Template talk:Welcomeg

comment
There seems to be a problem with welcoming people whose name end in "!!" (looks like thisa\). Not sure if there is a way to fix this, just thought I'd say it here. -- Will Mak  050389  15:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

A question to other welcomers
It has been suggested that we merge templates similar to this one. I have a version of this one that I use here User:Kukini/Welcome. I like having it there, as I feel free to adjust it to fit the different things I would like it to say based on my interactions with other users (particularly new ones). I would probably use the Template:Welcomeg template if it said a few more things in the header than does this one right now. Honestly, I am OK with people copying this, or the one on my userpage and making it fit them, but I am open to discussion on the topic. Finally, thank you to those of you who do welcome other new users with this sort of information and courtesy. Kukini 23:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * My suggestion was this:
 * I'm primarily asking you all (see below) to merge, so that every new user gets the best possible welcome (template). These 4 are identical, except for the new colours at 2 of them, and the lead-paragraphs.
 * User:Ashlux/Welcome
 * User:Centrx/Welcome
 * User:Kukini/Welcome
 * Template:Welcomeg
 * Then compare with User:Kylu/welcome, which is different enough to warrant a seperate version.


 * Instead of forking into tiny variants, and confusing things at Welcome template table, I suggest it's better to put improvements into a single version, for the benefit of all. Thanks :) --Quiddity· (talk) 01:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK then...do other users want the rest of the text I have in mine? Kukini 05:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I was bold, and updated it. I don't know if I should be so bold as to redirect the 3 duplicates here though; I'll leave that up to you all. I am going to remove the duplicates from Welcome template table now though. --Quiddity· (talk) 01:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I very much like the new header information. However, purely from an aesthetic standpoint, I do not like the color change--too green and with the section introductions being the same color as the background and being transparent, they provide a weak contrast.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I am open to other color schemes, although Quiddity, I am not sure I am ready to have mine redirected. Perhaps in a little while. Lets see how things go. Kukini 00:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK...so I added some text as well. We'll see what y'all think. Kukini 00:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I went with the greens for its welcoming emotional colour, and connection to Esperanza. I was also trying to keep to the soft palette used on the Main Page, Help page, Community Portal, and various 'officialish' infoboxes/navtemplates. (see Colours).
 * Would you like me to change the colours back, or to try/draft-elsewhere more variants? I'll do one more experiment with a different blue, see how you like that. :) --Quiddity· (talk) 01:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the blue opaque was nice:-) Moreover, because this is obviously the most pressing issue facing the 'pedia, I suggest we immediately conduct a straw poll with the colors of rainbow as our criteria.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine, back to original colors. and :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quiddity (talk • contribs)
 * I agree with Centrx, that we don't need to elaborate on edit summaries though. I'll remove a bit of that. --Quiddity· (talk) 04:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As I feel we DO need to elaborate on edit summaries, I will keep my welcome independent. Kukini 15:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Section heading
Does a section heading need to be there? I'm so used to typing out my own, that every time I use this template, the talk page always ends up with two section headings. If not remove it, could it be made to be a bit less enthusiastic? By that, I mean could two exclamation marks be removed? talk to JD wants e-mail 23:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree it needs to go. I sometimes use the "+" tab at the top and this gives it 2 headings. -- Will Mak  050389  23:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. --Quiddity 00:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, and here is another thing...I like the heading. Well...there are many reasons some of us need our own adapted templates. Just glad you are doing welcomes, everyone...keep up the good work! Kukini 04:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Watching this continue to morph away from what a welcome from me might look like, I remain a supporter of personalized welcome templates. - Kukini 20:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:WelcomeBotResearch
I hope it was ok me including this category into the template, and the mention of the adopt-a-user program. At the moment there are many issues that i am trying to research. This category serves our research into new users and the various trends associated with the user creation log. The main points of interest are...


 * Did the user contribute at all
 * Did the user partake in vandalism or any other abuse of the system.
 * Did the user become blocked.
 * Did the user create a user page.
 * Did the user express an interest in the adopt-a-user program
 * Did the user partake in any wikiprojects.

