Template talk:Welcome to Wikipedia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Good, but it can be better

I like the look of this template. Is is visually appealing for sure as stated in Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates, but it's currently a bit messy; I don't really know where to look or where to start reading, and I feel that there isn't really any read thread in it or that the thread jumps a bit strangely. Is it possible in some way to structure it up a bit, without making it too formal? Maybe for example it is possible to put boxes in different colors around paragraphs that are divided into two columns? (just a thought) —Kri (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Need a version for IP users.

This is my favorite welcoming template (although I agree that it could be cleaned up a bit), and I like in a lot better than any of the welcome-anon templates. Could we have a version for new IP users that thanks them for editing rather than thanking them for joining? No other changes - no need for nagging them about getting a username - we have other templates for that. Guy Macon (talk) 00:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. I was just going to ask the same thing myself. I also want to add a request that we could have a colour option for the main banner? It's a bit dark I think. Otherwise exactly the sort of thing to spread cheer and good spirit. fg^t_c 02:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

An option to change the background color of the top banner has been added. It is shown in the documentation section of the template.  Magister Scienta^talk (4 November 2011)

Wow! Awesome response to the request for a colour option! Thank you Magister. Regarding the possibility to have a version suitable for welcoming IP users: I see that IP users can add this welcome to a talk page but can we have a version that we can add to IP talk pages? Since the message reads "Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are n users!" it would make no sense if welcoming an IP. Furthermore if welcoming an IP we would need strong mention and encouragement to create an account as the primary suggestion. fg^t_c 00:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm getting to work on that right now. By the way, I'm glad you liked the bannercolor feature and I have a few more nifty additions that I think you're really going to like.  Magister Scienta^talk (5 November 2011)

Fantastic! Yes the options so far are spot on. The overall presentation is ideal too. Friendly but informative. The only other table formatted welcomes I've seen look so officious they would scare most newbs away. You have my personal gratitude for working on this and I hope you get pleanty more thanks from others. Now, don't forget to enjoy your weekend too. All work and no play can lead to nasty things.  fg^t_c 19:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC

I'm very glad you like it! Adding the smiley face to your signature was a nice addition, and as for the "nasty things," personally I preferred the book.  Magister Scienta^talk (5 November 2011)

Lolz. The smiley isn't part of my signature (actually we're not supposed to use images in our signatures. I won't tell ;-)) but I do like smilies and emoticons. Human expression is awesome. Without it you could not "prefer the book". I've not read it but am glad you have so you understood the reference. I liking the look of the IP welcome additions you're making. I'll come by tomorrow to see how it turns out. I have to go to sleep now though (and if I talk much more we might get told off for chatting). See ya! fg^t_c 20:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Signature doesn't work

Hallo, I find this template very nice and clear but unfortunately at the moment it doesn't include my signature and add it manually is a bit complicated since I have to add it in three places. Could maybe someone fix it? Or explain how I should use it, in case I'm doing something wrong. Thanks. --Dia^ (talk) 14:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm on it. All should be fixed in a few days.  Magister Scienta^talk (2 November 2011)

Row vs. Column

The welcome was clearly meant to be read in this order:

• Here are some links to get you started:

• And here are some Do's and Don'ts:

• If you need further help, you can:

• Or even:

But my eyes naturally read it in this order:

• Here are some links to get you started:

• If you need further help, you can:

• And here are some Do's and Don'ts:

• Or even:

The obvious fix is to change the wording so that each section makes sense by itself. Guy Macon (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

...Making the "and" make no sense. Guy Macon (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I fiddled with the template a little but I still don't see exactly what you propose.  Magister Scienta^talk (3 November 2011)

Look at the vertical list that has "DO be bold" at the top.

Read each item on the list. one at a time.

The last item is "DON'T vandalize".

Keep moving your eye down as you have been doing.

Next you see the sentence fragment "Or even"

Continue moving your eye down as you have been doing.

Now you see "Ask an experienced editor to 'adopt' you."

So your template just told me "Don't Vandalize Or even Ask an experienced editor to 'adopt' you."

