Template talk:Welcome/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Picture tutorial

The list of pages is too long - no-one is ever going to read them all. The Picture tutorial, in particular, could be cut. Dan100 09:05, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Oh and the first line of 'Wikipedia:Topical index' says the page is obselete, which is kinda sucky. Dan100 09:07, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
The picture tutorial, or something like it (at least a link explaining that any images uploaded need to have source and copyright status clearly explained on the image page) IMO is one of the most important first things new ujsers should be made aware of. -- Infrogmation 02:41, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the tutorial is important. Oleg Alexandrov 02:47, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lol. It's pie-in-the-sky to imagine that newbies will even glance at stuff like that. It detracts from far more important links. Dan100 (Talk) 23:54, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

The Five Pillars of Wikipedia

Is this link really needed in the welcome message? It looks rather overwhelming to me. I would say that since this is the very first message users should see, it should contain a minimum of links. How about cutting this one? Oleg Alexandrov 01:00, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I still wonder if this link is still necessary. Opinions? Oleg Alexandrov 19:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes it's overwhelming, but that one is pretty important to introduce the core policies. I'd remove something else before that. It's much less important they know how to rename an article than it is to know the core policies. - Taxman Talk 19:49, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
How about removing the thing about merging/redirecting and putting the pillars link at the bottom, after the other links (I would say how to edit a page is more important than the pillars).
Besides, I found Neutrality's behaviour not very neutral, who having written the pillars article, stacked it on top of the welcome template without discussion or even without an edit summary. Oleg Alexandrov 01:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think the link probably makes more sense somewhere in the vicinity of "naming conventions". I agree that how-tos deserve more prominent real estate here than introducing Wikipedia policy. JYolkowski // talk 01:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I disagree, I think the core policies are just as, if not more important than the technical part. The technical part you can reference as needed. The policies take some more time to sink in. - Taxman Talk 03:07, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough, but do you really think that link deserves to be in the first position in the template? JYolkowski // talk 21:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I vote to put it right after the manual of style.
Also, having many links means people will start paying less attention to them. I would think at least one or two of the current links must go. Oleg Alexandrov 01:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've moved the Five Pillars link after the MoS link. JYolkowski // talk 14:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I hope no more links will be added to this template. Oleg Alexandrov 16:03, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've placed the Five Pillars as the first item. New editors who start working without having read any of the policies create a lot of work for others. Having it first won't mean they'll necessarily read it before starting, but they might just glance at it, and having it first signals our commitment to the idea that people must edit within our policies. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:19, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
How about changing the first link to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines then? If we really want the first link to be a policy link, then I think this should be it. JYolkowski // talk 22:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Is there a reason you don't like the Five Pillars as the first item? My only thought here is to emphasize WP:NPOV and WP:NOR right at the start. If only some of the new users read it before embarking on major edits, it'll cut down on a lot of work. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:15, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
I don't think that emphasising POV and OR is as important as a how-to. If we do want to have a page on policy at the start, we should have a page that is an official policy page. JYolkowski // talk 16:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
NOR and NPOV are our only two editorial policies. I disagree that we should show people how to edit technically before we show them how to manage content in line with our content policies. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:57, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
I don't think that these policies are that important for new editors to know about; I see very few new editors that have problems with these concepts. Having a full list of policies to be able to refer to when needed is more important, IMHO. See also the discussion at the bottom of the page. JYolkowski // talk 17:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Then we're dealing with very different sets of new editors. The ones I see have terrible problems editing according to NPOV and NOR. I truly fail to see how our only two editorial policies are considered not that important for new editors to know about. They're the twin policies that are supposed to govern every edit that's made to Wikipedia. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:38, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
Maybe we need two different templates then? Like I said, I don't think that this template should be everything for everyone, so maybe we should consider different templates for different "flavours" of a welcome message. JYolkowski // talk 19:13, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Running out of page here. ;-) So would it be all right then if I went ahead and created a more policy-oriented welcome template? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:40, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good. Keeping my reply short since each of these words are displaying on a separate line in my browser window (-: JYolkowski // talk 19:43, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Y'know, you don't always have to indent a bit more to reply... any way, imo the five pillars is the only page worth linking to. SV is quite right, the only serious problems with newbies arise when they don't follow our core policies. In contrast some of the existing links are not, realistically speaking, going to be read , and should be cut out. Dan100 (Talk) 23:52, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Why not a link to WP:NOT?

