Template talk:Welcome/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Linking to WP:Signpost

@The ed17: Regarding this edit, one of my guidelines for adding links to this template is to ask if the link is so important that if I only got to pick one or two pages for a new user to click on this would be one of them. Out of all the policy pages they could read, which ones are the most important? (The link to the 5 pillars.) What things are most confusing to new users? (Getting started, how to edit, etc.) While I agree with you that new editors should eventually be brought into the community, let's give them the milk before the meat. Most of them don't even know what a talk page or an edit summary is, let alone a signature. Reading about the latest Wikimedia Foundation news or Arbcom proceeding isn't going to help them with that. (This isn't meant to be a jab at Signpost, which I regard highly.) As for our editor retention problem, I'm not convinced that this will help. Personally I think people should edit for a while before they are introduced to "meta" areas. There's nothing as unhelpful in my opinion as the "helpful" commentators who have zero editing experience yet spend inordinate amounts of time socializing on user talk pages, weighing in at noticeboards, and "contributing" to other meta areas. Anyway, I won't revert again since we're bordering on WP:Wheel territory, but I'd invite discussion from you or anyone else on this matter. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree not a useful link for starters. The template {{Help navigation}} would be more useful as a footer.-- Moxy (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, primarily because we're not just an outlet for WMF/Arbcom news. We have interesting tidbits like the Traffic report, which new editors can easily understand, and Featured content, which highlights some of Wikipedia's best content and is now used at Portal:Featured content. Getting editors motivated to edit is one of our biggest challenges, and bringing them into the community could play (in my mind) a large part in doing so. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

A better link would be Wikipedia:Community portal (a page that actually has content to work on) no need to link to news in the welcome help template. Many more links would be more appropriate in this welcoming people template. Not helpful to send new editors on a wild-goose chase to a page that does not help them in any manner or link to any info on how to help/edit. -- Moxy (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I actually prefer having as few links as possible on this default welcome template. We don't know how much the average newbie will read, and a long bullet list of unfamiliar links is probably going to be a turnoff. (Users wanting to leave more links can use other templates such as {{Welcomeg}}, which already includes a link to the Community portal and Signpost incidentally.) Also, just fyi, the Community portal is linked from page two of Wikipedia:Introduction, so it's not completely inaccessible to new users via this template. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit request: The link to WP:Signpost was boldly added last week and its removal was reverted before any discussion could take place here on the talk page. Since the instructions at the top of the template say, "Please do not make major or any changes (like adding new links) without first achieving a consensus on the talk page" and since a reading of the discussion above demonstrates that there is not consensus for adding the link, I'm asking that the link to Signpost be removed, pending a consensus here on the talk page. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Done Judging from this section there doesn't seem to be a consensus to add the link yet, so I have reverted. If a consensus develops as a result of further discussion, feel free to re-add it or to reactivate this edit request. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Updated page to add here perhaps?

Could Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia be a page to add here? I have taken the time to fix the problems as outlined at Wikipedia talk:Contributing to Wikipedia/Archive 1#Reader feedback: This page is apparently supp.... It is now a much more useful page. Perhaps replace Getting started? The new page covers all a newbie will need to know. -- Moxy (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Question: Hello Moxy, I tinkered around with a few different places to pop it in there and settled on moving introduction up one line and inserting it below that. Please take a look and if that works for you as well, please mark this request as {{subst:EP|done}} and set the |ans= or |answered= parameter to |answered=yes. Thanks! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 20:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you took a long time to update Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia but I think it is now the parent article on how, where and what people can do. At the very lest is the most up-to-date page-- Moxy (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Coding update

We currently are using the {{Help me}} by saying ....."or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question." Perhaps best we do all the coding for the new editors. So replace the above in quotes with= "Or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. --Moxy (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I see this idea comes from the "I'm stuck" section of Help:Contents, where the fourth line says:

Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there!