Why are you telling me not to ask an experienced editor to adopt me? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, two easy and possible solutions. We could either get rid of the "or even" and center the "If you need..." part or we could change the background color of that area (this template really is just 4 or 5 combined boxes) to a slightly different shade to make it visually obvious that words in that area pertain to a totally separate topic. Note, if we do change that area's BG color, we should some other boxes as well so it looks alternating. I always considered doing something to that effect. Also note, I think it looks best with both the "or even" and "if you need..." parts in their places, but if you really want them moved I'll move them. Thoughts?  Magister Scienta^talk (3 November 2011)

I don't know what the best solution is. Whatever looks best to you is fine Guy Macon (talk) 09:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I've decided the best thing to do is to make each section a slightly different color. I'm very busy right now so it'll be a couple of days before I can get to it. Rest assured, the problems that you informed me of will soon be fixed.  Magister Scienta^talk (5 November 2011)

I just discovered this template and I like it. I threw a border around the box with those two items, and thought it looked good, but you may not like it, particularly as you've already decided to use BG coloring. Specifically, I changed

{| width="90%" style="background: #FFFAE6;" on that one section to

{| width="90%" style="border:1px solid #796AD2;-moz-border-radius:12px;"

I don't see an urgent need to separately color all sections. The border in my little test breaks up the whole thing into nice chunks (IMHO), as the columns above and below are nicely grouped already. Of course, I may quickly change my mind when I see what colored backgrounds you work up. Best regards, and keep up the good work. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi John, thanks for your ideas, for a rough example of what the template would look like with different color boxes click here. Thoughts?  Magister Scienta^talk (6 November 2011)

Hi. That's barely perceptible to me, even when I'm looking for it. Needs a little more cayenne, I think. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 17:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, here's an innovative solution that makes this proccess easier. I just fiddled with the template so that there is an optional parameter that can change the color of those three boxes I was toying with. Just type {{Welcome-to-Wikipedia|special=#somecolor}} and you can toy around with some colors. Once we've decided which color works best, I'll just make it the default (and either get rid of the parameter or change its name). So, play around with it and tell me which color you like best.  Magister Scienta^talk (6 November 2011)

Another version

Hi. I've fiddled with this template a little and come up with User:Fred_Gandt/sandbox/templates/Welcome (so far). I've removed the bannercolor option (I know I asked for it but since changing the defaults and color matching the borders etc I don't think it's needed), changed some of the wording and links and generally tinkered. Any comments? fg 13:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I like it a lot, give me a little time to consider it. Great jobs!  Magister Scienta^talk (16 November 2011)

I've decided that I think we should go forward with your version. Cheers,  M   Magister Scienta^talk (20 November 2011)

Fine by me. Shall I swap them over? I've done quite a lot of tidying now and can find nothing wrong so far. The only thing I haven't yet sorted out is how to get the automatic signature to work if the template isn't substituted (I only just started trying to work it out so I may yet find a fix). However, this type of template should always be substituted so, shouldn't be a bother. The latest version is here fredgandt 21:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Very, very nice, I believe congratulations are in order. As a true Wikipedia editor, I'm sure I'll finding something to fiddle around with, but you did truly a great job. By the way, your feedback on a new template I created would be very much appreciated. You can find my RfC here. I know this is not the standard place to put it, but I thought the RfC should be where the people actually using this template would see it. Cheers,  M   Magister Scienta^talk (22 November 2011)

Yes, very nice. Good work, guys. I like it a lot, and in the same Wikipedian spirit mentioned above, I've twiddled a few things myself. One is that the non-IP case made for a really long heading/link/TOC entry. In terms of semantic HTML, it makes more sense to have the <h2> followed by a separate paragraph, so I made the <h2> outer element (with its styling) into a <div>, then nested an <h2> and a <p> (essentially the <span> that had been nested in the old <h2>) within.

