Template talk:Welcome

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search

Changes[edit]

I've changed I to We & the personal username from X to Wikisource community. I don't feel that our standard welcome template should be from any one specific user (even if in the test it showed the ~~~ rather than a fixed username - which it didn't on the tests I made) but from all users of Wikisource. AllanHainey 12:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

padding[edit]

does anyone know how to put a little padding to the left and right of the text? right now, it seems smushed up against the border. Wolf man 19:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I added in some breaks as a solution. - J.Steinbock (Talk)

I added the padding. Now it's not so smushed.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

A Tweak[edit]

I would like to emphasise the need for editors to follow the guidelines on adding new articles. Many get added with no attempt made to place author and quality templates, etc and I am not aware of anyone asking yet for an article to be protected as it is finished. If these stages are not done as a matter if course by editors, we are going to get a bigger and bigger backlog. I no-one objects I will modify this page a little Apwoolrich 20:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

autowelcome[edit]

I just had my bot account welcome the last 500 users. This goes back to about Nov. 15. If we get behind on this again, anyone can take the javascript from my bot account (User:Wolfbot/monobook.js) and run it. Just go to the user creation log & click the 'welcome all' tab. That's pretty much it. (It needs FireFox). Wolfbot 05:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Everyone back to Oct 9 has now been welcomed, that's 1000. I'll leave off there. Wolf man 07:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Inappropriate advice in template[edit]

I've just removed the following helpful but misleading text from this template:

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page.

This advice only makes sense to new users when the posting is signed. Wolfbot apparently completed 1,000 welcomes without signing its posts or providing any talk-page link, which undermines the friendliness (and helpfulness) of this template. It's a case of a good template being abused because the users fail to understand the implications of using it (in this case, that they are making a commitment to help new editors). I myself have little Wikisource experience, so I would urge more experienced Wikisourcers to decide how to resolve this problem before updating the template or doing any more mass-welcomes. ~ Jeffq 19:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This template was changed after Wolfbot welcomed all the people in December. The old template had no such wording and was written to come from the community more than an individual. No one thought of this backwards compatability when redesigning the template, or else they thought the old welcomes were subst. The change you made will not help anyone since Pathsobot has gone and subst all existing inclusion of the welcome template and since all new welcomes are actually signed. I am going to change it back to the agreed on wording because of those reasons. Unfortunately I do not know how to fix the 1,000's of unsigned templates that exist right now.--BirgitteSB 19:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

{{{1}}}[edit]

I've added an optional parameter following the lovely smilie that allows you to do the following:

{{subst:Welcome|~~~~}}

Which generates:

Hello, Welcome, welcome to Wikisource! Thanks for your interest in the project; we hope you'll enjoy the community and your work here. If you need help, see our help pages (especially Adding texts and Wikisource's style guide). You can discuss or ask questions from the community in general at the Scriptorium. The Community Portal lists tasks you can help with if you wish. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page. :) Jude (talk,contribs,email) 10:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope this is okay with everyone else? Jude (talk,contribs,email) 10:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I like it. I've taken the liberty of removing the emoticon from the template, though, as it detracts from the template.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


Image[edit]

We really should add something Image:SMirC-congrats.svg-esque to the template - after all, we're not WP! People are more likely to stay and help if we trick them into believing convince them it's a "community", not just a "project". Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Abu Hamid al-Ghazālī 00:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Going to include links to Wikisource:Texts by Country, Wikisource:Religious texts and Wikisource:Works if there are no complaints, hoping to catch the eye of patriotic Armenians, devout Muslims or people who love fairytales :) Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Arthur Schopenhauer 21:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

other templates[edit]

I have been using {{welcomeip}}, or {{welcome-newuser}} if they havent yet created a user page, which I think should be encouraged as it develops a sense of homeliness. John Vandenberg 00:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggesting future additions to Contributing texts[edit]

It would be nice if we could give some guidance on the addition of {{header}} or {{author}} templates to the top of the pages in their namespaces. Even if we just could mention the main namespace it would be useful. Thx. -- billinghurst (talk) 09:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Improvements[edit]

