Template talk:Welcome/Archive 4

WelcomeBot ?
Why not create a WelcomeBot that would place on every newly-created user talk page? --Alex S 06:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That defeats the whole purpose of the welcome template. That being that a flesh and blood being introduces you to Wikipedia and he/she is your contact if you wish, the person the newbie can ask questions to. If anything, contact with newbies should be more personal, and not less. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that a WelcomeBot could complement, not undermine, the personal touch to welcomes. Let me explain. First of all, looking at Special:Log/newusers shows that many, many Wikipedians create accounts and are never welcomed. WelcomeBot would ensure that they find important links, like the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, how to edit a page, etc. It could be signed, "The Wikipedia Community," with a link to the Community Portal or somesuch. Then, those who'd like to further welcome a new user could add something like:
 * "Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Feel free to drop me a line if you have any questions. --32902304892 06:06, 06 June 2006.
 * I think this is much more friendly and personal than typing:
 * onto someone's page. WelcomeBot would make sure that every new user gets a good first experience with Wikipedia, as well as point them to some "good links" :-). For welcomers, it would mean that they could type in a few meaningful words instead of copying and pasting in a template. The only thing is, I have no idea how to make or even propose such a bot. --Alex S 22:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with Oleg. An additional disadvantage of bot welcomes is that the redlinked talk page is also a sure sign of "newbie editor" and helps find bad vanity pages on Special:Newpages. Kusma (討論) 23:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Oleg. A message from a bot is not a "good experience", it is something you shrug at. Actually, when welcome messages turn up within ten minutes from the account was created, people tend to believe it was automatically put there, and shrug at it. The most important part of a welcome message is the link to a user you feel you can contact. Personally I do not use templates for welcoming new users - I check them to look for a choice of relevant links to give them, though. // Habj 09:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Although this issue has been dead for a long time, I do have a suggestion for a compromise (also known as something that'll make nobody happy). The bot could include a link to the page of a real flesh and blood person. It could cycle though Welcoming committee/members so that the load is split evenly through all of them. Vicarious 08:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * How would the bot check to be sure it is not welcoming someone who has been busy doing nothing but vandalism? There seems to be a preference across many users that we not welcome people who vandalize, or those who have not editing anything yet, but instead wait a little while to see how the new editor's intent is clarified through his or her edits. Just wondering what others think. Kukini 22:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would be such a bad thing to welcome a vandal-- maybe it will shed positive light on the project to them and cause a turnaround. AdamBiswanger1 23:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A WelcomeBot did cross my mind...at first I thought it would be a good thing because many more users can be welcomed. The downside is that it lessens the personal side of welcoming. Every other day, I go to the Special:Log/newusers page and try to welcome as much as possible. Many go unwelcomed every day. I'm both ways on this... Sr13 20:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I like the idea, i could make such a bot, it would be on a delay so new users don't get the welcome message as soon as they join. It would be designed for a user (like me) to run once in awhile, it would sign my name and the edit would be by my account, the whole thing could even be managed by a welcome committie (that anyone can join) where its decided I will welcome users who match such criteria, ie data/time registered, name, ect...--RyanB88 02:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I like the idea, i could make such a bot, it would be on a delay so new users don't get the welcome message as soon as they join. It would be designed for a user (like me) to run once in awhile, it would sign my name and the edit would be by my account, the whole thing could even be managed by a welcome committie (that anyone can join) where its decided I will welcome users who match such criteria, ie data/time registered, name, ect...--RyanB88 02:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Changes to this template
I disagree with the wording done in this edit. The things linked to are not articles, they are more like Wikipedia namespace pages. I think it sounds much nicer to say

Here are a few good links for newcomers

rather than Here are some articles that you might find useful

Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not a fan of the phrase "good links." "Good" is a vague word. The links/articles are not "of good quality," rather, they point to content that is "good to read," i.e. "useful." While "articles" may or may not be the best word choice, I think it is better than "links." This is because (a) the content and not the links themselves are of interest and (b) it's best to use the clearest and simplest terms for a newcomer welcome. --Alex S 21:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's an improvement on "good links", although I would use:


 * Here are some pages that you might find helpful


 * Just my thoughts in passing. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  07:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I like this version best. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 08:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Works fine for me too. --Alex S 04:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I put Cactus man's version in the template. Kusma (討論) 04:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Formatting change
Please change Welcome! to ==Welcome!== so that this template will show up as part of the table of contents once users have multiple talk threads, instead of always hovering above to table of contents. Thanks. -- Reinyday, 17:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this change. I like having the welcome notice appear above the TOC.  Powers 18:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I also disagree. There is Welcome2 that can be used for a welcome with headers. Additionally, users can edit their talk page to add a header above the welcome if they want, no need to template this. Kusma (討論) 23:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Reinyday: ==Welcome!== is better in the template. I would have done it myself, but the page is protected. Why is this page protected? Travb (talk) 07:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome
As mentioned above:

Please change Welcome! to ==Welcome!== so that this template will show up as part of the table of contents once users have multiple talk threads, instead of always hovering above to table of contents.

