Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee/Archive 5

New look

What does everyone think of a new look for WP:WELCOME? • 01:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm open to the idea, I'd like to see some example drafts first though. -- œ^™ 16:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Although I like the new friendly green feel, the strength of the green impedes readability. Perhaps toning it down or using a green-to-white vertical gradient —Aiden 21:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC) — anybody agree ?

Wiki Guides study/project

Hi Everyone!

I wanted to let you know about a study that we are getting together to start next month. As I’m sure many of you are aware we have had a decrease in new editors over the past couple years.

As a community we have a lot of ideas but We’ve been stymied by a lot of options and little data.

We want to conduct a study over the next couple months (with some resources from the Wikimedia Foundation) to help craft strategies to develop new users, to get data on exactly how our new users are finding their first, and later, experiences on Wikipedia and of course to help share the experiences of the experienced users who are here to find out what works, what doesn't and what resources they need to make their work easier.

The plan at the moment is to have several groups of users, 1 group that is just followed (the control) and several other groups with guides who actively reach out and try to help them edit and join the community. I hope that you can help us as we get ready for the study start next month and help the new users once we start! You can find out more information and sign up on the project page and if you can think of anyone who might be interested please please PLEASE point them this way or let me know so I can reach out to them personally! Jalexander--WMF 23:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Account Creation Improvement Project

Hello all,

As I don't usually spend my time editing English Wikipedia, I may need to introduce myself. My name is Lennart, and I am a Wikimedia Fellow. During six months (ending in July), I will be working with the Account Creation Improvement Project. This is not only an attempt at streamlining the pages in the account creation process and make them less full of warnings, but also to take the opportunity to try and inspire the newcomers to actually start and edit Wikipedia. We hope that you think that would be interesting, since it will probably influence your experience on the Welcoming committee.

The project has several phases. We have previously among other things done some research about why users create accounts, and a bit later we will do live tests on a few language versions of Wikipedia. But before we can reach that phase, we need your help.

What we are doing right now is to write the pages that new users meet when they are creating their accounts. And you are welcome to add your own ideas or fullgrown pages! We will start testing things live on Wikipedia, February 21st, to see which pages have the best results in getting new users to start edit. To do proper tests we need at least five different ideas/pages for each of the three pages involved. So, again, go to this page and add your ideas.

Thanks for your time. Best wishes, SvHannibal (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Updating the member's list

It looks like the list of members of the Welcoming committee is several years out of date. I am proposing that we archive the current list under a separate page for past members, and that we start a new list of members. A bot could be used to notify all the past users to readd their name to the member list if they are still active in the committee. I think this would help keep the list fresh and useful. Thoughts? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 21:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah it is pretty old.. but there's a LOT of people on that list.. you sure it's a good idea to bot-spam all these users? -- œ^™ 03:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

We could just archive the list and people could gradually add themselves back. It just seems that in it's current state it is not very useful. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 04:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyways, I archived the list, any users that would like to remain on, please readd yourself to the list. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 06:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Where did you archive it to? I don't see a link anywhere to the old list.. -- œ^™ 08:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Automatically welcoming new users

I have started a proposal at the village pump about using a bot to automatically welcome new users. Any thoughts are encouraged there. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 06:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Use a bot to welcome new users. -- œ^™ 08:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Linking to WP:BURO

Over at WT:N we had a discussion with a user and came to the conclusion that linking to and explaining WP:BURO would be helpful to newcomers.陣内_Jinnai 20:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

New people at AfD

Hello. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/François Asselineau is being contested quite sharply, and there is a bunch of ip making very strong comments. On the other hand, there is a call on a facebook group to vote. One ip has been trying to game the system, his edits were reposted after being deleted. I then pointed it out and now the facebook group admonishes people to respect courtesy.

