Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. 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

→

License terms

Since the "Ask a question" button do not open the regular edit form, it is missing a message explaining the license terms for edits made on this page. Helder 00:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

License terms

Since the "Ask a question" button do not open the regular edit form, it is missing a message explaining the license terms for edits made on this page. Helder 00:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Editnotice

Can we create an edit notice that reminds people not to ask a question here? Ryan Vesey 20:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Perhaps something like, "This page is for discussion of Wikipedia:Teahouse. If you wish to ask a question, please do so at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions." Alternate wording is welcome. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 06:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

There is one ^up there, but as you can tell, it's not noticeable :) I was just thinking I should make a new one after some of these questions. Good idea! heather walls (talk) 07:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking (and I assume Ryan was too) about creating a new notice to appear while you're editing, because you're more likely to notice while editing. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 07:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You can do that at Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia talk:Teahouse (sysop or account creator tools required). benzband (talk) 11:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a bit weird (that you can have account creator rights to do that). A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 14:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Historic reasons (mostly because of not creating a new userright, but leaving a possibility to assign any right other than the sysop right to bots to edit such notices)... ;-) mabdul 18:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense now. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 05:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

bad CSS at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Guests/Right column

@Heatherw: the user images on the right (and depending on the screen resolution the text, too) are overlapping with the CSS box about the "Thanks for introducing yourself! Next...". Sorry, that box is totally unusable without any "close"-button... mabdul 18:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, you can scroll and reach anything under the floating box. No one seems to have had trouble making and editing their intros. You aren't meant to use that page for anything else. heather walls (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see a close button if possible as well. I understand that it is possible to see everything anyways, but there isn't a huge reason to make it impossible to collapse. Ryan Vesey 02:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

@heather try it on a 12" screen, modify the window height/width and check how much you have to scroll to read the text... mabdul 08:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

(I have a 13" screen.) I've made it into a collapsible box. If you have a better idea, make it so! (If it's ugly, you will probably be reverted.) ;) heather walls (talk) 02:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Upcoming changes to the edit window (please read)

Hey all :). So, we're making some design tweaks that should simplify the edit window a heck of a lot. Unless you're on Vector (and, for some elements, not only on vector but using the enhanced editing toolbar) you shouldn't particularly notice, but I wanted to give some advance notice, distributed as widely as possible - and since this'll impact on everyone, that includes the Teahouse :). The full explanation is at the Village Pump (Technical); these should go live aroundabouts the 17th of September, so there's a while to discuss things, give feedback suggest changes for future projects if you're interested. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Categories up for discussion

Category:Editors who help at the Wikipedia Teahouse, Category:Wikipedia Teahouse hosts, Category:Wikipedia users who received a Teahouse invitation, and Category:Wikipedia users who received a Teahouse invitation through AfC are all up for discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 August 26#Wikipedia teahouse participants/hosts and the section directly below it. Ryan Vesey 21:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Academic study

There is a study available on the web, The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration Community – How Wikipedia's reaction to sudden popularity is causing its decline by Aaron Halfaker, R. Stuart Geiger, Jonathan Morgan and John Riedl, put together with Foundation support, which contains a lot of potentially useful observations on some of the problems the Teahouse is designed to address. --J N 466 01:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, Jayen! And I'm glad you found it useful. I'd actually love to hear responses/reflections from any other hosts who feel like slogging through 7,000 words of academese. :) - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 02:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Possible vandalism

I have reverted edits done by 99.228.139.4 who deleted relevant images and their captions put by myself in article Malayali. 99.228.139.4 looks like a possible vandal

i request you to please check them and verify and warn the user.--Johnyjohny294 (talk) 12:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Done Thanks for looking out! Johny, here is some good documentation on how to deal with vandalism. Also, for future note, you might want to ask questions etc, if you need help editing Wikipedia, on the main Teahouse questions page here. As this talk page is mainly to discuss concerns, questions, etc, related specifically to the Teahouse project. Thanks!! SarahStierch (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Bot inviting already-indeffed vandalism only accounts?

Like here for instance. Theopolisme suggested that I mention it over here. Is this really what the bot is supposed to be doing, does it matter, do the settings need a tweak?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hurk! This has been happening, though not frequently. HostBot does check for blocks, but it draws from a logging table on a slave database rather than checking the page text in this case. I thought I fixed the code yesterday, but I've obviously got to go back and bang around under the hood again. Thanks for the heads up! Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 02:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Q&A page behaving strangely for me

Recently when I click a link on another page to a specific section on the Q&A, I go to the page and it starts to jump around, ending at the wrong position on the page. For a very lengthy page, this can present a bit of a challenge. It does not happen on any other page, and it occurs in both Firefox and Chromium. I was wondering if there have been any recent changes to the page or the scripts that could be causing this problem (in the last two weeks?). Is anyone else experiencing this? hajat vrc @ 18:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

It could be a byproduct of the top posting on the Q&A page in that the links you are clicking are to section numbers which don't relate to the page as it stands when you arrive there. NtheP (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you tell me of, or link to this other page, so I can inspect the link and make any corrections necessary. It is certainly true that linking to the section number would be problematic; as the archiving sequence does cause these numbers to change. That is of course why it is best to anchor the link; and, as an aside, why you should avoid refactoring (which could inadvertently change the anchor). This is mere speculation, perhaps useful, but I would need to inspect the actual link you are inquiring about, to give a direct answer. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I am actually talking about any link on any other page, such as from my watchlist or one of the talkbacks we place on guests' talk pages. hajat vrc @ 17:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

RCNesland (talk) 11:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Brief question

Hi everyone, mi username is Mcptrad and I coordinate a teaching / learning project entitled E-translating the Wikipedia. I have been invited to join you and I have certainly done so. This page has interesting and important pieces of information for project coordinators. Thank you!!! My question is ...: the project has a technical coordinator, could I invite her to join as well. I would also been interested in her keeping updated. Best --Mcptrad (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mcptrad, and welcome! Your link is broken, but I suspect that this is your project? Please feel free to direct project participants to our Q&A board if they have any questions about editing or being an editor. We also welcome them to introduce themselves. As far as 'technical coordinator', are you saying that your project has a technical coordinator and you want her to visit Teahouse? If so, please extend our warm welcome to her, along with all your other project members :) Cheers, Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Outreach bookshelf

Would suggesting Outreach Bookshelf be a good way for Teachouse to help newbies? Jim.henderson (talk) 17:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I think there's some great stuff there, but we try to avoid just pointing people to long lists of resources. Rationale: newcomers get plenty of linklists in welcome templates, the help portal, and in other Q&A spaces; and unfortunately not all of our on-wiki help resources are up to date, or of consistent quality/readability. Are there 1-3 individual resources on that list that you think would be particularly helpful to new editors, and/or that you feel are of stand-out quality? Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the page is set up for old-timers to find handouts to aid in recruiting. Great Feeling does nothing to teach methods, but conveys the fun, while Welcome to Wikipedia supplies just enough information to start going. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Where are the "geishas"?

