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.

The Host page

I feel that we should build a redirect of the Host page: [[WP:TH/H]] or [[WP:TH/HOST]]. Anyone up for it? ~Wizdzy 20:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with both proposed redirects. bop34 • talk • contribs 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Wizdzy: It sounds like you want to create a WP:SHORTCUT. Why do you think there’s a need for one? The banner at the top of the main Teahouse page seems more than sufficient, at least in my opinion.

I also noticed that you’ve recently added yourself as a Teahouse host. Your account is relatively new and so far the vast majority of your edits seem to have been mainly in the user space. While none of those things mean you can’t be a host per se, spending more time improving articles in the mainspace will perhaps prove to be more useful in answering the questions of others. Some new editors become overly enamored with creating user pages, gathering WP:HATS, etc. which makes it seem as if that’s their primary reason for editing. Try not to become one of those editors. — Marchjuly (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok. ~Wizdzy 22:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Wizdzy: I really can't see any reason or need for such a shortcut. It's an infrequently needed page for most people, and simply typing WP:TH and clicking 'Meet Your Hosts' in the Teahouse Header gets you there as quick (or quicker) than remembering and typing one of your suggestions. And I say that as someone who probably visits it more than most people, as I like to check out the editing experience of every new addition there, and would remove them if they fell woefully short of our host expectations and experience.

On that note, I do feel Marchjuly is right to question the wisdom of you adding yourself as a Teahouse host right now. Not that I'd want to stop you or anyonie else ever answering questions at the Teahouse when you know the answers. But do you have the knowledge right now to sign up as a Host and to welcome and help others? Your editing experience to date doesn't fill me with a lot of confidence on that score (just 72 of your 720 contributions here are mainspace edits, and 75% of your edits being in Userspace - mostly to your own, or just signing other people's guestbook pages.). Your userpage claim of 'being on Commons and Meta-Wiki', is rather empty, when you've done nothing there bar make a user page each. Here are your global contributions across all projects, limited to 20 edits per project. You might like to think about removing that Host entry for now, then adding it back in later on, once you've gained that broader experience of actually editing articles, rather than messing about in Userspace. But do feel free to welcome people and help out whenever you're able. You might find WP:THF will get you to the newest questions nice and quickly! Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Assistance requested

• Special:Contributions/Jserranoq87

If you look at all of this editor's edits, I am thinking this is less vandalism, and more just newbieness. Would some kind person please reach out to the editor? I also have not reverted yet, though that prolly should be done as well. Thank you very much : ) - jc37 23:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done Though I suspect this is not a newbie, judging by the esoteric pages they've edited, but will WP:AGF for now. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host landing

I mentioned something about this above and Nick Moyes followed up in a little more detail, but I'm wondering to what degree Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host landing is being monitored. It seems that last three of four editors who added profiles are relatively new editors. This includes one editor who has added their profile three times. Is there a way to determine how many of these people have actually been answering or have answered questions at the TH, particularly more than a couple of times? Is there a procedure in place for removing editors who might mean well, but might just not be ready? Maybe you should need to demonstrate that you're a regular contributor for a set period of time in addition to the 500 edits and 30 days that are required according to the "Sign up" page. I'm all for anyone and everyone answering questions who thinks they can do so. Even if they make mistakes, there's almost always someone there to set things right. If, however, we're going to have "designated" hosts, then perhaps there should be a few more hoops to jump through before you get to become one. I guess it's no big deal, but then again I probably wouldn't be posting this here if I didn't think it was at least a little deal.

FWIW, I don't think it needs to be something formal that requires WP:RFR, but maybe the recommendation or sponsorship of an existing host would be a good idea. Maybe a "trainee host" (like there are trainee SPI clerks) might be something worth further discussing. Pretty much anyone who goes through something like that probably is competent enough to be a good host, and exceptions could be made for highly qualified editors as needed; for example, it would be quite silly to require an existing admin or anyone with advanced user rights that aren't automatically granted to be a trainee host. One drawback would be that someone (perhaps the sponsor) would need to assess the trainee's contributions and try to guide when necessary, but the basic premise of the TH is not too hard to grasp. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

