Template talk:Welcome/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Improper indentation

Hello, the template currently uses colons to indent the buttons. However, in actuality, this is creating a definition list and should not be done. Opencooper (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Yup many accessibility problems here....what change are you suggesting ?--Moxy 🍁 06:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Moxy: Per the linked essay, the colons should be changed to {{indent|5}}. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

That seems to add a newline, so in that case {{in5}} would work better. However, {{Clickable button 2}} allows specifying user styles, so we can instead add |style=margin-left: 1.6em; to it, which will be visually equivalent to the colon-indent. Opencooper (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Opencooper: sounds good to me. I'll turn it into an edit request. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. :) Opencooper (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 April 2020

Please adopt this change from the sandbox, per the above discussion. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done In the future, please copy the live template to the sandbox before editing it, so that a template editor can copy the entire contents of the sandbox to the live template. This reduces the chance for errors and increases the chance that you will get the changes you actually want. (In other words, when I make manual changes, sometimes I make mistakes, and I'd rather avoid that if possible.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 April 2020

Please change this sentence "Alternately, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics." to "Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.". Interstellarity (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

To editor Interstellarity:  done. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 18:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Mobile friendly version has a new home

Template:Welcome-retro.--Moxy 🍁 20:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

New parameters for custom start and custom image

I've added some new parameters to the sandbox that allow a custom start message and custom image to be used, and tested them at the test cases page. Any objections to me adding them? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Seeing no objections here, I'm going to go ahead and implement, along with the border parameter. I've tested all at the testcases page, and they appear to be functioning properly. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Dislike new template

I strongly dislike the recent changes to this template. I came here prepared to argue for reverting them all. But since {{welcome-retro}} exists, i will simply use that in future on all welcomes, and ignore this version. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel: For context, the changes were implemented as a result of this pump discussion. If you have specific objections, it'd be helpful to have your feedback. If it's more of just a gut reaction, I understand that changes can take some getting used to, but I'd encourage you to try it out and perhaps you'll come around to it. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I objected to this when an earlier version was proposed late last year. I think it leaves out many useful links. I think the blue buttons mare a poor way to introduce people to the Wikipedia standard of links. I used it, once, not realizing the changes that had been made. If the pump discussion were still open i would post to it objecting to any change. I read the discussion and am not convinced. I will mnot use thius new version. If {{welcome-retro}} gets changed radically or deleted, I will create a version of it in my user space and use that. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 11:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with the points made by User:DESiegel. As the template has become a football, I will make my own personal version so that when I welcome new users, I know what I'm going to get. Personalising the template may make it seem less like a form-letter and I can then adjust the content for specific occasions such as editathons. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Add me to the hate list. I guess it's a matter of the beholder's background but the sort of people I would generally welcome are unlikely to want to have comic-book buttons on their talk—why would someone wanting that choose to add encyclopedic information to Wikipedia? If anyone knows of a discussion about what to do now, please ping me. My alternative is User:Johnuniq/Welcome featuring a small number of high-value links. Johnuniq (talk) 00:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• Add me to the dislike list as well. I noticed the pump convo after it had closed. I now use the "retro" alternatives listed at WP:WT (and others). In the future, any pump or other conversation should, imho, ping a lot of editors, including significant contributors to *other* templates and their talk pages, as well as to WP:WT. There were plenty of people who didn't get pinged, presumably because they liked the original template just the way it was. Mathglot (talk) 09:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• It's pretty horrible IMHO. Not at all what I'd wanted when I suggested some changes recently. I agree with the bit about "comic-book buttons". If I were new and saw that I'd probably feel that I was being talked down to. Doug Weller talk 15:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• People have created new versions of welcome templates for years. There are lots of different views as to what should be in a welcome - I use Template:Welcome training for newbies using the classic editor but not for V/E. I have no problem with the new welcome existing as a variant for those who think it might work better for newbies. But it shouldn't go straight in as the default, not without very strong evidence that it is an improvement, and we don't have that. ϢereSpielChequers 18:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comment The VPR discussion was closed only last month. It was broadly advertised (including at this talk page and the Welcoming Committee WikiProject), had wide participation (~20 editors), and received an admin close. The result is the result. Feedback from those of you who missed the conversation is fine, but recognize that this is not a place to forum shop in the hope that you'll overturn the result; anyone doing so needs to drop the stick (there's nothing stopping you from using {{Welcome-retro}}). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

