Template talk:Welcome/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Wikify my talk page

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

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

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

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

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

Link to citation templates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clarification required for {{helpme}} markup

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

Change

Let's change with this:

The five pillars of Wikipedia

How to edit a page

Help pages

Tutorial

How to write a great article

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

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

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

Category:WelcomeBotResearch

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

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

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

Interwiki for Interlingua

Dear administrator,

Please add the following interwiki:

[[ia:Patrono:Benvenite]]

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

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

hprotected

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

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

Proposed change

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

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

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

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

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

I would like to see a reply to my proposal to add a parameter name, which allows calling people Oleg or Meni, which would be really personal. I don't understand why people keep bringing up ways to make something automatically personal - that's an oxymoron for me! — Sebastian 20:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The list of six links

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

I concur with Xiner - Вasil | talk 16:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the temptation then will be to add in more links. I suggest we'd rather trim a few of the existing links, for example the three links

say roughly the same thing, and either the first or the third could be taken out. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please add link to introduction; remove admonition to sign

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

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

Welcome Welcome to our restaurant! You will find the menu on your table. If you need help, ask our friendly waiters. Please wash your hands in our restroom using soap; this will kill germs and prevent diseases. We hope you enjoy our food! Again, welcome!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please change the wording...

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

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

I propose rephrasing

"ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page."

"ask your question on your talk page and then place {{helpme}} before your question."

--Bensin 12:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

But that's backwards. Might be preferable to say "Add {{helpme}} to the bottom of your help page, followed by your question." No sense dropping the orders in out of order. MrZaius^talk 12:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Why does it matter where the {{helpme}} is placed? I think it doesn't matter at all, so instructions about it are a waste of space. Kusma (talk) 13:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I thougt it would be more clear if it was specified from the beginning where the question was to be posted. I have no opinion of where the {{helpme}} is to placed on the user page. --Bensin 16:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit request

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

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

Requested addition

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

Thanks, El on ka 18:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Done - I added  as it's a little shorter. Is that acceptable?

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

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

Tildes?

Should four tildes be added at the end of the template? Not only would this save time, but it would solve the contradiction of having a template saying to add four tildes when the template itself doesn't.. Sorry if this has already been rejected or creates a syntax problem or something. ~thesublime514 • talk 00:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't work for people who forget to substitute. —METS501 (talk) 01:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

What about a nested template — i.e. the code for {{welcome}} is merely {{subst:welcome-nest}}, which in turn is the original welcome template code, with the tildes at the end (surrounded by <includeonly> and </includeonly>)? (see User:Superbfc/Sandbox)

— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 03:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This noinclude thing is too complicated, I think. Besides, people often write some other message after welcome (I do) so one would prefer to have the signature right at the very end. Also, come on, if you really want to welcome somebody, you can go through the motions of putting in the four tildas, right? :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome Welcome Welcome

OK, we get the point!! I don't think it needs to say Welcome a grand total of three times in the first 5 words.

— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 03:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

hahaha, I agree. But that's why I use Template:W-basic; you can change it to your liking. ~thesublime514 • talk 03:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

superbfc, you misunderstand. The word after "Hello" is not "Welcome", but rather the name of the current page, which is usually the newcomer's name. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Update welcome link

{{editprotected}} Please update the first link to point to Wikipedia:Introduction, instead of Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers, per where it's been redirecting to for months now. Thanks. --Quiddity 00:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for noticing. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

"open an account" advice

Shouldn't this template have some advice for anon editors, on opening an account? Or is there an alternative version for anons? Andy Mabbett 19:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

There is. See Template:Welcomeip. Garion96 (talk) 20:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Andy Mabbett 20:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Request: minor link fix

Please [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|sign your name]] on talk pages

Change to:

Please [[Wikipedia:Signatures|sign your name]] on talk pages

Carlosguitar 21:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Kusma (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Move