There are a lot of red linked talk pages left, and I need some help in explaining them a couple of wikipedia policies (of the top of my head, WP:CANVASS and WP:ILIKEIT, but other probably apply). Thank you, Comte0 (talk) 10:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Newbie

In reading the article:William Safire talkpage, and attempting to respond to the last comment, I found that the reader occasionally edits WP, but has never been welcomed. I was going to borrow your template and create his talkpage, but realized I'd be offering help I may be ill-equipped to provide. I'm not trying to be modest: I can copyedit, and I don't mind helping anyone if able, but I'm not that available, and not too conversant with WP policies and practices. Thought it'd be better for someone more able to provide real help to sign the template. Also, I'm not sure why this person fell through the cracks, but his concern was voiced in 2009, and has not yet been addressed! His username is Jalwikip, and he has had 3 edits in the last month, so just barely active. I know there is concern about retaining and encouraging editors... Ragityman (talk) 10:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The user's talk page User talk:Jalwikip has a welcome message on it from February 2007. What you created was the his/her user page User:Jalwikip. Messages like yours don't belong on a user page. I suggest you remove it there and add it back to the user talk page. --Mysdaao ^talk 14:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

New standard welcome template

I suggest replacing the standard welcome template with this one created by User:Chaosdruid. It's very pleasing to the eye, well laid out, and graphical; which should help users who are unfamiliar with the Wiki interface. Discuss... Pol430 talk to me 15:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I like it a lot and support this, provided a few minor changes are made. Firstly, the picture of how to sign doesn't match how my edit box looks - is it out of date? Secondly, "Main policies of Wikipedia Wikipedia's main policies and guidelines" links to a page that's not very useful to beginners, in my view.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I have changed that link about PAG to Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines which I think might be more useful as a reference tool. You are quite right that the picture of how to sign is out of date. I'm not very good with 'imagey' stuff, perhaps someone else knows how to obtain an up to date snap shot of the toolbar? Pol430 talk to me 18:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you considered accessibility concerns? One good thing about the standard {{welcome}} template is that it's NOT graphical or highly formatted.. plain text ensures compatibility across any systems/skins/settings/layouts. Keep in mind screen readers too, not everyone can see all the flashy graphics and menus. What's most important is the links. -- œ^™ 02:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

True, but I'm confident most users can. How about a text link in the template? Something like "Can't see this message properly? Click here for a simpler version." that should solve the accessibility problem. The only other problem I can think of is that using this template would leave quite a large chunk of code on a users talk page. I'm not sure if that could be a problem or not? If it is perhaps some different method of coding can be found? Pol430 talk to me 12:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I've heard that our biggest growth area is amongst mobile phone users in the third world, and they probably use text readers. ϢereSpielChequers 12:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I like that solution of linking to an alternative in case that one is unreadable. That could work.. -- œ^™ 14:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

How about Help:Introduction to policies and guidelines? It's a lot less overwhelming. Here's a sig icon that might work.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the link you provide is much more appropriate (first time I've seen those pages!) I shall include it in the draft. The sig icon might work also.

The thinking behind this template is very much similar to what we are doing in the Account Creation Improvement Project, see discussion above. Right now we are testing mostly text-based Mediawiki:Welcomecreation versions to see which inspire people to start editing best, but one of the upcoming phases is to get professional web designers to help us in improving the entire process, based on what the results are in the tests. I can understand that this may seem as though outsiders come in and dictate how things should be run, but it's not. We're very sensitive to what the community thinks, and would like as many active users as possible to bring their opinions to the table, along with the results from how the newcomers act. In the end, we hope to create something that works even better, and looks even better than this proposal. For instance, here are some of the assumptions that we are working under. Do you have any other assumptions that you want to add? For instance, one controversial assumption is number 3. With the information at hand on that page, is there any other point of view that we should take into consideration? All of this means, to phrase it in another way, let's wait for a while designing this until we know a) what we need, b) what the web designers come up with for the Account Creation process based on results from the live tests, and then we can "borrow" elements from there.//Hannibal (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the point you are making, but Wikipedia is a constantly evolving entity. Is it really a problem to implement this suggestion? If the project you are working on bears fruit and produces an even better, more substantial solution then that's great, but I don't see it as a barrier to working on this proposal Pol430 talk to me 21:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi all, thanks for the discussion and pointing out the error of the old signature picture (row of buttons with big pointy red arrow and SIGNATURE). I have modified my welcome banner to include the single button displayed above the edit window, User:Chaosdruid/welcome#Vector_new_graphic_for_sig Chaosdruid (talk) 05:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Short note to Pol430: I am of course aware of the fluent nature of Wikipedia, so I was not suggesting that "you" should not do this. What I was saying was that we are working on the same kind of things, and that it is perhaps more efficient to devote your time to other stuff for the time being than designing this template, including helping out with the overall project, in case you weren't aware of the fact that we are working on it :-) Best wishes//Hannibal (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification :-) Pol430 talk to me 22:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Testing welcome pages

I've made a suggestion at meta:Wikimedia Fellowships/Proposals/Evaluating welcome messages that may be of interest to people here. ϢereSpielChequers 18:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Two articles in progress - useful?: responses to article deletion questions + layperson's Getting Started

From the short time I've been here it seems like it would be beneficial to have:

• Standard text for inquiries about deleted accounts - some of the responses seem harsh.
• An overview in layperson's language for how to get started. I'm considered quasi-techy and I was pretty confused in the beginning.