Please discuss these issues and/or offer your help in analysing these points on the category's talk page. Thank you! frummer 22:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is the resulting data? Could you clarify how this is related to what you added to the page. Why does this whatever you mean warrant three extra lines being added to the template? (Did you do research on how many people will be scared off by long instructions, or how many people will simply not read any of it because of its length?) —Centrx→talk &bull; 00:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Aaah!
Good grief! I know the creators meant well, but this template and others like are are waaay to busy, garish and ugly. They take up a ton of room, and quite frankly, clog up talk pages. Template:Welcome is simple but sweet and doesn't take half a page of flash! wiz! bang! pop! to say "Howdy." --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 18:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I wish I had such a useful collection of the most important links to policies and tools when I first started editing.  I think the welcomeg template is pleasant-looking, and friendly.  Jerry lavoie 23:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jerry. -- K u k i ni  hablame aqui 05:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This may seem useful to the seasoned Wikipedian, but this would be overwhelming for a new user. The simple introduction pages would be appropriate for a new user. &#8212;SparklingWiggleGet a job! 16:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I full agree and recommend against usage, further comment solicited at, Wikipedia_talk:Welcoming_committee. &there4; here&hellip;&spades; 06:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm very much in favour of this useful template and have commented at the above link. Tyrenius 18:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I struck a good balance. Made all tables collapsible. Doesnt take up much place in talk page. Somebody improve colour combinations. cheers. Lara bran 04:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This may help with talk page clutter, but does nothing to address the complexity concern. A new user edits their talk page to find a mess of tables, CSS, and now inexplicable vanishing elements..  While the collection of links remains nice, I still recommend that new users' talk pages be generally kept to contents they can understand and learn from when viewing the source, such as a single simple link.  However, enough feel otherwise to keep the template, and thus -- thanks for the change Lara ;).  &there4; here&hellip;&spades; 06:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, enough feel otherwise. I would have very much appreciated such a good guide when I started. I couldn't work out how to find any of the policies. Tyrenius 08:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for acceptance of my edit. I made another edit which will make code easily understood by new users with comments "table starts/ends here". This i think improves readability of code. Again, somebody improve color combination. thanks, Lara bran 09:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Would it help with the colours if they were parameterised, as in userboxes? If they were set to fairly neutral defaults, Users could then choose their own if they wanted to jazz up the display, and also learn a little about editing/formatting? Just a thought, Lynbarn 10:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for making this wonderful template, umm...author(s) of this template. I just had my talk page created and filled with it and it is wonderful in many many ways, but good grief! It is huge. My newly created talk page feels like a sign of some sort. And I'm not quite sure if I should delete it or reply to it. But anyways, that's not why I am here. I'm here to suggest adding one of those little [show] and [hide] buttons. I think hide would be best by default. Hmm, last post was over two years ago. Wonder if there is any life here still.--Nakerlund (talk) 01:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooh, I just discovered that it's already done in Welcomec. I much prefer it to this template.--Nakerlund (talk) 02:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Pasted code complexity
An example where I presume this welcome template message is at least partially responsible for messing up a page: User talk:Manghatpranav19. I CBF figuring out exactly what went wrong there, but it’s even screwed with my section further down the page. I wonder if at least the fancy table syntax and formatting is necessary. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 12:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC).

Display Error?
When using this template, I sometimes (but not always) get â€¢ displayed instead of a bullet separator, such as:

Manual of Style â€¢ Three-revert rule â€¢ Sock puppetry

instead of: Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry

Any idea what causes this? It is not the PC I'm using, as it happens on some pages but not others, and across different PCs... or do I just need new specs? Thanks, Lynbarn 08:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There was a recent bug in the talk page archiving bot that clobbered UTF-8 characters. --  Netsnipe  ►  10:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

odd edit history behaviour
A few minutes ago, I reverted (well, tried to) the edit by User:Andyjsmith as it seemed to have removed all the show/hide boxes. As I edited it though, something odd was happening with the page history, some edits seemed to go missing, then reappear next time I returned to the history page, so I will leave it till later to see what happens. Regards, Lynbarn 12:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Collapsible and recent changes
The recent collapsible sections additions were reverted, along with a number of other undisputed edits. I'm not sure how these edits were unjustified and against consensus, as there were no objections. I prefer the collapsible sections, and also the removal of the bold-face from the intro text. Also Getting "adopted" by was reverted to Get adoption from. Vanderdecken, would you explain the wholesale revert? &there4; here&hellip;&spades; 19:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As a frequent welcomer these days, I don't really care. I slightly prefer the current version, but I received a response from a new user who said the hide/show format was cool. Yechiel Man  01:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How's about making them both available as separate templates, just as there is Welcomeh, which I use, as it provides a heading automatically.Tyrenius 01:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tyrenius, collapsible welcome can be made in seperate template. Also current template has long history, let it remain as it is. But only change i suggest is using "start and end of table" comments. This is because 1. table code is difficult to comprehend, 2. message is not properly visible(and unnecessarily bold), 3. sign is not at end of message 4. current code is asked for deletion due to complexity. Lara bran 03:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I reverted to which has same look and feel as good old, which we consider as temp consensus. Collapsible can be done after consensus. I feel collapsible can be made in a separate template.Lara bran 03:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Lara, as a new Wikipedian, I'm not sure you understand the idea of consensus - we leave it how it was, before you made any changes. Consensus means what the community has identified to be a majority opinion, and your edit does not qualify - leave it as it was before you started making changes. Then we can discuss, here, whether your version should be brought back in or split off to another template. This is a high-usage template, so any major changes must be discussed here first. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that including comments which would help new users understand what the huge code block on their page means is a good idea but I don't think this should be done by changing the overall appearance of the message (as Lara bran's did). As for establishing consensus, I like the old/consensus version better than any of the new versions I've seen in the last few days /$0.02 Stardust8212 12:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

