Wikipedia talk:Teahouse

This page is only for discussing how the Teahouse is run and operated. If you need help with editing, or have a question about how Wikipedia works, click here to go to the Teahouse Q&A forum.

Updating our rules on answering at the Teahouse

I notice that our rules for answering questions at the Teahouse are very vague compared to the help desk's detailed rules. I was wondering if we should take details out in that article and put it in our own Teahouse rules like directing general knowledge questions to the refdesk. I think once that particular page is created/modified, we should include it in our editnotice since there are always editors who want to help others at the Teahouse, but may not know where to start. I think a page similar to the help desk's rules would helpful to those who want to help out on this forum. I (or another editor) can start drafting a page on how we can better help new editors. I value everyone's input on this, but I would especially like to hear the opinions of @Nick Moyes:, @Marchjuly:, and @Cullen328:. Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I never even knew there were "rules" for answering. Just be polite and welcoming should be enough, don't need to add more rules around it unless you are seeing some problem with how things are currently. RudolfRed (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we are quite informal here, as I thought you knew, Interstellarity. The Help desk 'rules' really are TL;DR, although it does have some useful templates like {{HD/rd}} which are adaptable here, assuming one wants to avoid giving a personal reply. Some while back, after one or two editors had signed up as Hosts, yet had only ever really edited in their userspace, I did unilaterally increase the Host Requirements to 500 mainspace edits. That said, I have since welcomed a number of really great editors as Hosts who have far less mainspace edits than that. But I feel keeping that 'ballpark' criterion is still quite useful as we do really want experienced editors as Hosts. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Our aim is to have friendly, experienced editors answer questions asked by pretty much anyone. To do that, we need to ensure we have a good balance of informality and procedure, to keep the atmosphere here as least judgmental as possible, but also keep the answers as helpful as possible. On average we get a new host every week, so maybe it's worth having some sort of informal screening procedure, i.e. just a quick run through the persons contribs, checking if they're friendly, whether their answers are helpful, how good their English is, if they are experienced.

If it would be helpful, I can adapt the Help Desk templates for the Teahouse. -Giraffer ^munch 12:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Just for information: Every month or so I go through recently added Hosts and check their contributions before leaving them this welcome message. I maintain a spreadsheet of who I've welcomed and when they joined the Teahouse, plus whether they already contributed here prior to signing up. (There's no obligation to, though it often surprises me that some people haven't. Are we missing a trick in communication there, I wonder?). It's extremely rare that I feel I ought to decline someone adding their name unless almost all of their edits have been made in userspace, as has happened once or twice, or if they've been in receipt of a lot of warnings or guidance from other editors. As I said, each person who signs up then gets a welcome message template, which Sdkb kindly modified for me recently so that we can add a personal note or message at the end. That message includes an important link to our Host Expectations. The last editor I welcomed in this way was User:Benjamin Borg, so there are a few more now to do. Having looked through each new host's contributions and talk pages, it's sometimes possible to offer a steer on interacting most effectively within the Teahouse. An editor who adds themselves as a Host, but who doesn't contribute at all for 6 months is likely to find their entry removed some time after that, as there's no point listing hosts who haven't actually contributed. Longer established hosts would, I expect, get considerably more leeway than that, and I do approach inactive editors if I am reluctant to remove them, in the hope they might become active. I might also drop a host a note if I feel they're good on the technical help, but perhaps a bit short on the friendly tone we try to engender here. I hope this overall approach meets with the approval of my fellow host. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)    

Nick Moyes, that's perfect. I had no idea you did that. Thanks, Giraffer ^munch 21:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

*Ultimately, the Teahouse and the help desk should be merged, but in terms of rules, I actually like ours better, since they're actually readable, whereas I very much doubt people volunteering at the help desk have thoroughly reviewed their page. One thing that I do think it might be good to add to ours, though, is a line about questions that are an attempt to jump a queue, e.g. "Can you please review my AfC draft?" I could easily see an editor who doesn't know better agreeing to do so. I don't think it's necessary to add an editnotice, since hosts are already welcomed with it, and as an editnotice it'd show up for readers, too. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why merging WP:HD and WP:TH is ultimately a goal we would wish to aim for, either for their rules or their approach to editor interaction. Vive la différence! WP:HD is generally more technical and less 'user-friendly' - and I would go there for a quick answer to a difficult question, but I would not send a newbie there. The only thing I really like at the Help Desk is its superior and more accessible archive structure, which I really wish we had. Regarding potential AFC queue-jumping: I'm not sure what kind of editors you mean, Skdb? Those who sign up as Hosts ought already to know enough to appreciate how AFC operates, even if they are not AFC Reviewers themselves. If an editor does choose to help the queue-jump process, they would inevitably have to stand by their actions of moving a draft into mainspace. On rare occasions, I might consider that I would be willing to do that myself if I felt it was really, genuinely worthy of being in mainspace right now. But I would definitely prefer the Teahouse is not seen as a shortcut route to getting drafts reviewed and published, so we should not encourage that. I would be happy to discuss removing an editor as a Host if their actions here were not deemed acceptable to our ethos. I don't think we've had problems of that sort for over 3 years, though nowadays I believe we also have the ability to block an editor from certain pages, such as this one. I can't comment on Skdb's final point as I didn't fully understand it - sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, sorry, I worded that last sentence weirdly. As I understand it, Interstellarity proposed adding a link to our host expectations page to the editnotice that appears in the Teahouse edit window. I don't think that's necessary, since new hosts are already provided with a link to the host expectations page when they become hosts, and we don't want to clutter the editnotice.

Regarding the different help venues, I should clarify my stance. I think there should only be one main help desk for new editors, and one for experienced editors. The Teahouse has positioned itself as the main help desk for new editors, but a lot of newcomers still end up at WP:HD, so its content isn't substantially different than here. What I'd like to see is for the help desk and Teahouse to merge (mostly to the Teahouse, which I think generally functions better, but maybe adopting the help desk's more self-explanatory name), and for another venue (perhaps WP:Editor assistance/Requests) to then be set up as an explicitly "advanced help desk" that'd be semi-protected (with a banner redirecting any newcomers who might stumble upon it) and function like a WP:VPT for non-technical questions. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Not every helper here signs up to be a host. We have plenty of editors here who do good work for the Teahouse, but never sign up to be a host. I think the link is still necessary for those helpers who wish to not sign up as hosts because they may not see it if they decide against being a host. Interstellarity (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I have used both the Teahouse and the Help Desk over the years and asked very different but focused, varied but tailored questions according to the environment and atmosphere of each given the kind of response I have come to expect from a certain type of contributing editor / host. The Teahouse just doesn't answer questions for "newbies"; but gives a more relaxed and "take a seat, grab a cup of tea, and let's chat about what you're having trouble with ..." My questions are a bit more personal in nature at the Teahouse. Where as at the Help Desk it seems more of a "Let's get down to business" direct approach from editors who are going to give it to you straight in a no-nonsense matter of fact manner. I would not like to see these two merged. I use them for two entirely separate functions of reference. For example, I might ask "Should I go to Paris" at the Teahouse; but at the Help Desk I would ask: "How do I get to Paris"; and I'm happy to know that if I asked each of these questions at the other, someone would say: "You should probably ask this over at the [ ... ]" I'm not sure we need an "Advanced Help Desk" since many times at the Help Desk I am directed to the numerous reference desks specifically set up here at WP. I guess what I'm saying is: if it ain't broke, why fix it? Maineartists (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

