Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Delay?

Is there a huge delay in questions posting now, or are mine just disappearing? RM2KX (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Your most recent edit at the Teahouse was on the 12th of April. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I've done 3 today, 2 with the Ask a Question button and 1 by raw edit. Two Firefox browser on PC and one mobile. RM2KX (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I haven't seen any other suggestions of problems here, and the edit filter log doesn't show any sign of problems from your username. If you're having problems, I would suggest that you check the page history after you have hit the save button. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

It's weird. I finally got a post to work from a different computer, on the second try. Question button still didn't work. Nothing shows in the history or my own contributions until this last attempt. Reposting my original question... RM2KX (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@RM2KX: Do you have slow internet? Sometimes, that can interfere with saving pages. — Gestrid (talk) 17:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Nope, and I've been saving edits all day on my own user page. It's possible that I accidentally cancelled my earlier manual edit on Teahouse, but that still leaves the Ask a Question button 0–for–3. RM2KX (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I have noticed a recent change; I used to be able to click "save changes" and carry on editing before the "saved" version of the page appeared. Now, if I do that, I loose the changes I was trying to save - it took me some time to realise this. If you are used to editing like I used to do, try waiting for the "saved" page to re-appear on your screen, before doing anything else, or use a different tab for editing whilst the page is saving - Arjayay (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Gadget-teahouse/content.js has recently been changed to bottom-post instead of top-post. These changes may explain some of the behavior described in this section. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The "Michael Cole vandal" is back

(Background: 1; 2; 3) So that no one is drawn into more of a waste of their time than necessary, just be aware that any Teahouse questions about Michael Cole are not genuine (and be suspicious about questions asking about the difference between oversight, revdeletion and deletion; also the username usually has some use of "man" in it (though not today's iteration): "Musclemanintensity, Exercisemanweighttraining, Weightlifterexerciseman, Truckmanbeginner, Freshmantruck"...). This strangely fixated, slow vandal posted earlier today here. I suggest immediate removal and not engaging. You can always drop me a note and I'll block immediately if I'm around, and I'm sure some of the other regulars that are admins would do so equally—though a post to WP:AIV should do the trick.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes we would; this page is on my watchlist. Lectonar (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Teahouse archiving

Currently the algorithm is set for 3 days. Is this now too long? [Following up on a discussion under the heading Why not archive lengthy discussion pages more frequently?]. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's the link to that discussion.

Anyway, I think three days is fine. It gives new editors (who probably don't frequent Wikipedia as much as many experienced editors do) time to respond or ask for more help on a particular question. It's a good idea to help new editors the whole way through the problem instead of just answering the question and moving on. That's what I would expect from any customer support rep, and that's basically what we are here. (Excuse me if my wording is a bit off. I'm exhausted.) — Gestrid (talk) 04:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Quite often, new editors will ask a question here, receive a response fairly quickly, and then return with a follow-up question or clarification only several days later, so I would oppose a move to faster archiving. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I guess another way of asking the question is Is the page currently too long for serving its intended purpose?. One way to shorten it would be to reduce the number of days used by the archiving algorithm. At one point, someone suggested organizing by days in a fashion similar to how WP:Help desk does it. Another way to shorten it might be to more aggressively use the {{collapse}} template, as we've done to two of the current questions.

The interests we are balancing are the (generally unspoken) needs of new users. On one hand, we want to give consideration to the occasional user who may not be on Wikipedia every day and might miss the responses to their questions if they were archived, collapsed, or in any way made less visible. On another hand, we want to consider how daunting the long list of current questions may be for new users who have to scroll through either the TOC or through the body (and who may not realize that the handy "Ask a question" button takes care of this problem for them). And on yet another hand, we want to keep a suitable range of questions in the current page so that at least some new users will find that the question they came with is a common one, with an already available answer (I think I've suggested that we need a FAQ in some earlier discussion – maybe a followup to Cullen's presentation).

I think the current arrangement is leaving the page too long and I'm not sure that reducing the archive algorithm to 2 days would either help very much or cause any sort of real problem (reminder: the algorithm is based on the date of most recent response, not the date of the original question). I still consider the change to bottom posting to have been a good choice. But I started this thread here in response to a complaint from Quisqualis so that we could have a round of discussion about it – the change is sufficiently recent that it would be precipitate to make another without strong agreement. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• Stupid suggestion: would it be desirable and technically feasible to have a special archive bot that notifies original posters' TP when the thread they started is archived (with a link to the correct archive)? It would take care of the editor who asks a question that is answered a day later and only comes back a week after. (The idea being of course that this special archival is only used on the TeaHouse, maybe on the Help Desk, but not in general.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

That's not a stupid suggestion. If we had such a capability, it would go a long way towards covering the concerns about infrequent visitors. I haven't advanced to the level of knowing how bots are constructued, though, so I have no idea how difficult it would be to implement your suggestion. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The only problem I see with this is new editors not knowing what/where in the world their talk page is. But that could be easily fixed with a link to Special:MyTalk at the top of the Teahouse. (Something like "Can't find the question you asked? It may have been archived! Check your talk page for a link to your question!") I'd be in favor of archiving earlier if we created the bot (or perhaps modified HostBot) to archive and send out the links and put the notice at the top of the Teahouse. — Gestrid (talk) 02:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll post later today (probably sometime around midnight ET) at WT:BAG (or some other bot-related page) asking someone familiar with bots to comment here on if Tigraan's idea is doable or not. — Gestrid (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

This is definitely doable and would not be a particularly difficult feature to implement. I don't have time in the next ~two months to do it myself, but can provide ad hoc tech support if a newbie bot developer wants to take it on. I would probably also be able to work on it myself later in summer if folks still want it. It should also be a non-controversial BAG request too. Cheers, J-Mo 15:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Top v bottom

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus is to begin posting new questions at the bottom of the Teahouse page, rather than the top. There was broad support for the position that the Teahouse Q&A board should be organized in a manner consistent with how other talk pages on Wikipedia are organized, especially so that new editors can familiarize themselves with the format. The Teahouse has heretofore used a "top-posting" scheme, where newer questions appeared at the top of the page, whereas most other Wikipedia talk pages use a "bottom-posting" scheme, where newer discussions appear at the bottom of the page.

With regards to implementing this transition, some editors suggested that we allow the questions that are currently organized in a "top-posting" manner to remain that way, while newer questions are posted at the bottom; the older questions will eventually be archived. There was also a suggestion that we include a notice at the top of the Teahouse for a few weeks, announcing that the layout change. The "ask a question" button will also need to be tweaked. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 12:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Since we managed to follow through with a pretty substantial redux on THQ, or should I say TH, maybe it's time to address another issue: why exactly are we still posting new threads on the top of the page? I'm assuming that a lot of this are people clicking on "the button" which does this automatically, meaning this is a technical issue of adjusting some code. But I also assume that there are some people who are just observing the behavior of others, and posting manually on the top because they see that this is where the new comments are, and that's a problem.