https://xtools.wmflabs.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Marchjuly/4/Teahouse Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for that tool Usedtobecool. If I've used it correctly, then three out of the last four editors to add their profiles have 15, 14 and 0 edits made to the TH respectively. The editor with 0 edits is the same one who added their profile three times. I'm not sure whether it's better to pick a number of edits (like 500), a set period of time (like 30 days) or a combination of both, but you should have at least answered one question to be able to add your profile as a host. Brightline numbers will always attract someone who's focused more on reaching said number than actually the quality of their responses and the purpose of the TH. I also don't think it would be productive to make any "requirement" so hard to obtain that it makes prosepctives/trainees feel that they have to spend all of their time at the TH. The best way for them to answer questions would be to for them to gain experience editing in the mainspace and using what they learn (especially what they learn from their mistakes) to help others. At the same time, I think something more than a handful of edits or a few days is needed to require some effort be made. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

comment

(edit conflict) FWIW I maintain a host spreadsheet, and every few months I go through and remove from the Host list those who, after 6 months or so, have never helped out here. I'm less strict if they have helped out in the past, but are currently inactive (e.g David Siegel), or if they clearly reflect a minority editing group. I also try to leave a welcome message to each new host, but have been too busy in the last few months to do that. I rarely remove an editor immediately, but monitor their activities, especially if they mostly play around in Userspace. I woudnt want a 'permission' before someone can add themselves to the Host List, but do wonder if we should seek a clear consensus on a minimimum number of mainspace edits we expect any editor to have before they add their name to that list. We must still welcome any editor answering questions at TH, but maybe not accept them on the host list if they dont meet a basic criterion of experience. I unilaterally increased the host expectation to 500 mainspace edits because of a few editors playing in userspace and getting well over that edit count, but with very few in mainspace. I apply it very laxly, but my question is "should we have a minimum mainspace edit count, below which we automatically remove anyone, or should we carry on as we are right now?" Nick Moyes (talk) 09:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I am in favor of a stated standard of 500 mainspace edits before an editor can become an "official" host. I find it disconcerting that new editors sometimes give incorrect or unhelpful answers. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

If someone's trying to help out in good faith but give an incorrect answer, then I'm OK with that because chances are that a more experienced "host" will correct them. If someone gives an "unhelpful" answer (e.g. rude, snarky, a no-answer answer), then I think that's more of a problem regardless of how new the editor is. My concern is that people might be adding their names to the host's page because they think they get something concrete out of it like an elevation in status or something shiny to add to their user page. So, their motivation is sort of like that described in WP:HATS except there's really no user right involved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Hostbot Inviting promotional users to teahouse

I've noticed lately that creators of irredeemable and clearly promotional articles (e.g. this example, if you have the rights to view the deleted article) get invited to the Teahouse by the HostBot, after the user has their promotional article deleted for G11. Is that desirable?--- Possibly (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Teahouse hosts may feel that "Your contribution was not welcome. Here's where you can learn how Wikipedia works" is more polite than "Your contribution was not welcome. Go away." The result is likely to be the same. Maproom (talk) 17:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I’m operator of Wiww51 and they received an invite the other day. I think either GreenMeansGo? Or HostBot wrote the invite. (31.187.7.220 (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC))

Consolidating help venues

Regulars please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Consolidating_help_venues. AdmiralEek (talk) 23:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Growth Team features § Potential plan for experimental deployment

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Growth Team features § Potential plan for experimental deployment. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)Template:Z48

No archive

The question list has crossed 200! Why no archival by our dear Sigmabot ? Is it infected by Covid-19 ? Parnaval (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Somebody vandalized the archive instructions. I have fixed them.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 12:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I was too much curious, so hunted down that edit but sadly it was IP😭😢. See [2] . -- Parnaval (talk) 17:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Addressing the constant problem with generic questions

Hey all. I have already attempted a fix to address the headlined problem. I'm glad to expand on the reason and depth of the problem and how much it will benefit both questioners and answerers if we can get some real change on this, but I think most of you are likely already excrutiatingly familiar with the problem, and just how constant it is. That fix I attempted can be seen in this diff – a change to to the pre-load text users see directly in the editing interface when they click on the ask-a-question button on the project page. That diff also shows the revert of that addition by Sdkb.

