Template talk:Welcome/Archive 3

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

PAGENAME

I had always thought that adding {{PAGENAME}} at the header was rather impersonal, and I recently got the idea of how to fix that. While experimenting in my own Sandboxes, I remembered that subst:'ing a template that has a nowiki tag in it doesn't work, so I figured that if I subst:'d the PAGENAME magicword inside nowiki tags, it would show up, and sure enough, it did! I don't know whether or not I should add this code to the template, because if the template is not subst'd, it will show up as {{subst:PAGENAME}}, which we don't want. In any event, you might consider adding this to a personal Welcome template, so that the impersonal PAGENAME code isn't available in the edit box. Yeah, this is a bit convoluted, but if you get what I'm saying, please use this to make us seem friendlier. -Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 21:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

comment: its still deceptively impersonal. -- Zondor 06:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Zondor, please wait until a consensus has been reached before adding in the requested change template. I'm an administrator, and if I wanted, I could change it, but I wanted to see community consensus before doing either of these things. Just wait a little for people to agree (like strongly agree), and don't worry, I'm watching this page, so if something comes up, just tell me, and I'll see what I can do. -Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 06:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not happy with such a change. It is just a complication which I don't know what value will add. If it were for me, I would remove the PAGENAME thing altogether, leaving it just with "Hello and welcome to Wikipedia".

Of course the welcome template is impersonal. It is impossible to make it personal. Tell me, how often did you confuse a standard letter from some company you get in the mail for personal communication? Not too often I guess. The welcome template is just that, a template. The best way to make the user feel at home is to actually write something under the template, a true message, like thanking the contributor for working in certain article, or telling him/her things done not right (most newbies have problems with style and other stuff). That's just my view. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Comma business (poll)

This template needs a comma after 'Hello':

Hello, Username, and welcome to Wikipedia!

~Topaz♪♫∆ 06:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. In your case, the comma denotes a pause, which is unnecessary and breaks the flow of the sentence. --Deathphoenix 06:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Commas are used to set off words of direct address. In this case, "Hello, Username" is a direct address (need a comma before Username); "welcome to Wikipedia" is a separate, independant clause (need a comma after Username). Both sides need a comma. See also the question from 'Fathy' at [1]. ~Topaz♪♫∆ 07:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
For myself, I really don't like the comma in there. :) Too many commas, indeed interrupts the flow. How often do you address somebody with "Hi, whoever, how's it going?"
If you really want independent clause, then it should be "Hi, whoever; how's it going?" But no, the best thing is no comma after Hi.
Some people feel strongly about it (I do! :) Maybe a poll should be held. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 08:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm all for a poll.... lead the way. ~Topaz♪♫∆ 08:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Support comma after Hi

  1. Strong Support ~Topaz♪♫∆ 10:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Looks ugly without the comma.  Grue  11:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. This is basic grammer/punctuation. Such a comma is required. i would make the edit if a poll were not in progress. DES (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. UtherSRG (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. I've always thought it gramatically (erm - punctuation-ally) incorrect without the comma. Having an incorrect welcome doesn't give too good of an impression, in my opinion. Perhaps a language expert could be sought to clarify this issue? Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Ridiculous to do it any other way. See Amazon.com's homepage, assuming you have an account. It says, "Hello, your name." "Hail, Marcus Andronicus," "greetings, Marjorie," "what's up, Doc?" Commas go after salutations. See this from the Chicago Manual of Style (search down for "Hi, Mom!"): "in formal writing, direct address takes a comma before the person’s name." Also see [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] to name just a few pages you can get with a simple Google search on the subject. Why on earth are we having a poll about a well-established rule of orthography? Somebody want to produce some contrary authorities that say you don't put a comma before and after names in direct address? --TreyHarris 01:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. RChandra Direct address always requires a comma before, and if appropriate, after the entity being directly addressed. The cited usage is a direct address.
Since more people seem to favor having the comma and because it seems punctuatationally correct, I've gone ahead and added it back in for the time being. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Object to commma after Hi

  1. As explained above, saying "Hello, Someone, and welcome to Wikipedia!" sounds very clumsy. What sounds good is "Hello Someone, and welcome to Wikipedia!" Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 09:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Comma bad. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. No comma, and remove "and" as well making it "Hello someone, welcome to WP" −Woodstone 21:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't hold votes on WP:AN

  1. Take it to the talk page. That's one of the things they're there for. —Cryptic (talk) 09:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Was moved I guess, that will make at least someone happy. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, for, goodness, sake

  1. Splashtalk 19:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    Hey, using correct English on one of the first pages new users will see should be at least mildly important... ~Topaz♪♫∆ 01:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oh, for goodness sake!, we're taking straw polls on grammar now? For what it's worth, commas are not synonymous with pauses, but really! Stevage 22:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Recent wording

I don't quite like the recent edit to this template. I think it is very rare that users get welcomed before they bother to contribute at all, as it is very hard to detect such a person. Besides, the point about somebody making an account is contributing, not registering. I would thus vote to restore the original meaning. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... While I see the point of the change, it just doesn't have the flow of the previous version. How about: Thank you for joining and helping us? Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
If that's what you prefer, I'd rather vote for "registering"  :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'd still prefer to keep in the thank you for contributions (and the implied future contributions, of course.) How about: Thank you for your contributions and registering with us? The only qualm I have with this is that it's a bit longer, but... Thoughts? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
OK then. I just changed back to the original. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Username

Could we add to the template a few words about the benefits of a username?

Mikereichold 07:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

If a person has an account already (which is typically the people who get the welcome template), the info about benefits of username will not be helpful to them. So, I believe such information will be of limited use to the vast majority of people receiving the welcome template, and as such, that it is not necessary to be in the welcome template. That's just an opinion.
There is another template, about making an account, I don't know its name, which talks about benefits of username, I think. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
See Template:welcomeip or Template:Anon for a welcome message for unregistred users. Mihai -talk 08:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Changes?

A link to WP:BC (Boot Camp) and {{helpme}} were recently put in. I don't like the changes, as both are rarely used and provide little information, as they are help groups. We cut back on links such as these in the past (like a link to the Welcoming Committee), and I don't think we should include these now. Thoughts? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree the Boot Camp link doesn't seem appropriate, but the helpme template could be a useful little thing for newbies. Powers 20:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
The bootcamp is definitely not appropriate. I would also vote for removing {{helpme}}. The welcome message already says that one can visit Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or the person who welcomed you if you have questions. That should be enough I believe. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Danny proposed to do some structured IRC newbie helping, and when he heard that WP:BC already existed, he and some other people (myself included) decided to get involved in it. We thought it would be a good idea to add it to the welcoming template, not realising that the template had a history like Flcelloyguy described. For what it's worth, both the {{helpme}} template (although that's still in a testing phase, it reports to an IRC channel) and the Boot Camp page and channel have proven their use in the last couple of hours, although it's too early to tell if it'll be a huge success of course. But perhaps this sheds some other light on the case? --JoanneB 22:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
How about putting the link to {helpme} and the bootcamp in Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, to have all eggs in one basket? That one is linked from the {welcome} template. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I like this - any objections? That way, we can still let users know about the two, but not clutter up the welcome message more. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea, too. Ikkyu2 04:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

No. This should certainly stay here. It is much more useful for newbies than a hundred pages of verbose discussion on how to edit. This gives a chance to learn from experienced users, meet people in the community, and get immediate, hands-on help. Take out all the silly links that no one will read before you remove something that is actually useful. Make the Helpme button and bootcamp announcement even more prominent. Danny 15:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure it should be removed, as the welcome message is put directly on the user_talk which is highly noticeable by new users. Putting it on another page might make the message look somewhat smaller, but will add to the work a new user has to go through to get "instant" help. Bjelleklang - talk 15:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

