Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21→Archive 25

I am thinking about the Featured Hosts be random. Only the most experienced hosts get featured, which I think is biased. Some of you have discussed the Featured Hosts having to include more representation. I feel like more minority representation is important. As a fact, I am actually a female middle school student editing on mobile devices. So, I basically represent 2-3 minority groups on Wikipedia. Randomizing the Featured Teahouse Host can also show that there are a lot of Hosts who are willing to help newcomers. In conclusion, making sure all of the Hosts get featured at least once can represent minorities on Wikipedia and show newcomers the somewhat large amount of Hosts easier. Please discuss this with me; I would really appreciate it. Thanks for reading. LPS and MLP Fan (LittlestPetShop) (MyLittlePony) 15:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I am a Featured Host. I will gladly resign this position/honour/meaningless label in favour of someone who is not an old white male. Maproom (talk) 07:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Having experience is a necessary bias, and nobody knows the ages or genders of most of the hosts (and that is information that is always irrelevant to the Teahouse anyway.) --bonadea contributions talk 08:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Three thoughts on this. Firstly, the list doesn't specifically feature the most experienced hosts - it features the most active. Admittedly, given the range of edits used to assess activity (50,000 I believe) this is going to privilege those who have been contributing here for some time. But is that such a bad thing? The 'featured host' is already of minimal interest to most people asking questions here, and if we use the full list of hosts to drive it, then it risks featuring people who simply never post here anymore.
Secondly, just look at the questions we get here. Most people are very new users asking how to create an article, why their article was deleted, or why it failed WP:AFC. I doubt they could care less about who the 'featured host' is, if they even notice it. Which makes me wonder why so many of the discussions here at the talk page are about it.
Finally, I don't object to an element of positive discrimination to redress a fairly well-acknowledged slant in editors towards white and male (and maybe old, not sure about that). However, the vast majority of hosts do not have a username, description or picture that gives any hint as to their age, ethnicity or gender (or what device they edit on), so I'm not sure why this is such an issue? If our answers at the Teahouse reflect our unconscious biases, fiddling about with the featured hosts won't change that. Hugsyrup 08:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Also, @LPS and MLP Fan:, I hate to say it - but just scanning through some of your recent contributions on the page and quite a lot of the answers you are giving are really not accurate. The notability standard for companies is not 'at least one reliable reference' - it is multiple reliable secondary sources. Nor is it (always) true that YouTube is not a reliable source, as Cullen328 has explained, and this statement "If you want to edit Wikipedia at school, you usually cannot. An IP address at a school is usually blocked for a long time to prevent juvenile vandalism" is way off-base. It's brilliant that you want to help out here, but providing inaccurate or misleading information to new and confused users is really counter-productive. This is one reason why experiences is required as a host. Hugsyrup 08:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
About the pictures:
I would object to a rotating panel of old white males in the featured host picture slot. However, looking through the 30 pictures at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host/Featured, two of them are photographs of the hosts (I assume) and two others are human portraits (of clearly other people). Those four are indeed white dudes, but 4/30 is still a small minority of pictures, even if a rough reading of editor demographics suggests somewhere north of 60% of Teahouse hosts are white dudes. (I have not checked, in part because some people like me refuse to post details of their gender, ethnicity etc. so it is impossible to do anything but guesses.)
I would also object to misrepresenting the host demographics, either by image selection tricks (e.g. having white dudes use neutral pictures or pictures with (black/female/transgender/etc.) persons) or probability skewing (making a (black/female/transgender/etc.) host appear 2x as much as others). Editor imbalance is a problem, arguably an even bigger problem at newbie-facing places such as the Teahouse than elsewhere, but hiding the problem is not the way to go.
About the choice of featured hosts:
I already mildly opposed the concept of featured hosts because it creates an in-group of priviledged editors (see also hat collecting). It might be a positive for newbies (who might be reassured that someone "qualified" is going to answer), but a negative for the more seasoned community as it creates an in-group of self-appointed Teahouse respondents against the wider community even if that is not the intention. (Maybe we should A/B test whether newbies are better retained when there is a rotating picture, to quantify the positive?)
Minority representation concerns strengthen my opposition: "here are the persons approved to answer Teahouse questions, and none of them are your ethnicity/gender/etc." is a hostile message that we do not need to send even if factually true (and even less if wrong!). TigraanClick here to contact me 08:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
As one of the most experienced hosts consistently active for quite a few years, I do not care at all about the "featured host" designation which is made by software based on activity levels. I do not even care about the "host" title, because any editor can answer questions. What I really care about is whether or not editors answer questions accurately and in a friendly fashion. That gets enforced through peer pressure. If a host is brusque or dismissive or inaccurate, other hosts should point that out and ask for improvement. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I support abolishing the featured hosts and the Teahouse hosts. It shows that only a certain group of editors can answer the questions of new users. Instead, I would put a notice at the top of the page that says anyone is welcome to answer questions at the Teahouse as long as they abide by the expectations here. The most important thing is that everyone at the Teahouse (new users and experienced editors) is treated with dignity and respect. Interstellarity (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Cullen328 and Interstellarity. The rôle of "Featured Host" is meaningless. But if it has been seen as a title to be attained, and has motivated editors to answer questions while not experienced enough to do so competently, it's doing more harm than good and should be abolished. Maproom (talk) 07:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'd agree that the host concept needs to be abolished; if anything, I think criteria for being called a "host" might need to be beefed up a bit. I have no problems with non-hosts answering questions, even if they make mistakes, as long as the answers are given in good faith and civil. A "host" might be just experienced enough to catch these mistakes and correct them without ruffling too many feathers in the process. In a sense, I see the role of a host to be part moderator to help keep the TH working as smoothly as possible; I don't see hosts and being the only people who should answer questions and even hosts do sometimes make mistakes. Now, if the rotating photos are seen by some as being a type of systematic bias and causing unwanted angst, then maybe those should be dumped. At the same time, a host who's concerned that their photo is not receiving enough air time might want to take a look at WP:BSI and WP:HIGHSCORE because the need to be recognized shouldn't (IMHO) really be the primary motivation for wanting to help out at the TH. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Without a doubt, experienced hosts can make mistakes but the error rate should be very low. I know I have made a few mistakes and when I do, I admit it and apologize. In my experience, mistakes often come from ambiguous, vague questions. The Teahouse is a learning experience for everyone. No one is perfect but Teahouse hosts should strive for excellence, not glory or hat-collecting. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, hosts should strive to minimize mistakes, but they are unavoidable and not always immediately recognized as mistakes; in fact, they might not be mistakes at all, but rather more of a different way of looking at a situation. I think a problem (if it can be even considered to be a problem) is that some (not many but some) editors asking questions seem to expect definitive yes/no type answers be given at all times, which is not always possible because of what's being asked. They ask a question at the TH, get an answer (maybe the one they like and wanted), but then find themselves having a hard time (even getting pretty angry and lashing out) when they actually try to do what's suggested and things don't go their way. This doesn't necessarily mean that the answer they got was incorrect, but they seem to assume because it came from the TH that the rest of the community is going to accept without question. So, maybe more of an explanation about "hosts" and "answers" (e.g. a disclaimer type of thing) could be added to the banner at the top of the editing window for new questions so as to temper expectations a bit and make it clearer to those asking questions that sometimes there's no real right or wrong answer, and that hosts are simply volunteers trying their best to help out wherever they can. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I also strongly support removing 'featured host' as a well-meaning but essentially pointless exercise that risks incentivising the wrong behaviours. I also support removing the concept of hosts altogether in its current form, but would support keeping it if it was, as suggested above, 'beefed up' a bit to be based on some kind of experience criteria, and removable if the host proved unable to answer questions accurately/helpfully/politely - a bit more in line with other permissions like AFC, NPP, Rollback etc. Hugsyrup 09:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Question: When the host is showing at the top, does that mean they are online and would be available to swiftly respond to posts that mention them at the Teahouse? Usedtobecool ✉️ ✨ 09:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
No. Mediawiki doesn't track who's logged in or out at any given time—the closest thing is the 'touched' attribute, which logs the last time a logged-in account viewed a page, and that's very heavily secured and typically not visible even to checkusers. There would be no way to code a "who is currently online" script without both a massive rewrite of the software and potential major privacy implications. (You see such things in e.g. Facebook, but that's because you consent to be tracked when you sign up. For Wikipedia to track users, let alone publish any part of the tracking, would mean getting every single logged-on account to re-consent to amended terms of use.) ‑ Iridescent 10:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Iridescent, that was my expectation when I first came to the Teahouse, that the host would answer my question if I didn't get answers from anyone else. I don't know what else it could mean to a new user if not that. Usedtobecool ✉️ ✨ 10:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I would also be in favor of deprecating the concept of 'featured host', and probably hosts in general. Cullen328 makes some great points; we welcome anyone to answer questions if they can do so generally correctly and helpfully. We don't really need titles for that. I'm not sure that users who ask questions at the teahouse necessarily care about the hosts in general; perhaps they might be interested to know more about the individual who answers them, but they can visit that individual's userpage if they like. I don't think we need to go as far as to qualify those who answer questions, as I think the Teahouse regulars already do a good job of following up if someone makes a mistake, or if there is more than one correct answer. CThomas3 (talk) 10:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Formal Motions

