Maps, Directions, and Place Reviews
"Especially what you did for"
I raised this in 2009 to no response, and it's just struck me again while welcoming a user and thanking them "especially what you did for Morrissey", as if they did the man a personal favour. Sillier potential examples are left as an exercise to the reader. Wouldn't "especially your edits to" read better here? --McGeddon (talk) 14:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Convenience break for section editing
I have disabled this request again. Technical 13: your request is denied due to lack of consensus. The BRD process is not being ignored here, and no one else has supported your position. By all means continue to discuss (although this rapidly becoming a WP:DEADHORSE) but please do not activate the request again. -- Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- That is going to be a problem. I was unimpressed and as a reflex I delete attacking emails, so I no longer have them. I just don't want to get any more. So, let's fix the wording so that it doesn't happen again. I'm sure in a month or so I can re-enable my email (which is just going to be a pain to those that want to email me in the mean time).
Technical 13 - I provided an option several days ago and again yesterday, which would quite probably resolve the dispute here. It has been ignored. Please propose a parameter, switch or a way to change text (and suitably worded text) if an image is linked to, and we will get that added to the template. There are several ways forward which will please everybody on this page and you're not grasping that opportunity. You're the one that's good at template editing and the like, so what I'd like to see from you (assuming you still wish to resolve this issue) is a proposal to either detect if art=:File or art=:Image (i.e ({{subst:welcome|art=:File:Example.png}} ) is used and change the text to something like thank you for uploading the file Example.png, or alternatively, for a different parameter, such as img instead of art ({{subst:welcome|img=:File:Example.png}} which then gives the image specific wording. Cheers. Nick (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Welcome To The Team Email Template Video
Edit request
Just wanted to add autosign code to this template. Personally I use this template almost everyday to welcome new editors, and in some cases I just forget to sign after using it. In this case I think others will also support me. Many thanks. Jim Carter (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
~~<noinclude />~~</div><noinclude>
Here is the code. Thank you. Jim Carter (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Is the Simplified Manual of Style still preferred?
Art LaPella says here (permalink) the Simplified Manual of Style should be linked to, not the full MOS in order not to overwhelm newcomers with too many rules.
I have AWB rights and felt like mass-replacing all the links in Category:WikiProject-specific welcome templates from MOS -> SMOS. Would that be okay? Meteor sandwich yum (talk o contribs) 22:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- my concerns are how consistent is the SMOS with the full MOS and does the SMOS properly offer links to the full text version for each subsection? -- {{U|Technical 13}} (t o e o c) 23:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Linking to WP:Signpost
@The ed17: Regarding this edit, one of my guidelines for adding links to this template is to ask if the link is so important that if I only got to pick one or two pages for a new user to click on this would be one of them. Out of all the policy pages they could read, which ones are the most important? (The link to the 5 pillars.) What things are most confusing to new users? (Getting started, how to edit, etc.) While I agree with you that new editors should eventually be brought into the community, let's give them the milk before the meat. Most of them don't even know what a talk page or an edit summary is, let alone a signature. Reading about the latest Wikimedia Foundation news or Arbcom proceeding isn't going to help them with that. (This isn't meant to be a jab at Signpost, which I regard highly.) As for our editor retention problem, I'm not convinced that this will help. Personally I think people should edit for a while before they are introduced to "meta" areas. There's nothing as unhelpful in my opinion as the "helpful" commentators who have zero editing experience yet spend inordinate amounts of time socializing on user talk pages, weighing in at noticeboards, and "contributing" to other meta areas. Anyway, I won't revert again since we're bordering on WP:Wheel territory, but I'd invite discussion from you or anyone else on this matter. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Edit request: The link to WP:Signpost was boldly added last week and its removal was reverted before any discussion could take place here on the talk page. Since the instructions at the top of the template say, "Please do not make major or any changes (like adding new links) without first achieving a consensus on the talk page" and since a reading of the discussion above demonstrates that there is not consensus for adding the link, I'm asking that the link to Signpost be removed, pending a consensus here on the talk page. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Updated page to add here perhaps?
