Wikipedia talk:Welcome, newcomers

message: Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump
I think my perspective as a newcomer might actually help here.  The way I found wikipedia was googling "campaign finance reform".  When I saw the article on campaign finance reform, I realized it didn't have much information; then I realized that it could be edited.  I might never have become a wikipedian if that article had been more complete; instead, I would have just read what I needed and left.  In order to capture more of these people who stumble onto wikipedia articles, we could add the following standard text to the top of all articles: This article is not done.  To help finish it, visit Wikipedia:About.
I think this might help get more users, who might otherwise never realize they can edit.  Meelar 20:07, Dec 11, 2003
: Your suggestion that we be clearer that any visitor can edit an article is a good one, although I don't agree with your proposed text. There are many of us (but by no means all) who thing there's no such thing as a "finished" article (indeed, that's the biggest difference between wikipedia and, say, h2g2). I'd say that presenting new visitors with a flashy Hey Kids! Find out how YOU can improve this article, right now! bubble would be a great idea. -- Finlay McWalter 01:30, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: The suggestion is really an important one for us to discuss. In hindsight, I realize I came to wikipedia (via google searches) many times before recognizing what wikipedia was. It really wasn't until the 20th time (or so) that it hit me that I'd seen the interface many times before, and I started to investigate. It would be really nice to have some sort of text to alert new users that they are encountering an interactive encyclopedia. Maybe it could be designed that only non-logged-in-IP-address viewers would see the message. Kingturtle 05:27, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: I don't like the idea. We should keep each article looking as complete as possible, with room for expansion. Even if we miss important information, making the rest of the article look complete will make the Wikipedia be much more usable. Anyway, for stubs, we have stubnotes - they let the user know that they can add to the stub. Dysprosia 07:48, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: Figuring out you can edit a WP article perhaps has some slight function as an entry test to keep out undesirables. Meelar worked it out and seems to be the sort of person we want. "YOU CAN EDIT THIS PAGE" is practically an open invitation to any moronic vandal who sees it. Anjouli 14:14, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your suggestion and welcome to Wikipedia! This idea is interesting, but I think it needn't be implemented. There is already an Edit this page link. I don't think we need much editing from users who have visited Wikipedia only once or twice. What we need is readers and experienced writers. It is better to let editing to readers who bookmarked Wikipedia, visited it many times and are familiar with its structure, format, philosophy and look'n'feel. It should be noted that many newcomers may also vandalize some page. Best wishes, Optim 20:30, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Well.. who were the experienced writers in the first place? Well, just like this newbie. Meelar has my sympathies, since I arrived as a contributon on my first wiki just the same way. I do think however, that we needn't state it as Meelar's suggestion. My suggestion: sweeten up the stub message to be more inviting!  — Sverdrup (talk) 22:25, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: I think it should be a little more obvious.  Just a link that says "if you see errors or omissions on this page you can edit it."  Or something to that effect.  I had never thought of it keeping out undesireables by not being obvious, though.  Probably a good idea, too. - 141.157.193.220 23:30, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encourage edits more 

message: To put it simply, the welcome page is not very welcoming. I propose cutting this page way down and delegating its content to other pages. "Welcome, newcomers" should be less in the style of an article than it is. Each section should recieve no more than a simply-written (think "Go ahead—try it out!") one-paragraph blurb followed by a few links.
--Ldrhcp 21:55, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia:Tutorial is more like that. Perhaps it's good for this page to be more detailed so it is not made obsolete by the tutorial. Angela. 18:29, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  User-Friendliness Problem 

message: As a newbie I have had the gall to add a paragraph to the main article! (Yes, my tongue is in my cheek as I type this.) I have done this because reading a paragraph like this before I started would not have put me off but would have prepared me for what I encountered.  I have given one link but I am sure there are more that would be helpful. As a plea to those experienced in this, please modify what I have written and add more helpful links or perhaps create a page for the newbie in trouble and include a link to it in the paragraph. --CloudSurfer 06:29, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't be discouraged 

message: Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers was recently redirected to a new Wikipedia:Introduction page in an effort to streamline it and make it more user-friendly.  While I admire the redirectors' intentions, I believe this change should be discussed, and consensus reached, before the established page is redirected to a much different, newer version.  I have asked on Wikipedia Talk:Introduction that the redirect be reverted and discussed first.  What do others think?  Charm ©† 08:09, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
The page has been redirected a second time.  As some were not happy with this change last time, and some are still not happy, I am reverting the change and starting a comprehensive discussion about our introductory pages on Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee. Isomorphic 18:03, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent redirect of WP:Welcome, newcomers to new page WP:Introduction 

message: Hello,
How does one add a new entry to Wikipedia?
:There are a few ways. The way I do it is to make a link from a related page, such as under the "See also" section. Just add the title of your new article in double brackets, like this:
:New article title
:If the link is red, just click on it and you'll be brought to a blank page to fill. If it is blue, we already have an article on that title. Maurreen 16:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to add a new entry? 

message: I am about to remove the MERGE flag from the top of the article because it seems inappropriate on two grounds:
#The desirability of the merges is under discussion and there seems to be no consensus in favour of such a change.
#Such text is potentially confusing for the newcomers who being directed to this page. --Theo  (Talk) 15:32, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing merger flag 

message: What happened to the "Editing" section that is being linked to by the bolded Edit this page in the lead paragraph? Evil Monkey∴Hello 21:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to have disappeard somewhere around the October 14 2005 edits. I've reinsated it. Akamad 05:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing section 

message: "Anyone can edit, but there are advantages to creating an account if you want to contribute regularly."
As I read recently on the BBC website on the issue of the imbecile who decided to have a laugh at the expense of serious Wikipedians, "The prank caused Wikipedia to change its policy so only registered users can create entries." If this is not true then the BBC should not publish fiction, and I will complain to them, but if it is then this should be re-written to reflect this. See the wiki John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. --The1exile 22:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputing a Statement 

message: This page is ugly. Shouldn't it look more like the welcome template? I will try and create a sample revamp off my user page... -Ravedave 23:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revamp? 

message: ... may be a little unclear about signing contributions. I ran across a user (User:Saxophobia) who did not note that the advice about signing was referring only to talk pages. I've notified him and removed his/her sigs from articles, but I think the welcome message could be a bit cleare in this respect. Greetings, --Janke | Talk 08:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Welcome" message... 

message: Do you think we need to make the {(subst:welcome)} a little nicer? J-A-V-A 16:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: nicer message

message: As per consensus, this bot has been withdrawn and will be removed from Requests for approval
I have designed and developed a bot that welcomes new accounts automatically. It is currently under disucssion on the Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval page (see here for the discussion) and requires more input from the wider non-bot comunity. Please see:
* The full discussion and why I think it, or others, should exist on its Requests for approval subsection
* The bot's user page detailing what it does and how it works
* My talk page for other, more personal queries or comments
I appreciate all feedback and comments - it will be held in the highest regard.
Thanks very much. Ale_Jrbtalk 16:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automated welcoming of new user accounts 

message: Cool.
"Below is a brief introduction to Wikipedia" is much better than "The following article is a brief introduction . . ." 
I wish I'd thought of that. -- Chuck Marean 07:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Getting started

message: This "welcome" message is severely biased towards getting newcomers to edit. Most people arriving at Wikipedia for the first time want to know more about the encyclopedia, what it is, how large it is, what it covers and how to find what they are looking for or how to browse the site. In other words, most newcomers are readers, not editors. How can this imbalance be addressed? Carcharoth 11:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Template talk:Please leave this line alone#Merge for a merge proposal in the works. --Quiddity 19:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Severe bias towards editing