![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
This user could do with welcoming as they are making random low quality edits and need pointing in the right direction. Britmax ( talk) 19:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Greetings! On November 21, the Tip-Of-The-Day is about welcoming new contributiors. This November 21 tip is now added at the TOTD Schedule Queue and is also posted at the Tips library. Regards, JoeHebda ( talk) 16:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello to the welcoming committee! How does one go about getting a template added to the Wikiproject list on Twinkle? I'd like to add a "Wikiproject Anatomy" ( WP:ANAT) template, {{ WPANATOMY-welcome}}. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 22:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
A page link is now provided with the Welcome notification sent to all new users at the moment they open an account. I'm suggesting in this VPP thread that we could benefit from more information and discussion about the way we're using this link, and proposing the Welcoming committee as a suitable venue. Anyone wish to chip in there? : Noyster (talk), 18:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
People here might want to look at the new Template:Student, which is meant to be a welcoming template for suspected students who are editing medicine-related articles. Ways to improve it are being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Advice to students. (not watching this page) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 13:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion taking place at Template talk:Welcome-COI#Requested move 12 September 2016 which may interest editors here. -- Gestrid ( talk) 04:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello!
I have found out that whenever a user makes his or her first contribution to any Wikimedia project in any language, a notification pops up saying "you just made your first edit; thank you, and welcome!" It does this regardless of the nature of the edit, and makes me question whether such functionality is appropriate especially in the case of VOAs. Any thoughts?
Greetings, ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» ( talk) 19:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC) ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» ( talk) 19:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I added a section on welcoming etiquette towards bots per the suggestions of Tigraan ( talk · contribs) and Primefac ( talk · contribs).- 🐦Do☭torWho42 ( ⭐) 08:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I am building a new version of the welcome template as the ones others use are either too text-heavy or confusing to me, and while I have adapted it and borrowed / adjusted coding, I am hoping somebody here can help me move it onto a new welcome template page and then test it (neither of which I really know how to do as I am code-limited). Can anybody help? FULBERT ( talk) 16:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
<noinclude>...</noinclude>
tags at the bottom of the page, create a /template subpage, and then start testing!
Primefac (
talk)
16:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
{{subst:WelcomeVisual}}
itself and it does not work as smoothly
Primefac ----
FULBERT (
talk)
14:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed on the User Creation Log that some accounts were created, but others were 'created automatically'. What is the difference between being 'created' and 'created automatically'? AllyGebies talk 23:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at
Template talk:Welcome#Edit request: minor change, where a change to divide the list of links in
Template:Welcome into multiple columns is being discussed. --
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
13:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Largely due to seeing the number of newcomers at AfC writing new drafts, but looking unaware of the nature of Wikipedia, I think autowelcoming new en.wikipedia.og registrants is important. The basic {{ welcome}} template is good, giving newcomers a small number of recommended reading links, although an even shorter template linking just WP:5P might be better. I think it is important to do this BEFORE they have committed to writing their first draft, which means that existing welcoming services, manual welcoming and Hostbot, do not suffice. It was a perennial proposal, but I think it has been six years since the last serious proposal. Please comment at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Autowelcome_new_registrants. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
There has been some recent discussion on the AfC talk page here and here about opportunities to welcome new editors who choose to write a new article as their first Wikipedia contribution. Is there anyone here interested in intercepting and welcoming these new editors before they receive their first review? ~ Kvng ( talk) 01:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
