Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Video tutorial "Referencing with VisualEditor" – newsletter issue 1

 Video tutorial "Referencing with VisualEditor" – newsletter issue 1

• 
• 
• 
• 

Good news: the (lengthy!) script draft 1 is complete!

Hello, I am happy to share that script draft 1 is complete and ready for public comment.

The script (link to the Google doc) is much longer than I anticipated, at almost 21 pages!

Although I think that the 21 page script would be a very good introduction to referencing policies and workflows, I am considering dividing it into two or more smaller scripts that would be produced as separate videos. For example, one script could focus on policies and a different script could focus on how to use the citation tool. I am considering this for three reasons:

• People may be more willing to watch shorter videos that have more specific focus.
• Shorter videos may be easier to search for an answer for a single specific question.
• There is a possibility that if I attempt to produce a single video from almost 21 pages of script that I might exceed the budget for this mini-project. I would like for both WMF and the community to be satisfied with the results from this mini-project, and I think that dividing the script into smaller scripts which could be produced separately would be a good way to ensure that the budget for the current grant is not exceeded. While there is a reasonable possibility that I could finish production of the entire 21 pages of script within the current grant, I think that dividing the script would be prudent. After one of the smaller scripts is fully produced within the currently available funding, remaining script could be considered for production within the current grant if there seems to be adequate remaining funds, or could be saved for possible production with a future grant.

Request for constructive criticism and comments

I would very much appreciate constructive criticism and comments regarding the script, preferably by March 10 at 11:59 PM UTC. This is a shorter time window than I would like to provide, but the planned end date for this project is March 14 and I would like to finish video production by the end of March 13 so that I have 24 hours for communications before the grant period ends. If you would like to review the script or make other comments but the end of March 10 is too soon for you, please let me know that you need more time, and I will take that into consideration as I plan for final production and consider whether to request a date extension from WMF. (Extending the finish date for the project would not involve requesting additional funding for the current grant.) I would prefer that the video be done perfectly a few days late than that the video be done on March 14 but have an important error that was not caught during a rush to the finish.

I have three specific requests for feedback:

1. Please find errors in the script. This is a great time to find problems with my work, before the script goes into production and problems become more expensive to fix. Please go to this link in Google Docs and use the Comment feature in the Google Doc.

2. Do you have comments regarding whether the script should be divided, and if so, how it should be divided? Please let me know on the project talk page.

3. How do you feel about the name for the video? Do you prefer "Referencing with VisualEditor" or "Citing sources with VisualEditor", or a third option? Again, please comment on the project talk page. However, if I divide the script then I will create new names for the smaller videos.

Closing comments

Thank you for your interest in this mini-project. I am grateful to be working on a project which I hope will help Wikipedia contributors to be more efficient and effective, and indirectly help to improve Wikipedia's quality by teaching contributors how to identify and to cite reliable sources. I believe that the finished video will be good, and I hope that the community and novice contributors will find the video to be very useful.

Yours in service,

--Pine✉ 07:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Pine: Thanks for this update. I've skimmed through your script, but only have time to make general observations and constructive criticism here, I'm afraid. It would have been easier if I could have judged your approach against a clear and succinct "Aims and Objective" for the video. I looked for one across the two separate pages you linked to, but was unable to quickly find anything which clearly identified primary purpose of video, its target audience, intended duration, topic coverage etc. So my responses here could well be off-beam a bit:

1) I'm unable to offer detailed feedback on the script at this time, except to comment that it sounded like it was being delivered in a classroom to college students - very formal and impersonal. Maybe that was one of your objectives, but I found very little that said "you" can do this, or here's how "you" can do that. So, for me, I think it could perhaps engage more directly and personably with the viewer. I didn't like 'hearing' the narrator repeat the section titles word for word (it's like speakers who read from a PowerPoint bullet point). Far better to say the same thing in a slightly different way for added interest - two bits at the cherry, if you will.

I didn't particularly like the introductory explanation of references, citations and sources. I thought it might be a bit confusing. It could have explained, first, that you should only add new facts to a Wikipedia page if you can prove it comes from a reliable SOURCE such as a book or newspaper. You add these to the article as REFERENCES (which appear at the bottom of the page), and you link them to the right bit of the article by inserting it as a CITATION immediately the relevant fact. And then perhaps go on to say that on Wikipedia most people use References and Citations to mean the same thing, and that's quite OK.

Automatic: One additional step that I find is essential when automatically adding references in WP:VE is the need to check and add in anything that's missing or garbled. So often the automatic process mixes up or misses off the authors, misses off the page number, date etc. I think that optional check step should be mentioned.

2) My feeling was that there is are many learning elements for one video. If split into two shorter parts, all the learning outcomes could be listed in Part one, but only the basics need be given in that element as to why and how a reference is added. It could say that Part Two will expand on quality, reusing references, getting help, etc.

My one strong dislike was to the example of adding "citation needed" to the statement that "the moon is made of cheese". This is such a bad example, and so patently absurd that any editor should swiftly remove it, without tagging it for someone else to deal with. Why not use a related example such as "Water has been discovered on the moon"? This could be right; but could be wrong - so it seems a perfect demonstration case for }

During your end credits, why not also display links to the Help Desk and Teahouse so they're on screen for longer, plus a link to the online VE instructions, if these can be simply done.

3)Titling. Being English, I normally like to use the word 'References' than 'Citations' BUT on this occasion, I have to say that I feel "Citing sources with VisualEditor" is considerably better than the alternative. It does what it says on the tin.

If I do get time, I'll go through the Google docs and leave further detailed suggestions. Hope this helps a bit, at least. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nick Moyes, thanks very much for the feedback. I'm going to copy it to the project talk page so that I can look at it there with the other feedback that I received. --Pine(✉) 23:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

User Guangxidiyimeinan

Can someone please make contact with User:Guangxidiyimeinan. They are getting close to be being blocked. SpinningSpark 08:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk archiver

My user page talk archiver doesn't seem to be working (Miszabot III). Am I doing something wrong or is this bot no longer maintained? If so, what do you guys use? Also, is maintaining an archive of your talk page mandatory? I notice some users just blank their talk pages. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

You probably intended this question to be at WP:TH rather than WT:TH, but you wouldn't expect anything else to be archived yet as you have |minthreadsleft = 5. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah sorry, was in a rush. Thanks for clarifying about the archiving, I should have checked that. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Request for testing and feedback: Automated article section recommendations

The Wikimedia Research team is developing a new method for automatically recommending sections to add to stub articles. This method uses machine learning to suggest sections that could be added to an article, based on the sections that exist in other articles on similar topics.

We think this method could be useful for helping new editors find useful onboarding tasks to do. But before we build anything, we need to test the quality of the recommendations.

We are looking for experienced editors to evaluate these recommendations and provide feedback to help us improve them. We have built a testing tool that makes it easy to provide quick, survey-style feedback on the quality of the recommendations, and we are also interested in more detailed feedback on the project feedback talkpage.

If you are interested in giving us feedback, please get started by reading the instructions here and then start rating articles!

If you have questions about the project or more general feedback, you can reach us here.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Morgan & Diego Saez-Trumper, Wikimedia Foundation Research.

Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Video tutorial "Referencing with VisualEditor" – newsletter issue 2 short version

 Video tutorial "Referencing with VisualEditor" – newsletter issue 2

• 
• 
• 
• 

Hi! The full version of this newsletter issue has a lot of information. I am sending a short version to talk pages.