That would be my position, in a nutshell, too. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I also like the informal atmosphere of the Teahouse, and have never asked a question at the help desk. My questions have also usually been "how do I", and the Teahouse atmosphere makes one feel that no question is a stupid question, even if it is a stupid question. But if I don't know the answer, I guess it's not really a stupid question, I hope you understand what I'm trying to say. Coryphantha Talk 14:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

As experienced editors, we definitely see a difference in tone/style between the two. But I'm not sure that, in places where beginners are seeing links to one or both, they're really discerning that difference rather than just being confused by the apparent duplication. Forcing them to put in the work to choose the forum in which to ask their question is a largely unnecessary barrier. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Where is the evidence of the 'forcing' or 'confusion' that you speak of? Isn't that simply 'choice'? To suggest that new editors are paralysed into inaction by that choice is nonsense. The Help Desk name is certainly intuitive, whilst the Teahouse name is friendly and accommodating, but maybe less intuitive. If all we do is simply 'share the load' between the two fora that, in itself, is not a bad thing, is it? Research has shown that, since 2012, the Teahouse has contributed to editor retention. I'm not aware of any that has (or has not) shown that the Help Desk improves it in the same way. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I would say that since the questions at the Teahouse are less complex than at the Help Desk, it also gives new users an opportunity to help others as well as seek help. The Teahouse is an easy transition from relying on people (for help) to being relied on by people (again for help). IMHO, to a certain degree, it can be seen as a platform for users to grow as Wikipedians, not just to get help. Speaking from experience, four months ago I was still asking questions here, and now I'm a host - and the transition between the two has taught me loads. Giraffer ^munch 10:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

And while we're at it, about question-asking

Can we add something at least, that the questions at the Teahouse have to be questions? I'm looking at #Dominion (perma) which I was tempted to revert, but left in place and toned my initial reaction way down in my response. Mathglot (talk) 09:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Maybe something informal. Constructive messages for us are welcome, (although they really should go on talk), but people coming and just saying 'you suck' isn't remotely helpful. But I agree in that things on the project page should really be questions. Giraffer ^munch 17:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I thought your answer to that particular post was pretty good. We probably can't stop the tiny handful of people who don't understand what the big blue 'Ask a Question' button means, or the strapline when they want to vent their frustrations, but we can follow your excellent example by giving a polite, explanatory reply. Long may that continue. Notwithstanding that this post began life as a query about changing our rules on answering questions, not about asking them, do you have any suggestions which might make our Teahouse header, or the next steps when hitting the big blue 'Ask a Question' button any clearer? That particular IP editor hadn't even received either a HostBot invite to the Teahouse, or any welcome message, so it's hard to know how they misconstrued our purpose, or what we might do about it. (Of greater concern to me have been the large number of recent questions without subject headers, but we have tried to address that, too. The editing message now reads: "Please enter a title in the subject line, then explain your question in the box beneath it.". Alternative suggestions are always welcome. Anything completely inappropriate can simply be collapsed or removed, per WP:DNFTT. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: One suggestion is to change the button to say "Ask a Question about Wikipedia". RudolfRed (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Taking Nick's accurate (and gentle) comment about the original purpose of this section, I've added a subsection header just above my comment regarding question-asking.

Btw, I really liked Giraffer's comment above; I admire someone who can say something effective in few words, something I don't win any prizes for. Anyway, I'm now thinking that WP:YOUSUCK should surely be a shortcut somewhere; possibly near the WP:TPO shortcut near one of the criteria for collapse or removal of Talk page posts. Mathglot (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I fear that "Ask a Question about Wikipedia" would be more of an open invitation to ask any question about Wikipedia - precisely the issue we don't want to encourage. I'm sure we all want it to be questions about editing or using Wikipedia, but that would make the button text far too long. It was for that same reason that the strapline was changed very subtly back in September with this edit. I'm not averse to making further changes, but one has to carefully consider the impact of making the wrong sort of alteration. I genuinely don't feel at this time that we have a problem with the very occasional post at the Teahouse not being a question or not being entirely relevant to our purpose here. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: That text is on the button on the Help Desk and it looks fine to me. Just my opinion. RudolfRed (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Okay, I find Nick Moyes comment just above persuasive, about not altering the question part. Which, kind of loops us back to the "answering" part, or rather, straddles both themes, namely, this: "What is our best practice for responding to a question that isn't a question (whether well-meant, or not)?" Nick approved of the way I handled the "Dominion" rant (aww, shucks...) but I felt a bit at sea without at least a recommendation of how to proceed. I'm more used to Talk page guidelines such as WP:TPO than I am to Teahouse conventions, and not having much to go on, it was a close call in my mind among remove/collapse/polite-answer options, and I felt quite uncertain about the approach I took.

I'm getting the strong feeling in this discussion, that because TEA is more newbie territory (not always, but still) than your average article TP, we lean more towards the third option here. A minimum of guidance in the "rules" that tilted towards that, would have allowed me to come to a decision with more confidence, and may help other experienced users/relatively inexperienced Tea-helpers like me in the same way. Extending that: I still don't know if removal/collapse is *ever* an option here, or when it should be applied, or if it just falls back to TPO. Mathglot (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Hmm... I took a closer look around the Teahouse interface (header, HostBot template, edit notice, etc.), and I can't really see any way we can advertize the 'questions only' bit without seeming intrusive. It might be easier to deal with stuff like that by leaving it (the post) if it isn't exceptionally unhelpful, but have some sort of template (or more than one) that we can use to inform the OP about our question policy, and possibly suggest more appropriate venues for their comment, i.e. OTRS. That said, my solution to basically everything is to create a template, so forgive me if I'm being a little eager. Giraffer ^munch 20:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

