Template talk:Introduction to Wikipedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
1

Contents

[edit] What is this template

What is this template? And if it is a template why is it only used on one page?

This template contains the text of Wikipedia:Introduction, the first part of a three-step introduction process (the others are Introduction 2 and 3). New editors are encouraged to edit this page to practice editing. When they do so, they see the name of this template and a comment directing them to edit starting on the third line:

{{Please leave this line alone}}
<!-- Feel free to change the text below this line. No profanity, please. -->

This encourages them to practice in a way that will not modify the instructions, but allow them to see their edits immediately.

However, people often edit the first two lines anyway, whether intentionally or by mistake. Because newcomers are encouraged to edit this page, it is one of the most vandalized pages in Wikipedia; however, using this template makes it easy to restore the page to its preferred state because the new users often don't know how to find the template page. The anti-vandal bot, Tawkerbot2 enforces the first two lines.

If you have questions about this page please see any of the Cleaning team listed here: Cleaning Department - Dust Removal on Introduction. Or if you want to help, sign up to be a team member! Trödel|talk 17:05, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Update: User:OverlordQBot is currently in charge of restoring/resetting the introduction. --Quiddity 23:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bad idea

(cross posted to the main page also) This is a bad idea to have this page be a sandbox. It doesn't look like any other wikipedia page, having people edit it doesn't really teach them anything, it only causes problems and allows this page to be blank most of the time so that no one can actually use it. If there are no objections I would like to revamp this intro so it doesn't encourage people to edit the main introduction text... - cohesion 01:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. I'm guessing you mean you'll redirect them to a sandbox or similar? As long as it remains easy to 'test their newfound powers' then all is good :) --Quiddity 18:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
That seems like a fine idea to me. I apologize, I'm not too familiar with the help pages, and went to the Wikipedia talk:Introduction page and thought it was kinda abandoned... Obviously that's not the case. :) Anyway, sending them off to Wikipedia:Sandbox seems like a good idea, I was just a little frustrated because 2 times I tried to show someone the Intro page spaced out by months it was blanked both times. :'( - cohesion 23:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
No need to apologize! I was just saying I have no objections to any kind of revamp or change that helps the new users learn and experiment.
There may just be a need for a new bot to patrol the Wikipedia:Introduction edits, as EssjayBot is no longer in existence (Wikipedia talk:Introduction#How about a bot?). I'll see if I can figure out where to ask about that... :) --Quiddity 20:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Thread added at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Introduction_reset_bot?. --Quiddity 21:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that as long as we have a bot like Sandbot or Tawkerbot2 (later AntiVandalBot) watching over the page (like it was before March), then I vehmently do not support removing the ability to edit the Introduction. People are advised that it is not a Sandbox (or a place to make frequent edits), but they are encouraged to try to edit right away - that is a very good thing and completely inline with our principles. I still agree with what I said more than 18 months ago:

You guys are missing the whole purpose of this page, i.e. 1) to let people edit, 2) to show the trust/welcoming nature of the community. Sure this page is vandalized frequently; however, if you review the history (the last time I counted was in April/May time frame), the number of inappropriate edits << (is much less than) the number of total edits. ... The use of the template makes vandalising this page permanently much more difficult and makes it much easier for the new users to try out editing without effecting the instructions on the page.
For me, this page is important to remain editable, because that says to new users of wikipedia: "Welcome, we trust you, join our community and help us build the a great encyclopedia." (in a way much better than words) Trödel|talk 01:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

We should work to get the bots working on the page again before considering protecting the page. --Trödel 13:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to protect the page, just to link to Wikipedia:Sandbox or something as a place to edit. But getting the bots working seems fine too. I just think for new users seeing a blank page as the intro is really confusing, so any solution to make that not happen seems great. :) - cohesion 03:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The "anyone can edit" portion of "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" on the Main Page links to Wikipedia:Introduction. I had never really looked at Wikipedia:Introduction before today and did not know that it was like Wikipedia:Sandbox. The formality of Wikipedia:Introduction informational content and four-tabbed presentation fooled me. When I looked back at Wikipedia:Introduction and saw it "vandalized", I tried to revert but kept getting "The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits." I then reported it to AN/I, where I was informed of it's Sandbox purpose. Perhaps the message "The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits." should be changed to indicate that the page is a sandbox so there is no need to revert. -- Jreferee 23:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sandbox