In attempting to closely emulate the spacing of the pre-split template, I ended up adding styling to the <h2> and the new <p>. It feels a little hacky (I don't usually want to style any HTML elements inline like that), but the visual results came out pretty close, to my eye. Please do look it over and change or revert it if you hate it. The other things I did were mostly minor punctuation, so no big loss if you revert. Congrats, again, from me. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm very happy we all like it. Again, great work Fred. Magister Scienta^talk 23:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice change to the header John. The title for non IP's was a tad long, you're quite right. Much better now. fredgandt 16:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I put the old code at Template:Welcome-to-Wikipedia/historical just in case it had to be found. I know this could be done by just checking its history, but if a lot more edits are made to this template, it would be tedious trying to find out in the history where the major diff was made.  M   Magister Scienta^talk (22 November 2011)

All done I think. Gotta walk the dog. Be back soon! fredgandt 01:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Were you able to give some feedback on the new template?  M   Magister Scienta^talk (22 November 2011)

← I've only just got back from walking the dog. I'll take a look in a while and if I can think of anything to say, I'll comment on its talk page. fredgandt 03:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. As always, very much appreciated,  M   Magister Scienta^talk (22 November 2011)

Leave me a message link

Hi Fred, thanks for cleaning up the template even further, but there is one edit on your part I don't agree with, the removal of the (Leave me a message) link. Firstly, after going through a large template (as this one is) it's nice for users to have a link to contact somebody right in front of them. Secondly, for new users, saying something like that is more in the vernacular than "leaving a message on a talk-page," which makes perfect sense to us, but perhaps not new users. Thirdly, when the link is clicked it opens a new section of the talk-page of the person who left the message, but another important aspect of it is that it preloads a template showing what the basic structure of a message should be. Fourthly, it just adds a nice continuity and reinforces that the new user can contact the user giving the message. While, this does take up a little space (and I encourage you to play around with the formatting), I truly believe that all the advantages outweigh that small additional space it requires. Of course, I await your response and will make no further edits until their is a consensus on whether or not it should be used. Thank you, Magister Scienta^talk 15:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Fine. Not earth shattering one way or another. Seems like overkill to me though. fredgandt 16:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree. Magister Scienta^talk 18:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Time to make some edits

Just so everybody knows, I'm going to have to change the syntax of the template a little so this doesn't happen. Don't worry, won't be anything major. Magister Scienta^talk 20:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It is common practice to add new messages to the end/bottom of talk pages and there is no need at all to mess about with any users toc. fredgandt 21:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I never! that is very odd behaviour. Messing about with tocs is not best practice but, something very odd does indeed happen without. Better to figure out why the default toc gets caught up and fix at the root than jigger about with them though. My guess is that the div instead of a heading is the issue but, lord only knows why. fredgandt 21:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I've reworked the header to be made out of one h2 and one div that work together to look like one complete unit. This means that odd toc behaviour doesn't need to be controlled as it never occurs. As far as I can tell it is behaving correctly but may need to be tweaked. I'm going to fiddle about with the css in a while too and try to reduce it. fredgandt 21:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy fixes. By the way, your OK with that link I added that recommends getting a user-page if the user doesn't have one? Magister Scienta^talk 22:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

No bother to me. In time I would like to see other editors fine tune it. I personally think we are too close to it to be fair judges of what is good and what is not. With that in mind I am stepping away from it now. The styles are clean, the substitutions are working (at least the last time I tested), the presentation is ok, and it does it's job (informing and welcoming), so all is as well as can be expected. Hopefully as/if it becomes more widely used it will be tweaked, fiddled with, and bettered. Long live the wisdom of crowds! fredgandt 23:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

A very commendable, noble action, so much in fact that I will follow suit and abstain from making any substantial edits to the template. Cheers, Magister Scienta^talk 01:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I fixed a technical error with the lower table. I feel dirty now and will be scrubbing for a week.  fredgandt 02:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

My Evaluation

This template looks great! The coloring, while not at all obtrusive, leads the eye so as to avoid the row/column problem I discussed earlier. I think that as it stands now it is really clear and helpful. Great job, everybody! --Guy Macon (talk) 06:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Guy. fredgandt 07:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Great to hear. Magister Scienta^talk (Editor Review) 16:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Automatic IP/Registered detection

I've created a template that distinguishes between IP talk pages, registered user talk pages, and non talk pages. I've then created a version of this template using it. Any objections to updating this to auto detect if it's on an IP or registered users page and do all the changes as appropriate? Basically it means we can use the same template on any talk page without having to specify if it's an IP or not. Also I reworked the message parameter so we don't have to name it (it's either there or it isn't). fredgandt 08:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea. Magister Scienta^talk (Editor Review) 16:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Okies. Just working out a few kinks. fredgandt 12:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Your first article

I'd like to add a link to Wikipedia:Your first article, but don't have an icon and don't want to mass up the formatting, can someone assist, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll be adding the automatic IP/Logged user bits (see section above) later, I'll include your suggestion while I'm at it. fredgandt 18:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Heading?

