This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 2 years ago28 comments19 people in discussion
Hello,
I checked up some member lists again and today I dug some into the teahouse. The list is long and impressive and of course is stuffed with inactive accounts.
This kind of work I still do very manually with looking through the contributions of the last 3 months and check if there have been more than 0-2 posts in the teahouse from this user. If not, I recommend deleting that user. Since this list is so long I want to note I just cleaned up until user User:AlanM1. I'm open for complaints, especially since it's possible that mistakes happen while sighting so much data and accounts.
This is the list of usernames which should be removed from Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host landing:
I really don't know why we need a write protection of the host page if it's not due to arrogance. At least it hindered me to do my work. And whoever has the permission to edit it didn't do their job with maintaining it.
Jtmorgan and I are listed because we co-created the Teahouse. It's symbolic. If you decide to delete me, I defer to consensus or being bold. I don't mind being listed, too. But, it is unlikely that I will be participating as an active host in the near future. Missvain (talk) 03:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't know what purpose the listing serves but I'm happy to be removed given that I don't spend much time here. Sam Walton (talk) 10:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of removing editors unless they appear to have retired or not edited at all in some years. Three months is a pretty short time on-wiki. I have many other projects going. Like many admins, I like to flit between active areas, and may go on a spree in a particular queue after having not touched it for a while. Same goes for the teahouse. I guess I could get behind clearing out after a year, but three months is way too short. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓03:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm in the same boat as Bilby, CaptainEek, and Mathglot. I sort of float around a lot of different areas and help out whenever I spot something someone else hasn't beaten me to. --TheSandDoctorTalk04:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Same here. I think the list is more about who people can turn to and less about who is currently active and so, as long as those editors are still willing to be contacted (as I am), they should be kept on the list. Regards SoWhy08:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that "member" is even meaningful enough in this context to bother about removing anyone. Does it even matter who is a self-declared, or a listed member? Plenty of editors respond at Tea house who are not "members", and apparently many who are "members" do not respond. So what? At best, rather than "delete" any names, I'd simply ask, "Would you like to continue being listed as a 'member' at the Tea house?" and act accordingly. Mathglot (talk) 04:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Speaking as among the most active Teahouse editors for quite a few years, I oppose removing currently less active but historically important hosts such as Missvain, who was instrumental in creating and shaping this project, and in encouraging me to get involved in the early days. Her role as one of the essential creators of this project must always be acknowledged and appreciated. It is unlikely that the Teahouse would even exist without her insights and observations in the early days. Cullen328 (talk) 05:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi I'd like to get back into helping at the Teahouse, very busy with college currently unfortunately. I don't mind being removed but plan on becoming active again this week. Rubbish computerPing me or leave a message on my talk page11:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
I would support 1 year of teahouse inactivity or 6 months of wiki inactivity as a threshold for removal, but anything less then that just feels exclusionist casualdejekyll12:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
I understand that the page is occasionally updated, but since it's not very maintained, maybe we could mark the page as historical? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Tangentially related but the list of images is taken from Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host/Featured which is always outdated, has always been outdated, and probably will always be outdated. Can we just take images from Wikipedia:Teahouse/Hosts instead? One could even make all the subpages with a bot and it wouldn't be THAT hard. Someone who knows button magic can change the become a host button so it creates a sub page. Just a suggestion.or just skip all the nonsense and declare that all hosts are featured hosts casualdejekyll20:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Casualdejekyll, yeah, I agree with you, and Tenryuu. Personally, when I was in my early days, I didn't even notice it and I doubt anyone actually cares. Even the hosts are always the same. So yeah, send it to space. GeraldWL01:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
For whatever reason I'm finding "Send it to space" extremely funny I like the idea of each host having a "Subpage" on the Teahouse. However, if we were to do this then there should probably be restrictions on what can be on said subpage so it doesn't become a secondary userpage. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654501:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
No, @Blaze Wolf - the subpages are just technical nonsense to get the random picture thing at the top working. I'm not proposing a secondary user page. The bits on Wikipedia:Teahouse/Hosts serve that function wonderfully. In fact, what I'm quite literally proposing is to switch up the technical backend to pull things from that page instead of the nearly identical but worse Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host/Featuredcasualdejekyll02:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Oh ok! Apologies for the misunderstanding. Ya I think that would be better. Maybe we could use a better default picture than File:Tea leaves steeping in a zhong čaj 05.jpg? I would use an image that an artist made for me for my image on the Teahouse, however I've lost contact with the artist so I can't request they release it under a useable license for the purpose, and I don't really like how the default picture looks. I understand that it's sort of meant to represent the Teahouse, but maybe we could use something a little more generic? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654502:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
I think so. Maybe it shouldn't be tea but just something more generic. I dunno, I'm not really the person you should talk to about things requiring creativity. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654502:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
For those not interested in yet another detailed explanation of the processes involved, or of my mild irritation over the tone of the last part of the original post (see TL;DR below), I would point out that The Teahouse hosts are an integral part of the Teahouse's informality in helping struggling editors. It brings more experienced editors and many new users with developing editing skills into the sphere of taking on a supportive roles and activities within Wikipedia. I don't have citable evidence, but I believe it helps many new users to go on to take on further support roles across this project, and will have a big part to play in encouraging skilled editors to take on the new mentorship role we will soon be seeing offered to all new account users. The Teahouse host list is maintained every 6 months or so, as time allows, and the latest tranche of edits and removals was made just two weeks ago.
TL;DR It's always nice when new, inexperienced editors like GavriilaDmitriev want to express their views and to make helpful suggestions and offer fresh perspectives. I am glad they are open to complaints, too, because I want to say to you directly that I found the way you wrote the last part of your otherwise appreciated thread quite an insult to the hard work of many hosts and helpers here, both past and present. Had you looked back through our archives you might have read and understood past explanations about how we maintain the host list. Blundering in, making accusations of arrogance and incompetence is sadly not the most effective way to influence other volunteers. And establishing their own ideas of a 'cut-off' for deleting hosts who are not currently active, as if this were some task they have been allocated by divine right is most disconcerting. I note that this is not the first time this user has caused annoyance by doing this.
So, having expressed my irritation with the way they have phrased their last comment, let me now spend a little time explaining, once again, how I try to maintain the Teahouse host list in a fair and representative manner, and I welcome and share their concern in wanting to see it maintained effectively. Others hosts may wish to comment on my approach, but I have explained my rationale in quite a few past threads here - you're welcome to look them up - and have been voluntarily doing this "job" since 2019, as can be seen from this edit history. My last edit to remove some inactive names was two weeks ago, and I have a further set of names flagged up for consideration for removal next time I feel the host list needs managing, and I have an evening spare.)
It's also important to say that having and maintaining a 100% up-to-date list of signed-up hosts is in no way essential to the smooth running of the Teahouse, nor do I believe it in any way confuses or affects those newcomers seeking our help here, and it really does not matter if that assistance comes from a signed-up 'host' or any other helpful and friendly editor here. My view of the Teahouse is that enabling any moderately experienced user to add themselves as a 'host' can often become the first step of their Wikipedia journey towards 'behind-the-scenes' participation, and being here in whatever form can be a great way to learn new skills, whether they be technical or collaborative. Whilst signing up as a host does occasionally look like mere WP:HATCOLLECTING for a very small minority of new users, it really does not matter if that person then feels more involved and proud to be participating in Wikipedia, even if they never contribute here. It is very rare that we would not accept someone adding themselves to the host list unless they clearly had insufficient experience, or had a seriously unwelcoming or unhelpful manner in the way they reacted with new users seeking assistance. I suspect many Teahouse hosts would regard an editor like GavriilaDmitriev (with only 17 mainspace edits to their name) to fall into one of those categories. But we all grow and mature as editors, so today's inexperienced user soon becomes the mellow, skilled editor of tomorrow, and might then feel confident to move on to sign up as an individual mentor on a 1-to-1 basis for the new Growth Team Features arriving for every new account soon.
We (or at least I) do try to welcome new hosts who sign themselves up with a standard message, and we do mention within it that their name may be removed if they do not contribute at the Teahouse within six months or so. This, as I have just mentioned, is because we get quite a lot of relatively new and inexperienced users who feel like it'd be nice to help out, but never actually do so. It is these recently-added, but completely inactive users, who I do remove after 6 months or so of giving them a chance to participate. I also maintain a spreadsheet of all host names, when each last edited, and what their total contributions to Wikipedia and to the Teahouse have been over the years. Every six months or so I go through it and see what maintenance action might be sensible to perform on the host list. Those who have been very active here in the past, but less so in recent times, will inevitably remain on the host list for longer. These users are pinged and thanks for their past contributions and invited to rejoin should they wish to resume activity. (example) I rarely communicate in advance of removal simply because this would add another layer of administration to what is already a fairly time-consuming maintenance task. I don't need to reiterate comments made above why some specific usernames are still listed here, but I would like to point out that I do intentionally retain some names on the host list if they very obviously represent any minority groups of editors, be it by gender, age, ethnicity or country they are editing from, as I believe this form of positive discrimination helps to encourage other users to participate (assuming anyone actually looks at the host list in detail. Apparently around 33 people a day do).
One of the Teahouse's creators (Jtmorgan) who still maintains Hostbot, did in the early days have, I believe, a separate bot which they ran for changing the host lists on a frequent basis. Anyone interested is welcome to go back through our archives to read a brief technical explanation of why that bot's actions had to be terminated. So now things are done manually, and I am sorry if someone feels I'm not doing my job as effectively as I ought.
The Teahouse is a very heavily visited site, attracting both new and experienced editors. It also attracts its fair share of users who take pleasure in meddling with or vandalising pages, and so having extended confirmed protection on pages that really, only extended confirmed users ever need to be editing is not a silly thing. Is it arrogant? I don't seriously think so. It certainly seems to have inhibited one particular new user from making unilateral changes according to their own personal perspective on how things should be done here, though I am pleased it did encourage them to listen to advice given to them earlier to discuss things and gain consensus before acting. In general, I don't disagree with most of the names that they, like me, have already identified for future removal from the host list. And I thank them for their interest and concern. But there are good and poor ways to go about saying certain things and I feel this matter could have been phrased a lot better, and might not then have required the expenditure of so much time and effort to address again here. I'm willing to listen to other hosts if they feel things could be done more effectively, or with greater sharing of the workload. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Noting Wikipedia talk:Teahouse#A few questions about the "Meet your hosts" page and Wikipedia talk:Teahouse#Deletion of inactive Teahouse hosts, is it time to completely revamp all the tidbits about the Teahouse (badges, featured hosts, other strange oddities like guest profiles, maitre d's, the wishing well, and probably some other obscure nonsense I couldn't even find). There's so much weird Teahouse oddities that as far as I can tell a large amount of very active hosts are not aware of. It seems worth it to revisit whether keeping these things around, even with a historical box at the top, is really a good idea.
