Template talk:Welcome/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Safesubst

{{editprotected}} Mediawiki got updated, this template can now use safesubst: to be safely used while substituted or not, without leaving random bits of code on the user's talk page. Please change to the new version at Template:Welcome/sandbox. Thanks. --Yair rand (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Tested that it works; see Template:Welcome/testcases. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I've undone this change, because it seemed to be causing problems, for example in the penultimate sentence, the user talk link doesn't work. PhilKnight (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what template was being used in that instance, but it certainly wasn't {{Welcome}}. This template has nothing like that. --Yair rand (talk) 17:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess Ishould have explained I was using {{Wel}}, which in turn uses this template. PhilKnight (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem was in the wrapper template {{Wel}}, which should have been changed along with it. The passed in parser function made the substituting #if evaluate incorrectly. I have changed {{Wel}} now, so I'll restore the change. Amalthea 17:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Amalthea, thanks for sorting out the problem. PhilKnight (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Multiple welcomes

Is it necessary to welcome the user 3 times within the message? The template creates a "Welcome" heading when it's subst'd, so we got: Once in the heading, again in the bolded text below the heading, and again at the very end. I think we can afford to get rid of the second "Welcome!" below the heading, no? -- œ^™ 04:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

This template doesn't make a heading, thus the bolded text. {{Welcome2}} makes a heading, but doesn't have the bolded 'welcome'. -SCEhardT 21:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Ahh you're right. It only creates the heading when the template is added with WP:FRIENDLY, that's what threw me off. In that case I guess I should be posting this there. -- œ^™ 12:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the very last paragraph <"Again, welcome!"> being too obsequious. I suggest that it be removed. HumphreyW (talk) 07:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editrequested}}

Please link "discussion pages" to Help:Using talk pages, so it bypasses the redirect. HeyMid (contributions) 10:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Garion96 (talk) 10:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

In what way was this redirect broken? Amalthea 18:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

What would be the point in keeping the redirect? To fix all "not broken" redirects in articles is kind of pointless. But one edit to have a highly used template without a redirect doesn't seem a bad thing. Garion96 (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Not bad, no. It just seems to me that the page WP:Talk page or Help:Talk page was a more fitting link target for "discussion page" than Help:Using talk pages is. I don't know whether we're going to have separate pages for those down the line, but that's the big advantage of a redirect: link to the most fitting page name, even if it's a redirect, and you're future-proof. Bypass it to whatever the redirect target is and you'll either have to update those links down the line, or end up having sub-optimal link targets. Amalthea 20:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I did checked the redirects if they were the result of a recent move. But the page was moved to Help:Using talk pages over a year ago. I probably wouldn't have touched a redirect to Help:Talk page but it is unlikely Wikipedia:Talk page will ever be used again. Garion96 (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but my point is that WP:Talk page will presumably always point at the most fitting page we have, no matter how things develop.
That all may be only be my interpretation of WP:NOTBROKEN by the way, and is generally directed at Heymid who "fixed" a couple redirects today. Amalthea 21:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

{{editrequested}} I take my first edit request back; I just came across WP:R2D (or WP:NOTBROKEN), which states that non-broken redirects should not be fixed, as the redirect location may change in the future. Please revert Garion96's edit. Thanks in advance. HeyMid (contributions) 10:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

To have a good redirect back to a "broken redirect" would be one pointless edit. :) Garion96 (talk) 13:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

{{helpme}} should be {{help me}}

{{editprotected}} {{helpme}} should be {{help me}} in the template. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 19:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Done I know we have WP:NOTBROKEN and all that, but I fixed it anyway :) Dabomb87 (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

User talk page link

I think it would be a good idea to re-add the "on my talk page" link, but with slightly different code.

• Original code: {{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>#if:{{{1|}}}|[[user talk:{{{1}}}|my talk page]]|my talk page}}
• Possible new code #1: [[User talk:{{{{{{subst1|subst:}}}REVISIONUSER}}}|my talk page]] (see Wikipedia:Safesubst#Recursive substitution. The code would produce [[User talk:{{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}|my talk page]] if the subst1 parameter was not used at all (not even an empty value.

Replacing with a new version

What do you guys think of replacing the current template with the one here? Kaldari (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

That would be quite horrible actually. More fitting perhaps for Template:Welcomeh which is sort of similar but not for this template. Just keep this template simple, without boxes, icons and the like. Garion96 (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Any thoughts on the content of that template (rather than just the style)? Kaldari (talk) 02:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Just prefer this one, more simple and less wordy. And the line "If other people haven't yet covered a topic, then we probably shouldn't either" is ridiculous. I know there is a link to notabilty there but most newbies wouldn't read that. And despite the x million articles we have there are still many valid articles which can be created, which happens every day. Garion96 (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree, this shouldn't be replaced by that. I'd say feel free to have it as an alternative welcome template if you wish to use it yourself, but that proposed version looses some of the advantages of this short and graphics free standard. Infrogmation (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Update link

{{edit protected}}

[[Wikipedia:How to edit a page|How to edit a page]] should be replaced with [[Help:Editing|How to edit a page]]

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done & thanks Skier Dude (talk) 00:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

interwiki

Insert a link to interwiki: dz:Template:Welcome. Impro (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

You can actually add that yourself to Template:Welcome/doc, but  Done. —mc10 (t/c) 02:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Simplify

I think it would be a good idea to replace the first two links in the list with one link to Wikipedia:Introduction, which will take the reader to both of those pages (and several others). This would simplify the template a little, and therefore make it more likely that someone will click on one of those links. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

User talk page link bug

I think the code to pull in the posting user's talk page is not working quite right. Jeremyb recently welcomed me on my staff talk page, but the text 'my talk page' did not link to his talk page. I have no skill with templates, so sadly can't suggest why. Any ideas? Maplebed (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Too many links

The welcome template has too many links. This might be confusing for new users. I would suggest to change it to:

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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); 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 on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Also, the "my talk page" link should be changed to a link that automatically opens the edit window with a new section. A lot of new contributors post their message at the top of talk pages can't find the edit/new section button at all. —Ruud 16:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Adopt a user

I think that being adopted with adopt a user is a good way for newcomers to learn how to use wikipedia, and so I would suggest something like this be added somewhere in the text: You might want to consider being "adopted" by an experienced user who would show you how wikipedia works through a program called adopt-a-user. Thank you and happy editing! pluma Ø 21:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Substitution

Can anyone please explain why this template should always be substituted rather than trancluded? Thanks AMERICOPHILE 07:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

"The archives of a user's talk page should show the actual welcome message they received, not the current welcome message."

