Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Writing is hard

I want to write an article on Wikipedia for the first time because how. is one type of posting we see from new users. We usually point them to YFA, etc., but the elephant in the room is that this "sentence" is not just a one-time poorly-formed sentence – it's usually typical of the editor's writing, presumably because English is not their first language. Another issue with such editors is that, when we point them to policy articles, there's very little chance of them reading and correctly understanding them. How can we politely suggest WP:CIR, or are we saying that it's OK to create a grammar/style/policy mess for someone else to clean up? I realize this isn't a very touchy-feely-anyone-can-edit sentiment, but I'm having trouble reconciling that lofty goal with trying to create something useful and respectable. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a tough one. I'll usually point them to YFA as you've said. If they return then it might be best to suggest their primary language Wikipedia to help out? Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 23:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

If the issue is English ability, the best approach might be to use a variation of {{Welcome-noteng}} as Willbb234 suggests. Your post raises the question for me of why so many new editors seem to be non-native speakers in the first place, though. Is it because most native speakers have already joined? (Seems implausible.) Or is it just a matter of numbers since countries like India are so populous? And why is it that new editors are drawn to the English WP rather than the WP in their native language? (Are non-English WPs really so inferior as to drive ESL readers here?) I'm guessing someone here probably has a better sense of what's going on than I do; it'd be helpful to have that context, as it'll be easier to handle those editors if we understand who they are. Sdkb (talk) 23:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

"Hello new editor. You don't write in very good English, do you? So your chances of getting an article published here are very low. You obviously have little competence, so I think you should forget about how our language's version of Wikipedia works and go back to whatever you were doing, and do it in your own language. Leave it to us clever chaps. OK?"

No. I'm sorry, AlanM, that is not how I would ever have wanted anyone to have written to me when, back in 2011, I tried to create my one and only non-English article on German Wikipedia. My 'Urlaubsdeutsch' wasn't sufficient to help me, so I resorted to Google translate to create a simple attempt, and managed this basic new page. But it now looks like this, and I am proud to have been the catalyst and leave it for German speakers to enhance this important subject.

Now, you are clearly using this post and my reply to it as the catalyst for your question, which is absolutely fine by me. What I didn't say there was "look, young lady/young man, this topic doesn't look at all notable", even though I had serious doubts as to what their intent was. It hardly even crossed my mind to say "look, young lady/young man you don't seem capable of writing good English, go do it in your own mother tongue!" I think people of all nations and languages fail to read instructions in their keenness to create something good here, and it saddens me deeply if you believe that we should discourage anyone wanting to write about a notable topic' to go away and do it in their own language simply because they don't have total command of the English language, or fully understand how we operate.

Clear communication is important and, not unreasonably, I have been held to account more than once by an AFC reviewer (Robert McClenon, especially) for trying to help editors, but using language that is written in far too complex a manner that they will understand. (My only excuse is that it actually takes considerably more time and effort to write clearly in simple, plain English, than it does in my more convoluted style of writing. I used to do this professionally, but I admit that now I sometimes feel like saying 'tough, mate - I tried to help - sorry if you don't understand what I say')

That all having been said, I think there is a role for the Teahouse and the community to provide clearer, simpler help and guidance in Plain English to those who need it, and I've seen some pretty good, simple instructions written (probably as a template) and in bullet form by at least one of our hosts here (I forget who, right now). I have it in my sights to eventually address some of the old help/FAQ pages we used to promote here at one time, though I fear this is not going to be a quick turn around for me. But, AlanM1, please feel free to start a draft of some guidance of your own that we can work on and eventually refer these questioners to. It would be good to have some simply-worded guidance that steers people in the right direction. You've raised the issue - so feel free to run with it to come up with a helpful solution we can all deploy.

And to answer Sdkb's point, I think it was simply the imperialistic actions of the British over a few centuries that has led to English happening to become the main common language of communication around the world. Thus, for maximum prominence, why wouldn't one want to promote one's favourite topic on English Wikipedia? Nick Moyes (talk) 00:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)  

@AlanM1: Us copyeditors would be out of a self-imposed job if everyone was proficient in English. I think asking questions to the point of addressing minutiae until we're sure that that is what the primary article editor is trying to convey works.

People specialise in different things: some people create articles by gathering sources and putting the information out there, and some others like me make it pleasing to read. --Tenryuu (🐲 • 💬 • 🌟) 01:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, first, my English is often even more complex than that of User:Nick Moyes, and so I may have been aware that both he and I typically write at a level that requires considerable Anglophone education. As to why writers who have difficulty with English want to write for the English Wikipedia rather than the Wikipedia in their language, I was once told that it is because the English Wikipedia has more readers. That is particularly true for the editors in India, where the English Wikipedia is the one that every educated Indian can read, in a country with over a hundred languages. They want to write in English because they want to be read by the large number of readers who can read English, rather than by the small number of readers who can read Indian Language Z. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: that explanation makes sense. And also indicates that using {{Welcome-noteng}} isn't likely to work in a lot of cases. For some such editors, perhaps we could try to nudge them toward tasks that don't require as much English proficiency (the WP:Task Center is currently being overhauled, and we may want to highlight those tasks alongside tasks that don't require too much experience). But many editors are set on article creation, and that's a trickier problem. Sdkb (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that welcoming a new user with a suggestion that they use some other language than English is not likely to work. However, we do have to be aware that we need that some editors are English-challenged and to steer them to activities where they can be helpful rather than troublesome. I have the problem at DRN of editors who have a content dispute, but who don't know enough English to explain clearly what they want, and I do need to ask them about editing in their first language. User:Sdkb mentions editors who want to do article creation. There are various reasons why some users should not do article creation, including having difficulty with writing in the English that is their first language. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

basic question

Hi. I am a new host here. I am glad to be participating here. could you please tell me how I would find a "Teahouse Talkback" template? I appreciate the help. sorry for the basic question. thanks!!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sm8900. It's Template:Teahouse talkback. Clovermoss (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

hi all. sorry another basic question. I just clicked the button to add the teahouse host interface. where would I go to utilize this resource? sorry for this basic question. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sm8900: I'm not sure how to answer that question. Maybe ask Nick Moyes? Clovermoss (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sm8900 and Clovermoss: I'm not sure if I know how to answer that either! Like I said elsewhere, there are a lot of old bits of Teahouse stuff here, piled up and gathering dust and cobwebs in forgotten corners, like the Maitre d' pages and calendar, badges and navboxes etc. What page was the link on, please, as I can't find that exact phrase anywhere? I'm guessing you mean a suite of scripts you can install from one of the Host lounge subpages. I've just checked my own common.css file and found I'd installed something back in 2017, but I think it was meant to show that horrid navbox, but it never has, thank goodness, as over half the links there are now redundant - like guest book, rest room and so forth.

As I've said below, it could all do with a really good sort out, but somehow everyone here has muddled along OK, and the key thing everyone recognises is the need for the friendly, welcome facing in our responses at the Teahouse. We all just navigate around the rubble of old TH pages! Nick Moyes (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Just for info, I have just three scripts installed that are pertinent to the Teahouse. One is User:Path slopu/scripts/TeahouseSidebar.js which puts a link to WP:TH in the left hand side bar. Another is User:DannyS712/TeahouseTB.js which is the Teahouse talkback tool, recently updated from an earlier version that was abandoned. Once installed, you should see it in the dropdown list under the 'More' tab at the top of the page, and you can paste in a link to a Teahouse discussion here, telling the user it has been answered. The third one is a bookmarknav.js script which one can personalise and edit to link to one's favourite pages as shortcuts at the very top of every page. I've set one of mine to go straight to the bottom of the Teahouse page, which WP:THF also achieves. I don't think anyone has utilised the script that deploys those rather twee 'badges' for years, though I could be proved wrong. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Visual editor

This is your occasional reminder that you are free to ping me whenever you've got a problem with editing tools. mw:Editor has screenshots of most of the tools, in case you need to figure out which one someone's looking at.