Both are works-in-progress that I would like to run by you to determine:

• Realizing that they are works-in-progress: Would either of these be helpful?
• Do you have any comments? I've seen the new material that has been rolling out and seeing great improvements!

Thanks much!--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to find the right forum to discuss pages to help make a softer impression on new users. I'm guessing this isn't the right place. Can someone help point me to the right forum? Thanks so much!--CaroleHenson (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

You have some good ideas, and this is an appropriate forum, except not too many people watch this page. A better, more widely read forum where you're more likely to get a response would be the Wikipedia:Village pump. -- œ^™ 14:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Poor English

Do we have any uw- templates for users whose English is basically fair, but whose spelling is poor and grammar not much better? I think that {{subst:Uw-english}} is too harsh for such cases. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware.. but this would be a good opportunity to go ahead and create one! -- œ^™ 06:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we should be very careful here. We have lots of editors who do useful work despite having imperfect English, I suspect that practicing a language they are trying to learn is a common secondary motive for editors. What would be the purpose or content of a specific template for such editors? UW_English is for those who we want to discourage from editing in this lnaguage version of the pedia becasue they are not writing in English, but we don't want to discourage editors who have poor spelling or grammer, unless of course they are changing good content to bad. ϢereSpielChequers 12:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Template question: welcoming the anonymous

Resolved

 – Question withdrawn by the asker

Is {{Template:AnonymousWelcome}} deprecated now? If so, would someone provide a link to any documentation or discussion? SteveBot appears to be changing recent my uses of it to {{Template:Welcome-anon}}, whose wording I find less useful because it downplays the encouragement to register. Rivertorch (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC) Anybody home? I have stopped welcoming anons until I get to the bottom of this. Rivertorch (talk) 20:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that either of those are really welcomes. They look more like attempts to get IP editors to register and create accounts. I appreciate that some editors don't want IPs editing, but I'm not convinced that either of those belongs in template space, surely template space should be for stuff that is more in line with policy? ϢereSpielChequers 21:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for replying, but I'm still a little confused. I certainly support the equal treatment of all editors, regardless of their registration status, but I'm unaware of any policy-based reason not to encourage registration. {{Template:AnonymousWelcome}} does gently encourage registration by listing its benefits. Nonetheless, it's hard to imagine its not constituting a "welcome" since it begins with the word itself. Fwiw, I've been using it for years and have had some success with it—i.e., at least several users who received it apparently felt welcomed enough that they registered! {{Template:Welcome-anon}} is unquestionably a welcome; two out of its three paragraphs are 100% welcoming and similar to the content in welcome templates used for new registered users. I don't like it as well but am quite willing to use it instead if there is consensus that it's preferable. Those were my questions: is there consensus, and where was the discussion? If there isn't consensus, then the bot shouldn't be second-guessing my selection of template. Rivertorch (talk) 06:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I've gone through all the welcomes I can find that are written to welcome IPs and they all seem to include at least a softsell promoting registration. But apart from {{AnonymousWelcome}} they all have most of their text giving useful links either to policy or to editing help areas - "anonymouswelcome" is just a hardsell encouraging IP editors to create accounts. Even {{Template:Welcome-anon-vandal}} is more welcoming, and it is a template designed to be given to vandals! Openness and equal treatment of editors means valuing IPs for the edits that they do rather than simply as a source of potential new editors. I don't know if there has been any discussion on SteveBot's action, but it seems a sensible approach to me, though and redirecting or replacing the template would be a neater one. Though in that case the signature needs to change. ϢereSpielChequers 07:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I opened a discussion at SteveBot's talk and believe he's looking into it. Although I don't completely agree with the points you make, I'm glad you made them and would be happy to discuss them in a different place (elsewhere on this page, if you like). My concern here is about the replacement of templates posted over my signature, which effectively changed the messages I appeared to leave. That should not happen without very good reason; it's akin to refactoring—hell, rewriting—someone's talk page comments. In other words, it's the principle that I'd like to focus on here. Rivertorch (talk) 07:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