Why not tell our newcommers what Wikipedia is not? This way they now what not to expect/include when editing. Also lets say please write in the 3rd person. This is what my welcolm message also includes:

* '''Please read what [[Wikipedia]] is [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|not]].''' * Also, when editing '''articles''' on [[Wikipedia]] pelase write in the '''[[3rd person]]'''. You may write in [[1st person]] on [[talk pages]] and Discussion about [[Wikipedia]].

(unsigned comment by Michael180)

I don't have anything against this particular suggestion. But the number of links is already way too big I would say. Nobody bothers to read them all anyway. Oleg Alexandrov 03:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And the second sentence is in the manual of style. No, there is no way to include in the welcome message all the wisdom users would need to be good citizens. The way to learn things is by editing. Oleg Alexandrov 03:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some wisdom is more important than others. Knowing what not to add to WP is infinitely more important than where to place units in science articles... Dan100 (Talk) 23:55, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

sandbox

Please include a link to the sandbox. Isn't protection great :( --MarSch 18:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's a link to it in the first paragraph of Wikipedia:How to edit a page, the first link on the template. Do you think we need more than that? JYolkowski // talk 21:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
For those people who start editing before reading very much it might be worthwhile to mention it separately.--MarSch 08:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Previous discussions have revolved around keeping this page from being overwhelming, an important goal I think. - Taxman Talk 12:16, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Another link?

I'm just wondering, but would a link to Wikipedia:Utilities#Policy.2C_advice.2C_and_help be helpful? The page contains basically everything a newbie would need to know. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 9 July 2005 18:16 (UTC)

I did not look at your new link, but my answer would be a rightaway no. I just wonder, how many newbies after getting the the welcome message sit down and do their homework reading those links? From my experience, it is much more likely that they delete the default welcome, regarding it as spam (yes, it happened to me quite a lot of times).
I would say that the welcome template needs to slim up a bit from the current eight links to around four. And I would personally object to any addition of new links.
Other comments? Oleg Alexandrov 22:41, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
I understand your concern. However, IMO, I think it would be good to add it in- maybe like this: "In addition, for a full list of Wikipedia Policy, see here" or something like that. I think it would be helpful because I have found many newbies asking to know the "underbelly" of Wikipedia. If they had this link, IMO, they could look up the relevant policy. What do you think? Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 04:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I start thinking that the optimal solution is to write a page where some of the most important issues to newbies would be listed. Then cut down half of the links in the welcome template, and replace them with such a link.
Yes I understand that the newbies have that question. But you see, the number of questions the newbies have is very big, as Wikipedia is rather complex. You can't list all the answers in the welcome template. Most people are not ready for most answers, you get information overload, and then they read nothing, or even delete the template. More links does not mean more use of them. Oleg Alexandrov 15:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

heading on welcome message

Is there any particular reason why the title "welcome!" is surrounded by three apostrophes to create bold text, rather than two = signs? This is rather inconvenient for me personally, as I use headings to find my way around wikipedia pages. This is also not a good example for new users, and does not allow replies using the section editing function. I therefore propose that both instances of the three apostrophes should be changed to two equals signs. Graham 12:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I think then it will be possible to edit the template if one hits the "edit" link at the section heading. Now there is no danger of that, since the template is protected, but in the future it could be.
Also, this template is usually at the top of people's talk page, so does not interfere much with the table of contents.
Besides, you can always {{subst:welcome}} and then edit things as you wish. Oleg Alexandrov 23:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Please remove some links from this page

People, the welcome template takes one full screen on my 19" CRT. The welcome template is not to be meant the source of all info on Wikipedia. It has to have a short "hi" message, maybe the five pillars, and tell people to use five tildas. That's it.

