Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Naming

Good idea about merging this to Standard user greeting. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I changed my mind. I think it is better to have a concise list of links as here, rather than a huge page showing all subst'ed existing welcome messages. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Table of welcome templates

I created a table with the welcome templates and a "preview" at Wikipedia:Welcome template table. If you think your welcome is unusual enough to merit inclusion, go ahead and add it to the table. TheJabberwock 00:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:tl

Why link to the template, when whe could use Template:tl. --GeorgeMoney^{Talk  Contribs} 03:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the idea. TheJ<fontcolor="blue">abberwʘck 22:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Instead of Template:Tls2, why not use Template:Tlu. --GeorgeMoney^{Talk  Contribs} 23:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I know why, because it has SUBST: --GeorgeMoney^{Talk  Contribs} 23:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thumbnails

Of the templates would be great.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Welcome_template_table. Λυδαcιτγ^{(TheJabberwock)} 01:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not merge it into this page?--*Kat* 09:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Both pages are pretty big already... Λυδαcιτγ 00:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Late welcome

We need at least one late welcome template IMHO (see my welcome) for users that have not been welcomed despite quite a number of edits. Nil Einne 00:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree and having searched the Welcome committee's templates for just such a thing, I'm surprised by there absence. It's a hole in Wikipedias normally friendly atmosphere that badly needs filling imo. I've never coded anything on WP before but have derived a couple of templates from {{subst:Welcome}} and {{subst:Welcome-anon}} which I regularly use. See User:Daytona2/Intro and User:Daytona2/Intro-anon and User:Daytona2/Sandbox. Comments and suggestions welcome and if nobody objects I'll add them to the Template area. Cheers -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 18:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I too have been wanting such a template on a number of occasions. I hope somebody will step up to this task now. I suggest the name {{Welcome-belated}}. __meco (talk) 10:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Too many welcome templates

Should we trim some of them? The big user warning template movement should take this opportunity to do away with a few duplicate ones. Xiner (talk, email) 18:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the list should be trimmed. The Transhumanist   13:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There's way too many, often not even listed here (with good reason, of course). Have a look at Category:Welcome_templates to get an idea... --oKtosiTe talk 09:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

New Template

Hello! I have a graphic template that points new users to several locations. If you would like to look at it, it's located at User:Cremepuff222/Greeting. Let me know if there are any problems! --Cremepuff222 (talk, sign book) 19:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind that previous message. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 23:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

New welcome templates

We have an entirely new set of welcome templates; see Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee#New welcome templates. Λυδαcιτγ 00:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandal

The user Stlchickenwings is vandalising and is a new user. What templates should I use to welcome him/her?

--Kid Evil 1 01:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

concern about "Welcome v2.0"

This newly-added template is colorful, which is nice. (It was recently added at Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates/Table.)

The closing line, though, is confusing. Why direct new users specifically to other new users?

“If you want to get other Wikipedians' attentions, go to the New user log.”

-Pete 00:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Dunno, but I removed it. Λυδαcιτγ^‽ 01:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome copyvio (not)

We could use a 'welcome but copyvios are not welcomed' template...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems there is one already: Template:Welcome - Copyright. —Caesura^(t) 14:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Error in welcome template

There is something wrong with one or more templates, it's adding the [[Category:Welcome templates]] to peoples user talk pages, I removed one but there are many others, which I left alone for now In case someone wants to investigate which template is causing the error. ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 22:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not the templates (at least in most cases), it's the welcomers, who seem to be copying the source code of a template and pasting it onto the user's talk page. I've cleaned out Category:Welcome templates. Λυδαcιτγ 00:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

ok, thanks, nice work :)▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 01:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Poor English welcome messages

Hello. Could some people please review, discuss and improve Category:Poor English welcome messages, and the associated template? Thank you, Tualha (Talk) 18:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I find it hard to imagine that such templates would be used often. There are many users who contribute in poor English, but how is one to know what their native language is? Λυδαcιτγ 04:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I was inspired to create this meta-template when I read User talk:Special rapid. Here we have an editor whose English is not good, and whose native language is clearly Japanese. We see that others have tried to make it clear that (his?) English is not good enough, but were not understood. A standard template in Japanese would be useful in such a situation. I don't know how often this happens, but I think it's worthwhile to create the tool. Tualha (Talk) 11:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Gosh

Category:Welcome templates - do we need 113? Should we try and standardise them like we did the user templates? We could perhaps start by subst-ing and redirecting those which are barely used. Neil ム 21:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

We did - see Template:W-basic, Template:W-screen, etc. But continuous redirecting is a good idea. Λυδαcιτγ 04:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I managed to get it down to an even 100 by redirecting some near-identical ones to {{welcome}}. I will probably try and get a few more redirected later. Neil ム 09:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Split off the userspace ones to Category:User-specific Welcome templates. And the project-related ones to Category:Project-specific Welcome templates. Down to 41 in the main category now, much more manageable. Neil ム 09:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Down to 36, and alphabetized. Λυδαcιτγ 21:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Can I...