The most important information to know is that draft 2 is finished, that the single long script has been divided into many smaller scripts, and that portions of the script have been prioritized for production.

Due to budget constraints, not all scripts can be produced within the scope of the current pilot grant, but the other scripts will remain available for potential future production. (This project feels somewhat like doing a vehicle repair when the mechanic starts to work on the engine, and once the mechanic gets under the engine and starts to work, they discover that accomplishing their objective requires twice as much time as they first had estimated.) However, nothing is lost, so do not fear. Overall, my assessment (me being User:Pine) is that this project is producing a lot of good output and is generally a valuable pilot project.

For more information, including my requests for your feedback, please see the full version of the newsletter.

Thanks very much. --Pine(✉) 23:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Unclear talk page headers

Is it time we slightly reworded our Talk page header? It currently says:

'This page is where experienced editors discuss how to keep the Teahouse running smoothly.

If you have a question about how Wikipedia works or need help with editing, please click here to go to the Teahouse Q&A forum.

On clicking 'edit' , we then see:

Greetings: This page is for discussing the Teahouse, please direct questions about Wikipedia to the Teahouse Q&A forum. Thank you.

Could we get them changed so as to read:

This page is only for experienced editors to discuss how we keep the Teahouse running smoothly.

If you have a question about Wikipedia, or need help with editing, please click here to go to the Teahouse Q&A forum.

The edit header could read something akin to:

Greetings: This page is only for discussing how the Teahouse is managed. Please direct all other questions to the Teahouse Q&A forum. Thank you.

Thoughts anyone? Nick Moyes (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I would be fine with such an idea. The suggested wording is clearer, at least in my opinion, so would be an improvement.--SkyGazer 512 ^{My talk page} 00:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the wording seems improved. There will always be people who ignore or don't understand it, but hopefully the new wording will send a few more people in the correct direction. Thanks for the suggestion. 331dot (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The new editnotice sounds fine to me, but the new header sounds too exclusionary. If a newer user has ideas about how to improve the Teahouse, we should welcome those contributions like we welcome any other good-faith contribution. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

In general, I think it might be better to change the header for this talk page to make it a bit broader. It's not just for experienced users to discuss how to keep the Teahouse running smoothly; it is used to suggest any type of improvement to the Teahouse and as pointed out by AntiCompositeNumber, new editors are not prohibited from using it. How about something like This page is only for editors to discuss improvements to the Teahouse itself and how to keep it running smoothly? Just brainstorming here.--SkyGazer 512 ^{My talk page} 01:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, fair point. Thanks. I wasn't intending to exclude anyone ... except those who, through no fault of their own, don't realise this isn't the place to ask general questions. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Good idea. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Just an observation, but since we moved the questions page to Wikipedia:Teahouse we seem to get far fewer questions posted here by mistake. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

i created my registered account on 25 March

Hiding question: This talk page is for Teahouse management; we don't actually answer questions here

Hi I created my account on the 25th March. I was told I could edit semi protected pages after 4 days and 10 edits. So why can I not edit semi protected pages at the moment please ?. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by DooksFoley147 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC) Because you created your account at 17:32 on the 25th, and it is now 11:45 on the 29th, so you fall around 6 hours short. Please have a little patience, and come back here if you continue to experience this problem tomorrow. Thank you. -- Begoon 11:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC) Hi thank you for clearing that up. regards— Preceding unsigned comment added by DooksFoley147 (talk • contribs)

If you do need to come back, please post on the main Teahouse page. This page is for discussing the operation of the Teahouse and is not the Teahouse itself. You can get there by clicking "Project Page" at the top of the computer screen, or you can just click WP:TEAHOUSE. 331dot (talk) 11:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Call for Wikimania session proposals around newcomers and community growth

Hey Teahouse hosts,

The Community Growth space at Wikimania 2019 is now accepting submissions! The deadline for submission is June 1. In the Community Growth space, we will come together for discussions, presentations, and workshops that address these questions:

• What is and is not working around attracting and retaining newcomers?
• How should Wikimedia activities evolve to help communities grow and flourish?
• How should our technology and culture evolve to help new populations to come online, participate and become community members?

Recommended topics. While proposals related to all aspects of community growth and newcomer experience are welcome, organizing team is particularly interested in proposals related to:

• Research on recruitment, activation and retention.
• Technological approaches
• On- and off-wiki engagement/support strategies
• Supporting diversity and cross-cultural newcomer experiences
• Lessons learned from beyond Wikimedia, and
• The future of newcomers and editing

If you are interested in seeing presentations around additional topics, but do not plan to submit a proposal, you can also suggest additional topics.

Types of session. We prefer sessions that are participatory, interactive, promote conversations, and give a voice to parts of our movement that are heard less often. We welcome the following session formats:

• Roundtable discussion
• Panel discussion
• Lightning talk
• Working session
• Teaching session
• Conference presentation

Poster submissions. Posters are also a good way to introduce a topic, or show some results of an action. Please consider submitting one! More information about the Community Growth space, topics, and submission formats is available on the proposal page.

Sincerely, Jonathan Morgan (On behalf of the Community Growth leadership team) J-Mo 19:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk pages consultation 2019 – phase 2

The Wikimedia Foundation has invited the various Wikimedia communities, including the English Wikipedia, to participate in a consultation on improving communication methods within the Wikimedia projects.

Phase 2 of the consultation has now begun; as such, a request for comment has been created at Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019/Phase 2. All users are invited to express their views. Individual WikiProjects, user groups and other communities may also consider creating their own requests for comment; instructions are at mw:Talk pages consultation 2019/Participant group sign-up. (To keep discussion in one place, please don't reply to this comment.) Jc86035 (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

What's causing all these extended-confirmed-protected edit requests?

I've recently been delving into the bowels of many of the Teahouse's sub-pages. I can't, for the life of me, figure out why there are so many futile requests for extended-confirmed-protected edits at Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Host lounge, both past and present (see page history) Something, somewhere, is leading a lot of new editors to make this request on what is, after all quite a redundant page. It seems a waste of everyone's time, and I can't understand why this is happening, and it would be a good idea to stop it happening. Any ideas, fellow hosts? Nick Moyes (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host landing has extended confirmed protection. If you cannot edit it then you see a "View source" tab instead of Edit. It displays MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext which via some templates use Module:Submit an edit request. It detects that Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Host landing is a redirect to Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Host lounge and makes a "Submit an edit request" button leading to that page. If the user saves without writing anything then it produces an empty edit request. This is common on many talk pages for protected pages. It's hard to avoid when we want to make it easy to make edit requests for protected pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Thank you for that explanation. I've cleared out the most recent non-functioning edit requests at Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Host lounge and have added a 'superseded' template to that page (as there are still the occasional genuine comment being placed there) and increased the min threads to archive there from 4 to 10. I'll keep an eye on it in future. My apologies for the delay in acknowledging your reply - it's almost the first time I've sat at a PC, rather than a mobile, for nearly a week. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

SineBot down

Does anyone have any ideas why SineBot might be down? I've raised this at User talk:Slakr#SineBot down, but Slakr seems busy off-Wikipedia of late. We suffer more than most here at the Teahouse when unsigned posts don't get picked up automatically. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

No clue. I think WP:VPT is a more appropriate place for asking this. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 08:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Good news: SineBot is back. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Teahouse hosts

Closing per request at WP:ANRFC. The opening poster proposed the procedural removal from Wikipedia:Teahouse/Hosts of hosts who have been inactive on Wikipedia or the Teahouse. The participants in this discussion either are indifferent to or in support of this proposal. There is therefore a rough consensus to remove inactive hosts from the page.