Why is this page protected? Travb (talk) 07:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus for this change, so I will not make it. The template is protected because it is a high risk template used on many pages. — Mets 501  (talk) 13:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I was thinking of. All of the other templates have proper headings as well --WikiSlasher 07:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I prefer the current setup, as otherwise the TOC would begin showing up at the top of the page, which, imo, is not as visually appealing as having a nice Welcome! there. Timrem 05:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with this change. --evrik (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Continued thread:

to
I think we should change to , because that would solve the problem where a user archives, and it shows the name of the archive. -- GeorgeMoney  T &middot; C 01:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello? --GeorgeMoney (talk) (Help Me Improve!) 20:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I think this is the kind of problem which a user should solve on his/her own. Most people delete the welcome template anyway, and besides, how many people care about such a small detail in their archives? (and if they care, they can fix it :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As the change has some advantages and no obvious disadvantages, I have implemented it. Kusma (討論) 20:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

link fix
Please fix the link for How to write a great article to avoid the redirect to Article development. -- Reinyday, 04:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Kusma (討論) 20:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Clarification on signing contributions
... may be a little unclear about signing contributions. I ran across a user (User:Saxophobia) who did not note that the advice about signing was referring only to talk pages. I've notified him and removed his/her sigs from articles, but I think the welcome message could be a bit clearer in this respect. Since the template is protected, an admin has to do this... Greetings, --Janke | Talk 08:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you suggest how the clarified text should look like? I think the current text is rather clear enough. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Simply by stating that contributions to articles should not be signed, i.e. :


 * Please sign your name on talk pages (but not in articles) using four tildes (~)

Greetings, --Janke | Talk 15:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the link to Sign your posts on talk pages is sufficient here. Problems with users signing their articles are rare, and the welcome message should stay as short as possible. No need for WP:BEANS. Kusma (討論) 00:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with Kusma. In my experience, trying to safeguard against all possible ways a person can screw up is a losing battle. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, just thought I'd mention it. I've seen other editors sign, too, but as you say, it is not a very common mistake. --Janke | Talk 06:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If we change  to   that will make it automatically substitute the page name when it is added to a page, so that if a user looks at the page source and sees the welcome message they will actually see their name there and not think like it was placed automatically. — Mets 501 (talk) 01:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That breaks even worse if the template is not subst'ed. See many threads above with the same idea. Kusma (討論) 13:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Quick Help
Could an admin please add a link to Quick guide. This provides very basic markup and is primarily directed at new users who aren't used to formatting articles, and as such seems very appropriate for a welcome template. It would avoid users hunting through help documentation just to find a simple command. I edited Welc myself to show how it could be incorporated. This link would also be appropriate in Welcome2 and Welcomenh. Cheers -- Gareth Aus 08:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd rather suggest you integrate that guide into How to edit a page. For now, in the welcome template we have How to edit a page, Tutorial, and Help:Contents. I think that is already too many pointers on how to get an article started. Ideally, Tutorial should also be merged with Quick guide and How to edit a page, to form a single page for first-time help, with Help:Contents being the ultimate reference. That's my view at leat. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Quick guide is just a cheatsheet for a very quick lookup. How to edit a page is far longer, more detailed and complex. It virtually duplicates Help:Editing. There is a link at the bottom of the quick guide to Help:Editing. This could replace the link to How to edit a page in this template (I could change the quick guide link to How to edit a page). Certainly something needs to be done about How to edit a page & Help:Editing. -- Gareth Aus 09:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * How about Tutorial? And I am not sure we need a Quick guide, as How to edit a page is rather quick to read too. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Quick guide is good because it's not bogged down with reams of prose... /wangi 15:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point. But something must be done about the proliferation of "editing for newcomers" pages which duplicate content. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