It seems like there is a bit of support above for a couple of options, so I thought maybe I would formalise this here with three separate ideas.

1. Remove 'featured hosts'

  • Strong Support for reasons given above - it means nothing to the people who ask questions here, and risks incentivising a) inexperienced users to answer questions and b) a focus on quantity of answers over quality. Hugsyrup 10:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose See my rationale below. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose all three options Per Nick Moyes' eloquent rebuttal, and as the person who came up with the idea of hosts in the first place, and as the person who determined (albeit in super academic-y jargon) that the host role likely exerts a positive normative influence on the behavior of everyone who answers questions, allowing the Teahouse to maintain a high level of answer quality without needing to resort to formal exclusion criteria (which are kind of un-Teahouse anyway, imo). This all seems like a solution in search of a problem. If keeping the host list, the featured host panel, and/or the concept of host hinges on keeping those pages up to date without manual effort, I'll kick the tires on my old HostBot code and make it work again. I can make the featuring random, or I can feature profiles of people who have answered a lot of questions recently. I can delete Host profiles from the list page if they don't edit for a while too (hosts can then restore their profile when they start editing again, if they wish). The demographics of the people who show up in the host list or the 'featured host' pane is beyond my control :) Regardless, the idea of 'featured hosts' (and 'hosts') in general was explicitly developed in order to make the Teahouse feel like a welcoming, inclusive place that is run by friendly, knowledgeable humans. So the argument that seeing human faces (whatever their apparent ethinicity or gender identity) or even whimsical avatar photos selected by real humans is somehow offputting to newcomers doesn't make any sense to me. So: if the problem is we need to automate this more to make it useful again, let's talk. If the problem is that the concept of hosts is meaningless, and/or incentivizes bad behavior (?), and/or makes guests feel like getting their question answered is a social experience, rather than a sterile one-way exchange of data, then it sounds like the problem is that the Teahouse is different from the Help Desk. Which means it is still working as originally conceived :) Which in itself is remarkable, considering how many other things in the wider world have gotten worse since Februrary 2012. J-Mo 23:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
@Jtmorgan: thank you for this response. I left it quite a while before responding directly in the hope others might wish to express their views without further influence from me. Your academic paper on the activities at Teahouse was fascinating, if a little heavy-going for me. It certainly confirms in my mind that the approach that you helped establish, and which has for the most continued with only relatively minor modification, is indeed working as originally conceived.I don't think we should mess with that, or the concept of hosts, or that anyone can join in as a host, or that absolutely anyone can answer questions in a helpful and friendly tone here.
I would be happy to see the changing header image cycle through every host landing entry, rather than the most active third of them. Then all we would need do us ensure the host landing list is maintained and cleaned up every once in a while. But I do remember you saying previously that your bot was prone to occasional errors, and hard to maintain in proper working order. Because of that, plus the absence of further input from anyone on this matter, I dont feel at this point in time that there's a need or a strong consensus for you to 'bust a gut' to get it back working again. If you do - fine, that'd be super. But remaining as we currently are seems the acceptable view. Thanks again, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I think the concept of hosts, and the list of hosts has value, but the display of a currently featured host does not. It can mislead the asker to think this is a person currently on call to answer questions, which is false, and it seems to have no particular value. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

2. Remove the concept of hosts entirely

3. Keep the concept of hosts but with formal criteria

  • Weak Support depending on the criteria. This could help ensure that answers are both helpful, accurate and friendly, although I'm not sure we have a great problem with that right now, so this could be a solution to a non-existent problem. Hugsyrup 10:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The concept of some kind of accreditation is sound, but it would create a layer of bureaucracy for little purpose, and be a huge disincentive for people like me who aren't regulars but keep a vague eye on the Teahouse and Help Desk in case something complicated comes up which the regulars are having difficulty answering; I'm certainly not going to waste my time jumping through a bureaucratic hoop just for the privilege of occasionally helping the regulars with questions to which they don't know the answer. ‑ Iridescent 10:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose See my rationale below. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments

Point of order: the proposal outlined above is a poor way of asking the questions it asks. It mixes two separate issues: whether to have semi-official "hosts" on the Teahouse, and how to present the Teahouse page (including featured hosts as the case may be). I would rather see those questions asked separately. It certainly would not fly as a formal WP:RFC.

More generally, what occured on the Teahouse talk page these months does not seem a very serious way to do business, even by Wikipedia standards. For those who are not aware, in May of this year there was that thread (see also the next one in the same archive). The rough consensus was somewhere between "meh, don't care" and "update the hosts list". And now, replies to my August 5 post (which is fairly close to what I said back on May 13) seem to indicate a wave of support for scrapping the hosts altogether, resulting in the proposals outlined here. If I were Nick Moyes (who did the thankless task of updating the host list in early June) I would rant along the lines of "why did you not tell me that this was going to be scrapped before I put in the work".