But I would argue that Wikipedia:Reference desk and Wikipedia:Help desk are much more helpful, and there is no link to them in {{welcome}}. Also, most people do not use an IRC channel, which is needed for the bootcamp.
I am sure that the link to bootcamp is helpful, but it is a matter of choosing the most relevant of the most relevant links to include on this page. Wikipedia:Where to ask a question has just a few links, and adding the link to the bootcamp there instead of here will give people the options of choosing which of the ways of asking a question fits them best. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, but the {{helpme}} give newbies a chance to add the message, and then just wait until the help arrives, instead of looking through other pages, not knowing where to go. Bjelleklang - talk 16:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
It is not clear how long they should wait until help arrives, and at Wikipedia:Reference desk and Wikipedia:Help desk they should also get help rather soon. And one should not underestimate the user who posts the welcome message, that could be a very valuable resourse also. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I still disagree with the addition of these two to the template. There are probably hundreds of help pages, policy pages, and other miscellaneous useful pages in Wikipedia; we shouldn't list them all. One of the problems I have with "Boot camp" is that it carries a negative connotation, and sounds entirely unprofessional (of course, that's just my opinion). I don't mind having a so-called "boot camp", but linking to it directly from the welcome template might give some users the wrong impression. In addition, the {{helpme}} seems a bit redundant with other pages; on some of the current links, there's a "If you need help" section, if I remember correctly. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
{{helpme}} is a new concept, different to anything else available. If you need help, you put it on your userpage/talkpage and someone comes and visits you and gives you help. New users are too new to visit the Help desk or anywhere else, that's why we need to go to them.--Commander Keane 23:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I am not yet sure that this {{helpme}} concept will work, and if yes, if it will work better than existing concepts. I still believe this link better be in context, at Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, as you may never know which approach people will like more for getting help. For that reason, I am back to my original idea of a poll, to see if there is consensus about the issue. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I was just about to use the template to welcome a newbie, most likely a young student, but the "boot camp" message turned me off totally. Please bear in mind, that newbies may be young, religious, from anywhere in the world with a different culture, pacifist, or a conscientious objector. The use of military-theme wordings to welcome newbies is highly inappropriate. There is already too much military-related content in our society today, we don't need any more of these, especially not an image of a US Marines drill instructor in Wikipedia:Boot Camp. Please be kind and take it out, thank you. --Vsion 09:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Since this is not a vote... The first {{helpme}} has just been placed by a clueless newbie who created a page with the wrong name and no formatting and people immediately filled with page with cleanup templates. But it appears that the page is useful, however it needs to be moved, formatted and much more, however it is a way to find the newbies who tried to make a good addition, but who have no idea what to do next. As far as the BootCamp goes. Maybe the name should be changed, but the real problem is that it is an #irc, so you are asking somebody to install IRC software and try to figure out as well as finding your way in wiki. Maybe a messageboard of some sort would be easier. Dr Debug 16:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, we have an Web-based IRC client which autojoins/connects to the correct channel, to help newbies from having to learn/install anything! When someone adds {{helpme}}, the IRC bot lists that page on the IRC channel, so other users can see it, and come to offer assistance. We're planning to promote the client alot more when we know if I've got to host it myself, or if we can move it to Wikimedia, but for now, it can be found here: http://bjelleklang.org/wikipedia/. We're also looking into ways of automating the inserting of the template as well, although this won't happen anytime soon. Bjelleklang - talk 16:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I think a webbased IRC is easier, because I don't have IRC installed on this computer either and I am not likely to do it just to have a conversation about something, so if you have a webbased link just add it to the page. Dr Debug 16:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I will add the link for all to see when I know where it will be hosted, to avoid people subst'ing templates with the wrong link. Bjelleklang - talk 17:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I just read very carefully the welcome template. It does not read well. The mention of the bootcamp takes the lion share of real estate, at the top, followed by some links to Wikipedia pages, followed by mention to sign your posts, again mention of help, at Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, followed by mention that you can ask for help on your talk page. I tried to think of a compromise, but could not. I still think that all the links to how users get help better be at Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, from where one may also access Wikipedia:Helpdesk, Wikipedia:Clueless newbies, and Wikipedia:Reference desk. Thus, I believe the bootcamp and {helpme} to be a good idea, but it is not in the appropriate context on the welcome template, and Wikipedia:Where to ask a question would be the perfect place. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I complete agree with Vsion and Oleg. "Boot camp", as I stated above, has a highly negative connotation, and it presents an image that could easily mislead new editors. In addition, I'm still not seeing the benefits of adding {{helpme}} directly to the welcome template; we've got plenty of help, policy, and support pages. What distinguishes this from the others? A link to the template from one of the current links should be sufficient. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The main difference when using {{helpme}} compared to the others, is that everyone using that template is also listed on the IRC channel #wikipedia-bootcamp every three minutes, and when someone uses the command !helpme. This way it's an easy way to get help fast, we've also got a webbased IRC client which requires no installation or knowledge of IRC commands to be used, which will soon be hosted on the Wikimedia toolserver. Bjelleklang - talk 23:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't use IRC at all, why would I want to include this in my template? What is the benefit of involving IRC? Sam Spade 23:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
You don't need IRC, since Category:Wikipedians looking for help is an option as well. I'm doing my first mentoring and kinda like it. I'm learning all kinds of things about the early rock and roll in 1949 LOL Like I said before I like the idea because it's simple. A person can drop a tag and you can try to sort it out and be a bit of a mentor. Guess I'm the only one because we didn't find that many clueless newbies yet, but still... Dr Debug 00:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Hehe, try Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance if your feeling lonely. Sam Spade 00:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
That's strange, because I see the Ben case which I saw yesterday as well when I voted for a RFA and somehow I felt that the guy was treated pretty bad even though he was hardly Mr.Nice himself either. Something to keep in mind, because the guy is banned for a month and it wasn't totally his fault either, he was pushed off the edge. The point is that I have a low edit count here even though I did x thousand edits on another Wiki, so I'm not sure whether I'll be taken serious here as an advocate. Put I'll keep an eye out on your URL. Dr Debug 01:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

OK then. It seems there is a consensus towards removing the link to the bootcamp, and that the {helpme} template needs to stay in the welcome template pending further discussion, or more time to see if the idea is worth it. Does that sound as a reasonable compromise? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no problems with removing the bootcamp link, but I would like to have the {{helpme}} link included, as well as the link to the IRC client now located at http://tools.wikimedia.de/~bjelleklang/pjirc/[8] (requires no prior knowledge of IRC, and no installation). As for Dr.Debug and Sam Spade, the advantage of using this client (and IRC in general) is that it offers a live chat with other people, and not just some messages posted at a talkpage. Also, I believe that it's easier to ask several questions while on IRC, as you don't have to post a message on your talkpage, and then wait to see if someone notices it for every followup and so on. Bjelleklang - talk 11:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
requires no prior knowledge of IRC, and no installation - erm, what about Java? What about choosing a "nick" (a what?). What about the applet signing popup? What about the MS Security warning when it blocks IE/Firefox? A lot of issues for someone to get help! Thanks/wangi 12:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Users are told in advance that they require java; the warnings tell the user that the applet is signed/is from a trusted source, and I've changed 'nick' to 'desired username' thanks to you! I appreciate any suggestions as to how it can be improved, and I strongly believe that it, together with WP:CN can be a good way for new users to find help! Bjelleklang - talk 12:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I know how to use the wiki pretty well, but I wouldn't mind a bootcamp on how to use IRC ;) Seriously, I think keeping things on wiki is WAY easier, but I don't oppose your IRC room, or you making whatever use of it you can. I just don't think its going to be easier for nube's to learn about IRC before learning about the wiki. Occam's razor. Sam Spade 13:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
A wiki is simple when you've gotten used to it, and there already is a basic guide to IRC, and links to more comprehensive ones as well on WP:BC. The whole point about this client, is that the users doesn't have to know anything about IRC; no commands, no theory on how it works; just that they type in text, hit enter, and then everyone else can see what they've written. I don't know if anyone here has seen this image before, but it shows some of the current structure of the help system, which easily can be said to be chaotic. Bjelleklang - talk 13:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I would oppose having the link to http://tools.wikimedia.de/~bjelleklang/pjirc/ in the welcome template. You may add it to Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, alongside the other ways of seeking help, like Wikipedia:Helpdesk, Wikipedia:Clueless newbies, and Wikipedia:Reference desk. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

A welcome should mean something.