Hi everyone! I'm a member of WikiProject Accessibility, a group formed to improve Wikipedia's accessibility to disabled users. One of the ideas that we would like to see implemented is the addition of a link to Wikipedia talk: Accessibility to the welcome templates, so that users who have disabilities would know where to look for assistance. I am writing here first to ask if it would be okay if I made these changes. If you like, I can make a subpage where I show you what I intend to do to each template. (since the way I would fit the link in would vary by template)
Thanks very much for input! --(L'Aquatique: Bringing _chaos & ^{general mayhem} to the Wiki for One Year!) 02:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Alternately, it might link to a special page which would have on it details on how to adjust default settings for their greater ease of use. With any luck, this could increase the number and frequency of such users, who might, for all we know, have substantial time to give the project if they knew of, and maybe got some help, in making such minimal cosmetic changes to the settings. John Carter 16:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Registered vandal

Is there a template to welcome new users who are registered but have been vandalizing? I see the anonymous vandal one, but not one for registered people. If I'm missing it... sorry. Brbigam (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a welcome template of a sort, Template:Uw-test1. It welcomes but discourages less than productive edits. A new user who is vandalizing may be a vandalism only account.--Sandahl 23:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the shortcut?

WP:WT is listed as a shortcut to this page and I've used it many times, but now it sends me to Wikipedia:Shortcuts to talk pages!!! The history of the shortcut shows it being a redirect to the talk page list since 2005. I'm very confused. Lyrl^Talk _C 16:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Minor issue with {{W-link}}

Using WP:Twinkle this welcome message put my name in the message above the Happy Editing line, which looks odd because the very next line is my signature. Anyone know how to fix this? Also, it seems there ought to be a comment in the template so that when you look at the subst code you can tell the name of the template that was used as is with user warnings.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This was a Twinkle setting, I fixed it.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 16:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Question or comment by Farrukh38

These templates should be used but i did not have these greating as new user, wrote an article AL-kitab as per Quraninstead of welcome i had problems and problems by old users and they did not gave any help.but removed my whole text of article and forcely they changed the name of islamic Holy books but not with my whole text which contained arabic text in references of claims. No discussion bu forced every body and they donot want to have text of Quran about verses of Quran which is not fair for wikipedea truth policy. knowledge and research references were also given even then i have lost the text of whole article which is different from Islamic holy books. in wkipedea all topics describing Quran must have title "Quran as per research" and not as per text of Quran, because they donot want to accept the text of quran as a reference for claim which ia talking about Quran and citing it's verse. this type of citation can only be verified by its arabic text and not by any scholar.

it can be checked on talk pages what happened to my article which is now as AL=kita.... thanks Farrukh38 (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Specialized messages w/helpful links

Am I overlooking something, or is there no welcome message which combines wikipedia policy and help links with a "don't be discouraged" message to new users who've had their first contribution deleted? If there really is no such template, I'd propose that one be made-- well-intentioned bad edits seems extremely common among new users, and {{subst:Firstarticle}} does little to set them on the right path. Fullobeans (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

WelcomeIPh

{{Welcomeh}} is my preferred welcome templates, but I use {{WelcomeIP}} for anon users. So I've created a version of the former, with the additional content from the IP template: {{WelcomeIPh}}. Will someone check it, please? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:Welcome-name

Template:Welcome-name from 2005 is now quaintly obsolete (it encouraged the user to use their real name, reflecting a policy which did actually say that three years ago) and slightly confusing (it advises against using the name of a "fictional character" as a pseudonym). The template isn't linked from this project page - should it be cleaned up or deleted? I'm not entirely sure what purpose it was originally created to serve. --McGeddon (talk) 11:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Request from WikiProject Classroom coordination

WikiProject Classroom coordination would like to ask for help in designing templates for course leaders and their students, welcoming them to Wikipedia and informing them of Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination and Wikipedia:School and university projects (linking Wikipedia:School and university projects/Instructions for teachers and lecturers for course leaders and Wikipedia:School and university projects/Instructions for students for students). We could also use a third template, for the course leaders and students who misunderstand what Wikipedia is and are creating articles that are on the fast track for deletion, combining welcome with a warning. Could you help? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Warn newbies away from contentious articles?