Should a link to the Sandbox be included under the test edit section? It's just an idea. Stwalkerster 21:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Purpose of this page and the sandbox

Is it really necessary to promote "test edits" to the introduction page, as well as to the sandbox? Many new contributors accidentally remove the intro template and/or the Test edits header... Perhaps the introduction should be changed to direct test edits to the sandbox instead?

ChrischTalk 02:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree. We should make a good impression of Wikipedia in the introduction and leave all the tests and random stuff to the sandbox. bibliomaniac15 Join or die! 18:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I also agree. Only one sandbox area is needed. Michael Greiner 21:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes. Send them elsewhere, and protect this. Daniel 06:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know how I can propose this officially? Because I couldn't really find the right avenue... :) ChrischTalk 10:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
WP:VP, at the proposals section. Seems like the right place. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason this hasn't been done? Atropos 06:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I just came across this page while on RC patrol (I'd never been here before). When I came it looked like this. Why do we let new editors edit this page? Horrible idea in my opinion. It seems inevitable folks will accidentally delete the intro information. As suggested above, they should be directed to the sandbox and the page should be protected. We don't want the "introduction" to Wikipedia to be a new user's attempt to practice writing articles by writing up their biography and deleting all of the intro text. Something should really be done about this.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I've made a proposal about this over at WP:VP in the proposals section. It did not seem that anyone did that before.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't we be bold and make this obvious improvement? I cannot see how anyone could object to it? --BozMo talk 15:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I made the change. Why you would need to propose it I don't know. -- Andrew Hampe Talk 19:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I just saw a note on the Spanish Wikipedia to the effect that signatures should only be used on talk pages (not articles). This might be a good distinction to mention explicitly early in the documentation. Frenezulo 00:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bot protection

The intro was previously protected by User:AntiVandalBot until April, when User:MartinBotIV had taken over the duties (See this thread), but Martinp23 appears to be inactive now too. (It's action was to reset the sandbox whenever the template/header text was changed, and every 30 minutes too. It stopped on June 26.)

User:MartinBot is still active, but I don't know who is running/managing it currently? I guess Wikipedia talk:Bot requests is next, but I don't have time at this minute. --Quiddity 00:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: Martinp23's back, and will have it fixed soon :) --Quiddity 01:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Update: User:OverlordQBot is currently in charge of restoring/resetting the introduction. --Quiddity 23:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link to dab page in template

The template currently contains a link to the page Edit, a disambiguation page, in the following sentence: '(If there are already sections under "Test edits", you can also click on the appropriate "edit" link and edit someone else's text.)' I understand why the word is linked--to make it look like the blue "edit" links a user should be looking for--but I don't think you want new users actually clicking this and being sent off to a dab page that they weren't expecting. May I suggest that the link be replaced with [<font><font color="Blue">edit</font>] , which displays as [edit]? This is very close to what the user should be looking for, without the unexpected consequences. Alternately, the link could be piped to Wikipedia: How to edit a page or to Help:Section#Section editing --ShelfSkewed Talk 06:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The recent change to the template has removed the link altogether, so no longer an issue.--ShelfSkewed Talk 23:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Could somebody disentangle the correct end tag that makes the wierd font go away? 85.227.226.235 (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Updates

I've restored the clean version of Wikipedia talk:Introduction from July. (I'm not sure why Cobaltbluetony restored the older copy from June, on August 21. It caused a bit of confusion) I've copied across the 3 legitimate comments made since, to this page.