Who came up with this brilliant-of-cultural-insensitivity name for a WMF initiative [1] [2] [3]? Tijfo098 (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Context, please? Nyttend (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The term "teahouse" is not exclusive that definition. Try looking up ochaya or teahouse to get a better sense of the intention behind the name. I'd also argue that any argument of "cultural insensitivity" is a stretch, considering our reputation and efforts toward helping and just being generally respectful and trusting of new users, regardless of their background. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure, it's not exclusively a synonym for brothel. But it's a widely used as sexually colored pejorative from Japan (see links above) to Uzbekistan [4], including China, Thailand and Korea [5] [6] [7] [8]. Wikipedia/WMF could do well to prevent more sex-related silliness (such as [9] [10]) before some unkind journalist starts cracking jokes that Jimbo 'reinvented himself as a "madam" by opening a virtual "teahouse"' or something like that. Luckily, this WMF initiative appears to be obscure enough outside Wikipedia (for now). Whether you want to rename it or not after investing this much internal PR in your brand it's up to you guys. Sayonara. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

No need to emphasise this negative aspect. The teahouse is a far more ancient and honorable tradition in many countries. Nobody else has had a problem with it.--Charles (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm baffled that you consider this widely used based on a handful of books. Maybe it is common use by historians (in a historical context), and maybe it was common use by people living in those times, but it is certainly not the contemporary dominant meaning. If it is so "pejorative" in Japan, let's say, why are there several examples of restaurants that use the exact term all over Japan? I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe they consider it kind of "edgy", given its undertones, and see that as a good thing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Would an English speaking Japanese really be that offended? Would they not be aware of the different connotations of the word? --86.128.221.58 (talk) 12:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

An administrator suggested that I come to the Teahouse to learn about WP-ness. This is my first visit and as I was looking things over, I came upon this surprising thread. I don't see how anyone would mistake a limited, non-standard use of the word "Teahouse" as the meaning that's intended here. Even in Japan (especially in Japan), the Tea house and the Japanese tea ceremony are culturally important institutions. The Japanese tea ceremony is a form of Zen meditation with precisely prescribed steps. Those in Japan, for whom the ceremony is important and who can spare the space, have a specific room in their house dedicated to the ceremony or a separate, free-standing tea house in their garden. The significance of all this to Japanese culture is hard to overstate. I'm sure that Japanese persons and/or their descendants will be complimented by the usage.

Besides, the Japanese, as refined as their rituals surrounding tea are, do not have a monopoly on the Tea house or the conviviality of sharing tea socially. Personally, I see this as a non-issue. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 04:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments on the "Welcome template discussion" thread.

[Since I'm not an administrator nor involved with Teahouse functioning, I am posting here.]

When I joined WP, I got a brief welcome message with 6 links and a photo of a plate of cookies. Those links go to the abyss that is the user help side of the site. I have had so much trouble trying to navigate my way through it, that I usually give up in frustration. I can't find information because I can't figure out what things are called in WP-speak; helper pages are very self-referential; pages with identical information can have up to three different names with three different addresses. And those acronyms!!! - to find out what a page is truly talking about, I have to jump to an acronym's separate page and then on to yet another acronym's page and so on. Trying to find an answer to a single question can take me well over an hour that I hate losing from my life.

I'm such a dumb bunny that that's probably the reason I have so much trouble navigating helper pages and you wouldn't want me messing with articles anyway. (My first big effort was a total and humiliating disaster, that I wouldn't blame you. It made me extremely shy for quite a while.) But if you do want people like me editing, then we need an incubator. I've asked several administrators about getting help and have recently found several that have helped me. One referred me here to the Teahouse. Although I have yet to completely explore here, it can't be any worse than the dreadful helper pages that those links in that welcome message led me to. Until such time as those Augean Stables are cleaned out and streamlined, if it takes a Teahouse to guide the confused and frustrated, like me, then so be it. I looked at the welcome-t automatic messages. They both look visually cluttered, though one less than the other. (That pervasive visual clutter is another WP peeve of mine. The site needs to enlist graphic artists to improved page appearance.) Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 06:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit previews

I am curious. Is it deemed better to not include the preview option when using the "Ask a question" link at /Questions? If not, should that option be incorporated into the link? 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 06:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi My76Strat, we aren't ignoring you :) it's just that making changes to the Teahouse gadget requires development time and permissions that we don't have at the moment. I think it's a good idea and we should really try to make that happen if/when we get some help in this area. Thanks for the suggestion! heather walls (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

You're beyond welcome, and I appreciate your reply. I understand your constraints and respect the quality of your efforts. I'll gladly lend service here whenever I'm otherwise able. Best regards - 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 00:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Removed contentious comment by IP editor from Alphonso Jackson

Check the history and revert if I was out-of-line. Even though the comments are likely true, the comments didn't belong in the Teahouse. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ · cont) Join WER 04:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Good call Doctree! SarahStierch (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Welcome template discussion

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

Should the Teahouse be listed on the standard welcome templates? Some of them? All of them? KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I previously removed the Teahouse link from the Welcome template because the project was still in development/testing, and community consensus was not obtained. The Teahouse is all grown up now, and seems to be humming alone fine. I think it's time to revisit that idea, and decide whether it should be on the Welcome template(s) KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Could I see the supporting documentation which proves that the Teahouse project is mature? What assertion is there to be made that things are different now? Also, could we broaden this discussion to including Teahouse mentions in templates in the OTRS queue? Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment Please see: Teahouse phase two. You can also review our pilot report here. SarahStierch (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
OTRS? I haven't seen any Teahouse issues (altho I haven't been terribly active on OTRS)... and I'm not sure here is the place to discuss OTRS. Would you clarify please? KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

People who need help go to the Teahouse. People who really need help start at OTRS and then really ought to go from there to the Teahouse sometimes, especially if OTRS is sending them a welcome to Wikipedia message. This discussion should include all kinds of welcomes, not just certain specific welcome templates. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I have seen nothing to suggest OTRS is considering adding any such links to OTRS email boilerplate. I cannot see any situation where OTRS would include the Teahouse, because we answer emails from all Wikimedia projects. It is not en specific. We do not use the "welcome" template. KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

For those who do not know, OTRS is the general queue for email to Wikimedia projects. The people who go there are typically clueless because it is not the right place to do, ask, or report anything. The purpose of the system is to placate users who would only use email, and the goal of the system is to resolve issues either conclusively or by sending people away from email and onto the Wikipedia platform. In response to KillerChihuahua, "OTRS" is not a cohesive community and is not considering anything - anyone can be bold and do whatever. Many OTRS email templates serve the purpose of a welcome template in that they introduce new users to things. Many queues in OTRS are English Wikipedia specific, as are many templates. I do not think that it is a good idea to segregate welcoming protocols and independently develop how to welcome people only in, for example, welcome templates, but have a different system elsewhere, unless Teahouse is still an experiment with limited scope. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been an OTRS responder for over 5 years, I actually do know a little about it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I vaguely remember this coming up previously. It's not a big deal either way. I think most new users don't read most of the welcome template and I think most new users would be intimidated by using the Teahouse. It's basically a reference desk or village pump or help desk, but with a few more images, a bit of JavaScript that makes the post order backward, and a grey background. Include it, don't include it, I doubt it matters much.
I will say that I think the group of Teahouse users are an interesting dynamic. In most cases, if a bunch of people showed up with an agenda and started voting the same way on particular ideas, you'd see a lot of outcry. It's the Teahouse cabal, really. I guess it's a matter of whether the current editing community agrees with the actions of this particular clique. In this case, the editing community seems to not care (and there's little incentive to get people to care), as the Teahouse isn't particularly earth-shattering or disruptive as a concept. If this is how people want to spend their time, well, okay. If it turns into Esperanza or a forum where people are encouraged to post their non-notable crap articles, it'll require killing ("MessedRockerfying," the term is). As it is, I expect a natural death whenever the (Wikimedia Foundation-backed) drivers move on. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question: "Should the Teahouse be listed on the standard welcome templates? Some of them? All of them?" SarahStierch (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