This is, as far as I know, the only page on WP where new comments go at the top. That means that, in all our helpfulness, we are actively training new editors to post on talk pages in a way that is almost guaranteed to have their comments either reverted outright, or have them immediately stained with "this editor doesn't even know where the comments go".

I get that we're trying to appeal to the "facebook crowd," where top=new/hot and bottom=old/stale, but I think that our purpose to train editors to contribute to the encyclopedia probably trumps the desire to be sleek and hip. TimothyJosephWood 16:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• I support a switch to bottom-posting, for consistency with other Wikipedia discussion pages. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support reversal, as I have in the past. We might also place a note in the ask-a-question script along the lines of: "Once submitted, your question will appear at the bottom of this page, as is the convention at Wikipedia." A little round-up of prior discussions seems in order (just of this page's archives; I would not be surprised if the archives of the host lounge talk page, and possibly other locations, contain similar discussions).

  The very first post to this page ever was about this topic, followed by these direct or related discussions (the sheer number of them tells you something):

1.  • Archive 2#so why
2.  • Archive 2#"Ask a question" input form
3.  • Archive 2#So just to clarify all questions now go to the bottom?
4.  • Archive 2#Teahouse Q&A Gadget - a proposed solution to the current edit war
5.  • Archive 2#Can of worms: reopened
6.  • Archive 3#Reverse the page order (a discussion I started, asking that the bottom posting be rethought, which unfortunately, got completely sidetracked by a now indefinitely blocked user)
7.  • Archive 5#New questions
8.  • Archive 5#Why are topics in reverse order?
9.  • Archive 6#Why is the question page "upside down" ?
10.  • Archive 7#Bottom posting again
11.  • Archive 7#Top and bottom posting
12.  • Archive 9#Bottom posting
13.  • Archive 11#New questions at the bottom of the page

I think it would not be unfair to characterize these threads as many different users independently converging on the idea that since all other discussion and talk pages on Wikipedia are bottom-posting, the Teahouse's top-posting interface is aberrant and actively misleads new users by example.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support changing to bottom posting, per every other discussion page on WP. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support switch to bottom posting. It has to be confusing for at least some new editors to have "the place that they are invited to" have new threads in a different place than the rest of WikiP. MarnetteD|Talk 20:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support bottom posting. It is stupid to have a different convention here, deliberately confusing newcomers as to what Wikipedia's convention is. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• Note: As before, I have posted a notice on m:Forum regarding this discussion. TimothyJosephWood 22:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• Conditional support: the fact that new threads go to the bottom need to be clearly written so that new users know where to search their post, and maybe we should hang a notice to say it changed for the first week or month. Remember that the Teahouse may attract tech-unsavy people. Otherwise, the rationale is good. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I can see why "top" seemed to be a good idea for new users at the beginning, as many social media sites do this, with older entries scrolling off the bottom. But experience has shown it to be confusing to editors asking questions. A large number of new questions are ending up at the bottom. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support change to bottom (as I have said several times already on this page). Maproom (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support changing the convention to bottom posting and removing the advisory to post at the top. I already make a point of checking both the top and the bottom and answer bottom questions, most of the time, with neither comment nor moving them to the top. I don't see any reason to censure users for either behavior, before or after any "official" change in policy. We will still have to be on the alert for newbies posting their material in random places in the page, too. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support Change to bottom; if the teahouse is almost your first point of call, and here posts are bottom to top, confusion may result if the rest of Wikipedia has different conventions. Lectonar (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support to make the same as every other Wiki page. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support Never thought about it, but understand the problem. As a new editor, I've never posted at the top of a talk page, and have considered Teahouse a completely different kind of thing. But, with the suggested announcement of new questions going to the bottom here, I think it would be fine. RM2KX (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support bottom posting for consistency with other pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support for all the reasons above. It has to happen. --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 02:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support When this page was run by a dictatorship in its early years, I was told politely that "top posting is just the way we do things" and was politely but firmly shut down whenever I suggested we actually be consistent with every other page at Wikipedia in existence, and was also never provided with anything resembling an adequate rationale. Now that the page seems to have been turned over to community control, I once again support fixing this obvious mistake in judgement, as I have consistently done since almost the first. --Jayron32 03:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support because of the reasons given in the nomination and above. MereTechnicality ⚙ 04:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support as per all the other reasons given. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
• Question as this is going towards snow, how are we actually going to carry this out? Changing the button script is one thing, but what about the content at the point of change? Leave it and let it archive off in time? Reverse the order so oldest is at the top from D-day? Something else? Nthep (talk) 11:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a good point. My thought is that currently we don't seem to 100% respect the top=new standard anyway, and I've seen plenty of posts that were simply asked and answered at the bottom, some days two or three questions stacked this way. If they're already answered, I usually just let them be, but if I catch them right as they're asked, I usually move them to the top and answer them there.

I'd say we can probably take a similarly laissez faire approach to the switch. If a question has already been asked and answered at the top, (i.e. if a ping has already been sent out), then there's probably no harm in letting them stay there, and probably a bit of confusion in moving them. However, in doing all this we won't be actively fighting against the convention enforced by the entire rest of the project, and I would expect the top-posting-stragglers to fall into line fairly quickly. TimothyJosephWood 12:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd suggest that we leave existing question be after the switch. The archiver will pull them out section by section based on timestamps, so it won't be very long before the page is mostly in-order based on the new convention. Responders will still need to check both top and bottom for a while, as some do now. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Until two months ago when the "landing page" was changed, most questions were asked at the top. Those few that were asked at the bottom were moved to the top. For the last two months questions have been asked at the top and the bottom, and answered in place. After changing the recommendation to "bottom", any questions asked at the top can be answered in place, or (preferably imho) moved to the bottom just as happens to top-postings on other talk pages. Maproom (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support as my suggestion in Archive 13 "this is the page we invite new editors to, and it is the one page that is "upside down"; so editors who have made some contributions elsewhere on Wikipedia, often post their questions at the bottom, whilst editors who come here first, can easily assume that all pages are like this"
  As for the "How-to", I think we should reverse the order on D-Day, with a bold hatnote to explain that.
  I think we should also consider adopting the "Date sections" as used at WP:Help desk, as this will remind existing editors, and make finding moved posts easier. - Arjayay (talk) 11:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Ditto the reasons given above. Hogyn Lleol (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support – there's been steady support for this from hosts for ages. How about making the changeover on a day when we habitually expect the unexpected? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - We're a space that is intended to help new editors. I'd really prefer to survey them about what is sensible to them rather than assume that we know better. It's also possible that it doesn't really matter where questions are placed on the page. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I think, in a way, if posting at the bottom isn't sensible to them, that's even more of a reason to do it, because it means they're more likely to post incorrectly on talk pages, where other editors may not be so forgiving, and willing to explain the convention. TimothyJosephWood 18:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I can't agree with that conclusion. That's an indication that the English Wikipedia community should consider changing its entire discussion system, which of course is a larger discussion than the one we are having here. I get the rationale that we want to be consistent with the rest of Wikipedia, we don't want people to have to learn different conventions for different spaces on Wikipedia (although in fairness, there are already different conventions in how discussion is organized in other ways in places like ArbCom and RfA, and people don't seem to have a problem with that). But I also get the rationale that a discussion system ought to be intuitive in a way that does not cause interested editors to back out because they have to spend time learning how to interact with other editors. In any case, we're clearly going to change back to the old system, and I don't think it's a great idea to assume that we think we know what is or isn't confusing to new editors unless we actually ask them. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Surveying new users? How exactly would that work? It sounds good, in principle, but in practice I can't imagine how it would work. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