I am not suggesting that we cannot go back on the May consensus (WP:SILENCE is the weakest form of consensus), nor that work put into the "hosts" option justifies keeping them. But I do suggest we proceed in a slower manner, more formal if necessary (with RfC bells and whistles, for instance). TigraanClick here to contact me 12:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that it mixes two things since there are three separate proposals, and I think it's a perfectly clear and logical way to gain a sense of whether there is as much support as there appears to be for a) removing the featured hosts and b) removing or upgrading the concept of hosts. However, if you wish to re-format it, re-phrase it, or open an RFC then please do go ahead - I'm not at all precious about the process we use as long as it moves towards a decision. Hugsyrup 13:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Nick Moyes' 'Oppose' rationale
Short version: I feel that none of the arguments presented above (i.e. for removal of the term ‘Teahouse host’; for removing the changing Teahouse banner image, or for further formalising our existing host criteria) are persuasive enough for me to support any of them. Though welcoming discussion and efforts to ensure the Teahouse remains effective, none of these proposals seem to me to be in the best interests of the Teahouse or its users, and would serve mostly to weaken the distinctive and dynamic appearance of this help forum. For a fuller explanation, see my Long version, below. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Long version of oppose rationale
Long version: I doubt anyone would disagree that the most important thing that makes the Teahouse distinctive and successful is the creation and maintenance of a safe and friendly space to which editors are proactively welcomed, supported and assisted by people who do their best to relate to them and their editing needs. Take that away, and the Teahouse is just another ordinary help desk, despite its different appearance. This unique, friendly space is our USP, and WMF research has proven that it helps increase editor retention. You only have to read the post above (or perhaps in the latest archive) to see that new editors appreciate a human side, especially as elsewhere they encounter the harsher side of warnings, templates and reversions, often with perfunctory explanation.
So, having first ensured we keep our welcoming, helpful approach to every user, I then think the Teahouse page’s appearance is still important. I think the current list of 98 hosts plus the randomly changing 30 host names and images in the banner creates (for those who actually notice it!) a nice impression of change and dynamism. Visitors see nothing that says ‘Featured’ Host, so it’s not like ‘employee of the month’. If they don’t notice it, no harm is done. If they do, does it really come across as exclusive? I don't think so.
A key part of creating that friendly space is how it appears to users. The concept of Teahouse with its hosts and guests was - and still is - a really neat way of providing technical help and support in an environment that users are comfortable with - namely, a café. They come in, they sit down, they ask their question, and they (hopefully) get speedily served by others with the information they seek.
Anyone can ask a question here; and anyone can drop in and answer them. Absolutely anyone. And anyone who wishes to stick around, may also add their name as a host (see: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Hosts), providing they’ve have a basic minimum of experience (as outlined here), and just as LPS and MLP Fan and Hugsyrup both did within the last two months. I endeavour to thank each self-signed-up host with this Teahouse template. Prior to this thread starting, LPSMLP had already been thanked for doing just that; five others have since. Whilst there might be an element of new editors 'hat collecting' by signing themselves up, I think it would be made worse if helping at the Teahouse were made into a WP:PERM, and would exclude many other casual helpers from dropping by and answering Teahouse questions, whether experienced or new themselves. Remember that we do have bare minimum requirements, and host expectations, and inexperienced users are now politely removed with an explanation as to why.
The suggestions has been made that having a friendly, helpful welcome from 'Teahouse hosts' might be considered "a slight breach of WP:NOTSOCIAL". That would be rather a misinterpretation of that policy, and not worth remarking upon further.
For the two years that I've been helping out at the Teahouse, the changing images of hosts within the banner header has remained woefully out of date, as indeed did the whole banner layout itself. As a newcomer, I was at first extremely reluctant to charge in and change things, even though the Teahouse banner displayed the names/profile image of editors long gone from here. Likewise, so did the Host List (see this). As Tigraan has pointed out, following a discussion, I worked hard over some weeks to carefully and sensitively pare out genuinely inactive editors from that list of hosts (238 down to 96), and to get a better mix of banner names & images that reflected not only the highest level of current host activity, but also ‘minority groups (as LPSMLP called them) where I could actually identify them as such. Whilst Cullen328 is correct that at one time, long ago, the banner image was randomly selected from the full host list, I understand from Jtmorgan that a glitch in his program caused occasional problems, so it was deactivated, and remained rotating through those same 29 old images - until I recently addressed the issue, that is. So it is a bit ironic to see two or three new editors challenging it now that it has been worked on. But not to worry. In doing those updates, (as discussed here back in May), I tried to positively discriminate to include new/young editors/female editors whenever I knew enough about them, even if some of those were rarely active at the Teahouse nowadays. By my poor maths, this means that just over 30% of all hosts currently listed are represented at one time or another within the Teahouse banner. I welcomed seeing Interstellarity adding themselves to the list of hosts, and to go on to unilaterally add themselves to the Featured Host list because they were clearly very keen and active, and represented yet another so-called ‘minority group’ (of rehabilitated bad faith editors who have matured and come back to make great contributions). It was surprising to see them shortly afterwards asking how they could remove themselves from that feature, and then to !vote in favour of abolishing the 'host' concept altogether. I can't get my head round their thinking on that.
All in all, I think the Teahouse hosts and visitors are still collectively answering questions well, in a swift and friendly manner, just as it was set up to do. The discussion and proposals above seem to me to be a fuss over nothing, and the removal of hosts and/or the rotating banner element would simply serve to slightly diminish our dynamic, friendly environment, and thus be a retrograde step. Whilst none of the graphic elements are as important as being polite and welcoming, our different appearance from all the other noticeboards on Wikipedia is what helps makes the Teahouse special. We have already removed (or marked as historic) the rather confusing ‘guest’ profile list and guest book, the host lounge and the maitre d’ role, and we no longer actively promote the handing out of Teahouse merit badges for those asking/answering great questions. I support all those moves. But the concept of 'hosts' within the Teahouse is central to its development, and the changing banner images of c.30% of our ostensibly 'active' hosts simply adds a small degree of additional dynamism by changing each time someones visits. Let’s keep it different and special, and let’s welcome everyone who wants to ask or to answer a question here, and let’s all act as friendly hosts to the newcomers who seek assistance at the Teahouse. (Sorry if you found this TL;DR). Nick Moyes (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Marking discussions as "helped"