We will have to revist this shortly....data so far simply horible. Bad close have left us doing so much work. Can't believe how much time has been wasted all over because if this fiasco.--Moxy 🍁 19:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment between ANI and this thread and a bunch of closed RFCs, I cannot tell what the current state of this template is. Anyway, I wanted to note that I stopped using it the first time it came up. I use the cookies one instead. This one is not welcoming and needs to be changed. So add me to the strongly dislike camp. If anyone knows how to use {welcome-retro} in Twinkle, let me know. (Never mind, found it in Twinkle > custom welcome template). ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 28 June 2020

As part of his accidental rollback, JzG undid the edits I made after proposing them immediately above. They add flexibility without changing the default appearance, so they should be uncontroversial. Please restore them. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

This specific rollback was not accidental, the only part of the rollback that was accidental, by my reading of the linked discussion, was edits prior to you being granted TPE. Hence, the premise of this request is false, and thus  Not done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Pppery: It was accidental in the sense that JzG was intending to undo wrapperifications, and this was not a wrapperification. We can parse whether or not he "intended" to rollback knowing that there would be collateral damage, but that has no connection to whether or not the edit is beneficial. Is there an issue you see with the edit itself? If so, I'd be happy to address it. But otherwise, I'd appreciate this being enacted. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Pppery, are you objecting to the requested change, or the reason behind the requested change? I ask because there is a silent consensus to enact the proposed changes (if one ignores the mass-rollback). Primefac (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I guess I don't have any non-process-related objections to the edit itself, but it still feels wrong to honor a request based on a false premise, especially to a template as visible as this one. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Think its safe to re-implement the change...as seen above its the overall change that was/is the problem to those that are familiar with how to gain editors and the mass change to related templates...not this one parameter here.--Moxy 🍁 21:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Primefac (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

What happened to all the useful information!?

This is to be my go-to template for helping new people here, and now its FUBAR. Whose idiotic idea was it to remove all the actually useful information from the template, and why hasn't it been restored? TomStar81 (Talk) 03:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

It is a point of contention as seen above.... (sad face). However there are retro versions available that are used by most now with all the right links.--Moxy 🍁 04:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Ugh. More bullshit from people so helplessly out of touch with the project that they have no idea whats actually good for the project. I sometimes think WMF keeps these people on specifically so they can hire them later to roll out piss poor additions to interface and other vitally needed infrastructure in an intentional attempt to sabotage the project. And to me "well advertised" means like a 6-month RFC on whether or not we need it and if we do what it should look like. FRAMGATE was well advertised. This was not in any way shape or form well advertised- but I digress. I'm just gonna stop using welcoming templates altogether, if editors need help they can speak to whomever blocked'em for poor contributions and hope they get someone merciful... TomStar81 (Talk) 06:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Alias for article parameter

I'd like to add "article" as an alias for the current "art" parameter, which specifies (you guessed it) an article to mention. I don't foresee any reason this would be controversial, but just mentioning here on talk first since this has been a sensitive template to edit in the past. Please let me know if there are any objections, and if not I'll implement shortly. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Buttons

Buttons are a deterrent because most dont want to preform an action...just learn a bit. They are also so small on most mobile screens as to not be readable.--Moxy 🍁 01:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you think that links, which would be even smaller, would be better? Also, are you using the desktop or the mobile site on your mobile device? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I brought this up at WT:AfC. While lots of new people (young people) use mobile devices, and mobile view on their mobile device, and while article small edits on mobile view are feasible, I suggest that no serious backroom editing happens on mobile view. Can I run a quick strawpoll? Who *edits* on mobile view? And of those who do, who continues to edit on mobile view once something odd or unexpected or interesting happens? I think that serious intending Wikipedians switched to desktop view, even on a mobile device, so that they can see what is really happening. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Moxy has raised issues with buttons appearing small before, but no one else has replicated the issue and they have not elaborated. It's something to address at {{Clickable button 2}}, not here, as buttons are used throughout Wikipedia. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Like many readers and more recently editors that use tables and large screen phones I have desktop as default mode. Best thing to do is present information in a normal format that readers are familiar with. No fancy design that a marketing agency would use....but a simple page that requires zero learning curve or requires loading page after page after page after page after page to find serviceable infomation. As seen above feedback by experienced editors is something that some can't handle and just dismiss any accessibility concerns..Template talk:Welcome/Archive 9#Dislike new template. --Moxy 🍁 03:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