Minor change

I changed "discussion pages" to "talk pages" since the tab has now been renamed. Rich Farmbrough, 22:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC).

I believe it should be changed back. (I have said as much below at #Suggestions for changes.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

No!

Strangely enough, "no" isn't a very compelling or informative reason not to do something. Hyacinth (talk) 01:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments - I'm not really sure why this template needs a heading, but if it must, its current heading version uses improper text-bolding.  -- WikHead (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:TALKNEW suggests using "a new heading for a new topic". It seems like the first message would be a good place to example technical and format standards and layout expectations for talk pages. Hyacinth (talk) 04:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I could swear that I once read somewhere in the manuals that text-bolding should never be used in headings, as a percentage of bolding is already written into the heading CSS. At the moment however, with the exception of this (at bullet number 6), I'm unable to find where I read this, and left to assume that it may have been removed or revised. The bold text in this heading is something I immediately noticed had changed, and is the reason I was drawn here in the first place. I was actually expecting to discover that the template had been abused.  -- WikHead (talk) 06:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

And "heading" isn't a very compelling or informative reason for making the change in the first place. I don't know what the reverting editor's concern was, but putting a header on this template breaks, at least, WP:TWINKLE, which now adds two headers when used to welcome a new editor, and it doesn't list the "includes section heading" warning that it does for other welcome templates. Given that this template has used a bold-text header for the past seven years, there are probably other a few plugins (not to mention editors) that expect it to work this way. I can't edit this page, so I'll raise an edit-protect request. --McGeddon (talk) 10:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The section header at the top of this template should be reverted to the simple boldface it's been using for the past seven years, as at least one auto-welcome plugin (and presumably many editors) are expecting it to still work this way. --McGeddon (talk) 10:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Right, I should have left a notice here, I forgot since I was busy reparing other welcome templates at the time. You, on the other hand, should really have waited to hear the reasons behind that emphatic revert before restoring the change. By not doing so, you have now broken the following things:

• The spirit of WP:BRD
• Every time this template is now placed by a Twinkle user with default options, it will place two headings, like here.
• Every time anyone now uses {{wel}} to welcome a registered user, it will now create headings
• Prior consensus (e.g. Template talk:Welcome/Archive 5#Heading, Template talk:Welcome/Archive 5#Requested edit, Template talk:Welcome/Archive 6#Welcome header)
• The table of contents will now be placed above the welcome, which is not what some editors want (e.g. Template talk:Welcome/Archive 4#Formatting change)
• If the template is transcluded the editor will wonder why he can't edit the section when he presses the section edit link. This is what usually leads to removing section headers from templates, like recently at [[tl|ANI-notice}} (note the page history of blankings, signings, ...)

All of this can be taken care of. Personally I don't care which way this template looks. But just going ahead with significant changes despite a "Please do not make major changes without first achieving a consensus on the talk page" notice, a "please notify Twinkle maintainers of significant changes" notice and a revert is not the way to go.
Amalthea 10:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

So does anyone have an opinion about which way the template looks? Hyacinth (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Its looks? In regards to heading or no heading? I believe your idea to work with WP:TALKNEW makes a lot of sense, but then again, I guess I have always viewed the welcome template more as a default lead section than an actual message... a useful collection of resource links that appears before the TOC. In general, this is my welcome template of preference because of its simplicity. It's compact and gets straight to the point with no ugly tables, bright colours or images, just the facts. As with all our welcome templates however, its wording about signing posts with four tildes seems jammed in at random... and I've seen cases where it has actually offended new users who thought they were being accused of doing something incorrectly.  -- WikHead (talk) 04:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

So, issues I mentioned above are back. Is it consensus to have a heading in this template now? Should I start fixing Twinkle and {{wel}} and whatever else is now kaput? Amalthea 22:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't much care one way or the other, although obviously any change needs to be properly coordinated with the rest of the community. Like WikHead, the things I'd like to see changed are elsewhere in the template, like simplifying it by replacing the first couple of bullets with a link to Wikipedia:Introduction. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh. I've just welcomed a user and seen that the erroneous double-heading is back, and has been breaking Twinkle and {{wel}} for the past 40 hours. What happened to "Please do not make major changes without first achieving a consensus on the talk page" and "please notify Twinkle maintainers of significant changes"? Is this being discussed somewhere else?

I don't have a problem with adding a heading, it seems a good way to introduce the idea of talk pages being divided up by headers, but we should work out what other templates and scripts will be affected if we add it, shouldn't we? And at least try to make all those updates within a couple of hours of each other. --McGeddon (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• I also filed this as a bug with Twinkle, assuming that it wasn't the fault of the template without realising that this template has been buggered around with. I don't see why tool owners should be fixing stuff when things are broken on here without prior consultation. I filed the bug, Amalthea shut it cause you'd changed the template on here without discussion, and the complaint was to go here. So here it is. This is a high use template, WP:BOLD doesn't apply in places like this. If you want to change it, discuss it first. Fix it.  BarkingFish  13:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I add that Twinkle and {{wel}} have now been modified to account for the added heading. If anyone decides to change it again, please make sure to coordinate the change appropriately in advance! Amalthea 14:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Thank you Amalthea. It shouldn't be down to you to fix what others break though. It should be down to others to discuss stuff before they decide to go and fiddle with it. Your help is appreciated, Amalthea, let's hope those who decide that changing things is more important than talking about them first, get the message that it's supposed to be the other way round - talk about it first, then go change it.  BarkingFish  15:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer going back to no heading. When you add a heading the welcome disappears when the talk page gets archived, and I find it useful keep as a reference and makes it easier to see if someone has been welcomed if they keep it - saves having to hunt through the talk history. Any objections to going back? Why was Twinkle ever putting in a heading? Welcome notices go at the top of user talk pages, they are not added as section headings at the bottom of the talk page. Apteva (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Anyone with enough technical skills to set up archiving can probably figure out how to add {{noarchive}}, remove the section heading, change the date, put the bot instructions below the welcome section, or any of the other methods of preventing archiving. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Linking to the Teahouse on the welcome template