However, I'm not one to drop a massive proposal here. I think the major issue is nobody really has any ideas about what to do about it all. So here's a dedicated spot to have a casual brainstorming sesh. casualdejekyll02:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Please see the archives for past discussions. Especially, see
Note also that many of the original elements mentioned above (maitre d'; guest profiles; badges, navbox etc) were marked as historic some time ago. If we've missed any obvious elements, please let us know, whilst remembering that it's the Teahouse's informal and friendly help, plus it's different appearance that helps makes it a distinctive and special place. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC).
Should we enable the new discussion tool for everyone?
Latest comment: 2 years ago31 comments11 people in discussion
We don't need to wait until it fully rolls out to activate it here, though. Unless I'm missing something, the link https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&action=edit§ion=new&dtenable=1 will allow a user to create a new section using the new discussion tool regardless of whether or not they have it enabled in their preferences. Should we just cause the big blue button in the header to go to this link and then remove the preload/trim down the parts of the editnotice that'll no longer be needed? As with any beta, there's a slight risk of bugs coming up, but I think the rewards outweigh the downsides. {{u|Sdkb}}talk09:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Support. Not only would it cut down on the edit notices and preload fluff, but it'd also prevent newcomers from getting confused about signing etiquette. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Support I"ve been using this tool as much as I can and I really enjoy it and feel everyone should be using it. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654515:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
@Tenryuu: I don't think the new discussion tool is enabled by default for new users yet, just the reply tool. The "dtenable=1" part of the URL turns it on for anyone, though. {{u|Sdkb}}talk17:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
@Sdkb: Whoops, looks like I misspoke. I'm using Convenient Discussions so I'll admit I've been out of the loop for comment facilitation features and thought that Reply and New Discussion were linked together in terms of development and release. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Procedural oppose unless someone actually explains what it is and how it makes life easier. I couldn't understand this based on anything linked above (the new discussion tool seems to be a history of how it's being developed, not how to use and why that would be easier) Joseph2302 (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Comment/details: I've drafted an update to our editnotice to go along with the switch, as most of the elements of the current editnotice are handled within the interface of reply tool. Check it out here and let me know if there are any concerns. It looks like we're close to consensus on this, so I'll wait a little longer and then let's move forward. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk04:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Support Anything to reduce the scary edit notice we currently have. So long as it works more easily for desktop and mobile users, it will be a welcome improvement. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
@Qwerfjkl Yes, I did know that (but forgot it when I posted!). What I mean to say is that as long as both mobile and desktop users can all easily post their questions, and as long as it's better and clearer than what we currently have, I'm all in favour of trying this out - even if mobile users still have to battle their way through our existing edit notices for the time being. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Haven't used it in a while, but if I remember correctly, the New Section tab doesn't have any of the preload that's present if users click on the button, which includes code that automatically signs for them and comments. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:28, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
@Blaze Wolf: It shouldn't if you don't have any relevant scripts or gadgets active. I tried using the Add Topic link at the top and it brought me to a new blank source page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
The "Add topic" button should not be displaying at the Teahouse; we chose to suppress it with __NONEWSECTIONLINK__, although I can't manage to find where exactly we put it. Clicking it will open a blank edit window unless you have the Discussion Tools beta enabled, in which case it'll open a new section. But even then, I'm not sure we'd want to bring it back—it's better to reduce choice paralysis to only have one button. {{u|Sdkb}}talk19:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
I should have been more specific; I tried the "Add topic" button on this page to confirm my suspicions. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Activated
Per the consensus above, I've activated the new discussion tool with the edits here and here. Please use this space to report any issues! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk04:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
I'd love to hear how it's going. It looks like you're needing fewer Template:Unsigned templates. How's the rest going? That link also adds [subscribe] buttons, which I hope would mean that newcomers are more likely to be notified of comments that don't ping them (assuming they decided to click the button to subscribe). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
@Whatamidoing (WMF), thanks for checking in! I think silence in this case is a good thing—it seems to be working very smoothly I haven't noticed any discussions being added without a header, which was one possible concern—the Please provide a title for your discussion topic. If you click "Add topic", your topic will be added without a title. message seems to be doing the trick there (although if there was an option to make a title required to let someone click publish, we'd still probably activate it here). I haven't noticed a huge uptick in people linking more or giving more specific questions, as recommended in the revised editnotice, but perhaps that'll become more apparent over time. {{u|Sdkb}}talk19:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
The Editing team has talked about requiring section headings. It's technically feasible. OTOH, the PM generally seems biased towards flexible tools – mostly thinking about us experienced editors, I suppose, since we're the ones who benefit the most from being able to do whatever we want – so I think he's reluctant to require a section heading unless editors demand it. (I forgot to add a section heading just yesterday.) If it becomes a problem, please do let me know. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
The times when we wouldn't want mandatory section headings would be for things like substing user talk messages or e.g. {{Please see}} that have a built-in heading. Those issues don't apply for the Teahouse, though. {{u|Sdkb}}talk18:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Inactive Teahouse hosts
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
It seems that a lot of the hosts here might be inactive. Could we come up with an activity policy for hosts, otherwise it is hard to tell that a host is actually reachable? The prior discussion from me was initiated in a too offending way.
"reachable"? Are you saying that there are people on the host list who have no user talk page? As for "activity policy", there is a long detailed explanation by NickMoyes in your previous thread. --bonadeacontributionstalk07:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
New discussion tool
Latest comment: 2 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion
I want something to be made clear. For many days this 'new discussion tool' thing is going on. What are the extra things that were added? For example, I could always add new sections using the new sections button. I didn't need to sign my message. I always had discussion tools enabled from beta section of my preferences ever since I started editing. So what are new changes? ItcouldbepossibleTalk16:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
That's just how beta testing works? Features are tested with a limited number of users, then when all the bugs are worked out in the beta phase, they're released to the general user base. Bsoyka (talk) 04:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't know how the technical side of things works here, just that Wikimedia developers do so when they feel a feature is ready for widespread use. Not sure how this is relevant to the Teahouse anymore though. Bsoyka (talk) 04:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I've temp watchlisted a few articles surrounding association football they seem to be regulars at. --ARoseWolf12:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
What is the point of being a host?
Latest comment: 2 years ago20 comments11 people in discussion
Is it just so people are able to know that you are active at the Teahouse? I'm not meaning to be ungrateful or anything; I was just wondering.
(To clarify, I am basically saying that my experience as a host is mostly the same as how it was before. Is being a host a way for people to be familiar with you and/or a way to signify that you like answering questions? I know this has probably been asked before.)
Many years ago, when I first came across the Teahouse, it had hosts, and host profiles, and guests, and guest profiles. Many of its users ("guests") had quite elaborate profiles. I wondered why anyone would go to the trouble of creating a profile, when they could just ask their question at the Help desk instead.
In hindsight, I think the "hosts, guests and profiles" business was an attempt to engage with new users, who came to Wikipedia expecting it to be a form of social media. Maproom (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
As I remember it, the Teahouse was part of a larger effort at the time to create better on-ramps/tutorials for new editors. There was a lot of discussion happening in 2010-2013 about whether WP as a whole was losing conflict-averse editors and how we could remedy that (as another example, note that development on the earliest version of WP:Wikipedia Adventure was happening at the same time). I thought then, and still do, that a q&a space catering specifically to newbies is a worthwhile thing to have, and that the Teahouse/Help Desk can and should have different purposes. So a couple years after Esperanza got ended, Sarah et al. at the WMF thought it was the right time to resurrect some of those ideals while hopefully learning some lessons from Esperanza and centering this page on editing help. The Teahouse was originally a pilot program, and the hosts were going to be the editors selected to test the pilot and see if editor retention increased.
So with that background, to answer @Asparagusus's question, hosts were editors dedicated to this process, and the profiles helped to give newer editors an idea of who was answering their question and just broadly make wikipedia feel more accessible. After the pilot got off the ground (and some of the more Esperanza-like elements were killed off, like the /Host lounge) the role of "host" has become far less important and so yes, calling yourself a "host" is just a casual way of saying you're available to help other editors in the Teahouse. It has no greater meaning apart from being a friendly title that newer editors can understand. Alyo(chat·edits)17:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
As a former regular of Esperanza (I still keep my green 32 as a flag of my former time there), I know that it says that the Teahouse is a replacement for the Coffee Lounge, but it absolutely isn't. First of all, the chronology doesn't match up. Esperanza was shut down in late 2006, the Teahouse was started in 2012. Esperanza was long gone and forgotten by then. Secondly, the Coffee Lounge wasn't a New User greeting service or help desk; the Coffee Lounge was a place for random wikipedians to hang around and shoot the breeze. It had no real help function for new users; there were some aspects of Esperanza that aligned with The Teahouse, but the Coffee House was absolutely not one of them. It was actually probably among the most contentious parts of Esperanza and likely the part of it that was most responsible for getting it shut down. It was felt to be distracting from the mission per WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK, and even though it got shut down shortly before the the final MFD killed all of Esperanza for good. I recommend reading Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza as it really does a good job of showing what killed Esperanza. --Jayron3218:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. I really do like retaining new editors.
Speaking from my own personal experience, had I not signed up to be a host I would have never watchlisted the Teahouse. I have learned so much from being a host here and reading others responses while, hopefully, being able to help the community retain editors by answering their questions in a civil, kind yet informative way. I also hope I've helped protect the encyclopedia from the potentially harmful actions of well meaning users by pointing out policy in a simple but effective way. I see so many editors answering, many far more experienced than I, some are hosts while others are not but I never look for that. It's not an attention seeking position and, no, it doesn't afford an editor any special privileges which to me is perfect. For me, it's a little corner of the encyclopedia where anyone, host or not, can have a positive impact on someone's adventure here. I wouldn't have known the full impact without signing up as a host so I'm grateful for an opportunity to learn and help others learn. That has value to me but that's just my perception. --ARoseWolf20:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Hosts are useful to me as a non-host answer-hander-outer. When I see a particularly tricky post come thru - especially those which require extra tact to handle - I often think, "Boy, I'm glad there are hosts around to answer stuff like this, I'll leave them to it." Also when the occasional enthusiastic newbie shows up and starts trying to answer questions, it feels like the hosts are the ones who should be telling 'em politely to knock it off, not any of the rest of us randos. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Maproom said above that "Being a host seems to me meaningless." and to some extent they are absolutely right...
...Anyone is welcome to answer questions here, so long as they actually help the questioner. They don't need to be a host to do that. Once someone feels they know enough to help others, they may, if they wish add their name to the host list. In doing so they agree to act in line with our simple host expectations. Only very rarely might we ever say to someone who had added their name that they clearly weren't ready (knowledgeable enough) to be a host. However, someone who signs up but then never actually edits at all here will find their name removed after 6 months or so, per WP:HAT.
...But in another way Maproom is quite wrong. Signing up to help others is actually a very meaningful thing to do, in my opinion. Ok, it's not some formal permission, and so my feeling is that it is often the first and simplest route in for an editor to start helping out 'behind the scenes' and, in time, perhaps then move on into other supportive/administrative work. Signing up as a host, and then helping people out, is actually a very significant declaration of support to the Wikipedia project. Now, whilst I'm not able to offer precise evidence to support that statement, my feeling is that quite a number of newly-signed up Teahouse hosts do then go on to do other useful work elsewhere. And that's pretty important, I feel. Maybe we should run a proper survey and find out!
