Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 → Archive 15

Nickelroy is vandalizing by removing Namvistar Din photograph in Aurangabad, Maharashtra article

File:Massive crowd at Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University gate during Namvistar Din celebrations.png celebrations in Aurangabad.[1]]]

The source is supporting article. By removing Namvistar din photograph Nickelroy is harming Wikipedia. This is Vandalism.

The culture of India refers to the way of life of the people of India. India's languages, religions, dance, music, architecture, food, and customs differ from place to place within the country. The Indian culture, often labelled as an amalgamation of several cultures, spans across the Indian subcontinent and has been influenced by a history that is several millennia old. This definition goes similar to Aurangabad culture. Read culture of India for more details.

The editor is not interested in answering on talk page here but continuously doing edit warring. I have requested editor many times and also added the source with photograph but Nickelroy is doing edit warring. JAIBHIM5 (talk) 08:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

From the big box at the top of this page: "Greetings: This page is for discussing the Teahouse, please direct questions about Wikipedia to the Teahouse Q&A forum. Thank you." --David Biddulph (talk) 08:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

You guys are great!

Lots of questions today on Internet addiction article. You Teahouse helpers should get paid to be TAs! Liz Read! Talk! 22:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I've answered a question here a time or two but there are number of regulars who deserves special thanks and praise (you know who you are). Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, invited here!

Hi, I'm Allen AcNguyen here for the Teahouse. Invited here for more information. --AllenHAcNguyen (talk) 03:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Uni work

hi, to insert/upload a diagram to a wiki page, do you go through wikimedia commons? thanks -- Aliciaag93 (talk) 11:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Teahouse Posting Issues

It seems that we have ran into an unexpected conflict here at the Teahouse...and I've been noticing this as I use it. Due to the high numbers of people actively editing here and posting new information at the same time, we run into a TOOOOOOOON of edit conflicts...some of which make posting a question/response much more difficult than it should be. Another thing I've noticed is that, at least for myself, the initial "Ask a question" pop-up freezes up and acts really weird (I typed this question on notepad, it was so bad)! These are just some slight issues that I figured I'd bring up to the community so that we can quickly get them resolved!მაLiphradicusEpicusთე (talk to me) 23:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing we can do about edit conflicts, unfortunately; it's just the nature of the beast, I'm afraid. As for the other thing, what browser are you using? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Awww, well that's just too bad, maybe in the future this will get fixed Writ Keeper. Maybe we should look into an intermediate area for questions that would store multiple temporary versions of the Teahouse with everyone's different edits which could then be all combined on the live Teahouse; does this idea make sense as I worded it? As for which browser--I am using Google Chrome and it hasn't given me problems anywhere else. მაLiphradicusEpicusთე (talk to me) 07:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Unanswered threads archiving

I feel unanswered threads should not be archived example 1. What is the current rule? I can see few unanswered threads at the bottom of the current page. Tito☸Dutta 23:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but how to stop the bot from archiving threads that go without activity for X number of days?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
@Keithbob, Titodutta: Well, you could add {{Do not archive until}} ({{DNAU}}) to any threads you see that have not been answered, but then you'd have to remember to remove the hidden comment it leaves once answered. Alternatively, we could create a template that adds a note with a current time stamp to stop the archiving, and which instructs internally to move the text to the top of the page so it gets seen. Say something with text not unlike:
:<small><small>{{font color|DarkSlateGray|This unanswered question has been moved to the top of the page for higher visibility. Please use a ping in any answer.}}--~~~~~</small></small>
Which would format as:
This unanswered question has been moved to the top of the page for higher visibility. Please use a ping in any answer.--00:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
The template's documentation would I suppose explain among other things, that it should be substituted, should be preceded by removing the entire question it is to be added to from the page including its section header from the page, which should then be pasted back at the top, with the template placed just below the section header on its own line. Just thinking out loud. Any thoughts?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • @Fuhghettaboutit:, yes, that is a good suggestion, about the first part, it is a bit difficult, as a) as you have said, the template needs to be removed after answering, so other editors should know about it, b) we can't predict if a question will be answered, so can't tag until it gets archived.
    I noticed it, when my question remained unanswered Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_191#Template:Infobox_scholar. --Tito☸Dutta 03:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
@Titodutta: Okay so I've gone ahead and created the template at {{Delay archiving}} with the shortcut {{Darch}}. Don't use it yet, I'm too tired to fix it right now but the timestamp noinclude coding is not going to work.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I've made a couple minor adjustments to your template so it will now work, although I'm not sure I see the purpose of it. If you see a question that has gone unanswered for say three days, then answer it. If you don't know the answer, then based on the topic of the question, ping one (or more) of the other hosts that you know should know the answer. This resets the clock (archiving is based on the last time stamp), gets some attention that a post now in the middle of the page might have missed, and let's the person asking the question know that their question is being worked on. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 12:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • @Technical 13: Thanks for the fix. Not everyone can answer every question and questions that have gone unanswered for long periods of time are far more likely to be sticky questions – that is, the fact that it went unanswered in the first place often indicates that multiple people looked at it and did not answer for a reason. So, the template's function is to allow someone who is still not able or willing to answer that languishing question, to nevertheless make it far more likely to be seen by someone else who will, by virtue of moving it to the top of the page where it is many times over more likely to be seen by a good cross section of people. And that is a much better and more global method in my view than supposing that someone who sees such a question is going to take it upon themselves to target and ping a bunch of regulars. Hey, if we see it's useless I can just G7 it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • While often out of date, Wikipedia:Teahouse/WikiProjects contains a list of Teahouse hosts and topics that they are willing to help with. Using this list, it should be fairly easy to ping someone for a specific question. I encourage you to add yourself to that list, and I actually don't have time to read all of the questions that come to the Teahouse anymore. I usually only show up if pinged or if I happen to catch a section title in my watchlist that is descriptive and of a topic that I think I can help. I'm guessing that there are a few other hosts that work the same way. So, pinging hosts when you know a question is one they would be interested in and/or able to answer is a good idea after three or five days if they haven't been by to notice it themselves. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 17:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Certainly if I came across a post I was unable to answer and it was unusually situated that I thought there was one user who was very likely to know an answer where no one else would I might ping them, but I would almost never do that scattershot and most questions are sui generis. That list is mostly about topic areas. It's almost useless for determining who would be best suited and would want to answer most questions we receive. Most of us who answer are generalists anyway. You mileage may vary but I would not presume to do so unless it was of the rare variety I spoke of and I think many others would feel the same way. Relocating an unanswered question to the top of the page (and at the same time delay archiving) is much more pragmatic and easy way of getting eyes on it. Of course, I never tested whether we have enough unanswered questions to need this template. I'll add a z number and see if it gets used.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Directing newbies to ANI

Today, Arthur goes shopping directed a newish user to ANI in response to their query about how to "report" an admin. This direction was clearly in the best of faith, and Arthur went out of his way to give the new editor other options (he finally suggested ANI in his third reply). The predictable result of the ANI post was additional scrutiny of the newer editor's mildly problematic (but not particularly onerous) edits, including by myself. My question is whether there really is ever a time when ANI is the right direction to give a new editor? Is there a lighter-weight, lower drama forum that would be more appropriate for someone unfamiliar with Wiki-bureaucracy? VQuakr (talk) 06:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