To clarify: My hypothetical template would be placed on the project page, to avoid it looking like a warning. For a user complaining, such as the instance linked above, maybe something like 'Hello [user], and welcome to the Teahouse! We appreciate your comments, but they would be better directed at our of our contact email addresses [link to OTRS email addresses], where there are volunteers who are better equipped to assist you with your concern. Thanks! ~~~~' would be useful (or something along those lines). Again, this may be a weird idea - I'm just brainstorming here. Giraffer ^munch 21:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Would that be considered too "public-shaming"? How about, "responded at your Talk page" here (+link), and a uw-style template on the User talk page, where it's less public, and more easily findable for the user, especially post-Tea archival? That would also be an opportunity to add a welcome template, if they didn't already have one. I've written several of those, and I see no reason why we can't add {{welcome-teauser-retarget}} or some such (and just plain {{teauser-retarget}} if already welcomed (or parametrize it with/without welcome). Mathglot (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Mathglot, that's a really good point. I was concerned about it seeming like a warning rather than a nudge, but the 'public shaming' could be an issue. A user talk template with a welcome variation would be useful. Maybe also one about how content requests go on the article talk page would also be helpful. I would like to hear other users/hosts' thoughts first, though. Thanks! Giraffer ^munch 21:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

It is probably worth mentioning that the Teahouse was specifically intended to be social. It was created to respond to the problems of help desk, where answers were cursory and weren't intended to be supportive. The Teahouse was supposed to fix that by giving detailed and supportive answers even when it would be easier just to provide a link and an acronym; and to create a social environment that built a collaboration. Making the rules more restrictive and moving this more towards a help desk seems to be going counter to that. - Bilby (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

+1 Giraffer ^munch 21:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bilby and Giraffer: If the "Teahouse was specifically intended to be social" then it should maybe be re-examined. Yesterday's host Paul Carpenter stated "The fact is that the talk-page format isn't really suited to a social setting." Wikipedia has a help desk that is designed to be supportive (Teahouse), and a help desk designed not to be supportive (Help Desk), and because it is the public's responsibility to use the appropriate one I would expect confusion. Sdkb mentioned a merge and I have to wonder if it wouldn't streamline things to have one place to input questions and the volunteers/hosts could give extra support when needed, and less support when "just to provide a link and an acronym" is what's appropriate. Thereby eliminating the input crossover and dampening inane questions by distancing from the social hangout identity. DHHornfeldt (talk) 02:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

DHHornfeldt, personally I wouldn't use the work 'social' to describe the Teahouse. (If I had to pick one, I would probably pick 'forum'). It (the TH) was intended to be a place where questions could be asked informally, and answered warmly and helpfully. I think the social aspect refers to the fact that anyone can answer anyone's question (provided that they do so in a helpful and supportive manner), and multiple people can answer the same question (which can occasionally initiate a discussion). I would say that the Teahouse is less of a 'grab a mug and chat' place and more of an informal forum for newcomers to get help. Giraffer ^{(Happy·Wikipedia Day!)} 11:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

On-boarding hosts

+2 I agree with that Bilby. In no way do I intend to be rude to Mathglot when I say this, but if, as you suggested above, you are unsure how to deal with something at the Teahouse, it is perhaps best to leave it a while and see how other TH Hosts handle it. That, itself, is a useful learning experience, and part of the exemplar approach we take. If you want some heavy reading on the subject of 'norms' that we follow that are specific to the Teahouse, take a look through Jtmorgan's paper on this subject: ‘Welcome’ Changes? Descriptive and Injunctive Norms in a Wikipedia Sub-Community. (I'm still trying to get my head round it!)

Regarding dealing with the occasional inappropriate post, I would say that Removal is occasionally OK when offensive or trolling content is posted, though remember that responding honestly and pleasantly and helpfully to one person posting in bad faith can sometimes be of use to help other watchers who might then learn how to act. 'Archive' is needed on rare occasions when a discussion has reached its natural end, yet people still seem intent on posting to a thread (perhaps halting a bit of 'pile-on' as happened recently see discussion on this page and here. It can avoid giving unnecessary prominence or embarrassment. Collapse is used occasionally if someone posts their draft here, or a thread contains long, expansive content likely to be of little interest to other readers.

In trying to create a friendly, welcoming experience for brand new editors, it's important that Hosts act like genuine café staff. Give every potential customer a friendly smile and a welcome, even if they stomp in with their muddy boots and dirty raincoats. Should they shout "Do you serve crabs here?" don't say: "Take a seat, sir. We serve anybody!", but politely suggest they may have more luck at the seafood shop next door, and point them towards it, whilst wishing them a pleasant day. It's more effort than a template, but it's seen as much friendlier and more helpful, which is what editor retention is really all about. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Constructive criticism aimed at improving the experience always cheerfully accepted. Regarding this:

if... you are unsure how to deal with something at the Teahouse, it is perhaps best to leave it a while and see how other TH Hosts handle it. That, itself, is a useful learning experience, and part of the exemplar approach we take.

That's certainly one approach, namely, the craft-guild ("exemplar") approach, where not much is written, and craftsmanship is passed down via a period of apprenticeship to a guild. It has its advantages, based on a personalized approach, and probably some others. I find it less efficient, though, for bringing new people on board. In our internet-speed world, I'd rather have someone pass me the top ten do's and don'ts, and I'll follow the right path and avoid the major pitfalls that way as best I can, and fill in the blanks by observing the craftsmen as I go.

We talked about editor retention above, something we all agree is worthwhile; what about host-acquisition? To be frank, I'm overwhelmed with my other WP projects as it is, and I'm not going to hang around here observing the habitués, just to be able to osmose some version of the unwritten conventions by observation, which might or might not be an accurate synthesis on my part, just so that I might become a good-enough host at some point in the future. Just shoot me the handbook, tyvm, and I'm willing to help; as in anything else, experience will fine-tune my ability to properly respond, as will occasional correction by those more experienced. The world is just moving too fast now for the craft-guild approach; at least for me it is; chalk it up to my impatience if you like.