I suggest removing the link to the Wikipedia:Topical index (who the heck ever reads that one). It is also liked from the The Five Pillars of Wikipedia. What do you think? Oleg Alexandrov 17:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Here's my thoughts. I think that this template shouldn't be everything to everyone; if you notice a newbie with a particular problem, leave a personalised message; don't try to get more stuff in here. I think there's probably two things we want to tell people on this template, not necessarily in this order:
  1. How to do basic things like edit, upload, move, redirect, etc.
  2. What our policies and guidelines are and how to find them
I'm going to suggest something like the following:
  1. How-to's: Just Wikipedia:Tutorial (the "how to edit a page" is already covered in the above, and I'm going to suggest adding the images and merging stuff to here) and Wikipedia:How to write a great article.
  2. Policies and guidelines: Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, which already links to all policies and guidelines. I think that Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Manual of style should also be there as well, since they are important for people beginning to write articles and they're sort of how-tos as well. I would suggest putting the last two on one line, to save space.
Comments? JYolkowski // talk 14:55, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Some of the links are also in the help pages (how to edit a page, move and merge pages, and other useful topics). So some of those can be deleted from the welcome template. (together with the Wikipedia:Topical index). But I prefer each link to be on its own line. Oleg Alexandrov 15:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

After reading through Help:Contents, I'm going to make a (possibly radical) suggestion: How about deleting the entire list of links, and just saying something like "you may find the help pages to be useful."? JYolkowski // talk 19:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

The link to how to edit a page could stay I guess. I agree with you in the main, at least half of the links can go, replaced by a link to the help page (which by the way is not too cluttered, so things are not so hard to find). Let us see first what others have to say though, to not have issue later (slimvirgin, do you hear?) Oleg Alexandrov 21:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually I agree. Let us remove the link to how to edit a page too. The merging/redirecting link too. Same for the picture tutorial, which is linked already from the help pages. Then again, the topical index must go, and probably one more link or two. Oleg Alexandrov 22:02, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Please, please do this - this is what I was asking for six weeks ago. IMO, only the five pillars and WWIN need be linked. Dan100 (Talk) 00:03, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Hei people and admins! Have we waited enough? The popular opinion asks for the welcome template to be trimmed. My suggestions would be

  1. Eliminate the link to the Wikipedia:Topical index who the heck ever reads that one (it is also linked from the Wikipedia:Five pillars which is linked from the welcome template — that should be enough).
  2. Eliminate the links to how to edit a page and how to merge and redirect pages, and instead make the link to Wikipedia:Help more proeminent, as that article discusses these issues.

Anybody willing to do the work? Oleg Alexandrov 15:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

How about a poll before we drastically reduce the template? Admittedly, most people on this page feel that it should be trimmed (I feel so too), but I would feel more comfortable if we initiate a poll/vote, similar to the CSD one a week or two ago. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 16:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
P.S. Just throwing out an idea: I know it's sort of ironic, but what if we put a "P.S." at the bottom of the message asking newbies how helpful the welcome template was? That way, we can get some good feedback from newbies. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 16:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I doubt a poll will help. People don't seem to care much it seems. This is why I suggest to cut out a couple of links, and see the reaction. I doubt it will be any.

To me, the biggest problem with this template is that every now and then an admin comes and inserts his/her pet link in here, without regard to the overall size of the page. So let us not make the matter too complicated, just cut out some links, and see where to go from there. Oleg Alexandrov 17:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

How about this- can you copy the source for the template, create a subpage (i.e. Template:Welcome/Proposed version 1 or something like that) and make your changes there. Anyone else with ideas or comments can post there or on its talk page, and I will place a notice on WP:AN and the village pump. After about a week, if there are no serious objections, then I will change the template. I just don't feel comfortable trimming down the pages without more input from the community. We should always attempt to get consensus/opinions before we make any drastic changes, instead of after. How's that sound? Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 15:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
OK, I made a shorter version at Template:Welcome/Proposed version 1. Oleg Alexandrov 19:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I've left a notice at WP:AN, to try and get more input. If/Once consensus has been reached, then either I or another admin will change the template accordingly. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 18:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

The link Wikipedia:Topical index is obsolete. It says so, I read it..

Grammatical Error

Can someone change the beginning to: "Hello, {{PAGENAME}}, and..." instead of "Hello {{PAGENAME}}, and... " to make it gramatically correct? Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:18, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Question about recent changes

Is it just me? I am not quite happy with the recent changes to this page, that is, with "Hello pagename" and the exclamation sign at "Welcome to Wikipdia!"