I wonder if it would be worthwhile if the welcome templates were to warn newbies away from articles tagged "NPOV", "unbalanced", "dispute", etc. It's too easy for a bold and earnest newbie to feel picked-on when their bold changes are speedily removed. Then, before they've had time to learn about edit warring, they've violated WP:3RR and been accused of being a sock puppet. I just saw it happen recently. It was a tough environment for a newbie to be making typical newbie mistakes. I don't know if the newbie has been disuaded from contributing further to Wikipedia. It would have been easier if he had started on something less contentious. --SV Resolution(Talk) 18:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

WelcomeMenu - with no contribs

I like {{tl:welcomemenu}} the best, as it is most informative since it has lots of good policies all in one neat box. However I often give it to people who either have no contribs, or their first contribs aren't very promising (but might not fit within any existing welcome/warning template). In the past I have added it and then simply removed the "thanks for your contribs" section. However I think it may be appropriate to have a permanent alternative and I have copied the existing welcome menu to {{wmnc}}. The only change is in the contribs sentence. Any thoughts or concerns?  7  07:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome and congrats

As a new pages patroller, a template that says welcome and congrats to new Wikipedians for their first article surviving without being speedily deleted might be nice. Tehw1k1 (talk) 05:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Heheh, unless you're just being cynical :), that does sound well-intentioned.. but I can't help but think of how bad things are getting when users are being congratulated for their article NOT being deleted! No, I don't think new users should be given the first impression that the majority of new pages just get deleted.. I think maybe a better welcome message would be to encourage them to create more articles that adhere well to our policies. -- œ^™ 01:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Help with template, please!

Hi, I would like some help with a few templates I have copied from another template: I copied (and modified) Template:MedInvitation to Template:PhyInvitation, Template:MedWelcome-reg to Template:PhyWelcome-reg, Template:MedWelcome-anon to Template:PhyWelcome-anon and finally also Template:MedWelcome to Template:PhyWelcome. However, PhyWelcome doesn't really behave as I want it to behave.

If the user is registered, I get {{subst:PhyWelcome-reg||}} on the screen when I write {{PhyWelcome}}. However, I don't get anything on the screen when I write {{subst:PhyWelcome}}, and after I have press "Save page" the page source will contain a lot of code, althoughy nothing shows up on the page. When I insert {{subst:PhyWelcome-reg||}} directly on the page instead, it works perfectly well; I get a lot less code in the source of the page and the welcome message shows up as it should.

If the user is unregistered, {{subst:PhyWelcome}} almost works, however it fails in the end of the template; the PhyInvitation template doesn't show up and instead a "{" sign appears. If you look in the code it has produced, you will see that all the code for PhyInvitation indeed is there.

Do you know why the template behaves like this? I have no idea, but I think it should work since it is basically just a copy of another working template! --Kri (talk) 16:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

/me responded at mw:Thread:Project:Support desk/Help with template, please!. Bawolff (talk) 07:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! —Kri (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A/B testing welcome templates?

Just a heads-up about this proposal. Anybody interested in trying it? Maryana (WMF) (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Linked article (if supported by template) - Twinkle

WP:TWINKLE gives users the option to instantly add many of these templates to userpages by presenting a menu of choices of welcome templates. It asks for a "Linked article (if supported by template)" so that the template can reference an article on which the user to be welcomed had been working. I noticed that for some templates this field works and for others, such as Template:Welcome-COI, even when the field is completed the automated mechanism does not populate the template and instead just gives the default response.

I was thinking of fixing this, but I wanted to ask first - is there a reason why things are as they are? Also, does anyone know offhand where I am going to look to fix this and make it consistent for all templates? All of this works on the template side and TWINKLE knows how to respond, right? Has there ever been a "Best practices" talk about this? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Twinkle would be a better place for this discussion. -- œ^™ 12:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Good call. Moved here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

My template

How's my template:

Hi, Welcoming committee/Welcome templates, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement on Wikipedia. Thank You. Happy editing! User:MiszaBot II (talk) 10:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia Editing a page The Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles (your way) Developing an article Simplified Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Wikipedia's Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Wikipedia Contribute to Wikipedia Be active at the Community Portal Follow the Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