Also, consider the analogy with content development and editor interaction at Wikipedia, which is codified by numerous sets of rules (some believe too many). We don't ask new editors to just intuit Verifiability and neutral point of view, and osmose no personal attacks and WP:CIVIL. They still have to learn by observation of exemplars, but when an editor asks what the best practices are in those areas, or when an experienced editor leaves a newbie a Talk page warning or piece of advice, we have something generally accepted we can point to, that the learner can absorb at their leisure. Guess I'm just hoping for the same approach here. (Toldja concision is not my point fort.) Mathglot (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

To that, I would simply say that The Teahouse was intentionally set up to be different. It always aimed to be a more friendly, sociable space, and to serve as a way to better retain new users and to encourage more female editors (see here and here). Maybe for busy, efficient editors like yourself it could be that becoming a Teahouse host is not for them, as each response to a struggling newcomer generally takes far more care, attention and subtlety than it does by throwing a few WP:RTFM shortcuts at them and moving on. I think it is good to see new editors absorb our old fashioned approach, and for potential hosts to do the same. That said, in light of your comments, I have added an extra line for clarity at the Host Start page which now points to our simple 'host expectations'. Everywhere else on Wikipedia is so rule- and policy-driven that I think many find it refreshing to encounter informed editors, willing to gently but firmly steer new users in the right direction, and I personally find it very rewarding to see struggling editors evolve to become great long-term contributors to Wikipedia. This is especially so when they are not at all like me: white, middle aged, middle class and 'middle England'. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Jumping in because I got pinged and because I love talking about these things. FWIW I agree with everything Nick Moyes said above. That said, if we wanted to put together some more explicit guidance for new hosts who prefer to learn the ropes by reading the proverbial F'ing Manual, maybe a New Host FAQ? That would help us avoid the potential pitfall of the "best practices" document evolving into a hard-and-fast rule book down the line. And it would also make it relatively easy to extend and maintain. Maybe port over relevant bits of the ancient Meta FAQ Nick linked to as a starting point? Actually, for all I know such a document already exists--I stopped tracking Teahouse subpages a long time ago. Anyway, I really enjoyed reading this discussion. Thank you all for being great hosts. Let me know if I can help! Cheers, J-Mo 23:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC) (HostBot wrangler, former WMF researcher, writer of fussy academic articles about social norms).

Just please don't include in a host FAQ that the Teahouse is there to "encourage female editors". Encourage new good-faith editors, yes; encourage editors from different parts of the world and with different backgrounds, yes; but please do not lump "female editors" together, especially not based on ancient and rather questionable research which set out to prove something unprovable. Female trolls are not more welcome than male trolls. Female paid shills are not more welcome than male paid shills. Female enthusiastic new editors are just as welcome as male enthusiastic new editors – no more, no less. In 99% of the cases we are not going to have any idea what pronouns a new good-faith editor prefers, and if we knew, that would tell us nothing about what kind of help or encouragement they needed. --bonadea contributions talk 00:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes:, it was worth being reminded about the Expectations page, and I had another look. The one point that would be difficult for me, is #6: Check back for unanswered questions. Well, not so much a completely unanswered question, as checking back for possible OP follow-up questions to a previous host-answer (which is maybe not what #6 was about); i.e., if OP follows up to my answer and doesn't ping me, I might not ever see it. Not sure there's a good solution to that, except hope another host will see the follow-up question, and deal with it. Mathglot (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: That recommendation related to completely unanswered questions. Experience has taught me that we may tend to leave really difficult questions for someone else with more specialist knowledge to (hopefully) answer first. Occasionally, nobody does, and so it's a good idea just to scroll back to look for a completely unanswered post so that the poster at least gets some sort of reply from us. I often miss follow-up replies where (not unreasonably) the poster doesn't yet know how to ping someone. I often do a Ctrl-F search for my own username in order to look for follow-up replies. (There's a script you can get to highlight your own username, too, should you need it). Regarding your reply to Jtmorgan below, I'm not sure what 'FAQ' contents you might expect to see, over and above the simple Host Expectations. To be honest: I think you're the only person who has anywhere near frequently asked anything detailed about host requirements. I can count on the fingers of one finger how many times I've had to gently steer a new host to ensure they do a better job. I think most folk seem to catch on OK, and I'm sure you will, too. (I will also add that I had not actually noticed one of the original Teahouse aims was to encourage female editors until I came to answer your questions here, and I do appreciate Bonadea's concerns about balance and good/bad editors, irrespective of gender, but I personally always try to pro-actively encourage more women editors to participate, and have long stated my willingness to Adopt or support female editors, even if their subject interests don't match my own.) Nick Moyes (talk) 23:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jtmorgan:, yes please, to the "New Host FAQ". I'm not bothered about whether the words have any kind of formality or gravitas bestowed by guideline or even supplement-level approval or consensus; what I'm concerned with, is efficiently learning the ropes so I (and others) can help, with some level of comfort that we're doing it the right way. I'm not a newbie, and probably nobody who is new should be here anyway, and I understand WP culture and P&G pretty decently, I think. Precisely because "this place is different", is a good reason to have a FAQ, for the pretty-familiar, pretty-experienced editors who might be willing to help you, and reduce the load on current hosts by spreading it out. Btw, I see nothing wrong with encouraging more women to participate, and I don't see the downside of mentioning it in a FAQ; but that's another issue which should perhaps be taken up in a separate section. Mathglot (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

To the extent anyone decides to take on the project of creating a FAQ, please note the existence of User:Fuhghettaboutit/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host requirements. It *may* have some useful ideas and/or language you can use. (Since it somewhat relates to the contours of this thread, the origin of its creation is Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Archive 11#Adopting minimum requirements to be a host – host criteria. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Host awards

I am a little bit confused with Teahouse awards, on the one hand, the awards page currently says it is "inactive" and only for "historical reference", and the script to give them seems to be broken, but badges and awards are still displayed on a host's profile? Are the badges still given or are they depreceated? — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 18:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Berrely: No, we haven't used the 'awards' system for quite a number of years (certainly long before I joined in)> But when you sign up as a host one, the process still automatically inserts one in the new host profile. I've not looked into disabling it - maybe someone might care to look into doing that. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Berrely, They were given out to hosts and users for doing certain things, but are apparently discontinued. The process of becoming a Teahouse host adds the badge while creating a template for you, so you don't have to add it yourself. Le Panini ^Talk 04:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I just signed up as a host and the script gave me one auto yes and that got me thinking, aren't the other badge holders just better script editors and not necessarily merited tea house members RafaelConrade7777 (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit conflicts (with yourself)?

Screenshot of beta 'Paragraph-based edit conflict' tool, showing an edit conflict with oneself - (see image description for further details )

Is anyone else experiencing edit conflicts with their own edits? I have the 'Paragraph-based edit conflict' beta tool enabled in Preferences, and quite often finding that I get an edit conflict reported, only to discover that my first attempt to publish my edit worked, but that I appear to be trying to saving a further blank edit over the top of it, which I presume would have overwritten it with an empty edit had I proceeded.

I have reported the issue to www.mediawiki.org see here, and note that a couple of editors on cs-wiki have experienced the same thing. I, too, use Chrome in Windows 10, so it would be helpful to know what browser or OS you're using if you have also encountered this issue.