{{Editprotected}}
Please move this page to Template:Welcome-reg (now a redirect), so Template:Wel can be moved here. That template, which I just created, is incredibly convenient, as it automatically gives a welcome message for anons when it is sticked on an anon's talk page, and a welcome message for registered users (i.e. this template) when it is sticked on a registered user's talk page. Tests worked. I see no real downsides to this move, as posting this template on the talk page of a reg will still yield the same result. Sala Skan 18:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This template is supposed to be subst'd. Does that still work with the new version? --MZMcBride 19:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, tested it here in the Sandbox (you can see it was substed and worked), and on a random anon talk page (you can see that it works here) Sala Skan 19:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit: Oh, I guess that the template that shows up when it's substed should be substed as well, to have no templates linked to in the text. Is there any way to fix that? Sala Skan 19:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, fixed it. 'Twas real simple ;) Sala Skan 19:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and if the move request is fulfilled, please also change  into . Sala Skan 19:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem I see is that this template is subst'd frequently, and with the new changes, every time it would be subst'd, it would take up twice as much room. I'm not really sure how to fix this... --MZMcBride 23:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The solution would be to replace #ifeq: with <includeonly>subst:<includeonly>#ifeq, but then that would produce a horrible, confusing mess if not substituted. (This problem is very, very common with templates.) It would be fixed if substitution could be forced by an admin-set tag, but that doesn't look like it's going to happen anytime soon. This was a good idea, but I am against it for that reason. Gracenotes^T § 00:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for this complication, in my view. Anons should be welcomed with {{anon}}, rather than with {{welcome}}. I strongly disagree with such a move without further discussion involving more people.

Also, while {{welcome}} should be subst'ed, it is desirable if it works unsubst'ed too. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of admins following this discussion, I'm going to disable the editprotected tag. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Mistake

I have noticed a mistake. It says "I hope you like the place" instead of "I hope you like this place." Thanks:)--James, La gloria è a dio 20:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

My internal parser finds either understandable, and even prefers the place as more warm and comforatable. As it is clear what place is being referenced, I don't believe this is necessarily a mistake. In any case, thanks for your comment! ∴ here…♠ 06:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with here, it reads better with "the" rather than "this". Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Link to WP:NOT

Not sure if this has been discussed before, but I believe a description and link to WP:NOT should be included in the welcome message. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 21:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

My biggest concern is that the template should not get larger than now, and it is already large enough. I would argue that people need to learn first about what Wikipedia is, so good links to editing are important. So I myself feel that the link to WP:Not should not be in, but if it is, it should replace some other existing link, rather than being in addition to it, to keep the template size manageable and not annoy people with too many links (which may get ignored). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The template would be a good way of also welcoming editors who make initial "bad edits" but not necessarily vandalism. So, a polite way of highlighting to them what Wikipedia is not, is quite necessary. In terms of the links, I agree the existing ones could do with some trimming. In particular, I don't see a need to link to How to write a great article. It's not something someone new to Wikipedia would be interested in (admittedly based on personal experience and observations) and it would be more beneficial to link to WP:NOT. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 11:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Now, people who make an initial bad edit could be better written an explicit note (say under the welcome message) saying that what they are doing is bad. That may be more effective than having a link buried among many in the template. About the How to write a great article link, I myself find it more helpful than WP:NOT, it sort of gives the same message, of what Wikipedia is about (writing articles, hopefully great ones) than about what Wikipedia is not. But that's just my own opinion. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Found a more appropriate template for such users - {{welcomevandal}}. Thanks for all your suggestions. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 12:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit

{{editprotected}} Please change:

"Thank you for your contributions." -> "Thank you for [[Special:Contributions/{{PAGENAME}}|your contributions]]{{#if:{{{art|}}}|, especially what you did for [[{{{art}}}]]|}}."