My answer is that it's not a big deal either way. I don't really care. I think I said about as much the last time this came up. The general point about not changing templates that users rely on and expect to be a certain way seems to be a valid point to consider and explore. But that's mostly outside the scope of this request for comments. I likely would've never noticed this conversation had KC not pointed it out on my talk page. I felt it'd be rude to simply ignore the note, so I left my general thoughts on the matter. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, why not? I think the teahouse is working, and opening it up to a wider audience sounds like a good idea. If the teahouse suddenly goes rogue and starts killing new editors, it would be easy enough to remove it from the templates. --Jayron32 00:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Support - As a new Teahouse host, I have been blown away by how happy many/most of the guests are with the responses to their questions at the Teahouse. They gush. They offer profuse thanks. They tell us that we have answered their questions completely. Unfortunately, I've also seen Wikipedia repeatedly take enthusiastic new editors and thrash them about until they are so confused, hurt and angry that they give up in frustration. The Teahouse is an effective, joyful solution to that problem. Let's get the word out to as many new editors as we can. Thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Oppose The welcome templates are a diverse bunch, I suspect that the only common features they have are the words welcome and an explanation as to how and when to sign edits. So I've no objection to there being a teahouse based welcome and even teahouse versions of the common welcomes. But please don't change them all to include the teahouse, please make sure that the dropdown menu still has the existing welcomes as well as the teahouse ones. The welcome message maybe a template but it is a message from one editor to another, and the community has traditionally been chary about altering other people's messages. BTW you probably don't want to include teahouse links in the various welcome-warning templates Ϣere SpielChequers 00:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Support per Research:Teahouse/Metrics (and my honorary membership in the cabal). Kaldari (talk) 00:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Support. This would drive traffic to the Teahouse, which I see as a good thing. I don't see any reason for including the link in some templates but not others, but perhaps others who are more familiar with the use context of different welcome templates will. I'm more than okay, either way. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 00:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Oppose per WereSpielChequers. I personally am "linked out" and sick of all the links that already exist. Also sick of cliques. Besides, "Teahouse" is for women, presumably. Putting "Teahouse" links on thousand of male pages, what will that do to the "Teahouse" original purpose, as stated in the proposal? And where is the data that Teahouse is immensely effective? Teahouse clique support votes seem self-serving. ("Will drive traffic to Teahouse.") MathewTownsend (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mathew. The Teahouse is actually focused towards engaging new editors. As stated in the pilot - while women are part of that new editor set, it's geared specifically towards general new editors - and if we happy to retain women, even better. Feel free to review our pilot, as linked above, for a refresher. SarahStierch (talk) 05:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

reply to Sarah - I think this is the wrong place to be asking. This is not a "Teahouse" decision. It should be a community decision. The community should have some input into what "links" are put on welcome templates, since they are the ones that use them, especially the Twinkle people if you're trying to hitch it on there. Where is the data that Teahouse link would be worth cluttering welcome templates with more links? Is there an "opt out" for those who don't want it on the existing templates. I thought the whole Teahouse project rested on "personally" welcoming new editors, not just creating a new welcome link to the many that already exist. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Mathew. You should probably mention it to KC then, since she launched the RfC, not me. You'd probably want to ask J-mo if you're interested in learning about if it's beneficial or not to have it on a help page. I really don't know. Again, I didn't propose this. I don't think anything hurts, I also think the Teahouse is a really great example of what a help space should be, but, that's just my personal bias opinion :) Sadly, we can't sit around and personally welcome new users because it's extremely time consuming (all hosts can attest to that!), so we do our best and also seek out other ways to bring in visitors. Having links isn't really a bad thing anyway, you've gotta spread the word somehow, and combine that with inviting new editors. I know you've had a pretty strong opinion on the project since it's inception, which is unfortunate, as we're all working with good faith efforts here! But, if my fellow community members decide to not list the Teahouse anywhere, that's fine by me - I'm not losing sleep over it :) SarahStierch (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

hi there Sarah! Isn't J-mo watching this, if he/she initiated it? Seems strange that I should be told to contact J-mo personally. Guess Teahousers don't do followups? Anyway, I'd never be in favor of anything called "Teahouse"; sounds too US/British exclusionary. Like it's for a certain stereotype that already predominates WMF. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Matthew, Sarah didn't say I initiated this thread, she said I might have some opinion about whether/where Teahouse links might be productively placed, and would be happy to answer questions. And I am. As Sarah has stated several times, KC initiated this thread. KC does not work on the Teahouse. As for the name, I'm sorry you don't like it. I came up with it, and am happy to take the blame. It might interest you that I had in mind Japanese Teahouses, not British or American ones. heatherw's graphic designs also reflect that non-Western motif. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 22:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the English and Americans got tea custom from China and India and other places where you can actually grow it. heather walls (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

well, I'm going by all the promotional Teahouse images that were all young British/American women - sort of Jane Austen-like. Turned me off from the beginning. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Possible un Jane Austen like image for tea house? *Ϣere SpielChequers* 22:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the listing: This is a publicly available Rfc, listed on two boards (policies and templates) and can be located anywhere on WP. I chose here rather than singling any one Template talk page, but this is very much an advertised and public Rfc which is seeking input from the entire community.

Regarding teahouses: they were originally for men only, no women allowed. If you wish to suggest different images, Mathew, I'm sure the Teahouse volunteers would welcome your input. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the listing: it's public availability must be why so many editors are interested, eh? Why did an editor who claims to have no involvement in the Teahouse start this Rfc? Very peculiar. Presumably an uninvolved editor? As I said, I followed this through meta as I was promoting it in the Signpost so I know the images, wording etc that was in the proposal and the promotional. There are no "metrics". This little group of friends, even those that have nothing to do with the Teahouse, like KillerChihuahua, just "know" it's working? Whose going to get the next grant from WMF for a similar project, perhaps aimed at Arab men? (I don't see a lot of wikipedian women promoting it. Seems like mostly men). Perhaps you should aim for 13-year-old girls. That's what it seems directed to. But please don't foist a link to Teahouse on Twinkle. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not friends with anyone here; in fact most of my interactions with Sarah have been outright hostile. Please do not presume to know anyone's motives or views. You're dead wrong about mine regarding this project, btw: I have not even supported this idea. If you had bothered to ask I would have been happy to tell you that I opened this Rfc because I was the one who removed the Teahouse links from the Welcome template(s) the first time, and since the Teahouse is now out of it's development and testing phase, thought the decent, ethical thing to do was list a proper Rfc, which Sarah said last time she didn't know how to do. I trust this has answered your rather rude insinuations adequately. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose generally per WSC. We already have a help page and a newbie help page, what are the comparable statistics for new editors explicitly invited to those? And for me at least, a "mature" Wikipedia process has been running for at least two years, so let's look back then at retention statistics. Sorry if this opposition jeopardizes anyone's income. Franamax (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Income? Are their people somehow making money off the Teahouse? Do tell... Ebikeguy (talk) 01:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Sarah and J-Mo (maybe Heather too?) have fellowships for the Teahouse, so yes and no. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Heather is not a fellow. J-mo is a research fellow who has contributed to projects related to user retention and beyond in Wikimedia projects. I am a community fellow. This has nothing to do with my finances. I'm a community member, 6+ years, who came up with an idea after brainstorming with the community. My goal is that this project, which has been a proven success, becomes completely reliable on the community and I can focus on other projects - as a fellow and volunteer - that retain new editors. SarahStierch (talk) 05:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

