Template talk:Welcome-anon-npov

Requested move 5 December 2025

It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

– Complete the process started at Template talk:Welcome-unregistered-constructive#Requested move 29 December 2023. At least I can't understand why ~~why~~ that initiative selected only four out of the 20-ish "anon" templates for discussion. CapnZapp (talk) 12:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. UtherSRG (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: #further anon welcome templates are listed below. I failed to catch them before starting this RM so they aren't part of it. CapnZapp (talk) 12:49, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

note to closer: Should you decide to close (rather than relist, say), please note how the -at the time of posting this- sole !vote isn't actually opposed to the RM, please see diff [1]. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed to calling them -unregistered-, but support renaming them, and move to Welcome-temp-suffix instead. The reason is this: names like Welcome-anon-foo gave the impression of something that might be variable; we didn't know whether two differently named anons were the same person, or different ones. This is exactly the situation now, with WP:Temp accounts. For me at least, Welcome-unregistered-foo sounds like it identifies a person, someone who hasn't registered; they are always the same person, they just haven't registered yet. Temp better conveys the uncertainty. Secondly, for better or worse, the group that developed the WP:Temporary accounts decided to call them that, rather than "unregistered accounts". Whether one likes that terminology or not (I was a little grumpy about it at the beginning, have come to make my peace with it), I think it will save us a ton of questions down the road to have our welcome templates match that naming scheme, and not have to deal with explaining time and again what the difference is between unregistered and temp. We had IP, we had anon, now we have temp; let's just stick with that. Mathglot (talk) 01:40, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I really don't have a strong opinion, as long as they all use the same naming convention. Should you gain consensus for this, Mathglot, don't leave Template:Welcome-unregistered-constructive, Template:Welcome-unregistered, Template:Welcome-unregistered-unconstructive, Template:Welcome-unregistered-delete (and any others) as is. If not, they all being called "unregistered" is better than the current divide - after all the proper time to oppose the renaming to "unregistered" isn't now, but back in December of '23. Anyway, a final thought on your counter-proposal: since we call it "temporary accounts" and not "temp accounts", should you gain consensus, I would personally prefer we spell out the word "temporary" (it's still shorter than "unregistered" so word length cannot be an obstacle to acceptance) Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; responded § below. Mathglot (talk) 08:07, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You probably have realized this already but on the off chance you haven't, Mathglot: now that we're half-way through the seven day discussion period, currently the standings are such that my proposal is opposed, while you have gained no support for your alternative. (As stated earlier, my own POV is not to oppose you, but to focus entirely on getting them all "under the same roof") I fully understand you prefer one term over another, and really have no opinion on that... but if nobody else enters the discussion the closer will -as I see it- have no option but to close as oppose/keep, because of the sole voice of opposition (yours). This would cement the current situation with 4 of them called "-unregistered-" and a dozen or more of them called "-anon-". If that outcome is not intentional on your part, would you perhaps consider tweaking your !vote, assuming you agree with me the "getting them all under the same roof" is the primary concern. Your call, of course. Best regards, CapnZapp (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, get them all under the same name. And we needn't be hamstrung by process; if a week isn't enough, just say it isn't enough, and closers should go away and come back two weeks later, or whatever. Also, is this publicized in a project somewhere? Mathglot (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To add: Welcome-unregistered-foo sounds like it identifies a person, someone who hasn't registered; they are always the same person, they just haven't registered yet. The main aim for TAs are to hide IPs. That said, I actually think TAs come closer to talking to the same individual than anons (IP) ever did. It is more likely a TA is used only by a singular individual than a IP being used by that same singular individual, or rather, it's less likely someone else is using your exact combination of device and browser (without your approval) than your IP provider reassigning your IP to somebody else. This isn't to say I feel strongly about terminology, just that to me "unregistered" already is a strong upgrade over "anon". (I fully acknowledge there is no way to ensure user identity short of asking them to register, only that to me "unregistered" is just as much or as little the opposite of "registered" as "temporary" is). CapnZapp (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Responded below. Mathglot (talk) 20:06, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support moving them to "unregistered" for consistency, although, per Mathglot below, I would prefer merging them to the default templates when this is all made consistent. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:37, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support in spirit: Nearly all registered accounts are also anonymous. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

The "unregistered" templates should become wrappers

I am not sure that we should have any of the unregistered (or anon) templates at all. The welcome templates mostly come in pairs (although there are a lot of exceptions): a registered and unregistered variant. In theory, they should differ only by one paragraph about how to register and the benefits of registering, such as in the third paragraph of {{Welcome-unregistered-unsourced}}. What happens in practice, is that as soon as you have two different templates, they start to diverge (example: Welcome-[anon-]npov: diff). Not only that, but not all of the main set have an unregistered twin at all. Sometimes, it's the reverse: we have {{Welcome-anon-summary}}, but no {{Welcome-summary}} (search). Or else the unregistered one simply redirects to the registered one (as in Template:Welcome-anon-belatedTemplate:Welcome-anon-belated) so the whole system is kind of chaotic and unpredictable, which leads to a lot of wasted editor time.

