Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 → Archive 20

Landing page

Out of curiosity, is there a specific reason why we have the Wikipedia:Teahouse landing page, instead of having Wikipedia:Teahouse be itself the Q&A board? I remember a long time ago, when I was a new editor, I actually missed the link to the Q&A board, so I didn't know where to ask my question. We could include the big blue "Ask a question" button on the landing page and have it redirect to the Q&A board to make the link more conspicuous, or we can get just rid of the landing page. Or maybe it was just me who missed the Q&A link. Mz7 (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree, it's confusing, and must be particularly confusing for the new users it's aimed at. Not as bad as having the new postings at the top, but getting rid of the landing page would make things easier for everyone. Maproom (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
A front page is needed - many will come just wanting to ask their own question, but others will visit just to find out what this Teahouse thing is all about, or if they can help there. But the design could definitely do with a revamp. The elements are oddly positioned and tumble over each other, at least on my screen. Why are there two links to Teahouse/Questions instead of one big one? Do new people wanting to ask a question need to be presented with one from somebody else, sometimes about a quite recondite corner of Wikipedia?: Noyster (talk), 19:10, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
But those with questions, those wanting to help, and the idly curious, will all be trying to get to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions, where the content is. For all of them, the existence of the front page just makes the content a little harder to find. Maproom (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Maproom, all the landing page does is to impose a confusing extra click on all users. The newbies should be taken directly to the page for asking questions, everyone else already knows where to find talk pages. (While we are discussing improving the teahouse, how about we get rid of the top-posting nonsense too?) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

The landing page should be replaced with /Questions‎.

  • Currently, half the page is taken up with "recent question" which adds no information compared with /Questions.
  • The other half is taken up with profiles, which almost no one uses, and is probably a violation of WP:WWIN besides.
  • Wikipedia:Teahouse/Guests itself is completely useless, and gives the false impression that someone should take the time to make a "profile" before asking a question, when registering an account is not even required.
  • It is confusing for new users, and is probably the reason so many people end up on this page asking questions instead of at /Questions.

If another page is required to explain what the teahouse is, what it does, etc, it should be a sub page linked to on the main, and not the other way round. Such a page should not be created until there is actual content to put there, content beyond an unnecessary layer of facebook over top of WP. TimothyJosephWood 17:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Given all the fancy-shmancy UX research that (supposedly) went into designing the Teahouse, we might want to notify the relevant people at the WMF about this proposal. Although I'm not really sure who those people are or how to go about contacting them (I suppose it's too much to hope they'd actually be watching this page...) Joe Roe (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps MusikAnimal would know who we should notify? — Gestrid (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Posted a link on m:Forum. Seems close-ish to the right place. Maybe enough to find someone who know what the right place is. TimothyJosephWood 21:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure who to talk to about the research that was done in the past, but it seems the Teahouse is merely a set of wiki pages and hence at the full control of the enwiki community. If consensus permits I think you should move forward with it — MusikAnimal talk 21:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

This will require some changes for example, to our archiving setup and possibly some other areas. — Gestrid (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Joe Roe, yep I'm still watching, still running the bot, and I work for WMF. Heatherawalls is still around as well. We send people to the landing page because the Teahouse is more than just the Q&A forum—though Q&A is the main focus. People can and do submit profiles (a nice way to participate, if you don't currently have a question), view the host profiles as well as those submitted by fellow guests. The goal was to invite newcomers to be part of a WikiProject/sub-community, not just give them a place to ask questions. I would personally prefer to keep the landing page. J-Mo 21:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jtmorgan: Pings don't work unless there's also a ~~~~ in the same edit. Now, let's try pinging Cullen328 again. (Yes, the {{U}} template I just used also pings people.) — Gestrid (talk) 22:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Gestrid. J-Mo 23:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