If it is felt out of bounds for me to mention this in context of this particular discussion (or of course if I'm totally wrong), I've no problem with retracting that statement. It does play some part in my thinking here, as I feel the particular interplay resulted in a "silo" which is difficult to integrate into the general encyclopedia workings. Which (also) I am NOT saying was improper use of funds either! Franamax (talk) 02:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Eh, I (for whatever it's worth) don't think it's out of bounds, really; it's just the way you phrased it made it sound kinda accusatory. I don't think it's a real concern here, since AFAIK they don't get paid based on the success of the Teahouse; I believe they get paid to research it, regardless of the outcome. But it's not out-of-bounds either. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't think it was out of bounds. I love my job. :) - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 22:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Fran, a historical analysis of the long-term retention impact on new editors of receiving a invitation to help resources would be very interesting. Unfortunately, reliably identifying instances of invitation in historical wikidata is non-trivially difficult, for a variety of fascinating (to me, anyway) reasons. We were only able to track Teahouse invites because we logged them in real time, used a limited number of templates, and transcluded (rather than substituted) invitations during the pilot period. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 22:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Weak oppose Though I (obviously) don't share MZM, Fran, and MatthewTownsend's concerns about the Teahouse itself (and yes, I did do the Esperanza homework that User:Kim Bruning assigned me at Wikimania), WSC's right in principle about changing people's templates without their knowledge. By all means let's add a Teahouse welcome to vanilla Twinkle, but I don't really like the idea of putting in links to existing ones behind people's backs. I don't think it's that big a deal in practice, hence the "weak", but still. Plus, more options is better. So yeah, add new templates, don't replace existing ones. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Now there is an excellent idea - adding one Teahouse welcome to Twinkle. I could support that. KillerChihuahua^?!? 05:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You can manually add {{welcome-t}} via Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences#twinkle-config-section-11. benzband (talk) 08:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Right, but what I'm saying is that we should get an RFC going on adding Teahouse-related welcome messages to the Twinkle baseline (or whatever the appropriate process for Twinkle changes is); this would increase visibility to anyone who isn't currently aware of it without forcing them to support it or being sneaky about it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Support As a community member who developed this project as a community member and became a fellow to produce it, I have support for this. For me, it cannot hurt anything to add it to another list of links and so forth. I personally feel the welcome messages can all use an overhaul, but, what can this hurt? Besides, the Teahouse can use more visitors then we are getting, and the more help the merrier. I'm also tired of beating dead horses about cabals and Ezperansa. Anyone who wants to get involved can. Just get involved. Oh wait, you all are :) SarahStierch (talk) 05:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, firstly a welcome message is not just a list of links, it is a message from one editor to another. Some of us who welcome newbies might be sufficiently comfortable with the Teahouse to personally recommend it to others; But you shouldn't presume that we all are yet. Or that a discussion here rather than at Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee is the best way to get those of us who welcome lots of newbies to start promoting you. As for Esperanza, I can empathise with your frustration. Esperanza closed before I joined so it is history for me too. But possibly important history, the closure of Esperanza came at about the same time as the community stopped growing, and while I'm unsure how much it is a symptom rather than a cause, I do suspect that there was something cuddly and precious in that bathwater. For the Teahouse to appear less cabal like to the rest of the community, can I suggest a change of tactics? If instead of holding this RFC here, the discussion had been raised where it really belongs, and better still it had been more "Hi I've added a couple of modified welcomes to the Twinkle menu, and here is why I'd really like you to use them." Then perhaps there would be less talk of cabals and Esperanza. Ϣere SpielChequers 09:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I actually didn't propose the RfC. That was KC. I had no clue this was going to happen until it happened. I don't really care where it happens, I think it's great that it is happening. I love how everyone talks about cabals it's like you can't have friends on Wikipedia without being seen as shady :) Hehehehe! SarahStierch (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Not only did I propose and open the Rfc, I don't agree that the only correct place to list it would be at the Welcome Committee. Most of the editors who use the Welcome templates don't even belong to that committee. I have listed it on two Rfc boards and CENT. If you think the editors at the WC might miss those listings, then please do add a note there with a link here so they can offer their input. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose, but I am now so tired of the welcome templates suddenly changing without warning that I am simply going to create my own personal one. The whole point of templated messages should be that I know what it is going to say and it is disconcerting when it says something I didn't intend to say. Spinning Spark 11:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, thank you for taking the time to come here and offer your view; the entire point of this discussion is so that the templates are not changed "without warning" but only after the community has a chance to help with the decision whether or not to make any change. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. Agree with WSC and Writ Keeper. Jenks24 (talk) 13:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Oppose in general. Most welcome templates have too many links already; which links are really needed should be discussed on the individual template talk pages. Also per WSC. —Kusma (t·c) 14:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Extremely strong support, and frankly I don't quite see why would we want to give much weight here to the opinion of anyone who has not been using the teahouse. This particular decision should mostly be left to the guests of the teahouse. As a guest, I would like to say that I find the teahouse about the only non-hostile patch in the whole of Wikipedia. Not only should it be on all welcome templates but we would do quite well to refer to it as your first go-to for all concerns. It's working, it is pleasant to go to, you get your questions answered in a timely manner and the answer is always both informative and kind. In my view, WMF would do good to just ignore the community of established editors here and direct new users to this place at the opening of every new account. →Yaniv256^talk_contribs 14:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

If there is anyone in this discussion whose views should be given less weight it should be the people who don't themselves use welcome templates. Please remember that a welcome template is a semi automated way of one editor giving a message to another, rather than retype the whole thing you can just type a few letters that summon up a template or even click one of a list on twinkle. As an editor you are still as responsible for that message as if you'd typed the whole thing yourself. If someone comes to me and says "why did you invite me to something incompatible with my religion, considering the article I was editing, were you being sarcastic?" I really don't want to have to say that someone else put those words in my mouth and I signed a welcome message that I wasn't fully comfortable with. Ϣere SpielChequers 23:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