As an aside, I have suggested that the gadget incorporates the ability to copy any given text block from either column. If you feel the same, feel free to add your support for that idea, too. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I occassionally experience this, although it's happened on all sorts of pages, not just here at the TH. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Yes, I would expect that if there's a problem with the beta gadget, it could occur anywhere. Could you indicate what browser/OS you use, please? Nick Moyes (talk) 01:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm on Chrome (latest beta version)/Windows 10. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, I tend to experience this with Enterprisey's reply-link.js occasionally. Even now I get "the reply failed" (presumably as an edit conflict). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

+1 I've experienced both Nick Moyes' and Tenryuu's problems as well. Usually on poor internet. — Yours, Berrely (🎅 Ho ho ho! 🎄) • ^Talk∕_Contribs 18:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Nick Moyes, Sdkb, and Berrely: Are you using the WP:WikEd gadget? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

  Nope. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Nope, me neither. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:47, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Neither me... — Yours, Berrely (🎅 Ho ho ho! 🎄) • ^Talk∕_Contribs 13:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, then. Almost every time this comes up at WP:VPT, that's the answer. If you're not double-clicking the publish button, and you don't have a defective pointing device that sends spurious multiple clicks, I have no idea. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Suffusion of Yellow: Thanks. Whilst the occasional double mouse-click, can't be ruled out, this does seem to be happening quite a lot with this beta gadget. I've now linked to this thread and the image I've inserted at my original post on mediawiki. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Just popping back to say that I intentionally saved my above reply with a very quick double click and received an edit conflict which, when resolved, updated the signature timestamp. But if there is an issue with over-rapid double-clicking, I'd say that the over-responsiveness of the blue 'Publish' button might therefore need to be addressed, as nobody ever needs to publish the same - or a different - post within 1/4 second of their previous edit. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Not sure if this Phabricator ticket (T59264) is similar to your problem; otherwise you could probably start one yourself on there. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 20:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I've had this issue before, but it such a rare occurrence that I don't have much problem with it. Le Panini ^Talk 18:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

For me it's generally a sign that my mouse button is getting worn out and producing two clicks when one is needed. Two weeks ago I fixed it by swapping primary and secondary mouse buttons in Windows config. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Not for me. I've a brand new mouse and keyboard here. The issue is clearly that the 'Publish' button needs to be made to ignore and not act on a second click (EVER!), because double-clicking is a natural action on many other platforms, such as file selection and opening. But here it seems to just be causing an edit conflict with oneself, and thus is probably wasting a huge amounts of time across a myriad of pages and for a whole bunch of users. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Probably not the best workaround, but assuming you're not using the 2017 wikitext editor, what about pressing the ↵ Enter key after typing your edit summary (the caret is still inside the edit summary field)? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 17:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Fixing root problems

Nick Moyes and Cullen328, it just got archived, but re Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1087#Why_has_such_a_simple_thing_become_such_a_user-hostile_experience?, the IP has identified a flaw in our instructions. Our response needs to be more than just "here's the page you were looking for"; it needs to be to fix {{No article text}} to add a link to the requested redirects page. I've done so at Template talk:No article text#Protected edit request on 13 December 2020. In some sense, every editor that comes to the Teahouse represents a failure of our instructions to provide enough guidance that they don't need to. We're obviously never going to be able to get to zero since the instructions will never be good enough and people will always be too lazy to be completely served by them, but we should still always be on the lookout for instances where we can address the underlying cause that drove someone to come here so that others won't need to in the future. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, I am sorry but I do not agree that "every editor that comes to the Teahouse represents a failure of our instructions to provide enough guidance that they don't need to". Often, clearly written instructions are readily available but the new editor was either unable or unwilling to search for that guidance. Other times, new editors ignore provided links to key policies and guidelines, even when they are pointed out to them multiple times. Why did this new editor come to the conclusion that a redirect was needed or that using some sort of "wizard" was required to solve that problem? I have no idea but I fo not think this is a common error. This is an incredibly complicated project, but it also has extensive documentation, help pages and resources such as the help desk and the Teahouse. I see a correlation between aggressive complaints by new editors and an unwillingness to "look around", using the links to ample resources available on the left side and top of every Wikipedia page. I know that not everyone is like me, but I worked hard to develop Wikipedia search skills in my first few months of contributing, so that I did not blunder into problem areas. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328, yes, often the issue is just that someone didn't read existing instructions, but that's not what happened here. To replicate the experience the IP had, just log out/open an incognito window and go to djfsdjgsdjgnsdkf. Notice that the message that pops up there doesn't say anything about redirects until quite far down in a line about case sensitivity that the IP likely skipped since they weren't trying to do anything related to case sensitivity. It would've been perfectly reasonable for them to think the article wizard was the right way to request a redirect, leading them down that flawed path. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, if I had any idea how to open (and then close) an "icognito window", maybe I would try what you have suggested. But I don't know how to do that and have never once had the need to do so in over 11 years of editing Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328, it's an easier way to test what WP is like for IPs, since you don't have to log in everywhere again the same way you do if you log out to test something. The name depends on your browser; see Private browsing#Support in popular browsers. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, that link gives strange instructions about to enter that mode, but nothing about how to exit that editing hell. Maybe you are comfortable with that. I'm not. I'm an ordinary person, not a code monkey. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Trying to cut through the chatter about ways we can edit in some form of 'Private' browser session as if we were an unregistered IP, I do take Sdkb's point that, when a user types in a name that doesn't exist, there is only guidance on creating an article, not on the possibility of making a WP:REDIRECT. Perhaps this is an issue which should be raised with the good folk over at WP:AFC, too, as the above-mentioned 'draft redirect' could have been handled there, I'd guess? The lead at AFC currently states:

• "Writing an encyclopedic article from scratch isn't easy, and we recommend that you first get some experience by adding material to articles that already exist or helping out with other tasks. You should read the page Help:Your first article to avoid classic mistakes and save your hard work from being deleted."

Maybe it should say something like this:

• "Writing an encyclopedic article from scratch isn't easy, and we recommend that you first get some experience by adding material to articles that already exist or helping out with other tasks. You should read the page Help:Your first article to avoid classic mistakes and save your hard work from being deleted. In some circumstances, it may be more appropriate to request a simple 'Redirect' to an existing article."

