Template talk:Welcomeg

message: There seems to be a problem with welcoming people whose name end in "!!" (looks like thisa\). Not sure if there is a way to fix this, just thought I'd say it here. --WillMak050389 15:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: comment

message: Does a section heading need to be there?  I'm so used to typing out my own, that every time I use this template, the talk page always ends up with two section headings.  If not remove it, could it be made to be a bit less enthusiastic?  By that, I mean could two exclamation marks be removed?  talk to JD wants e-mail 23:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it needs to go. I sometimes use the "+" tab at the top and this gives it 2 headings. --WillMak050389 23:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Quiddity 00:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, and here is another thing...I like the heading. Well...there are many reasons some of us need our own adapted templates. Just glad you are doing welcomes, everyone...keep up the good work! Kukini 04:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Watching this continue to morph away from what a welcome from me might look like, I remain a supporter of personalized welcome templates. - Kukini 20:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section heading 

message: I hope it was ok me including this category into the template, and the mention of the adopt-a-user program. At the moment there are many issues that i am trying to research. This category serves our research into new users and the various trends associated with the user creation log. The main points of interest are...
* Did the user contribute at all
* Did the user partake in vandalism or any other abuse of the system.
* Did the user become blocked.
* Did the user create a user page.
* Did the user express an interest in the adopt-a-user program
* Did the user partake in any wikiprojects.
Please discuss these issues and/or offer your help in analysing these points on the category's talk page. Thank you! frummer 22:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is the resulting data? Could you clarify how this is related to what you added to the page. Why does this whatever you mean warrant three extra lines being added to the template? (Did you do research on how many people will be scared off by long instructions, or how many people will simply not read any of it because of its length?) —Centrx→talk • 00:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:WelcomeBotResearch

message: Good grief!  I know the creators meant well, but this template and others like are are waaay to busy, garish and ugly.  They take up a ton of room, and quite frankly, clog up talk pages.  :Template:Welcome is simple but sweet and doesn't take half a page of flash! wiz! bang! pop! to say "Howdy."  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  I wish I had such a useful collection of the most important links to policies and tools when I first started editing.  I think the welcomeg template is pleasant-looking, and friendly.  Jerry lavoie 23:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Jerry. --Kukini  hablame aqui 05:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I full agree and recommend against usage, further comment solicited at, Wikipedia_talk:Welcoming_committee#Recommend_against_template_complexity. ∴ here…♠ 06:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm very much in favour of this useful template and have commented at the above link. Tyrenius 18:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This may help with talk page clutter, but does nothing to address the complexity concern.  A new user edits their talk page to find a mess of tables, CSS, and now inexplicable vanishing elements..  While the collection of links remains nice, I still recommend that new users' talk pages be generally kept to contents they can understand and learn from when viewing the source, such as a single simple link.  However, enough feel otherwise to keep the template, and thus -- thanks for the change Lara ;).  ∴ here…♠ 06:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, enough feel otherwise. I would have very much appreciated such a good guide when I started. I couldn't work out how to find any of the policies. Tyrenius 08:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Would it help with the colours if they were parameterised, as in userboxes? If they were set to fairly neutral defaults, Users could then choose their own if they wanted to jazz up the display, and also learn a little about editing/formatting?  Just a thought, Lynbarn 10:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you for making this wonderful template, umm...author(s) of this template. I just had my talk page created and filled with it and it is wonderful in many many ways, but good grief! It is huge. My newly created talk page feels like a sign of some sort. And I'm not quite sure if I should delete it or reply to it. But anyways, that's not why I am here. I'm here to suggest adding one of those little [show] and [hide] buttons. I think hide would be best by default. Hmm, last post was over two years ago. Wonder if there is any life here still.--Nakerlund (talk) 01:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ooh, I just discovered that it's already done in Welcomec. I much prefer it to this template.--Nakerlund (talk) 02:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aaah! 

message: An example where I presume this welcome template message is at least partially responsible for messing up a page: User talk:Manghatpranav19#Welcome!. I CBF figuring out exactly what went wrong there, but it’s even screwed with my section further down the page. I wonder if at least the fancy table syntax and formatting is necessary. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 12:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pasted code complexity 

message: When using this template, I sometimes (but not always) get â€¢ displayed instead of a bullet separator, such as:
 Manual of Style â€¢ Three-revert rule â€¢ Sock puppetry 
instead of:
 
 Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry 
Any idea what causes this?  It is not the PC I'm using, as it happens on some pages but not others, and across different PCs... or do I just need new specs? Thanks, Lynbarn 08:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a recent bug in the talk page archiving bot that clobbered UTF-8 characters. --   Netsnipe  ►  10:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Display Error?