That link preloads a new section on the editor's talk page with the Help:Contents subpage Help:Contents/helpmepreload. Perhaps for more generalized usage, the preload file should be moved to Template:Help me/preload. – Wbm1058 (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. —cyberpower ^Chat_Online 07:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Its now on more more then 3000 pages ..its the new norm all over and is why its on our "Main" help pages. What more consensus is needed? Never mind will get someone familiar with this to fix it in a few days. -- Moxy (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Well I don't see these 3000 pages, and someone more familiar doesn't mean neutral, nor does placing it on 3000 pages establish a consensus for it inclusion to this template. If there is a consensus, link me to it. But given that I'm seeing supports coming in, I think you should just leave it to sit here, and let people comment.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 09:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense...better safe than sorry. Though for a template like this, if the change seems positive, doesn't break anything, and doesn't have anybody opposing it, I say go ahead and make the change. (In my opinion, it's not protected because everybody's trying to make controversial changes...it's protected against vandals trying to make a big splash and well-intentioned editors breaking things with coding errors, neither of which seem to be the case here.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support This seems like a very reasonable change to me. It seems noncontroversial enough that if I had been responding to the edit request I would have just made the change. It definitely seems easier to me than trying to teach a newbie how to use a talk page, template, and sign, all at the same time. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

  My rule I follow is, anything that changes the current output, function, or appearance of currently applied use of this template, is controversial. Let's not forget that making a change to highly visible templates affects thousands of pages. So gathering a consensus to a seemingly uncontroversial, but still possibly controversial change, is IMHO the better choice.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 09:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support Per Adjwilley Mlpearc (open channel) 03:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• I support this concept too, but cyberpower's point is well taken. Taking the time to understand the template's usage and carefully implement changes is generally a good approach. The documentation says: "This template should always be substituted, i.e. use {{subst:Welcome}}. Any accidental transclusions will be automatically substituted by a bot.", yet this template is currently transcluded on 687 user talk pages. Does anyone know what bot may have automatically forced substitution? Should we use template coding to enforce substitution? Wbm1058 (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

  I believe User:AnomieBOT does that.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

  But searching User:AnomieBOT/TaskList for the string "welcome", I come up empty. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

  User:AnomieBOT/source/tasks/TemplateSubster.pm Is the source code for the task.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

  I see. This 9 September 2013 edit added |auto=yes to {{subst only}}. AnomieBOT 45 "subst templates in Category:Wikipedia templates to be automatically substituted", and Template:Welcome is in that category. Which begs the question, why are there still over 600 transclusions? Wbm1058 (talk) 15:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

  Oh. Per User:AnomieBOT/docs/TemplateSubster, "To prevent disruption, AnomieBOT will also not subst any template that has over 100 transclusions unless that template is linked from User:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force." – Wbm1058 (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

  Regarding "making a change to highly visible templates affects thousands of pages", if the template is substituted, as I think it should be, then changes will not affect old welcomes, which will remain unchanged. Only new welcomes will show the new message. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment regarding whether {{edit template-protected}} should be left on for this request while we are discussing it. I patrol Category:Wikipedia template-protected edit requests, and that is how I found this request. If the {{edit template-protected}} had been quickly turned off, I would have missed the discussion, as this template was not on my watchlist. I see no harm in leaving it turned on for a while, to attract the attention of others who might want to join the discussion, as an alternative to starting an RfC here. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree, this would be a good usage note at {{edit template-protected/doc}} Mlpearc (open channel) 16:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The not-on-watchlist problem is easily resolved: add User:AnomieBOT/PERTable, User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable and User:AnomieBOT/SPERTable to your watchlist, and you will be informed of new protected edit requests within a few minutes. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. As was pointed out in an earlier thread on this page, and as noted at WP:PER, {{edit protected}} shouldn't be added unless there is consensus for the proposed edit. Thus, it is in order to set |answered=yes if discussion is ongoing. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

What is the problem here - there is no objections here as of yet. As has been explained before this is the new norm to help editor get it right. Those of us that work on Help pages have made this change all over but here (because its locked). Where can this be found? On our main help page Help:Contents, on our main Request pages Wikipedia:Requests, Wikipedia:Questions, Wikipedia:Ask for help on our Help talk header {{Help project}} on our main Help template {{Help navigation}} and a few other help type page. We are trying to make it easier for new editors. Those of us that actually work on help and how to pages see that this works much better. This here is a prefect example of how our bureaucracy is impeding progress. I think its clear that a link over copy and pasting a template a new user has no clue how to work is easier....would have to be blind not to notice is a positive change. Why the hell we would closes the conversation is beyond me...even when others have asked to have it remain open. -- Moxy (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't close the conversation, I deactivated the edit request. Please see WP:PER#Procedure, point 1. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