The "Hello pagename" looks not right since some people might not want to be addressed by thir user name, but rather by their first name.

And I find the "!" kind of pathetic. I wonder, what people think of removing these two. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov 23:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I just changed a period to the exclamation point, to emphasize the exciting-ness of Wikipedia. IMHO, I thought the "Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia." sounded monotonuously boring. However, I probably should have asked first before changing it to an exclamation point. Do you wish for me to rv me edit? As for the PAGENAME, I think some admins would prefer to keep that in (I didn't add it into the template). I would recommend asking them (check the history). Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that exclamation points should stay. Leaving them out makes it sound like Marvin. RoySmith 14:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

More simplifying

I suggest we further simplify:

By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name

to just:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will produce your name and the date

The idea is to give new people the bare minimum they need to get started. Knowing about multiple ways to sign isn't really core knowledge. I also cut some fluff; By the way, please be sure doesn't add much other than volume.

--RoySmith 14:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Agree witht that. Oleg Alexandrov 15:38, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I was coming to the talk page to suggest the exact same thing. Also, it makes it clear that four tildes should be the default. If no one objects to the suggestion, I can make the change. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 18:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Done. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 09:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Agree with recent changes

I am happy that the commas are gone now, both before PAGENAME and afterwards. Hope it stays that way. Oleg Alexandrov 18:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I have readded the commas; I believe that they are grammatically necessary, because you (the person who is welcoming a new user) is addressing the new user (the {{PAGENAME}} ). Thus, the commas are needed to separate the addressee of the message from the main clause. I've gone ahead and added them back in, but please let me know if I'm wrong or if you disagree. Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the commas should be there, if it's written as it currently stands, but I think overall it would be less awkward as Hello, PAGENAME. Welcome to Wikipedia! --RoySmith 23:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

BTW, it parses really strangely on the template page, where PAGENAME gets replaced by Welcome. You end up with Hello, Welcome, and welcome to Wikipedia, which parses as a list of three exlamations:

  1. Hello! (a generic greeting)
  2. Welcome! (another generic greeting)
  3. and welcome to Wikipedia! (a more specific greeting)

It took me a couple of reads to realize that wasn't what it was meant to say :-) --RoySmith 23:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't care whether the commas or there or not, but I would just like to point out to Flcelloguy that punctuation has nothing to do with grammar. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Really? Is punctuation part of style, then? Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 21:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Help Desk

The (protected) template casually refers the newcomer to the help desk for any questions they may have. However, I think this is a large reason for that desk getting factual questions unrelated to Wikipedia, which are better suited for the reference desk. Instead of the current wording, I would prefer either of the below, with priority to the first.

  1. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Ask a question.
  2. If you have any questions about Wikipedia, post at Wikipedia:Help desk.
You can find out more about the concept of Wikipedia:Ask a question by looking at that page and its talk. Please respond to this proposal whether you agree or not. Superm401 | Talk 03:28, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
Fine with me, but keep it short. :) Oleg Alexandrov 03:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'll make the change if no objections are voiced. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 18:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

zh:Template:Welcome

zh:Template:Welcome was added to the template. When used with the substitute option (subst:welcome) the link appears. Hyacinth 00:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes I just noticed that today, can someone edit it (needs an admin) - there really is no need to link it to the Chinese template is there? --TimPope 17:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Done. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Disagree with addition of preferences

I am afraid this template is again starting to slowly decay into a "everything you want to know about Wikipedia is written in here" kind of thing. No, you don't need to tell users that they can set up their preferences. There is a clearly seen link about it at the very top of the page if you are logged in. There are more important things users need to know. I suggest this remark about preferences be removed. Oleg Alexandrov 21:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I emphatically agree with Oleg. Keep it short and sweet. Give people the bare minimum they need to survive, and a pointer to where there can go to learn more. Knowing how to change your preferences is way, way down on the list. --RoySmith 01:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • As do I. I've removed the line. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