I have previously chosen {{Welcome-newuser}} over this version, though I am impressed by many things about it. I think it could be simplified, it is a bit overwhelming, and the tabs are not frequently seen on wikisites. I appreciate the effort in making a more informal blurb, but I think they complicate matters, tend to digress, and end up burying the links. The newuser version includes a link to the "inclusion policy", I think that at least should be ... er, included—if it isn't already. Cygnis insignis (talk) 14:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I still see no adequate response to this concern, I still want to see this overly complex and personalised version of the main page moved from the default name "welcome" to some other. It swamps the user with elaborately formatted data, and is therefore unhelpful, the default position must be the simplest possible formatting of the 'key links' for new users - not what a couple of users have deemed to impart with their personal ideas of webpage design, ie, the tabbertab palaver, a new page within a page. If people want notification of managed collaboration, POTM or COTW, or advertise the woefully underdeveloped indices, that can be separated from something that should be useful and unobjectionable. When it clear that individuals are 'allowed' to impose a personal preferences over plainer, clearer style of wikipages, that is very unwelcoming to users arriving from the sisters and elsewhere. Cygnis insignis (talk) 12:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I have a preference for the version that exists, and not {{Welcome-newuser}}. It is dynamic and gives more information and continual ready references to newer information. The static welcome text would seem to be ignored. What you mention as your preference is just that, and is not supported by an evidence-base, one way or the other. Having a static non-descript page has never seemed valuable to me. I have no concerns about having a considered and rationaled discussion about what should be in and out, but I don't want it to be static and newuser-ish. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
What you mention as your preference is just that, and is not supported by an evidence-base, one way or the other. My 'preference' is that it represents nobody's preference: that it bland, that it is not the chummy "this is my version, my elaborate portal to everything, my page within a page" I have given extensive reasons below on my this is alienating and confusing, and not just to me. As you point out, it is not static and a simple version can be subtly improved. If someone is being welcomed, then being new-userish is entirely appropriate?! You love elaborate coding and a myriad of trancluded pages that, in the end, only you understand. THIS template supplanted the vanilla version, without justification and consensus that I can see. YOU like it cos you know how it to correct it. It seems that half the common.js is devoted to providing the bizarre, new tabbed page in an already tabbed page, and otherwise useless tabbertab functionality. We can so we should - I have explained why should not, keep it simple for goodness sake. Cygnis insignis (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
What BS, as the design of this beast has nothing to do with me, and all the accusations are both unfounded and unjustified. (You don't usually resort to such method of argument.) I have edited the file a few times, to change the default tabber, and that is about it. At this point of time, between the choice of the two templates, for me the existing is my choice, and both are available. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
It is insulting and disruptive to suggest that my vehement and persistent objection to something is merely my personal preference, rather than counter-productive, then galling when you state it is yours. You often resort to this method of argument, and seek to interpret everthing else as argument. I make observations, they are ignored, I ask direct questions of those considering how and not why - that spoils all the unproductive fun and is likewise ignored. This is not a place for the psuedo-intellectual debate, assumption of top-down authority, and wiki-political ascendancy. And once again, you are championing a current situation then defaulting to the position that this is just the way you found it and you don't need to defend it. You demand that I provide the full detail and rationale for anything I challenge, then pretend the discussion never happened. The simple fact is that no sister has such a convoluted introduction and welcome as the default, this gaudy kit displaced a much less complicated version and I am challenging the indulgence of a shoddy contributor's right to give his bigoted personal reflections and advertisements. That account has been retired, whether the user has is a question they refused to answer. They are not available to maintain the code they casually dropped into our common.js, the script whose sole purpose seems to be a maverick page design that YOU insist on posting on every unified login that happens to pass by. You ignored comments on how spooky it is to be messaged by admins for simply reading the site, and that it is overwhelming and insistent. If the parts are useful then offer them as tranclusions from the baffling array of pages already available. if they want them. If you describe my observations as unjustified accusation, then you're treading on thin ice, shall I take time off contributing to the purpose to elaborate the evidence-base? Go and complain to your masters, the absent landlords, I will expect another visit from them, their sockpuppets, or the hate-filled, community-exhausting, scoundrels they insist we accommodate here. Cygnis insignis (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Add a Project Tab to the Template???[edit]