How to write a great article
How to write a great article needs to be changed to Article Devlopment. Treebark 22:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, "How to write a great article" looks like a better name than "Article development" to me. Maybe that page could be moved back to the old name? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Please include
As has been pointed out on Articles for deletion/Votes for deletion (2nd nomination), most newbies don't know about Help:Contents. Yes, there's the help button, but why not give them two chances at it? Septentrionalis 00:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Interwikis
Please add this:

af:Sjabloon:Welkom ar:قالب:ترحيب ast:Plantilla:Bienvenida bg:Шаблон:Добре дошли bn:Template:স্বাগতম br:Patrom:Degemermat nevez bs:Šablon:Kahrimandobrodosli ca:Plantilla:Benvinguda cs:Šablona:Vítejte cv:Шаблон:Ырă сунса кĕтетпĕр da:Skabelon:Velkommen de:Vorlage:WillkommenMitTips el:Πρότυπο:Καλωσόρισμα eo:Ŝablono:Bonvenon es:Plantilla:Bienvenido usuario et:Mall:Teretulemast eu:Txantiloi:Ongietorria fa:الگو:خوشامد fi:Malline:Tt fr:Modèle:Bienvenue nouveau gl:Template:Benvida he:תבנית:ברוך הבא hi:Template:स्वागत hr:Predložak:Dobrodošlica2 hu:Sablon:Üdvözlet id:Templat:Selamatdatang io:Template:Bonveno is:Snið:Velkomin it:Template:Benvenuto jv:Cithakan:Sugengrawuh ka:თარგი:ახალი მომხმარებელი kn:ಟೆಂಪ್ಲೇಟು:ಸುಸ್ವಾಗತ ko:틀:환영합니다 la:Formula:Salve lb:Template:Welcome lt:Šablonas:Welcome mk:Шаблон:Добредојде ml:Template:Welcome mr:Template:Welcome ms:Templat:Selamatdatang nap:Template:Bemmenuto nl:Sjabloon:Welkom nn:Mal:Velkomst-reg no:Mal:Reg-velkommen oc:Modèl:Benvenguda novèl os:Шаблон:Салам pl:Szablon:Witaj2 pt:Predefinição:Bem vindo ro:Format:Bunvenit ru:Шаблон:Welcome simple:Template:Welcome sl:Predloga:Pozdrav sk:Šablóna:Vitajte sr:Шаблон:Добродошао sv:Mall:Intro ta:வார்ப்புரு:Newuser tr:Şablon:Hoşgeldin uk:Шаблон:Welcome ur:Template:Newuser vec:Template:Benvegnù vi:Tiêu bản:Hoan nghênh yi:מוסטער:שלום עליכם zh:Template:Welcome zh-yue:Template:Welcome Mosca2 10:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks--I'll see if I can get an admin to do that for you. AdamBiswanger1 00:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed change for
The system isn't really working. There are only about 20 per day, and yet the responses are quick and effective. So, instead of sayin on the tag that someone will respond "shortly", I propose we use a more quantitative measurement, like "someone will probably show up within 10 minutes". This will add more confidence to anyone wanting to use "helpme", and is well within our capabilities for response time. AdamBiswanger1 00:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, but instead with 15 minutes, and maybe saying something like "will probably answer in 15 minutes, but it might take longer" --Deenoe 15:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this proposal would be pushing things too far. I understand that you are willing to help people, but offering a "10 minute service guanteed" would make too distracting. Let people read welcome and decide for themselves whether they need help, and if so, if they should use or other means. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think we all talk to each other using templates too much already. I don't think we should promote using helpme more than we already are, and I think that the template already has enough ways of getting help, all of which are valid.  JYolkowski // talk 16:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "helpme" offers wikipedians a chance to give personalized help to newcomers. This is precisely the opposite of communicating with a template, so I'm not sure what you mean by that AdamBiswanger1 16:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Adding a date?
Am I the only person who finds it odd that the template is undated? I often find myself looking at the first entry on a user's talk page to get a quick idea of how long they have been editing for. Admittedly, a user may have been editing for a short while before someone notices and welcomes them, but dating the first entry seems a natural thing to do. After all, almost all other entries on the talk page will be dated. --MichaelMaggs 21:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't see the need, since signing with ~ will produce a date. JYolkowski // talk 21:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with JYolkowski. I would add that it would be bad style if a welcoming user would not sign his welcome. After all, although the links in the welcome template are indeed useful, what primarily matters is the personal touch, that an experienced user took the trouble to welcome a newbie. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that that's what should happen, but very often users don't sign. Hence the problem I noted. --MichaelMaggs 06:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

MOTD
Can we add a link to WP:MOTTO —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geo.plrd (talk • contribs).
 * I would disagree with that. MOTD may be interesting, but eventual is just some trivia. It is good if the welcome template is kept as short as possible and that the links in it be as relevant as possible, otherwise people don't pay much attention to it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Adding tildes
Why don't we just add the four tildes to the template itself? SweetNeo85 00:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I often add other comments (like thanking the user for a specific edit) after the welcome. An auto-signature would mean I have to sign twice. Kusma (討論) 12:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Too impersonal?
I got an interesting response where I gave someone the standard welcome template:


 * Interesting. I feel fully auto-welcomed after having been here for about six months.