How the welcome template typically displays on mobile

That's not how the button displays on mobile for 99% percent of users; this is. That screenshot is not new; I am having to reuse it because of your failure to WP:LISTEN the first time you raised this. If you want to address the issue with {{Clickable button 2}} that's coming up because of your mobile settings, go bring it up at the template page, where it belongs. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

We should work with what we have and design pages that work for all on all platfroms. Dont guess that 99 percent are fine when you have no clue.... instead design pages for all. You are correct failure to listen is a problem I'm wondering if it will take another 20 people before its heard.--Moxy 🍁 03:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Terrible new welcome

I hate this new welcome. The old one was good. This one misdirects newcomers to not so good places. Can we revert back? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

This edit by User:Paine Ellsworth is the offensive one. What's the story? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The old one had so many links in it that I wonder whether anyone clicked on any of them, or even read the list. I'm not familiar with the Wikipedia:Task Center, but limiting the links to about three important links is probably the right choice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Newcomers, especially newcomers needing direction, should be directed to improve existing mainspace pages. Not encouraged to volunteer with the task centre, stuff linked from there has a lot of Wikipedian assumed knowledge. If there’s any one link newcomers should read about the backroom stuff, it’s WP:5P. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

My "offensive" edit was the result of an edit request I granted last April that was the product of a VP discussion here. Seems the community disagrees with you, User:SmokeyJoe! Feel free to open a new dialogue at the pump where your disagreement might be more widely heard. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 08:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with WhatamIdoing that limiting the number of links in the template is essential for not overwhelming new editors, and with Paine Ellsworth that it's perfectly appropriate to implement (nearly a year ago) an edit request stemming from a formally closed village pump discussion. I think the links are good: one teaches people to edit, one allows them to ask questions, and one provides suggestions. Contrast that with {{Welcome-retro}}, which can't even decide on an introduction page, instead forcing new editors to sort through a confusing jumble of at least four different largely redundant pages (Help:Introduction, Help:Getting started, WP:Contributing to Wikipedia, and Help:Editing). Less is more when it comes to getting newcomers to actually read intro pages, and the old template is decidedly not clean or simple. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Then there is that side of the coin which sees the welcoming as a reference-type link set that is not meant to overwhelm new editors but just stay on their talk page for awhile as a reference and guide to helpful project pages. I am of that side of the coin having always left {{subst:wtw}} to welcome new editors. The more info the better; there is a lot to learn if one wants to know how to do the right thing to improve this encyclopedia and project. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 21:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• I'm aware of the criticism of too many links, and the conflicting wish for "simple welcome" versus "useful collection of links for reference". I think what I disliked the most is finding the very familiar old template abruptly completely different. A less dislike is the use of big blue buttons, which I believe have a dumbing-down effect where-ever used, and that using them on newcomers is particularly setting the wrong tone. Finally, I really think all newcomers should meet WP:5P. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• I really think all newcomers should meet WP:5P.

