Template talk:Welcome

Initial discussion

Due to popular request? =) — Rapta (talk|contribs) 21:03, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

some discussion on it here --Lemming64 21:04, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

it's way too late for sarcasm <sigh> --Lemming64 21:05, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Can someone please add something about renaming personal images to User <username> <whatever>.jpg as per GWW:USER#User images. And maybe something else about not copying stuff from GuildWiki. I'm too tired to trust myself to word that clearly enough right now. --Dirigible 21:07, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

It already says that other Wikis' information cannot be used here because of the incompatible licenses, but maybe that's too indirect? — Rapta (talk|contribs) 21:09, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Maybe we should use that blinking code that Blastedt has on his talk page on GuildWiki. Something big flashy and red would be ideal. :P --Dirigible 21:11, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Regarding personal image naming: A message on the upload form itself would also be good. Please see MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext. --Rezyk 22:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

reset indent
I changed it to mention not copying from GuildWiki; but please go ahead and alter it as you see fit :) Fox 21:30, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I need to - or someone else needs to *winks* - fix the tildes, but it is stupid o'clock here and I'm not thinking straight right now; I will have a look again tomorrow Fox 21:50, 28 March 2007 (EDT) Fixed Fox 22:41, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

It's totally up to the individual but I really hate these. They're totally impersonal, an overload of information and confronting as well. How are you supposed to learn anything when someone slaps a giant template on your user page? I'd much rather see some links to editing guilds, formatting guides etc. You know a proper welcome is far better in my opinion, something more personal and more likely to make the new person feel like part of the community. Something that encourages them to give a response instead of being scared off. Why not makes this a crash course guide that people link to instead of something that gets whacked onto confused new users talk pages? --Xasxas256 21:52, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, I guess it does make your user page a bit redundant :P Joking apart, it isn't impersonal, you have to take the time to find the new users and put the template there. It does what you ask for above, ie provide links to guides, and I don't think it is any more scarey than having someone put a message on your talk page - probably the first one on there - telling you that you have copyvio'd GuildWiki or named an image wrong. Fox 22:41, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, I find this a bit intimidating too if it were placed on my user talk when I just joined. It's gives me a feeling of "Hi, welcome, here are the rules you should know." Can I suggest making it less wordy and shorter? Such as a simple welcome message and just a small list of useful links? -- ab.er.rant 23:04, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Heh, given my inactivity until now I don't think too many people have seen my user page. Look I'm with you, I think that helping out new users is incredibly important and it's important to try to help them learn wikicode and the ways of this wiki as well encouraging them to stick around and continue editing. Whilst this may outline the background of this wiki, I certainly don't think it's very welcoming. It's too long really, like if you see a new user struggling to wikify something or sign a post or use a template, you should help them with that and then perhaps have a link to a page like this. Also taking the time to find a new user doesn't make it any less impersonal, help users with what they need, don't fire the same shotgun of information all of at them! --Xasxas256 23:21, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

You should be using subst: with this template. --Rainith 22:52, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I think this kind of thing can be very useful and I like what's been done so far. As for how intimidating it is, I would have to agree. It looks like a big block of text and I can't be bothered to read it. I think we should considerably reduce the number of bullet points. I'm thinking something like this:

• If you're new to editing wiki's have a look at our how to help article.
• For information on the way that our articles should be laid out see the formatting section.
• To find out what you are and are not allowed to do on this wiki have a look at our policy section.

I really don't think we need more than that. It's enough information for anyone to get started, and they can choose to look at each area in their own time. What do you think? LordBiro 05:31, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm in concordance with that - the original - more verbose - version has been slimmed down already, but I do like to KISS; I will edit it again Fox 05:35, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Author tag

Author tag needs to be replaced with a tag that shows what your name is and the current time. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Drago .

Changed

Got rid of useless table, changed font tags to span, changed colours to be a little less eye hurty. - BeXoR 23:57, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

You've made me a happy man! :D LordBiro 05:20, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I learned more about divs cause of you. ;) You should be proud! I was avoiding my css book like crazy. - BeXoR 05:41, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Don't avoid divs ... divs are your friend! --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 10:55, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

sandbox?

maybe this would be the place to tell thewm to use a sandbox for editing ideas rather than doing it on their talkpage/userpage or worse even an article page, Special:mypage/sandbox & Guild Wars Wiki:Sandbox are your friend, especially to aspiring wiki editors who tihs template applies too. --Jamie 10:04, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