"ask me on my talk page" -> "ask me on {{#if:{{{1|}}}|[[user talk:{{{1}}}|my talk page]]|my talk page}}"

And add the following between noincude tags:

"To use this template, add <nowiki>{{subst:welcome}}</nowiki> to the user's talk page. Parameters: *First parameter = your name: {{subst:welcome|Myname}} *Parameter 'art' = Article the user ''positively'' contributed to: {{subst:welcome|art=Radar detector}}

ask me on

This appears twice in succession on the last line. Miremare 23:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I fixed that. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested edit

Edit for consistency with {{anon}}: replace '''Welcome!''' with ==Welcome!==. Thanks in advance. — Alex^(U|C|E) 06:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That'd look a lot like {{welcome2}}, if I'm not mistaken? – Luna Santin (talk) 09:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. This welcome template is intended not to have a header. If you want to use a welcome template with header, do not use {{welcome}}. Kusma (talk) 09:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

basepagename

change special:contributions/pagename to special:contributions/basepagename, otherwise on archiving i think it will cause problems. Lara_bran 06:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Done, thanks for noticing this! Kusma (talk) 09:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Or you can use <includeonly>Subst:</includeonly> before basepagenames to make code on userpage look more personal and independent of it being moved anywhere on earth. see {{welcomec}} Lara_bran 09:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

This does not work if the template is not subst'ed. The template should be subst'ed at all times, but it cannot be enforced. And without the subst, the internals of what you suggest will be exposed on the page of the user to be welcome. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Editprotected without explanation

There was an {{editprotected}} on this page that wasn't attached to a request; probably somebody new to using the {{editprotected}} template. It's usually best to place the template right next to your request, so that admins can find it more easily. In any case, feel free to replace the request, here (you may want to include the editprotected template, as well). Cheers. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Reference to adopt-a-wikipedian

I'm proposing adding a reference to the adopt-a-user program in this template, so they know that they can request mentoring. e.g.: [...] or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. If you need further assistance, consider being [[WP:ADOPT|adopted]] by a mentor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivansanchez (talk • contribs)

I disagree with this addition. There are already plenty of avenues for help listed in the template, such as visiting Wikipedia:Questions, placing {{helpme}} on one's talk page, and asking the welcoming user on the talk page. Besides, the adopt-a-user thing looks too paternalistic. Overall, I don't think it should be included in the welcome template. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Olex Aexandrov. This template should be kept simple, just what is needed for folks to find info on getting started. -- Infrogmation 10:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Obsolete?

I use this template all the time, but {{welcomeg}} has a lot to be said for it. Is it worth considering moving that over this, or are there others that use this more often and feel that there's a substantial/significant reason not to stick with the larger one? Just curious, MrZaius^talk 01:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No, just keep them both. Personally I don't like the other one, way too big and ugly for my taste. Garion96 (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. That big template is more likely to be removed as spam. We should attempt to provide a minimal number of very useful links, more is not better. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

nbsp

Please change "Again, welcome! " to "Again, welcome! ". There's no good reason to use a non-breaking space here when a regular space will suffice. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 20:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sign

May I suggest "name" -> "username" which could be helpful to those who are totally new. :) Best regards Rhanyeia 08:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the problem. Can you explain a scenario where this might be confusing? In particular, are you speaking from your own experience? -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 08:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean there is some big problem, just that it would be clearer. :) For a person who knows nothing about Wikipedia "name" means your real name, "username" means what you filled in when you created an account, and that's what four tildes will produce. :) Best regards Rhanyeia 13:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is an issue. The user just needs to follow the instructions and type ~~~~, the rest will take care of itself. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 17:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it can be confusing to a new person, someone may think a name needs to be added somewhere. Best regards Rhanyeia 17:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} May I ask for "...this will automatically produce your username..." please. Best regards Rhanyeia 10:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Is it really that oddly worded? "Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date." I'd say rewrite the whole sentence: "Please sign your name when posting to talk pages with four tildes ~~~~; this will insert your signature, with your username and the date." Without this, it seems to encourage users to randomly sign talk pages, and the use of the word "produce" is just plain strange. Also, the parentheses might throw off an editor that doesn't recognize the word tildes. MrZaius^talk 15:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that "Please sign your talk page messages using four tildes ~~~~; this will insert your username and the date" would be good. Best regards Rhanyeia ♥♫ 12:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Y Done - let me know if I broke anything. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Heading

See archives for previous discussions: A2:heading on welcome message, A3:Welcomenh, A3: Headline, A4: Formatting change, A4:Heading, A4:Thanks, A4:Reason for showing welcome

{{EditProtected}} Please change

'''Welcome!'''