As one of the editors who was responsible for greatly expanding Welcomeg in the first place, I support Lara bran's collapsible feature. Welcomeg has been criticized in the past for being too intimidating for newcomers with its barrage of links. Collapsing the template makes it much easier on the eyes in my honest opinion. Forking off another welcome template when one will do is just redundant. We only need one welcome template that links to just about every policy and guideline we have. The only other suggestion I'd like to make is that we keep the old colour scheme (which I'm rather fond of) on the collapsible version. --  Netsnipe  ►  13:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC) Collapsible version needs a border and background of old version, it can be tried directly as we are changing only style. (I earlier had thought that there are many welcome templates, so started changing without consensus). Lara bran 15:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC) Additional fixes are base page name substitution and working "your contributions link". Lara bran 08:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Collapsible looks completely different than the old version, mostly because of color change. But collapsible is the way to go in future. I was compelled to change colors as "show/hide" was not visible.
 * As I've expressed above, I also prefer the collapsible layout. However, if it continues to be a point of contention; making an additional template is a cheap and effective way to please all parties...  at least until they show up at TfD for forced merging ;).  In the spirit of continued cryptic-but-short naming -- How about welcomec?  &there4; here&hellip;&spades; 21:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Stop! dont create welcomec. I have created welcomeg/c, u can test till consensus or even start using subst:welcomeg/c right now. It has simple code because welcomeg/table is not substituted, dont forget to check the code after u use in some page. It includes section heading and sign also Lara bran 04:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Now, code of welcomeg/cis simpler than welcome, give a look at resultant code at userpage. Here /c stands for cllapsible. Lara bran 04:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you move to welcomec - simpler. Tyrenius 05:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why move, you can use subst:welcomeg/c straightaway. Anyways you are subst'ing.
 * Move because it's simpler, as I said and easier to remember.Tyrenius 17:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I would rather love to move to welcomeg itself on consensus. Contents are nothing but the same right? Any objections Vanderdecken? Lara bran 06:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There is clearly no consensus, thus the creation of a new template. welcomec is much easier to type and remember -- as well as being inline with other existing templates like welcomeh which vary on this model.  &there4; here&hellip;&spades; 08:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, objection to moving to welcomeg. Give people a choice. Variety is the spice of life etc... Tyrenius 15:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Okey, welcomec Beta version released. See talk page there. Lara bran 06:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

wait, now one risk, in newer version i made table into non-subst template. which will make {{tl|welcomeg/table} immortal. That you cant delete at all. But this reduces code in user page to significantly and saves wiki memory. Lara bran 11:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pages needing attention
This link says it is obsolete. I give out copies of this mostly to new users... or at least those who do things that make it seem they are new (like edits that get them warned). My edit "skillz" are not "leet" and I fear to try to change the template, but this link says it is dead, so it should be removed, I think. Is there a replacement? sinneed (talk) 05:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Linking to the Teahouse on the welcome template
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. Thank you for your consideration :) Sarah (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * See discussion on Template talk:Welcome. KillerChihuahua ?!? 22:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Linking to the getting started guide at the long template
I would like for the "getting started" link at Template:Welcomeg/links to link to Help:Getting started WhisperToMe (talk) 07:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for updating the template
I came across the current table and updated it for use on my talk page. I wish I had something like it when I first joined last year and for reference as I began to use Wikipedia more extensively.

I would propose for your consideration updating the Welcome table, as shown below.

I updated the welcome introduction.

I regrouped links with more closely related topics. I added more complete link descriptions when it would provide a clearer explanation of the linked information for a user prior to them clicking on the link. I added a couple of key links that I found would be useful to know for immediate access for users rather than trying to search for them. Wondering55 (talk) 06:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

 COLLAPSIBLE VERSION 

 EXPANDED VERSION 

{| style="background-color: #F5FFFA; padding: 0;" cellpadding="0"
 * style="border: 1px solid #084080; background-color: #F5FFFA; vertical-align: top; color: #000;"|
 * style="border: 1px solid #084080; background-color: #F5FFFA; vertical-align: top; color: #000;"|

{| width="100%" style="background-color:#F5FFFA;"
 * style="width: 50%; border:1px solid #FFFFFF; background-color:#F5FFFA; vertical-align:top"|
 * class="MainPageBG" style="width: 50%; border:1px solid #FFFFFF; background-color:#F5FFFA; vertical-align:top"|


 * }
 * }


 * Updating this template is on my todo list. I'm on my mobile so can't see what your proposal is,  but I'll look it over when I get to this template.  I'm actually revamping all welcome templates, and this is one of many. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 11:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry but besides disagreeing with the form of many of the titling and content changes, it looks very daunting and cluttered to me now. What criteria did you use to here? For example, when you asked me what welcome template I used to find this one, I happened to tell you about hidden comments and linked that because I was using one. Now I see that prominently listed in this template when I think it's something quite off the beaten path and far from a core thing to tell people about in the limited real estate of this template. Just looking at some other changes randomly as examples, why should link for being bold in editing be moved from the writing section to the "how to:" area? It makes little sense to me there and made perfect sense where it was. Why is the Teahouse (singly out of all others) bolded? Many of the expanded descriptions are oddly named to my ear: "Article stubs (too short as encyclopedic coverage)"; the change of "featured content" to "Showcase of best articles..." etc. There are links to some things you've added that might be good to keep but it's hard to see those trees when the forest has been replanted.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I can tell you that if I, as a relatively new user with some experience, found the link descriptions in the table to be confusing and unclear, along with an inadequate number of links that need to be provided to enhance a user's experience, I would assume other neophytes and general users would find similar problems.