There is no consensus on the criteria for who should be removed from the list because this was not directly discussed by most participants. At Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 26#Teahouse hosts, Cullen328 suggested, "I support removing any editor from the host page who has posted a 'retired' banner, or has been indefinitely blocked, or has not edited in six months." Editors can boldly use Cullen328's suggested criteria or a different criteria to remove inactive hosts from Wikipedia:Teahouse/Hosts and then discuss further if there are any disagreements.

Nick Moyes has proposed further changes to Teahouse that can be boldly implemented or discussed further.

Cunard (talk) 04:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi everyone,
On the Teahouse hosts page, there are a lot of hosts. I noticed that some hosts have not edited Wikipedia in a while. Others currently edit Wikipedia, but are not active at the Teahouse. I am hereby proposing the procedural removal of hosts that have been active here on Wikipedia and/or the Teahouse because the people helping out here may be different 5 years from now or 10 years from now (if Wikipedia is still around then). Any thoughts? Interstellarity (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Interstellarity: That sounds reasonable, although you might wish to bring it up on the idea lab. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 23:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@A lad insane: See here. Interstellarity (talk) 23:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

To what end? I doubt that questioners check on who is on duty at the moment, or care that people who are not 'official' Teahouse hosts are replying. What matters is are questions being answered in a timely fashion, and are the answers helpful. To date, seems to be working. David notMD (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@Interstellarity: This discussion would have been much more appropriate to the Teahouse Talk Page, but I see you've continued it over at Village Pump (update: now archived there and revived here). In future, please let others know what you've done, so we can follow it if we wish. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm an active Teahouse host, and indeed have been doing it longer than any other active Teahouse hosts, including Jim. I'm not on the hosts list because of some well intentioned change made several years ago that automatically removed hosts after a certain period of inactivity. There is an existing consensus which Jim outlined in the discussion at VPI. If you want to change that, follow standard DR procedures and start a discussion at the Teahouse talk page. I closed your discussion at WP:VPI. John from Idegon (talk) 04:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I might add that the point Jayron32 made at VPI is certainly not mistaken. I'd likely support removal of the hosts page and instead replace it with a short list of "Teahouse mentors" to be made up of those of us who have been around here a long time that could answer questions about answering questions. John from Idegon (talk) 05:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: The reason why I posted it at VPI is because A lad insane told me to post it there rather than the Teahouse talk page. Interstellarity (talk) 10:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with Jayron32's point at VPI as well. Maybe being a host was something "official" at the beginnings of the Teahouse (I dunno, wasn't there), but right now the list is similar to those for Wikiproject participants (see for instance Wikipedia:WikiProject_Physics/Members).

One possible difference is that new editors might be inclined to directly contact Teahouse hosts on their user talk page, especially since the top banner links to one host's userpage. If that is so, we want to remove inactive editors from the list, but not necessarily Teahouse-inactive but Wikipedia-active editors. (FTR I have never been contacted in this manner without replying to an initial post at the Teahouse.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• Just to clarify some things that came up in the earlier thread: When the Teahouse started back in the day, to my recollection, it was designed to be a more moderated sort of help system. The reasoning was that the free-for-all at WP:HD meant that answers given there came to varying degrees of helpfulness. Answers there tend to be terse and to already assume a certain proficiency with Wikipedia and a knowledge of the more esoteric aspects of Wikipedia culture. The Teahouse was designed to be more moderated; while anyone could answer questions, hosts were supposed to be more deliberate about answering for a new user: including not presuming any prior knowledge about Wikipedia, avoiding acronyms, providing answers directly instead of merely directing users to read a help page, etc. The hosts today still do maintain that atmosphere, which is great, but back when it started being a host required someone to do something more than just add their own name to a list; and the list was actively maintained by the project managers who removed people who weren't qualified or who weren't active. That's what I was noting about the difference over time. --Jayron32 12:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
• Thanks for that clarification, Jayron32. Perhaps its just the lack of an overall project manager that is the real difference nowadays, or there being no-one to formally say "you're a host", but you're not". Wasn't that a 'Maitre d'? There are certainly elements of the old structure and guidelines which could do with some care and attention. I, for one, have long felt reluctant to barge in and start deleting host entries, sorting out a rubbish archive structure (beyond my skills anyway), and streamlining how the Teahouse operates. Perhaps everyone else feels the same? We work cooperatively, and it seems to work fine, yet some of the older stuff still lingers on. I recently changed the wording at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host start to say "Have been here at least 30 days and have made at least 500 mainspace edits?" as I have been seeing some new users signing up who only ever play in their or others user spaces, so clearly aren't experienced enough regarded as a 'host', yet any welcome to a new user is itself helpful, providing that person knows when not to offer advice.

Assuming there's consensus, here are a few things we could consider doing:

1. Manually pare down the list of those who've signed up as 'hosts' to only list those definitely qualifying with the minimum experience standards and who have been recently active in responding at The Teahouse (period to be defined). For recent and future inappropriate signups, deploy: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host decline Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host decline
2. Remove signup page at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Guests. It serves little or no purpose (pageviews).
3. Remove the 'Question Archive' button from the Teahouse Header message. This stopped archiving in 2015.
4. Similarly, Remove the link in Teahouse Talkback messages to this archive page which ceased archiving properly in 2015
5. Update the list of 'Featured Hosts' whose names/user images appear on the Teahouse heading. This is immensely out of date and doesn't reflect currently active host. (Could be done with a bot, but might complicate things even more).
6. Make changes as discussed here recently to this Talk Page's header.
7. Restructure the Teahouse Archive along a date system, similar to that used at WP:HD.
8. Create or revive a 'welcome from the Teahouse' template we can quickly deploy via Twinkle, rather than rely on its standard welcome messages
9. Mark Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Host lounge as {{historic}} and redirect users from that Talk page to this Talk page.

I think I put forward few other suggestions last year. See [1] I would implement some of the smaller changes myself, but I don't have the ability to edit protected templates. As at WP:VPI, I'm pinging Jtmorgan who has long been involved in the project and who maintains hostbot (see post above), and who may wish to offer his thoughts on a refresh. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm neither particularly eager to delete anyone's name from a list either, nor am I particularly interested in who gets added or not. It's mostly inconsequential, as far as I can tell. --Jayron32 14:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm rather confused now - I thought you were saying above that that active addition and removal of names was the main difference between then and now. Am I missing something obvious? Nick Moyes (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Teahouse has never limited the answering of questions to hosts. And as Jayron pointed out above, there was a particular style we tried to follow (he had that exactly right too). Hosts did serve as sort of moderators. The Matre 'd position was staffed regularly and it was their job to remove disruptive or misplaced threads, and also to counsel editors who answered questions incorrectly or rudely. I still do that, but only when I notice. The Matre 'd on duty was charged with doing that. And it needs to be done to maintain a welcoming and safe atmosphere for the newer editors we are charged with serving. One thing to ponder: Teahouse is almost exclusively a side activity for those who actively participate. Pretty much no one spends their time on Wikipedia helping other editors exclusively. Most of the very competent editors here are also dedicated to another time consuming activity. I'm a project coordinator, 331dot, Jim, and Cordless Larry are administrators, Robert McClennon is pretty much the heart and sole of dispute resolution. I could however, easily dedicate 8 hours a couple times a week to closely monitor Teahouse, and I'd bet others would be willing to do the same. That IMO would be a great idea. Revive the Matre 'd. John from Idegon (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I think we already make a fairly good job at removing disruptive threads and moving misplaced ones, without needing a special hat for that. What other aim would reviving the position achieve? BTW, I am saying that as someone who pretty much spends their time on Wikipedia helping other editors exclusively. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Nick: When it meant something to be a Host, the list mattered. Now that the Teahouse isn't actively managed, they list is meaningless. John's summary of the history of how the Teahouse was moderated matches my memory as well. --Jayron32 16:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• The Teahouse is not perfect. I feel we should make a few changes to the way things work around here. Whatever you decide to do, I have no objections to what you decide to do. Interstellarity (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

