Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Teahouse

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ushau97 (talk | contribs) at 17:28, 3 May 2013 (→‎Merging with Wikipedia:New contributors' help page/questions - revisited: result was "support merge"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Greetings: This page is for discussing the Teahouse, please direct questions about Wikipedia to the Teahouse Q&A forum. Thank you.

You can also talk in real time chat at #wikipedia-teahouse connect, and participate in discussions at the host lounge.

Why is the question page "upside down" ?

Hello, I just recently started visiting the Teahouse. I notice that the question page here is newest first, oldest at the bottom. This is the opposite of other places of help/discussion, such as the Help Desk, the Reference Desk, and user talk pages. What is the history behind the decision to do the Teahouse differently? I think it might be confusing to a new user to start out on a page like this one, and then have to learn that all the other discussion/help pages go in the other direction. I'm sure this was discussed, so I'm curious about the reason. RudolfRed (talk) 03:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck getting a good answer. I've been asking that since the Teahouse opened; as having a page that works backwards from the rest of Wikipedia seems very confusing to new and experienced users alike. I believe someone patted me on the head and said "go on, let the grownups handle this" or something like that. I gave up trying to fight that battle a long time ago. --Jayron32 04:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I wasn't the one being patronizing, Jayron. If so, I apologize. I was the one who came up with the top-posting feature in the first place, so here's my answer (you can decide if it's good or not): I did some research in summer 2011 on where & how new editors looked for help. Some of the common pitfalls I observed were: new editors didn't seem to know where to go to get help, how to tell whether a page was active or not, or whether someone answered a question they asked, and they frequently made mistakes when they tried to edit markup on talk pages. These findings mirrored findings from the Wikimedia Usability Initiative a few years prior. So a lot of the features of the Teahouse were designed to reduce confusion and intimidation: minimal visual clutter in the interface, talkback notifications, automatic invites, featured content on the main page, a WYSIWYG gadget for posting questions, a simplified workflow for creating a profile. I felt (and still do) that putting new questions at the top was an important part of the experience we were creating. As a new user, seeing that your question is prominently placed (as opposed to shoved to the bottom of a loooong page) may give you more reason to hope that someone will answer you, and also makes it easier to check back and see. And other users who visit will see the most recent questions, not ones from days or weeks ago, so they know that the page is active. So far, I haven't seen any evidence that new editors who have used the Q&A board are more likely to get confused or make mistakes in other forums. And no one mentioned being confused in my surveys. It would kind of surprise me if they did, frankly: the Q&A board doesn't look or act like any other talk pages on Wikipedia, including their own user talk page, so it should be clear that other pages work differently. I'll also note that LiquidThreads and the upcoming Flow discussion module both put newer threads on top of older ones. Hope that makes the rationale more clear, and doesn't sound like head-patting. It's not meant to. - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 22:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the world is going top posting. newbies tend to expect it. they even try to top post on user talk. bottom post is so 90's = aol message board. i don't see any newbies asking; merely the confused veterans. (there's a lot of grumbling in the archives [1]) if you think it's so bad, wait for the hustle and flow, that will liquid threads it; that will really raise your hackles. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 22:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no preference for top posting or bottom posting per se. I have a preference for consistency. What you have to say on the matter is a good reason to support top posting across all of Wikipedia, and I agree with every word you said; however unless and until we have instituted top posting across all Wikipedia, having a page like this be top posted, where nearly every other page at Wikipedia that a user encounters is bottom posted is unnecessarily confusing. You've explained why implementing top posting is good for all of Wikipedia. You have not sufficiently explained why having one page out of millions operate differently helps new users get acclimated to Wikipedia. If they come here first and find it top posting, then they expect the rest of Wikipedia to work that way, and when it doesn't, they will be frustrated. If they have some experience at Wikipedia and have gotten used to the bottom posting, then come here, where it runs backwards from every other page, they will be frustrated. The issue is the lack of consistency. I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment as a reason to change all of Wikipedia, but not just this one page among all of the millions of pages here. --Jayron32 04:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
i kinda agree, however, you do understand the drama that would ensue a top post roll-out wikipedia-wide? look as the whinging at Flow. consistency at wikipedia, why start now? the process of change and consensus means that there will always be inconsistency, as the warring camps vote for their preferred solutions. maybe we have to have a trial demo, to demonstrate that the world won't come to an end. hey - they are already frustrated, i don't see comments here that they are frustrated about top posting, rather about the klunky wikicode, and policy. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 12:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merging with Wikipedia:New contributors' help page/questions - revisited

Some time ago it was tentatively proposed to merge Wikipedia:New contributors' help page/questions into the Teahouse questions page. There was some support and a merge was carried out, but it was soon reversed after general consensus that the change was overly bold (contributors to the original page were not properly informed) and poorly executed (some questions were lost).