 * When I first joined Wikipedia, I received an even simpler welcoming template. Eventually, I had to spend a lot of my time over the course of the year searching and sifting through an extensive number of wikilinks to find the critical tools, many of which were buried inside other articles, that I needed. Even then, I did not find everything that I need.


 * I also updated outdated wikilinks in the table.


 * The problem, and at the same time a benefit, is that Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and help, and the portal links to find that information, is not organized into singular, primary sources. There are many paths to eventually find the right information. The table needs to provide several of these similar, but different, linked paths so that users can eventually decide for themselves how to find items.


 * If there was only one way to find things, Wikipedia would just have one Wikipedia manual guide, with one link for new users to find it in the table of contents.


 * My updated table is an attempt to provide a more complete organized toolbox for new users and their development into more accomplished general users. The current table does not provide enough of these primary tools. You can provide a simple toolbox that users will quickly grow out of, or provide a more complete, relevant, and better organized toolbox that will better serve their needs.


 * The very simple "Getting started" first section that I updated quickly gets new users off the ground and running. Users can then explore the other more complete sections, as they need to.


 * I put the two links for "Edit a page" and "Be bold in editing" next to each other in the Getting started section since they are integrally related. Why should a new user find out how to edit in the "Getting started" section, but not know until they get to the "Writing article" section that that they can be bold in their editing. Since most new users are not even beginning as article writers, they are beginning to edit articles and might not even focus on the "Writing article" section.


 * I bolded "The Teahouse" link to highlight that is has Help based on peer review rather than the more administrative type of Help links. When all is said and done, after going to all of the administrative help links to get cut and dry explanations that may be too technical, many users, particularly new users, find it refreshing to get a peer review explanation that is more understandable and flexible.


 * The problems with the current table is that, in many cases, it is planted more like a haphazard, sparse forest with unrelated items next to each other rather than a lush garden with related items in a nice row. (Ex: What does "Conflict of interest" have anything to do with "Notability"?; What does "Join a Wikiproject" have anything to do with "Translation", etc.).


 * Even though there are more items in this updated table, I tried to put them in neatly organized rows of similarly related links to make it easier for users.


 * Many of the very short description links in the current table do not intuitively tell users what they are about to find. Some descriptions are too specific when a more general and better description of the linked article would be more appropriate. Some descriptions are meaningless to anyone looking at them for the first time (i.e. Village pump, IRC channels, Signpost) and needed a more user friendly description based on the key lede text from the corresponding linked articles.


 * Repeating the article's title in a highlighted link is not always the best approach since sometimes it may not be clear to the new user how it is related to their needs for this table. In some cases, a more user-friendly description tailored to the needs of a new/general user is better. Editors do this all the time when providing wikilinks in articles.


 * I had no idea what I would find when clicking on "Featured content" (what exactly is being featured?). I updated this link based on the description in the lede section for that article that indicates it "showcases" the "best" articles that Wikipedia has for meeting its criteria for content and editing guidelines.


 * I had no idea what I would find when clicking on "Translation" (translation of what, what languages, for what purpose, etc.) I elaborated with a more user friendly description.


 * "Article stubs" is a meaningless technical description, which many users will not know if it is even relevant to them, until they click on the linked article. I tried to highlight from the article lede what is the key focus of the linked article. Feel free to revise it to better explain what the link is for.


 * When I added links with similar, but different scopes, I tried to elaborate further in the description in order to provide some type of distinction between the links.


 * Feel free to take out any of the hidden comments from the updated template since I did not know which would be needed and which could be deleted. Wondering55 (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * A great deal of what you are saying is addressed by the fact that these are links, meant to be clicked on to learn the details. The number one purpose of any such template must be to maximize getting the recipients to do that clicking to see what's behind the curtain because they are not going to learn what the pages actually say unless they do so. I was once a new user too and confronted with the messy sprawl I see above, compared to what it is currently, would not have served me well. Descriptions that pipe actual names that we use for things (thus not teaching what things are called which will be seen again and again) resulting in a template that looks to the eye like this does not serve new users well. Of course, each person learns differently and it may very well be that this would have served you better when you arrived, but not me and not most I think. Indeed, I think many new users would take one look at this density and say "holy shit" to themselves and that would be the end of exploring it, while looking at the current they would be far more likely click on the neatly organized, segregated links to see what they say. You could always create WelcomeG2 or WelcomeD or whatever as an alternative, even describing it as "Based on WelcomeG but providing..." You say this is better organized but I think it looks and reads quite the opposite (though I am not necessarily saying that some links you've included should not be added). By the way, this was nominated for deletion back in 2012. While I disagree with the sentiment expressed there that this was too overwhelming for new users, that trend in the discussion directly militates against these changes.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Users can easily check out the "Getting started" section without getting overwhelmed. The number one purpose of any learning/support template table is not to be a guessing game of what is behind a link and not to waste users' time on items they may have absolutely no interest in. Taking this to the extreme, we could make many of the link descriptions simply the widely used acronyms rather than providing the full description of the item (i.e.: 3RR instead of Three revert rule, etc.). I provided both so that users become familiar with both of them.


