Template talk:Welcomenpov

hmm, ponderous

• hmm, I am trying to figure out the purpose of this template... does it get dropped into people's talk page if they weren't being neutral enough?

Kuro (Sarah White) 22:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I just used it for a user who was adding stuff to Virgin Radio (User talk:Ben123newton) that wasn't neutral. RicDod 15:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

There are people whose very first edits show considerable bias and a lack of understanding of Wikipedia gernerally, so it seems useful there. I'd like it to be very slightly more comprehensible to newbies, for example, adding '(NPOV)' after the phrase is spelled out. --Cedders^tk 20:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• I very much agree with your idea, Cedders, because they may be confused when they see NPOV later in the message ~Lewis1350 (talk) 00:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Hey there. I'm the one who first created this template a while back, though it's been improved considerably since then (what can I say? I was less experienced back then). I generally don't like to start a new user's (or anonymous user's) talk page without some sort of welcome template, because they contain a lot of helpful information and also start the talk page off on a kind (and, well, welcoming) note instead of on a critical one. Sometimes, however, the user needs a little bit more of a specific nudge regarding one policy or another (NPOV, vandalism, blanking, etc.) I generally just leave a welcome template and the appropriate other template under separate headings, as it would be ridiculous to have a normal and welcome version of everything, but this was an attempt to streamline it into one template because in this case at least it doesn't seem too ridiculous. --Icarus 04:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

A great page?

Surely describing the NPOV policy as a great page is itself a POV?--Tivedshambo (talk) 19:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Haha, good point! I made this some time ago, when I was rather less experienced, but I think I was trying to make it sound candid and conversational instead of stark and confrontational. I'd go remove the word "great" (it also looks out of place in the new standardized format), but apparently the page has been edit protected. Ah well, the error is more amusing than grievous anyway. --Icarus 04:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to request the above mentioned change: remove the word "great"

and update the "Bootcamp" link to "New contributors' help page" as the bootcamp is long gone. Thanks. -Quiddity 18:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

 Done —Ruud 13:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Parameter not used

I might be missing something, but it seems to me the optional parameter (which according to the documentation is the name of the page that was POV edited) is not used. -SpuriousQ 06:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed the code seems to include no mention of any optional parameter. Was the idea to link to another policy page or actual substitute in an additional warning template ? David Ruben ^Talk 02:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Please replace

• one or more of your edits have not conformed

with:

• one or more of your edits {{#if:{{{1|}}}|to the page [[:{{{1}}}]]}} have not conformed

as per above. -SpuriousQ 13:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

 Done Leading colon and everything, very nice. :) Cheers! Luna Santin 13:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

"and have been reverted"

I propose removing the above phrase. POV-sounding edits are not always reverted immediately, it is sometimes necessary to tag the article with {{POV check}} or {{POV}} for less obvious cases. Accurizer 03:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I see your point. Would it be better to clarify that a bit ("may be reverted"), or just remove it altogether, y'think? Luna Santin 02:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

If the POV isn't obvious, this template should not be used at all. We should not be warning newbies if they are making potentially good edits. This template should only be used after cases of clearly obvious POV have been reverted. --- RockMFR 21:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a consensus, here; for the time being, I've removed the {{editprotected}} request; if a consensus emerges, feel free to replace the tag or let me know at my talk page. Will try to watch this one. Luna Santin 03:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a welcome template; I don't see how using it could ever be construed as biting. Indeed, Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers#How to avoid being a "biter" encourages the use of standard welcome templates for new users. Also, Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace describes the use of this template in response to a good faith edit. Please take a look at Legal immigration problems, which is the article that caused me to raise this issue. It appears to contain useful information, but it's unverified and POV-sounding. My objective in approaching it this way was to encourage the author to correct the problems himself/herself, which seems to be in-line with WP:V (the obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it). Restricting use of this template to only cases of clearly obvious POV that have been reverted seems to place the burden on the new page patroller, which would not be consistent with WP:V. The remaining option for communicating with the author would be {{NPOV0}}, which to me seems less friendly and instructive than this template. Accurizer 22:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Minor clarification required for newbies

I suggest that the first occurrence of the phrase "Neutral Point of View policy" be wikilinked and boldfaced, and the acronym NPOV be defined at that point. Later the acronym is used and wikilinked, but it may not be obvious to a newbie that NPOV means "neutral point of view" since the two terms occur in different paragraphs. The sentence should say:

Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy....