Hi everyone. Those of us involved at the Teahouse pilot are interested in seeing a link to the Teahouse placed in the welcome template. This will be able to help us drive new editor traffic to the Teahouse during this pilot period, and allow us to continue to assess the pilot. The welcome template is a great and powerful tool for new users, and it'd be really valuable to give new editors the choice to visit the Teahouse for assistance and community experience. I do hope that you will support this and then we can reach out to an admin to make the change. Thank you for your consideration :) Sarah (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support I support the addition of a link to the Teahouse. The Wikimedia Foundation is backing the Teahouse project as a way to encourage new editors and the Teahouse pages are sufficiently staffed with volunteers to be a useful place for new users to ask questions or just come to realize that there are real people behind every part of Wikimedia projects. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Sounds good. Kaldari (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, this is still experimental and linking it for new users could be highly problematical. I also have a problem that one of the most used templates on Wikipedia was changed this significantly with only two opinions. This hardly can count as seeking and obtaining consensus for something so fundamental as the welcome users receive to the project. Please list this discussion in more public places to seek further input. I am reverting this until there is considerably more input on this. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Why do you think it'd be problematic? Sarah (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

It is a very new page, more or less still an experimental page. People there are still figuring out what they are doing. Things can and probably will change considerably over the near future. The last thing we want is to confuse new editors. Also, I am concerned that the "Tea Room" may be morphing into a near-Esperanza type situation. I am willing to be convinced otherwise; but I have no reason to think it would be a good idea to send newbies there, and several reasons to think it would be a bad one. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

If you think the Tea Room is anything like Esperanza, I'm afraid you may be misinformed. Have you actually looked at the project? It's been quite successful so far. They have over 30 new editors visiting per week and have a 38% editor retention rate, compared with 7% for the control group. I think your concerns may be misplaced, but if you have any specific issues (other than comparing it to Esperanza), please elaborate. Kaldari (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I did not say it was like Esperanza, and I have already given my objections, the primary one of which is that significantly more input than two supporters is needed to make such a substantial change. This was not listed on any of the usual places, not even the Village Pump, so far as I have been able to find. If it was so listed, and failed to gain attention, do as is done on Afds which don't have much input - relist. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec)

• Oppose Agree with KillerChihuahua. I expressed a real concern I had to Sarah regarding it's possible misuse. My concern was not addressed but rather I was chastized for expressing it.

I think the Teahouse concept is evolving and we need to see what it becomes before we link it to a template that is massively distributed to editors of varying motives. The Teahouse has been in existence (live) since the middle of February, I believe, and was presented as a four month experimental project with 20 selected hosts and carefully collected metrics that would be analyzed and reported at its conclusion.

I don't think the Teahouse has stabilized yet. Let the experimental period run its course and analyze the effect of the project (as was stated in the proposal that WMF approved) before we make further decisions such as linking it to the massively distributed welcome template. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Not "stablized yet" - exactly. It is too new. We are still in the "launch" phase, we're not even in the "Measurement and reporting" phase.[1] There is no deadline, and I am concerned this is hasty. The project is clearly designated as a "pilot" and how to make it work is still being actively discussed and debated.[2] KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Not sure I follow your objections directly above, Mathew and KillerChihuahua. I'll defer to more experienced Wikipedians on the procedural concern you raise here (needing more community input). The thing that confuses me, and perhaps this isn't the place to get my answer, are the undefined concerns you both express, which seem to constitute the core of your argument: KillerChihuahua, you say that you "have no reason to think it would be a good idea to send newbies there, and several reasons to think it would be a bad one". Since you appear the agree that Teahouse is not Esperanza, and your procedural objection doesn't seem to bear on whether the Teahouse is a bad (or good) place for newbies, could you elaborate your several concerns related to why visiting the Teahouse might be harmful to new editors? MathewTownsend, you say that you expressed a concern to Sarah over the Teahouse's "possible misuse". Are you referring to your disagreement with a specific editor who answered a new users' question at the Teahouse Q&A board, regarding that editors GA review? That specific incident doesn't seem to me to have been a misuse of the Teahouse, but perhaps I don't know all the details.

You both agree that Teahouse has not "stabilized yet", that it is still evolving. The way I read your comments, this seems like your core concern. Could you explain this to me in a little more detail? I don't see any appreciable evolution in the Teahouse's mission or functions since Sarah and I designed it two months ago. It's still primarily a Q&A board, oriented around the kinds of concerns that new editors have, with an active outreach component. New hosts are joining all the time, and there's no selection/nomination process. Metrics are being reported on a more-or-less weekly basis, and said metrics are as official in the "Launch" phase as they will be in the "Metrics and Reporting" phase. And are as accurate as I can make them. So far, I don't read any disturbing signs in those tea leaves. What are the particular changes you see, that trouble you?

For my part, I figured that a welcome template link might be an effective way to reach out to a different population of new editors, ones who might not hear about Teahouse otherwise. The data geek in me wants to know what kind of response rate we get through that venue. My suspicion is that it would be low, since there are so many links on that template to start with. But it seems worth a shot, and low risk. What are the risks you see?

Anyway, if you have other Teahouse-related concerns, beyond the procedural concern you mention above, I would love to discuss them with you any time. Ping me on my talk page, on the Teahouse talk page, or on #wikipedia-teahouse. I plan to work on the Teahouse as long as there's a Teahouse to work on, and long after my fellowship runs its course. So learning what other 'pedians think about it is pretty important to me. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 04:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Obviously I have concerns beyond the procedural, I have enumerated them above. Which of my concerns do you not understand? Regarding what you blithely dismiss as a "procedural" concern, I advise you to consider that I'm not asking for some bureaucratic form to be filled out. I am asking for more input. I have raised concerns which did not occur to you. Others may see issues I have not. Some may have valuable input in other ways. We don't know. What we do know is that Wikipedia is run by consensus, and your "figuring" that this "might" be a good idea is not how it is run. Don't dismiss the rest of the Wikipedia community as a mere "procedural" issue. That is not what it is at all. Please do let me know if you are still confused about this core policy. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

KC, Jonathan wasn't dismissing anything. He's asking genuine concerning questions and is hoping for your input on those questions. While I have been an active editor for quite sometime, I am not active in procedural (sorry, but policy and consensus has to come from certain procedures like putting discussions in certain places, etc.) aspects of said policy and changes on Wikipedia. I asked numerous people (Wikipedians and staff Wikipedians from WMF) and was told to ask on the talk page and I did. I think your attitude is really not bringing the best out of this conversation which could be really valuable, informing and educational. It appears that you are extremely angry about something beyond just this, and it's really disheartening and concerning for me that a project that celebrates and supports new editors is becoming a force for anger. I really am sorry that what could be a informative and good conversation has turned into a rude and invaluable discussion. It's hurtful, frustrating and is the type of negative collaboration that many Wikipedians (i.e. those involved in the Teahouse) are striving to change. I'd appreciate if you could be more understanding and take a less abrasive tone in your posts. We only mean the best. Sarah (talk) 15:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

(outdent)Did you mean to chastise and lecture me about my "attitude" as though I were a naughty child, or was that just poor phrasing on your part? I suggest you criticize my phrasing if you cannot help yourself from lecturing; as you have no particular insight into my mind, emotional state and thinking you cannot possibly know my "attitude" or whether I am "angry" or not (I'm not.) I suggest this is a communications difficultly. You may wish to AGF and read what I wrote and try not to take it so personally. I know you are very involved in this project, but there is no need to turn this into a series of personal insults or lectures on behavior. Let's stick to the issue at hand, shall we? Which is whether the link belongs on the template or not. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't dismissing anything. In fact, I was emphasizing that commenting on your concern with whether the proper consensus-seeking procedures were being followed was beyond my scope inexperienced editor that I am. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 17:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I misread you then; thanks for clearing that up. Which of my other objections did you not understand? I'll try to return the favor. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Just wondering if the general concerns you expressed about Teahouse as experimental/in flux had their roots in any specific, negative impacts. Are there certain things we're doing on Teahouse that make you think we're headed in the wrong direction? - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 00:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is an example: currently there is a huge battle and edit war over a q&a page's functionality. It is set to topposting, is different from any other similar page on WP, and there have been concerns that it will confuse editors. It has other functional problems. Arguments have been raised that it replicates the Help Desk and is not an improvement nor a complementary page, but simply a waste of time and effort. This will be resolved; but it is not resolved yet, and it is not the only issue. There is also the issue of the "simplified interface" or whatever its being called. concerns have been raised this will teach editors the wrong way, and it will be twice the work to un-teach them, and re-teach them the right way, as it would have been to simply teach them the right way to begin with. This is also an active debate which has not yet been resolved. I don't think these two are, or will be, the end of this phase of the project, when things change rapidly and there are problems. Do you see now what we mean by it is not established, it is too new, too unstable for inclusion on this template? This is the default welcome template. It is widely used. Changes should be made with caution and strong clear consensus, not hastily for collecting some metrics for a pilot test project which has no stability and is regarded as confusing or problematic by a number of experienced editors. It is a test program, still officially in launch phase, although it appears some of it is still in discussing concepts and approaches. It may turn out to be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but right now it is not sufficiently developed and stable for inclusion here. It is as though you were asking for your new stub, with sourcing issues and bad formatting and an edit war ongoing, to be featured on the main page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

tl;dr version: You write code, right? Then I'm saying it's still in dev, and there are too many bugs to roll it out to prod. It hasn't passed the test cycle yet, and is not ready for release. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Got it, thanks for expanding. I still disagree on the inclusion issue, but you make some good points. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 01:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Which is why we solicit wider input than a couple of editors - we all view things differently. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support for the period of the pilot. In order to assess the Teahouse, we need to drive traffic there. It's a plausible research goal to determine whether the Welcome message will be effective in sending new users to the Teahouse, and then to determine the effectiveness of the Teahouse in helping them. – Wdchk (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

  Did you know that they are using their own welcome to test this? Its already being tracked, as described in the original proposal. Or are you suggesting that the difference between response % of those receiving this template with a link are compared to the response rate of those receiving the Tea Room welcome alone? I'm not following your research goal question, I'm sorry. Would you mind clarifying? thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I think Wdchk is saying that it's useful to figure out which methods of inviting new users to Teahouse (or any other help space) get the best results. Because new users often don't realize that these spaces exist, or that they've received messages, or are otherwise confused/overwhelmed by the bounty of 'helpful links' they get pointed to during their early days on wiki. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 17:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I was responding to SarahStierch's original request, which indicated that a link from the Welcome template would be useful to the research project. Looking closer though, meta:Research:Teahouse#New editors describes the target population as "good faith editors who have already completed several edits". This would exclude new editors who might be receiving the Welcome after only one or two edits, with maybe a warning thrown in there for good measure. While I can see that it would be useful to measure the effect of linking to the Teahouse from this template, if this represents a change in scope to the Teahouse project, we should clarify the scope first. I don't know that this Talk page is necessarily the best place to discuss Teahouse scope. At some point though, if the Teahouse continues past pilot, we have to figure out whether linking to it from the Welcome template is effective. – Wdchk (talk) 01:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• Meh: I don't think anybody reads the welcome message that closely. It's probably premature to include a link to the Teahouse in this template, but I can't imagine it really matters either way. The larger issues surrounding the Teahouse (and the general "Wikiafication" of the project) should be addressed in a separate forum. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
• Now that we're having an actual discussion, support. I agree with KC that this should have come before anyone actually added the link to the template, but now that we're discussing this I don't see a reason not to. Disclaimer: I'm a host at the Teahouse, so obviously am completely biased and non-neutral. With that in mind, we've talked about how to increase traffic and lessen the load on manual invites and this was one of the ideas. I think the Teahouse is useful for newbies and the addition of the link can only be a net positive. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 17:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

