Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Editing?

Hi, I am new and I was wondering when I am allowed to edit on Wikipedia articles, I have edited on talk page but not on article pages, do I have to wait a certain amount of time to be able to edit on the articles? Silvertrail (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

You are free to edit any article at any time and when sees fit,you can leave your other questions at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions Welcome! Carliitaeliza TALK 01:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

When I go to the article page of articles there is no edit tab where I can edit the articles, maybe it is a bug? Silvertrail (talk) 01:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Some Wikipedia pages are protected of edit,you only can see source code of the pages,the pages are protected primarily by frequent vandalism from ip address or registered users,please if you have another question leave them on Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions :) thanks Carliitaeliza TALK 01:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Ohh, okay, thanks! Silvertrail (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome :) Carliitaeliza TALK 01:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

If you want to edit a page that is protected like that, you can post your noncontroversial edit and than add {{editprotected}} (including the curly brackets) to the talk page just above your proposed edit and an administrator will make the edit for you. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the message I received was sent erroneously,I don't want edit a protected page,but anyways helps to know a new thing,thank you Carliitaeliza TALK 21:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiProjects

I'm not sure where to put it, but there should probably be a note at Wikipedia:Teahouse/WikiProjects that it isn't a comprehensive list, but a list of example Projects. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The intro at the top-right includes "This page has a list of some of the most active, general WikiProjects. You'll also come across names of Wikipedians who are highly active and happy to serve as a contact for that project. So stop by a WikiProject and join in today!"

When I first became active in WP, I would have appreciated that list. Click on any project and there's a Project family tree or Descendant and related WikiProjects or similar navigation aid to get a newcomer to a place they may find a home. I'm a bird geek who got sucked into related projects like Women scientists (specializing in female ornithologists). I found my Wikipedia niche by accident. Hope others find theirs faster to get them active and keep them interested. That's the intent of the list.

I'll take another look at the wording. We want newcomers to click on a high-level general project like Science and then work their way down to their personal niche interest. They'll learn a lot about WP as they do so. Thanks for taking a look and giving some feedback, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 01:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please update this list! Sarah did a wonderful job putting it together, but shifting the ordering and adding more info would be great. If you start working on it, it would also be great to double-check that all the projects we're featuring here are still active and maybe remove (or move down) the ones that aren't. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 06:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

(",)

Hello? 01:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.109.127.141 (talk)

WMF grant proposal

I have submitted a proposal for one of WMF's new Individual Engagement Grants. It is a pilot project to determine whether coaching new editors on their writing for the English Wikipedia improves editor retention, focusing on women and Global Southerners. If you would like to endorse this project, you can do so here. I would also appreciate any other feedback, pro or con, which can be posted here. Thanks! Libcub (talk) 03:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocked guests.

If a guest has been blocked, should their entry in the guest section also be removed? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Skamecrazy! Hosts have removed blocked guests before, but I don't think it's necessary. There are so many reasons a person can be blocked, I don't think their having an introduction is a bad thing. (But you can do what you like) heather walls (talk) 09:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

If its ok for them to be left, then I am more than happy to leave them. I was simply wondering if there was any sort of rules for removing blocked users. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Rules? You know you are on Wikipedia, right?  :) J/K...Myself, I don't think I ever have removed a post from Teahouse because it was from a blocked editor. I have removed a post because it was purely disruptive, however. There are also many times when the question is much better suited to this page or another forum. If you have any concern about a particular post at any given time you can always leave a message for the current Maitre d and they can take a look at it and deal with it if needed. That is their job, after all. Thanks for helping at Teahouse, Skamecrazy. Gtwfan52 (talk) 01:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

FYI

There has been a repaving of our help template. Pls be aware that this name space is now featured on the template as a MAIN link. This means a link to here is now transcribed on hundreds of pages by way of the template below.Moxy (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

That's awesome! Thanks for letting us know. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 02:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! I updated the Teahouse description in that template to clarify that help is aimed at new editors rather than "users" - unlike the Help Desk, which does answer reader questions too, Teahouse is primarily aimed at people who are actively editing. Cheers! Siko (talk) 07:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

NP about the heads up - as for your (or anyone's) edits pls fix, remove, add etc.. anything. I am not an expert in our help pages or whats best for everyone at all times and will and do welcome any help.Moxy (talk) 07:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

pls review the Wikipedia:Help index make sure you guys are ok with the wording for this page.Moxy (talk) 02:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

TOC location

Can we please move the Teahouse TOC to its default left-hand position? With new comments being placed on top, help with images is made more difficult - the default "thumb" parameter places images on the right and they get pushed down by the TOC to where they are no longer associated with the comment section. It's not a stretch to guess that this is confusing for new users. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Strong support — while perhaps a nice design decision, it's rather impractical. I don't have any issue with it being collapsed, though, if that's needed so as to keep the page balanced. —Theopolisme (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Weak oppose. Seems to me it would take the focus away from the question headings. Even collapsed, it's pretty wide. Wouldn't most people who know to use the thumb parameter in an image link also know that you can set location to 'left'? - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 02:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Twinkle and Teahouse talkbacks