A survey of new users would necessarily be highly selective – it would only gather data from the small proportion of them that came across the survey, decided to contribute to it, and figured out how to do so. Ascertainment bias would make its results worthless. Maproom (talk) 10:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

So..... Are we going to actually do anything about this, or are we simply going to continue with these periodic pointless discussions until Hell freezes over? -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:37, 30 March 2017 (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.

Implementation

There are obviously various technicalities that must be seen to by competent editors to give effect to this decision. Please put your hand up if you know how and are willing to do the neccessary. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• I suppose the first order of business would be to find a Russian hacker who can switch the automatic thingamabob to post comments at the bottom. TimothyJosephWood 20:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I figured it would be too easy for Template:Clickable button 2 to have a top/bottom setting. I was right. TimothyJosephWood 20:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I reached the same conclusion - and I'm not allowed to edit the template in any case. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Probably should be a Swedish hacker instead of a Russian one... --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 02:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Came to see when and how the page order got flipped, ended up learning fun Swedish history facts.Funcrunch (talk) 06:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• I looked around and tested things, here's what's up: For most users, the Teahouse gadget will be enabled, which uses its own pop-up edit box. This gadget is stored at MediaWiki:Gadget-teahouse.js and MediaWiki:Gadget-teahouse/content.js , which will need to be updated. If the gadget is not enabled (You can untick the box in Special:Preferences), the button uses the MediaWiki "Add section" menu as a backup. This will add the new section at the bottom, as expected. --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 02:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I've put in a request at MediaWiki talk:Gadget-teahouse/content.js. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• Until we get the button code changed, how about for now we change the button to serve as a simple "New section" link, similar to the "New section" link at the top of every talk page? The button seems to be the only obstacle stopping us from moving forward with this transition, and this would temporarily work around it. If we choose to do this, we will have to adjust the wording at Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Teahouse accordingly. Mz7 (talk) 04:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done The gadget has been changed to bottom posting, please keep an eye out for confusion while the page is "in transition". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I've now updated the wording in the edit notice as well. Mz7 (talk) 03:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I've also made an announcement at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host lounge/Announcements/1 for the change, which appears under the text that reads New to Wikipedia? See our introduction for new editors, or try The Wikipedia Adventure as a comprehensive guided tour on the main Teahouse page. Mz7 (talk) 03:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

This is probably already on the list of things to address, but the Table of Contents also wants attention. It currently lists the newest question as the highest number in the TOC (number 54 right now). Number 55 is the newest archived question, just a little older than number 1 in the TOC. Very challenging to understand. Leschnei (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand your comment, Leschnei. Surely only topics still on the page show up in the ToC? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Surely that would self-correct as the last "live" top-posted item gets archived. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

It's just the numbering that confuses me. Without knowing the history of the changing Teahouse design, I would expect the newest comment to be labelled #1 rather than #57 (for instance). Leschnei (talk) 12:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

That would probably require a bot to auto-update that list every time someone created (or, sometimes, deleted) a new section on the page, Leschnei. As a result, it's probably not very feasible. Currently, the table of contents setup just like any other table of contents on Wikipedia: The post at the top of the page is displayed as #1, the post second from the top is displayed as #2, and so on. It was setup this way when we were posting new questions to the top, too. The only difference between our table of contents and almost any other one is that ours has a fancy scrollbar. — Gestrid (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation Gestrid. It's probably that fancy scrollbar that caught my attention. Before, I didn't have to scroll down to see the newest posting and now I do (sigh). Leschnei (talk) 17:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you want your name listed on Teahouse invites from HostBot?

Hi all,

From time to time I update the list of people whose names are included on the ~300 Teahouse invitations that HostBot sends out every day. Here is the current list of inviters:

• Jtmorgan
• Rosiestep
• Missvain
• Liz
• Naypta
• AmaryllisGardener
• Doctree
• Osarius
• I JethroBT
• Dathus
• Cordless Larry
• 78.26
• Worm That Turned
• ChamithN
• Samwalton9

If your name appears on this list and you no longer want to be included on HostBot invites, please strike it out and/or ping me on my talkpage and I will remove you. If your name is not on this list and you would like to be added, please add your signature below.

New inviters

• Gestrid
• Cullen328
• Lectonar
• Mz7
• add your name here

Note: HostBot only includes the names of people who are currently active on wiki on invites. So if you take a long wikibreak your name will remain on the list but will not be included on any invites until you start editing again.

Cheers, Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC) J-Mo 20:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

How active do we need to be? I've been fairly inactive, but I don't mind my name being on invites :) Of course, if you want some activity, then I'm possibly not the best choice. Worm^TT(talk) 11:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Pew, Pew! — Gestrid (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

^^Best ping ever. Worm That Turned, Gestrid the current threshold is: if you've edited EnWiki any time within the past three weeks, your name is included on some invites. This is just to avoid new users contacting editors who aren't going to see their message. I'll update the list this evening, so tomorrow's invites should reflect the new additions and removals. But you can always ping me on my talkpage if you want to be added or removed at a later date. Thanks all! J-Mo 15:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@J-Mo: Thanks! I have C on IRC (not to be confused with C on enwiki) to thank for it (long story). — Gestrid (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done [1] J-Mo 16:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Bottom-posting working at last

An English cream tea

So bottom-posting in the Teahouse is fully working at last! Today the last of the top-posted threads, having been at the top of the page for over two weeks, finally vanished into the archive. Please join me in celebrating with a cream tea. Maproom (talk) 08:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

There were some issues with the gadget script that I fixed yesterday. Should be even better now. Please keep a careful eye on them, and use them yourselves as hosts, to make sure we catch all the problems. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Trainers of the silicium slaves deserves a double cream portion with their tea! Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• It's about damned time. --Jayron32 12:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Datacenter switch

Should we post a note about this wikipedia-l email in our header? We don't want new users freaking out because their edits aren't saving. I would prefer a quick response to this question so, if we decide to do it, we could put up the notice at least a day before the datacenter switchover takes place. I think the note would probably look something like this: Attention: Due to scheduled maintenance, Wikipedia will be uneditable on May 3 starting at approximately 14:00 UTC and lasting for between 20 and 30 minutes. It would probably be just below the note we currently have up about the Teahouse questions posting to the bottom now. — Gestrid (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Gestrid: Yes, we should. --CiaPan (talk) 19:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Page protection?