Also, while I'm here (I was checking on a bug report about the 2017 wikitext editor, except it was actually the old 2010 wikitext editor), what's your experience with the visual editor for new editors these days? Among newer editors (≤100 edits) on desktop, about 3 out of 10 mainspace edits last month were in the visual editor. The numbers have been pretty steady for the last year. Do you feel like people are usually getting to the editing environment that works best for them, or does this need more work? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Whatamidoing (WMF), I haven't seen posts asking where the visual editor is, if that's what you are asking. The questions usually revolve around the apparent limitations and how to do's. If there were an exhaustive list of functionalities/limitations of the visual editor available somewhere, that might be helpful, for example when someone asks if something is impossible to do with a visual editor and since most experienced editors only use source editing, the best answer that can be given is, "I haven't yet found a way to do that". The help pages give some how-to's but they don't say they have provided an exhaustive manual and anything missing is not available as a feature. Hope this makes some sense. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Can you give me an example of what people have trouble doing? I think the most frequent request on MediaWiki.org is people wanting to change the colors in tables, which it doesn't support, but I think most of them are from third-party (private) wikis. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Whatamidoing (WMF), yep, it's mostly about tables. Another fairly common question is why they don't see the Visual editor option on talk pages, but that one's easy to answer. Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

It's been a long time since I looked at the documentation, so I don't know what's there, but I can tell you with certainty that it does not support colors directly anywhere, at all. With tables, you can set a caption (the thing at the top that looks like a title, but HTML calls it a caption), merge rows and columns (it only keeps the content from the first row or column), add and remove rows and columns, set cells to be (gray/bold) header cells or regular (that's in the 'paragraph' menu), and make it sortable (whole tabe, not specific columns) and/or collapsible. That's most of what editors want to see in an article. Feel free to ping me if you are ever stuck on a question. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Whatamidoing (WMF), thanks. That's good to know. I wish we would maintain a list of editors who would be open to being pinged on any question in a particular topic area (e.g. there is currently a post that would benefit from someone who can assess reliability of North American music-related sources), but that would be a different discussion. Cheers! Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

That could be cool, if there were a way to keep it up to date. WikiProjects are the closest we come to that, I think. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia normally so toxic ?

Hello all - following a kind welcoming message from one contributor ([1]) I decided to register. However, I have been horrified with messages I have received within hours of registering, (see [2]) May I ask whether such is normal ? Certainly, I have no interest in being involved if such aggression and toxicity is either accepted or commonplace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SnowyMalone (talk • contribs) 19:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

SnowyMalone This page is for discussing the operation of the Teahouse, and is not the Teahouse itself. Please use the main Teahouse page for inquiries. I will say that I'm not really seeing what you are seeing in the comments you refer to, though we all have different points of view. 331dot (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

It’s a free country, so bet your a** it is! lol I’m joking, if you know what to avoid, no. Just tread carefully friend AdvisoryOnMixer (talk) 12:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

"R E T I R E D", it's a shame that someone retires because of a hornet. Editoneer (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

How do you become a host?

So, I noticed that I was able to answer some simple questions that editors asked in the Teahouse. (I answered the last two threads, in fact, at least as of 3/10/20, 19:25 UTC, here is the link) So, I was wondering how one became a Teahouse host, because I think I have enough experience now. However, if I don't, I'll understand... King of Scorpions 19:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

King of Scorpions, there's a link to apply to become one at the top of the teahouse page. The criteria are also listed on the page that the link points to. You seem to meet the objective criteria listed there, the subjective ones I have no opinion on. You are fairly new, but it's not like being listed as a host comes with any special responsibilities. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

​ Well, I would pretty much only answer the ones I feel confident answering, and leave the rest to people who know more than I... King of Scorpions 20:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

King of Scorpions, you do not need to become a "host" or anything else to do that. In fact, you've already started. Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Usedtobecool The reason I enjoy helping other people so much is because: I had a very welcoming experience when I joined Wikipedia, and I wish for others to have the same. King of Scorpions 20:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

King of Scorpions, so long as you have extended confirmed permissions and can hold up host expectations, you're all good. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 21:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Teahouse logo

I've never quite understood the Teahouse logo, to be honest. Is it making a reference I'm missing, or is it just a little arbitrary? Is there desire to potentially change it, or is it something you all are attached to? (asking both as genuine questions) Sdkb (talk) 07:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd never consciously noticed it before. But it does explain why I always think of the page as "the Treehouse". Maproom (talk) 08:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

It's based on this File:Oxherding_pictures,_No._9.jpg. Bull herding? was someone having a little joke? :) - X201 (talk) 08:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

See this for background to the design ideas for the Teahouse. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Teahouse invite

Is there a way to find new users that should have a Teahouse invite posted to their talk pages? Like, is it the new user creation log, or something else? Thanks, King of Scorpions 16:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@King of Scorpions: Whilst 'HostBot' automatically selects around 300 new editors per day to send an invitation too, you could certainly look at Special:Log/newusers and leave a welcome message or Teahouse invite to a few more editors who have already made two or three good faith edits (don't welcome the myriad of new user accounts that are created but which not yet edited, but do report to WP:UAA any active accounts whose names breach our policies).

Personally, I'd probably not bother with just a basic Teahouse invitation, but would consider it a better use of my time to use Twinkle to leave one of the broader, welcome messages instead which includes a link to the TH, too. You could do that at either the newuser log or by monitoring Special:RecentChanges for edits by new users. (If you turn on 'Navigation popups' at Preferences>Gadgets you will then be able to mouseover the 'contribs' of any registered or IP user and get a dropdown list of all their edits without having to open a new tab. That way you can gauge their 'newness' here.) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I use Special:ActiveUsers.--Moxy 🍁 05:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Adding a reminder to sign posts

I've noticed that on a lot of questions askers are forgetting to sign after their posts. Can we remind editors in the current edit notices to type 4 tildes at the end of their reply/question when finished? The only one on the project page is in a smaller size further down from the giant "Click here to ask a question" button. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 23:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not a host, but I do agree with you. I actually see more signings from SineBot than actual sigs... no clue how to add to an edit notice, though. Sorry. King of Scorpions 18:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

We could but in my experience, people rarely take the time to read those. They read replies to their posts more carefully, and that is where it may be most helpful if done properly. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Usedtobecool, do you remember if there was a default setting for Wikipedia to remind users to sign their posts on talk pages when it didn't detect a signature? Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 07:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu, if there were such a system, it ought not to take much work to modify it to just add signatures to all posts automatically, then we wouldn't need to sign posts at all, or have bots that do that, or have templates to remind new users to do that, so I think the answer is no. I am actually a baby compared to how long Wikipedia has been around. For a more definitive answer, I point you to Iridescent, who has been known to never not know any Wikipedia thing worth knowing about, and watch over the Teahouse. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Usedtobecool, adding signatures to posts in the original edit rather than letting SineBot do its thing after the event (which I think is what's being proposed here) would be a massive performance hit to the servers and would likely be blocked by the WMF. It would mean every time you edit a talkpage the software would need to run a complex series of calculations to work out whether the edit in question is a new unsigned post, a new signed post with an unconventional signature, an edit to an existing signed post by the person who made the original comment, an edit to an existing signed post by a person other than the one who made the original comment, or a change to the formatting or markup rather than a specific post. Slakr who runs SineBot is better placed to me to discuss whether there's any way this would be viable. Given that it's the WMF's stated aim to scrap wikitext talkpages altogether and move to a forum-based discussion system (see the way talkpages already work on the MediaWiki website itself), they're not going to allocate any resources to changes to the existing editor other than to fix actual bugs. ‑ Iridescent 15:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Iridescent, Is that all intended to make it easier for dummies? And has anyone tried to tell them there may be a competence cutoff to becoming productive editors? Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

The system Iridescent linked to used to be called "Flow", and there are no plans to let any other WMF-hosted wikis use it. The current plan, settled on after the Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019/Phase 1 last year, is to improve wikitext talk pages. You can see more at Wikipedia:Talk pages project or try it out at https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisatrice:Whatamidoing_(WMF)/Brouillon?dtenable=1 It will auto-sign replies, but not other edits. Also, by way of reducing the "unconventional signature" problem, see mw:New requirements for user signatures.

It'll likely be months before they're ready to let enwiki test it, but I think that the Teahouse will find that it's very helpful in terms of reducing unsigned replies. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

You could ask an admin to make one as only page mover, administrators and template editors can add editnotices. Here's how to request an editnotice. But I agree, it would be a good idea. Bᴇʀʀᴇʟʏ • ^{Talk to me}∕_{What have I been doing} 10:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC) I'm adding it now.

Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Teahouse here is the link to the request.

Well, doesn't seem like we'll get a long-term solution for this. In the meantime I'll just be using {{User:Tenryuu/Sign}} to remind people. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 16:38, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Idea: While it won't really help with asking a question, perhaps we should promote the reply-link script? It generates a signature when using it and only requires a signature from the post being replied to. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 20:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Marking status of a discussion and reminding to sign

New hosts, please note that marking status of a discussion as "resolved" (and by extension, "referred", "disregard", or similar) has been deemed unhelpful and potentially counterproductive in previous discussions on the issue at this talk page. It should be left to the OP to decide whether they would like to continue the discussion or ask followups, or ask, in passing, another question they also need help with. Marking the thread as resolved dissuades new users many of whom are likely to think it is officially prohibited to continue the discussion. Since indefinite block does not mean infinite block, it is completely fine to continue a discussion that was started by a blocked user. They could be unblocked, and another user who is skimming through the page (and archives, unlikely as that is) before deciding to post could find the answer useful.

Also, this one is just my opinion, while reminding to sign posts is okay, this should be more of a gentle nudge, and ideally done once every few posts (perhaps only on threads that have multiple unsigned posts from the same user), and very far from anything that might dissuade them from continuing the discussion or starting any new ones until they figure out exactly how to do that. Even very experienced users (including admins and bureaucrats) forget to sign their posts sometimes, it is not the end of the world if new users take some time to learn the right habits. The reminder can be left at their user talk page, including as part of a welcome message. Again, in view of the fact that new users are likely to skim through the page before posting, we should make sure to not give the impression that it may not be a good idea to post until one figures out how to sign properly. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Usedtobecool, my apologies for being overzealous with the resbox statuses as my intention was to have closed matters stay closed if the OP's matter had been resolved and to have a brief summary item describing what action was taken for resolution. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 14:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu, no apologies necessary, you weren't here the last time it was discussed. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Usedtobecool, thanks for the link to the archived discussion. To build off on that, would it be helpful to have a side element describing what action was taken to the problem as a TL;DR so that anyone perusing the archives/current questions doesn't have to go through all of the discussion to learn what the result was? Something akin to the side infobox in {{atop}}. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 15:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

And would it still be helpful to use non-conclusive resboxes like {{FYI}} and {{Moved discussion from}}? Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 15:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu, "Moved" ones, sure. I don't know where FYI would be useful.

About the ;tldr one, it would have to be discussed here at length, I can't speak for anyone else. Personally, I can imagine a few cases where there may be one definitive answer, and others where a summary may not be as enlightening as reading the whole discussion (happens with scholarly works too, see WP:NOABSTRACT). When would you add those though, after they are archived? Because before they are archived, they are still active discussions which had better not be summarised/closed. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

AN thread about the influx of new editors and IPs

The thread is at WP:AN#Influx of new editors and IPs. It's about the influx of new editors right now and how to be more welcoming, so I thought active editors at the Teahouse might be interested. Clovermoss (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to link to Teahouse from semi-protected edit notice instead of WP:Questions

Resolved

 – Template has changed to redirect to Teahouse. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 02:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at MediaWiki_talk:Semiprotectedpagewarning#Additional_input. Sdkb (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC) Your version

Result: The warning now reads:

Note: This page is semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. If you need help getting started with editing, see the Teahouse.

--Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 02:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Creating video tutorials

I noticed that all the answers we get from the Teahouse are in writing. I feel that we can go a step further by making video tutorials. The reason why I think it would be beneficial is because it can help people with visual difficulties. I also think it could be beneficial for those without visual difficulties as well. I also want to make a virtual library of tutorials so we can reuse them to help other users. What are your thoughts on this? Interstellarity (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• Weak support. I like having an alternative form of teaching, though I'm not sure who's going to be creating videos and narrating them. If anyone does get around to making them, I'd be willing to give them a narration. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 19:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support in principle. @Interstellarity: Have you ever tried making videos? Good ones are great; bad ones are crap. Mine are mediocre, at best, and none are of a tutorial nature, which requires even tighter production qualities and really sound planning. Pine might like to offer some thoughts, updates and useful links that can be used, as s/he was involved in creating some recently with a WMF grant, and may well know of others. Personally, I'd quite like to learn how to make tutorial videos, though doubt I ever would ever produce anything of sufficient quality to merit regular use like this. Maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Videowiki might offer you some ideas on how to do this? Unless one produces a series of video tutorials with the same house style, you'd end up with some very variable quality material to link to. Note that many existing videos have also been overtaken by the change from 'save changes' to 'publish changes', such as Andy Mabbet's videos here. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

  @Nick Moyes: Honestly, I haven't had the time to make videos. I would have to set some time for myself in order to make good quality videos. Perhaps there are other editors willing to make videos to help our new users. Interstellarity (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Screencast/Screencast Gallery...

See also: meta:Video tutorials

--Moxy 🍁 02:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support, if they are done well. It would be pretty trivial to create short screen capture videos that showed, for example, how to add a bare url with ref tags, then fill it out with the citation expander.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

also, (rant) why isn't the WMF doing this already?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

See links just above your post.--Moxy 🍁 02:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Those examples are from 2014, and they are pretty basic in terms of production values. It's not that much harder to produce something with much higher values, but it does take some skill and, usually, money.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Work in progress Hi @Interstellarity, Nick Moyes, ThatMontrealIP, Moxy, and Tenryuu: please see the NavWiki project, which I am developing here on the Outreach wiki. This project is progressing slowly but surely. I have several scripts that I am happy with, and now I need to find time for transforming the scripts into finished videos. This is not a trivial undertaking. After working on these scripts, I have a much better idea of why good instructional videos for somewhat complex workflows like we have on English Wikipedia take so much time and money to produce from start to finish. There are some language editions of Wikipedia that already have instructional videos for them, such as German Wikipedia. The German videos were produced by Wikimedia Deutchland. Personally, I am wary of WMF involvement in instructing community members what to do or how to do it, and I am reluctant to request further funding from WMF, although funding from non-WMF sources could be a great help. My grant funding has long been exhausted and I am doing this project on volunteer time. Until someone comes up with a significant chunk of money to support video production, NavWiki will proceed on my volunteer time, which is currently rather limited due to my need for financial income. I would be grateful if you would have a look at the NavWiki pages and let me know what you think about what is there so far. Thanks, ↠Pine (✉) 03:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Most think is a good idea for a long time.--Moxy 🍁 03:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• In a way this discussion is well timed, because I'm writing a report for I JethroBT (WMF) and other grant officers. I plan to finish that report by the end of March 31st. (I'm not sure if I JethroBT (WMF) really needs to be pinged here but I'm doing it in case he is interested in the discussion.) ↠Pine (✉) 04:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Pine Go big... may only get a few shots to get it accomplished.--Moxy 🍁 06:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support in principle. Agreed that it'd be nice to have high-quality ones, and that the WMF ones from 2014 definitely aren't that. And agreed that it'd be nice to have WMF support on this. They clearly have some people there capable of making videos, e.g. [3] (which they ironically haven't freely licensed). Overall, making videos is a hard/big enough task that it's best handled by professionals. Sdkb (talk) 04:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

New Signature Template

Hi everyone, I've created a new template, {{NoSig}}, which adds a little message reminding people to sign their messages. Here is what it looks like when it is used:
(Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.)
— Yours, Bᴇʀʀᴇʟʏ • ^Talk∕_Contribs 15:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

(Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.)--Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Usedtobecool that is possibly the most ironically stupid mistake I have ever made... XD — Yours, Bᴇʀʀᴇʟʏ • ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Usedtobecool, Berrely sweet, that means I can deprecate {{User:Tenryuu/Sign}}. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 15:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I posted this on the template's talk page, but is there a way to get it to stay on the same indentation level? --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 16:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Super simple guide/tool for reverting vandalism?

Do you all get editors coming through here that often with something along the lines of "hey, I found some obvious vandalism, how do I get rid of it?" (I assume that this question comes up, so if you don't, it may be since editors with a question that basic don't make it here.) If so, is there a place you point them to? The best I could find was Wikipedia:Vandalism#For beginners, but even that goes into all the warning template levels, which is way too much for the use case I'm imagining (e.g. a casual reader who has never edited before and notices while browsing that someone has declared grass to be purple and wants to change it back to green again). Is there a better place to point them? My ideal would be a tool that allows them to click on the questionable part, searches through the last ~20 diffs to find the vandalism edit, asks them to confirm, then reverts and automatically posts to the vandal's talk page (or reports to AIV if a level 4 warning is already present). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, Twinkle is a Javascript that is available for autoconfirmed users, but I think I'd point them to WP:REVERT and mention the "Undo" link that can be seen when viewing diffs. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 07:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: yeah, I'm thinking something like the Twinkle functionality, only without having to install Twinkle. Not sure if that's possible. And as the hypothetical editor above, if I get pointed to WP:REVERT, I take one look at the giant wall of text, decide it's way too long to read, just go and make my way to the edit history myself, get confused since the user interface there isn't good, and decide it's not worth it to fix the vandalism. (At least I assume that's what happens.) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, I know what you mean. I usually just mention the salient point and leave the link as a reference. I full-heartedly admit I do not have the MOS on here memorised. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 07:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism.--Moxy 🍁 14:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

New editors on new articles

Practically every Teahouse question over the past few days has been about how a new editor can add a new article, usually of an autobiographical or promotional nature. Volunteers are spending a lot of time patiently writing helpful and detailed responses, and all credit to them, but I think it would be more efficient if (1) there was some way to better inform new editors of the pitfalls of attempting such articles before they even start and (2) such questions were met with a standard response, such as a referral to WP:YFA which will tell them everything they need to know. I know that (1) is usually attempted with a welcome message on the user's talk page, but this doesn't even mention writing a new article, and do new users even know they have a talk page? Perhaps it would be better to supply this information as part of the sign up process?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@Shantavira: I think creating video tutorials (See discussion above) that discusses why it is hard to create an article and what they can do if they want to do it anyway. These are my thoughts. Interstellarity (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, I have been helping out at the Teahouse for over a year. I noticed during my time at the Teahouse that we got a lot of questions about creating an article. Interstellarity (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps we can agree on creating a template for a standard response? Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 19:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Whilst it does no harm to offer a standard response, if you want to create one, surely the value of the Teahouse is that each person receives a helpful and friendly response from another real person, rather than a templated reply? Some hosts have created their own which they use. I also keep a few blocks of texts for complicated answers; it's about getting the balance right. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Fair point. Going back to Shantavira's proposal, perhaps we can give special attention to a "creating a new article" link, which suggests that they refrain from doing so until they are more accustomed to how Wikipedia works. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 19:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I recently added a "New here?" box at the top of WP:Your first article that tries to redirect new editors to the Task Center. Something like that could be the basis for a template to use here. Regarding Nick's point, I think the key to success would be writing the template well enough (and making it customizable where necessary) so that it doesn't read like it's a standardized message from a robot, but rather sounds conversational. I don't think we should feel bad about standardizing for situations where it's appropriate: editors who need personalized help can and will always be able to get it here, but for editors just asking a simple question, writing out a personalized response is a huge task and not the best use of our energy. Ideally, we'd have better-written help resources (working on that...) and always be able to just point them to the right one and they'd read it. But since some newcomers (sometimes since they're genuinely confused, sometimes with a degree of presumptuousness) want us to write out help here instead, we shouldn't feel guilty about having some templates on hand to assist. @Shantavira: regarding giving newcomers more information about writing articles, we've been reluctant to do that in places like the welcome message, since most newcomers don't immediately come here wanting to write one, and we don't want to plant the idea before they're ready. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The redirect box should be moved down....as of now it's the first thing editors see on mobile view. The intent of the opening paragraph is to educate....not to send them on a task they did not come here to learn about. Don't mind the click away from here box but it should not be the opening of the page/....--Moxy 🍁 13:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)...update moved box down....the page has some real problems ...wall of text before any info on the pages subject...Banner blindness problem...navbox bloating.--Moxy 🍁 14:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Suggestions for improving the Teahouse design

@ThatMontrealIP and Nick Moyes: Following up from your design-related comments in the renaming discussion above, I looked at the design guide, which was interesting, but I have to say that the actual page in its current state has drifted somewhat from those guidelines. Here are some suggestions for fixing it up beyond just removing {{Help pages header}}:

• The soothing olive green shade of the mockups was much better than the irritating yellow that somehow has made its way to the intro box since. Let's change it back to green.
• The tree image worked okay in the mockup since it was big enough, but it's too small here, so it looks more like a logo than a background element, and you can't tell exactly what it is.
• For the tabs of the teahouse, I don't think buttons are the appropriate way to display them, and certainly not stacked on top of each other. (I'm sure Moxy will agree. See, I'm not an intransigent button purist after all!)
• The "learn more about the teahouse" tab, which links to meta:Research:Teahouse, should not be a tab. Maybe link to the design research somewhere obscure on the page, but not that prominently.
• It's not clear that the image in the bottom right of the header is one photo of a host selected randomly from a gallery. This should be made more clear, and I think only hosts who have used an actual photo of themselves should be displayed in the rotation (no judgement at all against those who decided not to, but it's more reassuring to see an actual person than a teacup photo).
• The "Articles to improve" tab should link prominently to (or, better, just straight transclude) the Task Center, a much better tool for newcomers to find tasks than Suggestbot. The horizontal scrolling on the WikiProjects list also needs to be fixed if we're keeping that (but if we really want to keep that, better to just add it to the Task Center and transclude back here).

Some of these seem trickier than others, and it'd help to know if any are likely to be controversial and require discussion. If I don't hear concerns, I'll probably boldly implement the easier-to-make changes. Sdkb (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Same point I said about help desk intro 11 years ago. People have a very hard time finding our talk forums...when they get here the lead/opening/intro to the page should be very very simple (one sentence at the most ) with a link or action button (actually an appropriate place because it's actually an action) to start a new talk section. We should not be adding links to take them to other pages be it help pages or to do pages or to pages saying how great the teahouse volunteers are etc.. If editors after finally finding this place want to know more about the teahouse the talk page should have a banner about this. We have no need to link intros or tutorials because all are just one click away on the side bar on every page all the time. Exception is we should put in a template for just mobile view a note back to help contents (the way most find their way here ) and this talk page so they can learn more about the people here and other teahouse links.--Moxy 🍁 18:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I just went ahead and removed the help pages header. The look, and more importantly the clarity, is much improved.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@ThatMontrealIP: Thanks - much better, though I'd not even noticed it had appeared for, as well as still being very busy IRL right now, my most frequently used shortcut (WP:THF) takes me straight to the bottom of the Teahouse page. @Sdkb: Thanks for your observations, some of which I agree with; others I don't. Feel free to look back through our archives (of which there are not that many threads) to see some of the past discussions on what has already been changed here, and what we've agreed still needs to be done, and where there's a general consensus about what should not be done. One of those tasks on the 'to do' list is definitely to simplify and reorganise the target page for the 'Learn more about the Teahouse' button. Personally, I would quite like to introduce some of the original subtly themed colours - not only in the header, but maybe even a light background tone in the body of the page. I suspect others might not like the idea of making the page different in that way but, as always, what remains of greatest importance - and the thing that makes the Teahouse distinctive and which sets us apart from all other help fora, including the horrible IRC help channel - is that we ensure we retain our friendly and welcoming approach to all newcomers, assuming AGF at all times, unless clear evidence presents itself to the contrary. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• I think what we probably need here is an RFC, and if there are aesthetic (visual) choices to be made then they need to be expressed in images rather than test in the RFC.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

  @ThatMontrealIP: I'm not going to be the one to start an RfC, given WhatamIdoing's recent advice to me. I'm not sure I would have favored an RfC for this anyways, since we don't yet know which design changes we're asking for. I'm going to try looking through the archives as Nick suggested and see which things I can safely boldly change without overturning past consensus. I've already made some tweaks to the bottom area in the past few minutes. Sdkb (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

  Wait, looks like there are 19 archives here, and I'm not sure which ones I'd need to read, Nick Moyes. Please just feel free to revert me if anything I'm doing is stepping on prior consensus. Sdkb (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Just skim back over the three most recent years of discussion headings (it's not a difficult task to spot the ones relating to design and appearance.) That's when I began 'gently sticking my oar in, at least! Having pointed out that there are some past sensibilities here, I think it is incumbent on you to just do a little bit of back-reading. But you're right, you'll get reverted if you choose to be bold, and folk don't like it. Cheers Nick Moyes (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, found this about the about page, this about your "spring cleaning", and this about mobile. Sdkb (talk) 22:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Alright, here's your new header! How do you like it? Sdkb (talk) 01:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

AlanM1, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

Help Wikipedia

Welcome to the Teahouse!
A friendly place where you can ask questions and get help with using and editing Wikipedia

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

Help Wikipedia

@Sdkb: Well, I quite like its appearance, actually, so you have my conditional support. You've done a nice job with layout. But what was the rationale for the exact tone of green? It doesn't look to have matched the actual design colours in the Pilot Report, which is slightly more yellowish. That said, I'd also be happy to see a very faint background tone (like background-color:#f4f3f0) if others were agreeable - all to ensure that distinctive but friendly Teahouse appearance. (I've just temporarily popped in that background colour command at the top of this thread to show what I mean - perhaps you could tidy up the coding -not my forte- to avoid affecting future threads?)

All these changes would, of course, need input from other regular editors and hosts for a consensus for implementation. But there are two things I would not want to see...

...firstly, not only here, but also on the current Teahouse Header, I see you've lengthened the text and lost visibility in the 'skip to bottom' link. White text on a blue background (despite being a house design colour) just isn't visible enough, whereas the yellow highlighting really draws the eye to a really essential link. So, please go back to:  Read the newest questions: Skip to bottom It may not be house colour, but it darn well works to draw the eye, and functions well on a mobile!

...secondly, whilst I appreciate your rationale for reducing the 'About' link, in the longer term I do not think it should be placed on the same line as the 'skip to bottom' link as it will only serve to obscure it. In the longer term, we need an equally visible 'About' button within the Header, but I'd be OK with leaving it as is for now until we've properly rewritten a better 'About' page which is user-focussed, unlike this current one. At the very least, just reduce the linking text to 'About the Teahouse' please.  (I've removed the collapse commands as I missed seeing your new header demo, and went straight to the current one (doh!), where I found the other changes you'd already made there.) Pinging Jtmorgan for views. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. Sdkb my two cents (for what it's worth): I like this new layout a lot! I think in a lot of ways it's a clear improvement over the prior one. Couple things: First, it needs to be a responsive design! The previous header is nicely responsive: as you collapse the window, the elements re-arrange themselves in a sensible way. The proposed header gets really ugly really fast. Second, I'm not a huge fan of the mint green background either (though it's fine. I can see it being kind of soothing... kind of the color of green tea!). Finally, let's get rid of "Articles to improve" once and for all. Kill it with fire. That was an ancient proposed feature that never took off, and I can't imagine it's very helpful to newbies. The goal should be as few links in the header as possible, IMO. I differ from Moxy in that I think showcasing hosts is important and useful, but otherwise strongly agree that the header should focus on the core call to action--ask a question--with as few distractions as possible. Cheers, J-Mo 15:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the more I look at the green the more I like it. Needs to be a touch lighter tho. J-Mo 15:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes, Jtmorgan, and ThatMontrealIP: Thanks all! Nick, I'd be fine with a faint background color, although it'd be nice if it didn't cut off at the sides. The background-esque element that I actually most wanted to use was this soothing naturey photo from the mockup, but I wasn't able to find a spot for it. Any thoughts on that? For the tone of green, I started with the palette color, but it seemed a bit too yellowish, so I made it greener. I'd be fine with it being made lighter/otherwise tweaked; the main change is just that we need to go from yellow to green.

For skipping to the top/bottom, I made that change since that functionality is something helpers need more than helpees, and the design here should be for helpees. That said, I could see it being useful for a helpee trying to check up on the status of a prior question they asked. To help everyone out, I added {{Skip to top and bottom}} to the page, which produces arrows in the bottom right corner.

Regarding the "About" link, I have no objections to re-introducing it once an actual "About" page is written. I'm not sure how many people would read it, since the subhead at the top pretty much explains what the teahouse is in all the level of detail of a helpee would need to know, but it wouldn't harm to have more for the truly curious.

Regarding programming, that's definitely not my forte either haha. In particular, I had to play around for an embarrassingly long time to get the centering/layout to work (in the current version, the "welcome" header is very frustratingly not aligned with the "click here button", since the header appears to be bumped left/right by the image/shortcut box whereas the button is unaffected). I managed to fix it, but the display on mobile was crap, so I created a separate simplified template for there (which leaves out the shortcut box and host photos, neither of which are strictly necessary), and you'll notice that I switch between them with {{If mobile}}. It seems to be working fine at the mobile version sandbox page, but in this thread, they both appear and are both messed up on mobile (unless you click "read as wiki page", in which case they're fine again). So, all that's to say, could you all give feedback on how it looks on mobile, and perhaps if any of you are programmers tidy up my code a bit? Sdkb (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Anomalocaris:, who is extremely good on HTML and wiki markup. for reference the versions are: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Header/sandbox for desktop and Wikipedia:Teahouse/Header/sandbox2 for mobile. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Anomalocaris, apologies in advance, I'm sure the code is a mess since I don't have formal HTML knowledge. One question I have that's hard to tell without implementing: do the new button styles (which I borrowed from User:HostBot/Invitation) have a "depressed" state to show the tab you're currently on? It'd be nice to retain that element. Sdkb (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

ThatMontrealIP: The Wikipedia:Teahouse/Header/sandbox version looks fine, except that I strongly argue that the words "click here" should almost always be avoided. I would change "Click here to ask a question" to just "Ask a question". The draft at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Header/sandbox2 has the same "click here" issue, and also, for me, the gray border with rounded corners slices right through the line "Become a host". (I use Mozilla Firefox and Windows 10.)

Sdkb: None of the buttons on either sandbox page, or on User:HostBot/Invitation, have the up/down feature where the top and left are lighter and the bottom and right are darker when the button is "up" and these qualities are reversed when the the button is down (while the user is clicking). If you have lintHint installed, you can see that the lintHint button is a true depressable button. For Wikipedia:Teahouse, four of the five buttons on the left, all but "Learn more about the Teahouse" are gray on the activated page. For both sandboxes, the links go straight to existing Teahouse pages, so existing graying of the activated button on the activated page is remains as it was. —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: Good suggestion to remove "click here" — I did that, which then allowed me to make the button text bigger. I'm not sure what's causing the border issue for you on the mobile version. (That version more closely resembles what the current header is doing, whereas the desktop version has the center section positioned so that it's centered in absolute mode, and not inline, so that the images on the side don't interfere with the centering.) Is there any fix that should be made for that before we go ahead and implement? Also, re buttons, where would we go to add a "pressed" state to it? Sdkb (talk) 23:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb: With your change to "Ask a question", the line is now well below, and not through, "Become a host". Whatever the problem was, it is fixed now. I have looked only at the desktop versions, not the mobile versions. I haven't looked at the wiki source markup, and I don't know how one would implement "pressable" buttons, or even if this is a good idea. I was mentioning it only because you talked about a "depressed" state, and I wanted to point out that that what you call a "depressed" state is more of an "indicated" state than a "depressed" state. I wasn't trying to say that you want to achieve a real "depressed" state. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 02:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: To clarify the concern with the buttons, the current button style indicates through a darker background when it goes to the page you are currently on. This is helpful so that, for instance, users at the question forum aren't tempted to click the "question forum" button since they think it's a separate page. The coding that implements the feature appears to be here: Module:Clickable button 2. The code that I copied from the hostbot invite appears to use that same page, but doesn't include that feature. Could we fix that? Sdkb (talk) 04:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb: I don't understand why we keep discussing this. Wikipedia:Teahouse has a banner at the top with 4 buttons that go to sub-pages:

* Question forum

* Your hosts

* Articles to improve

* Experienced editor? Become a host!

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Header/sandbox2 instead of buttons has a list of 4 links:

* Question forum

* Meet your hosts

* Articles to improve

* Become a host

The four links from sandbox2 go the the same pages as the 4 corresponding buttons on the existing page. So the behavior of the buttons on those 4 pages is the same, because it's the same 4 pages. I don't understand why you say there's a missing feature. But even if I did understand, I probably wouldn't be able to help, because I don't have any understanding of modules and lua. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

• This is looking quite good. I took the div background off this post as it was not there for a clear reason... unless I missed something. The above header looks good, just needs some minor text formatting tweaks. Support.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@ThatMontrealIP: I think I tried to explained that I put it there to show how a very lightly toned background could add some additional, subtle distinctiveness against the darker green of the header - so it did have a purpose, even if my use of markup was rubbish - just a hasty copy/paste from elsewhere, I'm afraid. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Regarding appearance on mobile, viewing the non-mobile version (which you've transcluded above) on a mobile in desktop view is a complete disaster, as the buttons display right outside of the header box and overlap some of the subsequent key links. But that doesn't matter as your 'ifmobile' version at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Header/sandbox2 displays just fine. It's OK in desktop mode (which I always use) and in true mobile view on my tiny iPhone5S (iOS 12). Just expand the collapsed section below to view screenshots taken on my mobile. Likewise, this general approach is growing on me. Having just gone back to the live TH, I thought how sickly the header looked. So you're certainly on the right path here, in my opinion. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

screenshots of mobile version of Teahouse header mockup taken on a mobile phone (iPhone5s). No display issues found
Teahouse mobile header mockup in Desktop view Teahouse mobile header in mobile view 1 or 3 Teahouse mobile header mockup in mobile view 2 of 3 Teahouse mobile header mockup in mobile view 3 of 3

Changing the displayed tabs

Okay, separating this out since it's a distinct discussion. Above, we seem to have agreement that it's okay for now to move the "about" tab (which is actually a link to meta:Research:Teahouse) to the small bottom text for now.

We also have a suggestion from Jtmorgan to get rid of the "articles for improvement" tab; I'd be fine with that or with replacing it with a transclusion to the WP:Task Center (the nice thing about a transclusion is that it doesn't require any direct further upkeep, so it won't fall out of date). If we go the transclusion route, we should also probably have a "tutorial" tab which transcludes Help:Introduction, instead of having that link at the bottom of the header. I definitely support keeping the number of links in the header small, but so long as the "ask your question" button remains big and prominent in the center, I think we're okay having 4-5 buttons to secondary pages below. Sdkb (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I personally support the view of Jtmorgan about the rather archaic lists of 'Articles to Improve'. I've certainly never seen any of my fellow hosts ever recommending anyone follows that link. I'd rather see just one new link (Help:Introduction) replacing it as a button/tab - call it what you will- rather than a further button/tab linking to WP:Task Center as well. Whilst some people do come and ask what they can do to help, most come to the Teahouse to ask specific questions. So, I suggest not adding that for now, but let editors answering posts simply send the user there if that's the answer they seek. But there is an alternative way to provide less obtrusive links to other useful pages and, again, it's one I had in my mind to tidy up and suggest reintroducing, and that's the Teahouse footer. I assume it was originally aimed towards Hosts finding the myriad of long-historic subpages we have here, but it could either be repurposed to link to some key help pages/tutorials, or some pre-existing navigation template for help pages could be considered. But maybe leave that thought until after we've gained a consensus on everything else here! Nick Moyes (talk) 22:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I also thoroughly support your reintroduction of {{skip to top and bottom}}, which I find immensely useful, both when on a PC, tablet, or on my tiny mobile phone in desktop view. It never gets in the way, is really tiny on a mobile in desktop view, ok on a mobile in mobile view, yet makes moving up and down on any device so much easier. I admit that I introduced it some while back, though last year a single editor discussed removing it, and I was inactive at the time and not around to disagree, so they not unreasonably boldly removed it. I am pleased you also feel it is a worthwhile navigational aid on our hugely long page. Not everyone has access to a mouse or keyboard whilst editing.

Talking of long things, I'd like to think that our longest serving hosts are at least reading these discussions. I know they'll say that it's our approach, not our appearance, which is important but as their views and input are equally valued, I'm going to ping @Cullen328, John from Idegon, ColinFine, and DESiegel:, lest they want to comment. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I have objected above to changing the name of the Teahouse but I have no objection to simplifying and improving both the graphics and the introductory text. In particular, I support removing a link to "Articles to improve". Sadly, I do not have the time or the energy now to delve more deeply into the details, other than to express general support for the effort. Thanks for those who have the time, motivation and technical expertise. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Concur with removing "articles to improve", and with adding {{skip to top and bottom}}.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: A footer seems like it could be useful! My main concern would be that we'd need to construct it within the source code in a way so that new editors asking their questions don't accidentally remove it all the time. We'd also need to decide how to differentiate its function from the header — links primarily of interest to helpers rather than helpees could be one way to divide it. Design-wise, it'd be a good spot to make use of File:Teahouse background image.jpg. Overall, I'd say it's a good idea to have in mind to come back to once we've taken care of some of the lower-hanging fruit. Sdkb (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Adding a link to the FAQ page at the top of the page and the edit notice

I also notice that many of the questions we answer at the Teahouse could be answered by looking at the FAQ. I'm not saying this to discourage people from asking at the Teahouse, but I feel adding a link to the FAQ below the Teahouse header would point readers in the right direction. Please see my sandbox for what I am proposing. Interstellarity (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Anyone is welcome to edit my sandbox if you think something should be better about it. Interstellarity (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I like the thought, but the FAQ system needs a lot of work. Right now, I'm guessing the experience most new editors would have is that they'd click on the FAQ link, see that it's a massive scary directory with confusing overlaps (e.g. main FAQ vs. overview FAQ, and editing FAQ vs. contributing FAQ), and decide to just ask their question at the Teahouse. The Teahouse is already a self-selected group of people who weren't able to answer their question through the help system, so we'd want to make any links from the Teahouse back to the help system as easy to engage with as possible. Perhaps we could add a "search help pages" box (or "search FAQ box") similar to the one at the top of Help:Contents? Sdkb (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: I agree with you. I recently proposed an RM here to change the title of two pages in the FAQ system. If you want, you can create in your sandbox what you think a new FAQ system would look like. I'll look at your proposed changes to see if I like them. If I like them, I'll implement the changes. Any thoughts? Interstellarity (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I have the bandwidth to dig into that currently, sorry (I plan to focus mostly on the Task Center in the near future), but best of luck with your efforts! Sdkb (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Interstellarity, I WP:BOLDly tweaked the header. Let me know what you think. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 04:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: Looks good. Interstellarity (talk) 10:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I have implemented this change. Interstellarity (talk) 15:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I switched it to a help search box, which includes FAQ results. Is that alright? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: That's fine. Interstellarity (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

New header implemented

Okay, so I went ahead and implemented the new header! I'm not seeing any major bugs so far, although there are two small things:

• As described above, the new desktop button style doesn't have a "pressed" state that helps you see the page you are currently on.
• The desktop version images and shortcut box links don't seem to do anything when you click on them. They work fine on the template page, though, so I wonder if this is due to something about the way {{If mobile}} works.

Neither of these seems urgent in my view, but they also probably don't want to remain unaddressed long-term. For the first one, I asked for Lua help at VPT, so hopefully someone will come along. And of course, we can continue discussing the changes to the links, etc., just wanted to go forward with the more settled part. Sdkb (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, can we move the "Please sign your posts with ~~~~" into the header box just above the Ask a question button? Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 20:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: I'm a little reluctant to add any line of text beyond the welcome to the main part of the header — it won't take much before it starts to get cluttered up. If the notice in the bottom part of the header doesn't seem sufficient for instructing editors to add signatures, how about adding it to the edit notice for when editors are asking their question? (that notice could use some overall revamping) Or, even better, how about changing the "ask a question" button so that the link includes their signature preloaded for them? Sdkb (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, it'd be most ideal if clicking on the button leads to a new section with their signature already applied in the window; the reason why I suggested adding that in the main part of the header was that it's very unlikely for people who are looking for answers as soon as possible to read anything under the giant button that practically screams "click me!" Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 22:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: done. The preloaded text can be changed at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Preload; let me know if there are any issues. Hopefully this will be the death knell of Sinebot being the most active Teahouse host lol. Sdkb (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, looks good to me! Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 01:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, looks like the preloaded text got broken and isn't showing up when a new section is created. How do you fix it? Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 06:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I was being dumb: I clicked on the "new section" link and not the big button. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 06:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• looks awesome. Thank you for your efforts. One suggestion: The "ask a Queston" button is quite huge, I wonder if we could drop it a size or two? As it is blue and in the centre, it is very distinctive. Also, I too would be hesitant to add "remember to sign your posts" as this is not the first message we want to get across, and it is not a universal problem. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Nick Moyes: Re button size, I think it's appropriate for it to be big, since it's the thing 95% of the visitors to this page are going to want to click on. Would you be open to waiting a few days to see if it grows on you once you're used to it a little more the same way the color did? If not, no worries, the page to change it is here. Sdkb (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I Knocked it down a tiny bit to 1.9em from 2.25em. It is a fallacy of graphic design that soemthing needs to be bigger to be more visible; in this case the white on blue text draws the eye immediately. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: There's a bit of a problem. As stated above, I use an iPhone in desktop view. Unlike my screenshots above, the header at WP:TH fails to correctly display. The buttons fall outside the header now in desktop view on a mobile, and obscure the text line beneath the header. I've not looked at the markup, so did you deactivate the 'ifmobile' command? It does seem to work fine in true mobile view, though. (I am also not in favour of putting trivial commands like 'sign your posts' inside the coloured header). Nick Moyes (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I can see that happening — it looks like we may need to call Anomalocaris back or someone else who knows how to code HTML, so that they can fix up my code. The problem stems from the fact that, in order to keep the centered stuff centered and unaffected by the elements on the sides, I had to basically "detach" it so it'd ignore them. But this allows it to overlap with the side elements when the screen gets too small rather than pushing them out of the way as needed, and also allows it to overflow the boundaries of the box when there's no room for it. I didn't think that'd happen since I thought the side elements (which do expand the border to create room for themselves) would always scale equally to the center elements, but it seems you've found a circumstance where that's not the case. Sdkb (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• Instead of having a separate mobile header we should have one modern header that using CSS @media to change the look depending on the width of the screen. I've made a version of the header that uses @media at User:BrandonXLF/C. The header will also account for smaller screen using the desktop site and larger screens using the mobile site.– BrandonXLF (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

  Sdkb the links aren't working because the absolutely positioned centred element is on top of the links. To fix this you should set the other elements to position:relative and give them a larger z-index than the centered element. – BrandonXLF (talk) 01:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@BrandonXLF: I am also liking the css designed version! ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

here are three screen shots form my ancient 2011 Macbook pro, seen on Firefox at various widths. The next problem (which would probably be solved by responsive design as described by BrandonXLF) seems to be the floating host image at the right that slides under the other items. It also does not seem to collapse into a proper mobile view, but maybe that is triggered by user agent? Wed coders/designers needed I think.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

ThatMontrealIP, the mobile view is only shown when on en.m.wikipedia.org. – BrandonXLF (talk) 03:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@BrandonXLF: that's fantastic; thank you! I tweaked the line breaks a bit and the size of the main button to make it the 1.9em ThatMontrealIP set it at. It looks good to implement anytime, though. I'll miss the new button style, but unless anyone knows how to fix that, it seems more trouble than it's worth. Also, as a side note to everyone, if any of you have access to a higher-resolution version of File:WP teahouse logo.png, please put it on commons, since it's currently as large as it can get and still doesn't quite fill out its side of the box. - {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 10:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: it looks great! Huge improvement. Thanks for your efforts here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, @Sdkb: a lot better. Thank you for resolving this. That said, I do not want to see any more lines added to the header. We are well over our limit of what's appropriate, I feel. But I'm OK with seeing how things go. Please see also my post to your talk page over concerns over why large spaces have suddenly started appearing between questioners posts and their signatures. It seems to be caused by a new page you've recently created, which I hope you can sort out and perhaps also explain its purpose: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Preload. Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Resolving the display issues was mostly BrandonXLF, so give credit to them too! (And I love the blue text on the buttons!) Re the spaces, Nick, see the exchange with Tenryuu above. I tweaked the preloaded text template so there should be fewer line breaks, but having one is a tradeoff that I think will have to be made to fix the editors-not-signing-posts issue. If it's not worth it, just change the URL for the button so that it's no longer preloading anything. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Loos great like the dropping of host image..much more tidy.....should have the shortcut somewhere though.--Moxy 🍁 14:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

WMF Growth team projects

Hi Teahouse hosts -- I'm Marshall Miller; I'm the product manager with the WMF's Growth team, which is the team that works on features geared toward helping newcomers to get oriented on wiki, to start editing productively, and to keep coming back. Firstly, I want to thank all of you for nurturing newcomers. Our team was initially inspired by the Teahouse as we designed our features, and over the last two years, we've learned a lot about how mentorship can positively affect newcomers. We know it's hard work.

Screenshot of suggested edits module in Czech Wikipedia

Our team has been piloting features in smaller Wikipedias, and taking in community input from those wikis (and other community members participating on mediawiki.org). We've developed some features that we think can have positive impact (though our controlled experiments are still being analyzed). As we've gained confidence, we've started to expand these features to more Wikipedias. We hope that English Wikipedia takes these features on at some point, and so I'm posting here to this newcomer-friendly group because I began a project page here on English Wikipedia. This is not the only time I'll ask on this page for input -- just the first time, as we continue to develop and learn in the coming year. The project page talks about the interconnected features we've built so far:

• Newcomer tasks: a feed of task suggestions that help newcomers learn to edit.
• Newcomer homepage: a special page that hosts the "newcomer tasks", along with a "mentorship module" that facilitates asking questions.
• Help panel: a platform to provide resources to newcomers while they are editing, including a way to "ask the help desk".

I hope some of you can check out the page and write any initial reactions on the talk page. We'd like to start taking in your collective wisdom about newcomers, and we're wondering about whether and how you think these features might work (or not work) for English Wikipedia one day. I'll be back here from time to time with more specific questions as we keep moving forward. If you want to follow along with our work closely, you can check out our project pages here on mediawiki.org, watch our weekly updates here, and sign up for our newsletter here. You can also contact me directly, or our team's Community Relations Specialist, Trizek (WMF). Thank you! -- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 01:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for alerting us, MMiller (WMF). This looks a really exciting project to bring to en-wiki. It's highly relevant to us here at the Teahouse, especially as we often get asked (as we were just a few hours ago) for ideas of things a newcomer can do. I've started to work through the pages and will offer you what positive critical feedback I can. I'm sure a few other Teahouse hosts and other involved editors will want to, too. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing this, MMiller (WMF)! I'll share some thoughts on the talk page. There may be others interested in this at the Welcoming committee if you are inclined to cross-post there. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed questions, Sdkb! I've added my responses and follow-up questions. -- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@MMiller (WMF): Of course! Just replied. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

"Edit source" not showing up in a major portion of the Teahouse

For some reason "edit source" isn't showing up on any of the headers in between the headings "Conflict of interest? Super confused" to the Lovinpenguin question titled "wikipedia" for me. Anyone else experiencing this? I went through the source code but I'm not sure where the problem is. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the same thing – I think this edit fixed it (though I'm not sure why :-) ). --bonadea contributions talk 20:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Why are the archives so long?

I enjoy reading the archives, but lately in order to read one, I have to spend several hours now. And it's hard to stop in the middle and know where I left off.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Mgasparin increased the archive size from 70K to 150K 3 October 2019 [4], then to 200K 8 October 2019 [5], to 300K 15 January 2020 [6], and to 400K 6 March 2020.[7] All changes were without edit summary, and without mention anywhere as far as I can see. Three of them were marked minor edits. I suggest 200K and a source comment to not change the size without discussion on the talk page. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I support having fewer, larger archive pages. I would just observe that quite a few people come back to the Teahouse after a few days, only to be told that their missing thread has been archived. Anyone looking back for a question they posted recently will find it simpler and easier to browse through one or two long lists of recent discussions, than looking through many more pages, each containing far few discussions. Compare Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 900 and Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1000 covering c.35 threads and around 24 hours, against the larger and more useful Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1050 or Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1055 covering c.150-200 threads made over just 7 days. Unless we want to force every newcomer who can't find their recent post to wade through lots and lots of tiny archive pages, I think the expansion (albeit undiscussed) is actually for the better, and would have supported it had it been raised beforehand. Because we have a rather unhelpful numerical archive naming system, rather than a date-relevant one (as on WP:HD), I think this is an improvement that actually helps new editors. It is unfortunate that those like Vchimpanzee who like to browse through the archives for general interest (great to hear that, though!) might feel overwhelmed but, for any new editor looking to actually find a reply to a thread they knew they made sometime in the last week or two, the large archive size we have now must really help them a lot, in my view. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)    

If you go back to when I had slow Internet, I had to stop going to the Teahouse before it was archived because it was too large to load. I think anyone looking for their question once it is archived will be in for an unpleasant surprise if they have a hard time loading such a large page.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Something has occurred to me. Is the Teahouse larger or smaller than the archive? The person asking the question might still run into the same problem, even before archiving, that I did just before I got faster Internet.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The archived thread is exactly linked in the bot message informing the editor of the archival. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

While I know this, the computer has to load the entire archive and I used to have a problem with that. I know the entire Teahouse would load before I started having problems, although that may have been when I was just reading and not going back and forth to do other stuff. Maybe it won't be a problem on the first try and maybe it will.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)