I think it's true that users that sign up as hosts prematurely do benefit greatly from it. I can think of three editors where that's certainly the case. Being in an environment surrounded by so much advice from experienced editors is like an apprenticeship. If this becomes more commonplace i believe we should formalise it, as it would give us more control. A limited number of inexperienced editors could sign up to be 'apprentice hosts', perhaps 4 max at a time. When they reach 30/500 (or a figure better equated with experience) a space opens up for another one to join. If an editor doesn't adequately answer a question at the Teahouse who isn't on the list, and isn't 30/500, we delete the answer (TPG would need an exception creating) and direct them to the apprentice host process. An incorrect answer by someone who seriously wishes to become a host, and is aware of the expectations, is far less frustrating than a random inexperienced editor walking in and handing out advice like the gospel. The current status quo is a bit of a mockery of our host requirements. I know there would be concern over creating 'two-tiers' of host, but if the numbers are limited and they don't meet the requirements anyway, there shouldn't be an issue. Zindor (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Back in the day, when the Teahouse first started, there were probably a few people who spearheaded the effort, but I remember the leadership of User:Missvain (under a prior user name). The idea for the Teahouse was to make it different from the Help Desk was to have a semi-curated group of "hosts" who would take primary responsibility for answering the questions using appropriate protocols; hosts were trained to respond to questions in a different way than other help venues at Wikipedia, by addressing the questioner directly, greeting them, using active listening (acknowledging their troubles, etc.), avoiding acronyms and jargon, and other such ways. We didn't ban other users from answering questions, but hosts specifically volunteered to be active on the Teahouse and to follow those protocols so new users would feel welcomed and well-cared for when they asked their questions. I do know that the first batch of hosts got a free T-shirt for volunteering (I still have mine). Missvain has stepped back from her involvement in the Teahouse some time ago, and is less active on Wikipedia in general. I'm not sure entirely why, you'd have to ask her. The nature of the Teahouse has changed some, though there are still some of us old-timers who still try to use the protocols here, and I do see newer respondents catching on to them as well, which is nice. I will say that the Teahouse really changed once the AFC process became formalized the way it is used today; a lot of users are directed here for their AFC questions, the Teahouse has since functionally become the AFC ombudsman desk, which might be part of the reason why the original crop of hosts are not around as much; that wasn't what we signed up to do. Helping new users navigate Wikipedia is a very different job than helping clueless social media managers write ad copy for their non-notable clients. Anyhoo, while being a host is not required, feel free to sign up as one if you want to (I'm not even sure I am anymore, but I am still somewhat active on the board). It probably means less than it used to, but it's a nice thing to do if you want to abide by the standards of hosting. Cheers! --Jayron3214:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
I do know that the first batch of hosts got a free T-shirt for volunteering This was the biggest loss from a duffel bag of mine that got stolen off a train sometime in ~2019 or so :( Alyo(chat·edits)15:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
I have 8397 edits to the Teahouse and got involved very early although not at the beginning. So I am pretty experienced. And it was Missvain who recruited me. I have never paid much attention to whether or not somebody answering questions was a declared "Teahouse Host" or not. What I care about most is the accuracy of answers, followed closely by whether the editor is friendly, welcoming and encouraging to new editors. That's our goal here. As for Esperanza, I started editing in 2009 when that project was already defunct, and never heard of it for quite a few years. Esperanza seems like a dried up museum relic to me, and has no impact on my participation at the Teahouse or anywhere else on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 04:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
As one of the Teahouse's newest hosts, I see it similarly to Nick Moyes and 199.208.172.35. Signing up as a host was not necessarily the most momentous thing I've ever done on Wikipedia, but I see it as making myself more a part of the community: this group of people under the "Meet your hosts!" tab is committed to helping new users get their feet on Wikipedia. I'm a part of that group, but so are several others who are far more experienced than I; when there are difficult questions I don't know how to answer it's easier because I know someone who has more experience will do so. Having a host profile also, I hope, helps users who might want to ask someone individually for help know where to go. Also, I had never heard of Esperanza until this conversation. Perfect4th (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
I'd never heard of Esperanza. It was closed down at a time when I'd only made two edits.
I wonder if its history explains to something that has long puzzled me. Sometimes a candidate for adminship gets a No vote on thr grounds that they have little or no experience of article creation, or GA work, or FA work. This seems absurd to me. Editors have many different skills and interests; downvoting a candidate for lack of article creation seems as absurd as downvoting for lack of copyvio work. There are many skills which can be better exercised using admin powers.
Maybe the downvoters are editors with a long-standing (and easily understood) dislike of Esperanza members, who saw themselves as superior to other editors while make no actual contributions? Maproom (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
@Maproom: that's an interesting thought, and may be true, however i think i can recall the reasoning behind those votes. In short it's that sysops are in a position of responsibilty over other editors and content, so if you have a sysop who doen't appreciate the value of content work, they might make decisions that unintentionally negatively impact the building of the enyclopedia. Case in point i can think of a very productive editor whose had dozens of civility blocks, but is always swiftly unblocked because at the end of the day we are here to build the encyclopedia. Additionally there is a struggle with creating top quality content, someone will always disagree with your work and collaboration is hard, if a sysop can't understand the frustrations that are involved in creating GA/FA content then they won't have the necessary sympathies when dealing with issues that arise (everybody will be indeffed, work will grind to a halt, but at least there is no incivility! lol). You're right that it's not always important, but there needs to be a significant amount of the admin population who do understand the journey of content creation. Zindor (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Zindor, we will have to disagree on the importance of civility (there is a reason it was made a foundational pillar of the encyclopedia equal to all other pillars and not just a provision, guideline or rule). Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia for a specific group of people but an encyclopedia of all humanity built on community consensus, not one persons work but a collective of works at varying levels of depth, and when one is repeatedly uncivil in their interactions with other editors then it discourages the development of said collective works and is just as disruptive to the overall development of the entire project as the scenario you envisioned. --ARoseWolf19:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
ARoseWolf, that's the concept but in reality we're not always an encyclopedia for all humanity. 'Anyone can edit' is highly important, but when it comes down to the bare bones of it, the majority of Wikipedia has been created by a handful of editors. The project wouldn't exist, and would cease to develop, without such highly productive editors. Some of these editors don't play so well but their contribution is so great that it has proven beneficial to have a lot of forgiveness for their trespasses against civility.
We're talking rare and exceptional cases though, this kind of big picture isn't what we're handling at the Teahouse and i have no hesitation when it comes to dealing with incivility. Civility is very important, unfortunately though as with all our other pillars it is under constant erosion and repair. The above post was more of an illustration of the balances at play in the project rather than a reflection of me personally. I strive to be highly civil and i think we're the same in that regard. All the best, Zindor (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Zindor, again, we will disagree on the latest point. The majority of Wikipedia is not created by just a handful of editors. There are over six and a half million articles. The majority of which were written with little to no controversy. One of the top two or three content creators on English Wikipedia has created over 33,000 articles (truly an amazing accomplishment). That is still only .5% of all articles. If you added the top ten creators you arrive at somewhere between 200k and 300k articles which is still only 4.6%. Wikipedia is truly a community project. Every editor is highly important as you have noted with 'Anyone can edit'. I think true cases of repeated incivility are rather rare because we are here to build an encyclopedia and that takes working together in a lot of cases. Experienced editors realize that and will generally work together. Please don't misunderstand me, I never associated your illustration with you personally. I've never had much interaction with you prior to this conversation and I always assume the best of a person, almost to a fault. We may disagree on your illustration but I highly respect your viewpoint and when we break everything down I believe we probably agree on far more than we disagree. In fact, I count on it. Like you, I think we are the same in most regards. Best to you as well. --ARoseWolf20:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
By handful i'm talking in relative terms so around 200 editors. When that's considered and the number of poor quality articles is deducted (the best way to account for existing content that should not be in Wikipedia) i'm sure the numbers look at lot more like what i was saying. I've haven't done the math in years though, maybe i am incorrect Zindor (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
@Inoxent AR Hi there! I see no one has responded to your statement - probably because it's in the wrong place. If you still need help, please go to Wikipedia:Teahouse and click the big "Ask a question" button. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
skip to bottom link at the top
Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion
Pinging @Rchard2scout: who added that particular highlighted 'skip to bottom' link back in 2019 so that it would work in mobile too. It doesn't work their either, now. (I just use WP:THF or tap the down chevron, not that a newcomer would know the first one, of course.) Nick Moyes (talk) 09:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
It looks like the element with id "mw-data-after-content" disappeared. I've retargeted it now to "footer-info", which seems to exist both on desktop and mobile (not sure if it works on all skins, but anyone not using the default skins probably doesn't need the Teahouse...). --rchard2scout (talk) 10:06, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
When section editing i've had a couple of potential edit conflicts already resolved for me by the system, in both cases placing my later comment above the earlier one. Has anyone else noticed this, it seems odd? Zindor (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Ah, i see, thanks. Were you using it just then to reply to #The importance of the expertise of Wikipedia editors? I'm certain i wasn't using it Zindor (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Sporting hoax exposed in part due to a Teahouse question
Latest comment: 2 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion
That is rather interesting. I wonder if there are still any accounts relating to that company are still around. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654519:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Honestly I didn't expect that little paid editing to be a part of such a huge case. Salute to CyclingTips for that comprehensive piece (which I'm halfway through, it seems), and for the appropriate research. Also quite chilling, seeing some of the keywords in that piece. GeraldWL19:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Insanity. Though they're throwing around the term "moderator" quite loosely... I guess it accurately describes the actions of vandal-fighters well enough. Moderating. casualdejekyll21:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Goodness - just spent the last 2 hours reading that brilliantly written exposé of a sociopath who used Wikipedia as just a tiny part of his 'whole life fraud'. @Cordless Larry: are you going to suggest this as a story for The Signpost? Thanks for flagging this up (and I'm glad we didn't come out of it too badly). Nick Moyes (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion
Comment noted, and help has been offered by multiple users. This is an administrative page for the Teahouse, and DNFTT may apply. We offer friendly help at WP:TH, whenever anyone seeks assistance there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Moyes (talk • contribs)
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.
@BloxyColaSweet: You posted something similar on this talk page on April 28. At that time, you were asked to clarify why you felt this way, but you never did. You also don’t ever have seemed to asked a question at the Teahouse since you created your account. If you’re not going to clarify what you mean by my concern, then it’s going to be hard for others to try and help you. — Marchjuly (talk) 06:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
@BloxyColaSweet Most of us here have dedicated hundreds of hours to helping people just like you at the Teahouse. Just explain what issue you have, and we'll try to help you. For myself, I have a botany degree and have spent years collating vascular plant data and have published a definitive Flora of my County. So, if you need any help with botanical articles, just ask away. (I'm sure someone will 'ping' me if I don't see your post.)