Hi guys, I was thinking maybe we could add a projects tab to the welcome template. That way we can encourage new users to join projects such as DNB, Popular Science Monthly, 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, etc. I would love to see this. What do you guys think? Please let me know. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 06:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see PROJECTS replace the Songs of the Day which has been commented out on the Welcome template. Either to have a listing of the active projects, or a rolling display (#switch) of different projects that are underway, one per day or so.-- billinghurst (talk) 05:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Excellent idea; I think there are only 2-3 "active" projects - so as long as we limit it to those projects which have seen work in the past month, it should be a fairly short list :) Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din. 12:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Off the top of my head, I can think of
  1. DNB
  2. PSM
  3. EB1911
  4. Academic
  5. Bible
  6. Mishnah
  7. US Government stuff (maybe not specifically a project?)
So it would be nice for us to spend a little time tarting up Wikisource:WikiProject, and then to have a specific section there that mentions the projects, mimicking {{PotM}} and {{CotW}}, maybe it could be {{Active projects}}, where it lists all the projects in an enhanced fashion, and each week, one is selectively chosen on a rotating manner, to be "Active Project of the week" I hope that the gist comes across (rather than the technical aspect).billinghurst (talk) 05:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I can't see any related changes on Bible and Mishnah recently, but if they become active again, certainly add them to the list. Can we do automatic rotating, or would we just update it manually once a week to insert the next wikiproject as the "featured" one, and then list the others along the bottom as "Other wikiprojects..." ? Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din. 05:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Fair call, they don't seem to be organised particularly. We should be able to automate it reasonably easily with a #switch statement, it is more working out what we want, how often we want to change it,[We could do a daily rotation, a weekly, a monthly, whatever.] and the text that we wish to fill it.-- billinghurst (talk) 05:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I have taken the trial that Sherurcij has at {{active projects}} and produced a beta available for comment at {{Active projects/var}} (data) and {{Active projects/base}} (design). It is set to display each listed page for one week, then display the next. Probably wants some tweaking, and review of graphics, etc. billinghurst (talk) 12:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit revert[edit]

I've temporarily reverted this edit, which used Adolf Hitler as an example of how WS does not censor itself and republishes exactly what history provides us. It was removed with the note "possible copyvio", the wording of the template is my own - and Author:Adolf Hitler is evidence enough that his works aren't necessarily copyvios either. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:David Livingstone. 23:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it appropriate for one user's short essay, with their voice, grudges, and rhetorical devices, to be posted on every new users page. Was there a queue of people asking why we host works by 'itler? I made further comments above, which were not addressed. Try to think about this for more than the one minute; for example, asserting there is 'no drama' would be a red-rag to a vandal. Cygnis insignis (talk) 12:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
People come here either as a vandal, or legitimate user, they don't come here to add works by famous Rhodesian authors of the 19th century and then decide to insert images of penises because the welcome template said that our community does not censor itself. And yes, there is a very high proportion of newcomers whose first edits consist of demanding a work by Hussein, Bin Laden, Hitler or an erotic tale be deleted and has no place here because it is not NPOV. And FYI, I've not added a single work by Hitler to the project, so it's hardly my own bias.Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din. 12:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
If that is so,they were either trolls or blockheads. It is just one persons view, yours Sherurcji, I'm not challenging whether it is right or wrong - it is simply inappropriate. What wikimedia site does censor itself? Why would a new contributor of poetry or flower arranging need your insight into morality and censorship. The message airs what you like about the place, takes a shot at our sister sites, and says almost nothing about what this site actually is?! Would you expect the local library give out a pamphlet with this tone? The combination of chumminess and rhetoric, not simple information, trivialises or ignores the purpose of the template. Cygnis insignis (talk) 12:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
We have multiple welcome templates, for example I have seen you praise {{Welcome-newuser}} which is more what you like to use; why try to make all the welcome templates the same? If you think one could use a tweak, tweak it - but if you think one "is crap", make a new one! Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din. 14:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
What would you like to call this version, if I decide to change the default to something everyone can agree on? Cygnis insignis (talk) 16:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest you work to find consensus, rather than just move/remove things you dislike. If consensus can determine a new phrasing, that's wonderful. But again, this is the template with the most work into it - both graphically and information-wise; it would be silly to remove it simply because you happen to object. You've raised your objections, now work towards consensus. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din. 16:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
It is not silly at all, a consensus wording would be a template that no-one could find objectionable. Why are you telling me to do what I'm already doing? Is that what you did when you objected to the earlier version, you haven't linked the consensus that supported your large-scale changes to the standard template. I assumed the evidently single voice in the template would not pleased with having their soapbox removed, when my message was ignored and I checked the history to see if the contributor was still active.

