This page is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Teahouse history | |
---|---|
Archives: Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 | |
Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Easy access to the tearoom in other languages
I have in the past encountered difficulties finding the Tearoom in other languages (also due to the sometimes sensible differences in its name). Would it be possible to use the translation feature for it and other help pages? I think it would really simplify things...
Llaaww (talk•contribs) 16:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
(By the way, I mean to do so using WP:ILL#Local Links... I forgot to specify above)
Llaaww (talk•contribs) 16:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Llaaww Not every Wikipedia has the equivalent of the Teahouse, and certainly not a direct translation of that name. In desktop view, however, you should see a list of links on the bottom of the left hand menu of links, with every language shown where an equivalent forum exists. That should meet your need, does it not? Nick Moyes (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Nick Moyes: yes, fair enough. However I (and I'm not alone in this) normally edit from a mobile device and from the app. I think using local links might be helpful to many people... Llaaww (💬|📝) 16:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Llaaww I replied to you on my mobile, am doing so now, nd often edit from it. I recommend using it on desktop view, as I do, where you get all the esoteric extra functions. TBH: The Teahouse is for new users who are editing in English; why would an inter-language link be especially useful to them, and need to be so prominent? Nick Moyes (talk) 17:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Llaaww: I’m with Nick Moyes on this one. I often edit on my IPad and the desktop view of Wikipedia is much better than the mobile view of it, when it comes to editing. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 18:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- Can't we have some sort of banner with links to international Teahouses, or something? Not all people with foreign-language questions know to click on the menu. casualdejekyll 19:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Casualdejekyll I'm clearly missing something that you and Llaaww seem to see. Surely, people with foreign language questions will be visiting their own language Wikipedias with their questions, not the English one? If they do ask here in English about an issue on their own Wikipedia, we will point them to it, if it exists. Why should we confuse English-speaking readers with a banner linking to the numerous non-English help fora when we are catering for English-speaking editors? Every single article and Wikipedia page that has a non-English equivalent has links to them in the same place. I really see no need for an additional banner for non-English speakers. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Nick Moyes: We do occasionally get non-english editor asking questions here in their native language (for example recently someone asked a question here in Russian, or maybe that was on the help desk, I can't remember) so maybe only a banner with the most common foreign languages? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 02:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- That would beg the question of what the most common foreign languages are. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:35, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Blaze Wolf Yes, I am not unaware of that fact. I simply don’t see enough non-English visitors to the Teahouse to merit some sort of additional banner to cater for these pretty exceptional occurrences. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with Nick Moyes that there's not that many people looking for other language Teahouses. Also, according to Wikidata links, there's 24 languages (including en.wiki) that have a Teahouse, which isn't that many (but is also too many to nicely display anywhere in my opinion). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- TBH I don't think it would be useful to clutter the Teahouse with banners; rather, using local links we would have clean and user-friendly links in the language bar...
- Llaaww (💬|📝) 11:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- I agree there is no point in creating banners for people who clearly never read them. I've lost count of the number of times someone has asked what the Teahouse is for!--Shantavira|feed me 11:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with @Llaaww:, I think that using local links to connect the teahouses would be useful for many users. 82.54.18.153 (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- ...which is precisely what we already have here, isn't it? Nick Moyes (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- I see that it has been done and would like to thank whoever did it. However, I am sorry for my insisting but I noticed that the links to the Italian (it:Wikipedia:Bar) and Latin (la:Vicipaedia:Taberna) teahouses are missing. I would fix that myself, only I'm not sure where to put them... could someone tell me? Thanks, Llaaww (💬|📝) 11:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Wikidata:Q11059110 ― Qwerfjkltalk 12:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- I see that it has been done and would like to thank whoever did it. However, I am sorry for my insisting but I noticed that the links to the Italian (it:Wikipedia:Bar) and Latin (la:Vicipaedia:Taberna) teahouses are missing. I would fix that myself, only I'm not sure where to put them... could someone tell me? Thanks, Llaaww (💬|📝) 11:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- ...which is precisely what we already have here, isn't it? Nick Moyes (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with @Llaaww:, I think that using local links to connect the teahouses would be useful for many users. 82.54.18.153 (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- I agree there is no point in creating banners for people who clearly never read them. I've lost count of the number of times someone has asked what the Teahouse is for!--Shantavira|feed me 11:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- TBH I don't think it would be useful to clutter the Teahouse with banners; rather, using local links we would have clean and user-friendly links in the language bar...
- I agree with Nick Moyes that there's not that many people looking for other language Teahouses. Also, according to Wikidata links, there's 24 languages (including en.wiki) that have a Teahouse, which isn't that many (but is also too many to nicely display anywhere in my opinion). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Nick Moyes: We do occasionally get non-english editor asking questions here in their native language (for example recently someone asked a question here in Russian, or maybe that was on the help desk, I can't remember) so maybe only a banner with the most common foreign languages? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 02:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Casualdejekyll I'm clearly missing something that you and Llaaww seem to see. Surely, people with foreign language questions will be visiting their own language Wikipedias with their questions, not the English one? If they do ask here in English about an issue on their own Wikipedia, we will point them to it, if it exists. Why should we confuse English-speaking readers with a banner linking to the numerous non-English help fora when we are catering for English-speaking editors? Every single article and Wikipedia page that has a non-English equivalent has links to them in the same place. I really see no need for an additional banner for non-English speakers. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- Can't we have some sort of banner with links to international Teahouses, or something? Not all people with foreign-language questions know to click on the menu. casualdejekyll 19:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Llaaww: I’m with Nick Moyes on this one. I often edit on my IPad and the desktop view of Wikipedia is much better than the mobile view of it, when it comes to editing. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 18:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Llaaww I replied to you on my mobile, am doing so now, nd often edit from it. I recommend using it on desktop view, as I do, where you get all the esoteric extra functions. TBH: The Teahouse is for new users who are editing in English; why would an inter-language link be especially useful to them, and need to be so prominent? Nick Moyes (talk) 17:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Nick Moyes: yes, fair enough. However I (and I'm not alone in this) normally edit from a mobile device and from the app. I think using local links might be helpful to many people... Llaaww (💬|📝) 16:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Reply tool enabled for everyone
Hello! Just figured I'd let you guys know that the reply tool is now enabled for everyone. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- The tool seems to work fine for me, considering that this reply was made with the reply tool. dudhhrContribs 03:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I can only hope it eventually has the capabilities of Convenient Discussions soon... —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Deletion of inactive Teahouse hosts
Hello,
I checked up some member lists again and today I dug some into the teahouse. The list is long and impressive and of course is stuffed with inactive accounts. This kind of work I still do very manually with looking through the contributions of the last 3 months and check if there have been more than 0-2 posts in the teahouse from this user. If not, I recommend deleting that user. Since this list is so long I want to note I just cleaned up until user User:AlanM1. I'm open for complaints, especially since it's possible that mistakes happen while sighting so much data and accounts. This is the list of usernames which should be removed from Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host landing:
Rubbish computer, I JethroBT, Samwalton9, Jtmorgan, Bilby, MadScientistX11, Missvain, Teb728, TheSandDoctor, Polyamorph, SoWhy, Interstellarity, HeartGlow30797, CaptainEek, Thatoneweirdwikier
I really don't know why we need a write protection of the host page if it's not due to arrogance. At least it hindered me to do my work. And whoever has the permission to edit it didn't do their job with maintaining it.