I'm proposing we properly revisit this change. Having multiple locations attempting to do effectively the same thing is confusing to new users and slows down getting an answer. New contributors' help page is now if anything even less active than it was before (no questions at all in the past 2 days), whilst the Teahouse has grown increasingly mature and consistently gives faster responses. the wub "?!" 16:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions for reference:

  • Comment - Another thing which is confusing for new users is for the Teahouse questions page to put new questions at the top, when other talk pages in wikipedia put them at the bottom. I'm also not convinced by the Teahouse reluctance to give relevant links; spelling things out from square one can often be lengthy and still not give the whole answer that the questioner needs. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Hi David, no one has ever produced any proof that it is confusing for new editors, and there is evidence that the way we do it has many benefits (intending to create a page about this but haven't had the time). Also, giving a relevant link or two has always been completely fine. What we want to avoid is an answer like, "Read link" and yup, sometimes answers are lengthy. If you don't have time, or feel up to the length, then by all means feel free to leave the answering to someone else or wait until you do. Thank you, :) heather walls (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Hi My76Strat, those comments have been addressed many times and are a total aside from this discussion, by which I mean, if you want to discuss them at length again we should probably start a new section. I have intended to create a "why we do the things we do" page, but have not had enough time. heather walls (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it time for someone to close this discussion? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please! heather walls (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the merge tags from both pages i.e. closed the discussion about gaining consensus on merging and notified User:Scsbot's owner about this. When the bot stops adding the headers, we could create a redirect. And we should update the links to WP:NHD before doing this, right? One more thing, should the archives of that page be left as it is or should something else be done about it? --Ushau97 (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable competence of some of the editors who answer questions here.

Apologies if this topic treads on a few toes but I feel it is an issue that must be addressed. I have seen quite a few instances of wrong or sub-optimal advice given to newbies here. I'm afraid some people who answer questions here are not properly familiar with correct information and procedures. I have seen advice given that directly violate the MOS or does not comply with various standard procedures. It looks bad if one has to contradict and correct a previous reply to a question. The rate of poor advice given here is noticably higher than at the "traditional" Help Desk. I'm not sure why it is, but I suspect it may be that the Teahouse somehow inadvertently attracts people who are themselves inexperienced, to give advice beyond their actual competence. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen that in some instances as well and my guess is that it is because the Teahouse encourages people who ask questions to answer them too. Ryan Vesey 17:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like who? Just asking  Miss Bono (zootalk) 18:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I deliberately worded my post to avoid drawing attention and embarrassing individuals. If you browse around the questions page and it's archives you'll see sub-optimal advice appear quite regularly. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that all "new hosts" be advised to undergo a adoption or similar mentorship/guidance under an experienced editor before trying to answer any questions. That way we can ensure minimum level competence from everyone who answers our questions.
A less feasible alternative will be to become somewhat restrictive in who we allow to be a host, and request "new hosts" to register as guests unless they demonstrate a reasonable degree of understanding of Wikipedia and its guidelines. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
no problem. I was just making sure that I am not one of those you have mentioned. Kind Regards.  Miss Bono (zootalk) 18:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Teahouse is meant to be collaborative. In that sense, I think it is best if experienced editors gently make corrections and if needed, speak to individuals on their talk pages. We can have discussions without being perfect, and being patient and polite is a good way to include everyone. Please get involved in the places where people could use a little direction. This might also be a decent time to remind everyone to greet people and give the most thorough answer you can. Thanks! heather walls (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I must say that I have seen quite a few instances of wrong or sub-optimal advice given to newbies on every single "Forum"/help desk/Talk page/project/"WP:" that exists on Wikipedia; the noticeable thing about the Teahouse is that it is not accompanied by the usual bile. Tommy Pinball (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, Tommy. Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 23:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's also the fact that this board is intended for complete newbies, so the precise ramifications of MoS and procedures aren't necessarily all that important. Someone who's only made a couple of edits is more likely to be put off by reams of "you must do precisely this or the sky will fall" advice, when actually something very simple will work just fine, even it it doesn't exactly meet MoS/procedures. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shout out in Forbes!!

Nice article with a shout out to the Teahouse!!! See here. SarahStierch (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Time to phase out the maitre d'?

Hello all, I just noticed that we have effectively been working without a maitre d' for at least the last two weeks, as the one who is signed up has been inactive for over a month. I haven't been around much, but from the little bit of snooping I did, it seems we are working fine without one and instead someone just taking initiative to do those tasks. Can we officially phase out the maitre d' position? Go Phightins! 13:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes wanted at Help:Searching

I'm trying to improve Help:Searching, but another user who has added an excess of disorganized geek detail (written in not-so-good English) seems to think that he owns the page. I told him that he can "own" the geek detail, but I want to fix the overview summary (intro.) at the top of the page. I'd appreciate 3rd opinions from Teahouse people. LittleBen (talk) 17:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Show navbox

Why isn't the list of help pages shown by default? I mean, we are trying to help the ignorant find something, right? Jim.henderson (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse Notification

Can't we make a gadget which can give notifications to all the host users?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Teahouse&oldid=553375134"