My objections are reasonable, that the template slanders the other sites is a great concern. We are not a little corner of an empire, we are, or can be, an integral part of the interlinked sites. This is not encouraging, or useful, it is mock elitism. Users who enjoy contributing to the other sites are instantly alienated. The digression into "neutrality", your quotes, contains a smug and patronising subtext: 'you-know-what-I-mean'.

The other sites welcomes bear no resemblance to this one, assume there are good reasons why they have evolved that way, it is nothing to do with uniformity. Tabs are rare on our sites, the selection of useful links are buried or absent, it overwhelms the new-user (and tells them there is only two sorts of user?!). As with the saucy artwork, personal reflections, and unqualified interpretations being thrust at all and sundry, with the added clause that objecting would be futile ... because we are not censored (ner, ner!) This should a general message for a public site, not a screed with an introduction to 'us and them'. (In case you were wondering Sherurcij, I'm one of Them ;) Cygnis insignis (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I was not even aware there were quotes on the template, could you point them out to me? I've searched in vain - even page history is no help in finding me any quotes. And we most definitely are a "small corner of a larger empire", even though those are your words, not the template's. And since there have been 10 users editing the template (often in minor tweaks) in the past 12 months; I think you're perhaps a bit premature to be claiming that I've just hijacked this and am running it to my own standards. I welcome evolution and debate on the template; but one user deciding it offends him and changing it is not the proper way to go about things; as I've said, talk to other people, see if you can come to some consensus on how to update it.
Again, given how many people come to this site and a week later start suggesting that we should run things like WP, or instate new ranks, or how do we handle X; I think it's worthwhile to point out in our welcome lede that we do not govern ourselves like everybody else. Unofficially, there is a core of perhaps 20 users (of which you and I are both members) that voice their opinions and arguments; things are not deleted on-sight because they lack source information as they are on Commons (for example, we have many works with unknown sources we've been debating for over a year), things are not edited to use a common standard spelling as they are on WP (if {{sic}} were used everywhere necessary, there would be 500,000 uses of it), we do not encourage users to "update" a text as Wikinews does, to change the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica entry "because it's a wiki". I'd say in most ways, we are very different from the rest of the WMF empire. And reminding users that we like to keep our little corner free of "free from all the drama, arguments and policy violations" can only be a good thing, so far as I can tell. User:Cirt and I have had some minor dustups on other projects, here we try to cooperate more and leave our problems at the door. I see the same thing with a lot of other users; and it bears repeating to new members, leave your problems at the door. We're here to cooperatively build a library, that is it. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din. 20:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
What quote? WTF has that user to do with this!?! There would be a lot less drama, here and elsewhere, if users were not advancing what they believe to be absolute and incontrovertible, or adding documents from hate sites with annotations claiming the original author made assertions that are absent - even in the dubiously sourced version . Cygnis insignis (talk)
You said my quotes were inappropriate, I'm trying to figure out what quotes you're referring to...now you're asking me what quotes? And whoa, calm down a bit, not only do I not understand your instant anger at apparently seeing a user's name mentioned, but you've entirely confused me with your latter point about "documents from hate sites". make Now, to satiate both your points about needing a quote and "documents from hate sites" - I'll leave you with this gem of wisdom from Wilde, "Books cannot be immoral. They are either well-written or badly written. That is all." Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din. 22:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
You're a panic, aren't you. Run through this discussion again, pretend that you don't pretend to know the motives and emotional state of of the participants. I'm not capable of anger at one who has managed to inveigle oneself into positions of "authority" or disruptive 'experiments'. The first mention of quotes is,
"neutrality", your quotes
Now suppose that the 'quotes' refers to the quote marks around 'neutrality', a puerile rhetorical device that implies 'according to them' (wink). I'm presuming that part of your enthusiasm for this site is the ability to give commentary (in templates and notes) without someone saying that is not reliably sourced, based on your response to my early contributions to this site. Don't presume to include me in your "core of perhaps 20 users", we need more active users, not this bullshit that alienates them or ascribes your classification of them, "You might be wondering which of the two classes we consider you...well, I guess that's going to be up to you."