Template talk:Welcome/Archive 3

message: I had always thought that adding  at the header was rather impersonal, and I recently got the idea of how to fix that. While experimenting in my own Sandboxes, I remembered that subst:'ing a template that has a nowiki tag in it doesn't work, so I figured that if I subst:'d the PAGENAME magicword inside nowiki tags, it would show up, and sure enough, it did! I don't know whether or not I should add this code to the template, because if the template is not subst'd, it will show up as , which we don't want. In any event, you might consider adding this to a personal Welcome template, so that the impersonal PAGENAME code isn't available in the edit box. Yeah, this is a bit convoluted, but if you get what I'm saying, please use this to make us seem friendlier. -Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 21:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: comment: its still deceptively impersonal. -- Zondor 06:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zondor, please wait until a consensus has been reached before adding in the requested change template. I'm an administrator, and if I wanted, I could change it, but I wanted to see community consensus before doing either of these things. Just wait a little for people to agree (like strongly agree), and don't worry, I'm watching this page, so if something comes up, just tell me, and I'll see what I can do. -Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 06:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PAGENAME 

message: #Strong Support  ~Topaz♪♫∆ 10:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since more people seem to favor having the comma and because it seems punctuatationally correct, I've gone ahead and added it back in for the time being. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support comma after Hi

message: # As explained above, saying "Hello, Someone, and welcome to Wikipedia!" sounds very clumsy. What sounds good is "Hello Someone, and welcome to Wikipedia!" Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 09:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Object to commma after Hi 

message: # Take it to the talk page.  That's one of the things they're there for. —Cryptic (talk) 09:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Was moved I guess, that will make at least someone happy. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't hold votes on [[WP:AN]]

message: #Splashtalk 19:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oh, for, goodness, sake

message: I don't quite like the recent edit to this template. I think it is very rare that users get welcomed before they bother to contribute at all, as it is very hard to detect such a person. Besides, the point about somebody making an account is contributing, not registering. I would thus vote to restore the original meaning. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... While I see the point of the change, it just doesn't have the flow of the previous version. How about: Thank you for joining and helping us? Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If that's what you prefer, I'd rather vote for "registering"  :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'd still prefer to keep in the thank you for contributions (and the implied future contributions, of course.) How about: Thank you for your contributions and registering with us? The only qualm I have with this is that it's a bit longer, but... Thoughts? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK then. I just changed back to the original. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent wording 

message: I was bold and created a :template:Welcomenh (nh=No Header) which simply duplicates today's version of template:Welcome but I removed the Welcome on top so that this could be added to user's pages under ==Welcome== section heading. The reason is that an automatic placement of TOC on the talk pages looks better this way. If there is a better way to do it, please feel free to delete my template. I don't mind and no need to go through VfD. If others find it acceptable, please protect it for obvious reasons. I am not the most frequent greeter around here but I do great newcomers who start contributing to topics of my interest. Thanks for everyone's attention to this small matter. If there are any responces, angry or kind, pls post them here rather than at my talk. Thanks, --Irpen 03:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A very good idea. And that is not because I want to add it as a seperate section, but there quite a number of occassion where there is already a message or case where you want to start with a comment about the addition and then want to extend a welcome. I like the idea. Dr Debug (Talk) 03:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: is process-oriented. just like requests for protection or unprotection. include at the very end. subst'ing it won't affect it. the purpose is to remind users of an alternative template. -- Zondor 04:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Done. I didn't think this was a big enough deal to warrant more discussion. Feel free to revert me if you disagree. howcheng  {chat} 18:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Done. howcheng  {chat} 07:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Welcomenh

message: Recently, the welcome template got  a "see also" section, which is not included when the welcome template is subst'ed, but which is almost as big as the welcome message. I would suggest that that section be forked off from the welcome template in its own article, like Wikipedia:Welcome templates, and link to that from this main welcome template. That would have the advantage that a bunch of other welcome templates, some in user space, could be linked to from there. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "see also" section 