I have a confession. I dislike it when someone drops a welcome on a page and does not watchlist that page. IMHO, you shouldn't welcome someone if you aren't going to keep half an eye on them, see that they don't get into avoidable trouble, see that they don't cause avoidable trouble. Not that you'll wiki-stalk, but maybe an occasional wiki-sample, just to make sure that the welcomed newbie fits in smoothly. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Welcoming others involves a responsibility to help them in some way. I am uncomfortable w these cookie cutter templates, and to some extent w this "bootcamp" concept entirely. Firstly, let me explain that I STRONGLY agree w the idea behind this, that of better integrating new wikipedians. That is something I have strived to do ever since my horrorshow introduction to the wiki.
Having learned from the communities abject failure to properly welcome me (and many others of course), I see a powerful need for mentorship. Perhaps because of the intense need for this and its import, I am wary of what I see being done. I was a fast learner (indeed I was accused of being a reincarnated banned user because of that), and had no interest in a remedial training program. Rather I needed someone who could have been my mentor, someone I could ask questions of, and who could have guided me along the route to adminship.
In sum, I would like to see longterm mentorship rather than leafletting (casual template dropping). Sam Spade 10:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree completely. I have also been ill-welcomed (and indeed felt rather unwelcome, the WP system of where which discussions are held is horrible ("you shouldnt ask this here!")). I have also often thought of mentorship as a solution, think it'd be a swell idea. The Minister of War (Peace) 13:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
There are ALOT of extremely rude people here, and nube biting is even easier than insulting old hands (and we all know the latter happens w a fair amount of regularity). Saddest of all is the way in which users are permanantly scorned and shuned for historical misunderstandings. Sam Spade 15:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Easier to said than done about keeping newbies on your watchlist. There are too many of them. The welcome template clearly says that one may use the talk page of the welcoming person for questions.

Besides, some comments above make me think that some of us believe newbies are just as helpless as newborn babies. I don't think so. If a person went through the trouble of making an account, it means that person did at least several edits either right before or right after the account was made. Let us say that they are babies at 2 years old, so, at least, they know how to walk. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

oh, I wasn't talking about babies at all. New co-workers is more like it. And everybody needs a mentor ;) Sam Spade 21:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Grin :-). And Oleg, you hit the nail right on the head. Most are probably quite self-sufficient, so it wouldnt be that much work. Its really just being available for questions and general talk. One of the problems I had was precisely that: just didnt know anyone to ask something to! (And no, sadly just asking anyone doesnt really help). I'm all for! The Minister of War (Peace) 09:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the endless debate about the welcome template. I think that if someone needs help they should ask for it, especially after being told where and how to do so. Mentoring is not welcoming. A welcome is a welcome, that's that. Hyacinth 09:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

My experience is the inverse. Sam Spade 13:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that there are many rules, guidelines, formatting standards and most newbies know how to type a text and can generally figure out how to make a wiki, but some mentoring might be good especially if have the impression that the user is making valuable contributions. It should be voluntarily but if a user asks questions then you can use it to help him/her along. A lot of time is spend in the beginning trying to figure out how you can perform a specific function. Dr Debug (Talk) 16:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
In my experience, once you know that something can be done, it's rarely hard to work out how.
I'm more concerned about people who arrive and for both good and bad reasons get into arguments. That seems to be the moment when there ought to be an onus on the welcomer to step and say 'let me help out'. Regards, Ben Aveling 03:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If the requirement for me to welcome someone is that I then must monitor their contributions and step in when I feel they have gone astray I will no longer welcome people. If you want more mentorship on Wikipedia start a mentorship project. Hyacinth 10:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Changes to the welcome template, and places to ask for help

I thought very carefully about what to do about the recent changes to the template, which added Wikipedia:Bootcamp and {{helpme}} to the template; which are two very new IRC-related ways of users getting help. I undid those changes, after several days of talks, and I would like to explain why.

The fact of the matter is that, due to the enthusiasm of the community, there are plenty of ways of getting help. For now we have Wikipedia:Clueless newbies#Add names_below, Wikipedia:Help desk, Wikipedia:Reference desk, Wikipedia:Village Pump, the welcoming user's talk page, and of course, the new Wikipedia:Bootcamp, and {{helpme}}.

I believe it is unrealistic to put all these in the welcome template, as there are other important things which need to be there. I don't think one may choose objectively which are worth including and which are not, and all of us have personal biases (I like Wikipedia:Clueless newbies). I believe the only solution is to list all these options in one place, and make sure new users get there. That is accomplished by the current template, which refers to Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, which is a nice place explaining things. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have re-added the {{helpme}} info. If you look above most people seem to be ok with {{helpme}}, it's the Boot Camp that there is a problem with. --Commander Keane 20:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I still disagree with the addition of {{helpme}}; I haven't seen what distinguishes it from all the other places where users can seek help. In my opinion, linking to it from the other links is enough. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It's the human interaction, with a fast repsonse time. I'm re-adding the "and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions" that was removed - people want to know they can get help immediately, and we are providing that service.--Commander Keane 20:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
OK then. You were better than me at finding a place to put that. I am still not convinced that it is helpful. I will try to monitor if people indeed use that {helpme} thing, and if help is as promt as advertized. If it turns out that's just a fad, I will surely vote for removing it. If it turns out to be a useful resource, it of course can stay. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I am fine w the help me link, but I don't intend to add it to my {{User:Sam Spade/Welcome}} at this juncture. Not every new person wants or needs help. Hell, alot of them are sockpuppets! Sam Spade 21:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The helpme notice and bootcamp notice are going back. This is finally something that works. People have been using this--more people than ever read those prolix introductory pages. NO ONE wants to read pages and pages of instructions. They want to dive in and get quick help when needed. This has proven itself to work, when it was placed prominently. I would rather they see four lines in the first paragraph than get redirected to five rambling pages. Both are going back. Danny 03:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Danny, you are incorrect. Here are the few ways we have of helping people: Wikipedia:Clueless newbies, Wikipedia:Help desk, Wikipedia:Reference desk, Wikipedia:Village Pump, and the welcoming user's talk page.
I believe the bootcamp is very experimental, IRC-based, and not Wikipedia based, which would be preferable. The welcome template is meant to be a careful mix of a lot of things, not just help-related, and skewing it towards one's favorite project is inappropriate. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with Oleg about the IRC-basedness of the bootcamp, which makes me think it should perhaps not be in the basic welcome template (asking people who might not know IRC or not be familiar with it to use it while they are also not familiar with the wiki doesn't seem a great idea to me). Of course that's my personal bias of the odd guy who doesn't like to use IRC. I must say that the addition of {{helpme}} seems like an absolutely great idea, though, and better than asking on the welcoming user's talk page (which might be two links away anyway). Kusma (討論) 05:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I rewrote the IRC section on Bootcamp, and won't have any objections to not including the link to the client, at least not as long as {{helpme}} is included. I think it looks okay as it stands now. Bjelleklang - talk 09:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Could someone please fix the grammar in the second-to-last sentence? It got munged when Danny moved the {{helpme}} link out. I'd do it myself but it's protected. Powers 14:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

