Template talk:Welcome

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Protected edit request on 17 February 2019[edit]

The header should be changed from <h2> Welcome to Meta! </h2> to == Welcome to Meta! == since the template is meant to be substituted. This keeps it in line with the other welcome messages and keeps the standard talk page formatting when it is eventually substituted. We might also need to restore the {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>void|{{error:not substituted|welcome}}}} portion in order to make sure it is being used correctly. Nihlus 22:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

It isn't always substituted. Substituting is such an old practice, what value is there in that? Much prefer that we move away from the substitution aspect. Also prefer that we migrate the template to the translation system.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
It should be substituted (that's the point I am trying to make). Leaving a single template at the top of a talk page breaks the page formatting and potential archiving. Further, making future changes to the template requires an evaluation of all preceding usages of it as it will alter every page that it is transcluded on. There's a reason there are over a thousand automatically substituted templates on enwiki. Nihlus 23:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
There is an alternative to substituting welcome messages, and that is the point that I am trying to make. This is a different wiki than enWP and the amount of talk page archiving that happens here is miniscule, and it doesn't break formatting and archiving at all. This is a multi-language wiki, and the availability of users changing their language preference allows a different approach when we use active translated templates, rather than static substituted templates. Just because enWP does something in a way, does not mean that it is a good universal choice.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
And just because enwiki does something doesn't mean it's intrinsically bad. I'd be fine with a template that uses the translation system, but, until we have that, we should continue using this template as needed and as instructed, and edits that break substitution should be reverted. Nihlus 06:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Who said anything about bad? I simply don't agree with either your assessment that we should continue a practice, or the specified consequences of discontinuing the practice. Having an unsubstituted template allows for the conversion to this translated system as it will dynamically adapt. Substituting the template leaves us at a static point in time.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
The message should be retained when it was communicated to the user. Changing these messages days, weeks, or months later serves no purpose and provides no information to the individuals who have received the welcome message prior to any update that might come. Nihlus 22:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Says who? Why should it be static? That is a very old way of thinking. You keep harping back to a way that is a way and is the way elsewhere but is static, is limited in what it can do and can be. You are caught up in a way of thinking. You don't talk in terms of benefits of that way, whereas the means forward with our translation system in place where we will always be able to present the current information in the language of their preference.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, you are the one who is wanting to change how a template is used without offering any alternative. You are the one who has taken it upon himself to use a template in way that is contrary to all of the documentation on it and contrary to how it is coded. You are the one who is now tasked with submitting alternatives since you are the one who wants to change how it is fundamentally used. Nihlus 08:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Outside of the subst/unsubst questions - any technical objections to updating <h2> tags to == ? — xaosflux Talk 14:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, where people who click the section edit link, they edit the template, not the page.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    Because it is meant to be substituted. You can't change how a template is used now based on what you want the functionality to be in the future. Nihlus 22:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    and why it has been changed.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    Your change has obviously been challenged. You do not have unilateral authority here. Until you propose a change that fundamentally alters the usage of translations, I will be opposed to your change and the method in which you use the template. Nihlus 08:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Sidenote:I had substituted the template countless times and nothing is faulty, so didn't see the need for any fixes on the substitution part. Regards,--Cohaf (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Cohaf: If you substitute it how it is now, there are no edit section links for someone to reply to your message if they wish to go that route. Billinghurst has made the change to the template to fit his alternative and incorrect method of use. Nihlus 08:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    There is an edit tag at the top of every page, and we are talking about an initial response to the first and only section on a page. I think that is a faux argument.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    Tried again using substitution at User talk:1.02 editor. Nothing wrong and per billinghurst, the add a topic should be adequate. Sorry I don't see any issues with it. If there's a need, what I'll suggest is in the welcome message something like a {{help me}} or a note to that button can be included for us to help those really confused. Regards,--Cohaf (talk) 04:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    We should not be cutting off features of pages. Period. The edit section link is an important one and one used by almost everyone who edits the site. We are gaining nothing and losing much by keeping these changes. If you want to change how a template has been used for years, it requires discussion and consensus before making changes that have been challenged. I fail to see how this could not be any clearer. Nihlus 05:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    I personally see no need to edit the welcome section and find it a little annoying sometimes to misclick it. My personal take only, hope for clearer community inputs. Shall this be transferred to here?--Cohaf (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    Can't we just move to making this a properly translated template so we are getting it into more languages, and making the whole conversation moot, and being able to offer a welcome in more languages, and to be able to make it more dynamic.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
    It's clear that that is the best option; however, this template version should not be ignored in the meantime. Nonetheless, I've yet to see a basic framework of what you want this template to look like as a translated version. Is there an existing version of a template somewhere that you want to copy? Nihlus 01:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done I've deactivated the edit request as there is still ongoing discussion as to what change to make. Once a consensus has been established, feel free to reactivate. — xaosflux Talk 19:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: We need consensus in order to overturn a challenged edit? Nihlus 01:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@Nihlus: on protected templates where the edit request is disputed - it needs to be discussed. — xaosflux Talk 06:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: It's only being done through an edit request because the editor who made the change that is being challenged is inappropriately using the protection level of the template to reinforce his position. Nihlus 06:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
If you think there is misuse of admin access, bring it up at RFH for review. — xaosflux Talk 06:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
That's a disappointing response. It shouldn't take a formal review for administrators to do the right thing. I will not waste my time on that as it will go no where. Nihlus 06:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Billinghurst: Do you have any plans to move forward with the version that you are basing your changes on (i.e. a translated version)? If you want to set this template up differently, it would be better to have it sooner rather than later as these changes are still causing me to make two edits in order to use it properly, which leads to two notifications of for the person I am welcoming. Nihlus 18:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
    Reopening as this still has not been addressed. Nihlus 20:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Xaosflux: Can we change the first line from
    <h2> Welcome to Meta! </h2>
    to this:
    {{{{{|safesubst:}}}#ifeq:{{{{{|safesubst:}}}NAMESPACE}}|{{NAMESPACE}}|<h2> Welcome to Meta! </h2>|== Welcome to Meta! ==}}
    It keeps the functionality that we both are seeking by preventing users from editing the template if it is not substituted but also allowing users to edit the section if it is substituted. Nihlus 18:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Examples of the old and proposed change that @Nihlus: made just above are at User:Xaosflux/sandbox. While our work is never done on improving things, I'm not seeing any negatives to this proposed change in the meantime, do you @Billinghurst:? — xaosflux Talk 13:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Xaosflux: Can this be implemented? Enough time has passed for anyone to raise their objections. Nihlus 03:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done @Nihlus: this has been implemented. — xaosflux Talk 14:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit Request: PAGENAME magic word[edit]

As seen in my archive {{BASEPAGENAME}} will show RhinosF1/Archive in my archives. This should be changed to {{ROOTPAGENAME}} which will only show RhinosF1. RhinosF1 (talk) 06:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Done. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)