template self-reference

I'm wondering if it would be reasonable and helpful to include a link to the template in the template. since {{subst:welcome}} is strongly encouraged, users get a static one-shot of the template. However, the information contained in the welcome message changes over time and those later changes may be helpful to someone who has been here for some time but only contributes in small amounts over time. By the time they read the welcome message, the template may have changed several times. A self-referential link in the template would allow users to see what the current welcome greeting is and utilize that newer information as well. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that is too complicated. :) As a user, I never found the welcome template helpful. Its purpose is, I think, to welcome users, no more no less. I doubt there will be an instance when this template adds life-saving information anybody who had subst: would really really want to know.
What we need to focus on, is to keep this template really small and really cute, and actually, to not change it that much. Oleg Alexandrov 17:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • More than just too complicated, I think it would be downright confusing. A user sees the message, makes a mental note to follow up on some of the links, and then at some point in the future comes back to his/her talk page, and can't find the link he remembered wanting to explore further, with no clue how/why it changed (or if his memory of it is just faulty). I don't think you need anything more than:

Welcome!

Hello, Welcome/Archive 2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Here are a two good links for newcomers:

If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! 

-- RoySmith 11:48, 15 September 2005
Well, that's probably too short. One needs to tell people about signing their name with four tildas. And a link to the manual of style is good. But probably the contents in the tutorial and in "how to edit a page" could be merged. Oleg Alexandrov 20:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

tildes

The tildes in the template are being expanded into a full signature. --TimPope 10:22, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

To clarify, this occurs when subst is used with the template --TimPope 10:25, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Automatic thing

I am rather unhappy with the wording "this will automatically produce your name and the date". The old "to produce your name and date" was shorter and more to the point. Of course it will happen automatically, how else would four tildas become the date, by magic? This works only for turning water into wine, and even that one not for everybody. Oleg Alexandrov 16:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I put it in there because I've seen countless posts after I welcome people that say things like "I don't get the tilde thing" or "but I want the sig to show my name [i.e. and not tildes]". I think the fact that what you type isn't always what you get isn't necessary clear to everyone first time around. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 17:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
OK, but how about shortening it, like "to automatically produce your name and the date"? Oleg Alexandrov 23:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Correction

Can an admin change Wikipedia:Ask a question to Wikipedia:Where to ask a question? I can't do it and I don't want the link to be to a redirect indefinitely. Thanks. Superm401 | Talk 20:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Agree with comma removal

I really don't think one must say:

Hi, Oleg, and welcome to Wikipedia.

The comma after "Hi" does not look good there. Thanks to a kind soul who removed it. I would remove even the {pagename}. Nobody will be fooled by this fake personalization, and it looks downright silly with certain usernames. Oleg Alexandrov 04:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

That second tilde

Is there a reason why the second tilde in the code isn't a tilde, but actually encoded in unicode or something? --216.191.200.1 13:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Four ~'s get converted to a signature by wikipedia, as the template mentions. There are two ways around this, one is enclosing the sequence in <nowiki>'s, the other is making one of the ~'s not a plain ASCII ~. I'm not sure why the latter was chosen here though. --fvw* 13:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Sandbox

How about a refrence to the sandbox, see my welcome message, template:greeting

Prodego talk 14:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I am against. Users see a link the sandbox each time they edit an article. Also, the primary aim should be to keep this welcome template short. There are a huge number of things a new user needs to know, but if you put all them here, the user will read none. This welcome template could still use some trimming. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


Alternative

Is there an alternative, with a descritpion of how to create an acocunt, for use with IP-address users? Andy Mabbett 16:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we have {{anon}} and {{welcomeip}} according to Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. Thryduulf 13:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you.Andy Mabbett 14:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Annotated article

I think it may help to include a link to Wikipedia:Annotated article in the welcome, before the tutorial, to give newcomers a better idea of how articles ought to be formatted. The Future studies WikiRaid created a number of articles that subsequently needed cleanup work, which might have been mitigated somewhat if our instructions had been more clear. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 13:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Section

