This just came to me when I noticed someone had put up a Welcome template and someone else had come in just to SUBST it. In the interest of re-evaluating why we're doing this, I thought I'd make a topic. The last time it came up it was one user and myself discussing it, but I think it's something the community should examine as a whole.
For my part, I think it's unnecessary. To the argument that it's a resource for new users to look at coding, I counter that 1) it's not very readily apparent and 2) it's much less useful than if they were to look at a template more relevant to what they want to do. In these aspects, IMO, it fails at being a resource. Additionally, it dumps a large amount of code into their talk page and more than one user I've come across has removed it to clean up the mess, which makes it awkward when you tell them they aren't allowed due to talk page rules.
These are just a few things purely from me, and I'd like to get a discussion going on the matter. Is there value to continuing to dump the code on their pages? What are the pros and cons? Bluestarultor 
BSA 19:12, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
- It is what is done on wikis.
- But besides that, not substituting the Welcome template means the Welcome template changes on everyone's talk page every time it is updated. From my POV, that shouldn't happen. You can argue that the same occurs with talk templates, and that is a point. But not for the Welcome template.
- There is also the added point that since we subst templates, we can put an actual link to their userpage and also put their name on the template... but we can't do that because no one ever used to subst it. The Welcome templates actually used to use a link to User:PAGENAME for the userpage, but as soon as it was moved onto an Archive the template did not do as it was supposed to do. Due to this we have some users (only one I remember) who have left their Welcome template on their userpage and never archived it (or at least that's why I suspect why). 79.69.202.102 19:18, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
- 1) If it was "what was done on wikis" I think Wikia would have automated it same as the template itself. Also, I'm not here to discuss what wikis do; I'm questioning if they, and specifically we, should do it that way. Break out your shotguns and chainsaws, because we're killing zombies with me in office.
- 2) It's fine to say what we COULD do with the template in an ideal world, but it's not what we ARE doing with it in the real one. Also, I'm pretty sure I could throw together some simple code to fix the purported issue, namely using BASEPAGENAME instead of just PAGENAME.
- 3) I'm looking for any reason why the template shouldn't get updated globally and for the life of me I can't think of one. The template only ever improved with new revisions as far as I saw it. Bluestarultor BSA 19:43, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
- "If it was "what was done on wikis" I think Wikia would have automated it same as the template itself."
- Huh? I don't understand. As for this not being the place to discuss whether it should be done, I think the fact that is the far more commonly accepted way of welcoming users (with reason) being important enough to mention.
- "It's fine to say what we COULD do with the template in an ideal world, but it's not what we ARE doing with it in the real one."
- It's what we have tried to do in the past before I have removed it. The wiki has once tried to add the username of the user by adding PAGENAME but I removed it. Userpages used to be linked via a link including PAGENAME but I removed it. In other words, we only aren't doing it because we are restricted.
- "... namely using BASEPAGENAME instead of just PAGENAME."
- BASEPAGENAME would not fix it, since users don't have to name their archives on only one subpage. To me it makes more sense to record it as "User talk:User/Archive/1", as is done in at least one scenario.
- "I'm looking for any reason why the template shouldn't get updated globally and for the life of me I can't think of one."
- Not only does it defeat the point in archives and therefore be there for historic purposes, it sorta defeats the point. The welcome template is the template seen by the user when they join. For it to change every time we update the template doesn't make sense. It should be the same as when they are joined. The message delivered to their page should not change. And it should not change just because it shouldn't. Just like you shouldn't modify previous messages that other users have responded to since it can make the entire discussion not make sense. We don't allow users to change things in archives, so why would we let the words on the Welcome template change?
- Blegh, I'll just say "historical accuracy" and be done with it.