message: A few minutes ago, I reverted (well, tried to) the edit by User:Andyjsmith as it seemed to have removed all the show/hide boxes. As I edited it though, something odd was happening with the page history, some edits seemed to go missing, then reappear next time I returned to the history page, so I will leave it till later to see what happens. Regards, Lynbarn 12:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  odd edit history behaviour 

message: The recent collapsible sections additions were reverted , along with a number of other undisputed edits.  I'm not sure how these edits were unjustified and against consensus, as there were no objections.  I prefer the collapsible sections, and also the removal of the bold-face from the intro text.  Also Getting "adopted" by was reverted to Get adoption from.  Vanderdecken, would you explain the wholesale revert?  ∴ here…♠ 19:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a frequent welcomer these days, I don't really care.  I slightly prefer the current version, but I received a response from a new user who said the hide/show format was cool. YechielMan 01:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How's about making them both available as separate templates, just as there is , which I use, as it provides a heading automatically.Tyrenius 01:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Lara, as a new Wikipedian, I'm not sure you understand the idea of consensus - we leave it how it was, before you made any changes. Consensus means what the community has identified to be a majority opinion, and your edit does not qualify - leave it as it was before you started making changes. Then we can discuss, here, whether your version should be brought back in or split off to another template. This is a high-usage template, so any major changes must be discussed here first. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that including comments which would help new users understand what the huge code block on their page means is a good idea but I don't think this should be done by changing the overall appearance of the message (as Lara bran's did). As for establishing consensus, I like the old/consensus version better than any of the new versions I've seen in the last few days /$0.02 Stardust8212 12:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Collapsible looks completely different than the old version, mostly because of color change. But collapsible is the way to go in future. I was compelled to change colors as "show/hide" was not visible.Collapsible version needs a border and background of old version, it can be tried directly as we are changing only style. (I earlier had thought that there are many welcome templates, so started changing without consensus). Lara bran 15:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've expressed above, I also prefer the collapsible layout.  However, if it continues to be a point of contention; making an additional template is a cheap and effective way to please all parties...  at least until they show up at TfD for forced merging ;).  In the spirit of continued cryptic-but-short naming -- How about ?  ∴ here…♠ 21:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Stop! dont create . I have created , u can test till consensus or even start using subst:welcomeg/c right now. It has simple code because  is not substituted, dont forget to check the code after u use in some page. It includes section heading and sign also Lara bran 04:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Now, code of is simpler than , give a look at resultant code at userpage. Here /c stands for cllapsible. Lara bran 04:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you move to  - simpler. Tyrenius 05:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why move, you can use subst: straightaway. Anyways you are subst'ing. Additional fixes are base page name substitution and working "your contributions link". Lara bran 08:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Move because it's simpler, as I said and easier to remember.Tyrenius 17:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would rather love to move to   itself on consensus. Contents are nothing but the same right? Any objections Vanderdecken? Lara bran 06:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is clearly no consensus, thus the creation of a new template.   is much easier to type and remember -- as well as being inline with other existing templates like  which vary on this model.  ∴ here…♠ 08:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, objection to moving to welcomeg. Give people a choice. Variety is the spice of life etc... Tyrenius 15:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okey,  Beta version released. See talk page there. Lara bran 06:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collapsible and recent changes 

message: This link says it is obsolete.  I give out copies of this mostly to new users... or at least those who do things that make it seem they are new (like edits that get them warned).  My edit "skillz" are not "leet" and I fear to try to change the template, but this link says it is dead, so it should be removed, I think.  Is there a replacement?  sinneed (talk) 05:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Pages needing attention 

message: Hi everyone. Those of us involved at the Teahouse pilot are interested in seeing a link to the Teahouse placed in this welcome template. This will be able to help us drive new editor traffic to the Teahouse during this pilot period, and allow us to continue to assess the pilot to the best of our ability. The welcome template is a great and powerful tool for new users, and it'd be really valuable to give new editors the choice to visit the Teahouse for assistance and community experience. I do hope that you will support this. Thank you for your consideration :) Sarah (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See discussion on Template talk:Welcome. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking to the Teahouse on the welcome template 

message: I would like for the "getting started" link at Template:Welcomeg/links to link to Help:Getting started
WhisperToMe (talk) 07:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking to the getting started guide at the long template 

message: See Template talk:Welcomeh#Broken? - wolf 18:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: See  and  (and ). FYI - wolf 08:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken? 

message: "Pages needing attention" under "Things to do" currently links to Wikipedia:Pages needing attention, which is marked as outdated and recommends using :Category:Articles needing attention instead. This seems like a no-brainer but I'm pretty new and it looks like User:sinneed asked about this in 2008 with no response. Is there a reason not to change it? Qb42 (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: As it has been over 24 hours with no response. Qb42 (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated link 

message: Should be completely non-controversial, but I want to change to link to Wikipedia: The Missing Manual from Book:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual to Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual. The later contains the same information with better organization, including a search box, and without confusing warnings. Will leave it for a day and then implement it. --Trialpears (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: --Trialpears (talk) 10:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia: The Missing Manual