I think my edit summary accompanying the change is self-explanatory, and I stand by the magnitude of the problem and of how much fixing it will help by the language I used in that edit summary. Regarding the reversion edit summary, the problem I see is that, whereas placing this at the preload text right at the point where people are apt to almost ineviteably see it will get it in front of the eyes of a lot of our questioners, not only is it obvious that far fewer will see it at the remove of the edit notice, but I truly believe that only a miniscule number of people ever even glance at them. Placing it there is probably barely worth bothering with. I think the gravity of problem calls for this much more effective change. What say you?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, I absolutely agree that generic questions are a big problem, having encountered plenty myself. But I also maintain that the editnotice is the appropriate place for instructions, not the preloaded text. Nick Moyes provided some compelling screenshots in this discussion about the problem with having the preload text get too long—especially on mobile, it just turns into a giant block of text that completely fills the area we're hoping people will actually be writing their question in. It's impossible to add any sort of formatting to wikitext itself, so we're left with just ugly all-caps, as opposed to the editnotice where we can use color, font size, etc.

The broader issue, as I see it, is that the Wikipedia editing interface is just not intuitive enough. That forces us to provide instructions both on technical process (e.g. type your question here, don't sign, etc.) and on question-asking process (e.g. give us a wikilink, etc.). If we had a better interface, we could get rid of all the technical instructions (e.g. signing would be handled automatically behind the scenes), which would give us space to be bolder about the question-asking stuff without making the instructions so long people don't read them. Hopefully the technical improvements are coming soon from the WMF (I know several projects are in the works), but until then, there's no silver bullet. And even if the instructions were perfect, the Teahouse is always going to draw some level of CIR posts—even if we screamed to give specifics in 100-point bold red, some editors still wouldn't. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I fear that Fuhghettaboutit's edit was a bit too much of a blunt instrument, but I really sensed their frustration in every word. I can certainly relate to it, but it was right to revert it and to discuss it further here. As Sdkb pointed out, mobile users see screen after screen of instructions and odd characters before they can find a place to ask their question. We do need to remain - first and foremost - friendly and welcoming to new editors, and not take our frustrations out of them when they innocently fail to provide the information we so desperately want them to give us. Just like the last questioner and the one before them, too. It's likely we shall soon get more posts once WP:TH is added to the Main page. So, maybe Fuhghett. could consider proposing the wording of a simple templated response we could apply, should they so wish, to those questions that are so vague that they are impossible to answer without more details? A personal touch is always better, but a pragmatic solution could be such a template. Here's a hasty first stab before I get my last coffee and head off to bed:

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid your question is a bit too vague to be answered properly immediately. So could you supply us with some more details, please? If your question relates to an article, could you link to it or give its url? If it's about adding an image, is it your own photo, or can you link to the page containing the one you want to add? And what Wikipedia page do you want to add it to? The more specific your question, the more likely we are to be able to help you. Thanks, ....

Right, coffee calls. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Can you explain why "the editnotice is the appropriate place for instructions", and "not the preloaded text". Appropriate and inappropriate for what reasons? And I don't follow the relevance of your raising of the issue of technical barriers (I understand what you're saying, I just don't see its relevance. On this issue, what's involved is no additional technical barrier at all. People go to the Teahouse; see a big blue button to ask a question, are presented with preloaded text that is designed to lower the technical barriers, and the message I am adding is an entirely straightforward request in plain English to please try to be specific in what they ask rather than general. We are not overwhelming anyone with that one sentence following "place you post below". There's nothing technical about it. Again, adding to the edit notice would likely be a mostly empty gesture. Effectiveness is what's key.

By the way, I have no hard statistical evidence but I'm not just guessing; they do seem to be largely ignored in my observational experience (I just did a quick search. Though it's anecdotal: "Edit notices are largely not worth the pixels they are printed (from here); "Edit notices are annoying and largely ignored anyway" (from here); "It's true, no one reads the edit notices -- they're just part of the blur" (from here).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: A template notice is after-the-fact, and we know how often users respond after their first post. It will also be another form of empty gesture because someone will always attempt to answer the generic question in good faith. It would solve nothing. I disagree there is anything, whatever bitey about adding that neutral request to be specific. And you seem to be also agreeing there's something technically complicating about adding this (that on balance, outweighs its utility), but I don't get that for the same reason as in my response post above. If mobile users see screen after screen of nonsense before they get to the button, that's an issue before they get to the button. How does adding the (again, straightforward non-technical, direct instruction about being specific rather than general) as the last thing the user sees before writing their question, add to any impediment? (The impediment removed is that their specific question will get a far more graspable, specific answer!)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