I was going to request page protection of the Teahouse, but it is meant for new users. Should we not do so, despite the fact a vandal seems to be targeting this? 331dot (talk) 11:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Try a few hours of pending changes, 331dot. Specify in the request why we cannot do semi-protection. And put in the Teahouse header a note explaining why changes are not appearing automatically for new users. I'm a PC reviewer, so I'll try to keep an eye on the page while it's under protection. — Gestrid (talk) 11:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I've put in a request for PC and specified it doesn't need to be for long. 331dot (talk) 11:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I have done that, for 6 hours, but it feels kind of wrong to have to protect the page in any way. Lectonar (talk) 12:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok...too late to the party. Seems to have slowed down. Protection undone. Lectonar (talk) 12:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Cleaned up header? Suggestion

I tweaked the header of this page to make it look a bit cleaner. Please take a look and see what you think: User:Gtstricky/sandbox2 Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 18:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Gtstricky, your edit seems to have broken how the Teahouse "Ask a question" button gadget displays. Either that, or it's messed up on my monitor either way. I'm gonna revert to test it. If it's fixed after the revert, I'm gonna leave it like that. If it isn't, it's most likely that it's just my monitor. — Gestrid (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Update: It wasn't my monitor. — Gestrid (talk) 15:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

thanks. I will check into that. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 00:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

A lingering upside-down thing

At Wikipedia:Dashboard, Teahouse section, note that "most recent" threads are actually oldest. Can this be corrected? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

This has already been pointed out on the talk page of the relevant bot, at User talk:Legobot#Wikipedia:Teahouse questions now asked at the bottom of the page, but no action has yet been taken. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Special archival bot that notifies new users

Context

See above for the original proposition, in which the idea seemed to generate some interest and to be technically feasible. Currently, Lowercase sigmabot III is ordered to archive TeaHouse posts via a MiszaBot configuration header containing |algo = old(3d), i.e. "archive threads whose most recent post is older than three days". The cutoff at three days is chosen as a compromise between keeping the page short enough that it does not overwhelm prospective users (especially newbies), and archiving threads too fast.

A problem is that the TeaHouse is a high-traffic page, which forces to choose a rather small thread age cutoff for archiving, but it is destined to new users, who are less aware of the archival functions, and more likely to have and on-and-off participation on Wikipedia. As a consequence, a new user might ask a question, have it answered after they log off, come back days later, and not find their question answered because it was archived.

A proposed solution is to modify the archival process used at the TeaHouse to provide the original poster of a thread a talk page notification when the thread gets archived, linking to the archive, giving a short explanation of the archival process, and inviting to reopen a new thread if a follow-up is needed. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Policy questions

Before we jump into bot-writing, see Wikipedia:Creating_a_bot#Overview_of_the_process_of_developing_a_bot: we need to know what we want. I think some rough consensus is needed that:

1. The dual objective described above is real:
   1. Newbies who come back reasonably fast should be able find their thread unarchived (define "reasonably fast"; personally I would say a little more than a week, to catch weekend editors).
   2. The TeaHouse page should not be a huge wall of text (again, there could be debate about how huge it could be allowed to become).
2. There is a problem to solve: the thread-life-before-archival setting of three days cannot be fixed to meet the dual objective described above. If the setting can actually be fixed, there is no problem to solve.
3. If such a bot is implemented, it fixes the problem in a satisfactory way, or at least in a better-than-nothing way.
4. There is no better/cheaper way to fix the problem.

I believe 1 through 3 to be consensual in the previous discussion or an obvious consequence of it, but my belief in 4 may be a lack of imagination, and opposing voices should have at least a chance to be heard. So, please comment here. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Tigraan: It's been two days with no discussion. Since you specifically asked if there were any other suggestions and no one came forth, I think it might be safe to make the bot request. We might be able to simply tack on archival and notification to HostBot's duties (after getting BAG's stamp of approval) instead of creating another entirely new archival bot. I have no experience in creating bots, though, so I'm not sure if that would work. — Gestrid (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Creating_a_bot#Considerations_before_creating_a_bot says we can request an existing bot to take over a bot job. The archival part has already been coded a thousand of times, the new part is the notification with a link to the archive. I am not sure this already exists, but it sounds like something I could code myself in Python (if Wikipedia-Python is not too different from Python itself...). Anyways, that is what the specification is for, I will try to draft it this afternoon if I have time. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Similar things already exist, I'm sure. Bots post to talk pages and user talk pages all the time. (For example, there's InternetArchiveBot and ClueBot.) — Gestrid (talk) 11:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Answered below. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Could we have the same bot post a talk back message automatically after the first response? The talk back message could be replaced with the archival message when that happens? Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 15:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Gtstricky: If I understand correctly the meat of your proposal is to post Wikipedia:Teahouse/Teahouse_talkback (or similar) automatically. Well, that is a totally different function we are talking about, and I probably wouldn't code it myself. Moreover, I am not sure it would be consensual - an answer such as "pinging User:X who is good at answering such questions" should not trigger an automatic reply, for instance. So it should remain semi-automated at best (is it not already in Twinkle?).

This being said, removing an existing TH talkback message if it exists should be technically easy (just a matter of parsing the talk page for a given template). The question is, would it really be useful? Usually we don't remove stuff from the talk pages, except for archival purposes.

One could also imagine to post the archival link just below the TH talkback even if there are threads in-between, but this destroys the "older at bottom" philosophy.

So, basically, I mildly oppose it, and I can do the milder versions if any of them is consensual. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Tigraan, I understand and agree with most of your thoughts. However I just went over the first 12 posts and 6 have Tb messages and 6 do not. The ones that do not are a mix of experienced editors and some newer. The newer ones that did not have a TB have not entered the discussion after their question.

So just thinking (typing) out loud... instead of a TB message, could the bot, once a new comment is left, simply place a message on the users talk page along the lines of "We know Wikipedia can feel large and confusing so here is an easy link to your question in the Teahouse. Answers will be posted there so check it out". We could parameter it for "users with under X edits" to keep it for newer accounts.

Maybe this is a separate discussion/request since just getting helpers to use TB more would resolve it. Just keeping with the friendly/easy Teahouse theme for new users it would be nice to failsafe the workflow to ensure the user that asked the question can find their way back.