Ideally, if I use this to create a new user talk page it would put it under a new topic heading "Welcome To Wikipedia!" but if I use this under an existing heading it would not add another. Is this possible? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You want to be able to disable the section heading so it can be used as the content of a "new section" without mucking things up? I could set it to have a choice of section level (between 1 and 6 ='s) for the heading or even disabled (probably). At the minute it creates itself with a level 2 section heading. fredgandt 08:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I've installed a parameter for overriding the default level 2 section heading. I'll add the ability to switch it off altogether in a while. I may sleep first though. fredgandt 10:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Like putty in your hands it will be. Check the documentation for options. Please run tests and let me know if it breaks. fredgandt 05:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Tests? You want tests? Okay, here's (all) I've got for you:

If the second parameter is empty, an <h1>(!) header will be created containing just two equals signs above the boxed template. (That's like an equals sign on each end, with two in the middle. Innit? Almost like two equals signs on each end, with something/nothing in the middle.) The "Welcome to Wikipedia" greeting in the banner is a simple span in this case.

I achieved these results using {{subst:Welcome to Wikipedia|Buy low, sell high.}} and {{subst:Welcome to Wikipedia}}. Possibly no actual humans will try something like that, so we can ignore this weird case. I'd try to fix it myself rather than bother you, Fred, but I do not know what's going on in the code there and will surely spend way to much time just breaking it further. I'm sure there's some nifty parserfunction trick you can do to deal with empty parameters, but I'll let you look that up and implement it, if you feel like it. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 09:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah ha! Thanks for testing. I see what you mean. I'll fix it in a little while. Just woke up. fredgandt 19:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Defaults to "Welcome to Wikipedia" if {{subst:Welcome to Wikipedia||}} is used. Ok? fredgandt 23:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually it defaults to "Welcome to Wikipedia!", which is better. BTW, would like to say how much I appreciate all the hard work that is going into making this just right. Good job! --Guy Macon (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it looks good to me, too. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 08:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

-_- I forgot the exclamation point. I am a bad man! . I'm also a code fetishist. I'm rather enjoying myself and learning lots about making templates in the process. fredgandt 00:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Whitespace

Just to let everybody know, the reason I made the two recent edits that changed the lines that the first two comments were was because there was an issue substituting this template onto pages which were being edited for the first time (see here for insance). For some reason the code would only appear at the 3rd line of the new page. Regardless, all is fixed now with only a minor syntactic change. Cheers, Magister Scienta^talk (Editor Review) 05:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Used the template for the first time today...

I really like this template, and have been waiting for a chance to use it "live."

Today I noticed that a new IP had made a constructive first edit, so I used the template.

You can see the result here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:67.84.181.73

Very nice. Friendly and has some good info without being overwhelming.

Here are some comments (I am really detail oriented if you hadn't noticed):

The header uses <h2> text </h2> instead of == text ==. First question: are we sure that the two are equivalent in all situations? Second question: May I assume that you can't apply the fancy styling to a == text == header?.

The template says:

"Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post."

I noticed that my screen doesn't have that button. edit toolbar says "It appears automatically for editors who are not logged in." are we sure that the button will be there for all users?

Also, edit toolbar leads to a page that says "This Wikipedia help page is outdated." I know that it is a lot of work, but we really should update anything this template links to. I am willing to help with that.

Finally, at the bottom it says:

Sincerely, Guy Macon (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)   (Leave me a message)

• Español
• Deutsch
• Français
• Italiano
• עברית
• Русский
• 日本語
• Polski
• فارسی

I think it should have (talk) or (Leave me a message), but not both. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

With the last point I totally agree. I voiced my opinion earlier but am not the king of Wikiland. I updated the sign button to the vector (modern) sign button. Should match all (but customized) skins. The header is complex. There's no harm in using <h />'s instead of == really. I guess it could be worked around by embedding the normal heading inside a div or something similar. I don't think it's necessary though. Lots of work for something more complex that does the same thing. Once the normal heading is saved, it is an html <h /> anyway.