I could have sworn we'd discussed this before, but why are we marking questions "helped" all of a sudden? It's extremely presumptuous for a host to decide that an answer has "helped" the person asking the question, isn't it? How does whomever is doing this know the editor asking asking the question has been "helped" by their answer? There is absolutely no useful purpose served by doing this, and it kind of defeats the welcoming atmosphere we are supposed be portraying. John from Idegon (talk) 23:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I noticed this as well. I thought it might be done to sort of speed up the archiving process. I can see, however, when it might be seen by some as meaning that further responses are not needed. It's quite possible and often seem to be the case that the same Teahouse question is answered by different editors who might not totally agree with each other, and in some cases the answers might come some time apart from each other. So, I can see where adding {{Helped}} might be premature. FWIW, Teahouse threads seem to left to die natural deaths; in other words, people simply stop trying to answer them, most likely because there's nothing else really to add. Older threads are then eventually moved up towards to the top of the page (as others are archived) and utimately archived themselves. It seems to be a bit rare for a Teahouse thread to be hatted of removed altogether, and this is only done when there are some serious policy or guideline issues in play. Instead of adding "Helped" templates, it might be a bit better to add a "Not answered yet" template or someting equivalent, or to otherwise try to highlight the thread to let others no to at least try to answer it in some way so that it's not archived without any response given at all. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
checkY guilty! Well, I'm guilty of thinking it was quite a nice idea. I guess I'm probably too new here to have seen any prior discussion on this. My reason for using the 'helped' template was that I saw that a new Teahouse Host, Orville1974 had been doing it, and I really rather liked it. I accept that it might could be interpreted as presumptuous, but no more than using the Teahouse Talkback facility to tell an editor that their question has been answered. Is there a suggestion we should stop using that as well? To be honest, my take was completely the opposite of John's - it visibly shows we have supported that editor, and it looks good on the page. We're here to help editors, and I thought that template simply shows we've done our job, though of course it would never stop anyone from adding further answers, or disagreeing with the previous respondent(s), or removing it if they didn't think the OP had been helped. I've only deployed it if I firmly believe I've given a reasonably full answer. I don't deploy it if I've replied, waffled a bit, but not helped that much, and thus I hope other hosts might come in and add to any partial response I might have proffered. Nor have I added it to any posts that other hosts have answered, but that I'd not contributed to myself (though I admit to having thought about it as a nice idea!). What I find myself often having to do is scroll right back up through the list every couple of days, looking for those 'awkward' questions that nobody else has wanted to answer, or have perhaps simply overlooked. The most unwelcoming thing we can do is accidentally ignore a new editor's question, leaving it to be archived in its unanswered form. Seeing the presence of that 'helped' template means I haven't got to read through and check those ones. But I actually think that 'helped' shows the Teahouse Hosts are being proactive in assisting other editors. I apologise if I've gone against some earlier consensus I was not aware of, but I repeat: I think it looks quite good on the page, looks supportive and welcoming to new editors to show they're getting answers, and I'd be happy to see other hosts using it if they felt it appropriate to do so. But, equally, I'll stop if there's a consensus from other hosts that it genuinely looks unwelcoming. That has certainly never been my intention here. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I once tagged "Done" on a simple author requested deletion request. When I got back, all other sections had been tagged "Helped". Not taking the blame though. I'd assumed only pages where the OP had had the last word to the effect of "Thanks! That helped/worked" were being tagged. It's not appropriate, IMO, to tag threads where OP hasn't expressed closure of the issue specifically. Also, soon as I saw this thread, one username came to my mind, something like "Tim Templeton" definitely Orville (I was mixing up a different interaction I had had with Tim), maybe they were the one started the trend. Can someone ask them? LOL! Usedtobecool ✉️ ✨ 14:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
The point of "helped" or "done" or "answered" templates is to signal to other editors that the specific thread needs no further action and can be safely skipped. That has some value. Unfortunately, it is only good if a good fraction of queries are so marked without any secondary effects, and I think most should not be marked.
In my opinion, the tagging should only be used if the query was unambiguously answered in full, either if the OP signals it clearly (marking it themselves, or saying "thanks, that's it") or if it is a well-defined query (e.g. "please move page X to Y"). Outside those two cases, it can be WP:BITE-y though. For instance, "can I write an article about myself, I have 100 Youtube views" will be answered in full by some variation of "no" with wikilinks, but adding "resolved" would surely be perceived as aggressive. TigraanClick here to contact me 14:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Tigraan. Something else that we should take care to avoid is: new editor asks a sensible question, well-meaning host gives a answer that's wrong in a non-obvious way, someone marks the thread as "helped", so that no-one else reads it, OP gives up and goes away. Maproom (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I've also been doing this lately, but only on the ones that I'm sure are cut and dry helped. I'd be happy to discuss any I've tagged that were incorrect, but certainly no one is infallible. I think it's respectful of volunteer's time so they don't have to read the longer thread of ones that have been addressed, but if anyone thinks the system is flawed, they can always ignore the markings and proceed as usual. Also, if the person who posed the question doesn't feel helped they can always remove the tag, or comment further. If something has been marked helped and hasn't been updated in a certain period of time (a week-10 days perhaps?), it makes it easier for the archiving. But there should probably be more formal guidelines that we can all agree on. Happy to discuss further - perhaps an RfC on the Teahouse talk page? TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
People write differently, people learn differently. The goal of the Teahouse isn't and never has been efficiency. It is and always has been, to create a safe and welcoming place to learn about Wikipedia for our newer users. An answer that would be very informative to me or any of the others answering questions here, might be totally Greek to the individual asking the question. I'd say the only one who could accurately say if the answer was helpful is the person asking the question, and in many, if not most, cases, they are not informed enough to reach that conclusion. Additionally, there are many questions asked that do not have one definitive correct answer. Wikipedia PAG were purposely constructed to be vague. There are still other questions where the answer is a matter of personal preference. We are here to create an encyclopedia. On the scale of the Teahouse, we are here to be as much help as we possibly can be to help new editors become as competent (or moreso) than we are. How does one editor deciding that their answer (or even several answers) are sufficient for the OP to understand do that? Further, perhaps other noobs will have the forethought to scan the list for an answer to their question and find it (or something else they had not even thought about yet). From the viewpoint of our clientele (and frankly, if you don't understand that is the ONLY viewpoint that matters, you probably shouldn't be here), what is gained by swiftly archiving or bringing a thread to its conclusion? The bot that archives the page automatically archives dead threads after X days. So what is gained by marking it? I'm not familiar with bots and all that technical stuff (and neither are most of our clients), but doesn't adding that template actually delay archiving? (The bot archives X days after the last post, ya?) There are occasions where those of us that have been here since the beginning, and some of our admins in residence will hide disruptive posts, and much more rarely, close threads where the OP is so invested on getting the answer they want as to be NOTHERE, but I see no argument above that makes a valid point when observed with an eye to our mission and our clientele. John from Idegon (talk) 01:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
My experience doesn't indicate that editors skip over threads marked, and read the rest. To be clear, I think editors skip threads not marked likewise, as well. I have had at least two threads where the OP has asked for a third opinion but no one's answered until I highlighted the text calling for a third opinion. But, certainly, marking a thread as helped is a huge incentive to safely skip the whole thread. I think, therefore, the help markers can be used constructively. I think it would help if we could come up with a way to mark uncontroversially addressed threads, threads that satisfy criteria that have been mentioned before. The problem is only with making a unilateral proclamation. It's naive to think OP can continue the thread or unmark it if they think they haven't been helped. This place is for new users. As a new user, I used to be afraid of even asking a follow-up question on a polite answer. Helped marker is too intimidating. Only way to mark threads that haven't ended with "Thanks, that helped", etc. from the OP, is to add a sentence at the end of your response (the one that you think will probably be the last one required) informing the OP that they can add the tag "helped" to the thread when they are satisfied, to close the discussion. Seems like too much of a hassle to me, considering many users don't even bother adding a comment after their question has been answered. But again, it's probably normal to think volunteer time is too precious to be bothered with niceties, as a new user. I'd left multiple thank you messages in my first month which I'd followed up with something like "Please tell me gently if generating a reply message notification for a simple thank you is a waste of your time". There's a lot of things new user are intimidated by, in Wikipedia, especially because the first few days are all about a flood of warning messages about recent edits and the first few weeks, speedy deletions, AfC declinations and the like. So, we must be very careful about how we approach users here at the Teahouse. Teahouse should be a safe space, the one place they're not intimidated by anything and can feel free to ask almost everything. Usedtobecool ✉️ ✨ 06:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Per discussion above, until I hear otherwise, I will limit my helped templating to posts where the user has replied with thanks. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 14:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear. Except for disruption, there is no need to mark any thread in any way at any time. Not a single argument above for doing it holds water. Helps editors not miss conversations? Solution in search of a problem. If you can't scan the 15-30 conversations that are usually here to find unanswered ones, I don't know what to tell you. Have there been complaints about not getting answers? Speeds up archiving? And that's a good thing why, exactly? Makes the page look neater? How? And again, what importance is that? Teahouse is far and away the most successful training tool en.wiki has ever developed. It's not broken. Why fix it? John from Idegon (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@MrClog: I think it might be a bit premature to mark this thread as resolved? Usedtobecool ✉️ ✨ 05:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Here's my thinking. We have a normal automated function to archive threads/conversations that have not had recent discussion. Sometimes, a thread benefits from two, three or four replies by experienced editors. The Teahouse does not need enthusiastic young clerks eager to close discussions. Far better to let threads come to a natural end and be archived by a bot. Of course, there are exceptions when obvious trolling and other forms of disruption crop up at the Teahouse. Administrators and other highly active editors are perfectly capable of suppressing any such disruption. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Upon further consideration, it seems the argument that "not even the OP can be trusted to judge when the issue has been resolved" holds too much water. From a recent thread, I can see that a user might think a given answer has helped them, but an editor more experienced than the helper might see that there's a better solution, or one that can be applied more generally. As such, I'm withdrawing my support for closing threads that have been unambiguously addressed as resolved by the OP. The perceived advantages of doing so are too trivial compared to the possibility of having even one erroneous such closure in a thousand. Plus, Cullen328 says we shouldn't do it. I am going to assume a soft community consensus on this, and remove those tags now. As Cullen says, Let's discuss it (further if there's a disagreement with my reading of this). Usedtobecool ✉️ ✨ 06:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I'll go with what looks to be the soft consensus that we let things run their course. No helped tagging - just let the bots archive. The argument that there may be a better way to solve the user's problem than the original response that the user may have liked, swayed me. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Why not allow the askers themselves to use the Helped template if they think they were helped? This could be added in the instructions at the top, something like: "If you think your question was answered, please reply with {{Helped}}". Furthermore I'd add that "Helped" is not the same as "done", it simply signals that the OP is satisfied by the answer :-) Then others can evaluate and either skip or reply further if necessary, having being helped does not exclude more discussion :-) --Signimu (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
I think the feeling from this discussion is that the original poster (OP) of the question is very welcome to mark their own question as Helped, but that we, as hosts, ought not to be so presumptive as to mark them ourselves. I appreciate that point. I see you marked you own question that way, and that's fine. I don't think we would want to complicate the life of a beginner (some of whom might already be struggling simply to post in the right manner) by giving them extra complicated instructions and asking them to come back and add a 'helped' template at the end of their question. Getting them to sign their posts is challenge enough. Personally, I like to see feedback, and to encourage engagement. If I've been of help, it's really great to know it; if I haven't then that's useful to know, too. That why I often end my own Teahouse responses with a question. Does this make sense? Nick Moyes (talk) 07:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Aha yes totally Nick Moyes I understand, it's just that I wouldn't have known about the {{Helped}} template if I did not see this discussion before, and seeing a green checkmark is I think a nice positive signal for the helpers, but nvm if it's not mentioned on Teahouse's intro, I'll still do it --Signimu (talk) 03:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Skip to bottom