Is it possible to have this template (and templates like it) automatically create a new section? E.g. - ==Welcome!==? This would make it less annoying once a new user starts actually using their talk page. I'd edit the template myself and try it out in the sandbox to see if it breaks, but it's protected. :P --Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 10:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I think if one makes this template create a section, one will have to always use subst: when inserting the template. Otherwise, without subst:, when the user will try to edit that section, he/she will be actually editing this template, not his user talk page, which will give an error as the template is protected.
I don't think there is any problem with the welcome template not being a section. It is at the very top of a user's talk page anyway, so one can easily click on the "edit" tab right above it. Also, a user using his talk page can always add a new section by clicking on the "+" tab at the top. So, I think things are fine the way they are. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
That's not the issue. The issue is that once more conversations are added to the talk page (enough so a TOC appears), the welcome message appears above the TOC. On a 1024x768 display, when I come across pages with a welcome message I sometimes miss that there's more to it because the TOC is often pushed below the initial view. With regard to welcomes not issued correctly (that is, not subst'd), as below, this could be resolved with a bot most likely, and could be followed up by checking "what links here" from time to time. Locke Cole 15:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
It is easy to say "write a bot" or "check this from time to time". Writing a bot is not easy, and it requires constant supervision. Basically your suggestion is not worth the trouble, you could as well hit the "page down" button once to see the TOC. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is this protected?

This is a labor-saving template intended to be subst-ed, isn't it? Something like that shouldn't need even temporary protection unless facing an absolutely massive attack. Since it's supposed to be subst-ed, vandalizism here would never appear on a page where it's properly used anyway; it won't affect the subst-ed copies, while anyone using it after the vandalism would see the change in their preview, and fix it first. If anyone is not subst-ing it, then some sort of noinclude statement could be included on its page reminding people how to use it... people using it without subst could also be spotted by looking at "what links here" and reminded directly. Unless I'm missing something, this template should never be transcluded. --Aquillion 03:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you willing to subst all the transcluded templates so far, and patrol from now on that everybody uses subst? I have my own question. Why should this be not protected? It is not one of those things which are supposed to change a lot, and it is a good idea to discuss on the talk page before modifying this anyway. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The same could be said about any policy page, and most of the widely-used templates. I agree that changes should be discussed, but protection is neither an effective nor accepted way of enforcing that. Even protected, after all, this page has gotten regular edits going back as far as the eye can see, many of them (such as the one you just reverted) with no discussion; the number of edits it gets is similar to normally unprotected templates of similarly broad use such as {{test}} through {{test5}}. This is not a "static" template by any stretch of the imagination. Likewise, even with editing limited to admins, the number of undiscussed changes to this page seems no lower than, say, any given similarly high-profile unprotected policy page where the same requirement for discussion exists, and higher than many. When a change to this template is discussed, an admin's opinions shouldn't carry any more weight than anyone else's, beyond whatever respect they've earned as an editor; unfortunately, protection effectively means that each change must be approved by an admin, and allows admins to change the page instantly, with no discussion, and have it stick as long as no other admin reverts. Since admins are generally sane, that's not a horrible disaster, but it is an undesirable side-effect of protection, and it would not, I think, be what you intended to accomplish. Protection has its uses, but enforcing discussion is not one of them. Finally, if existing transcluded templates bother you, they could easily be fixed with a bot; afterwards, patrolling for new transclusions would be simple. --Aquillion 10:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Oleg. This page is too widely used and needs few changes. There is no upside in unprotecting it and a lot of downside. That meets the burden of proof for protecting a page to me. - Taxman Talk 12:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Aquillion. A widely used page is not an automatic excuse to keep the page protected. Many pages are widely used or highly visible and remain unprotected most of the time, I don't see why this page is any exception. With regard to it being subst'd (or not being subst'd), I further agree with Aquillion that a bot could probably be designed to automatically correct instances where someone neglected to subst the template. This would also resolve the issue my suggestion above of adding a section header to the template. Locke Cole 15:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The reason this page was first protected was because of the amount of damage that could be done by vandalism. The page has not been subst'd on many pages, and the description you provide is in an Utopian world — people (including myself) will still forget to add subst:, and many people (myself included) don't hit preview before they add the welcome tag. In addition, this template can be used to chase away the most vulnerable of Wikipedians - those who are new and need welcoming the most. If a new Wikipedian sees an obscene copy of the welcome template on his/her user talk page, they will most likely be disgusted with Wikipedia and leave. Finally, as Oleg points out, this page should remain relatively stable — additions can be discussed here, and when consensus has been reached, can then be added onto the template. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The problem is with the seeming lack of discussion on this talk page. My suggestion, above, for adding a section to the template was shot down by one person and then never spoken of again. What kind of consensus is that? —Locke Cole 17:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I replied in the section above. I don't see how unprotecting this page is going to make people discuss things more. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Just so y'all know, there already is a bot which replaces transcluded templates with subst'd ones. See Bluebot. --Kenyon 00:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Are you going to promise that the bot in question will always make sure that the templates are subst'ed very promptly, and if this template is unprotected, no anon is going to see any obscene message on his virgin talk page instead of the welcome message? Because if you are not going to promise that, this page will stay protected. :) Again, there are no disadvantages to having this page protected and lots of disadvantages of having it unprotected.
And if somebody again complains that their opinions are not listened to, I must say that I managed to push for a radical restructuring of the welcome template when it was protected and I did not have admin privileges to edit it myself. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
It's only been protected since 20 March 2005, before then it was never protected. Prior to that I'm not seeing a lot of vandalism, just mistakes caused by the template having a section in it (as I've suggested above). This in turn is caused by people not using this template correctly: you must subst this template. If you don't and it gets vandalized the user will see the vandalism, and more importantly in my opinion, if the user decides to edit the page to respond, they'll see it's just a template and probably not be as impressed with the welcome. As for people who "forget" to subst it, well.. I'll try to say this as nicely as I can: those people who forget the subst shouldn't be welcoming people, we should be welcoming them. Besides, that's what the "what links here" is for; if someone is using it improperly, go tell them. Don't take it out on the rest of us. BTW: I'm not very impressed with your attitude here; you act like this is your template. And of course, since I'm not an admin, I can't press the issue of making changes. It's really ridiculous, IMO.. —Locke Cole 02:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I thought the very point of my argument is that you don't need to be an admin to push for changes. And please note one point: just because some people may not agree with your opinions it does not mean that everything is ridiculous, the admins rule, and anything else you may please to say. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Protection is never desirable because it makes even little things like category changes or typo fixes, as well as big things, much more effort, and so they tend not to be done. However, in this case where the template is essentially stable besides any new suggestions, it's not overly burdemsome. This being, I'm sure, one of the most used templates on Wikipedia, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that any proposed change be mentioned somewhere more public, like the Village Pump, where admins could implement the change. For small things like recategorizations or rewordings, a note on the WP:AN will bring in some admins if it is not being seen here. This template is one of the very few that I think should be protected, as it is only directed at newbies, and I would not want my warm note of welcome to someone to turn into a penis, especially if they don't know what is going on. Dmcdevit·t 00:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Naming: "talk" vs "discussion" page

