Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

→

Wikipedia as part of a marriage proposal?

I want to submit an article purely on my girlfriend but I want it to be part of my marriage proposal. I tried submitting it but it was denied. How do I get it approved? Clovercup00 (talk) 18:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Clovercup00: Hello and welcome. Please note that this is the talk page for the Teahouse, and not the Teahouse itself. This page is meant to discuss the operation of the Teahouse, and not to answer questions. Please use the main Teahouse page to do that in the future. To answer your question, I regret to tell you that Wikipedia is not for helping you with your marriage proposal. This is an encyclopedia and not free webspace for you to use as you wish. In order to have an article, your girlfriend must be notable per the guidelines listed at WP:BIO. You will have to find another way to do what you want to do that does not involve Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

In addition to what was said above, I'd like to wish you the best of luck with your proposal, even though you cannot use Wikipedia to do so. MereTechnicality ⚙ 18:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Seconded - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 18:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Clovercup00, while absolutely echoing everyone above in that you absolutely cannot do that, let me offer you a suggestion. Wikimedia software is freely available for use by anyone. Get a free webpage, install the software and just make your own wiki. Not quite what you wanted, but a possible workaround. John from Idegon (talk) 03:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Another option for you, Clovercup00, if you wanted to go with the personal wiki option and didn't want to go to the trouble of installing the software yourself, would be to create your own wiki over at Wikia. It is almost as simple as clicking a button, and they accept wikis on just about every subject imaginable (including you and your hopefully-future wife). Good luck to you! CThomas³ (talk) 08:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Research on new editors

Hello, all: There will be two free, live presentations about recent research into the experiences of new editors in early October. Please see mw:New Editor Experiences/October 2017 discussions if you're interested. This is a public event and you are welcome to attend and ask User:Neil P. Quinn-WMF and the other researchers any questions you have.

The presentations will use Blue Jeans, which can be reached through a web browser (or so my teammates tell me ;-) but you might want to download the no-cost software app in advance (which is what I use, so I know that option works). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Improvement

Hi. Tea house I am created a article Raja Pratab Singh of Pratapgarh. Kindly review and approve my Article. Somavansh1995 (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Somavansh1995:, your article is already "approved" in the sense that it has been placed in the "Mainspace" of the encyclopedia, but accidentally (possibly by yourself). Please address the concerns which have been placed (not by myself) in the large box at its top, or it will soon be deleted. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.217.210.199 (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Somavansh1995: Also please note that this page is for discussing the operation of the Teahouse; it is not the Teahouse itself. Click WP:TEAHOUSE to access it. 331dot (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Jamalpur

Hello, can you review my article. Atrisomkshraj (talk) 05:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Atrisomkshraj. This is a page for discussing the Teahouse, rather than the Teahouse questions page, which is Wikipedia:Teahouse. However, I see that you have already submitted Draft:Jamalpur, Sikandarpur for review, so it will be assessed once a reviewer gets to it. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

reviwing the concept im devolping (trondisme)

hi iv written the concept trondisme as far iv gotten to it on my sandbox trondisme is a new polltical concept under devoolpement bye me. and i coud plis need some reviews if its good or not and i woud be happy if someone woud assiste me in devolping the concept sinces i generaly have writting and typing difficultyes.?? (red socialistdude) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Red_socialistdude/sandbox

p.s posting it here sinces i couden send the questiouen in. its in my sandbox page posted above — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red socialistdude (talk • contribs) 20:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Red socialistdude. Welcome to the Teahouse Talk Page. Your question should have been posted at the main Teahouse page, but I'll tell you here that your proposed article contains no references (see WP:Referencing for beginners) and looks to me like original research which is not accepted here in Wikipedia. Sorry to disappoint you. Dbfirs 20:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Respected wikipedia

I just wanted to add my friend's new scientific break through. He has proven that the general is wrong. What should I do to publish his journal Nripen P Sudheer (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Nripen P Sudheer: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not a place to publish original research. Please read WP:OR for more information. If your friend's research has been independently reviewed and published by a third party, it may merit inclusion in an appropriate article. If so, you can discuss doing so on the appropriate article talk page. You may also want to read about conflict of interest at WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 15:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I would add that in tbe future, please post questions to the main Teahouse page. This page is meant to discuss the operation of the Teahouse only. Thanks 331dot (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Redirect to Teahouse footer

Hi all, I'm new to helping out here, and am finding using a mobile device rather fiddly when trying to reach the bottom of the long Teahouse page to check for new user-questions, or to hit the 'Skip to bottom' link. So, I've made a redirect (WP:THF) to reach it more quickly. Hope that's OK, and that I'm not reinventing the wheel.

Oh, and while I'm here, I do recognise I can be a bit verbose/chatty with folk, so feel free to let me know if I'm stepping out of line in the style of my responses. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Amadeus American Producer

Content moved to WP:TEAHOUSE where it belongs. This page is to discuss the workings of the Teahouse, not to answer questions. John from Idegon (talk) 20:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Is the Teahouse question preference still applicable?

I noticed in preferences, there is an option to turn on/off the question button for the Teahouse. I asked about it at the Help Desk. I have a different question now that seems better suited for here. Is the preference supposed to do anything? It was on for me when I noticed it, and the ask a question button was on the page. I tried unchecking that preference and purging cache and reloading page, and the question button still exists. Is that intentional? RudolfRed (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind. Apparently the preference controls what the button does, not if it is shown or not RudolfRed (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Problem with 'Ask a Question' from on iPhone

One or two people have commented recently e.g. here that our 'Ask a Question' form was not working properly. I did a test and found no issue asking a question on a Windows 10 laptop with Google Chrome (Version 62.0.3202.94). However, it has proved impossible to Ask a Question via an iPhone 5 using its Safari browser. Whilst the "Short Summary of your question" can be filled in, the advisory text appears enlarged and overlayed right across the text box, and cannot be edited at all. I don't know if there have been other reports of issues, but it seemed sensible to at least log a note here. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Suggestions Tool - changes needed

I've just posted some recommendations at the SuggestBot Talk page to improve ease of use and functionality of the Teahouse Articles to Improve page. It then struck me it's probably the Teahouse team itself that might be able to implement some of these. But rather than duplicate the post, please see the links above. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Surrealist Artist Tom Balthrop

Moved to main Teahouse page. 331dot (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Sharikayhunter This page is for discussing the operation of the Teahouse; the proper place to post questions is at the main Teahouse page, click WP:TEAHOUSE or "Project Page" at the top left of the screen. 331dot (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Teahouse host User:Abirlal

Closing this before it descends any further into... impoliteness. User seems to have agreed to step away. Further advice can be taken to user talk pages. GMG ^talk 19:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Abirlal is very keen to help but is making little sense with his comments on the project page. I have concerns about their editing in general which shows willingness but very little understanding of Wikipedia guidelines. Theroadislong (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't make out what do you want to say ! respected Theroadislong. Though i'm a new host in teahouse but i learned a bit about the guidelines. Error may happen by human. And i may have done such, please point that clearly , sothat , i may make out the fact easily, and try to obey your words. Thank you sir.

Abirlal Mukhopadhyay (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Abirlal Mukhopadhyay, it would probably be a good idea to slow down and read more answers than you make for a while. Many of the questions are repeated many times over, so that the next time a similar question is asked, you will have a better idea of what the correct answer is. Starting off with several replies within the span of a few hours is probably going too quickly. GMG ^talk 17:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Abirlal, it certainly appears from your reply here that you do not currently possess enough competence with written English to successfully help the Teahouse complete its mission. We are here to help new users learn how to do the complicated tasks involved in editing Wikipedia, thus encouraging them to stay and become productive editors. If your English is not sufficient to understand what has been said here or to craft your response here, how is it going to suffice to explain technical matters that you yourself are still learning? John from Idegon (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

What a hilarious question to be asked Mr.John from Idegon "that you yourself are still learning?" A human learns untill he is dead. We learn every time, from every place. If you do not want , i will not continue editing The Teahouse in future. Thank you. Have a nice day. Abirlal Mukhopadhyay (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Abirlal: You mention in a userbox on your userpage that you have a professional mastery of the English language, yet your incoherent responses in this particular dialogue contradict this. At the moment, I do not feel that you will be able to communicate adequately with users at the Teahouse given your current level of English. Therefore, I would encourage you to refrain from answering questions at the Teahouse until such a time as you have acquired more experience on Wikipedia and its policies, and your fluency in English improves. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I will not answer to any question at Teahouse in future . But you, Stormy clouds, please uphold some examples where I have done mistakes in proper English. I need to modify my faults. Thank you . Abirlal Mukhopadhyay (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Everything you've written. End of story. You do not possess even a middle school competence in English, much less professional. John from Idegon (talk) 18:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Abirlal: - please uphold some examples where I have done mistakes. One makes mistakes when writing, rather than "doing" them, and I did not uphold this example, I cited (ironically a basic principle of editing here), rather than upholded, this example. I can cite more if necessary, though the quote I have provided is indicative of your general calibre of English. I do not intend this as an insult, but rather as constructive criticism. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:03, Today (UTC+0)

Do you know John from Idegon what the exact problem is ? You all the masterminds can just blame , you have no intention to make a editor aware about the right from wrong. You, a host. You answer to new editors. You can modify articles, and many more. But you do the same, only when they ask. For what am i here ? to make Wikipedia better ! I have no such capability. You can easily teach new hosts how to work. But you will not, untill i drop a question at The Teahouse.However, I will try to do better . Thank you. Abirlal Mukhopadhyay (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, is this some sort of joke? Rodney Baggins (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

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

NB - user in question is now banned for sockpuppetry. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

New option for reading difficult diffs

Quick note to say that folks who regularly deal with diffs may be particularly interested in the Beta Feature for visual diffs. Go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures and scroll about halfway down the list to find it.

Here's the main reason why you might be interested:

In the old diff mode, none of the text changes, such as the removal of the word not, are marked at all, because the paragraphs were re-arranged. Here, they're highlighted. The toggle box at the top lets you switch back and forth, so you can use both for the same diff. Some changes are easier to spot in one mode, and others in the other mode, so the system is set up to let you use both. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Request for input

I have updated a quick and dirty quite to editing talk pages for new editors. I would appreciate it if some of you could look it over and see if I have missed anything critical or said anything stupid. I first wrote it as a new editor to answer the questions I had when starting and hope the update is more clear. The intention of the document it to give a new editor the basics in one or two screens of simple declarative text which shows the wiki-code and its output.

The document can be found at - Brief tutorial on editing talk pages. Thank you. Jbh ^Talk 17:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

As a long-time Talk and RefDesk page commenter, Jbhunley, it looks well thought out to me, but I have the advantage of already knowing most if not all of it, albeit some of it unconsciously, so I can't assess how well a naïve user would absorb it.

One point however: in your very last line, you need to "nowiki" the tildes, as currently they're producing your own Sig.

Good as it is, I wonder how a new editor is going to be made aware of its existence. As part of the welcome messages added to a new Account's Talk page? That would not cover those of us (such as myself) who choose not to open an account but rather edit as an IP (which I've been doing for some 18 years). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.220.212.253 (talk) 08:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. It is supposed to display a signature there but you are right it should not be mine. I changed the signature to a generic one using User:Example. I will probably add it to a Help category but I use it for the new users who I run across who do not know how to use the talk page. Most often this is when discussing reviews of new pages but also on the various notice/drama boards where new users end up. I have found that, often, outcomes are improved when a new user knows and uses our conventions. Jbh ^Talk 15:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I have a few remarks, but most of them are probably a matter of taste:

IMO, it is way more important to teach new users how to link a page and a diff than to ping a user. Accordingly that part should go higher up. Also, you would do well to include a (short, linked) explanation of what diffs are.
Technically, the Special:Diff/ syntax is not a "template".
I never used or knew of {{pb}}. I would venture it is not really necessary for new users, and certainly not to the point to cause quite a lot of lorem ipsum in a tutorial where one of the aims is to be as short as possible.
Ditto for strike, underline, etc. - is that really necessary? The only thing I would have put is "Avoid to remove or significantly edit your comments, especially after others have answered". Maybe put a link to WP:REDACT where both the why and the how are explained.
And of course, at the end, I would add "you must sign your comment[s] on talk pages" (even if the tutorial is about editing talk pages, it could confuse readers if the advice is contradictory with what you find elsewhere).

Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 18:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Tigraan: Thank you for the input. I will cut down on some of the 'bells and whistles', you are right that they are not really needed. I see your point on the relative importance of various tasks however I am trying to present things in the order they would encounter when writing a comment. I agree the {{pb}} should go, as well as the lorem text. Jbh ^Talk 22:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I made some modifications and moved the notification section down also. Jbh ^Talk 22:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

TH rendering problem

Someone who is more tech savvy than I please see Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2018_February_21#Rendering_problem. GMG ^talk 20:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Please also see the same rendering issues I tested here and subsequently reported here last year: Wikipedia_talk:Teahouse/Archive_16#Problem_with_'Ask_a_Question'_from_on_iPhone. @Cullen328: I know you're an Android smartphone user, but do you not think there could be some underlying issue here which might need further investigating or addressing? If some 15% of newcomers using iOS can't get on here to ask a question might not we be unfairly excluding them from seeking our assistance? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I recommend reporting this problem to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Issue now reported to Village Pump. See here and image opposite. Curiously, this issue is not repeated at the "Ask a Question" form at WP:CQ. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Resolved From the WP:VPT thread linked to above, it appears that MediaWiki:Gadget-teahouse/content.js was not up to scratch, and has been disabled, with the comment: ...it's about as broken on desktop as it's on mobile really.. I've made a couple of test posts to the Teahouse from the Ask a Question form, and these now work from the iphone that previously couldn't cope with it. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Cool beans. Thanks for figuring it out Nick. GMG ^talk 15:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Created a template "42" to quickly provide the WP:42 version of the GNG

I created this template because it comes up *so* much at articles for creation, but thought Teahouse might like it to, whether on the page itself (if in context it's not too WP:Pointy) or on the Talk page of someone who needs a very explicit explanation of Notability. Here's the template:

Articles generally require significant coverage
in reliable sources
that are independent of the topic.

Explanation: Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything

Hope this saves some time for some folks! MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Errm - good try, but I can't see me wanting to deploy that anywhere- IT'S ABOUT AS BIG, BOLD, POINTY AND SHOUTY AS ITS POSSIBLE TO GET, isn't it? I don't believe that's the right way to approach any new users, no matter how thick they're being. (Though I do have days when I feel like deploying it!) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Yep. Way too 'in-your-face'. I do not do AfC but I would run across new editors making articles prior to ACTRIAL I would often use:

To write an article you should first find three independent reliable sources, like articles in major newspapers, widely circulated magazines etc that give significant coverage to the subject. Significant coverage usually means several paragraphs that talk about the subject. These sources must have strong editorial control, have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy and be by third parties who are completely independent of the article's subject ie no press releases or other promotional/advertising material. You should also read this page about writing your first Wikipedia article before you get started.

or if they are not getting sourcing at all:

Wikipedia's notability guidelines require significant coverage in independent reliable sources to demonstrate the notability of an article subject. What this means is a source must be published by a third party with a solid reputation for fact checking and accuracy. We need this to be able to verify the information in an article. For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. (You should never place unsourced information in an article in the first place though.) While there is no requirement for sources to be in English, this is the English Wikipedia and most people will not be able to judge non-English sources, particularly if they are recordings rather than text.

I have these set up as snippets either for use 'as-is' or as a starting place for a more customized note but it is trivial to subst: similar text from a template. Although I think it is better to use the snippets since they are easier to customize for a particular situation. Jbh ^Talk 23:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I've used some form of saying "This article needs independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject" a lot and in my experience (at NPP and AfC) it is some of the most useless advice I have to offer. When did I ever get an enthusiastic response from a new editor saying "Oh, I get it now. Let me go find some significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I'll be right back." Never. I'm actually pretty disappointed with myself as a new page reviewer. It's not helpful and does nothing to improve the encyclopedia. Mduvekot (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I have had a few who get the point. Probably less than five though. As part of BEFORE I will try to source new articles I come across and, if I find something, drop it on the talk page. Maybe a third of the time the article creator will come use them.

Most of the articles being created with poor sourcing can not be properly sourced because they simply do not have significant coverage. Many that look like they might when examined closely end up being press releases and publicity material. Frankly, the majority of new articles being created are simply do not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria so no advice we give will help. Jbh ^Talk 17:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I recommend tacking on some examples to the "standard GNG statement", which I started doing a few months ago and now do in pretty much every response. So I'll add usually things like books, magazines and newspapers also with the addition of a specific source-category like academic journals, books or newspapers" depending on the subject. I'll also add exclusion examples, usually ...and excluding official websites or press releases for companies or organizations, or something like ...excluding things like social media, online videos or blogs for people. This is all tailored to the situation and what types of bad sources they happen to be using.

Overall, it may not help an article on a non-notable subject, but it can help someone to stop trying to write articles on non-notable subjects to begin with. I presume most of our hosts have a pretty good track record of not having content deleted, and most of us could probably spend a quick ten or fifteen minutes on any subject and be able to field a pretty good guess as to whether it's notable. That only comes with experience and understanding sourcing and notability. GMG ^talk 16:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Our Archive structure

I was wondering why it is that we archive our old Teahouse posts in the way we do here? A purely numerical archive structure seems counter-intuitive for new users, unlike those found at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives. There, old posts are listed by month/year and day. It's so easy to go back and find and old post and link to one there, or word search for a post title in an entire month. Here at the Teahouse I have to guess an archive number to start at, then search through half a dozen numbered archives until I stumble on the post I'm after. Admittedly, each of our Teahouse archives do let you word-search within the body of all the posts in that single archive. But personally I wonder if the Help Desk layout would be more accessible if we were to adopt it here. Or is there a sensible reason why that would not be helpful? Nick Moyes (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The only good reason I can think of to use the "numbered" scheme instead of the "date" scheme is that it guarantees that each archive will be roughly the same fixed size, but that's an argument only if one of the archives can get really long and causes trouble loading. With about 5 threads / day, most of them being rather short, I do not think that is a serious objection in our use case. I can easily imagine a bad reason though, if once upon a time the archivers (User:lowercase sigmabot III or User:MiszaBot) supported only numbered archiving, and the option has not been modified since.

This being said, I believe the real superiority of the Help Desk layout is in the centralized search box rather than in the date-ordered setup. (If you remember posts by date beyond a few days (in which case the last archive is the go-to point), you have an excellent memory (and poor binary search skills if you need to "search through half a dozen numbered archives" to find it

)). An equivalent functionality can be obtained by using prefix:Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive in Special:Search (example), but that is no replacement for a user-friendly box.

Since I stumbled on it, I will also mention the existence of Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive Index, a bad solution to the same problem, giving a listing of all threads up to June 2015 for the ease of ctrl-F'ing on that page. (Bad solution because it is a large page, and it can search only on titles, when the inprefix is a better solution; but of course a bad solution is better than no solution.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Whilst I was hoping this thread might elicit more comments, Tigraan, it seems you do agree our current archive system is not helpful to new editors at all, and there is no good reason for having it structured that way. So the question perhaps to ask everyone is should we keep our archived discussions in this way?, or is there is real merit in changing it for the better method employed by Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives? It would, of course, need broader consensus to change (plus someone competent in archiving to rework them) if that were the direction we wanted to go in.

Interestingly, I recently started using Twinkle's Talkback feature, which 'helpfully' (spot the irony) gives new editors a link back to their recent non-archived thread and to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive Index which, as you say, rather pathetically only goes up to 2015, so must seem confusing for a newcomer. We certainly must either get a bot editor to reactivate that archive index, or remove the link to it from Talkback templates entirely. Here's how it looks in use right now. I would argue that if a TH Host leaves a reply or a Talkback template on a userpage, there is a clear date stamp which everyone's familiar with. This is surely the best way back into finding an archived reply after three days or more. My binary skills are clearly rubbish, as I do struggle finding old threads I've contributed to in our TH archives. So what it is like for a new editor who wants to refer back to a helpful Teahouse answer, goodness only knows! Nick Moyes (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Visual Editor freezing when moving section and heading

This is just for info in case anyone reports difficulties at the Teahouse: I've posted a report at Village Pump (Technical) here where we're are seeing VE freezing at the Publish Changes stage. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2018 UTC)

Update: This appears to be a recently discovered issue when moving a section and its header, as per this Phabricator ticket. Now upgraded to High priority. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I wanted to edit, but it said “Error!” WorldStateOrigin12 (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@WorldStateOrigin12: - I fear you've posted this comment in the wrong place.I will respond in the Teahouse below your last question. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Your input on potential improvements to AfC

Hi all,

My colleague at WMF Marshall Miller is working with the Community Tech team to explore potential improvements to Articles for Creation. He's started a draft of possible improvements--mostly software stuff that WMF could support, rather than policy changes, etc. Teahouse hosts have an important perspective to bring to this conversation. After all, many AfC templates link to the Teahouse, you field a lot of questions from draft creators, and I know that at least a few hosts are also active AfC reviewers. If you're interested in this topic, please take a look at the proposal and consider joining the discussion. Thanks! J-Mo 22:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Thre are no referencesto a page in wiki

I have seen a page on wiki that dosnot have any references wat should i do Luckynagaram (talk) 06:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Luckynagaram. As it says at the top of the page, this page is for discussing the Teahouse; questions such as yours belong at Wikipedia:Teahouse. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

"How do I do this?" does not mean do it for me

I am an experienced editor who has enjoyed Teahouse and is interested in giving back. I raise a concern just noticed in responses to a new user's (174 edits) query that explicitly asked "How do I do this?" The first response gave an appropriate link on exactly how to rename a file on Commons. The following two responses actually did what the poster intended to learn how to do. I assume good faith, but point out the poster was not well served by the latter actions, IMHO. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree. If there are multiple instances of something that needs fixing, I may fix one, but you're 100% correct. It is much much better to let our new friends do it themselves to learn. John from Idegon (talk) 18:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't really see the harm. Some people (me) prefer to learn by example, especially in a collaborative environment like wiki. -- kewlgrapes (talk, contribs) 15:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I disagree quite strongly on the general reasoning, though in that particular instance I agree it might have been better to leave them do it.

The sad reality is that few newbies will stick around. I would venture that even among those who find the Teahouse to post, a significant proportion will not even read the answers. For those, it is undeniable that actually fixing whatever needs fixing is a positive for the encyclopedia. The negative is in those who would have fixed it themselves, but I do not believe it to be a large negative. If they resent exterior interference in their articles, they should get used to it the sooner the better. If they are deprived of a learning experience, they can still understand how the fix works, and know where the manual is for future reference in most cases; do they really lose much learning?

Now in that particular example, the tone of the original post denotes that the OP is no longer a real newbie by my standards (and 174 edits is already quite a bit, most probably above the median Teahouse poster) - they are likely to stick around, and (at least if pinged) read answers to their query. Hence the cost-benefit analysis shifts towards not giving the fish in addition to the fishing manual.

I will just leave here a reference to a similar discussion (though in the other extreme) that occurred at the help desk: Wikipedia_talk:Help_desk/Archive_12#What_is_the_Help_Desk?. For context, there is a regular question asker (Srbernadette, but often editing logged-out) who just will not learn how to format references no matter how many times they ask. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

When I was new I posted a few times asking how to do something, and, instead of being told how, the changes were made for me. I found this distasteful as I was trying to learn how to do it myself. It gave me the impression of a competitive rather than collaborative environment. Given the amount of work available here (see the maintenance categories), there is really no need to swoop in and do something for someone if they are clearly asking for help and haven't given up. MB 19:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

For the helper, it's likely to be easier to make the change than to explain how to do it. And for the person seeking help, if they're like me anyway, looking at the edit history and seeing what was done is much easier than understanding a typed explanation. Maproom (talk) 20:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it's easier for the helper, but the helper is here to help, not take over. If I ask someone to teach me to cross the road, I expect to be taught - not have the person I asked take my hand and walk me across. Dane|Geld 23:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.
— Anne Isabella Thackeray Ritchie^[1]

--David Biddulph (talk) 00:48, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this discussion, Paulscrawl. In general, I agree that hosts should be guiding users rather than doing things for them, but Tigraan raises a good point that hosts should use some discretion. I think it really comes down to what the user actually comes to the Teahouse for; some users truly come here to learn as MB did, while others simply come here to report issues. In the latter case, people are generally very pleased with the quick turnaround when their issues are resolved, and I think it leaves a lasting impression on them about the collaborative nature of the wiki. On the other hand, we should be enabling the users who want to learn to have the best learning experience possible by letting them fixing the issues themselves. -- kewlgrapes (talk, contribs) 20:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

^ wikt:give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime

help me please my site is overrun with spam and I dont know what to do

what page is it in wikispace to ask a question? I forgot

http://utahofficeforvictimsofcrime.com/index.php/Hvordan_Treffe_Eldre_Kvinner Flylikeaneagle69 (talk) 10:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

As it states at the top of the page, Flylikeaneagle69, the Teahouse questions page is at Wikipedia:Teahouse. However, we can only assist with questions about Wikipedia, not provide help with external sites. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm moving your question to the computer desk where you might find an expert to help you. Dbfirs 11:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Dbrirs thank you! you helped while cordless larry just criticized me and i feel offended :( !!! Flylikeaneagle69 (talk) 06:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

your the best Dbrirs!!!! where is the computer desk! !!!! Flylikeaneagle69 (talk) 06:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

here is where Dbfirs moved it to. Polyamorph (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Does the Teahouse need a spring clean?

So, I've been helping out as a host here for the last six months, and have learned lots along the way. But is it time for a spring clean to get things fully working again? Here are a few issues I think we should consider addressing. Maybe you have views or can suggest others:

The entire layout is clunky and doesn't seem aimed at assisting newcomers - or new hosts for that matter.
Teahouse header buttons are not clear or helpful; some point to out-of-date pages.

"About the Teahouse" button - no idea what this page is meant to offer a new user, except for the first paragraph, but it's not even accessible from the main TH page.
"Learn More About the Teahouse" button links to Research:Teahouse, - irrelevant to new users. It ought only to be accessible from within "About the Teahouse"
"Guest Profile" button - seems redundant.
"Question Archive" button - links to archive page only going up to 2015.

We don't help newcomers to help themselves by inviting them to give us basic info relevant to answering their questions, such as asking them to link to the relevant article, if possible, signing posts, or asking what device or even which editor they're working from.
Talkback Template - this protected template which we leave to tell a newcomer that we've answered their question very unhelpfully links to an Archive Index that ceased being added to back in 2015 (brilliant for confusing new users!)
Our Archive Structure is not helpful to new users, and ought to be based on date of posting, as at the Help Desk. See my previous thread above.
Hostbot no longer functions. New users don't get to see the profiles of currently active hosts - just the first 13 selected from Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host/Featured, some of whom haven't edited at the TH for 2+ years (e.g.RubbishComputer; LukeSurl & Checkingfax).
We seem to have at least two Teahouse Talk pages, primarily for hosts, neither of which are used much. Wikipedia talk:Teahouse and Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Host lounge. The latter should redirect to the former.)
We have a sub-page structure that's bloated with so many old pages, it's almost impossible to separate historic stuff from current pages. (Badges/Maitre d etc)
Badges - does anyone even know about these any more? Or use them?
Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host lounge/Expectations - this is good. But it's hidden away.
Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host navigation - template contains links to many redundant pages.

Whilst delving around, I found these laudable aims from the early days:

Keep it simple

Teahouse works because it is simple, uncluttered and easy to use.
User interaction should aim to match people's expectations of the internet today.
Features which are more complex should only be host-facing.

Whilst I think the answers to new users seem excellent and very responsive, I do wonder if the Teahouse page layout and content are meeting these aims today. What do you think? Nick Moyes (talk) 02:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of what you are saying. Let's clear out some of the bloat. One additional thing that we should update is the Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Teahouse page, which is the first thing a new user is going to see when they hit that big blue "Ask a question" button at the top of WP:TEA. It would be a perfect place to remind people to sign their posts and to provide relevant links. --kewlgrapes (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Best thing about current layout is it looks nice and fits entirely above fold on laptop screen. WP:TEA These are very good attributes. The last thing wanted is a scary interface and too many words. TL;DR is the enemy.

But, it has far too many unnecessary and unhelpful links for target audience, new users. A submit button is it.

Easily eliminated with no loss and gain of simplicity: Guest Profile, Guest Profile Archive, and Question Archive. Everything else, ~~from host photo to~~ (edit: host photos are good for Teahouse) including all other links are noise. Any valuable host-specific and meta info about the Teahouse and the invite to join as host should all be behind the scenes, on Project page &/or perhaps linked on top of Talk page.

Focus of first page should be 100% on reducing friction for a newbie to break the ice and ask a question in expectation of a prompt, friendly answer from a caring human being. A tea cup is appropriate, and some other graphic niceties (edit: like host photo) for distinguishing Teahouse from Help Desk, but simplicity is the greatest courtesy. WP:HELPDESK intro text is too long and has questionable tone for newbies (with some scary red text and a bold "no"), and intro takes up more than one screen on laptop; at least it points here.;) RefDesk intro text way downscreen, but at least intro text words it about right. I've lightly adapted and added a couple of lines to fit this context:

How can I get my question answered?

Use the Subject/headline box to give your Teahouse hosts a general idea of your question
Use the body section to answer specifically: What are you trying to do? What have you tried?
Provide a link to the article in question
Type ~~~~ (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs your question so your Teahouse hosts can alert you when your question is answered
Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Your answers will be provided here soon by one (or more!) of your friendly Teahouse hosts!

Ready? Ask your question!

Looking forward to a streamlined welcome mat. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 11:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: I wish to highlight to all the importance of pinging OP to deliver on promise premised on request to sign ~~~~ question: "hosts can alert you when your question is answered". Would help OP relax and likely help host retention, as thanks are appreciated -- Paulscrawl (talk) 03:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

It is very helpful,it helped me to solve a very big issue.So if you feel there is any issue report here. Kpgjhpjm (talk) 11:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Teahouse archival notification: going live soon

Just to let you know that roughly one year after we first debated it, the bot that leaves a notice when a page is archived is in the final stages of test/approval. See User:Muninnbot/doc for an overview of what it does, or (an example is better than a long doc page) look at contributions such as Special:Diff/837740699.

If you or anyone else has complaints about how Muninnbot behaves, please ask on my talk page. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 21:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Someone informed me about this. I am about a month behind reading the archives, and when I see a response where the person who asked the question did not respond to the response or was not pinged (and I'm not clear whether IPs can even be pinged) or notified with a template, I leave this template

Hello, Teahouse/Archive 16. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

I was told this template tells people they can respond on the same page where the response is. But that page has been archived by this time so that's not recommended. I need someone to create a template which is the same as the one above except that it doesn't say you can respond where the response is.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Question closures

I see that relatively new editor VitalPower has been enthusiastically marking TH questions as closed. Cullen has asked them not to do it, but should those closures be undone before they go to the archives? — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to remove the closings. --bonadea contributions talk 07:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bonadea: -

Done. Stormy clouds (talk) 08:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bonadea: @Jmcgnh: @Stormy clouds:Hi guys, I read on other discussion that you close, therefor I wanted to help, in light of this information I will not close Teahouse talk pages, I hope you are happy with this.--VitalPower (talk) 08:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@VitalPower: - no problem. For future reference, your attempt to ping me did not work, as you need to sign a comment in the same edit to get a ping to register on talk pages. Stormy clouds (talk) 08:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Stormy clouds, hmm, I didn't know that, may I copy that to my talk page for me to remember? I will however use the U thing as most wikipedian uses that when I read their source code of discussion--VitalPower (talk) 08:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

removed question

In this edit Bbb23 removed a question and its answer, one that it seem to me could also be helpful to other users. Is there any reason not to revert this removal? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah I see that the poster had been blocked a a sock. That is not a valid reason to remove a Teahouse queastion, much less one already answered. I have reverted the removal. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

This is a sock that repeatedly asks the same questions at the Teahouse. Your reinstatement is absolute nonsense.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Where exactly has this specific question been asked before? I don't recall it. In any case, the answer id almost surely different, and that is what is most likely to be helpful to others. I do not find your argument persuasive, and my reinstatement stands unless you have abetter one or you can get consensus here for repeating the removal. Based on past discussions here, i doubt that, but of course one never knows. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I am, actually, very new to the Teahouse and just started following the page. The question was something I was interested in hearing the answer, incidentally; sock puppet or not. My question: as a follower of this thread, may I ask: how was anyone supposed to know this: "This is a sock that repeatedly asks the same questions at the Teahouse"? By your single word edit summary: "remove" it left little to the backstory; and a lot of investigating for those who didn't know already. Perhaps next time it might help to write what you wrote here in the summary to cause future confusion. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 02:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: Is that how one reverts an edit at the Teahouse? "Horsehockey" as a summary and no follow-up or discussion on the Talk Page? I thought the Teahouse was a "friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia"? Guess not. Maineartists (talk) 02:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Maineartists, the editors we are primarily directed at don't read edit summaries. You do not set my schedule, and neither does anyone else. WP:NODEADLINE. Reverting blocked socks is essentially an administrative action per WP:DENY. Since Siegel is also an administrator, his revertining Bbb23 is WP:WHEELWAR, a very serious violation that can get him immediately desysoped. What he should have done was go to Bbb23's talk and attempt to work it out, and failing that seeking imput from other administrators. Instead, he chose to exercise OWNership on Teahouse. Since Siegel is one of the administrators that was just handed the mop back in the early days, this is not surprising. There is clearly no consensus to keep the posting in question, and Bbb23 did not need consensus to remove it per DENY. Yes, sadly, that is Horsehockey. If an experienced editor hadn't shown such poor judgement as to pull horsehockey, there would have been no need for me to label it as such. If said experienced editor had handled this correctly rather than turn it into a Johnson contest, this discussion wouldn't be here for you to be offended over. John from Idegon (talk) 03:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

John from Idegon Thanks for responding with more of the same - "horsehockey", as you prefer. See informative WP:Wikilawyering

When I checked my watchlist, your one-word edit summary jumped out and both wasted my time and demotivated me to make a planned and constructive contribution to mainspace. I won't be doing that tonight.

I expect better, far more informative,ideally policy-wikilinked edit summaries from those entrusted with admin privileges. Please review WP:CIV - an ideal exemplar of how to embed a helpful and informative link to relevant WP Policy into an edit summary.

Only 10 keystrokes, same as "horseshit", saving a keystroke on your "horsehockey". -- Paulscrawl (talk) 04:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

See previous discussion of a similar issue at Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Archive 11#Sockpuppetry. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

John from Idegon as you ought to know, my revert was in no sense wheel-warring. WP:WHEEL says: When another administrator has already reversed an administrative action, there is very rarely any valid reason for the original or another administrator to reinstate the same or similar action again without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision. First of all, wheel-warring only applies to the use of admin tools, such as deletion of a page, restoration of that page, followed by re-deletion. Or blocking, unblocking, and re-blocking. Secondly, wheel-warring is the reinstatement of a reverted action. In short it is the third (or later)) admin action in a sequence. It is very much analogous to an editor who, instead of following WP:BRD edit-wars after a reversion, rather than discussing. Now in this case, no admin tools were used. I made an ordinary edit, not using rollback but the ordinary undo link available to any editor. Secondly it was the second act in the sequence. Bbb23 deleted a thread. I reverted that deletion. Now if I had repeated my reversion after the thread was re-deleted, that would have been edit-warring (not wheel-warring). I haven't done that, and won't, although I strongly disapprove of the repeated deletion. As per WP:BRD anyone who disagreed with my revert should have discussed it here, rather than starting a revert war. But the discussion is underway now. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 07:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Now as to the merits of the deletion itself, WP:DENY, the asserted basis for the action, is not policy or guideline, merely an essay. It is an essay I have never approved of, and do not follow. I made the point earlier in this thread (Maineartists made a similar point, above) that Teahouse answers are directed as much to other readers as to the initial questioner, and that the answer which Bbb23 deleted is of potential value to such readers, none of whom will have any idea that the questioner was using multiple accounts. Nor is the question itself in any way abusive or disruptive that I can see. Had the same or nearly the same question been asked repeatedly over a relatively short time, that might be disruptive, but unless I missed it, that wasn't done here. Beyond DENY, what positive value to th4e project does this deletion have? It is, in theory at least, a violation of WP:TPO which says Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. and Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived. While Removing prohibited material such as comments by banned users,... is approved, that does not apply to the removal of good-faith responses by legitimate editors. (In any case, is this editor banned, or merely blocked?) In short I see no value to the project, and no policy-basis for the deletion. That is why I reverted it, and why i call on the community here for consensus to reinstate it now. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 07:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I have to wonder if this recent thread had any effect on the prompt re-deletion of the Teahouse thread in question. But perhaps not. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 07:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I must say that while it is true that RFA standards in 2005 were different than they are today, they were by no means "just handing the mop" to anyone who asked. Nor was I without opposition. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DESiegel if you are interested in how it went then. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 07:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I should add that WP:DENY actually says that it is about deleting information pages about vandals or vandalism. Nowhere does it so much as mention deleting comments by vandals or sockpuppe4ts from discussion pages. Read it. However, many editors cite it in support of a position much more far-reaching than th4e essay actually advocates. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 08:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC) information pages about vandals or vandalism

It wasn't hard to find out that the offensive and unwarranted accusations were directed at John from Idegon. Responding to them without mentioning that would have been, well, odd. Maproom (talk) 09:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Many others have weighed in since I left my initial query asking: "How was an inexperienced editor to know?" I was taken aback by the answer that seemed to "put me in my place" that I am not in the big-boys club as an admin at WP. Glad that I'm not, because it seems that power goes to one's head. The lack of civil response is staggering. I read: WP:NODEADLINE, and nowhere does it say the simple act of educating and informing others who are not "editors we are primarily directing at / who don't read summaries" by way of typing in a few words to the effect: "Repeated question by sockpuppet". I simply asked a question; and honestly, I feel it was a fair question for someone trying to learn how to use WP better. A link was provided to a previous discussion. Once again, how was a newcomer to the page to know this? It would seem that admins and experience editors that bathe their time in such matters get a little "bothered" by those who aren't up to speed. That's not our fault. I thought the Teahouse was a place for friendly teaching, learning and guidance. Maineartists (talk) 12:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, could someone answer this: I understand removing a question may be allowed due to certain protocol at WP; however, the question had already been answered by a separate editor. I thought I read once at the Help Desk that an unanswered question could be removed for various reasons, but it was not "ok" if other editors had already contributed to the thread. I'm probably mistaken. Wouldn't that be removing another editor's contributions; regardless of the original question? Thanks in advance. Maineartists (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear, I went to bed after my comment here last night. I was tired and it had been a long day sock-wise on Wikipedia for me, so I admit I was irritated when I made it, and I didn't intend to start a mini edit war. I could have removed the material again but chose not to. I wanted to make a point and then leave it up to DESiegel as to whether to self-revert. It would have been better, as one editor above pointed out, if I had included an edit summary like "rv sock", but I usually find it's not necessary. The relevant justification for the revert here is not the oft-used essay WP:DENY but the policy WP:REVERTBAN. However, it is not mandatory to revert socks and the revert can be reinstated with good reason. Whether I revert a sock's edit(s) depends on a number of factors, including how many edits they made, the kinds of edits, and the history of the sock. In this particular instance, this sock gets a kick out of this question, and removal - despite the follow-up by legitimate editors to the question - was an easy one for me. After they ask the question, usually an innocent editor then ofters to adopt them. It is so obnoxious. Plus, what might seem like run-of-the-mill trolling is not the only thing this master does. They use socks to attack the filer of the SPI report, both substantively ("fuck you" in different guises) and username-wise (impersonation). There's probably more I could say, but this is already getting a bit long.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

My apologies, Bbb23. I think you got caught up in my confusion as to who posted what and when regarding one-word summaries. This explanation is really important and very helpful, considering the danger in answering the SP's invitation for adoption. I'm sure you've done this before, but would simply closing the question with a disclaimer as you wrote above be more informative to future editors who might not understand "horsehockey" and "remove"? It never was an issue of the edit for me, but the reason behind it - which the summary was not clear. Thank you for what you do re: SP investigating at WP and for keeping it safe. Maineartists (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

No need for apologies. As I said, my edit summary could have been better. Horsehockey is kinda cute, though.

Your proposal is certainly an alternative, but I took what I thought was the most appropriate action and, I must admit, the easiest. I'm not a Teahouse patroller, so I don't know how much new editors learn from other new editors' questions. I would have thought that a brand new legitimate editor asking to be adopted is unusual, meaning not of any great use to others, but others here may think differently based on their experience.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I currently have four active mentees/adoptees, 2 of whom approached me via similar Teahouse posts, so not all that unusual. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

If questions about adoption are asked relatively often, the issue will already be covered in the archives, so doesn't this undermine the case for answering and leaving in place the question, if that case is based on the argument that it could be useful to other editors? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Cordless Larry. How does one access archives? Is there a search engine where one can type in keywords such as "adoption" and it will bring up various past discussions or threads? Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Yep, the search bar is on the Teahouse main page, underneath the table of contents. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Fabulous, Writ Keeper! I never knew this before; and it is extremely helpful!!! Maineartists (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Unprotect Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Teahouse please

...for a day or two. I'd like to make some adjustments. E Eng 04:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Archival by Muninnbot

I am now getting messages that threads that I started in the Teahouse are being archived by User:Muninnbot. These messages are new, although the knowledge that threads are archived is not. Is a new or different bot being used for the archival, or are just the messages about the archival new? I have known for years that posts to project pages are archived, and that the exact rules vary, and that there are multiple bots that do the job. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

There's some information about this at Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Archive 14#Teahouse archiving and Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Archive 16#Teahouse archival notification: going live soon. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

For clarification, it is just the notification which is being done by User:Muninnbot (and that user page links to the explanation). The archiving itself continues to be done by User:Lowercase sigmabot III. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Thank you. So in that case I will turn off that message, because I already understand how archiving works. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

As was explained when the bot was set up, it is assumed that threads in the Teahouse are usually started by newcomers, as that is the purpose of the Teahouse. Experienced users ought to be asking their questions elsewhere. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I am the botop. Since that is the second person in little more than a week of operation to be confused by the archiving-vs-notification thing, the notice (currently located at User:Tigraan-testbot/Teahouse_archival_notification but I might move it under Muninnbot's subpages someday) should probably be fixed to indicate this more clearly.

I made this fix but feel free to modify it. I believe such notification templates are subject to community consensus / BRD (as opposed to bot code which is pretty much whatever the botop wants within approval). (Though if you intend to fiddle with template magic words, please discuss beforehand, else it could send malformed notifications.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Need a template

Details are here, until this page gets archived.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes Ngoma Yarira (talk) 09:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. The process is easy. And, I know the subject.

Hopefully, when the page is approved I can link to the source article.

It turns out that this gentleman is one of the Victorian inventors no-one has heard of. :-) EvanVenn (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

EvanVenn, I think you might have intended to post this comment at Wikipedia:Teahouse#New page and Links from other pages The present page is for discussing the inner workings of the Teahouse. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Muninnbot down, I blame revdelling admins

Hi folks,

Muninnbot has "stopped working" (no notifications sent) for the last ten days. From a first diagnosis, this seems to happen when it tries to read a WP:REVDEL'd version of the page (and fails). I think if lowercase sigmabot III's archival edit is revdelled, or an edit creating a new thread is summary-revdeled, that irremediably compromises the possibility to send notifications for that archival (at least without going the WP:ADMINBOT route which is not really in the cards), but as things stand, Muninnbot will choke whenever any edit in the last ten days was revdeled in any way; that can certainly be fixed. I cannot promise a quick fix, but I will keep you updated as operations resume. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 21:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Why some spaces in the teahouse title?

I recently tried to make the 'Click here to ask a question' button to look good on mobile. While I was looking into it I saw that there were 24 non-breaking spaces in the title. Why are they there? I'm asking this because, they actually make the title look odd in mobile devices. - - Kaartic ^{correct me, if i'm wrong} 19:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I replaced Wikipedia:Teahouse/Suggestions/Lists

Noticed that HostBot hasn't updated the Wikipedia:Teahouse/Suggestions/Lists used for SuggestBot in over five years, so I switched it over to use the {{random item}} template not requiring a bot. Only problem with the new approach is someone will need to regenerate the table if someone adds a new WikiProject to Wikipedia:Teahouse/WikiProjects, but only if they want that WP to be a random option. --Habst (talk) 09:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Syntax highlighting - now a default feature

Just thought it was worth flagging up this recent item below in Tech News which might lead to a few questions here as to why text changes colour and size. I see there have already been a couple at WP:HD. It can be toggled on/off in source editor by clicking the pencil item just left of the 'Advanced' link. (Why anyone would want to turn it off defeats me - I've loved this since it was in beta!)

Syntax highlighting has been a beta feature on Wikimedia wikis with text written from left to right. It is now a normal feature. It is based on CodeMirror. [1]

Hope this is of interest. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

White text box near the top of the page

I think it's a closure note by User:John from Idegon but that's not obvious until you look at it carefully. I'm not sure how to fix it. Doug Weller talk 09:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

The box was pushed below other floating content when the section reached the top. I have clarified that the box belongs to that section.[2] PrimeHunter (talk) 12:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Doug Weller: That it is. Figured the bot would have archived it by now. Anyone object to just manually archiving it? If not, I'll do that in a couple hours. John from Idegon (talk) 13:15, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

John from Idegon go for it. I knew where it belonged, but didn't realise that could happen. Doug Weller talk 13:22, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Dis note for Wikipedia:A nice cup of tea and a sit down

I disagree with [3] and I think the hatnote to this page is important. Until recently (Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_January_8#Wikipedia:TEA), WP:TEA pointed to that essay. Since it was retargetted, many editors may be confused and the least we can do is to give them that disambig. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Other Users

I have a question, I know I always start a question this way. It's just how I do that. My question is how can you communicate or make friends with other users. There's this ode user aka HilariousFunnyGuy that had thanked my edit one hour ago and I want to be friends with them. Can someone help me? Cyclone of Foxes (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Added discussion Cyclone of Foxes (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Two sections at the top of the page can't archive

The current two topmost sections cannot be archived because neither contains a proper signature with a timestamp. The "Unsigned" tool times out on my browser, so I can't fix it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Have manually unsigned one and moved it to correct location. I'm on the other one now. - X201 (talk) 14:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

The other one had an unsigned on it so it was archived. The problem was though that there was some bad wikimarkup in front of it, so the bottom half got archived leaving the top half without its unsigned info. Should work now.- X201 (talk) 14:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Helpful script

Hey everyone, I've recently been working on a script that makes replying in conversations easier: User:Enterprisey/reply-link. It puts a button after each signature to open an inline form, so you don't have to go through the edit window. It's somewhat buggy and very much a work in progress, but I feel like it's ready for a bit of broader usage. It would be great if some active Teahouse participants were to try out the script and give some feedback. Thanks! Enterprisey (talk!) 20:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Inspire Campaign idea for editor retention data

Hello. I have submitted an idea for the Inspire campaign: Retroactive, longitudinal study of new user experiences. It involves gathering a representative sample of new-user experiences, so as to better inform decisions regarding editor retention. As such, it may be of interest to participants here. Please have a look if you have time. Cheers, --LukeSurl^{t c} 09:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I like the idea. I commented on the discussion page. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

User Status vandalism

Hi Teahouse,

I've recently had my status page vandalised a few times by the same editor User:IrishRebel1972. It's nothing serious or anything, certainly not malicious, but clear vandalism. I was wondering where I should take this. I've left a message on the talk page, but I don't feel like the edits are something to simply ignore, as it's in my userspace.

Where should I take this? It's clearly too mundane for WP:ANI, so I wasn't sure what was most suitible. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Account has been blocked indefinitely. [[4]] TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Recent mention at The Signpost

For anyone curious, the Teahouse was discussed (permanent link) in The Signpost's most recent installment of its "Recent research" feature (also republished at Meta-Wiki's Research Newsletter). In particular, it covers some research scheduled for OpenSym 2018 which is generally positive toward the Teahouse's efficacy at "newcomer retention". —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 16:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Indeed! That's an academic write-up of some analysis that EpochFail and I did a few years ago. TL;DR we ran a controlled invite experiment, using HostBot, where some newcomers got Teahouse invites and some didn't. We found that overall those who received an invite were retained longer. The big picture is that people who are invited to the Teahouse (whether or not they show up and ask a question--the impact of participation is harder to measure) are about 10% more likely to still be editing after 2 months than those who don't. 10% may not seem like a lot, but considering we don't have strong evidence that anything else is effective at retaining new users, it's pretty remarkable. J-Mo 23:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Do you want your name listed on Teahouse invites sent by HostBot?

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

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

New inviters

Note: HostBot only includes the names of people who have edited within the past few weeks on invites. So if you take a long wikibreak your name will remain on the list but will not be included on any invites until you start editing again.

You can ask me to add/remove your name at any point in the future by a) editing the list here and then b) pinging me on my talkpage.

Cheers, J-Mo 00:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Just a note: I haven't seen most of that list at the Teahouse lately. Perhaps it might be worth checking to see who has edited in the past 6 months and pulling the rest? Since they should all be pinged to this conversation, I'm hoping they'll weigh in. John from Idegon (talk) 00:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Jtmorgan. Yes, keep my name on the list. However, Liz has not edited in over a year, so I think her name should be removed until she returns to active editing. If he agrees, I suggest that you add John from Idegon in her place. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree anyone that has gone completely inactive should be removed as Cullen328 suggests, but what about those who are no longer active here, Jim? I haven't seen Jethrobot around here forever, nor Worm. Missvain either, but she is the founder, so....John from Idegon (talk) 00:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I hear you, John. Ideally, this should be a list of the most active current Teahouse hosts. Personally, I would be reluctant to remove Missvain because she was integral to starting the Teahouse, and she recruited and encouraged me to become a host. In the spirit of full disclosure, she is also a personal friend and I hold her in very high regard. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed completely. I was ready to quit when she entered my Wikilife! John from Idegon (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I've been contributing pretty lightly over the past year or so and haven't been active at the Teahouse, so feel free to remove me. Sam Walton (talk) 08:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

It's true, I haven't hung out at the teahouse since helping out with its initial set up and first year or so. I've no problem with my name being on there, in case anyone ever wants to turn up to my talk page, but if you'd prefer to only have active Teahouse hosts, I will understand if you wish to remove my name. I'm easy either way. I can't promise I'll be spending more time here, my time is already fairly limited! Worm^TT(talk) 09:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll remove people if they've stopped editing Wikipedia for an extended time (like Liz). As I noted above, those names aren't showing up on invites anyway, so it's purely a matter of housecleaning at that point. But I won't remove people just because they're not answering questions at the Teahouse right now. J-Mo 17:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Clarification: unless they request removal themselves, like Samwalton9 did. J-Mo 17:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Teahouse posts by confirmed socks

This is in reference to WP:THQ#password theft. The OP Crispgatoglitz has been confirmed to be a sock puppet. The question is not really trolly and the answers given by various hosts might actually help others who are experiencing a similar issue; so, I'm not advocating that the thread be removed. It might, however, be a good idea to close/archive it because the OP is going to be unable to further respond (the OP's TPA has also been removed as weell) and other hosts might not be aware of this and still try to help. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Growth team is looking for your feedback and ideas

Hello!

Have you heard about Growth team?

The Growth Team's objective is to work on software changes that help retain new contributors in mid-size Wikimedia projects. We will be starting with Wikipedias, but we hope these changes will benefit every community.

We are contacting your project today, because you may be interested by what we work on.

8 ideas we consider: tell us what you think about them!

We are considering new features to build, that could retain new editors in mid-size Wikipedias. We will be testing new ideas in Czech and Korean Wikipedias, and then we'll talk to more communities (yours!) about adopting the ideas that work well.

We have posted the 8 ideas we are considering. We would really appreciate your thoughts and the thoughts from your community. Please share the ideas, and tell us what do you and your community think of those ideas before September 9.

Share your experiences with newcomers

We want to hear about what is working and what is not working for new contributors in your wiki. We also want to hear any reactions, questions, or opinions on our work. Please post on the team’s talk page, in any language!

Learn more about us

You can visit our team page to find out why our team was formed and how we are thinking about new editors, and our project page for detailed updates on the first project we'll work on.

Get updates on your project page

The Growth team's newsletter will provide updates regularly. You can subscribe to it.

On behalf of the Growth team, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Looping around?

If you go to Wikipedia:Teahouse you get told to click a button to ask a question. That button takes you to another page, where it tells you to click to go to the Q&A board, which takes you back where you started. I think the second page was intended to say “write down below. Kerry (talk) 03:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Kerry Raymond and welcome to WT:Teahouse where we talk about the Teahouse.

I think you're referring to the page notice that appears when you edit the Teahouse page - this notice appears whether you arrived there by clicking the "Ask a question" button, the "New section" button, or the "Edit" button and, as a generic notice, could be seen as confusing, since it includes the instructions To add a question please use the "Ask a Question" button on the Teahouse Q&A Board. which links to the old location of the Teahouse. I agree that this merits some discussion. Should that quoted text be modified to reduce potential confusion?

Given the volume of questions successfully asked at the Teahouse, I don't think we are confusing people too badly.

(And what's the point of the rotating text color based on number of edits mod 6?) — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

New Member

Hello! My name is Angela, thanks for inviting me to this page! I am new at this and am sure I will have questions in the future but for now I just wanted to say hi and thanks for offering your help!AngRenzi (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@AngRenzi: - welcome! Stormy clouds (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello AngRenzi and welcome to the Teahouse. Somehow, you managed to arrive at the talk page for the teahouse rather than at the Teahouse itself. If you go there, you'll find a bunch of questions and answers more typical of what new users ask about. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Editing

Yesterday whole of edit at the Wikipedia Paige was removed? What would be the reason? Tudor Godwin (talk) 19:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Tudor Godwin. You can see who has edited articles and why by clicking on the "View history" tab. In both articles – St. Patrick's College, Jaffna and Justin Gnanapragasam – the reason given for removing your additions was "Removing unsourced content". All content you add on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable from reliable sources. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I wanted to make a page for Supermodel po-ukrainski and I cant do it for some reasons. I need help or explaination. JoToronto12 (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, JoToronto12. This isn't actually the Teahouse questions page; that's at Wikipedia:Teahouse. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Help

Can anyone help me in improving this artical please Jahnavi Ellore Iamheentity (talk) 13:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Please help

Any experienced editor please help to improve the artical Iamheentity (talk) 13:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Iamheentity This page is for discussing the operation of the Teahouse, and is not the Teahouse itself. Please post on the main Teahouse page. Thanks 331dot (talk) 14:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok i am sorry for thatIamheentity (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

arbcom history

Where can one find details (discussion, conclusion) of an Arbcom case? I'm searching for one from 2007 mentioned in the edit summary here. Humanengr 13:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey Humanengr. It looks like the case is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon. You can search for past cases at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index. GMG ^talk 13:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The edit to which you refer provided the link to WP:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon#Use of blogs. But I don't see how your question is relevant to the subject of this Teahouse talk page? --David Biddulph (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

That 13 Nov 2007 edit changed "surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reliable news media" on WP:ATT to "surprising or apparently important reports of historical events not covered by mainstream news media or historiography". The only clue I had so far re rationale for that change was in that edit summary. Is trying to track that down not an appropriate question here? Humanengr 14:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

No. The box at the top of this page says "This page is where experienced editors discuss how to keep the Teahouse running smoothly. If you have a question about how Wikipedia works or need help with editing, please click here to go to the Teahouse Q&A forum." If you wish to discuss that 2017 change to WP:ATT, the place to do so is Wikipedia talk:Attribution. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

It's really not that big of a deal that someone accidentally posted on the wrong page. GMG ^talk 14:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@GMG, thx. Will post at appropriate location. Humanengr 14:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

This may be related to talk:Conspiracy theory, where humanengr is rather determined to make changes supporting the idea that conspiracy theories may well be real. 16:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

[1] wikt:give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime

[1]