 Done. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 01:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I am reverting. WP:5P is a nice page, but I don't think it's the very first place we should be pointing newcomers, since most of what it covers is already in the tutorial. P1 is generally self-evident, P2 is covered here, P3 is relevant mainly with regard to images, which are covered, P4 is covered here (and should also be self-evident), and P5 is briefly mentioned here (along with a link to WP:5P), but it's risky to hype too much, since like it or not it doesn't reflect the de facto 2021 reality that we enforce quite a few rules quite firmly. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

To editor Sdkb: thank you for this explanation, and while I disagree with you and agree with SmokeyJoe, I guess it's okay to rely on references in the tutorial in this case. And yet I see no harm in immediately introducing newcomers to what is perhaps the most important project page on Wikipedia! So please reconsider, perhaps include the link on a relatively small button near the very beginning. WP:5P is the heart and soul of Wikipedia. To see it near the beginning is to embark on a good path, perhaps the best path. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 12:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I don’t respect Sdkb’s disagreement. It is ridiculous to think Help:Introduction to policies and guidelines/2 substitutes for WP:5P. It’s an overdone tutorial that reminds me of old style busywork for beginning students in courses that no longer exist. 5P is an excellent concise summary of Wikipedia, by Wikipedians, for Wikipedians. Tutorials are not. Wikipedia is not supposed to require tutorials to get started, it should not have barriers requiring tutorials, and tutorials themselves are barriers. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I see two separate questions in your comment above, SmokeyJoe: (1) How much information should we be providing to newcomers?, and (2) What form should that information take?

Regarding (1), I think the tutorial strikes a good balance. Editors who read only the first page will at least start on the right foot, and those who read through the full thing (or reference parts of it as needed) will have a solid foundation without being overwhelmed by the full technical manuals we tend to have elsewhere.

Regarding (2), I'm open to suggestions if there are things that you think should be modified to make the tutorial more friendly or enticing. We need to be open to change, though. finding the very familiar old template abruptly completely different may be disconcerting to you, but it won't be to newcomers who don't have 15 years (congrats on the milestone, btw!) of prior expectations built up around what the welcome looks like. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

RE (1). The tutorial looks good for what it is, which is a tutorial, not a welcome. From the welcome, it feels to me like an explosion of entrapment that waylays the newcomer from editing. It feels like a burden that is supposed to be followed. WP:5P has an abundance of links, but it is different in that it doesn’t feel to have a compulsion to follow them all, you might or might not. I think a welcome should include WP:5P, and an invitation to this tutorial, but I would present it more as an option that they might like to try, a subtle difference, but at the current version gives it too much prominence, mainly being the sole big blue box.

(2). I do find it disconcerting that the old template is retasked. I don’t like old things being retasked like that, I like the history to be consistent with the present. If this is just my problem, then it’s not a big problem. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• I'm attending an editathon today and so welcoming new users. I'm still not liking the new welcome because it sends users away to the Teahouse and task centre, which are distractions at such an event. So, I'm using the traditional format which is now at {{welcome-retro}}. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  For welcoming new users who have signed up for an editathon, I'd think it'd make sense to use a custom welcome rather than the general-purpose one. There are still many many options better than the old general-purpose welcome template, though. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I just met the new welcome. My first impression was that I didn't like it. Maybe because for a few years I have seen the same one. I think there should be an extended version of this template with more links or buttons. For example, I think it is important to include links to the List of policies and guidelines. It would be good to include also links to Wikipedia:WikiProject, Templates, Awards, Service awards, and Wikipedia:Local Embassy. Maybe some editors will balk at the addition of these latter links, but I think they are rather obscure, the average editor discovers them after quite some time in the project and some editors may never discover them, which is not ideal, specially for WikiProject and Local Embassy, which always need more hands on deck.Thinker78 (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The majority of people who welcome lots of new editors have constructed their own template with the links that they feel the most useful. That said we have many welcome templates that are normal and work in both mobile and normal view and without Javascript.....see Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates.Moxy- 14:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I have been wanting to make templates for some time now. The time may have finally arrived to jump into the template creation world. :D Thinker78 (talk) 23:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Displaying only in User talk space?