Propose move of /Questions over the landing page, to be sequestered in a subpage until a decision can be made for the best way to reincorporate it. TimothyJosephWood 20:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer. TimothyJosephWood 20:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per the reasons given by others above. — Gestrid (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • It's clear that we believe the Teahouse needs to be redesigned. However, it's also clear that we need new users' feedback before proceeding. Even after that, we'll need to gather that feedback and decide how to act on it. We should consider doing an RfC after we gather feedback since, as another user has mentioned, the Teahouse is one of the main things that causes new editors to stay. Redesigning the Teahouse would likely effect Wikipedia as a whole in the long run. I suggest that we don't move along with this too hastily. That's why I've struck my !vote until we do gather some new users' feedback on this. — Gestrid (talk) 17:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I've no strong view on replacing the current landing page with the questions page, but I agree that the recent questions (given that the questions aren't FAQs but often rather specific) and the guest profiles features aren't particularly helpful. The host profiles aren't great either, given how many people are listed there without being active at the Teahouse, but perhaps that's for another day. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Agreed, the current landing page is useless. It doesn't add anything that the header on WP:THQ doesn't also have. Joe Roe (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, as it might reduce the number of new editors who end up asking questions here at WT:Teahouse. I would, of course be happier if we went back to something like WP:NCHQ, rather than the current stupidity of WP:THQ being upside down compared with other WP talk pages. Whose idiotic idea was it to try to confuse new users? --David Biddulph (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
    • @David Biddulph: it was my idiotic idea. J-Mo 02:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
    • While we're grumbling, the design of this place really baffles me. Why are the landing pages and profile pages so stylish while the page that 99% of the activity happens on is even uglier than the average talk page? Why do we tell hosts and guests to make nice profiles and then never mention them again? Why doesn't the "join the discussion" indent replies properly? Why can't the talkback button figure out the name of the section? Why do the people who ask questions rarely reply to the answers? Do they know how to? Do they even know they've been answered? It's like whoever is responsible for putting it together lost interest halfway though. Joe Roe (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
      • @Joe Roe: I know your questions were probably rhetorical, but since this is probably the last time I get to talk about these pages while they still exist, I'll bite. Anyway your questions are fair, and you may find some of the answers interesting. Q1: why are the profile/landing pages nicer than the Q&A page? Because they have largely been left as Heather designed them, while the Q&A page has been updated by various other people at various times. Most of those changes made the page more functional, but often at the expense of aesthetics. Q2: why do we ask people to make nice profiles and never mention them again? Because in some ways, the act of creating the profile is the point. There's some interesting research behind this; if you're interested, ping me on my talkpage. And also because yes, we were going to do more with profiles, but we often faced community resistance (tho not necessarily from Hosts), and furthermore WMF never devoted any resources to maintaining the Teahouse. Q3: why doesn't 'join discussion' indent properly? The Q&A gadget was created by a WMF staff member, but substantially improved by several early Teahouse hosts, who have since moved on. So the gadget has only ever been sporadically maintained, and hasn't been iterated on in a long time. I don't really know Javascript, or I'd maintain it myself. Q4: Why can't the talkback button figure out the name of the section? I dunno. Are you talking about the userscript? I don't remember who created that. Q5: Why do the people who ask questions rarely reply to their answers? (and follow-up questions) Because the vast majority of new editors give up and/or lose interest early on. That's why the English Wikipedia community is slowly shrinking. So to sum up, yes, some aspects of the Teahouse were never fully realized, and others have taken different directions than we intended. But it has actually been successful beyond pretty much anybody's expectations. New editors keep showing up with questions, and hosts keep giving good answers. As a result of your work, new editors who are invited to the Teahouse are about 10% more likely to stick around Wikipedia than those that aren't. That's huge; nothing else WMF has had a hand in has ever been shown to increase new editor retention. J-Mo 02:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Assuming this is carried, these may be good things to incorporate into something like Wikipedia:Teahouse/About or something similar to usurp the current main. TimothyJosephWood 21:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak support – agree that Guest page is useless and counterproductive, agree that Host profiles are just another thing that, requiring upkeep, will usually be out of date and might as well just point to user pages. The landing page has some interesting features, but having users come to a question page directly has merit. Is this change more helpful for users than changing "new questions at top" to "new questions at bottom" – I'm not so sure. I don't see any big downsides from making this change, aside from the transitory adjustment that will be required.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 21:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Goal of the Teahouse landing page (the Teahouse in general, really) was to show the people behind the encyclopedia. Many new editors don't understand that Wikipedia is a community. The landing page and profile pages make it clear that Wikipedia is a community, and that that community is welcoming and helpful. The guest profiles also give curious visitors a way to "participate" even if they don't currently have a question to ask. This can help increase their confidence (I'm allowed to ask a question here; I created a profile) and also increases the chances that they will think to return to the Teahouse next time they do have a question. J-Mo 21:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Perhaps I misunderestimate the utility of guest profiles, although I still think we should have a clear-out of Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host landing. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Well, there's a difference between "goals" and what was actually achieved. How has it worked out in practice? Do we have any way to assess whether this has been a success? The number of questions handled per day is fairly low, so my guess is that most users are learning how to do things and getting their questions answered by other means.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 23:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
      • @Jmcgnh: Has the Teahouse worked out in practice, or have the profile pages worked out in practice? The Teahouse works at helping new editors. Some findings here. EpochFail and I haven't had a chance to write up the full report, but the analysis is solid. Our original surveys (1, 2) of Teahouse guests indicated that some, at least, specifically enjoyed creating and browsing profiles. And many more cited the welcoming atmosphere as a key feature of the Teahouse—something the profiles were created to support. As for the question volume: more new editors ask questions at the Teahouse than anywhere else on Wikipedia. The volume is largely dictated by the number of invites we send out, because that's how new editors find out about the Teahouse. The main source for Teahouse invites are HostBot, AfC decline notices, and a few prolific individual inviters. Most people who receive invites to the Teahouse have already stopped editing. If we invite people sooner after they register, we can increase the question volume. But there's a tension there between inviting people too early, which could lead to a lot of spammy questions from non-serious editors that waste hosts' time, and inviting them too late, after they've given up out of frustration, confusion, or boredom. So I try to strike a balance with HostBot, which yields about 150-200 invites per day. About 4% of those I invite end up showing up at the Teahouse. ORES could potentially be used to identify and invite more good-faith newcomers earlier, increasing overall question volume without a concomitant increase in spam. J-Mo 02:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
        • @J-Mo: We actually recently gave Cullen some feedback on the Teahouse recently so he could incorporate it into his WikiConference presentation. I think we pretty much all said the Teahouse could definitely handle more questions. (The discussion is on one of his subpages somewhere.) Could you define what spam in this case would be? — Gestrid (talk) 03:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
          • @Gestrid: Historically, I've mostly been concerned about wasting your time by sending new editors to the Teahouse who are likely to be disruptive, or just annoy you with test edits or disingenuous questions (we all know that certain types of people find any open text field on the internet to be an irresistible temptation). That's what I mean by spam. One the reasons the Teahouse experiences relatively little of that is that I use some simple heuristics to decide which new editors get an invite. With EpochFail's new edit classification AI service, we can separate the "likely good faith" editors from likely disruptors much more quickly—once they've made one or two edits. If we can drop a Teahouse invite on the talkpages of promising newbies minutes after they've started editing, rather than hours or days (as it currently stands), we should be able to increase traffic and help more newbies in need without causing disruption. J-Mo 02:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
          • Cullen's collection of remarks from Teahouse hosts is found at User:Cullen328/Teahouse host remarks (They have a lot of subpages!)  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 04:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
            • Yes! I've read some of these (I pulled some data traffic for Cullen for that presentation, and was bummed I couldn't see him give it. I_JethroBT was kind enough to take notes for me, though ;) J-Mo 02:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
        • OK, @J-Mo:, I'm beginning to be persuaded that there is evidence that the Teahouse is working and that the profile stuff might have value. How else can we help? Does this current proposal serve the "as executed" role of the Teahouse even though it is diminishing some of its original design features? I recognize that some of these features may appeal to users different from me, but I'd like to see data-based arguments for or against their retention if such data is available.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 04:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
          • @Jmcgnh: Good questions. I have lots of thoughts on this. TL;DR I think the proposed changes diminish the role of the Teahouse by making it less of a place, and more of a function. As for data-based arguments, I would be interested in working with y'all to come up with some research questions and then attempt to answer them. If you're willing to hold off on major changes in the interim (see my comment below). J-Mo 02:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Is the Teahouse a community, though? My impression is that it functions more as a rather one-sided Q&A forum. Not that there's anything wrong with that; it's just that, as Timothyjosephwood pointed out above, the landing page sets up a false expectation that there's something more to it, that the profiles are actually used for something. I for one was quite disappointed when I first signed up as a host and realised that the nice profile I'd set up didn't have any functional link to the rest of the Teahouse (and that the "real photo of a real person" I'd been encouraged to add to it was swiftly deleted by an overly keen file patroller, but that's another issue...) Joe Roe (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
      • The Teahouse is as much a community as any other active WikiProject. I mean, we're having a community discussion right now. But my point was that the Teahouse helps communicate to new editors that Wikipedia is a community. The host profiles help with that. Skimming through the first dozen profiles just now, I'm reminded that LukeSurl is a scientist who draws cartoons, that Cullen wrote a primer for new editors, and Ikhtiar_H gives good advice. To someone who joined yesterday and whose only experience with Wikipedians so far has come in the form of reverts & warning templates, that has got to be at least somewhat reassuring. It also gives them a unique window into the variety of experiences to be had on Wikipedia—hopefully piquing the curiosity of the kind of smart, geeky individuals Wikipedia wants and needs. J-Mo 02:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support because the landing page really doesn't do anything. White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Neutral My order of preference is:
  1. Keep the landing page per J-Mo but radically redesign it (ref. my comment above)
  2. Replace the landing page with the Questions page, at least temporarily per proposal
  3. Keep the landing page unaltered: Noyster (talk), 22:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
@Noyster: if Hosts decide to adopt your option #1, I would be happy to help with the redesign. Heather Walls (who led the design of the Teahouse) may be willing to help as well, although she's not currently available and probably won't see this discussion until it's over. J-Mo 23:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support change. As to showing that Wikipedia is a community, Wikipedia is not a community but an encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I believe that the useful content on the landing page can be incorporated at the top of the question page. I also support eliminating guest profiles, as I do not recall a single case where a new editor commented favorably on that process. It strikes me as a barrier to participation, as if a newbie has to create a profile in order to be welcomed and go on to ask a question. Instead, new editors should be encouraged to create appropriate userpages. On the other hand, I think that host profiles are useful, as I frequently get questions on my own talk page motivated by an editor reading my host profile. Profiles of inactive hosts should be archived and only the profiles of highly active hosts should be displayed. I also support doubling the volume of bot invitations sent out. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose making this change without a way to gather real input from new editors too. After 4+ years of being a proven safe and effective (!) space on Wikipedia for newbies to get help, the Teahouse could use some tech and design upgrades, and that probably includes the landing page. But first it would be good to get really clear on which problem you're trying to solve, for who, and make sure that you're consulting with the people you're aiming to serve. Teahouse was designed to give new editors a particular kind of warm community experience when they arrived, and aspects like the landing page were made for them. New editor guests were proactively surveyed and interviewed in at least 2 round of feedback after the pages were created in order to make sure the space met their needs at the time. Needs can change, but newbie guests who need Teahouse the most don't participate in discussions like this one - they're too new to give input this way - so perspectives and ideas for changes here are always going to skew towards the hunches of hosts and other regulars by default. And although some of us still remember being new, that's not quite the same thing as actually being new. What's the plan to consult with newbie guests to understand the problem and implications of proposed solutions from their perspective? Or to put it another way, how will we know if this change makes Teahouse better or worse for the people we're here to help? Siko (talk) 05:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
@Siko: What would you suggest to gather their feedback? I guess we could setup a survey page and send out a link to it to get their feedback a day or two after we've answered their question. — Gestrid (talk) 07:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
@Gestrid: Newbies don't give much feedback on a wiki page, so I'd suggest setting up a survey using something like google forms or other online survey software. It would be good to contact folks whose questions aren't answered too - if someone came to the Teahouse and wasn't successful at asking a question (perhaps they only made a profile, say) you'll want to understand their perspective as well. Participant interviews would be another way to go. J-Mo has always been a great advisor on collecting newbie feedback, including how to word questions to get the most useful input. He might have some more useful thoughts on this. Siko (talk)
  • Support. Making the Teahouse more accessible to new users can only be a good thing. (I still remember the first time I came across the Teahouse. I found it weird and incomprehensible, so I asked my question at the Help Desk instead.) I wonder how you can collect views from actual new users without a huge risk of sample bias? You'll only be getting responses from those who have found the survey form, and are motivated and competent to fill it in. Maproom (talk) 08:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I find myself wholeheartedly agreeing with Maproom again. Anyone who thinks the Teahouse is anything more that a Q&A page (with extra helpings of CIVIL) is either delusional or has not actually worked here since shortly after it was created. I've never read any of the "profiles" because, quite frankly, I couldn't be bothered. WP is an encyclopedia, not social media, the objective here is to answer the newbie's question to help them become a productive Wikipedian, then move on to the next one... Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support directing newbies to a page that will actually do something for them. Any informative purpose that the landing page would provide can still be achieved with the top banner at the Questions page, with maybe an About link to an expanded info page. In the meantime, I've made some WP:BOLD tweaks to the landing page so that it will be easier to reach the Questions page. Diego (talk) 10:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - but can we please NOT fill up the top of the question page with too much "useful information", as this is unlikely to be read.
    I don't have a "host profile", as IMHO that is not what Wikipedia is about, and I think that inviting new editors to "create a profile" sends out totally the wrong message. How many times do we then tell editors "Wikipedia does not have profiles" ? and how contradictory is it to ask a new editor to "create a profile" and then say Wikipedia is not social media?
    Finally, can we please have this page the same way up as the others - this is the page we invite new editors to, and it is the one page that is "upside down"; so editors who have made some contributions elsewhere on Wikipedia, often post their questions at the bottom, whilst editors who come here first, can easily assume that all pages are like this.- Arjayay (talk) 12:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Neutral tending to support While I think Roger (Dodger67) comment above makes the Teahouse sound like a sausage factory it is essentially correct and I don't see anything wrong with that as long as the level of CIVIL stays up and the level of BITE is low. I know the latter is hard when you see "why was my article rejected/deleted?" for the umpteenth time that day and I know I have to bite back the urge to write - "did you read some of the other answers on this page before posting your question?" So as long as there is broad agreement that the Teahouse retains its original purpose of being "A friendly place to help new editors become accustomed to Wikipedia culture, ask questions" then I have no great views about how to maintain that. Nthep (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually the whole of Wikipedia is a sausage factory, with ridiculously complicated recipes! IMHO Process is of primary importance, when it takes a back seat to the fluffy bunnies and candyfloss of being nice to obvious incompetents and bad faith "contributors", the quality of the sausages suffer. Keeping the CIVIL high and BITE low is important for the entire site, not only the Teahouse. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Sorry for starting this right before I had some traveling to do. Unfortunately I'm not currently able to access the research links above, but hopefully can get on a better machine soon and take a look. Couple of quick points reading over the conversation:
  1. The issue of profiles, while an interesting discussion that should certainly be had, is not obviously vital to the issue of whether we keep the landing page. There are still links on the current /Questions, and so that wouldn't need redesign to preserve profiles, and have that debate separately.
  2. Similarly, there is not an obvious immediate reason why a /Questions header redesign must also be tackled concurrently with the question of the landing page. In fact, my core rationale for support is precisely the fact that the landing page doesn't actually add any information that isn't immediately available on /Questions itself, while hiding a great deal of information, information that is at the heart of the purpose of the Teahouse. For this trade off, as well as an added barrier to entry (i.e., extra click plus significant chance of ending up here on accident), the only advantage that we seem to get is that information already available on /Q is displayed somewhat more prominently. I don't think that's a good trade off.
    I agree with everything you say. But the barrier is more than just an extra click. It's knowing that an extra click is needed; figuring out which click; and realising that the profiles business is an irrelevant distraction. Maproom (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  3. I think everyone is on board with the goal of making this an inviting place for new users. Some of that comes from the design environment of the Teahouse, and a lot of that comes from the social environment maintained by everyone here. One of the central goals of the first environment should be to make it as easy as possible access the second. As far as data goes for this change, I can at least say with certainty that six out of the eight threads currently unarchived here are users erroneously posting on the wrong page, presumably, because they've figured out enough about WP that they know Talk is the place for discussion, and with our design, we've broken that expectation. TimothyJosephWood 22:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Seeeko has proposed collecting input from new editors about what they find valuable about the Teahouse, in order to inform design changes. Several other hosts have expressed interest in this proposal. If hosts are interested in experimenting with this approach, or pursuing other research options, before making major changes to the structure of the Teahouse, I am happy to help out in any way I can. J-Mo 02:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
J-Mo I'm not opposed to this in principle, but I suspect that maybe a more meaningful metric would be to institute a trial run and see how it impacts traffic. Maybe redirect the main to /Q for a month and see if we catch users we might otherwise be missing.
We could have users who ask questions that month, especially first timers, as a experimental group, compared with users from the previous month, see if there's any measurable impact on overall satisfaction. TimothyJosephWood 14:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Timothyjosephwood it can be hard to interpret total traffic (page views), unless you know where the traffic is coming from. Every time anyone views WP:Teahouse (host, guest, passing Wikipedian, web crawler... even bots, in some cases), it counts as traffic. I don't believe it's possible to determine who is viewing a page, or how they got there, without access to non-public data (webrequest logs or a custom EventLogging schema). Another option might be to send a survey to guests who recently asked questions at the Teahouse, and ask them in the survey whether they would prefer WP:Teahouse to point to the current landing page, the Q&A page, or something else. Sending a survey would also provide an opportunity to ask for additional feedback from recent guests, about other aspects of the Teahouse. J-Mo 22:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
You can use pageviews to look at the traffic. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I didn't mean traffic in the sense of pageviews, but in terms of questions asked and answered. TimothyJosephWood 01:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@Timothyjosephwood: ah, yes, that makes more sense. Here's one possibility, then: we could run an A/B test of sorts with the HostBot invite template. Basically, every day when the bot sends out invites to the Teahouse, half of those invites link to the Teahouse landing page, the other half link straight to the Q&A forum. After a while, we analyze whether people who receive invites with links directly to the Q&A board ask more questions on that board (and/or fewer posts to WT:Teahouse). We could also examine whether linking directly to the Q&A board leads to fewer guest profiles created, fewer posts on hosts' talkpages, and even (if we let the test run long enough) greater or reduced retention. There may be other interesting variables I'm not thinking of. It would be relatively straightforward for me to set this test up. We'd probably want to run the test for at least several months though, given the low overall invite response rate. What do folks think about this? J-Mo 23:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
That's a good idea, though I was also thinking about sending out Google Forms surveys (making sure to tell people they're completely anonymous) and asking them what they liked about the Teahouse and what they would like to see change in the future. Would it be possible to do both? — Gestrid (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
@Gestrid: Yes, I think it would make sense to do both. I can help with this. I'm at a work offsite this week, so I have less bandwidth than usual, but if we can revisit the idea next week, I could help develop survey questions. Also, we may want to start a new thread to discuss this initiative, since the survey study, at least, can proceed whether or not hosts decide to move the /Questions page. J-Mo 22:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
If interactions on the Teahouse were short, independent transactions, I could easily imagine some sort of A/B testing being a good thing to try. Since they're not, I'm not sure what sort of experiments could be done. Set up a "Tearoom" in parallel with somewhat different parameters? Seems more like it would cause confusion....
Still, I'm willing to try to help.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 02:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
@Jmcgnh:: Assuming that there are no significant changes in selection, mainly the primary methods of attracting individuals to the Teahouse, I don't see a need for the two versions to happen temporally in parallel. That is, I don't see an obvious reason why guests for December would be significantly different then guests from January in any way that would markedly affect overall satisfaction. TimothyJosephWood 13:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, but support the idea of gathering feedback from users of the Teahouse (e.g. via a survey) so we can make informed changes to the landing page based on their needs. Not opposed to these particular changes if the feedback supports it. I JethroBT drop me a line 05:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support moving the THQ page to The Teahouse, but Oppose removing Guest or Host profiles and also Strongly Support getting feedback from guests and probably the original designer before moving forward. It is important to remember that the Teahouse has had actual design and editor retention ideas built into it, and we shouldn't do anything that might jeopardize the Teahouse goals. We have an editor retention problem, especially with the not-young male demographics, and the Teahouse as it stands helps to combat that. If anyone hasn't watched the Wikimedia Research Showcase presentation on the impact of the Wikipedia Teahouse on new editor retention, it's a good way to spend an hour. -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 02:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
    • And if you don't have a whole hour, you can watch the 10 minute version. It's also on Commons (starts at ~16:30). FF to end for some interesting Q&A. J-Mo 23:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Posted on WP:AN in the hopes of moving toward some agreeable plan, seeing as the discussion seems to be growing stale. TimothyJosephWood 13:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Section break