Looking at your talk page history it looks like a few people thought back in November 2021 that some of your new pages and edits weren't really appropriate. Whilst WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES tells us all taxa are notable, we do need at least one source to allow someone to verify that it actually exists, and you hadn't added that at the time you began them. So someone (who probably don't know much about living organisms) proposed them for deletion, but they remained as a redirect to the up-to-date taxon name. Then you also got a few somewhat firm notices about some edits you made. TBH: this is quite normal for new editors who don't quite know what they're doing. With 6 million+ articles to maintain, our messaging can seem a bit fast and harsh at first. So long as you take feedback on board, you can only improve. Meanwhile here at the Teahouse we do try to spend a bit more time to explain how things work, and usually in a much friendlier manner than you get elsewhere on Wikipedia. So I hope this helps a bit. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
I really dont know how to explain it but ill try as best as i possibly can. When something is confusing or something doesnt make sense, of course, to go straight to the tea house. but when i ask for help i go to the source code but the lines of code are way too of a hassle, but yet still very vage. i know well how to make pages but when i look for the text above that replied to me its way to of a hassle. now i am thinking about the nomination of deletion of this page. the tea house frankly isnt very friendly i have to say :( BloxyColaSweet (talk) 09:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Editing wikipedia is entirely voluntary. If it is too much hassle for you then perhaps concentrate on something else that is more enjoyable for you. Many volunteers here go out of their way to be friendly and helpful to newcomers and if you genuinely want help doing something constructive here you will certainly find friendly helpful advice here. Polyamorph (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
@BloxyColaSweet When you said "now i am thinking about the nomination of deletion of this page.", I hope you are not seriously considering an WP:AFD or WP:MFD of the Teahouse. If you are, you are highly likely to be thought of merely as being a troll, and could well find yourself blocked per WP:NOTHERE.
I am aware that you have expressed concerns above that we are somehow not friendly, yet when I and others politely tried to offer you assistance and invited you to explain those concerns, you failed to do that, simply making vague comments about the code being too much "hassle" for you. I can't work out if you are genuinely confused, or just trying to have some fun at our expense here. Your past contributions show that you have never actually sought help at the Teahouse, and have only made one edit to an actual article in the last 6 months. If you really need help (even about the source code) you're very welcome to post a proper question about it HERE, but do please ensure you clarify precisely what the problem is that you are encountering so that someone with that understanding can actually help you. Please don't post any more of your own personal opinions on the friendliness - or otherwise - of the Teahouse at this administrative talk page (as you've just done on the thread below this one). Instead, ask away at the Teahouse question page itself, complete with a full explanation of the actual problem you are encountering so that we can address them and solve them for you; our patience and support can only be stretched so far. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2022 (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.
Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
curprev 06:44, 14 June 2022 JASION1209 talk contribs 76,950 bytes +11 No edit summary undothank
curprev 06:43, 14 June 2022 JASION1209 talk contribs 76,939 bytes +59 No edit summary undothank
The above listed edits inserted highly inappropriate comments to a question about a person being discussed for a possible article. The person in question died about 2 months ago, so the post mortem parts of BLP might still apply. I have reverted to the original text of the question, but these edits and the intervening ones may need to be locked from view. The editor's only other contribution has been reverted for basically the same reason. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
@Khajidha I've revdelled them now. next time, please be a lot clearer with your original post. That first line made no sense to me at all, and took some time to decipher. It might have been in context for you, but it didn't mean much to me. For someone with your editing experience, I'd have expected a WP:DIFF or a direct email, per WP:STREISAND. Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
moving contentious topics
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I don't know if it is popularised enough but for what I have seen in the Teahouse is that when a new editor comes in for 'list of Wikpedia guidelines', he/she is introduced to 5 to 7 long and boring WP: articles just to end up asking again in the Teahouse. Why not redirect to WP:TWA? (I know that's not the attitude you would want from a Wikipedian but come on, I haven't read any of those fully). Excellenc1 (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
@Excellenc1 Quite a few of us do actually recommend WP:TWA, though, as more and more people use mobiles to edit on, it becomes less useful, as it's not designed for mobile operation. It's also a bit clunky, only uses WP:Source Editor, and some users do struggle to get it to work all the way through. I do like it when I see evidence that new users have tried to work through it, as it shows commitment to learn. I see you gave it a try last week; how did you find it, and did you manage to collect all 15 badges along the way? Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Nick Moyes 15? I got 6 maybe. At some parts, where the mission ends in a dead end (it says edit and nothing else), I just click back and go to the next mission. For where I could click 'continue', I got the badges. Overall, I got the test parts right. Excellenc1 (talk) 10:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
@Excellenc1 Yes, there are 15 badges. (see here). I did it again recently with my alt-account and managed 12 badges (see here). I fear that TWA has become somewhat outdated and not as effective as it once was. I also think it would be a good thing for WMF developers to work on to improve. At the back of my mind, I'm sure someone here over the last year or two suggested/offered making some small changes to the wording, as those bits are user-editable, I think, though not the programme itself. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I would also like to add that I did contact the original developer of TWA and they told me that they don't have time to work on it anymore, so it's most likely up to the community at this point to maintain it and fix it. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654513:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
TWA has some cool elements—the graphics in particular are nice—but community control is not an optional feature for Wikipedia. TWA lacked it, and as a result it's either outdated or broken in several key areas. I'd prefer to instead see some of the better features of TWA imported to the Help:Introduction series. {{u|Sdkb}}talk19:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I also like to see multiple options available - some newcomers like interactive elements like TWA, some like text-based tutorials/help pages, some like real-person support (like the Teahouse), and some like a mixture. 🐶 EpicPupper(he/him | talk)03:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Just a note to say that I wouldn't recommend TWA right now, because there have been some bug reports. I think it's in the "works in some web browsers but not others" state at the moment, and (non-WMF) people are trying to fix it.
(It might be wrong, but my understanding of the history is that it was a combo. Many of the graphical elements had WMF help, and I don't think its approach to sandboxes is something we can replicate on our own without help.) {{u|Sdkb}}talk01:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago16 comments7 people in discussion
Seems to me like there are more and more discussions here lately from users who are asking about declined article submissions. While WP:BITE definitely applies, as many of these users are new or newish, it seems to me that the Tea house is not really the right venue to go into declined submissions in a lot of detail (of the type, "How do I fix my Draft so I can submit it?") It's a balancing act, especially since we want to be helpful to newer editors, but as much as possible, I think we should gently refer them to the reviews on the Draft itself, and let them work it out via the normal submission process. There's quite a backlog at present, and to some extent it may be impatience, WP:FORUMSHOPPING, or just an earnest request. Not sure what others think about this. Mathglot (talk) 07:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Mathglot, I certainly do not think that Teahouse hosts should be expected to offer detailed advice about every draft that comes along. However, if I find a draft interesting or illustrative for good or bad reasons, I will often offer detailed comments and source analysis and certainly do not want to be discouraged from doing so. Cullen328 (talk) 07:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
@Cullen328: Thanks. You're not worried about "jumping the line" issues? I see comments all the time at drafts waiting for action about "being patient" because of the large backlog. It just seems somewhat like punishing those who are following the rules. But I see your point about not discouraging certain kinds of content at TH, and in particular, the "be kind to newbies" is the strongest reason, imho, to go ahead and answer. Mathglot (talk) 07:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Mathglot, there is no line or queue, and AFC is entirely optional for most editors. Reviewers work in no particular order and tend to select drafts about topics that interest them or are obviously promising or obviously inappropriate. Our goal should always be to improve the encyclopedia, and if someone cones to the Teahouse with an excellent draft, I will accept it and maybe improve it myself instead of saying "wait for weeks or months". Cullen328 (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Again, Tenryuu, AFC is entirely optional for almost all editors, and many experienced editors consider the whole AFC process deeply flawed. So why should Teahouse hosts direct Teahouse visitors to that morass, instead of offering a frank analysis of a draft if they freely choose to do so? Our job is to move acceptable encyclopedic content into the encyclopedia, not to further clog the already clogged AFC process. Cullen328 (talk) 04:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
@Cullen328: Never once did I say anything to the contrary on the optionality of the AFC process. What I'm talking about are the messages that users get on their talk pages when their drafts (which would mean that they've elected to go the AFC route) are declined, which suggests asking at the Teahouse, which I presume would have far fewer AFC regulars than the AFC help desk. I am suggesting that the target venue mentioned from the Teahouse to that specialised help desk. This seems to be built in to the AFCH script. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
@TheAafi: Much appreciated. I feel somewhat bad for these newcomers when they come and ask questions to Teahouse regulars who are probably able to help them less than actual reviewers. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
For the record, {{AfC decline}} (which is placed on the user's talk page for declined drafts) links to the AFC Help Desk and IRC, not the Teahouse. AFCH does give the option to "invite the user to the Teahouse" as well, so that is likely where they are getting their Teahouse link. Primefac (talk) 08:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC) (please ping on reply)
@Primefac: I see what you mean looking at a sample decline message on a user's talk page. It seems a more likely suspect is {{Wikipedia:Teahouse/AfC Invitation}} ( Note: its talk page redirects here), which prominently displays the link to the Teahouse. Hmm, perhaps a new discussion should be started on its usefulness then... —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:12, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Could be that we just need to make the other in bold as well? I know no one actually reads banners, but it does state that if you have something other to ask besides the draft issues to go to the Teahouse. Primefac (talk) 11:11, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
It probably doesn't help that there's a Teahouse image on the left-hand side, which might cause users to assume that that is the general place to go ask for help with drafts. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 11:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
The thing is that "how do I fix my draft so it gets approved" is both a bad question to ask and answer. Mostly because it shows that we aren't doing a great job of telling people in the guides. And linking someone to a guide just feels like a cheap-out, so it really does just lead to a lot of hosts saying the same things over and over. Heck, Cullen's been doing it for years now! casualdejekyll16:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Yeah. Ideally, reviewers of drafts would offer more specific, more actionable feedback when declining drafts, and editors trying to get a draft accepted would put in the effort to follow reasonable/clear feedback rather than just coming to us out of a combo of forum shopping/hoping we'll work on improvements for them/etc. But neither of those two elements are in place. If we're going to have a dedicated AfC help desk, I think it makes sense for all related notices to direct folks there to help centralize things and get questions to the editors best equipped to answer them. The AfC desk could have a link to the Teahouse in its instructions at the top, but I don't think other notices need to link to us. {{u|Sdkb}}talk05:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Review of FREEE Recycle Article
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, Teahouse Volunteers, I recently developed an article on FREEE Recycle - Wikipedia and moved it to encyclopaedia article page. Kindly help review and edit or proffer suggestions, so it doesn't end up being deleted. Also i was wondering how long an article goes through review before it is published fully on wikipedia. Dumebiok (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
What happens if someone tries to delete the Teahouse?
Latest comment: 2 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion
Do not press this button!
I wanted to see what it would have looked like but that would be vandalism.
In the Teahouse archives, I saw a question where a response included saying that {{db-g7}} had to be replaced with something else so it would not appear that someone was trying to delete the Teahouse. The person asking the question had copied whatever was on the user talk page.