Thoughts? Nick Moyes (talk) 11:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I notified WT:AFC yesterday. I'm not sure how many newcomers go through the WikiProject page itself, but it still might be good to improve that landing. There is a lot of low-hanging fruit, such as the fact that we still use the legacy wizard. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think I'm going to WP:BE BOLD and make a couple of changes, as outlined above, and we can discuss thereafter, perhaps. I think (rather like the page you linked Cullen to), we point people at stuff and say "read that kiddo" without even considering how 'readable' or comprehensible it actually is to a newcomer. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Are you thinking about creating more nutshells? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 17:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: No comprendo, mi amigo. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, whoops, guess I should linked to the template {{Nutshell}}, as I assumed you were thinking of creating more condensed summaries of policy pages. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 21:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah! And there was me thinking of this! (...And since when have I been known to ever condense anything? True story this: I once got top marks in a Plain English course for simplifying some technical text. But it was pointed out, to my shame, that my version was the only one that was longer than the original!) Nick Moyes (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb, et al: I have worked this evening to add clarity to WP:AFC - especially the lead paragraphs and the 'Redirect' section. Please take a look and check you think these combined changes are an improvement. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Answer templates

Has someone (some people?) made a collection of templates for answering commonly asked questions? I have seen many fellow hosts answer the first article question with nearly identical responses, and I was wondering if someone could point me to the template(s) that have been created solely for answering common teahouse questions. Thanks! SnazzyInfinity (chat? • what I've done) 04:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I generally don't use templates at the Teahouse, except if an unregistered IP address complains about seeing the donation banner after they've donated. In such a case I just slap on a {{User:Tenryuu/donate}}. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 04:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Ha, thanks. Seems a little passive aggressive though? SnazzyInfinity (chat? • what I've done) 05:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't see it as such and I believe it's neutrally worded; there's an explanation as to why the banner is still there and the steps one can take to suppress its display. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 05:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Well the phrase "Please create an account" could be interpreted as bossy or impolite, but do not get me wrong this is a very good template which I may use, I'd just like to explain my point. Very well, SnazzyInfinity (chat? • what I've done) 05:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps Template:HD is what you are looking for.- Abdul Muhsy talk 15:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

No-competence posts

Something that I wouldn't have expected before getting more involved with the Teahouse and other beginner-focused places on Wikipedia is the number of posts that are just complete spam/incompetence/junk/etc., like this or this; the kind of stuff that tends to get reverted on sight on most articles/talk pages, and that we tend to reply to here with "Do you have a question?" and then let drift off into the archives when it inevitably receives no response. I struggle a bit to understand where these are coming from or to put myself in the shoes of the people who are posting them, which would be needed to in turn try to reduce their incidence. Listing out possible sources I've heard mentioned or inferred:

1. Marketers who mistakenly believe it'll help promote their business
2. Non-native English speakers trying to do something legitimate
3. Young children experimenting with the world
4. People from developing countries who are just starting to use the internet for the first time and don't know how it works
5. People with intellectual disabilities or low general competence who can't process instructions or communicate normally
6. There's something about Wikipedia's interface that's really hard for beginners that makes competent people trying to do something legitimate end up posting these things instead

All of these things are doubtless present to some degree, but it's hard to discern whether one is dominating or there's more split proportions, and I'm still perplexed by the sheer volume, since from my everyday life I tend to see a lot more competence than is exhibited on average here. Does anyone have insights? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 12:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Prior discussion from last year that touched on a similar topic: Wikipedia_talk:Teahouse/Archive_20#Writing_is_hard, started by AlanM1. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 12:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that there's likely a variety of reasons, but I do think there's something about the interface that makes it easy for some newcomers who are otherwise perfectly competent to make mistakes - a bit like Ed Balls#Ed Balls Day. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: That's funny. As someone who very rarely uses Twitter, I've often found myself about to do the same thing (tweet instead of search). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I have the feeling that a lot of the content-free posts are the result of the Teahouse welcome messages that are being auto-posted to some new users' talk pages. I think we could easily find out by stopping that practice for a month and looking at the results. I don't think the users have anything to say – they're just trying to connect with someone (anyone) as though it was a social media platform where they got a ping from someone they don't know after joining. I don't think there's any point in asking if they have a question or welcoming them, though I admit that may be contrary to the original discussions that resulted in formation of the Teahouse. I think it's worth responding to the misplaced or misguided ones, but the empty ones seem to be just a waste of time. I'm ambivalent as to whether they should be deleted or just ignored. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm curious, what are the templates currently being used to welcome new editors that mention the Teahouse? Might have to do with how they're worded. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Tenryuu, check this section of my talk page. I just got this welcome message on 29 December, 2020. TheMadDesperado (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

(ec) @Tenryuu: I was thinking of {{Teahouse HostBot Invitation}}, as delivered by HostBot. I don't think there's anything about the wording that could be fixed. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 01:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I vaguely recall there being other welcome templates that link to the Teahouse (though with less emphasis), but thanks for showing me this one, TheMadDesperado!

AlanM1, now that I'm looking at {{Teahouse HostBot Invitation}}, I can see how new users may have misinterpreted the Teahouse's purpose; it currently says The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors (emphasis added). If I were a new editor (who most probably is unfamiliar with WP:NOTSOCIAL), I might be under the impression that the Teahouse is a "friendly space" first and foremost, where asking questions and having them answered is a major part of the venue, but not its sole purpose.

It might also have to do with when new users get these welcome templates. I think they'd be less likely to see the Teahouse as a Q&A venue if they receive the template at a time when they don't have any questions. We might get fewer no-content threads if this template (and similar ones) were reworded to something along the lines of If you have any questions about editing or using Wikipedia, come to the Teahouse, where experienced editors like [insert example here] can help you! I'm unsure if these templates should also include a link to the reference desk to redirect non-Wikipedia related questions. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Personally, I don't actually think we have that many 'pointless' posts as was originally suggested. I think we handle them all very well (and politely, too). I do suspect many of these 'odd' posts result from people responding to our automated Teahouse welcomes (I think I've seen a figure of 300 messages a day, somewhere), but I have no worries about the interactions that then either do, or don't, ensue at the Teahouse. I like seeing polite, respectful responses to such posts. I do suspect command of English is often an issue, but maybe our Teahouse invitations could be better worded. I have long thought that, but research has shown that TH invitations do improve editor retention, whereas no studies have looked at the actual wording they contain. Pinging User:Jtmorgan who has been involved in these matters. Nick Moyes (talk) 02:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I like the idea of including language about the Reference Desk, questions more appropriate for which seem to be a more frequent mistake than the empty posts. There are quite a few other templates, especially in the {{Welcome-*}} and {{uw-*}} series, that refer to the Teahouse, too.[1] —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 02:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd rather not add more links to the HostBot invite. Most new editor 'welcome' templates are just lists of links, and to me they always smell like an (earnest, or passive-aggressive, depending on the template) exhortation to go RTFM and come back when you've fully grokked every nuance of policy. For better or worse many HostBot-invited users will end up with one or more of those on their talkpage anyway, if they stick around past their first few edits. So as long as y'all are content to triage the occasional misplaced question and oddball non-question within the Teahouse itself, I'd prefer to keep the content of the HostBot invite simple and the tone welcoming--maybe even a little ::gasp:: social ;) I've done a couple A/B tests with slight wording tweaks in the past, but never saw a significant difference in visit rate. We've also made small adjustments to wording based on discussions among hosts before. Cheers, J-Mo 23:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Jtmorgan, fully agreed about the RTFM point about the welcome templates. Alas, as I discovered when I revamped {{Welcome}}, there's a cadre of editors who like having a gazillion links and fight to keep the templates that way. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 14:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

{{Astray}} is an infrequently used reply to some types of non question posts. It used to be more commonly used some years ago. Perhaps dusting it off and bringing back might be a good idea to reduce clutter. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

It's also an option when you decline a draft at AfC using AFCHelper to invite the creator to the teahouse alongside the decline message on their user talkpage. I suspect that leads quite a number of the marketing / how do I publish my draft people straight to our doorstep... Jack Frost (talk) 08:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Jack Frost good point there. I too feel this is getting out of hand lately, but I haven't been around for that long so it might have been worse.

