Template talk:Welcome to Wikipedia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Edit request

Per WP:COMMONALITY, please change "Don't vandalize" to "Don't be a vandal". (The -ize spelling is American English, and although used in British English, the -ise spelling is far more common. Best not to use either.) Thanks. Bazonka (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

How about "Don't commit vandalism". Wbm1058 (talk) 19:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that works too. Actually I've just been given Template Editor rights so I can edit this template myself now - I just changed it to "Don't be a vandal" before I read your comment. I'll change it again to your version - I like it. Thanks, Bazonka (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Some common sense Do's and Don'ts

This should be "Dos and Don'ts", per the Chicago Manual of Style. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done – and good catch! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 23:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Pleasure! – Paine  00:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

"Users" or "editors"?

What are we here for? Samsara 09:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Samsara, sorry to take so long to see this and reply. In my humble opinion, what we are here for is primarily to "contribute" to Wikipedia, the reference work, and to Wikipedia, the project. So for me, the terms "user", "editor" and "contributor" are interchangeable and of equal value. In this template, all or most of the instances of "user" change to something else when the template is applied. For example, the first instance in red uppercase letters changes to the new editor's actual user name, and so on. Hope this helps! Painius  19:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

To editor Samsara: Well, I see you "took the bull by the horns". Good edits. Painius  16:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Paine. :) Samsara 18:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Pleasure! Paine

Resolve parser functions - don't dump them on user's talk pages

The substituted result of this template STILL contains unresolved parser functions, which should be fixed. fredgandt 06:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Changelog - March 2016

Technical fixes/improvements

1. The IP and talk-page discovery template {{IP-talk}} is updated to utilise the same module as {{isIPAddress}}, so removed unnecessary code.
2. Added code to ensure the complete resolution of all parser functions during substitution.
3. Slightly expanded the inbuilt (red notes) documentation to provide a little more value to the potential user.
4. Added a hidden tracking link back to this template for analytical and maintenance purposes.
5. Tidied inline styles code.

Affecting the substituted result

1. Minor changes to the grammatical layout.

 fredgandt 02:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Sandbox

I recommend directing to Draft:Sandbox rather than Wikipedia:sandbox, since it has VisualEditor enabled (particularly important for new users). T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 22:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

nb, added {{edit template-protected}} as ping. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 06:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done -- John of Reading (talk) 07:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed changes

I propose that, to make the message more accessable, we change the contents to:

Some pages of helpful information to get you started:   Introduction to Wikipedia   The five pillars of Wikipedia (the principles of the project)   Editing tutorial   How to edit a page   Simplified Manual of Style (the writing style)   The basics of Wikicode (the way pages are written)   How to develop an article   How to create an article   Help pages   What Wikipedia is not

Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:   Do be bold   Do assume good faith   Do be civil   Do keep a cool head when editing gets fired up!   Do maintain a neutral point of view (not slanted towards one side or the other)   Don't spam (purely promotional/commercial/advertisement content)   Don't infringe copyright   Don't edit where you have a conflict of interest   Don't commit vandalism (deliberately wrecking pages)   Don't get blocked

If you need further help, you can:   Ask a question

or you can:   Get help at the Teahouse

or even:   Ask an experienced editor to "adopt" you

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjjjjjdddddd (talk • contribs)

I'd "fork" the template into a lightweight variant rather than modify this one the way you suggest. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 08:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Lightweight? Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 08:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Your version is much smaller than the current one, hence my use of 'lightweight' as a nickname to differentiate it from the current, 'heavyweight' version. I think both versions may have their uses. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 08:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, this isn't supposed to be the complete template, this is just the part I wanted to change Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 08:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Ha ok. Nevermind, then. The difference is the addition of explanations in parentheses, then. I'm not sure they're really that useful. Spam and vandalism are perfectly self-explanatory words already; as is "manual of style". Same with neutral point of view; and NPOV can be slanted towards one side, for instance wrt fringe topics, due weight issues, etc, so the explanation here is misleading. Only the pillars and wikicode might benefit from a reformulation or additional explanations, I think. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 09:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think it might be useful to explain exactly what you mean to new people, to avoid seeming intimidating. Especially the section on spam, because spam might be interpreted the wrong way (and I see a lot of spam from new editors). Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 02:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

More text in the links will backfire and make it seem *more* intimidating, I fear :-(. A good compromise would be popups on hover, with a 2-3 sentences summary of the policies. The truly intimidating part is clicking any on the links and getting on a huge wall of text... where many subsections contain lists of links to other walls of text. Short popups would be a good intermediary, I think, without visually cluttering the template, while allowing for much more content than the text of the links. Trouble is, I don't know if there's wiki markup for popups. I don't recall seeing any. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 17:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