  • Comment/Proposal. Tell me if I'm wrong but so far it seems there's a weak consensus in favour, with most of those opposing wanting to do some sort of user testing or solicit feedback. I'm sure nobody would actively oppose more information, but my worry is that it's something that might never happen and therefore the proposal will quietly die even though the majority support. With that in mind, how about we set some sort of time limit (say a month?) for those who want to to A/B testing or a survey to do so, and if that isn't forthcoming we go ahead with the proposal as originally framed? Joe Roe (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • No objections here. But we should have clear buy in from those with the technical expertise to actually accomplish the testing, which unfortunately doesn't include me. TimothyJosephWood 14:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Maproom and Dodger67 have it exactly right. Regardless of what it was originally intended to be, the Teahouse has become an alternative, extra-civil Helpdesk. That's not a bad thing. It would be right to recognise this with the layout of the pages. I'm perfectly happy to see the defunct profiles, badges etc. disappear. --LukeSurl t c 18:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think see this as a time-sensitive issue; I, for one, am not going anywhere. If we're willing to hold off on making the switch for at least 3 months, I will set up and run an A/B test with HostBot invites (see my previous comment re: the length of time it takes to gather good data). As long as we can agree ahead of time to make the final decision of whether to move the Questions page based on the outcome of that study. If we're willing to wait at least 3 months, I will also help design and deploy a guest feedback survey, which may also inform the decision (but could also be useful in other ways). If hosts decide to make this change quicker than that, or don't think research is necessary or desirable, I'll work on other stuff instead. J-Mo 20:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
J-Mo, do you mean three months for testing or for implementation of testing? TimothyJosephWood 01:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
@Timothyjosephwood: if we go with the invite A/B test, I'd like to collect data for 3 months. That's about how long we ran our new editor retention study data collection. You can detect smaller differences if you have more data points, and I expect that any differences we see (either way) will be small. I should be able to start the data collection within 5 days of a decision to go forward with the study, since it's not a large code change. J-Mo 02:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment- Me, myself got confused as a new editor. This is a good move. --Marvellous Spider-Man 01:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Heavens, do we really need to go through three months plus of surveys, tests and further lengthy discussions before we can even put one big link to Questions on the page? Who disagrees that making this simple change now would be a positive step, irrespective of what else may be done later?: Noyster (talk), 13:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment So I'm going to go ahead and say J-Mo should start the trial right away, let it run one month and report in as to whether we have anything noticeable (a large effect with a small sample) or whether we should continue. TimothyJosephWood 23:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Cool. If I don't hear any objections, I'll aim to get the test started by Wednesday, 12/14, and will post to this page once the trial has commenced. J-Mo 00:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
    • The consensus here seemed to be to implement the change rather than the more protracted exercise of testing it. --LukeSurl t c 12:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Maybe it's jumping the gun then to opt for the more conservative approach? Not sure where the appropriate place would be to ask for outside input. Already posted on WP:AN, which seemed to go nowhere. WP:AN/RFC is sufficiently backlogged so as to be useless. Suggestions? @LukeSurl: @Noyster: TimothyJosephWood 13:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per my original comments at the top of this section. Mz7 (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
    • I am also unopposed to getting additional information through testing first, if that is what the Teahouse community prefers. Mz7 (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • OK, I've made three changes to layout on the page. (1) Enlarged the "Ask a Question" link and made more space around it. (2) Removed the "Get answers" link from the top of the Recent questions box. (3) Made more separation between the Host and the Guest boxes. Anyone please feel free to amend further or revert altogether if you really think these changes are harmful: Noyster (talk), 18:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
    • The changes are headed in the right direction. I think the "Ask a question" link might be a little too big now. Additionally, the link to the guest profiles is now overlapping the box for it. Instead of enlarging the ask a question link, we could also replace it with a button, looking like this:
      Click here to go to the Q&A board