This thing is intimidating

Although I've used this template myself on occasion, I feel that the sheer size and "In-your-face"-ness of the thing is somewhat intimidating. See here for example (and this is not the first time I've seen this sort of response). Is there anyway this can be made more, er, welcoming rather than intimidating? --Snograt 19:26, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree entirely! It's 00:54 here so forgive me for not producing something :P LordBiro 19:54, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Hah, it's 00:54 here as well - difference is; I'm getting paid :p --Snograt 20:00, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

This is an outrage :P are you in the UK? LordBiro 20:08, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

As I mentioned elsewhere, I work for a company that I can't name, but who run a subterranean passenger transportation system in the capital city of an island nation just off the coast of mainland Europe :D --Snograt 20:16, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Cryptic... if I didn't have an oyster card anyway... --Lemming64 20:18, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Don't forget to touch in and ...damn --Snograt 20:37, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

I've made an alternative version at self:Template:Welcome2. --Rezyk 21:11, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Some1 pls revert it, the other maybe a bit unfriendly but this one is just plain text. If i wanted text i would write one myself. Why not make a new template with the text and leave this one as it was. ~ Kurd16:54, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Why do you consider a coloured block to be better than plain text? — Skuld 16:58, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Because it has some looks pro and has at least some lay out. But just make a new template and leave this one as it is, ive used this template too many times and i didnt expect it to go to text ~ Kurd17:20, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

It seems that most people around here (me included) disagree with the old template being used, Kurd. It's far too aggressive and intimidating. We want to make new users feel at home, not wonder how they messed up. --Dirigible 17:25, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Thats fine, but why not make a new one with plain text and leave this one alone, cause right now ive used this on over 20+ pages and now they are all replaced by text :/ ~ Kurd17:33, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

You know, technically, the usage notes did say you were supposed to use {{subst:Welcome}}. That would have prevented them from changing in the first place =\ Also, with the creation of GWW:WELCOME, that template became somewhat redundant. MisterPepe talk 17:36, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Pepe has a point, if the subst code was correctly used as the notes explain then it would not be an issue. --Lemming64 17:40, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

The moral of the story: always read the instructions! --Dirigible 17:45, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

There's 78 uses of this template without a subst. I can set a bot to correct them, but it would mean that 78 people would get a "You got mail!" beep. So, I think it's probably better to leave them as they are, just as long as from now on everyone always substs it. --Dirigible 04:44, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Just my $0.02, the new one is leagues better than that old monstrosity. Plus... it hardly seems like a "welcome template," so that makes it mean so much more to the new contributor :) -Auron My talk 18:12, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Having the welcome info on a separate article is a great idea. It means that users don't really need to use this template, if they don't wish to; instead they can just say "Hey, welcome to the wiki, you might be interested in GWW:WELCOME :)".

Awesome. LordBiro 06:44, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Request to get this changed

Ok, as it stands so far, this thing is apparently too "automated" sounding. I've had several users complain at me for using it (see here, here, & here. Each time they have complained about it being to noobish or automated which also resulted in a fight. Could we make it sound less "automated"? Something like Welcome to The Official Guild Wars Wiki! If you are new to wiki editing, click here. If you are an experienced wiki editor, try checking out here for something to start with right away. If you need any help or have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Maybe something like that? — 卍 Eloc 卍 21:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That's much better than the current one. It doesn't assume that you're a 'noob' from the off. br12 ~ 21:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ya, it kind of gives you a choice in which you are either a noob to wiki editing or experienced at it already. Hopefuly this will resolve conflicts such as User talk:Ryudo User_talk:Eloc_Jcg/Archive2#The_hell.3F. — 卍 Eloc 卍 21:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Think you should stop linking that now, he's made it quite clear he wants that forgotten. br12 ~ 21:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Changed. — 卍 Eloc 卍 21:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Eloc you should try personal messages, its much more welcoming than using a template you toss around on every new users page :D --Cursed Angel 21:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Aww, but I welcome so so many people. — 卍 Eloc 卍 21:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No clue if it can be done, but... Why not set up the template so it is used for creating automatically a new talk page every time an account is created (IPs included)? That, and putting a note or something so people don't start spamming the welcome template everytime they see an user without a talk page created...--Fighterdoken 21:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we should stop automating welcome messages altogether. It's kind of contradicting, imo. Welcome people personally, or don't bother. I wouldn't really feel welcome if I got an automated message. - anja 21:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ya, it can probly be done with a bot Fighterdoken.

