Template talk:Welcome-unregistered-constructive

Icon change proposal

I've started a discussion in the Village pump about the broom icon used. Please add your input. —Hexafluoride ^{Ping me if you need help, or post on my talk} 10:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Make "my talk page" link to new section form

Currently, the template when substituted has the phrase "my talk page" link to the talk page of the user adding the template. For new users wanting to leave a message on an editor's talk page, finding the "new section" link may be difficult. I propose that instead of linking to a talk page, clicking this link should take the new user to the new section form directly to streamline asking for help. I have set up an example of the code in Template:Welcome-anon-constructive/sandbox, and a working example can be seen at User:Wugapodes/sandbox3. Editors can test the proposed implementation using {{subst:Welcome-anon-constructive/sandbox}}. The potential downside is that as I've implemented it in the sandbox, the text is formatted as an external link, so the little external link box appears at the end of it (example) even though the link goes to an internal page. There's probably a way to fix that, but even if there is not, I think the benefits for readers outweigh the modified aesthetic. The API will not change, so twinkle and huggle should not need modification. — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd prefer that we move away from telling editors to go to the welcomer's talk page, and instead just direct them to the Teahouse, where their question will probably be answered more rapidly and by someone more accustomed to dealing with newbies (and thus hopefully less likely to bite them. But if we are going to keep the current text, linking directly to creating a new section seems like an improvement. It's not displaying in the example for me, so I have no comment on whether the coding works. Sdkb (talk) 09:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

ipname parameter

As far as I can tell, this template doesn't support an ipname parameter. Before removing it from the documentation, I wanted to check if I'm missing something or if there was an intent to support this parameter. Can anyone provide more info? isaacl (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Isaacl:, I only noticed your comment here by chance, after I just created a new template {{welcome-anon-summary}} which is a mashup of this template and another one. In creating the doc page for the new template, I started with a clone of this template's doc page, and immediately ran into the ipname issue you mention. I decided the param was meaningless, and dropped it from the copy-paste text, before saving the new doc page. If as a result of this discussion, you find that there is something behind this param after all, could you please make parallel changes there, or just drop a message at the Talk page there? Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 08:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Although the ipname parameter has been in the documentation since it was created, I can't find any trace of it in the template at that time. I will remove the parameter from the documentation. If it gets implemented someday then the documentation can be updated. isaacl (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 24 May 2021

Inconsistent use of whitespace characters; there's some double spaces on line 4 and a missing space on line 6. Also, it might be worth adding a comment like <!-- Template:Welcome-anon-constructive --> at the end so that other editors can see which template this actually is when it is substituted. Similar talk page message templates already have this. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 13:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done: The spaces do not affect rendering, as far as I can tell. I fixed the hidden comment, which was inside noinclude tags incorrectly. Thanks for noticing that! – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Reducing the number of links

I'd like to propose reducing the number of links in this template to align with the ones used at Template:Welcome. We know that new editors are extremely unlikely to follow most links in these welcome templates, let alone a list of nine of them (including recent changes patrol, for some reason). Let's slim down the links to the three things at Template:Welcome that a number of other editors in a VPR RfC identified as the most important. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 04:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I would support removing RCP and article creation links. There's no real reason that the link to RCP should be there, and creating an article is a task usually better suited for more experienced editors. If newer editors want to create an article badly enough they'll be able to find the venues to ask how, such as the Teahouse. I'm weak supporting as far as removing the Simplified MoS link since that could be helpful to users but is also a lengthy read, and I doubt that many newer users would read the entirety of it. Also, we might want to replace the link to Wikipedia:Questions and make it a link to the Teahouse since newer editors would not go to the Help Desk or go to the Village pump, and if they have a question better suited to the Reference desk, the Teahouse hosts can point them there. Oppose removing the rest of the links. Cheers ‍ Relativity 04:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I support removing about half of the list. I don't have strong opinions on exactly which ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Is there something special about this template, or are you planning to make similar proposals at other welcome templates (of which there are many)? If the latter, then the discussion should probably be moved to a more general location. For this one, I can see dropping RCP, and either "Contributing..." or "...great article". Not long ago, I would've recommended dropping YFA, but this was roundly dismissed at an RFC at the Welcome templates Talk page, so I guess that applies here as well. Mathglot (talk) 11:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Logged-out editors can't create articles directly, so why did people think that Help:Your first article would be relevant for them? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Playing devil's advocate here, because it would give them an incentive to create an account, which is a desirable goal. Mathglot (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I think getting people to contribute is the goal here. Whether they choose to register or not. 🎄Cremastra 🎄 (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I mean, we could. From my POV it doesn't seem like a bad idea to change all of them, which I imagine is unsurprising. :-) But it did seem silly to launch a wide-scale RfC based on a single revert vs. a small discussion for this particular template. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 00:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