      I'm not very good at formatting – I just copied the button code from commons:Template:Email templates/Consent/en. This might also be confusing, since the user would have to press another blue button once at the Q&A board to submit the question. Mz7 (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
      • Glad you partly like the changes Mz7. To shrink the link, edit the page and find the second line of the bottom section, where it says [[Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions|<span style="font-size: 32px;... and change the 32px to whatever lesser figure you think suits. Your button looks good as a replacement for this link, only "Click" is deprecated now: mobile users don't have a mouse and don't "click". So I'm told. You have to say "follow this link" or similar. As to the problem with the guest box, this appears to be a difference between skins: in Monobook that side of the page had overlaps before and looks OK now, whereas in Vector it seems to be the other way about. I don't know how to work around this. We need people with graphic design expertise to help when we can agree what we want them to do: Noyster (talk), 10:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
        • Just spitballing, but what if we moved this page to Talk:Teahouse/Questions, and redirected Talk:Teahouse to /Questions? Seems like it would make it a bit harder to accidentally ask a question here, since to get here you would have to already be on /Q and still manage to click on Talk. TimothyJosephWood 14:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I suppose that could work, but may want to link to it somewhere, since I'm not currently seeing an obvious way to get there. TimothyJosephWood 21:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
        • Thanks! I just made it a bit smaller (25px) and added an arrow ('→'). Good point about "Click". I'm okay with any wording that makes it easier for newcomers to get to a page where they can submit a question. Mz7 (talk) 00:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on hold until data collection complete