To:

===Welcome===

==Welcome==

It would be better if it had a header.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)Neither will alone, nor strength alone} 20:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Old discussion, see archives. There is no consensus for adding a heading. Garion96 (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I disagree with this change also. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Why? If the person stays around then they will eventually want the TOC at the top of their user page not some advise they by then know well. It seems to me better to default to including a section heading and haveing {{Welcome2}} for those who do not want it a heading. Looking through the archive sections above (and pleas add more if I've missed some) I can not see a consensus for either approach --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}} Add this:

{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>BASEPAGENAME}}

instead of

{{BASEPAGENAME}}

It's more personal to read you own name than {{BASEPAGENAME}}.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 23:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't work, see the archives. If the template is used without subst, it will look a lot worse than the "BASEPAGENAME". If you want something more personal, just write your own text; templates are not eprsonal anyway. Kusma (talk) 09:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Why doesn't it work?--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 23:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Try it in a userspace sandbox and you'll see what goes wrong. Kusma (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless I'm testing it wrong, I can't find any problem when I subst: the template. Heres what I did:
1. I put in my sandbox (User:Sunny910910/Sandbox2):

<noinclude>{{User Sandbox}}</noinclude>
 {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>BASEPAGENAME}}

2. Then I wrote:

{{subst:User:Sunny910910/Sandbox2}}

3. And in the sandbox it said: Sandbox
Now, whats wrong?--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 01:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Now you try it without "subst". It will break. A widely-used template such as this one should not break if slight mistakes are made and the gain is mostly cosmetic. Kusma (talk) 06:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Civility and Consensus

While I think that this notice covers most of what a new user needs to start off with, I think we need a direct link of a "how-to" for community interaction. The top two being

Though in looking over the links already on the template, perhaps Wikipedia:Etiquette would be a better link than just Wikipedia:Civility.

But Consensus is a must. It's probably the most-often misunderstood thing on Wikipedia.

I welcome any and all thoughts about this. - jc37 09:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we should keep the template as simple as possible, with as few links as possible (many people use very long templates with a page full of information; I don't think anybody ever reads that, I certainly wouldn't). A new user does not have to know any rules to start editing, and we don't need to point out obvious things like Wikipedia:Civility unless the editor in question is incivil. The welcome template should assume that the new editor is smart and constructive. Kusma (talk) 10:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree about keeping it simple.

For example Help:Contents is on the sidebar, and so probably doesn't need to be listed on this template as well.

I think Wikipedia:Etiquette would be a nice replacement. It's a "how-to" page, similar to the others listed in this template.

And I still stand firm about Wikipedia:Consensus. Its link on the Five pillars page makes it look like it's just suggestion for talk page discussions, when, I think you'd agree, that it's the fundamental mechanism for determining anything on Wikipedia. It's "almost" another pillar itself. - jc37 10:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox

Perhaps we should add a note about doing tests in the sandbox instead on articles.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 01:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that is not necessary. There is a prominent note under every edit box saying that one should use the sandbox for editing. I think the template should be kept simple and the sandbox is not so important as other things in there. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Reduntant links

I'd argue that the links

have a lot of overlap among them. I'd suggest cutting out two of the three, for example, the last two, and replacing with a link to Wikipedia:Etiquette as mentioned above.