OK then, as before, the consensus is leaning for removing the bootcamp link, and keeping in the link to {helpme}. I will wait a day before implementing the change. And again, please don't modify the welcome template without discussing here first. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I strongly object to the inclusion of the bootcamp, as I think the name has very negative implications for many -- indeed it would have for me, and if this had been in the welcoem template when i joined I might not have stayed. I think that the help-me is a good idea. I ahve added a link to the category on my tqlk page, adn i check it with some regualrity. I dislike IRC, and have access isssues to it anyway (firewall) so i won't use that access method, and didn't realize that this template connected with IRC. I hope that if anyone has trouble conncting to IRC the would-be helper propmptly reverts to on-wiki communication. DES (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
A bot notices the template (or rather category membership) and notifies the IRC channel, for many issues talk page communications are fine and normally the first point of contact, joing the IRC channel to get help is purely optional. (The IRC also acts as a nice meeting place for would be helpers) --pgk(talk) 19:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Ah. That seems fine to me. DES (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Just like DES, I am strongly opposed to the inclusion of "Boot Camp" in this template. As I have stated above, the negative connotation may give the wrong impression to new users. In addition, I haven't seen what distinguishes WP:BC from other pages like WP:CN besides the use of IRC. As for the {{helpme}}, I would prefer it not be included, but won't object to it now; I've been convinced by some of the arguments above that this is different from some of the other pages, and don't think it would hurt to see how it goes. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think both the helpme template and the link to the boot camp are very helpful items. They should stay. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I had waited 24 hours after the discussion on this section showed a consensus, to implement that consensus in the welcome template. Today my edits have been reverted.
I will not attempt any further edit to the welcome template. However, if I may, I will caution against editors who are so enthusiastic about a certain project they take part on, that they use their administrative privileges to enforce their opinion, without heeding the discussion on this talk page. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
As Commander Keane aptly put above, "If you look above most people seem to be ok with {{helpme}}, it's the Boot Camp that there is a problem with." As such, I'm going to be bold and remove the link as we discuss this even furthur. Talrias, would you mind participating in the discussion before re-adding the link next time? That would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Oleg, I'm not using my administrative powers, I'm just editing a page. Flcelloguy, I'd be grateful if you didn't remove it, as we can't see how it works without a link from the prominent welcome message. If, after a few weeks, it turns out that nothing much happens as a result of it, then we should remove it. There's nothing wrong with a trial. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I meant to say that you are editing a page for which you need administrative privileges. One should be more conservative about those.
If you read above, a few people above find the link to bootcamp to be offensive. A few others object because it is IRC. About people supporting the inclusion of the bootcamp link, I don't see any, except for the actual participants in that project.
And let us keep in mind, that by far the most important thing for your project is the {{helpme}} template, and that is in the welcome template now, and placed rather proeminently, together with the few other ways of getting help.
All in all, a few of us have been involved with the welcome template for a long while, and it is quite often that we need to face people who are very enthusiastic about a cause or another, and surely want it in. Let us be conservative about that. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Why are you pointing out that the people supporting its inclusion are participants in the project? Of course people who think it's a good idea are likely to get involved, and those who don't aren't. That's self-selection. And I think we should be more liberal about changing the welcome message, actually. Then we can find out what works, and what doesn't work. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm all for giving things a chance to see how it works, but there doesn't seem to be widespread support for the addition of this link; that's why I removed it. If you follow the discussion above, there was considerable opposition, perhaps a majority; in any case, there was not widespread support for the addition. Feel free to join in the debate here, but I don't think that the link should be included for now. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Welcomenh

I was bold and created a template:Welcomenh (nh=No Header) which simply duplicates today's version of template:Welcome but I removed the Welcome on top so that this could be added to user's pages under ==Welcome== section heading. The reason is that an automatic placement of TOC on the talk pages looks better this way. If there is a better way to do it, please feel free to delete my template. I don't mind and no need to go through VfD. If others find it acceptable, please protect it for obvious reasons. I am not the most frequent greeter around here but I do great newcomers who start contributing to topics of my interest. Thanks for everyone's attention to this small matter. If there are any responces, angry or kind, pls post them here rather than at my talk. Thanks, --Irpen 03:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

A very good idea. And that is not because I want to add it as a seperate section, but there quite a number of occassion where there is already a message or case where you want to start with a comment about the addition and then want to extend a welcome. I like the idea. Dr Debug (Talk) 03:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Please add the following:

<noinclude>
----
{{subst:user:zondor/srt}}
==See also==
* [[Template:Welcomenh]]
</noinclude>

-- Zondor 04:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Why use a standard framebox if words are better? Why do you want to include that text, and you want to include it where? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} is process-oriented. just like requests for protection or unprotection. include at the very end. subst'ing it won't affect it. the purpose is to remind users of an alternative template. -- Zondor 04:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Got it now, so you want this in the {{welcome}} template. I would like to hear some other opinions before doing that. For myself, I would think it is not necessary there, even though, indeed, it won't be sourced when subst'ed. I would suggest you rather put that on the very top of this talk page. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. I didn't think this was a big enough deal to warrant more discussion. Feel free to revert me if you disagree. howcheng {chat} 18:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

there is more. should the following be added?

<noinclude>
----
{{subst:user:zondor/srt}}
==See also==
* [[Template:Welcome]]
* [[Template:Welcome2]]
* [[Template:Welcome3]]
* [[Template:Welcome4]]
* [[Template:Welcome5]]
* [[Template:Welcomenh]]
</noinclude>

-- Zondor 14:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. howcheng {chat} 07:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggest include "Avoiding common mistakes"

Links such as "How to write a great article" are nice, but asking a little much for a first time contributor. How about a link to Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes instead, in prominent, bold type? Stevage 18:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I would not agree with inserting Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes in prominent, bold type. We already have {{helpme}} in proeminent bold type in the welcome template, and more of the same would probably not be good.
On whether to include Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes without bold type, I for one would think that Wikipedia:How to write a great article is a bit more helpful. But that's just my opinion.
In fact, before changing anything, I guess one should first do work on both Wikipedia:How to write a great article and Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes. Both of them have a merge tag at the top, and the second one uses way too much bold for a healthy article. Other comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
You seem to think that that poor style is more important than not offending existing users, breaking copyright etc. People will pick up style as and when - but one bad kerfuffle over a copyvio and they may never come back. Stevage 22:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
On re-reading that, that came out more harshly than was intended. My "you seem to think" was a poorly worded attempted summary of your position. Sorry for any offence caused. Stevage 22:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
No worries. My own primary concern however is that the Welcome template plainly overloads any new user. Try to read the links going from there, and you will see.
I'd suggest replacing the link to "Help pages" with your suggested Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes, and keeping Wikipedia:How to write a great article in. That because nobody will start learning Wikipedia by reading the huge help pages, the links to the "tutorial" and "how to edit a page" now in the welcome template should be enough to get a user started. Wonder what you think. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Sandbox

I think there really should be a link to the sandbox on all these welcome templates. These are new users after all, and run the risk of being inadvertantly bitten in starting out their editing life here. We really should point out that they can practise and experiment safely in the sandbox. My own welcome template includes a sentence after the useful links:

If you need to experiment and improve your editing skills, you can use the sandbox quite safely.

Thoughts anyone? --Cactus.man ✍ 09:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that in general you give a welcome after the user has made its first edits in the documents and regardless on whether the edits are perfect they are not nonsense, so they are already past the sandbox space. From what I have seen upto now is that most edits by registered newbies are essentially Good Faith. The main problem is that they are not according to the standard style and often chaotic, but it is not sandbox nonsense, but rather text which needs to be properly formatted. Dr Debug (Talk) 09:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Perfectly true, but there are a LOT of skills that need to be mastered beyond simple text editing - adding images, using templates, formatting tables and so on. This is such a huge site, and often it's very difficult to find things, most newcomers are probably unaware that there is a sandbox to develop their skills beyond simple edits. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
True, but sandbox is associated with users who do not make good faith edits. Go to the sandbox is the same as saying "Stop inserting nonsense". The point is that I don't know whether adding the Sandbox by default is a good idea, so maybe in one of the other templates and not in the default template which once a user has shown good faith edits. Dr Debug (Talk) 10:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I certainly don't associate the sandbox with bad faith users, even though the test templates direct some vandals there. I associate it with experimentation and skill building. Wikipedia:About the Sandbox states:
The Wikipedia Sandbox ... is a ... page designed for testing and experimentation.
Also, the message I am suggesting is not "Go to the sandbox", rather it is "There is somewhere you can practise difficult things without fear of messing up". --Cactus.man ✍ 10:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The idea of inserting the sandbox came before. I would agree with the reasons put forward by Dr Debug that making a link to the sandbox from the welcome template will not be very useful. By the way, each time you edit a page, under the edit box, just after the special characters, there is the text saying that:

  • Your changes will be visible immediately.
  • For testing, please use the sandbox instead.

