Template talk:Welcome

The Wordpress Plugin that DOUBLED My Conversions

src: inboundable.com

Video Template talk:Welcome

"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)

It looks like we've tried to change it more recently as well, and that failed due to some technical issues. The only (minor) problem I wee with "your edits to" would be if the contributor had only made one edit. Let's see if anybody else has an opinion on this. (If others like it, I'll make the change.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I've added it to the template, seeing as there were no objections. -- Mr. Stradivarius ^{? talk ?} 00:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm requesting this be undone. Not everything done for an article is an edit. It coulod be a reuload of a file to a better or free version, it could be a modification to a template or module that results in an improvement to a specific page, it could be moving a page to a better title or protecting it. "especially what you did for" is more appropriate and accurate. -- {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t o e o c)} 13:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: I think we need a slightly wider consensus before we can revert, as we have two editors in favour of the edit commenting above, and McGeddon has a good point about "what you did for" sounding like a personal favour. If more editors would like this reverted, please reactivate the {{Edit protected}} template. -- Mr. Stradivarius ^{? talk ?} 09:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: Mr. Stradivarius (or any other admin), this was a BOLD edit that was carried out upon request, and I'm requesting be REVERTed. There was no consensus for this change (stating that it requires a consensus to revert is ludicrous), so please revert it as the BRD process dictates and lets properly DISCUSS it. -- {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t o e o c)} 11:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the scope of this discussion, I think the suggested wording works. @Technical 13:@Mr. Stradivarius:, it is highly unlikely that a new user would be involved in reloading a file. As per modifying a template, it's still an edit. Don't be too technical (haha). --JustBerry (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. "especially your edits to ..." is just fine as it is. We only use the article name here if the user has actually edited an article; if they did something that indirectly alters an article - such as uploading a file or amending a template, we wouldn't put the article name here but the file or template name. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a request to follow the BRD process. Changing the text was a bold edit, I disagree with the edit and there is no consensus, therefor the edit should be reverted. Then, we can discuss it. Unless you are proposing that we IAR and not use the BRD process anymore, then please follow the policy and revert this disputed change. Thank you. -- {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e o t o c)} 19:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

As per @Redrose64:'s comment, please do not put the edit request until a consensus has been formed via @Technical 13:'s method. Thanks. --JustBerry (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

JustBerry, you seem to be missing the point here. There was a bold edit made by Mr. Stradivarius for McGeddon due to the fact that the template is fully protected. I'm a contesting this change as the new wording is inaccurate and confusing and if it was not for the full page protection, I would have reverted it myself. Because there is full protection, it is an administrators' task to revert the controversial change back to the original state until discussion has occurred and there is a clear consensus. Again, there was no consensus for changing "especially what you did for" to "especially your edits to" and I am asking for its reversion. Thank you. -- {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e o t o c)} 22:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Technical 13 Okay, I will be calling an administrator here momentarily. Although I agree with Mr. Stradivarius's, I agree with your argument. --JustBerry (talk) 22:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

JustBerry asked for my assistance here. The change to the template makes sense. I wasn't aware the template said Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for <ArticleName> but had I been, I would have undertaken a change myself. The previous wording is clearly problematic given some of the article titles out there. We don't want to welcome people with a phrase such as Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for gang rape as an example. The new wording may need further refinement, but going back to the previous wording shouldn't even be considered, I'm afraid. Nick (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Nick, then change it to something else. I'm tired of getting complaints from new editors via email that uploaded an image and got thanked for an edit to a page they have never touched. They are confused and confusing new editors like this is a bad idea. Maybe the best thing to do is to just get rid of that entire clause until a proper wording that addresses all the situations can be found. -- {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e o t o c)} 23:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Technical 13: Sorry to interfere, but I would suggest you cite specific examples on Wikipedia and ping Nick (or another admin). This way, your issue is clearly highlighted. --JustBerry (talk) 23:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I did ping Nick, and please do not close this request until the issue has been dealt with... The current wording is disruptive and needs to be removed, changed, or reverted. -- {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e o t o c)} 23:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Technical 13 - The usage of the template suggests it shouldn't be used to thank people for uploading a file. The instructions do say Article the user positively contributed to:. If the template is being used to thank people for uploading a file, could we set up the template to either detect and switch the thank you phrase if File:/Image: is added instead of an article, or using a different switch |file= instead of |art= to display appropriate text about uploading files. Nick (talk) 00:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Mr. Stradivarius's edit was that "bold" of an edit. There had been an edit request template hanging there for 2 months, with two editors (myself included) supporting the edit, and nobody opposing it. So far I haven't seen anything that comes close to convincing me that the "what you did for" wording is better than "your edits to". I don't recall seeing this template used for people whose first edit was a file, and I think it's safe to say that that it's much much more frequently used to thank people whose first edit was to, say, a biography. (Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Barack Obama :-) @Technical, could you provide examples of new users who have been improperly thanked with this template? If it's a problem, another fix might be to educate the users who are doing the thanking. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you are missing what I'm saying. They are being thanked for what they did for a page that is reflecting a file that they uploaded a newer and more clear image for. Perhaps "Thank you for your contributions, especially what your actions did for the article <ArticleName>" would be more neutral... It doesn't claim they edited a page, just that something they did was positively reflected on that article. It also addresses the other concern of it not being clear enough that their edit was to an article... Let's play it out for all the hypothetical scenarios above:

..., especially what your actions did for the article Morrissey
..., especially what your actions did for the article gang rape
..., especially what your actions did for the article Barack Obama

Looks much better to me... -- {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e o t o c)} 13:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

If they uploaded a file, they should be thanked for uploading a file. If they edited an article, they should be thanked for editing an article. I don't see why they should be thanked for editing an article if they uploaded a file. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

(Minor clarification, for what it's worth: my March comment wasn't an edit request, I was just raising the odd wording for discussion. Technical13 put an editrequest template at the very top of the section when requesting that Mr. Stradivarius's bold edit be reverted.) --McGeddon (talk) 17:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Convenience break for section editing

They're being thanked for improving the article, not for editing it. Since there was no consensus for the original change, something needs to be done here. My consensus for this ticket being open until there is a resolution is the BRD process itself, which incidentally is being ignored here. -- {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e o t o c)} 17:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

@Technical 13: I have two problems with the wording "especially what your actions did for the article..." The first is that thanking somebody for what their actions did makes me cringe. The second is that the last time something like this was proposed (see above at #Edit_request_February_2013) it would have been problematic for people whose first edits were to a list, not an article (eg. "especially what you did for the article List of sovereign states"). Pinging @PinkAmpersand: who was the person who was attempting to fix this last time and may be able to offer additional input. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

List of sovereign states is still an article. It just happens to be an article that is a list. Also along the same lines, stubs and dabs are also articles despite the minimal content. A File: is not an article, a Draft: is not an article, a Template: or Module: is not an article. If it is in namespace 0 (article space), then it is an article or it should be moved to the appropriate namespace. The firefighter that pulls a baby out of a burning building is called a hero by the community because of their actions, why does that make you cringe? -- {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e o t o c)} 18:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: actions: It's more grammatical than anything. Using your example, it was the firefighter that pulled the baby out of the burning building. We would never say that the firefighter's actions pulled the baby out of the burning building. Actions don't just do stuff on their own. I'm too far removed from my high school English classes to say what exactly is wrong with it, but it just doesn't feel right.

Following up from above, you may be right about what is an article, though I don't think it always works that way in practice...for example we have featured articles and featured lists. Also, would you mind providing a few examples of users who have been improperly thanked with the current template? ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Adjwilley, I almost think I understand what you are saying, but since the wording is "your actions" instead of "your action's actions", it is the user's actions, not the action's actions. So, I'm confused by that. We are thanking the user for what they did (even if it was indirect). As far as providing the emails I have received of confused new editors, I'm afraid that would violate the privacy policy and would constitute OUTING and since I'm an account creator I don't want to take any chances and get caught up in that at all. -- {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e o t o c)} 19:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't wanting copies of the emails, just links to talk pages of the users in question, or diffs of the welcome template being added. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

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)

Yes, there was a lack of consensus to make the initial edit. Please honor the BRD and revert that edit that there was no consensus for. Thank you. -- {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e o t o c)} 11:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