OK I agree that other editors, bots or otherwise shouldn't change what you wrote, though Steve doesn't seem to think that is happeneing. In the meantime I'm minded to file a tfd on this template. ϢereSpielChequers 08:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Update: I've been unable to replicate the diff that caused me to open this thread (wish I had a screenshot) and therefore am (euphemistically perhaps) marking it resolved. For the record, SteveBot appears to be operating perfectly and nothing other than garden-variety template substitution has taken place. I can't explain it—it's a mystery. Rivertorch (talk) 08:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Template that discourages IP editing

Per the previous thread I've filed a TFD on what I believe to be an unwelcoming welcome template. ϢereSpielChequers 09:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

A new method of outreach?

Hi. :) I'm visiting San Francisco this week and getting some interesting insight on what the Wikimedia Foundation is doing about the need of attracting and retaining new contributors. One of the new initiatives is the mood bar, which queries new editors about their editing experiences and gives them an opportunity to comment on problems they've encountered. This is already generating interesting data.

Staff mentioned that the comment fields provide us a great opportunity to reach out directly to new contributors with assistance. For example, one new contributor (who tagged his mood as "confused") left the following comment: "I am not sure if I will get the help I need and really want - my idea has been ignored for too long." The idea is that human contact from other volunteers as this point might make the project seem more accessible and help some of these newcomers become successful, happy and productive community members. Naturally, I immediately thought of you guys. :)

What I'm wondering is if any of you would be interested in responding to these people. If I created a table with the new user's usernames and their concerns if specific, would it be within your scope to proactively reach out to them to let them know that human interaction is available? --User:Moonriddengirl, in job hat as Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I definitely think it would be within this project's scope Maggie, and I would be willing to help. Another group that I believe would be good for this job is Wikipedia:Wiki Guides. -- œ^™ 10:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Feedback! Thank you! And for your willingness to help. :D I will reach out to Wikipedia:Wiki Guides and see what we can come up with. I've also been wondering if perhaps the people at the IRC help channel or help pages might be willing to pitch in. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I've put together a table of the first list of information, courtesy of excel2wiki, excluding those people who are "happy" and a few blatant vandals. Currently it's at User:Mdennis (WMF)/Moodbar feedback. If this turned out to be something that we could use here, I'll see if I can get it in more wiki-friendly formatting. Surely somebody could get the usernames to link up, for instance. :) (Probably if I had any tech-fu, I could. :P) What do you think? Is this something that we can make use of? (So far, no response at the Wiki Guides talk page.) Given the low participation here, I've opened up the question of what we can do with this data at the village pump. I think this gives us a pretty good opportunity for outreach, myself, but we do need to make sure that people are interested. :D --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Well from that data it looks like the vast majority of users are simply confused! I'm actually confused myself as to why so many people are having such a hard time editing. I think it comes down to the people who have an aptitude for this sort of thing are already here or will find their way here and those are the people we should be more focused on reaching out to. Trying to reach out and welcome every new user, even if it helps them accomplish what they wanted, won't guarantee that that user will stay and continue to edit. I worry that with the WMF's goals of attracting more editors we'd end up attracting nothing more than single-purpose edits. This is why I tend to make an effort to reach out and welcome, and go the extra mile for, users whom I notice already have a knack for this. -- œ^™ 14:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Maggie, as you know, I'm actively involved on MW with the development of new ways of receiving new creators. Some of the ideas already posted here are very good. please don't hesitate to keep me updated - I would also work through such lists of new users. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Help needed: disillusioned infrequent editor

Hi, what's the best way of dealing with the recent edits of Uksnapper (talk · contribs)? He's clearly upset that much of his contributions have either been undone or severely modified. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks like User:Chzz has already extended a welcoming hand on the user's talk page. I believe the problem stems from this user misunderstanding Wikipedia's purpose and function as a mainstream encyclopedia. -- œ^™ 14:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

please help

I found an inappropriate edit to Charleston Chew and reverted it with an edit note.