--Ankit Maity ^{Talk • contribs} 05:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I have moved it to template namespace.--Ankit Maity ^{Talk • contribs} 10:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Discouraging Welcoming

Recently, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง told an inexperienced editor to refrain from welcoming users who have made few or no contributions:

"Hi, I understand your enthusiasm, but please refrain from welcoming users who have made few or no contributions. We don't know if their intentions are honest, and we don't want to encourage people who register for the wrong reasons. It's best to wait a while and see if they are making constructive edits. Thanks."[1]

To which I replied:

"Kudpung is dead wrong. See WP:AGF. Please do welcome new users. WP:WT has some templates you can use."[2]

Kudpung took exception to this, writing:

"HI Guy; Before criticising experienced editors in a dismissive tone, please get your facts straight and AGF yourself. Join the WP:WC [Note: I am already a member -Guy] and read the recommendations: 'Our main activity is to welcome new users who have made constructive edits.' It is 'dead' logical that there is absolutely no point whatsoever in welcoming people who have made few or no edits, or if their only edits are to their own user space, or worse, vandalism. It's all common sense really. Happy editing!"[3]

The first thing that strikes me about this is that the section of WP:WC that Kudpung quotes was added by Kudpung himself.[4]. This change does not appear to be based upon any discussion or consensus, but rather Kudpung's opinion. On the other hand, nobody objected or reverted the change either...

It also struck me that many of the existing welcoming templates are specifically designed for new users who have not made constructive edits. For example:

Template:Uw-vandalism1: - Welcome for vandals
Template:Welcome-anon-vandal: - Welcome for IP vandals
Template:Welcomespam: - Welcome for spammers
Template:Welcome-COI: - Welcome for users with a conflict of interest
Template:Welcome - Copyright: - Welcome for copyright violators
Template:Welcomenpov: - Welcome for users who violate WP:NPOV
Template:Welcometest: - Welcome for users who post editing tests
Template:First article: - Welcome for users who create a deletable article
Template:Welcomeauto: - Welcome for users who write articles about themselves.
Template:Welcome unref blp: - Welcome for users who create an unreferenced BLP

I don't see anybody objecting to the existence or use of the above templates.

In the case of a newly registered user who has made no edits at all, I agree that posting a welcome is not appropriate. (is it even possible for an ordinary editor to find those?), and I agree that welcomes to vandals should not thank them for vandalizing (but note that we do thank people for making test edits).

In the case of those who have only made a few edits, I think Kudpung is dead wrong, and that his edit to Wikipedia:Welcoming committee that discourages welcoming should be removed. His reasoning for making that change ("please refrain from welcoming users who have made few or no contributions. We don't know if their intentions are honest") is a clear violation of WP:AGF, and his "It's all common sense really" and "It is 'dead' logical" arguments are simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I don't see any logic or common sense in not welcoming new editors. Such a change in welcoming policy should not be made without consensus. Comments? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Please AGF Guy, there are more friendly tones and ways of resolving differences of opinion - please don't misquote policy out of context, establish first if there is any 'policy' and consider providing diffs so everyone here can judge for themselves. Consider reading WP:BRD before making launching into a vivid description of what constitutes experience. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

That's twice now that you have told me to AGF in reply to my disagreeing with your actions. Please stop doing that. There nothing unfriendly about telling you that you are wrong. I have no doubt that you are wrong in good faith, but you still are wrong.

"Just as one can incorrectly judge that another is acting in bad faith, so too can one mistakenly conclude that bad faith is being assumed, and exhortations to "Assume Good Faith" can themselves reflect negative assumptions about others if a perceived assumption of bad faith was not clear-cut. ... It can be seen as a personal attack if bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually in bad faith and harassment if done repeatedly." -- [WP:AGF]]

Also, you have accused me of "misquoting policy out of context." I have done no such thing. You then refer me to WP:BRD as if somehow I had failed to follow that guideline. Normally, someone quotes WP:BRD after someone else objects to being reverted, but there have been no reverts, just an attempt at discussion. Are you saying I should have reverted you then discussed it? There is no policy saying that I cannot leave your edit in place while we discuss it.