The template calls it a "talk" page. For new users that's confusing as it's labelled "discussion". Can we get the template clarified? Thanks. Samw 22:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, saying "write on my discussion page" sounds kind of clumsy I would say. Anybody knowing English pretty well would I think figure out that the discussion page is where the talk takes place. You have a good point though. I don't know what to say. Ideally, Wikipedia would replace the "discussion" tab with "talk", but as far as what to write in the welcome template in the current conditions I have no idea. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually Wikipedia use to label the talk page tab "talk" and it's now labelled "discussion". I assume there was a lengthy debate on that at one point. How about "edit my 'talk' page by clicking on the 'discussion' tab and 'edit this page'"? Samw 04:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
So, you want to replace
ask me on my talk page
in the welcome template by
"ask me by editing my 'talk' page by clicking on the 'discussion' tab and 'edit this page'"
Mmmm, wordy... Let us see what other people say about the issue. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
What the tab in question is called is set at MediaWiki:Talk, but apart from several versions of silliness on 1 April 2005, and for 1 minute on 30 October 2005 it has always been "Discussion". There has been no discussion on MediaWiki talk:Talk about anything. If you would like to change it to say "Talk" then I suggest proposing it at WP:VPT or WP:VPM as those are more widley watched than here or there. Thryduulf 10:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not proposing renaming the tab. Just changing this template. To answer Oleg above, yes my proposal is wordy but it might avoid confusion between talk/discussion. I sense people want to leave it and talk/discussion is just one of the quirks of Wikipedia. I'm fine with that. Samw 04:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Allow parameters

We should allow at least one parameter for this template—it'd make the message seem less like a form letter. Something like:

...to Wikipedia! Thank you for your {{qif|test={{{2|}}}|then={{{2}}}&nbsp;}}contributions{{qif|test={{{1|}}}|then=&nbsp;to [[{{{1}}}]]}}. I hope you like...