Tim 14:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I welcomed you when I saw an entry with an account name and a red linked talk page in my watch list.  However, this account only has 16 edits and oldest is about three and half months ago.  Make that a belated welcome.  Enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. RJFJR 16:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The welcome is good, it was just a bit automanted and souless is all. And as you should well know, there's no need to have an account to contribute to wikipedia, so the account activations not that accurate. Just, in future, try a greeting which doesn't seem to imply "sigh, another newbie" beneath it. I may yet suprise you. Tim 19:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Should we change the template to make it more personal? RJFJR 14:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Impersonal? Well, I think a standard message intended to be used for welcoming thousands of different users will by its nature be somewhat impersonal. The point of the template is to cover the standard basics. If it gives new users useful information, the template serves it use. Some of us add personal messages before or after the template. I don't think we can please everyone. -- Infrogmation 16:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Categorize please
Can this template please be added to Category:Welcome templates? It would be nice to have all the templates in the category. Perhaps Template:Anon, Template:Anon-m, Template:Welcome2, and Template:Welcomenh could also be added. I think that all of them are also protected. Thanks for your consideration. --After Midnight 0001 02:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC) Since no one has objected to my last post, can someone do this please. Also, let me know if you can doo all the pages or if I need to tag each individually. --After Midnight 0001 16:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Done; sorry for the delay. Each page you requested has been added to the category. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 16:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Heading
Would it be possible to change the bold heading Welcome! to a proper heading like in Welcome-anon. It would make it easier and quicker to welcome users. Lcarsdata (Talk) 19:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done --  Netsnipe  ►  04:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Heh, this was asked just above not long ago Template talk:Welcome but good thing it finally got updated --WikiSlasher 15:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I much prefer it to appear before the TOC. Can we change it back? Powers T 22:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You can manually put after the Welcome message --WikiSlasher 06:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Wow, wikipolicy actually change the way I wanted. I am so shocked and overjoyed. Thanks so much for adding the == == to the template... Travb (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Reason for showing welcome
I'd like to propose a short addition - explaining why the Welcome template is being displayed to the user. When I first saw the welcome template, I wondered whether I had done something wrong and was being gently corrected. Something like:

"You are seeing this automated message because you have made (x) edits."

Ronnotel 15:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess the template is self-explanatory. If a stranger suddenly says "hi" to you on the street, do you always think it is because you did something wrong? :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, but if a stranger suddenly started giving me a memorized explanation of some of the finer points of the street's use, culture, etc. I might think he was weird, LOL... ----Steve 13:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, say you start a new job and are invited to an orientation session by the company. A staff  at that event puts in your hand a package containing the history of the company, a list of your duties, etc. Does that person have to tell you "Don't worry, this is just a welcome package, we gave it to you because you are new, it does not mean we don't like you, all is cool, just read it when you have time"? I don't think so. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, sorry, I didn't add anything to the discussion except humor. I'm kinda like that, hehe ----Steve 16:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Please demote the heading
The heading at the top of this template has recently been promoted from bold text to a heading. Please demote it again (reverting the edit); it's causing duplicate headings for people who have got into the habit of writing their own headings, and presumably it messes up user scripts that people use for welcomes (although I choose to do them manually). --ais523 15:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above, welcome messages don't always need a heading because they are occasionally the first message placed on the new users talk page, and such high use talk templates should not be changed in such a big way anyway as users won't be aware of the changes.-- Andeh 16:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I became aware of the changes as soon as I tried to welcome someone (I had to make a second edit to remove the duplicate heading)...
 * Done. I think a welcome template with header can exist in addition to this one, but there's no need to change this one.
 * For example, welcome2 has a header. Kusma (討論) 19:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the great suggestion, I will start using: Welcome2, For ease of reading for future wikieditors, I refactored your comments, BTW. Travb (talk) 13:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The list
I noticed what I think is a grammatical mistake in the list of links. (I am not certain if it is actually an error; if I am wrong, please tell me.) I propose the list is changed to the following. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: It is a minor change, which affects the aesthetics of the list (meaning that it introduces black text where previously there was none), but it may be a useful contribution in that it applies more correct English grammar (I think; again, I may be wrong in my assumption). --Iamunknown 19:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia,
 * How to edit a page,
 * Help pages,
 * Tutorial,
 * How to write a great article and
 * Manual of Style.
 * -- Andeh 18:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * -- Andeh 18:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * See List guideline — we generally avoid punctuation in lists. Thanks/wangi 19:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay. Thanks! --Iamunknown 19:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to include Requests for Feedback in the welcome template
User:Radiant! has suggested that we consider using the welcome templates as a way to advertise Requests for Feedback, a program which is targeted at new users. Your thoughts are solicited. --Richard 04:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I trully doubt a centralized place for feeback will work for reasons of scale. About adding the link in the welcome template, my primary concern is that the current welcome template is already too big. If it is possible to remove one of the current links and adding instead the requests for feeback link, then I would not be really opposed to that (but I don't think that is necessarily a good idea either). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to have link to Adopt-a-User
Although this service is new - this template would be the perfect place to advertise the Adopt-a-user page. I not yet got anything to do with this project (though hopefully will have soon) - so contact the people who have set up Adopt-a-user if any further questions.