I know Teahouse has all its fancy scripts and whatnot, but you might like to know that Twinkle's Talkback module now has an option for Teahouse talkback notifications. If you use Twinkle, you can visit a user talk page, open the "TB" tab, choose the "Noticeboard notification" option, and choose the "Teahouse question forum" option. This will probably only help those of you who do not use the special Teahouse scripts. — This, that and the other (talk) 10:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know! I have Twinkle but am hesitant to add the Teahouse scripts. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 00:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

This is great! Thanks, This that and the other. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 01:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I was testing it out and I found one problem with it: when you use Twinkle it doesn't add a header. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 18:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Asking newbie at Teahouse if they are an employee of a company

A new user posted on the Questionnaire page

• Hello- I am trying to create a company profile page and I want to be sure that I'm keeping in line with the conditions and guidelines Wikipedia has. Is there any way to have someone edit the pages content before I post to be sure it's approved?

Another user responded by saying

• Hello, and thanks for the excellent question! Before I can respond accurately, would you mind responding to these points: 1. Are you an employee of the company? 2. What is your proposed article name?

The user did not indicate any affiliation with the company and stated they want to follow the guidelines and that they would like oversight. So the request for personal information seems a bit over the top to me and a possible violation of WP:COI which says: Wikipedia places importance on the ability of editors to edit pseudonymously. When investigating COI editing, the policy against harassment takes precedence and requires that Wikipedians must take care not to reveal the identity of editors against their wishes. Instead, examine editors' behavior and refer to Wikipedia:Checkuser. I don't want to criticize anyone, as all are here in good faith to help others and all are doing a great job of it by the way....... but I just want to understand what is protocol here at the Teahouse so I can contribute effectively. Any thoughts or comments on this? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

you are right, but asking leading questions is what passes for help around here. this is why the company articles are so bad. far better to advise user to use sandbox, discuss proposed edit on article talk, and then mention COI policy. some people around are so battleground minded they would rather question peoples' motives than get a good edit done. getting people to wp:agf even at teahouse is a never ending struggle. good on you. Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 22:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I would consider asking such a question (the "Are you an employee of x" question) of a new user as being borderline WP:OUTING. People can voluntarily identify themselves to us, but we don't ask them to do so. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

i agree, but the anti-coi culture is here to stay. i spend a lot of time with expert editors; curators on this topic, hard to explain the defensive reaction. Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 23:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, your comments are helpful. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

No. I do not consider asking the question to be even boarderline outing. Lets be clear. Outing requires information be posted not asked. A question must be assumed to be good faith on the face. The asnwer can always be sent via e-mail and if the editor wishes to disclose the information it is upon them to make the decision. The question means the asking editor does not know the answer, while outing is when you do know the information is accurate and post it against policy.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Help! SNAFU => FUBAR?

While I drafted a reply to a question, the question disappeared. I checked the history and saw this dif. Because there were so many changes throughout, I didn't want to just revert. Someone have the time to do a detailed fix? I'm on a break at work and won't have time to take a detailed look or work on it until after my swing shift (ending at 2200 EST). Thanks, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 18:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted the edit that munged the page.--ukexpat (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Remember, this is the Teahouse not the Help Desk

We all need to remember here that this is the Teahouse and not the help desk. Users should be welcomed or thanked for stopping by and issues should be explained. One of the purposes of the teahouse is that new users need things explained to them rather than to be pointed towards a page with complex instructions and when people come here for the wrong reasons. Don't tell them off, explain to them the purpose of the Teahouse and point them to the correct venue for their concerns. Ryan Vesey 19:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Specifically, nobody should ever leave this comment after coming to the Teahouse, even if they didn't come for the right reasons. Ryan Vesey 19:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC):

Hello. Thank you for your message. I have asked my question at the reference desk and they seem to have some answers for me already. I have to say, when I saw the sign "A Friendly Place" on my invite to the Tea House, and on the top of the page, I'd expect people to have a little patience rather than instantly start telling me off and that I'm not using the place correctly. I find your tone and Charles's quite unwelcoming. Lamb Ham Jam Man (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Ryan! We all need a reminder. Of course we can't predict how anyone will take our communication, but we should try hard to AGF and remember what it's like to be completely new to Wikipedia. :) heather walls (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

One of the better things about this place is a more human touch and less beurocratic stuff. Tea House is a nice concept and kudos for making it.TCO (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The comment Ryan mentioned above was directed at me. In my defense, it was put on the editor's talk page, not at Teahouse, but it was still uncalled for. The editor in question later put an innocuous question at my talk page, I suspect as an olive branch, which I replied to and subsequently added a very friendly heartfelt apology to him. My RL situation has me a bit uptight (understatement, going through a contentious divorce complicated with just plain stupid custody issues), and I apologize to you all too. It was uncalled for.

