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 2001:6b0:e:2b18::72 (talk) at 20:26, 22 January 2023 (→‎printing does not work with the new CSS and more: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.


Thoughts about amending the page notice for the Teahouse?

I was scrolling through the Teahouse today and came across this question, which extended into a comment branch before discovering that the user was using the mobile view that has a different layout. Does anyone think it might be helpful to add If you're using the mobile version of Wikipedia, please mention that in your question to the page notice that appears when creating a new discussion to head off potential miscommunication? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I've only been hanging around the Teahouse a few months now, but I can't think of any other times it's come up; on the other hand, I may've just skipped over those threads because I don't use a mobile interface and generally can't comment on related issues. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. We don't usually get questions relating to the mobile version of Wikipedia. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Blaze Wolf/@Tenryuu How do we know that We don't usually get questions relating to the mobile version of Wikipedia? If a user assumes that everyone else is using the same mobile view that they happen to be using, would they think to mention it? I suspect not. So, to that end, a long time ago we added the line "Mention if you'd like a reply specific to mobile view or the VisualEditor." to the 'Ask a Question template. Isn't that sufficient? (Apols for the belated response; I've been rather absent from Wikipedia for the last few months) Nick Moyes (talk) 00:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A self-eval quizz for Teahouse hosts

Back in January I floated the idea of having some sort of evaluation for prospective Teahouse hosts. I gave it a go: Wikipedia:Teahouse host training.

I have not finished writing the answer key but it’s complete enough to see what it would look like. Feel free to edit it or comment.

Redde caesari quae sunt caesaris: My initial suggestion was a test with feedback from current Teahouse hosts. Nick Moyes suggested a self-test instead, which convinced me so thoroughly that somehow I ended up thinking the idea was mine all along. But diffs remember. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 12:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhh! Latin! Taking a quick look at it, it actually looks pretty good, tho I would remove the "how do I desysop an admin" one since I've never seen anyone complain about an admin here (i've seen people complain about admins at WP:HD tho). I would assume you look through some of the archives to see what some of the most common questions were. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I went looking through the latest archive. It’s a real question. The point is that one should not answer the question directly, but investigate the user, since the question reeks of trolling/sockpuppetry. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 13:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Huh that's actually really interesting. But I do agree that if I saw that, I would initially check the user's contribs, mainly to see what admin they are referring to, but also to see if they're simply refusing to understand the rules or if they seem to know the rules but are deliberately disobeying them. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I remember seeing "How do I take action against a horrible rouge admin?!" asked more than once (in various different ways). I don't think a "background investigation" has ever turned out well for the inquirer... 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, 9 Dodecacember 2047 (Mars standard time) 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tigraan You pinged me back in October, but I have not been able to be active here for the last few months - sorry. Your draft 'self-test' is an interesting idea, but very much a skeletal 'work in progress', so might perhaps have been better kept as a userspace draft until a lot more advanced. I've added a few lines to make that clearer.
I seriously advise removing all signatures and date stamps of other editors' questions. Not only does it make it look like a talk page, but it's not really OK to make it look as though those editors are asking those questions, or, indeed, to embarrass them. A simple copy of a genuine question might be OK (use an edit summary to acknowledge the source), assuming it had some worthwhile responses. In which case, by all means then simply link to the archived question and answers. But that link should just form part of the self-checking answer. I can't offer more comments as there isn't really enough content at this stage, but the idea is a sound one in principle. I started working on something similar, related to WP:ORFA, which you can see in its still-unfinished form, here. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AFC invitation

Would it be possible to create a variation of the Teahosue AFC invitation for when a user's draft is rejected? Declined is very different from rejected as with Declined the user can submit it again however if it's rejected the user cannot submit it again. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Blaze Wolf As far as I know, the current "decline" templates invite users to the AFD Help Desk, not the Teahouse. See User_talk:Willajayne for an example. They suggest the Teahouse for any other questions about editing. I'm not sure whether we should be encouraging editors whose draft is rejected to do anything, as that would only get us into arguments over lost causes. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Section heading should not start with "[" and end with "]"

I discovered that messed up a notification template.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 00:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not interested

I repeatedly read

Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.

or minor variations thereof.