Could Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia be a page to add here? I have taken the time to fix the problems as outlined at Wikipedia talk:Contributing to Wikipedia/Archive 1#Reader feedback: This page is apparently supp.... It is now a much more useful page. Perhaps replace Getting started? The new page covers all a newbie will need to know. -- Moxy (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Coding update
We currently are using the {{Help me}} by saying ....."or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question." Perhaps best we do all the coding for the new editors. So replace the above in quotes with= "Or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. --Moxy (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
{{edit template-protected}} template. --cyberpower ChatOnline 07:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC) - Support This seems like a very reasonable change to me. It seems noncontroversial enough that if I had been responding to the edit request I would have just made the change. It definitely seems easier to me than trying to teach a newbie how to use a talk page, template, and sign, all at the same time. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- Support Per Adjwilley Mlpearc (open channel) 03:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- I support this concept too, but cyberpower's point is well taken. Taking the time to understand the template's usage and carefully implement changes is generally a good approach. The documentation says: "This template should always be substituted, i.e. use {{subst:Welcome}}. Any accidental transclusions will be automatically substituted by a bot.", yet this template is currently transcluded on 687 user talk pages. Does anyone know what bot may have automatically forced substitution? Should we use template coding to enforce substitution? Wbm1058 (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment regarding whether {{edit template-protected}} should be left on for this request while we are discussing it. I patrol Category:Wikipedia template-protected edit requests, and that is how I found this request. If the {{edit template-protected}} had been quickly turned off, I would have missed the discussion, as this template was not on my watchlist. I see no harm in leaving it turned on for a while, to attract the attention of others who might want to join the discussion, as an alternative to starting an RfC here. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the
{{edit template-protected}}template. As was pointed out in an earlier thread on this page, and as noted at WP:PER,{{edit protected}}shouldn't be added unless there is consensus for the proposed edit. Thus, it is in order to set|answered=yesif discussion is ongoing. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- In the spirit of WP:BOLD and WP:IAR I went ahead and made the edit myself. If anybody objects they can still say so, otherwise, we can skip some of the bureaucracy that would have eventually led to the same result. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Post-request cleanup
- The template was protected 23:31, 20 March 2005; reason: "very visible to many new users, protected from vandalism", after this 22:16, 20 March 2005 edit (warning, X-rated). It had nothing to do with being a "highly visible template affecting thousands of pages". Given that, any reasonable request that's not vandalism should probably be approved.
- Thanks, Redrose64, for pointing me to Template:ETp. Somehow I hadn't noticed that. Probably because I noticed Template:Done/See also first, and it never occurred to me that there might be another parallel set of "done or not" templates that almost borders on being a content fork. I see that based on Template talk:EP#Red crosses and bitiness, it was changed from a cross to an "i" for information, but in my opinion, the red color makes it still a bit "bitey". But that's a matter to be taken up on that talk page.
- This is documented as an always substituted template, and AnomieBOT is supposed to make sure that it is. It is only "highly visible" because it's transcluded on several hundred pages when it's not really supposed to be. I'll fix that, as discussed above. Once that's done, a change won't actually effect any pages until the new version of the template is saved by an editor, and presumably they would catch the vandalism in preview before it landed on the newbie's talk page.
--Wbm1058 (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Requirement to watch?
The documentation currently states:
But that contradicts Help:Watching pages#Controlling which pages are watched, which states, "Because no one owns any article, there is no requirement to watch articles you have created or contributed to, so you are not expected to check to see whether your edits have been vandalised, challenged (e.g., for lack of sources), discussed on the article's talk page, and so forth. The only page you are expected to keep an eye on is your own talk page."
What happens to a user talk page after the user has been welcomed is not and should not be the responsibility of the welcomer. Therefore, can we remove the warning that tells people they must watch any user page they add the {{welcome}} template to? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Typo
I noticed a typo on this page - in the parentheses for the last parameter, "notalk=y", the text reads, "no sure why anyone would want to...". Clearly, this should read, "not sure why anyone would want to..." I hit edit and changed "no" to "not", but for some reason, it still appears as "no". When you look at the page in edit mode though, the text now reads "not". Does anyone know what's going on here? --Jpcase (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Should we include the Wikipedia Adventure in this template?