To boil it down, the editnotice is the appropriate place for general instructions because it can be formatted to present them better, and since that's what editnotices are designed for, but not what preloaded text is designed for. Regarding the issue of technical barriers, it's relevant because every line of instruction we add makes it more likely that people will just go "oh, that's a giant wall of text, I'm not going to read all that" and skip it entirely. Wikipedia has a bad habit of responding to failures to follow instructions by adding more of them, when really what we need to do is respond by simplifying them to make them shorter so that editors will actually read them. And yes, editnotices are often ignored (particularly if they're overlong), but I don't think moving instructions to the preload would make them ignored any less. There's already a line in the editnotice advising Help us to help you: Give the full title or URL of any page you're asking about. I think the most we can do is to rephrase that line a bit or make it bolder. I hope that helps explain my overall view. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm, sorry but I have yet to hear anything non-circular about why preloads are not well designed for this or inappropriate for the purpose. They are a tool to serve whatever need we see fit for our purposes (and I can pull up gobs of preloads that are used for all manner of instructions). Saying something else—that you agree will be largely ineffective for the purpose—is better because it is more specifically made for this is another snake eating its tail. The pragmatics don't seem to be coming across. It's so self-evident that after clicking on the button, people's eyes go to where they will be typing (in fact, here, explaining where to type), and that accordingly the instruction there will be seen by a vast number (and an order of magnitude more than just about anywhere else), that the point needs no gloss.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Teahouse edit window for Mobile, 2020. Text has since changed slightly, but messaging still fills more than an entire screen

@Fuhghettaboutit: I'm afraid I have to agree with Sdkb, but I never said what you added was WP:BITEY; it just sounded frustrated. But what you probably see as half a line on a desktop monitor is already a complete screen load for mobile users. Adding more preload text would completely outweigh its utility, and to demonstrate the point I have inserted the image from last year's mobile screenshot above to show how it looked then. Although it has since been messed around with further, it would be even worse if it contained another sentence as you proposed, and read as this:

<!-- PLEASE ADD A SHORT SUBJECT HEADING in the separate Subject/headline field above. Then, WRITE YOUR QUESTION BELOW THIS LINE. Please BE SPECIFIC – tell us the ACTUAL SITUATION, and WHICH WIKIPEDIA PAGE IS INVOLVED, if one is, rather than asking a general question -->

...I really don't think more shouty capital lettering is going to get much more of a message across, or change behaviour. We can always tweak the existing edit notice wording or its colour, but definitely not expand it further, please - especially the 'preload text'. I'm a bit surprised you fail to see why all that preload text just doesn't work. Just look at it from the perspective of a complete newbie asking a question here. They get a reasonably attractive header, a nice shiny blue 'Ask a Question', then an edit notice , then Chevron Exclamation point, Hyphen, Hyphen SHOUTY SENTENCE, another SHOUTY SENTENCE, then Hyphen, Hyphen Chevron, then three lines of blank space in which we hope they'll post their question before the misery of Chevron Exclamation point, Hyphen, Hyphen SHOUTY SENTENCE, then Hyphen, Hyphen Chevron, starts all over again for them. Let's turn this around - why on earth would you think all that and then your extra bit is ever going to be helpful, especially to mobile phone editors? My point, which I fear you have failed to appreciate is that these poor benighted souls don't even see the place on the mobile screen where they have to type their question because of all the crap we put in front of them in the preload. Adding more crap and more SHOUTY TEXT ain't going to help no-one. In a world of UX, we currently offer them a total fail; let's not make it even worse. Maybe an after-the-fact response is something you and I will simply have to accept as the price for being hosts, for welcoming newcomers and for inviting them to post questions about editing Wikipedia when they don't yet know how we roll, or what a tilde is. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Link to IRC help channel in header?