I think it is more likely users will notice that, each time they edit, rather than noticing it in the welcome template on the top of their talk page. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I respect your views, but disagree. Yes, the sandbox text is on the edit page, but who reads all of the text on that page - editors focus on the edit box. Welcome messages are routinely issued to newbies after only a few edits. I am still of the opinion that a link to "you can mess around here safely" is a worthwhile addition to the welcome message. We will have to agree to disagree. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The "see also" section

Recently, the welcome template got a "see also" section, which is not included when the welcome template is subst'ed, but which is almost as big as the welcome message. I would suggest that that section be forked off from the welcome template in its own article, like Wikipedia:Welcome templates, and link to that from this main welcome template. That would have the advantage that a bunch of other welcome templates, some in user space, could be linked to from there. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Feedback on my own welcome template

I've recently created my personal Wikipedia welcome. I'm still relatively new to this, so then could anyone give me some feedback?--TBC??? ??? ??? 05:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty big, but I assume that you like it that way. One thing I wouldn't do is put sections in it and try to format it with font size. Dr Debug (Talk) 05:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Note that the bigger it is, the less likely users will read any of it, and rather delete it as spam (trust me, happens). Very careful thought and some taste is needed in deciding on what to include and what not. I believe even the default {{welcome}} is too fat. And as DrDebug said, there should be no sections, and I would say no frame either. Very simple and very basic. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for all the comments. I've simplified it, are there any other parts that I should add or take out? --TBC??? ??? ??? 07:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I find the part about the bootcamp to be not well-written, a welcome template may need to keep a serious tone. I don't see the need of making the links in bold. The way to make users pay attention to them is not bolding a lot of them, as then the users will skip all, rather, to make few of them. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Alright I removed the bootcamp part, though I'd rather keep the bolding. Any other suggestions? By the way, thanks everyone for the comments. --TBC??? ??? ??? 20:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Then overall, is this template ready to be used? --TBC??? ??? ??? 00:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to ask permision to use your own welcome template; use it as much as you please. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Alright thanks, you have all been a help to me --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Should the {helpme} be bold?

In the welcome template, the link to the {{helpme}} template, shows up in bold, like this: {{helpme}}.

I would argue that it does not look good for aesthetical reasons, as it is much bigger in size than anything else in the page, and it also outshines more important things, like having the user sign his/her posts using four tildas.

I would say that making it not bold, like everything else in the page, would make the {{helpme}} look nicer, and will not make people notice it less, as it is placed very strategically, as the last thing in the text. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I won't change the template but I'll give my opinion now anyway. People will notice it less (it was eye catching before), and thus are less likely to utilise that help service. Is signing a talk page more important than being able to speak to someone about your problems? Not for a new editor, that's for sure. --Commander Keane 20:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
That was the problem, it was too eye catching. The way it is now, it is listed at the very end of the welcome template. It is written that if the user has questions, he/she can either visit Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask the welcoming person on the talk page, or put {helpme} on his own page. There is no need to "strongly suggest" which way to choose. If the user needs help, he/she will decide based on the existing information what to do. That's how I see it at least. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

ask me on my talk page

Is it possible to have the "ask me on my talk page" or some appropriate substring, auto-wikilinked to the user talk page of whoever is using the welcome template? --BACbKA 20:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It is possible. It would require the welcome template get an additional parameter, and the user fill in that parameter when subst'ing the template. I am not sure it is worth the trouble. I think it would far be easier for the welcoming person who cares about this issue to modify his signature to contain a link to his talk (like mine), than to always keep on filling in one more parameter in the welcome template. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

isn't the name of the contributor submitting the edit known somehow in the template environment? I was hoping that would be the case, otherwise, the extra parameter is indeed an overkill, I agree. --BACbKA 21:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I think not. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a template with an extra parameter for the name of the welcoming user that provides an automatic talk page link: Try {{subst:welcome4|YourUserName}}. It does have a slightly different wording, though. Kusma (討論) 03:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

{{PAGENAME}}

Hi, I always hated seeing {{PAGENAME}} in substituted welcome messages. At first I thought using {{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}} would keep the old behavior and allow {{welcome|foo}} to work, but I didn't relize unparameterized usage would result in {{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}} rather than {{PAGENAME}} (even worse) - I've reverted that change. I've now discovered that the following works well:

<nowiki>{{subst:PAGENAME}}</nowiki>

See User:Quarl/welcome for an example. Any objections to this change or other comments? —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-19 21:45Z

That doesn't work when not subst'ed. I think {{welcome}} should always be substed, and not include {{PAGENAME}}, but your change would currently break all non-subst'ed welcome messages. Kusma (討論) 22:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Right. And I would think that it would be an unnecessary complication, as most people won't bother using that feature. I would suggest leaving the {{{1 part out, or even removing PAGENAME altogether. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I guess we can go the way the {{test}} templates have, i.e. the {{welcome}} template doesn't have a PAGENAME, and the {{welcome-n}} template uses {{{1}}}. Too bad there's no recursive subst :( —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-19 23:07Z

WP:G

I often find that newbies have no idea what we're talking about. Should we include a link to the Wikipedia:Glossary in the welcome message? Zocky | picture popups 02:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I would think that such a link would be information overload. I think that users learn things by experiencing Wikipedia rather than by reading such a Glossary, in the same way as a language learner improves by practicing the language, rather than reading the dictionary. But that's just my opinion. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

helpme template suggestion

Suggest replace the text "on your talk page" with "on this page", perhaps with slightly more explicit instructions on how to do that. If someone needs help that badly they probably aren't hip with terms like "place {helpme} on your talk page". 217.128.193.40 13:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I doubt the newbies would actually need instructions on how to place the helpme template on their own talk page, or recognize what the words "your talk page", referring to the newbie's talk page, means.
I think most, if not all, newbies get welcomed after they are noticed doing edits in articles, so they should be comfortable with the "edit" and "save" buttons. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
One thing it maybe should mention is that it is {{helpme}} including brackets, see e.g. this edit. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, from my experience, no matter how clear instructions you put, there will be always somebody who will not do it right. That said, I would be opposed to adding this additional clarification on the welcome template, as it would make it appear too burdensome. Another option, in my view, would be to remove the {helpme} altogether, and put it only at Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, which is linked proeminenty from the welcome template. That page does not show up on everybody's user talk, so one may describe in more detail there how to use the helpme template. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I can see your reasoning, but since the {{helpme}} is directed towards new users, it should stay on the Welcome template. I don't like the idea of following links.--Commander Keane 06:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Double Welcome . . .

There are two "welcomes" in this template. It should be fixed. --anon

Second welcome is the page name, it changes to the user name when put on user talk pages (see the source. I won't mind if that PAGENAME is removed though. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

{{PAGENAME}} and "Again, welcome"

There has been some discussion about the fact that substing this template produces {{PAGENAME}}, instead of the explicit user name. It has been said that changing it will break the currently non-substed templates. But I think this issue is serious enough to be worth some extra thought and not dismissed so easily. More specifically, can't a bot search all user talk pages for {{welcome}} and subst it? Then the template can be changed without breaking compatibility, and from then on people will be forced to subst the template (which is better anyway) - And we will all live happily ever after.

Another problem: The template ends with "Again, welcome!". Fair enough. But it is often needed to add a more personal comment at the end, regarding a user's specific edits or questions. It is then more logical to write "again, welcome" at the very end, and not the middle - Which is currently impossible (without making two edits). So, it could be a good idea to either

  • remove it completely, allowing the user to add it manually, or
  • make an optional parameter that is placed just before "again, welcome". Then you can add whatever comment you'd like.

-- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

A bot would need to visit literarly thousands if not tens of thousands of pages subst-ting the PAGENAME, creating server stress and sending "new message" notification to all those people.
It is easy to say "people must subst the template". Wikipedia has so many users that this is impossible to enforce.
Some people may want to add extra text under their welcome, some may not. If you want to do that, you can start a new section for example. That is to say, this template, being so generic, will never be a perfect fit, depending on the welcoming person's intentions. I think adding more parameters is not a solution.
In short, you raise very valid issues. However, it appears to me that addressing these will add more compexity overall, and I am uncertain of the benefits. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Substing the PAGENAME is not necessary - I only mentioned substing the welcome template itself in those cases when it wasn't originally substed, which I'm not sure are very numerous. This also doesn't need to be done all at once. I can't say I know everything (or anything, for that matter) about the technical aspects of Wikipedia, but I'm sure it's feasible.

There's also no need to "enforce" substing. Once the proposed change is made, whenever anyone tries to put the template unsubsted, they will notice immediately that instead of the person's name they get a weird bunch of text, and will have to subst it.

Again, it may not be technically very easy to do this change, but I think it's worth the effort. What do you think? -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Bolding the "Welcome, Newcomers" link

I asked an admin (User:DragonflySixtyseven) to put the link to Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers in bold, and to make it take up all three of the words "Welcome to Wikipedia". I think that this is the most important of the links in the introduction; if they only follow one link, that's the link they should follow. From a usability standpoint, I feel that making this link more prominent will make the message much clearer. I also think that, since our action in the message is to "welcome you to Wikipedia", having the entire phrase linked is more appropriate. I'm happy to discuss any of these changes here. -- Creidieki 18:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

We had the same kind of argument with {{helpme}} a few weeks ago, and with Wikipedia:Bootcamp a while before that, when it was also argued it was that, and really that, which was the most important thing on the page, and therefore it must be in bold and as visible as possible.
I reverted for now that change, as it should have been discussed here first. If the community agrees, we may put it back, but personally, I would disagree with making that thing in bold. I belive a well-done welcome template should be as minimalist and unobtrusive as possible, as that is the best strategy for people actually reading it and noticing the links in it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry that I didn't discuss this on the talk page; I hadn't been aware of the previous arguments. I read the source to the template, which said to discuss any major changes, but since I didn't know the history, I didn't realize that those typesetting changes would be considered "major".
I completely agree that the message needs good usability design in order to actually be useful. I personally think that there are too many links, and that some of the current links are redundant (the Five Pillars overlap somewhat with Welcome, newcomers, etc.). I thought that a good first step was to make the general "introduction to new users" page more prominent, since that's one of the ones I think the message definitely does need.
Anyway, there were two separate components to my suggestion:
  1. Change the sentence from "Welcome, and welcome to Wikipedia" to "Welcome, and welcome to Wikipedia". I think that placing the entire verb phrase in the link makes the destination of the link clearer.
  2. Bold the link, to make it more important relevant to the other links.
I'd like to ask opinions about both of these suggestions. -- Creidieki 23:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Support. I personally like both ideas. Powers 03:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I support the first, but not so sure about the second. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 10:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I perfectly agree that there's got to be less links in the welcome. However, now I carefully read both Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers and Wikipedia:Five Pillars and I believe that the second is a more useful resourse to new Wikipedians than the first. Wonder what everybody else thinks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
    • How would you feel about Wikipedia:Introduction instead of one or both of them? I personally feel like it's more useful than either of the two links. We could change the first sentence to "Welcome to Wikipedia, and please feel free to read a quick introduction to Wikipedia. And then we could go on with something like "If you need more information, you can look at:". -- Creidieki 19:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I feel the Wikipedia:Five Pillars link is better, as it does not talk as much about "how to" do things, we have plenty of such links in welcome (like "how to write a great articles", help pages, etc), but rather about the spirit of the community.

Either way, people will never agree on which links are more important, and I strongly disagree with making any of them bold. The question of which links belong in the welcome should get a discussion under a different section name; and I don't feel strongly about any links, as long as their number is kept at minimum. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

PAGENAME issue

The recent edit is, in my opinion, a fix to a problem which I think is not that pressing, having the PAGENAME subst'ed with user's name.

The consequence will be that people who do not subst the welcome template will be very confused when they see that weird "{subst:PAGENAME}" on the screen.

While subst'ing the welcome is highly desirable, this edit basically forces users to do so. I believe this hack to be unhelpful and not worth the extra headaches it will cause, and suggest that that change be undone. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest the way I got around the issue in my own welcome? The coding I used is {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>PAGENAME}}, and it deals with both issues. If one subst:s the template, it creates the name permanently. If one doesn't subst:, then it's as if one never put in the <noinclude> tags. Aside: this is one of the few things I'm actually proud of having figured out here on the 'pedia. Don't ask me why. Blackcap (talk) 04:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Mmmmmm... I still think this is an unnecessary complication, but oh well, if people really want it in, it could go in. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, sure, it complicates the syntax, but then it deals fairly well with the end result. I personally don't like leaving templates such as {{PAGENAME}} in personal messages, especially to new users, so I'd like to see some variety of substing available. For those who think that substing is cobblers, then with this system they don't have to. Anyway, it's a thought. Blackcap (talk) 04:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
It appears that it does not work when not subst'ed, see the top of User:Kusma/Sandbox. Kusma (討論) 04:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmmmm, that's awfully funny. I'll have to think on that one. Good on ya for double-checking. God, I feel a bit silly for forgetting to check that. Blackcap (talk) 04:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
You probably need to get the developers to add <nosubst> and <substonly> tags, then this will be fine. Kusma (討論) 14:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
That is funny. The only reason this suggestion (which surfaced numerous times in the past) hasn't been accepted ages ago is that it doesn't work when not substed (which means it was the first thing you should have checked). I agree completely that the source code of the resulting message shouldn't include a {{PAGENAME}}, and this is why I, like you, am using a personal welcome template. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm working on a Bugzilla report for that as we speak. I'll post a link to it once I'm done. Blackcap (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Bugzilla report filed: [http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5453 "~~</nowiki>
This is something that exists in some templates, and I have used it sometime in my templates. Only works when substed, though. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 06:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
If you mean that the signature doesn't appear when {{welcome}} isn't substituted, that's what we're trying to solve, because the template should work, regardless of whether substited or not. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Don't be so patronizing. I never said it was impossible, I said that "I don't believe that you're correct." Before you talk down to someone, make sure you understand what they've said properly. Blackcap (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mean to sound offensive (that math comment was more of a joke). But I expect to receive enough credit so that when I say that something is possible, it will be understood that I have a tested example in mind. So I think that simply asking what I have in mind is more productive than stating that I'm probably incorrect. Of course, the way you have phrased it is a lot better than saying, for example, "you are obviously wrong", but still not what I would have expected. In any case, I believe there are more serious issues with adding a signature to the template than having it work when not substed. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 07:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Sure, sure. Since I didn't see an example, I wasn't sure that you had one. I'll be sure to ask for what one has in mind from here on out. Sorry for being a bit testy :). Blackcap (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought I was...I'm adding this: Wikipedia:Newcomers_help_page

  • I just installed this in the help menu with an increased visibility as it was so buried there in all the clutter. I've been editing 15+ months and tonight is the first time I've been able to find the danged page. So I'm simplifying for all newbies.
  • Ditto in this template which I find myself placing frequently these days.

Best regards, Boldly yours FrankB 23:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

OKAY, Gas away, this is what I'd add (centered at or near bottom):

Click for General Help — Click for online Help
  1. Or whatever presents well but looks good. The FAQ link is probably a good idea as well.
  2. No one seems to be thinking as if walking in the newbies shoes. I took seven months away from WikiP on the relief efforts after Hurricane Katrina, and I've just gone through it all again. Still am. There's a lot of detail to master, so the learning curve is steady, if not steep.
  3. From that viewpoint, Help:Contents is certainly confusing at best, unless you've been around a while. At least they cleaned it up some since last week... it was more confusing then.
  4. If someone is adventurous enough to join the ranks, it's condescending to spoon feed them only a few things. I generally tell them to access this and copy the contents to play with in their own user page like this guy, or A followup a week later, or User talk:Macs417.
  5. You might want to add something about navigating by using categories. . They are off the page bottom on the default skin in general, Which I percieve as a real problem for the outside customer-user. Another thing I went months without ever appreciating, and contradictory to their whole räison de existancé (sp?) and WP:Btw. I'm going to bring up this last in an RFC, or can someone suggest a better venue. The default skin should make the categories highly visible— they're one of our best features.