It says that step 1 can be omitted for uncontroversial changes. That seems to be the case here. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Was not directed at you Redrose64 it was a general statement that bureaucracy is impeding progress again ..killing the conversation with procedure even in the light of no objections! I cant say it loud enough - no objection anywhere about implementing this coding on templates, articles and talk pages anywhere. Be bold -dont be afraid to implement things that are obviously an improvement especially if they already have established history on parent articles of the same nature. Its not about Wikipedia:Ignore all rules..its about common-sense and avoiding Red tape. Its just disappointing to have the word of an editor like me with almost a decade of experience here questioned - why the hell would I lie.--Moxy (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I just tested this on my talk, what a no-brainer, with the pre-load it's a walk in the park (just what a newbie needs). Mlpearc (open channel) 22:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• In the spirit of WP:BOLD and WP:IAR I went ahead and made the edit myself. If anybody objects they can still say so, otherwise, we can skip some of the bureaucracy that would have eventually led to the same result. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

  I have objections to that. I don't mind people making bold edits, but I reiterate that making them to protected highly visible templates can cause disruption, if someone just as bold decides to revert. I would've liked to see the discussion go on for a day or 2 first. But what's done is done.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 07:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

  This discussion demonstrates that there are obvious issues with the protected-template edit-request procedure. Putting that {{Not done}} template—uh, File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg, it's not even a template, but a lowercase "i" rather than an "x" supposedly makes it more friendly?—in the middle of a discussion to determine consensus, which imports an undue level of finality to the discussion, is a distraction to the discussion itself. I'll point out that the difference between an edit request and a requested move may not be clear to everyone. Imagine someone shutting down a {{requested move}} because consensus had not been determined yet! The whole purpose of that template is to start a discussion with the goal of determining a consensus. Here we treat everything as a WP:RM/TR and provide no formal means for dealing with potentially controversial requests. This issue should be taken up at Template talk:edit template-protected. Note that this procedural discussion hijacked the conversation so much that I never got around to mentioning that I had put my suggested alternative message in the template sandbox. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

  Actually all edit-protected requests are like that. But when it comes to template protected pages, I handle them a little stricter. When I ask for consensus for something that can possibly be flagged as controversial, I want to be able to point to a discussion to back the edit, so no one screams ABUSE, and starts needless drama on Wikipedia. I also check that it works, and if needed, want a sandbox version and test use cases, old and new.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 16:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It is a template, but it's always substed: {{subst:ETp|c}} to be exact. It has been the normal practice since before I began handling WP:PER requests that the {{edit protected}} (or similar) gets added after consensus has been achieved. "please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template" does not mean "this will not be done and this decision is final", it means "I am not going to do this at this stage, but once it has been shown that the proposal is both beneficial and desirable, it may well be done later on". --Redrose64 (talk) 17:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It really getting confusing here, we have two discussions intertwined here, please lets close the original request, as Adjwilley has already made the change in regards to the original request. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

OK. This section could use a little dose of WP:IAR, in my opinion. But, to "officially" close the "original request": Done by Adjwilley, and I endorse their judgement. — Now we are free for a little "post-request cleanup", to be continued below. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Post-request cleanup

1. The template was protected 23:31, 20 March 2005; reason: "very visible to many new users, protected from vandalism", after this 22:16, 20 March 2005 edit (warning, X-rated). It had nothing to do with being a "highly visible template affecting thousands of pages". Given that, any reasonable request that's not vandalism should probably be approved.
2. Thanks, Redrose64, for pointing me to Template:ETp. Somehow I hadn't noticed that. Probably because I noticed Template:Done/See also first, and it never occurred to me that there might be another parallel set of "done or not" templates that almost borders on being a content fork. I see that based on Template talk:EP#Red crosses and bitiness, it was changed from a cross to an "i" for information, but in my opinion, the red color makes it still a bit "bitey". But that's a matter to be taken up on that talk page.
3. This is documented as an always substituted template, and AnomieBOT is supposed to make sure that it is. It is only "highly visible" because it's transcluded on several hundred pages when it's not really supposed to be. I'll fix that, as discussed above. Once that's done, a change won't actually effect any pages until the new version of the template is saved by an editor, and presumably they would catch the vandalism in preview before it landed on the newbie's talk page.

—Wbm1058 (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Small comment about #3...I imagine this template has a fairly high rate of being substituted, several times per minute at the very least, as it's the default template used by Twinkle. Imagine the scenario of sneaky vandalism or linkspam or even simple template breakage...it gets left up for 5-10 minutes here before somebody reverts it, and during that time it gets substituted onto the user talk pages of a hundred new users. Now imagine trying to track down all those substituted templates to fix them. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Adjwilley: OK, that makes sense, and is a good reason for keeping it protected. I just noticed that User:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force is fully protected, can you add this template to that page, at least temporarily until the transclusions are substituted? Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 00:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Requirement to watch?

The documentation currently states:

But that contradicts Help:Watching pages#Controlling which pages are watched, which states, "Because no one owns any article, there is no requirement to watch articles you have created or contributed to, so you are not expected to check to see whether your edits have been vandalised, challenged (e.g., for lack of sources), discussed on the article's talk page, and so forth. The only page you are expected to keep an eye on is your own talk page."

What happens to a user talk page after the user has been welcomed is not and should not be the responsibility of the welcomer. Therefore, can we remove the warning that tells people they must watch any user page they add the {{welcome}} template to? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@Metropolitan90: All articles are pages, but not all pages are articles. A requirement to watch a page is therefore not a requirement to watch an article: there is no contradiction. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I see what you are saying with regard to the first quoted sentence, but the part I quoted above also says, "The only page you are expected to keep an eye on is your own talk page" (emphasis added). I also don't understand why a requirement would be imposed to watch the user talk page of any user you welcome. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

If the new user fails to follow the instructions exactly, they may reply on their own talk page in a way that is not readily noticed unless someone is watching the page. Isn't it reasonable to expect the welcomer to notice and be in a position to respond? After all, nobody makes us welcome new users, so if we're not able to commit to follow-up if required, we could leave the welcoming to others. This is not to suggest, however, that there should be a requirement to watch the new user's talk page for all time. Once they have some experience, the welcomer could probably use discretion and stop watching. – Wdchk (talk) 19:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

There are two or three user talk pages on my watchlist that I want to unwatch, but don't have the heart to. They are users who never communicate elsewhere: I've tried to explain about article talk pages, WikiProject talk pages, Help desk, Pumps, etc. but they never post to those. If I hadn't watched the page when welcoming, their comments like "There's an error at Foo, the coordinates are 200 miles too far west / the railway station opened in 1983 not in 1389 / the page should actually be named Bar", would go unnoticed, unreplied and unactioned. Possibly for eternity - the page information shows just two watchers - one is me, I guess the other is themselves. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Typo

I noticed a typo on this page - in the parentheses for the last parameter, "notalk=y", the text reads, "no sure why anyone would want to...". Clearly, this should read, "not sure why anyone would want to..." I hit edit and changed "no" to "not", but for some reason, it still appears as "no". When you look at the page in edit mode though, the text now reads "not". Does anyone know what's going on here? --Jpcase (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@Jpcase: Changes to a template's documentation aren't refreshed immediately. You can force an update by clicking the "[purge]" link - it's top right of the green "Template documentation" box, after the "[view] [edit] [history]" links. More at WP:PURGE. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That took care of it. --Jpcase (talk) 21:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Should we include the Wikipedia Adventure in this template?

I think it would be a good idea to include a link to the The Wikipedia Adventure in this template. I have never tried TWA (I know almost all that it teaches, after all), but I've read that it has a very high approval rating among newcomers who have used it. Putting a link to it in this highly used template would be very beneficial. --Biblioworm 20:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• I Strongly support this proposal and suggest Biblioworm sandbox it so that we can see where they think it should go. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 20:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • @Technical 13: I've come up with a rough idea of the wording and where it would go. You can see my changes here. --Biblioworm 21:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Biblioworm, looks fine to me. Should it be worded so neutrally for that or should it say that it is encouraged or recommended to take WP:TWA? As the point person for TWA, I'm also interested in what Ocaasi thinks of this idea. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
      • It might also be a good idea to post at the Welcoming Committee's talk page and get some opinions there. --Biblioworm 22:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
        • I suggested something similar a while ago. However, the Adventure seems to be in an inactive phase at present: Noyster (talk), 09:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
          • Based on this, I'm interested in thoughts from J-Mo as well. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey folks, TWA is very much still live, it's just the bot that has paused invites. I think it would be awesome and excellent to add TWA to the welcome template--that's exactly the kind of exposure and targeted outreach we wanted when we built it. Please let me know if you have questions or mockup ideas you want to run by me. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 07:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I support this. I think it's a much better and more structured than the introduction. @Biblioworm: I think you should set up an edit request for this so it can be seen by an administrator. Darylgolden^(talk) 05:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

(For some reason, I didn't receive the ping.) I'm not sure that this has gained sufficient consensus yet, as it appears that some people feel that the TWA is too childish. Seeing that people of all ages and education levels get welcomed with the same template, it would take wide agreement to implement this. I might take this to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). --Biblioworm 19:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 24 January 2015

After a discussion at WP:VPPR, I think the consensus to place a link to the The Wikipedia Adventure is rather clear. See Template:Welcome/sandbox to see where the link should go. Thanks! --Biblioworm 22:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

As a WP:template editor, I have no objection, and could make the change, however, I would like the issue I raised in Wikipedia talk:TWA/Welcome to be addressed before making this change which would give the Adventure more visibility. We want to make a good first impression, so this experience should be bug-free. Either make the "easy fix" by copying the box with corrections to Wikipedia:TWA/Welcome, or make the slightly more difficult fix by making changes to MediaWiki:Guidedtour-tour-twa1.js. There isn't even a sandbox mechanism for this, so it could be a bit tedious for me to have to make an edit request to perform each sandbox test edit, particularly if it would take me more than a couple tests to get it right. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: So...how do we get these changes made? --Biblioworm 01:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I added a request to edit Wikipedia talk:TWA/Welcome. These should be done as a package. Hoping it isn't speedily closed with a request that I get a consensus for it first. Hold it open for a technically-oriented admin to implement. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Please clarify the status of this request. There doesn't seem to be much happening at Wikipedia talk:TWA/Welcome. Next time, it's probably easier discussing all related changes in one place! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that. The other request predates this one, and the editor making the request here wasn't aware of the other request. I just pinged Ocaasi, the WMF's Jake Orlowitz, who is the lead developer of the Adventure, to get their response about how to proceed. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

As a template editor, I'm uncertain if I should be making the change or waiting. This request, and the things surrounding it are a bit fuzzy.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 14:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Already done I made the change. The only objection was pending a change requested on Wikipedia talk:TWA/Welcome which has been marked as done. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 15:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Undone: This request has been undone. *sigh* The request template was closed, and I didn't see the "not done" because the person that added it didn't make sure it was at the start of the line or the indentation got nerfed by parsoid or something. Either way, I've self reverted after discovering this until that is completed. I think there is plenty of consensus for that request to be done between this discussion and the one on VPT. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 15:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Wbm1058 and User:Technical 13. Thanks for your moving this through template welcome and suggesting changes. I tried whatever you suggested Wbm and couldn't get it to work so I went back a step. I'm also avoiding changing the javascript as it can take me a lot of time to get right. I want to be clear that you are both free to do anything that fixes this issue, with my approval, with your template editor status, (and I just now changed the protection). Sorry for being a bottleneck and please have at it! Jake Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Done I made my "quick-and-dirty" bug-fix change to Wikipedia:TWA/Welcome as well, after the protection level was lowered so I could do it myself, so everything should be happy now. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Add the Missing Manual

So, I just discovered that Book:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual exists. It seems like that would be a good addition to this template. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Adventure nominated for deletion

Hi, I'm notifying you of a discussion because The Wikipedia Adventure is included in the Welcome Template and it has been nominated for deletion. You can comment here: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Adventure_(2nd_nomination). Cheers, Jake Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

noClickHere

Please find some way to not say "click" or "here". http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/noClickHere

Any suggestions for new wording? Thanks! --Jeremyb (talk) 03:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I boldly removed the "click here", as suggested. I think it's fair to assume new users can figure it out. Ping me if you have issues with my change, or feel free to change or revert if you have TE or admin privileges. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 04:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I have TE actually, but didn't want to do it totally alone. (and also didn't want to get out the computer) anyway, watchlisted, will see what happens. --Jeremyb (talk) 05:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 28 May 2016

I have implemented a change in the template's sandbox that makes it skip adding an extra dot after the article name if it already ends in one. nyuszika7h (talk) 10:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Done by Wbm1058. nyuszika7h (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I was surprised to find we actually have over 17 thousand pages meeting this criteria (though many are disambiguation pages). You can thank "soccer team naming conventions" ;)

• Manchester United F.C.
• High Wycombe F.C.
• Life on Venus Ave.

Just some examples. wbm1058 (talk) 11:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I was not aware that is the convention, looks rather unusual to me, I'm used to undotted "FC" – though I don't follow football so much. nyuszika7h (talk) 11:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know which is more common, but I think FC without stops is also used a lot. Another common reason for titles meeting the criteria is "Juniors", e.g. Quintin E. Primo, Jr. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 19 July 2016

I would like to suggest adding short instructions on how to create a new section on a talk page, as many new editors I've encountered only know to click "Edit source" and post without making a new section, sometimes at the very top of the page. If possible, I would like it to be added to at least the welcome templates used by Twinkle. I am unaware if there are any other welcome templates not used by Twinkle.