 * The welcome template that I received only had 5 links. You could easily have chosen to send new users that very simple template, yet you chose to send them the current "simple" table, which has 66 links that apparently you feel is not overwhelming. Yet, my updated "complex" table has 77 links, which is only 11 more, and suddenly you suggest it becomes overwhelming for users. You can try again to explain why the table with the 77 links is overwhelming, but the current table with 66 links is just right. However, I don't think that argument is going to fly.


 * There are even links in the current table that could be eliminated. I chose to leave them in and add a few that I find of value. My proposed table can be trimmed. I thought it would be better to start with a full plate and trim the links, as needed, rather than provide an incomplete plate of links and have everyone pile on new ones.


 * I could see 8 existing and proposed links in my proposed table that could be eliminated, if necessary, so then my updated table would have 69 links vs. the current table with 66 links. Except that the new table would have more new links with an improved arrangement and more descriptive info. Ultimately, it is not the number of links, but the value and expected frequency of use that each link provides that should decide whether it stays in or not.


 * Whether there are 66 links, as per the current table, or 77 links, as per the proposed table, or some other relatively lower or higher number of links, should not be the deciding to go with one table or the other. Wondering55 (talk) 01:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You're quite missing the point here. On the issue of "sprawl" (which is not the sole issue), this is not about counting any number of links but about the visual jumble of display.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It is an updated table with clearly delineated lined sections with clear straight rows of links clearly separated with bullets that is a standard format for table presentations. The table should try to avoid listing every link on a separate row since we want to avoid making the table too long lengthwise that would take up too much screen space. Guess what? The current table uses a similar format.


 * I fail to see the sprawl or the jumble, but I can somewhat understand your viewpoint and am sure that these concerns and the lengths and amount text for link descriptions can be easily addressed by editors with a flair for professional presentations. We can all work together to reach consensus on this. Let's give it a chance and see where it takes us. Wondering55 (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I updated the table, as noted below. There are currently 72 links in the table section. In referencing the links below, I indicated whether they are (E) - Existing items in the current template, or (P) - Proposed new item for inclusion


 * Deleted "Introduction" (E) since it is the first item highlighted in "Getting started" (P), which provides the user with additional useful links not already covered in this table.
 * Moved "benefits of registering" (P) and "creating a user/talk page" (P) links into the introduction section since while they provide useful info, they would not be used frequently. However, these highlighted links in the introduction section might spark an interest in others, who came across a users page with this template, or could be forwarded by the registered user to others, who might express a similar interest in registering or creating a user page.
 * Deleted "Simplified Manual of Style" (E) since a user is going to quickly go to the "Manual of Style" (P) link in the simplified version article if they want to really accomplish anything.
 * Deleted "Image use policy" (E) since it is identified in a link in the "Upload and use images" (E) in the "Getting started" section
 * Copy edited link descriptions to make them more intuitive and clearer
 * Rearranged and regrouped some links in same row with common topics for better flow and view of topics
 * In some cases, I split the primary linked title text from the secondary regular text explaining the focus of that link. Hopefully, this enhances the visual presentation. Wondering55 (talk) 04:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I copy edited the description of Wikipedia newspaper link in the table and added common abbreviation for various linked topics. Wondering55 (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I added non-breaking spaces after bullets and before abbreviations in the table. Wondering55 (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I requested a relatively new Wikipedia user, who already received the current template/table, to provide feedback about the benefits, need for other improvements, limitations, or problems with the proposed Welcome template/table and compare the current Welcome template/table with my proposed template/table. The user responded:


 * "Your version is definitely an improvement and I've taken a copy, uploaded above. I think yours should be the standard version now and I'll use it myself if I come across any newcomers. Thanks again."

The proposed Welcome template improves on the current table due to:


 * Updated the welcome introduction, including some new links, with helpful suggestions.


 * Rearranged and regrouped many links with common topics in the table for better flow and view of related topics.


 * Kept the visual presentation of the table as simple as possible with limited number of links on each line to avoid previously mentioned "jumble" and "sprawl".


 * Since "Getting started" and "Getting help" sections would be the most important to new users, kept these sections as simple as possible to avoid overwhelming novice users.


 * Added better link descriptions when it would provide a clearer explanation of the linked information for a user prior to them clicking on the link.


 * Added nine key links that I found would be useful to know for immediate access for users rather than trying to figure out where to search for them. Deleted 3 links that were of lesser value or contained info found in other highlighted links.


 * Updated outdated wikilinks in the table. Wondering55 (talk) 04:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Moved "Writing Articles" to the top of the second column since it can be a higher priority for new users interested in creating or modifying articles. Wondering55 (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Added "Attributions" to Policies and Guidelines and "Wikicode" to Writing Articles based on useful wikilinks that I saw in other Welcome templates. Wondering55 (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I made minor changes to the welcome introduction, including adding back the "Hello, " that is included in the current template.