The yellow highlighted "Skip to bottom" button is broken (using Chrome). It was working fine yesterday. (The one at the very top of the page is OK.)--Shantavira|feed me 08:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

It was broken by this edit, which I just reverted.
Pinging Mathglot and Nick Moyes to discuss. Nick added {{skip to top and bottom}} in February, after no-one commented on his proposal. While I agree with Mathglot that the buttons could be less obtrusive, I really do see value in having them float, so they're always available. Also, {{skip to bottom}} explicitly has class="nomobile", while {{skip to top and bottom}} goes out of its way to add an anchor at the bottom of the page, because #footer (as {{skip to bottom}} uses) doesn't exist on mobile. rchard2scout (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Strongly opposed to this implementation. @Rchard2scout: Note: I'm not opposed to having a feature that makes scrolling easier, just not this method of doing it. The buttons are obtrusive; they block content. This is the wrong implementation of a possibly useful feature.

If you want functionality that makes it easier for all users to scroll to the top, or the bottom, of a page, then say that. If you want something that benefits only a certain percentage of users, at the expense of others, that is not okay and that is where we are now. (Actually, those who benefit are only a percentage of a percentage: first, it only benefits mobile users; secondly, it doesn't benefit all mobile users, but only mobile users using mobile view. I view and edit on mobile, using desktop view, as well as on laptops. In both cases, this feature hinders me.)

I understand the infinite-scrollup-problem, I'm faced with that on websites all the time. But this is the wrong approach. Unlike other annoying websites that we have no control over, here at Wikipedia, we do have a voice in how things are done. We have input into how the pages at Wikipedia should appear, through Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). The right way to do this, is to go through proper channels. Plus, this Talk page isn't the right venue for this discussion, as it potentially affects every page at Wikipedia. If this feature is desirable, then please, make a proposal for it at WP:VPR. (When making a proposal, please describe what you want, not how to implement it. I.e., say something like, "Would like to have a feature that would make it easier for mobile users to jump back and between the top and bottom of a page, without having a negative impact on users using desktop view", rather than, say, "please add this javascript, to that page".)

You can't simply force through your own preferred implementation by reversion, at the expense of other users. Please revert your reversion, until this is talked out. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Judging from this edit at Template:skip to bottom, that template had previously handled both desktop and mobile view until one year ago, but was changed because, according to this one-person discussion by the editor who made the change (now CU-blocked), the template was formerly covering up a search field for mobile editors. When another editor added the new template at the Teahouse a few months later, the situation has now completely reversed itself: mobile users have less covered content, and everyone else has more. Neither situation is appropriate: not before, and not now. Until a proposal is made to remedy this, neither situation should obtain; the interim solution should be no template, until there is common consensus that takes into account all views and considerations. Mathglot (talk) 10:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
No response in ten days; removed buttons. Mathglot (talk) 10:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
As of this (my) comment's date and time, the existing 'skip to bottom' link (i.e. the text with yellow hilighting) is not working (for me at least). I don't know enough about page architecture to find (let alone correct) whatever code creates it.
I must assume this is due to an inadvertant edit, as of course no-one in the discussion above would be so petty as to disable it deliberately. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.41.118 (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Piling on that this link doesn't work for me and I would prefer if it did. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
With this edit I've at least temporarily re-enabled the skip to bottom on desktop. The functionality for the mobile apparently depended on content in the templates which have now been removed; perhaps someone may be able to re-enable the skip target anchor which was included in the template, in which case my edit could be reverted? --David Biddulph (talk) 12:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, David; adjusted to work on both. Mathglot (talk) 03:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback templates

We have Wikipedia:Teahouse/Teahouse talkback and Template:Teahouse talkback. I don't see the difference. Huon suggested on the help IRC I start a discussion here. jmcgnh said we should figure out which template bots use before we act and pointed out the edit summary for Special:Diff/503709196: Templates live better in template space. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 02:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

The source for {{Teahouse talkback}} indicates that it invokes Wikipedia:Teahouse/Teahouse talkback – I surmise that this may have been done for ease of testing during development, but it seems like a temporary workaround that should be resolved by pulling the implementation into template space. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 02:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I thought there was a bot that used this template, but I'm beginning to think I was wrong about that. I see Muninnbot telling people that their question at the Teahouse has been archived, but all of the examples of {{Teahouse talkback}} seem to come from non-bots. So maybe that's not an issue.
One more note: the reason the template documentation says not to substitute this template is because doing so would make ineffective the instruction provided on how to remove this notice. This self-reference comes from somewhat obscure code in the source of Wikipedia:Teahouse/Teahouse talkback. I don't know if pulling the source into template space would help reduce the obfuscation level. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 02:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
@Jmcgnh: more than a week has passed, and no one else has spoken. Should we just be WP:BOLD and try to move the template to the template namespace? If so, I'd need your help or that of someone else with the appropriate tools, as the page in the Wikipedia namespace is protected. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 04:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
@Rotideypoc41352: Yeah, this particular endeavor went nowhere. To tell you the truth, I think it may be best to simply leave this issue alone. The Teahouse seems to go through a makeover every few years and at that point it may be possible to get some attention on this detail. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 05:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • FYI Muninnbot uses a template that lives at User:Tigraan-testbot/Teahouse_archival_notification (which arguably should be moved to a userpage of Muninnbot or to template space...). The visual elements were copied from one of the Teahouse talkback messages (not sure which one), but the template itself does not include or transclude it.
If you want to check which bots use the template, I guess one could do a dye test by putting some invisible text in the template and searching for contributions that contain that text later... TigraanClick here to contact me 13:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Creating an entry

I would like to create an entry about someone. Ahines13 (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ahines13: This page is for the discussion of the operation of the Teahouse. Please head over to the main Teahouse page (linked at the top of this one) to ask your question. I caution you, though, before you do that: is your person notable enough to qualify for an article here? Many of the subjects people ask for help creating at the Teahouse are not sufficiently notable. -- a lad insane (Channel 2) 18:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Protection template

Is the semi protection notice template playing up for anyone - it appears, even though the page doesn't apper to be protected, and there are bits of wiki markup being shown.