Again please respond to my assertion that you are wrong when you say that welcomes are only for users who have already made constructive edits. I really don't want to hear any further complaints about my saying that you are wrong. I want to hear some sort of argument supporting your claim. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Policy or not, I welcome any new user (be they IP or registered) whenever I see fit, and will continue to do so. I can't see the point of welcoming someone who's been here for months. Generally, those I welcome are those who have made a good faith contribution (whether reverted or kept), and I notice have made few edits previously. Those are the very users who benefit most from welcoming, and providence of helpful links to policies and guidelines, help pages about wiki-mark-up and the like, and most of all the encouragement and recognition that their effort was noticed. Welcoming someone who has been editing for ages and knows what they're doing already, would be patronizing and blatantly pointless. fredgandt 10:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Welcoming someone who's been here for months is of course allowed but not required -- we even have a template for it: Template:Welcome-belated. If it doesn't make sense to you, don't do it. I agree 100% with you welcoming or not welcoming as you see fit. My issue is with Kudpung editing Wikipedia:Welcoming committee so that that page tells you to refrain from welcoming users who have made few contributions. That's wrong. The instruction on that page should encourage you to welcome or not welcome as you see fit. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I am the user in question and the discussion is on my talk page. I would find new users with no contribs from the account creation log. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

While my main disagreement with Kudpung is with his claim that you shouldn't welcome users with few edits, I don't see any reason why you should be told not to welcome users with no edits. We do have a policy against creating a bot that does that, but the reasoning behind that is that a bot is impersonal and cannot do a proper followup if someone replies to the welcome with a question. The instructions on Wikipedia:Welcoming committee should tell you that you can welcome or not welcome as you see fit. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

That is not the only reason we don't use a bot. The discussions that reached that conclusion also mentioned that it was pointless welcoming accounts with no edits who could very well be vandals, dead accounts or sock puppets. I would also argue that slapping a template down is cold and un-personal and that most new users wouldn't be able to tell a bot account from any other, but we do it because it would be extremely monotonous to hand type dozens of welcome messages. I tend to agree that we should not be placing welcome messages on accounts with no edits—it's just unnecessary. As for welcoming accounts with few edits: it really depends on the type of edits they are making, if they appear to be attempting to make legit edits then a welcome template is clearly appropriate, perhaps backed up by some personal comments by the editor placing it. On the other hand, if a new users' efforts seem to be to try and insert the word 'poopyhead' into as many articles as possible then it should be off to AIV with them... Pol430 talk to me 19:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought "poopyhead" was a fairly constructive thing to add to any article. Note to self: No more welcoming people who post "poopyhead" all over the place.  fredgandt 20:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

(You have to admit, we have all seen articles where adding 'poopyhead' would be a great improvement over what is there now... <smile> )

I have no strong opinion either way on welcoming editors with no edits, and would have no objection if Wikipedia:Welcoming committee had instruction to not welcome them. It is the instruction to not welcome users with few edits that I object to. Ramaksoud2000, could you explain why you like to welcome editors with no edits? I would especially be interested in any success stories; have any of these welcomes resulted in the editor becoming a regular contributor or at least a response asking a question or two?

As for the 'poopyhead' editor, note that there is no rule against welcoming someone and at the same time reporting them for vandalism and/or spamming. We have at least three templates for welcoming people who insert 'poopyhead' into articles and for people who post material into as as many articles as possible:

Template:Uw-vandalism1: - Welcome for vandals

Template:Welcome-anon-vandal: - Welcome for IP vandals

Template:Welcomespam: - Welcome for spammers

Should we propose deletion of those templates on the grounds that they should never be used, or should we change the instructions that say not to use them?

Just to be clear Pol430, are you saying that you personally see no reason to / advise against welcoming these 'poopyhead' posters, or do you think that Wikipedia:Welcoming committee should tell everyone to not welcome them? How about any posters who has not made any constructive edits? Should Wikipedia:Welcoming committee say to not welcome them, as it does now? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

My logic behind welcoming them with the Template:Wtw is that it gives all the policies and everything, says how to avoid getting blocked, and how to constructively contribute. I thought it would help steer good faith but misinformed editors to a better path and to avoid that moment where a new editor is turned away from Wikipedia because they were bločed on their first week for doing something they thought was ok. Just my two cents. Thought it would really help. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 03:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Common sense is also a written Wikipedia policy. One of the problems is that many who scour new registrations to find where they can slap their welcome templates and hike their edit count, is that they can't be bothered to check how many and what kind of edits the new users have made. I've been around a long time, and specialising in the analysis of the NPP system and deletions for over two years, I see senseless welcomes for socks, vandals, kids' autobios, garage bands, and various WP:SPA and SEO edits and creations every day. Many register also with the sole intention of defending their school mate's bio or their favorite garage band or rapper at AfD. Admins are very careful about blocking new accounts - again , common sense and experience with people's editing patterns tells us if they are spammers or WP:VOA. Basic psychology would demonstrate clearly that a new user would appreciate thanks far more for having done something constructive rather than receiving thanks for something they haven't done at all. That said, an astonishingly high number of the 14 million registered accounts have never made a single edit and probably won't. Perhaps there is an argument here for lobbying the MediaWiki people who are currently researching into editor retention, to include an automated thank you message for registering, with the hope that the new user will stick around, read the rules, and make constructive edits. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The MediaWiki idea is not without merit, although perhaps that message would be better delivered via email? Pol430 talk to me 11:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Better still, we've been discussing similar solutions on video conferences on and off for weeks already ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

