnPilot^talk 03:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree with adding this. Conditional templates are cool, but they should be used very sparingly, and only where they are truly needed. I think the "talk page" text is fine the way it is, unlinked, and saving one more click for the newbie is not worth the trouble of adding that complicated code into the template. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

re: if-then-else conditional code: That's hardly complicated, and there seems to be a misaprehension on using parserfunctions that has taken on the magnitude of an urban myth because of warnings about such in the early days. In this specific case, the template is suppoosed to be subst'd, which means there is but one incident of processor loading... a trivial one considering how many hundreds of similar text operations go into building any display code coming out of a server to a brower/user for any page viewed.

The urban myth (concern at the time) was that such might significantly increase server loading. In general, the techically savvy community said 'balderdash', but the issue was discussed so much amongst some, that the discrimination lingers. In actual fact, expansion of any template only loads the server when and if the page is viewed. There is thus a marginal gain by subst'ing boilerplate templates like welcome as user talk pages are expected to see a lot of message traffic and viewings, so it is recommended for them. But the cumulative time savings on the processor are trivial on most any template. The big 'real technical' concern with such is one's used frequently on a given page, such as {{tl}} and the like which get the preprocessing expansion step for each occurence, which alas, zooms on template talk and other discussion pages. Hence, such high use templates are periodically BOT subst'd. But calling an if-then-else conditional complicated is a big stretch.

My concern would be more toward people learning the proper syntax, so would want it hard coded into the phrase, whether it had a signature following or not with the same link. There seems to be no Magic Word boiling that out, but iirc, there may a way to extract the equivilent of one. I'll have to look into it. Call it Template:CURRENTUSER, then the suggestion could be coded [[User talk:{{CURRENTUSER}}|My talk page]]. In that form, I think it would be a good change to all the welcome templates. A newbie can use all the links he can get to ask for help, and people unwilling to help should generally be a member of WP:Wc. // FrankB 18:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link to citation templates

I think we should add a link to Wikipedia:Citation templates to the welcome message. We already have all sorts of stuff about how to edit and what to say; but so many new users just want to write an article about their favorite band, or their school, or whatever; and then don't understand when it gets deleted for lack of notability. If the welcome message stressed sourcing and actually showed them how it might cut down hurt feelings and AFD debates; and it would really help Wikipedia's credibility.~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I would think that the link to Wikipedia:Citation templates is too advanced and would overwhelm the newbies. I think when people first come here they don't even know how to edit a page, how to check the diffs, how to use the wiki syntax, and what is encyclopedic and what not. I think we should let newbies learn the basic things and have more advanced Wikipedians worry about citations. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I kinda agree that those templates may be too advanced; how about just adding a sentence that tells them to cite a source for any information they add? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be too much to ask. I remember from when I was a newbie, what got me hooked was that I could stuff which I knew and which was not there. Insisting right away that one must provide references for everything would kill all the fun for new contributors (the references may need to be searched, they may be books which you need to dig up, etc). I perfectly agree that references are extremely important, as is accuracy of articles, but I think that asking for references is not the right way of getting people to start contributing. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: Is it fair to welcome them to Wikipedia and not tell them that articles they create need to be sourced, then delete the article they created because it's unsourced? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think one should not delete an article just because it is unsourced. It should be tagged as unsourced, it should have a {{cleanup}} tag, or something. I think to actually delete an article it has to be not-notable, or copyrighted material, or something like that. No? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