On another subject related to the Q&A forum, there seems to be a lot of hosts slipping back into just leaving links rather than trying to offer explanations and then leaving links for further information. I myself have been guilty of that at times. Maybe a mention in the next Tealeaf? Thanks all for everything. We have a great program here, and if any of you feel I have harmed it, I apologize and will accept any consequences you see fit. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

It's always a work in progress, and as long as people agree with the point of the whole thing and are doing their best everything will be fine. I really do think we all need reminders every now and then, and the freedom to take a break if other stresses are making things difficult. Personally I think things are going amazingly well, and the fact that even people who haven't signed up to be hosts are being super friendly is fantastic. Good work everyone! heather walls (talk) 06:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Consequences? No consequences here, my friend. Thanks for explaining the circumstances but it would suck monumentally to lose you! Really sorry to hear about the stuff you're going through IRL-- that would definitely make me more than a bit testy so stay strong. On the bright side: congratulations on the 10,000th edit!. You're an inspiration to us all. :P - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 02:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Not everything can be explained as not every question is accurate or reasonable, but we try to point to the best places to review for specifics. I cannot explain why an article is not notable enough in another editors view, but directing an editor to review our guidelines for notability may be more helpful than assuming what the problem may be. I also would rather editors not criticise each other over being "extra friendly". That is not exactly reasonable. Just be friendly and be natural. Don't pretend and don't fake it. One person's friendly is another person's rude, so there is almost no true gadge for that. Patience must be taken with each other here as volunteers as much as the patience we give those asking questions.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

In principle, I agree with you entirely. In practice, a little 'extra friendliness' never hurts, and can help. Text is a lousy medium for conveying emotion--a message that's perfectly civil and direct can come off as terse, perfunctory, and even (in some cases) hostile. If you're already gun-shy about interacting with other community members, as many of our guests understandably are--it's nice to be addressed warmly, even if all our 'Welcome to the Teahouse!' shtick might seem a little cheesy sometimes. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 01:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Well put J-Mo.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure that some people have rolled their eyes at my closer, "Happy editing!" I think that it's a nice sign-off. And it never hurts to put their username in the title to make it seem personal. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 21:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, beginning with an introduction and ending with a nice touch can make even those awkward posts seem nicer and help keep editors from assuming they are too blunt. DR/N does the same thing.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

That's great to hear. I can imagine a human touch would be particularly welcome in a dispute resolution forum. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 02:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Is it mandatory to prove your citizenship on here?

I've been asked to prove that I am Japanese by writing a text in Japanese. But I feel under pressure because it's not asked to prove their nationality to other users. Why me then? Besides, I don't like to write in Japanese on the internet because of certain fears for other countries unfriendly to Japan. Kotjap (talk) 10:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Erm, no. Such an insistence is ridiculous. Any diffs? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

What's diffs? sorry. Kotjap (talk) 11:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• (ec) Diff: the difference between two versions of a page, accessed through the page history. We can select two versions and choose compare, which helps show that an editor said something attributed to him or her. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

This is the diff being asked for. No-one posted it. It appears to be a suggestion in order to help with a request, and it followed Kotjap asking some question at the reference desk that was something to do with him being warned by his parents, some decades ago, to watch out for Korean people kidnapping him. Kotjap asks many fascinating questions like this at the reference desks. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Fascinating in the good or bad sense? Kotjap (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Demiurge is using it ironically, best I can tell. I think μηδείς's comments are borderline harrassment. Do a Google news search for "North Koreans abduct Japanese", see if there are recent results, and then answer the question directly: Yes or no. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

You're completely right. I don't have to resort to the ref desk for everything. Thank. Kotjap (talk) 11:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• More or less. I don't see anything (regarding to your question about ongoing abductions, if any), but North Korea is decidedly less than forthcoming. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It's been pointed out to Kotjap many times before that they don't have to ask every single question on the RD, e.g. User talk:Kotjap#Ref desk. While I don't know if I'd agree with μηδείς's approach, I think plenty of people have had trouble AGF with Kotjap for quite a while including with their statements about themselves. As I pointed out in response to the question at hand, even with this latest question some of their statements seems strange/inconsistent with what they've said before. In any case, I expect this to be coming to an end soon. Nil Einne (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand his fear of writing Japanese. According to this poll, Japan gave the most favorable impression to the world last year. 日本語を書いて、彼らの鼻を明かしてやればすむことでしょうが。IMHO. his knowledge of Japan is surprisingly poor for a native Japanese citizen. Oda Mari (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Their inability to write in Japanese has been another area where their claims don't add up. Back here [1] they initially said they couldn't even search in Japanese because they bought their keyboard in the US (they also said the same thing [2]), when it was pointed out this shouldn't stop them, they said to say it was difficult because of their age. Nil Einne (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

As expected Kotjap has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Nil Einne (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