  This may be slightly off topic here, but it is related: Given the comment by Wdchk above, would you track the invitees via the Welcome template separately from those with the TR welcome alone? Or has that even been discussed anywhere on the TR project? KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

  I'm not in any position to decide, so let me ask J-Mo. I do think it is possible, given our current method of tracking people, but might be more work than its worth... Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 22:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, I currently track transclusions of the Teahouse invite template through an API script, and save them to a database table. If the Welcome template is transcluded, I can track that the same way, and would do so. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 22:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks, that does clarify and it is good to know that you would track the two methods separately. Have you considered making a different template for this purpose (like Welcome but with he TH link, for TH use only)? IMO you will almost certainly get more response from the TH only invite [ I don't quite agree that no one reads them, but it will probably get a little lost in the volume of links on the template. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

  KC: I feel like our Teahouse/Invitation template basically serves that function, though it could be tweaked to have a more generally welcoming feel. And I didn't quite mean that nobody would read it, though it kind of came off that way. It's just that there are already a lot of links there. As others have stated better above, I think, we see adding the Teahouse link to the Welcome template as a bonus: a way to spread the word to a broader set of new users, and another useful piece of data about which new editor outreach strategies are most effective. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 00:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support, by the way. In case anyone was wondering :) - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 22:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Note, I'm a TH host. My reasoning for the support is I'm interested in knowing which form of invite leads more new editors to the Teahouse. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

  Then I request you consider my suggestion that a copy be made of this template, add the TeaHouse link, and test away - once the tea house is more established and not in so much flux, all of the objections I've seen will be gone (assuming the project doesn't crash and burn, but let's assume that won't happen. :-) ) Using a highly used and visible template for "testing is not generally a recommended Best Practice, but is instead generally considered a rather poor one. -- KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

  Quick background as to why we (Teahouse hosts and so forth) would like to see the link added for testing purposes. At present, manually adding the Teahouse invite is the only way of getting newbies into the TH, and it takes hundreds and thousands of invites to get 20-30 guests. A couple of editors were doing the vast majority of the inviting, and others had said roughly that it wasn't efficient to have hosts spend the majority of their time spreading invites, especially if they weren't gnomeishly minded. With that, and the possibility of eventual burnout in mind, we were looking for other ways of getting newbs into the TH, and of course this template came up. Now, it's really hard to have a trial without participants, and at present those seem to be hard to come by without immense amounts of labor that could be better spent elsewhere. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 02:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I've just removed this from the cookie version. Lots of people use these welcome templates, so if you add a Teahouse link you are putting a bunch words into a communication that a lot of people use and putting unexpected words into others mouths. I don't check the template every time I welcome anyone, and while I've nothing against the teahouse I don't want a welcome that I regularly use to suddenly start promoting something that I'm not familiar with. So if you want a Teahouse version please create a modified copy. Thanks ϢereSpielChequers 17:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: Agree with WereSpielChequers. The Teahouse is a four month pilot program proposed by a WMF fellow and accepted: meta:Research:Teahouse. The project is in the pilot period now. The conditions set forth in the meta:Research:Teahouse should be followed. Adding a link to the Teahouse on the general "Welcome" template used by the thousands by editors who have never heard of the Teahouse is not included in the Teahouse proposal. This needs community consensus conducted after the pilot program is completed and the metrics evaluated. Adding the link now would completely invalidated the research proposal and render the data meaningless. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
• I would support a "help" link on the template to guide new users to where they can seek help. There should only be one link on the template to avoid clutter and confusion. The page linked to should have further links to all the possible help sites on the 'pedia. Unfotunately, the Teahouse homepage in its current form is not such a page; it doesn't link to anywhere at all outside the Teahouse. Template:W-basic links to Help:Contents which is a good place to start, and this template links to Wikipedia:Questions. It would be more appropriate for the Teahouse to be advertised on these aggregating help pages, or one of their target pages, rather than directly in the welcome message. SpinningSpark 23:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Rasberry. e^xtra999 (talk) 08:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• Weak oppose I'm concerned about the longevity of the (any) new project. People will be using these links years from now, and it's hard to know whether the Teahouse will still be functional then. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• Link to Wikipedia:Help desk. benzband (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Other templates affected

Until WereSpielChequers posted, I had no idea any other templates had been changed without benefit of input from the community; as Mathew states, doing so is going well outside the stated scope of the project during this phase. I would have appreciated someone mentioning this once it became clear there were objections. I have also removed the link from the following, using an edit summary that points here. I had no idea all the Twinkle templates had been modified. It is especially surprising that even the anon templates were modified, since that is not even part of the supposed target group of the Teahouse.