GavriilaDmitriev (talk • they/them) 03:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Rubbish computer, I JethroBT, Samwalton9, Jtmorgan, Bilby, MadScientistX11, Missvain, Teb728, TheSandDoctor, Polyamorph, SoWhy, Interstellarity, HeartGlow30797, CaptainEek, and Thatoneweirdwikier: Pinging those mentioned in case they have a reason for being inactive. Otherwise I would say go ahead and remove them, and maybe we could make a bot that would do this periodically (as long as it would past BRFA). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 03:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Jtmorgan and I are listed because we co-created the Teahouse. It's symbolic. If you decide to delete me, I defer to consensus or being bold. I don't mind being listed, too. But, it is unlikely that I will be participating as an active host in the near future. Missvain (talk) 03:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I keep an eye on things. I haven't posted a response for a bit, but am still inclined to. - Bilby (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know what purpose the listing serves but I'm happy to be removed given that I don't spend much time here. Sam Walton (talk) 10:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Blaze Wolf: Feel free to remove my host status, haven't been around much recently. Thanks, User:Thatone
weirdwikier | Conversations and Contributions 20:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not a fan of removing editors unless they appear to have retired or not edited at all in some years. Three months is a pretty short time on-wiki. I have many other projects going. Like many admins, I like to flit between active areas, and may go on a spree in a particular queue after having not touched it for a while. Same goes for the teahouse. I guess I could get behind clearing out after a year, but three months is way too short. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I'm in the same boat as Bilby, CaptainEek, and Mathglot. I sort of float around a lot of different areas and help out whenever I spot something someone else hasn't beaten me to. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that "member" is even meaningful enough in this context to bother about removing anyone. Does it even matter who is a self-declared, or a listed member? Plenty of editors respond at Tea house who are not "members", and apparently many who are "members" do not respond. So what? At best, rather than "delete" any names, I'd simply ask, "Would you like to continue being listed as a 'member' at the Tea house?" and act accordingly. Mathglot (talk) 04:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Speaking as among the most active Teahouse editors for quite a few years, I oppose removing currently less active but historically important hosts such as Missvain, who was instrumental in creating and shaping this project, and in encouraging me to get involved in the early days. Her role as one of the essential creators of this project must always be acknowledged and appreciated. It is unlikely that the Teahouse would even exist without her insights and observations in the early days. Cullen328 (talk) 05:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not an inactive editor, but happy to be removed as a host. Polyamorph (talk) 09:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hi I'd like to get back into helping at the Teahouse, very busy with college currently unfortunately. I don't mind being removed but plan on becoming active again this week. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 11:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I would support 1 year of teahouse inactivity or 6 months of wiki inactivity as a threshold for removal, but anything less then that just feels exclusionist casualdejekyll 12:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Why do we even need that page? I don't think we do. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I understand that the page is occasionally updated, but since it's not very maintained, maybe we could mark the page as historical? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Tenryuu, well should that be done, we must think of what can replace the host image at the WP:TH header. GeraldWL 15:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Gerald Waldo Luis: I don't think having anything in that space is necessary. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Tangentially related but the list of images is taken from Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host/Featured which is always outdated, has always been outdated, and probably will always be outdated. Can we just take images from Wikipedia:Teahouse/Hosts instead? One could even make all the subpages with a bot and it wouldn't be THAT hard. Someone who knows button magic can change the become a host button so it creates a sub page. Just a suggestion.or just skip all the nonsense and declare that all hosts are featured hosts casualdejekyll 20:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Casualdejekyll, yeah, I agree with you, and Tenryuu. Personally, when I was in my early days, I didn't even notice it and I doubt anyone actually cares. Even the hosts are always the same. So yeah, send it to space. GeraldWL 01:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- For whatever reason I'm finding "Send it to space" extremely funny I like the idea of each host having a "Subpage" on the Teahouse. However, if we were to do this then there should probably be restrictions on what can be on said subpage so it doesn't become a secondary userpage. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 01:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- No, @Blaze Wolf - the subpages are just technical nonsense to get the random picture thing at the top working. I'm not proposing a secondary user page. The bits on Wikipedia:Teahouse/Hosts serve that function wonderfully. In fact, what I'm quite literally proposing is to switch up the technical backend to pull things from that page instead of the nearly identical but worse Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host/Featured casualdejekyll 02:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oh ok! Apologies for the misunderstanding. Ya I think that would be better. Maybe we could use a better default picture than File:Tea leaves steeping in a zhong čaj 05.jpg? I would use an image that an artist made for me for my image on the Teahouse, however I've lost contact with the artist so I can't request they release it under a useable license for the purpose, and I don't really like how the default picture looks. I understand that it's sort of meant to represent the Teahouse, but maybe we could use something a little more generic? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 02:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I actually like the tea image as a default! Maybe that's just me though. Perhaps a better tea image is in order? I've got some Arnold Palmer I could photograph [Humor] casualdejekyll 02:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think so. Maybe it shouldn't be tea but just something more generic. I dunno, I'm not really the person you should talk to about things requiring creativity. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 02:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I actually like the tea image as a default! Maybe that's just me though. Perhaps a better tea image is in order? I've got some Arnold Palmer I could photograph [Humor] casualdejekyll 02:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oh ok! Apologies for the misunderstanding. Ya I think that would be better. Maybe we could use a better default picture than File:Tea leaves steeping in a zhong čaj 05.jpg? I would use an image that an artist made for me for my image on the Teahouse, however I've lost contact with the artist so I can't request they release it under a useable license for the purpose, and I don't really like how the default picture looks. I understand that it's sort of meant to represent the Teahouse, but maybe we could use something a little more generic? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 02:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Blaze Wolf, I took it from cartoons where the good guys will always kick the bad guy's ass to space all the time. GeraldWL 02:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- No, @Blaze Wolf - the subpages are just technical nonsense to get the random picture thing at the top working. I'm not proposing a secondary user page. The bits on Wikipedia:Teahouse/Hosts serve that function wonderfully. In fact, what I'm quite literally proposing is to switch up the technical backend to pull things from that page instead of the nearly identical but worse Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host/Featured casualdejekyll 02:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- For whatever reason I'm finding "Send it to space" extremely funny I like the idea of each host having a "Subpage" on the Teahouse. However, if we were to do this then there should probably be restrictions on what can be on said subpage so it doesn't become a secondary userpage. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 01:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Casualdejekyll, yeah, I agree with you, and Tenryuu. Personally, when I was in my early days, I didn't even notice it and I doubt anyone actually cares. Even the hosts are always the same. So yeah, send it to space. GeraldWL 01:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Tenryuu, well should that be done, we must think of what can replace the host image at the WP:TH header. GeraldWL 15:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- For those not interested in yet another detailed explanation of the processes involved, or of my mild irritation over the tone of the last part of the original post (see TL;DR below), I would point out that The Teahouse hosts are an integral part of the Teahouse's informality in helping struggling editors. It brings more experienced editors and many new users with developing editing skills into the sphere of taking on a supportive roles and activities within Wikipedia. I don't have citable evidence, but I believe it helps many new users to go on to take on further support roles across this project, and will have a big part to play in encouraging skilled editors to take on the new mentorship role we will soon be seeing offered to all new account users. The Teahouse host list is maintained every 6 months or so, as time allows, and the latest tranche of edits and removals was made just two weeks ago.