I know nothing about coding the bots and very much appreciate your knowledge and time for the cause. While consensus would be great, as the requester I am fine with your denial if that is where you are leaning. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Draft for the bot specification

Draft of bot approval request

Operator: Tigraan Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic (supervised during initial trial period) Programming language(s): Python Source code available: (yes) Function overview: A fully automated process for archiving TeaHouse threads. Upon archiving in the usual manner, the bot determines the original poster of the thread, and if certain conditions are met, posts to their talk page a notification with a link to the archive. Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): this page Edit period(s): Daily Estimated number of pages affected: 20/day, mostly user talk pages (+ Wikipedia:Teahouse and archive pages) Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes Adminbot (Yes/No): No

Operation

The bot runs daily and archives threads at Wikipedia:Teahouse according to settings given on that page, replacing the functionality of Lowercase_sigmabot_III. Additionally, for each archived thread, the bot determines the poster of the original question, and posts the following notice to their talk page (if appropriate):

Proposed implementation

An already-existing archive bot (e.g. Lowercase_sigmabot_III) or code pulled from it does the archiving. From that operation, we keep the text to archive, the link to the archive location, and archival parameters to pass to the notice to post.

Threads are determined by first-level header separation (==). For each thread, the original poster is determined (how?). The bot makes various checks regarding the original poster (exclusion template on UTP, edit thresholds - must be decided). If they fail, nothing else happens (for that thread), if not the notice is posted using the thread title, the link to archive location, and the archival parameters.

Pseudocode

archived_text, archive_link, archive_age_parameter = do_archival_stuff(); # use already-existing bots here list_of_headers, list_of_text_of_headers = regexp_match_on_double_equal_signs(archived_text); # split archive by threads N = len(list_of_headers); # number of archived threads for i from 0 to N-1: # loop on threads - should be recoded in two loops, to avoid double-posting to the same UTP thread_title = list_of_headers[i]; text_to_parse = list_of_text_of_headers[i]; original_poster = do_some_magic_to_determine_OP(text_to_parse); # At that point, the code should fail gracefully (log the thread that failed and break to next iteration) if OP could not be determined notice_text = make_notice(archive_link, archive_age_parameter, thread_title); if check_posting_requirements(original_poster): # check exclusion, number of edits, banned status etc. post_notice_to_user_talk_page(original_poster, notice_text); else: # would logging be desirable here?

Specs/conformance requirements

Must/must not = mandatory functionality, should/should not = better to do so if feasible.

The bot must:

• Be exclusion compliant, and include in the talk page notice a link to instructions to opt-out.

The bot should:

• Obey a configuration header on the Teahouse with a format similar to User:MiszaBot/config.
• Post a single notice if multiple threads by the same user are archived at once. (to avoid cluttering)
• Post in the notice the time-to-archival (so that new users know how much time their posts will remain).

The bot must not:

• Interfere with other archival bots (no race to archival).
• Post to any user talk page when the original poster cannot be reliably determined (no false positives).

The bot should not:

• Post to the talk pages of blocked users. (WP:DENY)

Technical discussion

@Gestrid: Similar things already exist, I'm sure. Bots post to talk pages and user talk pages all the time. (For example, there's InternetArchiveBot and ClueBot.) Certainly similar things exist, but the "hard" part is to determine whose page to post to, not how to actually do the posting. ClueBot acts on an edit, so they can easily know who made it. Here we want to act on a thread, so I don't think it is trivial to find the OP in a foolproof way, since the thread might have been renamed (for instance). InternetArchiveBot, IIRC, will find the person who added an URL, so they do need to lookup the edit history, but the url is an easy string to match.

The first step will be to parse the first post in the thread. The easy solution is then to match User talk:... and get the contributor's UA/IP. Hopefully the only failure mode is if the post is unsigned which is easy to detect, but (for instance) if A asks an unsigned question and B answers without indenting, the bot will mistakenly post to B's talk page. The hard solution is to traverse the edit history to find the edit that put the post in place; the question is how to match it given that part of the post (contact information...) could have been redacted etc., but if you match it there is no false positive possible. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Tigraan In that case, we could put the Teahouse on SineBot's high priority list. That causes the bot to not wait before signing an unsigned comment on specific pages. Adding it to the list would require assistance from Slakr. — Gestrid (talk) 12:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually SineBot's grace period is only "a minute or so", so the high-priority list is not even needed (what we really need is that SineBot comes and sign before the archival period has elapsed, but it is only as urgent as the archival process). I knew that, but more generally I was trying to think of all the possible malformatted inputs that could cause the archiver to miss the mark. Also, you can stop pinging Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I posted a draft of the specs. Feel free to edit it, but leave a comment to describe the changes. Alternatively, point to errors, make requests etc., I will try to do the changes when I have time for it. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Post in the notice the time-to-archival (so that new users know how much time their posts will remain). What do you mean by this? — Gestrid (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The notice says threads get archived after x days, the x has to be set. We could have "after some time" instead, which is easier to code, but an on-and-off editor whose thread died because they did not check in time might want a pointer to how much "some time" is. It should be easy to extract the value, since the same process is tasked with doing the archival (which requires the value) and writing the notice. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

You may find Pywikibot's archivebot.py to be a useful starting point. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

This looks well-reasoned to me Tigraan. The method that I usually use to identify OPs is to read the edit comment string (via the API, or the revision table on the replica database) and look for "new section" at the end of the comment string. This works in the vast majority of cases. It will only fail if someone isn't logged in when they ask their question (more common here than some other places on wiki, but still relatively rare IMO) or if they edit an existing section to add their question. Also, I suggest you use test.wiki.x.io to test the script (apologies if I'm telling you things you already know; not sure how many bots you run/have run). Ping me if you want me to +1 the BAG request, you want someone to review your code, or if you want to do something fancy like issue a pull request on HostBot and run this script under that account. Cheers, J-Mo 22:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Jtmorgan. Right now, I am dusting up my Python skills, but I hope to get some of the bot code done next weekend. I will probably just look through lowercase sigma bot's edits to add the notification, so that we don't need to mess with the archival part.

I have run 0 bots so far, I have zero experience with pywiki, and I cannot tell I found anything deep in the documentation, so I will take any advice/link you have.

Back to the bot, OP determination in harsh environments is really the big problem. Newbies will make threads titled "question" or with a non-wikilinked page pointer that gets corrected later on. They will forget to sign, they will post logged out from a mobile phone IPv6 that changes every ten minutes, or alternate between logged in and logged out. They will start a new thread when they should have asked a follow-up in the same thread, or start a new thread as a subthread of another thread. They will mess up the indentation.