-Amatulic 21:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

 Done Luna Santin 10:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Category

This is a minor issue, but this template should be added to Category:Welcome templates.--Ytny (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

 Done --Geniac 16:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Use of contractions

{{Editprotected}}

The word there's should be changed to there is, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Avoid colloquial contractions. --Silver Edge 21:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

MoS primarily governs article space, not user talk messages; is there some reason to believe the contraction will cause difficulty understanding the template, or would otherwise interfere with its effectiveness? – Luna Santin (talk) 03:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the idea is for this to be more informal, since it's a welcome template. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

 Not done Manual of style does not cover talk pages. Thanks for the suggestion! ⟳ausa کui ^× 22:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect Documentation

The documentation for this template is incorrect. I suggest replacing it with:

Template usage notes This template takes a single optional parameter: the name of the page to which the template applies. If provided, this page will be cited in the warning. Please refer to the index of test templates before using any template on user talk pages to warn a user. Applying the best template available for your purpose may help reduce confusion from the message you are sending. Please remember to substitute the template—use {{subst:Welcomenpov}} or {{subst:Welcomenpov|article name}}}} rather than {{Welcomenpov}} or {{Welcomenpov|article name}}}}.

--Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 16:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Missing Word

It appears that there is a word missing at the very end of the template:

"or ask me my talk page"

It should be "or ask me on my talk page". Paradoxsociety (talk) 01:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done David Ruben ^Talk 04:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Error

There is a part which says "Your edit to an article Do not conform..." Shouldn't it be "Your edit to an article does not conform..."? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew

Contributions

Could we consider removing the "Thank you for your contributions" from this one? It feels so silly to drop it onto a new user's talk page, thanking them for their sole edit while announcing that it has just been reverted. I feel it's a real giveaway that this is a stock template not an individual greeting, and thus less friendly rather than more so. I can't see a problem with just saying "Hi, welcome, nice to see you, unfortunately your edit to X was POV but don't let that put you off contributing, here's some helpful links". Much more appropriate than "thanks but no thanks". Karenjc 23:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Awkward sounding text

{{editprotected}} I don't know if it's just me, but the default 'your edit to an article' sounds a bit awkward. Maybe we could change 'your edit to {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{1|}}}|the article [[{{{1}}}]]|an article}}' to '{{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{1|}}}|your edit to [[{{{1}}}]]|one of your contributions}}'? Dendodge Talk^Contribs 23:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done Seems reasonable. Ruslik (talk) 11:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

The 'your edit to' should be moved inside the ParserFunction (as above). Densock|Dendodge^{in public} 12:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done Sorry, my error. Ruslik (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Linking to the Teahouse on the welcome template

Hi everyone. Those of us involved at the Teahouse pilot are interested in seeing a link to the Teahouse placed in this welcome template. This will be able to help us drive new editor traffic to the Teahouse during this pilot period, and allow us to continue to assess the pilot to the best of our ability. The welcome template is a great and powerful tool for new users, and it'd be really valuable to give new editors the choice to visit the Teahouse for assistance and community experience. I do hope that you will support this and then we can reach out to an admin to make the change. Thank you for your consideration :) Sarah (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

See discussion on Template talk:Welcome. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Substitution

It seemed like we missed that, so added {{Substituted}} to the documentation. Seems pretty standard. That's all. Meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 5 March 2015

Rather than say "...you can just type {{Help me}} on your userpage," I believe the template text should read, "...you can just type {{Help me}} on your user talk page," as the {{Help me}} template should only be used on user talk pages, not user pages. In addition, "userpage" should be two words. MJ94 (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. There has been objections in some of the welcome templates I have changed in the past to having a template link to the help me template in these kinds of boxes, as such I request that you establish a consensus for this usage before working up a sandbox mockup. I'll happily implement once these steps are completed. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

What I did was add the newer coding that does it all for you. This was a long talk on the other page....should be done to all. -- Moxy (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@Moxy: Do you happen to have a link to the discussion? I'd be interested in reading it. Thanks! MJ94 (talk) 00:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Welcome#Coding update --Moxy (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources

There are many ways to introduce POV into articles other making unsourced edits. This templates' emphasis on reliable sources can inadvertently give a POV pusher ammunition by allowing them to claim: "but it's from a reliable source". Yes, I realize the template links to the NPOV article, but I fear many editors won't click that far. I see two possible solutions:

1) we could drop the reference to RS entirely, thereby (hopefully) forcing an editor to click the NPOV link.

or

2) we could add a brief linked list of proscribed edits within the template that promote POV pushing:

• tone/hype
• biased sources
• undo weight
• unsourced opinions

Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 2 April 2016

At the top of this template, the word "Welcome!" should be made into a level 2 heading instead of just being bold text. This is done with many of the other welcome templates that I've seen. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Done. Template:Welcome appears to be the same way, so this seems uncontroversial. Izno (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)