I assume the person who responded acted before anyone noticed the Teahouse was nominated for deletion. And if the action was noticed elsewhere it might take a while to find where it happened.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
It would require a Steward for actual deletion because there are too many revisions. Placing a tag on it does the same thing it would on any other page. PRAXIDICAE🌈19:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Also, importantly, I can't imagine that any current administrators would have actually tried to delete the Teahouse just because a new user had tagged it for deletion. Sam Walton (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I think what I'm asking is what would happen that would cause such administrators to see this was being "proposed" before that person realized, "Wait! That's the Teahouse! Can't do that!"— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
{{db-g7}} is Author requests deletion. Even if an administrator didn't already know the Teahouse, it's hard to imagine any administrator would delete a large project space page with a g7 tag without checking that the tag was placed by the sole author of the page. Administrators are supposed to always check that. They might be sloppy with a user sandbox but the Teahouse? No way. I'm an administrator so I may be biased but I doubt there has ever been a g7 deletion of an important page. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
...although wasn't there was one admin who fairly recently got de-sysopped for a long-term history of very term sloppy CSD work, if I remember rightly? Nick Moyes (talk) 09:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't think it's that easy because if a article is nominated for deletion then you can always reject the decision. Editors should should always have good faith. If I'm correct, it isn't good faith to try to delete the Wikipedia Tea House page. Cwater1 (talk) 07:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
An interesting idea, Tim. It might be a bit complex or overwhelming for a newcomer to navigate by themselves, but as the bones of a flow-chart, it could be good to help Teahouse hosts and everyone else to distil down the pathways of choices and advice we should be giving. I was unclear where exactly you wanted comments and suggestions posted, or if you wanted us to edit WP:TRIAGE directly? I thought it best not to do that, so I'll just comment that WP:VPT seems a better link for technical advice than WP:VP, though I doubt newcomers here would really need to know about that at this early stage of their editing career. But it's a good link to be aware of in that flow of answering questions. Another route to include could be "Are you concerned about an article's notability Y/N?". I'd change WP:TWA to Help:Introduction. I think TWA is so clunky and doesn't work on mobiles (now around 45% of our editors, if I correctly remember seeing this figure mentioned somewhere), and is so out of date that it shouldn't be part of the flow at all now. Oh, and don't forget Newcomer tasks and the Homepage Tab, too. Hope this is a good starter for you to develop this further. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Nick and Michael! I just took the Wikipedia Adventure and agree that it's a bit outdated, and it actually wouldn't let me continue past a certain point on my desktop, so I had to quit out. Hopefully someone will take an interest in going through to update it and user test it to improve the experience. I'll see how I can integrate Help:Introduction. And I liked the interactive nature of Levivich's help system - could be an offshoot in addition to having an actual flowchart. And I just added Help:Introduction to navigating Wikipedia/1 as an option. I'll also have to figure out how to name a range so I don't need to change the numbers in the flow chart each time I add a new step. And linking to WP:VPT is a better choice than linking to WP:VP. TimTempleton(talk)(cont)21:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
(responding to ping) Just wanted to mention that {{help button}} is designed to be easily forked so that it can be used for other types of decision-trees/flowcharts. An example of an existing fork is {{DYK help}}. For convenience, one can see the results by clicking on these buttons: Help!DYK help. If anyone has any questions, please feel free to ping me or ask at my talk page. Levivich21:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for that update, Timtempleton, and for taking suggestions onboard. I wonder if you've thought further about my comment as to who it is best aimed at. Are you still wanting to make something quite complex-looking that a newcomer can try to follow, or is it better to focus on a workflow that new hosts can follow in their welcoming and question-answering processes? I don't think they're mutually exclusive, but it really helps to understand one's Aims and Objectives to start with. I'm still of the view that creating a host/helper's workflow could be the best start. Then, having bottomed that, you could distill it back down to a simpler form for a newcomer to follow for themselves. (But then I did always like to overcomplicate things!) Nick Moyes (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm learning more and more thanks to you guys. @Levivich: I just added Wikipedia:Contact us as an additional WP:TRIAGE choice that visitors to Wikipedia might make. @Nick Moyes: This is meant to help visitors understand how to use and improve Wikipedia. There are lots of moving parts, but I haven't seen them synthesized in an easy to follow format. I don't know the best way to share this flowchart with newcomers, but once it's ready for prime time, we could include WP:TRIAGE in a standard welcome message to user pages. It could also certainly do double duty by helping up and coming help desk and teahouse volunteers understand how to help new users. You may have noticed I removed WP:TWA. Newcomers to the help desk or teahouse are constantly being directed there, although I don't think they should be after just going through the exercise myself. TimTempleton(talk)(cont)22:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I like it OK, although I must nitpick about the wording in "Contact Wikipedia". As a WP:VRT volunteer, we get hundreds of emails from people who think that they are addressing someone with an official capacity at the Wikimedia Foundation, not other editors who are volunteering to answer the mails. I wish it could be rephrased as something like "Contact a Wikipedia volunteer for help". It would certainly be more honest than what the current wording implies. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Upcoming WMF fundraising campaign
Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Hello everyone,
My name is Julia and I am the Community Relations person at the WMF Advancement Department which includes the fundraising team. As you might be aware the WMF will be launching the English Wikipedia banner fundraising campaign in late November and it will run until the end of December.
During last years' campaign, I noticed that you had a lot of people coming to this space with questions, suggestions, and complaints about the campaign. I am trying to help to decrease this kind of traffic this year. I prepared a draft Template for you to use. This is a draft so please do add aspects you would like to see in it. Using this template is a suggestion to hopefully make your life here easier in case you get an influx of enquiries during the campaign. I hope it will be useful and if you would like me to make any changes to it, please do let me know.
Generally speaking, you can ping me with anything fundraising related and I will come and help!
The draft is pretty good. I don't know if it would be practical to mention in the message but the two most common comments we get during a fundraising campaign are probably 1) is there a way to stop seeing them, and 2) I've already donated but I still see them. 331dot (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello all, I will first of all disclose that I am new here, so perhaps there are other common practices or otherwise I am missing, if so please tell me as I truly am interested in becoming a meaningful contributor to this website. Anyways, I am trying my best to translate the de:Gerhard_Gerling article from the German branch of wikipedia into English. Originally I just wanted to translate the article, but since my draft was rejected for a lack of sources and references I began looking for those, as the original article itself lacked them. My issue then became, however, that the amount of information on this individual was rather sparse in all existing references. What I ended up finding was a biography on the individual commissioned by an independent organization to an independent (but accredited and experienced) biographer, which itself used plenty of official and reputable sources, both government and academic.
My question now is, in trying to expand and rewrite this article with the appropriate citations I've found myself nearly solely citing this singular biography, partially out of convenience but primarily out of necessity. I need to ask, is this poor practice? I looked on the article for how to write my first article, and it mentioned that the purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize other quality and reputable articles. I just want to make sure that primarily using this one biography, only sometimes supplemented by others, instead of relying on a variety of sources, won't be frowned upon. Jazzertyy (talk) 12:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Would it be possible to create a variation of the Teahosue AFC invitation for when a user's draft is rejected? Declined is very different from rejected as with Declined the user can submit it again however if it's rejected the user cannot submit it again. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654516:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
@Blaze Wolf As far as I know, the current "decline" templates invite users to the AFD Help Desk, not the Teahouse. See User_talk:Willajayne for an example. They suggest the Teahouse for any other questions about editing. I'm not sure whether we should be encouraging editors whose draft is rejected to do anything, as that would only get us into arguments over lost causes. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not interested
Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
I repeatedly read
Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.
or minor variations thereof.
"Featured articles", at the time of their featuredom, presumably satisfy interested inquisitors. Right now it's "I Drink Wine", a song that, we read, is sung/recorded/whatever (lipsunk?) by Adele. Within it:
[Adele] viewed "I Drink Wine" as reminiscent of the work of Elton John and Bernie Taupin, and wrote it for herself and a friend during a time when she was taking things too personally. The song's lyrics were Adele's attempt to explain why she needed to mature to be more available in their friendship.
Adele revealed that three songs were in contention for release as the lead single, including one she described as "very sort of '70s, like piano, singer-songwriter-y, [with] a whole band on it, but just very Carpenters, like very Elton".
That is mostly directed at people attempting to write about themselves, people they work for, or their company, not quoting an article subject in an article. 331dot (talk) 09:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
You repeatedly read it because two years ago I put it in a template, {{HD/WINI}}, when I got fed up with typing the same message. Perhaps it is overdone - anybody's welcome to tweak the template. ColinFine (talk) 11:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Well, how about, say:
Wikipedia has minimal interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them (none of which can count towards notability). Wikipedia is interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.
though that's only a first bash and surely can be improved. (And apropos of what surely can be improved, "she needed to mature to be more available in their friendship": eh, what?) -- Hoary (talk) 12:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Adele writing about a song she sings is acceptable. Adele writing about Adele's rendering of the song is probably not. Maproom (talk) 12:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Thoughts about amending the page notice for the Teahouse?
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
I was scrolling through the Teahouse today and came across this question, which extended into a comment branch before discovering that the user was using the mobile view that has a different layout. Does anyone think it might be helpful to add If you're using the mobile version of Wikipedia, please mention that in your question to the page notice that appears when creating a new discussion to head off potential miscommunication? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Hmm. I've only been hanging around the Teahouse a few months now, but I can't think of any other times it's come up; on the other hand, I may've just skipped over those threads because I don't use a mobile interface and generally can't comment on related issues. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
@Blaze Wolf/@Tenryuu How do we know that We don't usually get questions relating to the mobile version of Wikipedia? If a user assumes that everyone else is using the same mobile view that they happen to be using, would they think to mention it? I suspect not. So, to that end, a long time ago we added the line "Mention if you'd like a reply specific to mobile view or the VisualEditor." to the 'Ask a Question template. Isn't that sufficient? (Apols for the belated response; I've been rather absent from Wikipedia for the last few months) Nick Moyes (talk) 00:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
A self-eval quizz for Teahouse hosts
Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
Ahhhh! Latin! Taking a quick look at it, it actually looks pretty good, tho I would remove the "how do I desysop an admin" one since I've never seen anyone complain about an admin here (i've seen people complain about admins at WP:HD tho). I would assume you look through some of the archives to see what some of the most common questions were. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654513:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Huh that's actually really interesting. But I do agree that if I saw that, I would initially check the user's contribs, mainly to see what admin they are referring to, but also to see if they're simply refusing to understand the rules or if they seem to know the rules but are deliberately disobeying them. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654513:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
I remember seeing "How do I take action against a horrible rouge admin?!" asked more than once (in various different ways). I don't think a "background investigation" has ever turned out well for the inquirer... 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
@Tigraan You pinged me back in October, but I have not been able to be active here for the last few months - sorry. Your draft 'self-test' is an interesting idea, but very much a skeletal 'work in progress', so might perhaps have been better kept as a userspace draft until a lot more advanced. I've added a few lines to make that clearer.