I lately have posted some Welcome templates on user talkpages where HostBot for some reason had not sent an invite, but I too felt that they did often include insane amounts of links. Frankly, I postponed the start of my Wikipedia activity for a few months because I tried to read through policy first before making an account, failing miserably and feeling overwhelmed. If I had just created an account and been invited to the Teahouse, I might have gotten better (more specific) help.

But I feel like the point brought up by Jack Frost is interesting - maybe AfC declines should not automatically point to the Teahouse, and rather to policy first. There's a difference between confused newbies and blatant company promoters whose article subject fails notability and who will leave Wikipedia for good as soon as they realize that. I feel like hosts waste a lot of effort on these, and it's pointless and duplicate work cause AfC have to deal with them as well. So yeah, maybe only point them to the Teahouse after they have been pointed to guidelines first?

As for newbies with problems of some sort: From what I have seen, a very common occurrence is them asking some variant of "how to edit Wikipedia". And quite often, teahouse hosts point them to the Wikipedia Adventure, which - while I haven't played it - seems to be quite good. Might it be a good idea to include that in the Welcome message? Like: Welcome, here try the Wikipedia Adventure - still have questions? Come visit the Teahouse! That might get many people started with editing better, and still have them referred here if they have (specific) questions or some other problem. So that suggestion is similar to Tenryuu's line of thought. --LordPeterII (talk) 09:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

LordPeterII, the adventure can be hit and miss. Some new users love it and others get major errors. When I tested it out i didn't make it past level 2 before having issues.

I also do feel there's been an inundation recently of COI draft creators. In the big picture we're quite snookered on it however. With the enaction of AC-Perm a few years ago, the marketeers and COI were herded into the AfC process instead of their usual MO of trying to game NPP. Lots of benefits, but it also means having many friendly discussions with them about what's wrong with their submission. Zindor (talk) 10:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

LordPeterII, I agree with your point on AfC declines. While the Teahouse is (obviously) a place to get help, it is not a place to dump your draft to get it improved by someone else. Nor is it a place to get your company on Wikipedia.

I think one of the difficulties of dealing with COI/marketing editors is the leniency of the policy surrounding COI editing. If a user comes to the Teahouse and states that they want to create a page on their employer, which quick-fails all notability guidelines, yes, they technically can start a draft. Yes, they can submit it. Yes, they can then come back to the Teahouse and ask for help, even though the draft will inevitably get rejected. And chances are they are on Wikipedia for no reason but to promote their company, even if the page is written neutrally.

I apologize if this sounds like a bunch of bad faith accusations, but TL;DR I think it proves my point that we waste a lot of time answering questions from people who's drafts have very little or often no chance of being accepted, but we have to help them because they are entitled to write about whatever they want (within reason), and get help on it. It's only when drafts are rejected that I personally find I really have the right to say 'I can't help you with this.' but until then, I feel like I'm obliged to help them, even if I don't think it's worthwhile. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 11:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Closing discussions

Hi, I've been thinking that we could start closing TeaHouse threads once they've gotten as answered as they're gonna get. This would 1. mean that answered threads get archived quicker (think Cappuccino) 2. threads that still need someone to contribute to them would be easily visually identifiable when scrolling through the teahouse, so that way they'll get answered quicker. I would say that the closer can't be the same person as the answerer (which I think is clear in the rules for NACs anyway). Do you think this would be useful? Could we attempt a trial period of this practice?--Paul ❬talk❭ 10:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

There's a few downsides i can see, one is that we've had some new users tell us that they enjoy reading the replies at the Teahouse; i'm certain it prevents a few duplicate questions. Another being that threads sometimes develop unexpectedly, whether that being new issues come to light or the user asked an additional related question under the same heading. A less likely but possible problem would be new users accidently removing {{archivebottom}} when posting a question, we've all seen those users mashing the section headings.

The additional work this archiving would take would also potentially reduce the amount of answering going on. If the bot archive-delay was slightly reduced for the Teahouse page it might speed things along but from what i've seen the questions that slip through the net are answered within a couple of days which matches the currently 48hr setting. That didn't prevent Cappuccino though, so I do agree we at least need to be more confident in archiving clearly dead threads. Just my 2cents, I'm not against a trial but thought it was worth analysing what could happen. Regards, Zindor (talk) 12:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, Zindor, I should have been clearer - I'm suggesting a non-collapsed {{archive top}} so that people would still be able to read it after it's closed and it would still be archived at the same 48hr pace (but without delays due to extraneous comments). --Paul ❬talk❭ 14:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Paul, i've been thinking and I was probably overly concerned about loss of content to read. A form of One-click archiving could be a cleaner and more efficient way of doing this. Wrapped discussions aren't as easy to read and they interrupt the visual flow of pages. As long as we have enough active threads for users to get an idea of what our purpose is, that should be fine. Zindor (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

My only suggestion would be to close a disruptive/unhelpful thread to indicate that no further comment is needed. For instance, if someone is canvassing, I would close the thread to avoid other users potentially helping the person. Giraffer ^{(Happy·Wikipedia Day!)} 18:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

If a thread has gone off the rails, or was never going to go anywhere useful anyway, then hatting it is fine. Otherwise, I don't think anyone can reasonably claim that it's "gotten as answered as it's gonna get." The last edit I made before this one was to a Teahouse question which had already been answered twice. I believe that my answer may have been more helpful then the previous ones. I'd be sorry to see someone bureaucratically adding "resolved" notices that discourage the addition of further answers. Indeed, anyone who is able to know for sure that a question has already received the best possible answer is a genius, who could better work on actually answering questions. Maproom (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Well said. Giraffer ^{(Happy·Wikipedia Day!)} 10:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

For a while, I was adding the Helped template to discussions where the OP's question had clearly been answered (especially if the OP acknowledged the host's response). Scrolling down on this diff [2] provides and example of what this looked like in use. This made it easer for hosts to identify questions that had not been answered clearly. I'd like to believe it also helped editors identify whether questions similar to their own had already been answered. Orville^talk 18:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we should do this, nor add {{helped}} (or {{resolved}} or similar) for threads, essentially per Maproom's sentiments above. My reasons on this are set out in great detail at WT:TH/Archive 6 § {{resolved}} template?.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