"Featured articles", at the time of their featuredom, presumably satisfy interested inquisitors. Right now it's "I Drink Wine", a song that, we read, is sung/recorded/whatever (lipsunk?) by Adele. Within it:

[Adele] viewed "I Drink Wine" as reminiscent of the work of Elton John and Bernie Taupin, and wrote it for herself and a friend during a time when she was taking things too personally. The song's lyrics were Adele's attempt to explain why she needed to mature to be more available in their friendship.
Adele revealed that three songs were in contention for release as the lead single, including one she described as "very sort of '70s, like piano, singer-songwriter-y, [with] a whole band on it, but just very Carpenters, like very Elton".

I sense that the "not interested" stuff above is a little overdone. [Pinging ColinFine]-- Hoary (talk) 09:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is mostly directed at people attempting to write about themselves, people they work for, or their company, not quoting an article subject in an article. 331dot (talk) 09:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You repeatedly read it because two years ago I put it in a template, {{HD/WINI}}, when I got fed up with typing the same message. Perhaps it is overdone - anybody's welcome to tweak the template. ColinFine (talk) 11:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, how about, say:
Wikipedia has minimal interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them (none of which can count towards notability). Wikipedia is interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.
though that's only a first bash and surely can be improved. (And apropos of what surely can be improved, "she needed to mature to be more available in their friendship": eh, what?) -- Hoary (talk) 12:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adele writing about a song she sings is acceptable. Adele writing about Adele's rendering of the song is probably not. Maproom (talk) 12:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possible FAQ?

Has creating an FAQ for the Teahouse ever been considered? I understand that the Teahouse is meant for new users to ask questions which is why there tend to be a lot of the same questions, however have we ever considered making an FAQ to try and reduce the amount of similar questions we receive? I feel that it would make it easier since a new user doesn't have to wait for an answer and instead can check the FAQ for questions that have been repeatedly asked in the past and possibly find the answer to their question. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@blaze wolf: there is the WP:FAQ. (we should probably link that somewhere...) → lettherebedarklight → 晚安 → おやすみ → 03:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's just a list page for the various FAQs on Wikipedia ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 03:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by the number of people who routinely ignore Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, which is linked prominently on Talk:Muhammad and even reproduced in a permanent first section visible on mobile devices, I am skeptical that a FAQ on the Teahouse would get any attention from all the newbies who want to know why their draft was declined (which I would estimate is the number one question). The same thing goes for the FAQ at Talk:Adam's Bridge. It might reduce the tide of questions in a small way, but doesn't eliminate them. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well obviously it wouldn't eliminate them, that would only happen in a perfect world (one where questions like "why was my draft declined" would exist). However maybe it could help if we had somewhere to direct users other than giant essays and policies? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 03:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm not saying we shouldn't do it. It certainly can't hurt, and may even help in a small way.
It seems that the answers to FAQ questions are pretty much all gathered together in Template:HD/WINI. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dang. I didn't know there were that many HD templates. Still, it wouldn't hurt to actually create an FAQ page with some of those answers. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ChatGPT tries to answer Teahouse questions