We have to consider accessibility and cross-browser concerns; how about adding the policy summaries in a collapsed subsection beneath the main body that can be referenced as a source in the main body? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 20:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Do sources show up as tooltips by default in compatible browsers? I know they do for me, but I can't remember if I activated some special feature for them to do so. (I know it's the case for tooltip previews of articles, for instance). If yes, then it's a very good solution, and the user never needs to open the collapsed part. If not... it's probably better than nothing, but it's still clicking to reveal another mini-wall of text, and I think the better solution would be to have a single page dedicated to summarising the main policies in a few sentences each, and link to that, rather than doing essentially that in a collapsed part of a template. I don't think we have that. WP:WEL does not really fit that bill. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 21:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems sources do show up as tooltips by default. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 21:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

A page of simplified policies for new people is also a pretty good idea, that I think would solve the problems that come with new people who don't know any better. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, that's a pretty good idea. I'm not sure if we can implement hover text, but the concept is solid. It avoids jargon, walls of text, and ambiguity. Support. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems that reference tooltips only show on mainspace pages, and not on talk pages. I have however knocked up a dirty demo of a collapsed reflist in the sandbox. We can add a summary of each policy as the body of the ref. Clicking the ref-link won't open the collapsed reflist. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 19:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the demo. But if the tooltips don't show up -- and sadly it does seem they don't -- then I don't see much point in the collapsed section and would prefer the "friendly page" solution, per my previous comment. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 20:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Just became aware of WP:SR, which almost fits the bill. Something nicer still, with friendly icons, would probably be good. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 21:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Altered the sandbox. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 21:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Subst number of users?

Should we [safe]subst the number of users, instead of invoking directly? The "now that you've joined" implies we should. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 01:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

"Now you've joined" is constant, so the number should always reflect the current figure; it's like saying "you are one of n Wikipedians", not "you were one of n Wikipedians"; "When you joined" should be locked. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 07:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 6 April 2018

Maybe we should remove the "become a Wikifairy or Wikignome" and "become an administrator", as this will mislead newcomers that adminship is something anyone can get and the Wikifairy and Wikignome thing might confuse them. Well-intentioned newcomers who see "become an administrator" as a way to contribute better will self-nominate themselves for premature RfAs as was recently the case. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that "Become an Administrator" is far too premature a suggestion for a new user. It could inspire a few to greatness, but is likely to just intimidate or confuse most. The WikiFairy/Gnome suggestions though are fine IMO. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 22:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done removed the "become an admin" link - please discuss further if the other things are still wanting to be removed. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Errors when substituting

Unless this is an issue on my end, it appears that {{{{{|safesubst:}}}Usig|i}} substitutes to my full four-tilde signature when previewing {{subst:Welcome to Wikipedia}}. Additionally, it seems that the following code is problematic for signatures, since it simply adds the full four-tilde signature twice, at least for me:

{{{{{|safesubst:}}}Usig|3}} <small>{{{{{|safesubst:}}}Usig|5}}</small>

Is this just on my end? If not, then who knows how many users have been unwittingly substituting this template and adding malformed welcoming messages as a result. Does this have to do with {{Usig}} or the safesubsts, which appear to be the common components here? Given how few watchers there are on this page, I'm pinging Fred Gandt, who was the last editor to have made a major edit to this template. I hope they don't mind and apologies in advance if they do. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 23:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't mind being pinged at all, but am just about to go to sleep; I'll take a look in about 12 hours if it's not resolved in the meantime. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 07:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done The problem was in {{Usig}} after another editor had fiddled with it for apparently no good reason. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 16:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Fred Gandt! While you're here, though, I have a suggestion that may improve the template. After noticing it with my signature, which includes an em-dash (—) at the beginning, I realized that the user signature at the end displays all the markup and coloring and effects that the user adds to their signature. This is intended, of course, but might it be better to simply replace the signature at the end with just the username and a timestamp? Specifically, replace the following:

{{{{{|safesubst:}}}Usig}}

with the following:

[[User:{{{{{|safesubst:}}}REVISIONUSER}}|{{{{{|safesubst:}}}REVISIONUSER}}]], {{{{{|safesubst:}}}Usig|5}}