1) Please don't pretend that teahouse might be seen as offensive, because you know very well that that name can easily be changed if that argument has real merit, and it does not, teahouse is just fine. 2) Anyone finding that the template he or she just placed included something he or she did not want to say, can simply revert himself or herself and put in a proper hand written welcome. If you find that too much niceness to bare, you can set up your own template on your user space. Any error that you may have fallen into would last no more than 5 minutes, and would happen only once. 3) Discounting me also here is only notable as it is representative of the general welcome that awaits the new editor, when outright incivility is avoided by some miracle. →Yaniv256^talk_contribs 23:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Support I cannot really argue when an actual guest supports it and it is mostly users who have never or have rarely actually participated at the Teahouse that are opposing. Those editor's seem to not really get what we are doing, but that could not be expected of them as they have not been active in it. Personally, I hate giving new editors a big welcome template with a million links (I did not follow a single link in my first welcome template), but people are going to continue to use them, and if the new editors are going to receive these templates, they better have the only link that is different from all the rest. hajat vrc @ 15:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand the argument of "adding to the templates behind the creators'/users' backs". If the creators/users of the templates did not want other editors to edit them in order to improve Wikipedia, perhaps they do not understand what Wikipedia is. Also, per WSC's comment about adding them to welcome-warning templates...obviously we would not do that anyway. hajat vrc @ 16:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree on "behind backs" this is advertised on two Rfc boards as well as at CENT. However, the concern about the warning templates is well placed, that was done before (and I agree should not be done again.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I too understand that particular concern, but hold the view that addressing the general unwelcome message Wikipedia really offers new editors is a higher concern. And by the way, serving new users with the Pillars borders on misinformation and is just a tiny bit quite rude. I do not think that there are many countries in the world that serve first time visitors with their codebook. But perhaps we should retain that discussion for some other day. →Yaniv256^talk_contribs 22:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment This seems like a good idea. Many new users are looking for help and if they can get that at the Teahouse, all the better. 64.40.57.90 (talk) 05:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Support The goal of the Teahouse is to help new editors, and adding a link the Welcome t templates would be a great idea. Electric Catfish 18:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Support Adding a link on the Welcome Template to a place on Wikipedia where people are made to feel Welcome and warmly received is controversial? Welcome to Wikipedia, I guess.... First Light (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Oppose I came to the Teahouse because it wasn't on the welcome template. If I wanted to subject myself to the chill dude mobset, the template, placed by a well-meaning Wikipedian, offered a smorgasboard of hells to choose from. The welcome template and teahouse invite came from the same user. If you add the teahouse template to the welcome template or deliver by bot-spam like Commons does, you become everything else on Wikipedia, not a low key place for newbs. You might as well not spam my user page. Eau (talk) 04:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Sort-of Oppose I came to the Teahouse because a bot invited me and I'm perfectly fine with that. I didn't get officially welcomed to Wikipedia till well after my first contributions. For me, the Teahouse and the Wikipedia welcome people are separate entities. I guess in some cases they overlap, but I think making them the same would take away from the new principles and ideals of Teahouse. Airelor (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Support Linking to Esperanza in welcome templates is fine. Gigs (talk) 13:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Sort-of Support. Actually, I'd rather delete most of the other links in the welcoming template, and replace them with a link to the Teahouse. I agree with many of the comments above, that we simply give new editors way too many links that they never asked for. It's like giving them an annoying homework assignment, and is often counterproductive. I much prefer simple, short welcoming messages that invite the new person to ask whatever questions they elect to ask, and appropriate links can then be offered as requested. I'm satisfied that the Teahouse has developed into a Good Thing, and is well-suited to do the job of guiding new editors who have questions. But I'd much rather see a single welcome template than see the welcome template followed by a second template with an invitation to the Teahouse. WP:KISS. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Many of us would love to get rid of the big templates and just use a small, helpful, "thank you for joining us, if you have any questions you can contact me or seek assistance at the Teahouse" kind of deal. But that would mean a long and heated CENT discussion because everyone uses the current ones. The current system is a highly established norm. hajat vrc @ 16:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I do understand that such a decision cannot simply be made here in this discussion, and I'm sorry if it sounded like I didn't get it. In that sense, then, please understand my comment as supporting this one additional link, as a less-than-perfect solution in a less-than-perfect world. And that's why I'd prefer linking to the Teahouse from the main template, over having to follow that template with a separate invitation. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Some of the information on the template is very useful. Unfortunately, exploring the "Introduction" was right at the top, and it is where I went first. But the Cheat Sheet and some of the portal and community stuff on the template on my talk page is very useful. Leaving just a Teahouse link, or just inviting me to the Teahouse, in my opinion, would be less useful. But I don't think that established editors appreciate how pointless some of the more crowded templates are. Commons delivers a useless welcome template by bot that just turned me off of uploading images to commons. I have dozens of micrographs that I want to add to articles; I clicked on a picture and was taken to Commons, where my talk page was vomited on by a robot. I clicked on a few links, and decided that Commons does not want me to contribute. I hope that users here ask themselves what they want the Teahouse to accomplish, and for whom, before they start putting the Teahouse invite on a welcome template and distributing it by bots. That is not a welcome. Eau (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I think both Tryptofish and Eau make good arguments. How about if we decide that it is alright to put the teahouse link on welcome templates, as it is alright to take some other links out so as to make them more useful and less rude, and leave the details to the particular template talk page? →Yaniv256^wind_roads 19:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I might support that, adding it, but taking some other stuff off. I still think that what was attractive for me, was the individuality. I would never have asked at the Teahouse if I all I got was the welcome template with a bunch of stuff on it. I went to the Teahouse with a question because a person bothered to post a link to it on my talk page. Eau (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'll have to second that too. Moreover, I was a bit confused at the start as I thought the teahouse template was a personal message from Sarah and quite put off when I understood that that wasn't the case. It took me quite a while before I felt I need help so much that I overcome this initial rejection and made my first visit. In general, I would say that trying to be nice with a template is akin to spreading your jam with a sword. It can be done, but requires quite a bit of effort and skill, as you are using the wrong tool for the job. →Yaniv256^wind_roads 20:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I spend a lot of time at the Special:Feedback dashboard, and I agree that shorter messages with just one or two links included, get better results (in the long run). So perhaps this shoud spark a discussion concerning the welcome templates. Lectonar (talk) 09:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Some previous discussions related to these issues are at Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Minimize talk page templates and Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Allow socializing, and are worth a second look. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Sort-of Support. I agree with Tryptofish. benzband (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Support Perhaps I am a bit biased as I have been using the template, but some of my best interactions with new editors have come from using these templates. I think using them more will only create better initial interactions with new users and make it more likely for new users to stick around, learn, and contribute in effective ways. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 09:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
After much consideration, oppose. I think the Teahouse is an excellent idea that works really well. I also think that a reason this has worked well is because of the personalised invites to the Teahouse that are handed out to promising editors. I fear that adding it wholesale to all the welcome templates may reduce the effectiveness of the Teahouse, and thus have this position. I'm by no means set on this, and would welcome comments to convince me otherwise. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 03:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Oppose as per Steven Zhang's comments immediately above. NtheP (talk) 09:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Partial Oppose per WSC and Steven Zhang. I think that creating yet another welcome template ({{welcome-tea}}, perhaps?) that invites someone would be a good idea; being able to welcome someone and invite them to the teahouse simultaneously would be nice. Failing that, adding it to one or two of the existing templates, but not all of them, could work. But I don't think we want to invite EVERY new editor there, and I'd like to be able to exercise discretion on whether or not I do so. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