This may have been brought up before, in which case please just point me to the relevant prior discussion, but it seems very clear to me that Template:Welcome and similar templates could use some streamlining so that new users aren't paralyzed by choice. For instance, for a new user with a question, the welcome template currently lists four (!) different places to go: the Teahouse, WP:Questions, the welcomer's talk page, and their own talk page. There's a lot of psychology research that shows that this sort of thing is bad, since new users don't know which of these places would be most appropriate for their question, so many just don't ask it anywhere. I think we'd be much better off just identifying the best option and removing the others. Similarly, there's a lot of overlap between WP:Introduction, WP:Getting Started, WP:Contributing to Wikipedia, and even the WP:Wikipedia Adventure. It's not fully clear before I click on them what some of the differences between them are and how they relate to each other even to me as an experienced user, let alone to a new user. I'd prefer ideally to see just one link to a "learn more"-style page, made prominent to establish a clear visual hierarchy, with links to ancillary pages (e.g. the Manual of Style) below or to the side. This would also have the benefit of allowing us to focus our work to make sure the unified intro page is the best it can be, rather than trying to maintain several pages that largely duplicate each other. I hope I'm not stepping on too many toes here (it's understandable if editors have some attachment to the resources they helped create/develop), but it's really at a point where this needs to be addressed. Cheers, Sdkb ( talk) 18:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Template:welcome-anon-t mentions a parameter "nothanks", to be set to y when it is desirable to skip the "thanks" part of the standard welcome. However, I believe that parameter doesn't actually do anything - look at this diff which shows the lack of difference when the parameter is left in/left out. Would someone from this committee be interested in fixing this? At any rate, I guess I should mention this at the template's talk page too. Airbornemihir ( talk) 07:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
|nothanks=
is not supported by the template. I removed it from the documentation and added |notalk=
, which was missing. —[
AlanM1(
talk)]—
22:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)@
Airbornemihir: Thanks to
PrimeHunter for pointing out that the doc page was used by multiple templates. I added the |nothanks=
parm back to the doc and implemented it in {{
Welcome-anon-t}}
and {{
Welcome-t-anon}}
.
I also noticed that {{
Welcome-anon}}
does not implement |notalk=
and does not have a need for it. Is there a preferred way to make the doc reflect this when being transcluded from that template?
Also, I now realize that I implemented |nothanks=
using the {{
Yesno}}
template in the same way as |notalk=
, which is different than the {{
Welcome-anon}}
implementation. In {{
Welcome-anon-t}}
and {{
Welcome-t-anon}}
, |nothanks=n
(as well as other variations like "no") will not suppress the thanks, whereas in {{
Welcome-anon}}
, any value (other than no value) provided for |nothanks=
will suppress the thanks. As I said, this is consistent with the |notalk=
implementation. Should I change the |nothanks=
implementation in {{
Welcome-anon-t}}
and {{
Welcome-t-anon}}
(i.e., suppress thanks if any value is provided) or should I change {{
Welcome-anon}}
to use {{
Yesno}}
instead? Here's a table of what currently happens:
Parameter | Welcome-anon suppresses thanks? |
Welcome-anon-t suppresses thanks? |
---|---|---|
(no parm) | No | No |
nothanks= | No | No |
nothanks=n | Yes | No |
nothanks=y | Yes | Yes |
nothanks=blah | Yes | Yes |
I suppose a third option might be to implement |notalk=
and |nothanks=
in all of them the same way as {{
Welcome-anon}}
implements |nothanks=
(without {{
Yesno}}
; any non-empty value causes suppression). —[
AlanM1(
talk)]—
01:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Thinking back to when I was welcomed to WP, I'm not sure I realized that the welcome came from another user who presumably noticed one of my edits, rather than a bot who welcomes every new user. Was this the case for others, too? Is there a change we could make to the template (e.g. saying "I came here since I noticed your contributions") to help this come across? Sdkb ( talk) 23:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Following up on the concerns about the number of links from above, I dug through the maze of welcome pages and came away with these observations:
Given these, I made some edits at the sandbox to streamline the standard welcome template. Here's the result. What do you all think? Sdkb ( talk) 20:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Welcoming committee! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find it helpful to go through this short tutorial:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Happy editing! Sdkb ( talk) 20:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
should there be an amendment to "etiquette" where it should state that it's discouraged to welcome users whose edit was over 10 years ago but their talk page still remains a redlink?-- 🐦DrWho42 ( 🔨) 21:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
One of the major barriers to editing on WP is the complex markup language. Fortunately, it's very easy for new users to get around it by using the WP:Visual Editor, but since it's not turned on by default, I'm guessing many potential new editors get scared away before they ever find it. I'm sure that at some point during the introduction of the editor there was discussion about whether to make it the default (and if anyone knows where that is, please share a link), but I wanted to bring it up here as a potential change that could make it a lot easier to get new users up and editing. Granted, it seems most experienced editors prefer to edit in markup, so a switch would have to include easy functionality for experienced editors to change their default preference back to markup. Sdkb ( talk) 10:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Dear all: Just in case anyone missed it, there has recently been a research study looking at whether the current method by which HostBot selects good faith editors to send an automated Teahouse invite is better, or worse, at ensuring editor retention than a selection process using the AI-focussed WP:ORES.