So {{subst:welcome}} would display the same message we have now. {{subst:welcome|asdf}} would give you "Thank you for your contributions to asdf." And {{subst:welcome|asdf|supercalifragilisticexpialidocious}} would give you "Thank you for your supercalifragilisticexpialidocious contributions to asdf." =) Bmdavll talk 01:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I am rather weary of this complication and don't know how many people would appreciate the fancier welcome. Note that its source code looks rather messy too. I would suggest you create a copy of this template, say called {{fwelcome}} (meaning "fancy welcome" :), use it for a while and see if you like the idea. If other users get to like it, it could find its way into the default template. Wonder what other opinions on this matter are. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Sure, I just created {{fwelcome}} for testing. Try it out and see if you like... Bmdavll talk 03:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, enjoy using it. :)
To be honest, all fancy these things leave me weary for another reason. I would even remove {pagename} from the current welcome template, not to talk about adding new things. People are trying to make that template personal, but it will never work. People are not stupid. The best way of being nice to new users is to actually be personal. Write a sentence or two about user's contributions, or bug them about a thing they don't do right, leave their page on your watchlist, that kind of thing. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 07:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Getting any message lets people know you noticed them. I like this template because of the information provided. However, pretending that it is a personal message is insulting. Hyacinth 08:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree that these messages are impersonal, but they're very often the only welcome message that newcomers get. Since the standard welcome templates don't allow so much as the username and pagename to be included, it'd be nice to have at least one that is customizable, so that the welcomer can use the template for the information it provides and insert a message to make it less impersonal. See Template talk:Fwelcome for an example of using it as a copyvio notice as well as a welcome. At least there's a lot more flexibility than {{welcome}} since the message can contain anything. Bmdavll talk 11:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Wording?

About a month ago I starting welcoming many of the new editors that I ran across on my watchlist. With over 1,000 articles on the watchlist, I've been welcoming roughly two people per day. Within the last week I've two of the people that I've welcomed ask me if I had left the message because I had seen some problem with the editing. I can't see what there is in the welcome template that might have made them make that assumption, but still, I am wondering if there is a way to reword the message to make it clear that the only reason that it is being left is as a welcome. BlankVerse 02:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it happened to me that new users would just delete the welcome I put on their virgin talk page, and they would delete it without explanation. To be honest, I was a bit offended, that's not the wiki way, but then I realized that those people who are new to Wikipedia treat the talk page as some kind of email:
I saw your message, I read it, I don't need it anymore, so I deleted it.
Back to your question. I don't know how one would make the welcome template more "welcoming". Saying instead of "hello, welcome", the clumsy "this is a welcome message"? I would think that's too much.
I would be interested in seeing how you would word the welcome, you can write it on this talk page first. However, the main problem is that new users are just that, new users. Some people will be confused by the welcome message, some people have trouble adjusting themselves to the concept of talk page (that was me), some people don't know that one should use an edit summary or the preview button. So, I would say that there are all kinds of people and confusions, and not much to be done about it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
You know what I would be most interested in? What the new users think of this template and how they think it could be improved. Of course, it's hard getting this feedback, as the majority of new users don't stay, but I think we should get some feedback from them on this. Thoughts? Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

User sandbox

I know the idea of linking the *the* sandbox has been repeatedly rejected. But I would like to put a link to the user's sandbox (e.g. a subpage in userspace for each new user, initially a redlink would show). This would encourage new user's start out some things in their sandbox, initially, before they're confident the article is ready (and not likely to be deleted as {{db-empty}} or for another reason). That way, if all somebody initially has is a single sentence, they can put that in their sandbox, and add to it later, moving it to article space when ready. Also, for experimenting, a personal sandbox seems much better, as one user's experiments don't effect anybody elses. I doubt many users realize they can have their own user subpages. --Rob 04:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I think one could use his/her user page as a place to make experiments. Yeah, I don't know about adding the link. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)