Gestrid (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

 Needs discussion @Gestrid: I'm deactivating the request template for now. Please establish a consensus and develop the actual wording you would like to add or change before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. As to the actual idea, I personally feel that it is unnecessary clutter in an already cluttered template, but I am just one voice in the crowd. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ahecht: Point taken. Something like that may be a little too specific for a welcome message, actually. -- Gestrid (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 25 July 2016

The notice begins with "Hello, Welcome, and welcome to Wikipedia". Is there a reason for the first "Welcome" to be present? Why not just say "Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia", which removes a redundancy? Mooseandbruce1 (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Mooseandbruce1 that only appears that way on this page, because the page's pagename is "Welcome" - when applied to user talk pages (its normal use) that word is replaced by the username. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I made it use "Example" when displayed on this page. Please implement the changes from the template's sandbox. nyuszika7h (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: The issue now is, for a page like "User talk:Welcome", they would be welcomed as "Example", which is not the intended effect. In any case though, I added safesubst:s so that when the template is simplified, the #ifs and template guts go away. The effective diff is this. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 17:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: Not done for now, toggling. There are actually a large number of templates that use a form of PAGENAME directly without detecting its own page as a special case, and it's generally understood that it will be replaced, even though the template page itself can be confusing to editors seeing it for the first time. Perhaps a better solution is to put "Example" in noinclude, and includeonly the BASEPAGENAME. If someone else does incorporate the current sandbox changes, no problem whatsoever though, but I don't think any action needs to be taken right now. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 18:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@Andy M. Wang: Thanks for the noinclude/includeonly tip, that's better. I think other templates not using it is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS though – and for example maintenance templates substituting article names are slightly less confusing than this one, as it's more obvious there (e.g. the page name is a link and/or bolded). nyuszika7h (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. Synced, thanks — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 19:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit request: four tildes wrapped by zero-width space

Please add zero-width spaces (​​​)around the four tildes to allow for easy copy-pasting. Without zwsp: (~~~~). With zwsp: (​~~~~​). Bright☀ 14:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand the purpose. I copy-pasted your text above and what appears to me as identical results.

Without zwsp: (wbm1058 (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)). With zwsp: (​wbm1058 (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)​).

Edit request: unnecessary capital T in "the Teahouse"

In "You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help", the word "the" is unnecessarily capitalized. The Teahouse page itself does not capitalize the article ("Welcome to the Teahouse", "Learn more about the Teahouse", "Newer questions will now appear at the bottom of the Teahouse"). For reference, the AP Stylebook recommends capitalizing the article only if the entity in question capitalizes it when referring to itself, which it does not in this case. AP's advice is geared more toward capitalizing the names of businesses, publications, and musical groups, but it's about as close as any style guide will come to addressing this situation, I think. In the phrase "the Teahouse", the article should only be capitalized if other circumstances require it, e.g. if it occurs at the beginning of a sentence. dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 04:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit request: minor change

Hi, I am proposing changing this;

---

==Welcome!==
Hello, Donald Duck, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing 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

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

To keep up to date with interesting news and developments, you may also wish to subscribe to The Signpost, our illustrated monthly newspaper, and have it delivered directly to your talk page.

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 , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Mickey Mouse (talk) 12:34, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

---

To this;

---

==Welcome!==
Hello, Donald Duck, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing 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

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

To keep up to date with interesting news and developments, you may also wish to subscribe to The Signpost, our illustrated monthly newspaper, and have it delivered directly to your talk page.

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 , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Mickey Mouse (talk) 12:34, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

---

Just a minor layout improvement, no change to content. Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 09:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild:  Not done for now: I've temporarily closed the request, as a change like this to such a widely used template should probably have consensus before the edit request has been opened. Once there is consensus here (or several days without objection) feel free to re-open the request. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, I modified your example to use a column width instead of a fixed number of columns. Using a fixed number of columns is deprecated, and doesn't work well on smaller screens or mobile devices. I would oppose any change that involves hard coding the number of columns. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ahecht: This is such a minor change, it has no effect on the actual content or message. It's just splitting that column to fill up that huge gap on the right, which shouldn't have been there in the first place per WP:WHITE; "Whitespace is not always desirable. It can give the page an untidy appearance and make the article look altogether incomplete". It just makes the template more even and slightly condensed. It's a clear improvement and there is no downside here. Isn't this why you have template edit access? To help maintain and improve templates? I see minor adjustments and improvements being made to templates all the time, without the need for an RfC. Why not just make the change, and in the million to one chance there is some kind of negative response, then put it back, no problem. But if, as I suspect, no one makes a single peep about it, then we can just move on to more important things. - ^theWOLFchild 13:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:Template editor, "Visual layout changes that are minor but still noticeable" are listed under changes that "require at least some discussion, or at least several days passing with no one commenting on your proposal". No, a full on RFC isn't required, but there should be a short comment period. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I dont see a change.....on a side note why did we add the Wikipedia:The Signpost? should link to Wikipedia:Community portal.--Moxy (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