I think it would be a good idea to include a link to the The Wikipedia Adventure in this template. I have never tried TWA (I know almost all that it teaches, after all), but I've read that it has a very high approval rating among newcomers who have used it. Putting a link to it in this highly used template would be very beneficial. --Biblioworm 20:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- I Strongly support this proposal and suggest Biblioworm sandbox it so that we can see where they think it should go. -- {{U|Technical 13}} (e o t o c) 20:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Technical 13: I've come up with a rough idea of the wording and where it would go. You can see my changes here. --Biblioworm 21:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Biblioworm, looks fine to me. Should it be worded so neutrally for that or should it say that it is encouraged or recommended to take WP:TWA? As the point person for TWA, I'm also interested in what Ocaasi thinks of this idea. -- {{U|Technical 13}} (e o t o c) 22:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- It might also be a good idea to post at the Welcoming Committee's talk page and get some opinions there. --Biblioworm 22:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- I suggested something similar a while ago. However, the Adventure seems to be in an inactive phase at present: Noyster (talk), 09:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Based on this, I'm interested in thoughts from J-Mo as well. -- {{U|Technical 13}} (e o t o c) 15:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- I suggested something similar a while ago. However, the Adventure seems to be in an inactive phase at present: Noyster (talk), 09:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- It might also be a good idea to post at the Welcoming Committee's talk page and get some opinions there. --Biblioworm 22:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Biblioworm, looks fine to me. Should it be worded so neutrally for that or should it say that it is encouraged or recommended to take WP:TWA? As the point person for TWA, I'm also interested in what Ocaasi thinks of this idea. -- {{U|Technical 13}} (e o t o c) 22:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Technical 13: I've come up with a rough idea of the wording and where it would go. You can see my changes here. --Biblioworm 21:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Hey folks, TWA is very much still live, it's just the bot that has paused invites. I think it would be awesome and excellent to add TWA to the welcome template--that's exactly the kind of exposure and targeted outreach we wanted when we built it. Please let me know if you have questions or mockup ideas you want to run by me. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 07:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 24 January 2015
After a discussion at WP:VPPR, I think the consensus to place a link to the The Wikipedia Adventure is rather clear. See Template:Welcome/sandbox to see where the link should go. Thanks! --Biblioworm 22:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
{{U|Technical 13}} (e o t o c) 15:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC){{U|Technical 13}} (e o t o c) 15:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC) Add the Missing Manual
So, I just discovered that Book:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual exists. It seems like that would be a good addition to this template. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia Adventure nominated for deletion
Hi, I'm notifying you of a discussion because The Wikipedia Adventure is included in the Welcome Template and it has been nominated for deletion. You can comment here: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Adventure_(2nd_nomination). Cheers, Jake Ocaasi t | c 15:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
noClickHere
Please find some way to not say "click" or "here". http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/noClickHere
Any suggestions for new wording? Thanks! --Jeremyb (talk) 03:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 28 May 2016
I have implemented a change in the template's sandbox that makes it skip adding an extra dot after the article name if it already ends in one. nyuszika7h (talk) 10:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 19 July 2016
I would like to suggest adding short instructions on how to create a new section on a talk page, as many new editors I've encountered only know to click "Edit source" and post without making a new section, sometimes at the very top of the page. If possible, I would like it to be added to at least the welcome templates used by Twinkle. I am unaware if there are any other welcome templates not used by Twinkle.
Gestrid (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 25 July 2016
The notice begins with "Hello, Welcome, and welcome to Wikipedia". Is there a reason for the first "Welcome" to be present? Why not just say "Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia", which removes a redundancy? Mooseandbruce1 (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
PAGENAME directly without detecting its own page as a special case, and it's generally understood that it will be replaced, even though the template page itself can be confusing to editors seeing it for the first time. Perhaps a better solution is to put "Example" in noinclude, and includeonly the BASEPAGENAME. If someone else does incorporate the current sandbox changes, no problem whatsoever though, but I don't think any action needs to be taken right now. -- Andy W. (talk · ctb) 18:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC) Edit request: four tildes wrapped by zero-width space
Please add zero-width spaces (​)around the four tildes to allow for easy copy-pasting. Without zwsp: (~~~~). With zwsp: (~~~~). Bright? 14:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Edit request: unnecessary capital T in "the Teahouse"
In "You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help", the word "the" is unnecessarily capitalized. The Teahouse page itself does not capitalize the article ("Welcome to the Teahouse", "Learn more about the Teahouse", "Newer questions will now appear at the bottom of the Teahouse"). For reference, the AP Stylebook recommends capitalizing the article only if the entity in question capitalizes it when referring to itself, which it does not in this case. AP's advice is geared more toward capitalizing the names of businesses, publications, and musical groups, but it's about as close as any style guide will come to addressing this situation, I think. In the phrase "the Teahouse", the article should only be capitalized if other circumstances require it, e.g. if it occurs at the beginning of a sentence. dalahäst (let's talk!) 04:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Source of the article : Wikipedia
EmoticonEmoticon