(Yawn.) I've replied on your talk page. -- Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I made a suggestion about either using a different switch for files, or having the template detect whether the link is to article or file, and changing the text accordingly. Could we have proposals on how to implement that, as it would suit both sides of the argument here. Thanks, Nick (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Out of interest, could this not be potentially offensive: "thank you for what you did for discrimination", or other such article? Thanks, Matty.007 16:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

@Matty.007: That is what prompted this edit in the first place. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Since the wording that is causing me to get harassed via email is apparently here to stay forever, I've been forced to disable the ability to email me. I shouldn't have to deal with that kind of harassment over such stupidity. Please remove the parameter altogether or fix the wording so it isn't confusing to new editors. -- {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e o t o c)} 17:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Adjwilley: I'm just not entirely sure what the argument here's about. Thanks, Matty.007 17:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

@Technical 13: I'm confused. Perhaps I misunderstand your position here. Would it be correct to say that you wish the wording of this template to remain general enough that it can be used for thanking new editors for improving articles they haven't actually edited? (For instance, thanking someone for improving an article that uses a file they uploaded?) Two other things confuse me, 1, Why are you the one who is getting all these emails from confused new users, and 2, why haven't you provided any examples of new users who have been improperly thanked? I've asked you four times ([1] [2] [3] [4]) for examples and you still haven't given any. If I thought that this were a problem I would revert Mr. Stradivarius's edit myself, but you simply haven't offered any evidence. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Technical 13: You have several times mentioned emails, without actually stating what the content of those emails is, who they came from (you needn't provide the email address, just the Wikipedia login ID), nor how you believe that they are being sent to you. I'm curious, because I have welcomed many users in the past - sometimes with {{subst:welcome}}, sometimes {{subst:welcomemenu}} or {{subst:welcome-anon}}, but I have never once received an email as a result. I have the "Allow other users to email me" and "Send me copies of emails I send to other users" settings enabled, but not "Email me when a page or a file on my watchlist is changed" which probably doesn't affect the matter. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I've disabled being able to email me through the Wikipedia interface, so I'm no longer getting emails. I've welcomed about 800-900 people (as I'm an account creator, although not all of my welcomes are results of me creating an account. I've even welcomed IP addresses instead of warning to avoid being BITEy. Asking me to sift through my 4,708+ User talk space edits to find the diff were I left a welcome message thanking for someone for their contribution of a file that improved an article is a little ridiculous. I've already mentioned what the contents of the email are, "Why am I being thanked for edits to an article I never touched" and my reply was "because the image you uploaded improved that article" and I received back "Well all you wikipedia assholes shouldn't be confusing people by thanking them for something incidental that happened as a result of updating a file... blah blah blah..." I am tired of this discussion. It was a simple request to revert an edit that was made boldly without consensus, and I'm tired of getting crap about trying to follow the established processes. -- {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e o t o c)} 18:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

In which case it's your own fault for naming the wrong page in the welcome message. If they uploaded a file, you should have thanked them for uploading the file, not for editing an article. That is not something that can be fixed by editing the template. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

No, Redrose, I thanked them "for what they did for <article>", not for editing the article. The template was edited without consensus which caused the issue. Either way, let's not get off track trying to point blame at anyone. Let's just fix the root issue, which is this parameter of this template isn't "just for edits" to articles. It is for any action that improves the article. So, let's fix the wording. Adding another parameter will never happen because the Twinkle people will cry and will revert it because they don't want to update Twinkle for the new usage (I ran into this problem when trying to update this template to auto-sign (which has subsequently been requested again) and bring it in-line with many of the other welcome templates). -- {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e o t o c)} 18:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

If they edit a template, one which is used on more than one article (most of them are), which article do you thank them for "editing"? All of them? Just one (which one)? Or none? I suspect that it's none, and that's what should be done if they edit another page, such as an image, which isn't an article. Remember, images don't necessarily get used on one single article - English Wikipedia does have a one-article minimum (otherwise it's either eligible for WP:CSD#F5 if non-free, or WP:FFD [under "Orphan - The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia."] if free-use) but it doesn't have a maximum. Therefore, you cannot be certain which article they had in mind when they uploaded the image. If, after uploading, they then add it to one (or more) specific article, then by all means thank them for editing that article, but please don't try to use the template for something that it was not intended for. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Please link the documentation that says this parameter can ONLY be used for edits to articles and not for ANY other purpose. -- {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e o t o c)} 20:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I should also note that "actions" is part of the MediaWiki interface (See Special:ActiveUsers that lists people by their "actions" in the last 30 days. (as set in MediaWiki:Activeusers-count)). I don't find this strange at all and it is much more accurate. -- {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e o t o c)} 20:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