In response to Guy: No, I absolutely see the point of warning vandals, and vandal fighting accounts for a significant portion of my work on WIkipedia. I was never really a fan of the 'problem editor' welcome templates and I don't use them unless they are automatically added by Twinkle or Huggle. I don't really class Uw-vandalism1 as a welcome message. It is a user warning template and its use should be based on a faith assumption—based on the users' contributions. This example shows a user talk that received a Uw-vandalism1 warning from me because I reverted a silly edit from an article but defaulted to the AGF position. Afterwards, something about what they wrote led me to believe that this user was a WP:VOA, so I checked their contribs, and based on what I found, reported them to AIV. They received an indefinite block six minutes later. There was no further discussion, welcome or warning. In the case of a 'poopyhead' editor, who had inserted this—apparently newly discovered neologism—into an article; I would be creating their talk page with Template:Uw-vandalism4im not a welcome message. Pol430 talk to me 11:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

A new welcome template suggesting a WikiProject

I am quite happy with my new design. Perhaps we should mainspace it and move it up on the list here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 20:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Welcome child

Perhaps we do have too many welcoming templates, but I think we have a gap in the range, consideringconcerns over child editors and their safety. Today I welcomed a young editor, but found that I couldn't find a really approporiate welcome, including links to Wikipedia:Child protection and related pages. I did find Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors and added a message linking to it. I think we might need a child-specific welcome template. As per my section title I suggest Template:Welcome child or similar as a name. If I have missed a suitable template please advise. Regards, 220 of ^Borg 04:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Had exactly same problem many times.--Shirt58 (talk) 04:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your (bad) contributions

Many of these templates begin by thanking people for their contributions. Sometimes with a link to the contributions themselves. Which are often copyvios, POV, and unsourced [5] [6] [7]. Perhaps we should remove this from some of the specialized welcome templates? NTox · talk 08:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Welcomedelete?

I would find it very helpful to have a welcome template for a user who's first contribution was to delete content with an explanation. Perhaps it could combine Template:welcomevandal and Template:uw-delete1, something like:

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but I noticed that you recently removed some content from Article X without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (Jojalozzo 18:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome!

I'm not sure what the procedure is for doing this. I'd appreciate any comments or suggestions. Jojalozzo 18:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Please see User:Jojalozzo/Welcomedelete and User:Jojalozzo/Welcome-anon-delete for proposed registered and non-registered versions. Does this seem useful to anyone else? If so, I welcome suggestions for improvement or simply bold improvements. Thank you. Jojalozzo 04:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Teaching new user how to follow articles

What about putting a small video in Welcome notes to teach newcomers that how they can follow articles, and add articles to their watchlist. That helps a lot as learning this function may be take time for new users because some users even don't know such things is available in Wiki.KhabarNegar (talk) 08:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Welcome AfD NotAVote?

I could have sworn that when I was around WP during a previous life there was a welcome template or new user template directed at users whose first contributions are at WP:AFD or other !Vote discussions. Something along the lines of:

Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your contribution to the discussion at Articles for Deletion/Example. While everyone's opinions are welcomed, it's importanat to point out that these forums are not a vote, but discussions to reach a consensus as to whether an article is suitable for the encyclopedia according to Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines. Etc. ...

Here are some other links that will help you get started etc.etc. ...

If something like this ever existed outside my imagination, I'm having trouble finding it now. If such a template doesn't currently exist, what would anyone's thoughts be on creating something like this? It would be a message that would fall under WP:WT#Specialized messages/Potential problem users. I could have used something like this a few times in just the past couple days.