The header for the help desk has a link to the IRC help channel: Wikipedia:IRC/wikipedia-en-help. That page says that the IRC channel is meant for our newest members. If that is the case, should we have a link to IRC in the Teahouse header also? RudolfRed (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree. IF that's true there should be a link to that in teahouse as you say. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I completely disagree. The experience for a newcomer of trying to understand how IRC operates is not actually a pleasant one at all. I found myself getting blocked simply for lurking when I went there for the first time anonymously to get a sense of how IRC functions - and I was a new administrator at the time! There is no open record for everyone to see, and I feel that sending people there is pointless when we have an open, friendly and rapid approach to answering questions here at the Teahouse. Not only that, but we have enough in our Header already, and pointlessly signing people off towards the darker corners of Wikipedia just isn't needed. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: You were wrong to state "That page says that the IRC channel is meant for our newest members." It doesn't. See Wikipedia:Help desk/Header. You nearly started a storm in a Teahouse teacup, LOL! Nick Moyes (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: The page I linked to (Wikipedia:IRC/wikipedia-en-help) says "Because #wikipedia-en-help is specifically designed for helping (primarily, but not limited to) our newest users [...]". RudolfRed (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Ah, I see what you were getting at now. I interpreted "that page" in a different way. But my view remains that routing newbies to the complexities of the IRC Channel would be counter-productive for the vast majority of people, and adding it to the TH Header definitely unnecessary. Thanks for the clarification. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

That makes sense. I've never used IRC, so not familiar with it. I'm fine with leaving the link out of the header. RudolfRed (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, but if you don't mind me observing: it might have helped a bit if you had spent a moment or two checking out the implications yourself before making the suggestion, especially for something you've never used. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Growth features and mentorship module

Hello Teahouse hosts -- I'm Marshall Miller; I'm the product manager for the Wikimedia Foundation's Growth team, which works on features meant to increase the retention of new editors. I last posted on this talk page about a year ago, to let you all know about a project page I started here on English Wikipedia. At that time, we got valuable feedback from Nick Moyes and Sdkb, who have been following along with the project since.

In the past year, we have found evidence that the Growth features have a positive impact on newcomer engagement, and this has led us to deploy the features to a total of 30 wikis, including some large ones like French, Portuguese, Russian, and Japanese Wikipedias. So far, so good! Because we've seen the features lead to good outcomes, we want to start the conversation around what it would be like to try them on English Wikipedia.

Presentation of the "mentorship module" on the newcomer homepage

I'm posting here because you all are experts on newcomers to English Wikipedia, and because your work inspired an important part of the Growth features: the "mentorship module". The module is part of the "newcomer homepage", and assigns every newcomer a mentor from a list of users who sign up to be mentors. The newcomer can ask questions directly onto their mentor's talk page without using wikitext. This feature has created a simple mentorship program for many smaller wikis that had nothing like it before. But I know that English Wikipedia has many similar support systems in place for newcomers, like the Teahouse. In thinking about deploying Growth features to this wiki, we would like to hear from Teahouse hosts on whether/how the Growth mentorship features might complement or conflict with the current practices on the wiki.

I hope some of you can check out the project page and also the discussion where we are thinking about how to try these features on English Wikipedia. As we talk more about this, I can give additional details and numbers on how the mentorship module is used (here is some additional information). Please do chime in either here, or on that discussion page. If you want to try out the features, you can see these simple instructions for how to try them on Test Wikipedia. -- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi everyone -- I just wanted to follow up to note that I posted a plan for experimenting with these features on English Wikipedia. I hope some of you can check out the plan and weigh in with your thoughts! In particular, we are looking for ten people to be "mentors" during this experimental phase, and I think Teahouse hosts will make great mentors. Please reply here or along with the plan if you are willing to be a mentor. -- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello everyone -- I'm following up here to let everyone know that the Growth features are now available to test on English Wikipedia. They are not being assigned to any newcomers yet, but experienced users may turn them on in preferences to try them. We hope you try them out on desktop or mobile and leave any notes here (or on the project talk page). After a couple weeks, and after we iron out any issues, we plan to start giving the features to 2% of newcomers to get a sense of how they work on this wiki, and so that we can make plans for next steps.

To test the features, please go to your user preferences and then:

• enable the Help panel in the Editing tab.
• enable the Newcomer homepage in the User profile tab.

This will give you access to the homepage (Special:Homepage), and, from there, you will be able to:

• contact your mentor
• select your favorite topics and tasks to make some suggested edits
• browse help pages
• see your impact

You will also see the help panel being visible when editing, or when browsing help pages.

-- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 01:50, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

MMiller (WMF), I'm testing out the page now. As an experienced editor, should I clarify that to my "mentor"? Panini!^🥪 14:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Panini! -- thanks for trying out the features! No, a user doesn't need to contact a mentor unless they want help or to connect. From the mentor's perspective, they will get hundreds of newcomers assigned to them, and only a few will reach out with questions -- the rest the mentor will largely ignore. That said, we are thinking about ways to help mentors be proactive towards newcomers who seem to be excelling or struggling. In that vein, we are building the "mentor dashboard", which lets mentors see the list of all their mentees, and sort/filter to see the ones they're most interested in interacting with. Perhaps, for instance, a mentor might filter to see the newcomers who have only been around for a couple weeks or less, but have been making lots of constructive edits. They would be able to filter out any long-tenured experienced editors.