Also note that the How to edit a page has very prominent links on top to the other two links I suggest to remove. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find the prominent links you describe, however [[Help:Contents|Help pages]] already exists on the Wikipedia sidebar to the left, so it probably can be removed from the template. I'll Be bold and do it now. - jc37 05:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, removed it. - jc37 06:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes to the tempate

I do not agree with the recent changes to the template. The link to tildes is unnecessary and distracting, and it reads better to say "sign your name on the talk page" than "sign your talk page". I believe the previous version was better in every way. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree "sign your name on the talk page" is better than "sign your talk page", and that linking to tildes is redundant. However, instead of reverting it, perhaps we could change it to "sign your name on talk pages", and just remove the link (if you revert it, it will change "this will insert your username" back to "this will automatically produce your name". Which is an edit I will disagree with).--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 01:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Made the change. Though I wonder if the word "automatically" should be restored to clarify that the tildes will be converted automatically? - jc37 02:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I really think we aught to link to tildes, as many don't know what the word means... but whatever, no worries. I don't feel too strongly about it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree about linking tilde, when I saw that word for the first time I didn't know what it meant. The sentence wasn't "sign your talk page", it was "sign your talk page messages", maybe the link could be only with "sign". As Mrzaius says up there the wording now is a bit confusing too. Best regards Rhanyeia ♥♫ 11:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a lot better now, but Rhanyeia's right: It would be better to specifically direct it at "messages/posts" rather than "pages." Where it currently reads "Please sign your name on talk pages using" "Please sign your posts on talk pages using" - I don't really have an opinion on whether or not to link tilde, but it is easy to imagine that a fair number of readers would be unfamiliar with the term. MrZaius^talk —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 12:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Am I missing something? Isn't the inclusion of an explicit ~~~~ symbol more than enough to clarify what "4 tildes" means? Also, this used to be in parentheses, why is it no longer so? -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It's difficult to see what those four marks are if you don't know them. And I'm almost certain that some have difficulties getting those on a screen. It would be good to mention the icon. I think either way with the parentheses would be fine. "Please sign your talk page messages using four tildes (~~~~) or clicking the icon in the middle above the edit screen; this will insert your username and the date." Best regards Rhanyeia ♥♫ 14:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is one with the sign icon, now with "automatically", both are fine to me. Best regards Rhanyeia ♥♫ 14:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

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:

Sign icon

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your talk page messages using four tildes (~~~~) or clicking the icon in the middle above the edit screen; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

Best regards Rhanyeia ♥♫ 14:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

What you show above reverts several additions. But that aside, I think I'm missing something. What's the point of the "sign icon"? - jc37 16:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the icon, I had a wrong file name, sorry. I'll answer you soon. Best regards Rhanyeia ♥♫ 17:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here is a new proposed wording which should combine different ones: "Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~), or clicking the icon in the middle above the edit screen; this will automatically insert your username and the date." I added the icon image for a newcomer to know what is talked about and to find it, but it's fine without too. Best regards Rhanyeia ♥♫ 17:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I added those. I also changed "talk pages" to "discussion pages", for clarity, since some discussions (in project space, for example) are not on talk pages. I left out the icon because I wasn't sure where the icon should go (and because I'd like more discussion on it. Adding an image to a template as widely used as this one is, may or may not be a good idea. I don't know.)

I disagree with the addition of the icon. The four tildes are explicitly typed there for everybody to see. While the "sign" icon is a nice touch, I don't think it is absolutely necessary in the template, and we should resist urges to make this template all things to all people. It should be kept minimal, as otherwise people will ignore it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 08:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Jc37, "discussion pages" sounds good. I don't think the sign image is necessary, but there could be a text "or clicking the icon in the middle above the edit screen". Best regards Rhanyeia ♥♫ 09:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the "click the icon" thing is absolutely necessary either, the "four tildes" option should be enough. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not easy for everyone to get tildes on a screen. Just some time ago an academic person who was using an unfamiliar computer asked me to get one difficult mark on the screen, even though this mark was already on the upper part there. I copied and pasted it and he was happy. It can take a long time for someone to figure out how to write the tildes, and the one I helped was already going to give up what he was doing before I managed to get that mark there (not a tilde but something as difficult). Best regards Rhanyeia ♥♫ 17:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Idea: perhaps we could say somthing like:

sign you name using the four tildes (~~~~) or just push the sign button

--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 23:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that button doesn't exist for every user (if they don't run javascript, for example), so it might be confusing? - jc37 23:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