What the Teahouse is not

I have taken the liberty to make a "What Wikipedia is not" type page, for the Teahouse. It can be found here. If this exists already, sorry I didn't know. Please add to it if you would like! I haven't spent much time on it thus far. Thanks! — nerdfighter 21:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Heh. Not bad, but to be honest, I'm not really a huge fan. All of what you said is true, of course. (Well, except that I would disagree with the Teahouse not being a second help desk. As far as I'm concerned, complex questions from experienced users are welcome, too. It's more that the Help Desk isn't a second Teahouse, really. But I digress.) The thing is that I'm not the hugest of fans of the tone of WP:NOT, at least for new people. It's a bit...curt, and this is similar, y'know? If this were aimed at prospective hosts, that'd be one thing, but it looks like it's focused more on guests, and I don't think it strikes quite the right note, if you see what I mean. Thanks, though! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I hear ya. We could probably make it for hosts if we wanted. — nerdfighter 22:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd just like to be clear, in regards to the Teahouse not being a second help desk, which is likely related to my comment above, I did not mean that the Teahouse isn't meant to serve the same function as the help desk (and some). The Teahouse does serve the same function. The difference is Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host lounge/Expectations. Ryan Vesey 04:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The difference here at the Teahouse is when the guest a vague question, we should take the time to look through their contributions to figure out exactly what they are talking about and give them the best answer we have for their question. We should then follow up and see if we have helped their issue. i can only recall two instances where I actually scolded a questioner, and I did that on their own talk page. One was a new user that insisted that because she had scientific training in a fringe area, her opinion was the only one that counted and her question was very rude, followed by a complaint to Jimbo and then an ANI. Turns out a couple months later she was discovered to be a sock of a banned editor on fringe subjects. The other was a 13 year old girl who wanted to adopt a user. Several people tried to talk her out of it, but i spoke to her directly and told her in no uncertain terms she wasn't qualified for that. Turns out she did it anyway and created a bit if a train wreck. So, nicer in introduction and discussion, not unloading a bunch of legalize, taking the time to figure out the real problem, and follow-up is what makes this the success that it is. And most importantly, moving the crap off the page and either deleting the total bullcrap, or moving the discussion to a place where it won't destroy the congenial atmosphere we have worked hard to build. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, I feel that the main reason (or one of the main reasons) that the Teahouse is different is that we are trying to be as nice as possible, as patient as possible (within limits) and as helpful as possible. The help desk will answer a question but it may be pretty technical and sometimes it can be as intimidating to a new or experiance user as AN/I.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

(Rushcrew (talk) 08:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC))

First let me thank you for having a friendly place where I can ask for help. Basically I joined Wikipedia because of a couple of incorrect statements on pages about two friends of mine. I corrected these, and all was well for a few hours. Then my " editor " C.Fred removed both of my posts. From this moment things went down hill fast. I found the replies curt at first, then mainly condescending and patronising. I was asked for proof in written form. I did this with page references and book names. One was totally ignored though it proved what I said, the second discounted as " it didn't change anything " At no point was I made to feel welcome and if I wasn't so thick skinned I would have given up a while back. I am going to put a little of my posts below, hope that helps. If I have done this wrong, please forgive me and tell me where I should posted this. Last night I was so dispirited I was going to quit Wikipedia. All I have ever done is to try and make your pages on Stan Bowles and Brian Brendan Wright factually correct. I feel I have been blocked at every step by someone who is more like a machine than a human being.

" (Rushcrew (talk) 10:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)) Not sure if this is right place to reply. Not sure I understand the conflict of interests point. Yes I know both of these guys. But aren't the two issues totally seperate ? The Stanley Bowles fact I know is true because I was there. The dispute about the origin of Brian Wright's nick name was settled for me at Brian's brother George's 60th birthday bash by their mother. Brian also confirmed the truth behind the name on the phone from Whitemoor prison, and also that he has never been known as The Monacle. All I wanted to do was correct, or qualify, statements on here. Surely I can do that without there being a conflict of interests ? If you would prefer me to leave out my name, no problem.I just thought quoting the source helped. Looking forward to your reply, and thanks for your time in this matter. (Rushcrew (talk) 10:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)) Peter Brockbank

On page 177 of Graham Bradley's autobiography " The Wayward Lad " Bradley explains how the nick name of Wright. The Milkman really came to happen. quote " she ( Brian's mother in law ) thought it was time he found full time employment and said " Brian I have got you a job as a milkman" Brian's mates fell about laughing and although he never took up the offer the name seemed to stick. end of quote. Hope this helps. (Rushcrew (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC))(Rushcrew (talk) 08:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC))

Problem with response box

The response input box should be modified so that clicking outside of it doesn't make it go  >poof!<  -and, there should be a Cancel button instead, for intentionally exiting the input box. — Preceding suggestion comment added by 74.60.29.141 (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Guest profiles

I put this comment on the guest profiles talk page, but I will copy it here for more visibility: The teahouse is awesome, super helpful Q&A forum, rapid and always helpful answers, friendly and thoughtful hosts. The guest profiles though seemed hokey and awkwardly setup when I first joined and also today as I peek back at them. The big giant pictures of random objects makes it seem kind of abandoned for some reason. The first guest page has just a few profiles it's not clear if they are the most recent or what. The archive is strange to a new person you would expect a directory not a bunch of archive pages, and here the big gray mostly empty rectangles again make it seem empty. I will try to think of more constructive ideas for Improvement but wanted to at least mention this. The teahouse is great and useful and dare I say cool as-is though so keep it up.