I seriously advise removing all signatures and date stamps of other editors' questions. Not only does it make it look like a talk page, but it's not really OK to make it look as though those editors are asking those questions, or, indeed, to embarrass them. A simple copy of a genuine question might be OK (use an edit summary to acknowledge the source), assuming it had some worthwhile responses. In which case, by all means then simply link to the archived question and answers. But that link should just form part of the self-checking answer. I can't offer more comments as there isn't really enough content at this stage, but the idea is a sound one in principle. I started working on something similar, related to WP:ORFA, which you can see in its still-unfinished form, here. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Possible FAQ?
Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Has creating an FAQ for the Teahouse ever been considered? I understand that the Teahouse is meant for new users to ask questions which is why there tend to be a lot of the same questions, however have we ever considered making an FAQ to try and reduce the amount of similar questions we receive? I feel that it would make it easier since a new user doesn't have to wait for an answer and instead can check the FAQ for questions that have been repeatedly asked in the past and possibly find the answer to their question. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654516:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Judging by the number of people who routinely ignore Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, which is linked prominently on Talk:Muhammad and even reproduced in a permanent first section visible on mobile devices, I am skeptical that a FAQ on the Teahouse would get any attention from all the newbies who want to know why their draft was declined (which I would estimate is the number one question). The same thing goes for the FAQ at Talk:Adam's Bridge. It might reduce the tide of questions in a small way, but doesn't eliminate them. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Well obviously it wouldn't eliminate them, that would only happen in a perfect world (one where questions like "why was my draft declined" would exist). However maybe it could help if we had somewhere to direct users other than giant essays and policies? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654503:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not saying we shouldn't do it. It certainly can't hurt, and may even help in a small way.
Dang. I didn't know there were that many HD templates. Still, it wouldn't hurt to actually create an FAQ page with some of those answers. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654513:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Archives missing?
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Looking at the deletion logs, it seems that the answer to your second question is that someone mistakenly created Wikipedia:Teahouse/Archive 11, and admin User:Liz deleted that, and Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Archive 11 was deleted at the same time, presumably unintentionally (and perhaps your first point about only 10 being shown in the archive box contributed to that) so perhaps she or another admin can undelete it? - David Biddulph (talk) 07:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Ahh. I couldn't figure out that deletion reason, but your theory would cover it. Maybe I'll try an undeletion request later this week if no helpful admin wanders by here first. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
I see that getting Archive 11 back has corrected the problem with the archive list in the box at the top. We can now see the ones beyond 10, so it had previously all been part of the same problem. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Meeting this Friday
Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments4 people in discussion
Hello,
The Editing team is hosting a public meeting this Friday, December 16th to talk about the needs of new editors. You are all invited. They want to present some ideas they have about encouraging the addition of inline citations, and they want to hear what you think will help newcomers make productive contributions.
This meeting will be in English. There is some information on wiki at mw:Editing team/Community Conversations#16 December 2022 You don't need to sign up in advance, but you can sign up on that page if you want to. I hope some Teahouse hosts will be able to attend.
If you aren't able to attend, but you have some information or advice for the team, you can also leave a public note for the Editing team at mw:Talk:Editing team/Community Conversations. (Also, if you want to find out about future events, I suggest putting that page on your watchlist.)
I attended the meeting, in the expectation that it would be for Teahouse hosts and suchlike to discuss how better to help and encourage new editors. In fact most of those present were new editors from sub-Saharan Africa; and people from the WMF were demonstrating new tools intended to make things easier for them. (I wish WMF employees would discuss things with experienced contributors before developing new tools. They seem to work in an ivory tower.) Maproom (talk) 08:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
There couldn't have been any demos, because nothing's been built yet. They presented some drawings of different ways to encourage people to add citations. You may have noticed that I wrote above "They want to present some ideas they have about encouraging the addition of inline citations".
I wonder what your definition of "experienced contributor" is, if people who have made hundreds or thousands of edits during the last couple of years don't count. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
According to this page, "This meeting will be an opportunity for new and experienced volunteers from Sub-Saharan Africa ...". Does that also have racist undertones? It seems to me that WMF members hearing about and addressing the problems encountered by editors from that part of the world is an excellent initiative. But I didn't notice anyone there with hundreds or thousands of edits. Maproom (talk) 12:58, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, chatbots. I don't think they should be used anywhere that they might be taken seriously. For question 4, this one is unaware that there's a difference between owning a photo and owning copyright in it. Here's an excerpt from a Google trained chatbot:
Suppose you roll two standard six-sided dice. What is the probability to get a total score of 8? Explain your working fully.
The probability of rolling a total score of 8 is 1/9. This is because there are 36 possible outcomes when rolling two standard six-sided dice (6 x 6 = 36). Out of these 36 possible outcomes, only 4 will result in a total score of 8 (1+7, 2+6, 3+5, 4+4). Therefore, the probability of rolling a total score of 8 is 4/36 = 1/9.
I find it a bit funny how for question 4 it says "please do not write 'best regards'" which the bot totally ignores and writes "Best Regards" anyway. Might I ask what "ChatGPT" is? Clearly it's not an aspiring Teahouse Host, but I've never heard of it before. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654514:18, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Looking at it, it appears the bot doesn't know what the instructions it's being given are, only the questions. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654514:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Interesting. Seems promising, though I don't think we should ever use an AI to answer questions anywhere. For one the AI may not always be right, and two it gets rid of the human to human interaction (although some trolls and vandals like to think anti-vandals are bots when really that's just ClueBot NG). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654514:46, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes. This was not a proposition that we should tell them to respond to people automatically, but it can create an idea of what a response would look like. At least from what I have seen, ChatGPT was deemed to be generating responses of decent quality. But I guess Math is any chatbot's nightmare:
Suppose you roll two standard six-sided dice. What is the probability to get a total score of 8? Explain your working fully.
Note: this is wrong and generated by ChatGPT. Not what I would answer! To get a total score of 8 when rolling two dice, you can get a score of 6 and 2, 5 and 3, or 4 and 4. Since there are a total of 36 possible outcomes when rolling two dice (6 possible outcomes for the first die x 6 possible outcomes for the second die), the probability of getting a total score of 8 is 3/36, which simplifies to 1/12. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 14:45, 2 December 2022 (UTC) Added notice 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 16:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I wondered about that! Actually, I thought that its answers to the Teahouse training questions were pretty good. In the case of the image upload it did say "[if] you have the right to use the photo" which does imply it knows about copyright. The real issue is that people often don't know what the word "right" means in this context. It might be fun to try out giving instant answers, making clear they were from a bot, in the live Teahouse. You would want it not to answer every question or some trolls would start trying to trip it up but if it answered say one in three questions on average that would be a useful experiment to run for a few days. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
I like that idea. I think a message at the end saying "This message was generated by ChatGPT and may not be accurate." with a link to more details on ChatGPT would help distinguish the AI's answer from a real one. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654517:18, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Although I do have an issue in that it doesn't use internal linking, and make it seem like the answer comes from the Teahouse itself (which is not true) ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654517:18, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
It could be mitigated by detecting keywords and automatically linking them, and trimming out the best regards part if it insists. However, we can't do it with a bot as OpenAI has not exposed any kind of API for it yet. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 17:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
@Shushugah: Yes, you are right, that is what I got too. The wrong answer that you were replying to was generated by ChatGPT, not me. I should have made that absolutely clear.. Will do so in another edit so that no one gets confused. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 16:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Please help/guide me for Wiki table
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
@Twinkle1990 I fixed Salman Khan table for you, but for Ronit Roy the other table, it's not obvious what changes you are trying to make, because you've made so many edits before coming here. I would recommend reading HELP:TABLE and use the visual editor/preview before publishing. That said, most of the films have Wikilinks, and do not need a reference in my opinion. If you need further help, I'd recommend asking in WP:Village Pump (Technical) instead, which is as the name states, more technical. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago12 comments7 people in discussion
Maybe what I describe below is obvious or well-known. But it only occurred to me recently, so I thought I'd pass it on.
Until around a year ago, I used to get edit conflicts at the Help desk and at the Teahouse, and they weren't a problem for me. I could click the "back" button in my browser, get back to the text that I'd typed in, and copy it. Then something changed, that technique stopped working, and I found myself having to retype the text. But there's an easy way to avoid that: once I've typed in the text, and maybe checked it with "Show preview", instead of clicking "Publish changes" I shift-click "Publish changes". That way (with Chrome, anyway) the submission goes to a new browser window; if if it's lost to an edit conflict, it's still there in the old window. Maproom (talk) 15:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
That's useful but I suspect that most editors are now using the "reply" link rather than "edit source" when answering on any Talk Page. This makes edit conflicts impossible as the software waits for any conflicts to resolve before committing the edit when you click on the "Reply" button. It also has the advantage of getting the indenting correct and previewing the edit as you type. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, and with the Reply tool being enabled by default for new users, I doubt we'll see edit conflicts as much as we used to a year ago. I still think Convenient Discussions is better, but the inhouse analogue's pretty serviceable. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
I've tried using the Reply tool (and am doing so now, to remind myself what it's like). It doesn't let me see the source of the what I'm replying to, and it doesn't have Show Preview. So I've gone back to using edit. Maproom (talk) 06:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
@Maproom That's odd! I suspect you are using the "Visual" option on the reply tool. I use the "Source" option (toggles just above the editing window) so I get the best of both worlds with a Preview below the source editing window. And of course, the tool also auto-signs, so you won't be adding any tilde if you are using it correctly. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Indenting is not always correct though, especially in complex/indented conversations but it generally works, and I can fix it immediately afterwards if need be. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Just a small warning that while the Reply tool is extremely good at resolving edit conflicts, it is not 100.0% perfect. If you do end up with an unresolvable edit conflict, you'll have an opportunity to copy your message before trying again.
@Maproom, I wonder why you want to see the wikitext of the comment you're replying to. If it's to ping the user, then I point out that the @ symbol pops up the usernames in the current discussion, which I find much faster and easier. (You can search for any account, but it starts with the relevant ones).
The other thing that I like, which I find easier in the visual mode, is that when you want to add a link, you can search. This means that it's very easy to link to the full name of a page with a long title, such as Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), instead of using potentially confusing shortcuts like WP:ORG. It's also handy when you can't quite remember how to spell the article you want to link to. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments6 people in discussion
I often read this kind of thing:
Companies that offer to create articles for pay are almost all scams or not competent.
Indeed, I've written this kind of thing myself. But increasingly, I doubt that it's true. As I look at stuff awaiting AFC review, I often see drafts by very new editors that, though (I suspect deliberately) aren't polished, cite a stunning array of obscure sources and (aside from a tendency to include relative trivia) are actually well done. Often they'll have some sort of stylistic/technical disorder that doesn't risk having the article declined, that can be fixed fairly easily, and that I suppose is designed to add a veneer of novitiate ignorance of MoS or Mediawiki formatting or similar. I presume that a given username of a paid, competent writer first makes a few trivial edits to articles in the rough subject area, creates the paid-for draft, gets it promoted to article status, is retired and replaced....