What are your other impressions of the features? MMiller (WMF) (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment MMiller (WMF) Just experienced this. Looks interesting to me. Nice idea and I hope it'll be helpful to newcomers. Doesn't it seem to be influenced from the WP:AAU? ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 04:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for checking things out, @TheAafi. I'm glad it looks generally good to you. Yes, we read about Adopt-a-user when building the mentorship component of the homepage (in particular, this research paper about the program). I would say that the biggest things that distinguish the new mentorship features from AAU are: (a) all newcomers get assigned a mentor; they don't have to proactively request one, and (b) the relationship is meant to be a lot lighter-weight and casual, i.e. mentees can just fire off quick questions without necessarily feeling like they have to maintain an ongoing relationship with their mentor.

  Did you participate in AAU? Do you have any reflections we should learn from? MMiller (WMF) (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Fiona Graham section

I suggest moving Wikipedia:Teahouse#Fiona_Graham_Page to WP:BLPN. (I'd move it there myself, if I hadn't already participated in it.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I made the suggestion above when expecting that discussion/nagging would continue. This hasn't happened, and therefore I retract the suggestion. -- Hoary (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: I suggest just {{Discussion top}}ing that thread per WP:TPG#Off-topic posts. Enough information has been provided for the IP/Graham to figure out what to do if the students mentioned in the thread are really the primary concern; moreover, Graham should know pretty well by now what options are available to her if she has problems with the article content since this has been going on for quite some time now. Finally, unless someone personally wants to get involved in things over at Japanese Wikipedia, there’s not much more that anyone at the TH can do about that. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Marchjuly, good idea. However: The {{Discussion top}} and {{Discussion bottom}} templates are used to close discussions on a talk page or a noticeboard. / When used on a talk page, these templates should only be used by uninvolved editors or administrators [...] (sez Template:Discussion top/doc) -- whereas I was involved in the minor kerfuffle in question. -- Hoary (talk) 02:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

"Closing" the discussion was just a way of letting others know that it's time to move on now because there's nothing more here to do. I doubt the IP will be back which means that the thread will eventually be archived if nobody keeps it going. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Thread now closed. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey all...it's Core Contest time again (finally)

Wikipedia:The Core Contest will be running again from June 1, in case anyone wants to flex their writing muscles :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Navigation

I sometimes pop over to the Teahouse page to see what questions are being asked. However, navigation is somewhat difficult due to the right float of the TOC and its length. The latter is the bigger problem of the two and could be alleviated by filing questions by date, as is done at WP:HD, WP:RD/M etc. Mjroots (talk) 11:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mjroots: I would welcome splitting down current posts into days, as per WP:HD. It's a good suggestion, and I'm sure it would make it an awful lot easier for newcomers to find their own posts, and the answers they've received. The archives would then probably also have to follow that same logical structure - something I would also really welcome, and have mentioned here before. But I'm not sure how other hosts would feel, or whether it's even possible to change our system after such a log time doing it a different way without breaking so many links. I'm interested to hear what others feel, or how changes could be brought about. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd support a further division of questions by date. Sometimes people forget the exact title of the question but remember when they've asked it, so this proposed method help locate it in the archives. I guess that means that archiving would have to be split into two portions: before the change and after. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: - no need to break any existing links. If this was introduced it could be done by using level 1 headers for the dates in much the same way as I organise my talk page. The archiving bot's instructions may need a tweak though. Mjroots (talk) 06:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

== Draft:Ezequiel Matthysse Hello, I do not understand why the draft Draft:Ezequiel Matthysse has not yet been published, I have reviewed it and the article is fine with all its references, and the sports notable in this article is that he was amateur world champion of the WBC.

(I already know and understand that the article is waiting for the review and you have to be patient, but what I go to is that they review it and they always say that it is wrong, and I reviewed it lately and the article is good. Also in the Discussion page Draft:Ezequiel Matthysse is clear that there is no relationship with the subject of the article and no conflict of interest, along with the explanation of sports notability.

Emat20211 (talk) 14:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)Emat20211