- TL;DR It's always nice when new, inexperienced editors like GavriilaDmitriev want to express their views and to make helpful suggestions and offer fresh perspectives. I am glad they are open to complaints, too, because I want to say to you directly that I found the way you wrote the last part of your otherwise appreciated thread quite an insult to the hard work of many hosts and helpers here, both past and present. Had you looked back through our archives you might have read and understood past explanations about how we maintain the host list. Blundering in, making accusations of arrogance and incompetence is sadly not the most effective way to influence other volunteers. And establishing their own ideas of a 'cut-off' for deleting hosts who are not currently active, as if this were some task they have been allocated by divine right is most disconcerting. I note that this is not the first time this user has caused annoyance by doing this.
- So, having expressed my irritation with the way they have phrased their last comment, let me now spend a little time explaining, once again, how I try to maintain the Teahouse host list in a fair and representative manner, and I welcome and share their concern in wanting to see it maintained effectively. Others hosts may wish to comment on my approach, but I have explained my rationale in quite a few past threads here - you're welcome to look them up - and have been voluntarily doing this "job" since 2019, as can be seen from this edit history. My last edit to remove some inactive names was two weeks ago, and I have a further set of names flagged up for consideration for removal next time I feel the host list needs managing, and I have an evening spare.)
- It's also important to say that having and maintaining a 100% up-to-date list of signed-up hosts is in no way essential to the smooth running of the Teahouse, nor do I believe it in any way confuses or affects those newcomers seeking our help here, and it really does not matter if that assistance comes from a signed-up 'host' or any other helpful and friendly editor here. My view of the Teahouse is that enabling any moderately experienced user to add themselves as a 'host' can often become the first step of their Wikipedia journey towards 'behind-the-scenes' participation, and being here in whatever form can be a great way to learn new skills, whether they be technical or collaborative. Whilst signing up as a host does occasionally look like mere WP:HATCOLLECTING for a very small minority of new users, it really does not matter if that person then feels more involved and proud to be participating in Wikipedia, even if they never contribute here. It is very rare that we would not accept someone adding themselves to the host list unless they clearly had insufficient experience, or had a seriously unwelcoming or unhelpful manner in the way they reacted with new users seeking assistance. I suspect many Teahouse hosts would regard an editor like GavriilaDmitriev (with only 17 mainspace edits to their name) to fall into one of those categories. But we all grow and mature as editors, so today's inexperienced user soon becomes the mellow, skilled editor of tomorrow, and might then feel confident to move on to sign up as an individual mentor on a 1-to-1 basis for the new Growth Team Features arriving for every new account soon.
- We (or at least I) do try to welcome new hosts who sign themselves up with a standard message, and we do mention within it that their name may be removed if they do not contribute at the Teahouse within six months or so. This, as I have just mentioned, is because we get quite a lot of relatively new and inexperienced users who feel like it'd be nice to help out, but never actually do so. It is these recently-added, but completely inactive users, who I do remove after 6 months or so of giving them a chance to participate. I also maintain a spreadsheet of all host names, when each last edited, and what their total contributions to Wikipedia and to the Teahouse have been over the years. Every six months or so I go through it and see what maintenance action might be sensible to perform on the host list. Those who have been very active here in the past, but less so in recent times, will inevitably remain on the host list for longer. These users are pinged and thanks for their past contributions and invited to rejoin should they wish to resume activity. (example) I rarely communicate in advance of removal simply because this would add another layer of administration to what is already a fairly time-consuming maintenance task. I don't need to reiterate comments made above why some specific usernames are still listed here, but I would like to point out that I do intentionally retain some names on the host list if they very obviously represent any minority groups of editors, be it by gender, age, ethnicity or country they are editing from, as I believe this form of positive discrimination helps to encourage other users to participate (assuming anyone actually looks at the host list in detail. Apparently around 33 people a day do).
- One of the Teahouse's creators (Jtmorgan) who still maintains Hostbot, did in the early days have, I believe, a separate bot which they ran for changing the host lists on a frequent basis. Anyone interested is welcome to go back through our archives to read a brief technical explanation of why that bot's actions had to be terminated. So now things are done manually, and I am sorry if someone feels I'm not doing my job as effectively as I ought.
- The Teahouse is a very heavily visited site, attracting both new and experienced editors. It also attracts its fair share of users who take pleasure in meddling with or vandalising pages, and so having extended confirmed protection on pages that really, only extended confirmed users ever need to be editing is not a silly thing. Is it arrogant? I don't seriously think so. It certainly seems to have inhibited one particular new user from making unilateral changes according to their own personal perspective on how things should be done here, though I am pleased it did encourage them to listen to advice given to them earlier to discuss things and gain consensus before acting. In general, I don't disagree with most of the names that they, like me, have already identified for future removal from the host list. And I thank them for their interest and concern. But there are good and poor ways to go about saying certain things and I feel this matter could have been phrased a lot better, and might not then have required the expenditure of so much time and effort to address again here. I'm willing to listen to other hosts if they feel things could be done more effectively, or with greater sharing of the workload. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I still edit from time to time and will continue to help editors if they need it. Heart (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Can't think of a good title for this one
Noting Wikipedia talk:Teahouse#A few questions about the "Meet your hosts" page and Wikipedia talk:Teahouse#Deletion of inactive Teahouse hosts, is it time to completely revamp all the tidbits about the Teahouse (badges, featured hosts, other strange oddities like guest profiles, maitre d's, the wishing well, and probably some other obscure nonsense I couldn't even find). There's so much weird Teahouse oddities that as far as I can tell a large amount of very active hosts are not aware of. It seems worth it to revisit whether keeping these things around, even with a historical box at the top, is really a good idea.