I would like to summarize the current state of this discussion, since comments appear to have slowed: there is a consensus that moving Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions over Wikipedia:Teahouse would be desirable, but we're allowing time for J-Mo to collect some data before any changes are implemented. He will leave a note here when the data collection has completed. As for removing the guest and host profiles too, that was beyond the scope of the original proposal, so I don't believe there has been enough focused discussion for a consensus on that front. This is an informal evaluation of the consensus as I am an involved editor—if someone wants wants to request formal closure, I have no objections. Mz7 (talk) 03:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Bumping thread for 30 days. Mz7 (talk) 03:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


Thank you for the summary, Mz7. I haven't heard consensus for delaying the decision until after I ran a test, and I'm not enthusiastic about investing time in implementation and analysis if the majority of hosts don't feel that the results of such testing are legitimate and/or useful. I guess my suggestion would be for folks to make whatever changes they want to make. J-Mo 21:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I have to say I was also under the impression that was the consensus we'd reached and we were waiting for you to do the testing, but rereading the section immediately above this one it isn't clear.
But at this point I fear my prediction that this will drag on indefinitely unless there's a firm plan for data collection is coming true. Also, in the meantime, someone has attempted to change the formatting of the landing page to reduce the amount of misplaced questions, but my (totally subjective) impression is that it's actually caused *more* over the last month. Can we just go ahead and ask an admin to move the pages? – Joe (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
In that case, I think, yes, we would be okay with going ahead and asking an admin to move the pages. Mz7 (talk) 06:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Move initiated

Based on the above, I've moved the landing page to Wikipedia:Teahouse/About to make room for Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions. I didn't want to put a {{db-move}} on Wikipedia:Teahouse because of the confusion it might cause new users, so for now it redirects to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions. Once the move is completed (admin request below), we should update shortcuts like WP:THQ etc.

Please delete Wikipedia:Teahouse (currently a redirect) so Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions can be moved there, per the above discussion. – Joe (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Samtar. It looks like Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions is move protected, so would you mind moving it to Wikipedia:Teahouse for us? (The talk pages can stay as they are). – Joe (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
@Joe Roe: Okay, I have deleted Wikipedia:Teahouse to make way for the move, and then moved Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions to Wikipedia:Teahouse (not moving the talk pages nor archive pages). How does it look? (PS. Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions is now a redirect to Wikipedia:Teahouse) -- Samtar talk · contribs 18:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
@Samtar: Perfect, thank you. – Joe (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Post-move bugs

I suspect some editors are being sent to the old page from somewhere, as this is happening. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I changed the link at Wikipedia:Community portal to the correct one; there are a few major pages that still need to be linked to the correct page; that may be the problem. JudgeRM (talk to me) 20:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
The confusing thing is that they're editing the page even though it's a redirect. How are they landing up there rather than being redirected? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Apparently the Ask a question button was still linking to TH/Q. K6ka fixed that, so things should be working now. --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 00:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The Teahouse user scripts are not working, pinging @Writ Keeper and Chicocvenancio:. --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 20:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The "Ask a question" button isn't working as it should, and is starting new sections at the bottom of the page. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Could we close that as NOTABUG? --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 20:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
This could finally be our chance to move to bottom-posting indeed! But it's a shame to lose the pop-up question box that we had. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
@AntiCompositeNumber: The user scripts are easily fixed, any references to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions just need to be changed to Wikipedia:Teahouse. Unfortunately it looks like only the users who originally wrote them can make that change. – Joe (talk) 10:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

And I have moved the editnotice over, to help in the process of un-breaking the Teahouse. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I've submitted protected edit requests at MediaWiki talk:Gadget-teahouse.js and MediaWiki talk:Gadget-teahouse/content.js which should fix the ask-a-question form and top-posting (if we're serious about going back to bottom-posting, I think we need another discussion!) – Joe (talk) 10:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: both edit requests completed - anything else I can do to help? Seeing as my move broke things I think it's only fair I help fix it.. -- Samtar talk · contribs 10:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
@Samtar:. Thanks again. I've tested the "ask a question" and "join this discussion" functionality and it appears to be back to normal. I think that's all we need help with, unless admins have the ability to edit the TH user scripts too? (Again it should be just a case of replacing any references to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions with Wikipedia:Teahouse).
@Joe Roe: done this one and this one -- Samtar talk · contribs 11:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think "Ask a question" is back to normal. It just starts a new section for me, whereas I seem to remember it used to open up a kind of pop-up question box. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
And seconds after I wrote that, it appears to be fixed. Thanks to whoever did that. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
@Cordless Larry: I think that was just a cache thing. I got the popup box immediately. – Joe (talk) 11:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh right. I had it happen on a couple of different computers, so I thought it was a more fundamental problem, but it could well have been a cache issue. Thanks, Joe. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
No pop-up box for me, using Chrome and Vector skin. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
@David Biddulph: I updated this script too. Can you try again? Sam Walton (talk) 11:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
The talkback works OK, but the "Ask a question" doesn't give a pop-up. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