 * The benefits and improvements for the proposed updated table are outlined immediately above. The table set-up can be used by novice users, who can get started immediately with the simple "Getting started" and "Getting help" sections.


 * These novice users and others can then find useful benefits and very practical info in the more comprehensive sections, which are still set up with limited links on each line and more intuitive link descriptions that are set up with an intelligent flow of topics that avoids sprawl and will help users get to the links they need without having to click on links to find out if a link is even applicable to what they are looking for.


 * I know that I and other users have indicated that they definitely needed a more comprehensive, well-organized, set of linked resources that would help them after they got done with the many simpler Welcome introductions, including the current template, that they received when first joining Wikipedia as a registered user. I believe my proposed table could meet their needs since I have also looked at all of the other current welcoming templates to ensure that this proposed table has the best links from the current templates and then provides better and even more useful links.


 * Any comments would be appreciated about how or whether the whole table or parts of the table should be collapsible, after the welcome introduction, with a Show/Hide button. I am not capable of adding this feature myself so I would have to defer to other Wiki experts on how to accomplish that function. I have no problem with using the fully displayed table, even when it takes up a good amount of screen space. However, some users, particularly mobile users, might want the option of being able to collapse the table.


 * I am a novice with wikicode in general and would have to defer to others about any comments about wikicode.


 * Please advise if you find my proposed updates (which were noted by one novice user as a great improvement, over the current template, that he will share with others) for this welcoming table to be an improvement (Support) or if you have any (Comments) about any drawbacks or need for further modifications. Hopefully, we can get the current welcome table updated and available for others. Edit template-protected Wondering55 (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I provided an alternate collapsible version of the welcoming table at the top of this section with the expanded version below it. This should address user's preference that this table not take up so much space on their Talk page when it is posted for welcoming them. Wondering55 (talk) 04:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I would recommend the collapsible version as the default version since it would not immediately overwhelm new users or those that go to their Talk page and see this updated welcoming table. Wondering55 (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * After user 's partial revert, I have reverted further to last known good. The proposed new version doesn't look good. - DVdm (talk) 10:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * This is an extremely well-used template, and looked horrid as a collapsed template. We have "short" welcomes to use where needed - this one needs to be left alone, as well as its partner welcomeh.  the panda ₯’  11:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

In comparison to the current template, the updated version of the template has:


 * Improved Welcome introduction, including some new links, with additional helpful suggestions
 * Good visual presentation in the expanded form of the table with limited number of links on each line
 * Better regrouping of links with common topics in the table for better flow and view of related topics
 * More practical descriptions of the links so that users do not have to guess what they are clicking on
 * "Getting started" and "Getting help" sections, which are the most important for novice users, has more complete set of helpful links for novice users, yet remains fairly simple
 * Other sections, which can also be referenced as users gain experience, have more complete set of helpful links so that users do not have to figure out where to reference these very practical tools, resources, and information
 * Corrected links instead of outdated links that redirect users to the correct links
 * Collapsible table so that the welcome greeting does not overwhelm a user's page and and is easily expandable

When I gave a user the choice between the current Welcomeg greeting and table and the updated Welcome greeting with more comprehensive links in the expanded version, they immediately chose the updated version.

When I gave that same user, the choice between the expanded or collapsible version of the updated Welcome greeting with more comprehensive links, they immediately chose the collapsible version since it does not overwhelm their page and is easily expanded, when needed.

The user indicated that the updated versions, both in the expanded and collapsible form, are much better than the current Welcomeg greeting. They would have used either the expanded or collapsible version when welcoming new users rather than the current greeting since the updated version is better with more useful links. Since the collapsible version does not overwhelm novice users or the presentation on their user page and is very easy to expand, they indicated that they would post the collapsible version on new users' pages when welcoming them.

The user indicated that they would continue to use the Welcome greeting based on the updated, collapsible version with more comprehensive links when welcoming new users, rather than the reverted current Welcomeg greeting.

There has been no user feedback to indicate that there is anything wrong with the updated version of the Welcomeg greeting with better and more comprehensive links

I recommend that the updated template be used either in the expanded or collapsible form. I would recommend the collapsible form. Any suggested improvements in terms of presentation or content would be welcomed.

