Template talk:Welcomeg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

There seems to be a problem with welcoming people whose name end in "!!" (looks like thisa\). Not sure if there is a way to fix this, just thought I'd say it here. --WillMak050389 15:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] A question to other welcomers

It has been suggested that we merge templates similar to this one. I have a version of this one that I use here User:Kukini/Welcome. I like having it there, as I feel free to adjust it to fit the different things I would like it to say based on my interactions with other users (particularly new ones). I would probably use the Template:Welcomeg template if it said a few more things in the header than does this one right now. Honestly, I am OK with people copying this, or the one on my userpage and making it fit them, but I am open to discussion on the topic. Finally, thank you to those of you who do welcome other new users with this sort of information and courtesy. Kukini 23:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion was this:
I'm primarily asking you all (see below) to merge, so that every new user gets the best possible welcome (template). These 4 are identical, except for the new colours at 2 of them, and the lead-paragraphs.
Then compare with User:Kylu/welcome, which is different enough to warrant a seperate version.
Instead of forking into tiny variants, and confusing things at Welcome template table, I suggest it's better to put improvements into a single version, for the benefit of all. Thanks :) --Quiddity·(talk) 01:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
OK then...do other users want the rest of the text I have in mine? Kukini 05:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I was bold, and updated it. I don't know if I should be so bold as to redirect the 3 duplicates here though; I'll leave that up to you all. I am going to remove the duplicates from Welcome template table now though. --Quiddity·(talk) 01:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I very much like the new header information. However, purely from an aesthetic standpoint, I do not like the color change--too green and with the section introductions being the same color as the background and being transparent, they provide a weak contrast.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I am open to other color schemes, although Quiddity, I am not sure I am ready to have mine redirected. Perhaps in a little while. Lets see how things go. Kukini 00:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
OK...so I added some text as well. We'll see what y'all think. Kukini 00:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I went with the greens for its welcoming emotional colour, and connection to Esperanza. I was also trying to keep to the soft palette used on the Main Page, Help page, Community Portal, and various 'officialish' infoboxes/navtemplates. (see Wikipedia:Colours).
Would you like me to change the colours back, or to try/draft-elsewhere more variants? I'll do one more experiment with a different blue, see how you like that. :) --Quiddity·(talk) 01:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the blue opaque was nice:-) Moreover, because this is obviously the most pressing issue facing the 'pedia, I suggest we immediately conduct a straw poll with the colors of rainbow as our criteria.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Fine, back to original colors. and :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quiddity (talk • contribs)
I agree with Centrx, that we don't need to elaborate on edit summaries though. I'll remove a bit of that. --Quiddity·(talk) 04:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
As I feel we DO need to elaborate on edit summaries, I will keep my welcome independent. Kukini 15:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section heading

Does a section heading need to be there? I'm so used to typing out my own, that every time I use this template, the talk page always ends up with two section headings. If not remove it, could it be made to be a bit less enthusiastic? By that, I mean could two exclamation marks be removed? talk to JD wants e-mail 23:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree it needs to go. I sometimes use the "+" tab at the top and this gives it 2 headings. --WillMak050389 23:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Done. --Quiddity 00:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, and here is another thing...I like the heading. Well...there are many reasons some of us need our own adapted templates. Just glad you are doing welcomes, everyone...keep up the good work! Kukini 04:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Watching this continue to morph away from what a welcome from me might look like, I remain a supporter of personalized welcome templates. - Kukini 20:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:WelcomeBotResearch

I hope it was ok me including this category into the template, and the mention of the adopt-a-user program. At the moment there are many issues that i am trying to research. This category serves our research into new users and the various trends associated with the user creation log. The main points of interest are...

  • Did the user contribute at all
  • Did the user partake in vandalism or any other abuse of the system.
  • Did the user become blocked.
  • Did the user create a user page.
  • Did the user express an interest in the adopt-a-user program
  • Did the user partake in any wikiprojects.

Please discuss these issues and/or offer your help in analysing these points on the category's talk page. Thank you! frummer 22:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Where is the resulting data? Could you clarify how this is related to what you added to the page. Why does this whatever you mean warrant three extra lines being added to the template? (Did you do research on how many people will be scared off by long instructions, or how many people will simply not read any of it because of its length?) —Centrx→talk • 00:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aaah!

Good grief! I know the creators meant well, but this template and others like are are waaay to busy, garish and ugly. They take up a ton of room, and quite frankly, clog up talk pages. Template:Welcome is simple but sweet and doesn't take half a page of flash! wiz! bang! pop! to say "Howdy." --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I wish I had such a useful collection of the most important links to policies and tools when I first started editing. I think the welcomeg template is pleasant-looking, and friendly. Jerry lavoie 23:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Jerry. --Kukini hablame aqui 05:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This may seem useful to the seasoned Wikipedian, but this would be overwhelming for a new user. The simple introduction pages would be appropriate for a new user. —SparklingWiggleGet a job! 16:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I full agree and recommend against usage, further comment solicited at, Wikipedia_talk:Welcoming_committee#Recommend_against_template_complexity. ∴ here…♠ 06:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm very much in favour of this useful template and have commented at the above link. Tyrenius 18:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I struck a good balance. Made all tables collapsible. Doesnt take up much place in talk page. Somebody improve colour combinations. cheers. Lara bran 04:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This may help with talk page clutter, but does nothing to address the complexity concern. A new user edits their talk page to find a mess of tables, CSS, and now inexplicable vanishing elements.. While the collection of links remains nice, I still recommend that new users' talk pages be generally kept to contents they can understand and learn from when viewing the source, such as a single simple link. However, enough feel otherwise to keep the template, and thus -- thanks for the change Lara ;). ∴ here…♠ 06:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, enough feel otherwise. I would have very much appreciated such a good guide when I started. I couldn't work out how to find any of the policies. Tyrenius 08:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for acceptance of my edit. I made another edit which will make code easily understood by new users with comments "table starts/ends here". This i think improves readability of code. Again, somebody improve color combination. thanks, Lara bran 09:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Would it help with the colours if they were parameterised, as in userboxes? If they were set to fairly neutral defaults, Users could then choose their own if they wanted to jazz up the display, and also learn a little about editing/formatting? Just a thought, Lynbarn 10:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Display Error?