So, this template should be worded so that it makes sense when being used to welcome a user for any action they might take. -- {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e o t o c)} 20:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Once again, you're twisting my words. Nowhere did I say that "this parameter can ONLY be used for edits to articles and not for ANY other purpose". What I said was not to name an article if the edit was not to an article. If the edit was to an image, thank them for editing the image. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You do realize how strange that would read, right? "especially your edits to "... Looks fairly broken to me... I still think that I should be able to thank them for what they did for an article (that is the only article that a fair-use image is on). -- {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e o t o c)} 22:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I've only welcomed someone once or twice, so please tell me if I'm missing something basic. If you say {{subst:welcome|art=:File:Example.png}} (notice the colon after art=) it comes out "... especially your edits to File:Example.png", so could you use that? Art LaPella (talk) 02:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

It'd be open to the same thing. They didn't edit the picture. They uploaded a new picture they found that was taken with a higher resolution camera. They would then ask if they were being accused of making a hoax or doctoring the image in Photoshop or something. the word "edit" need to come out. -- {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e o t o c)} 11:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

@Technical 13, no need to sift through all your contributions looking for a diff. Just open one of the abusive emails that was sent to you, scroll down to where it says, "This email was sent by user "Foo" on the English Wikipedia", copy the username, and paste it here. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:58, 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)

Maps Template talk:Welcome

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)

Not done: @Jim Cartar: this would break Twinkle, which signs this (and other) welcome templates automatically. You would need to get a consensus at WT:Twinkle to make this change, but it's probably better if you just start using Twinkle for welcoming new users yourself. -- Mr. Stradivarius ^{? talk ?} 00:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't use Twinkle, I use my moblie phone to contribute here and it is a tough job for me to use twinkle since Wikipedia Vs. Small screen. But I will make a custom welcome template in this case. Thank you for your suggestion. Jim Carter ^(talk) 06:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: I support this request as this is one of a minority of welcoming templates that do not autosign. It is inconsistent with the majority of the rest of welcoming templates and is therefor confusing. -- {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t o e o c)} 13:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey friends, @Technical 13 and Mr. Stradivarius: I have created another version of Welcome template ({{Wela}}) which have autosign. From now users who manually uses this template can use {{Wela}} instead. Users who don't use Twinkle, don't have Javascript enable in there web browsers example: Internet explorer < 6 can use this template. I just wanted someone to place a short note about this template on the doc page of this template so that others can know about this. Many thanks. Jim Carter ^(talk) 19:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

You can go ahead and add it to the documentation - it isn't protected. -- Mr. Stradivarius ^{? talk ?} 09:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind whether the template auto-signs or not, as long as edits to it don't break Twinkle. -- Mr. Stradivarius ^{? talk ?} 09:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

src: simpleisbetterthancomplex.com

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)

Btw, it's still on this page: #Simplified Manual of Style.

It's an easier-to-digest version that functions like an index; it seems to cover all the basic points and links to them with "read more..." links to the analogous section of the analogous section, as well as Tony1's beginner guide and the full MOS.

I saw Art LaPella go around in the supercategory, Category:Welcome templates, and swap them out for certain templates in 2012, e.g. Welcome! and Welcome to Wikipedia.

Interestingly, the replacement to this template, {{Welcome}}, had the accompanying editsummary

Simplified Manual of Style. See Template talk:Welcome#Simplified Manual of Style. We don't all agree on the details, but there is a consensus that something like this should be done.