A short summary has been posted on the Teahouse talk page. The results, thus far, have proved inconclusive, and the researchers ask for feedback on whether to repeat the test, but this time ironing out two quite significant differences in the way that invitees were selected (different timing and different numbers of qualifying edits).
The full research is posted here. The 'Results' and 'Discussion' are well-worth reading. Regards, Nick Moyes ( talk) 00:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 31#Improving new article edit notice. I started it to follow up on the topic
Bri.public brought up of new users who try to create articles as one of their first activities.
Sdkb (
talk)
05:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello, your post on VPIL alerted me to your committee. I believe you’re doing very important work, given the many challenges new users face. Related to that, I wonder if someone has made the following suggestion, and if not, what you think of it. Namely to further help identify and assist Newbies, the following could be done:
Jane Doe N-Please be patient (talk|contribs)
Hello, I've created new template {{ Welcome-anon-summary}}, as a mashup of {{ Welcome-anon-constructive}} and {{ uw-editsummary}}, for those anon users having made constructive edits, but not yet familiar with (or neglecting to use) the edit summary field. I've wanted this for some time, and could have used it dozens of times already, and finally decided to do something about it. To see a sample usage in the wild, see User talk:2604:CA00:16A:3F15:0:0:277:9434. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 07:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to streamline the welcome template.
Sdkb (
talk)
23:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Should we redirect Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia to WP:Getting started? Sdkb ( talk) 02:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC) Note: The above added as a brief/neutral way to frame the question after this was turned into an RfC. My original opening statement is just below. - Sdkb ( talk) 05:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
At some point, it seems the Welcoming Committee decided to create
its own welcome. The result has been yet another instance of a page with a generic introductory name trying to serve as the starting point for new editors and mostly just linking to every other page trying to serve the same purpose. There's nothing to recommend this page over any of the others or to differentiate its function (it's a clear duplicate), and it's hidden away enough that it's not going to be adequately maintained (it hasn't received a non-minor edit since 2017). I propose that we move it to
Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia (historical), mark that page as historical, and then change the redirect to go to
WP:Getting Started. Any objections?
Sdkb (
talk)
02:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
{{
Talkpage of help}}
, which isn't as widely implemented as it should be. I'll try adding it to more places as I come across them in the future.
Sdkb (
talk)
08:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Technical discussion on retaining historical version
|
---|
|
Okay, so ronbot just removed the RfC tag, so it's unlikely this will be getting significant further participation. Pinging the participants, @ Moxy, Redrose64, Bobherry, MJL, Ajpolino, and WereSpielChequers: how do you all assess the consensus here? The sibling RfC to this one, about WP:Introduction and WP:Tutorial, seems slated to easily pass, and I have a difficult time imagining that we'd want to get rid of that one but keep this one. Should we extend to try to get more participation, or ask for a formal close, or just go ahead and proceed with converting it to a redirect? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 06:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
There's a discussion on the recent influx of new editors and how to effectively welcome them to Wikipedia happening at the Administrators' noticeboard. Editors of this WikiProject may be interested in participating. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Influx of new editors and IPs. — Wug· a·po·des 22:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Template talk:Welcomeshort. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
01:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Template talk:Welcome-delete, which is about a template that is within the scope of this WikiProject.
Naypta ☺ |
✉ talk page |
22:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia_talk:Welcoming_committee/Welcome_templates#RfC_on_welcome_template_standardisation. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
08:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
WP:VPP.