Then I found the the edit was the first and only edit by a newcomer (or at least from a previously unused IP). I assume it is a good faith edit.

I reverted my edit.

Please will someone more tactful & more familiar with welcome templates than I deal with this. Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 03:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not famous for my tact in these cases, but I reverted the edit again, with edit summary "this sort of discussion / objection belongs on the talk page"; I probably should have added "...with a supporting citation", all pretty much what your edit summary said already. I wouldn't write an essay on his/her talk page, just leave a {{uw-unsourced1}}. Keep up the good work. --CliffC (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. However as this is the Welcoming Committee talk page, I have to say that in the circumstances the text created by {{uw-unsourced1}} does not strike me as very welcoming. I have not put it on the IP's talk page.

Wanderer57 (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Turns out that the anon was correct; the bit about "Brian Charleston The III 'The Billionaire Philanthropist'" was indeed vandalism (now reverted and the culprit warned). Maybe you'd want to give the reporter a {{uw-unsourced1}} coupled with a {{Welcome-anon-vandalism-fighter}}? Best, --CliffC (talk) 23:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Welcome local users

Comments/Suggestions on my recent addition? Feel free to copyedit, add to, or remove. -- œ^™ 18:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Excellent suggestions œ. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle welcome for IP newcomers testing in article space

I am working on a template that we can use in Twinkle to welcome IP newcomers who have made edit tests in article space. I combined the Twinkle templates for welcoming an IP vandal, {{Welcome-anon-vandal}}, and for level 1 warning about experimenting, {{uw-test1}}. The result is at User:Jojalozzo/Welcome-anon-test. Please edit there and/or offer suggestions here. Thanks. Jojalozzo 16:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I just updated the template, working from Template:Welcometest, and relocated it to Template:Welcome-anon-test. Jojalozzo 15:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Template testing: welcome messages?

Greetings, welcomers!

Some of you may know that Steven Walling and I have been running A/B tests with user warnings delivered via Huggle (and soon Twinkle). We created a task force with the help of Wikiproject User warnings and have been soliciting proposals for new tests – one suggestion was to test welcome messages, and we've been doing a little brainstorming around the idea. Here's a recap of the tentative proposal:

1. Create a template randomizer (like we did with user warnings) that randomly delivers one of three welcome templates.
2. Test three versions: a very short and personalized welcome stripped of all links except perhaps to welcomer's talk page and one help space, the default {{welcome}}, and a splashy graphical welcome like {{Welcomeg}}. The idea is to see if personalized/informal, teaching, or graphical messages work best to motivate new users to keep editing.
3. Run the test for about a month to collect a large sample size, then see who's still editing in good faith after the test period.

However, this kind of test will only work if we get a lot of welcomers on board to use our randomizer instead of their preferred welcome template. With the approval of the Twinkle and Huggle devs, we could program the randomizer into TW and HG separately, or temporarily replace the default {{welcome}} with it. But I know that some of you don't use automated tools, so we'd have to make it easy for you to participate, too, if you wanted.

Of course, this is all predicated on whether you think this is worth testing – if anybody here is interested and in favor of the idea, we can get to talking about logistics :) So please let me know what you think, and if you want to be involved in more of our A/B tests, please feel free to sign up on the task force page! Thanks, Maryana (WMF) (talk) 18:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Younger users

A lot of research, and the experience of our new page patrollers and admins has clearly shown that a great many of the new pages that have to be given help, or even deleted, are created by very young people. These pages are not always vandalism or silly attack pages, but they are nevertheless often unacceptable, such as for example: I have a lovely doggy called Bow-Wow and I live just round the corner from my skewel but my mommy won't let me take my doggie to skewel. It would not be practical or even possible for those editors and bots who issue welcome templates (which should be done with discretion anyway) to place special welcomes for very young users.