If there is something like this elsewhere, would someone please point me in the right direction? Thanks. -Wine Guy~Talk 20:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Probably you are thinking of {{uw-notvote}} or {{afd-welcome}}. —Caesura^(t) 02:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I think afdwelcome is what I was looking for. I had thought that as somewhat of a welcome template that it would be listed here; I didn't even think of looking at the afd templates. Thanks, and feel free to whack me with a trout. -Wine Guy~Talk 03:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Special:GettingStarted

I suggest we add a link to Special:GettingStarted to our various welcome templates (with exceptions if appropriate), worded something link "Here are some things you can do to help". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

IPv6 welcomes

I recently noticed that the popular Welcome template, {{Welcome to Wikipedia}}, treated the newer, longer IPv6 users in the same manner as registered users. So I fixed it by using the {{IsIPAddress}} template as noted at Template talk:Welcome to Wikipedia#IP contributors. I thought I would mention it here so other editors and templates might benefit from its use. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 04:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Automated process

No, I'm not saying that this should be an automated process. The issues is that a lot of our new editors think the messages are automated - the flow research has shown this. When I made my own template (User:Oiyarbepsy/welcome), I specifically mentioned that it wasn't placed by a bot, and this might be a good thing to message on all our other welcome templates. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Welcoming new users

I have created a new template that welcomes new Users before they make their first edit or create their first article - {{Bfpage/registering new users}}. Typically, a user receives a welcome message after they have made their first edit or after they have created their first article. This often leads to difficulties, deleted articles and discouragement leading to a possible decision to end their participation. Creating a new User account is a critical period of time because with the right "welcome message", the new User will be directed to: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - WP:FIVEPILLARS, How to make your your first edit - WP:Tutorial/Editing, and How to make your first article - WP:Your first article.

I have discovered a method that identifies new users who have created a new user profile within seconds of the creation of the username.

Here is what I do:

• I open my user page on Wikipedia
• I open another webpage, here is the URL - http://listen.hatnote.com/

Just to let you know, this particular webpage was designed by a couple of programmers who wanted to transform the changing data in Wikipedia into a visual and musical format. Your first visit to this page may be slightly overwhelming. But my main point in mentioning this is that this is the place where new users are identified within seconds of them registering with the username on Wikipedia.

To understand the process of identifying new users on this webpage, scroll down to the bottom of this webpage. There is an explanation of the graphics that are being used on the webpage. Part of the explanation reveals that new users are identified in a musical format by the sound of background strings. I hope this doesn't seem too complicated. It is probably best to watch the website for a few minutes so that you understand what is going on. This musical representation of the addition and subtraction of data on Wikipedia is represented by tones and the appearances of what I call bubbles.

In addition to graphically representing the creation and the editing of articles on Wikipedia, this webpage identifies new users seconds after they have created their account. You will see a blue ribbon at the top of the screen where the bubbles appear. On that blue ribbon there is an announcement of the creation of a new user account. If you click on the blue ribbon and the name of the new user, you will immediately be taken to the new users talk page. Since a user who has just registered probably does not even have a talk page at this point in time, your very first post to the new users talk page will be their very first message. (addendum:This has been interesting to me because since employing this method of welcoming new users, I have an incredible number of new page creations credited to me. I think that this is probably misleading. But I have asked an administrator to help me with this.)

The next step then is:

• click on the name of the new user that appears on the webpage just above the black screen where the bubbles representing edits appear. You must have your settings on your browser set to about 100% to see this ribbon.
• Click on the name of the new user.
• A new editing window will open that will create the new users talk page.
• Paste the template name {{Bfpage/registering new users}} on their newly created talk page.

This is how a brand-new user will be welcomed and immediately (within seconds) directed to the crucial articles on Wikipedia that will help them begin their editing and the creation of new articles. The template specifically welcomes the new user without acknowledging any edits or page creations - they have not made any yet.

Please contact me with any questions that you have about this new welcoming procedure. I suspect that it might change a lot of things, especially the disincentives that exist that affect new users. It is incredibly disappointing to have your first edit or your first page creation be deleted. Hopefully by directing new users to information that they can use before editing or article creation via this template we will save them the trouble and disappointment that so many new users experience.

If you would like to see the application of this template as I have been using it, refer to my editing history.

I have found another welcome template for new users {{subst:NewUser}}, but my identification of new users is probably novel, and besides my welcome message is friendlier....(who writes these things?? Men?? Women are more chatty like me!)

  Bfpage |leave a message  00:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@Bfpage:Before taking this on, I suggest a read of Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Use a bot to welcome new users. While the first point doesn't apply, the second and third ones do. A redlinked talk-page is a good indicator of a brand-new user, which is handy to know for spotting vandals and spammers. Also, lots of these templates would be pointless, going to vandals, advertisers, and users who never edit, which is a huge number. I'd suggest waiting until the user has made a productive edit. It would be nice to have a tool listing new user with, say, five edits, but I definitely don't have the technical brains to do that. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I read your link above and I can tell that members of the welcoming committee we are instructed to look for red talk page links for the purpose of welcoming new users!