In my experience with AFD, the best way to counter the non-notable argument is to provide sources. All of the various notability proposals (WP:Bio, WP:BAND, WP:CORP, etc) require that "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the (article subject) itself." If an other-wise non-notable band (or company, or person, or whatever) that has never even released an album can provide solid evidence of multiple non-trivial sources (say; a profile in Rolling Stone magazine, a documentary on VH-1, and several newspaper articles) an AFD argument can and will turn on a dime into a keep. On the other hand, the article creator can sit there and argue on the deletion discussion all day about how important the band is, how they've won this award and that award and some other award and how they've released 5 albums with the largest record label in the country, etc - if they cannot or will not provide sources to prove these statements then the result is an overwhelming delete. Just as a random example from the current deletion discussions take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Brown Derbies. The article was created by a newbie whose only Wikipedia contributions so far are to create that article and attempt (unsuccessfully) to link to it from other articles. Until just now no one had bothered to welcome the creator, or tell him that his article was nominated for deletion or why. The article claims that they are notable, having performed at a "private party for the President and First Lady in the White House, a National Television promo on Good Morning America, several annual Tree Lighting Ceremonies at Rockefeller Center, several national anthem performances for Major League Baseball games" But it does not provide multiple non-trivial sources independent of the band itself to back up these assertions. Read the deletion discussion - it's turning on lack of sources. On the other hand, look at the way that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portrayals of Mormons in popular media and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Work spouse turned around once the articles were re-written with reliable sources. I just recently helped a newbie save an article on his band; it had been previously written by a fan and he'd seen it and thought he could improve it. He came back later and it was deleted, so he recreated it. He didn't understand how deletion works here, he didn't know about WP:BAND and WP:CSD and WP:RS and WP:COI. The band however, was notable, having won national awards, performed for the pope, and having tv documentaries made about them. I explained to him about reliable sources, helped him re-write the article, got it moved to userspace, then took it to deletion review. It is now in the mainspace, well-sourced and undeniably notable. If, however, he had cited sources to back up his claims to begin with it never would have gone to AFD. See my talk page and User talk:Criticalmassjohn for some of the discussion we went through. See Critical Mass (Catholic rock) for the article. I see all the time on the Villiage Pump where someone comes along with, "I wrote an article on such and such yesterday and now it's not here. Surely such and such is important and deserves an article. What happened to it?" Where if they'd only cite multiple non-trivial published sources they wouldn't have a problem. They are inveitably hurt, feel bitten, and go away with a bad taste in their mouths. So even though lack of sources is not a deletion criteria, well-sourced things rarely if ever get deleted and the best way to stop a deletion is to cite sources, but newbies don't know that because we don't tell them. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 14:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The AfD process is here to stay. People will keep on writing poor quality articles, and that's something we just need to deal with. Turning off potential contributors by insisting they source everything they say is applying to newbies a higher standard than we apply to all existing wikipedians. And I doubt it will help much to start with. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I never suggested eliminating the AFD process. I was mearly responding to your statement that unsourced articles can't be deleted. Neither did am I recommending that we insist potential contributors source everything they say. I was mearly suggesting a link to a set of helpful fill-in-the-blank sourcing templates. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification required for {{helpme}} markup

I feel that {{helpme}} should appear as {{helpme}} or even {{helpme}} to make it clearer that the brackets used are the curly sort and not parentheses. I think this is especially important when it comes to new users, as they may not be used to the wiki markup language — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 22:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Change

Let's change with this:

  The five pillars of Wikipedia

  How to edit a page

  Help pages

  Tutorial

  How to write a great article

  Manual of Style —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HIZKIAH (talk • contribs) 18:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

This looks cute, but does not add anything from a usability point of view I would think. I much prefer to keep {{welcome}} as simple as possible. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a graphical verson very much like you suggested at {{Welcomef}}--24.20.69.240 07:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:WelcomeBotResearch

Please can we insert this category into this template so as to assist with out research into new user trends.

Our main aim right now is to work out the total number of welcomes dispatched against the total of new users. Please see the talk page for more details. frummer 20:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

While you have an interesting project, I doubt it is worth inserting Category:WelcomeBotResearch in the template just for the sake of that trends research. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki for Interlingua

Dear administrator,

Please add the following interwiki:

[[ia:Patrono:Benvenite]]

Thank you in advance, Julian Mendez 23:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Ligulem 23:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hprotected

For the moment, I undid the addition of {{hprotected}} to the welcome template by Gurch. While I understand the rationale behind that edit, I would argue that {{hprotected}} is too ugly and obtrusive and does not add really relevant information to the page. If you try to edit the welcome template, it becomes clear enough that it is protected and there is a proemient comment in its source that one should discuss things on talk before editing it. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I put the welcome template instead in Category:Protected templates. I would argue that this acomplishes the same goal as {{hprotected}} while being less distracting. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed change

