MediaWiki talk:Fancycaptcha-createaccount

src: farm3.staticflickr.com

Video MediaWiki talk:Fancycaptcha-createaccount

Improved words

{{editprotected}}

Please change "You are advised to choose a username", which is terrible (grammatically), for something more correct. Any of the following, or variants thereof, will be fine:

• We recommend you choose a username
• You should consider choosing a username
• You should consider choosing a username
• There are many advantages to choosing a username

- John Broughton (??) 15:46, July 12, 2008 (UTC)

Done . Applause. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:53, July 12, 2008 (UTC)

Maps MediaWiki talk:Fancycaptcha-createaccount

Possible changes

Copying my comments from Wikipedia: Request for comment/new user # Block username. "Maybe it can be fixed by having positive suggestions like" Choose a username that identifies you personally, either using your real name, or using an alias you choose. "It's going to be a bit of contextualizing the ban, on what not to do, and I tend to wonder how it is necessary to tell people about the previous technical limitations - it would be better to hide it and just tell people if it is needed, and it will be more aesthetic and may be less confusing if the captcha appears closer to the Create Account button. It seems a bit misplaced. "To clarify the point of technical limitations - the software should catch them with the appropriate error message, so is it really worth saying? Do enough people experience it? Rd232 ^talk 17:08, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

Trying to redesign, compiled here: User: Rd232/fc. Rd232 ^talk 15:22, October 8, 2009 (UTC)

And implemented. Rd232 ^talk 12:04, October 10, 2009 (UTC)

Add something about the timelessness of the account?

I am tempted to add something here about how the account can not be deleted, but I am drawing a blank on how to disclose it. Any idea? - Jredmond (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Why? Is not that the norm that web accounts in forums and such are not ( in practice ) deleted? After all, it's a matter of privacy so it's more than MediaWiki: Signupend thing. Rd232 ^talk 01:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You'll think it's obvious, but we've seen enough e-mails asking or even demanding that we revoke the account. I am not picky about certain system messages that include it; I just think it can help alert people beforehand. - Jredmond (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Simplicity

I have cut this page dramatically. It does not make sense to go create an account and be struck with a wall of text. There is no reason to include the entire username policy, links work well for people interested in it. Please let me know if you have any comments or problems. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

First, let's remember how it used to look: [1]. Secondly, this is a page with high visibility, so the discussion will be better first. Third, this talk page may not be watched by many people, so WP: VPT notification would be nice. Fourthly, I strongly disagree with deleting the username policy summary: it is the main thing that people need to know at this less obvious . It's tucked right now so people can ignore it if they want to, but it's pretty visible to those who have the patience to read and get the message. Expecting people to click on "username policy" is just naive - give it a try and I guarantee you'll get a big increase in inappropriate usernames. Rd232 ^talk 21:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Eh, BRD (as you noted) works pretty well. And I will discuss about the village pump, but honestly, only a few people care. So here it works pretty well. You can say that people will not click on links, but can you agree that they also will not read tl text; dr? Are there other websites you know (or even other WMF wikis) that use the same "throwing text on them" approach to account creation currently being performed by en.wiki? Most of what I see is very simple. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I have to go with the MZMcBride version. The current version is pretty scary, and frankly we do not need to discuss all the secret details of the username policy with every potential newbie. - Jredmond (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not see what's scary about it at all. There are only a handful of titles, very clear, and very easily seduced. Regardless of technical limitations, none of the usernames policies have "secret" - this is highly relevant for many users. Rd232 ^talk 00:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

There was a discussion about this page on VPT just a few weeks ago. Note also that there is also talk of a substantial rework of the entire registration page (see Aude's last comment at the bottom of the VPT thread), â € <â € talk 00:02, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

I went to see how other sites did their account creation screens. Multiple screenshots:

• http://pruebita.com/twitter-signup.png
• http://pruebita.com/facebook-signup.png
• http://pruebita.com/mw-signup.png
• http://pruebita.com/slashdot-signup.png