This is a low-priority issue, but the entry for the Teahouse at Wikipedia:Dashboard also needs updating. Thanks to everyone helping out in making this transition smoother. Mz7 (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

This is updated by Legobot. Pinging Legoktm. Sam Walton (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Just a note

StarryGrandma, I appreciate your helping out, and I'm putting this here in case other regular hosts disagree. But the...kindof the purpose of the teahouse is to offer an environment that is as far from boiler plate templating as possible. So I don't know that I would put a lot of effort into making responses look super fancy, and instead put effort into trying to talk to guests in a way that's...conversational. TimothyJosephWood 21:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Somehow I lost the heading for the above section, so I've added it back. My question is, why does this strange template appear in my answer when I didn't put it into the wikicode for may answer which is still, if you look I assume you are talking about Draft:The Dollop. It is fine to improve an article by another editor when it is in Draft space rather than their own user space. Many Draft articles have been rescued and improved by other Wikipedia editors. See all the rescued draft articles at User:Anne Delong/AfC content rescued from db-g13. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Uhhh...I actually haven't the slightest. Suggestions? TimothyJosephWood 22:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I figured it out - it was a typo, see the section above. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

What happened here?

See Wikipedia:Teahouse#Edit another members Draft or create my own?. A long welcome message appears in the answer, but not in the wikicode and I can't make it go away. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

It was a typo. It turns out I had written ((Hi|NsTaGaTr)) rather than Hi ((u|NsTaGaTr)), (( standing for {{ which confuses things. Who knew Hi was a template! StarryGrandma (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
/waves - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 15:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

we need help building band artist page!

LIBRARY OF SANDS is a band with radio play around the USA. Top 15 2015 UK 's UNCUT music magazine playlist. Musicbyshineywater (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Musicbyshineywater. This page is for editors to discuss the inner workings of the Teahouse. Questions about editing Wikipedia belong at Wikipedia:Teahouse. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

30/500 protection for host landing?

Hey everyone. Over the last two days I cleaned up Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host landing, removing about 140 host designations. Many were brand new users (at the time they signed up) who had asked a question and then immediately designated themselves as hosts. Though we've never made any formal proposal for becoming a host, since a user experienced enough to be a host certainly needs a few thousand edits to be experienced enough for the role, I think 30/500 protection should not keep out anyone suitable, since it does not come near the threshold needed, while stopping the obviously too new. Thoughts?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I suppose there's not much harm. I would be explicit that it's an IAR situation though, before two dozen people show up and start wikilawyering ECP. TimothyJosephWood 15:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for taking on this task, Fuhghettaboutit. I have long noted new editors adding themselves as hosts, but always felt that questioning this would be undermined by the fact that there were so many inexperienced "hosts" already listed. I agree with your proposal about the protection. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome. I was hoping to have some more people comment but the change has been made. As an addendum to why this was needed, between the time I started looking at this on January 31 and through today, seven brand new users had added themselves as hosts (and were removed by me and others).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Future use of this talk page

I don't know about anyone else, but I find the questions page gets far too much traffic to go on my watchlist without completely flooding it. Unfortunately this means that, since we move WP:THQ here, this talk page suffers from the same problem. Could we perhaps shift general discussions of the Teahouse to the more easily-watched Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Host lounge in future? – Joe (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Flooding it? I assume you mean that you have your watchlist set to show all changes and not just the most recent...I personally find that entire feature unusable for exactly this kind of reason. TimothyJosephWood 15:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Joe, I think this is a non-issue for most users, because I believe most users do not invoke the all changes feature, as Timothy identifies – though maybe everyone will say they do. Anyway, I suspect it because people who come here often have realtively high edit counts and probably many, many pages watchlisted. (Although I don't think everyone has a watchlist quite as ridiculous as mine [more than 18,000 pages, I really need to prune soon!]; seeing all changes would be a nightmare for me.)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. I try to keep my watchlist to a reasonable size so I can keep all changes on, but if it's just me! – Joe (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

To add negative news on a firm's page

Hello,
Is this fact something that can go on this firm's page (with appropriate and reliable sources)?
(Details: Jaiprakash Associates is one of the companies under the Jaypee group. I am redirected from page for Jaipraksh Associates to page for Jaypee group. This company has defaulted on payments to its fixed deposit holders. The concernced govt. authority has granted them time till 31 March 2017 to sell off its assets and settle the debts. They have sold some assets, paid back some investors capital and interest, some only captial, while a lot are still waiting since or 3 years for repayment of even capital)
If yes, then is there a specific format or a fixed section or heading? If no, then why not? Please guide. Thank you.
--Roshni Kanchan (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Roshni Kanchan. This page is for editors to discuss the inner workings of the Teahouse. Questions about editing Wikipedia belong at Wikipedia:Teahouse. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry Cordless Larry, my mistake. I will post it on the link you provided. Thanks. --Roshni Kanchan (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Disillusionment

This comment is inspired by the discussion at New to Wikipedia and becoming disillusioned with it.

Here are two pieces of logic:

  1. "Wikipedia contains a lot of crappy articles. Therefore I can contribute to it by adding another crappy article."
  2. "Wikipedia contains a lot of crappy articles. Therefore I can contribute to it by improving some of them."

Why do so many new editors prefer the former? What can we do to suggest to them, before they start editing, that the latter might be preferable? Maproom (talk) 08:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Ugh, Maproom, I know, it's very easy to become disillusioned with the conduct of new users who are clearly only here to promote their friend/company/relative. I really think that attempting to get people like this to try to improve the encyclopedia beyond a gentle suggestion in general is a waste of time, as their express reason for contributing is not in line with the project's goals. Instead time is much better spent helping users who are already trying to improve articles.
If you're becoming worn out by helping new users in the Teahouse, take a break...I need frequent ones so that I can always remember to assume good faith even in the face of the deluge of new COI editors that wash up on our shores. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 09:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Unless I've misunderstood, I don't think Maproom is disillusioned, Psiĥedelisto. It's the editor who started the section that Maproom links to who is disillusioned. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
@Maproom: I think that Option 1 could be rephrased as: "I have an interest in X and there isn't an article on it, so I will write one. To do this in a reasonable time, I will base my article on existing articles."
I don't think anybody aims to produce crappy articles. Instead, perhaps we could consider how to address the disconnect between the expectations of experienced editors and a new contributor. No other site where they contribute requires learning such a seemingly endless set of Wikipedia rules and guidelines, so to a new person an obvious approach to judge what is acceptable is to look at what is already there. This is one reason why I am a fan of tagging problems with articles: at least a well-intentioned new user will know there are problems with that article. --Gronk Oz (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I thought that DennisPietras's suggestion that something along the lines of "there are countless poorly written articles because we did not have all of those rules in place at the time of Wikipedia's inception" be included in the draft rejection templates was a good one, and I was planning on flagging that up to the AfC reviewers. What do people think? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Cordless Larry: you're right about my use of "disillusioned". But I still appreciate Psiĥedelisto's concern.
I agree that DennisPietras's suggestion is a good one. I wish more could be done somehow, to steer new users completely away from the idea of creating new articles. I've no idea how it could be achieved. I wonder if the WMF is aware of this growing problem? Maproom (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
@Gronk Oz, Cordless Larry, and Maproom: YES, please get AfC reviewer's attention! My initial experience with them was very discouraging. If I wasn't such a stubborn son-of-a-gun it would have been the end. I understand that there is a big backlog, and that this suggestion will only increase the work of the reviewers, but I suggest that rather than only looking at the quality of the article, the reviewers look at the contribution history of the editor before making a decision to reject. If an unacceptable article was composed by an enthusiastic newbie, I suggest that the first notice from the reviewers would be a tag something like "I realize you are a new editor. This article does not meet our current standards, even though you may have found many lower quality articles already. Please read the suggestions "here" (and make a brief guide for newbies that links from "here") and ask at the Teahouse if you have further questions. We appreciate and need new editors, and want to help you thrive here." Then, flag the article to be re-reviewed in a month, unless it is really inappropriate. I've actually entertained the thought of trying to become an afc reviewer at some point, but being a geeky ex-geneticist I don't think there would be much point to it. sigh. DennisPietras (talk) 02:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