That's kind of why I was trying to figure out what your goal was. Because if it's to make this one have the same number of links as {{Welcome-anon}}, then why discuss reducing the links instead of just redirecting this one there? Or, if the goal is to have the same links but differ in links-vs-buttons, then maybe it could just be renamed {{Welcome-anon-nobutton}} and convert it to a wrapper passing an optional no-button param. Mathglot (talk) 00:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Apologies for the delay as I did not see your response. I do see these templates as serving different purposes, as we should be cheering on an IP or new editor that is making constructive edits. But I don't have any special objection to redirecting either, particularly if we can accomplish both goals with an optional parameter in Template:Welcome-anon. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 01:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I support significantly reducing the number of links in this template. The fewer links, the more likely the template will actually be helpful. Nosferattus (talk) 01:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

No doubt true, for some editors. Other editors might like a bigger menu to choose from, and popular template {{Welcome to Wikipedia}} with its page full of links, for example, has over 17,000 transclusions. I can see an argument for both, which is one reason its good to have a variety of welcome templates for different purposes. I think some editors, like you, would find fewer links helpful, but not sure that everyone would. Mathglot (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

As a general rule, the more words/links, the fewer that any of them get read. An ideal system would probably drip manageable amounts of information out to the user bit by bit, instead of trying to cram all of it into a single message. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

That seems likely, i.e., if template A has three links and template B has 28, I can believe that any of the three in A gets clicked more than any of the 28 in B. But what if we add up the clicks for all three links in A, compared to the clicks for all 28 in B, how do those figures compare? Many users keep their welcome messages up for years, and they sit right at the top of the page. One might argue that a welcome template with 28 links provides a handy go-to crib sheet for lots of useful information that they'd be hard-pressed to ferret out on their own. Probably the answer to the comparison questions is out there buried in the access logs, if someone wanted to really look into it. I'm just not sure that this question can reasonably be decided without backing data, and if that's the case, then I think it's up to welcomers to decide which welcome template they wish to use for which user, and having a variety of them is a good thing. Mathglot (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I've heard that the Commons template, which is large, is useless. I'm not sure what that assessment was based on.

I think it's unreasonable to assume that the person sending the message has any special ability to determine which message is effective. The literature indicates that simple messages work best, so we should go with that, even if the way we achieve "simple" is to provide a link to two or three key pages (e.g., something about citing content) and one link to Help:Contents (which might link 100 pages in the text and even more in the navbox). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

+1 to WhatamIdoing, who could have made the OP case for this much better than I did. For the life of me, I just can't see how a nearly 250-word/20ish total link message like this is effective even 10% of the time. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 01:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 29 December 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear consensus that the proposed titles, while not perfect, are more accurate than the current titles. BD2412 T 00:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

---

• Template:Welcome-anon-constructive → Template:Welcome-unregistered-constructive
• Template:Welcome-anon → Template:Welcome-unregistered
• Template:Welcome-anon-test → Template:Welcome-unregistered-unconstructive
• Template:Welcome-anon-delete → Template:Welcome-unregistered-delete

– IPs aren't "anonymous", so I think it would be better if this template didn't use "anon" in its name.

Sometime in 2024, the Wikimedia Foundation will begin deploying m:temporary accounts to all the (SUL-connected) wikis. "Unregistered" will be accurate both now and after that change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 02:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Got my support! Moxy- 21:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

 Note: I’ve modified the RM so that the destination title is in template namespace rather than mainspace (as I assume that was unintentional). Best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 14:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing I closed with a move, but reverted as I realised that it may be more beneficial to consider this for the other related templates, since these are in use in Twinkle:

• {{Welcome-anon}}
• {{Welcome-anon-test}}
• {{Welcome-anon-unconstructive}}
• {{welcome-anon-delete}}