P,TO 19104 (
talk) (
contributions)
21:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace § Warning for good faith poor grammar?.
Walrus Ji (
talk) 17:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Walrus Ji (
talk)
17:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Twinkle § Welcome template options. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
19:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
MediaWiki talk:Notification-welcome-link § Link. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
23:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
I only learned about the :insource
keyword recently, and it's very handy for a lot of things. It ought to go on one of the Welcome Project pages somewhere, but I haven't found a good home for it, yet. Maybe someone will suggest a good spot. Anyway, it's useful for finding substed templates that leave a hidden-text tag with their name in it, like pretty much all the Welcome templates do.
Let's say you're evaluating some templates, and you want to find out if anybody really uses {{ Welcome_kitten}} or not, and if so, how often, compared to some of the other ones. Since it's substed, you can't use the regular 'who links here' search. So instead, you go to advanced search, and use the keyword, like this:
Now, if we can just figure out where to write this up and place it as a mini how-to, that would be useful. Mathglot ( talk) 05:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello! So I was going to welcome a user who made helpful edits and wasn't an IP, however I realized that the welcome templates for registered users don't include welcomes for if the user made helpful edits, which I find a bit strange considering there's one for IPs. So I say that we possibly just modify the IP one to fit registered users who made helpful edits, because even registered users deserve to know that they were helpful. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor ( talk) 13:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
People concerned with welcoming newbies may want to understand how sources become officially "deprecated" and how that designation is than used to block and revert references to sources so designated, if you are not already aware of this. I think the procedures for doing this are not easy to parse and are ultimately hostile to Wikipedia readers and editors. For more on this, see Wikipedia talk:Deprecated sources#Blocking and deleting references to deprecated sources are attacks on Wikipedia:Prime objective.
Please contribute to that discussion if you feel so inclined. Thanks, DavidMCEddy ( talk) 16:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Twinkle § Add Template:Thanks to IP welcome messages. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
19:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
This user could do with welcoming as they are making random low quality edits and need pointing in the right direction. Britmax ( talk) 19:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Greetings! On November 21, the Tip-Of-The-Day is about welcoming new contributiors. This November 21 tip is now added at the TOTD Schedule Queue and is also posted at the Tips library. Regards, JoeHebda ( talk) 16:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello to the welcoming committee! How does one go about getting a template added to the Wikiproject list on Twinkle? I'd like to add a "Wikiproject Anatomy" ( WP:ANAT) template, {{ WPANATOMY-welcome}}. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 22:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
A page link is now provided with the Welcome notification sent to all new users at the moment they open an account. I'm suggesting in this VPP thread that we could benefit from more information and discussion about the way we're using this link, and proposing the Welcoming committee as a suitable venue. Anyone wish to chip in there? : Noyster (talk), 18:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
People here might want to look at the new Template:Student, which is meant to be a welcoming template for suspected students who are editing medicine-related articles. Ways to improve it are being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Advice to students. (not watching this page) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 13:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion taking place at Template talk:Welcome-COI#Requested move 12 September 2016 which may interest editors here. -- Gestrid ( talk) 04:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello!
I have found out that whenever a user makes his or her first contribution to any Wikimedia project in any language, a notification pops up saying "you just made your first edit; thank you, and welcome!" It does this regardless of the nature of the edit, and makes me question whether such functionality is appropriate especially in the case of VOAs. Any thoughts?
Greetings, ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» ( talk) 19:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC) ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» ( talk) 19:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I added a section on welcoming etiquette towards bots per the suggestions of Tigraan ( talk · contribs) and Primefac ( talk · contribs).- 🐦Do☭torWho42 ( ⭐) 08:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I am building a new version of the welcome template as the ones others use are either too text-heavy or confusing to me, and while I have adapted it and borrowed / adjusted coding, I am hoping somebody here can help me move it onto a new welcome template page and then test it (neither of which I really know how to do as I am code-limited). Can anybody help? FULBERT ( talk) 16:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
<noinclude>...</noinclude>
tags at the bottom of the page, create a /template subpage, and then start testing!