Best advice I can give here since the template page is locked. Best regards, FrankB 23:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


The page recently moved to Wikipedia:New contributors' help page.--Commander Keane 23:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Newcomers_help_page

  • The Linked 'Main help page' is very cluttered (over busy, so visually confusing), and is not easy to navigate even knowing wiki after 15 months. It is also in transition and changing. They're 'updating' it some, but to not add this link to welcome messages makes ZERO sense. It and the FAQ's page are what a newbie needs most.
  • In case you haven't noticed, there are at least two other 'private' welcome pages (templates, I believe— they're subst'd, so I can't tell.) out there besides this, presumably 'most official' one, that add a whole lot more links. Why keep this one so anemic and terse? It just forces everyone to come up with something at least adequate on our own.

Best regards, FrankB 01:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki link to vi:

Please add an interwiki link to the Vietnamese version of this template:

[[vi:Tiêu bản:Hoan nghênh]]

Thanks.

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 04:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Any objections to adding Wikipedia:Image use policy?

In my experience images are a source of great confution to new users, wich tend to cause all kinds of problems (duplicates and various sized thumbnail versions floating around, untagged images, and copyvios galore). It would seem prudent to give new users some pointers regarding images on the welcome message too. --Sherool (talk) 11:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

On adding new links in

There are two proposals now, the section right above, and tho sections before it, about adding new links to {{welcome}}. They are Wikipedia:Newcomers help page and Wikipedia:Image use policy. They are both good and important links.

However, a big problem with this welcome template is that it has the tendency to grow uncontrollably, and then it eats up huge amount of real estate on user talk pages, and then, practically speaking, people just ignore all the links or delete the whole thing from their page.

I think a sensible approach would be to choose which links from {{welcome}} to remove to make room for these two new one, if the community so desires. Comments on that? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I have a list of all of the Wiki-links and tools. Can these be placed on the "Welcome" template ? Martial Law 18:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC) :)
For your reference, Martial Law, you must put the bold smiley before your signature, not after it. I almost took you seriously, then was desperately looking for the smiley to see if you are joking, and barely found it! :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I guess an option would be to add such links to Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers too, or integrate them more into the text rather than having a huge list of links and such... --Sherool (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
The simplest thing is to give the basics, without clutter. The FAQs page link will make you very popular with the folks servicing newbie questions on: Wikipedia:Newcomers_help_page . I'm not saying there aren't a couple of others that might make sense, but two columns of links with a terse explaination of what it was wouldn't take up a lot of verticle space. Click the default help link on your browser, and see the complicated multicolumn links there. I don't know of many placing the template that don't also add personal notes after it in any case, so the placer has control ultimately of how many lines get used on the new talk. Personally, I'm more concerned by the newbies that aren't being greeted at all, not that I'm giving them too much to chew on and explore. FrankB 01:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

linking "my talk page"

{{Welcomeip}} for quite some time had a poorly constructed variable where you would have to pipe your username after the template name ({{Welcomeip|your username}}) and that would make "my talk page" a link directly to your talk page. If you didn't pipe your username, the template would propagate with the code in the text, which was quite ugly. That has recently been fixed with the following code:

{{#if:{{{1|}}}|[[user talk:{{{1}}}|my Talk page]]|my Talk page}}

Now, if you don't pipe in your username, it formats "my talk page" in plain text, and if you do, it's a link to your talk page. Since we're inviting new users to ask us questions on our talk pages, and many of them would likely have a hard time knowing how to go to navgate to your talk page, I think this would be a useful additon to the template. --Fuhghettaboutit 19:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree with adding this extra parameter to the welcome template. While other templates may have it, this being the default template should be as simple as possible. Most people will not use that feature anyway, and people who care about it could change their signature to link to their talk page, as you see in mine. How's that? :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
But the point is that it would leave it exactly as simple as possible, by virtue of the fact that is an "if" parameter-if an editor doesn't know and never knows about the change, the template will function exactly the same for them--if you don't add the piped link, the template formats exactly as it does now--the only change would be for those who know about the extra parameter, and who would then have the option of using the parameter or not. Again, if you add the piped link it formats the text to take a user to your page, if you don't, it just formats to the same unlinked text. New users are far more likely to click on an embedded text link than to make the connection that what they just read about visiting your talk page means that they should look at your signature, see an added talk link there, and that that was what was referred to in the unlinked text. --Fuhghettaboutit 23:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I am aware of what you are saying. However, introducting this parameter will be an extra complication in the source of the welcome template.
I think very few people will use this feature, as it requires one to type in one user's name as a parameter, which is not worth the effort considering how few of the people who decide to contact you will do so because the link was in the text rather than in your signature.
Also, I think the extra effort of typing in one's user name (especially a lenghty one as yours :) could be better spent I think on a short personal message, like thanking the newbie for a contribution which brought you to his user page, or pointing out some mistake the newbie did. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
How does ones signature include a link to their talk page? Hyacinth 00:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Above I wrote that if one would like a link to his own talk page, that is better/easier to do by modifying one's signature rather than by modifying the welcome template. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I think you're over overestimating the lack of difference between an embedded link, which people use everyday online, and knowing that the talk link next to your signature is the talk page of which the text "my talk page" refers. In any event, users who might use the parameter are not going to see this discussion and then specially change their signature, so there's no utility to the suggestion on a broader scale than this conversation. It may be that you're right, that few would use it, but on the other hand, I just did this google search[9] and surveyed 100 pages with the welcomeip template and found that 68 had used the parameter. Of course this is not a perfect analogy because I imagine a number first typed it without the parameter and after seeing that the [old] template "broke", leaving the code behind, then fixed it. As for the burden of typing a pipe and your username, that literally takes one second. Sometimes it good to personalize {{welcome}} and I do so. But they are not comparable from a time cost benefit analysis, and I would no less often personalize a template because the link was embedded—the benefit is separate and not in lieu of.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, out of the first 10 pages you point above using {{welcomeip}}, the first five are malformatted, with the text [[User_talk:{{{1}}}|my Talk page]] showing up just like that, raw code [10] [11], [12], [13], [14]. So I stand by my own opinion, which is very few people will use this additional parameter in the welcome template, it requires more work to do the typing, few people will benefit from the feature, the same effect can be achieved putting a link to your talk page in your signature, and allowing conditional statements in the welcome template is a can of worms I'd rather not open. But let's see what other people think. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Subst business

I think putting subst:PAGENAME in the template is not a good idea, as then the template breaks when it is not subst'ed, as you see below:

Welcome!

Hello, Welcome, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

While ideally {{welcome}} should be subst'ed, I think it will cause a great deal of confusion to people who use this template and who may be newbies, who see a strange code {{subst:PAGENAME}} showing up and they don't know how to fix it.

This has been discussed before. I suggest that for the benefit of the people using this template the current change be undone. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I came here when I saw that all of the welcome messages were screwed up. -- Kjkolb 16:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Erm, wait a second, what's wrong with that template? It also works fine in my sandbox, both substed and not substed. I don't see the problem. --Rory096 06:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Because I fixed it now, by reverting the changes, that's why it works. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Or doesn't work, depending on your point of view. This template should never be transcluded. People doing so are using it wrong. Getting a bot to fixup mistaken transclusions would be pitifully easy, however, it would need to be left at Sean Black's revision in order for the subst to actually work right (otherwise {{PAGENAME}} will be subst'd in the wikitext). I suggest reverting to Sean Black's revision and asking Freakofnurture (talk · contribs) or Ligulem (talk · contribs) to subst all transcluded copies of it. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
See User talk:Locke Cole/Template:Welcome which demonstrates the problem (Sean Black's revision is on the project/main user page). —Locke Cole • t • c 07:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Using a bot to subst the template everywhere is not the solution. We need a means to make sure the template is always subst'ed from now on. We need to make sure nobody will be welcomed with a silly {subst:PAGENAME} thing on their talk page. That is not possible, as too many people are not aware of the need to subst the template and will not know what to do if they see that ugly code. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I could make a way to tell the user in big red ink that he didn't subst, but that might make it worse, in case the user doesn't even look. There's no way to make it subst itself though. --Rory096 22:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no way to make a template subst itself? Too bad! I would have really liked a template which not only substs itself, but is smart enough to insert itself on user talk pages to start with. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

PAGENAME

Can't we put {{<includeonly>SUBST:</includeonly>PAGENAME}}.