This ensures it only prints out the username and timestamp, minus all the signature decoration, signature markup, and other out-of-place modifications that each user implements. If you are interested in implementing it, along with some other minor changes I added, feel free to use the code in this sandbox revision. A comparison of the changes can be seen here, which also include cleaning up the Signpost item, removing underscores in wikilinks, voiding the HTML line breaks, and deitalicizing the interlanguage main page links. Thank you for your time. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 13:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I made some more changes to the sandbox that may be worth inclusion. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 14:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC); last edited at 15:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done I've implemented most of your suggestions as suggested, but have left the full user signature as such since the auto signing is merely a convenience and should accurately reflect what we're actually doing, which is signing a message left on a talk page, practically as usual. I also juggled the order and layout of the final few main paragraphs for what I consider to be a "better" sense of priority and to keep the whole from looking "intimidating". This template was carefully designed to carry a massive amount of information to new users without appearing too bulky or complex, and I (for one) would like to keep it reined in where possible. I do however agree that the reminder/advice to add edit summaries was a glaring omission and was glad to add it :) Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 14:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again, Fred Gandt, especially for tolerating my pestering. I entirely understand your rationale for the signature and keeping the template as minimally intimidating as a massive template can be. Your thoughtful consideration in developing and maintaining this template is appreciated. I hope you have a great rest of the day / night! —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 14:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

"Documentation" is substed onto user talk pages

@Fred Gandt: After this edit, text strings such as "MESSAGE FOR REGISTERED USERS" are subst'ed into the output. Is that intended? There's an example at User talk:Umar a usman. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm confused by this. The example was added to the page in December 2019, many edits after the edit to the template you suggest the problem was "after" (it was definitely after it, by several years :D ). I just tested a substitution on my own talk page, and as expected it seems fine. Without a step-by-step way to reproduce the problem, I wouldn't know where to start looking for a fix (without running through ever character of that frankly horrible code (should remake it in Lua to be honest)). And "no", it is not intended :D Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 21:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the contributions of M-Mustapha (the editor who left the example welcome message, I see two nearby edits with the same summary reading: (Welcome "to Wikipedia" FOR IPs OR THE REGISTERED USER'S NAME!: T) (Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit). I wonder if there was an issue with mobile editing at the time? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 21:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Fred Gandt: Oh, I see what I did wrong. I tested it at User:John of Reading/X3, but the template uses {{Ipt}} and only produces the proper output on a user talk page. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah, well, yes, then, that is intentional :D Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 08:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 June 2020

The {{NUMBEROFUSERS}} template should be substituted so it stays the same (approximately user ID ± a constant) 83.9.228.74 (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree, and have made the change in the template sandbox. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

(More) Though I see that the change was proposed before, at the top of this page, and rejected. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I didn't so much "reject" it, as stated my opinion and no discussion was forthcoming. Since the subject's cropped up again, and John's already to go with it, I don't feel strongly enough one way or the other to argue. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 21:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 19:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Unterminated br-tag breaks syntax highlighting

Please fix unterminated br-tags. This is currently breaking proper functioning of syntax highlighting when editing the wikicode of any page that includes the template. To fix:

• Please change all <br> to <br/>.
• Please change all <br> tags containing html attributes, to add an ending slash as required by Html syntax. For example:
  • Change <br style="line-height:220%"> to <br style="line-height:220%" /> as well as all similar code lines starting with '<br'.

Although the Html5 spec considers <br> a self-closing tag (thus not requiring an ending slash) that doesn't mean that all associated programs can handle it properly. In particular, the syntax highlighting program cannot. The principle to consider here, is: "Be strict in what you send, but generous in what you receive." We should end br-tags with a slash, at least until syntax highlighting handles it properly. Mathglot (talk) 05:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe an easy fix is by using {{break}} since I assume that will generate the required break, without messing with the highlighting. Mathglot (talk) 05:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. "I assume that" - that's what the sandbox and testcases are for. I've refreshed the sandbox as a mirror of the live template ready for you. Cabayi (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done Advice on Help:HTML in wikitext is to "avoid" slashless <br>s. Developing code to coddle other programs that incorrectly handle the data they're required to parse is bad practice. The syntax highlighting is broken, not this template. However, in all likelihood, the syntax highlighting will be broken for a while more, so fair enough. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 12:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Mathglot (talk) 12:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Fred Gandt, not worth another intervention on this at this point, but somewhere I remember seeing that use of {{br}} avoids the problem entirely, so maybe is a better solution going forward, in similar situations. I've used it to good advantage, and have seen no problems. Mathglot (talk) 09:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 29 December 2020

Hey, I suggest to replace File:UncialB-01.png with File:UncialB-01.svg in the template. ZabeMath (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 17:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)