However, I'm not one to drop a massive proposal here. I think the major issue is nobody really has any ideas about what to do about it all. So here's a dedicated spot to have a casual brainstorming sesh. casualdejekyll 02:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Please see the archives for past discussions. Especially, see
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Teahouse/Archive_18#Teahouse_hosts;
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Teahouse/Archive_19#Should_Featured_Hosts_be_random?
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Teahouse/Archive_20#Suggestions_for_improving_the_Teahouse_design
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Teahouse#A_few_questions_about_the_%22Meet_your_hosts%22_page
- Note also that many of the original elements mentioned above (maitre d'; guest profiles; badges, navbox etc) were marked as historic some time ago. If we've missed any obvious elements, please let us know, whilst remembering that it's the Teahouse's informal and friendly help, plus it's different appearance that helps makes it a distinctive and special place. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC).
Should we enable the new discussion tool for everyone?
So the reply tool has now been enabled for everyone, which is fantastic, but there's also another feature the talk pages team is working on, the new discussion tool, which is still in beta. It works plenty well, though, and I think it really can't come soon enough for us. The hacky way we've designed the Teahouse with editnotice/preloads to try to get around issues like post signing has never been optimal.
We don't need to wait until it fully rolls out to activate it here, though. Unless I'm missing something, the link will allow a user to create a new section using the new discussion tool regardless of whether or not they have it enabled in their preferences. Should we just cause the big blue button in the header to go to this link and then remove the preload/trim down the parts of the editnotice that'll no longer be needed? As with any beta, there's a slight risk of bugs coming up, but I think the rewards outweigh the downsides. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 09:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Frankly, I think it's a little nuts that they haven't hired the guy that did Wikipedia:Convenient Discussions. This definitely seems like a good idea. casualdejekyll 14:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- As someone who now religiously uses Convenient Discussions, I agree with this sentiment. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- He's great, isn't he? The WMF is always happy to have volunteer developers apply for open positions. BTW, here's what he said on his home wiki about one difference between the two options. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- As someone who now religiously uses Convenient Discussions, I agree with this sentiment. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- As I mentioned in the last discussion, I support this. ― Qwerfjkltalk 15:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Not only would it cut down on the edit notices and preload fluff, but it'd also prevent newcomers from getting confused about signing etiquette. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support I"ve been using this tool as much as I can and I really enjoy it and feel everyone should be using it. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Blaze Wolf@Casualdejekyll@Qwerfjkl@Sdkb@Tenryuu@Now can anyone tell me what is going on here? The discussion tool was already enabled. I have been using this ever since I am editing here. Whats new here? ItcouldbepossibleTalk 16:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Itcouldbepossible: It's now enabled by default for new users, but the big button doesn't use that. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Blaze Wolf@Casualdejekyll@Qwerfjkl@Sdkb@Tenryuu@Now can anyone tell me what is going on here? The discussion tool was already enabled. I have been using this ever since I am editing here. Whats new here? ItcouldbepossibleTalk 16:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Procedural opposeunless someone actually explains what it is and how it makes life easier. I couldn't understand this based on anything linked above (the new discussion tool seems to be a history of how it's being developed, not how to use and why that would be easier) Joseph2302 (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)- @Joseph2302 @Itcouldbepossible: The discussion tool (not the reply tool) allows adding new sections, without going through an edit page. ― Qwerfjkltalk 17:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support I use the discussion tool everyday I think it would be very helpful to users. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 01:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment/details: I've drafted an update to our editnotice to go along with the switch, as most of the elements of the current editnotice are handled within the interface of reply tool. Check it out here and let me know if there are any concerns. It looks like we're close to consensus on this, so I'll wait a little longer and then let's move forward. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Anything to reduce the scary edit notice we currently have. So long as it works more easily for desktop and mobile users, it will be a welcome improvement. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Nick Moyes: I'm fairly sure the talk page project tools don't work on mobile (yet). ― Qwerfjkltalk 10:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Qwerfjkl Yes, I did know that (but forgot it when I posted!). What I mean to say is that as long as both mobile and desktop users can all easily post their questions, and as long as it's better and clearer than what we currently have, I'm all in favour of trying this out - even if mobile users still have to battle their way through our existing edit notices for the time being. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Nick Moyes: I'm fairly sure the talk page project tools don't work on mobile (yet). ― Qwerfjkltalk 10:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment But what I don't understand is, I could always create new sections using the new section tab. Whats new in it?ItcouldbepossibleTalk 11:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Haven't used it in a while, but if I remember correctly, the New Section tab doesn't have any of the preload that's present if users click on the button, which includes code that automatically signs for them and comments. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:28, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Tenryuu: That is correct, however I"m fairly sure like the reply tool it can automatically sign for you. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:30, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Blaze Wolf: It shouldn't if you don't have any relevant scripts or gadgets active. I tried using the Add Topic link at the top and it brought me to a new blank source page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- The "Add topic" button should not be displaying at the Teahouse; we chose to suppress it with
__NONEWSECTIONLINK__
, although I can't manage to find where exactly we put it. Clicking it will open a blank edit window unless you have the Discussion Tools beta enabled, in which case it'll open a new section. But even then, I'm not sure we'd want to bring it back—it's better to reduce choice paralysis to only have one button. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- The "Add topic" button should not be displaying at the Teahouse; we chose to suppress it with
- @Blaze Wolf: It shouldn't if you don't have any relevant scripts or gadgets active. I tried using the Add Topic link at the top and it brought me to a new blank source page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Tenryuu: That is correct, however I"m fairly sure like the reply tool it can automatically sign for you. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:30, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Haven't used it in a while, but if I remember correctly, the New Section tab doesn't have any of the preload that's present if users click on the button, which includes code that automatically signs for them and comments. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:28, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Activated
Per the consensus above, I've activated the new discussion tool with the edits here and here. Please use this space to report any issues! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'd love to hear how it's going. It looks like you're needing fewer Template:Unsigned templates. How's the rest going? That link also adds [subscribe] buttons, which I hope would mean that newcomers are more likely to be notified of comments that don't ping them (assuming they decided to click the button to subscribe). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Whatamidoing (WMF), thanks for checking in! I think silence in this case is a good thing—it seems to be working very smoothly I haven't noticed any discussions being added without a header, which was one possible concern—the
Please provide a title for your discussion topic. If you click "Add topic", your topic will be added without a title.