  @Interstellarity: In that case, I propose to move Wikipedia:Teahouse to Mean jokes about Interstellarity's mom More seriously, if you know things that need changing even if you are not sure what actions should be taken, say them; don't juste write a blank cheque for "any kind of change" (see politician's fallacy). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Tigraan: I don't see anything that we haven't discussed that should be worked on just yet. But if I do find something, I will bring it up. Interstellarity (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

One of the IPs already agreed with most of Nick's points above in their modest proposal  seven weeks ago. –84.46.53.127 (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh - I hadn't seen that IP post. In fact I'd completely forgotten that that old talk page actually existed, and I never ever check there. Do we really need to keep it accessible for editing? I'd suggest we add that to our list of cleanup tasks and redirect anyone arriving at its talk page to this one here. It just seems to duplicate this talk page, as far as I can see, so have added it as point #9 above. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:28, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Seeking consensus

@A lad insane, David notMD, Nick Moyes, John from Idegon, Tigraan, Jayron32, and 84.46.53.127: Do we have a consensus to remove Teahouse hosts? Interstellarity (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes, David notMD, 331dot, ColinFine, and Marchjuly: I have not received a response since this morning, is anyone available to answer my question above. Interstellarity (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@Interstellarity: Patience. I've been out walking in the Peak District all day- others may have been busy too, or live in different time zones) No, we don't quite have a consensus. I've put forward 9 suggestions above that I would welcome seeing carefully implemented, including the removal of inactive or inappropriate host entries. It would be good to hear others' views on all of them.

On the suggestion to resurrect the formal Maitre d' role: like Tigraan, I'm not convinced it's really necessary, providing we accept we all need to work a little more pro-actively to manage the Project. I'm certainly happy to do more in that regard if people wish. But I feel after only 18 months here that I'm still a relative newcomer at the Teahouse - and you must certainly do. The views of others are extremely important, so I'd welcome seeing their input (including Cullen328 and Jtmorgan), as I feel nearly everyone has had much more experience and involvement here than me. I'm quite happy to wait. (I have started work on a spreadsheet to list all the hosts, and there are certainly a number of very clear candidates for immediate removal. Another suggestion that struck me would be to make it clear that anyone is welcome to answer questions here - that was how I was recruited - but that signing up as a Host should only be done after some small-but-yet-to-be-determined number of helpful replies to other editors have already been proffered.) Nick Moyes (talk) 23:46, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Should we wait a least a week to see if we have a consensus? Interstellarity (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes. That's precisely the advice we'd give others at the Teahouse! Nick Moyes (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I have no preference either way. I've never added myself to the "Teahouse host page" and tend to only answer questions when I myself am looking for a change of pace or think it's possibly something I can help with. Whatever the consensus turns out to be is fine with me, but I do tend to think what David notMD posted above early on in this dicussion about questioners unlikely being uninterested in who is answering their question as long as it gets answered quickly is probably an accurate assessment of how many use the TH. I'd imagine most people want quick answers; they want to be told whatever what they want to hear for sure, but more importantly they probably want it quickly before they log off their current session.

Anyway, I think there are probably better issues the community or TH hosts should be focusing their time on instead of an outdated host page. Perhaps ways to prioritze questions so that they don't go unanswered too long can be worked out. Maybe ways to prevent newer enthusiastic editors who mean well but end up giving not very helpful or just plain wrong answers can be implemented. Maybe ways to better explain the role of the TH before any out-of-scope questions are even asked by tweaking the edit window header to make the purpose of the TH more clear, even possibly inlcuding links (like a welcome template would) to important policy/guideline pages where more specific information can most likely be found for the most common questions, or links to various noticeboards and places like WP:RD for the most common problems. There aren't really any instructions as to how to properly use the TH (at least not that I know about); so, maybe it would be helpful to add a list to the edit window header about things such as unsigned posts, creating redundant threads, posting NPA/SOAP against someone or something, and other things that aren't really relevant to Wikipedia editing or fall within the TH's purview.. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I am less concerned with winnowing a list of hosts than I am that questions be answered quickly and correctly, either by a host, or be a drop-in, like me. Maybe I get to pick what I want to respond to, but hosts have to make sure all questions are addressed. I am against an explanations list of what Teahouse is or is not. Most of the questions we see are valid. Those that are not get redirects. At first, I liked the idea of answerers needing to be trained or vetted, but generally what I see is corrections from more experienced editors, and the newbies getting better (or going away). David notMD (talk) 03:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• I've never added myself to the list of hosts and I don't recognise the majority of editors who are on the list. I'm happy to support either Cullen328's suggestion here that we remove inactive editors after six months (though who would be responsible for checking and removing?) or John from Idegon's suggestion to replace the hosts list with a smaller list of mentors. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Adding my comments to a copy-paste of Nick Moyes' points above:

1. ...pare down the list of those who've signed up as 'hosts' to only list those definitely qualifying with the minimum experience standards and who have been recently active... - if we keep the list, sure, we can add an activity requirement. But I would rather see the list go to be frank. (I know that is not how the Teahouse used to work, but I believe it is how it works now.)
2. Remove signup page at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Guests. Yes.
3. Remove the 'Question Archive' button from the Teahouse Header message. This stopped archiving in 2015. Yes; I would go further and remove everything except "learn more about the TH" and "articles to improve".
4. Similarly, Remove the link in Teahouse Talkback messages to this archive page Yes, see #3.
5. Update the list of 'Featured Hosts' whose names/user images appear on the Teahouse heading. This is immensely out of date and doesn't reflect currently active host. See #1: if we keep a formal "host" role, by all means clean it up, but I would get rid of it entirely.
6. Make changes as discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Teahouse#Unclear_talk_page_headers - the discussion in that thread is reasonably consensual. I have nothing to add.
7. Restructure the Teahouse Archive along a date system, similar to that used at WP:HD. I'm neutral. What is wrong with the current numbering system (in general, or with new editors in mind)?
8. Create or revive a 'welcome from the Teahouse' template we can quickly deploy via Twinkle - such as {{subst:welcome-t}}? I believe that's a question for the Twinkle team (the template doc says it is part of Twinkle, but I cannot find the button). (If the Twinkle team wants to see consensus for the addition, count me in.)
9. Mark Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Host lounge as {{historic}} - yes. ...and redirect users from that Talk page to this Talk page. Probably not. Even though a post that would have gone there a couple of years ago should go here today, it is still a surprising redirect. Better to use {{superseded}} instead (basically a "soft redirect"). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• I don't have any specific comments right now other than to say that nothing really stands out to me that I would oppose(if not explicitly endorse). 331dot (talk) 09:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• I don't care either way. I would not object if you did, but I also don't care if you don't. --Jayron32 12:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• I'm not bothered either way. (I actually do spend most of my WP time here and at the Help Desk, by the way). --ColinFine (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• I don't have strong feelings about which pages stay or go. Back in the day, the Teahouse was designed differently and a lot of the pages (/Hosts, /Guests, /Featured etc) were much more visible to hosts and guests. And HostBot curated the 'active' and 'featured' host lists for a long time. I stopped curating the 'active' hosts list when I couldn't resolve a bug in the code that occasionally, but consistently, deleted profiles instead of moving them between the active/inactive pages. I stopped updating the /Featured pages when the project decided to make WP:Teahouse point to the Q&A board, rather than the old landing page that featured a rotating selection of profiles from recent hosts and guests. The Host Lounge was intended to be a separate talkpage where hosts could have meta-discussions (then, as now, guests frequently posted their questions to WT:Teahouse). Most of these pages were useful and interesting at the time, but these days the Q&A board is the only page that most people use. The only thing that I believe is vitally important is that the Teahouse expectations are visible to all answerers. These !rules are important because they help teach new hosts (and remind existing hosts) what sets the Teahouse apart from other discussion spaces. They are the "secret sauce" of the Teahouse. Perhaps these can be linked prominently from the Teahouse page header and/or listed at the top of the Teahouse talkpage? J-Mo 19:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jtmorgan: I do agree with you (and indeed everyone else) that retaining the core values of the Teahouse in the way we help new users is absolutely essential. I might even add one other requirement to the Teahouse expectations - namely, the need for all those who've signed up as hosts to circle back every so often and check for any unanswered questions that we've collectively overlooked. Even if all we do is give an apology for no reply to a difficult question, it maintains the feeling that we should, and indeed do, answer everyone eventually. It sounds like we're approaching what one might describe as a "meh-consensus" for the rest of the tidy-up suggestions! Nick Moyes (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm pasting in a further comment, helpfully made a few days ago by Shantavira on another page, who said: "Re 'guest profiles', hosts seem to be very fond of telling guests that we don't have "profiles" on Wikipedia, but there they are: accessible from a big button at the top of the main [Teahouse] project page. I think this is confusing some guests." I think he makes a very valid point, and that dropping the 'guest profile' section would be a sensible thing to do. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Marking Guest-related pages as historical

Per the discussion above, I've just BOLDly removed the link to the Guests profiles and the Guest archive from the header, and marked the following pages with {{Historical}}.

• Wikipedia:Teahouse/Guest book
• Wikipedia:Teahouse/Guests
• Wikipedia:Teahouse/Guests/Right column
• Wikipedia:Teahouse/Guests/Left column

Note that most Teahouse subpages have almost-identical non-templated headers, which will still have the buttons to those pages. I've removed them from Wikipedia:Teahouse/Hosts, but there are still some others. Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Teahouse might be a good place to start, I'll browse through there tonight. --rchard2scout (talk) 11:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Update: I've updated the header some more. The "Question archive" button is now gone, because that archive index hasn't been updated in 4 years and I don't think it's all that useful (and it's sorted oldest first). The extra stuff in the header (Read the newest questions, skip to bottom, table of contents, and the "Most recent archives" navbox) are now configurable with the |notoc=yes switch. All pages that are directly reachable from the header buttons now use the updated header, for a more consistent user experience. rchard2scout (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

By the way, the "Learn more about the Teahouse" button now links to m:Research:Teahouse, which mainly documents how the Teahouse used to work in 2011/2012. Do we want to write a proper "About the Teahouse" page (maybe repurpose Wikipedia:Teahouse/About which better documents current practices? rchard2scout (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Excellent, Rchard2scout. I was playing with a copy of the header template in my sandbox, and then spotted you'd already done the moves! I agree with all those removals, though will also 'boldly' rename the "Host Profiles" button to "Your Hosts" as we're always telling editors that "we don't have profiles here", yet there it is. I'll also move the invitation to become a host onto the line below so that it's less dominant on the page.

I know we could remove the {{spaces|24}} command in order to get the two "Welcome to the Teahouse" lines arranged under one another, but can't see how to force the blue "Ask a Question" button to align centrally under that text. Any ideas, or was the weird offset actually intentional, I wonder?

I am also concerned about how people see the Teahouse page in Mobile view. It displays quite badly on the page, whether viewed in landscape or portrait mode. I note the Header template uses the {{Center}} template which clearly states it doesn't function for mobile users. Also, in Mobile View, the yellow "Skip to the bottom" link doesn't actually do anything. Fixing these issues is unfortunately way outside outside my abilities.

I had also concluded that the "Learn more about the Teahouse" is wholly inappropriate for new users, so, yes, we do need a new, simple explanation of what the Teahouse is and how it works. The detailed research paper can always be linked from within that. Great work! Nick Moyes (talk) 02:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Nick Moyes that "'Learn more about the Teahouse' is wholly inappropriate for new users". When I was a newish user, I found and used the Help Desk: it was very simple, you post a question, and next day you find that someone has answered it. So when I first came across the Teahouse, with its complicated instructions for use, and host profiles, and guest profiles, I ignored it — why should anyone go the the trouble of creating a profile when they could just use the Help Desk instead? I realise now that they go to the Teahouse because they get directed there. Maproom (talk) 08:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, I've gotten the Welcome lines and the button centered. It looks like the weird offset was actually intentional, but I don't really like how it looks, and it's very mobile-unfriendly. The header right now is a little more mobile-friendly than it used to be. I'll try and see if I can do something about the "Skip to bottom" link (and {{skip to top and bottom}}). rchard2scout (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

And fixed the "skip to bottom"! Progress! rchard2scout (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Rchard2scout: That's so much better. Thank you. It now works fine on my mobile, and I've changed the archive searchbox text from "Question archived?" to "Search archives", not only because it makes more sense in its own right, but also because only "Questio" [sic] appeared in mobile landscape view, whereas "Search" appears in full, and so is more intuitive if only part of the text is readable. (I feel so impotent that I don't yet know enough to work on the templates subtleties myself, though am not sure where I need to go to start that learning process, other than Help:Template). Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

New userscript

Hi greetings, I created a new user script named TeahouseSidebar that adds a link to Teahouse in sidebar. It is a merely small one. Hope that it will help users to reach Teahouse quickly. Regards.--PATH SLOPU 10:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@Path slopu: Thank you very much for this - I've just installed it and it works fine. I had already got a bookmark tool giving me various shortcuts at the top of all my pages, including to WP:THF, and now I've got one on the left side to take me to WP:TH - what more can I ask for... Voice control? "Hey Computer! Take me to the Teahouse!" Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm more old school - I have the Teahouse on my watchlist and click on the link there, but I'm sure others will find it useful. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Removing Teahouse hosts

@Nick Moyes, David notMD, 331dot, David Biddulph, Cullen328, ColinFine, Marchjuly, PrimeHunter, Jmcgnh, and DESiegel: Can anyone remove inactive Teahouse hosts per discussion above? I do not know how to do this. Interstellarity T 🌟 10:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

