Template talk:W-graphical

Suggestion

There should be a comma after "Hello" because it's the correct way. "Hello, [name], and welcome..." Anyone agree? - Eugene Krabs (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I have edited the template and added the comma. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 16:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Signing your posts

I was looking at the welcome templates today, and it occured to me that for this template, having the "Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by..." reminder as the first thing strikes me as implying that the user failed to do that. If I am new to Wikipedia and I make a post, I am going to assume that I screwed up when the first thing someone says is "Welcome to Wikipedia; sign your posts, please" (paraphrasing). I would assume that somebody was criticizing the fact that I had not signed an edit, whether or not I should have done so (and most first edits are actually probably not on a talk page). It would make a lot more sense to me to move this to below the "links to facilitate your involvement." Any thoughts on the matter? Falconus^{p t c} 03:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

@Falconus: I had someone actually think this when I gave them this welcome. I came here to suggest changing it, but see I am not alone. I will make a change and see what people think. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps slightly off-topic here:

Nobody seems to listen to this either way. You get people on both sides:

• Newbies that take this to heart, even signing their comments
• Or people just not listening at all, especially IPs. For example, despite the header on User talk:Katieh5584's page that asks to sign comments, nobody listens.

Would we be better off assuming that if someone really takes the time to register an account and commit to the project, they'll probably listen to the rules or read the instructions; if someone is a hit-and-run contributor bots can sign for them anyway? Meteor sandwich yum (talk • contribs) 03:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Thanks for doing that. Hopefully that helps. @Meteor sandwich yum: That is a valid point... Annoying as it is, it's not like the Wiki falls apart when the bot has to clean up after someone. Falconus^{p t c} 04:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe a slight change?

Change the sentence;

• "If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page , or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there."
  

to;

• "If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there."
  

Basically, I just want to change "my talk page" to "help desk". Can this change be made? Or can another template with this variation be created? Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 18:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Done Mlpearc (open channel) 18:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. - ^theWOLFchild 19:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 December 2019

Please change the link that says Table of contents from Portal:Contents to Wikipedia:Contents? The page has recently been moved. Interstellarity (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 12 February 2020

Please change 'Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement' to 'Below are some useful links to help you get started'. 'Help you get started' sounds more welcoming and less like something required by the government. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 09:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! BlackcurrantTea (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 May 2020

Please change "Our new user help forum, The Teahouse" and remove the word "new" as the Teahouse has been around for several years. SK2242 (talk) 18:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I only saw this by accident because of the miscategorization, but maybe "Our help forum for new users, ..." would instead remove the ambiguity while still getting the intended point across. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done The confusion was caused by ambiguity about which word was being modified by "new". It was intended to modify "user", but it could have been seen to modify "Teahouse". I have changed the text to remove the ambiguity as well as changing "user" to "editor", since it is editors who are the audience here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 April 2021

For some reason, when adding this template via twinkle, it leaves double-space after the level-2 section header and before the markup. See here for an example. Perhaps someone could look into this. Thanks - wolf 02:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done User:GKFX^talk 15:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 4 July 2023

Could someone make the article parameter actually have effect like the twinkle standard installation welcomes? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu: Not sure what you mean, are you referring to, having the template auto sign? - FlightTime (open channel) 15:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

No, the documentation says this template has an "article" parameter but it does nothing Aaron Liu (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

This will need a consensus, because the |article= parameter has been added and deleted at least twice, and one reason for its deletion was that it "broke Twinkle". P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 15:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't see the edit that says it broke twinkle. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

[Feb 2014]. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 17:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I just made this change to the sandbox and nothing appeared to be broken when I used the template with twinkle on User talk:Sandbox for user warnings. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

See also that the second time the |article= parameter was added by editor Philroc and reverted by editor K6ka, the [edit summary] basically repeated the [earlier concerns] of Mr. Stradivarius as regards Twinkle. Wonder if more light can be shed on this issue? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 18:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The only weird thing for me is that Twinkle doesn't label the sandbox template as supporting an article link; which isn't a big issue that breaks Twinkle either. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 5 October 2023

Hello, under the "Finding your way around" section heading, can you please add;