I have fed some Wikipedia:Teahouse host training questions to ChatGPT and it generated some interesting responses. See Wikipedia:Teahouse host training/Answers/ChatGPT. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 13:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, chatbots. I don't think they should be used anywhere that they might be taken seriously. For question 4, this one is unaware that there's a difference between owning a photo and owning copyright in it. Here's an excerpt from a Google trained chatbot:
Suppose you roll two standard six-sided dice. What is the probability to get a total score of 8? Explain your working fully.
The probability of rolling a total score of 8 is 1/9. This is because there are 36 possible outcomes when rolling two standard six-sided dice (6 x 6 = 36). Out of these 36 possible outcomes, only 4 will result in a total score of 8 (1+7, 2+6, 3+5, 4+4). Therefore, the probability of rolling a total score of 8 is 4/36 = 1/9.
The confident delivery of a totally misguided answer is impressive but unhelpful. Maproom (talk) 14:11, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I find it a bit funny how for question 4 it says "please do not write 'best regards'" which the bot totally ignores and writes "Best Regards" anyway. Might I ask what "ChatGPT" is? Clearly it's not an aspiring Teahouse Host, but I've never heard of it before. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:18, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at it, it appears the bot doesn't know what the instructions it's being given are, only the questions. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Something new developed by OpenAI. (see this) 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 14:41, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Seems promising, though I don't think we should ever use an AI to answer questions anywhere. For one the AI may not always be right, and two it gets rid of the human to human interaction (although some trolls and vandals like to think anti-vandals are bots when really that's just ClueBot NG). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:46, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. This was not a proposition that we should tell them to respond to people automatically, but it can create an idea of what a response would look like. At least from what I have seen, ChatGPT was deemed to be generating responses of decent quality. But I guess Math is any chatbot's nightmare:
Suppose you roll two standard six-sided dice. What is the probability to get a total score of 8? Explain your working fully.
Note: this is wrong and generated by ChatGPT. Not what I would answer! To get a total score of 8 when rolling two dice, you can get a score of 6 and 2, 5 and 3, or 4 and 4. Since there are a total of 36 possible outcomes when rolling two dice (6 possible outcomes for the first die x 6 possible outcomes for the second die), the probability of getting a total score of 8 is 3/36, which simplifies to 1/12. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 14:45, 2 December 2022 (UTC) Added notice 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 16:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@0xDeadbeef Don't offer yourself as an alternative to chatbot. There are two ways each to get 6/2 and 5/3 but only one way to get 4/4. So the correct answer is 5/36. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael D. Turnbull That is what ChatGPT generated. I should have specified that. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 16:59, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I wondered about that! Actually, I thought that its answers to the Teahouse training questions were pretty good. In the case of the image upload it did say "[if] you have the right to use the photo" which does imply it knows about copyright. The real issue is that people often don't know what the word "right" means in this context. It might be fun to try out giving instant answers, making clear they were from a bot, in the live Teahouse. You would want it not to answer every question or some trolls would start trying to trip it up but if it answered say one in three questions on average that would be a useful experiment to run for a few days. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I like that idea. I think a message at the end saying "This message was generated by ChatGPT and may not be accurate." with a link to more details on ChatGPT would help distinguish the AI's answer from a real one. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:18, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Although I do have an issue in that it doesn't use internal linking, and make it seem like the answer comes from the Teahouse itself (which is not true) ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:18, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It could be mitigated by detecting keywords and automatically linking them, and trimming out the best regards part if it insists. However, we can't do it with a bot as OpenAI has not exposed any kind of API for it yet. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 17:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@0xDeadbeef [2,6], [3,5], [4,4], [6,2], [5,3] and are the 5 combos, so 5/36 unless I am missing something. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shushugah: Yes, you are right, that is what I got too. The wrong answer that you were replying to was generated by ChatGPT, not me. I should have made that absolutely clear.. Will do so in another edit so that no one gets confused. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 16:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meeting this Friday

Hello,

The Editing team is hosting a public meeting this Friday, December 16th to talk about the needs of new editors. You are all invited. They want to present some ideas they have about encouraging the addition of inline citations, and they want to hear what you think will help newcomers make productive contributions.

When: Friday, 16 December 2022 at 16:00–17:30 UTC  

Video conference link: https://meet.google.com/krq-tonw-quz

This meeting will be in English.  There is some information on wiki at mw:Editing team/Community Conversations#16 December 2022  You don't need to sign up in advance, but you can sign up on that page if you want to. I hope some Teahouse hosts will be able to attend.  

If you aren't able to attend, but you have some information or advice for the team, you can also leave a public note for the Editing team at mw:Talk:Editing team/Community Conversations. (Also, if you want to find out about future events, I suggest putting that page on your watchlist.)