Primefac (
talk)
16:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
{{subst:WelcomeVisual}}
itself and it does not work as smoothly
Primefac ----
FULBERT (
talk)
14:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed on the User Creation Log that some accounts were created, but others were 'created automatically'. What is the difference between being 'created' and 'created automatically'? AllyGebies talk 23:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at
Template talk:Welcome#Edit request: minor change, where a change to divide the list of links in
Template:Welcome into multiple columns is being discussed. --
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
13:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Largely due to seeing the number of newcomers at AfC writing new drafts, but looking unaware of the nature of Wikipedia, I think autowelcoming new en.wikipedia.og registrants is important. The basic {{ welcome}} template is good, giving newcomers a small number of recommended reading links, although an even shorter template linking just WP:5P might be better. I think it is important to do this BEFORE they have committed to writing their first draft, which means that existing welcoming services, manual welcoming and Hostbot, do not suffice. It was a perennial proposal, but I think it has been six years since the last serious proposal. Please comment at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Autowelcome_new_registrants. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
There has been some recent discussion on the AfC talk page here and here about opportunities to welcome new editors who choose to write a new article as their first Wikipedia contribution. Is there anyone here interested in intercepting and welcoming these new editors before they receive their first review? ~ Kvng ( talk) 01:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
This may have been brought up before, in which case please just point me to the relevant prior discussion, but it seems very clear to me that Template:Welcome and similar templates could use some streamlining so that new users aren't paralyzed by choice. For instance, for a new user with a question, the welcome template currently lists four (!) different places to go: the Teahouse, WP:Questions, the welcomer's talk page, and their own talk page. There's a lot of psychology research that shows that this sort of thing is bad, since new users don't know which of these places would be most appropriate for their question, so many just don't ask it anywhere. I think we'd be much better off just identifying the best option and removing the others. Similarly, there's a lot of overlap between WP:Introduction, WP:Getting Started, WP:Contributing to Wikipedia, and even the WP:Wikipedia Adventure. It's not fully clear before I click on them what some of the differences between them are and how they relate to each other even to me as an experienced user, let alone to a new user. I'd prefer ideally to see just one link to a "learn more"-style page, made prominent to establish a clear visual hierarchy, with links to ancillary pages (e.g. the Manual of Style) below or to the side. This would also have the benefit of allowing us to focus our work to make sure the unified intro page is the best it can be, rather than trying to maintain several pages that largely duplicate each other. I hope I'm not stepping on too many toes here (it's understandable if editors have some attachment to the resources they helped create/develop), but it's really at a point where this needs to be addressed. Cheers, Sdkb ( talk) 18:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Template:welcome-anon-t mentions a parameter "nothanks", to be set to y when it is desirable to skip the "thanks" part of the standard welcome. However, I believe that parameter doesn't actually do anything - look at this diff which shows the lack of difference when the parameter is left in/left out. Would someone from this committee be interested in fixing this? At any rate, I guess I should mention this at the template's talk page too. Airbornemihir ( talk) 07:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
|nothanks=
is not supported by the template. I removed it from the documentation and added |notalk=
, which was missing. —[
AlanM1(
talk)]—
22:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)@
Airbornemihir: Thanks to
PrimeHunter for pointing out that the doc page was used by multiple templates. I added the |nothanks=
parm back to the doc and implemented it in {{
Welcome-anon-t}}
and {{
Welcome-t-anon}}
.
I also noticed that {{
Welcome-anon}}
does not implement |notalk=
and does not have a need for it. Is there a preferred way to make the doc reflect this when being transcluded from that template?