—bloody arrogance! Your mock elitism sucks. As with your proffering of a quote from Wilde to support your focus or commentary, it is opinionated, patronising and facile. You ignored my requests and suggestions, seizing upon potential ambiguities instead, your tendentious position on your wording tempts me to produce a famous quote from David Mamet. Cygnis insignis (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm honestly just confused; are you sure you haven't confused me with another user? You're now talking about my "response to your early contributions to this site" as being unseemly. I'm not aware we've ever had any contact before, though I've seen your name around. I checked the edit history of your talk page and we've never spoken before; I also looked at the first 1,000 edits you made to Wikisource and they showed some Western Australian texts and some Botanical magazines...again, not anything I can possibly imagine ever created any controversy - and most assuredly not from me. You are quoting the template out of context, the full quote is "we'd love for you to stick around and get more involved. We are a small community of approximately a hundred key people, with infinite help from random passersby. You might be wondering which of the two classes we consider you...well, I guess that's going to be up to you" which I don't think suggests any "bloody arrogance...mock elitism...opinionated, patrionising and facile...bullshit that alienates them". If you think there is a better way to say "We're a small community, please consider joining, or if you prefer, remain one of the faceless unknowns who offer infinite help", by all means suggest it on the talk page. But you might be better received if you kept away from personal attacks on editors' character and assuming delightfully malicious intentions from your colleagues, and instead focused on the actual issue. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din. 16:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
No, I am not confusing you with another user, unless you include sharing this login with your other 'experiments'. My paraphrasing identified the problematic part of the sentence, the full quote does not ameliorate that, yours is just whinging to avoid anyone changing anything about your short essay as my ignored protest becomes more forceful. This is the talk page! What good is suggesting things to the self-appointed owner of the default template when they have ignored every suggestion I have already made; someone who habitually evades point-blank questions and derides the contributions of new users legitimate contributions as that of a "vandal", just before protecting the dubiously-sourced document to their version. Keep your POV off-site, if it is possible for you to recognise it as such, you evidently know how to create web-pages. The previous and alternate versions have none of the problems I have already identified. Cygnis insignis (talk) 18:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The "previous and alternate versions" also do not include links to COTW, POTW, WPs, the Scriptorium, our IRC discussion, categories for incomplete translations, possible Copyright Violations, Pages for deletion, Recent Changes, Works that need to be split into chapters, Works that need their licensing clarified, Works that need machine-read words corrected, Works that need page-numbers removed and Authors whose full names we don't know, a link to contact administrators, or a tool to help them create their first page...to name a few reasons that your idea of "Let's just delete this, use the one I like instead" is problematic. Again, I invite you to improve this template; look above for how Billings and Matt, for example, are proposing to make it more useful. But your steady stream of confusing personal attacks just leave me wishing to end the conversation. So let's consider this ended, you can post a rebuttal - but I'm not going to continue fanning the flames by responding. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din. 18:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Gee, thanks. You ignored my suggestions above. Links can be provided to pages of other links, this should be a simple welcome and guide to finding out more - not a list of everything. The page and tabs are unorthodox, confusing, and overwhelming. The only use I can see for the tabs is to change the frame around your patronising essay. You do not appear to be able to put yourself in a new users shoes or comprehend any other view that you cannot twist to an endorsement of your contributions. IRC sucks, it is uncitable blather by those who prefer social networking or back channels to actual improvements to the site. I did improve it, you reverted a minute later and dug your heels in. What you are interpreting as personal attacks are verifiable descriptions of your contributions with various logins, you 'made your bed' and are unrepentant about the disruption it caused. You don't know what a quotation mark is, at no point did I state or even suggest "Let's just delete this, use the one I like instead"; putting words into others mouths is exactly what this template does as well. Who is 'we' in the context of 'your' screed, my major concern, it is a sly rationale for 'your' focus on poorly sourced (and "badly written" - Wilde) documents that are poisonous, immoral, and in some places illegal - what a welcome! I didn't start the fire, the fanning of flames derives from your edit history, authoritarian 'big-dog' attitude and self-righteous pseudo-apologetics. Cygnis insignis (talk) 05:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, what about removing a specific name of author and only state "After all, if the text of a speech is inflammatory and biased...wasn't that its purpose?", after all, whatsoever [author name] is, some people will be either offended by it, or will not see it as biased or controversial. Phe (talk) 11:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Good with me, though I'd prefer "a historic speech" or "a notorious work" or something. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din. 12:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it avoid someone coming with a "hey, I do this speech in my classroom" Phe (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Replacing the picture of a woman with a picture of a baby[edit]