Should the current state of Wikipedia talk:Introduction be semi-protected, to prevent a recurrence? --Quiddity 23:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm asking for help at Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard#Critical - intro and sandbox bot missing. --Quiddity 20:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shortcut dablink

Just to clarify, I've re-removed the line about the WP:INTRO shortcut dablink added today, per the prior discussion at Template talk:Intro/Archive 2#Initial line directing people to the guideline on the intro of a section. This isn't an optimal solution either, as it is confusing for advanced editors looking for the lead-guideline. Are there any suggestions on improvements that satisfy both audiences needs? --Quiddity 17:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't find the argument that it is confusing to noobs very convincing. DAB links of this sort are simply standard practice around here, and any noob will get very used to them very fast, both in and out of articlespace. I'm not going to pitch a fit about it or anything, but treating inexperienced users like they are mentally handicapped is rather insulting to the intelligence of the average Wikipedian, newly arrived or not. Not sure what else to say on the matter. I probably won't comment further. I didn't come here to advocate an opinion, just to wikignome in standard-practice ways. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
But this is a unique page that is linked to prominently as the place to go for information for someone coming to Wikipedia for the first time. "anyone can edit" links here:
Welcome to Wikipedia,
the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
2,405,573 articles in English
I support keeping it the same - users who know how to type in WP:INTRO will have an easier time figuring out where they should go than a noob who is on his 2nd wikipedia page. --Trödel 02:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning that edits can be searched by username

Per Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Privacy of contribution lists a user has suggested we add a warning along the lines of All of your contributions will be permanently searchable by any user who knows your username. Your username will be publicly visible in the history page of every article or discussion that you edit. Sounds reasonable enough to me. Any dissenting opinions? -- Rick Block (talk) 03:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] suggested amendment to page

I suggest (along with the sandbox page) that a simple note in bold red lets new editors know that their changes to either of these pages will be reverted as they are only test pages. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BEANS issue

Why bother with "no profanity please" in the comments? If anything it's just going to act as an invitation. --Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 22:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "See "edit this page" above? On Wikipedia, you can edit articles right now, even without logging in."

This is patently false. I'm not logged in, and I can't edit this page, and there isn't any "edit this page" to be found. This really needs to be fixed, and quick. 85.227.226.235 (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate changes

Well, I’ve found that some Admins don’t like major edits. Not having time to read them, they consider them “inappropriate changes,” and block you. Therefore, to say on en “you can edit articles right now” is not true. Since I’m tired of being picked on by watchdogs (however good their intentions), I feel my experiences at en Wikipedia could have been better if this page had not said “You can edit articles right now," but said instead, “you could edit this sample page right now.” The current statement is really to show off the software, isn't it? I intend to make the edit myself in a couple of days. What do you think about that? -- Chuck Marean 20:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Chuck, apart from this being yet another of your blatant misrepresentations of your recent block, your suggestion is a poor one. We have literally thousands of major edits to articles every day. Just because youredits haven't been constructive, don't assume everyone else here is unable to follow the rules. Please don't make your proposed edit since it is not accurate. Thanks, Gwernol 00:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Every reason you gave for not liking what I wrote was your opinion, worded in the same forceful tone as you just wrote. I think you think it’s ok for you to block if you personally don’t like what someone wrote, although I don’t know what you were thinking. Being told you can edit articles and then being blocked is, in my opinion, very rude. I think the statement “edit articles right now” makes people want to before reading the directions. Chuck Marean 09:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
As it says under the editing page buttons: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." Please do not make your proposed change, it would make things less clear. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you want people editing articles before reading the directions? I think “edit articles right now” is permission to edit articles just for the sake of editing them. Yet, this is an encyclopedia, not a blog. I think there are so many edits and undos to a large extent because the first thing people read is “edit articles right now.” Chuck Marean 09:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Chuck, I'm removing that RFC tag as it is inappropriate, as is your entire suggestion here, as others have noted. Again, this introductory template clearly notes that "Inappropriate changes are usually removed quickly, and repeat offenders can be blocked from editing." This isn't the first time you've made inappropriate edits, and not the first time you've been warned or blocked about it. Please don't try to change long-standing WP templates and guidelines just because you can't seem to adhere to them. --ZimZalaBim talk 12:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Attention to regular encyclopedias