True, but many users do, and it would help alot.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 23:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

What does mean "don't run javascript" if preferences are not changed? Newcomers have not yet changed their preferences and don't know how they work. Doesn't it appear to all newcomers? Best regards Rhanyeia ♥♫ 08:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If users don't sign, then SineBot will come along eventually and tell them. We don't need to explain everything right at the start. Please keep the image out of the template. Kusma (talk) 05:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

A newcomer doesn't know that there is a signing bot (and it always isn't), some would just not leave the message if not finding a tilde. I'm not after the image anymore, but only the text "or clicking the icon in the middle above the edit screen". Best regards Rhanyeia ♥♫ 08:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

True, some people won't know where the tilde characters are on the keyboard. Some (most of them) won't know how to edit an article, what a talk page is, what the policies are, what is NPOV, NOR, and many other things. That's why we put a welcome template on their talk page. Now, one's got to be discerning about what to put there, as you can't explain everything in one messsage, and putting too much stuff there is just going to confuse people and they will ignore the template.

That being said, the sentence pointing to the sign icon is something I believe to be good, but not relevant enough (again, we have to choose what to put there, and to choose well). In the very worst case, some of the people who can't find the tilde character on the keyboard could just copy and paste them from the welcome message. You can't be all things to all people. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

They can copy and paste it if they know how to do that. What I'm worried about is that it is expected that one is good with computers to start using Wikipedia, and I think that shouldn't be so relevant. To find the toolbar could be one of the most useful things for some newcomers. How to get difficult marks on the screen is not relevant for using Wikipedia, yet it seems to be expected that everyone knows how to do it, and this is what I would like to change. Best regards Rhanyeia ♥♫ 16:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

A shorter way: "... , or clicking the sign icon above the edit screen; this will... " Best regards Rhanyeia ♥♫ 18:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} May I ask for ", or clicking the sign icon above the edit screen" like this: "Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~~~~, or clicking the sign icon above the edit screen; this will automatically insert your username and the date." Thank you. :) Best regards Rhanyeia ♥♫ 14:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no agreement for that change (actually most people above are against it). And your argument that people don't know how to cut and paste and neither know the location of the tilde key is rather weak. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't know for sure whether my comments created consensus because sometimes people just don't comment. How difficult it is to type tildes depends on the country settings. I tested many and found quite many which use the similar difficult system for typing tilde. If you want to try how difficult it is you can test for example to set your computer to Sweden, France or Spain. Sweden is the most difficult of these. You as experienced computer users can probably get it out of there, you are familiar with special keys, and you don't have to fear that you accidentally push something wrong and don't know how to get the computer working after that anymore. Newcomers give up much more easily. With France it's printed on "2", with Spain on "4", and with Sweden "]" (US/UK).

I asked four friends to try to type this mark, all of them were using their own computers, and only one of them was unfamiliar with computers. She couldn't get a tilde without help at all, but also two others had great difficulties. When my friend who has lived years in an English speaking country tried it with her computer which was bought and installed after she got back, she accidentally got it on the screen at first but then she had five minutes she couldn't type it at all. Neither did she know what mark is "tilde" although she had owned her previous computer for years. After the five minutes she started to get it again but wasn't sure what she had to do exactly, she said it sometimes comes and sometimes doesn't. During the process she had also said that "I'm happy this mark isn't on email addresses". No one who didn't know beforehand how to type tilde could figure out the best way of typing it. I tried with settings of your Oleg Alexandrov's country, both US and Romanian, and found it easier. :) Maybe we were talking past each other because we had different keyboards in front of us. My friend who hasn't use computers much tested also Wikipedia talk page screen. Her job was to write there "hello" and four tildes after it, but to imagine that she couldn't find tildes from the keyboard (as she had been unable to do alone). I said that she can try everything else what the computer can do or what's on the page. She couldn't get the tildes there. Then after some time I explicitly said that look, there are four tildes upper on the screen, can you get them after your message. She was unable to do it. After I still waited for a while if she could figure out something I asked her to "use copy and paste". Only then she remembered that and got the tildes there, so she wasn't totally unfamiliar with computers after all, using that method just didn't occur to her. But she's a skilled writer. :)