The improved version should not be eliminated without further discussion. Wondering55 (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Here's the polite version: it's pure crap, and is an embarrassment to lay that "modified" version on a new user's talkpage. Nothing like making Wikipedia look bad to a new user: well done!  the panda ₯’  00:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Not sure why DangerousPanda is using such personally denigrating comments and their lack of civility rather than addressing the updated content based on constructive NPOV comments. Even their Talk History edit comment, "bad, crap" is uncivil. Hopefully, others will address the updated greeting content and presentation, which can always be improved based on constructive comments. If there are problems with the updated greeting, it can be presented in a more civil manner. Wondering55 (talk) 04:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * If I would have been welcomed by such a message, I would have run away. I certainly would not be amused getting thanked for "recognizing the benefits of becoming a registered user, creating your user/talk page, and your contributions" if I had no idea what those benefits would be, and not having created my user talk page in the first place. And I can practice in my sandbox without adding on my user page. The proposed language is ambiguous, wrong and convoluted. Ugly at best. - DVdm (talk) 07:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * There was nothing remotely uncivil about my statement about the content and impression of the edits, nor was there anything uncivil in my edit summary. Everything I have said discusses the edits and not the editor, which is the core component of the civility policy.  I have not disparaged any editor who made the edits.  The new version, literally, looks like crap.  The simple reality is this: the template exists long-form for a reason.  If you want to put a shorter template, we already have those".  One cannot look at the template itself in isolation and make such changes....other (shorter) ones already evolved from this one.  I believe people were acting in good faith, but go and apply that good faith in another location.  Driving editors away with further of these types of edits to a core template will not be acceptable as "good faith"  the panda ₯’  09:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me add: having read the discussion, it was obviously clear that you had no consensus to make any changes at all. You had been told in advance not to modify it.  Since consensus had been reached, you had no authority to be "bold" - that wholesale change was 180 degrees contrary to process, and disruptive.  Please don't do that anywhere else on the project  the panda ₯’  09:24, 19 April 2014 (U
 * It was obviously clear from the discussions that there was no consensus and absolutely no objections since March 5 to the many updates that I made to improve the modified version of the template based on previous feedback. There was absolutely no directive to me in advance not to modify the template. Since no consensus had been reached, I had every right to be "bold" in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, and it was not contrary to process.


 * When the only comments about my content with good faith, reasonable updates based on extensive research include disrespectful words like "embarrassing", and foul language, like "crap", and a mocking comment, like "well done!", that is not a very civil discourse. When the optional Talk History edit comment includes foul language, like "crap", in response to my explanation about the benefits of the improved content, that is very uncivil and does not show any respect.


 * DangerousPanda continues to focus negatively on my actions, which I have clearly shown were legitimate good faith efforts, in his next response.


 * All of the content issues that were finally addressed by DVdm and DangerousPanda in their last responses could be resolved based on a collaborative effort rather than simply rejecting the modified version.


 * In response to the comment that they "would have run away" if they, as a new user, had seen the updated welcome greeting: When a relatively new user had the choice between the current Welcomeg greeting posted on their page and the modified version, they ran away from the current greeting and replaced it with the collapsible version. They indicated that they would use the modified version of the greeting when welcoming users since it was an improvement over the current greeting


 * Updated greeting section has additional links that would be beneficial for new users. Wording for introducing those links can easily be modified.


 * It would be helpful to advise a new user how they can create their own sandbox for draft editing and put a convenient link on their talk page for quick access. It is much more difficult for a new user to figure out that a personal sandbox is available and they do not have to type in the sandbox page name every time they want to use it.


 * Updated template was not revised in isolation, as it was updated based on a review of many other available welcoming templates from the simple to the more complex, and editors were given 6 weeks to review the many updates.


 * The update template has vast improvements for the novice user, as well as for their development into more experienced users.


 * It is now a question of which path editors want to choose. There is no consensus on the current vs. updated version, which can easily be modified to address content issues. Editors can ignore the facts about this improved template, which I outlined above, and ignore the positive feedback from users that prefer the modified greeting with collapsible tables. Wondering55 (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Let me repeat, because you're missing the point: we already have simpler Welcome templates. This one is the way it is, and is in extensive detail on purpose.  Don't like using it?  Use one of the other 20+ welcome templates instead.  Don't screw with ones that were specifically developed.   the panda ₯’  17:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I am not missing any point. The proposed modified template also has extensive improved details "on purpose". It also has an extra beneficial feature for collapsible tables so the greeting does not overwhelm a new user and their page, as user feedback has suggested.


 * None of the other Wikipedia greetings offers all of these recommended links that would be beneficial to new users and developing users as they gain experience. The problem with the other greetings with extensive details is that they overwhelm the user with too much information and much too much space on their user page. The modified collapsible version addresses these problems in an easy-to-use presentable format.


 * When a user had a choice between the current Welcomeg greeting that was posted on their page by a Welcomer and the modified collapsible version with more details, they chose the modified version for their page and for all future users that they intend to Welcome. We should be getting more feedback from individual users to see which greeting is preferred.


 * However, we would need to first address and resolve the legitimate content issues that are being raised.


 * Wikipedia guidelines do not allow another editor to suggest that if a user does not like the content in a Wikipedia article, they should not screw with it. Wikipedia articles are an open forum for others, who are familiar with Wikipedia guidelines, to suggest improvements based on different perspectives.


 * Can we all work together to accomplish what is best and stop knocking me down? Wondering55 (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * As long as you make no further edits to this template, all will be well. You already went against consensus once.  Walk away from it - you`re not helping whatsoever on this template.  the panda ₯’  22:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The facts clearly show that I never went against any consensus. Repeating unsubstantiated false statements in contradiction to the facts do not make them any more true.


 * The facts show that there was not a single complaint by any user or editor during the 3 weeks that this template was updated with my Welcome greeting, even from those who have claimed that they frequently use this greeting template.