message seems to be doing the trick there (although if there was an option to make a title required to let someone click publish, we'd still probably activate it here). I haven't noticed a huge uptick in people linking more or giving more specific questions, as recommended in the revised editnotice, but perhaps that'll become more apparent over time. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)- So I did see one q yesterday without a title, but yes, definitely no significant rate of problems thus far Nosebagbear (talk) 09:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- The Editing team has talked about requiring section headings. It's technically feasible. OTOH, the PM generally seems biased towards flexible tools – mostly thinking about us experienced editors, I suppose, since we're the ones who benefit the most from being able to do whatever we want – so I think he's reluctant to require a section heading unless editors demand it. (I forgot to add a section heading just yesterday.) If it becomes a problem, please do let me know. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- The times when we wouldn't want mandatory section headings would be for things like substing user talk messages or e.g. {{Please see}} that have a built-in heading. Those issues don't apply for the Teahouse, though. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- The Editing team has talked about requiring section headings. It's technically feasible. OTOH, the PM generally seems biased towards flexible tools – mostly thinking about us experienced editors, I suppose, since we're the ones who benefit the most from being able to do whatever we want – so I think he's reluctant to require a section heading unless editors demand it. (I forgot to add a section heading just yesterday.) If it becomes a problem, please do let me know. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- So I did see one q yesterday without a title, but yes, definitely no significant rate of problems thus far Nosebagbear (talk) 09:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Whatamidoing (WMF), thanks for checking in! I think silence in this case is a good thing—it seems to be working very smoothly I haven't noticed any discussions being added without a header, which was one possible concern—the
Inactive Teahouse hosts
It seems that a lot of the hosts here might be inactive. Could we come up with an activity policy for hosts, otherwise it is hard to tell that a host is actually reachable? The prior discussion from me was initiated in a too offending way.
GavriilaDmitriev (talk • they/them) 08:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- "reachable"? Are you saying that there are people on the host list who have no user talk page? As for "activity policy", there is a long detailed explanation by NickMoyes in your previous thread. --bonadea contributions talk 07:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
New discussion tool
I want something to be made clear. For many days this 'new discussion tool' thing is going on. What are the extra things that were added? For example, I could always add new sections using the new sections button. I didn't need to sign my message. I always had discussion tools enabled from beta section of my preferences ever since I started editing. So what are new changes? ItcouldbepossibleTalk 16:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- hi Itcouldbepossible! discussion tools adds in the new sections button, quick reply button, and the subscribe button. happy editing! 💜 melecie talk - 00:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Melecie But I could always use those features from the preferences tab under beta section. So what is new in it? ItcouldbepossibleTalk 03:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Itcouldbepossible, It is the same feature, which was in beta before but has now been made available to all. Kpddg (talk • contribs) 04:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Kpddg Aha! finally got it. The beta feature which was in testing mode has now been moved into mainstream editing isn't it? ItcouldbepossibleTalk 04:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, that's right! Kpddg (talk • contribs) 04:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Kpddg But how was the thing moved into mainstream editing? It was in beta how was it moved? ItcouldbepossibleTalk 04:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- That's just how beta testing works? Features are tested with a limited number of users, then when all the bugs are worked out in the beta phase, they're released to the general user base. Bsoyka (talk) 04:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Bsoyka Yes, but how is it done? ItcouldbepossibleTalk 04:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- I mean how was it 'released to the general user'? ItcouldbepossibleTalk 04:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know how the technical side of things works here, just that Wikimedia developers do so when they feel a feature is ready for widespread use. Not sure how this is relevant to the Teahouse anymore though. Bsoyka (talk) 04:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Itcouldbepossible, maybe you could ask at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project or at the beta features talk page for detailed information. Kpddg (talk • contribs) 05:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know how the technical side of things works here, just that Wikimedia developers do so when they feel a feature is ready for widespread use. Not sure how this is relevant to the Teahouse anymore though. Bsoyka (talk) 04:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- That's just how beta testing works? Features are tested with a limited number of users, then when all the bugs are worked out in the beta phase, they're released to the general user base. Bsoyka (talk) 04:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Kpddg But how was the thing moved into mainstream editing? It was in beta how was it moved? ItcouldbepossibleTalk 04:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, that's right! Kpddg (talk • contribs) 04:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Kpddg Aha! finally got it. The beta feature which was in testing mode has now been moved into mainstream editing isn't it? ItcouldbepossibleTalk 04:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Itcouldbepossible, It is the same feature, which was in beta before but has now been made available to all. Kpddg (talk • contribs) 04:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Melecie But I could always use those features from the preferences tab under beta section. So what is new in it? ItcouldbepossibleTalk 03:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Teahouse protected
Template:Teahouse protected has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- This was moved to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Banner/Teahouse protected notice -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 02:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
I need help please 😔 Inoxent AR (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Inoxent AR Hi there! I see no one has responded to your statement - probably because it's in the wrong place. If you still need help, please go to Wikipedia:Teahouse and click the big "Ask a question" button. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Why not recommend WP:TWA?
I don't know if it is popularised enough but for what I have seen in the Teahouse is that when a new editor comes in for 'list of Wikpedia guidelines', he/she is introduced to 5 to 7 long and boring WP: articles just to end up asking again in the Teahouse. Why not redirect to WP:TWA? (I know that's not the attitude you would want from a Wikipedian but come on, I haven't read any of those fully). Excellenc1 (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- I often see hosts suggest new users try WP:ADVENTURE for new users who want to learn how to edit. RudolfRed (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Note: Moved from the Teahouse page; this talk page is a better venue. CC Excellenc1. Bsoyka (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Excellenc1 Quite a few of us do actually recommend WP:TWA, though, as more and more people use mobiles to edit on, it becomes less useful, as it's not designed for mobile operation. It's also a bit clunky, only uses WP:Source Editor, and some users do struggle to get it to work all the way through. I do like it when I see evidence that new users have tried to work through it, as it shows commitment to learn. I see you gave it a try last week; how did you find it, and did you manage to collect all 15 badges along the way? Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Nick Moyes 15? I got 6 maybe. At some parts, where the mission ends in a dead end (it says edit and nothing else), I just click back and go to the next mission. For where I could click 'continue', I got the badges. Overall, I got the test parts right. Excellenc1 (talk) 10:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Excellenc1 Yes, there are 15 badges. (see here). I did it again recently with my alt-account and managed 12 badges (see here). I fear that TWA has become somewhat outdated and not as effective as it once was. I also think it would be a good thing for WMF developers to work on to improve. At the back of my mind, I'm sure someone here over the last year or two suggested/offered making some small changes to the wording, as those bits are user-editable, I think, though not the programme itself. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Addendum: This thread called Drop the Adventure shows some of the past history of TWA's deployment and use. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- I would also like to add that I did contact the original developer of TWA and they told me that they don't have time to work on it anymore, so it's most likely up to the community at this point to maintain it and fix it. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- TWA has some cool elements—the graphics in particular are nice—but community control is not an optional feature for Wikipedia. TWA lacked it, and as a result it's either outdated or broken in several key areas. I'd prefer to instead see some of the better features of TWA imported to the Help:Introduction series. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- I also like to see multiple options available - some newcomers like interactive elements like TWA, some like text-based tutorials/help pages, some like real-person support (like the Teahouse), and some like a mixture. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 03:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- TWA has some cool elements—the graphics in particular are nice—but community control is not an optional feature for Wikipedia. TWA lacked it, and as a result it's either outdated or broken in several key areas. I'd prefer to instead see some of the better features of TWA imported to the Help:Introduction series. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- I would also like to add that I did contact the original developer of TWA and they told me that they don't have time to work on it anymore, so it's most likely up to the community at this point to maintain it and fix it. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Addendum: This thread called Drop the Adventure shows some of the past history of TWA's deployment and use. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Sporting hoax exposed in part due to a Teahouse question