There used to be WP:WQA, but now there isn't. For someone who is really determined to report an admin, as opposed to having a discussion with an admin, really the only sensible venue to send them to is arbcom. But that doesn't exactly help them either. If the disagreement were about content, one could send them to WP:DRN. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I think an ANI referral for a newbie is often like sending them to lion's den. Engaging them in a temporary mentor-ship whereby an experienced editor can assess and advise them on their options and the likely outcomes is a better option if they're willing. It gives them an opportunity to segue into WP's cultural norms and processes and make more informed choices about how to respond to difficult situations -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
yep, lambs to the slaughter. unhelpful to send newbie to dramaboard. better to advise that they are correct, this is a bitey battleground place, and their subject matter present several policy problems. Duckduckstop (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
It is not clear to me what the benefit would have been to "advise that they are correct". When an editor has had extensive discussions on multiple talk pages, including several rounds of discussion here at the Teahouse, and still takes the view "that a user is getting other users to gang up on another user" and wants to report that, it is not helpful to pretend there is not a noticeboard appropriate for that. In fact as it turned out, when the editor did make their complaint at Wikipedia:ANI as I recommended, several editors there made thoughtful, helpful and considerate responses that helped to explain and clarify what they were misunderstanding.
By contrast, the user's latest question in the same section on the Teahouse questions page is still unanswered more than two days later...
The purpose of Teahouse is to lead the way in enabling more helpful and welcoming discussion, not to create a walled garden where we promote the viewpoint that we are friendly here but the rest of Wikipedia is "a bitey battleground place". That's the approach of giving a dog a bad name - people will live up to that name, people will not try to change it, and changes will not be made. If there are parts of Wikipedia that do have such serious problems, then we should be looking to improve them, not deciding that they are so bad and destructive there is absolutely never a time when a user could be advised to go there. Being extremely careful about directing a new editor to certain venues is appropriate, and is exactly what I did; decreeing that some parts of Wikipedia are "no go" areas is not appropriate. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
empathy, best to be truthful about the wikipedia iron law of oligarchy.
you mean Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive832#Work.2Fedits_being_attacked i don't see the thoughtful responses; i see go away, you're wrong. i see a warning not to go to ANI on her talk page.
we agree = "The purpose of Teahouse is to lead the way in enabling more helpful and welcoming discussion,"
we disagree = 'not to create a walled garden where we promote the viewpoint that we are friendly here but the rest of Wikipedia is "a bitey battleground place". '
it's the truth, not "giving a bad name" just about every newbie i meet has been bitten. as Freeman says: "As long as the structure of the group is informal, the rules of how decisions are made are known only to a few and awareness of power is limited to those who know the rules. Those who do not know the rules and are not chosen for initiation must remain in confusion, or suffer from paranoid delusions that something is happening of which they are not quite aware." [1] this analysis is confirmed by academic study [2]. we need to advise the newbies to avoid admins, don't go to ANI, don't go AfC, go to meetups, go find an active project. when venues are broken, we need to advise how to route around the obstruction. this faith in rules and process is dysfunctional. it's not a walled garden, merely a civil garden, which the rest of wikipedia chooses not to emulate. Duckduckstop (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive832#Help with new page please.
Don't go to AfC? Wow...
Anyway there's another one now, Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#How to make a complaint, please demonstrate how best to assist, and I will be watching and learning! Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I'd agree that one should normally advise editors to avoid AFC. I might make an exception for a spammer, especially if I was in a bad mood, but creating an article in a sandbox and moving it to mainspace when you think it ready is much better advice than creating one at AFC. And starting articles in mainspace is almost as bad. However I would just point out the contradiction between avoiding admins and going to meetups... As for civility, my experience has been that uncontentious article improvement usually results in civil interactions. Of course anything involving subjects that are contentious in real life can be contentious here, as can deleting other people's work. But there are plenty of places on the pedia where editors collaborate harmoniously - sometimes even with admins. ϢereSpielChequers 17:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
oh, and stay away from SPI. yes, the irony of admins at meetups, they're so nice in person, but give them the perverse incentive of semi-auto messages, templates, tag spam, pretty soon they're not so "helpful". you can create all the policy and processes, like AfC, but without an implementation team, (the teahouse method), it's all a broken, Rube Goldberg mess. as user:fuzheado says, AfC is the new Nupedia. I would say it's getting more like wikinews every day. my experience is that newbies are treated like vandals, i.e. this example which is contentious. I've been trying to sell biting = uncivil, but I see that it's no sale. we'd rather plead good intentions. more authentic engagement is necessary. there are some nice blog entries of newbies, if you want to study, should be required reading for admins. [3] trying to be consistent with IRL advice. Duckduckstop (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Sarah came here to promote subjects and nobody in the Teahouse threads directed her towards our COI guidelines or NPOV policy. That is the problem that should be corrected in the future. The response at ANI was appropriate in any situation with a confrontational COI editor. If you don't want editors here to be given that treatment, then you guys have to tell them exactly what they are doing wrong and exactly why they need to stop before things get escalated to ANI. ThemFromSpace 19:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
oh, and don't go to COIN or NPOV either. teahouse is the place where we engage new editors in how to do what they want, within policy, not scold and quote policy to. that methodology is proven superior by study. if you want to tell people what they are doing wrong, then you are part of the problem. we have decline in active editors from 50000 to 30000 in 6 years; it will be 10000 in 6 years, and then who will you tell they are doing things wrong, 1000000 edit editors? Duckduckstop (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
If that's what the Teahouse is about then this place should be closed down as it encourages circumvention of Wikipedia policy. Fortunately that's not the case, you are just way off the mark here. This is place for editors to learn about the proper methods of contribution; what they can and can not do. Not a place for them to get their way without having to worry about policy. If you really think we shouldn't mention our COI and NPOV policies to obviously-affiliated editors who come here, you shouldn't be volunteering here. ThemFromSpace 17:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I cant ask!!!!!!!!!!

I think the teahouse will let me do things and help me. But i did my title my question, but it wont let me ask because i need to do this (Tylkrby767 (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)) i have done it and it wont even let me ask a question may i please get some help. Tylkrby767 User Talk:Tylkrby767 could i get some help Risk Engineer User Talk:Risk Engineer

Images not belonging to the uploader on Flickr

On Flickr I found this pic of Nicki Aycox. I want to uuse this on the article about the actress but the uploader of this pic says the picture is not taken by him potentially meaning that the uploader might have himself committed copyright violations. However this pic is free to use commercially, adapt modify and build upon but there's no telling whether the original pic might have been free to use commercially or not. Should I upload it or not? Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)




UserGogo212121 Hello Teahouse I want to upload photos from 2013 Gogo212121 (talk) 06:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Confusion about adding the link

Hello some my friend who have experience in wikipedia page editing told me that add the link(" http://celebextensions.co.uk/ ") to wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dress), But i told him, that this is the advertise of the website which is against the norms of wikipedia norms,but he told me no, Please can you clear my concept and I want to know the guidline through which I decide that which link is acceptable by wikipedia or which not. I'm so confuse, that's why i ask you. Please help me.Reply soon. thanks & regard Ian joy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianjoy8311 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Translation

How do I create an article on Burk Uzzle using the French Wikipedia article. In other words, how do I create the article with a template requesting a translation of that article? Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I keep getting my work speedy deleted

I am quite new to wikipedia and i have found that as i created a new page it would very soom be quickly deleted,has any one got any tips???

