Template talk:Welcome-unregistered/Archive 1

new
This is a new template for welcoming anons. I hacked it together out of other templates such as, , and.

There didn't seem to be a template that really did the trick, in my opinion. I wanted it to be largely based on, but to make some reference to the issue of getting an account while not being dominated by it. And is (at time of writing) frankly pretty close to biting the newcomers in my opinion.

To use it, just do:


 *   or   

There is also a variant which takes your user name as argument, which makes the "my talk page" into a link. For that, do:


 *   or  your_username 

And don't forget to sign!

Terra Green 21:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * At some point they must have been merged, because this does take parameter 1 as a user name. &mdash; RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib 11:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ignore my edits, I reverted them. I thought I was editing my own copy of this!!!--Konstable 02:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there any reason not to merge this with Template:Createaccount, and redirect one of them to the other (doesn't matter which)? — CharlotteWebb 16:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused about these two templates...
welcome-anon-from used to work like it was supposed to, but I just tried to use it a few minutes ago, and I got extra brackets and words around the "my talk page" link. Then I figured out that welcome-anon has apparently been modified to work the way welcome-anon-from is supposed to work. The code for welcome-anon makes sense to me, with that "if" thing... but what about welcome-anon-from? What's with all the nested brackets? Since welcome-anon does everything welcome-anon-from should do, can we just redirect welcome-anon-from to welcome-anon? (I don't know much about redirecting templates.) --Allen 01:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit link on template
There is an edit link on this template (in reality it is a section edit, which redirects if not subst:'d), which I accidently hit because the page was not substituted... Should there be an error if this template is not substituted, to avoid edits to this template accidently. Ans e ll 05:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Changed the following
From:
 * I would recommend that you get a username. You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and there are many benefits of having a username.  (If you edit without a username, your IP address is used to identify you instead.)

To:

Here are some other hints and tips:


 * I would recommend that you get a username, because:
 * You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia
 * Creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and there are many benefits of having a username.
 * Your privacy is better protected with a username. If you edit without a username, your IP address is used to identify you instead.
 * Veteran wikieditors take your edits more seriously, and are less likely to revert your work.

Best wishes, Travb (talk) 20:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

"art" parameter
I find myself using this template the most when I see a GOOD edit by an IP, so I just added the "art" parameter to it (since "1" was taken): &mdash;  RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib 11:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Autosignature
Yuser31415 removed it saying, "I fail to understand why that was added." Well, it allowed an editor to subst the template and it would automatically sign and all. &mdash; RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib 15:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The new big border
It's too intrusive. Sorry, I don't like it. Xiner (talk, email) 19:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I created Template:Welcomeanon2
I created Template:Welcomeanon2, why?

In the spirit of Template:welcome2 I created Template:Welcomeanon2 which has ==Welcome== instead of Welcome

Travb (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed wording change
Please see Template_talk:Welcome - SCEhard T 02:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

SineBot wording is better
The advice about signing with tildes used by SineBot is, I think, more helpful and more detailed than the corresponding section in this template, and should be used instead. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The  template is what  uses. Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 20:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * So, shall we use that wording? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate signature
I just used this template and signed it, as I've done many times, and a duplicate signature appeared. Why is a signature now included in the template? That strikes me as odd. Is there a compelling reason to include a signature? I cannot think of many templates that do. I am inclined to remove it, myself. -Phoenixrod (talk) 04:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And an addendum: I prefer to sign with "- ~ ", and the template doesn't allow me to include a hyphen. -Phoenixrod (talk) 04:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Having the signature imbedded within templates was a fleeting concept that wasn't very popular. Looks like this one was missed when the feature was removed.  I support your notion.-- Kubigula (talk) 05:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Many welcome templates auto-sign, but feel free to remove it. @Phoenix, have you considered including the dash in your signature itself? – xeno  ( talk ) 11:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll remove the signature from the template since it seems to be all right with everyone. Xeno, thanks for the thought, but I would prefer not to use a special signature. -Phoenixrod (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries, I don't use this one much, I'll just have to remember to sign it. – xeno  ( talk ) 16:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Intuitive guide?
I just noticed that this edited added a link to Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/Introduction. Per this comment at the welcome template there was no support expressed for this in that template; did this just slip by? I think it should be removed; it's not harmful but not useful enough in this context to be added. Mike Christie (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No objections, so I removed it. Mike Christie (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Template is broken
When I use this the result reads in part:


 * If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page

Whatever it is that is supposed to be subst here isn't happening -- 67.98.206.2 (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please change "subst:REVISIONUSER" to "REVISIONUSER". -- 67.98.206.2 (talk) 19:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I suspect that you are seeing that because you are transcluding the template rather than substituting it - ie you should put and not  . I checked it, and it seems to work fine. Hence, I'm cancelling this request, if there really is still a problem, please reinstate it.   Chzz  ►  20:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No one actually uses "subst" and templates should still work correctly when users don't use subst. I have the same broken message on this talk page now too. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 02:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please change "subst:REVISIONUSER" to "REVISIONUSER". -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 02:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ❌ This is how the template is supposed to work when the template is substituted, and people do generally use, as does the welcome script. Changing subst:REVISIONUSER to REVISIONUSER will actually break the template, because everytime someone edits the talk page the variable will change. Bring it up at WP:VPT if you disagree. Thanks, —SpaceFlight89  03:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL, obviously given my own talk page, most users in fact do not use subst. The first thing new users should see on their talk page shouldn't be a broken template. I have gone ahead and asked at WP:VPT -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 04:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They are using the template the wrong way—it isn't designed to be used as a transclusion. Those who use WP:FRIENDLY or are aware of substitution shouldn't be getting it wrong. The template ain't broke-its the way some are using it that is wrong. —SpaceFlight89 06:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)(I come in peace...from WP:VPT)✅, but not the way you wanted it. I've changed it so it will warn anyone who fails to subst it. See template history. Any established (autoconfirmed and non-banned) user may revert this if feel a need to do so (an explenation in the edit summary/here would be nice, though). -- Thin boy  00  @258, i.e. 05:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that at least let's people realize the change. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 00:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Archiving
I added an archive bot to this page. Feel free to revert if that was too bold.--~TPW 17:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from, 7 November 2011
- for example, use in User talk:202.142.129.66

- Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!

+ Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia!

218.186.19.241 (talk) 10:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. — Bility (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Teahouse link?
Hi everyone. Those of us involved at the Teahouse pilot are interested in seeing a link to the Teahouse placed in this welcome template. This will be able to help us drive new editor traffic to the Teahouse during this pilot period, and allow us to continue to assess the pilot to the best of our ability. The welcome template is a great and powerful tool for new users, and it'd be really valuable to give new editors the choice to visit the Teahouse for assistance and community experience. I do hope that you will support this and then we can reach out to an admin to make the change. Thank you for your consideration :) Sarah (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup, I agree with you, this also should be added to Welcome. extra 999  ( talk ) 09:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * See discussion on Template talk:Welcome. KillerChihuahua ?!? 21:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Header
I'm wondering if I should add a header to this template. All other welcome templates include one, and it looks strange for the most popular anon welcome template to not have one. (Twinkle also doesn't automatically add headers anymore). Thanks, Nathan2055talk 20:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Decided to be bold and go ahead and add it. Revert and reply if there is any strong reason not to have a header. --Nathan2055talk 02:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's a good call. I seem to remember there used to be opposition to headers because they messed with some of the scripts, but that doesn't seem to be an issue anymore - you're certainly right that the other welcome templates have headers.-- Kubigula (talk) 03:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

"Highly recommend" wording
I changed the suggestion to register to give it a little more force behind it, though stopped short of where I'd really like to take it. The idea behind it is that we want good editors to register an account, and so I made the recommendation to register a little bit stronger to reflect that. What I'd really love to do would be to say, "strongly recommend", but I'm a little uncertain that even "highly recommend" will last long. But we'll see. What do you think? SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I suspect we're both on the same page on where we'd like to really take it :-P I approve of the wording change. I think making it a little stronger is a good thing, and it still retains the "personal" feel. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I just noticed the new wording and don't care for it. I don't highly recommend they get an account; I suggest they do.  The word "highly" presumes that those of us who have registered accounts think it's preferable, when in fact some of us recognize that there are advantages to being unregistered.  Heck, if I had understood Wikipedia better I never would have registered and just plugged along as a dedicated anonymous editor.  I prefer "suggest," but I will instead change it back to "recommend" and encourage more discussion.--~TPW 16:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I changed it to "many editors recommend," since I don't personally and I think this wording makes the template usable regardless of one's personal view on the subject of anonymous editing.--~TPW 16:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * With this wording, part of me really wants to put a (who?) tag after it, its a classic weasel wording. Bensci54 (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't like the weasel wording either - I changed it to suggesting that they consider the option.-- Kubigula (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

"become a Wikipedian and create an account"
Are IP editors not Wikipedians? This seems rather privilegist; I'd prefer it read more like "We hope that you choose to create an account, but you (can still be a Wikipedian without one|don't have to|something)". Thoughts, anyone? ekips39 (talk) 21:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)