Thank you. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to tell you that you forgot the section header but clearly you noticed. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I attended the meeting, in the expectation that it would be for Teahouse hosts and suchlike to discuss how better to help and encourage new editors. In fact most of those present were new editors from sub-Saharan Africa; and people from the WMF were demonstrating new tools intended to make things easier for them. (I wish WMF employees would discuss things with experienced contributors before developing new tools. They seem to work in an ivory tower.) Maproom (talk) 08:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There couldn't have been any demos, because nothing's been built yet. They presented some drawings of different ways to encourage people to add citations. You may have noticed that I wrote above "They want to present some ideas they have about encouraging the addition of inline citations".
I wonder what your definition of "experienced contributor" is, if people who have made hundreds or thousands of edits during the last couple of years don't count. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
most of those present were new editors from sub-Saharan Africa this comment is concerning; it has racist undertones. Polyamorph (talk) 09:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to this page, "This meeting will be an opportunity for new and experienced volunteers from Sub-Saharan Africa ...". Does that also have racist undertones? It seems to me that WMF members hearing about and addressing the problems encountered by editors from that part of the world is an excellent initiative. But I didn't notice anyone there with hundreds or thousands of edits. Maproom (talk) 12:58, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I appreciate the context, without which it sounded concerning. Thanks for the clarification. Polyamorph (talk) 13:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scams and incompetence

I often read this kind of thing:

Companies that offer to create articles for pay are almost all scams or not competent.

Indeed, I've written this kind of thing myself. But increasingly, I doubt that it's true. As I look at stuff awaiting AFC review, I often see drafts by very new editors that, though (I suspect deliberately) aren't polished, cite a stunning array of obscure sources and (aside from a tendency to include relative trivia) are actually well done. Often they'll have some sort of stylistic/technical disorder that doesn't risk having the article declined, that can be fixed fairly easily, and that I suppose is designed to add a veneer of novitiate ignorance of MoS or Mediawiki formatting or similar. I presume that a given username of a paid, competent writer first makes a few trivial edits to articles in the rough subject area, creates the paid-for draft, gets it promoted to article status, is retired and replaced....

Lacking solid evidence that these drafts are the work of paid editors, I usually keep my suspicions to myself. "Smells as if paid for" isn't a "decline" rationale. -- Hoary (talk) 13:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You would know better but I believe there's nothing wrong with dropping the COI notice and waiting for their reply before accepting, as it's a TOU and policy violation to be a UPE. I think the obvious one's are PR "specialists" who haven't bothered to learn the medium they are trying to publish to, but your point is accurate on those specializing on Wikipedia articles. Slywriter (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I could, Slywriter, but then I fear I'd soon find myself sticking COI notices on any submission by an SPA. Indeed, I think that the average SPA does have a COI. But there's no rule saying that contributors must have a normative pattern of editing. WP certainly does have unfortunate omissions, and a benevolent person could conceivably (i) have a lot of info about a subject, (ii) sincerely believe that this subject is notable, and (iii) be unusually adept at adopting house styles of writing. -- Hoary (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"I often read this kind of thing:
Companies that offer to create articles for pay are almost all scams or not competent." I usually only see this if someone mentions they received an email saying that they can get their article published if they pay some money. I almost never see this if someone asks why their draft wasn't approved. Mind providing some examples? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to name any, Blaze Wolf, but I'll nudge you in one direction. Wikipedia:AfC sorting/Culture/Visual arts is rather a magnet for (self-) promoters. Currently none of the short descriptions in that list mentions "curator" or similar, and indeed curator drafts aren't common. But of those drafts about curators that are submitted, a pretty high percentage are of the kind that I describe. -- Hoary (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean "curator" as in the actual job? I would very much expect people who are curators or care about curators to be able to write a decent wikipedia article and have access to and interest in obscure sources. -- asilvering (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, asilvering, the actual job. I'd expect such people to be bright and highly articulate. And any autobiographers among them would have those obscure sources. However, with their negligible list of contributions that aren't for the article in question, I wouldn't expect the editors to be highly fluent in Mediawiki markup and the like. Yet they tend to get the markup right, only making this or that beginner mistake of a variety that's both innocuous and easy for anyone else to fix. (Among these varieties is utterly unnecessary piping: I mean, if they want the link, say, cyan to appear within their text, they'll write not [[cyan]], as any non-beginner would, but instead [[Cyan|cyan]].) I mean no offence to curators -- I know at least one, and just today I glumly walked out of an exhibition half the way through: I might well have viewed the whole thing if only it had been the product of a curatorial intellect -- but I fear that very few people are sufficiently interested in any curator to build up files of newspaper clippings on that person unless they have a powerful COI. -- Hoary (talk) 06:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary I have two bulging boxfiles of newspaper clippings about one particular curator. They are, as you suggest, "bright and highly articulate" but not especially brilliant at markup. As you said, I would have a huge WP:COI if I were to attempt to utilise them. So I shall simply leave them for my kids to appreciate all the little things their Dad achieved during his working life. LOL! Nick Moyes (talk) 01:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Hoary likes this.
As a host at Help Desk and Teahouse, I often see paid editors asking for help because they're clueless about the work they've accepted payment for, and need help from us volunteers. When they're salaried employees who've been told by their boss "get an article set up on Wikipedia", this is understandable. When they've taken on the job as freelancers, they get less sympathy. Anyway − the result is that we hosts can get the impression that most paid editors are incompetent. But I suspect we're only seeing the tip of the iceberg, and there are plenty of competent paid editors working away unnoticed. At the opposite end of the range there are extremely competent (and I assume accordingly well-paid) agents of e.g. big tobacco, working effectively in their clients' interests. As for the ordinary, fairly competent, undeclared paid editors, they're probably a net positive for Wikipedia. Maproom (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maproom, yes, I tend to agree. -- Hoary (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflicts: a tip