All this uses a very simple form without text walls. Can you find any sites that use the approach currently being performed by en.wiki? If not, is there a reason you can look to create such an exception here? --MZMcBride (talk) 10:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleting this text will increase the number of bad user names, which then need to be identified, and blocked, and blocked to allow for renaming. But of course not everyone will bother changing their bad user name, so you also have to make up for the lost contributions of those people. Are you volunteering for all these extra jobs, or just happy to add them to the pile of Things to Do Society? Anyhow, I have posted on the VPT about this discussion. Rd232 ^talk 11:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, for example, it's impossible to create a username that contains "@", so alerting users about using their e-mail address might be something for fine print, it's not something which need to be declared in advance. In fact, I think most of this information can and should go under the form. What I'm asking (and I'm still asking) is why Do you think it's okay to take the current approach when all other major websites do do it? If you want to talk about lost contributors, I imagine the number of people who go to create accounts and be overwhelmed by the volume of bureaucracy (which started on this form) and decide to surrender much higher than the person denied by the username block. (Also, let's not turn this discussion into a wikidick measurement contest about contributing to Wikipedia, please.You will lose.) --MZMcBride 21:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

People can create email-related usernames without @, once clear they can not use @; if the error message to use @ say "no email address" it may be droppable upfront (like other technical restrictions, which currently provide an unhelpful response). But that is a relatively small point, the problem so far is about dropping the guides in toto . And frankly people who are overwhelmed by the "bureaucracy" of this form will not go too far on Wikipedia. Anyway, Sarah explains my worries a little better below. Rd232 ^talk 09:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Foldable boxes can be an option. Ruslik_ Zero 16:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Please at least keep info about promotional and business user names. So many irate and angry people who get a username are blocked (especially for business name/website) complain to unblock and it is important to be able to show that the information is on the signup page. Most people who create an account will not click on the username policy link and read the policy. Sorry, but that's unrealistic - how many of you read the terms of service or account policies when creating accounts on other sites? And it's even worse on Wikipedia because new people who do not understand our policies and do not even really understand what Wikipedia presupposes using their business names and write articles about them, business, websites, etc., very well. In addition, we are more concerned with usernames than most, perhaps all, sites that MZMcBride intent. Our collection of policies will be many, many times larger than most sites that often load most of their rules in their terms of service documents so I do not really see that as a valid comparison. I do not really care about @ names and symbols (although it seems a bit user-friendly not to tell people about it up front) but please, at least, leave promotional information here, it plays an important role by ensuring this person people (who are often very angry because they are blocked) are informed about this registration and then are responsible if they are caught violating their policies and their account is blocked. Sarah 05:34, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

As Sarah, I see more and more dissatisfied users (and they will ... not just rename) when they are blocked for using their company name - so under BRD, I will return to the final version. There are many new usernames that we will not see in the past. Ã, Ron h jonesÃ, ^{Ã, ( Talk)} 20:51, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

I deleted a smaller number of cruft clearer instructions, but left anything that could be considered "important" remotely. Kaldari (talk) 00:02, June 27, 2012 (UTC)

Documentation? Documentation?

Is this message enabled by one of the extensions (maybe a FancyCaptcha add-on for CofirmEdit?) It's very difficult to find information about this message if someone wants to replicate it on another wiki. This appears to be the only way to enter text into the signup process before the field is rendered. Alexkozak (talk) 19:45, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Test this page

I have seen the discussion above:

• User: MZMcBride assumes that the shorter text will invite more people to create an account
• User: Rd232 assumes that deleting a username policy will direct people to create more user accounts with inappropriate names.
• User: Aude assumes that we only need three lines of text, based on the German version
• Users: DodoÃÆ'¯ste recommend this article

what do you think? Is it time for us to test something rather than to assume what will happen? What if I make a shorter version and we test it and see what happens? And then we can test the version where the warning is under the fields, etc., to see which solution will work properly.

I will post a "warning" on the Village pump (technical and proposal) and Wikipedia: MediaWiki message, but since we only take about a few days, I hope it will be fine.