Also, I now realize that I implemented |nothanks=
using the {{
Yesno}}
template in the same way as |notalk=
, which is different than the {{
Welcome-anon}}
implementation. In {{
Welcome-anon-t}}
and {{
Welcome-t-anon}}
, |nothanks=n
(as well as other variations like "no") will not suppress the thanks, whereas in {{
Welcome-anon}}
, any value (other than no value) provided for |nothanks=
will suppress the thanks. As I said, this is consistent with the |notalk=
implementation. Should I change the |nothanks=
implementation in {{
Welcome-anon-t}}
and {{
Welcome-t-anon}}
(i.e., suppress thanks if any value is provided) or should I change {{
Welcome-anon}}
to use {{
Yesno}}
instead? Here's a table of what currently happens:
Parameter | Welcome-anon suppresses thanks? |
Welcome-anon-t suppresses thanks? |
---|---|---|
(no parm) | No | No |
nothanks= | No | No |
nothanks=n | Yes | No |
nothanks=y | Yes | Yes |
nothanks=blah | Yes | Yes |
I suppose a third option might be to implement |notalk=
and |nothanks=
in all of them the same way as {{
Welcome-anon}}
implements |nothanks=
(without {{
Yesno}}
; any non-empty value causes suppression). —[
AlanM1(
talk)]—
01:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Thinking back to when I was welcomed to WP, I'm not sure I realized that the welcome came from another user who presumably noticed one of my edits, rather than a bot who welcomes every new user. Was this the case for others, too? Is there a change we could make to the template (e.g. saying "I came here since I noticed your contributions") to help this come across? Sdkb ( talk) 23:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Following up on the concerns about the number of links from above, I dug through the maze of welcome pages and came away with these observations:
Given these, I made some edits at the sandbox to streamline the standard welcome template. Here's the result. What do you all think? Sdkb ( talk) 20:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Welcoming committee! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find it helpful to go through this short tutorial:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Happy editing! Sdkb ( talk) 20:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
should there be an amendment to "etiquette" where it should state that it's discouraged to welcome users whose edit was over 10 years ago but their talk page still remains a redlink?-- 🐦DrWho42 ( 🔨) 21:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
One of the major barriers to editing on WP is the complex markup language. Fortunately, it's very easy for new users to get around it by using the WP:Visual Editor, but since it's not turned on by default, I'm guessing many potential new editors get scared away before they ever find it. I'm sure that at some point during the introduction of the editor there was discussion about whether to make it the default (and if anyone knows where that is, please share a link), but I wanted to bring it up here as a potential change that could make it a lot easier to get new users up and editing. Granted, it seems most experienced editors prefer to edit in markup, so a switch would have to include easy functionality for experienced editors to change their default preference back to markup. Sdkb ( talk) 10:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Dear all: Just in case anyone missed it, there has recently been a research study looking at whether the current method by which HostBot selects good faith editors to send an automated Teahouse invite is better, or worse, at ensuring editor retention than a selection process using the AI-focussed WP:ORES.
A short summary has been posted on the Teahouse talk page. The results, thus far, have proved inconclusive, and the researchers ask for feedback on whether to repeat the test, but this time ironing out two quite significant differences in the way that invitees were selected (different timing and different numbers of qualifying edits).
The full research is posted here. The 'Results' and 'Discussion' are well-worth reading. Regards, Nick Moyes ( talk) 00:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 31#Improving new article edit notice. I started it to follow up on the topic
Bri.public brought up of new users who try to create articles as one of their first activities.
Sdkb (
talk)
05:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello, your post on VPIL alerted me to your committee. I believe you’re doing very important work, given the many challenges new users face. Related to that, I wonder if someone has made the following suggestion, and if not, what you think of it. Namely to further help identify and assist Newbies, the following could be done:
Jane Doe N-Please be patient (talk|contribs)
Hello, I've created new template {{ Welcome-anon-summary}}, as a mashup of {{ Welcome-anon-constructive}} and {{ uw-editsummary}}, for those anon users having made constructive edits, but not yet familiar with (or neglecting to use) the edit summary field. I've wanted this for some time, and could have used it dozens of times already, and finally decided to do something about it. To see a sample usage in the wild, see User talk:2604:CA00:16A:3F15:0:0:277:9434. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 07:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to streamline the welcome template.