• Template:First article
• Template:First school article
• Template:Teahouse Barnstar
• Template:Teahouse invitation
• Template:Teahouse invitation TW
• Template:Teahouse thank you
• Template:W-cust
• Template:W-short
• Template:Welc-anon
• Template:Welcome - Copyright
• Template:Welcome student
• Template:Welcome teacher
• Template:Welcome unref blp
• Template:Welcome-COI
• Template:Welcome-anon
• Template:Welcome-anon-constructive
• Template:Welcome-anon-vandal
• Template:Welcome-anon-vandalism-fighter
• Template:Welcome0
• Template:Welcomeauto
• Template:Welcomespam

The following pages had some discussion, I am adding a link here from there.

• Template talk:Cleanup
• Template talk:Welcome
• Template talk:Welcome-anon
• Template talk:Welcomenpov
• Template talk:Welcomeg
• Template talk:Welcomeh
• Template talk:W-basic
• Template talk:Welcometest
• Template talk:Welcome to Wikipedia

KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

---

I saw no comments whether yea or nea except on

• Template talk:W-basic - negative, SpinningSpark 01:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC) (No Teahouse link was added)
• Template talk:Welcome-anon - positive, extra999 (talk) 09:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC) (anon page, outside stated scope of Teahouse project, link was placed to Teahouse on template.)

I placed the link here on all pages in the list of talk pages above. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

What about WP:BOLD. Isn't your "lets not change templates until everyone who may want to comment has a chance to" (that's how I'm reading you posts) go against that. And wouldn't such procedural way lock Wikipedia up to change? The proposal was here for some time, it was in no way out of line to make the change with "little" input, the talk page was used adequately prior to the change. Of course that does not mean you cannot question it after it has been done, but this in no way violates "the Wikipedia community". Chico Venancio (talk) 04:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

For now, the discussion continues. There has been no clear consensus for now, e^xtra999 (talk) 08:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Chico: Boldness is just the first step. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

@Chico, it is be bold, not reckless. WP:BOLD is mostly about editing articles. In other namespaces a degree of commonsense needs to be applied - policy changes, for instance, should always be discussed first. WP:BOLD talks about this issue at great length "...more caution is sometimes required when editing pages in non-article namespaces." And on templates specifically it has this to say: "Being bold in updating templates can have far reaching consequences. This is because template changes can affect a large number of pages with a single edit; moreover some templates also form part of wide-ranging, uniform systems of templates across Wikipedia, such as infobox and stub templates." Further "Before editing templates, consider proposing any changes on the associated talk pages and announcing the proposed change on pages of appropriate WikiProjects." I think that makes it perfectly clear that WP:BOLD was anything but followed in this particular case. If it had been, there really would not have been a problem. SpinningSpark 15:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, as you have cited WP:BOLD asks that changes to templates be first proposed on the talk page. It was. Is this whole deal because it was not announced "on pages of appropriate WikiProjects"?

I am not saying in any way shape or form that it is illegitimate to have the debate now, but to insist that something terrible was done to begin with does not seem to adhere to the principles of Wikipedia. Chico Venancio (talk) 19:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Problem is that the community was not consulted

• The problem IMO is that the Teahouse is a WMF project, implemented with almost no input from the en:wp community. It is a WMF pilot project, proposed by an WMF fellow. Considering how bad the relationship between WMF and en:wp is, (made worse by WMF turning down a New Patrol Page project that the en:wp community proposed with overwhelming consensus from the community), it just seems ironic that the WMF Teahouse project was implemented with almost no discussion from the community and, in fact, almost no awareness that the Teahouse project was being implemented at all. And now it goes around changing templates without asking for input, or even informing the community about what is going on.

• Now the pilot project is finding that it can't follow it's own proposal and is seeking to "beef up" Teahouse participation so it can meet its goals, by sticking a link to the Teahouse project on templates that are used by the thousands every day, and further, that may affect other templates in a cascading effect. That this was done without seeking community input seems to me that another WMF project is being foisted on the community without our consent.

• Contrast this with the way the Wikipedia:Article Feedback Tool/Version 5 is being handled. Currently there is a proposal with active community input, including IRC with scheduled office hours, a newsletter, an active Wikipedia talk:Article Feedback Tool/Version 5 with responses and active input from User:Okeyes (WMF) , the WMF community liaison. Okeyes is very friendly and welcomes input, both positive and negative. Community members are participating in trying out beta versions of this tool. Thus, whatever article feedback tool is implemented, it is much more likely to be supported by the community. The community feels it has a part in its development, that it's opinions are being heard and responded to, and that modifications to the tool are being made according.

• This is the way it seems to me. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

You did see this right? What kind of "asking for input, or even informing the community" did you want? Chico Venancio (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

You mean the part that says: "Thank you Amalthea. It shouldn't be down to you to fix what others break though. It should be down to others to discuss stuff before they decide to go and fiddle with it. Your help is appreciated, Amalthea, let's hope those who decide that changing things is more important than talking about them first, get the message that it's supposed to be the other way round - talk about it first, then go change it.

Then Sarah notifies the community about the template meddling and the reason. That's in no way a request for input.

What your referring to was notification after the fact, when it was discovered that Teahouse meddling with the template had broken it. So someone else had to fix it. That in no way was a RfC or other community request for input or comment, or even a request for consent to meddle with the welcome template. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

this was the change to template. That diff, to a request to make that change predates this one by one week. What request for input did you want? Chico Venancio (talk) 04:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

We seem to be conflating (at least I was) the discussion under the subheading #No! above with the edits made by the Teahouse. In fact, that was an entirely different issue. Chico - my apologies. SpinningSpark 07:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't dispute that after the image filter, the fundraising/chapter clash and various other incidents, WMF/community relations are such that any WMF project at present needs to tread carefully when dealing with Wikipedians. Though describing WP:ACTRIAL as having overwhelming consensus from the community is in my view an exaggeration. A clear majority and arguably consensus level support, but there was a large minority of us who were deeply opposed to the idea. As for the Teahouse, I'd suggest they make their own Teahouse themed welcome and go out and welcome some promising newbies with it. We aren't exactly short of unwelcomed newbies. If the Teahouse attracts enough community members to take off and move from a research project to a longterm viable project then they should be able to generate their own welcomes. Better still why not research the effectiveness of different welcomes? I'm sure I and many others would be happy to switch even our favourites if someone was able to prove that an alternative worked better at inducting newbies into the community. ϢereSpielChequers 18:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Agree. That was the proposal that WMF accepted on meta. Teahouse was to conduct metrics on the effectiveness of its welcome templates. But by adding the Teahouse Welcome to every Welcome template, it becomes impossible to compare the usefulness of the Teahouse welcome in retaining "new editors" over the templates already in use. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