- Which, IMO, is a far better reason to subst than to not due to adding lots of code to a user's talkpage. Users removed the Welcome template before they were ever substituted. And it's the WikiSource code of the page, it doesn't have to look good, especially since it's supposed to remain untouched. Plus it wouldn't look like a mess if the wiki hadn't disabled the visual editor. 79.69.202.102 20:08, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to say since I personally don't think it matters either way; however, I can tell you that "Wikia has automated it same as the template itself". MediaWiki:Welcome-message-user. It normally would substitute that into user talks, but it doesn't here for some reason. C A T U S E 20:49, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
- That is the auto-message. We disabled that from happening here... firstly because a number of wiki users don't like the use of bots, and secondly because users feel it is less personal... or something. 79.69.202.102 20:55, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
Huh? I don't understand. As for this not being the place to discuss whether it should be done, I think the fact that is the far more commonly accepted way of welcoming users (with reason) being important enough to mention.
- Where, pray tell, would be a better place to discuss FF Wiki policy? When, in Oasis, you click on the button to insert the template, it doesn't add SUBST to the template. If it did, I wouldn't be asking about this because it would be standardized. As it is, we have to do extra work to put it there. And again, I really don't care who else does it that way or how long we have. We are re-evaluating.
It's what we have tried to do in the past before I have removed it. The wiki has once tried to add the username of the user by adding PAGENAME but I removed it. Userpages used to be linked via a link including PAGENAME but I removed it. In other words, we only aren't doing it because we are restricted. BASEPAGENAME would not fix it, since users don't have to name their archives on only one subpage. To me it makes more sense to record it as "User talk:User/Archive/1", as is done in at least one scenario.
- As far as I'm concerned, it's not that important in the first place, as shown by us having survived without it for at least the 2 years I've been here. And, really, anyone not keeping the talk archive under their own username is an example of PEBKAC. If the link breaks from non-standard archiving, they should do it like everyone else.
Not only does it defeat the point in archives and therefore be there for historic purposes, it sorta defeats the point. The welcome template is the template seen by the user when they join. For it to change every time we update the template doesn't make sense. It should be the same as when they are joined. The message delivered to their page should not change. And it should not change just because it shouldn't. Just like you shouldn't modify previous messages that other users have responded to since it can make the entire discussion not make sense. We don't allow users to change things in archives, so why would we let the words on the Welcome template change?
Blegh, I'll just say "historical accuracy" and be done with it.
Which, IMO, is a far better reason to subst than to not due to adding lots of code to a user's talkpage. Users removed the Welcome template before they were ever substituted. And it's the WikiSource code of the page, it doesn't have to look good, especially since it's supposed to remain untouched. Plus it wouldn't look like a mess if the wiki hadn't disabled the visual editor.
- So, to get this straight:
- It shouldn't change just for the sake of it as defined by absolutely nothing. *takes away the shotgun and/or chainsaw* There are reasons to re-examine what we're doing and "just because" is not a valid counterargument.
- It shouldn't change because we don't allow people to change user messages, and the same should apply to templates regardless of content. If someone vandalized the template, would we not allow them to remove it? We allow people to remove offensive material from their pages. Likewise, if someone wants the code dumped on their page, they can do it for themselves.
- We're appealing to a nonexistent standard of anal accuracy of the snapshot, where people would rather have something crappy on their pages than something better. Not everyone cares about historical accuracy. When I saw the shiny new Cecil pic on others' pages, I felt somewhat offended I was stuck with the shitty GBA version.
- You're suggesting rather than fix dumping a mess of nigh-useless code onto someone's page, we change wiki functionality so it doesn't look so ugly. Seriously? The mode was disabled because it's prettier when you're not doing anything important, but makes it impossible to do actual code, forcing people to switch to do anything. You're suggesting we make it more of a pain to edit to solve an issue that's making it more of a pain to edit in the first place. Oh, and it would also make it more of a pain to put in the SUBST. This is not a decent solution.