Hope you're ok with that. I know we're supposed to use wiki markup as much as possible, but within reason is fair I think.

Will we now vote on what to do about the leave me a message link? fredgandt 05:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

After a quick (very) look about, it seems we should fix the page Help:Edit toolbar rather than the link to it. Go team!! fredgandt 05:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It appears that Help:Edit toolbar does indeed need updating, but there's nothing wrong with the link. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

As an experienced Wikipedian with an obvious and conventional talk link in my sig, the duplication seems redundant as well as redundant. ;-) However, if we're welcoming newbies, the extra link with a clear "leave me a message" instruction is useful and helpful and worth the cost of a little redundancy. Further, that link has a preload template thing that doesn't just go to the Talk page. And if we keep just this link, we'd have to omit our own sig, which usually has a link to our respective Talk page hidden in it somewhere. But see Fred Gandt's current sig for an example where the "leave me a message" would be triply useful to the welcomed newcomer. I say, let's keep both sig and explicit message. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, in trying to follow the discussion about the signature button, I've just noticed that the image used in the template (File:Insert-signature.png, ) is different from the one in your (Guy's) post (File:Button sig.png, , same as used in Help:Edit toolbar, and the one I see in Vector). Where did Insert-signature.png come from, and who sees that (besides Fred, I guess), and under what circumstances? Guy, do you have Insert-signature.png instead of Button sig.png? Is that what you meant? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Research data points, FWTW: It appears that Wikipedia:Signatures refers to both icons, and that the second was added here, because"which icon they'll see depends on the user's setting in their preferences". It doesn't mention which preference that would be, though.

When I have "Show edit toolbar (requires JavaScript)" checked under Editing in my prefs, I do get the toolbar, and the icon is always Button sig.png (WP:Signatures uses File:Signature icon.png, but it redirects to Button sig.png). It does not seem to matter what I do with "Enable enhanced editing toolbar"; that seems to affect whether I see the Insert Citation button at the end of the toolbar (checked = no display), but not the signature button. I can't tell what preference gets me to see the Insert-signature.png icon.

Maybe we should use both icon images in the template, and add (if it's enabled) after "button on the edit toolbar". — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I put {{subst:Welcome to Wikipedia}} on an IP talk page that did not exist. The result is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:67.84.181.73 and it contains this markup: [[File:Button sig.png|link=]]

Looking at the HTML that is being sent to my browser...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Welcome_to_Wikipedia sends:

<img width="22" height="22" src="//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/79/Insert-signature.png" alt="Insert-signature.png">

but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:67.84.181.73 sends:

<img alt="Button sig.png" src="//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6d/Button_sig.png" width="23" height="22" />

So either something got changed since I used the template on the IP talk page, or the template sends different images in different situations. Next time I notice an IP user making a constructive edit I will welcome him and report the result here. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Fred made a change today, summarizing as "sign button fixed", although I'm not clear on what's fixed and in what circumstances. Fred? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The signature button image I replaced the old one with is presented to all users who have JavaScript enabled (as far as I am aware), who also do not have any user scripts that change their UI. We can safely assume that this is most new users. fredgandt 03:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Testing, schmesting: nesting external links

Oh sure, I did some tests earlier. But today I tried actually leaving this welcome for a live unregistered user, and I found something weird. The IP user had tried exactly one edit, which included a plea for help. ClueBot came along immediately, reverted the edit, and left a (not exactly encouraging) notice on the IP's page. So I wanted to leave this:

{{subst:Welcome to Wikipedia|Please don't be put off by the automated notice above. I know [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usher_discography&diff=next&oldid=464994970 your edit] to [[Usher discography]] was well-intentioned, but the bot that reverted your edit and left the message about could not tell that. In this particular case, "Without You" is already listed, down in the '''[[Usher discography#As featured artist|As featured artist]]''' section of that page.}}

The problem I found is that with the diff link to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usher_discography&diff=next&oldid=464994970 your edit] in the customized message, the entire custom message is discarded. I had to do without the link when substing the template, then add the link later.