And in spite of the instructions I gave Sarah on her talk page, no one from the TH project has yet bothered to solicit wider input from the community at large. However, given Mathew's excellent points above, it seems clear this was premature and will substantially skew results anyway. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey there KC. I can't speak for everyone on the project, but I believe we've indefinitely tabled the idea of putting the Teahouse link on the Welcome template, due primarily to your and Mathew's strong objections, voiced on this very page. So, that's probably why you haven't heard about any of us "bothering" to solicit wider input. I promise I won't sneakily try to re-add the link. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 18:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request - include signature

I see that {{Welcome-vandal}} includes ~~~~ but {{Welcome}} and {{Welcome-anon}} do not. Could someone please add the signature to these templates so they're all consistent? Thanks!

That doesn't seem like a very good idea to me. If an auto-signature is added, you can no longer type

{{subst:welcome}} I especially want to thank you for XXX and tell you about YYY. Happy editing, ~~~~

or other similar personalizations of the welcome message. We need more personal welcomes, not more consistency. —Kusma (t·c) 17:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Gain consensus before requesting again. Danger! ^{High voltage!} 22:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

…on the Teahouse welcome issue

Has anyone thought of creating an other version of the welcome template (say, call it {{welcome-t}}) with a Teahouse link on it? Then editors can choose to either use the standard invite or one with an extra link to the Teahouse. This template could also be used via Twinkle, by customizing your preferences (see Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences). benzband (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Great idea. I support this. extra999 (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done {{welcome-t}} for the Teahouse and {{welcome-hd}} for the Help Desk, also updated the documentation. Feel free to improve. benzband (talk) 18:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Awesome! Perhaps we can add a cup o' tea picture to it? :) Or would that be just too cheezy? (i.e. tea instead of cookies! it is more healthier..too.. :) ) Sarah (talk) 18:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Why not? Could always create a second version though if people prefer without a picture… (Just been using it ~ works fine via Twinkle : 1 2 3 4 5 6) benzband (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

And how has been the response from new users. Do they come up to the teahouse, to whom you have sent messages. [And I prefer, welcome templates without images]. extra999 (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... I did not mean to be contrary to user:extra999 but as soon as I read Sarah's request, I inserted a picture, and just now I am reading extra999's opinion that welcome templates are more fun without pictures. Which way is best? Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I'm not sure what the turn around has been, we may be able to track that, we'll have to ask J-mo as he's pretty savvy with tracking that content. I've been using it like crazy though and I LOVE the new image on the template! Sarah (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Simplified Manual of Style

I propose that the Welcome template, and related templates like {{Welcomespam}}, link to the new Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style instead of the full Wikipedia:Manual of Style (the Manual of Style talk page will be notified). The simplified version has plenty of links to the complete text, for anyone who wants to learn more. The full Manual of Style (even if you don't know about its subpages) is too big for even Manual of Style regulars to remember everything. So this template doesn't need to throw newcomers into the deep end of the pool and expect them to swim, because now there is an alternative. A newcomer isn't going to look at the complete Manual of Style and resolve to always distinguish between multi-word dates and multi-word cities when deciding whether to add spaces before and after the dash that connects them. The newcomer is much more likely to shriek in horror at everything we are expecting him to know, and give up on Wikipedia. Let's give newcomers the short version. Even the short version is more than most experienced editors know anyway. Art LaPella (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me – the simpler the better. —Telpardec  TALK  02:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

They can link to Wikipedia:Styletips also. (Incidentally, you might wish to work with Tony1 in harmonizing WP:SMOS with Wikipedia:Styletips.)

—Wavelength (talk) 03:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Styletips, SMOS, and Help:Introduction to the Manual of Style each summarize different parts of the same material, with 3 different philosophies. I didn't notice inconsistencies, so does harmonizing mean doing things Tony's way half the time? Art LaPella (talk) 04:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Tony's style tips are a little different, they are written above a 10th grade level. (Also they are not policy, yes? Just best practice?) The problem I have always had with the style tips is access--too much click and page load for a small payload of information, that may or may not be what I was looking for in the first place. Neotarf (talk) 09:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Nicely done. Is there any way to put "more" in a button or box? It looks like part of the text, and makes it hard to read. Neotarf (talk) 09:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Help desk#Button or box Art LaPella (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done We now have buttons. Art LaPella (talk) 02:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Add teahouse to template?

New discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Teahouse#Welcome_template_discussion. Please come add your thoughts. 23:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Checking for template

Stupid question: for what do I have to check by script for existing welcome templates on a user talk page? <!-- Template:Welcome? Does this work? Is this implemented at every page? mabdul 16:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions for changes

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:

• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); 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 on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Changes