You can edit Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host landing#Hosts to update Wikipedia:Teahouse/Hosts. If you want to prevent users from appearing as featured hosts at top of Wikipedia:Teahouse then click the host number at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host/Featured and edit that page. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Interstellarity: I have actually already started working on this (removed some very new/blocked/retired editors), so if you're happy to leave it to me, I'll do this whenever I've got free time, and I wouldn't want to upset anyone by doing it too hastily -especially as there are quite a few admins who've not been active here for quite some time, but are probably invested from their past involvement - so have crafted the following message to send some of them: "Hello. Over at the Teahouse we're having a bit of a 'spring clean' by removing inactive entries from the list of Hosts. As you don't appear to have been very active recently, your host profile has been taken off the list. But please don't let that put you off contributing again in the future - either by signing back up as a Host on a regular basis, or just dropping in whenever you fancy helping out. Thank you for all your past help and support for new users at the Teahouse. Signed" (It's not the highest priority here, but I do think the TH would benefit from a bit of a 'spring clean' as we discussed.) Nick Moyes (talk) 10:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Thank you for doing this for me. Interstellarity T 🌟 10:50, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@Interstellarity: Just to let you and everyone else know that I've now worked through the list of Hosts, and have removed those who have not been active here for around 12 months or more, plus a few that were blocked or just 'hat-collecting'. This brings the list of hosts down from 240 to around 90. Quite a lot of our currently active helpers haven't yet created an entry for themselves - including quite a few long-standing contributors - and I hope they might consider doing so. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done@Nick Moyes: Can you update the featured hosts please? It is out of date. Interstellarity T 🌟 11:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@Interstellarity: Yep, I'm on it. I built a spreadsheet and dropped all '29 Featured Editors' into it, analysed their contributions, and have determined that 22 of them merit replacement. I shall be dropping in new names (and a few selected images for each user), then contacting each one to ask them to not only insert an image of their choice, but also to create what we used to call a 'Host Profile' if they so desire. I've mostly based that selection on the most currently active editors, but with a slight slant towards balancing up the gender and age balance. Maybe a day or three to complete that (It used to be a job that HostBot did automatically, I believe). Then it would be good if we could all focus on the really important stuff, like how we clearly present and explain the Teahouse to newcomers; how we ensure those who sign up as Hosts understand the ethos of the place, and how we ensure new editors do get the most out of the place. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, there used to be an automated (pardon the technical terminology) thingie that removed hosts after a certain period of inactivity. Is that still functioning? If not, I'll gladly re-add a host profile. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 01:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: I think you're thinking of the automated bot thingie, called Hostbot, run by Jtmorgan. I can't offer a diff right now, but I'm pretty sure he told me some while back that that element of its operation was no longer able to be implemented. It would certainly help if you (and other very active hosts) were to add yourselves to the list of hosts. Its then a simple task for me, or snyone else, to use your chosen photo, plus the xtools list of most recently active TH contributors, and then to update the Featured Host rotating entries. Nick Moyes (talk) 04:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Nick Moyes and John from Idegon right, I used to have a script that moved hosts from the "active" to "inactive" pages, and one that updated the featured host galleries. I disabled the first one because there was a bug I couldn't duplicate, that caused some profiles to be deleted in the process. Enough people complained and I could never be sure I'd fixed the problem. If folks here are interested in me trying that again, and are willing to risk having their profiles accidentally deleted on occasion, I can try to get that old script running again.

I initially stopped updating the "featured host" galleries because the code required some fixing and it took me a while to get a round to that (as it often does ;). Before I could do so, the rest of the hosts decided to the original WP:Teahouse (the landing page where the featured host galleries were most visible) to WP:Teahouse/Questions. Since few newcomers see any of the WP:Teahouse subpages other than the Questions page now, I don't think it's particularly valuable to keep the featured host pages updated. J-Mo 15:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jtmorgan: I really don't think we need to make you go to the effort of making automatic updating function correctly for 'featured hosts', but thank you for the offer. As you said in 2012 it's "just another way to make our pages a little more dynamic". I reckon if someone were to check the entries every year or two, that'd keep things fresher. And if they don't, the roof won't fall in. To make the updating task easier for the next person, I have rewritten the explanation at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host/Featured. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host/Featured

Featured Hosts - now updated

Default image used for each 'Featured Host' when no other image has been specifically chosen

I have manually updated all 29 'Featured Hosts' whose names and images cycle randomy around in the Teahouse Header. They are all listed at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host/Featured, and each has an individual sub-page numbered from Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host/Featured/1 through to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host/Featured/29.

The selection is based on the most currently active editors, as revealed by xtools analysis of the last 50,000 Teahouse edits (see here). I must declare an intentional bias, as I've included active young or female editors, as both groups are generally under-represented in our editor demographic. Thus, Thegooduser has been added, and Rosiestep retained, despite neither being quite 'up there' with the highest number of recent edits. I do hope fellow Hosts find this an acceptable approach.

If no image has been specified for each 'Featured Host', the default cup of green tea image appears in the header. Surprisingly, very few of our most active Teahouse respondents have added themselves as 'Hosts' by creating a 'Host profile'. (I have updated our full list of hosts, and deleted many inactive or hat-collecting editors at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host landing). If you as a Host have chosen an image there, I have used it. For some I have guessed at an appropriate image based upon what I've found in their userpages, for others you simply get the tea cup unless you add one yourself. My apologies if that selection accidentally causes anyone offence - please change your image to suit. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Nice work, Nick. Thanks for putting so much effort into this! --bonadea contributions talk 15:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Restore deleted section?

Should I restore this Q&A that the editor deleted (just before requesting their user page be deleted) or leave it alone? Orville1974 (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Threads that have been answered by other editors should generally not be deleted (unless the thread contains problematic content of some kind, like copyvios, off-topic spam or personal insults). I have restored the thread with a detailed edit summary as explanation for the OP. GermanJoe (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Host lounge

I didn't realize that Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Host lounge had been superseded by this talk page when I posted there, and apparently some others have made a similar error. I understand there's a template stating this at the top of that talk page, but it's easily overlooked. Is there a way to add a similar notification to that talk page's editing window when it's opened? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Done - @Marchjuly:, I copypasted the info into a new editnotice for this talkpage (any template editor or admin can tweak it, if needed). GermanJoe (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you GermanJoe. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Two-column reformatting of Hosts Page

The list of hosts is incredibly long. Is there any way that it could be reformatted (nicely) to have two columns and yet still show all the wonderful design elements currently set into each entry? Just a thought! Prometheus720 (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@Prometheus720: I have tried using various settings of {{div col}}, but all my experiments just turn out a mess, even when just two columns dislpay (see here). Maybe someone with better skills than me can make it render better. All I can say is, it's a lot better than it was last month, when it had over 230 users listed there. (PS Off-topic: I've not forgotten that I do still owe you a long reply to questions asked elsewhere). Nick Moyes (talk) 09:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Hey Nick! Thanks for taking a look! I took one look at it and knew it would be above my meager html/wikitext abilities. I do have to say that yes, it does look much better than that old revision! And I really owe you another update, too. It's been a bit! See you around! Prometheus720 (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

• If you want to mess around with the display, please be careful to find something that does not just work for your setup. In particular, a 2-column appearance could work on desktop but not on mobile displays (which are higher than wide). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

You are quite right. I do a lot of my editing from a mobile, and am certainly aware of the importance of ensuring complex pages do render OK on both platforms. Cheers Nick Moyes (talk) 06:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Prior experience and interests of new users

The Teahouse hosts might be interested in the results of this survey of newcomers to the Czech and Korean Wikipedias: mw:Growth/Analytics updates/Welcome survey initial report.

Two facts that stood out to me:

• A lot of people with brand-new accounts had previously edited a Wikipedia page.
• A lot of people with new accounts want to talk to a real person about what and how to edit (like you! Thanks for being present for them!).

I wasn't involved in this survey, so if you have questions about it, you might be better off pinging User:Trizek (WMF). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

An interesting remark but we should remember the fundamentality of the reason to why we work so hard to develop the site in order to give out information of the out most accurace Nocontextotaku (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

HostBot-AI pilot ending

(see archived thread for context) Just a quick note to say that the trial period is now concluded and HostBot will go back to 'normal' (inviting newbies in batch every 24 hours, based on heuristics, rather than statistics). Maximilianklein will start analyzing the data within the next few weeks. Based on the results, we may propose migrating HostBot to his smart sampling strategy. Whatever we find, you'll hear about it here. Feel free to keep an eye on the project page on Meta as well—findings will be published there first. In the meantime, I'll monitor my talkpage for alerts re: bot performance as usual and respond promptly. Thanks to everyone who helped us with the pilot and who provided feedback and reported false positives! As always, it's a pleasure to work with Teahousers ;) Hopefully the outcomes of this project helps you help more newbies with less wasted effort. Cheers, J-Mo 21:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Jtmorgan: for communicating so well. Due to some other priorities I have not been able to find the time to analyze the data so far, however I still intend to do it within the next 2 months. TBD for now, but more to follow soon. Maximilianklein (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Helping others here

As you probably know, I like to help others at the Teahouse. Most of the people who ask questions here are good faith editors looking for help while others are here to troll and get our attention in inappropriate ways. My question is how do I tell the difference between these two kinds of editors when responding to other's questions? Interstellarity T 🌟 16:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Interstellarity, I am also a frequenter of the Teahouse, for it affords an opportunity to learn while simultaneously guiding others with what you've already learnt.

As for your question, I recommend persistent and blind AGF in the Teahouse. We are not swamped with requests here so much that we should care to try and discern the merit/intent of users before answering a request. Problematic users will get what's coming to them outside of the Teahouse anyway. If you look only two threads back, you will see that a user who asked for help here and was given it, has been blocked for username violation. I too have previously reported users who I've met in the Teahouse for single purpose spam, promotion, vandalism, edit-warring and a host of other disruptive behaviours. If you have a suspicion, you can follow up on their contributions and guide them or stop them as required. But, again, since we don't get too many requests over here, I think we can afford to indulge the trolls. It doesn't matter what they get out of it. You only lose what you let get lost. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 17:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, not just here at the Teahouse, the way to do things is to help everyone, at least at first. But sometimes the best help is to alert them to our rules about promotionalism and COI, or to warn them that it will be better if they do not attempt to do as they desire. The way to see who is in good faith is to see how they deal with the advice given. DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Featured hosts

Hello Teahouse hosts,
I'm afraid I don't want to be a featured host anymore. Would anyone be willing to take my place as a featured host. Interstellarity (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I never really got to understanding that bit. Isn't that just a picture and a name that cycles at the top of the page. What difference does having or removing your name from there make? Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 14:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool: Since you seem to be one of our most active hosts at the Teahouse, would you like to be a featured host? Interstellarity (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Interstellarity thanks! I don't feel qualified yet. I mainly hang out here because I get an opportunity to learn answers to questions I haven't yet come up with. I try to help out when it's things I know a bit of, but I am still making a ton of mistakes about simple things. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 17:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool: ::@Interstellarity: What does it take to be a featured host? I'm new here but it's always my pleasure to take up a new challenge. --OLIVIAHNOAH (talk) 09:01, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

OLIVIAHNOAH, Welcome to Wikipedia! I have no more information than is at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host start. Some additional info may be scattered in the discussions on this page. The gist of it is, you have to be interested, been here for 30 days and made at least 500 good edits. I suppose, to not be considered over eager, you'd have to have helped out enough in the Teahouse to show that you know how wikipedia works and can help other users politely and constructively. I think the names of featured hosts are added to automated messages sent out by the Teahouse, in addition to being displayed at the top of the page. So, a featured host would have to be willing and capable of helping any new confused editor who sees the name and contacts you directly.

@Interstellarity: I wouldn't mind - I’ve been a host for a little while and I’ve been real active recently. Regards, 11:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Willbb234 (talk • contribs)

@Willbb234: this is an old discussion. If you want to be a host, all you have to do is follow the link at the top of the WP:TEA page, assuming you qualify. Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 12:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

featured hosts button

A 'Your Hosts' button within the Teahouse Header allows a visitor to view a much longer list of all Teahouse Hosts

...except I can't find such a button. I can click the random image. I can click the linked user. But no way to get from the Teahouse start page directly to the hosts listing. Am I blind? CapnZapp (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@CapnZapp: were you looking for this page? I don't know where the quote is from, but the "Your Hosts" button is quite big and quite visible on the TEAHOUSE page. Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 16:01, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Your not blind just very bad design here as the links are not visible ..odd this page does not follow basic rules for links MOS:COLOUR "'Links should clearly be identifiable as links to readers. Refrain from implementing colored links that may impede user ability to distinguish links from regular text, or color links for purely aesthetic reasons.". --Moxy 🍁 23:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Post lost in archiving?

Looks like Lowercase sigmabot III just removed an unsigned post before it could be signed, and possibly for the same reason failed to actually add it to the archives. Is this a bug? And please bring the post back (I don't know the proper procedure). Thanks! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 09:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

You should always provide link to what you're talking about, so people can easily check. The last edit by the bot on this page was correctly archived at Archive 18. So please give links. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Ammarpad, it's been resolved. Thought the timestamp, and general nature of the problem would be enough specificity, sorry about that. Will keep it in mind henceforth. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I reinstated the deleted message. As for the reason for the premature deletion and failure to add to the archive, that sounds like a question which you could reasonably ask on the bot talkpage; looks like a bug to me. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

David Biddulph, thanks for taking care of it. There's another discussion about edit conflict at the Teahouse on the bot's talk page. The answer there seems to fit this situation as well. I'll drop the diffs there anyway, but perhaps give it a few days first? Could be it's nothing new, and they're already aware of it, which might come to light here, given time. Cheers! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

How often is the Project page archived?

It should say in the header of the Project page, the criteria used for consigning the discussion to the archive. I would like to know how many days the article will be on display from the last answer before it gets archived? How fast is this page archived even? Should it not say here? Broichmore (talk) 10:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

This page? Looks like it's archived by MiszaBot, archiving posts older than 30 days. KillerChihuahua 13:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

There is a notice at the top of the page, next to the links to the archives - "Threads older than one month may be archived by MiszaBot II." KillerChihuahua 13:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• I guess Broichmore is asking about the main Teahouse page, not the talk page. Said page contains {{User:MiszaBot/config|...|algo = old(60h)|archive = Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive %(counter)d}} which is botspeak for "threads where the last reply was more than 60h ago may be archived, and said archive will go to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive XXX where XXX is a regularly-increasing number". Furthermore, bot lore has it that User:MiszaBot was replaced by User:lowercase sigmabot III (so the latter does the actual job even if the former's template is used). However, not everyone is proficient in botspeak and bot lore.

I do see a case for having (yet another!) header warning about archival and including the lifetime, but it would add some maintenance cost (since any change in the setting would need to be replicated in the header). On the other hand, I am not sure that explaining how to search the archives would fit into a header, and I do not think it has much value because Muninnbot is the best bot ever and its maintainer is super smart already does the job adequately via User:Muninnbot/Teahouse_archival_notification. (Seriously though, if you think the template text is inadequate, do say so or even edit it WP:BRD-style.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to know how to search the archives, I just want to know how long the question is going to be active. Broichmore (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

All it requires is a statement on the page. Example: This talk page is automatically archived by lowercase sigmabot III. Any threads with no replies in 21 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived. I don't see that requires any maintenance. Broichmore (talk) 11:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Broichmore: I partly agree with you. I've tweaked the Teahouse header notice with what I think should only be a short notice. How do folk feel about that? It would make sense to have Algo=72h, as that's a nice, round three days before stale questions are archived, though it'd make the table of contents even longer, of course. I actually find the format of our archives unintuitive, and much prefer the more logical style used at the Help Desk, which is based on the date of the original post - the one thing that the OP probably knows. But I guess it's now too late to change horses in midstream. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Now it shows Completed questions are archived within 3 days. which is very elegant. Thank you. I find generally speaking with some questions, I like to cogitate over the question for a spell before commenting, rather having to jump in with a knee jerk reaction. Hence the need for a warning when the question will leave the agenda. Unfortunately some interested parties will always miss the deadline, in an ideal world I would leave the topics open like any other forum does. Still don't know why the project went down the route it did. Maybe it did go the forum style and and it didn't work out? Broichmore (talk) 11:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Broichmore: I'm glad you like it. Sometimes less is more! The problem with a forum-like environment, which you asked about, means that there would rarely be any closure for any topic. Monitoring responses made days or weeks later and responding helpfully to them all would be impracticable, and would encourage a chit-chat type of user engagement, with very little likelihood of closure for each matter under discussion. I think it would be a nightmare for new users who I imagine seek some degree of certainty to the responses all the volunteers here give them. Our sub-policy (see shortcut: WP:NOTFORUM) makes it clear we don't want to create such a social media-type environment, and I do think that a quick turn-around with some likelihood of closure for questioners is most helpful to newcomers. Each person also gets an automated message telling them their post has been archived, with a (slightly inconspicuous) link to the archived thread. I should add that discussions at the Teahouse page only get archived after three days of inactivity (errm, 2.5 days to be precise). They stay unarchived if there continues to be ongoing engagement, and moved into an archive when discussions finally cease. There is, of course, nothing to stop you going to the OP's talk page and adding a perspective of your own long after their original question has been answered and archived here. I wonder if this explanation make sense? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)  

By and large I agree with you, and so the current system works. Though there are a small number of topics / rules where the policy was clearly wrong or imperfect in the first place and are therefore revisited regularly, they would benefit by a forum system. However as you say they are exceptional. I'll end this; by saying all pages similar to this topic should indicate they're goto archive durations (as you have done here). Broichmore (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Polemic-like threads

Just a suggestion, but maybe it might be time to "force" archive WP:THQ#Why are there so many rude, condescending people on here?. The OP appears to have decided to move on, but whatever issues they were having (still having?) are things that are unlikely to be resolved through Teahouse discussion anyway. The thread seems always ready for archiving, but then someone else posts a new comment which restarts the countdown. It also seems to be being seen by some others that it's perfectly OK to post their similar gripes, etc. about things Wikipedia at the Teahouse, particularly since it is stuck at the top of the page and is now the first thing that most people see.

I understand that the Teahouse is intended to be a welcoming place for everyone, particularly new editors, and understand editors seeing it as a place where they can do a little venting. I also appreciate that many of the hosts do try to explain things and offer suggestions on possible solutions, even occasionally making reference to their own Wikipedia experiences. At the same time, however, when these threads start to take on a life of their own like the one I've cited above, WP:THQ#"I mean, if you're the police, who will police the police?" or WP:THQ#Has rudeness become acceptable between editors on Wikipedia?. Sometimes these threads seem to be attempts to "move" a dispute with another editor taking place on some other page to the Teahouse so as to possibly find a more sympathetic audience. Other times, they just seem to be used as forum for generally griping about Wikipedia.

Regardless of the reasons for posting, at some point these threads start to become more of a negative in terms of value to the project and probably need to be shutdown, at least at the Teahouse. If someone wants to keep things going and continue to try and help someone, then they can do so on the other editor's user talk page. If someone wants to continue to discuss the finer points of some guideline or policy, then they should do so on the relevant talk page. The Teahouse is not really set up (at least in my opinion) to resolve such things and those making such posts them should be advised as such in a friendly way at first, but perhaps in a more stern way if they try to keep things going. I understand the Teahouse's role is to try and help editors with all things Wikipedia and for the most part it seems to do that pretty well; things, however, start to breakdown and become a bit of a time sync when editors start to exhibit WP:IDHT behavior and simply just want to continue ranting against Wikipedia or other editors in general. At some point, WP:FLOUNCE even starts to become applicable to new editors looking for help. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I have closed that thread, as I hadn't noticed it had been added to (by someone who then posted the near-identical comment at a new thread). I'm surprised you'd not done that yourself. I do feel slightly uncomfortable and often exhausted when I feel I have to spend 2 hours responding more as if this were a friendlier version of WP:ANI, as I did last night with another question about wrongly-perceived rudeness. But the OP gets a reasoned response, the article or edits get investigated and, in that instance, I'm able to offer an opinion at AfD. By all means close with {{atop}} any discussion once the OP has had adequate time to respond and if it loooks like going off-topic, per WP:NOTFORUM. Am happy to see anything manually moved to archive if it gets stuck at the top of the page. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I agree with you and would support an archive. If people want to continue the discussion, then they should do so on the user's talk page and not at the Teahouse. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I've collapsed another pointless rant from an editor (who has been here a day and a half and doesn't agree with the way that Wikipedia works) who hasn't bothered discussing on the article's talk page so presumably isn't actually interested in improving the encyclopedia. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit notice

Has it been considered to add a couple of extremely FAQs to the edit notice? It seems that "How can I write about my company/self/friend?" and "When will my AFC submission be reviewed?" make up a significant portion of the (usually new user) postings. A sentence or two with links might save everyone some time and energy. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

AlanM1, About the second one, it says right on the submission template exactly how long it would take. If they were satisfied with automated messages and weren't specifically looking for the human touch, that would have been enough. Just pointing it out, not saying it's a bad idea. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 09:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I had a similar thought. A lot of the answers I give here are to questions of the type you mention, plus 'help explain why my AFC submission was declined'. An FAQ, or perhaps some easy pre-written messages to paste in might help. That said, as Usedtobecool says, generally if a user gets to the point of asking one of those types of questions here, they've already either ignored or not been helped by several formulaic/pre-written/FAQ-type messages, and are looking for a personal response, so at least we give them that. I'm open to discussing it more though. Hug^syrup 10:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

My thinking was, in due course, to revamp the target page that the "Learn more about the Teahouse" button goes to. Currently, it goes to the research summary at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Teahouse. Instead, I'd like us to develop a simpler, more accessible overview of the Teahouse, including a small number of frequently given answers, as well as a less prominent link to that research overview. For me, having the time to work on this is some way off, though it could be based on some of the earlier, and rarely visited FAQ responses which you can still find at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host lounge/How-to guides. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)