message: I've recently created my personal Wikipedia welcome. I'm still relatively new to this, so then could anyone give me some feedback?--TBC???  ??? ??? 05:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pretty big, but I assume that you like it that way. One thing I wouldn't do is put sections in it and try to format it with font size. Dr Debug (Talk) 05:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Note that the bigger it is, the less likely users will read any of it, and rather delete it as spam (trust me, happens). Very careful thought and some taste is needed in deciding on what to include and what not. I believe even the default  is too fat. And as DrDebug said, there should be no sections, and I would say no frame either. Very simple and very basic. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for all the comments. I've simplified it, are there any other parts that I should add or take out? --TBC???  ??? ??? 07:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I find the part about the bootcamp to be not well-written, a welcome template may need to keep a serious tone. I don't see the need of making the links in bold. The way to make users pay attention to them is not bolding a lot of them, as then the users will skip all, rather, to make few of them. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Alright I removed the bootcamp part, though I'd rather keep the bolding. Any other suggestions? By the way, thanks everyone for the comments. --TBC???  ??? ??? 20:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You don't need to ask permision to use your own welcome template; use it as much as you please. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright thanks, you have all been a help to me --TBC???  ??? ??? 01:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feedback on my own welcome template

message: In the welcome template, the link to the  template, shows up in bold, like this: . 
I would argue that it does not look good for aesthetical reasons, as it is much bigger in size than anything else in the page, and it also outshines more important things, like having the user sign his/her posts using four tildas.
I would say that making it not bold, like everything else in the page, would make the  look nicer, and will not make people notice it less, as it is placed very strategically, as the last thing in the text. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't change the template but I'll give my opinion now anyway. People will notice it less (it was eye catching before), and thus are less likely to utilise that help service. Is signing a talk page more important than being able to speak to someone about your problems? Not for a new editor, that's for sure. --Commander Keane 20:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That was the problem, it was too eye catching. The way it is now, it is listed  at the very end of the welcome template. It is written that if the user has questions, he/she can either visit Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask the welcoming person on the talk page, or put {helpme} on his own page. There is no need to "strongly suggest" which way to choose. If the user needs help, he/she will decide based on the existing information what to do. That's how I see it at least. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the  {helpme} be bold? 

message: Is it possible to have the "ask me on my talk page" or some appropriate substring, auto-wikilinked to the user talk page of whoever is using the welcome template? --BACbKA 20:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is possible. It would require the welcome template get an additional parameter, and the user fill in that parameter when subst'ing the template. I am not sure it is worth the trouble. I think it would far be easier for the welcoming person who cares about this issue to modify his signature to contain a link to his talk (like mine), than to always keep on filling in one more parameter in the welcome template. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think not. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ask me on my talk page 

message: I often find that newbies have no idea what we're talking about. Should we include a link to the Wikipedia:Glossary in the welcome message? Zocky | picture popups 02:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that such a link would be information overload. I think that users learn things by experiencing Wikipedia rather than by reading such a Glossary, in the same way as a language learner improves by practicing the language, rather than reading the dictionary. But that's just my opinion. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:G 

message: There are two "welcomes" in this template.  It should be fixed. --anon
: Second welcome is the page name, it changes to the user name when put on user talk pages (see the source. I won't mind if that PAGENAME is removed though. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double Welcome . . . 

message: *I just installed this in the help menu with an increased visibility as it was so buried there in all the clutter. I've been editing 15+ months and tonight is the first time I've been able to find the danged page. So I'm simplifying for all newbies. 
*Ditto in this template which I find myself placing frequently these days. 
Best regards, Boldly yours <B>Fra</B>nkB 23:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The page recently moved to Wikipedia:New contributors' help page.--Commander Keane 23:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I thought I was...
I'm adding this:
 [[Wikipedia:Newcomers_help_page]] 

message: Please add an interwiki link to the Vietnamese version of this template:
 vi:Tiêu bản:Hoan nghênh
Thanks.
 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 04:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki link to vi: 

message: In my experience images are a source of great confution to new users, wich tend to cause all kinds of problems (duplicates and various sized thumbnail versions floating around, untagged images, and copyvios galore). It would seem prudent to give new users some pointers regarding images on the welcome message too. --Sherool (talk) 11:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any objections to adding [[Wikipedia:Image use policy]]? 

message: There are two proposals now, the section right above, and tho sections before it, about adding new links to . They are Wikipedia:Newcomers help page and Wikipedia:Image use policy. They are both good and important links. 
However, a big problem with this welcome template is that it has the tendency to grow uncontrollably, and then it eats up huge amount of real estate on user talk pages, and then, practically speaking, people just ignore all the links or delete the whole thing from their page.
I think a sensible approach would be to choose which links from  to remove to make room for these two new one, if the community so desires. Comments on that? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a list of all of the Wiki-links and tools. Can these be placed on the "Welcome" template ? Martial Law 18:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  For your reference, Martial Law, you must put the bold smiley before your signature, not after it. I almost took you seriously, then was desperately looking for the smiley to see if you are joking, and barely found it! :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I guess an option would be to add such links to Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers too, or integrate them more into the text rather than having a huge list of links and such... --Sherool (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The simplest thing is to give the basics, without clutter. The FAQs page link will make you very popular with the folks servicing newbie questions on:  Wikipedia:Newcomers_help_page . I'm not saying there aren't a couple of others that might make sense, but two columns of links with a terse explaination of what it was wouldn't take up a lot of verticle space. Click the default help link on your browser, and see the complicated multicolumn links there. I don't know of many placing the template that don't also add personal notes after it in any case, so the placer has control ultimately of how many lines get used on the new talk. Personally, I'm more concerned by the newbies that aren't being greeted at all, not that I'm giving them too much to chew on and explore. <B>Fra</B>nkB 01:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On adding new links in 

message: I think putting subst:PAGENAME in the template is not a good idea, as then the template breaks when it is not subst'ed, as you see below:
-----
Welcome!
Hello, , and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
*The five pillars of Wikipedia
*How to edit a page
*Help pages
*Tutorial
*How to write a great article
*Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 
-----
While ideally  should be subst'ed, I think it will cause a great deal of confusion to people who use this template and who may be newbies, who see a strange code  showing up and they don't know how to fix it. 
This has been discussed before. I suggest that for the benefit of the people using this template the current change be undone. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I came here when I saw that all of the welcome messages were screwed up. -- Kjkolb 16:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, wait a second, what's wrong with that template?  It also works fine in my sandbox, both substed and not substed.  I don't see the problem. --Rory096 06:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because I fixed it now, by reverting the changes, that's why it works. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Or doesn't work, depending on your point of view. This template should never be transcluded. People doing so are using it wrong. Getting a bot to fixup mistaken transclusions would be pitifully easy, however, it would need to be left at Sean Black's revision in order for the subst to actually work right (otherwise  will be subst'd in the wikitext). I suggest reverting to Sean Black's revision and asking  or  to subst all transcluded copies of it. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  See User talk:Locke Cole/Template:Welcome which demonstrates the problem (Sean Black's revision is on the project/main user page). —Locke Cole • t • c 07:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I could make a way to tell the user in big red ink that he didn't subst, but that might make it worse, in case the user doesn't even look.  There's no way to make it subst itself though. --Rory096 22:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no way to make a template subst itself? Too bad! I would have really liked a template which not only substs itself, but is smart enough to insert itself on user talk pages to start with. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Subst business

message: Can't we put {{SUBST:PAGENAME}}. 
By putting that in, it will SUBST the PAGENAME in the usertalk page, but not in the template.  --GeorgeMoneyTalk  Contribs 05:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at the TOC of this talk page, and at every thread with "PAGENAME" in its title. In a nutshell, what you suggest will make the template break when not substed. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 11:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PAGENAME 