We do have {{welcome-t}} and {{welcome-t-anon}} in case you are interested. hajat vrc @ 22:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Support adding to default welcome template. It serves a purpose. --Nouniquenames (talk) 04:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Sort-of-support in some, not all. Full disclosure, I am a member of the Teahouse not-a-cabal and new enough to remember seeing the {{welcomeg}} appear at the top of my talk page. 65 links, many leading to other pages of link farms. I recall feeling confused and intimidated instead of welcomed. Add to all? No! Like Tryptofish, I prefer short, simple welcomes like {{welcome-t}}. I check new editor's contribs and often add a personal note suggesting a WikiProject that might interest them or an observation that they resemble a wiki creature in a note under the template. I agree with experiments using a bot; if successful in retaining productive editors, great. If not, try something else. Whenever possible, personal is better. Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ · cont) Join WER 05:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Weak oppose Steven Zhang has more-or-less already said my views on this subject (and said it better than I could have said them). David1217 ^{What I've done} 19:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Support - Teahouse is very helpful for new editors. Unfortunately, many new editors aren't told about it. Putitng it in the welcome template would be very helpful. --Activism1234 04:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Oppose as already explained in the BFRA. mabdul 18:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Discussion restored from the archive to allow for a close. See my request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Wikipedia talk:Teahouse#Welcome template discussion. Cunard (talk) 00:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

An attempt to break down the essential questions

Thanks so much, everyone, for your input. One big question, as I see it, is whether it is better to get the community at large, who may not do the best job, involved in recruiting guests, or if that should be the job of those with knowledge of how the Teahouse actually works. I am quite torn. If we make the TH invite standard in all welcome templates, of course there will be some new editors invited who could become disruptive. Also, a large portion of new editors receiving these impersonal invites will never follow the link to the Teahouse to find out what it is. Many of us agree that short and personal messages are far superior. But how do we weigh the pros and cons of creating a way for the community at large to provide the link, even if they do not understand its purpose? Would a more massive, yet less personal, TH-inviting scheme bring in a larger number of productive guests or disruptive guests? Can we estimate the ratio between the two?
Many inputting users, supporters and opposers, make it known how exactly they would see the welcoming process run in a perfect world. It is good that we are talking about that, as it is an extremely important process, but I think that we could better help the Teahouse if we asked the questions in the previous paragraph. I would fully support another CENT to discuss welcoming in general, but how do we represent the Teahouse when that discussion comes? We must have some sort of consensus on the questions realted to the Teahouse before we go to the larger issue. hajat vrc @ 05:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Input seems to have slowed down, if not actually stopped, on this discussion. It appears many people would support adding the link, but would prefer adding the Teahouse welcome to Twinkle, and of those who oppose adding the link, many support adding the Teahouse welcome to Twinkle. It may be best to start a new Rfc with three choices; Add teahouse link to Welcome, Add Teahouse welcome to Twinkle, and Do neither. Thoughts? KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Summary

There is no consensus in the above discussion to alter the status quo. Those interested in altering the status quo should start a new RFC with three sub-headings labeled "Add teahouse link to Welcome, Add Teahouse welcome to Twinkle, and Do neither." The heading receiving the greatest net support should then be enacted. MBisanz ^talk 18:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New format

Was this discussed somewhere? The forced width is making the question forum squeeze down like extruded toothpaste from a tube into a fantastically long skinny forum that doesn't look great to me, but more importantly, makes navigation more difficult. I have no major allegiance to the prior aesthetic, though I always thought the Japanese tree logo was actually quite beautiful and that's mostly lost now that it's been shrinky-dinked, but if nothing else, can we increase the width to something approximating a normal page?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just looking at changing it myself, but I'm trying to ping Heather in IRC forst, to see if this is intentional or not. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, Writ Keeper, the idea of a redesign has been introduced for a while though not discussed in detail. If you wouldn't mind giving it a little time to sink in, let me explain some of the rationale here. We decided to work within the standard screen widths you will find everywhere on the internet. One issue we have there is that the sidebar already takes up a portion of our space. Along with this, there is research regarding eye tracking and line length that indicates certain lengths to be better for readability. I don't have time at the moment but I can talk more about that later. I really hope that most of the changes make things easier for newcomers and not problematic for the excellent hosts whose work I deeply appreciate. Let's talk about this some more and come to a conclusion that hopefully satisfies everyone. Thanks for your patience! heather walls (talk) 01:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Heather on this one (surprise, surprise), but I'm also interested in what other hosts think. Can we let this breathe for a day or two while others chime in on this thread? I'll post a link to this thread on the host lounge, to avoid forks. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 01:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

NO change it back NOW (kidding). The thing is, with the sharply narrowed width, any post of even moderate length now looks like a wall of text and I think many people react to that. Also, you must admit it has a deleterious affect on navigation when the page has become twice as long and you're looking for a particular thread or post (yes, of course people can use the TOC or the page history to locate a specified thread but many don't and won't).

I just did a quick search and came across this article which says "A wall of text is deadly for an interactive experience. Intimidating. Boring. Painful to read." True, it's not actually a wall of text when the amount of text has not changed, but making the text appear over many more lines undoubtedly gives that appearance. That article also notes that "Consistency is one of the most powerful usability principles"; coming to this page with it (at least for me) a quarter the width of a regular page is a trivially but nevertheless jarring, as well as inconsistent (by the same token, for some of the same reasons, I still believe this page should act like every other page on Wikipedia and have new posts at the bottom). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

P.S.

"Readability of text scrolled on visual display terminals was studied as a function of three different line lengths, two different character densities, and five different window heights (either 1, 2, 3, 4, or 20 lines). All three variables significantly affected reading rate, but to markedly different extents. Lines of full and two-thirds screen width were read, on average, 25% faster than lines of one-third screen width. Text appearing at a density of 80 characters per line was read 30% faster than text in a format of 40 characters per line.—Robert L. Duchnicky and Paul A. Kolers (December 1983). The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. 25 (6) http://hfs.sagepub.com/content/25/6/683.short. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't profess to know much about readability from the statistics angle; my HCI class was a long time ago (and I hated it anyway). All I can say is that my first reaction to the layout was, "Jeez, some guest must've screwed something up with the formatting." It looks wrong; not in the "horrible ugly evil" sense, but in the "broken" sense. Maybe it's just me (and I don't mean to be cramping your style!), and it's not like the new layout would make me contribute any less, but every time I see it, I get that tiny cringe, as if someone broke something. :/ Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

New layout = EPIC FAIL. Plzfixkthxbye. --Jayron32 03:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't even know where to address this aside, but WTF has happened to the edit view across the pedia? The links to wikicode are gone, the find and replace option, gone. It's too much in one day. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 03:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- WP:VPT awaits your complaints on that one. --Jayron32 03:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Whilst the colours are very nice, the wasted space on the new layout is not. If you want a certain line length for readability, then that's not a problem, but why on earth are you centring it, with massive borders? align it to one side, and put host profiles down the other, or do two columns of questions and answers... or something. This currently gives the impression of squeezing the text for no reason, and looks especially bad on wide screens, where you can fit 3 times the information on. Worm^TT(talk) 08:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Addendum, it appears this looks very nice in 1024x768, but according to W3Schools that only caters for 13% of computers these days, with 85% using higher (figures here), the majority use much more width (figures for higher resolution) Worm^TT(talk) 08:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
When I started with HTML many years ago there was this concept of "standard screen widths" all over the internet. As Worm has pointed out, the range on resolutions is now too large for this to be even remotely practical. Sure, when you go to an article by The Guardian, there is a narrow width to which the actual text of the article is constrained. But this does not make it a good idea. I understand that there is research connecting line length with readability. But if a viewer wants to make the lines a certain length, they just re-size their browser window. Why assume that we know what people want? The rest of Wikipedia does not have specific widths, so a viewer who has a special preference will be used to re-sizing their window anyway. hajat vrc @ 08:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I very much agree. A standard is something that is written down somewhere so that you can refer to it. Where is the document laying out "standard screen widths"? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Years ago, for example, there was a widely held belief that a web page should be 600 pixels in width. This was when 800x600 was what pretty much everyone had, so it gave 200 pixels for window borders, margins, and sometimes advertisements. But a pixel was much bigger back then, as an 800x600 monitor could be 17" or more. Times have changed. hajat vrc @ 09:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