When using this template, I sometimes (but not always) get • displayed instead of a bullet separator, such as:

Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry

instead of:

Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry

Any idea what causes this? It is not the PC I'm using, as it happens on some pages but not others, and across different PCs... or do I just need new specs? Thanks, Lynbarn 08:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

There was a recent bug in the talk page archiving bot that clobbered UTF-8 characters. --  Netsnipe  ►  10:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] odd edit history behaviour

A few minutes ago, I reverted (well, tried to) the edit by User:Andyjsmith as it seemed to have removed all the show/hide boxes. As I edited it though, something odd was happening with the page history, some edits seemed to go missing, then reappear next time I returned to the history page, so I will leave it till later to see what happens. Regards, Lynbarn 12:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Collapsible and recent changes

The recent collapsible sections additions were reverted [1], along with a number of other undisputed edits. I'm not sure how these edits were unjustified and against consensus, as there were no objections. I prefer the collapsible sections, and also the removal of the bold-face from the intro text. Also Getting "adopted" by was reverted to Get adoption from. Vanderdecken, would you explain the wholesale revert? ∴ here…♠ 19:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

As a frequent welcomer these days, I don't really care. I slightly prefer the current version, but I received a response from a new user who said the hide/show format was cool. YechielMan 01:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
How's about making them both available as separate templates, just as there is {{Welcomeh}}, which I use, as it provides a heading automatically.Tyrenius 01:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tyrenius, collapsible welcome can be made in seperate template. Also current template has long history, let it remain as it is. But only change i suggest is using "start and end of table" comments. This is because 1. table code is difficult to comprehend, 2. message is not properly visible(and unnecessarily bold), 3. sign is not at end of message 4. current code is asked for deletion due to complexity. Lara bran 03:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I reverted to which has same look and feel as good old, which we consider as temp consensus. Collapsible can be done after consensus. I feel collapsible can be made in a separate template.Lara bran 03:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Lara, as a new Wikipedian, I'm not sure you understand the idea of consensus - we leave it how it was, before you made any changes. Consensus means what the community has identified to be a majority opinion, and your edit does not qualify - leave it as it was before you started making changes. Then we can discuss, here, whether your version should be brought back in or split off to another template. This is a high-usage template, so any major changes must be discussed here first. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that including comments which would help new users understand what the huge code block on their page means is a good idea but I don't think this should be done by changing the overall appearance of the message (as Lara bran's did). As for establishing consensus, I like the old/consensus version better than any of the new versions I've seen in the last few days /$0.02 Stardust8212 12:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

As one of the editors who was responsible for greatly expanding Welcomeg in the first place, I support Lara bran's collapsible feature. Welcomeg has been criticized in the past for being too intimidating for newcomers with its barrage of links. Collapsing the template makes it much easier on the eyes in my honest opinion. Forking off another welcome template when one will do is just redundant. We only need one welcome template that links to just about every policy and guideline we have. The only other suggestion I'd like to make is that we keep the old colour scheme (which I'm rather fond of) on the collapsible version. --  Netsnipe  ►  13:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Collapsible looks completely different than the old version, mostly because of color change. But collapsible is the way to go in future. I was compelled to change colors as "show/hide" was not visible.
Collapsible version needs a border and background of old version, it can be tried directly as we are changing only style. (I earlier had thought that there are many welcome templates, so started changing without consensus). Lara bran 15:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
As I've expressed above, I also prefer the collapsible layout. However, if it continues to be a point of contention; making an additional template is a cheap and effective way to please all parties... at least until they show up at TfD for forced merging ;). In the spirit of continued cryptic-but-short naming -- How about {{welcomec}}? ∴ here…♠ 21:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Stop! dont create {{welcomec}}. I have created {{welcomeg/c}}, u can test till consensus or even start using subst:welcomeg/c right now. It has simple code because {{welcomeg/table}} is not substituted, dont forget to check the code after u use in some page. It includes section heading and sign also Lara bran 04:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Now, code of {{welcomeg/c}}is simpler than {{welcome}}, give a look at resultant code at userpage. Here /c stands for cllapsible. Lara bran 04:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Can you move to {{welcomec}} - simpler. Tyrenius 05:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Why move, you can use subst:{{welcomeg/c}} straightaway. Anyways you are subst'ing.
Additional fixes are base page name substitution and working "your contributions link". Lara bran 08:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Move because it's simpler, as I said and easier to remember.Tyrenius 17:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I would rather love to move to {{welcomeg}} itself on consensus. Contents are nothing but the same right? Any objections Vanderdecken? Lara bran 06:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
There is clearly no consensus, thus the creation of a new template. {{welcomec}} is much easier to type and remember -- as well as being inline with other existing templates like {{welcomeh}} which vary on this model. ∴ here…♠ 08:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, objection to moving to welcomeg. Give people a choice. Variety is the spice of life etc... Tyrenius 15:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Okey, {{welcomec}} Beta version released. See talk page there. Lara bran 06:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

wait, now one risk, in newer version i made table into non-subst template. which will make {{tl|welcomeg/table} immortal. That you cant delete at all. But this reduces code in user page to significantly and saves wiki memory. Lara bran 11:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)