Proposed change: {{BASEPAGENAME}} to {{subst:BASEPAGENAME}}. So it looks more personal, even though it isnt. Like Welcome. ffm ^yes? 21:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This was discussed many times before, either right above or in the archives. That change introduces problems. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Technically, this was never (IIRC) discussed, since it will obviously not work - the substitution will take place when you save changes to this page. There are several possible workarounds (e.g. {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>BASEPAGENAME}}), but each has a price tag attached. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you just do it the same way as I did in {{welcomeshort}} - add a parameter name, which allows calling people Oleg or Meni, which is really personal. — Sebastian 02:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason why we shouldn't use the {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>BASEPAGENAME}} workaround. You mentioned a "price tag" on it, but think about it: The purpose of this template is to welcome newcomers in the most friendly, simple, and understandable way we can. Now, which is worse: a few more technical lines of code on the template page that will make it a bit harder to read for the occasional administrator editing the page, or ugly and confusing {{BASEPAGENAME}} tags all over a newcomer's user talk page when they edit it? Personally, I would be kind of freaked out if I clicked "edit this page" to reply to the friendly welcome only to find a big {{BASEPAGENAME}} staring at me! ...Actually, this happened to me with the welcome message I got when I was new, and it was definitely unpleasant and confusing for me when I still barely knew how to italicize text, much less use magic words and advanced templates. I'd say the benefits of substitution outweigh the possible annoyance. Pyrospirit ^{Flames Fire} 22:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The list of six links

If the list is placed into two columns, the message would take up less space and look better. Xiner (talk, email) 17:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please add link to introduction; remove admonition to sign

The link to Wikipedia:Introduction may be the most important link we can give to our new users. I don't see any reason not to include it in this message. In my view, it should even replace all bullets, because they are already included there; but that's a matter of taste.

Conversely, the admonition to sign, which takes up one of four sentences, is really not important enough at this point. Remember that at this point many new users don't even know or care what a "talk page" is and probably haven't even considered going there! It feels like saying:

I think this is a relict of a time before we had bots bots adding forgotten links. Moreover, I added the part about signing in the introductions; so if we link to that we won't need to repeat it here. — Sebastian 02:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with many things of what you said. That people sign their talk pages is extremely important, that's not an admonition by the way.

I think Wikipedia:Five pillars is a better introduction to Wikipedia than Wikipedia:Introduction itself.

I agree with you that the note above would look silly in a restaurant, but then you won't give people an intro to the restaurant either. More to the point, the analogy is weak, people are familiar with restaurants, but not with Wikipedia.

And finally, and most importantly, I believe the welcome template should be kept short. I do not believe the link to Wikipedia:Introduction is that important, but if it is added in, something else must go. Otherwise we're just swamping newbies with linkcruft. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude, you're misunderstanding me. This all about making this shorter. This is what I proposed:

1. insert link to the introduction (one bullet);
2. cut the whole sentence about signing - this more than compensates for #1;
3. (additionally with lower priority) cut some or all of the other bullets.

As for the example, you're right, of course. I admit, I was just having a bit of fun. I'm sorry if that distracted you from my main point of shortening the message. ;-)

BTW: As for the pillars, I wouldn't object if they were placed more prominently in the introduction.

BTW2: do we have a way to find out if people actually click on the links we offer? — Sebastian 03:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please change the wording...

to "...ask your question and place {{helpme}} on your talk page". The current wording causes new users to regularly post the tag without a question on their talk page, inconveniencing everyone involved. Xiner (talk, email) 16:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Done; thanks. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit request

Where is says Welcome! at the top, can someone change it to ==Welcome!== ? --AAA! ^(AAAA) 02:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Won't be done. See above on this page and in the archives. —METS501 (talk) 02:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested addition

Can someone please add a comment into the template, so it's clear which template was being used, even after a "subst"? For example, add:

<!-- This information is from the {{welcome}} template -->

Thanks, Elonka 18:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Done - I added <!-- Template:Welcome --> as it's a little shorter. Is that acceptable?

Next time feel free to use the {{editprotected}} tag to get the attention of admins a little quicker. :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That looks fine, thanks! --Elonka 18:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)