Best wishes//Hannibal (talk) 23:41, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

Stay tuned for what happened. Remember, this is a "captcha" system message, meant to explain the captcha and that's it. As it is now, it is heavily misused with an intimidating and unwelcoming "text wall". Applause. --Aude (talk) 00:26, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with everything Aude says. I'll also be the one to show you (Hannibal) is not an admin, so I'm not sure how much testing you'll be doing without outside support. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:56, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

There is a "protected edit" template, but needs to be demonstrated consensus for someone to follow up. Rd232 ^talk 02:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

(i) Only positional convenience that this text is in the message "captcha" sytem; it works, no one cares. (ii) it is very far from the "wall of text", it is carefully designed to be skimmable with various emphases, de-emphasis and layout features to support it. (iii) I do not know of any websites that have username restrictions or even remotely like Wikipedia; mostly basically "whatever you like as long as it does not exist" (apart from technological boundaries such as characters and strange lengths). Departing radically from that standard should be explained earlier, as briefly and clearly as possible, and I think the status quo does it. I will not mess it up - repair efforts will be much better spent elsewhere (eg Discussion of current summaries in WP: VPR, which is somewhat promising but in danger of exhaustion, and requires someone to help advance its conclusions and possibly action). Rd232 ^talk 02:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

In essence, I can not see many people being pressured by text - those who might delay will ignore it like Standard Bumph I Do not Need To Read and jump into the fields and zoom in forward. The few that are actually postponed, we may have to be grateful, as they may be vandal candidates get a hunch that the website is more serious than they think, or the user will fail WP: COMPETENCY. The more concerning is the user doing something a bit wrong with the username, doing something that might be constructive (ish), and then delaying due to being blocked. The current text not only reduces the bad selection, it also reduces the departure after blocking, because at least some users realize it is their fault, and not Wikipedia is fickle. Rd232 ^talk 02:26, ​​March 29, 2011 (UTC)

This is definitely a text wall. You measure the text wall compared to other text blocks that have similar properties. For example, a novel is generally not considered a wall of text (although certainly a lot of texts) because it is compared to other novels. In this case, when you see another wiki login screen (Wikimedia wikis and non-Wikimedia wikis), it's a text wall that can not be denied. And there is evidence to suggest that such a wall of text is actively dangerous for new user registrations.

If someone wants to do some testing (temporary) here, I do not think broad consensus is needed or guaranteed. A simple sanity check will suffice.

In general, most of these checks (for usernames that resemble e-mail addresses, for example) should be done automatically in software (with appropriate user warnings when handing or completing input fields). --MZMcBride (talk) 02:55, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

I believe the no software prohibits usernames including email addresses. But all other types of useless usernames are not allowed by the software.

And in terms of number of texts - if it is the full width of the screen (as in MediaWiki: Fancycaptcha-createaccount, I do not think it would be so bad; however, only half width, it looks too much.

And one thing we can get rid of this screen, I believe, is the part about the benefits of creating an account - maybe, anyone who has so far done so for this reason. I think all the rest of the text here is needed. ??? ARE ????? OdÃ, Mishehu 05:31, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

"You measure the text wall compared to other text blocks that have similar properties." - oh, and there I think there is such a user interface design, as I alluded to above. And you've ignored the points I made about Wikipedia's uniformity with other websites, and about turning people off (some people we want are turned off, especially intruders and spammers). And if there is "evidence to suggest that such a wall of text is actively dangerous for new user registration" where is it? And does the evidence indicate the missing registration is the actual user we want? Rd232 ^talk 08:18, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this conversation is wasting my time. It's like a filtered version of a VPR discussion that contains only the worst parts. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:12, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

So just try it. I'll write a few alternatives and run them for two days at a time and see how they affect the account creation amount, if at all. You'll be able to keep up with what's going on here, and on the latest user list.