Hi all. On the middle tab of this template, I say we remove the picture of a woman reading and replace it with a picture a of cute baby reading. What do you all think? Cheers, Unforgettableid (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The picture of the woman has been removed. Feel free to insert the cute baby, if you can find it. --Y'hoshia (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Reverted the edit. Happy to have the discussion about the use of images in a template. Feel welcome to remove the template if you don't like the image. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
A legitimate criticism, and, evidently, not unobjectionable. I restored the edit. cygnis insignis 14:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean by that? A legitimate criticism, maybe, though that doesn't mean that the template gets changed without consultation. Obviously I am against issue wit the edit and especially the means of it being made without consultation, otherwise I wouldn't have reverted. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I have replaced the image and reactivated that component. I hope that the image is now not considered offensive (sheesh) and relevant to the tab. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

What on earth?[edit]

I was going to leave this message for a new user, then I read it. My reaction? What on earth is going on here? This message seems to have been written to welcome a sock puppet from en.wp, rather than a new user to this project. Messages like "free from all the drama, arguments and policy violations" immediately back up stereotypes for en.wp. Essentially, it's less of a welcome message and more of a propaganda message. Where's the hints for where discussion takes place, what the aims of the project are, how to start proofreading pages, etc.?

The template requires a fundamental rewrite before it's going to be anywhere near suitable to leave to a new user. If you don't think that, then stop for a minute and reread what it actually says from a new user perspective. Mike Peel (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

There is also commentary at Mediawiki talk:Common.js#tabber requesting that the tabber stuff be moved to this template if the tabber is only used in this one file. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
This should display with navigation tabs?? I've never seen this display as anything other than one whole page (looks like tables) at once with sections. George Orwell III (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Aren't a variety of browsers and how they work such a lovely thing. Anyway, that should be part of the discussion. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Tabs work fine for me. I've moved that bit back to the top, which is more convenient for me, but please scream if I'm in a minority.--Longfellow (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

"We are a small community of approximately a hundred people"[edit]

Perhaps this number is outdated. According to Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard, there are currently 284 active users. --Y'hoshia (talk) 19:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It all depends what you mean by "active" - one edit in the last three months?--Longfellow (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

including user's username[edit]

I've added {{<includeonly>SUBST:</includeonly>BASEPAGENAME}} to include the user's username. I think this would make it more personal and welcoming. Does anyone disagree? Perhaps we should also add it to Template:Welcome tabbertab.

--Sije (talk) 21:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I just saw that it doesn't seem to work as I thought; so I undid that edit until I can figure this out. (The edit was based on w:Template:W-link). Can anyone help? --Sije (talk) 23:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Your edit worked as expected, and displayed the base pagename. It will display the user's name when used in the user namespace. I have returned to your first edit and see how well it works. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I used {{{{{|safesubst:}}}BASEPAGENAME}} for this in {{Awelcome}}, (Ambassador's Welcome) in case it helps.... -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, George. I've added it here as well. --Sije (talk) 02:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Substitution[edit]

Hi, Can I change the documentation and ask users to always substitute this template using {{subst:Welcome}} as it is usual on Wikipedia? Americophile (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Why? Just because that is how it is done at Wikipedia is not a reason why to do it here. We have found it useful to keep it as the template as that gives us the ability to have a level of dynamic content. We also then know that talk pages are current. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)