Lacking solid evidence that these drafts are the work of paid editors, I usually keep my suspicions to myself. "Smells as if paid for" isn't a "decline" rationale. -- Hoary (talk) 13:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
You would know better but I believe there's nothing wrong with dropping the COI notice and waiting for their reply before accepting, as it's a TOU and policy violation to be a UPE. I think the obvious one's are PR "specialists" who haven't bothered to learn the medium they are trying to publish to, but your point is accurate on those specializing on Wikipedia articles. Slywriter (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
I could, Slywriter, but then I fear I'd soon find myself sticking COI notices on any submission by an SPA. Indeed, I think that the average SPA does have a COI. But there's no rule saying that contributors must have a normative pattern of editing. WP certainly does have unfortunate omissions, and a benevolent person could conceivably (i) have a lot of info about a subject, (ii) sincerely believe that this subject is notable, and (iii) be unusually adept at adopting house styles of writing. -- Hoary (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
"I often read this kind of thing:
Companies that offer to create articles for pay are almost all scams or not competent." I usually only see this if someone mentions they received an email saying that they can get their article published if they pay some money. I almost never see this if someone asks why their draft wasn't approved. Mind providing some examples? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654514:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm not going to name any, Blaze Wolf, but I'll nudge you in one direction. Wikipedia:AfC sorting/Culture/Visual arts is rather a magnet for (self-) promoters. Currently none of the short descriptions in that list mentions "curator" or similar, and indeed curator drafts aren't common. But of those drafts about curators that are submitted, a pretty high percentage are of the kind that I describe. -- Hoary (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Do you mean "curator" as in the actual job? I would very much expect people who are curators or care about curators to be able to write a decent wikipedia article and have access to and interest in obscure sources. -- asilvering (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, asilvering, the actual job. I'd expect such people to be bright and highly articulate. And any autobiographers among them would have those obscure sources. However, with their negligible list of contributions that aren't for the article in question, I wouldn't expect the editors to be highly fluent in Mediawiki markup and the like. Yet they tend to get the markup right, only making this or that beginner mistake of a variety that's both innocuous and easy for anyone else to fix. (Among these varieties is utterly unnecessary piping: I mean, if they want the link, say, cyan to appear within their text, they'll write not [[cyan]], as any non-beginner would, but instead [[Cyan|cyan]].) I mean no offence to curators -- I know at least one, and just today I glumly walked out of an exhibition half the way through: I might well have viewed the whole thing if only it had been the product of a curatorial intellect -- but I fear that very few people are sufficiently interested in any curator to build up files of newspaper clippings on that person unless they have a powerful COI. -- Hoary (talk) 06:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
@Hoary I have two bulging boxfiles of newspaper clippings about one particular curator. They are, as you suggest, "bright and highly articulate" but not especially brilliant at markup. As you said, I would have a huge WP:COI if I were to attempt to utilise them. So I shall simply leave them for my kids to appreciate all the little things their Dad achieved during his working life. LOL! Nick Moyes (talk) 01:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
As a host at Help Desk and Teahouse, I often see paid editors asking for help because they're clueless about the work they've accepted payment for, and need help from us volunteers. When they're salaried employees who've been told by their boss "get an article set up on Wikipedia", this is understandable. When they've taken on the job as freelancers, they get less sympathy. Anyway − the result is that we hosts can get the impression that most paid editors are incompetent. But I suspect we're only seeing the tip of the iceberg, and there are plenty of competent paid editors working away unnoticed. At the opposite end of the range there are extremely competent (and I assume accordingly well-paid) agents of e.g. big tobacco, working effectively in their clients' interests. As for the ordinary, fairly competent, undeclared paid editors, they're probably a net positive for Wikipedia. Maproom (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago26 comments13 people in discussion
Just a note to advise fellow Teahouse Hosts that we have all had a new skin layout forced upon us today (Vector 2022). There's bound to be fallout (and some has already appeared on the Teahouse forum).
Whilst I'm personally not too keen on it at first sight (I've lost quite a chunk of my viewing screen), I do feel that, as a Teahouse host, I need to become familiar with this newer, cleaner layout. Or how else can I advise new editors where to find things? I hope other hosts will feel the same and give it a good tryout - at least for a week or so. For anyone wanting to revert to 'the good old days', they can do that via their Preferences settings. Just remember that new users won't then be experiencing the same layout as you are.
...wanders off to look to see where that button is now located!
On my desktop PC, the part I found most disconcerting was that in article space the skin defaults to not showing the TOC. It has to be toggled using the three lines or left-pointing chevron topmost left on the page. The default menu in the leftmost column is otherwise the standard "old" menu with links to the Mainpage etc. However, like all software, you get used to the change after a bit. I'll reserve my final decision to use or revert to vector 2010 after a few days.... Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Just FYI, the left sidebar can be completely hidden by first clicking the double arrows in the top left and also the [hide] button at the top of the ToC. This will cause the body text to take up the maximum amount of horizontal space possible, if you want. Shells-shells (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
@Shells-shells Good tip - thank you. I'm also surprised (and disappointed) they didn't make the link to switch between desktop and mobile view a lot more visible than it was - and still is. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: I created a template, {{HD/wikilayout}}, that should address immediate concerns. While I won't be using it on the Teahouse myself, I think it should be useful. Anyone's free to leave comments on the template's talk page as to how it can be improved. Here's what the current iteration looks like:
Are you asking about a sudden change to Wikipedia's appearance? It is because the default skin has changed from the Vector legacy (2010) skin to the new Vector (2022) skin. If you would like to change back to the old one, you can, as a registered user, click on the in the top-right corner and choose Preferences. Once there, go to Preferences → Appearance → Skins → Vector legacy (2010). If you would like to leave feedback, you can do so at Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022.
For those who were bothered by huge amount of white space and poor content width that fails to show wide tables properly even with "limit width" turned off in preferences, I have made a new CSS file that tweaks the appropriate attributes. See User:Anachronist/vector-2022.css. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Only frustration is with the "Contributions" button. The problem? Hitting the "log out" button, which is just below the "Contributions" button. TailsWx21:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Anachronist:, I'm really impressed by your proactivity. If you think it should help other users, please consider to suggest adding your customization at this page. For your information, in few weeks the Article tools will move on the right side of the page, so probably you will have to correct your CSS. I just wanted to be sure you feel well informed about this. This week the deployment is concerning only viwiki and itwiki.--Patafisik (WMF) (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
First of all, I would like to say that other than donation questions, I’ve never seen the Teahouse or the help desk get flooded with the same questions during my time here as an editor especially since this is a major change. Interstellarity (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Maybe it would be a good idea to add something like {{HD/wikilayout}} as a complement to the TH edit notice that is visible at the top of the TH editing window. Genuine questions about the switch aren't really a problem, but unhappy users creating new accounts just to post rants are, at least they are in my opinion. There's no value to any such posts and they're equivalent to spam. If something about this switch is added to TH edit notice, perhaps it should also state that pure rants will be removed asap since they're not constructive and don't help anyone in anyway. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I haven't used the Discussion Tool in a really long time, but do edit notices pop up if users use the Reply tool instead of Edit Page or Edit Source? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Good question and I'm not sure since I never use the "reply" feature. So, I tried it and no edit notice shows up. It does show up, however, if you click on "Ask a new question" at the top of the TH page. Maybe something should be added to the main page's banner to direct people to information about the Vector 2022 since more and more questions are popping up. It could just be a link like "If you've have any questions or comments about Wikipedia's new look, please click here" or something similar. Maybe a new banner added to the top of the page with big flashing letters or something. In all serious though I wonder why all the people who make changes like this seem unable to understand that people are going to be confused and they can't also come up with a banner or some kind of popup for the login page and the top of every Wikipedia page to let others know where to look for guidance. They seem to be able to do it when it comes to donations. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I think we could use some of the space in the header to say something along the lines of
If you're here to ask about the sudden change in Wikipedia's appearance, please go to Wikipedia:Vector 2022 for more details.
Seems like a fine idea to me. Of course, there will still be question, but perhaps some users will find it helpful. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Alright, I've made the change to the header here. I'm thinking it should stay on for about a month and a half? By that time most people should have figured out how to revert or get used to the new skin. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
The phrase "recent change" is less editorial than "sudden change", in my opinion. Or perhaps just "ask about the change". --Scottyoak2 (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I think as a result of the addition of text to reduce the number of questions regarding Vector 2022, the 4 buttons at the bottom of the header are no longer center alligned. Could someone please fix it? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654520:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Tried some test edits and the most likely cause is the actionbardiv element being centred, and the subpage on the right and the image on the left are constraining that space asymmetrically. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Howdy hello folks! Would you like to help out with editor retention? Like working at places like the Teahouse? You should become a mentor! Just go to Special:EnrollAsMentor. Its pretty easy: you get auto-assigned editors who can ask questions on your talk page. I'm a mentor, and I get a few questions a month from my mentees. Its nice because the newbie editors get a more personalized touch and have help built into their interface. More details about the program can be found at Wikipedia:Growth Team features. Editor retention is one of the best things we can do to improve Wikipedia; your help makes a difference! CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓18:28, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
English Wikipedia will be read-only for about an hour on 1 March
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion
This is mostly in relation to this but applies to many threads that we see here at the Teahouse.
What are we even supposed to do here? I've heard before and I assume it's still true that the semi-"official" rule is that Teahouse hosts are not here to help with one's drafts, but it seems like every time someone comes to the Teahouse with a draft it's either declined or accepted (usually declined) quite quickly - is it a problem that the Teahouse is effectively skipping the drafts queue for some? Should we change what we do in these situations? I'm afraid that at some point the Teahouse will have to turn into the AfC fast-pass center, and I don't think anyone wants that. casualdejekyll12:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
@Casualdejekyll: YOu have to remember that the Teahouse is a place for new users to ask questions, including about drafts. In my time working in WP:AFC I've learned that there is no real "queue" for drafts. THere are simply categories based on how long ago a draft was submitted for review (for example, CAT:AFC0 is for drafts submitted <1 day ago). Also, drafts are reviewed in whatever order they are encountered in (I mostly just review ones in CAT:AFC0 cause I don't feel confident enough to take on older drafts). Some of us here are AFC reviewers and if the draft was newly submitted, we will have come across it anyway whether or not they asked about it at Teahouse. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654514:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with the "quick fail" portion of this, presumably it will discourage folks from trying to jump the queue by posting here. A "quick pass" problem would be more problematic, but I'm not sure we have one at the moment. If it does become a problem, I suppose a note at one of the AfC talk pages might be in order, asking that reviewers not prioritize the squeaky wheels, but in the end we're all volunteers (so we do what we want, including reviewers), and reviewing is a bit of a tough job (so I'd prefer providing them some slack). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
I definitely think that a post at the Teahouse allows de facto a quicker review of drafts. If it came to be known / exploited and we became swamped by questions along the line of "review my draft, mine mine mine" then some corrective actions could be necessary to correct the perverse incentive, but so far that’s not the case.