* [[Help:Introduction to navigating Wikipedia|Introduction to navigating Wikipedia]] * [[Help:Searching|Using the Search engine]]

immediately below that heading and just above the entry for "Table of contents"? This is what it should look like afterwards. I believe these two pages can be extremely helpful for new users and this is an optimal place to add them. (Also, this will help round out the contents of the template and fill up that section of empty space at the bottom left of the box.) Thanks & Cheers - wolf 06:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: The edit request information page states that "...consensus should be obtained if the change is likely to be controversial." Do you really believe this is likely to controversial? Do you think it'll even be noticed? This is basically a minor change, and where the template has already been posted, the pages will not be affected. This is just the addition of two links to pages that are part of that area of the introductory process for new users, and really should've be there already. I'm not sure how this can be seen as anything other than an improvement. - wolf 19:59, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Those would be helpful. The s in 'search' should be in lowercase: 'Using the search engine'. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 05:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@BlackcurrantTea: Thanks for the comments. I'm still waiting for Jonesey95 to respond to my last reply above. (If he is not intetested in answering, perhaps he can change the template back to 'not answered' and save me the trouble of reposting.) Cheers - wolf 02:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the edits except that I didn't see them as uncontroversial, equivalent to fixing a typo. I have added the links to {{W-graphical/sandbox}}. On my screen, the left column is now much longer than the right column instead of only slightly longer. I have changed the status of this request back to "not answered" and will let another template editor judge whether the requested edit is reasonable. Again, I have no objection myself to the new content. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: I'm curious about what kind of screen you were using. I, like the majority of users now, edit on a smartphone. Currently, there is a sizable chunk of whitespace at the bottom of the left column on my screen. With the additon I requested, both columns are basically equal. After reading your last reply, I went and had a look on a laptop where the difference in the columns (currently) is basically the same, and in the sandbox there is some whitespace on the right, but it's negligible. So as far as spacing is concerned, it still appears the change is net-positive.

But this isn't just about layout, as I said, I believe the two links are very beneficial for new users, they seem like obvious addtions that should've been there already. I'm not quite clear on what you mean by "...I didn't see them as uncontroversial...". (Isn't that a double-negative?) Do you see the change as controversial or not? (And it's unreasonable now...?) Also, if you could clarify what you meant by "...equivalent to fixing a typo.", as I didn't use that analogy. Even though you're passing on this now, if anything, if could at least mention the device you were using, that could be helpful for others going forward. Thank you - wolf 05:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I use a computer, like most active editors. I checked in three web browsers, and the results described above were consistent for me. In the mobile view on my computer browsers, the rendering is pretty ugly, so the column length is the least of my concerns there. Yes, my statement was a double negative; it has a specific meaning that would be changed if I removed the two negatives. I used the word "uncontroversial" because it appears in the edit request template, along with a lot of other guidance that template editors (and requesters of edits to templates) are supposed to read and consider. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: "I use a computer, like most active editors." - My understanding is that the majority of editors on WP now use a smartphone or mobile device to edit. Do I have that wrong?

"In the mobile view on my computer browsers, the rendering is pretty ugly..." - Again, my understanding is many users on mobile devices use desktop view, but of course also use mobile view. And while using desktop view on a pc seems obvious, why would anyone use mobile view on a pc?

"Yes, my statement..." - was a word game, and not at all helpful here. Instead, could we not just focus on the main point of the request? That being the addition of the two links, for the benefit of new users? I read the guidance, I made a clear request that complied with "SUNS", (and let's face it, "uncontroverial" is there for the mnemonic. "SCNS" just isn't as catchy.) I don't see how the requested edit could be considered controversial (or not uncontroversial) and as such your statememt did not clearly explain why this request needed to be declined. - wolf 02:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Not done for now: I also do not regard the request as "uncontroversial". If you find the grammar problematic then please translate that to "possible or likely to be considered controversial by other editors". I also see a degradation in the layout due to mismatched column lengths on my computer monitor. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@MSGJ: Can we, please, stop with the word games, (re: "controversial" vs "not uncontroversial") and the vague references to layout? (re: "vague"... as in; if you're going to use this as a reason to decline, then can you at least provide some details? Or better yet, how about we each post screenshots? eg: before & after, PC vs smartphone. So then it can be clear what each of us is talking about.)