See File:Teahouse protection templete error.png

~~ OxonAlex - talk 09:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes... it looks as if this change caused the issue, so I have reverted it. Hugsyrup 09:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Leuchtenbergia principis

There is some historical interest about this wonderful cactus that I have not seen in print. I have gleaned the results from many sources, some genuine quotes, others mentioned in conversation. Eugene de Beauharnais, son of Josephine de Beauharnais who later married Napoleon Bonaparte. Eugene’s dates are 1781-1824. Thanks to the Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte being his stepfather, Eugene became Viceroy of Italy and heir apparent to the crown of Italy. He also became the Duke of Leuchtenbergia. Eugene sponsored the man who first discovered in Mexico the cactus which he named Leuchtenbergia principis after Eugene, Duke of Leuchtenbergia and sponsor to this man. Principis means first, and this cactus is the first and only one In its genus and species. Annaliese28 (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Annaliese28: This page is really only for asking questions about the Wikipedia Teahouse itself; it's not really a place to ask general questions about Wikipedia editing, to propose possible new articles or to propose changes to existing articles. If you want to ask a general question about Wikipedia or Wikipedia editing, please go to Wikipedia:Teahouse and post your question there. If you'd like to discuss/propose the possibility of creating a new article about "Leuchtenbergia principis" or making changes to the already existing article Leuchtenbergia, then the best places for you to probably do such a thing would be at Talk:Leuchtenbergia or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
@Annaliese28:: Wikipedia has an article Leuchtenbergia, a genus whose sole species is L. principis. It could be improved by adding more referenced content. If you know of some published sources which discuss the cactus, you could use them to improve the article; or just list them here so that someone else can. Maproom (talk) 17:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Teahouse/AfC Invitation

The template Wikipedia:Teahouse/AfC Invitation contains the text ...to help new editors like yourself! which is fine if the template is used only on new editors, and I have seen two examples where this was not the case. I note this is the talk page for that template. Application of this template to non-new editors like myself is incorrect and and arguably (albeit good faith) condescending and insulting. (You can call me personally an idiot, a plonker, uncivil, incompetent, hopeless, and much else besides but new editor is incorrect). I would suggest either (A): template users do not use the template on new editors; or (B), the text new editors like yourself is removed or replaced by e.g. "to help other editors with problems including advice with submissions to Articles for Creation". Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Guiding AFC users to Teahouse

Since this template is being discussed, I'm going to raise something that's been bothering me. The Teahouse seems to me to have become the default location for editors who have had drafts declined to ask for help, and I would say this comprises well over 50% of our queries and probably closer to 75%. However, according to the AFC invitation, users wondering why their article was declined should go to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk and users with other questions should come to the Teahouse. The 'other' is even italicized, presumably to further emphasize that the Teahouse is not the place to come with AFC questions. The one time I brought this up in a discussion, I was quickly (and in my opinion inaccurately) contradicted and it is clear that users not only believe this is the right place to come with AFC questions, but even believe that this is what the template suggests. So my questions are:

  1. Are we comfortable with the Teahouse becoming the default place for AFC queries?
  2. If so, what is the AFC help desk for and under what circumstances should editors be directed there, rather than being helped here?
  3. Do we then need to make the template more accurately reflect the answers to 1 and 2?

Hugsyrup 16:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, the Teahouse is an appropriate place to ask any question about editing Wikipedia, and that includes questions about the AFC process. If we wanted to be bureaucratic (which we don't), then we could close down the Teahouse since we already have a help desk. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Our own Nick Moyes

Please take some time out of your busy day and drop a congratulations message on User talk:Nick Moyes. Nick is the latest in a string of Teahouse hosts that have been awarded the mop. Way to go, Nick. John from Idegon (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Just curious

What was the longest answer we gave someone at the Teahouse? Interstellarity (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Bet it was one of mine...I do tend to go on a bit! Nick Moyes (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: I was taking a look back at some of my first Teahouse questions I asked and I remember when I was the new editor who didn't know much about Wikipedia. You gave some pretty long answers to me back then. Now I have quickly developed into an experienced editor who knows a lot about Wikipedia. Time flies when you're having fun on Wikipedia!! Interstellarity (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
@Interstellarity: Ah, sorry about that! I once did a 'Plain English' writing course for work wherein we had an exercise to precis and simplify a technical report. I was praised for the quality of my revised explanation, but I was the only one on the course whose efforts were longer than the original. Doh! Nick Moyes (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: Did you get a good grade on the assignment? Interstellarity (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
They don't give grades on work-related courses - it wasn't an examined thing - just a day course. I think you could say I was 'damned with faint praise'. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@Interstellarity: If you're curious, I'm fairly certain that this was my first question at the Teahouse [1]. Thank you, Abelmoschus Esculentus and Nick Moyes. Clovermoss (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
And haven't you both come a long way since you started! Pretty impressive work. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@Clovermoss: It's fun to look back at the questions you asked as a newbie. Interstellarity (talk) 00:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

do we have an "about" page for the Teahouse?

hi folks. I just found this page: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host lounge/Templates. However it took me quite a bit of poking around to find it. and then i tried to use it again just now, and couldn't remember where I'd seen it. I actually had to bring up my own history on Firefox, just to find this highly-useful page again!!! please can we reinstate an "About" page for the Teahouse? or some other primer for new hosts like myself?

sorry, I know Wikipedia is not exactly short on documentation or help pages, but somehow this information seems to have slipped through. I appreciate any help. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi folks. I think the Host lounge is actually a rather useful place. I just made a few edits and had the place spruced up a bit. i hope that's okay. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
No real need to edit old pages...but thanks....see Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host navigation. So to search for subpage just use the "/" character.....= in search type Wikipedia:Teahouse/ --Moxy 🍁 23:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
@Sm8900: I love your enthusiasm. I am not wholly in favour of just reactivating the Host Lounge page per se, and certainly not its talk page (which I see you are also now posting on, despite having just placed another banner there directing everyone to WT:TH.) That said, some of the content and guidance we do use is useful (templates, expectations), and could really benefit much more from being amalgamated into one place - and I might suggest it needs a differently-named page -something new and logically titled. And if you look back through past discussions here, and the changes we've made recently, you'll see we have suggested improving the 'Learn more about..' page, which us fiercely unhelpful to new editors at present. That reworking has yet to be done, and you could certainly assist with that. If you've looked at the vast numbers of sub-pages we have here, going back to the Teahouse's start in c.2012, you'll appreciate how complex it once was, and what a mess it still is. We have tried to reduce the number of active pages, not increase them! It might be preferable if you draw up a list of proposals/suggestions for consideration, rather than rushing to reactivate pages on a whim. I don't want to put you off - I'd like to help sort out the place even more. I just think it would help to have a plan to work to and would like to get more of an agreement first on our ideal active page structure, content and  purpose, including any new subpages where some existing stuff ought to be moved to for greater clarity. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes:, no problem at all, those are all excellent ideas. I'll be happy to do everything that you suggest above. just one question; could you please give me links to one or two of the pages that are currently being actively used, and which provide new hosts like myself with some introduction to which guides to use? I have to start somewhere. once I see those pages, I'll be able to put my suggestions into some kind of coherent format. I really appreciate your help. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 04:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
I have an Excel spreadsheet somewhere, listing a few of the key subpage titles, and what they contain. I'll dig it out and post a list, but doubt it will be today. We could really do with a visual showing page name, function and whether active or historic. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes:, okay, that sounds fine. so let's do that. however, I feel that we will need at least one page where new or interested hosts can find a set of active links to active resources, such as templates, guidelines, and other similar resources.