I had a fifth friend visiting today. She's quite familiar with computers, even participated designing some websites, and it didn't take her long to write the tildes, but she has never used Wikipedia so I wanted to test how she understands the welcome template instructions. I asked her to leave a message (not to save it) with those instructions. She wrote parentheses around the tildes. When I said afterwards that one is not supposed to write the parentheses she said it looks like one should use them. After this I think they could be removed, they are confusing. I also asked how she sees finding the sign icon with "or clicking the sign icon above the edit screen", and she said it's too vague, that there are too many icons and one doesn't even know where to look for them. I asked how could the sentence be phrased better and she said an image would help. After these experiences I think it could be phrased like: "Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~~~~, or clicking the sign icon

above the edit screen; this will automatically insert your username and the date." I think it can be one of the most frustrating moments with computers when you are alone and can't get some marks on the screen. Editors can come from any country and even native speakers are probably using other settings if they live in some other country. Best regards Rhanyeia ♥♫ 19:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

All of that is useful information. Here's another piece of information: That "useful icon" doesn't appear everyone's screen when editing. I know several people who just don't allow javascript to run on their machines (for security reasons). Which means some of Wikipedia's "effects" won't appear either. That also goes for those who don't allow images to appear, use external editors, etc. Obviously referring to an image which doesn't appear on one's edit window would be even more frustrating than not being able to find a character on a keyboard, since the character is at least there. I think the easiest way to deal with it is to restore the link to tilde. That at least gives a better explanation of the character, and should at least help the person eventually find the key. Also, the welcome message need not be the only way that a person learns. I would presume that after leaving even a single unsigned message that "someone" would be "helpful" and suggest to the user how to sign. I hope we're not making this a bigger deal than it is (looks over at WP:LAME and wonders...) - jc37 22:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the image doesn't work. If someone's not using images that might still be fine if they looked the same, the icon and what's inside the text, but they don't. And you are right, if one doesn't allow javascript from the browser the icons are not there. Is this lame, I don't know, maybe it's not since we seem to bother about it. ;) Could we still think about the parentheses? Earlier I thought they were fine, but then I had to watch my friend using them and I started to think they are confusing. Would it do without? I started a page "How to type a tilde" but merged it with Tilde because it was proposed for deletion as not standing alone, at least with that name. Best regards Rhanyeia ♥♫ 17:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Proper writing style calls for the parentheses. In good writing, if I make a note:

Please put your name (Rhanyeia) here

then your name must show in parentheses. You can surely take the parentheses out, but that would would be poor writing. The text now clearly says that one should use four tildes. In addition, as a parenthetical remark, the four tildes are also shown. Since that's a parenthetical remark, an optional clarifying part of the sentence, they must show in parentheses. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Because we know what the sentence says for us it looks like parentheses are fine, but the sentence can look like an advice to use parentheses around the tildes to those who don't know its meaning beforehand. I think "Please put your name Rhanyeia here" is not wrong either. But we could write the tildes like on Wikipedia:Signatures: "...using four tildes, like this: ~~~~, it will automatically..." Best regards Rhanyeia ♥♫ 16:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Signing suggestion

Why not add ~~~~ to the template after the "Again, welcome!" so that whoever is welcoming the new user, their signing will appear? Or at least make it so that the welcomer's signature appears. I.e. ~~~~

(for code, edit this section) Simply south (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I would oppose this change. Often, I want to be able to write my own custom message after the end of the welcome table, and I'd want that to be before my signature. It's also confusing for people trying to use templates if some of them need tildes afterwards and some of them don't. Besides, not everyone uses ~~~~ to sign (some users use --~~~~ or —~~~~, for instance). --ais523 15:58, 17 December 2007 (U T C)

I agree with Ais523. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Categories: Template talk archives