Just an idea. Meteor sandwich yum (talk o contribs) 23:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The new software notifies me when somebody mentions me. "how consistent is the SMOS with the full MOS and does the SMOS properly offer links to the full text version for each subsection?" Well I think so, but as the original author I'm biased. If you find anything inconsistent with the full MOS I would like to know. And the "read more" links go to more information in the MOS. Art LaPella (talk) 05:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Based on Art's response, I support using the SMOS for this. -- {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e o t o c)} 18:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Argh. I'm asking for a second opinion from the folks at Wikipedia talk:Welcoming Committee. If they have no comments, I'll go ahead. I feel a bit timid changing 238 welcoming messages all of a sudden. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Doing... meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

src: marketplace.softpress.com

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)

Agree not a useful link for starters. The template {{Help navigation}} would be more useful as a footer.-- Moxy (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, primarily because we're not just an outlet for WMF/Arbcom news. We have interesting tidbits like the Traffic report, which new editors can easily understand, and Featured content, which highlights some of Wikipedia's best content and is now used at Portal:Featured content. Getting editors motivated to edit is one of our biggest challenges, and bringing them into the community could play (in my mind) a large part in doing so. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

A better link would be Wikipedia:Community portal (a page that actually has content to work on) no need to link to news in the welcome help template. Many more links would be more appropriate in this welcoming people template. Not helpful to send new editors on a wild-goose chase to a page that does not help them in any manner or link to any info on how to help/edit. -- Moxy (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I actually prefer having as few links as possible on this default welcome template. We don't know how much the average newbie will read, and a long bullet list of unfamiliar links is probably going to be a turnoff. (Users wanting to leave more links can use other templates such as {{Welcomeg}}, which already includes a link to the Community portal and Signpost incidentally.) Also, just fyi, the Community portal is linked from page two of Wikipedia:Introduction, so it's not completely inaccessible to new users via this template. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:58, 31 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)

Done Judging from this section there doesn't seem to be a consensus to add the link yet, so I have reverted. If a consensus develops as a result of further discussion, feel free to re-add it or to reactivate this edit request. -- Mr. Stradivarius ^{? talk ?} 00:42, 2 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)

Question: Hello Moxy, I tinkered around with a few different places to pop it in there and settled on moving introduction up one line and inserting it below that. Please take a look and if that works for you as well, please mark this request as {{subst:EP|done}} and set the |ans= or |answered= parameter to |answered=yes. Thanks! -- {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e o t o c)} 20:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you took a long time to update Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia but I think it is now the parent article on how, where and what people can do. At the very lest is the most up-to-date page-- Moxy (talk) 21:13, 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)

I see this idea comes from the "I'm stuck" section of Help:Contents, where the fourth line says:

Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there!

That link preloads a new section on the editor's talk page with the Help:Contents subpage Help:Contents/helpmepreload. Perhaps for more generalized usage, the preload file should be moved to Template:Help me/preload. - Wbm1058 (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. --cyberpower ^Chat_Online 07:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Its now on more more then 3000 pages ..its the new norm all over and is why its on our "Main" help pages. What more consensus is needed? Never mind will get someone familiar with this to fix it in a few days. -- Moxy (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Well I don't see these 3000 pages, and someone more familiar doesn't mean neutral, nor does placing it on 3000 pages establish a consensus for it inclusion to this template. If there is a consensus, link me to it. But given that I'm seeing supports coming in, I think you should just leave it to sit here, and let people comment.--cyberpower ^Chat_Online 09:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense...better safe than sorry. Though for a template like this, if the change seems positive, doesn't break anything, and doesn't have anybody opposing it, I say go ahead and make the change. (In my opinion, it's not protected because everybody's trying to make controversial changes...it's protected against vandals trying to make a big splash and well-intentioned editors breaking things with coding errors, neither of which seem to be the case here.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:21, 21 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)
My rule I follow is, anything that changes the current output, function, or appearance of currently applied use of this template, is controversial. Let's not forget that making a change to highly visible templates affects thousands of pages. So gathering a consensus to a seemingly uncontroversial, but still possibly controversial change, is IMHO the better choice.--cyberpower ^Chat_Online 09:08, 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)
I believe User:AnomieBOT does that.--cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
But searching User:AnomieBOT/TaskList for the string "welcome", I come up empty. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
User:AnomieBOT/source/tasks/TemplateSubster.pm Is the source code for the task.--cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I see. This 9 September 2013 edit added |auto=yes to {{subst only}}. AnomieBOT 45 "subst templates in Category:Wikipedia templates to be automatically substituted", and Template:Welcome is in that category. Which begs the question, why are there still over 600 transclusions? Wbm1058 (talk) 15:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh. Per User:AnomieBOT/docs/TemplateSubster, "To prevent disruption, AnomieBOT will also not subst any template that has over 100 transclusions unless that template is linked from User:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force." - Wbm1058 (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding "making a change to highly visible templates affects thousands of pages", if the template is substituted, as I think it should be, then changes will not affect old welcomes, which will remain unchanged. Only new welcomes will show the new message. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:56, 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)

Agree, this would be a good usage note at {{edit template-protected/doc}} Mlpearc (open channel) 16:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The not-on-watchlist problem is easily resolved: add User:AnomieBOT/PERTable, User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable and User:AnomieBOT/SPERTable to your watchlist, and you will be informed of new protected edit requests within a few minutes. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:14, 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=yes if discussion is ongoing. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

What is the problem here - there is no objections here as of yet. As has been explained before this is the new norm to help editor get it right. Those of us that work on Help pages have made this change all over but here (because its locked). Where can this be found? On our main help page Help:Contents, on our main Request pages Wikipedia:Requests, Wikipedia:Questions, Wikipedia:Ask for help on our Help talk header {{Help project}} on our main Help template {{Help navigation}} and a few other help type page. We are trying to make it easier for new editors. Those of us that actually work on help and how to pages see that this works much better. This here is a prefect example of how our bureaucracy is impeding progress. I think its clear that a link over copy and pasting a template a new user has no clue how to work is easier....would have to be blind not to notice is a positive change. Why the hell we would closes the conversation is beyond me...even when others have asked to have it remain open. -- Moxy (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't close the conversation, I deactivated the edit request. Please see WP:PER#Procedure, point 1. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

It says that step 1 can be omitted for uncontroversial changes. That seems to be the case here. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Was not directed at you Redrose64 it was a general statement that bureaucracy is impeding progress again ..killing the conversation with procedure even in the light of no objections! I cant say it loud enough - no objection anywhere about implementing this coding on templates, articles and talk pages anywhere. Be bold -dont be afraid to implement things that are obviously an improvement especially if they already have established history on parent articles of the same nature. Its not about Wikipedia:Ignore all rules..its about common-sense and avoiding Red tape. Its just disappointing to have the word of an editor like me with almost a decade of experience here questioned - why the hell would I lie.--Moxy (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I just tested this on my talk, what a no-brainer, with the pre-load it's a walk in the park (just what a newbie needs). Mlpearc (open channel) 22:09, 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)
I have objections to that. I don't mind people making bold edits, but I reiterate that making them to protected highly visible templates can cause disruption, if someone just as bold decides to revert. I would've liked to see the discussion go on for a day or 2 first. But what's done is done.--cyberpower ^Chat_Online 07:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
This discussion demonstrates that there are obvious issues with the protected-template edit-request procedure. Putting that {{Not done}} template--uh, File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg, it's not even a template, but a lowercase "i" rather than an "x" supposedly makes it more friendly?--in the middle of a discussion to determine consensus, which imports an undue level of finality to the discussion, is a distraction to the discussion itself. I'll point out that the difference between an edit request and a requested move may not be clear to everyone. Imagine someone shutting down a {{requested move}} because consensus had not been determined yet! The whole purpose of that template is to start a discussion with the goal of determining a consensus. Here we treat everything as a WP:RM/TR and provide no formal means for dealing with potentially controversial requests. This issue should be taken up at Template talk:edit template-protected. Note that this procedural discussion hijacked the conversation so much that I never got around to mentioning that I had put my suggested alternative message in the template sandbox. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually all edit-protected requests are like that. But when it comes to template protected pages, I handle them a little stricter. When I ask for consensus for something that can possibly be flagged as controversial, I want to be able to point to a discussion to back the edit, so no one screams ABUSE, and starts needless drama on Wikipedia. I also check that it works, and if needed, want a sandbox version and test use cases, old and new.--cyberpower ^Chat_Online 16:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It is a template, but it's always substed: {{subst:ETp|c}} to be exact. It has been the normal practice since before I began handling WP:PER requests that the {{edit protected}} (or similar) gets added after consensus has been achieved. "please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template" does not mean "this will not be done and this decision is final", it means "I am not going to do this at this stage, but once it has been shown that the proposal is both beneficial and desirable, it may well be done later on". --Redrose64 (talk) 17:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It really getting confusing here, we have two discussions intertwined here, please lets close the original request, as Adjwilley has already made the change in regards to the original request. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

OK. This section could use a little dose of WP:IAR, in my opinion. But, to "officially" close the "original request": Done by Adjwilley, and I endorse their judgement. -- Now we are free for a little "post-request cleanup", to be continued below. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:19, 28 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)

Small comment about #3...I imagine this template has a fairly high rate of being substituted, several times per minute at the very least, as it's the default template used by Twinkle. Imagine the scenario of sneaky vandalism or linkspam or even simple template breakage...it gets left up for 5-10 minutes here before somebody reverts it, and during that time it gets substituted onto the user talk pages of a hundred new users. Now imagine trying to track down all those substituted templates to fix them. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Adjwilley: OK, that makes sense, and is a good reason for keeping it protected. I just noticed that User:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force is fully protected, can you add this template to that page, at least temporarily until the transclusions are substituted? Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 00:58, 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)

@Metropolitan90: All articles are pages, but not all pages are articles. A requirement to watch a page is therefore not a requirement to watch an article: there is no contradiction. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I see what you are saying with regard to the first quoted sentence, but the part I quoted above also says, "The only page you are expected to keep an eye on is your own talk page" (emphasis added). I also don't understand why a requirement would be imposed to watch the user talk page of any user you welcome. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

If the new user fails to follow the instructions exactly, they may reply on their own talk page in a way that is not readily noticed unless someone is watching the page. Isn't it reasonable to expect the welcomer to notice and be in a position to respond? After all, nobody makes us welcome new users, so if we're not able to commit to follow-up if required, we could leave the welcoming to others. This is not to suggest, however, that there should be a requirement to watch the new user's talk page for all time. Once they have some experience, the welcomer could probably use discretion and stop watching. - Wdchk (talk) 19:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

There are two or three user talk pages on my watchlist that I want to unwatch, but don't have the heart to. They are users who never communicate elsewhere: I've tried to explain about article talk pages, WikiProject talk pages, Help desk, Pumps, etc. but they never post to those. If I hadn't watched the page when welcoming, their comments like "There's an error at Foo, the coordinates are 200 miles too far west / the railway station opened in 1983 not in 1389 / the page should actually be named Bar", would go unnoticed, unreplied and unactioned. Possibly for eternity - the page information shows just two watchers - one is me, I guess the other is themselves. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:06, 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)

@Jpcase: Changes to a template's documentation aren't refreshed immediately. You can force an update by clicking the "[purge]" link - it's top right of the green "Template documentation" box, after the "[view] [edit] [history]" links. More at WP:PURGE. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That took care of it. --Jpcase (talk) 21:16, 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)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ 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)

I support this. I think it's a much better and more structured than the introduction. @Biblioworm: I think you should set up an edit request for this so it can be seen by an administrator. Darylgolden^(talk) 05:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

(For some reason, I didn't receive the ping.) I'm not sure that this has gained sufficient consensus yet, as it appears that some people feel that the TWA is too childish. Seeing that people of all ages and education levels get welcomed with the same template, it would take wide agreement to implement this. I might take this to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). --Biblioworm 19:16, 6 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)

As a WP:template editor, I have no objection, and could make the change, however, I would like the issue I raised in Wikipedia talk:TWA/Welcome to be addressed before making this change which would give the Adventure more visibility. We want to make a good first impression, so this experience should be bug-free. Either make the "easy fix" by copying the box with corrections to Wikipedia:TWA/Welcome, or make the slightly more difficult fix by making changes to MediaWiki:Guidedtour-tour-twa1.js. There isn't even a sandbox mechanism for this, so it could be a bit tedious for me to have to make an edit request to perform each sandbox test edit, particularly if it would take me more than a couple tests to get it right. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: So...how do we get these changes made? --Biblioworm 01:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I added a request to edit Wikipedia talk:TWA/Welcome. These should be done as a package. Hoping it isn't speedily closed with a request that I get a consensus for it first. Hold it open for a technically-oriented admin to implement. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Please clarify the status of this request. There doesn't seem to be much happening at Wikipedia talk:TWA/Welcome. Next time, it's probably easier discussing all related changes in one place! -- Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that. The other request predates this one, and the editor making the request here wasn't aware of the other request. I just pinged Ocaasi, the WMF's Jake Orlowitz, who is the lead developer of the Adventure, to get their response about how to proceed. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