Maybe what I describe below is obvious or well-known. But it only occurred to me recently, so I thought I'd pass it on.

Until around a year ago, I used to get edit conflicts at the Help desk and at the Teahouse, and they weren't a problem for me. I could click the "back" button in my browser, get back to the text that I'd typed in, and copy it. Then something changed, that technique stopped working, and I found myself having to retype the text. But there's an easy way to avoid that: once I've typed in the text, and maybe checked it with "Show preview", instead of clicking "Publish changes" I shift-click "Publish changes". That way (with Chrome, anyway) the submission goes to a new browser window; if if it's lost to an edit conflict, it's still there in the old window. Maproom (talk) 15:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice tip Maproom - it works in MS Edge as well - thanks - Arjayay (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's useful but I suspect that most editors are now using the "reply" link rather than "edit source" when answering on any Talk Page. This makes edit conflicts impossible as the software waits for any conflicts to resolve before committing the edit when you click on the "Reply" button. It also has the advantage of getting the indenting correct and previewing the edit as you type. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and with the Reply tool being enabled by default for new users, I doubt we'll see edit conflicts as much as we used to a year ago.
I still think Convenient Discussions is better, but the inhouse analogue's pretty serviceable. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried using the Reply tool (and am doing so now, to remind myself what it's like). It doesn't let me see the source of the what I'm replying to, and it doesn't have Show Preview. So I've gone back to using edit. Maproom (talk) 06:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For me, I can see a preview below the reply window while I type, without needing to hit a "show preview" button. - David Biddulph (talk) 07:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Maproom That's odd! I suspect you are using the "Visual" option on the reply tool. I use the "Source" option (toggles just above the editing window) so I get the best of both worlds with a Preview below the source editing window. And of course, the tool also auto-signs, so you won't be adding any tilde if you are using it correctly. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indenting is not always correct though, especially in complex/indented conversations but it generally works, and I can fix it immediately afterwards if need be. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a small warning that while the Reply tool is extremely good at resolving edit conflicts, it is not 100.0% perfect. If you do end up with an unresolvable edit conflict, you'll have an opportunity to copy your message before trying again.
@Maproom, I wonder why you want to see the wikitext of the comment you're replying to. If it's to ping the user, then I point out that the @ symbol pops up the usernames in the current discussion, which I find much faster and easier. (You can search for any account, but it starts with the relevant ones).
The other thing that I like, which I find easier in the visual mode, is that when you want to add a link, you can search. This means that it's very easy to link to the full name of a page with a long title, such as Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), instead of using potentially confusing shortcuts like WP:ORG. It's also handy when you can't quite remember how to spell the article you want to link to. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I sometimes want to see the wikitext of a comment because I want to copy some of it, complete with markup. Maproom (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can copy it, complete with markup, in the visual mode. For example, your comment is signed with this:
Maproom (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(I'm running a script that adds a link to the date.) All I did was copy and paste what was visible above the Reply tool's comment box.
There are some limits. The section heading is:
Edit conflicts: a tip
but it won't copy the == Section heading == wikitext, because that won't work when it's prefixed by multiple :::::. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Archives missing?

Does anyone know why the archive list at the top of this page only goes up to 10 (there are actually 26)? And what happened to Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Archive 11? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the deletion logs, it seems that the answer to your second question is that someone mistakenly created Wikipedia:Teahouse/Archive 11, and admin User:Liz deleted that, and Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Archive 11 was deleted at the same time, presumably unintentionally (and perhaps your first point about only 10 being shown in the archive box contributed to that) so perhaps she or another admin can undelete it? - David Biddulph (talk) 07:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh. I couldn't figure out that deletion reason, but your theory would cover it. Maybe I'll try an undeletion request later this week if no helpful admin wanders by here first. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and just requested undeletion while also linking this discussion. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's done! Thanks all. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see that getting Archive 11 back has corrected the problem with the archive list in the box at the top. We can now see the ones beyond 10, so it had previously all been part of the same problem. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please help/guide me for Wiki table

I was developing Ronit Roy and Salman Khan pages, but I am unable to fix the tables. I need help. Please help me and let me to go forward. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Twinkle1990 I fixed Salman Khan table for you, but for Ronit Roy the other table, it's not obvious what changes you are trying to make, because you've made so many edits before coming here. I would recommend reading HELP:TABLE and use the visual editor/preview before publishing. That said, most of the films have Wikilinks, and do not need a reference in my opinion. If you need further help, I'd recommend asking in WP:Village Pump (Technical) instead, which is as the name states, more technical. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Twinkle1990 I just noticed myself, you asked this on Wikipedia talk:Teahouse whereas questions like the above should be posted on Wikipedia:Teahouse or other forums e.g WP:Village Pump (Technical) in the future. This talk page is for Teahosts to discuss how to best serve the Teahouse. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Default Vector skin changed today

Just a note to advise fellow Teahouse Hosts that we have all had a new skin layout forced upon us today (Vector 2022). There's bound to be fallout (and some has already appeared on the Teahouse forum).

Whilst I'm personally not too keen on it at first sight (I've lost quite a chunk of my viewing screen), I do feel that, as a Teahouse host, I need to become familiar with this newer, cleaner layout. Or how else can I advise new editors where to find things? I hope other hosts will feel the same and give it a good tryout - at least for a week or so. For anyone wanting to revert to 'the good old days', they can do that via their Preferences settings. Just remember that new users won't then be experiencing the same layout as you are.

...wanders off to look to see where that button is now located!

Nick Moyes (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On my desktop PC, the part I found most disconcerting was that in article space the skin defaults to not showing the TOC. It has to be toggled using the three lines or left-pointing chevron topmost left on the page. The default menu in the leftmost column is otherwise the standard "old" menu with links to the Mainpage etc. However, like all software, you get used to the change after a bit. I'll reserve my final decision to use or revert to vector 2010 after a few days.... Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, the left sidebar can be completely hidden by first clicking the double arrows in the top left and also the [hide] button at the top of the ToC. This will cause the body text to take up the maximum amount of horizontal space possible, if you want. Shells-shells (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shells-shells Good tip - thank you. I'm also surprised (and disappointed) they didn't make the link to switch between desktop and mobile view a lot more visible than it was - and still is. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shells-shells: I tried that, and now there's no way I can see to get it back after hiding it. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist: It moves to a little icon immediately left of the article title. Shells-shells (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For better or worse, I'll definitely be giving it a good tryout. 😄 So far it's only mildly irritating. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
{{trout}} or try out? LOL Nick Moyes (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick Moyes: I created a template, {{HD/wikilayout}}, that should address immediate concerns. While I won't be using it on the Teahouse myself, I think it should be useful. Anyone's free to leave comments on the template's talk page as to how it can be improved. Here's what the current iteration looks like:
Are you asking about a sudden change to Wikipedia's appearance? It is because the default skin has changed from the Vector legacy (2010) skin to the new Vector (2022) skin. If you would like to change back to the old one, you can, as a registered user, click on the in the top-right corner and choose Preferences. Once there, go to Preferences → Appearance → Skins → check Vector legacy (2010).
If you would like to leave feedback, you can do so at Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022.
—Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For those who were bothered by huge amount of white space and poor content width that fails to show wide tables properly even with "limit width" turned off in preferences, I have made a new CSS file that tweaks the appropriate attributes. See User:Anachronist/vector-2022.css. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only frustration is with the "Contributions" button. The problem? Hitting the "log out" button, which is just below the "Contributions" button. Tails Wx 21:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Where to direct reader feedback? as to where to direct feedback. S0091 (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tails Wx: You can use the hotkey combo Alt+Y to pull up your contributions without opening the dropdown menu. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thanks. Hopefully this will put an end of this frustration :) Tails Wx 23:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Anachronist:, I'm really impressed by your proactivity. If you think it should help other users, please consider to suggest adding your customization at this page. For your information, in few weeks the Article tools will move on the right side of the page, so probably you will have to correct your CSS. I just wanted to be sure you feel well informed about this. This week the deployment is concerning only viwiki and itwiki.--Patafisik (WMF) (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I would like to say that other than donation questions, I’ve never seen the Teahouse or the help desk get flooded with the same questions during my time here as an editor especially since this is a major change. Interstellarity (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I almost miss the donation questions. Almost. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse Edit notice

Maybe it would be a good idea to add something like {{HD/wikilayout}} as a complement to the TH edit notice that is visible at the top of the TH editing window. Genuine questions about the switch aren't really a problem, but unhappy users creating new accounts just to post rants are, at least they are in my opinion. There's no value to any such posts and they're equivalent to spam. If something about this switch is added to TH edit notice, perhaps it should also state that pure rants will be removed asap since they're not constructive and don't help anyone in anyway. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't used the Discussion Tool in a really long time, but do edit notices pop up if users use the Reply tool instead of Edit Page or Edit Source? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good question and I'm not sure since I never use the "reply" feature. So, I tried it and no edit notice shows up. It does show up, however, if you click on "Ask a new question" at the top of the TH page. Maybe something should be added to the main page's banner to direct people to information about the Vector 2022 since more and more questions are popping up. It could just be a link like "If you've have any questions or comments about Wikipedia's new look, please click here" or something similar. Maybe a new banner added to the top of the page with big flashing letters or something. In all serious though I wonder why all the people who make changes like this seem unable to understand that people are going to be confused and they can't also come up with a banner or some kind of popup for the login page and the top of every Wikipedia page to let others know where to look for guidance. They seem to be able to do it when it comes to donations. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we could use some of the space in the header to say something along the lines of

If you're here to ask about the sudden change in Wikipedia's appearance, please go to Wikipedia:Vector 2022 for more details.

—Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a fine idea to me. Of course, there will still be question, but perhaps some users will find it helpful. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've made the change to the header here. I'm thinking it should stay on for about a month and a half? By that time most people should have figured out how to revert or get used to the new skin. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest to do the same change on Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Teahouse as well? Trizek (WMF) (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "recent change" is less editorial than "sudden change", in my opinion. Or perhaps just "ask about the change". --Scottyoak2 (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Nick Moyes (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Header buttons no longer center alligned

I think as a result of the addition of text to reduce the number of questions regarding Vector 2022, the 4 buttons at the bottom of the header are no longer center alligned. Could someone please fix it? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tried some test edits and the most likely cause is the actionbar div element being centred, and the subpage on the right and the image on the left are constraining that space asymmetrically. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok... so can it be fixed? Sorry I just don't entirely understand what you are saying. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 23:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made an edit here that should be what you're looking for. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

printing does not work with the new CSS and more

Could you please, PLEASE change back to the "old" CSS? This new one works badly when printing, because the Table of Contents cannot be avoided and it takes MUCH place on paper, which is a waste. Furthermore, the limitation of the width of the page (CSS max-width:) makes it difficult to read the text because one has to change to the next line too often. One other thing: The menu to change language should be avoided, to prevent the need to click twice to get to a new language. Have a plain list of languages, instead — not in a menu! I change between several different languages dozens of times every day … Thanks in advance! Regards! 2001:6B0:E:2B18:0:0:0:72 (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Teahouse&oldid=1135128926"