Anyone who recalls Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1073#Should this page be deleted? might be interested to read this piece of investigative journalism into the subject. Pinging Khwabeeda, Gerald Waldo Luis and Nick Moyes. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- That is rather interesting. I wonder if there are still any accounts relating to that company are still around. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Honestly I didn't expect that little paid editing to be a part of such a huge case. Salute to CyclingTips for that comprehensive piece (which I'm halfway through, it seems), and for the appropriate research. Also quite chilling, seeing some of the keywords in that piece. GeraldWL 19:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- I've only just finished reading it myself. The firearms stuff towards the end was unexpected and chilling. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Insanity. Though they're throwing around the term "moderator" quite loosely... I guess it accurately describes the actions of vandal-fighters well enough. Moderating. casualdejekyll 21:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Goodness - just spent the last 2 hours reading that brilliantly written exposé of a sociopath who used Wikipedia as just a tiny part of his 'whole life fraud'. @Cordless Larry: are you going to suggest this as a story for The Signpost? Thanks for flagging this up (and I'm glad we didn't come out of it too badly). Nick Moyes (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Done: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions/Archive 33#Suggestion by Cordless Larry (2022-04-30). Cordless Larry (talk) 06:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Funnily enough, that would be quite a good source for an actual, accurate article about that person. Is there a second GNG source out there? TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 09:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Be on the lookout
Hey, all Teahouse regulars; just a heads up. Be on the lookout for edits from Special:Contributions/2A01:36D:1201:34D:0:0:0:0/64. That range is currently under a 31-hour block, but they could return after it expires. If they do, report the range to WP:AIV for quick processing. Thanks. --Jayron32 12:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- I've temp watchlisted a few articles surrounding association football they seem to be regulars at. --ARoseWolf 12:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
What is the point of being a host?
Is it just so people are able to know that you are active at the Teahouse? I'm not meaning to be ungrateful or anything; I was just wondering.
(To clarify, I am basically saying that my experience as a host is mostly the same as how it was before. Is being a host a way for people to be familiar with you and/or a way to signify that you like answering questions? I know this has probably been asked before.)
Asparagusus (interaction) 22:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Being a host seems to me meaningless.
- Many years ago, when I first came across the Teahouse, it had hosts, and host profiles, and guests, and guest profiles. Many of its users ("guests") had quite elaborate profiles. I wondered why anyone would go to the trouble of creating a profile, when they could just ask their question at the Help desk instead.
- In hindsight, I think the "hosts, guests and profiles" business was an attempt to engage with new users, who came to Wikipedia expecting it to be a form of social media. Maproom (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- I assume the social media-ish things are holdovers from the Wikipedia:Esperanza days, when it was the 'coffee lounge'. MrOllie (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- As I remember it, the Teahouse was part of a larger effort at the time to create better on-ramps/tutorials for new editors. There was a lot of discussion happening in 2010-2013 about whether WP as a whole was losing conflict-averse editors and how we could remedy that (as another example, note that development on the earliest version of WP:Wikipedia Adventure was happening at the same time). I thought then, and still do, that a q&a space catering specifically to newbies is a worthwhile thing to have, and that the Teahouse/Help Desk can and should have different purposes. So a couple years after Esperanza got ended, Sarah et al. at the WMF thought it was the right time to resurrect some of those ideals while hopefully learning some lessons from Esperanza and centering this page on editing help. The Teahouse was originally a pilot program, and the hosts were going to be the editors selected to test the pilot and see if editor retention increased.
- So with that background, to answer @Asparagusus's question, hosts were editors dedicated to this process, and the profiles helped to give newer editors an idea of who was answering their question and just broadly make wikipedia feel more accessible. After the pilot got off the ground (and some of the more Esperanza-like elements were killed off, like the /Host lounge) the role of "host" has become far less important and so yes, calling yourself a "host" is just a casual way of saying you're available to help other editors in the Teahouse. It has no greater meaning apart from being a friendly title that newer editors can understand. Alyo (chat·edits) 17:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- As a former regular of Esperanza (I still keep my green 32 as a flag of my former time there), I know that it says that the Teahouse is a replacement for the Coffee Lounge, but it absolutely isn't. First of all, the chronology doesn't match up. Esperanza was shut down in late 2006, the Teahouse was started in 2012. Esperanza was long gone and forgotten by then. Secondly, the Coffee Lounge wasn't a New User greeting service or help desk; the Coffee Lounge was a place for random wikipedians to hang around and shoot the breeze. It had no real help function for new users; there were some aspects of Esperanza that aligned with The Teahouse, but the Coffee House was absolutely not one of them. It was actually probably among the most contentious parts of Esperanza and likely the part of it that was most responsible for getting it shut down. It was felt to be distracting from the mission per WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK, and even though it got shut down shortly before the the final MFD killed all of Esperanza for good. I recommend reading Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza as it really does a good job of showing what killed Esperanza. --Jayron32 18:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining. I really do like retaining new editors.
- Asparagusus (interaction) 18:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Speaking from my own personal experience, had I not signed up to be a host I would have never watchlisted the Teahouse. I have learned so much from being a host here and reading others responses while, hopefully, being able to help the community retain editors by answering their questions in a civil, kind yet informative way. I also hope I've helped protect the encyclopedia from the potentially harmful actions of well meaning users by pointing out policy in a simple but effective way. I see so many editors answering, many far more experienced than I, some are hosts while others are not but I never look for that. It's not an attention seeking position and, no, it doesn't afford an editor any special privileges which to me is perfect. For me, it's a little corner of the encyclopedia where anyone, host or not, can have a positive impact on someone's adventure here. I wouldn't have known the full impact without signing up as a host so I'm grateful for an opportunity to learn and help others learn. That has value to me but that's just my perception. --ARoseWolf 20:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hosts are useful to me as a non-host answer-hander-outer. When I see a particularly tricky post come thru - especially those which require extra tact to handle - I often think, "Boy, I'm glad there are hosts around to answer stuff like this, I'll leave them to it." Also when the occasional enthusiastic newbie shows up and starts trying to answer questions, it feels like the hosts are the ones who should be telling 'em politely to knock it off, not any of the rest of us randos. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Speaking from my own personal experience, had I not signed up to be a host I would have never watchlisted the Teahouse. I have learned so much from being a host here and reading others responses while, hopefully, being able to help the community retain editors by answering their questions in a civil, kind yet informative way. I also hope I've helped protect the encyclopedia from the potentially harmful actions of well meaning users by pointing out policy in a simple but effective way. I see so many editors answering, many far more experienced than I, some are hosts while others are not but I never look for that. It's not an attention seeking position and, no, it doesn't afford an editor any special privileges which to me is perfect. For me, it's a little corner of the encyclopedia where anyone, host or not, can have a positive impact on someone's adventure here. I wouldn't have known the full impact without signing up as a host so I'm grateful for an opportunity to learn and help others learn. That has value to me but that's just my perception. --ARoseWolf 20:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Maproom said above that
"Being a host seems to me meaningless."