Mind having this request extended and turned into a multi-move request for another week? I don't expect opposition, but it gives time for discussion, especially if the text may change accordingly, and also time for me to file a pull request on the Twinkle repo. – robertsky (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't mind, if you want to set it up, but I also don't feel a strong need for all of them to match immediately.. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Does WMF have a term that they use to refer to an anonymized IP user in the new setup? I have a slight problem with unregistered, as we don't really know whether they are unregistered, they could just be logged out. Taking another tack: if we rename this, there should be some sort of improvement in the new name over the current one; so what is it? Seems to me that anonymous (or its abbreviation) is accurate, and unregistered is not necessarily accurate, so how is the move an improvement? That would argue for just leaving the current name as is, as "-anon-" will become even more accurate after the changeover to the new system in how IP users are presented, than it is now. Don't they use "anonymizing IP users" or something similar right in the description of the project? Mathglot (talk) 02:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot, as of a few months ago, they were talking about m:Temporary accounts. Anonymous is not accurate; an IP address is defined in the laws of multiple countries as being personally identifying information, because it is. Perhaps if you are in a large country and using a large ISP, resolving your identity might require non-public information, but some IP addresses publicly resolve to the names of schools, businesses, government agencies, or even (though less common than it used to be) people's homes. See Wikipedia:IP edits are not anonymous. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Under the new system, is what I meant. As I understand it, IP addresses will not be visible, and some kind of pseudo-random ID will be shown, so anonymous will be accurate, and is also the central point of the entire project. Or do I have that wrong? Mathglot (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Under the new system (to appear later this year, AIUI) the IP addresses will not be recorded in plain text on the history pages, etc. The ID may be either simply a consecutive number, or it may contain a random number. That is, any place in the UI that currently says "User:198.51.100.255" will in the future say something like "User:~2024-12345". User:~2024-12345 is being called a temporary account.

However, experienced editors (not just admins; the default includes all registered accounts with 300 edits + 6 months) will be able to click on a button next and see the IP address (e.g., 198.51.100.255) anyway. It just won't be disclosed to the general public (or to ~99% of registered accounts, since most registered accounts make no or very few edits ever). Although it provides significantly better privacy protection for the user (e.g., a random internet doxxer won't be able to find the IP address for that user), I would still not call them anonymous, because their personal information is still available to highly active editors, and they're editing with an automatically named account. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 01:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support. I ask that editors give some thought to the fact that "anonymous" also applies to many registered editors as well. Many of us do not use our legal names when we register and are therefore also anonymous, as anonymous as any IP. Not crazy about using "unregistered"; however, it is far more accurate than "anonymous" or its acronym. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 03:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@BD2412: this is on me. I had crossed the titles for {{Welcome-anon-test}} and {{Welcome-anon-unconstructive}}. Took the liberty to correct the resulting moves as such. – robertsky (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• @Robertsky: Thanks, much appreciated. Cheers! BD2412 T 00:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Who is handling post-move cleanup on this? All of the templates still need to be edited to update the hidden text template identification to the new name. Mathglot (talk) 05:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot I somehow... missed this, and didn't realise there are more stuff to update. I am new to this hidden text template identification thing. Other than for searching, what is the hidden text template identification used for? – robertsky (talk) 15:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that's the only use for it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Robertsky, if someone sees advice on their user talk page that seems like it may be from a template, it's only fair for the template to identify itself so that the user could see where the wording comes from, and if they wish, to go to the template page and request changes or enhancements to the template. It also may help a user determine where they are in the 1 to 4 series of increasingly serious warnings in the case of a multi-level warning template. A transcluded template leaves a copy of its name in the wikicode, but a substed template does not. It is a general convention for user warning templates (and many other substed templates) to include an <!-- HTML comment --> with the name of the template in it in the emitted wikicode, so that it can be found there. Without that, a user would be left in the dark. Finally, it resolves the question of whether some user (the templating user) just made up some wording to stick on their page, or whether the wording has some consensus-based imprimatur, like a template that has lots of re-use. Mathglot (talk) 04:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot gotcha. Will update the wikitext accordingly. Should we run a bot/AWB task on already issued warnings in your opinion? I am comfortable with having the redirects around at the moment. – robertsky (talk) 04:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Normally one could just say, "Well, let's just wait and see if there are complaints and we can run a bot if there are," but there's the Catch-22, because by the nature of it, we'll never hear any complaints as the frustrees will not be able to find the culprit, much less this conversation. Nevertheless, I don't think a bot is needed, though I'd go with the flow if others disagree. Mathglot (talk) 05:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I also don't think that is necessary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)