And lastly, can we address the main reason for the request in the first place - that being the addition of the two links? They can only be of benefit, (to new users, the ones who this template is intended for), where is any possible downside? Yet, this has been completely ignored by Jonesey95, and now by you as well. This should be a simple, straight-forward request with a net-improvement to the template. How can these two additions "possibly or likely to be considered controversial by other editors"...? There just doesn't appear to be a valid reason to decline here. Can we just focus on the pertinent details of the request, and if it's still, somehow, necessary to decline, then at least provide a definitive reason? Thank you - wolf 02:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Note that Thewolfchild has forked this template to {{W-graphical-ext}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@Gonnym: The only difference is the two new additional links. They're an improvement, it works, I've used it on a half-dozen pages and there were no issues. It's only used on the talk pages of new users. Jonesey95 is stonewalling this, for some unexplained reason, (as well as MSGJ, but that's not as much as a mystery to me). I could just add the links manually, but really there's no reason not to add them to this template via this request, or to an additonal version of the template (we have have several, so I don't see why one more is an issue). - wolf 23:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I have no personal interest how this ends up, but I'm firmly against forks. We already have way too many welcome templates. That doesn't help new users. That doesn't even help experienced editors. Get consensus to change this or live with the current version. Gonnym (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

More unexplained stonewalling. Awesome. Thanks - wolf 05:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 11 October 2023

Replace the thank you line with

Thank you for [[Special:Contributions/{{SAFESUBST:<noinclude />BASEPAGENAME}}|your contributions]] to {{#if:{{{article|}}}|[[{{{article}}}]] and}} this free encyclopedia.}

(adding the article credit) Aaron Liu (talk) 11:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 12:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth Thanks! However, I'm not sure if is needed, the "to" before the article credit already makes it grammatically correct and this reads a bit awkward to me. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

To editor Aaron Liu: curious, because I tested my initial edit and it read awkward to me without an extra supporting "to" before "this free encyclopedia". Since you didn't ask for it and I could be incorrect, the extra "to" will be removed until and unless somebody else thinks it should be there. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 21:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Aaron Liu (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Happy to help! Paine  00:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit request 16 December 2023

Merge from sandbox, which adds a new parameter for things to be put after the first sentence, like how {{welcomepov}} adds stuff onto {{w-basic}}. This would also allow us to convert {{w-graphical-anon}} into a wrapper around this so we don't need to do fork stuff. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Edit request 29 April 2024

Merge from sandbox, which adds the |art= alias for |article= which many welcome templates seem to have, and removes a possible extra space when the |article= parameter is empty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron Liu (talk • contribs) 15:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit request 8 February 2026

Description of suggested change: Add a |newuser= parameter to the syntax which tweaks the first sentence of the template to "Thank you for you interest in this free encyclopedia" when marked as |newuser=yes. This will. at least in my opinion, make the wording a bit easier to understand for completely new users who have yet to edit in the mainspace (e.g., users who have just posted on anther's user talk page message asking for help"). Such a thing seems to happens a bit more than it did in perhaps the past due the implementation of a new user immediately be assigned a mentor feature added a few years back by the WMF Growth Team. It also could help avoid anyone mistaking "contribuition" as meaning "financial contribution" instead of "editorial contribution", particularly among users whose first language isn't English. Another option, which wouldn't need a new parameter per se, might be to change "contributions" to "edits" since the latter would cover all namespaces, while also avoiding any misunderstanding of the meaning of "contribution". In either case, only the pipe of the link to [[Special:Contributions/{{SAFESUBST:<noinclude />BASEPAGENAME}}|your ....]] to/in this free encyclopedia]] need be changed.

Diff:

−

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia.

+

Thank you for your interest in this free encyclopedia.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 03:28, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before posting an edit request. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:46, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support replacement of the term contributions (at least, in isolation), due to its evident ambiguity. Oppose interest in as wishy-washy, and not signifying any actual past editing history. Instead, I suggest any of these (tfe='this free encyclopedia'):
  1. Thank you for your edits to this free encyclopedia
  2. Thank you for your improvements to tfe
  3. Thank you for improving tfe
  4. Thank you for helping to build tfe
  5. Thank you for contributing content to tfe
  6. Thank you for your work on Wikipedia articles
  7. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia articles

I prefer #1 or 2 (tied), but I think all of them are better than the current wording. Mathglot (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Proposed "newuser" parameter

This is based on Template talk:W-graphical#Edit request 8 February 2026 above and proposes adding a parameter to the template that will tweak the wording of the first sentence by changing the wording "contribution to" to "interest in" so as to make the template a bit easier to use with respect to new users who have yet to make any edits in the mainspace. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:15, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

But non-mainspace edits are still contributions. Am I missing something? -- asilvering (talk) 04:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, of course they are in principle, but the new WP:MENTOR set up often leads to the first edit a new user makes being a talk page post asking for help. I've always felt this "W-graphical" template works better than many of the other welcome templates (e.g., {{Welcome mentor}}) for new users because of the number of links it contains and because of the way it's laid out, but the word "contributions" has always kind of seemed odd to me to use for new users who have at most made one of two edits, mainly talk page posts asking for help. It also seems (again at least to me) that "contributions" could be misunderstood, particularly by new users, to mean "financial contributions" instead of "editorial contributions". So, I thought adding a "newuser" parameter and using "interest" or some other alternaitve wording instead for new users without any edits in the mainspace might work here just like it does in the case {{Welcome-COI}} and {{Welcome-t}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:12, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Ah, got it. I do the same. No objection here. -- asilvering (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

No opinion on {{W-graphical}}. but since you mentioned WP:Mentorship, templates {{Welcome mentee}} and {{Welcome mentee brief}} are set up to welcome users with few or no edits, and represent a middle ground in number of links between {{Welcome}} and {{W-graphical}}. They have more of the "link weight" of {{Welcome-retro}}, while being more configurable (and, of course, introducing the mentor). Some examples linked here. Mathglot (talk) 11:31, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Meh. This is a terrible welcome template to use in the first place because it's so overwhelming. And that applies all the moreso when you're talking about users who haven't even made their first edit yet. Sdkb ^talk 20:41, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

O/t: hi, Sdkb. Regarding your linked comment, I am sympathetic to the position that having 60-odd links might be overwhelming for some users. To me, they look like a jet cockpit, or a highly configurable video game panel (which also looks like a jet cockpit to me). But I'm not a new user, and on the flip side, I wonder if younger users who never knew a world without advanced video games might not feel very much at home with a busy screen like that. What I am getting at, is that your linked comment sounds plausible, but do we have any data to support it?

In general, I am very interested in welcome messages (and other templates) and measuring and evaluating which ones are "successful" (however we measure that) and I am interested in anything that promotes such measurement and evaluation. By now, you have probably noticed the table upper right at WP:WT; it is a first attempt in that direction, highly imperfect though it be. I would love to see someone start a study that might use the access logs to extract and measure welcome template usage via clickstream data (or visit length, or whatever) and build up some data that could be used to give us another angle on evaluation. Perhaps the raw data could also be published in a project page, to encourage analysis by other editors who are interested.

I don't know WMF procedures, whether someone would have to write a grant, or whether we just start a Phab enhancement ticket or Community request or what (guessing the first), but you have a foot in the door at WMF, so I wonder what you think about this whole idea. Adding WhatamIdoing for additional thoughts. Apologies to the OP for a long, o/t comment, and if this has any legs, we can/should move it to a new venue as nobody will find it here. Mathglot (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I actually hadn't seen that chart! Quite interesting, and the leaders aren't necessarily the templates I'd expect. I agree that it would be great to have more usage data to figure out how the links in them are being used and whether certain templates lead to better editor retention than others. (One confounding variable might be that different welcomes tend to be used on different editors; we might have to create and encourage people to use {{Welcome-random}} for a while to get around that.) Regarding WMF support, I'll inquire and get back to you on that! Sdkb ^talk 21:53, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Btw, just to be clear: in talking about grants for data analysis and all that, I don't mean for me; as much as I like to advocate here at Wikipedia for data-backed analyses and provide what I can (e.g., at certain Rfc's) I don't have the serious data analyst chops that I would like to see in someone doing an analysis of the type I am proposing, but there are people at Wikipedia who do, and no doubt at WMF as well. So, just excluding myself wrt grants, so no coi here, just interest in a solution. Mathglot (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Some of the numbers in the table are off for various reasons, prime of which is something I am starting to call "counterfeit ids" (diff), just so we have some nomenclature to talk about it (see discussion for context).

P.S., not "chart", but "table". I would dearly love to get to the point where we have some time-series charts; for the time being, we have a table consisting of a blurry snapshot with non-comparable data pulled at different dates. But a journey of a thousand miles... (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

If the headlines in my news feed about the US economy are vaguely accurate, then grant money's probably going to be a bit harder to come by for a year or two. However, I think what you're interested in is feasible for the mw:Wikimedia Research team, and might be feasible for an external researcher.

When we want to do this locally, we create unique redirects for each page linked in each template, and then look at page views for the redirects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2026 (UTC)