Whatever we call it, whether an existing name, or something new, it will fulfill a valuable role. I have created a draft just to provide some idea of what we could think about doing. here is a link.

Could you please feel free to take a look, and let me know what you think? I appreciate it. thanks!!

Thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sm8900: Thank you for that link. This is difficult, as I see in you the same enthusiasm I sometimes have for sorting stuff out myself, only to realise there's more to it than I first thought. The general idea of a central resource page for hosts, as well as a much clearer page on the Teahouse for newcomers is a good one, and I doubt anyone would want to discourage, and certainly not I. It's hard to comment on what you've done because you've resurrected a whole load of historic pages which we simply do not want or need any more. In particular the Maitre d' and Guest profile pages are totally redundant nowadays. Other bits like badges (some of which are a tad patronising, if I remember rightly) are not used much, if at all. Though there's nothing stopping you using them yourself, if you wanted to.
As yet, I don't think I've seen you make any replies here to newcomers at the Teahouse, so what I might suggest is that you take a little bit of time to get your feet under the table, keeping notes of what works, what doesn't, and how your clearly confusing time signing up here went, and what we could do better on all fronts. Then, having got a feel for the place, think about how the Teahouse delivers /fails to deliver information to new users, and get an idea of what resources are or are not redundant here. Skim back through the last two to three years of archived talk page discussions to gauge general views from all the helpers who've commented in the past. (There aren't that many discussions like this one.) Then pull together a list of proposals for any sorting out that still needs doing. I'm very keen and willing to work with you on this, but at a somewhat slower pace, if that's OK?
Oh, and I do normally try to keep on top of sending welcome messages to new Hosts who sign up (though missed a few recently), and that message does contain links to some of the key resources you were referring to above. (I'm pretty sure I sent you one the other day.) Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
PS: I've just counted all the the Teahouse subpages, and listed them on Excel. Ignoring the thousand plus Archive pages we inevitably have, there are 268 other subpages here! Nick Moyes (talk) 23:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes:, no problem at all. I will be glad to take your advice, and to give things some time, and to take the time to learn more about all the different things at the Teahouse. I appreciate your ideas. that sounds fine. I will take some more time, and come back with more proposals in the near future. thanks!!
keep in mind though, I may come up with a highly-pared down version in the near future, just to fulfill the basic need of providing new Teahouse hosts with some bare-bones information. but at the same time, I will take your advice to learn more about the whole set of functions here, before providing any complex set of ideas. I really appreciate your help. thanks!!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes:, hi. okay, I have copied all of your great suggestions above into the special section of this draft page that is linked to below. Also, I have also copied and pasted this entire talk page section into a collapsible box there; I provided the permanent link to this page, for anyone wishing to view this discussion here. I hope that's helpful. (I will update the link, until this discussion is fully concluded.)
I hope you can view the link below, when you have a chance. any and all comments and suggestions that you may have would be totally welcome; I would be sure to add them to the list as well. thanks!!
--Sm8900 (talk) 03:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

welcome templates are now easier to find

If anyone is trying to find the Teahouse templates below for welcoming new editors to Wikipedia, and inviting them to visit the Teahouse, they are now easier to find, by going to this category: Category:Teahouse message templates. this is thanks to Nick Moyes considerable technical expertise; I wanted to add these to this category, but I wasn't sure of the code to do so. I now have Nick's recent edits to illustrate how to do this properly. thanks for your help, Nick Moyes!!

thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Please watchlist the partial blocks noticeboard

Dear Teahouse volunteers, please consider watchlisting WP:PBN, the noticeboard for partial blocks which just started to be used a couple weeks ago. The idea is to save admin time and stress by having more relaxed community members explain to the partial blockees what they were doing wrong, and prevent situations where a reviewing admin might not have all the details that the blocking admin considered, which seems to be a perennial source of friction among admins. EllenCT (talk) 05:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi EllenCT. I’m very happy to watchlist it and assist when I can. I’ve always been very cautious about chipping in on what I’d see as admin boards, so can I just check that you’re encouraging us to assist with answering queries about partial blocks, and helping confused/disgruntled users? Hugsyrup 10:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
@Hugsyrup: Yes. Only time will tell how it will work, but what you should expect are edit warriors and minimally problematic editors who are only having self-restraint issues with one article or one other editor, who appeal their partial blocks out of a sense of self-righteousness. I'm sure everyone here has seen such if not actually been there themselves (I know I have) before. Hopefully having peers talk them down and encourage other efforts while they wait out their partial block will be less bite-y than the impersonal user talk page-based {{unblock}} request process. EllenCT (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Out of scope posts

Is it just me, or do these walls-o-something belong at WP:AN or somewhere other than the Teahouse? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Results of HostBot-AI vs HostBot-heuristic A/B test

Comparison of HostBot-AI and HostBot with survival measures.
Graph of HostBot-AI survival compared to HostBot-heuristic.

Hello TeaHouse hosts,

As you may recall, in early 2019 this forum approved a test to compare the effectiveness of inviting newcomers to the TeaHouse using HostBot versus a new AI-powered alternative. That experiment has completed now after 13,700 newcomers received an invitation as part of the experiment over 3 months. The summary is that the experiment was inconclusive with the results being mixed.

Over a short timeframe (~4-8 weeks) the users invited by the AI-powered HostBot were retained longer; however in the long-term (8+ weeks) the original heuristic HostBot saw it's invitees be retained longer. See the full report on meta for further statistics and discussion. I will note that there were some confounding factors, that we realized after the experiment that could also explain some of theses dynamics, like different number of minimum edits required to be invited by each bot.

We are interested to know what TeaHouse hosts think about this experiment and its results. We are not advocating any specific change, if the community desires, we would happily either A) change nothing, B) re-run the experiment to fix some of the confounding factors, or C) install HostBot-AI as the main invitation technique.