I appreciate the argument that’s an unfair practice favoring those who know vs. those who don’t. But then, that’s the case of many Wikiplaces related to article creation. Exhibit #1: it’s harder to send an existing article at AfD than decline an AfC draft; hence, if you don’t care about quality, the optimal way to create an article is to put it in mainspace and hope the NPP reviewer isn’t overzealous. Exhibit #2: WP:PROD allows anyone to object to deletion; so it relies on the article creator not filling the paperwork on time. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact)16:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Looking for RecentChanges folks
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Editing is hosting a meeting about their new mw:Edit check extension for the visual editor on Friday (=less than 48 hours from now) and hopes to learn a bit more about RecentChanges and watchlist patrolling. They're trying to find a balance between too many and too few prompts to add citations (i.e., to find that happy median between interrupting you all the time and never suggesting sources). If you are interested in this project, please see mw:Editing team/Community Conversations#3 March 2023 and plan to join the meeting (17:00 UCT/9:00 a.m. California). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello, all,
If you are interested in encouraging new editors to add citations when they add new information to articles, please consider putting this page on your watchlist: Wikipedia:Edit check.
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I am seeing an increase in general knowledge questions at the Teahouse, which usually get short shrift. The big blue button simply says "Ask a question". I suggest expanding this to "Ask a question on how to use and edit Wikipedia" and add a prominent link to the refdesk. Shantavira|feed me08:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
@Shantavira I don't think changing the button text is necessary. Just above the big blue button is the following statement: "A friendly place where you can ask questions to get help with using and editing Wikipedia". It might, however, be worth considering and slightly modifying the relative size and position of that text in relation to the blue button, but I wouldn't go any further than that. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Since I have questions about editing and how Wikipedia works I tried going to the Teahouse Q&A forum, but it keeps redirecting me back to this page. What's up with that? David (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
@MR2David: At the top of this page, I clicked the big link labelled "click here to go to the Teahouse Q&A forum" and I was correctly taken to Wikipedia:Teahouse. Could you please explain exactly what you were doing? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
When you are on Wikipedia talk:Teahouse (this page) and you "click here to go to the Teahouse Q&A forum", you go to Wikipedia:Teahouse (the place to ask questions). That's working as designed. If you have specific suggestions on how to improve the wording, please let us know.
At the top of Wikipedia:Teahouse is text stating "Welcome to the Teahouse! A friendly place where you can ask questions to get help with using and editing Wikipedia" and a big blue button stating "Ask a question". I see this in both desktop view on my PC and mobile view on my phone. If you do NOT see that, please let us know the exact URL of the page you're looking at and how you're accessing it (e.g. desktop vs. mobile, browser name and version).
People from other Wikipedia languages come here looking for advice
Latest comment: 1 year ago11 comments7 people in discussion
Has any effort been made to solve this problem? People asking for help with other languages have to be told to go to whatever the Help Desk is in that language, but people think English is the "headquarters".— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
You do make a good point. Maybe it's time we create a sort of help desk for those who may not speak English. I know jaWiki has one for those who don't speak Japanese (altho either not very many people watch or it jaWiki isn't very active) ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654522:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
I suppose it could be helpful to specify we can only help as far as the English Wikipedia. The current sentence under Welcome to the Teahouse! could be amended to:
A friendly place where you can ask questions to get help with using and editing the English Wikipedia
Emphasis mine. Would it be helpful to create a template that is essentially a list of all the other language projects' help desks? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
This isn't the first time I've asked the question.
What problem are we solving ? Why can't they ask questions here ? It's where I would go if I didn't understand Wikipedia. Is the problem that we do not WANT to help them and send them to the relevant location ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
From what I understand, it's people coming from other language Wikipedia projects asking for help about something in those projects, which English Wikipedia doesn't have jurisdiction over as they operate on different policies and guidelines. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
But isn't that basically the purpose of the Teahouse (and Help Desk)? To clear up misunderstandings folks may have about how this place works, and either answer their questions if we can, or direct them to where answers can better be found? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
+1 The point of the Teahouse and Help Desk is that people who come and ask stuff do not know what they do not know. So questions about other Wikipedias (or about images that are hosted on Commons) are entirely legitimate, and answering by telling them to go to that other place is proper.
That being said... I agree that it would be good to fix the "en-wp is HQ" thinking before it crystallizes into a question, but I am not sure a Teahouse header fix will do it. (Sure, try it if you want.) A much more common faulty reasoning is "if I do the hard work of writing an entirely true draft about my grandmother/company/pet project, it will be published on Wikipedia" - if we can discourage that, sign me up. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact)16:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure there's really a problem here. They've come and asked a question, and we've answered it by pointing them to the right place, even if it's at another language Wikipedia. I'm not sure we're going to fix any broader misunderstandings they might have just by further highlighting that this is English Wikipedia. With the new Vector skin, surely it's even more apparent than it ever was that there are 29 different language versions of the Teahouse they can be directed too. Simply being polite and helpful is the way to deal with the small handful of non-English queries we do get. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
While guiding a mentee I had to guide them to read story of Zen proverb of Empty tea cup. But that is external link I would prefer to have similar a copy right free story on Wikisource to link in my guidance messages whenever needed from withing sister Wiki project or alternatively even a video on Wikimedia commons. Can some one help, if possible.
Idk how far community would agree but I would prefer to have such link to the proverb story in lede of WP:Teahouse, that will help new comers that they might need to learn many new things things. Bookku (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
@Bookku I can't help you with Wikisource, but I felt you were owed a reply to the other part of your post. As nice an idea as it is, I don't think it would be appropriate to enact your suggestion to have a link to that page in the Teahouse lede. It really is a lot to read, and it could be seen as rather patronising. I also don't think many people would want to read that before asking a question. So, it's really more the kind of link to give an individual new editor if they were failing to understand or accept the advice they were being given here. It would be best to leave that to individual editors to decide, I think. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Whatever the outcome of this proposal and subsequent discussion, I strongly recommend that the 'Welcome templates directly related to the Teahouse do continue to include links to Help:Your first article. It would be daft of us to be recommending that guidance (WP:YFA) in our one-to-one responses, yet exclude them in Teahouse-specific welcome messages. I would like to think that most other hosts here would agree. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments7 people in discussion
Every once in a while there's a question asking about something happening on a different language Wikipedia, to which we direct the asker to their relevant help desk. Should we amend the header to say that this venue is specifically for the English Wikipedia, and offer some guidance as to how to go to the relevant help desks in those wikis? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
I would imagine that 95% of the people who would come to the Teahouse to ask about another language project are not going to read or be deterred by additional instructions on this page, and will be best served by our usual approach of a volunteer politely explaining why this is not the right place for their questions. signed, Rosguilltalk18:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
I concur with Rosguill absolutely. Best to just explain it instead of instruction creep that new users won't read anyway(not necessarily because they don't want to, but they may be confused and/or frustrated). 331dot (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
In my experience, many editors whose first language is other than English have the notion that the English Wikipedia is the "master Wikipedia" or the "boss Wikipedia" or the "most important Wikipedia". This is a bit understandable given that English is effectively the lingua franca of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, and that the English Wikipedia is the first and largest version. I do not think that we can pre-empt that thinking with canned banners. We just need to concisely explain the facts and direct them to discussing their concerns on the other language Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 08:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
...as well as believing all project Wikipedias are pretty much the same thing but just in different languages, instead of being wholly different projects with different standards, policies, and guidelines, so even if we would help them with their issues there, we don't really know what rules that lang-wiki has (unless of course, someone who also is in that wiki chances upon the post). just my thoughts, happy editing! 💜 melecietalk - 08:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
No we shouldn't, for pretty much the reasons given above. However, if somebody asks in, say, Spanish a question that appears to be about en:WP, then I think it's entirely proper (indeed, rather refreshing) for there to be a helpful reply in competent Spanish. As for Rosguill's "usual approach of a volunteer politely explaining why this is not the right place for their questions", it may be better to hesitate. A few hours ago a minor fantasy in German about genitalia, etc, was met with the (surely well-intentioned) advice to regurgitate this onto some page of de:WP instead. I imagine that this response delighted the troll. (I've since deleted the whole thread and indef-blocked the troll.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
14 July Community Call
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
We'll use this time together to discuss Edit Check, a new project that will present people with guidance while they're editing. The first "check" we're building prompts people to add a reference when they don't think to do so themselves.
@PPelberg (WMF) Thank you so much for your post. I'm afraid I missed seeing your notification until it was too late. It sounds interesting - is a recording of your presentation likely to be available, by any chance? Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Melecie, you write to an apparent novice: "I recommend starting with something simple like copyediting or adding categories."
In order to add categories helpfully, one has to understand en:Wikipedia's system of categorization. I suggest that this is not for beginners. -- Hoary (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
@Melecie@Hoary, adding categories to pages that already have them can be more intermediate, since novices are highly likely to overcategorize, but adding categories to uncategorized pages is listed as "suitable for all editors" at Wikipedia:Task Center#Categorization, and I agree with that. Someone adding cats to a page without any is going to at least leave it better than they found it, since fixing overcategorization is pretty trivial to do in bulk whereas adding missing cats is not generally possible in bulk. {{u|Sdkb}}talk14:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
I agree. The best thing for a beginner to do is to find as similar an article as possible and adapt the cats they have. Johnbod (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Housekeeping: proposed deletion of duplicate Teahouse files and unused redirects
Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments5 people in discussion
Just a courtesy note to say that I propose to delete the following files. All are duplicates created for testing and serve no archival or historical purpose.
Rationale: All are duplicates created in 2013 for testing and have no value in showing the historical development of the Teahouse. They simply add unnecessarily to the 205 sub-pages of the Teahouse (excluding the myriad of question archive pages). Retaining duplicate pages makes it harder than necessary to understand the complex file relationships at the Teahouse. To see the main files, just remove the "-sandbox" element of each url.
Similarly, there are a number of WP:REDIRECTS which serve no purpose. They could also be deleted as part of housekeeping without impacting on any of the historic element of the Teahouse files as they have no other pages linking to them. These are:
Finally, in the same housekeeping vein, I propose to remove the following blank fields from the Teahouse/Host landing page and from the
form that automatically populates it.
Rationale: none of the original badges from the early trial and development days of the Teahouse are in use any longer, and inserting these empty fields simply serves to complicate and confuse the Host landing page:
<!-- Add a 'yes' for the badges you've earned, ie- "|badge=yes"-->
Support I was also going to suggest removing the badges from the WP:Teahouse/Host template as well, but then saw it has been gone since 2021, which I feel like is an additional reason to why it should be removed? 💜 melecietalk - 13:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes - it's finding the balance between archiving past files which shows the historic development of the Teahouse, rather than simply deleting stuff, yet keeping our current ways of working as simple and efficient as is reasonably possible. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Missvain (talk) 03:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Template:Teahouse protected has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Already done. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Moved from Wikipedia:Teahouse
Note: Moved from the Teahouse page; this talk page is a better venue. CC Excellenc1. Bsoyka (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Hoary likes this.
So far it's only mildly irritating. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Are you asking about a sudden change to Wikipedia's appearance? It is because the default skin has changed from the Vector legacy (2010) skin to the new Vector (2022) skin. If you would like to change back to the old one, you can, as a registered user, click on the 
in the top-right corner and choose 
Vector legacy (2010).
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 May 11 § Teahouse badges. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Done Nick Moyes (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)