Template talk:Introduction to Wikipedia/Archive 1

message: Please keep this page as simple and uncomplicated as possible. It's already got too long and complicated. It needs to have as little text as possible (in fact, I'm thinking of trying to make it almost totally image-based).
Please don't add millions of links, we need to keep people on track to go through the intro. If there are too many links, new users will get sidelined and go off to random parts of the site. Thanks, Tom- 16:35, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree this is very important.  I think many users wanting to know more about wikipedia will click from the main page on the wikipedia link in the intro line, expecting a concise and organize 'about' page like you would find on any other website, but instead they find a lengthy encyclopedia article on wikipedia that's not intended as an introduction.--Nectarflowed 05:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely and totally agree.Icurite 22:17, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: yah so do I and I'm just a new user! Just sighned up TODAY keep it simple thats what I'm doing. Get me at ssharply@yahoo.com and give me your opinion,please let me know.  I agree as well, but I feel the Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia page should be added (in either 1, 2, or 3). The page is written specifically for new users, but when I accidentally closed the page, it took me forever to find again. Is there a reason this wasn't added here, or am I missing the way I am supposed to find it? It just seemed logical for me to look here for that page. -Razor X 20:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the above; the template doesn't make it obvious to a newbie that they can edit the page. It might need some rephrasing ("You can edit the page below") or made much smaller and less complicated ("Welcome to Wikipedia. Try editing this page now!") ProhibitOnions 12:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE - Keep it simple!! 

message: *I am surprised to see Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers redirecting here. Has there been any discussion about such a drastic move? Having been developed over many months, the old version was refined, balanced, and comprehensive. There is also Wikipedia:Tutorial which is better developed and more comprehensive than this new page here. In a word, this is a step back. I don't think that this important page should be switched to a totally new version without discussion. Even a poll might be appropriate. Kosebamse 17:04, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect from Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers 

message: *That is good. Fun, friendly and inviting. I assume it has implicit consensus as rdsmith4 is the only person changing it - I guess the rest of us like "Let's start". Dan100 20:40, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
**Pardon me. I'm not being contrary - I'm trying to make a tutorial that does not "talk down" too much to those reading it. I'm trying to make it a bit more mature; "Let's start editing" sounds kiddish to me. Also, there's no reason that every little change needs to be discussed beforehand, and the fact that one person made an edit does not imply any sort of consensus for or against. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 21:27, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's start editing

message: What happened to the language links at the bottom? Are they supposed to be like that? --Spug 00:51, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language links 

message: Predictably, this pages gets vandalized a lot even though it encourages readers to test on Wikipedia:Introduction 2. Therefore, I suggest the introductions be reorganized: move Template:Please leave this line alone to Wikipedia:Introduction, so readers can test editing on the very first page; use Intro 2 as a page of links about editing in more detail; leave Intro 3 more or less as it is. I've put my proposed changes to Template:Please leave this line alone at Wikipedia:Introduction/temp; the new content of this page would be as follows:
{{Please leave this line alone}}
<!-- Feel free to change the text below this line. --> Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 19:17, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, this page is getting a lot of vandalism, especially from IP addresses that have no accounts on Wikipedia. INFORMATION CENTER© talk contribs 02:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: The bot, User:Sandbot, is suppose to be enforcing the first two lines every thirty minutes.  Should it not be enforcing the header, please leave a message on my talk page.  Thank you. -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:10, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Sandbot]] operation 

message: I propose renaming the templates used in the intros to their respective Wikipedia equivalents. Thus  would be used instead of . The warning should be in some comment. Because of their strange names the templates were already once listed on tfd. --MarSch 15:51, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See Template talk:Please leave this line alone for a discussion of why the templates are named as they are. They were taken of tfd after the issue was explained. Trödel|talk 13:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand why they are named as they are, but it is silly. Their name should imply their purpose. You can explain the rest in a comment.--MarSch 11:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

text: This template should stay as named - right now I see a 1-1 vote for the move - this is no consensus for change - so it should stay where it is. Trödel|talk 16:55, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  move templates to proper place 