As a template editor, I'm uncertain if I should be making the change or waiting. This request, and the things surrounding it are a bit fuzzy.--^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 14:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Already done I made the change. The only objection was pending a change requested on Wikipedia talk:TWA/Welcome which has been marked as done. -- {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e o t o c)} 15:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Undone: This request has been undone. *sigh* The request template was closed, and I didn't see the "not done" because the person that added it didn't make sure it was at the start of the line or the indentation got nerfed by parsoid or something. Either way, I've self reverted after discovering this until that is completed. I think there is plenty of consensus for that request to be done between this discussion and the one on VPT. -- {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e o t o c)} 15:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Wbm1058 and User:Technical 13. Thanks for your moving this through template welcome and suggesting changes. I tried whatever you suggested Wbm and couldn't get it to work so I went back a step. I'm also avoiding changing the javascript as it can take me a lot of time to get right. I want to be clear that you are both free to do anything that fixes this issue, with my approval, with your template editor status, (and I just now changed the protection). Sorry for being a bottleneck and please have at it! Jake Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Done I made my "quick-and-dirty" bug-fix change to Wikipedia:TWA/Welcome as well, after the protection level was lowered so I could do it myself, so everything should be happy now. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:56, 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)

I boldly removed the "click here", as suggested. I think it's fair to assume new users can figure it out. Ping me if you have issues with my change, or feel free to change or revert if you have TE or admin privileges. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 04:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I have TE actually, but didn't want to do it totally alone. (and also didn't want to get out the computer) anyway, watchlisted, will see what happens. --Jeremyb (talk) 05:10, 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)

Done by Wbm1058. nyuszika7h (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I was surprised to find we actually have over 17 thousand pages meeting this criteria (though many are disambiguation pages). You can thank "soccer team naming conventions" ;)

Manchester United F.C.
High Wycombe F.C.
Life on Venus Ave.

Just some examples. wbm1058 (talk) 11:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I was not aware that is the convention, looks rather unusual to me, I'm used to undotted "FC" - though I don't follow football so much. nyuszika7h (talk) 11:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know which is more common, but I think FC without stops is also used a lot. Another common reason for titles meeting the criteria is "Juniors", e.g. Quintin E. Primo, Jr. - wbm1058 (talk) 12:00, 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)

Needs discussion @Gestrid: I'm deactivating the request template for now. Please establish a consensus and develop the actual wording you would like to add or change before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. As to the actual idea, I personally feel that it is unnecessary clutter in an already cluttered template, but I am just one voice in the crowd. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ahecht: Point taken. Something like that may be a little too specific for a welcome message, actually. -- Gestrid (talk) 18:15, 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)

Not done Mooseandbruce1 that only appears that way on this page, because the page's pagename is "Welcome" - when applied to user talk pages (its normal use) that word is replaced by the username. -- xaosflux ^Talk 17:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I made it use "Example" when displayed on this page. Please implement the changes from the template's sandbox. nyuszika7h (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: The issue now is, for a page like "User talk:Welcome", they would be welcomed as "Example", which is not the intended effect. In any case though, I added safesubst:s so that when the template is simplified, the #ifs and template guts go away. The effective diff is this. -- Andy W. (talk · ctb) 17:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: Not done for now, toggling. There are actually a large number of templates that use a form of 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)

@Andy M. Wang: Thanks for the noinclude/includeonly tip, that's better. I think other templates not using it is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS though - and for example maintenance templates substituting article names are slightly less confusing than this one, as it's more obvious there (e.g. the page name is a link and/or bolded). nyuszika7h (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. Synced, thanks -- Andy W. (talk · ctb) 19:33, 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)

I don't understand the purpose. I copy-pasted your text above and what appears to me as identical results.

Without zwsp: (wbm1058 (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)). With zwsp: (wbm1058 (talk) 15:48, 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)

Done -- JJMC89 (T·C) 05:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia

Rabu, 08 November 2017