A standard is something that is written down somewhere so that you can refer to it. Where is the document that specified that web pages should be 600 pixels in width? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I must be getting terribly sad but I've got the Teahouse open in front of me on three different browsers, Firefox 15.0.1, IE7 and Safari (iOS6). In Firefox and Safari it looks fine to me but in IE the first text entries "Welcome to the Teahouse" & "Hosts are here to help" appear to have slipped half a line so they straddle the border between the areas with dark grey and light grey backgrounds. As the text is fairly light itself the upshot is that half the text merges into the background and is lost to sight. NtheP (talk) 09:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
The inherent conservatism of the average Wikipedia editor aside, I can't see the benefits from this change. As previous commentators have noted, the "squeezed" text makes the Q&A board looked cramped and unappealing; it's hard to scan with the eye and the line length is too short for easy reading in my browser window (I'm running Firefox).

You might

just as well

restrict each

line to

two or three

words and have

done with it.

In addition, it took me about six or seven seconds - a long time in our instant-data world - to locate the important link to the Q&A board; since that's the principal function of the Teahouse, we don't want it getting lost. Finally, from a purely aesthetic point of view, I liked the old layout; it had a graceful ma that complimented the (now smallified and lost) Teahouse icon and general vibe of the place. This new version looks like a Wordpress blog.

I'm a new host (only signed up yesterday), so my comments probably carry less weight than those of folk who've been serving tea for a while. Still, as someone who's done my share of graphic design work in the past, I have to say I think this is a step in the wrong direction. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the "Get answers" link should not be in the partitioned space that is a different color. I tend to consider fields in a web page that are a lighter color from the main color as not as important, so I would not search for the most important link on the page in that pale-gray field with other stuff in it.

I happened to know from experience that the link was followed by that arrow graphic so I found it a bit easier than, I suspect, a newer visitor would. hajat vrc @ 10:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

It's worth noting that browser window sizes can rarely be adjusted on tablets. -- Trevj (talk) 11:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

That is a valid point, though I have never used a tablet so I cannot judge whether their set width produces a good line length or not. Do you, or does anyone else, have an insight about this width that might affect the width of the Q&A page? hajat vrc @ 15:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

In addition to the comments about the narrowness—I think any comments I have are redundant—I dislike the new coloring scheme; the dark gray and bright blue don't seem as natural and calming as the light blues and browns we had before. I also dislike the fact that there is an empty light gray box next to the picture of the host. I mean, put something there, even if it is just their username! It looks off! ^{Brambleberry of RiverClan}_meow 15:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, the new redesign, even without the width problems, looks amateurish and unappealing. I'm not sure there was anything at all wrong with the old layout and color scheme. It's like whoever did this went to the Facebook school of "cram through a random cosmetic change which has no net benefit, but annoys users nonetheless". If we're going to change the layout, there could at least be some measurable betterment. The links are harder to follow from Wikipedia:Teahouse, the text is illegible in some places because it runs white-on-white, it's just inconceivably hard to use. Seriously, I don't see why there was a need to change anything, the changes don't improve the mission of the Teahouse, and I'm frankly quite miffed that this is so messed up. I wouldn't object to changes if they worked, even if the changes didn't make anything better, but these changes are the exact opposite of what an improvement is supposed to be. The Teahouse is worse in every conceivable way. Please bring back the old layout, at least temporarily, until you get a properly tested and working one to implement. Thanks. --Jayron32 21:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Jayron. This is horrid. Please bring back the old teahouse.Charles (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Reply My heart is in this. My heart was in the first Teahouse I designed and we all made together, and now in trying to improve it.

I'm on your side. We are on the same side. The side of making Wikipedia better, the side of having a friendly place where new editors learn how to be Wikipedians.

I am disappointed in what has happened, not because I don't want to hear your opinion or work together, but because of how everything appears to be framed. I apologize that we didn't have time to create a more open process in the redesign, but at the same time this is the process. I introduced to you the idea that changes were going to occur and asked for your responses. I suppose I expected reactions and dialogue instead of what feels like an attack.

Here we are now. My preference would be to stop seeing “other” in this conversation.

I care about your opinion and your happiness, I also care about what is best for the Teahouse and every new guest, guests that already tend to be having a tough time navigating Wikipedia. It was necessary to tighten up the layout a little, and pull the main navigation together. I introduced the changes in this post...

We've been working on a Teahouse redesign lately and it is almost ready to go! The reorganization is intended to to make the Teahouse experience even more simple and clear to new Wikipedians, based on feedback we've gotten from guests so far. The overall functionality/features/etc should not be impacted, but we want new guests to be able to find you and ask you questions as quickly and easily as possible.

What is changing:

We've removed some of the overly-explanatory text because the Teahouse has grown and created it's own context with a long list of experienced hosts and a fantastic archive of questions to show guests what the point is.

The landing page will have four obvious sections and fewer links to reduce confusion with the interaction. We want to welcome newcomers as well as introduce the 3 areas of the Teahouse with three major links

Some of you have brought up specific details that neither myself nor people I've requested help from have been able to reproduce. I've looked at everything in many browsers. If you have screenshots of specific issues (like white on white text) I would love to see them and see how they might be addressed. The links are meant to be simplified and more obvious (now light blue= link). I am curious what might have made links more obvious to you before or had they just become familiar? This design is easier to navigate than the last based on a number of interaction practices. Many things we'd love to do are just not technically possible.

The truth is that I was sad about aspects of the redesign, too. I'm nostalgic about the place we all built together. At the same time, I really believe that change has the potential to make the Teahouse better. To create a strong, clear message, and show the humanity and community in Wikipedia.

Feelings aside, let's address some of your concerns. Every discussion about readability will tell you that shorter line length is easier for humans to read, despite this I've already increased the width of the question area. I am looking at changing the color scheme back, and bringing back the other tree logo. There are a few things that aren't going to be changed, for instance the “gray box next to the host picture” is simply an artifact of the random nature of the images that people use to express themselves. I have no control over the color or proportion so I have to respond to that by making space for it even though not every image is going to use the same amount of space.

I appreciate you giving me the time and space to test the response of new users to some of the changes I've made. I hope that you are still interested and willing to work on this together. Thanks for your feedback and I'm hoping to hear more productive Teahouse-worthy feedback soon!