Can we please make this template display only in User talk space, using {{Namespace detect}} or something similar? It should definitely not work in article space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, this should definitely not work in article space. For other non-user talk spaces, I could envision very rare possible uses, so maybe add a warning in preview or something. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Fixed whitespace

This template was generating 3 blank lines between the heading and the text so I added some whitespace stripping when the image and border parameters are not used. let me know if this causes a problem. Frietjes (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Request to add invitation to contact

I was wondering if an optional parameter can be added that produces a brief sentence to invite the welcomed user to contact the signer, for example, "You can also contact me in my talk page if you have questions. Happy editing!". Thinker78 (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Thinker78, you can do that with {{Welcome|customend=You can also contact me in my talk page if you have questions. Happy editing!}}. But I wouldn't recommend it. Newcomers are often overwhelmed by all the different forums on Wikipedia, and while we might perceive telling them about all the places they can ask questions as helpful, they're more likely to perceive it as overwhelming and to be unsure where they should go. Giving them a single best place (right now the Teahouse, but likely soon the mentor model being developed) works better. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I do know about the custom message, but because some editors like myself would feel inviting newcomers to contact us, it would be good if the message can be added automatically. The issue with the Teahouse or the help desk is that they feel more distant than getting in touch with someone directly. And I don't know the statistics, but personally I was never overwhelmed by forums in Wikipedia. In fact I wanted more contact with people.Thinker78 (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the WMF Growth Team found that new editors like to be able to communicate with a single editor directly; that's why the mentorship feature which will likely replace the Teahouse here will involve an individual mentor for each new editor.

Relying on our own experiences is likely to lead to survivorship bias—the editors who were overwhelmed enough to quit aren't around to tell us about it. But even among established editors, I've heard quite a few talk about how early on they felt overwhelmed. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Thinker78:, don't forget that you have another alternative: after saving the subst'ed template, edit again and add whatever you want. I do this not infrequently, to customize the message. You can, too. Mathglot (talk) 10:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot, yeah, customization is super important. Editing twice has the minor drawback of giving the recipient two "you have new messages" notifications, which can be a little confusing. More significantly, it can't currently be done through Twinkle, which only allows |art= to be set. I've requested that the personalized message parameters be added, and I hope the ticket gets taken up eventually. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

When I edit twice, I don't re-sig, so no duplicate notification to the user. Mathglot (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Anyone watching?

As I understand it, logged in users now have the automatic signing thing by default, so should we do something about "Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång, as I understand it, users have the reply tool turned on by default, but not yet the new section feature, so when starting a talk page section, they still need to know to sign. Hopefully the talk pages project will also activate that by default soon, at which point I agree we'll want to remove the line here (and elsewhere, e.g. {{Talk header}}). Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Sdkb Thanks, that's more than I know. How about adding "Comments in existing talkpage-discussions are signed automatically." for now? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's worthwhile to put effort into workshopping and implementing such a temporary adjustment (I'm hoping it's only a matter of weeks), but if others feel more strongly, I'd be fine with a tweak like that. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Sdkb, FYI:Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Hear_ye,_hear_ye Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Yep! I'll plan to remove that line once the tool goes live tomorrow. (I don't think we need to add any text about comments being signed automatically; the point of automatic signing is that you don't have to think about it.) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 14:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Should we state something like "Your comments on discussion-pages will generally be signed automatically, but if you use the plain source editor, you need to sign your comments by..." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

No. Many newcomers will be confused by the attempted distinction between the source editor vs. visual editor alone. The interface guides newcomers to use VE, and if they choose source anyways they're forewarned that there will be trickier elements, so it's not something we need to warn them about here. It's worth remembering that our whole goal with a welcome is to boil things down to the bare minimum essentials needed to get started productively; every element we remove helps emphasize the others more. Now that most newcomers won't need to worry about signing, including language about it anyways would just distract and create confusion; it's no longer the first thing we need to tell people after they register. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 14:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

So, just remove Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. then? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Yep. Nice and simple. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 14:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

My signature is not being inserted automatically in this talk page, so take into account this with the change to the template. Thinker78 (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Thinker78 if you're encountering an error, you should report it at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project. You also won't encounter automatic signing if you deliberately choose to edit in source mode, something the UI steers newcomers away from doing. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

There are probably more areas that needs updating, but Category:Welcome templates probably has more templates that could use an update. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Automatic edit summary

Currently when this template is substituted, no edit summary is created, just a date–timestamp of the edit. How does one program the template to create an edit summary when the template is deployed? Something generic like, Greeted user with Template:Welcome. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 04:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Have you considered using Wikipedia:Twinkle? It is a nifty tool. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)