Template talk:Welcomenpov

message: *hmm, I am trying to figure out the purpose of this template... does it get dropped into people's talk page if they weren't being neutral enough?
:Kuro (Sarah White) 22:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just used it for a user who was adding stuff to Virgin Radio (User talk:Ben123newton) that wasn't neutral.  RicDod 15:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  hmm, ponderous 

message: I might be missing something, but it seems to me the optional parameter (which according to the documentation is the name of the page that was POV edited) is not used. -SpuriousQ 06:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Leading colon and everything, very nice. :) Cheers! Luna Santin 13:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parameter not used 

message: I propose removing the above phrase. POV-sounding edits are not always reverted immediately, it is sometimes necessary to tag the article with  or  for less obvious cases. Accurizer 03:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, I see your point. Would it be better to clarify that a bit ("may be reverted"), or just remove it altogether, y'think? Luna Santin 02:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If the POV isn't obvious, this template should not be used at all. We should not be warning newbies if they are making potentially good edits. This template should only be used after cases of clearly obvious POV have been reverted. --- RockMFR 21:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There doesn't seem to be a consensus, here; for the time being, I've removed the  request; if a consensus emerges, feel free to replace the tag or let me know at my talk page. Will try to watch this one. Luna Santin 03:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "and have been reverted" 

message: I suggest that the first occurrence of the phrase "Neutral Point of View policy" be wikilinked and boldfaced, and the acronym NPOV be defined at that point. Later the acronym is used and wikilinked, but it may not be obvious to a newbie that NPOV means "neutral point of view" since the two terms occur in different paragraphs. The sentence should say:
Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy.... -Amatulic 21:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Luna Santin 10:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor clarification required for newbies

message: This is a minor issue, but this template should be added to :Category:Welcome templates.--Ytny (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: --Geniac 16:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category 

message: The word there's should be changed to there is, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Avoid colloquial contractions. --Silver Edge 21:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MoS primarily governs article space, not user talk messages; is there some reason to believe the contraction will cause difficulty understanding the template, or would otherwise interfere with its effectiveness? – Luna Santin (talk) 03:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the idea is for this to be more informal, since it's a welcome template. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of contractions 

message: The documentation for this template is incorrect.  I suggest replacing it with:
	Template usage notes
* This template takes a single optional parameter: the name of the page to which the template applies. If provided, this page will be cited in the warning.
* Please refer to the index of test templates before using any template on user talk pages to warn a user. Applying the best template available for your purpose may help reduce confusion from the message you are sending.
* Please remember to substitute the template—use  or }} rather than {{}} or {{|article name}}}}.
--Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 16:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Documentation 

message: It appears that there is a word missing at the very end of the template:
"or ask me my talk page"
It should be "or ask me on my talk page". Paradoxsociety (talk) 01:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: David Ruben  Talk  04:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Word 

message: Could we consider removing the "Thank you for your contributions" from this one?  It feels so silly to drop it onto a new user's talk page, thanking them for their sole edit while announcing that it has just been reverted.  I feel it's a real giveaway that this is a stock template not an individual greeting, and thus less friendly rather than more so. I can't see a problem with just saying "Hi, welcome, nice to see you, unfortunately your edit to X was POV but don't let that put you off contributing, here's some helpful links".  Much more appropriate than "thanks but no thanks". Karenjc 23:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Contributions

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 and then we can reach out to an admin to make the change. Thank you for your consideration :) Sarah (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See discussion on Template talk:Welcome. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking to the Teahouse on the welcome template 

message: It seemed like we missed that, so added  to the documentation. Seems pretty standard. That's all. Meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Substitution 

message: Rather than say "...you can just type    on your userpage," I believe the template text should read, "...you can just type  on your user talk page," as the  template should only be used on user talk pages, not user pages. In addition, "userpage" should be two words. MJ94 (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. There has been objections in some of the welcome templates I have changed in the past to having a template link to the help me template in these kinds of boxes, as such I request that you establish a consensus for this usage before working up a sandbox mockup.  I'll happily implement once these steps are completed. —  (e • t • c) 17:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

text: What I did was add the newer coding that does it all for you. This was a long talk on the other page....should be done to all. -- Moxy (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you happen to have a link to the discussion? I'd be interested in reading it. Thanks! MJ94 (talk) 00:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Template talk:Welcome#Coding update --Moxy (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 5 March 2015 

message: There are many ways to introduce POV into articles other making unsourced edits. This templates' emphasis on reliable sources can inadvertently give a POV pusher ammunition by allowing them to claim: "but it's from a reliable source". Yes, I realize the template links to the NPOV article, but I fear many editors won't click that far. I see two possible solutions:
1) we could drop the reference to RS entirely, thereby (hopefully) forcing an editor to click the NPOV link.
or
2) we could add a brief linked list of proscribed edits within the template that promote POV pushing:
* tone/hype
* biased sources
* undo weight
* unsourced opinions
Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliable sources

message: At the top of this template, the word "Welcome!" should be made into a level 2 heading instead of just being bold text. This is done with many of the other welcome templates that I've seen. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Template:Welcome appears to be the same way, so this seems uncontroversial. Izno (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 2 April 2016