Thanks for your input, and thank you so much for being a great community supporting experimentation and data-driven decision making. Maximilianklein (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

To me, the AI and non-AI versions seem to have similar effectiveness. My question is, given the same set of new users, would the AI version invite a similar number of editors, fewer editors, or more editors compared to the non-AI bot? If that's also similar, then it doesn't really matter what y'all decide to do. If you want to re-run the experiment, I don't see any harm in it. If not, whichever is more reliable and easier to maintain long-term should be used. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for reporting back to us, Maximilianklein. As a Host, I did know the project was running at some point, but never saw any comment at The Teahouse to suggest there was anything unusual happening by way of these invites, and that's a good thing. (We always get the very occasional "what is this Teahouse"-type post.) My view is that you should run the experiment again, ensuring equality between qualification and timing of posts.
Regarding timing, and by way of example, I avoid certain shops where, just as I walk in the door, I am immediately accosted by a salesperson asking me if I want help. I want to take my time, browse a bit (maybe slink out unnoticed) or maybe get help when I'm ready. Similarly, a too hasty waiter can be quite off-putting in a restaurant, just as one who is too tardy to welcome me and offer me a seat and a menu is also off-putting. If there isn't parity between the way the invitations were selected and the timing of their delivery, then I can see that the results may, indeed, have little validity. I admit, thus far, to only having skimmed through your paper, and will want to reread it to get a fuller understanding (not that my stats knowledge is much good after a 40 year break from it).
One suggestion, however: please could you show in your paper how the Teahouse invitation actually looks to editors who receive them? I think this is important, and I assume it was this one: {{Teahouse HostBot Invitation}}?. I also suggest you/we should consider the impact of the actual wording/appearance of the message that is delivered, and maybe then trial an alternative version with the same timing and selection methods. What that wording might be, or whether it might also contain a link to one 'getting started' help page could be discussed should you decide it would be valid to do that. It's not just about who you select to target, and when you approach them. It's also about whether or not what you're saying is the very best thing to say at that particular point in time. Has this been considered? And has there been any check of who has asked a question at the Teahouse after having received an invite, and whether more questioners to at the Teahouse have come from one or other cohort? I believe it has already been demonstrated that the Teahouse has a direct effect on editor retention, so knowing which Teahouse questioners received an invitation through which route might also be relevant. Many thanks for all your work - I'm looking forward to re-reading the report in more detail. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)  
Note: I have just tweaked my reply, and am pinging @Halfak (WMF) and Jmorgan (WMF): lest they've not seen these responses to Maximilianklein's post, for which we're most grateful. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks @Nick Moyes: for your thoughtful reply.
Point 1. I'm glad that you would be up for re-running the experiment trying to detangle the effects of user-selection-requirements and bot-timing. Like you said, this test ran well and from the perspective of the Hosts, they didn't even know that an experiment was active, which means experimenting more is not that intrustive.
Point 2. Yes we did use that standard {{Teahouse HostBot Invitation}}. And you're right it would be nice to test if any other message alternatives would be useful. Right now I am writing software that A/B tests different other messages(I can't say which text labels to not influence the result). Why that's relevant is that a lot of that technology would mean easy replication. Thanks for the great idea, I'll run it by some of my colleagues. Maximilianklein (talk) 00:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
@Maximilianklein: OK thank you. We'll look forward to hearing from you in due course, then. One thing that has surprised me is that during all these studies, nobody seems to have spotted or fixed the error in the template signature. I only noticed it myself, yesterday, and have left a note for Jonathan. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 04:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Nick Moyes Thanks! I checked into the HostBot bug and replied on my talkpage (under the wrong account). TL;DR we should be okay. The invite wording question is an interesting one. I've run some small experiments on this before. I ran one on the impact of personalizing the invite with a Host name near the beginning of the Teahouse and published the results on meta. I also started experimenting in 2014 with some folks from Carnegie Mellon. The collaboration kind of petered out and we never did a full analysis or published anything, but if I recall correctly we didn't see any significant impact from our preliminary analysis. I agree with your overall assessment that both the timing and the tone/framing/phrasing of the message are important. My takeaway from the experiments I've done so far is that a) it's not always clear what kinds of phrasings will be most effective, and b) that the differences in effectiveness are likely subtle even when they occur. There's also this fascinating study done around the same time by other folks at WMF, which compared phrasings of warning messages on vandal behavior. The results there are often compelling, but also pretty contingent and in some ways counter-intuitive too... all of which underscores for me that we (researchers) often don't know as much about human psychology as we'd like to think, and furthermore that much of the engagement optimization on which the ad-based internet economy runs may be more voodoo than science! J-Mo 22:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit notice

Do you think in the edit notice for the Teahouse, we could add a note not to post personal information on the forum? Interstellarity (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

We could, but people would still do it anyway, just as the Main Page talk page still gets unrelated posts. 331dot (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
@331dot: I notice that the help desk includes it in the edit notice. Could we do the same thing for the Teahouse? Interstellarity (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
I guess all I'm saying is that it won't stop everyone from doing so. I am a little concerned that if we would load up the Teahouse with instructions as to what not to do it will take away from the idea that this is a 'friendly place' to ask questions. 331dot (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't think a note about not posting personal info, for your own protection, makes it any less friendly. There are a couple FAQs that we should at least take a shot at answering there, too, like "when will my AFC submission be reviewed" (with a more realistic answer than "there are 77,000 articles and it'll be 3 or 4 years"). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Don't we have enough clued-up editors watching the Teahouse to quickly remove any personally identifying information, and usually a few admins about too who could revdel stuff without having to add more to this edit notice? I don't see it happening so often, or in a way that puts people at risk, that we need an extra line in that notice. Are there any diffs or links to show where we've had problems that haven't been swiftly dealt with?
However, when we come to looking at what appears when you click the header button labelled "Learn more about the Teahouse" I think there will be room for adding that quite sensible advice. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Teahouse header

I have tweaked the heading at WP:Teahouse/Header to better describe the purpose of the Teahouse by saying This is a friendly place where you can ask questions and receive answers while using or editing Wikipedia.. Please let me know your thoughts on my edits. If you can think of a better header than this, let me know as well. Interstellarity (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@Interstellarity: I am not at all keen on the change you've made. Specifically, it's the word "while" that I don't like. If you stop to consider what you've said, it implies that whilst you are busy frittering away your time here (i.e. happily using or editing Wikipedia) you can also come and stop by the Teahouse and ask any question you like, and get an answer from friendly people. That make us sound like the WP:REFDESK - answering any old questions about absolutely anything, and I'm sure that was really not your intention.
The original said: A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia, and I'd be OK seeing it slightly expanded to: A friendly place where you can ask questions and get help in using and editing Wikipedia Nick Moyes (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: I've fixed it. Interstellarity (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

question

hi. sorry, where do I see a list of new editors who need to be greeted? sorry for this basic question. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 03:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

You can see all new accounts created here. There's no need to welcome the myriad of usernames whose link to 'contribs' is still red. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
ok, that is good to know. I appreciate the help. thanks, Nick Moyes!! --Sm8900 (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
hi. sorry, now I have another question. how would I navigate from Special:SpecialPages to find my way to Special:Log? It seems like Special:Log should naturally be included at the extensive list of pages that is located at Special:SpecialPages, but somehow I don't seem to see it there. am I missing it somehow? I appreciate your help. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk)
It's in the section with the heading "Recent changes and logs". --David Biddulph (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to streamline the standard welcome template, including linking to the Teahouse more prominently

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal_to_streamline_the_welcome_template. Sdkb (talk) 20:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

A new tactic, suckering in help forum editors (re: Shamsheer Vayalil)

Hosts might be interested to read this thread at the talk page of Shamsheer Vayalil. It's clear that a number of us have been approached by ostensibly naive new editors, seeking help to fix this (and perhaps other) article(s). It's a clever tactic by one persistent sock puppet that clearly wastes a lot of our volunteer time, and sadly also sows seeds of suspicion about the motives of other good-faith editors. You have been warned! Nick Moyes (talk) 23:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Also note that, while that has been a particularly difficult one, there are other variants. I was approached for help by a "new" editor, Ahmadqatari, who it turns out had been a problem on other wikis. He ended up creating a bunch of poorly-translated stubs before getting locked/blocked. Now, someone is going to have to deal with the junk left behind. It's always worth checking the global contribs list for someone that approaches you. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
So someone who has been creating an unpleasantly promotional article has encouraged experienced editors to look at it. I don't see that as a problem. Maproom (talk) 23:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Teahouse/Archive_19&oldid=1045696836"