I am suggesting that the words:

If you are a young new user, to help you on your way please read Advice for younger editors.

be added to all our welcome templates; mature, serious editors will not find this offensive. Not only do we have to prevent pages such as that cited above, and blatant vandalism and childish hoaxes from being created, but we must also encourage those young authors of innocent unacceptable pages to continue to contribute in a correct manner - they are our editors of the future. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a good suggestion.. but I'm not sure it's necessary to add it to all the templates. I think this kind of message and link would be best placed manually after the automated welcome template once you spot a younger editor. -- œ^™ 09:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this suggestion could be added to the documentation for new user templates. Most editors (including myself up to now) probably don't know how to deal with young editors. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Project front page

To be quite honest, the project main page is now looking a mess. Any serious, mature editors straying here would get the impression that Wikipedia is run by kids. It might be, but that's not the impression we wish to impart; especially younger users need to understand that making an encyclopedia is serious business. Suggested fixes: Change the background colour from that horrible dark green which in fact makes the text almost unreadable on many browsers and computer platforms, and replace the header with a proper tab template and remove the smileys. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to any of that. If you have some ideas for a new design then by all means, be bold! Or we can propose that users create sandbox subpages with their own alternate designs and we can all vote on each of them and pick the best one. -- œ^™ 09:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

So everybody knows

After receiving some suggestions, Template:Welcome-to-Wikipedia has had all of its flaws addressed and fixed and has had its documentation reviewed and appropriately updated. It's now in perfect shape to be put on new users talk pages. Enjoy!  Magister Scienta^talk (2 November 2011)

Let's just hope that the hundreds of new editors from the various outreach programmes will finally understand that the object of welcome templates is not to go through thousands of unpopulated talk pages and post them on users who have either never edited yet. or whose only edits were vandalism. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but that's a whole different issue. Any suggested improvements?  Magister Scienta^talk (2 November 2011)

It's not, because it's the kind of template that may mislead some users in mistaking Wikipedia for a social networking site. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I truthfully believe that as every passing day goes by, that false conception diminishes.  Magister Scienta^talk (3 November 2011)

Fine. First let me ask you: How much New page patrolling have you done? Now let's posit two theories:

1. The template is so far removed from a personal message, that no one will believe it is one.
2. A 60 year old leading scientist come to write an article on quantum physics and see that template on his talk page. He might possibly think 'Oh, this is not the place for me, it's run by children! (I know I would, but on the other hand, after having worked with children for 40 years, I might not...).

Let's talk about improvement and how we can be sure that the right people get the right templates :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:24, 3 November 2011(UTC)

I agree  Magister Scienta^talk (8 November 2011)

I'm sorry but come on. At this point I think virtually everybody knows Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a social networking site.  Magister Scienta^talk (6 November 2011)

Wrong again , I'm afraid. Perhaps you should do some NPP and get the facts rather than making conjecture. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I have, and what is seen most often is not mistake but deliberate vandalization by people who assail Wikipedia by trying to make jokes out of it.  Magister Scienta^talk (7 November 2011)

My opinion on that template is that it's a little too big. But it has a lot of useful links which is good, and could help a lot of newbies. The key thing I think is tailoring the right kind of template to the right kind of user. We shouldn't be trying to make a one-size-fits-all template to use for everyone. Having multiple layouts and messages to choose from is good, and of course your own customized message tailored to the specific editor is even better. To be a good welcomer you need to be good at spotting new users that you think would make great future editors. By checking their contribs, giving them some positive reinforcement in the form of a barnstar or a small note of thanks if you see them doing something helpful. And if everybody did that at least once in a while we can be sure that next generation of Wikipedians will be just as dedicated and passionate as we are. -- œ^™ 10:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

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 13:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I like this a lot. I haven't seen earlier versions so I'm coming in here late perhaps. The icons break up the text and its colourful but not too much. It packs in a lot of information without being overwhelming. Good work. I'd start using it straight away. Lumos3 (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It will possibly be replacing the base for it at Template:Welcome-to-Wikipedia (which was itself based on User:Jimmy_Pitt/Welcome) pretty soon. I don't want to tread on any toes (I know, "be bold") so am waiting for the go ahead. There is simple documentation at my sandbox. I've been using it for quite a while already. Transclusion works fine. fredgandt 00:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It's all swapped over now. fredgandt 03:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:Welcomeg

I have nominated {{welcomeg}} at Templates for Discussion. See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_28#Template:Welcomeg. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:MAN

If anyone is interested, please see WP:VPP#The newcomers manual. Simply south...... always punctual, no matter how late for just 6 years 20:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Must we only welcome new users with constructive edits?