Thinking about it more now I think there is confusion between a "guest profile" and "guest book". I think what is here is a guest book. A profile something that's permanently associated with a user, that is updated. When you encounter a user, you can look at their profile. A guest book on the other hand is just a one-time signature and comment, which other people can browse through but which isn't tied to the user and isn't updated. Silas Ropac (talk) 14:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Sarah is having an Edit-A-Thon

Our terrific founder, Sarah, is having an edit-a-thon this weekend at a meetup event and she said that she will be taking the participants (all new users), to the Teahouse. I asked her, and she said not to expect an onslaught of questions, but there may be a slight uptick. We are usually pretty well staffed, but I thought I would make special mention of this here: on Friday, it would be helpful to have a few hosts on hand throughout the day. Thanks. Go Phightins! 03:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

{{resolved}} template?

Are we now using the {{resolved}} template once a question is resolved? — nerdfighter 00:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

You can do so, as long as the guest has confirmed that the answers they received have solved their problem. But if other people wish to continue a conversation around the question (for instance, discuss a larger issue that the question raises), we don't want to discourage that. So I would only use it if I thought there was a specific reason to close a particular thread. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 21:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

+1 heather walls (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see that as a good idea at all. We are the friendly, inviting place where we want people to come back. Resolved sounds way to much like "dismissed" to me. Gtwfan52 (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• support heather walls (talk) 00:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I absolutely despise the resolved template and have argued against its use at the help desk on the basis that (copying and pasting from the help desk talk archives, with some minor tweaks to fit here):

1. They give the impression something is resolved because someone has presumptuously made the decision that it is, closing off or at least giving the impression of closing off further discussion;
2. The simple fact that multiple times I've come upon posts that are marked resolved that I felt I needed I to add to, qualify, give additional advice and sometimes correct, shows the folly inherent in that. Yes, there are times when a question is so standard and the answer so clear cut and not susceptible to multiple answers that a resolved tag is almost invariably correct. But the vast majority of questions are not so black and white.
3. A user who sees the resolved tag added may think: "okay I've gotten the final answer on the matter", and thus never come back again to see later posts that actually gave a better answer, or an important follow-up, or even show why the advice they were given was totally wrong. So now that user is on their way doing something the hard way, or the wrong way or even in a damaging way (i.e. violating the GFDL over and over) for the foreseeable future all because someone thought a question was "resolved". This actually happened last week. I came across a question where the answer was simply wrong or, at best, woefully incomplete, and marked resolved. I removed the resolved tag and corrected the answer but probably the user who asked the question never saw it again (and probably right now still doesn't know that he should be blanking attack pages and copyvios awaiting speedy deletion, and likely thinks its inappropriate to do so);
4. It has been suggested that we limit it to situation where the questioner has explicitly acknowledged they've gotten the answer and believes their question is answered. There's two problems with this. First, a user who's asking a question is uniquely situated to not know, on many types of questions, whether it's resolved or not—after all, they didn't know the answer so they don't know whether the advice they've been given is correct, seemingly correct or otherwise. "Help me fix this template." You fix it, that's indeed fairly clearly resolved. But the user who says "what's the best way to make columns?/how should I respond to this type of post?/etc. ad infinitum, doesn't know whether they've gotten the correct advice and the process for confirmation of good advice is others not correcting or adding or clarifying over time, or doing so, in which case the initial advice is modified by the group. Second, it won't work. Only a small number of users will see the instructions on when to use the resolved tag, and everyone else will see resolved templates announcing themselves all over the page and take that as what to do and will be off to the races, tagging everything as resolved upon any advice that sounds good to them;
5. The help desk/<teahouse> is one of the best learning forums on Wikipedia. Anything that tends to curb reading posts is a net loss. People see the tag and: "oh, topic closed, on to the next."
6. The closing of topics in this manner discourages further posts on the topic even if they are read. Thus corrections, better methods, follow-ups are not just cut off from reading, but cut off from being added. To some, the resolved notice may be a complete stop sign. With the template in place they think: "well I might have added my two cents; pointed out this other method; provided a different take on the solution, but I don't want to post to a closed topic." I think this alone far outweighs any benefit of users being able to more quickly scan for "unresolved" topics, which is the only benefit I can see for its use.
7. And that comes full circle back to the earlier point. If you're using the method of scanning posts and skipping those with resolved placed on them, you would be getting this benefit on all cylinders if there was a perfect record of their placement. Those who are using the resolved tags to skip over posts must perforce believe that if the template is placed, that means it is most often actually resolved. Some percentage are, but many are not, and those ones that aren't are less likely to be corrected for the very reason that many who might have better advice are skipping them.