Lschof4 (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Tip number 1: Read the big print at the top of this page, which says: "This page is for discussing the Teahouse, please direct questions about Wikipedia to the Teahouse Q&A forum.". --David Biddulph (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The complexity of transclusions related to the Teahouse

As an oversighter, I've had a couple of occasions recently where young users have provided entirely too much information about themselves or others, and the edits needed to be suppressed. While we're usually good with userspace, trying to root out all the transclusions and places where information may wind up if that editor includes information in their "guest profile" for the Teahouse is extremely complex, to say the least. Could you please provide a roadmap so we can figure out all the places where we should be looking for them? Thanks. Risker (talk) 01:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

@Risker: I didn't set up the system but as far as I can tell:
The above sounds simpler than the impression you gave. Have I overlooked something? We don't track whether a user manually adds the same information to other places like their user page. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I did overlook something. HostBot also copies profiles to one of the pages at Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Guest/Featured/ where it's kept for around a week before being updated to a new guest. The pages numbered 1 to 10 are transcluded at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Guest/Featured, and a random one of them at Wikipedia:Teahouse. The pages numbered 11 to 34 appear to be unused. If that's true then I guess we could get HostBot to drop them. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, here's the issue. I knew nothing about the page in Jtmorgan's userspace, which means the copies there haven't been suppressed. Also, it's necessary to suppress all the edits between when the time the edit is made to either "left column" or "right column" until it's removed by HostBot, and then it's necessary to remove the info from the guest book and the featured pages as well. This is, by my counting, four pages from which one single edit needs to be modified and then suppressed. I'll try to figure out how to annotate all of this for the use of other oversighters; we've had several requests relating to Teahouse user profiles, and it's hard for someone outside the system to find everything. Thanks for your help, PrimeHunter. Risker (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
User:Jtmorgan/sandbox/8 only uses transclusion so there is nothing to remove from the page history. But I now see that when profiles have been in Wikipedia:Teahouse/Guest book for a while they can be archived to another page. The most recent archive is Wikipedia:Teahouse/Guest book/Archive 46 which was last edited 9 February 2014‎. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for explaining, User:PrimeHunter. I will document this process at User:HostBot/Tasks so that it in future tasks like this don't take so much detective work. Is documenting the process going to be good enough, or do we need to make the process itself simpler? We could, for example, stop archiving guest profiles altogether. I could have the bot just remove older profiles from Wikipedia:Teahouse/Guests/Left column or Wikipedia:Teahouse/Guests/Right column after the list gets too long. Few people probably look at the Guest Book itself, anyway. - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 01:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Bad advice.

See WP:Teahouse/Questions#How do i create a bio page of an actor ? where I had to contradict almost everything in a previous reply. I think there should be some kind of standard for people answering questions here - uninformed newbies trying to be helpful end up doing more harm than good by giving poor quality or simply wrong answers. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Well it's a good example of why not to mark discussions as resolved (see section above). I don't see anything wrong in pointing out to both the OP and the previous responder that the answer isn't correct as long as it's done politely and neutrally (as yuo did here), in fact I think in a way it helps by demonstrating to the OP that it's not cut and dried to everyone else and that therefore they should feel embarrassed about having asked the question in the first place - which even though it's anonymous many people probably are. Following up with a note to the previous responder on their talk page about why you've contradicted them would also help. I know it's extra work etc, etc but I wouldn't want to go down the route of an RFA type process to become a host to be the alternative. Nthep (talk) 10:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I think my post itself is sufficient for the first responder to see where they erred, I don't want to blow this up into a big issue.
If one notices someone consistently giving low quality answers here it may be a good idea to gently persuade them that they are insufficiently experienced to work here. Fortunately the open ended nature of discussion topics means that corrections can easily be posted - unlike e.g. poor quality (or even sometimes bad faith) reviews at AfC, which has recently implemented a whitelist system to keep out unsuitable reviewers. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I think that's absolutely right. Most of our initial answers, even when substantially correct, benefit from an "Oh by the way you can also... " or a "bear in mind that...." - so it's no disrespect to supplement other answers. And there is nothing wrong with having a friendly word about anything, indeed that's how we all become better at Wikipediaing, and choosing the most appropriate activities for our skillset. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC).

Resolved sections

Writ Keeper — Jtmorgan — Heatherawalls — SarahStierch — Ocaasi — anyone else that may be interested: One of the biggest difficulties currently faced by myself, and I'm sure other helpers notice it as well, is the ability to quickly see where assistance is still needed. The easiest way I can think of to deal with this is to mark sections as {{Resolved}} or {{Done}} or something of that nature.
I'm sure that a lot of people will agree this is a good idea, and we'll all agree that we will manually do it as we respond to requests in edit mode, but we all know that those that use the "join this discussion" to respond won't go back to do it, and if we forget while in the moment answering the question we won't go back and do it (I've seen this on other pages where everyone has "agreed to do it").
We have a slight advantage over some of the other projects where as we already have a script that injects stuff into the page, so I'm proposing that in addition to everyone agreeing this is a good idea and that they will add the template (which I'm wondering if it should be {{subst:Resolved}}/{{subst:Done}}/{{subst:|something else}} or not), that the script should offer a new link in each section's header where you can click and it will post the template and reload the page for you without a lot of work. What's everyone think of this idea and does anyone have alternative solutions?
I had also thought about the fact that resolved sections could be more quickly archived, but I don't think that is a good idea and they should just be archived as usual to make sure the helpee has the current amount of time to find their answer. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 15:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey Technical, I actually think in most cases it will be unclear when the last useful comment has been made. It's often the case that a seemingly suitable answer will be followed up by a more nuanced, subtle, or just slightly different perspective which adds to the advice given. Unless a questioner says, "Ok, thanks, that's what I was looking for, I'm done", then I think there's more benefit to be gained from using judgement and just letting page archiving happen naturally. My personal opinion on this. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Ocaasi, once the OP has said that, would you support using the template (which would make having this as a script even more logical)? — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 15:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with Ocaasi. I don't think the situations in the Teahouse are sufficiently 'binary' to warrant using templates to mark sections. Even when an OP has thanked an answerer, there may be more that someone else wants to add. --LukeSurl t c 16:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay, so I'm spending some time digging through archives, and found that this was proposed before and had some support from Nerdfighter (who proposed it), Jtmorgan, and Heatherawalls and some opposition from Gtwfan52 and Fuhghettaboutit. That said, I'm pinging all of those previous participants. As for the concern about whether or not it is binary and that people may want to add, this came up in another discussion about Archive size, and as I stated in that discussion that was brought to my attention by Matty.007, I mentioned that I had discussed archives and adding stuff to posts to keep them alive somewhat before with Heatherawalls, and part of the purpose is to get people to ask questions (therefor making as simple of an edit as possible to easy possible worries about editing and "breaking something") and repeat questions are good. A few more semi-relevant discussions on archiving and FAQ lists and getting answered stuff off the page can be found at Wikipedia_talk:Teahouse/Host_lounge/Archive_10#Archive_navigation and User_talk:Heatherawalls#Teahouse_archives_links. Based on all of this, once the OP is satisfied with the answer, it should be tagged as resolved, and anyone that wants to add to it should be asking a new question (for editing practice). Also note that my proposal here doesn't suggest we should use this as a basis for archiving, although, after reading through the archives and seeing positions that archiving should happen as fast as reasonably possible and repeat questions are good and welcomed and should be asked, it might not be a bad idea. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 19:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Not a fan, personally; we need less bureaucracy, not more. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • As noted by Technical 13, I am against this, for the reasons I previously stated, the sum and substance of which is that use of resolved tags has multiple chilling effects on discussion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • What extra bureaucracy does it add for the option of those interested to but a distinguishing mark in sections to separate them from the wall of text that THQ can sometimes be? I'm confused by this comment Writ Keeper, can you please clarify for my simple mind? Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 21:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Because it'll become a whole thing, of who gets to put the resolved tag on? Who gets to decide when a thing is resolved? What happens when a person decides it's resolved, but then suddenly remembers the followup question they meant to ask? Who's gonna go through all the questions more than a day old and apply that template to them? The ability to close off a question as "done" makes the Teahouse look more like a backlog to catch up on, a series of forms to fill out before one can place the rubber stamp of {{resolved}} on it, which is very much opposed what it's supposed to be. It may sound like anathema to an ordered mind, but the Teahouse isn't supposed to be about efficiency. The implementation of "this is done, nothing to see here, move along"-like things isn't a benefit, at least in my eyes. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • comment Hi Technical. You might be interpreting my previous comments incorrectly if you characterize them as support. I agreed with these comments which do not support adding those tags:
"...So I would only use it if I thought there was a specific reason to close a particular thread. - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 21:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
"I don't see that as a good idea at all. We are the friendly, inviting place where we want people to come back. Resolved sounds way to much like "dismissed" to me." Gtwfan52 (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for always trying new improvements, but I am not behind this one. heather walls (talk) 00:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I guess I am of the same (little) mind as I was last year, as foolish as that consistency might be :) - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 00:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Find the answer here ... not?

The "Find the answer here" link doesn't appear to find the answer to the currently displayed question. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's not supposed to, but it looks to the beginner as if it is supposed to. How about "Find recent answers here" ?— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
@Steelpillow: Agreed, I would expect that link to go directly to the thread in which the quoted question appears, and so is it possible it's supposed to but is broken? Certainly if it's supposed to just link to the top of the Q&A forum, that message should be changed, but I'd like to know first what is intended.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
It has a section link to go directly to the selected question. The problem is that the selected questions at Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions-recent/ haven't been updated by User:HostBot since April 30, so the sections have been archived. Pinging Jtmorgan who operates the bot. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Right, good job; so it is broken and hopefully this will get some action.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Ping-ponged. I'll dig into fixing it tomorrow after work. Thanks for the heads-up. Cheers, - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 02:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Update: um... HostBot is locked out of its own database? So many (but not all) scripts aren't running. Strangely, invites are still going out, but pretty much every other script throws a MySQL exception. I'm off to IRC to supplicate myself before the Labs Lords. Hopefully I can get it all up and running tomorrow. Cheers, - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 00:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The bot is up and running again. It looks like everything's working to me, but ping if things go sideways. - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 23:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Questions deleted

It looks like tons of recent questions were accidentally deleted ( here ). Could someone fix this please? (I would, but i'm on a mobile) Many thanks! Mark M (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Editing

How do I find articles that need copy editing?Lgkkitkat (talk) 03:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Message to indentation police

Twice in one day editors have seen fit to change the indentation in my responses. They should read Indentation. Example 2 says "If you want to reply to a comment, but another editor has already done so, just position your own text beneath that other editor's reply, at the same indentation level." It seems logical to infer that if I have a follow-up to my own comment, that should also be at the same indentation level. (Otherwise you're implying that I'm talking to myself!) RockMagnetist (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

  • RockMagnetist, are you implying that you do not talk to yourself? If so, what on Earth are you doing editing Wikipedia and you should be warned that continuing to do so will result in you talking to yourself on many occasions. As far as your initial comment (complaint?) about indentation, I've found that a majority of editors do not know proper forum threading techniques and things are often improperly aligned (many seem to think that every reply should be one indentation level deeper than the previous comment). I've learned that it really isn't too big of a deal, and only get frustrated when people change my indentation style from bullets at the right level to no marker at the wrong level (I have vision problems and those bullets to see where each comment/argument starts is critical for me to be able to read some of the long discussions I end up having to read). — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 23:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, I sometimes feel like I'm talking to myself! If it would help people with vision problems, I would gladly start using bullets. But is it still hard to see where a comment starts if it is preceded by a blank line? RockMagnetist (talk) 23:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I thought the issue was worth mentioning, by the way, because on other pages people hardly ever format each others' comments. So I wonder if it is part of the Teahouse culture. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry about my delay in responding. WP:LISTGAP says that we are not suppose to use blank lines in between posts. It is more of a Wikipedia culture than just the Teahouse. It might "seem" a little more prevalent on the Teahouse because there are a lot of new users here that are excited for reasons to make edits (kind of a way of testing and learning how the system works). — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 12:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Any editor, please feel free to correct any indentation or bullet errors I might make at any time. After something like 27,000 edits, I am still not fully confident about proper indentation protocol in lengthy, complex threads. So, if you don't like the way I indent, just change it. I won't mind. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • When you get as old as dirt, people expect to have to fix your indentation and bullet styles... I personally will not "normally" change someone else's indentation or list-style, but do take offense when others change mine due to my vision problems. Thanks for permission though Jim. :D — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 13:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • LISTGAP applies specifically to lists, not to responses on a talk page. It says that a blank line causes MediaWiki to end one list and start a new one, which I think is desirable when you're replying to someone else's post. Indeed, TOPPOST specifically recommends adding a blank line to separate multiple points in a given post. RockMagnetist (talk) 04:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I think you misread TOPPOST, You apparently only read the first line (and misread it at that): If a single post has several points, it makes it clearer to separate them with a paragraph break (i.e. a blank line); if you keep reading, you'll see Whitespace is not necessary if your post is indented with colons; simply starting another line with the same indentation level will have an appropriate gap in the output. Whitespace is also not necessary between any lines within an indented or bulleted list, and actually increases the complexity of the generated HTML code, which can have accessibility implications. which backs up LISTGAP. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 13:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I did read that, but with emphasis on the word list. I suspect we're not going to persuade each other. I brought the subject up because I was wondering whether it would make it easier for you to read it, not to discuss guidelines. I will continue to use blank lines judiciously when it seems to help. RockMagnetist (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • It means list in the technical sense, in such that all colon, asterisk, hash, and semi-colon delimited items are what are known as "list items". Viewing the actual source of this conversation...
Source code of this conversation up to here
<h2><span class="mw-headline" id="Message_to_indentation_police">Message to indentation police</span></h2>
<p>Twice in one day editors have seen fit to change the indentation in my responses. They should read <a href="/wiki/Wikipedia:Indentation" title="Wikipedia:Indentation">Indentation</a>. Example 2 says "If you want to reply to a comment, but another editor has already done so, just position your own text beneath that other editor's reply, at the same indentation level." It seems logical to infer that if I have a follow-up to my own comment, that should also be at the same indentation level. (Otherwise you're implying that I'm talking to myself!) <a href="/wiki/User:RockMagnetist" title="User:RockMagnetist">RockMagnetist</a> (<a href="/wiki/User_talk:RockMagnetist" title="User talk:RockMagnetist">talk</a><span class="before-localcomments">) </span><span class="localcomments" style="font-size: 95%; white-space: nowrap;" timestamp="1401231812793" title="23:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)">7:03 pm, 27 May 2014, last Tuesday (6 days ago) (UTC−4)</span><span class="after-localcomments"></span></p>
<ul>
<li><a href="/wiki/User:RockMagnetist" title="User:RockMagnetist">RockMagnetist</a>, are you implying that you do not talk to yourself? If so, what on Earth are you doing editing Wikipedia and you should be warned that continuing to do so will result in you talking to yourself on many occasions. As far as your initial comment (complaint?) about indentation, I've found that a majority of editors do not know proper forum threading techniques and things are often improperly aligned (many seem to think that every reply should be one indentation level deeper than the previous comment). I've learned that it really isn't too big of a deal, and only get frustrated when people change my indentation style from bullets at the right level to no marker at the wrong level (I have vision problems and those bullets to see where each comment/argument starts is critical for me to be able to read some of the long discussions I end up having to read). — <span class="nowrap">{{U|<a href="/wiki/User:Technical_13" title="User:Technical 13">Technical 13</a>}}</span> <sup>(<a href="/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Technical_13" title="Special:EmailUser/Technical 13">e</a> • <a href="/wiki/User_talk:Technical_13" title="User talk:Technical 13">t</a> • <a href="/wiki/Special:Contributions/Technical_13" title="Special:Contributions/Technical 13">c</a>)</sup><span class="before-localcomments"> </span><span class="localcomments" style="font-size: 95%; white-space: nowrap;" timestamp="1401233432796" title="23:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)">7:30 pm, 27 May 2014, last Tuesday (6 days ago) (UTC−4)</span><span class="after-localcomments"></span></li>
</ul>
<dl>
<dd>
<ul>
<li>Well, I sometimes <i>feel</i> like I'm talking to myself! If it would help people with vision problems, I would gladly start using bullets. But is it still hard to see where a comment starts if it is preceded by a blank line? <a href="/wiki/User:RockMagnetist" title="User:RockMagnetist">RockMagnetist</a> (<a href="/wiki/User_talk:RockMagnetist" title="User talk:RockMagnetist">talk</a><span class="before-localcomments">) </span><span class="localcomments" style="font-size: 95%; white-space: nowrap;" timestamp="1401233852797" title="23:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)">7:37 pm, 27 May 2014, last Tuesday (6 days ago) (UTC−4)</span><span class="after-localcomments"></span></li>
<li>I thought the issue was worth mentioning, by the way, because on other pages people hardly ever format each others' comments. So I wonder if it is part of the Teahouse culture. <a href="/wiki/User:RockMagnetist" title="User:RockMagnetist">RockMagnetist</a> (<a href="/wiki/User_talk:RockMagnetist" title="User talk:RockMagnetist">talk</a><span class="before-localcomments">) </span><span class="localcomments" style="font-size: 95%; white-space: nowrap;" timestamp="1401233972799" title="23:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)">7:39 pm, 27 May 2014, last Tuesday (6 days ago) (UTC−4)</span><span class="after-localcomments"></span></li>
</ul>
<dl>
<dd>
<ul>
<li>Sorry about my delay in responding. <a href="/wiki/Wikipedia:LISTGAP" title="Wikipedia:LISTGAP" class="mw-redirect">WP:LISTGAP</a> says that we are not suppose to use blank lines in between posts. It is more of a Wikipedia culture than just the Teahouse. It might "<i>seem</i>" a little more prevalent on the Teahouse because there are a lot of new users here that are excited for reasons to make edits (kind of a way of testing and learning how the system works). — <span class="nowrap">{{U|<a href="/wiki/User:Technical_13" title="User:Technical 13">Technical 13</a>}}</span> <sup>(<a href="/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Technical_13" title="Special:EmailUser/Technical 13">e</a> • <a href="/wiki/User_talk:Technical_13" title="User talk:Technical 13">t</a> • <a href="/wiki/Special:Contributions/Technical_13" title="Special:Contributions/Technical 13">c</a>)</sup><span class="before-localcomments"> </span><span class="localcomments" style="font-size: 95%; white-space: nowrap;" timestamp="1401624692801" title="12:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)">8:11 am, Yesterday (UTC−4)</span><span class="after-localcomments"></span></li>
</ul>
<dl>
<dd>
<ul>
<li>Any editor, please feel free to correct any indentation or bullet errors I might make at any time. After something like 27,000 edits, I am still not fully confident about proper indentation protocol in lengthy, complex threads. So, if you don't like the way I indent, just change it. I won't mind. <a href="/wiki/User:Cullen328" title="User:Cullen328"><b><font color="green">Cullen</font></b><sup><font color="purple">328</font></sup></a> <a href="/wiki/User_talk:Cullen328" title="User talk:Cullen328"><font color="blue"><i>Let's discuss it</i></font></a><span class="before-localcomments"> </span><span class="localcomments" style="font-size: 95%; white-space: nowrap;" timestamp="1401679112803" title="03:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)">11:18 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)</span><span class="after-localcomments"></span></li>
</ul>
<dl>
<dd>
<ul>
<li>When you get as old as dirt, people expect to have to fix your indentation and bullet styles... I personally will not "<i>normally</i>" change someone else's indentation or list-style, but do take offense when others change mine due to my vision problems. Thanks for permission though Jim.&nbsp;:D — <span class="nowrap">{{U|<a href="/wiki/User:Technical_13" title="User:Technical 13">Technical 13</a>}}</span> <sup>(<a href="/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Technical_13" title="Special:EmailUser/Technical 13">e</a> • <a href="/wiki/User_talk:Technical_13" title="User talk:Technical 13">t</a> • <a href="/wiki/Special:Contributions/Technical_13" title="Special:Contributions/Technical 13">c</a>)</sup><span class="before-localcomments"> </span><span class="localcomments" style="font-size: 95%; white-space: nowrap;" timestamp="1401715592805" title="13:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)">9:26 am, Today (UTC−4)</span><span class="after-localcomments"></span></li>
</ul>
</dd>
</dl>
<ul>
<li><a href="/wiki/Wikipedia:LISTGAP" title="Wikipedia:LISTGAP" class="mw-redirect">LISTGAP</a> applies specifically to lists, not to responses on a talk page. It says that a blank line causes MediaWiki to end one list and start a new one, which I think is desirable when you're replying to someone else's post. Indeed, <a href="/wiki/Wikipedia:TOPPOST" title="Wikipedia:TOPPOST" class="mw-redirect">TOPPOST</a> specifically recommends adding a blank line to separate multiple points in a given post. <a href="/wiki/User:RockMagnetist" title="User:RockMagnetist">RockMagnetist</a> (<a href="/wiki/User_talk:RockMagnetist" title="User talk:RockMagnetist">talk</a><span class="before-localcomments">) </span><span class="localcomments" style="font-size: 95%; white-space: nowrap;" timestamp="1401683132808" title="04:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)">12:25 am, Today (UTC−4)</span><span class="after-localcomments"></span></li>
</ul>
<dl>
<dd>
<ul>
<li>I think you misread <a href="/wiki/Wikipedia:TOPPOST" title="Wikipedia:TOPPOST" class="mw-redirect">TOPPOST</a>, You apparently only read the first line (and misread it at that): <span class="example good-example" style="font-family: Georgia, 'DejaVu Serif', serif; color: #006400;">If a single post has several points, it makes it clearer to separate them with a paragraph break (i.e. a blank line)</span>; if you keep reading, you'll see <span class="example good-example" style="font-family: Georgia, 'DejaVu Serif', serif; color: #006400;">Whitespace is not necessary if your post is indented with colons; simply starting another line with the same indentation level will have an appropriate gap in the output. Whitespace is also not necessary between any lines within an indented or bulleted list, and actually increases the complexity of the generated HTML code, which can have accessibility implications.</span> which backs up <a href="/wiki/Wikipedia:LISTGAP" title="Wikipedia:LISTGAP" class="mw-redirect">LISTGAP</a>. — <span class="nowrap">{{U|<a href="/wiki/User:Technical_13" title="User:Technical 13">Technical 13</a>}}</span> <sup>(<a href="/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Technical_13" title="Special:EmailUser/Technical 13">e</a> • <a href="/wiki/User_talk:Technical_13" title="User talk:Technical 13">t</a> • <a href="/wiki/Special:Contributions/Technical_13" title="Special:Contributions/Technical 13">c</a>)</sup><span class="before-localcomments"> </span><span class="localcomments" style="font-size: 95%; white-space: nowrap;" timestamp="1401715592809" title="13:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)">9:26 am, Today (UTC−4)</span><span class="after-localcomments"></span></li>
</ul>
<dl>
<dd>
<ul>
<li>I did read that, but with emphasis on the word <i>list</i>. I suspect we're not going to persuade each other. I brought the subject up because I was wondering whether it would make it easier for you to read it, not to discuss guidelines. I will continue to use blank lines judiciously when it seems to help. <a href="/wiki/User:RockMagnetist" title="User:RockMagnetist">RockMagnetist</a> (<a href="/wiki/User_talk:RockMagnetist" title="User talk:RockMagnetist">talk</a><span class="before-localcomments">) </span><span class="localcomments" style="font-size: 95%; white-space: nowrap;" timestamp="1401719372811" title="14:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)">10:29 am, Today (UTC−4)</span><span class="after-localcomments"></span></li>
</ul>
</dd>
</dl>
</dd>
</dl>
</dd>
</dl>
</dd>
</dl>
</dd>
</dl>
You will see that each post (and sometimes posts are split into multiple items) is contained inside of <li>...</li> or <dl>...</dl> elements. You'll also see that there are <ul>...</ul> or <dd>...</dd> elements, which are the list containers for these discussions. This means that these threaded discussions are technically lists. Does that clarify it? Perhaps the word "lists" should be linked back to the technical definition or should just be removed to avoid further confusion by others? — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
My first reaction was "so what?" For what I see on my screen, that's irrelevant. But then I went back to LISTGAP and read a bit further. I didn't know what a screen reader does, but the example in Wikipedia:LISTGAP#Bulleted_vertical_lists made it clear. Basically you don't want to have a lot of entries saying "List of 1 items:" - is that correct? If they want to avoid confusion, they should focus on the impact, not the technical definitions. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Now I think you are starting to get it. So, you think that "list" should be taken out to clarify? I have no problem doing that if you agree. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 15:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, on second thought, removing the word "list" would help, along with the addition of links to the example in Wikipedia:LISTGAP#Bulleted_vertical_lists. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

More referrals from AfC likely

Hello. The helper script used by Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation has undergone a major rewrite. The new version (currently in beta, but used by many reviewers) by default invites editors who have had their articles declined to the Teahouse, whereas the previous script defaulted to not sending an invite. As more reviewers switch to this new script it is probable more invites will be sent to disappointed AfC submitters. --LukeSurl t c 22:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

My experience is that many people come to the Teahouse without reading, absorbing or dealing with the reasons stated by the reviewer for declining the submission. Can the script include a request to actually READ the links before coming to the Teahouse? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I believe Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Rewrite would be the place to go for suggesting changes. (I am not a developer, only a user) --LukeSurl t c 15:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

invited to enjoy tea with you

I love nice discussion specially with tea. I got a message to talk here any think new, or any news I need to know please advise. I have been starting volunteering. Hope to enjoy my time with Wikipedia and to make good friends. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

- I hope we can discussing editing the 5 pillars. I put a talk in its page. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

iPad submission

The 'submit question' button is sort of greyed, it presses but the interwebs circle doesn't start
Tildes are supplied, checked on my poota, it works ok there with the checking for the 4 tildes --Dave Rave (talk) 08:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

FLOW and the WP:Teahouse

Note: Please try it out in the sandbox at Wikipedia talk:Flow/Developer test page, rather than at the Wikiproject Breakfast page. Thanks! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey all, it is being floated in various discussions that WP:Teahouse might be a good place to try out Wikipedia:FLOW and help new editors join discussions. You can check it out on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Breakfast. Please go review FLOW if you haven't yet and let me know your thoughts about how it might be helpful at the Teahouse, and of course any concerns. Thank you! heather walls (talk) 23:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Is there a discussion thread somewhere to actually decide if the Teahouse should early-adopt Flow? VQuakr (talk) 00:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I think Flow would certainly be useful at the Teahouse. As a matter of fact, just today I was thinking that "you know, Flow would be good for the Teahouse". This is because Flow has an intuitive discussion layout. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure it out, and you don't have to bother with colons/indents, edit conflicts, etc. Perfect for new editors. I have yet to sample Flow out for myself, so I don't know if there are any major problems that hinder the overall effectiveness of discussion - I might get the time tomorrow. So for now, I give you my support in principle. Best, Mz7 (talk) 02:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
If Flow is debugged and functioning smoothly, then perhaps I will be happy to see it implemented at the Teahouse. But I think that the Teahouse is a really bad place for beta testing of a highly complex new feature. Especially at a time when new AfC denial scripts are being rolled out that will almost certainly bring a lot more newbies to the Teahouse. Given the Visual Editor debacle, I am not prepared to accept the assurances of the developers. I want to see real world proof. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Cullen328. While FLOW may be great for the Teahouse in the long run, a discussion page for inexperienced users is not the place to test something new which may need adjustment. It should be tested first on a page where a lot of experienced editors post, so that they can report problems quickly. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
WP:ANI would be ideal for that! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Agree with everyone else; since the TH already uses a "nonstandard" discussion format and is meant to be as accessible to newcomers, it is a logical place to "combat evaluate" Flow once alpha testing is complete and the software is effectively bug-free. VQuakr (talk) 04:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Copied from elsewhere: The Teahouse user interface is different enough from regular talk pages as it is now. Let's not confuse new editors further with a UI which is completely different. --NeilN talk to me 05:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
@NeilN: this does not make much sense to me. Since the Teahouse is meant for new users, it seems like an ideal landing spot for a (properly working) new discussion system meant to be more intuitive. Since the Teahouse is already customized and uses a nonstandard new-on-top configuration, changing here early means that there are two formats used at Wikipedia rather than adding a third. VQuakr (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
@VQuakr: Whoops, you're right. I went back and realized "Join this discussion" was actually a button. All this time I've just been using the "edit" link beside it. But I have my doubts that Flow will be accepted by the community in its current form. Let's not forget that WMF judged VE in the form it was almost a year ago was ready for production and look how that turned out. Let's have a stable UI first. --NeilN talk to me 20:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it appears every single editor in this thread shares skepticism regarding the WMF's ability to internally evaluate when their upgrades are ready for prime time. VQuakr (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • What Cullen said, pretty much word-for-word. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! VQuakr, *this* is the discussion thread. I'll get back to you if I know anything else. :) heather walls (talk) 08:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I agree with Cullen as well at this point. I do think that we should get in early (is flow adaptable to our top-posting nature, because I wouldn't want to give that up), but I don't think it is ready yet. There is still just WAY too much whitespace on the screen and it is painful and blinding to try and read that light grey text with so much whitespace. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Technical 13, I believe that if you look around the Flow discussions, you'll find that Flow's exclusive use of top-posting is a rather frequent complaint from experienced editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems that there are two main lines of response coming up here. Either:

  1. Yes, early adopt at the Teahouse but only once the software has been demonstrated to be effectively bug-free; or
  2. No, roll it out somewhere else to avoid risking confusion to new editors.

I think a RfC would be a good idea to ensure we have broad feedback before either decision (or an option 0/3/4/5...) is selected. Before we can really respond we need to see a working example of Flow to have confidence that it is not going to ruin everything. The timelines at WP:FLOW are outdated and show "Limited, opt-in release on select WikiProject discussion spaces" ending this month. So, the first step would be to get a response from the dev team (Quiddity (WMF)?) on the timeline for improvements (the community is unlikely to accept the product in its current form, which would render any early-release timelines moot) and upcoming releases. VQuakr (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Running out the door, I'll reply properly in a few hours. Sorry. Thanks. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
If the software works well for WP:ANI for one week, then you can consider it to be battle-hardened and ready to be deployed to the teahouse. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
In fairness, I think putting any new, comparatively untested, and already much criticized software on ANI for even 24 hours would pretty much guarantee mass rebellion to the point that it would become almost impossible to install it anywhere else. Risker (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

As others have explained, testing Flow here would be undesirable. A well-watched page is User talk:Jimbo Wales and that might be useful for Flow as it would get a good workout, yet would be unlikely to cause significant problems for the encyclopedia if difficulties were encountered. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

VQuakr, I think #1 and #2 are just different ways of saying the same thing. Risker, tongue in cheek, if the "perpetually disgruntled" types who hang out at ANI rebelled and quit the project en masse, that would be a desirable outcome, wouldn't it? Cullen328 Let's discuss it
Cullen328, the problem isn't that they'd quit (as you jokingly note, that wouldn't necessarily be a net negative), the problem is that they'd raise so much fuss about Flow (especially in its current configuration, which is very much not ideal for ANI) that it could easily make the reaction toward the initial VisualEditor deployment look like a walk in the park. Risker (talk) 03:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Of course you are right, Risker, and I know that. I'm not so good at joking around sometimes. By the way, thank you very much for the tough but essential work you do for this encyclopedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Aww, thank you, Cullen328. I just remember how incredibly demoralizing the response to the initial VE release was for the development team, and I know that the Flow team is already feeling somewhat demoralized by the nature and volume of criticism even at this point. They don't need what will come their way if they stick Flow on a high visibility page. I'm not sure even Jimbo's talk page is a good idea; it's not ready for prime time yet. Risker (talk) 03:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
The purpose of dispute resolution is to provide editors with a way to discuss things with each other. I don't think any discussion page involved in dispute resolution would be a good place to "test out" a spanking new way to discuss things at this time, save for a few small WikiProject talk pages. New editor help pages, such as the Teahouse, are not usually considered forums for dispute resolution—the threads are almost always a simple question and a simple answer. So I think the Teahouse is a good candidate for early-adoption (once Flow has been rid of all hindrances to the effectiveness of discussion) as a way to build up to site-wide deployment. Mz7 (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

(last I read, you outdent after 8 indents). Would anyone who wishes to try Flow please use it for a 2 weeks first to see if they are happy with it? I don't think using it here would be a good idea. Dougweller (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

i sympathize with the developers, where else would you go for civil feedback? maybe they need to create a wikiproject:beta tester. but why would the developers be "demoralized" by VE pushback? don't they know this is a toxic culture that bites every newbie? this is a group that would criticize Mozilla for corn sake. i keep telling people it was much better than the windows 3.1 vapor-ware with the blue screen of death feature.
"dispute resolution is to provide editors with a way to discuss things with each other." i thought it was a forum for preening and power among the unblockable; the iron law being proven. i say make the admins beta test Flow at ANI; the beta testing of new features will continue until the incivility ceases. Duckduckstop (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
The eventual goal of Flow is site-wide deployment, but before we reach that goal, we need to follow baby steps. If one doesn't think using it for the Teahouse is a good idea, would using it anywhere be a good idea? In my eyes, the proposal to adopt at the Teahouse isn't something to implement right now, but after everything is finished testing at Wikipedia talk:Flow/Developer test page and other pages. As in: what's the next step? I do agree that in the shape Flow is in right now, this isn't something we should force upon the Teahouse summarily. Mz7 (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I quipped about WP:ANI above. As a more serious suggestion, how about WT:DYK? It's not new-editor-focused like the teahouse or the main page talkpage or the helpdesks, and nor is it utter controversial chaos like ANI, but it does get fairly substantial traffic. And has a friendly and collaborative editorship that would be just the sort of people to support the testing of an improvement? :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
It's full of complicated templates, transclusions and workflows that Flow can't handle (yet). Risker (talk) 22:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for the day's delay in response. Your discussion above is awesome, and I don't want to interrupt.
The Timelines/Roadmaps are in need of an update. The very recent (last week) new set of draft-state goals, is at mw:Wikimedia Engineering/2013-14 Goals#Editor Engagement - Core Features - note that they're written "by a manager", so are full of optimism, and are not hard deadlines - the complexities of reality can and will interfere, as they always do. I will be continuing to push back against any hasty decisions, in any direction.
Apart from that, I'm just going to link you to two Beta Features pages, whose talkpages are using Flow, and where feedback is eagerly wanted on the Beta Features themselves: mw:Beta Features/Hovercards and mw:Compact Personal Bar. If you have some time, and haven't already, it'd be great if you could test out the Beta Features, and give feedback on them at their talkpages, and then give feedback on Flow at WT:Flow (here or mediawikiwiki). Thanks. :) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 01:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC) (copyedited later)
What about adding it to WP:VPP? --NeilN talk to me 03:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi guys -- I'm Danny, the new Product Manager for Flow. I'm new as a WMF staff member, but I've been working on wikis for a long time, here and at Wikia. (My personal account is User:Toughpigs.)

You guys are right that the current state of Flow isn't ready to unleash on the Teahouse yet, but we're building some useful features over the next month or so. We're going to add the ability to watch individual conversations, instead of watching the whole talk page. If you start a new Flow topic, or post in an existing one, you'll be automatically subscribed to that topic, which gives you notifications and watchlist items. You'll also be able to subscribe and unsubscribe on any thread by clicking the star icon for that topic.

The helpful thing for new people is that they'll be able to have a successful talk page conversation, even if they haven't learned about watchlists yet. One use case that I really care about is the new person who sees that something's missing or inaccurate on an article, and they post a message on the article talk page saying "someone should fix this". But they don't know to watch that page, so when a more experienced person encourages them to try fixing it themselves, they don't get a notification, and they never see the reply.

For experienced people, the big benefit is being able to just get notified for the conversations that you're a part of, without getting spammed by changes on every other conversation on the page, and every edit on the associated article or project page.

So those are the kinds of problems that we're working on right now. Once we have the first version of that feature built, I'd like to share it with you and find out what you think. Flow is supposed to help new people and experienced people connect and really talk to each other, and I know that's what the Teahouse is about. Are you guys interested in talking some more about it? DannyH (WMF) (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Project Leaflets at Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

I've been posting this initiative to various wikiproject talk pages with varied success. So, I was wondering if someone could tell me of any other places where I could post about this?

Project leaflets

Adikhajuria (talk) 15:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Helo Can u help me how add links to articel in my article page its show is is an orphan their is no article to link thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RockySharma1328 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome meh to the teahouse!

Hi, im User: ScarletTailNekoMataChan231577 I have a few questions about wikipedia how can u flag a bad comment??? plz reply! Scarlet - Chan (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2014

Please let us know just what it is that you are referring to? I can;t really tell from your user history. If you;d like to delete your user page or usertalk page, you can do so: just place {{db-user}} at the top; if you mean the comments you made at an article talk page, you can't. It can be removed from the text that appears, but it cannot be removed from the article history unless you have accidentaly disclosed personal information. If it's something else, let us know. DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Reply

When I reply to a question at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions via the "Join this discussion" link, if a newer question has been asked since I started to reply, when I click submit it posts it to the newer question, not the one I was replying to. ??? --AmaryllisGardener talk 18:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Yup, this is a known issue, and there's unfortunately nothing that can be done about it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
No-no-nothing? Oh well, I guess I'll reply manually then. --AmaryllisGardener talk 18:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

FYI For the teahouse regulars

We have taken the time to make a parent page on how and where to contribute...with video tutorials, examples, advice and linking all the major help pages. This is located at Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia - feel free to direct users to the page. -- Moxy (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Page not operating correctly for me

(Win 7, IE 11) The page Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions is not working properly for me... everthing I do, from scrolling to typing a character in the "new question" edit box, takes about a second to respond. While still theoretically usable, the irritation factor is in practice too high. 86.171.174.125 (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried using another web browser? Linuxrox (talk) 04:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

"From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"

Hallo. What is the purpose of this quote on English Wikipedia, and why does no other version of Wikipedia (that I know of) have it? How did it come about? — Knyȝt (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmmmm, Knyȝt. I visited the home pages of the German, Spanish, French, Italian and Portuguese Wikipedias. I picked major languages where I can read a handful of common words (I am not a polyglot). All feature the same "the free encyclopedia" slogan on their home page, right under the Wikipedia logo. Please clarify. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
@Knyȝt: If you mean the text displayed right below page headings at the English Wikipedia then it's edited at MediaWiki:Tagline and discussed at MediaWiki talk:Tagline. See mw:Manual:Tagline (Site Subtitle). The English Wikipedia has this code in MediaWiki:Vector.css to display the tagline:
/* Display "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" */
#siteSub {
    display: inline;
    font-size: 92%;
}
PrimeHunter (talk) 02:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to Lucas Thoms

Hope this reaches Lucas Thoms. He caught an accidental deletion I had made and restored the contents. My utmost gratitude. Kana 03:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Butcan (talk • contribs)

standard of GDP numbers

so i noticed that pages about countries have always or most of the times numbers from the IMF and some people say only IMF is allowed. So is it true? and if how can i change this so people can also use World Bank numbers as well. Who i have to talk to?--Crossswords (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The Co-op

Hi Teahouse folks. Just wanted to make a quick note that our Individual Engagement Grant proposal, Reimagining Wikipedia Mentorship was approved, and we are through the first month of our grant. Our space will be called the Co-op, and I've posted some news detailing our first month's progress. Please check it out, as we intend for our project to complement and expand on the work with editors who come to the Teahouse. I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

University Challenge

Hi- I thought you may be interested to know that The Teahouse was the answer to a question on University Challenge this evening. There were three questions on Wikipedia, and one was something like "What is the name of the Wikipedia project which describes itself as 'A friendly place to help new editors become accustomed to Wikipedia culture, ask questions, and develop community relationships' and is named after a traditional Japanese meeting place?" J Milburn (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Well that's awesome. Thanks for passing it along, J Milburn. - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 00:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Someone has started a Wikipedia page on me, and I'd rather not have that

It seems a well-intentioned person has started a Wikipedia page on me -- I'd prefer not to have that. It is not that any of the information is inaccurate or controversial, it is merely that I'd like to be more private. However, due to lack of programming experience, I am baffled by the complex programming instructions for proposing this "Rey_Chow" page for deletion. If my preferences as a private person are a valid reason, would someone who knows about programming please come to the rescue?

ReyChow (talk) 00:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello ReyChow. Although this is not really the proper place to ask your question, I will try to answer here. We have a well-established notability guideline for academics. Item #5 on that list says that professors who hold named chairs at major universities are considered notable. Certainly Duke is a major university. This is a free encyclopedia with over 4.5 million articles. Ideally, as the project grows, we will have biographies of every such professor in the world. The current article about you seems to be well-researched and well-referenced. You concede that it the article is not inaccurate nor controversial.
This is an encyclopedia, not a social networking site like LinkedIn. The subjects of our biographies do not control those articles, although we respond promptly to deletion requests in cases where the person is not notable, or the content is slanderous. I respect your desire for privacy and we would remove your home address or phone number if someone tried to add them. But your accomplishments lead me to conclude that we should have an article about you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I am too inexperienced to know how to help you; having a WP article must be an uncomfortable position. However, these Wikipedia pages may help arm you with information on your case. WP:People concerns notability criteria (if you're lucky, you aren't notable enough, though Cullen328 (talk · contribs) thinks you are) and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons concerns the rules governing this category of article (note the Deletion section). Good luck! Wordreader (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
ADDENDUM: I just read your article. I think you're here to stay. Congratulations on such a productive life. Yours, Wordreader (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello ReyChow. I think Cullen328 gave a thoughtful and complete answer to your original query. I'd like to add some additional information for your consideration as well. First of all, it is great having you as an editor in our community. I hope you enjoy editing here and stay in our midst. Of course it is not required that you edit using your real name so you could create an account in a name that does not connect your editing persona with your real life identity. Perhaps this would allow you to maintain the privacy you desire. Because you have so few edits under this account name. It is perfectly fine if you were to abandon this account, to create a new one that obfuscates the connection to your real life identity. Best regards.—John Cline (talk) 03:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Addendum: Also, because privacy underpins this discussion, I refactored this page to remove the additional "identifying information" you originally included. We guard against revealing one's personal information, and generally recommend that a user also guard against publishing their private information. I hope you are not upset with my discretion, I do wish the best for you.—John Cline (talk) 04:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Userboxes for this project

Thought this project could use a couple of userboxes since I didn't seem to find any that related to hosting or participating as a contributor. So I've whipped up a couple User:ArcAngel/ubx005 and User:ArcAngel/ubx006, and have transcluded them here.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 18:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

New subcategory for welsh people

So I'm proposing a subcategory called Welsh_people_of_Barbadian_descent which would concern the article about June_and_Jennifer_Gibbons. Opinions are welcome. Venustar84 (talk) 21:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Venustar84 is currently being mentored. You will find some relevant discussion regarding this issue at User:Venustar84/mentorship#Subcategory_for_Welsh_people. - Sitush (talk) 06:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Soka Gakkai

Strange request this may be, but could anyone get rid of the References on above mentioned talk page? It’s highly unusual and disturbing when contributing. Not used to that on a talk page.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Problem solved --Catflap08 (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry not solved it puzzles me--Catflap08 (talk) 20:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The same thing happened to me earlier today on a different talk page. I couldn't get rid of a list of references on the bottom of a comment, either, and finally just left a message asking people to ignore them. The problem is that I can't see them in edit mode, only when I save the comment do they pop up. I hope someone who knows which end is up responds to your request. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 02:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
This has happened to me again in several more Talk page posts, but not in all posts. Twice, there has been a short list of "references", but usually, at the end of the comment, there is a "1" with a caret "^", exactly like a blank reference number 1. What am I doing wrong these times when "references" appear at the bottom of my comments? When editing the comment or previewing the post, before clicking Save, I cannot see that such stray references will turn up, only after I save the comment - then there they are. But as I said, not every time I post a comment. (It didn't happen above, for example.) Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ "'नामविस्तार दिना'साठी विद्यापीठ परिसर सजला". Maharashtra Times (in Marathi). Aurangabad. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. 14 January 2012. Retrieved 6 August 2013. विद्यापीठाचा नामविस्तार झाल्यानंतर १४ जानेवारी हा दिवस आंबेडकरी विचारधारेतील पक्ष, संघटना, परिवर्तनवादी संघटना मोठ्या प्रमाणावर साजरा करतात. विद्यापीठ प्रशासनाने मुख्य इमारत व गेटवर रोषणाई केली आहे. गेटवर येणाऱ्या मंडळीतील अनेकजण बौद्ध लेण्यावर जातात. नामविस्तार दिनाचा आनंद साजरा करण्यासाठी आंबेडकरी जनता मोठ्या प्रमाणावर येते. त्यामुळे येथे राजकीय सभा घेण्याची प्रथा पडली आहे.English translation:After University Namvistar, the day of 14 January is celebrated by (political) parties influenced by Ambedkar thinking, as well as organizations, indeed radical organizations celebrate this day on a large scale. The University administration puts up lighting decorations on the main building and gate. The majority of Gate visitors go to Buddhist caves. To celebrate Namvistar Din Ambedkar followers visit in large masses. That's why political parties arranging the gatherings (here) have become a tradition. Note: Aurangabad city is surrounded by the Aurangabad Caves, Ellora Caves and Ajanta Caves. {{cite news}}: line feed character in |quote= at position 616 (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Teahouse/Archive_8&oldid=1179486489"