I would say false negatives (failure to post a notification) are fairly acceptable and could go very high (let's say 50%), but even 1% of false positives (posting to someone else's TP) is a significant problem (at 20 TH posts per day, 1% of false negatives = 1 spam notif every 5 days). So maybe a multi-pronged test is the way to go - get the OP from the last matching User talk: link in the first paragraph, check contribs to the page if they have a "new section" edit which matches the thread title, and only post the notification in that case. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

If you start by looking for a "new section" substring, I think the only 'false positive' result you'll get is if someone posts a question for a new editor, which I've seen someone (Robert McClenon?) do on occasion. Otherwise, if the "new section" post is by an IP address, you can always just choose to not send notifications. This query tells me that only about 10% of questions in the past 30 days are from unregistered users. So besides the occasional errant message to questioners-by-proxy, your bot would deliver the message to about 90% of questioners. You'll have to be exclusion compliant anyway, so if someone frequently posts questions for other users and doesn't want to be bothered with these pings, they could put {{bots|deny=YourBotName}} on their talkpage. J-Mo 20:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Jtmorgan I agree the "new section" search will yield almost zero false positives (and few false negatives, because the "ask a question" link will force a correct header). But then the problem is then to know when the question is archived and which archive it went to. I do not see how to avoid validating the the archival edit for thread titles. I see two options that makes use of the "new section" trick (which will greatly simplify the determination of OP):

1. Search the "new section" edits of the last X days (which cutoff for X?), and then parse all subsequent archival edit (in the X - <archival lifetime> last days) for the thread titles.
2. Parse the last archival edit, get thread titles, and search the corresponding "new section" edits in the last X days.

In both options, we fail to catch threads that were live for more than X days (but X=20 should catch everything) and those where the thread title changed. There also is a possibility of false positives if the same title is re-used (could happen - "question", "help!", etc. - but unlikely if X is small enough). The second option makes less read requests though, so I think it should be the starting point.

I think the questioners-by-proxy problem is not a big one: it does not seem unreasonable to ask such persons to get the bot exclusion template. (But yeah, I would expect BAG to immediately deny any non-exclusion-compliant bot that posts to talk pages.) I think it is important to give the exclusion process in the posted notice, too. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, as we talk about this I'm definitely starting to appreciate the complexity of the task. A couple suggestions that may help address some of outstanding issues we've identified:

1. You can find out if the question has been archived, and if so what archive it is in, by running an API:Revisions query for a timestamp greater than that of the "new section" edit and looking for any edits by LowerCase SigmaBot III. If the bot hasn't edited the page since the question was asked, it's safe to assume the question is there (hopefully with the same title). If the bot has edited the page since the question was asked, it's safe to assume that the question is in the archive page that is linked to in the archive bot's edit comment (#612 in the case of the edit linked above). Again, hopefully the title hasn't been changed. I don't know of any easy way to check for that without doing a whole lot of diffing.
2. To find the question on the archive page, you don't have to parse the text of the bot's edit. Instead you can use the section property of mw:API:Parsing_wikitext and get a list of all section titles on the archive page (example).

J-Mo 19:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jtmorgan: yeah, the diffing to follow a thread through title changes is what I want to avoid like plague. That is why I think we should just get some kind of validation to throw out the false positives, and damn the false negatives. (Maybe log them somewhere though to have data on the problem, and if ever it is found to be huge, then act on it.)

Thanks a lot for your guidance, but I must say I have zero knowledge of the API (in Wikipedia or in general). Do you know of a smart way to call the API from Pywikibot scripts or another Python method (I would assume that calling the .php?... URL would work, but that is definitely a dumb way if the bot is running from mediawiki servers)? (And please leave me educational links if that question doesn't even make sense.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tigraan: I would just write it in pure Python. It's pretty straightforward, actually! Vis. this tiny script (download) uses the Requests module and delivers you a list of page sections in JSON. You can also use PAWS, our local Jupyter Notebook server, to edit wikipages via the API (example). That's probably not a long term solution for bot wranglers (mostly because I don't think we have crontab integration), but it can be very useful if you want to write your script and test it out in an incremental/iterative way, and easily share the code with BAG for review. J-Mo 08:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Update

I said I would get the bulk of the job done last weekend. Well, I didn't - I had a ton of other stuff to do (reinstalling my OS for starters), after that I discovered pywikibot is not that trivial to use, and after that I had internet issues. Don't come at me with torches and pitchfork yet, folks - I am still on it, I promise. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Is this person noteworthy?

Hello! I am brand new to Wikipedia, and an acquaintance of mine seems intuitively like someone who ought to have a presence, but the guidelines for notability read like Greek to me. Should I provide the name here, or speak to someone confidentially, or is there a "for dummies"-level interpretation of the guidelines that I should consult on my own? Thanks! CyndiMcIncheese (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@CyndiMcIncheese: Hello. This page is actually the talk page for the Teahouse; questions should be asked on the main Teahouse page. However, to answer your question, the most important thing to know for notability is that the person needs to have been written about in reliable sources, like a newspaper, book, etc., that indicate why they merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. Those sources must be independent, as is not related to the person you are writing about in any way(like their Facebook page, press releases, etc.) and provide more coverage than just a passing mention.

I would further add that if you are acquainted with this person, it could be a conflict of interest for you to write about them. Please review that policy carefully before attempting to write about them. If you have further questions, you can ask on my user talk page, or on the main Teahouse page.(click 'Project page' at the top) 331dot (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@331dot: Thanks very much! I don't have any particular connection to the person, but I do see your point.CyndiMcIncheese (talk) 23:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Further to the above, CyndiMcIncheese, there is a "for dummies" summary of our notability guidelines, at Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, CordlessLarry! That link was a tremendous help. I may have to abandon that article, not due to "COI"; rather, I expect it will be nearly impossible to find mainstream media articles about a Green Party candidate in the US. Laughing.CyndiMcIncheese (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Teahouse is blocking me. Why?

For the last few days I have been unable to ask questions on the Teahouse. Whenever I hit the blue button "Ask a question", the edit field appears pre-signed with Al Logorythm. The mouseover shows that Al Logorythm is blocked. Clicking the four tildes button doesn't do anything.

I am NOT al Logorythm. I have never used this name. Teahouse is the only page on Wikipedia that blocks me. So what is the matter?

Jpkent (talk) 10:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Since your username is not blocked from editing, and the Teahouse is not protected from editing, the issue could be something to do with your computer or browser. It might help if you copy and pasted below the exact message that appears when you attempt to post a question. I might also suggest you try posting a question by clicking the "Edit" tab at the top of the page, as opposed to the blue button. 331dot (talk) 11:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jpkent: I see no button to add the tildes when the Teahouse gadget is used. I write them manually, and "Ask my question" is greyed out until then. There is no User:Al Logorythm. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Teahouse#ghost_signature_in_question_box, PrimeHunter and 331dot. Also, the post currently at the top of the Teahouse page, Wikipedia:Teahouse#ClueBot NG editing rates, was added by a now-blocked edited called Al Legorhythm. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jpkent: I'm the user who just posted Wikipedia:Teahouse#ghost_signature_in_question_box. As you can see, Al Legorhythm's ghost signature didn't prevent me from posting a question. I still haven't figured out how to get rid of it, but I suggest you try just ignoring it, and write and sign your question as normal. It worked for me. --Thnidu (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

What is your browser, and skin at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering? Does it look like the box is partially transparent so you see the post behind it, or the signature in Courier (typeface)? I see a white non-transparent box in Firefox and Edge, with the Vector skin. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I manually archived the question to remove the signature from the top, and it should be working OK now. But, I think this will come up again. I thought the formatting used in the signature might've been the problem, but I tried removing it and it didn't work out. The other possibilities are this MediaWiki gadget that automatically strikesthrough blocked editor accounts and how it operates, or how the Ask a Question module interacts with the Mediawiki gadget. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 17:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I JethroBT, the quirk is gone now.