There are other issues such as that these templates are all uselessly sitting in the archives taking up space and creating an eyesore, and they are attracting users who are doing little else but "helping" the help desk/<teahouse> by placing them with little regard for the merits of placement, and they increase edit conflicts which are endemic at the help desk<teahouse>. All this is to say, I think the resolved template should be led out back and executed.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

As usual, Fuhghettaboutit expressed what I was saying much more eloquently. The only use I can see for the resolved template is, as an example, someone posts on an article talk page "This chart, or infobox or whatever is broke and I don't know how to fix it. Can someone fix it for me?" In help forums, it has no place whatsoever. I don't know how to fix it, so could someone please find a way to resolve the documentation for that template to indicate that? (THIS would be an appropriate place to use it, IMHO). Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Commons Teahouse

I have proposed creating a Commons Teahouse at Wikimedia Commons at their Village Pump located here.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

That's awesome! Copyright is tough to grok, and finding/adding images is often difficult as well. If someone on that wiki wants to use the invite script (and other HostBot scripts) I've written, let me know. I'm going to push the latest versions to the public repository today. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 21:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Maitre D' badge not working

At least through the extra wikilove script. — nerdfighter 19:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Featured Hosts

There is a new poll on featured hosts in the host lounge. Thanks! — nerdfighter 19:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent activity

First let me say these observations are of nobody in particular, and aren't meant to be rude in any way :)

• Links. I've seen answers that are short like "oh here's the instructions link to long policy page that is unreadable". The reason we exist is because new editors don't want to read those pages, because they are horribly long and obnoxiously complicated in terms of word choice, etc. To put it in a meme's terms, "ain't nobody got time for dat".
  • Instead, say "Well, here's how you do it. You do **** then **** and after that sprinkle some **** and then click some **** and put some **** etc. If this didn't make sense, you can ask me here for more help!" I'd love to say it's never acceptable to link, but sometimes, you need to. Try to do it very very very sparingly please :)
• Quality of answers. This goes along with links, but try to elaborate as much as possible while leaving it short and concise.
  • I'd like to say that 5ish sentences is a good response :)
• Tone of voice used. Not the biggest problem, but one or two answers recently struck me as a little "how do you not know this" style.
• Talkback messages. Even I've forgotten this once or twice, but ALWAYS leave a talkback template, there's a script to help you too!

Just my observations recently.. gwickwire^talk_editing 01:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I have seen the odd case of an answer consisting of just "I have fixed it for you." This does not allow the newbie to have the satisfaction of doing their own fix and leaves other readers none the wiser.--Charles (talk) 10:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Guys, if you're going to fix something for someone, don't just leave them a "I've done it now" response. Say "I've done it for you, it can be a bit tricky the first time. Here's how I did it...", that way they know how for the future. Remember also that other people come look over the responses here to try and find answers to questions before they ask them, so a long response with instructions is better than a short one with none. gwickwire^talk_editing 14:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you for mentioning this. I have on occasion gone directly to host's talk pages to make (hopefully gentle) recommendations, so I would suggest doing that once in a while for those who don't check the talk pages as often (or can't tell that you are talking about them.) Thanks! heather walls (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes in my adoption process, my adoptee has a problem with something technical. I fix the issue for them, let them know that I fixed it, and then explain to them what I did and how to do it. Sometimes seeing how something is done in addition to just hearing it can help. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 22:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

ACC needs help!

Hello everyone, I'm DeltaQuad (also known as DQ), an account creation interface administrator and developer. Recently, our project has had an increased backlog in getting accounts for new users. Our numbers are currently above 250 people waiting for accounts on the English Wikipedia. If you could even spare a moment to do a few requests a day to help us clear this backlog. If this interests you and your willing to help, and you match the following description, then please do apply! Ideal users are:

• Identified to the Wikimedia Foundation
• In good standing with no recent blocks
• Understand and being able to apply the username policy
• Have worked with new contributors
• Have a good at dealing with a situation even while in a dispute
• The full list of requirements

We have a very friendly team to help you get started and we also have an IRC channel. If you have any questions for us or about the process, feel free to ask at the talkpage. If you can help out, we would greatly appreciate it. For the ACC Administration and Development Team, -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Help Needed

Can someone please help me improve this article? Datatune Please add more sources if you find, and elaborate, if you have some knowledge, and of course correct any spelling mistakes, etc. Thanks! Michael Haephrati (talk) 09:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

This should be moved to the question page. I will copy it over. — nerdfighter 20:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

New questions to top?

The "new question" button seems to put new questions at the bottom of the page. They are supposed to go to the top, right? Thanks — nerdfighter 17:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

It has a fail thing if the script doesn't work, but for the most part it puts them on the top and did during my last test. The truth is that no matter how many notes you leave, people don't really read them. :) heather walls (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk Page Survey

Hi guys!

As you may or may not know, we at the Foundation are taking a deep dive at our discussion system - the "Talk" pages we all know and "love". I've created a short survey about them and would love it if you could spare a couple minutes of your time and answer the questions inside.

Thanks! --Jorm (WMF) (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I do love it, with no scare quotes, and please, please do not do anything precipitous (like the debacle that was the implementation of the Vector skin). I also hope you aren't thinking of doing anything radical like liquid threads. I took the survey last week but all I did mostly was praise the current interface, and assert that it is not broken in any way.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

adding info simply from table

Whats the simplest way to add information which is contained in a table? not a wiki table. -- Sport and politics (talk) 09:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Are newbie article writers always directed to go through AfC?