Is there something about the single square brackets that make the parameter invalid? The double brackets of the internal links were no problem. Can we (heh, I mean one of you) tweak the template somehow to allow diff links in the custom message? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, John, I see what you're saying, something's gone awry. Interestingly when I add a URL the "normal way" it works. For example, everything works as it should when I add:

{{Welcome to Wikipedia|Nice job on your edits to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog dog] article.}}

However, I get none of the message when I add:

{{Welcome to Wikipedia|Nice job on your edits to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dog dog] article.}}

I'm going to keep experimenting and hopefully have an answer soon. Cheers, Magister Scienta^talk (Editor Review) 19:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Templates containing raw equals signs think that everything preceding them is a parameter name. So Blah blah blah [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usher_discography&diff=next&oldid=464994970 your edit] blah blah is read as parameter named Blah blah blah [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title has the value Usher_discography&diff=next&oldid=464994970 your edit] blah blah . Since there is no param with that name the data is ignored.

The way around this is to wrap all the equals signs in braces like {{{|=}}}. Resulting in Blah blah blah [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title{{{|=}}}Usher_discography&diff{{{|=}}}next&oldid=464994970 your edit] blah blah .

I know that's a pain in the ass, but that's what we have to do. There are also issues with using pipes ( | ). They need to be expressed (when not meant to be parameter seperators) as exclamation points wrapped in braces like {{!}}. This calls the template {{!}} which dumps a pipe where called.

The signature button image I replaced the old one with is presented to all users who have JavaScript enabled (as far as I am aware), who also do not have any user scripts that change their UI. We can safely assume that this is most new users. fredgandt 03:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

About the recent name change and move plus suggest shortcut

There are actually quite a number of templates named with hyphens. I don't believe it was necessary to change or move this template. However, now it's moved let's just let it lie.

On a related note: Perhaps it would be nice to have a shortcut for this. fredgandt 06:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggest

• {{Wtw}} - Not available fredgandt
• {{Greet}} - Not available fredgandt

I went ahead and created {{Wtw}} fredgandt 23:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I set up {{WtW}} and {{WTW}}, too. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

For the record. I thought Magister grabbing {{Greet}} was just plain silly (especially since he didn't even mention it or note it anywhere), considering we already had {{Wtw}}. Grabbing even more is both greedy and pointless. I absolutely and very loudly disagree with this behaviour. fredgandt 21:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Purposes of redirects includes "Likely alternative capitalizations", so I'll put that guideline above your hurt feelings. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You seriously want to get personal? fredgandt 21:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Lang attributes

Please add lang attributes by changing:

{{flatlist|
*[[:es:Wikipedia:Portada|Español]]
*[[:de:Wikipedia:Hauptseite|Deutsch]]
*[[:fr:Wikipédia:Accueil_principal|Français]]
*[[:it:Pagina_principale|Italiano]]
*[[:he:עמוד_ראשי|עברית]]
*[[:ru:главная_страница|Русский]]
*[[:ja:メインページ|日本語]]
*[[:pl:Strona_główna|Polski]]
*[[:fa:صفحهٔ_اصلی|فارسی ]]}}</div>

to:

{{flatlist|
*{{Lang|es|[[:es:Wikipedia:Portada|Español]]}}
*{{Lang|de|[[:de:Wikipedia:Hauptseite|Deutsch]]}}
*{{Lang|fr|[[:fr:Wikipédia:Accueil_principal|Français]]}}
*{{Lang|it|[[:it:Pagina_principale|Italiano]]}}
*{{Lang|he|[[:he:עמוד_ראשי|עברית]]}}
*{{Lang|ru|[[:ru:главная_страница|Русский]]}}
*{{Lang|ja|[[:ja:メインページ|日本語]]}}
*{{Lang|pl|[[:pl:Strona_główna|Polski]]}}
*{{Lang|fa|[[:fa:صفحهٔ_اصلی|فارسی ]]}}}}</div>

This will improve accessibility, but make no visible difference. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done fredgandt 22:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Archiving

Hi guys. On a separate note, does anybody here think we ought to be maybe start considering archiving this talk page in a little while? Just throwing it out there, cheers, Magister Scienta^talk (Editor Review) 03:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I've set up automated archiving; MiszaBot should be along soon to do the necessary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

That's now working. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Suggested addition

See the bottom of the welcome template (not the code), in this version the suggested addition. It might be nice to get real feedback from the recipients. Also, we can keep track of it's use (know if it's widely used or not) since we can see "what links here" since it would link every template to this page.