I had also tried to type in the four tildes, the "Ask my question" button remained gray and inactive. The browser choice had nothing to do with this: I had the same problem in different browsers on different computers.

Jpkent (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Formatting at top of Teahouse

At the top of the Teahouse page, I see two overlaid pieces of text: "Welcome to the Teahouse! A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.", and "Skip to TOC Skip to bottom". Both are clearly readable, and the links work, so no harm is done. But it's probably a mistake, and looks odd. I see this with Windows10 and both Chrome and Safari. Maproom (talk) 07:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• I can replicate the problem on Ubuntu16/Firefox53 by making the browser window sufficiently small: the text part of the banner (including the "welcome...") is centered with fixed text breaks while the TOC/bottom part floats right, so if the horizontal dimension is small enough they overlap. The mobile version is probably worse.

The easiest solution would be to make sure the TOC thingie comes before the banner rather than overlapping a bit with it. Not sure if that is possible... Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The TOC/bottom links may be floated right, but they're quite a way – about 90% of their own length – from the right edge of the window. Maproom (talk) 10:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• Maproom and Tigraan The Teahouse header is being worked on now and the new layout/look should solve this issue for you. You can see it at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Header 2. The above question section Feedback: draft of a new Teahouse header (Header 2) has the details. Cheers! — JoeHebda • (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
• @Maproom and Tigraan: I added {{stb}} to the Teahouse page in response to complaints about now having to scroll all the way to the bottom of the page in order to see and answer new questions. The complaint is somewhere in the talk or its archives, but I'm too lazy to look it up at the moment. — Gestrid (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Accidentally deleted content

Hi there... I have accidentally deleted a section at the top of the wiki page for Courtney Love... I can't toseto be able to undelete it .. Can anyone please help! Discopup (talk) 07:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done by Marchjuly. Maproom (talk) 08:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Discopup. I have undid the edit you made. The next time this happens, you should be able to just go to the WP:PAGEHISTORY and WP:UNDO the edit yourself. Also, this is technically the talk page for discussion matters specifically related to the Teahouse operation, etc.; it's better to ask general editing questions on the Teahouse's main page at WP:THQ. Just click "Ask a question" at the top of the page and you'll be good to go. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Teahouse notifications to blocked users

I have seen a lot of Teahouse invites go out to users who are blocked for various reasons. Some are from the HostBot, others seems to be sent by hosts here. I'd like to suggest curtailing this practice if possible, at least in some circumstances.

The notifications usually come after their AFC draft has been declined. In general, I think this is a fine idea, but if the username was blocked as a spam name 3 months before anyone got around to declining the submission, it seems of limited utility and comes across as clueless: "you've been blocked for three months, come ask us about any questions you have except you either can't because you are blocked or you aren't seeing this because it was a softblock and you started a new account three months ago."

Thoughts? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• I would support modifying HostBot to look to see if the user is indefinitely blocked before posting to their talk page. I would also support Hosts not posting to indefinitely blocked user talk pages. As an aside, probably a lot of us use the host plugin that allows us to post talkback messages without leaving the Teahouse page, so it might be beneficial to modify that plugin to look for indefinite blocks before posting the message, then, if the user is indefintitely blocked, send back an error message saying instead of saying "Talkback posted" or whatever it says. — Gestrid (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Right, I should have specified indef blocks, that is an important distinction. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

BTW if a Teahouse invite is generated by an AFC decline it could not be "3 months before anyone got around to declining the submission" because even during the worst backlog the longest any submission waits is just over one month. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: HostBot checks for block status before inviting. So either a) there's a bug in the code, or b) the block happened very shortly before the invite was sent (perhaps after the 'check for blocks' module of the script was executed). In either case, examples of erroneous invites will help me identify and rectify the issue. Cheers, J-Mo 14:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

A proposal

I have a proposal that would affect the teahouse — I'm looking for feedback from any of the regular participants but in particular @Cullen328:.

As background, I'm an active OTRS agent. We field emails from the general public about a variety of issues. In many cases, we get emails from non-editors who have issues and we attempt to resolve them. In other cases, we get emails from newish editors who haven't yet learned how to navigate Wikipedia and may not know about the help desk or the teahouse.

While OTRS agents tend to be experienced editors who should be able to field general editing questions (and some do), I'm concerned that we have a massive backlog, down from 700 tickets to about 550, (This is only info-en, there are thosands more in other languages and other queues such as permissions) but some open tickets haven't been addressed in over a month. While there are quite a few editors who have access to the OTRS backlog, the reality is that there is a very small number of active agents. While that is a problem that ought to be directly addressed, until it is addressed I personally would prefer that agents work on issues that are outside the scope of helpdesk and teahouse help and urge editors contacting us to try to get help at the teahouse in situations where that seems appropriate.

I actually already do this. In many cases, I will provide brief help regarding some issues and provide a link to the teahouse, explaining that the teahouse is a place where experience editors hang out and that's a better place to get help about an article they are working on.

I'm writing because I'd like to formalize this a bit. My guess is that very new editors still do not quite know how to engage in discussions, and may not fully know what to do even after I give them a link to the teahouse.

I'm proposing creating a quasi-templated response, in which I would make a post to the teahouse, identifying the name of the article and the editor and probably a brief summary of the issue as a way to "prime the pump", in the hopes that if they see their name and the article in a post, they will find it relatively easy to add their own personal thoughts to the discussion.

However, I think it would be rude of me to undertake this initiative without getting feedback from teahouse regulars.