And by the way: I'm not an admin, but I have a kind of staff flag, which means that I can edit system messages, locked pages, and so on.//Hannibal (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in the list of illicit characters

It seems that \ not forbidden (I just managed to create an account with that symbol in the username). I assume that although the actual list of forbidden characters and substrings is the same as the article title (WP: Naming convention (technical limitation)), and not limited to only # and/. I recommend to replace:

 usernames can not include the #,/and \ symbols.  

with

 usernames can not include certain symbols, including # and/.  

There seems to be an upper limit on the length of the username, although we may not want to mention that on the principle of "beans". Victor Yus (talk) 12:23, July 29, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the username has the same restrictions as the page title, with additional restrictions:

• This may not contain '#' or '/'.
• Must not contain any unusual character controls, unusual blank spaces, or personal usage characters UTF-8: U 0080-U 009F, U 00A0, U 2000-U 200F, U 2028-U 202F, U 3000, or U E000-U F8FF.
• This may not contain '@' (unless they have changed $ wgInvalidUsernameCharacters ).
• This is probably not an IP address.
• This may not be one of the configured backup usernames list (e.g. "Default MediaWiki").
• It may not have any namespace or interwiki prefixes.
• It can not be longer than 235 characters long.
• There may not be, of course, included in the SUL.

And then there are the restrictions tested by mw: Extensions: AntiSpoof, which includes more blacklisted characters (various '/' - lookalikes and characters from unusual scripts like Runic, Ugaritic, etc.) and checks for mixed scripts.

Then there are the restrictions placed by meta: Title blacklist and MediaWiki: Titleblacklist, both normal blacklist rules and tagged & lt; newaccountonly & gt; . Among the more important of these are accounts containing strings that imply an advanced permission (eg "Admin") or high profile user incognito is blocked, and the maximum length of the username is reduced to 40 characters.

I will leave it to others to decide how many of these to mention on the create account page. Anomie? 19:43, July 31, 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the complete list! Steven Walling (WMF) Ã, Â ° talk 20:15, July 31, 2012 (UTC) Steven Walling (WMF)

Yes, this information should be documented somewhere (already?) We should not put too much of it on the account creation page, because that's almost impossible for most people, but we need to link it. Something like: The username is subject to certain technical restrictions, such as certain custom symbols are not allowed. Victor Yus (talk) 06:56, August 1, 2012 (UTC)

Updated edit requests

Please change

 For technical reasons, usernames can not include the #,/and \ symbols.  

with

 Usernames are subject to certain technical restrictions, such as certain custom symbols are not allowed.  

This is explained in the discussion above. I have written Anomie information so that we can now link to it. The current sentence is false (there seems to be no limit on \), and is very incomplete. Victor Yus (talk) 11:11, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Done Anomie? 18:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request - 9/11

Hi. I'm wondering if the administrator is willing to make minor adjustments to this page that will attract less attention to our ban on promotional usernames. I scan filters and logs every day and I (and others) have to mark only a dozen each day. How about changing the current text:

• Choose an inoffensive user name that identifies you personally , using either your real name, or an alias of your choice. Do not use your email address or domain name, or any organization name you associate.

To revised version:

• Choose an inoffensive user name that identifies you personally , using either your real name, or an alias of your choice. Do not use the name of the organization or website associated with you, or your email address.

It will also have an aesthetic consistency with the following bullets, which use bold. NTox Ã, Â · talk 03:29, September 11, 2012 (UTC)

Done . I also changed the format so we did not use some amateur-looking text suppression methods. --Ã, Martin (MSGJÃ, Ã, Â · talk) 19:04, September 13, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I hope that helps. NTox Ã, Â · talk 19:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Advertise creating a new account

Would anyone mind if for a while (like, no more than one week) we replace the current content with a call to try to create a new account? I will create a watchlist notification, but it is correct to suggest that this and MediaWiki: Loginend is a more appropriate place to install links. Steven Walling (WMF) Ã, Â ° talk 21:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any final objections? It's been a few days, so I'm going to do this... Steven Walling (WMF) Ã, Â ° talk 22: 46, May 6, 2013 (UTC)

Okay done. Steven Walling (WMF) Ã, Â ° talk 06:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia