Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Archive 3

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 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Adopt-a-user

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Adopt-a-user#Apply for adoption?. If the Adopt-a-user project is defunct or unwilling to adopt new users, perhaps active members of the Teahouse can take over monitoring Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user. I have been contacted by a new user, Selene Scott (talk · contribs), who has made a series of very useful contributions and would like very much to be part of the community, but she has requested guidance and support. If someone from the Teahouse could contact her, that would be great. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 22:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Note, I just left Selena a teahouse invite. Viriditas (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey there Viriditas. Thanks for the suggestion! If individual Teahouse hosts want to adopt users, I think that they definitely should. However, in general the Teahouse is set up to offer peer support in a many-to-many setting rather than one-on-one mentorship. That's why our main space is a Q&A board where questioners can benefit from multiple perspectives on their question and anyone can join in on discussions and offer guidance, even other new editors. That said, please don't hesitate to send Selena and any other new editors you encounter our way! I look forward to making their acquaintance. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 22:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC

Wikipedia:New contributors' help page/questions

Why does that page still exist. Between Teahouse and the help desk there isn't any added use for Wikipedia:New contributors' help page/questions. It just causes redundancy and confusion. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, the Teahouse is technically still a pilot, so we don't want to get rid of standing WP pages prematurely. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

We also don't have control over any other help pages or places, I think that's a topic for the community :) heather walls (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

There's also the Editor assistance board, the main help desk, a couple specific help desks (like the AfC board) and a few off-wiki locations as well. Pet peeve of mine, since I think the spreading out lessons the depth of help each board offers, but I doubt anything will happen for various reasons. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 00:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Link placement

Perhaps Teahouse links should be placed in many of the various welcome messages. {{W-graphical}} could certainly use it {{Welcome cookie}} doesn't currently contain a lot of links, but it certainly seems appropriate to include a Teahouse link with a plate of cookies. I also think it is almost necessary for a Teahouse link to exist on Wikipedia:New contributors' help page. In addition {{Noticeboard links}} should contain a teahouse link under User issues. Finally, I believe we should work with Twinkle to add an invite to Teahouse button and possibly prompt a user to see if they want to add a teahouse invitation when they add a welcome template. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking, welcome templates could do with a link to the Help desk (many arguments against inserting links to the Teahouse don't apply to the HD). Also, i think the Help desk could do with a talkback template, but that's another story…

Fun fact ~ check out the HD in 2004: an "experimental" help forum for newcomers that aren't familiar with the Village pump (which at the time was organized like HD is now: a [very large] bottom-posting page). How long until a new forum is set up to replace the Teahouse? benzband (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

If a new forum replaces the Teahouse, they better have cake. And beer. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 06:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

This do? ↓ benzband (talk) 09:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

On a side note, the help desk does have a talkback message now. It was created the other day. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

This discussion (two or three sections) might be relevant. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 13:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Oy... - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 06:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Can not post question

It seems I can not post question in Teahouse. Clicked on "Ask a question">> wrote question with signature>> click on "Ask my question.. everything disappeared.. and I found my question is not posted. --Tito Dutta ^Message 18:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you add more details of your experience (browser, etc). It works fine for me. heather walls (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Firefox 11.0 Ubuntu 11.10, in (Wikipedia) preference I have ""Ask a question" feature for the Wikimedia Foundation's "Teahouse" project" enabled. --Tito Dutta ^Message 18:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Ask you question just as you are describing the problem, and someone will probably answer you, here. The interface may have a bug, IDK, or maybe an edit conflict, but I'll have a gander and perhaps invite a colleague to look as well. Cheers My76Strat (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought that was a more current comment but stand on it. I came here today to say I had noticed where another new user was invited for tea, and I immediately regarded this as a very thoughtful and worthwhile project. My76Strat (talk) 23:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Another opportunity to help

Wikipedia:Editor review I see that some of these review requests are months old. I simply don't feel confident to perform a review myself, but for those of you who do, please stop by and give feedback there. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse button and other preferences are down

...including Twinkle, etc. Not sure what it is going on, but, keep your eyes peeled for questions at the bottom. I'm assuming it's not just me who is having the same issue!? Sarah (talk) 18:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

No, your not alone there ;) benzband (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the 'gadgets' tab no longer appears in the preferences pane... wonder if it was intentionally taken offline for some tweaks? - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 18:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

They are back! Huzzah! Sarah (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Invalid link for answers to Recent questions

Hello, when I visit the main page of teahouse i.e. WP:Teahouse there is an option to see "Recent questions" below "Ask a question right now »". And I see the question is 18 days old, and no direct link to the answer. When I click on the option "Find the answer here »", it takes me to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Using_the_same_source instead of Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_15#Using_the_same_source. So my point is when it shows an old question, the answer should be right below the question or it should takes the user to the correct link. New users can not access through archives to find the answer !! Any solution ? -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 14:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Good point. There are robots that update archive links, but I'm not sure we should be sending new users off to archives. Maybe instead the archiving and question choosing strategies can be examined. Rich Farmbrough, 22:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC).

I left a note at Hostbot's maintainter's page. Rich Farmbrough, 22:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC).

And manually changed that one. Rich Farmbrough, 23:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC).

Thanks Rich! Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Overly quick responses

In Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Wiki Stalker, a new editor asked for help on "someone who has been following me around and trying to give me a hard time about edits that I have made".

Two people immediately directed him to ANI! This was despite the fact that the new editor had been blocked for edit warring with the other editor to add unsourced content, and had also called him a "loser". Directing the new editor to ANI under these circumstances would've guaranteed him a gaggle of ANI-regulars muttering merrily about boomerangs, and other similarly unwelcome developments. This is absolutely not the way to encourage new editors.

The question has now been answered more thoroughly by Worm, but this is just a reminder, for future queries, to look at the substance of the issue first, before firing off advice based on an assumption that the new editor is posting the whole story. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Good advice. Please feel free to assist with your expertise in tricky situations, it is very welcome. On the other hand, the hosts are doing their best, there is no need to come yell at them for not answering in the way you would have. Respect and courtesy belong in the back of the Teahouse as well as the front. heather walls (talk) 05:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see this as yelling. It is important informing, I actually had a discussion with one of the editors about that question on IRC. I do think it was an overly quick response. While it is important to assume good faith, especially here at the teahouse, in a situation like this, more checking should have been done. Ryan Vesey Review me! 06:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ryan. I could perhaps have worded the last sentence of my post a little better. I should also point out that the frequent overly-aggressive or overly-negative response at ANI is the fault of the attitudes at ANI, not the fault of the approach of anyone here. But until the overall response to inexperienced editors at ANI is more thoughtful, it's one of the last places to direct them for dispute resolution. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Expect an uptick

Seeing as most new users seem to head to the help desk (I guess because more links to it are already spread around), I added a rather prominent notice to its header directing new users here. If it works, there should be a significant rise in activity here. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:43, 11 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Woot! Thanks, Equazcion! We love us some free advertising. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 23:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Reverse the page order

I'm not sure where the idea came along to make new posts appear at the top but it certainly confounds the expectations of old editors like me. It may be that this is thought to be more user friendly for some reason, but even if that's true, varying what is done everywhere else, will start new users with a misimpression of the way conversations are carried out everywhere else on Wikipedia, which they may and very likely will then carry with them to all those other pages, including talk pages of other users and their own talk pages, where new posts at the bottom is the norm and the default placement by the software.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

*sigh* This has been a point of contention for a loooong time (in Teahouse terms, at least). The short answer seems to be: top-down posting is a lot more newbie friendly, and we haven't seen anyone carry top-down posting to other pages yet. Personally, I'm not sold on those arguments, and there are some technical issues with top-down posting, but I don't think it matters enough to make yet another stink about it. But if you want to, be my guest, I suppose. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

^{(Edit Conflict - delays response)} Hi there Fuhghettaboutit - I have been reading the reports and analysing quite carefully. It is taking quite some time. I do check references and claims carefully. I have also been digging into the history and looking at where Teahouse Visitors/Editors have gone and what they have done - both before and after interaction with the Teahouse. I can't find the evidence that shows your concern is valid.

Can you point to instances where editors have been getting matters wrong because of the practice, here at the Teahouse? I'm used to dealing with change, even at a cultural or institutional level, so I do grasp the concerns that I have seen raised many times - But I can't find the evidence that shows the concerns to be valid.

Don't forget that when Hosts leave notices for Teahouse users full Wiki practices are followed, and notices go to the bottom of a talk page. Teahouse users when communicating outside of the Teahouse follow the that practice too. So if you can point to incidence when wiki best practice have not been followed, after newbie ( and even oldie ) editors have interacted with the Teahouse, It will help me in looking for patterns that may be statistically significant.

But at the moment I'm finding it very hard to find the patterns or incidence to support the concerns expressed. One of the most interesting patterns I have observed, is editors coming to the Teahouse (newbie and oldie) and placing their question at the bottom of the list of questions - and then it has been moved to the top - even by new editors visiting the Teahouse and detecting the issue. It is interesting to see newbies taking responsibility for helping other newbies (and the oldies), and no one minds, makes comment or sees such an error (from following wiki practices outside of the Teahouse) as an issue. Cheers.
Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 13:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Media-hound your post is thoughtful and I am a person who loves it when someone says show me the evidence. I would go look but following your nasty attack on another user for good faith edits, apparent willful failure to understand you were in the wrong when what happened was explained to you, your shouting demands that you receive an apology and your rambling diatribe against me when I rightly told you were acting improperly and should apologize, I have no desire to interact with you further. You have no obligation but I would appreciate it if you would not respond to my posts not directed at you in the future. I will certainly reciprocate.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit, whatever personal acrimony you may feel towards Mediahound or anyone else, for whatever reason, please avoid personal remarks against other editors in this forum. Mediahound's reply to this thread was thoughtful and made in good faith. If you don't wish to interact with Teahouse participants, you may find it a more effective strategy to avoid the Teahouse talk page yourself rather than telling others to do so. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 23:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I've said my piece J-Mo. This is a one-off. The next time I will simply be mute.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

For Clarity Fuhghettaboutit - As I have made clear, I have actually been looking at editor history across interactions with the Teahouse to see if there is any discernible pattern to the concerns "You" keep raising. I have to report I have not been able to find them - and I do fear that your further comments are more Ad hominem than dealing with evidence you, and some other editors, simply don't like. It's odd, that you should welcome such research and then dismiss it because you don't like the person doing it.

It is odd that you claim to welcome evidence - but dislike evidence if it comes from certain people. That does not agree with WP:V or WP:NPOV.

You seem to assume that I even recognised you from past interactions In Wiki Land. I'm have to "disabuse" you of that view - You made little impression on me - I saw no connection until you raised it.

I have to say that your concerns over my supposed WP:WILLFUL conduct are interesting - and they do come under WP:IRONY.

Wilful is defined as "unreasonably stubborn or headstrong; self-willed." Your use of WP:WILLFUL implies that you have power over others and that your power has to be accepted at all times - anyone who does not agree with you and act as you require is WP:WILFUL. It also implies that no matter what you say it has to be accepted even when it is wrong. People who do not accept your views are WP:WILLFUL? I'm not sure how WP:WILFUL fits into Wiki Land, and if it even has a place at all.

It's again quite odd as the way you have used Wilful can't be readily reconciled with [[WP:V] or WP.NPOV it seems more about Hold grudges.

You state that you like proof, so here are some Diffs. I welcome the proof that other editors have not agreed with your views, and not agreed to support a particular editor misusing Rfc. Diff 1 - Diff 2.

That editor was misusing Rfc's to WP:CANVASS and then also moved content across pages in support of their WP:CANVASS to drive people to a none Rfc discussion. Moving content in that manner is recognised as vandalism - but you have disagreed with that too. (Do note that when an Rfc template is removed from a page, it is also removed Wiki wide and from archives too - would hate people to be mislead because that is not immediately apparent.)

So - I WP:WILFULLY ignored your opinions and views that this editors conduct was correct and beyond reproach - and I should apologise for questioning their conduct and asking them to stop vandalising?

Hmmm - I note that other editors also WP:WILFULLY ignored your views too - so I take it that you have notified these other WP:WILFUL editors of how they are wrong and should be accepting your views without question?

If a person wishes to draw people to a dialogue the correct wiki markup is "{{Please see}}", as I found out by having to research - rather than following the opinions you have expressed and which I then so WP:WILFULLY ignored. Misusing Rfc in the way that a certain editor did, to WP:CANVASS and WP:POV Push was wrong - and there is even consensus on that.

WP:WILFULLY misusing Rfc to WP:CANVASS is in fact it is specifically warned against.

I also note how one editor kept changing page content to cover their tracks - and was even stating under the misused Rfc's "I need your opinions". They seemed to object when I asked why they were using the personal pronoun "I" rather than "Wikipedia needs? using the I need does imply some form of WP:OWNERSHIP - and I do believe that it's seen as not the done thing as no single person own anything in Wikipedia. WP:POV Pushing can be so disruptive.

I have to wonder why you see me as WP:WILFUL for not accepting your wrong opinion and even pointing out where you were wrong?

It's odd how I had to ask repeatedly where was the correct place to have WP:WILFUL misuse of Rfc addressed - and you kept not answering the question. Was that you being WP:WILFUL by any chance?

It would appear that there is an issue of WP:HIERARCHY where some editors may not have their conduct and misuse of Wikipedia questioned - and also if an editor has been a member of Wikipedia for longer than another that in some way means they are to be given power and authority. I received some wonderful advice on that matter - it is Wikipedia:You_don't_own_Wikipedia and also Wikipedia:Wikipedia_does_not_need_you.

I also received another piece of wonderful advice - If you see and recognise and issue don't assume that other editors ( No matter who they are ) are more qualified than you - and don't defer to their opinion - views - ideas or demands. Act on the issue and let the other editors get it wrong afterwards. Wiki moves forward by correct action - and not by bad advice and opinion that needs to be corrected and slows the whole world down.

So kindly stop WP:WILFULLY misrepresenting matters and people, and do things the Wikipedia way!

That's check the facts - WP:V - WP:NPOV and something or other about a Quintet of Vertical Columns.

Here at the Teahouse we WP:WILFULLY do things in a more editor focused manner to promote editor retention and even address the long-standing issue of Systemic Bias. I'm proud to be linked to such a WP:WILFUL group who think Wiki Land can be so much better for all editors, and make Wiki Land and also Wiki Content better. We just do it in a less dogmatic and technocratic manner than others.

So - having addressed the matter for the last time - I'm busy and have better things to do than discuss your misuse of the term WP:WILFUL. If you do feel it needs to be addressed further, it may be better addressed else where!

WP:WILFULLY Yours - Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if we need a Barnstar - for Wilful Wikipedians? But I do wonder if some would get the Irony of an inverted compliment?

Hi guys. When you go to edit this page you'll see a header that states: "The purpose of this page is to discuss Wikipedia:Teahouse." This thread has heavily detracted from that so I'd ask that any conversation not related to the Teahouse be moved to your talk pages or else where if needed. Thank you! Also, Fug, we've talked extensively about the top posting and an extensive decision was made to keep it at this time. You can read about that discussion here, and here. (warning it's painful and long!) Sarah (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it was a well-supported decision. I would say it was (and still is) a highly contentious issue, but some of us backed down because we had more important things to worry about, and not because we still don't think its a phenomenally bad thing. --Jayron32 16:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Sarah - I agree with you. It may be time for some to Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.

I had to learn about sticks and horses recently as where I come from we use the Phrase "Flogging A Dead Donkey" - Funny aint it how you keep finding those red links when idioms from different parts of the world are used - even when it's a supposed common language. Systemic Bias is so insidious - and so many simply have no grasp of their part in it. None so blind as will not see.

I have received a number of pointed comments and decided to let them lie - but getting such comments privately by e-mail is not the same as them being made across wiki pages.

I do grasp how some are wary of the Teahouse and how it works. I have welcomed the Teahouse progress reports that show the positive impacts the Teahouse has uncovered, and I also welcome that the reports are not complacent - they are self critical - and no laurels are being sat or rested upon. (Not sure if that idiom works else where - and it seems it's not been counted as WP:NOTE)

I have taken the concerns of others over the Teahouse Top Down format and been looking carefully for evidence concerning that matter. I saw a comment from one of the Teahouse peeps (can't remember who it was - maybe Heather) that they were convinced there was no problem but lacked the skills or knowledge to prove it. That was interesting as I have some 30 years of experience in forensic analysis of data and interface usage. In fact - looking at the remit set out for the interface and then looking at the design reality - it is one of the best interfaces I have ever seen - it does exactly what is says on the tin.

It is for me fascinating that the only place such issues have arisen is in the Teahouse itself - when experienced editors have arrived and asked questions. Why they chose to come to the Teahouse seeking answers is an interesting matter in itself. I have taken the lack of evidence in support of some peoples concerns as clear evidence of WP:IAR. There have been technical issues with code and implementation - but when you look and analyse the feared issues are Simply Not There! They don't occur!

In fact, that rule breaking has a clear touch of genius about it, as well as courage to show that for some different ways are better ways to make Wiki better. I fear that some do not grasp that the Teahouse is about empowering editors to produce content and not about changing how wiki content is formatted - delivered - looks on the page. In fact no matter how often the reality is pointed out some will just do an Orwellian Animal Farm mantra of "Wiki Good, Teahouse Bad".

I have even wondered if there would be so much objection to the Teahouse interface if the remit of Teahouse was to attract and retain editors with Disabilities - one group that simply is missing in the Wiki Land Demographic - Systemic Bias. Of course no one would object to such a project - it would be seen to be so antisocial and wrong. But it's seen as fine - dandy and acceptable to just say different is wrong when different has no face and no stereotype to be patronised. I have run the Teahouse interface past quite a few peeps I now who have varying levels of disability. They got it instantly - and yet could not get on - in - over - though - along with the existing face of Wikipedia.

Some seem to have a very narrow view that Wikipedia is all about the processes they have learned and even become habituated to, and they simply fail to see the bigger picture that such processes are just a means to an end of making high quality Wiki content. I have seen this so many times over the years - change an interface and people claim it does not work, even when it is working but their past habituation blinds them - give them an upgraded OS and they become apoplectic. Change is hard for some people, and they will resist in any way they can. Even in totally irrational ways. Visual and motor habituation to interfaces is a known issue. There are two issues there. 1) The Teahouse interface is not designed for such people. 2) if people are finding themselves disorientated by the change of interface it indicates that need to take a very long break and recover from such level of habituation. It has been interesting to see some employers shifting the introduction of new interfaces to work with employee holidays. Employee takes 2 weeks holiday - returns to work and enters training on new interface - Employees experience less disorientation, retain the new training better - productivity is not affected.

The Teahouse has very cleverly branded itself within Wikipedia, and give itself a strong visual brand identity. People who visit see both the communality and the difference - a hard trick to pull off and get it right! Editors arrive - note that things work different in The Teahouse - interface with the Teahouse - and leave - they also leave the cup and saucer behind when they go to wander the corridors of Wiki Land. There is no evidence of abandoned teacups littering wiki pages - or smashed saucers littering.

There will always be those who have become so habituated to their own way of working and thinking they will simply not be able to transit through and change or growth. Such low grade resistance is to be expected, but is not important.

This repeated returning to none issues over the Teahouse is a known pattern - and the sooner The Teahouse is able to be grown and made more accessible to more editors and known across all of Wikipedia the better.

C'est la vie.

Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay... as Sarah said, let's keep this Teahouse-related? Media and Fug: you both have perfectly good talk pages of your own :) On to the top-posting issue: those of you who still doubt the merits of top-posting should know that I've been commissioned to conduct some usability tests to answer the question: is a top-posting Q&A board easier to understand and less confusing for very new editors? These tests will happen this summer, and I will post the results here on Teahouse for discussion. Cheers, - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 16:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Nauseous, you bet, but I will not feed you more. The end.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

WP:MAN

If anyone is interested, please see WP:VPP#The newcomers manual. Simply south...... always punctual, no matter how late for just 6 years 20:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I keep wondering about the plethora of help pages and help initiatives. For me the biggest issue is that Wiki needs a WYSWYG editor that allows editors to use existing and none wiki skills to create content. ... and for wiki markup to vanish into the background. That will also fundamentally alter all help content and need a full new help system to be developed which addresses content in a totally different paradigm.

I've been looking at the WYSWYG editor in development http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:VisualEditorSandbox - and it has some way to go. Even so - if it's implemented in it's present format, there would still be a massive re-write of help pages required to just deal with the changes it introduces. Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget - we're the Teahouse!

Here is your gentle reminder - we're the Teahouse - a different type of help space. We say hi when new editors visit (Hi Sarah, welcome to the Teahouse!) and we don't link to lots of jargon. Be friendly, be warm. Feel free to review the host tips page. Thanks everyone! Sarah (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

New Teahouse page

I noticed that the reports mentioned that editors didn't know where to edit. Perhaps we could make a page where hosts and guests can list projects that they would like assistance with/collaboration on. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Something like this is in the words for phase two. We'll be releasing our phase two plan soon - cause we'll need your help =) Sarah (talk) 23:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll make sure we're well informed :) Thanks for all you do Sarah! Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse enters phase two!

Hi everyone! We wanted to let you know that the Teahouse has now entered phase two! Phase two will allow the project to evolve into a more sustainable project and will require community participation to make that happen. We're currently working on the invitation process right now. I encourage you to take a look at the phase two page on meta and we look forward to continuing to build and grow a wonderful Teahouse with your help and support! Sarah (talk) 05:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Echoing Sarah, please sign up in the phase 2 plan for things you want to work on (or, are already working on!). I am looking forward to this next phase being more collaborative than ever. Sbouterse (WMF) (talk) 22:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Format

From Wikipedia:Questions: "The Teahouse is a friendly space for new editors to ask questions & get to know one another."

"And get to know each other"? This area is really not laid out to facilitate that. It would be quite useful though, and help to differentiate this page from the help desk. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:28, 11 Jun 2012 (UTC)

That could be fixed with a Wikipedia:Teahouse/General chat area; however, it would raise concerns of "Wikipedia is not a social network". Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking more along the lines of new editors helping each other. The teahouse is laid out to be a Q&A with experienced editors right now, but I envision a forum for new users to also make connections with each other, plus occasional assistance from experienced editors when they see the opportunity. The separate subpage seems like a good idea. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:38, 11 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I've been wondering how we can encourage more of this too! Separating out a space for peer interaction in the Teahouse of some sort seems like a good idea. Another thing that can be done is just make it easier to reply to things in the Q&A thread. In surveys we've seen that about 25% of new editors didn't know they could reply to questions as well as ask them, and some of this could be because of the limitations of the board itself - Teahouse has a nice easy gadget to ask, but then a tiny little edit button to reply. Sbouterse (WMF) (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The "ask a question" feature is actually provided by a javascript gadget that all users have enabled by default. Adding something to that script for a more prominent and descriptive edit link wouldn't be a big deal. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:18, 22 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Late reply, since you've already scripted up a great 'response' gadget: the code itself is easy, but getting changes to global gadgets implemented is harder; I'm going to ask around and see if we can get a li'l help on that though. Thanks again for doing the legwork. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 20:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Since I decided to go for a "response" gadget instead of a mere "change the edit link cosmetics" gadget, it was actually a bit involved. However, as far as implementing globally, it's not really that hard, as long as the right people are behind it. You can see the discussion that was involved in implementing the "ask" gadget globally here. It looks like there was a bit more going on, where techie-types gave the code a lookover for approval. Otherwise there's not much involved technically, just a tweak to a MediaWiki interface page that lists scripts to use as gadgets. Any admin can do it. Equazcion ^(talk) 09:04, 30 Jun 2012 (UTC)

ah, disregard my response in the thread below. You obviously know the drill already :) - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 00:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

No don't worry, your response was actually fine, it would be pretty helpful to get the code reviewed before seeking to have it gadgetized. Having Werdna's approval (+possible tweaks) would put weight behind such a request. I'd like to try and get the indent thing working though; I think I may "have a bite" on it, so to speak. I'll report back. Thanks! Equazcion ^(talk) 01:48, 1 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Response gadget

Sparked by a comment from User:Sbouterse (WMF) above, about how the Teahouse has a pretty gadget for asking questions but none to respond, I whipped something up for that purpose.

Of course this isn't an actual gadget yet, so to try it out you'll have to place the following line in your skin's .js page or your common.js page: importScript('User:Equazcion/TeahouseRespond.js');

I used code from the "ask a question" gadget as a base, both because it made things easier and so that things would look fairly uniform. Test it out and let me know your thoughts. Equazcion ^(talk) 12:05, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

PS. On my wishlist is automatically adding an indent for the response that's one more than the last indent, but my regex expertise leaves much to be desired (there are also other issues with adding that functionality). If anyone wants to help with that let me know. Right now responses are not indented at all. Equazcion ^(talk) 12:15, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Looks good and easy to use, and matches the general feel of the Teahouse. I haven't yet tested it with an actual response, though. I did have one question, but you've just answered it with your "PS". It would be good if someone had a suggestion for that. Moswento ^talky 12:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look later today, if nobody else has gotten around to it by then. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how complicated it would be, but is it possible to allow you to choose a person to respond to rather than indenting one more than the last? For example, in this edit I am responding to you, but the gadget would have made me respond to Writ Keeper. Ryan Vesey Review me! 12:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I considered doing something like that. Yeah, that would be significantly more complicated. But also, if we did that, there would need to be a respond button for every comment, which likely wouldn't be as simple to look at or use, and I envisioned it crowding the page. With how simple things need to be kept here, my view is that it's not essential for those who would be using this feature (non-technical new users) to be able to do more than add a comment to the end of the section. Equazcion ^(talk) 13:01, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Nice work, Equazcion. Just tested it out; works like a charm. Thanks for doing this. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 19:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

WOW!!!! This is so awesome, thank you for kindling this spark into a warm blaze! I really like the clear call to action and how smoothly it works. Agree, the only odd spot for me is lack of indentation, but I bet someone can solve this. As J-Mo says in a previous section, we should look into how this gadget could be default enabled as Werdna's is for asking questions. I'd be really excited to see if this encourages more new editors to reply to questions :-) Sbouterse (WMF) (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

+1 million. Fantastic job! Thanks so much!! heather walls (talk) 22:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI: I've been looking into the indentation question, and, due to the way Wikipedia renders it, it looks non-trivial (i.e. annoying). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Bummer. Even if we just went with the first level indentation for all replies (ie, all replies are flat, just one in from the original question)? Sbouterse (WMF) (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, no, that's easy as pie. Just add a colon to the front of the text before we submit it. What I'm trying to do right now is detect the maximum level of indentation in the question and then build a thing that lets you choose what level. It's proving to be about as frustrating as I anticipated, but hopefully I'll get a demo out soon. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate all the kudos :)

Regarding the indents: As Writ Keeper says, adding one colon to all responses would be very easy -- it furthermore might actually make some sense, since any response will always need to be indented at least once. I wish there were some practical way to make the indents smarter. One of the bars to that is, the MediaWiki API apparently doesn't allow retrieval of a single section (at least as far as my tests and read of the documentation suggest), even though it does let you "blindly" append text to the beginning or end of a particular section. Which is indeed a bummer. It still could be possible with some creative regex applied to a retrieval of the entire page, which I may toy with. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:50, 29 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Probably, but you'd have to do a DB request for the raw text of the entire page, which just seems like way too much overkill. <colorful metaphor involving nuclear bombs and flyswatters> I've been trying to do it though JQuery manipulation of the HTML, finding the various depths of the text nodes, but it's slow going. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The full text is actually retrieved every time by the "Ask a question" gadget, in order to force new entries to the top of the page -- and my response script still has that code left over, so the whole page is also being retrieved when using it to leave a response; so as you can see it's not as big a deal as one might think, in terms of performance issues (I had the same apprehension at first until I realized what the "ask" gadget was doing each time). PS. I'm going to add the single colon to each response for now. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:21, 30 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I just realized you said "raw", I'd be interested to hear why you think that would make this easier. (PS. Should we move this discussion to one of our talk pages rather than bother people here with a jargony techie discussion?) Equazcion ^(talk) 00:31, 30 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Personally I vote for you talking about it here for the record of the Teahouse, and it is interesting. Bring on the tech! :D heather walls (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

moved this continuation from User talk:Equazcion, based on the request above - Equazcion ^(talk) 17:41, 30 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I said "raw" meaning the raw wikicode, not like unformatted text or anything. The idea being that you would have a regex for the colons, but obviously the colons aren't on the page as displayed. Do you know of a way of getting around that and/or am I missing something? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah I see what you mean now. The colons would actually be present in the code as retrieved through the ordinary API method. The "ask" gadget actually relies on the "==" being there, for finding the first level-2 header. If we were retrieving the page through an ordinary HTML request (as opposed to using the API), then the colons would be missing (some <dd> and <dl> tags would be in their place, I believe), as we'd be getting the HTML markup code instead of the wikitext. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:21, 30 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to clarify a little further: When you make jQueries, you are indeed having it work on HTML output, which doesn't include the colons. The regex, on the other hand, would have to be done within the Ajax function, just after the API hands us the wikitext:

'ok' : function(result) {
       result = result.query;
       var page = result.pages[result.pageids[0]];
            var pageText = page.revisions[0]['*'];
            [pageText regex stuff here]
       api.post(
       ...

The stuff indented in italics would be the added code to make this happen, with pageText being the new variable where the complete retrieved wikitext would be. I hope this is clear enough but let me know. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:41, 30 Jun 2012 (UTC)

In response to Sbouterse's comment above: Enabling this by default is no big deal (technically speaking), admins would do that by copying the script to MediaWiki: space and then adding it to MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition. I'm not sure if people consider the indentation thing being a bar to that though. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:01, 30 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Agreed it's not technically difficult. Would need to pass through code review, tho. And for that it helps to have a friendly dev with the right credibility & credentials. I'm going to corner Werdna at Wikimania and ply him with beer and Tim-Tams. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 23:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

BTW, if you're still interested in getting the raw Wikitext of a single section, it is possible. You just have to know the section number. I discovered this while working on an archiving system for the Guest intros... and after much hunting through doc, wailing, and teeth-gnashing :) - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 05:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah that'll definitely help, I am still interested as I've been trying to muddle through isolating sections with regex, which I'm terrible at. Thanks! PS. Someone should really add an API method for that -- I realized I'll still need to do the API request to get the edit token and make the edit, and this raw request separately to grab the section text, which might get a little ugly. But I think it should work out. Equazcion ^(talk) 11:01, 2 Jul 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "the indentation thing being a bar to that", but, I just wanted to say that if a more complex indentation solution doesn't work out, a single indent for all replies in the gadget seems fine to me - new editors will have their replies threaded in from the main question with a click of a button (which feels like the most important thing) to distinguish it as a reply, and more experienced editors could still use the edit button to create more levels if needed.Sbouterse (WMF) (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I was just saying I wasn't sure if the more complex indentation system would be a requirement for making this a default teahouse gadget (you seem to be saying you don't think that should be a requirement). FYI The reply gadget works as you describe right now, indenting once for all responses, so as to reply to the main question. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:44, 3 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Gotcha! I don't know how everyone else here feels, but personally I don't think it should be a requirement for making it a default TH gadget - what you've got seems great! Sbouterse (WMF) (talk) 18:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Some observations, a comment, and a suggestion

This turned out waaay longer than I intended, but I just read up on all the talk pages of this project, and I guess had a few things to say. My apologies. I came across the Tea Room project earlier today after seeing a link on another user's talk page. I've spent the last few hours reading through the talk page archives and relevant discussions. Being familiar with the failed Esperanza project, I was glad to see that the Tea Room is avoiding certain pitfalls- namely the "secret club" and social media aspect- that I think ultimately led to Esperanza's downfall, despite its good intentions. But I didn't come here to compare the Tea Room to Esperanza, other than to say, for context purposes, that I do see some similarities, and I am sorry to say I am not overly optimistic about the "staying power" of this endeavor (it is my prediction that the community will inevitably turn on it), though I do hope it is successful, and sincerely wish all of those who put a commendable amount of time and effort into this project the best of luck.

I came here to offer some praise and a suggestion. First the praise: I am truly impressed with the amount of follow through I am seeing here. Not only with the newbies and their questions to this page, but also the follow up on talk pages of troubled articles that are mentioned in their questions. The helpful editors are going to those article talk pages, fostering discussion, and using clear and patient language with the editors involved to reason with them and explain difficult concepts like promotion, conflict of interest, undue weight, etc...all the while being non critical and encouraging (to a point...we all know some folks just won't ever get it). I wish all conversations on talk pages would be conducted in such a manner...and the incredible thing is, they are often getting a positive and reasonable response from the offending editor...often time actuallythanking them for being so nice and explaining things so promptly and clearly. That is truly awesome!

Now the suggestion: I note that one of the goals of this project is to avoid confusing wiki-Jargon (or WP:ALPHABETSOUP), and I agree that can be confusing to editors. But I am still seeing a lot of this pop-up in the responses. One recent example was the use of WP:NOTDIR in response to a question about lists. I think that WP:Wikipedia is not a directory (even though longer and takes time to spell out) would have been much more helpful to a new editor, because it accurately describes in plain English the cruxt of the policy. I think it is important to do this in all cases with newbies, even if you have to go out of your way to use a format like [[WP:ACRONYM| Spell it out in plain English]]. I remember all the wiki jargon being the most daunting thing to me as a new editor. Anyway, again, best of luck. Ditch ∝ 15:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Ditch, just on your last point, as the editor who wrote the reply I agree with you but as the person posing the question had already used WP:NOTDIR themselves I think that using the same acronym in response was ok. Writing it out in full may have been helpful to other readers but could also be seen as patronising to the OP. NtheP (talk) 09:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, well that makes sense, and I hope you don't think I was calling you out specifically. My last point about about the jargon- the point you responded to- was really the point I was wanting to make. ~~In the light of a new day I wish I had not gone on and on with all the other stuff, because I think that long asides and parenthetical, off-topic, comments are equally as frustrating to new comers.~~ Did it again! I would hope that the question and answers here would not only be helpful to the OP's (OP=original posters of the question), but also to those thinking of asking a new question and reading through the existing threads. Though I don't think that it should be required for a new comer to read through all the threads before asking a question, as with the help desk or reference desk, where one is supposed to search through the archives to see if their question had already been asked, but I think it should be assumed in answering that others are reading the response as well, and might need the "simplified version" without the jargon, even if the OP does not. I wonder if the follow-up questionnaire includes something like "Did you find the other questions and answers at the Tea Room helpful" or some similar language? Is their a place where I can view the questionnaire and the results, just out of curiosity? Ditch ∝ 15:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Didn't feel called out - you made an observation and I responded, that I was the person who made the reply you observed on is co-incidental. It's certainly not a requirement at the Teahouse that new posters check the archives first, you only have to see how many variations on "Why was my article deleted or rejected at Wikipedia:Articles for creation?" have been answered to see that we have managed so far to avoid any "please see previous" type answers.

You can see the pilot report at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Pilot report, hope you find it interesting. NtheP (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ditch, thanks for stopping by, for the feedback & the praise. The pilot report Nthep linked to has lots of fun findings to peruse. And to answer your specific question: yes, the guest survey did include a question about the helpfulness of the answers. You can see the rating breakdown and the free-text responses here: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host_lounge/Metrics#Participation_and_engagement_:_new_editors_2

You're not the first person to predict the Teahouse's eventual downfall. You're not even the first warmly disposed editor to do so. So as always, I'm interested in hearing why you think the community's going to shut 'er down. Care to prognosticate for us? - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 23:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I second this, "I'm interested in hearing why you think..." Outside perspectives are really helpful for us to create a better Teahouse and fix things that we maybe can't see from the inside. Ultimately all of our efforts are *for* Wikipedia and the community, not against it. heather walls (talk) 23:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Um, okay, well remember you asked:

The vocal community is notoriously resentful of foundation intrusion.
Trolls. I’m not talking about “OMG u guys r lam-o” trolls, or even the subtle ones. I’m talking about PHD education level trolls that probably have more article contributions than the lot of us combined. Never-the-less they will take pleasure in finding a way to Wikilawyer this project into oblivion…but ultimately for the lulz, of course.
Status-quo. There is an established community of editors that function perfectly well in the murkiness of jargon and ever changing policies/guidelines that govern Wikipedia. For many it is their main hobby, for some their purpose in life. And they like it that way. Resistance is futile.

Basically I predict that at some point there will be an unintended consequence of all this good will toward newbies: Maybe a rash of new article creations that fail inclusion policies, or maybe an increase in AIV reports. Maybe a (perceived) failure to seek adequate community consensus on an issue (you guys remember how that went with the template links discussion, right? Oy). It doesn’t really matter. Whatever it is will be tied somehow (however tenuously) to this project, and a “pile-on“ will ensue, resulting in either a community mandated change on how the Tea Room works, effectively “breaking” the system so that it slowly fizzles out…or, most likely, those that are tasked to operate and monitor this board will simply throw up their hands in frustration and give up, and it will eventually become defunct. Basically a slow death either way. Sorry to be such a downer but that’s how I see it going down, since you asked. Ditch ∝ 04:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse-type principles have always been encouraged everywhere, and many experienced editors practiced them before it arrived. Personally I don't find the teahouse to be anything all that different from any other Wikipedia venue. It has its own encouraged practices, which can be said for a lot of pages. It has hosts that aren't all that formally processed, similar to clerks in other venues, and you don't even have to be one to help out. The only thing really different here is that it's dressed up in some unique graphics and gadgets. I think this is the very reason it will probably survive -- it's specifically not trying to mandate any new "clubby" structure. It's just different in superficial ways that hope to be more comfortable for new editors. If making things comfortable for new editors is pointed out as a problem in itself ("don't encourage noobs they'll wreck the place"), that argument is nothing new and is consistently shot down, so I don't see it as a threat. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:41, 1 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse question

Hi

Can someone get that biggest penis question removed from the Teahouse page? It certainly looks ridiculous, and surely is not serious?

If not, let me at least reply: "The Sperm whale's penis is the second biggest, but the biggest penis in the world is definitely you."

Chaosdruid (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Done Ha. Yeah. Thanks for pointing this out. heather walls (talk) 00:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Related: There should probably be a somewhat easy way to remove deleted questions from the rotating recent question display on the main teahouse page. Digging down it seems these are stored at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions-recent/1, /2, /3, /4, /5. The questions are rotated by User:HostBot, run by User:Jtmorgan. I'm not sure what happens if someone blanks one of these pages manually -- do they get refilled immediately with another question? I'm gonna notify the operator and ask him to comment here. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:00, 2 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Wow, THAT's an interesting/unfortunate turn of events. Thanks Chaosdruid for catching this, and Equazcion for notifying me! I've updated the instructional text on the recent questions index page so that it hopefully will be easier to fix these problems quickly in future. If you see a bad question, first click the '...see another question' link to remove the offending item from public view, then go to Questions-recent and copy/paste one of the other (good) ones over it: duplicates are no big deal, since we only serve up one question at a time. There's nothing we can do to prevent the occasional 'bad' questions from showing up (HostBot picks them at random). But this is the first time it's happened, so I'm not too worried. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 04:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Men with big penises should not be allowed to edit articles. Ban 'em all! benzband (talk) 08:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Curious

That there are no questions for quite some time. Anything broken? Rich Farmbrough, 14:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC).

I don't think so (some days there's just less traffic [1]), but if you're looking for questions to answer try Wikipedia:Help desk or Category:Wikipedians looking for help; benzband (talk) 15:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd also advise that people invite new editor's to visit :) We can't have questions if we don't invite or promote the space! You can learn more about inviting here. Sarah (talk) 02:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll jump on it... Just noticed I haven't done so since July 7th. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I've also been a bit slow in inviting people over the past few weeks, so I'll get on to inviting some new editors. Moswento ^talky 08:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Is this OK?

Hi. A little while ago I started visiting the editing special feedback board, and when someone reported they were having trouble I checked out their edits to see what they were doing and often left a message like the one you can read here:User:Tlqk56/Teahouse invite. Then it occurred to me I might not be supposed to do that, so I stopped. Since I don't feel I know enough to be a host I'm not official, and I really don't want to cause more trouble for you good folks by blundering around. Is it OK for me to issue these personal invites to Teahouse? I did notice several people followed up. Tlqk56 (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Good. I didn't want to give some Teahouse-negative people ammunition to complain. Tlqk56 (talk) 03:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me :) Thank you!! Sarah (talk) 03:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Meet your hosts

On the front page of the Teahouse, the randomly displayed hosts includes people who are currently in the Host Breakroom, and doesn't include people who are currently hosts. Any objections to me updating the list at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host/Featured? Moswento ^talky 13:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Nope, go for it. It needs to be manually updated as things change, which is a giant pain. :P Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, updated. I'll try and keep this updated as Sarah updates the host and host breakroom lists. I was particularly amused that previously a certain user was listed 3 times! Moswento ^talky 13:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Well obviously that user must be an excellent host

Worm^TT(talk) 13:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for updating it. I generally try to do it but with Wikimania and other travel things it's been tough. Thanks Moswento! (I know J-mo wants to automate it, but it's low priority right now!). Sarah (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Add a question from mobile devices

There's currently a question in the teahouse from an editor who's trying to add a question from a mobile device. The javascript "Add a question" box renders the submit button as inactive unless the text includes 4 tildas (~~~~) for a signature. Since he does not have Tildas on his mobile keyboard, it's difficult for him to add a question. Is there any simple way to add a button or a link which adds the four tildas to the end of the text? Worm^TT(talk) 10:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I've put in a query at the help desk to help solve the issue. See Wikipedia:Help desk#Add signature button to javascript form.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I am curious how they asked a question without tildas, or what mobile device would have enough action to use the ask a question box but not have a fairly typical symbol. On my phone it uses the fallback of creating a section, the box doesn't work at all. I'm not sure that the box is ever an option on mobile, is it? I am not sure adding a button is quite the right solution, but if we decide to do it we can ask our lovely friend who made the gadget, no need to ask at the helpdesk. Let's decide as a group before taking action, what do you think? heather walls (talk) 11:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not too worried about how we solve the problem, but this is the first time I've seen validation force a signature on wikipedia, we generally prefer to "fix" things rather than "block" them. I'm not keen on putting blockers in the way of anything. Worm^TT(talk) 11:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying. Two of the decent reasons for doing this are that one, new users really benefit from slowing down and reading directions; and two, any place that anyone is encouraged to learn to sign their posts is beneficial for the future. The truth is that people don't always enjoy the learning process. I'm very glad to hear your viewpoint on these things, and excited for anything we can improve. heather walls (talk) 11:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

After noticing this discussion, I figured I'd throw my two cents in. Perhaps a way of doing this that does not absolutely deny editors the "save" button until they have signed, but still encourages them to sign, could be implemented by modifying this feature. Instead of disabling the save button, change its behaviour: when clicked, if no signature is in the box, instead of saving, a small message or popup-box of some sort appears to let the person know—"hey, before you save, you should sign your post". This way the user is shown a reminder if they forget to sign, and is shown nothing if they remember. dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 10:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You might just ask me, instead of talking about me, as if, well, as if I am not telling the truth, or as if I am only worthy of talking about, not with. I have done nothing but read directions and admonishments not to do anything wrong on Wikipedia. For the past week. It would be impossible to be any slower and still contribute. Although it seems more likely I will give up or be driven away before I contribute much. I had thought articles, editing, would be more important, and that would benefit from consideration of potential contributors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NittOK (talk • contribs) 15:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Certainly NittOK. I don't believe Heather meant to suggest you were lying by her comments. One policy you might want to review is Assume Good Faith, something we try to do in all matters. I myself struggle to edit on every mobile device I've used, I believe that it's something that the Foundation is looking at. It's only been a short while since mobiles were able to process information like wikipedia, and considering the vast majority of the workforce is voluntary, these things don't progress very quickly. Worm^TT(talk) 15:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

She flat out says the box is not an option on mobiles, so, thank you for admonishing me to assume good faith, had she assumed that I was not lying about using a mobile, an assumption of good faith by a regular editor might have set an example that shows better how ypu balue the concept than your using it to put me in my place.

Yes, it is tricky editing on a mobile. I am not using a very sophisticated one, and editing articles is almost impossible, eventually, though after reading piles of words about what not to do, belong accused acting in bad faith and lying, I do hope to ask my question.

We also might be discussing the issue rather than me, had she assumed I was telling the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NittOK (talk • contribs)

I don't think Heather was accusing anyone was lying! Not at all. On another note - Wikipedia isn't really that great in regards to editing on one's phone. I've basically ceased trying to do so because it's not really enjoyable. Teahouse or not! Sarah (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

"I'm not sure the box is ever an option on mobile." Seems to be saying I lied about accessing it on my mobile. An assumption of good faith, ok the other hand, focuses on the issue I raised, the difficulty of using the box on mobile, rather than on whether I told the truth.aboit using mobile in the first place. I am still just trying to ask a question on my mobile, not edit articles, also.

I can 100% guarantee you that Heather was not calling you a liar; she was referring to the technical ability to use that box, as it relies on browser features (beyond those used by the rest of Wikipedia) that aren't always usable on mobile devices. As for the issues themselves, well, I believe that, as others have said, the WMF is working on making a Wikipedia editor for mobile platforms, but it's a ways off. There's not really a whole lot we can do.

The thing about asking questions on the Teahouse is that it is functionally identical to editing an article. In a very real sense, by asking a question on the Teahouse, you are editing the Teahouse questions page. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not. Asking a question does not consist of editing existing text, it consists of using the box that I said I used on mobile and Heather said did not exist on mobile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NittOK (talk • contribs) 17:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I promise you that it is. That box is just a fancy way of looking at the editing interface; shorn of its bells and whistles, it works exactly the same way as if you had clicked the "Edit" tab and typed your question in (which, incidentally, is a way of getting around the box). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I promise you, I did not see any article text in it when I edited; the box, which arose on my mobile device was entirely blank, but I have never edited a blank article; in addition to this, when I edit a talk page, even on my mobile, I can insert special symbols; this option is not available on the ask question box; also, in addition to inserting special symbols, I can click a link on the bottom of the page that automatically inserts four tildas for me, this option is not available on the the ask question editing interface, in fact, nothing is on my mobil, but all these things are available for talk pages and articles on my mobile. This may be a bigger problem with the ask question box: users have no idea what it looks like. Maybe it is completely reduced in functionality on the mobile devices, so you have no idea. I will check the interface on a landline. NittOK (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I checked, and I am correct, the question box is different and contains no flexibility, such as inserting special characters and signatures. NittOK (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Nitt; you are right that the "ask a question" box does not have any special characters or signatures, but as Writ Keeper said, those are only parts of the editing interface, not the actual process of editing itself. When you edit this very page, you see Wikipedia's general editing interface, which contains lots of fancy buttons and such. The box is another interface which has been customized for the Teahouse, but it is a vastly simplified one. It also automatically makes the actual edit when you press the "Ask my question" button. Does that make sense? Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 18:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Does that have anything to do with my inability to find a place to ask my question? Just to clear things up, and prevent further such incidents, I am not a complete moron. There is no need to continue assuming I mistook my desktop computer for my cell phone, as I did not, the screen on my desktop is much larger, in fact the keyboard is bigger than my mobile. I am discussing the functionality of the interfaces, you are trying to nitpick me to death. You are doing well in the task. All of you. I have to give up. NittOK (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Lose the 'tude, dude. Believe it or not, we're actually trying to help you understand the problem. If you don't want to accept other people's help, then maybe Wikipedia isn't the place for you. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's just have a cup of tea and not even sit down, and let's go back about our business. I think things will be just fine :) Nothing to see here...move along!! *thread kill* Sarah (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

*thread revival*

*evil chuckle*

See also: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Tilda test Potential problems and suggestions have not been answered:

is gadget available on mobile?
adding a "sign" button?
"should" → "must", or some other form of indication that one must sign the question for it to work (i got caught by that too, had to ask for help on using the help form; but some may just abandon)

benzband (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia users who received a Teahouse invitation

I'm just curious what is for? Is it just a tracking category or is it being maintained somehow? I'm just curious b/c it appears on the page of a user I just indef-blocked. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 10:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It is a tracking category. Ryan Vesey 13:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

At least the AFC helper script (maybe some ofters too) using this category to check if a user was already invited for not inviting the same user multiple times! mabdul 14:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Up until a few days ago {{welcome-t}}, {{welcome-anon-t}} and {{welcome-t-anon}} didn't have this category… which means plenty of users who did receive invitations aren't appearing in this category. benzband (talk) 14:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not currently using this category for any research purposes, BTW, and don't have any plans to do so. All my tracking for automatic HostBot invites is taking place on the back end. In fact, I just noticed that for some reason the category is no longer being added to HostBot invites... perhaps something went wrong when I switched to substituting the template rather than transcluding? I'll check it out... mañana! - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 21:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? It is a hidden category and I see it on this page. Ryan Vesey 22:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering then select "show hidden categories" (under "Appearance" / "Advanced options"). benzband (talk) 07:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. I guess I'll leave it alone on that user's page, then. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The high school project

Three questions: 1. If a beginner (me) wanted to work on the high school project is there a better way than looking at a good article (say Plano HS) and imitating that?

2. In the category "notable alumni" for schools is notable defined to be "wiki-notable" = "has an wiki article about them"?

3. The template for HS does not include a slot for the website for the school's Foundation. a) should it and b) is there a way to put something in an infobox that there is not a slot for? Thank youPyramid43 (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello again, Pyramid43! I have copied this question to the Q&A so more hosts will see it. Thanks hajat vrc @ 17:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Maipage redesign and the TH

FYI: Wikipedia talk:2012 main page redesign proposal#Moving right away from the traditional look. mabdul 08:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Trying to answer a question

Someone asked for the Skype address of any "specialist", which I assume means any host in the Teahouse. If I were answering at the Help Desk, I would say that we can only answer on this page. Does the same apply here? FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 16:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

We can answer in any way they need help with I would say. We had a link to IRC chat for a while. Perhaps we should suggest they connect to #wikipedia-th-help ^connect, but we would need to make sure someone connected with them. Ryan Vesey 16:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

isn't it #wikipedia-teahouse-help ^connect now? benzband (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion to add the Teahouse to the sidebar

I submitted a suggestion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Additions to the sidebar to add a link to this Wizard on the left hand nav bar. Please feel free to comment about the idea. Kumioko (talk) 13:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You actually mention the Teahouse, perhaps you meant to say the Teahouse not Wizard in your talk page comment here :) SarahStierch (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes your right. I suggested that the Teahouse and the Article creation wizard be added so thats probably where the wizard came from...Not to be confused with Harry and his friends. :-) Kumioko (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

We are still looking for comments on adding a link to the Teahouse to the sidemenu under help to say Help - Teahouse. I'm not trying to advocate a specific vote but I would really like to hear from the Teahouse community since it does affect you. Kumioko (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

PC for sockpuppet

I've opened a discussion under Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#PC for sockpuppet that may be of interest to the participants of this project, given their commitment to the improvement of atmosphere on Wikipedia. Please come and check it out! →Yaniv256^talk_contribs 21:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hostbot invites

What would people think about creating a couple other exclusions for hostbot invites. I'm fairly certain that the current exclusions are an existing invite and if the user is blocked. I was thinking that the existence of a level 3 or above user warning should also cause the bot to skip the user. We don't want to invite people who are clearly here to harm the 'pedia, and most good faith contributors don't reach that level. That said, I do understand the argument against this. Ryan Vesey 20:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with everything you've said. BTW, ZOMG. (^_____^) Let's set up a bot to recruit them for OMGcom. And don't forget to mention the five pillars to help them learn the ropes. (jk! ;) benzband (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

What does the Z stand for in ZOMG anyways? I've only ever been able to think of Zombies. Ryan Vesey 20:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

What kind of harm do you think we're doing by inviting users who have been L3 warned? I'd rather cast as wide a net as possible, given what we know about some vandal-fighters' jumpy trigger fingers. :) Also, +1 to what Benzband said. I never knew you had such a checkered past, Ryan! - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 20:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a checkered past. 4(?) edits in just as many minutes is all it was. On the topic of inviting L3 warned users, I feel like it makes the Teahouse look bad when an editor is blocked and you see a prominent teahouse invite sitting there. It would be even better if we set it up so that if the bot skipped 3 editors, it would find 3 more who meet the qualifications and invite them. Ryan Vesey 20:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

@ Ryan: It stands for Zetta-.

Or, according to the folks at wiktionary, it's a spelling mistake. benzband (talk) 20:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess I can see that argument for excluding, from a reputation-management perspective. However, it should be noted that during the last half of the trial we were inviting all of the new editors who met our current invite criteria (10+ edits in first 24 hours, not blocked, not previously invited). It only amounts to about 60 accounts per day for enwiki, out of the hundreds to thousands of new accounts created every day. We're thinking about experimenting with some lower thresholds, but for now every qualified newcomer we skip is one fewer automatic invite. Also, we're going to get flack no matter what. The best justification for our methods is to point to all the good editors we help, not to apologize for the (inevitable) few bad apples who slip through. Lots of good Wikipedians got off to a rocky start. I'm willing to assume good faith even in the face of bad behavior, but then I've been accused of being overly optimistic at times :) - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 20:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I get you. I'm a bit on the optimistic side too. Just as another note of how important I believe the Teahouse to be, there is virtually zero chance that ZOMG would have occurred had the Teahouse been in existence when I started editing. (Assuming I was invited) Ryan Vesey 21:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

That makes me think of another thing. I wouldn't have been invited! It took me almost 40 hours for those 10 edits. What would we think of hostbot inviting all autoconfirmed users? Ryan Vesey 21:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

that's a good idea. We already include a list of editors who meet a similar (albeit slightly more restrictive) set of requirements on the invitee reports, the 'newish editors'. But HostBot didn't automatically invite those during the trial period. Changing those criteria to include all autoconfirmed users who have not previously received an invite would gain us some more--I don't know how many; probably still fewer than the 10-edit list though. And it would be a relatively safe change to make. Heh, of course, we have yet to gain approval to do any additional automatic inviting... fingers crossed. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 21:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I think there's a legitimate possibility that those who get their 10 edits over a 2-4 day period are more likely to continue (and not just because I am one). Many editors who have a flurry of edits on their first day came for one purpose. Editors who take a view days oftentimes have come out of interest in editing. That's just an assumption though. If we specified "all autoconfirmed" we'd need to make sure it was users who became autoconfirmed after the decision was made. (We don't want to send an invite to Jimbo Wales) Alternatively, we could do a 30 edits in 96 hours or some variation thereof. Anything that would invite editors who still appear active even though they didn't make 10 edits in their first 24 hours. Ryan Vesey 21:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed seems like the easiest cutoff to explain to others, and is relatively inclusive. I can make sure we don't invite Jimbo by mistake (tho that would be kind of awesome). - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 23:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to start work on including newly-autoconfirmed users in the automated invite list starting next Monday. In parallel to that, I'm going to get to work setting up the external watchlist for automated invites that Ryan, Mabdul, Nathan and others have suggested and scoped out here. As with the 10-edit-newcomer invites, the results of automated invites to autoconfirmed users will be tracked & reported. I'll post again when I've got this started up: I'd appreciate a few sets of eyes watching for code bugs and for any other unforeseen consequences! - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 18:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to sign in

How do I get my IP address removed and changed to my user name as I forgot to sign in on a talk page. Sport and politics (talk) 10:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia. You may request for your IP removed at oversight-en-wp

wikipedia.org. They are very fast. ~~Ebe 123~~ → report 10:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

UI pretty terrible

It looks sleek, but it's pretty confusing for a visitor. Q&A sounds like it's some kind of FAQ, I was surprised to find that that is a forum. The "guests" link seems like it's something guests should click, so therefore I expected the "hosts" link to link to some kind of area that only hosts would need to go to. Surprised to find public introductions of the hosts there. If you were to show me a screen shot of the main page and ask me to describe what I thought the links lead to (or even to identify the links, they don't even look like clickable links), I'd fail miserably. All in all lots of surprises, which is bad from a UI standpoint. Gigs (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It might be just a matter of renaming or providing a brief description, then. Perhaps "Q&A" could include "Ask a Question," "Guests" could include "Introduce Yourself," and "Hosts" could include "Who are the Hosts?" I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I like it. Ryan Vesey 19:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Me too. ~~Ebe 123~~ → report 20:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Thirded. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 07:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

which page(s) are we talking about here? NtheP (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Teahouse. In the upper left, under the logo. Ryan Vesey 20:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi all! Perfect timing since we are in the middle of a redesign (more of a re-org). When you say you like it, do you mean the new names for things? Thanks for the input! heather walls (talk) 07:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes I think some small tweaks might be able to address several of the UI issues. Gigs (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I wasn't thinking of new page names or anything, I'm thinking the links should be piped to the suggestions by I Jethrobot. "Ask a Question", "Introduce Yourself" and "Who are the Hosts?". Ryan Vesey 20:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

A change to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Links to be precise. Ryan Vesey 21:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I've made a change to the links (prior to the bigger changes coming later). The thinking here is that they should imply their action and be similar in structure. Thoughts welcome. heather walls (talk) 21:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

These seem agreeable to me. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)