• Dropped the wikilink on "welcome" and added it to the list of helpful pages. The link went to WP:Introduction, a very useful page, but it doesn't have much to do with the word "welcome". Let's not set a bad example for our new users by using "easter egg" links.
• Dropped the link to Wikipedia:Tutorial. The tutorial is easily accessible from WP:Introduction, which is a better starter page anyway.
• Dropped the link to Wikipedia:Article wizard. This is very prominently linked from Wikipedia:Your first article which was linked immediately before. If they want to create an article, they can click on the "Your first article" link, and they will find the Article wizzard. If they don't want to create an article, they won't be distracted by the useless link.
• Dropped the sentence: "I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!" This sentence was largely redundant with "I hope you like the place and decide to stay." Also, the link to WP:Wikipedian is not useful to new editors, and potentially distracting. ("A what?") If they are going to click on a link from this template, I'd rather have it be something like the Introduction or Five pillars, rather than the trivia in this essay or whatever it is. (Is knowing the editing patterns, demographics, and user rights breakdown of "Wikipedians" really going to help a new user?)
• "Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~)" --> "Please remember to sign your messages on discussion pages by typing four tildes (~~~~)".
  • I like the "remember" because it seems nicer.
  • I like to call "talk pages" "discussion pages" on the first use. We're used to calling them "talk" pages, but this terminology is weird and can be confusing to outsiders. The pages don't talk, but they are used for discussion.
  • sign with four tildas --> sign by typing four tildas: If I had a nickel for every time I saw Adjwilley (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)Adjwilley

Anyway, these are just suggestions, but I hope they'll be considered. Thanks! ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The "Introduction" contains the Five Pillars, so having both links is redundant. I'd use the Intro and drop 5P. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I could maybe go for that, though the 5 pillars isn't linked quite as prominently on the Introduction page (it's on the second tab, in a list of other links. I guess I'm a bit ambivalent. I've always thought calling them the "5 pillars" was a little hokey, but at the same time they really are some of the most important things to understand. I think I'd like them better if they were called , or at least linked as "Wikipedia's five core principles" or something like that instead of "pillars". ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Any other thoughts on this? Shall I make an edit request? ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Please make the changes outlined above, or as much as you agree with. I proposed them a few days ago and there hasn't been any opposition, or much of a response at all, for that matter. Here's a diff of the changes I want made, or you can copy-paste the code from above. The rationale for each change is also given above. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 17:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! That's the fastest I've ever had an edit protected request go through. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

An "ifeq" addition for Happy New Year?

{{edit protected}}

Now that 2013 is around the corner, I was thinking about a way to implement "Happy New Year" to this template, because it seems like a nice thing to do when you welcome a user to Wikipedia on January 1. Basically we would add {{#ifeq:{{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}}|1 January|Happy New Year}} after the "Hello, [username], " part at the beginning of the message. This means that, if the current date is January 1 (of any year), the beginning sentence would say "Hello, [username], Happy New Year and welcome to Wikipedia!" instead of the usual "Hello, [username], and welcome to Wikipedia!" sentence. To clarify how the edit would look like, here I've done it in my sandbox. HeyMid (contribs) 20:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that would be a nice thing to do. benzband (talk) 11:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Even though it's been six months since January 1 this year, I request that this edit be made to the template. Heymid (contribs) 16:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I would like a bit more input to to this. I personally don't like it. For instance some countries use a different calender. Or are we also going to do this for Christmas and other days? Just keep it simple. Garion96 (talk) 16:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request February 2013

Could we perhaps change especially what you did for <article> to especially what you did for the <article> article or especially what you did for the article on <article>? I recently found myself thanking a user for what he'd done "for gun control"... while that's not too problematic, it could be somewhat more awkward if you found yourself saying "thank you for your recent changes, especially what you did for Nazism", or "especially what you did for Al Qaeda". — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 12:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC) ^{incredibly dumb typo ("gone" → "gun") fixed 07:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)}

I second this request. It's bugged me as well, to the point that I usually leave out the article these days. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thirded. ⁓ Hello71 15:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

If someone makes a sandbox version I will change the template. :) Garion96 (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

 Voilà. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 19:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

And done. Although after I did it, I wonder. "especially what you did for the article on "list of...." might sound strange. Garion96 (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm... a good point... maybe especially what you did for the [[:{{{art}}}]] article instead? That could be more versatile. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 21:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Changed. Garion96 (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

No, that came out wrong. "Thank you for your contributions article". All changes reverted. Garion96 (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Is it possible to do if/then cases? I think I've seen them in templates before. Otherwise, I think the list case will be rare, and it is still something that could be lived with IMO. ("..especially for what you did for the article List of sovereign states.") Pink's suggestion above works too. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

To my knowledge, we unfortunately don't have any parsers that can do this. Anyways, I'll go draw up the new new wording in the sandbox. (And I think while I'm at it I'll throw in a parser that will say "page" instead of "article" when it's non-mainspace, if there are no objections.) — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 22:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, think I fixed both the technical and the grammatical problems. (Now that I think about it, the "article on" phrasing would've been problematic for basically any article with a title that is the singular form of a countable concept—e.g. cat or 2012 Summer Olympics.) — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 22:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I think the problem was that you put "article" outside of the #if:{{{art|}}} parser. Regardless, I'll make sure everything works in the sandbox. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 22:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

proposal

Just a simple proposal to add {{Help navigation}} to the bottom of this template. What do others think?Moxy (talk) 08:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

No, keep this template simple. For more links (excessive links like help navigation) you can use {{Welcomeg}} Garion96 (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

That sounds more the reasonable and logical.Moxy (talk) 03:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 June 2013

Please change "Here are some pages that you might find helpful" to "Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful". We're not giving them pages, we're giving them links. Also it's just a tad more conversational (and a bit more precise) in my opinion saying "a few" than "some". ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the suggestion. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 July 2013

Perhaps add a __NOTOC__ somewhere in the noinclude? Cheers, theFace 19:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Template should link to Help:Getting started

On a Reddit thread a user argued that new users need to see a concise collection of things they need to know. I found Help:Getting started and he thinks that's great, but the welcome template doesn't link to it. Should it link to Help:Getting started? I realize there is a more complicated Template:Welcomeg but I think Help:Getting started is something that belongs in the simple template.

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• If there is no response by Friday November 1, 11:59 PM Greenwich Time I would like to add this myself. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Support fewer, better links. And getting started should be one of them. So ideally, something would be removed if something new is added. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 17:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

What is on the current template:

• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Would "how to develop articles" and "how to create your first article" have overlap? Maybe "getting started" can replace one of them, or the two can be combined?

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)