Thoughts? fredgandt 13:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, my gut reaction is no. It 1) further clutters an already busy template and 2) somewhat depersonalizes the message by making the template seem, for lack of a better phrase, very processed. Magister Scienta^talk (Editor Review) 16:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we're going to kid anyone into thinking each is crafted by hand, as they are. The little extra clutter would at least provide us with some possible feedback about how we could make it more personal. I'm certainly not going to force the issue. Majority rule, or draw straws. All much of a muchness to me. (holy crap! "Muchness" is in the Chrome spellcheck dictionary (spellcheck isn't though)) fredgandt 18:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Fred, I thought that (temporary) addition was a bit too much, myself. If we just went to such lengths to tell a newbie about How to edit a page and what the Five Pillars are, etc., we needn't further confuse them by requesting feedback on the template already. I don't know what to say as far as tracking as a rationale goes; however, there is something like this. Does that satisfy you on that point? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 03:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

That seems like an excellent idea to me. Magister Scienta^talk (Editor Review) 04:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Minor Tweak

Right now, when you click on "(Leave me a message)" you get the following:

==                           ==             <!---Put a descriptive, but relatively short description about the message--->

This should be:

==                == <!--- Put a descriptive, but relatively short description between the first "==" and the second "==" --->

I tested this with several screen resolutions and browsers, and to my eye 16 spaces works better than the 27 you have there now. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting phenomena when the template is used on a subpage:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Work_In_Progress

(Nothing to be fixed here; in normal use it will never be placed on a subpage) --Guy Macon (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Perfecto!! --Guy Macon (talk) 01:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Changed the preloaded template. Tell me what you think You can of course change it yourself, if you think it should be different. It isn't code, so it's not complicated. If the Welcome template is not placed on a user talk page, it won't do all the clever stuff. Since it's only supposed to be added to user talk pages, that's the way I designed it (using a talk page detection template). fredgandt 00:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

AnomieBOT and greet shorthand

I recently used this template at User talk:68.4.61.51. trying out the feature that says "A shorthand of {{Wtw}} or {{Greet}} may be used for this template."

A bit later AnomieBOT edited the page with the comment "Substing templates: {{Greet}}. See User:AnomieBOT/docs/TemplateSubster for info."

Is this normal? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The welcome template should always be substituted. Sometimes we might forget. AnomieBOT follows templates in the Category:Wikipedia templates to be automatically substituted category around and substitutes those that were left un-substed. So, in short, yes. fredgandt 06:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I am confused. Should I have used {{Subst:Greet}} instead of doing what the documentation told me to do? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I've clarified the documentation. There is also a slight issue with AnomieBOTs substitutioning that has resulted in a slight mess. I have reported the issue to Anomie. You might want to return to the IP talk page and replace the welcome template. The history has the details for Anomie to see what went wrong. fredgandt 07:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Anomie assures me the BOT is behaving now. fredgandt 16:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Equals signs: two or three braces

Using two braces to include an equals sign in the parameters of a template, calls the template {{=}}, which transcludes an equals sign it its place. Using {{subst:=}} or {{safesubst:=}} (when used in a template to be transcluded or substituted), will result in an equals sign, instead of leaving the template intact.

Using three braces to include an equals sign, results in the equals sign being left in place, but without the need to subst or safesubst. It also does not require the use of either form of substitution. i.e. {{{|=}}} will leave just an equals sign behind when transculded or substituted within another template, or when used by itself on a saved page.

The reason for this is that {{{|=}}} asks: If there is no value to the left of the pipe, my value is =.