the change is from

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing 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

to

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing 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

Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

No change on my PC or phone....as 30em will not split only 7 lines for most (using Chrome for both).--Moxy (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Moxy: Strange, I'm seeing two columns in both IE and Chrome on my desktop computer, assuming that the browser window is wide enough (see this screenshot). Chrome mobile, as expected given the small screen size, shows a single column (even in "desktop" mode). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

I say we add something encouraging in the whit space like....

A short video about that "Edit" button and what it can do when you are bold! (1:06 min)

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing 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

--Moxy (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

A what to do if... section

At ESEAP 2019 in Bangkok I discussed some revert cases and I think a section telling new users how to resolve conflicts, like "A user reverted me and asked me to gain consensus. What to do?" would help them greatly.

Some experienced editors revert newbies and tell them to gain consensus without explicitly guiding them on how to do this or without filing the RFCs themselves. Merely pointing them to policies and guidelines is not sufficient now. Experienced editors need to be guiding hands for newbies, and newbies need to be armed with resources that can help them in case experienced editors act too aggressively or stonewall edits and fail to provide proper help.

Currently Wikipedia:Questions is a bit detailed for a newcomer so a simpler "What to do if..." is needed to make it clearer.

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 05:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@ClemRutter: Some ideas are also at User:ClemRutter/tutorials. Also it may help to ask users to, in their FAQ templates at talk pages, explicitly link to guides through hover popup text. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I am a strong supporter of inviting newbies to the Wikimeetups so we can talk things through face to face. In talking to potential new users, you realise just how unbelievably complicated it is to get started. I looked at your talk page and saw all the skills you had mastered- and then thought, that is the standard that we expect a newbie to have achieved before they press publish for the first time! I looked at my talk page where I have gathered the links to policies I need to hold my corner-- more policies than the United Nations! So we do need to change our paradigm. In education there was a movement called Child-centred education, where education was based on the needs of the consumer, not the whim of the provider as in the norm-centred Back to basics approach. I think this is very relevant, to the way we handle new editors entry into the movement. ClemRutter (talk) 09:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Modification

In some wikis, you can enter the {{subst:welcome}} code to enter the template, with no need to sign. This is due to a special coding place in the template. The coding looks like this:

~~<noinclude></noinclude>~~

Can the template be changed? WARNING: subst: will need to be used on this template. Thank you. 4TacklesMath (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee#Reducing number of links in the welcome message

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee#Reducing number of links in the welcome message. Sdkb (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Should this template display as empty in article space?

A human editor added the Welcome template to an article page. It was then automatically substed by a bot. {{Welcome}} could be modified to display only in User Talk space, or at least to display nothing in article space. Would that change be desirable? – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

This suggestion seems to be prompted by a one-off instance of vandalism or mistake, and we usually shouldn't make rules or act based on one-offs. More to the point, the suggested change would be just as valid with respect to every template that belongs on talk pages and could inappropriately be placed in an article—thousands of templates—and there's nothing about this template I can see that makes it especially susceptible to such mistake or vandalism. So unless we're going to make the same change to those thousands of templates, I don't see sny purpose doing this just to this one, because it happened once. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal at Template:Welcome-anon-constructive

There is a proposed modification to Template:Welcome-anon-constructive that page watchers of this template may be interested in commenting on. The discussion can be found at Template talk:Welcome-anon-constructive#Make "my talk page" link to new section form — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 11 February 2020

Please implement the new streamlined version of this template currently at the sandbox, per the discussion here. Thanks! Sdkb (talk) 06:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC) Sdkb (talk) 06:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sdkb! Thanks for discussing and proposing this. This is such a big change to such a well used template that I am wary of implementing as a result of that limited discussion. We can apply BOLD of course, but I'll wait a while to see what other comments are generated by this request, if any — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Msgj here. I would suggest leaving a comment at WP:VPPRO and WP:VPM to verify the community is on board with such a dramatic change. --Izno (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