I see that the page specifically emphasized that we should only welcome users who have already made constructive edits. Must we stick by this rule? I would prefer to welcome almost every single new user since that would make my life easier in a sense. Any opinions on why or why not we should only welcome new users with constructive edits? ★ Oliverlyc ★ ✈✈✈ Pop me a message! 07:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, we don't want to welcome vandals, do we? Or editors with major competency issues? Or people who are here solely to promote their businesses or skew articles toward their personal points of view? We do want to welcome those who show signs of being willing and able to improve the encyclopedia. With all respect, if you're concerned about making your life easier (presumably this has something to do with not bothering to look at user contributions?), perhaps there are activities other than welcoming that you'd be happier doing. Rivertorch (talk) 09:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. I see you have posted a very strong reply. Yes, I do things other than welcoming, and of course I won't want to welcome vandals. But we do have to assume good faith. How do you know that newbie over there with zero contributions so far is a vandal or an advertiser? It is worth noting that around 80-90% of people who create an account is doing it in good faith (by my rough estimates), as compared to 60-70% for IP edits. I mentioned "to make my life easier" because I prefer welcoming new users from the account creation log, where most of them created their accounts only minutes or even seconds ago, making them feel more welcomed by the Wikipedia community and perhaps even stop their plans to vandalize Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I also patrol edits and issue stern and sometimes personalized warnings to those up to no good. Nevertheless, I must admit that I feel offended by your reply, specifically where you said that "there are activities other than welcoming that you'd be happier doing". I must clarify that I am 100% against vandalism and do not tolerate any bad faith edits. I look forward to a more civil reply. Thanks. ★ Oliverlyc ★ ✈✈✈ Pop me a message! 09:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my reply somehow came across as less than civil. (I've been accused of a number of things in my time here, but I think this may be the first time there's been the suggestion of incivility.) If it came across as "strong", well, that's okay. I do feel strongly that it's absurd to welcome everyone because it cheapens the word "welcome". If we reserve the word for those we'd like to stick around because their contributions are helpful to the project, then it means something. Otherwise, it means nothing; it's sort of like being told to "have a nice day" by a robotic-voiced android behind a retail counter. In any event, assuming your numbers are accurate, do you really think it's acceptable to welcome the 10–20% whose reasons for being here are incompatible with Wikipedia's objectives? Rivertorch (talk) 11:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

(Just to clarify, fwiw) I did look at your contributions before I replied the first time, and I saw that your activities here aren't limited to welcoming new users. I don't know if it was my last sentence that you objected to, but what I meant by it was that I assume you know how you want to spend your time here and I don't want to second-guess you on that, but since you mentioned making your life easier, I thought you were finding the welcoming process onerous in some way. If that's the case, then it's a recipe for burnout, and it would be a shame to lose your contributions in other areas. I find that spending much time working on things I find a hassle to be counterproductive. Rivertorch (talk) 11:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I also think it's absurd to welcome every new user as soon as they register and I completely support Rivertorch's comments. The argument is a perennial discussion and it's one of the reasons I left the Welcoming Commitee. Anyone who has done as much NPP as I have, and any admin who has deleted as many new 'creations' as I have, won't need convincing that not every non IP editor has honest intentions. The actual, factual stats are that around 80% of all (non autopatrolled) new creations get deleted - sooner or later. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Headers

There is a discussion going on at the Twinkle talk page about adding headers to all of the welcome templates. Could someone please come and comment? Thanks! --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 19:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Informing new creators of article guidelines

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Informing new creators of article guidelines. The debate for this pre-proposal is now closed and consensus assessed). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

New editor response to welcomes

Members of this project may find this thread on new editor response to welcomes interesting. It includes a WMF staff member sharing his comments on some studies and a recommendation.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Upcoming changes to the edit window (please read)

Hey all :). So, we're making some design tweaks that should simplify the edit window a heck of a lot. Unless you're on Vector (and, for some elements, not only on vector but using the enhanced editing toolbar) you shouldn't particularly notice, but I wanted to give some advance notice, distributed as widely as possible - and since this'll impact on everyone, that includes the welcome committee :). The full explanation is at the Village Pump (Technical); these should go live aroundabouts the 17th of September, so there's a while to discuss things, give feedback suggest changes for future projects if you're interested. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Twinkle

Any suggestions on how I can go about getting {{Welcome to Wikipedia}} added to Twinkle?
RiverStyx23{^talk_email} 03:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Nevermind - it's  Done
RiverStyx23{^talk_email} 03:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)