So simply: using {{{|=}}} will result in a substituted equals sign being left on the substituted welcome template. Using {{=}} will result in a lot of extra transclusions that will never substitute (each of which is counted against the page template limit and is a call for the content of another page). Thus it is far more efficient to use {{{|=}}} in any situation an equals sign is to be used in a template (either whilst calling it, or when writing it). fredgandt 12:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC) P.P. I wrote this during the first waking minutes of my day. Please forgive any incoherent nonsense. fredgandt

Erm... Using three braces in (for example) a diff link, added as the text parameter of the call to a template, results in the call working and no change in the presentation (the three braces are left intact). The same is true of two braces but the result is that each occurrence is a call to another template (as opposed to a self parsing instance). We should ideally use {{subst:=}} for every equals sign used as part of the text of a parameter value. Since this is not likely going to be some thing we can convince users to do, using three braces instead of two, will at least cut down the presence of unsubstituted templates calling for the content of other pages. I am confusing myself here. Jeeze this template stuff is complex. fredgandt 12:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

CoI version

I've made a fork of this template, combined with {{uw-coi}}, at {{Welcome to Wikipedia CoI}}, for use in cases where new editors appear to have a CoI, and when {{uw-coi}} is insufficiently welcoming. It probably needs tweaking, and I'd appreciate comments. Perhaps the bulk of {{Welcome to Wikipedia CoI}} could be moved to a common sub-template? Or the CoI part (and others?) could be made a switchable component of this template? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The two situations where I could really use a specialized yet very friendly template are new but apparently well meaning COI editors and editors who appear to be testing Wikipedia instead of meaning to harm it. Template:Welcometest is OK, but a version much like Template:Welcome to Wikipedia would be a lot more welcoming. Template:Welcome-anon-vandal has a fatal flaw that prevents me from using it on testing users -- the title. I don't want to slap someone in the face with the word "vandal" before they learn its specialized meaning. --Guy Macon (talk)

That title isn't seen by the receiving editor, so that shouldn't be an issue. If it still bothers you, why not create a redirect, and use that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought it said "vandal" in a HTML comment which the user would see if he edited the page, but I just checked and it does not. (Note to self: Next time, smoke crack after editing Wikipedia...) --Guy Macon (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

How can we move this forwards? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to make your own version in your own userspace. Von Restorff (talk) 09:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I neither want nor need my own version; my point of creating this template and starting this discussion is that we should have a template which editors who currently use the bitey existing CoI templates to address new, good-faith editors should instead have a more welcoming template to use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: Von Restorff recently nominated this template for deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

If the current COI templates are a turnoff they should be improved, COI editors are welcome on Wikipedia (with certain restrictions in some cases). E.g. if I am the subject of a BLP I should be welcomed (with the welcome template) and I should receive non-BITEy info about COI editing. I do not understand why you prefer to make a combo-template instead of improving the COI template(s), the templates have two separate goals. Von Restorff (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Per my reasoning at the deletion nomination, I think {{Welcome-COI}} does a much better job than this template does. If you reply here, {{lmatb}} — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 20:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

now at {{User:Pigsonthewing/Welcome to Wikipedia CoI}}; my intitial components about sub-templates and switchable components still apply. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Twinkle

I've made a request that this template be added to Twinkle. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 15 August 2012 (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) 23:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

See discussion on Template talk:Welcome. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

To Sarah: Done – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 00:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

IP contributors

This template works well with the old format IP addresses; however, it treats the new, long formats as if they were registered users. See this at User talk:2601:B:A200:48:7425:6A0B:AEFC:B1C0. There should be a way to make this template reflect these new formats as IP addresses rather than registered users, shouldn't there? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 05:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking more closely at this, I see that it is probably {{IP-talk}} (shortcut = {{Ipt}}) that needs work, so I'll try there. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 05:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

This has been fixed for this template as soon as I transfer the sandbox to the live template. To see how the long IP user talk page appeared before the fix, click here. As you can see, the newer, long IPs were treated as if they were registered users. This is because the {{IP-talk}} template (shortcut is {{ipt}}) only recognizes numbers. The long IPs use hex numerals instead of decimal numbers, and hex numerals can contain letters as well as numbers.

To fix this I used the #ifeq: parser function and the nifty {{IsIPAddress}} template. I tested it on:

• a regular IPv4 page
• my own registered user talk page
• this template's testcases page
• and of course, a newer IPv6 page

If you check these you will see that the template works well on each of these pages. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 04:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Although this work may have fixed one issue, it was implemented in such a way that it leaves in place (post substitution) many unsubstituted parser functions on IP talk pages. That should be fixed.

Laughably, I can't edit this page anymore :-D - or I'd do it myself. fredgandt 21:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)