message: If one changes the syntax of  to , then the problem is fixed, although substers will need to use some additional markup. I shall use User:Snoutwood/Pagenamefix as an example. The syntax  successfully renders the pagename, while the code  does not. However,  does the job wonderfully. You can see the proof here.
It's a thought, anyways, and hopefully will inspire a further fix. Also, since one has to transclude the template as it is currently, this is a step up as it creates an entirely workable option for those who, like me, wish to subst, if at the expense of seven characters. Snoutwood (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by "one has to transclude the template"? And why make things harder for people who do the correct thing and subst the template? -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 10:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I meant that with the current coding it's impossible to have a fully substed template (that is, without substing it, then editing the page and substing . And I didn't see it as making things harder, I saw it as making things easier, since this way you type just as many characters but you don't have to edit the page twice. Snoutwood (talk) 10:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Or did you mean that one has to transclude ? In any case, your suggestion will confuse those that are unaware of this subtlety. We definitely need the code  to work. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 10:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. I was posting it here as I saw it as a poor, but better, version of what we have now. At the very least, it's a new idea, and I'm still working on a perfect fix. Snoutwood (talk) 10:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't know what I need to step back from, mate... anyhow, the problem I'm trying to fix is the same problem that every other section title of PAGENAME on this page is trying to fix: that you can't have the template be both transcludable and fully substable at the same time. As for being impersonal, there's just something nice about a person taking twenty seconds to put in your name, especially when they're greeting you. Snoutwood (talk) 10:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing personal about the "need to step back", just think everyone here does - need to identify the problem first. I cannot see the problem with PAGENAME - both transcluded and subst it "works for me" as it is just now. Yes if somebody digs into the source they'll see , but is that really a problem, and if so why? Certainly it's less of a problem than making the use of the template more complicated/wangi 11:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  O.K., sorry if I was being testy. I don't know, I don't like having unsubsted magic words on talk pages (feels too much like bad housework). I like this better because it doesn't affect transcluders at all, and substers only need to add a little bit more. Trouble is, it's a high-traffic template and thus troubles with substing syntax could be a large problem (as those many who wouldn't know about the syntax wouldn't understand why the substing isn't working). For that reason, I know it's not perfect, but I figured that it might be better. Snoutwood (talk) 11:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the apperance of  in the code is a problem. That's why I'm using my own user-space template. My guess is: This template can't be improved with the current version of MediaWiki. Let's just hope that in the future, there will be some additional tags which can be used to solve the problem. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 11:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  <collapses in the face of truth> Yeah, you're probably right. I'll give it up now. :) Snoutwood (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix to the PAGENAME issue, albeit with more complications for the substers 

message: For christs sake, make the heading (Welcome!) a heading (==Welcome!==), so it stops showing up before the TOC on user talk pages. +Hexagon1 (talk)   09:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed several times before and rejected each time by the community; please see the archives for past discussion. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must be missing it, which archive is it on? +Hexagon1 (talk)   03:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, since it's protected, won't the section edit button not even show up at all? --Rory096 04:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, still does. --Rory096 04:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course it should. But is not always. And it does not make sense to me to modify a template in such a way that it causes trouble when trascluded and not substituted. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headline 

message: Hi there. I'd suggest linking the words "talk page" or "my talk page" to Help:Talk_page#User_talk_pages. I've noticed a number of new users here on Wikipedia (and many more on a corporate installation of MediaWiki at my work) who don't know about the "discussion" tab and aren't familiar with a "talk page" (even while looking at their own talk page). This seems better than the earlier proposal of linking to the welcomer's talk page because Help:Talk page explains talk pages better than most Wikipedians are able to do. Hopefully, this will encourage new users to use the discussion page while editing articles as well. Mike Dillon 02:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This suggetion seems extremely counter-intuitive. A user that sees a link like my talk page will undoubtedly expect it to link too, well, my talk page. Since this link appears in the context of where to ask questions (about Wikipedia in general, not about talk pages), the user will also expect to be able to ask questions there. It doesn't help anyone to have a link lead a newbie to a place he didn't expect. Perhaps adding a line to the message, 'you can always use the "discussion" tab and the tab next to it to switch between a page and its associated  talk page', would be better. Besides, the fact that the user has seen the message in his talk page already means that he is halfway to figuring talk pages out. A link to the welcomer's talk page will also help to clarify what talk pages look like. And in case all of this doesn't work - finding the "discussion" tab at the top is not rocket science, he'll figure it out. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 11:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my experience, it takes non-techies a while to figure this out and it seems worthwhile to help them out. If it is "totally counterintuitive" to link the phrase "my talk page", the phrase "talk phrases" earlier in the text could be linked. Mike Dillon 14:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I suppose this could be a good idea. I'm not sure how much it will help - I don't know if many users will feel compelled to follow this link. Oh, and you meant "talk pages" :) -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking "talk page" to [[Help:Talk_page#User_talk_pages]] 

message: Seeing this template on many talks as a template call and before using it recently, I checked the "Template:Welcome" page to see if I should subst or not and seeing no instruction I didn't (subst). It was only today that I came to this talk page to suggest that it be a subst template and was amazed at the amount of discussion here about what to say and how to say it including a poll of all things about a comma! If possible, could someone (without starting a major discussion about it) just please put a prominent note up front expressing your desire regarding subst of this template. Thanks. Oh, and as tempted as I might be to join in some of the fun up above, I think I'll just leave this simple request.  ;-)  --hydnjo talk 19:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Subst: suggestion