UESPWiki:Archive/CP New Template Category

New Template Category

I'm just noticing that we lump user warnings in with Category:Markup Templates.  Would anybody object if I created Category:Warning Templates and moved our various warnings ( ,  ,  ) over there?  Also, if I do, is that the best name for the category, or is there some other name you think would be better? —Robin Hood   03:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:Actually, reminding myself of how things work here as opposed to Wikipedia, can I suggest that we create several templates just as backups to the  page?  I know for myself, I'd find it much more intuitive to simply place templates on a user page than to jump to a totally different page only to click a button that puts a warning on the user page I most likely just left...or is this just me? —Robin Hood   03:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
::I'd be in favor of that too.  When I'm spamming welcomes, for example, it would be a lot nicer to be able to paste   instead of having to open up a bunch of tabs to the Messages page ;).  The Messages page is good for an overview if you're trying to decide what message to post, but a shortcut would be nice too, I think. 
::Oh, and as far as the category goes, could we use Category:Message Templates and throw all the notices and the welcome in there too? –Eshe  02:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
:::I agree with most that has been said (figuring I brought it up not too long ago). I have already mapped out how all of this could be done, so there are multiple ways to go about it. With a warning template, we could have the parameters as Username|Page|Diff# etc. or whatever is decided on. Also, there is the base page name, etc. –Elliot   02:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
::::I hadn't seen the original discussion, but I see Templates as a "best of both worlds" scenario.  We can set up the templates to transclude the existing messages (or if that poses difficulties, simply put a noincluded message that if you update one, you must update the other), but for those times when you want to customize, the Messages page is there and you can do it the good old-fashioned way. —Robin Hood   02:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::Well, we would substitute the templates if we did. We would want the hard text on the page. –Elliot   02:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::As Nephele pointed out in the other discussion, though, subst'd templates can get rather ugly with #if's and such.  Of course, the other possibility here is that we ''don't'' subst them.  I understand the reasoning why you want to or don't want to in some instances, but for the most part, I think for us, we're probably safe not subst'ing them. —Robin Hood   03:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Parser functions can be substituted as well, so that isn't an issue. We would want to be able to change the template without worrying how it affects the template calls elsewhere. If we decided to drastically alter something on the template, we would be bound by the parameters (which would be bad...). We would want the liberty to change it (plus, we would want the warnings to reflect how they looked at that given time, not in the future... if that makes sense). And, I don't think substituting welcome messages would be much different than clicking a link to do it. We don't fool any of the new users. This provides a nice guide to using substitution. I see no issue with starting to use templates for most automated messages. –Elliot   05:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
:I won't oppose a template for such things, but I know I'll continue to use the message page for warnings. I want to be able to say what I want to say, not what the template says. This is especially true for warnings and blocks, but the same is true in my opinion for welcome messages (if I ever stopped refusing to use them, like when hell freezes over). If you're sending one to an editor that's already started editing and has made some mistakes, I'd assume you'd like to point those out specifically. Also, I question the wisdom of using a template on new user talk pages. If they try to edit a reply, they could be confused by the template (especially if it was large and complex). Really, if we're just going to have a template for welcome messages, how 'bout we just set up a bot to deliver them. It would be about the same level of individualization.--Ratwar 05:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
::Then we can keep both, to satisfy the different wants of editors. And they won't be confused by the message because there would be no trace of the template left over after the substitution, since as I said, everything can be substituted. –Elliot   05:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
:::@Elliot:  As I said, I understand the reasoning behind not subst'ing, but I don't think it's likely to be a major issue for us...we're not Wikipedia.  If a template was going to change that drastically, I'd suggest creating a new one anyway.  But that's a side-discussion, really.  The major point is that, at least personally, I'd prefer it if the warnings were relatively standardized and available as templates for when you're already on the user's talk page.  I think we're all agreed that there's no reason not to as long as the Messages page remains intact, but I'll give it a few days before we do anything drastic.

:::You said you had ideas on good ways to approach this.  Would you care to elaborate? —Robin Hood   05:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

::::Well, on my wiki I use for simple template tests, I drew up this:
 
::::...which was the easier one. We could also do this for welcome messages:
 
Hello  ! Welcome to UESPWiki. It's always good to have new members  If you would like to help improve any of our pages, you may want to take a look at the following links:

Policies and Guidelines: UESPWiki standards and expectations
Quick Editing Guide: a quick guide to wiki markup
Getting Started: how you can help

When you're editing, it's always a good idea to leave edit summaries to explain the changes you have made to a particular page, and remember to sign your talk page posts with four tildes ~~~~. Also, the "show preview" button is a great way to view the changes you've made so far without actually saving the page (our Patrollers really appreciate it!).

 Feel free to practice editing in the sandbox and don't hesitate to contact one of our mentors if you need any help. Have fun! --~~  
::::...among other things. But as you can tell, it can get complex but remain manageable. There are all sorts of things we could possibly do. –Elliot   06:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

:I agree with Ratwar on this. Now I don't make a habit of regularly welcoming users, but if I do I want the full text present. I generally don't think it's a good idea to welcome a new user with a template. Welcoming a new user shouldn't be a chore you try to do as efficient as possible. It is a courtesy message of a more experienced user. The proposed setup reminds me too much of how I was welcomed on an obscure language Wikipedia; because I have a global account, and visited that particular language Wikipedia for the first time, a bot noticed my "user creation" and added a welcome message to my talk page, a minute after I visited. I feel that's no welcome, but some sort of general advice you would see in the account creation process. It's better if a new editor can see the effort another editor took to welcome him/her. 

:Then there is the objection I have to proposed setup of the template. We generally use templates to try to distinguish between formatting and content as much as possible. The various infoboxes and such are covered by templates, while the actual content (text) is on the article itself. That content can then call templates again for formatting (e.g. Sic), but the content remains on the article. The current proposal tries to mix pieces of text, and it remains ambigious what text should be default, and what should be custom. --Timenn-  09:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
::I am sorry, but I hardly fail to see the difference between welcoming them with an automated welcome message that you get from an input box and welcoming them through a template. Like I said, both would be up there, but there is no reason to not do it just becayse two members said they wouldn't. That is the very purpose of the template, to allow people who want to use to use them. And no one said anything about a bot, so that is frankly irrelevant. New editors are not stupid, they usually call the welcome message a copy and paste message (which it frankly will always be. But my main point is, if we want both, why not just do it? –Elliot   17:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

:::It's not the bot itself I was referring to, but rather the presentation you make to a new editor. I see the presentation the wiki makes as very relevant. Is that not what welcoming is all about? As I said in earlier discussions, I don't believe making guidelines about welcoming users is a good idea, so yea, you're free to use them. It's just that I am discussing the aesthetics here. 

:::And there are my concerns over the design of the template. I still believe it mixes content and code in a way that is confusing enough. --Timenn-  10:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)