Is it a standard practice of the Teahouse to direct all newbie article writers to submit their efforts to the AfC process? I suspect this may be contributing to the huge backlog problem at AfC. I think Teahouse advisers should apply some discression and perhaps not encourage the really hopeless cases to clog up AfC with their attempts that really have no chance of passing. This practice also leaves many editors with the impression that AfC submission is mandatory for all new articles, thus further adding to the backlog. Roger (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The Teahouse doesn't really have any standard practices besides welcoming new users and leaving talk back notifications. Telling new users to go through AFC is more of a Wikipedia guideline. — nerdfighter 19:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

the backlog existed before the teahouse. hopeless cases will always clog up afc, because new users are no longer allowed to create articles; there is no authentic interaction with people about notability and source criteria. one way of improving interaction will be through the teahouse. it's the policy, not the teahouse: see autoconfirmed status in order to create articles; Page creation restrictions Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 21:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

because new users are no longer allowed to create articles - since when? IP users cannot create articles, new users can. --ukexpat (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec)I might be missing something but your claim that "new users are no longer allowed to create articles" is not correct AFAIK. Any autoconfirmed user can move drafts to mainspace, getting autoconfirmed status is trivial and automatic.

I don't really understand why creating an article seems to be the only aim of practically all newly signed up users. Most end up being SPAs whose entire contribution to WP is their one and only article and many end up in conflicts due to WP:OWN disputes. I was an active editor for at least a year before I even had the guts to think of writing an article from scratch - and I did it without the benefit of AfC. (BTW the article, Thunder City, still exists. In fact all the articles I've ever written - none through AfC - are still standing.) We need to be encouraging new editors to look far wider than just creating their "one and only article". WP desperately needs more "generalist" editors and wikignomes, and fewer "one article only" SPAs. Roger (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

ip users once could create articles. autoconfirmed users means that you can't create an article as your first edit; that is not trivial at an editathon. so i get to create a stub for an expert editor they can edit, seems silly to me. the moving of the backlog from afd to afc was anticipated at the discussion linked above. "New users are less likely to be disenchanted from editing if their articles are sent through AfC, yes. However, a lot of new users simply won't bother trying. The AfC interface is problematic, and many new editors create articles for the immediate thrill of doing so. Denying that thrill will send a lot of them off, never to return, during a period when we're having significant problems with attracting users. If you want to do this, you have to improve AfC to a decent standard first; you can't just shove this into place and then scramble to fix things afterwards." the afc process is broken; that is not a teahouse problem.

yes, what is the psychology of new users? how can we guide them to edit productively, without the wall of warning templates and processes. by failing to interact with new users by policy, we have driven them to use spa's. for whatever reason, they seems to have an evanescent interest in the project. it's a profound failure to communicate. Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 22:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

autoconfirmed users means that you can't create an article as your first edit - where does it say this? Certainly not at WP:AUTOC.--ukexpat (talk) 01:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

"3. New users are less likely to be disenchanted by their article being deleted – because they would not be able to create them automatically, but instead send them through WP:AFC;

4. Autoconfirmed users with 10 edits to existing articles would enjoy an easier learning curve than trying to create an encyclopedic article with their first edit." [3], but i understand tldr. Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 13:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Just to be clear on what reality is here, because there is a lot of misunderstanding. Newly registered users may create a new article from the second they register their account. They are not forced to use AFC or any other process. There is absolutely no technical barrier to doing so. Wikipedia's guides for new users steer them to use AFC in many places, because new users who create an article with their first edit invariably end up cussing at their monitors and swearing off Wikipedia forever, so we'd rather they didn't do that so quickly. So, there is lots of steering new editors towards AFC because it "holds their hand" through the process, and gives them opportunities for feedback and guidance, whereas a newly created article from a brand new user gets deleted with little explanation something vanishingly close to 100% of the time. So, in summation, your answer is thus: there is no technical barrier to a new account creating a new article even with their first edit in the first second after registration. We just do everything we can to encourage them to use AFC instead. --Jayron32 02:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Excellent explanation Jayron32, thanks. I believe a large part of the problem at AfC is because it has no mechanism to simply and painlessly "euthanase" the hopeless drafts. A draft at AfC can linger on indefinitely by being edited, resubmitted and rejected ad-infinitum and so clog up the process. A somewhat counter-intuitive way out of such an impasse would be to actually pass such hopeless drafts to mainspace where they can be dealt with by Speedy - although NPP editors generally object to being forced to play whack-a-mole. Roger (talk) 08:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