Sdkb (
talk)
23:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Should we redirect Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia to WP:Getting started? Sdkb ( talk) 02:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC) Note: The above added as a brief/neutral way to frame the question after this was turned into an RfC. My original opening statement is just below. - Sdkb ( talk) 05:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
At some point, it seems the Welcoming Committee decided to create
its own welcome. The result has been yet another instance of a page with a generic introductory name trying to serve as the starting point for new editors and mostly just linking to every other page trying to serve the same purpose. There's nothing to recommend this page over any of the others or to differentiate its function (it's a clear duplicate), and it's hidden away enough that it's not going to be adequately maintained (it hasn't received a non-minor edit since 2017). I propose that we move it to
Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia (historical), mark that page as historical, and then change the redirect to go to
WP:Getting Started. Any objections?
Sdkb (
talk)
02:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
{{
Talkpage of help}}
, which isn't as widely implemented as it should be. I'll try adding it to more places as I come across them in the future.
Sdkb (
talk)
08:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Technical discussion on retaining historical version
|
---|
|
Okay, so ronbot just removed the RfC tag, so it's unlikely this will be getting significant further participation. Pinging the participants, @ Moxy, Redrose64, Bobherry, MJL, Ajpolino, and WereSpielChequers: how do you all assess the consensus here? The sibling RfC to this one, about WP:Introduction and WP:Tutorial, seems slated to easily pass, and I have a difficult time imagining that we'd want to get rid of that one but keep this one. Should we extend to try to get more participation, or ask for a formal close, or just go ahead and proceed with converting it to a redirect? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 06:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
There's a discussion on the recent influx of new editors and how to effectively welcome them to Wikipedia happening at the Administrators' noticeboard. Editors of this WikiProject may be interested in participating. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Influx of new editors and IPs. — Wug· a·po·des 22:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Template talk:Welcomeshort. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
01:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Template talk:Welcome-delete, which is about a template that is within the scope of this WikiProject.
Naypta ☺ |
✉ talk page |
22:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia_talk:Welcoming_committee/Welcome_templates#RfC_on_welcome_template_standardisation. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
08:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
WP:VPP.
P,TO 19104 (
talk) (
contributions)
21:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace § Warning for good faith poor grammar?.
Walrus Ji (
talk) 17:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Walrus Ji (
talk)
17:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Twinkle § Welcome template options. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
19:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
MediaWiki talk:Notification-welcome-link § Link. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
23:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
I only learned about the :insource
keyword recently, and it's very handy for a lot of things. It ought to go on one of the Welcome Project pages somewhere, but I haven't found a good home for it, yet. Maybe someone will suggest a good spot. Anyway, it's useful for finding substed templates that leave a hidden-text tag with their name in it, like pretty much all the Welcome templates do.
Let's say you're evaluating some templates, and you want to find out if anybody really uses {{ Welcome_kitten}} or not, and if so, how often, compared to some of the other ones. Since it's substed, you can't use the regular 'who links here' search. So instead, you go to advanced search, and use the keyword, like this:
Now, if we can just figure out where to write this up and place it as a mini how-to, that would be useful. Mathglot ( talk) 05:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello! So I was going to welcome a user who made helpful edits and wasn't an IP, however I realized that the welcome templates for registered users don't include welcomes for if the user made helpful edits, which I find a bit strange considering there's one for IPs. So I say that we possibly just modify the IP one to fit registered users who made helpful edits, because even registered users deserve to know that they were helpful. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor ( talk) 13:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
People concerned with welcoming newbies may want to understand how sources become officially "deprecated" and how that designation is than used to block and revert references to sources so designated, if you are not already aware of this. I think the procedures for doing this are not easy to parse and are ultimately hostile to Wikipedia readers and editors. For more on this, see Wikipedia talk:Deprecated sources#Blocking and deleting references to deprecated sources are attacks on Wikipedia:Prime objective.
Please contribute to that discussion if you feel so inclined. Thanks, DavidMCEddy ( talk) 16:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Twinkle § Add Template:Thanks to IP welcome messages. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
19:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |