Template talk:Bigwelcome/Archive 1

Herby
No question I like it. At one stage the "Welcome" got rather too big. Then it got hacked to death in a minimalist approach. This is good. I guess I could argue for more en wb styling (blue etc) but I will use this I think, thanks Mike -- Herby talk thyme 08:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Once we have a logo decided upon, I'll change the colours to match it. I tried to make sure that the questions I get most frequently on my talk page (naming, moving, images) are mentioned. – Mike.lifeguard  &#124; talk 16:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Neoptolemus
This is a big improvement! When I first welcomed a user I was surprised at how bare our other welcome template was. Nice work, Mike. Νεοπτόλεμος ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 23:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

MihalOrela
Thank you Mike.lifeguard for welcome and useful information. It was nice surprise to read/see when I checked in again today. --MihalOrela 04:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice welcome
That is such a nice welcome! Georgez (talk) 21:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Automatic signing
Would anyone object to adding a  to automate the signature? I can't think of a situation where one would omit it and the variable could still be used to leave a nice message. --Swift (talk) 08:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, many people prefer to leave a signature outside the template where it can more easily be seen. Parameter 1 is for the signature - you can use  &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 19:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome Rocks!
I dunno how useful my perspective is, since I have some experience with wiki's as opposed to being a complete newbie, but for my part I wish to say the welcome provides a lot of useful information while being aesthetically pleasing. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 12:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Big welcome is a great template
--Gnepets (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!
Nice welcome! I'll try my best to follow these guidelines...

Mrt doulaty (talk) 05:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello! I have just started familiarizing myself with the guidelines. Thank you for the opportunity to contribute! CarmenDP (discuss • contribs) 20:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Backward
The welcome is very helpful and useful (and welcoming). However, I think it would be even better (is that possible?) if there is a direct link on how to edit wiki articles (not just where the edit button is, but the code and everything). Also, thanks for the welcome, Adrignola -- back ward  19:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome
The welcome is useful for sure, just I did not answer for so long having too much to do, sorry. Regards, --Pavroo (talk) 00:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It's gigantic!
It is huge, and has lot I'll never ever look at.

What I would want to see is how to use wikibook shortcuts, like "use \{\{Clear\}\} rather than \<\br\>", how to do links, and the top 50 wiki codes that are used to markup typical real world text.

I have found some of this by using some of the help links, both from this template and the help menu on the side panels (nav), but still I can't seem to find something that's useful enough to print a few pages of and keep next to the computer as a cheat sheet, so make this your goal. Pearts (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

p.s it's a very good first stab at it :)
 * It's been around since April 2008. Not a first stab; more like indicative of much of the support structure: inadequate, unmaintained, and outdated.  I've done what I can. – Adrignola talk 12:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It's gigantic! (Take 2)
But now that it folds, it's fine for what it is. When the big unfolded message appeared on my talk page I felt it was intrusive. Overall I do still prefer the smaller Template:Welcome. For the majority of users I feel a genuine warm welcome rather than a fire-hose of information is going to do more good. --JamesCrook (discuss • contribs) 11:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

AGF link
"You can change just about anything, and changes can be made easily." I'm not clear on why WB:AGF is linked where it is. Perhaps it is intended to say that if your changes are reverted, you should assume that it was done in good faith, but that isn't clear from the wording. Something like "if your edits are reverted, you can discuss them" would be better. Belteshazzar (discuss • contribs) 02:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I made an attempt to fix it. This came about in the change to collapsing when the wording was redone. – Adrignola discuss 04:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks better, but the WB:AGF link still doesn't make a lot of sense. Belteshazzar (discuss • contribs) 05:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That was not my intention or meaning. Reverting was far from my mind because I consider reverts to be contrary to AGF. In a less compacted form what I was trying to get across is: You can change just about anything by being bold. You are encouraged and allowed to be bold because other people are expected to assume any changes you make is done in good faith. --dark lama  10:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It's entirely possible &mdash;depending on circumstances&mdash; to believe an edit was made in good faith, and nevertheless reasonably revert it. The more complex the edit in question, of course, the more opportunity for something other than a revert, but also the more difficult it is to work out an alternative (and the significance of that may vary with context &mdash; Wikijunior? featured book?).  The larger the number of past edits that enter into the situation, the more useful the tool of AGF.


 * I'm faintly reminded of w:WP:BRD. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 15:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It's confusing that "you can discuss them" links to AGF. That sentence as a whole just doesn't flow well; it gives the impression (at least to me) that your edits will most likely be reverted - a rather discouraging statement! I'd suggest splitting the AGF part into a separate sentence, somewhat similar to the old template I was welcomed with. (For instance: "You do not need technical skills to contribute. You can change just about anything easily. Be bold contributing and assume good faith about the intentions of others. Please introduce yourself to everyone, and let us know what interests you.") Tempodivalse 16:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * How about "You can change just about anything easily"? Put another way I want to emphasis to people that changes aren't likely to be made unless they help out by be bold, and assuming good faith is part of why people are allowed to contribute so easily. --dark lama  17:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Trying another approach (moving AGF much further forward, and getting still shorter text into the bargain), how about
 * Wikibooks is for developing free textbooks collaboratively.
 * You do not need technical skills to contribute. You can change just about anything.  Please introduce yourself to everyone, and let us know what interests you.
 * --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 17:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think putting two links next to each other can cause confusion, and it may not be obvious there are two distinct links. --dark lama  17:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I like Pi zero's approach, but the linkage is still a bit confusing. Here's a thought: if simpler is better, maybe a link to AGF doesn't need to be in the introduction box at all? Perhaps it could be mentioned under "Getting help" or "Made a mistake?" instead. Tempodivalse 17:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess the question is, how helpful is it to prominently show this link to new users? Does it head off problems before they start? Might it intimidate some newcomers? Or will it make no difference either way? Then we should consider that WB:AGF is still only a proposal. Belteshazzar (discuss • contribs) 21:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe you will consider this to have not much or any distinction, but for me it is not about heading off problems before they start, it is about helping to get new users off to a good start and hopefully getting them involved. Something along the lines of "Books don't create themselves" without scaring new contributors off. --dark lama  22:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The two consecutive links bothered me a bit, too. So here's another try, and we'll see why we don't like this one. Besides the main change, I've also incidentally unlinked "Wikibooks", as (on reflection) I find it a bit unfocusing.
 * Wikibooks is for collaborative development of free textbooks.
 * You do not need technical skills to contribute. You can change just about anything.  Please introduce yourself to everyone, and let us know what interests you.