and to some extent they are absolutely right... - ...Anyone is welcome to answer questions here, so long as they actually help the questioner. They don't need to be a host to do that. Once someone feels they know enough to help others, they may, if they wish add their name to the host list. In doing so they agree to act in line with our simple host expectations. Only very rarely might we ever say to someone who had added their name that they clearly weren't ready (knowledgeable enough) to be a host. However, someone who signs up but then never actually edits at all here will find their name removed after 6 months or so, per WP:HAT.
- ...But in another way Maproom is quite wrong. Signing up to help others is actually a very meaningful thing to do, in my opinion. Ok, it's not some formal permission, and so my feeling is that it is often the first and simplest route in for an editor to start helping out 'behind the scenes' and, in time, perhaps then move on into other supportive/administrative work. Signing up as a host, and then helping people out, is actually a very significant declaration of support to the Wikipedia project. Now, whilst I'm not able to offer precise evidence to support that statement, my feeling is that quite a number of newly-signed up Teahouse hosts do then go on to do other useful work elsewhere. And that's pretty important, I feel. Maybe we should run a proper survey and find out!
- Meanwhile, this 10 year anniversary article appeared in last month's The Signpost. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think it's true that users that sign up as hosts prematurely do benefit greatly from it. I can think of three editors where that's certainly the case. Being in an environment surrounded by so much advice from experienced editors is like an apprenticeship. If this becomes more commonplace i believe we should formalise it, as it would give us more control. A limited number of inexperienced editors could sign up to be 'apprentice hosts', perhaps 4 max at a time. When they reach 30/500 (or a figure better equated with experience) a space opens up for another one to join. If an editor doesn't adequately answer a question at the Teahouse who isn't on the list, and isn't 30/500, we delete the answer (TPG would need an exception creating) and direct them to the apprentice host process. An incorrect answer by someone who seriously wishes to become a host, and is aware of the expectations, is far less frustrating than a random inexperienced editor walking in and handing out advice like the gospel. The current status quo is a bit of a mockery of our host requirements. I know there would be concern over creating 'two-tiers' of host, but if the numbers are limited and they don't meet the requirements anyway, there shouldn't be an issue. Zindor (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- I assume the social media-ish things are holdovers from the Wikipedia:Esperanza days, when it was the 'coffee lounge'. MrOllie (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Back in the day, when the Teahouse first started, there were probably a few people who spearheaded the effort, but I remember the leadership of User:Missvain (under a prior user name). The idea for the Teahouse was to make it different from the Help Desk was to have a semi-curated group of "hosts" who would take primary responsibility for answering the questions using appropriate protocols; hosts were trained to respond to questions in a different way than other help venues at Wikipedia, by addressing the questioner directly, greeting them, using active listening (acknowledging their troubles, etc.), avoiding acronyms and jargon, and other such ways. We didn't ban other users from answering questions, but hosts specifically volunteered to be active on the Teahouse and to follow those protocols so new users would feel welcomed and well-cared for when they asked their questions. I do know that the first batch of hosts got a free T-shirt for volunteering (I still have mine). Missvain has stepped back from her involvement in the Teahouse some time ago, and is less active on Wikipedia in general. I'm not sure entirely why, you'd have to ask her. The nature of the Teahouse has changed some, though there are still some of us old-timers who still try to use the protocols here, and I do see newer respondents catching on to them as well, which is nice. I will say that the Teahouse really changed once the AFC process became formalized the way it is used today; a lot of users are directed here for their AFC questions, the Teahouse has since functionally become the AFC ombudsman desk, which might be part of the reason why the original crop of hosts are not around as much; that wasn't what we signed up to do. Helping new users navigate Wikipedia is a very different job than helping clueless social media managers write ad copy for their non-notable clients. Anyhoo, while being a host is not required, feel free to sign up as one if you want to (I'm not even sure I am anymore, but I am still somewhat active on the board). It probably means less than it used to, but it's a nice thing to do if you want to abide by the standards of hosting. Cheers! --Jayron32 14:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- I have 8397 edits to the Teahouse and got involved very early although not at the beginning. So I am pretty experienced. And it was Missvain who recruited me. I have never paid much attention to whether or not somebody answering questions was a declared "Teahouse Host" or not. What I care about most is the accuracy of answers, followed closely by whether the editor is friendly, welcoming and encouraging to new editors. That's our goal here. As for Esperanza, I started editing in 2009 when that project was already defunct, and never heard of it for quite a few years. Esperanza seems like a dried up museum relic to me, and has no impact on my participation at the Teahouse or anywhere else on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 04:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- As one of the Teahouse's newest hosts, I see it similarly to Nick Moyes and 199.208.172.35. Signing up as a host was not necessarily the most momentous thing I've ever done on Wikipedia, but I see it as making myself more a part of the community: this group of people under the "Meet your hosts!" tab is committed to helping new users get their feet on Wikipedia. I'm a part of that group, but so are several others who are far more experienced than I; when there are difficult questions I don't know how to answer it's easier because I know someone who has more experience will do so. Having a host profile also, I hope, helps users who might want to ask someone individually for help know where to go. Also, I had never heard of Esperanza until this conversation. Perfect4th (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'd never heard of Esperanza. It was closed down at a time when I'd only made two edits.
- I wonder if its history explains to something that has long puzzled me. Sometimes a candidate for adminship gets a No vote on thr grounds that they have little or no experience of article creation, or GA work, or FA work. This seems absurd to me. Editors have many different skills and interests; downvoting a candidate for lack of article creation seems as absurd as downvoting for lack of copyvio work. There are many skills which can be better exercised using admin powers.
- Maybe the downvoters are editors with a long-standing (and easily understood) dislike of Esperanza members, who saw themselves as superior to other editors while make no actual contributions? Maproom (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Maproom: that's an interesting thought, and may be true, however i think i can recall the reasoning behind those votes. In short it's that sysops are in a position of responsibilty over other editors and content, so if you have a sysop who doen't appreciate the value of content work, they might make decisions that unintentionally negatively impact the building of the enyclopedia. Case in point i can think of a very productive editor whose had dozens of civility blocks, but is always swiftly unblocked because at the end of the day we are here to build the encyclopedia. Additionally there is a struggle with creating top quality content, someone will always disagree with your work and collaboration is hard, if a sysop can't understand the frustrations that are involved in creating GA/FA content then they won't have the necessary sympathies when dealing with issues that arise (everybody will be indeffed, work will grind to a halt, but at least there is no incivility! lol). You're right that it's not always important, but there needs to be a significant amount of the admin population who do understand the journey of content creation. Zindor (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Zindor, we will have to disagree on the importance of civility (there is a reason it was made a foundational pillar of the encyclopedia equal to all other pillars and not just a provision, guideline or rule). Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia for a specific group of people but an encyclopedia of all humanity built on community consensus, not one persons work but a collective of works at varying levels of depth, and when one is repeatedly uncivil in their interactions with other editors then it discourages the development of said collective works and is just as disruptive to the overall development of the entire project as the scenario you envisioned. --ARoseWolf 19:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- ARoseWolf, that's the concept but in reality we're not always an encyclopedia for all humanity. 'Anyone can edit' is highly important, but when it comes down to the bare bones of it, the majority of Wikipedia has been created by a handful of editors. The project wouldn't exist, and would cease to develop, without such highly productive editors. Some of these editors don't play so well but their contribution is so great that it has proven beneficial to have a lot of forgiveness for their trespasses against civility.
- Zindor, we will have to disagree on the importance of civility (there is a reason it was made a foundational pillar of the encyclopedia equal to all other pillars and not just a provision, guideline or rule). Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia for a specific group of people but an encyclopedia of all humanity built on community consensus, not one persons work but a collective of works at varying levels of depth, and when one is repeatedly uncivil in their interactions with other editors then it discourages the development of said collective works and is just as disruptive to the overall development of the entire project as the scenario you envisioned. --ARoseWolf 19:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Maproom: that's an interesting thought, and may be true, however i think i can recall the reasoning behind those votes. In short it's that sysops are in a position of responsibilty over other editors and content, so if you have a sysop who doen't appreciate the value of content work, they might make decisions that unintentionally negatively impact the building of the enyclopedia. Case in point i can think of a very productive editor whose had dozens of civility blocks, but is always swiftly unblocked because at the end of the day we are here to build the encyclopedia. Additionally there is a struggle with creating top quality content, someone will always disagree with your work and collaboration is hard, if a sysop can't understand the frustrations that are involved in creating GA/FA content then they won't have the necessary sympathies when dealing with issues that arise (everybody will be indeffed, work will grind to a halt, but at least there is no incivility! lol). You're right that it's not always important, but there needs to be a significant amount of the admin population who do understand the journey of content creation. Zindor (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- We're talking rare and exceptional cases though, this kind of big picture isn't what we're handling at the Teahouse and i have no hesitation when it comes to dealing with incivility. Civility is very important, unfortunately though as with all our other pillars it is under constant erosion and repair. The above post was more of an illustration of the balances at play in the project rather than a reflection of me personally. I strive to be highly civil and i think we're the same in that regard. All the best, Zindor (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Zindor, again, we will disagree on the latest point. The majority of Wikipedia is not created by just a handful of editors. There are over six and a half million articles. The majority of which were written with little to no controversy. One of the top two or three content creators on English Wikipedia has created over 33,000 articles (truly an amazing accomplishment). That is still only .5% of all articles. If you added the top ten creators you arrive at somewhere between 200k and 300k articles which is still only 4.6%. Wikipedia is truly a community project. Every editor is highly important as you have noted with 'Anyone can edit'. I think true cases of repeated incivility are rather rare because we are here to build an encyclopedia and that takes working together in a lot of cases. Experienced editors realize that and will generally work together. Please don't misunderstand me, I never associated your illustration with you personally. I've never had much interaction with you prior to this conversation and I always assume the best of a person, almost to a fault. We may disagree on your illustration but I highly respect your viewpoint and when we break everything down I believe we probably agree on far more than we disagree. In fact, I count on it. Like you, I think we are the same in most regards. Best to you as well. --ARoseWolf 20:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- By handful i'm talking in relative terms so around 200 editors. When that's considered and the number of poor quality articles is deducted (the best way to account for existing content that should not be in Wikipedia) i'm sure the numbers look at lot more like what i was saying. I've haven't done the math in years though, maybe i am incorrect Zindor (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Zindor, again, we will disagree on the latest point. The majority of Wikipedia is not created by just a handful of editors. There are over six and a half million articles. The majority of which were written with little to no controversy. One of the top two or three content creators on English Wikipedia has created over 33,000 articles (truly an amazing accomplishment). That is still only .5% of all articles. If you added the top ten creators you arrive at somewhere between 200k and 300k articles which is still only 4.6%. Wikipedia is truly a community project. Every editor is highly important as you have noted with 'Anyone can edit'. I think true cases of repeated incivility are rather rare because we are here to build an encyclopedia and that takes working together in a lot of cases. Experienced editors realize that and will generally work together. Please don't misunderstand me, I never associated your illustration with you personally. I've never had much interaction with you prior to this conversation and I always assume the best of a person, almost to a fault. We may disagree on your illustration but I highly respect your viewpoint and when we break everything down I believe we probably agree on far more than we disagree. In fact, I count on it. Like you, I think we are the same in most regards. Best to you as well. --ARoseWolf 20:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- We're talking rare and exceptional cases though, this kind of big picture isn't what we're handling at the Teahouse and i have no hesitation when it comes to dealing with incivility. Civility is very important, unfortunately though as with all our other pillars it is under constant erosion and repair. The above post was more of an illustration of the balances at play in the project rather than a reflection of me personally. I strive to be highly civil and i think we're the same in that regard. All the best, Zindor (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
skip to bottom link at the top
Has this stopped working for anyone else? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Not working for me either. Perfect4th (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yep. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Also came here to report that it's not working. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.224.154 (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Pinging @Rchard2scout: who added that particular highlighted 'skip to bottom' link back in 2019 so that it would work in mobile too. It doesn't work their either, now. (I just use WP:THF or tap the down chevron, not that a newcomer would know the first one, of course.) Nick Moyes (talk) 09:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- It looks like the element with id "mw-data-after-content" disappeared. I've retargeted it now to "footer-info", which seems to exist both on desktop and mobile (not sure if it works on all skins, but anyone not using the default skins probably doesn't need the Teahouse...). --rchard2scout (talk) 10:06, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing this. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- It looks like the element with id "mw-data-after-content" disappeared. I've retargeted it now to "footer-info", which seems to exist both on desktop and mobile (not sure if it works on all skins, but anyone not using the default skins probably doesn't need the Teahouse...). --rchard2scout (talk) 10:06, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Pinging @Rchard2scout: who added that particular highlighted 'skip to bottom' link back in 2019 so that it would work in mobile too. It doesn't work their either, now. (I just use WP:THF or tap the down chevron, not that a newcomer would know the first one, of course.) Nick Moyes (talk) 09:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)