I can understand the issues you have raised but the template I have written instantly references WP policies where the newly registerd user is informed of the policies regarding the acceptablity of articles and editing. These policies contain warnings about spam and vandalism. Also, I believe that welcoming new users is one way to assume good faith instead of being suspicous of anonymous editors registering with username. Of course spotting vandals and spammers is important but we can't assume just because someone creates a user name they are suspect. New users create most of the content on wikipedia. Imagine the positive effect that would have if even before their very first edit, they would understand the five pillars, learn how to edit and what is acceptable content. If widely desseminated, the effect could be LESS vandalism, fewer unconstructive edits, less advertizing and all the other reasons edits get reverted and articles deleted.

Using hatnote to identify vandalism has been very successful. I have found that vandalism is mostly done by unregisterd users. In hatnote, edits made by unregistered users appear as green bubbles. This won't make any sense unless you understand what I mean by Hatnote. (see my previous explanation above.) Large green bubbles represent large edits. When you discover that anonymous editors are the most likely to be vandals and that school-related articles are almost always being vandalized during school hours, you can see this instantly represented visually in hatnote. I've been able to revert vandalism seconds after it was done. I invite you to see my contribution log to see how easily I was able to identify vandalism. I don't even know what other editors use to identify vandalism but it certainly can't be any faster than my method.

  Bfpage |leave a message  07:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

One issue is where you get to find these red talkpage links. For a lot of us it is going to be at new page patrol, recent changes or your watchlist. On all of those you get to see redlinked talkpage links when newbies have done their first edits. At that point it is usually pretty obvious whether you are dealing with a spammer, a vandal or a goodfaith newbie. Welcoming people before they have edited would mean you had to give the same welcome to all three groups. There is also the issue of cross wiki visitors, if you are logged in via SUL and you visit another Wikimedia wiki it "creates" your account there. I look at lots of other wikis, sometimes I'm sorting out death anomalies sometimes just checking their choice of picture. If I haven't edited I don't expect to get a welcome message. But a bigger issue, is that the most important part of the welcome for goodfaith newbies is to thank them for their edits. By all means give them some links they might find useful, but thank them for contributing, and you can't do that until they have contributed. ϢereSpielChequers 19:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

You know, another knock against this is people are registered at a foreign wiki, go to an English page by mistake, which registers them here, and then they get a welcome language in a language they don't understand from a wiki they never intended to visit in the first place. I've had this happen after accidentally clicking a wrong link to a foreign wiki. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there something like "first essay on a talk page"?

I'm looking at a new editor's first contribution, which was a ~600 word list of howto points. It was have made a terrific blog post somewhere. It was posted to the relevant talk page. Someone else, an experienced editor, reverted it. The new editor was upset, thinking at first that the material was just gone. The experienced editor pointed the newcomer to the past version of the page. It seems to me that these cases could deserve something a little less terse and more welcoming than {{subst:uw-chat1}}. Jeh (talk) 05:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome-anon-constructive - unsourced?

I think it would be useful to add a |BLP-unsourced= parameter to {{Welcome-anon-constructive}} for cases where a constructive edit (by content) was also an unsourced BLP edit. Ideally, this parameter would be usable from within Twinkle as well. I hesitate to use the existing {{Welcome-anon-unsourced}}, template has a negative tone, not {{Welcome-anon-constructive}}'s positive one. Here is my suggested phrasing:

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I greatly appreciate your efforts to make constructive edits on Wikipedia. I noticed that some of the information you added was to a biography of a living person, but did not have a source listed. Wikipedia needs such information to be reliably sourced so that other editors can verify its accuracy. If you need help, you can refer to our guide to citing sources or contact me at my talk page for assistance. Again, thank you for your edit! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

Thoughts? – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Are there any welcome templates that link to resources that explain contributing to Wikipedia using visual editor not wikicode?

Hi

Are there any welcome templates that link to resources that explain contributing to Wikipedia using visual editor not wikicode?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 11:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• None that I know of. Feel free to make one. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• Or to edit the default welcome template to add links to the visualeditor tutorial. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Is there a specific template for use for newer editors who get blocked before their first welcome message?

Heading pretty much describes the question here. John Carter (talk) 01:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I am not aware of one but I think there should be one too. Endercase (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)