Interestingly, that first sentence is pretty close to Mike.lifeguard's phrasing of yore. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 23:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess that will do. I can't think of any new complaints, just my continued desire to associate AGF with why editing is made easy. --dark lama  00:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I like Pi zero's latest suggestion the most so far. Linking "collaborative" to AGF seems logical. Tempodivalse 02:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Having thought about it some more, what about:
 * Wikibooks is for collaborative development of free textbooks.
 * You do not need technical skills to contribute. You can easily change most books. Please introduce yourself, and let us know what interests you.


 * If you already contribute at other Wikimedia projects, our Wikimedia Orientation should quickly get you started.


 * More consistent focus, shorter, and still mentions how changes are easily made. --dark lama  11:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I like it. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 13:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That looks good. I'm not sure why we should ask a newcomer to "introduce yourself", though I realize that is a longstanding part of this template. Belteshazzar (discuss • contribs)


 * I think the idea is to build community, something we struggle with at Wikibooks. Wikibooks is mostly a large collection of very small wikis (books) almost all of which are much too small to be viable on their own, all banding together for safety in numbers; so anything we can do to build a little more inter-book communication is helpful.  Most people don't take us up on the invitation, but some do.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 22:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Darklama's suggestion looks good. A little more consistent. Tempodivalse 22:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've deployed Darklama's version, but with a small tweak (with luck, not too controversial). To keep the first line from wrapping around on the last word on my "standard-sized" screen, I shaved off the width of two letters by changing
 * collaborative development of free textbooks.
 * to
 * collaboratively developing free textbooks.
 * --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 00:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope I don't give the impression that the slight change is controversial. Is it grammatically correct though? I look at it and something seems a bit off. I guess it could be due to differences in participles and/or grammatical tense from the rest of the box as well. I think the rest uses simple verbs and adjectives in their present tense form, while it is using an adverb and present participle. Again this isn't intended to suggest the difference is controversial, maybe I am just being too much of a Grammar Nazi. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  17:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not grammatically incorrect. It is structurally more complicated than the rest of the box, which makes a discernible contrast; myself, I'm still less bothered by that than by "textbooks" wrapping around onto a second line.  (BTW, for most of the life of the template, its first sentence was "Wikibooks is for freely licensed collaboratively developed textbooks."  I prefer gerund "developing", as it suggests an ongoing process.)  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 17:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I prefer present tense and active voice, over other choices, because I believe it to be more inviting. I guess on some level I may also have been placing more emphasis on structure simplicity than I have before, ever since Simple English Wikibooks closed, because people that have difficulty understanding English are likely to have migrated here. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  18:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * To my ear, using the gerund in the altered sentence sounds a little awkward. (Both appear to be grammatically correct, however.) I have a 1024x768 resolution, and on full-screen, the bold text wraps around no matter what wording is used; does word-wrap really matter, if we're going to base a decision on that? Screen sizes and resolutions vary widely, after all. Tempodivalse 19:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I too have 1024x768; experimenting, with vector it wraps for me also. (I use monobook because I loathe vector.)  I'll have to keep that in mind in future.  My heuristic had been that anything from my screen size on up should reasonably expect things will fit, while below my screen size there may reasonably be (graceful) degradation.


 * Well, if the admittedly slightly awkward phrasing isn't going to prevent wraparound anyway, how about we go back to Wikibooks is for collaborative development of free textbooks, and specify that "of free textbooks" should be all on one line; IMHO that's the place where wraparound reads best. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 21:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

) could also be done. I think either solution would work. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  22:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Removing the line break (


 * Well, I've done something. The earlier discussed wording, no wraparound between "free" and "textbooks", and I replaced the linebreak with a paragraph break.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 04:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request
Could the "Thanks. }" at the end be changed to "Thanks, " (with a comma)?  Liam987 
 * ✅ <font color="#E66C2C">QU <font color="#306754">TalkQu 11:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

New to Wikibooks
∼I am new to Wikibooks and am continuing to learn editing rules. Thank you (Xania/ЗAНИA )for the information on continuing to add value to this massive project. I would like to point out that the following guidelines apply to any and all of my edits: any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. I have never and will never demean a contribution in such a flagrant manner.

I have had many global studies courses in college and am therefore sensitive to the global nature of the material in Wikibooks. Any additions are a reflection of that teaching I have received. Ethnocentrism does not have a valid placement under Wiki guidelines as I understand them.

Any discussion or reference of information added should have the advantage of viewing these pages as a global entity. No one Ethnic guideline should be attributed to a 'general page' of information. IF the page is seeking to add value and information to a certain Ethnic population, then it should be a forgone conclusion that the article's titling would reflect that. I would hope that I can add value to the information stored herein. Thank you for your patience and continued direction. CarmenDP (discuss • contribs) 20:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)