Thank you most of all for your amazing participation and support in this project which has had real and significant success in our corner of Wikipedia. heather walls (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I do have a question about the removal of the old explanatory text atop the "Ask a question" button on the Q&A. I'm sure we all have seen numerous occasions where the guest does not know that they can reply to the discussion by clicking [edit] and typing below the last post (and that they are welcome to do so). I was under the impression that this was the reason someone had added that information. People who have the "TeahouseRespond" script enabled can use that to reply, but having that as a standard preference on Wikipedia would exclude those who do not have Javascript functionality. I do respect the need to get rid of any unnecessary clutter, but can't we find some way of guiding them in this respect? hajat vrc @ 20:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Related discussion here. I think putting necessary explanatory text, prompts and reminders in the Teahouse gadget (in the border area, or as default text in the textarea) is a good idea. Tho even here we should try to keep it as lean as we can. I also support including Equazcion's response gadget in the Teahouse gadget itself. This would require someone with some Javascript-fu to update the code, and a few of us to a) turn off our Teahouse gadget in our preferences, b) install the new combined gadget as a userscript and c) test to make sure everything's working okay. Then, I can ping Werdna and ask him to review the code and update the gadget. Any takers?

Very few of our guests (around 11%) responded to existing discussions, even when we told them they could do so, so a textual prompt alone is never going to get us where we want to go, in terms of facilitating peer support. It would be interesting to implement 'Respond to this discussion' as default, and then see if that number increases. I'll run the numbers if some writes the code! Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 00:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

11% sounds like a very large number, especially considering the tiny numbers that responded to similar prompts in experiments like AFT. (Ironholds has the data on that if you need it!)

Agreed that 11% is an impressive start, esp. since newcomers are often nervous about making missteps and many aren't 100% with this whole 'markup' deal. But I think we can do better. And I'm always eager for a chance to show up IronHolds. :P Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 03:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Heather, a question for you. If consensus amongst hosts is that the original teahouse you designed is the best way, and the subsequent designs are not the best way, where do we go from there? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the goal is to have a Teahouse that we all love (hosts and guests)! Heather probably has a couple more tricks up her sleeve to iterate on ( the colors etc) in this version based on everyone's feedback here. Why don't we give it a few more days to discuss, tweak, and soak up the new design before deciding together where we should go from here? It would be good to get feedback from guests too, and see if anything has changed in their experience with the redesign -- after all, this place is all about being geared to help new editors, right? And oh man, I still would really love to have Equazcion's "respond to this discussion" feature added for everyone...lets try to see what we can do about that. Siko (talk) 08:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

One technical thing I have noticed. On the Teahouse page the host's name is given under the picture. On the Q page it isn't. Deliberate or accident? NtheP (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

That's intentional, but it's only a placeholder. Heather and I are working on getting host profile picture rotation going on all the pages. As you probably know, the main page pulls a template randomly from this list, which I just made compatible with the new layout. Unfortunately, the markup on /Questions /Guests and /Hosts is subtly different from the markup on the main page, making it a little more difficult. So I've put GorillaWarfare's smiling face on all of them, as a placeholder 'til I can get it working like it should. :) Probably by the end of the week? He said optimistically... Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 03:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The background is too dark in the new layout. It's determined by background-color:#F4F3F0; in {{TH question page}}. Compare before and after. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Or do you think the font isn't dark enough? (Yes, it has changed...but...) SarahStierch (talk) 22:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

A darker font would also help but I mostly think the background should be lighter. The current contrast passes standards but still seems unnecessarily low when there is no apparent reason to not make it higher. I don't recall Wikipedia pages where the background of the main text area is this dark. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Since no one else sees what I am seeing, I've uploaded some clips of the screens I see. Again, I can't imagine that of all of the computers in the entire world, mine is so unique as that no one else expriences this at all.

My set up is IE 9.0.10 on a Windows 7 Premium machine. My display is a COMPAQ FB5315 4:3 ratio monitor (15 inch I believe) running at 1024x768 and 32 bit color. I hope that helps isolate and fix the problems. --Jayron32 23:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh! And thanks for the screenshots. heather walls (talk) 01:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Jayron, the title bars are not rendering properly on your machine. For me (Firefox in Linux), the text is aligned on the bar and there is no white-on-white. But I remember accessing the Teahouse from my school's computer (Windows 7 with Firefox) and it rendered properly as well. It might just be IE. I would suggest not using IE at all for security reasons (This is just one example from a week ago; security holes in IE and Safari are much discussed in the tech world). hajat vrc @ 23:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I know. I've gotten the speech. I've considered Chrome, and use it a bit for stuff that IE just won't do. It's one of those "devil you know" things. Everyone tells me IE is a piece of shit, for any number of reasons. Maybe you'll convince me soon. I just havfta figure out how to move all of my favorites over. --Jayron32 03:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I just checked my wife's laptop. Same exact set up (same windows version, same IE version) except a 17-inch 16:9 aspect ratio monitor, and it looks perfect. I'm gonna check Chrome on this machine now. --Jayron32 03:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

OK. Checked with Chrome on my desktop machine (my regular computer), and it looks perfect too. The only set up that is having problems is the specific browser/monitor combination I note above. Not sure why. I'm switching to Chrome I think full time (this has convinced me), but you should be aware of the problem nonetheless, if for no other reason than someone else may try to access the page with that set up and may have the same problems. No idea if it can be fixed, but at least you have the full info. --Jayron32 03:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi all, it seems like IE doesn't always play well with position:relative... or something. I am curious now if you saw the original TH the same way everyone else does. :) Either way I will be working on changing the color scheme back to the original which, if I am lucky, will solve several problems at once. Or create more. We'll see! heather walls (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I heard you liked new formats so I put a new format... nvm. Hey all! So here it is. Fire away. I've checked this in many browser configurations and it works in all but the most ancient but that doesn't appear to guarantee anything based on past experiences. Please let me know of any issues you run across or further suggestions you have. Thanks for your continuing patience, heather walls (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The screenshot Jayron posted regarding how the Teahouse main launching page looks is what I reported (badly in words) about viewing it in IE7 (works computer). Yes I'm sure we've all heard the shout "Get off IE" many times and that it's buggy, security weak etc but the fact is that one in three of the worlds browsers is IE [11] so we are, for the time being, stuck with it, therefore we ought to make attempts for pages to render correctly in it. NtheP (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

That's...easier said than done. Usually to quite a large degree. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Tell me about it - but the argument made that it's rubbish isn't a valid one not to try. NtheP (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, can't disagree with that (I've expressed similar thoughts to Jayron before, as he pseudo-hinted). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Based on my current experiments, sadly IE7 + current Teahouse is not ideal, I have no idea what sort of magic prevented that happening in the previous design (if it did, still not sure about that). History of Internet Explorer says that IE7 came out in 2006, IE8 in 2009. IE8 seems to behave reasonably. heather walls (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for changing the color scheme back; I thought the black and turquoise was a bit hostile. My main other dislike with the new format is that whenever it shows a host photo, there's gray space to the right of the photo because the photo is too narrow to fill the gray space. ^{Brambleberry of RiverClan}_meow 20:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Brambleberry! I think, and Heather will correct me if I'm wrong, it has to be that way because all of our host photos are different shapes, and we can't magically make Wikipedia code conform to those shapes as the photos change. Hence the empty space. SarahStierch (talk) 21:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

WAIT WAIT...but did we check it on Netscape? Or AOL 2.0? .... just kidding :) Great work Heather, and thanks everyone for turning criticism into constructive criticism that she was able to take into consideration with care. SarahStierch (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually I did check it on Netscape 4 :-) (same works PC that has IE7) let's just say you don't want to know about the discrepancies. NtheP (talk) 22:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)