message: I presume the lion's share of the Wikipedia:Introduction page is contributed by the cute little template at the top, so users can't mess with it.  However, in the name of efficiency, I thought I'd point out that the linked text "Be Bold" in the area about being bold but not being reckless actually links to "Wikipedia:Be bold" which redirects to "Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages".  Maybe whoever has the keys to templates might want to update that link to point directly to its ultimate destination and maybe reduce the workload on the server just a wee bit?
Weichbrodt 13:37, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
:Done Trödel|talk 01:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Be Bold" Links to a Redirect

message: It seems like an awfully bad idea to make the introduction empty! It an introduction for God's sake!!! You can see from the reactions above that this is a very very VERY bad idea. There should be an - dare i say it - introduction here! --The Minister of War 06:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, because the introduction is part of the page, it is possible for less scrupulous editors to remove the introduction. Quite a few Wikipedians watch the page to make sure that it stays there, but sometimes it disappears briefly. Check the page again to see the normal introduction. —HorsePunchKid→龜 06:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction?! 

message: "An outdated, over priced, and rarely ever complete set of Encyclopaedic tomes"
Righty-ho. But if I were writing an academic paper and had a choice of quoting EB or Wikipedia, it'd be EB every time - its content is static and therefore more reliable - even if it is more reliably wrong. Imagine completing your 50,000-word thesis only to discover that the meticulously-footnoted references had ben removed!
--Dazzla 07:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you were writing an academic paper and were quoting EB (or Wikipedia), I am guessing you would probably not get an "A", as encyclopedias are a starting point for a good academic paper, especially if the assignment was to do some real research, not just quote someone else's efforts. Trödeltalk 12:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, but research must always be backed by cited sources - as such, wikipedia is not a suitable citable source. Innit.--Dazzla 23:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Exactly - and articles should be moving towards having cited sources over time. That way like all research projects, you start at an encyclopedia to get an overview of the subject, and then use the named resources as the starting point for your paper. My point is that if you are citing EB as a definitive source you are only citing a paraphrase of another source - and a good paper should identify the source of the quote and cite it directly. Although most articles start without citations - the goal at WP is to have articles reach featured articles status which includes the requirement of verfied and citable research. As long as you understand it is a work in progress and you use it to find other sources then WP is great, and WP is just like all encyclopedias, i.e. they should generally not be cited is because they should contain existing knowledge and not original research Trödeltalk 18:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Just wanted to answer to this particular point: "Imagine completing your 50,000-word thesis only to discover that the meticulously-footnoted references had ben removed!". One can use a permanent link to avoid the problem of dynamic content. Each version of an article has a permanent link, which one may obtain from the article's history page, or by using the Permanent link on the Toolbox on the left side. Also, there is Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. Capi 12:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Encyclopaedia Britannica

message: Canadian artist born in Quebec. Author of the ZEN OF FLIRTING(c), Lullaby for Adults (c), Lullaby for Pregnant Women (c), Evening Chant(c), Mystic Morning(c) (Meditation and Music) CDs.
:I may be new, but I'm pretty sure this doesn't go here. Kribbeh 00:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carole Clement 

message: This page is a HUGE target for vandalism. I think that instead of linking to it on the homepage, we should have a link to it that comes up when you log in. I know what you're thinking: "If you have to log in to use it, and the article is the only place that suggests that you get an account, it's kind of a Catch-22." So, on the homepage, it could suggest somewhere that anyone hoping to make edits start an account. (On the bright side, this article gave me my first chance to revert vandalism and make me feel good about my WikiAccount.) JaredW! 12:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I love the fact that the article is put right after three fine cases of vandalism. Anyway, I must encourage all cleaning up of vandalistic acts; that's why I registered to Wikipedia in the first place. Make a difference to Wiki's society! Kribbeh 00:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ******** Lots of Vandalism to this page! 

message: As some of you who watch this page and help clean the vandalism up may have noticed, Sandbot is not running every 30 minutes. If you find vandalism, you can click this link to force Sandbot to repair the header. Rather than click edit, find the right text, and save etc. Trödel 01:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sandbot in Dagobah 

message: I am a 20 year old just looking for answers that no one in my family seems to have. I am a new commer to this so I hope that someone out there will give me some advise of stories that I can relate to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.42.97.26 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of me...