 * The facts show that there are users, who will use the modified version of this Welcome template since they see its advantages in comparison to the current template.


 * The facts show that this template has outdated links.


 * The facts show that this template now has inaccurate/flawed and meaningless instructions since they were updated based on the template's modified version, which has been been arbitrarily removed without discussion and without consensus.


 * The facts will show that if the instructions are changed back to the way that they were, they will contain flawed instructions, which will produce bad results if implemented by users, and missing instructions, which are needed to take full advantage of the template.


 * If no one will heed the facts or work with me, there is nothing further that I can do for this template. Wondering55 (talk) 03:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * So fix the instructions that you screwed up. Then feel free to copy the template into your userspace and do your modifications there.  You can then add it to your Twinkle preferences and scare new editors to your hearts content.  You were told before I even arrived to not feck around with it, but you've gone off half-cocked to continue your actions, and now off on this wall-o-text childish tirade once told to stop.  Wikipedia doesn't have room for tantrums.  By the way, if you want to know your biggest error: you're making the bad assumption that new arrivals to Wikipedia will understand to un-collapse something - they won't.  As such, the majority of new editors will never see most of the instructions you provided, which then makes WP:IGNORANCE useless, and make the entire template useless.  Having welcomed thousands of editors, Welcomeg is my #1 used template.  By the way, if you choose to make such substantial edits to such a major area again, you'll have to announce it to the community - these are not changes that can ever be implemented by miniscule discussions here as they have project-wide implications  the panda ₯’  08:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

DangerousPanda continues with uncivil comments and inaccurate statements.

The facts show that I did not screw up any instructions.

The facts show that I simply fixed the previous wrong and incomplete instructions, instituted by administrators, that I previously pointed out. Because of reverting actions by other administrators, the updated instructions are now wrong. Either way, it is now up to the administrators to fix or revert what they have broken. I simply am showing my good faith and professional etiquette to alert administrators to this problem.

The facts show that I was not told not to "feck" around with it, even though DangerousPanda continues to repeatedly make this false statement.

The facts show that I have been providing clear rational explanations.

The facts show that every new user would have the simple common sense, without a need to know anything about Wikipedia, to be able to click on a clearly highlighted "Show" or "Hide" link to open or close tables.

The facts are that an existing Welcome greeting, approved by Wikipedia administrators, already uses same type of collapsible tables that I used. Administrators did not worry about new users, who supposedly could not figure out the simplest of features.

The facts show that I opened up this very extensive Talk discussion for announcing my proposed changes for the Welcome greeting to the community over a 6 week period so that I could get feedback. For some reason, most administrators ignored this discussion.

The facts show that the updated Welcome greeting was posted for three weeks without a single complaint from "frequent" users of this template.

I am now steering clear of this template, as requested. There is no reason for any continued debate. I have been as helpful as I can possibly be. Administrators of this template need to take over full responsibility. Wondering55 (talk) 03:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Broken?
See Template talk:Welcomeh - wolf  18:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * See and  (and ). FYI -  wolf  08:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Bug?
Please take a look at what happened when I did this:. It shows up on the talk page saying, " Hello ! Welcome to Wikipedia! " --David Tornheim (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As noted in the template's documentation, this template should always be substituted (i.e., use ); but you didn't do that. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I wasn't aware of that--I'll fix my recent post.  I have been using it incorrectly for quite some time and didn't notice the problem 'til now.  Thanks for letting me know. There are so many welcome templates (apparently 500!)--compared to when I started--I am rarely sure what is the best and most current to use, so when I doubt, I use this one.
 * If I see a good (or bad) edit by a new editor, I typically use Twinkle (or Huggle) to choose the right template that refers to that article. But that's not always possible as in this case, when the talk page already existed, but had no welcome.  I'm guessing that a number of these templates are outdated and only still available for backwards compatibility. Is there a page that gives a list that says the ones that are most useful?  It would be nice to have a flow chart that says for example, "Is it an IP editor? (Yes/No)" and directs you to a path; "Were the edits constructive (Yes/No/Not Assessed)?";  "Do you want simple templates or more complex ones? (Yes/No)".  If you know of such a page, please let me know.  --David Tornheim (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I see why I didn't notice it before: AnnomieBot automatically fixes it.  This one took longer than usual .  --David Tornheim (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There's WP:WT. This has sections for different kinds of user; IPs are shown as "unregistered". -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Outdated link
"Pages needing attention" under "Things to do" currently links to Pages needing attention, which is marked as outdated and recommends using Category:Articles needing attention instead. This seems like a no-brainer but I'm pretty new and it looks like User:sinneed asked about this in 2008 with no response. Is there a reason not to change it? Qb42 (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ As it has been over 24 hours with no response. Qb42 (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia: The Missing Manual
Should be completely non-controversial, but I want to change to link to Wikipedia: The Missing Manual from Book:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual to Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual. The later contains the same information with better organization, including a search box, and without confusing warnings. Will leave it for a day and then implement it. --Trialpears (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Trialpears (talk) 10:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)