how to edit a page

How add something in a page Usamakaror (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

This is for discussing the Teahouse. Please ask questions at the main page. Thank you. MereTechnicality ⚙ 14:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@Usamakaror: I have copied the question across to Wikipedia:Teahouse#how to edit a page where it belongs: please watch for the answer there. --Gronk Oz (talk) 07:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
It looks like Usamakaror had already posted there before posting here, Gronk Oz. See Wikipedia:Teahouse#how i can edit a page. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
OOPS - thanks for picking up on that, Cordless Larry. I did check the recent posts on the Teahouse, but I didn't go far enough back obviously. Lesson learned. --Gronk Oz (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
You weren't helped by that perennial Teahouse problem of new posts appearing at both the top and the bottom of the page! Cordless Larry (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Little Extra Help

I need a little more help with citing, what do you do to cite an article? Ive heard of the <ref> but I dont know how it all works... If you are able to explain the code for that, and what format and how to cite the article would be great. Thank you The Editors God (talk) 06:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, The Editors God. You can read about it here: Help:Referencing for beginners. In a very simple format, write the following:
The Sun is very big.<ref>The Reliable Book of Big Things, page 11</ref>
produces:
The Sun is very big.[1]

This reference will be shown at the bottom of the article:

References

  1. ^ The Reliable Book of Big Things, page 11
– Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Possible influx of new editors on Cannabis/Marijuana articles this April – how to handle?

WikiProject Cannabis is holding an edit-a-thon for the last two weeks of April 2017, main page here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cannabis/420 Collaboration

We're looking to spread the word far and wide on social media, and try to get a lot of novice/beginning editors involved. I don't want to steal personnel away from Teahouse, but to avoid us (possibly) cluttering up Teahouse with a bunch of people just for our Collab, as the date approaches would it be okay to give y'all a heads-up so those specifically interested in our topic can add our Project Talk page to their watch list and help field questions from newbies? I expect we may get a lot of "I don't even know where to begin, how can I help" questions, and we'll have an information page with a ton of redlinks, list of needed changes to existing pages, what imagery we need, etc but some folks may need more hands-on guiding than others.

Just wanted to give y'all a heads-up and see if there's any smart way we can leverage Teahouse to help out, or whether you just prefer that we try to prominently advise "try the Teahouse" on our Collab pages to push more people in your direction. Just let us know what works for y'all. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I see, at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cannabis/420_Collaboration#Outcomes, a list of things that participants may work on, "New articles", "Improved articles", etc. What I don't see there is what seems to me the most obvious category to list, "articles needing improvement". Maproom (talk) 08:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney. The most important thing that edit-a-thon organizers can do is to explain and emphasize the critical importance of summarizing what reliable, independent sources say about the topic, and citing those sources. Teahouse hosts are always ready, willing and able to handle questions from good faith newcomers. I read recently that pro-Putin groups in Russia were mobilizing to create 10,000 new articles. I have seen no influx of Russian editors at the Teahouse. I doubt that we will be overwhelmed. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 09:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Use of the resolved tag

I can't remember who, but someone a few weeks ago was removing resolved tags with the rationale that other's may have follow up questions other than the original person asking the question. Currently the use of the tag is at best inconsistent, but are we on the same page as far as removing them or should we just kindof play fast and loose and let them fall where they may? TimothyJosephWood 15:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

That was me and I feel that resolved tags should not be used on TQ. If an OP comes back and says "thanks, I'm good now" that's one thing but we shouldn't then close those topics off with anything that gives the impression supplementaries aren't welcome. Nthep (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
@Timothyjosephwood: I believe the resolved tag chills discussion, should never be used in a discussion forum like this one, and should always be removed with the exception of when it is placed by the original poster. I gave a much more complete rationale in a similar discussion at the Help desk, here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

How to add photo

hi how to i add photo any page Marufulhassanirfan (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Marufulhassanirfan: This is for discussing the Teahouse. Please ask questions at the Teahouse page, not Teahouse Talk page → Wikipedia:Teahouse. --CiaPan (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

How to upload photo from my phone for Wikipedia page Netashivigupta (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Netashivigupta: Again, please ask your question at the main Teahouse page (click here to go there!) and not on this page. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 20:38, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Gene Zef2

I keep trying to fix the personal pages on the Band mambers of Die Antwoord, can someone tell e why staff is so ignorant of how to set up a page. Or why the staff dont seem to have the patience to let people build a page before deleting it.

Yesterday I tried to build a account for Tarryn ALberts, one of the performers with Die Antwoord, and five minutes after i created it, it was deleted, then another admin undeleted it, and then another admin deleted it again. I mean WTF is going on around here? How is soeone suppose to build a page and add refs and links and all the info wiki requires, if staf keeps fucking it up while your attempting to do it?

We are not talking days here guys, we are talking all this within a 5 minute window.

So WTF is going on around here? Is it to many Chiefs and not enough Indians? I mean what is it?

--Gene Zef2 (talk) 08:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

This page is for discussing the Teahouse and how to make it better; it is not a page for asking questions about how to edit on Wikipedia. The question-answering page is at the Teahouse.
@Gene Zef2: No WP staff are messing with your attempts to create pages. What you see are other volunteer editors attempting to get you to follow the rules for how to edit on Wikipedia. You cannot put half-constructed articles in the main article space. You should first construct your article in draft space or user space. You might also want to read WP:Your first article. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 13:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

OTRS recruitment

Hello Teahouse hosts. I apologize, as this is only tangentially related to the Teahouse. I just wanted to mention that the Volunteer Response Team (also known as the "OTRS team", after the software they use) could always use some more volunteers. This is the team that responds to much of the email sent to Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation about various aspects of the project.