What do you think?--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I think that if it's a matter that can easily be addressed in this forum, and it would also benefit other editors along the way, then your proposal is quite viable. There's no need to add to the queue, when there are members here that could lend a hand as well. (*just my two cents*) - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 17:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your post, Sphilbrick. I recognise the issue with the backlog, having recently joined the OTRS team, and I think that diverting people here is a good idea. My only concern is with how you propose to do that. In my limited experience at OTRS so far, people who e-mail us often do not act on the advice that we give them. Similarly, even if you create a post at the Teahouse, I can see that many potential editors won't actually come here to add their thoughts and questions. In those cases, there's the potential that Teahouse hosts' time will be wasted engaging with posts that the potential editors never actually see. I wonder if a better approach wouldn't be to create a standardised reply template within the OTRS system, which gives clear instructions on how to use the Teahouse? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Sphilbrick. I agree with other editors that the current Teahouse regulars can handle an increased volume of inquiries but I share Cordless Larry's concerns that some of these people may not pay attention or even hang around long enough to benefit from a detailed, thoughtful analysis of their problem along with a list of recommendations. That takes brainpower, experience and valuable time. I am happy to devote time to such inquiries if I have a reasonable expectation that someone is going to actually read and pay attention to what I write. I am not a template coder (far from it). But maybe some code could be written and placed on the new editor's talk page requiring them to click a link to affirmatively request Teahouse assistance, and this could be explained in an email sent by an OTRS volunteer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Both of you make a good point, which is precisely why I wanted to bring it up as a discussion to think through the issues. I agree it would be a waste of time if I post something about an issue and one of the volunteers spent some time researching and making suggestions and the editor in question doesn't even drop in. However, my thinking is motivated by what I think may be a true statement — that if you give a very new editor a link to the tea house, they may struggle at knowing how to create a new section, but if a section exists, and all they have to do is click on edit source and add some comments it might be easier. So my revised plan is that I would place the post on the tea house, but will craft some language to make it sure that any volunteer should ignore the request until and unless the editor in question adds a comment indicating that they are willing to participate.

I did use the term template, but I'm thinking of something less formal than our template space so I probably should've used a different term. Boilerplate might be a better term, or I create a format that includes a link to the relevant article a link to the editors talk page and may be a brief discussion of the relevant issue (notability referencing etc.) along with an invitation to the relevant editor to join in the conversation. Obviously, if any tea house participant wants to weigh in before the editor joins in I wouldn't preclude that but we could make it clear that no one from the tea house is expected to contribute to the discussion until the relevant editor expresses an interest in being part of the discussion.

I think I've heard enough positive reaction to try one as an experiment.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Sphilbrick I believe it would be possible to provide a link that, when clicked, creates a new section on the Teahouse and opens it for editing, possibly preloaded with some default language, without creating such sections in advance. I would be opposed to creating sections for editors who have never given any indication of an intention to visit the Teahouse -- I think it would add clutter and confusion. DES ^(talk) 03:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

DESiegelTo go to the bother of creating such a link at this time. What I'd like to do is try and experiment. The next couple times I field a request at OTRS that is begging for tea house involvement I'll create a section and include a caveat that no one should bother responding until such time as the relevant editor makes a contribution. I agree with you that if I do this on many many occasions in most fail to join in, it will add clutter and confusion but I don't think it'll hurt to try it a couple times and see what happens. If we get very lucky and it is enormously successful than I would like to look into the concept of a semiautomatic creation process with some default language as you suggest.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Sphilbrick I do see your point. Please do give it a try then, and we'll see what happens. If you make a regular practice of this, using such a, well what should I call it, "blossoming link" perhaps, and one OTRS complainant in ten visits the Teahouse, we have a significant gain, i think. DES ^(talk) 14:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

"OTRS"? ... Oh, WP:OTRS! Got it now. --Thnidu (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
(Just another editor trying to figure out what's being talked about.)

Regarding WP:Teahouse#Help_with_Mehgan_James_draft as an experiment. The discussion looks like it got a bit out of hand, in that a lot of detailed stuff got dumped in the Teahouse that, preferably, should have been happening on the Talk page for the draft article or at the user's own talk page. I suppose having one of these on the page at a time might be slightly useful because it gives other visitors to the Teahouse a chance to see this sort of discussion, but given that the length of the Teahouse page has grown somewhat long and unwieldy, my preference would be to not engage in this sort of help here.

Any other views? — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• Re "It would be a loss of time to create threads at the Teahouse that the newbies will not follow" - well, that already happens fairly often at the TeaHouse. Anecdotal evidence and all that but I often had the experience of pinging a redlinked username when giving a complete answer that encourages some editing action and their account never edits again for a month afterwards.

While the "client" side (being thrown off to a forum one doesn't want to get involved in) is indeed problematic, the "server" side (TH volunteers wasting time) should probably not be a concern, at least unless some hard data (which proportion of threads are wasted, how many threads/day this represents, etc.) is collected.

Obvious disclaimer: that is my $0.02 and it is very possible that other TH responders feel otherwise. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

TH "Ask a question" button, no longer opens a full URL

Greetings, After install of new Teahouse header (above), the blue "Ask a question" button only opens a small edit window instead of previous full page edit box. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 13:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of the new header, It would be nice, just aesthetically, if the button was centered underneath the Welcome to the Teahouse... text above it. Oh, just realized we're not on the talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:13, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Solved by PrimeHunter - Thanks! Sorry for asking for help here... It's a setting in Preferences, Gadgets. Cheers, — JoeHebda • (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I have moved this section across from the main Teahouse page. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

New Header

Should be not maybe be substituting this? That's... umm... a lot of markup. TimothyJosephWood 09:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: unless I'm missing what you're referring to, are you possibly suggesting the opposite and reversed it – that we should wrap all or most of the code at some page or wrapper template and then transclude from there to here? In other words, substituting the templates included in the project page header would make the markup there much, much longer. Transclusion would be tidier in what's seen on the page while editing, though there might be some technical reasons not to, but on the other hand, and especially now that we're bottom posting, who's going to see it for its length to ever present a problem?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I... kindof wasted a lot of my life on social science and statistics, and didn't get so much into computers, but the person who will see it is anyone who clicks "Edit" instead of clicking "ask a question". I was just surprised when I went to edit it that I didn't need to follow through to a template to do so. TimothyJosephWood 23:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Teahouse categories

The new header puts several categories, including Category:Wikipedia help forums, inside a <noinclude> block. But as far as I can make out, the Teahouse does not actually include the header, but has it copied, and therefore these categories are not present. This does not seem to be right to me. --ColinFine (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Nobody has responded to this question. I held off because I thought that the current state with the header code present in the page (presumably because it was subst'ed) was a temporary state of affairs. But since it is apparently not, is there any reason not to remove the "<includeonly>" tag round the categories in the header, since they are keeping the Teahouse out of those categories? JoeHebda? --ColinFine (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes ColinFine this should be done. I myself am not that familiar with the "include" "include only" "noinclude" usages, but I agree that TH definitely does belong into WP help forums category. Thanks for catching this. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, JoeHebda, with your encouragement, I have removed them from WP:Teahouse. The point of them is that in a template that is transcluded anything between them appears in the page that uses the template, but not the template itself; so in particular, if the header is transcluded, the page will be in the categories but the template won't. But now that the header content is in the page (whether by copy or paste, or by substitution) there is no inclusion, so the tags were causing those categories to be omitted. --ColinFine (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)