"Resolved" would rub me the wrong way if I had asked a question and didn't feel it had actually been "resolved," since the connotation of the word has a sense of finality to it. It hadn't occurred to me that "helped" may have the same effect (since editors can continue to help, but not really continue to "resolve" an issue). The reasons you linked above broadened my perspective, though, and I agree that marking discussions "closed," "resolved," "helped," etc., and especially archiving them early may do more harm than good. Orville^talk 21:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

​​​​(late to the party) Me too. Customer service platforms for commercial products, and their operators, make me crazy when they unreasonably close an open ticket that really hasn't been resolved just to "check it off their list". I wouldn't mind, though, wrapping (not collapsing, though) sections where the OP has clearly indicated they are done with it, and an experienced host reasonably thinks there's nothing further needed. That would help people that are short of time (like me at the moment) to more quickly get through a backlog of posts they haven't seen (i.e., ignore the purple ones if really short of time). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 19:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

"TQ"

Is there any reason this page would be strongly associated with the letters "TQ"? There's a hatnote at the MoS section to which WP:TQ redirects that disambiguates to Teahouse, and I can't think of a reason why it is there. I'm going to remove it as noise, barring some compelling reason for it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, SMcCandlish. There is a shortcut WP:THQ standing for "Teahouse questions" which I formerly used frequently, since WP:TH previously led to an introduction to the Teahouse rather than the main question page. That has been corrected. So, maybe someone thought that WP:TQ was a plausible typo. I have no objection to your plan to remove it from the MoS. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I'll sit on it a bit in case someone else has something. But if we created 2-letter shortcut variants for every 3-letter shortcut, we'd have quite a mess. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Did you mean to leave WP:TQ as a hidden synonym for MOS:LQ? I can't see it relating to logical quotes, either. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 19:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes. It's for typesetters' quotation, formerly mentioned by name in the same section. The issue I was addressing wasn't whether redirects should go somewhere else, but the lack of necessity for a distracting hatnote in a guideline.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Refs for beginners

We often link it and I feel the page could benefit from being more explanatory. I've posted here: Help talk:Referencing for beginners. Would appreciate any thoughts on this. Kind regards, Zindor (talk) 12:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Zindor: I like to refer people to Nick Moyes' WP:ERB. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 19:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I think we should merge them. Nick's explanations are better. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Main Page § Adding a link to the Teahouse in the “Other areas of Wikipedia” section

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Main Page § Adding a link to the Teahouse in the “Other areas of Wikipedia” section. Interstellarity (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Template:Z48

Roger 8 Roger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is really not the best place to discuss this kind of thing; moreover, the OP has been indefinitely blocked per WP:NPA. So, there's no point in keep this thread open any longer. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

---

I'm being bullied by Roger 8 Roger. He's threatened to have me blocked without warning if I don't stop doing things he doesn't like editing wise. What can I do about this person? Riteinit (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Not the place to put this here. Im a shoe2 (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Teahouse header

Hey, I need some help. I'm trying to get the featured host slideshow up and running again on the teahouse header. There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the transclusion, maybe there's something in a parent div stopping it appearing? I've also noticed that several of the CSS classes being called don't exist in the external style sheet. I figure that 'floatright' and 'center' are global classes, but not sure about 'thh-center' or 'thh-right' etc. Is it advisable to call global classes when using templatestyles?

I'm also not sure about"<div class="thh-left floatleft "> that wraps the logo. It would float left without any styling. I've synced the sandbox. Any thoughts? Regards, Zindor (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@Zindor: Could you explain what exactly is not working for you? It looks fine to me, and the host images change whenever I purge the page, just as it always has. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Ok, that does narrow it down. I use an android tablet so it must be the display:none in the class .nosmall, which is controlled by a @media query. In the sandbox when I un-nested the featured host transclusion from the parent div (the one with class .nosmall) it solved the problem for me. Ideally, hiding features for certain viewports isn't a solution, but unless others are experiencing the problem it's not worth fixing. I'm retired and i shouldn't be here. Best regards, Zindor (talk) 11:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I should have said its fine in desktop view; I doesnt show in mobile view, but it would be too much clutter there, so I'm ok with that. Retiring? I'm sorry to hear that. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, not gonna stick around to watch the WMF envelope the place like a hungry hippo. I might return if Jimbo ever enlightens all of us on what's going on with the board giving themselves the power to remove the founder's seat, and also why the proposed changes to community voting, the dilution of community representation on the board; the assimilation with Wikipedia branding and the introduction of I.P masking.

I have a notion that the WMF has projected that we're approaching some kind of peak of maturity as a project, and that it's time to start transitioning by force into a more preservation-oriented mode; where en-wiki is semi-protected as default. But who knows? It's been great helping out at the Teahouse with you, Nick. Kind regards, Zindor (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Tox Protocol

Good day, my dears, I just wanna say that I'm developing the Tox project. Gkmw (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Gkmw: As stated at the top of this page, "This page is for discussing the Teahouse". You can make your declaration on your user page. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Help:WP search protocol

I have created the headlined help page (main shorcut: H:WP) and mention it here just in case any of you might think it useful to present to new users.

Fairly often we get Teahouse questions asking about some feature or project concept using its actual name ("how do I redirect..."; "what is a watchlist..."), by which it's evident they did not locate the relevant project page themselves (sometimes even after advising they searched). In answer to such questions (following an explanation), I will sometimes write something like: "For future reference, here's a trick for locating the relevant project page..." and then explain about searching using Wikipedia:Name, and it's easier-to-type version WP:Name to find most anything they hear mention of or see in the interface. (I may create an associated information template.) Thanks all--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

How rubber bands are related to slingshot

I just need permission from a admin because it keeps getting edited because people don’t understand but this is the one I had in mind https://cults3d.com/en/3d-model/various/tim-postma-s-reinforced-slingshot I just do not want to break any rules but the design is herby declared Creative Commons non commercial no derivatives as per prescription of the design 3DPrintingTimPostma (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@3DPrintingTimPostma: As stated at the top of this page, "This page is for discussing the Teahouse". You can post your question on Wikipedia:Teahouse, and be sure to mention the name of the article and/or talk page you're referring to. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

proof rubber bands are constructively related to slingshots

so there was a edit war on should rubber bands be included on also see slingshots https://cults3d.com/en/3d-model/various/tim-postma-s-reinforced-slingshot the reasons why there were warnings was unclearness & unconstructive so if you could please drop the warning under TimPatAlPostma1996 also the link i disclaim as whats in the link