Many of the emails we receive are from readers who are confused by some aspect of the project, or have found an error in an article and are unsure how to correct it, or perhaps are interested in getting started with contributing to Wikipedia – very similar to the things you all see daily as Teahouse hosts. Key skills to have are remaining patient in the face of hostility and explaining why we have certain policies and guidelines, as opposed to just linking to them – just like those listed at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host lounge/Expectations. For me, the most humbling part about OTRS is interacting with article subjects – it makes you appreciate how real people are affected by Wikipedia content, real people who are willing to donate their photographs or make corrections that truly benefit the project.

OTRS is one of the most important connections we have to our readership, and it is a great way to help out, especially if you already enjoy working at a place like the Teahouse. I am not an OTRS administrator, so I cannot speak for them or on behalf of the collective OTRS team, but I would like to say personally that we could use your help if you're interested. You can learn more at Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team and at meta:OTRS/Recruiting. Having administrator tools is helpful at times, but certainly not necessary. In order to apply, at bare minimum you must be at least 16 years old and willing to sign a confidentiality agreement. Mz7 (talk) 03:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Add photo and biography.

Yesterday I was posted one article but today that is not showing in the search bottom. How can this reappear ? What can i do for it ? Surya Panta (talk) 11:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Surya Panta. This page is for editors to discuss the inner workings of the Teahouse. Questions about editing Wikipedia belong at Wikipedia:Teahouse. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Editing

How to insert a picture or a video in the content of your page please ? Gatwa (talk) 05:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Gatwa. This page is for editors to discuss the inner workings of the Teahouse. Questions about editing Wikipedia belong at Wikipedia:Teahouse. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Temporarily halting HostBot invites for maintenance

Hello there hosts. Just a quick heads-up that I will be halting Teahouse invitations via HostBot for a few days while I make some updates to the codebase. This may cause a small dip in traffic to the Q&A board. I'll post again when the invites are up and running. Best, J-Mo 18:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done The bot is up and running again. J-Mo 22:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Possible problem

Is there a problem with the Teahouse syntax or something? The question titled "review" currently at the top of the page is from 9 days ago, so it should actually be near the bottom right now. Maybe I seeing an older version or something? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: See the archived discussion above. We decided it was best to use the format every other discussion page on Wikipedia has and have questions posted to the bottom of the page. — Gestrid (talk) 06:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
OK. I did not get the memo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, well

I see that the Teahouse is now putting new topics at the bottom like the rest of Wikipedia. In the medium run, that is good. In the short run, it is confusing. Thanks anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, it'll take some time for me to get used to it. For the discussion that led to the change, see Wikipedia talk:Teahouse#Top v bottom. Mz7 (talk) 04:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Now, we get to scroll all the way to the bottom at the Teahouse, too. Oh, well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@Cullen328: I've added the template {{stb}}, which you can see in the upper-right of the page. — Gestrid (talk) 07:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
AFAIK in some browsers the End key brings a view to the bottom of a page without long scrolling... ;) CiaPan (talk) 07:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
You are my hero. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 15:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps we got it wrong and should have switched all other discussion pages to top-posting? ;-) Cordless Larry (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
No. Just because the Teahouse was wrong for years is no reason for turn Wikipedia upside down. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
That was a joke for Cullen328. Do you mind if we move this topic to the talk page or the host lounge, Robert McClenon? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I think that moving this thread is a good idea, Cordless Larry. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Why is the Teahouse so quiet..? It can´t be..! But it is! So sad I missed the chance to !vote. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Top posting: I was recommended to post here

This is the entirety of a Teahouse discussion:

Why not archive lengthy discussion pages more frequently?

When I caught sight of the Sections scrollbox on the Teahouse page, I realized that this was a bridge too far. I cannot scan through a heterogeneous list with only chronologial order as an organizing principle. Whatever space constraints are forcing the use of the scrollbox simply should not exist, in light of the option of archiving. I am a fast scanner, but not in segments, not to mention my computer has scrolled jerkily since I got Windows 7. Somehow, my short-term memory is exceeded by the scollbox list format, making navigating sometimes gigantic Talk and Teahouse sections (over 17 screenpages) and pages (uncountable screenpages) nearly impossible. Is this the best page to mention this? Suggestions?--Quisqualis (talk) 23:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Quisqualis. The Teahouse just recently changed to a bottom posting arrangement, as is common on Wikipedia. At the top of the page is a convenient link that allows readers to jump to the bottom with a single click. The decision about how often to archive a page is a trade-off between keeping the page size manageable and keeping conversations on this page for the benefit of new editors who asked a question and may not check in every day. I agree that the number of unarchived conversations is now somewhat excessive, in my subjective opinion. The best place to discuss this in detail is Wikipedia talk: Teahouse. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I think top-posting will be less of problem for the infrequent editors going forward, given that the latency of Teahouse email feedback has shortened dramatically in the past several days.--Quisqualis (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Worth noting is that the oldest unarchived conversation here goes back only eight days. There are many discussion pages on Wikipedia containing stale conversations going back months or years. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
You're not kidding! Here is an option I've considered: Could there not be a search box at the top of the page for an editor to enter their username, and the software would then jump to their most recent contribution, with a "next button" somewhere nearby? Then it would be fine to go back to top posting, which, as you implied, allows a shorter page length. I will post this on Wikipedia talk: Teahouse , as you recommended, as well, with my original comments. Is my logic OK ? (I don't want to propose the impossible).--Quisqualis (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Many browsers have that search feature on Ctrl+F. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Quisqualis,Cullen328: Questions are archived by the date of last comment, not the date the questions were asked. So the oldest are only four days old. The list is not normally this long. Some questions, such as the first at the moment, have had long discussions. And there was a large influx of questions on Sunday. Things should get back to normal since archiving takes place daily. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

This is already being discussed above, at #Teahouse archiving, Quisqualis. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I read and understood 99% of it. Hope that the damned scrollbox goes away, or never has more than 15 items in it.--Quisqualis (talk) 09:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Fixed the formatting of the thread. Mz7 (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

2605:E000:9152:8F00:308A:228A:B0E0:AE28 New IP editor on the loose with a toilet fixation

Attempting to advise him will be like stepping in quicksand.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Quisqualis (talk • contribs) 09:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

That discussion has been collapsed or hidden. I hesitated on marking the discussion closed, but it became more and more obvious to me that we were either being trolled or dealing with someone who was WP:NOTHERE. Somewhere buried in there may have been a concern about vocabulary, that using "bathroom" is a problematic idiom, but it went on at such length and indirectness that there was little hope of having an actual discussion. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 10:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

It was nonlinear and only vaguely thematic. I found it incomprehensible, i.e., "phrase salad". And definitely not "there". Good move on your part. There are many editors who don't realize you improved their day with that collapse.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Getting trolled like that isn't uncommon for some editors working in certain parts of the encyclopedia (ex. anti-vandalism). If that happens, you usually end up just ignoring them and they'll go away. If they end up breaking a rule repeatedly and continue to break it after three or four warnings (that's about when you can stop assuming good faith), then you report them to the necessary noticeboard, or you can also ask an admin on their talk page to block the user. — Gestrid (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I believe his apparent mania will propel him elsewhere. Good advice, and Thanks.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

See also WP:DENY Lectonar (talk) 12:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Useful and potent link; thanks.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Teahouse/Archive_13&oldid=1146793076"