We have lots of different welcomes, no objection to creating a new one. But I don't see the case for changing an existing one in this manner. By all means if we have tested a number of different welcomes and found that some perform better than others at recruiting newbies into becoming regular editors. But I'm not seeinng that yet - I suggest you turn that sandbox into a new welcome, test it on a thousand or so newbies and monitor the result. ϢereSpielChequers 19:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

For the sake of keeping discussion centralized, I won't respond here, but feel free to bring that up at the proposal if you want and I'll be happy to discuss. Sdkb (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 30 March 2020

Can you please link the words my talk page like this: [[User talk:{{safesubst:<noinclude/>REVISIONUSER}}]]? The secret weapon for the account Denimbabel 01:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this will work as you hope. Per WP:VAR, REVISIONUSER shows the last user to edit the page. There is no way to show the user viewing the page due to technical restrictions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 6 April 2020

I just inserted this template at User talk:239hollie1991, and it is displaying the documentation section there! can you please fix this template? thanks!!! Sm8900 (talk) 13:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Sm8900, I don't see anything wrong with the template. It is strange that the documentation was added to the user's talk page. It looks like you used Twinkle. Do you remember which options you chose in Twinkle? – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

hi Jonesey95, thanks for your reply! actually, another editor at Help Desk has fixed this. you can read the details at this page: Wikipedia:Help_desk#question_re_template_effects. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 22:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 7 April 2020

Please update the welcome to the new version at the sandbox, per the close at the Village pump (proposals) discussion. Be sure to change the hidden text at the bottom to read "Template:Welcome" rather than "Template:Welcome/sandbox" when you move the code over. Thanks, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

To editor Sdkb:  done. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 13:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 7 April 2020

Please implement this change from the sandbox to make it so that using the "newuser" parameter doesn't remove the welcome sentence. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done .still more to be fixed...see below.--Moxy 🍁 20:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

How to fix small buttons

Is this a problem with the action button template or the wrap coding here? We have to make this readable for everyone if it's to help. I don't have this problem at the teahouse page.--Moxy 🍁 20:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I just checked Template talk:Clickable button 2#Small buttons on mobile browsers, and looks like there hasn't been any further discussion. Is anyone else experiencing this? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Drop the adventure

As of now we are linking two module tutorial - we know by experience that these don't retain readers - for many reasons - I am going to remove the adventure and replace it with our main how to page. --Moxy 🍁 14:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Moxy: dropping the Wikipedia Adventure is a big change that ought to have some discussion, not just be made unilaterally as you've just done. It can be useful for younger editors, and I see editors engaging with it fairly often. I'd prefer the line below the main button be Alternately, the Contributing to Wikipedia page and interactive Wikipedia Adventure tour cover the same topics. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The big change is dropping our main pages that there was no consensus to do as the RfC pointed out. I am willing to live with the action buttons that have no action as the next generation seems to find them pretty. But we all know that the adventure does not work and we should at least have one page linked that works for everyone. We are about to loss some new editors because of this change...so best we have one link to a normal page..because as of now every button leads to an oddly formatted page that takes a learning curve to figure out...and the adventure is the worst one . --Moxy 🍁 19:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I think there's a good chance no one is going to step up to fight for the WP Adventure. If you drop a {{Please see}} link to here at that talk page and no one objects, I'm fine taking it out. In that case, what would you think of the phrasing Alternately, the Contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.? I think that's a little clearer than "article style", which I'm not sure people will understand. I also like the capitalization better. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Moxy: @Sdkb: I'm not sure if I agree with dropping the Wikipedia Adventure. There was already a long discussion on which links to include in this new template, so I think another discussion would be warranted, if so. Also, I've personally seen a lot of new users (especially those that seem younger) go through the Adventure when it was included in their welcome template. Are there more specific complaints about it I might not know about?

If others agree with switching it out, though, then I think the previously written "You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that covers the same topics." sounds more appealing than the text that was landed on above. So at the very least, I would suggest getting more input on the wording before making a larger change to this template. - Whisperjanes (talk) 00:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Don't waste editors time....The idea of the Wikipedia:Adventure that has a 50 percent drop in views by the second page....with a loss of 90 percent by page 3 simply a bad idea.--Moxy 🍁 15:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

The whole lot is unbearably chummy- it is a students idea of the tone that adults would like- and deters rather that attracts. ClemRutter (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)