Cheers Lethaniol 17:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * While this idea is cute, I don't think it is worth telling each and every new user about it. I think the current links in welcome are better resources than the "Adopt a user" program. Ultimately the best way to feel at home on Wikipedia is to start contributing to articles and the interaction which follows from that, I would think. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Oleg, although I noticed there's not really any links in the template for what to edit, but rather on how to edit and how to get help. Perhaps we should add something like Maintenance or another page which includes links to that as well as WP:Adopt. Vicarious 04:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for saying my idea is cute - it is just that. And I would like to ask why we can't tell every new user about WP:ADOPT - if only a fraction take up the offer then they will learn quicker and edit more efficiently. The problem with the current links is that they go to other pages of info that link to yet more pages of info - they rarely, except in the case of Help desk which is widely underused, actually get you to a person.

The whole idea of WP:ADOPT is to give a human interface for the various problems that new users face. But for it to work the new users need to know about it. Most new users should get this template put on their talk page as hence it is ideal to advertise a service that looks to target the newest of users. At the moment, my experience suggests that we are picking up semi-experienced new users - which is fine but we need access to newest of users to have the greatest impact.

Many thanks Lethaniol 18:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. With respect to setting up a Maintenance link - sounds good - but not a place for WP:ADOPT - am trying to get it added to WP:HELP which makes more sense I think. Lethaniol 18:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see debate at Village pump %28proposals%29 and comment there, many thanks Lethaniol 15:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Please add interwiki for zh-classical
zh-classical:Template:歡迎 Yao Ziyuan 08:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Done; thanks. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 02:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

subst:welcome
I've noticed many bots and users using subst with this template. Should the template be changed too automaticly subst ? (Gnevin 18:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC))
 * Is there a way to do that? I don't think so, unless it's very new. — Mets501 (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Something like afd, is prob the best way to go (Gnevin 00:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC))
 * If that is implemented, and the welcomer is sloppy and forgests to subst it and does not check, the welcomed newbie will see that fat red bold text on his talk page. That's not a good idea I think, and there is no huge imperative to have the welcome template subst'ed. A better idea would be I think for a bot to visit user talk pages and quitely subst it every now and then. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Linking to contributions in the template...
Is it possible to change the template to link to the user's contributions, i.e. that we change the:
 * your contributions

in the first line of the template to something like:
 *  your contributions 

Nephron T|C 22:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that would not be so useful. I think the contributions link is already highly visible, at the very top right of each page, and also on the left sidebar if one is looking at his own user/talk page. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the redundancy is useful 'cause new users may not immediately clue in to the various links at the top and side of the page. Nephron T|C 01:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Reduntancy is good to some extent but if we add the contributions link, the user will see that link in three places. That's too much, and really, the contributions link is not that important. Besides, I'd bet that the users are much more likely to see the current "contributions" link at the very top of the page (next to user name, preferences, etc) rather than look it up in the welcome template. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Automating welcoming users
Is there a way to automate adding welcome to a user's talk page? I have a script which adds tabs to the top when I edit a user talk page, but I can't tell what some of them are. They include "ES", "O", "J", "W-N", "W-A", and "W-A-P". Something similar that just adds welcome would be, pardon the pun, welcome. Will (Talk - contribs) 06:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Subst
Why shouldn't be subst'd? --67.121.125.170 02:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I made it work. See this and this. --67.121.125.170 03:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it is impossible to device a trick to make the welcome template work well both when subst'ed and non-subst'ed. Either it works with and it produces garbage when written as , or we have the current situation that  is not subst'ed.


 * The simplest idea is to use a bot to subst the . Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, it is possible to make it work with both and subst:, but this modified syntax will probably make a harder time for substituters. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)