Anja, when I got my automated message (the big blue bulky one), I felt quite welcomed (most likely cause I never got a welcome on Guildwiki). — 卍 Eloc 卍 22:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Main Page/editcopy and get rid of {{Tl|Welcome}} br12 ~ 22:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Consider modifying MediaWiki:Welcomecreation. --Rezyk 22:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, good idea. — 卍 Eloc 卍 23:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I like the existing text a lot more.. And a text with "Welcome to The Official Guild Wars Wiki!" is always directed to newbies. Older users will always be treated as noobs with that text. poke | talk 14:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Imo don't use a template, impersonal welcoming doesn't make it feel like someones actually taking time to say hi. Lord of all tyria 14:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I never use this template alone; when I use this I always add a specific comment (for example when there is a problem with image namings). poke | talk 14:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Anja above. I don't like an automated welcome message; I think we should keep the relevant links on the wiki main page, and if someone feels like welcoming a new user, I would suggest writing an individual message for that person. Erasculio 14:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't make links using words like here, instead use words that describe what you're linking to, i.e. "...if you are new to editing wiki's have a look at our welcome article...".

And yeah, I think altering the mediawiki welcome message is better than using an 'automated' welcome message. LordBiro 14:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to mention how, some times, the first thing a new user gets is the automated "welcome" message, and the second is a warning about GWW:USER when said user tries to remove the automated message from his talk page. I don't think this is exactly a friendly way to greet someone. Erasculio 12:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I use {{tl|Welcome}} exactly the same way as poke does. I subst it in the page, then make my comment about something I want to make known to the user. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 12:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

i have another change proposal: a template welcome does and will always sound automated as long as it stays formal. that's why i'd adjust it to sound more familiar. we don't have to ignore capitals like i do (^.^) but i wouldn't want someone to post a really very formal welcome like this on my talk either. - Y0_ich_halt 18:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

subst

anyone care and create a bot that changes all inclusions to subst: ? - Y0_ich_halt 18:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Better to ask here. Backsword 19:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It totally cluttered up my Watchlist :S — ク Eloc 貢 01:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

lol... - Y0_ich_halt 15:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of this talk page

Talk pages with substantial information or discussion, especially one such as this, should be kept, so I'm against the deletion of this talk page. -- Brains12 \ Talk 17:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. LordBiro 17:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) x2 Do we really need this page since the template was already deleted? I understand that portions of it (as to "Why welcome templates are not healthy") could be seen as important, but i would guess we have ways to archive this in another place instead of leaving a talk page that none but those who participated in the discussion know of it's existence. Maybe moving the content to HELP:WIKI instead?--Fighterdoken 17:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll respond to that with Talk:Penis. -- Brains12 \ Talk 17:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that thing is still here? I remember it took us three months, a call for interpretation of the policy, and a definition of Speedy:G4 before we were able to delete Talk:FUCK THIS WIKI. Maybe next year they will delete that page also XD (but still, i would think this talk page content in particular would be best suited in a place that can be accessed by those without the knowledge of it's existence).--Fighterdoken 17:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would rather the discussion stayed in its original form on its original page. And to be honest, I can't see another place to archive this discussion, nor a more appropriate page for it. -- Brains12 \ Talk 17:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

-sigh- so much for a deletion policy with a 3 days time for discussing over.--Fighterdoken 18:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that there are obviously more for keeping the page; you can still try to convince us from deleting it, but keeping it in the deletion category doesn't help that much. Also note that removing while the discussion is ongoing it is safer to remove the tag to be sure that the page is not accidentally deleted. poke | talk 18:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Erh... aren't admins supposed to check the talk page first before deleting something tagged for normal deletion? (along with "what links here" i mean)... Besides, is not my job to convince people of nothing. Talk pages have been deleted with the "main article doesn't exist" reason, and this page still follows that trend, and so was tagged with the respective tag (avoiding the use of G4 because of the content). I simply thought the deletion policy established the 3 days timer as a way to ensure having a discussion about if the content was deemed important enough by the wiki to stay or not, but if the tag can simlpy be removed without letting the timmer expire, i don't think there is much to do.--Fighterdoken 19:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the admins are supposed to check history, links and the contents of the page before deleting. The only talk pages which are deleted are those with no substantial information on the topic of that talk page or those that don't need to be kept. Talk pages with as much content as this one aren't deleted. -- Brains12 \ Talk 22:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

By that logic then there's no harm in keeping the delete tag on this page, so that perhaps other people who feel strongly about this page being deleted might also come across it. Would you agree with that? LordBiro 22:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would have no problem with a deletion tag here seeing the discussion about it has started, I just disagree with the actual deletion. -- Brains12 \ Talk 23:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)