Putting this sentence -- “Online encyclopedias with closed editing can be found using search engines and web directories” – putting that sentence after the first sentence might calm people down on both sides of the issue of open editing. When people read, “edit articles right now,” some people probably think, “That’s great; I’ll do that right now,” and others probably think, “That’s terrible; I’ll put a stop to that right now.” Therefore, directing readers’ attention to finding a traditional encyclopedia might stop many of the editing wars going on. -- Chuck Marean 22:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This change would not be helpful, appropriate, nor very effective. --ZimZalaBim talk 02:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] To encourage reading past the first sentence

I think the statement “On Wikipedia, you can edit articles right now, even without logging in” should be changed to “It’s for making corrections and adding facts to articles.” This would lower enthusiasm for editing and encourage reading the rest of the introduction. It seems to me the statement, “you can edit articles right now,” encourages kids without English, Journalism or subject degrees to monkey with the articles and try to become an administrator, as if this were an online game. Being told “You can edit articles right now” but then getting blocked as if you did something wrong is rude. Therefore to be fair, the “you can edit articles right now” statement should be changed to, “It’s for making corrections and adding facts to articles.” Chuck Marean 20:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, Chuck, you're offering a "solution" where there is no widespread problem. You may not have been happy with your block, but that doesn't mean that we need to change every policy and page in order to prevent it from happening again. --ZimZalaBim talk 03:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
The edit would be:
See "edit this page" above? On Wikipedia, you can edit articles right now It’s for making corrections and adding facts to articles., even without logging in. Please keep reading.
It would then read:
See "edit this page" above? It’s for making corrections and adding facts to articles, even without logging in. Please keep reading.
This edit would encourage reading past the first sentence, reduce initial enthusiasm and thus prevent editing mistakes. It would also be an edit that could be done without references. --Chuck Marean 04:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, then I'll do the edit, and I'll mention there are policies. Chuck Marean 19:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Chuck, do not make this edit, as there is no consensus agreeing that it should be made. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim talk 19:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Without reading this edit, and understanding the concensus mentality mentioned, I already reverted this edit with my summary. Correction: User:Gwernol appears to have beaten me to it. :( - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Chuck, stop for a moment. You need to understand that the whole point of this encyclopedia project is to encourage people to edit. That is why the first line on this template highlights the fact you can click "edit" and edits pages. But, of course, those edits must be constructive to the project's goals. Which is why, if you shift your eyes about a centimeter down, you'll see this paragraph:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia collaboratively written by many of its readers. It is a special type of website, called a wiki, that makes collaboration easy. Many people are constantly improving Wikipedia, making thousands of changes an hour, all of which are recorded on article histories and recent changes. Inappropriate changes are usually removed quickly, and repeat offenders can be blocked from editing. If you add new material to Wikipedia, please provide references. Facts that are unreferenced are routinely removed from the encyclopedia.

This provides new editors with a condensed version of some of the common policies and guidelines. This language has been agreed upon through consensus. If you want to change the language, suggest it here, and wait to see if there is consensus to make that change. --ZimZalaBim talk 19:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] confusing?

I've had new editors contact me because they went to this page and got all confused because it was vandalized -- when what they were looking for was an introduction to the project or the tutorial. I'm not sure it's the best idea to have it act as a sandbox either, as it's not entirely clear what's going on -- I don't think many people expect the documentation to be editable/often vandalized. (see discussion above as well). -- phoebe/(talk) 19:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

though it looks like the bot is working well so my questioners probably just caught an unlucky revision. Still not sure if it's helpful though. -- phoebe/(talk) 19:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)