By putting that in, it will SUBST the PAGENAME in the usertalk page, but not in the template. --GeorgeMoneyTalk  Contribs 05:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the TOC of this talk page, and at every thread with "PAGENAME" in its title. In a nutshell, what you suggest will make the template break when not substed. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 11:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Contributions

Where it says "Thank you for your contributions." I belive contributions should be a link with this code [[Special:Contributions/{{PAGENAME}}|Contributions]] . --Dominic 19:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I would not think such a link would be that important. The user can always look up his/her contributions from the bar at the very top of the screen (see talk, preferences, and watchlist, and contributions over there). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
True, however, this is a welcome template and the user may not know how to do this yet. --Domthedude001 (Dominic)

Fix to the PAGENAME issue, albeit with more complications for the substers

If one changes the syntax of {{PAGENAME}} to {{{{{1|}}}PAGENAME}}, then the problem is fixed, although substers will need to use some additional markup. I shall use User:Snoutwood/Pagenamefix as an example. The syntax {{User:Snoutwood/Pagenamefix}} successfully renders the pagename, while the code {{subst:User:Snoutwood/Pagenamefix}} does not. However, {{subst:User:Snoutwood/Pagenamefix|subst:}} does the job wonderfully. You can see the proof here.

It's a thought, anyways, and hopefully will inspire a further fix. Also, since one has to transclude the template as it is currently, this is a step up as it creates an entirely workable option for those who, like me, wish to subst, if at the expense of seven characters. Snoutwood (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "one has to transclude the template"? And why make things harder for people who do the correct thing and subst the template? -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 10:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I meant that with the current coding it's impossible to have a fully substed template (that is, without substing it, then editing the page and substing {{PAGENAME}}. And I didn't see it as making things harder, I saw it as making things easier, since this way you type just as many characters but you don't have to edit the page twice. Snoutwood (talk) 10:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Or did you mean that one has to transclude {{PAGENAME}}? In any case, your suggestion will confuse those that are unaware of this subtlety. We definitely need the code {{subst:Welcome}} to work. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 10:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I was posting it here as I saw it as a poor, but better, version of what we have now. At the very least, it's a new idea, and I'm still working on a perfect fix. Snoutwood (talk) 10:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you please step back a bit... — what's the problem you're trying to fix here? What's wrong with using {{PAGENAME}} in the template (as it has for ages)? It's not impersonal, it's just code. If you want to be personal you don't use a template in the first place. /wangi 10:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't know what I need to step back from, mate... anyhow, the problem I'm trying to fix is the same problem that every other section title of PAGENAME on this page is trying to fix: that you can't have the template be both transcludable and fully substable at the same time. As for being impersonal, there's just something nice about a person taking twenty seconds to put in your name, especially when they're greeting you. Snoutwood (talk) 10:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Nothing personal about the "need to step back", just think everyone here does - need to identify the problem first. I cannot see the problem with PAGENAME - both transcluded and subst it "works for me" as it is just now. Yes if somebody digs into the source they'll see {{tl:PAGENAME}}, but is that really a problem, and if so why? Certainly it's less of a problem than making the use of the template more complicated/wangi 11:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
O.K., sorry if I was being testy. I don't know, I don't like having unsubsted magic words on talk pages (feels too much like bad housework). I like this better because it doesn't affect transcluders at all, and substers only need to add a little bit more. Trouble is, it's a high-traffic template and thus troubles with substing syntax could be a large problem (as those many who wouldn't know about the syntax wouldn't understand why the substing isn't working). For that reason, I know it's not perfect, but I figured that it might be better. Snoutwood (talk) 11:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the apperance of {{PAGENAME}} in the code is a problem. That's why I'm using my own user-space template. My guess is: This template can't be improved with the current version of MediaWiki. Let's just hope that in the future, there will be some additional tags which can be used to solve the problem. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 11:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
<collapses in the face of truth> Yeah, you're probably right. I'll give it up now. :) Snoutwood (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Headline

For christs sake, make the heading ('''Welcome!''') a heading (==Welcome!==), so it stops showing up before the TOC on user talk pages. +Hexagon1 (talk) 09:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times before and rejected each time by the community; please see the archives for past discussion. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I must be missing it, which archive is it on? +Hexagon1 (talk) 03:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The archives are messed up, some stuff from there is missing and some stuff is repeated.

I think that adding a section heading would cause trouble when the welcome template is not subst'ed, as then the user will attempt to edit the actual welcome template when editing that section, and then he won't be able to do that, as the welcome template is protected. But is there any other reason? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, since it's protected, won't the section edit button not even show up at all? --Rory096 04:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Nope, still does. --Rory096 04:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Why are worrying about what happens when it's not substituted? It should always be substituted. --Cyde↔Weys 19:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course it should. But is not always. And it does not make sense to me to modify a template in such a way that it causes trouble when trascluded and not substituted. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Linking "talk page" to Help:Talk_page#User_talk_pages

Hi there. I'd suggest linking the words "talk page" or "my talk page" to Help:Talk_page#User_talk_pages. I've noticed a number of new users here on Wikipedia (and many more on a corporate installation of MediaWiki at my work) who don't know about the "discussion" tab and aren't familiar with a "talk page" (even while looking at their own talk page). This seems better than the earlier proposal of linking to the welcomer's talk page because Help:Talk page explains talk pages better than most Wikipedians are able to do. Hopefully, this will encourage new users to use the discussion page while editing articles as well. Mike Dillon 02:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

This suggetion seems extremely counter-intuitive. A user that sees a link like my talk page will undoubtedly expect it to link too, well, my talk page. Since this link appears in the context of where to ask questions (about Wikipedia in general, not about talk pages), the user will also expect to be able to ask questions there. It doesn't help anyone to have a link lead a newbie to a place he didn't expect. Perhaps adding a line to the message, 'you can always use the "discussion" tab and the tab next to it to switch between a page and its associated talk page', would be better. Besides, the fact that the user has seen the message in his talk page already means that he is halfway to figuring talk pages out. A link to the welcomer's talk page will also help to clarify what talk pages look like. And in case all of this doesn't work - finding the "discussion" tab at the top is not rocket science, he'll figure it out. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 11:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
In my experience, it takes non-techies a while to figure this out and it seems worthwhile to help them out. If it is "totally counterintuitive" to link the phrase "my talk page", the phrase "talk phrases" earlier in the text could be linked. Mike Dillon 14:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I suppose this could be a good idea. I'm not sure how much it will help - I don't know if many users will feel compelled to follow this link. Oh, and you meant "talk pages" :) -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this extra link will not be helpful, and it is going to be yet another addition to the many links we have, with the result that the user may be distracted from other more important things in the welcome template, like signing one's posts and such.

You are right in saying that new people may be confused by what is meant by a talk page. But oh well, if a user is smart at all then two things he/she will have to realize very soon is that

  • On Wikipedia anything is editable
  • Every page (even user page) has a discussion page

I think we are fine the way we are. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Subst: suggestion

Seeing this template on many talks as a template call and before using it recently, I checked the "Template:Welcome" page to see if I should subst or not and seeing no instruction I didn't (subst). It was only today that I came to this talk page to suggest that it be a subst template and was amazed at the amount of discussion here about what to say and how to say it including a poll of all things about a comma! If possible, could someone (without starting a major discussion about it) just please put a prominent note up front expressing your desire regarding subst of this template. Thanks. Oh, and as tempted as I might be to join in some of the fun up above, I think I'll just leave this simple request.  ;-) --hydnjo talk 19:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)