- Your argument is that if people will be removing it anyway, it may as well be because it's a mess and a pain to deal with than just for the sake of not wanting it there. Maybe it's just because I'm nice, but if people want to remove it, I'd rather it be because they don't want something innocuous rather than because they hate us for barfing spaghetti onto their screen every time they want to edit. I see it being a mess of code as less a deterrent and more a reason. If someone wants to blank the page, it's easy enough either way. If someone wants to remove just that, the block is easy enough to identify. If someone is looking at their page code and frothing, a single line is not what's doing it. Bluestarultor
BSA 22:47, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
EDIT: I suppose what I'm asking is, all kept constant, what is the benefit, if any, of dumping the code on the page? This is not a historical discussion. This is stepping back and taking a look at what we're doing and asking if it makes sense here and now on an objective level. Bluestarultor BSA 22:55, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
- "If the link breaks from non-standard archiving, they should do it like everyone else. "
- No. We shouldn't have expectations from users on something non-standard like archiving. Especially when you can just substitute the damn Welcome template and cause no problems at all. :p
- "When, in Oasis, you click on the button to insert the template, it doesn't add SUBST to the template. If it did, I wouldn't be asking about this because it would be standardized."
- Oh, I see. That is very interesting. Although I think the fact that the same thing happens on Central Wikia, whose template requires it to be subst otherwise it doesn't work properly, means that this is just one of the many things overlooked on the Oasis skin. :)
- "There are reasons to re-examine what we're doing and "just because" is not a valid counterargument."
- I know. Which is why it was only one line of my comment, and I didn't go into any detail saying how most wikis including Wikipedia and Central Wikia both use (used? idk what CWikia does now) it. It was a general statement that substing is a widely accepted thing to do.
- "We allow people to remove offensive material from their pages."
- We do. An old version (the version used when it was given) of the Welcome template is not vandalism. You're talking about something that is instantly reverted, the Welcome template is continuously updating at random times, while the original revision is not offensive at all and is no problem to the user.
- "When I saw the shiny new Cecil pic on others' pages, I felt somewhat offended I was stuck with the shitty GBA version."
- It's a message that only matters to the user when they are first given it. After users have read (or ignored) the links it no longer matters to the user. One of the main disputes here seems to come from what the Welcome template actually is. I see it as a "generic" message delivered by users to a user instead of having to write it out each time. It's a ready-written message to save users times when greeting users. It links to good places for the user to visit when they first join the wiki. It is just another h2 (technically it isn't, but it essentially is, and other wikis often seal it in a h2 I believe) on a talkpage. If we were to link to split the Manual of Style into a number of different pages, say "Manual of Style/Characters" was the new place for "styling" of character articles: Do you expect users to go find every mention of the Manual of Style when referring to character articles and update it to direct to the Characters subpage? No. Because these are old discussions.
- You are seeing the Welcome template in a way that sporadic contributors do not. The Welcome template is given to them "oh, okay, I'll look at these links to help me get started" and then that is it.
- "mess of nigh-useless code"
- Most of it isn't code. Most of it is text. And to follow on from above, it is the "helpful message" delivered by a user. Now I'm all for axing the "pretty template" into pure text and links. As for comments on "reinstating the visual editor as a resolve", that's not what I meant. Well... I think it was just a random, slightly relevant, remark, but users at this wiki are forced to look at things in code view anyway. "Some code" should hardly be a problem.
- Also I'm going to state your comments about how terrible the code looks on the page as ridiculously over the top and barely even true, and applicable to only a minority. As I said, users were still removing the welcome template before we started substituting the code. Unless you can find a significant amount of users removing the code (and I mean like one in a month (I don't welcome new contributors so I wouldn't know how big of a problem this actually is)) then...
- Also, just my personal opinion, I don't like looking in user's archives and seeing the new template. It doesn't make sense... since the welcome links to pages that did not exist then, contains code the wiki never used then, and contains images from a release that didn't exist then. The Welcome you get should be the Welcome that is there forever and ever.
- Edit: Oh, and if it means anything, having the Welcome template as it looked when it was given compared to now gives a sense of nostalgia - "When I joined the wiki, we still used the most awful green, and had the SNES sprite of Cecil. It wasn't like the massive Welcome template we have now, that's for sure."
79.69.202.102 23:42, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
- I wrote all the above before the edit, otherwise I wouldn't have gone so in-depth. Simply put, I think the "the welcome message looking like it did when the user was welcomed" actually is a reason above all else. That is reason enough for me to keep doing it. If you don't think that's a reason to use subst in itself, then that's you. (There's also the fact that inserting the code on the page makes it look less like a generic message) 79.69.202.102 23:42, January 22, 2012 (UTC)