What should happen, is that each template in the "registered" set should conditionally emit an extra paragraph about account registration under control either of new param |temp=yes (or, |registered=no) or BASEPAGE detection, and all of the "unregistered" templates should become wrappers to their registered twin. That will cut down the number of templates significantly, as well as keep both variants identical, except for the extra paragraph, which should itself be a template instead of explaining registration differently in every anon template, as it is now. (Note that {{Welcome-belated}} does this now.) That said, this does not address the topic of this move directly, namely, what the names of the unregistered (wrapper) templates should be, but I think the move question should be considered in this light. Mathglot (talk) 06:43, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You bring up a worthy concern, However, I think it would, as you allude to in your final sentence, still be valuable to first move all anon/temporary/unregistered templates to using the same nomenclature. After all, ensuring perfect orthagonality of welcoming templates must be considered a secondary concern (i.e. it doesn't exactly hurt anyone to have a wild-grown garden of such templates, as long as they all hyperlink to each other so you can find the one you like). That is, let us discuss your issue separately, without possibly delaying this RM or making the problem space more complex. CapnZapp (talk) 10:41, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding that we also have inconsistencies caused by some templates having two "unregistered" versions ({{Welcome-t-anon}} and {{Welcome-anon-t}}) with different additional messages, making it even harder to keep everything in sync. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:12, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked. Can confirm both of those are in the list above. CapnZapp (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks; I think there are a couple of graphical ones like that as well, iirc. All of that needs to be rationalized independently of the naming issue, as previously mentioned. Mathglot (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Naming convention: unregistered, temporary, temp, etc.

I believe '‑temp‑' or '‑temporary‑' is better than '‑unregistered‑', because these accounts are now being called "Temporary accounts". Between '‑temp‑' and '‑temporary‑' I prefer '‑temp‑', because it is easier for editors to use, and the template name is used by editors and is *not* user-facing; one syllable instead of four is just easier to deal with, and it reflects exactly the same reasoning as selecting '‑anon‑' over '‑anonymous‑' in the earlier titles. There is no reason to spell out '‑temp‑', and we shouldn't. (On the other hand, in the content of the template aimed at the new user, of course we should spell everything out; that goes without saying.) If we stick with '‑unregistered‑' in the template name, I think we lose out both ways: it's not what it is called anymore, and it is long (also four syllables). Mathglot (talk) 08:07, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Discussion seems to have stalled, but was productive. I'll see if there's a place where this can get some better attention, too. UtherSRG (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee has been notified of this discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Listed at: WT:WikiProject Templates. Mathglot (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the comment of 15:19 9 December above:
I agree with your two assertions, namely:

..."unregistered" already is a strong upgrade over "anon"

...."unregistered" is just as much or as little the opposite of "registered" as "temporary" is

and yet, the Wikimedia team that implemented it chose the name "temporary accounts" (mw:Trust and Safety Product/Temporary Accounts, mw:Help:Temporary accounts, mw:Category:Temporary Accounts, etc.) and English Wikipedia echoes that usage, with WP:Temporary accounts (redir: WP:TEMP) and all of these project pages. So why exactly would we choose to use the term unregistered in this WikiProject over temporary? Sounds like a WP:CONLEVEL violation to me. We should stick with the broadly accepted term, and mirror that usage here.

I do take the point that this proposal is strictly about getting everything under the same roof, and to that end it doesn't matter what we call them, as long as there is one name and not two; call it welcome-horsefeathers-unsourced if you want, as long as they all use the same particle, and to that extent I support the proposal, as already stated. However, mass moves are a bit annoying, and if we know what the right term is now, why shouldn't we just use that term now, rather than follow this up with a second mass move request to change it from unregistered to temp[orary] later? Mathglot (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

further anon welcome templates

The number of "anon" welcoming templates truly is staggering. This reference might perhaps be useful in this context:

Template:PD-Canada-anon is a redirect to Template:PD-Canada. We should probably add Template:PD-Canada-unregistered as another such redirect
Template:Welcome Anon PUP

And of course, after renaming any template, please make sure to review its text, replacing any mention of ip editing and similar with references to temporary accounts. CapnZapp (talk) 12:47, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]