"no technical barrier", just higher and higher policy barriers. you can create a inscrutable process with lots of decision trees, and you will lose editors. teahouse has the data about increased editor productivity who engage here, what is the data about the afc? positive or negative? Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 13:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Encouraging new editors to just plonk down their first articles in the main space doesn't sound like such a good idea. The deadlines in the AfD process may discourage casual contributors: some people don't like being hurried. Articles of poor quality in the main space make Wikipedia look bad. AfC is set up so pooly-written articles can get feedback like "this article can be accepted once you do X" whereas in AfD the commentary tends toward the less welcoming "this article should be deleted because X wasn't done/will be deleted unless X is done." What about that third limbo of Wikipedia, the incubator? Should new editors be guided toward or away from it? —rybec 05:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

What concerns me is that the only place that has a "kill this piece of crap" mechanism is mainspace through the Speedy/Prod/AfD processes. There does not seem to be a way to simply and quickly get rid of obviously innapropriate drafts because AfC's edit-submit-decline-edit... process is a closed loop with "accept" as the only exit point. If a draft is inherently never going to be accepted AfC has no "permanent decline" mechanism. Roger (talk) 06:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend AFC to anyone, especially not a newbie. But it does have more "exit points" than simply accept. Some Speedy deletion tags do apply there as we don't allow hoaxes, vandalism, copyvio, spam and unsourced attack pages in any part of the project. Of course that leaves all the articles which in mainspace would merit one of the A tags for speedy deletion. ϢereSpielChequers 09:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes those limited few speedys are there to deal with "offensive" drafts but we need a permanent decline mechanism for drafts that are simply about non-notable or unencyclopedic subjects as they are the ones that clog up the AfC queue. Roger (talk) 10:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

a redesign of the afc process is overdue, however, beware of "kill this piece of crap"; you will have to include new editor engagement, and education into your process, in order to be sustainable. telling newbies to go away, will not keep them away. no "permanent decline" (see FAQ rubric) will prevent repeated submissions. Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 13:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• The problem with new articles in general, and it applies to both AFC-generated articles and main-space created articles, is that some subjects are not suitable fodder for Wikipedia articles. It's that simple. My grandfather was a very nice man, and very important to me, but there's simply no good material about his life published in the world. Zero, zip, zilch. If I want to write an article about my grandfather, I can't because his life doesn't have any source texts. When someone shows up at Wikipedia for the first time to write about a subject like that, we need to do a better job of communicating the fact that the article gets deleted (or the AFC submission gets rejected) because the subject itself is not worthy of a stand-alone Wikipedia article. People mistakenly believe they've screwed up some arcane technical detail, and if they could only format something correctly, or rewrite it just a little bit, or something like that, it would get accepted. No matter how well I write that biography of my grandfather, it will be (rightly) deleted. Now, when you tell me that, you're telling me that my grandfather, someone whom I loved and respected and held in high esteem, isn't a worthy person. So I pitch a fit and demand that he is, because he's important to me. I rewrite the text, make it better, highlight his accomplishments even more, etc. etc. And it gets deleted again. I'm not sure I have a solution, but that's the crux of the problem: new users don't have a sense why some subjects have articles and some do not, and don't understand that their articles will never be a worthwhile subject for a Wikipedia article, and we need to do a better job of getting that across in ways that doesn't send them on the Wikipedia equivalent of a wild goose chase of endless rewrites at AFC for a subject which will never, ever have a Wikipedia article which complies with WP:GNG. --Jayron32 16:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I feel strongly people are being mislead into using AfC, I was waiving this flag a bit ago:

• thread on Afc talk
• archived thread on Jimbo talk

But there did not seem to be a lot of agreement. I think the solution is to first revise WP:AFC main page and the Article Wizard to be honest about people's options, to tell registered users they can submit articles directly. Then deal with the possible influx of bad article some other way than tricking people into using AfC. I recognize WP:NPP can get overwhelmed with bad articles, and that people can have bad experiences getting their articles deleted, but let's solve that problem some way this is upfront and honest. Silas Ropac (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

People write because they care. Some care about their excellent grandfather, some their hometown or profession or sports team or religious or political faction or country or whatever. A few are silly enough to care about learning in general, so we become hard core Wikipedians, but normal people have difficulty understanding us. We have to explain this better at entry points including Teahouse and AFC. In many cases, they should be dealing with Facebook or something more suited to their concerns. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure rewriting WP:NOTABILITY to more explicitly explain the concept will really help. The vast (overwelming) majority of AFC Help page posts are about notability, the newbies simply don't get it. A drastic (but IMHO worth at least thinking about) solution would be to disable new article creation (even drafts) by newbies for a really substantial time - several months and/or several hundred edits. Four days and ten edits might be ok for weeding out most intentional vandals but it's nowhere near an adequate "apprenticeship" for most article creators. Roger (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

We tried to implement this. It passed the community with a fairly large consensus, and the Foundation basically quashed it. See Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed article creation trial for the point where the Foundation stepped in. You can follow links from there to the earlier discussions that show how the community supported the idea. So, yeah, we've tried that route and were told in no uncertain terms that the Foundation would not implement it. --Jayron32 02:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

About a quarter of new editors start by creating new articles as opposed to editing existing ones. Many of these people are spammers, a few are vandals but the majority are goodfaith new contributors. True a large proportion of the goodfaith stuff is below our notability threshold, and the more complete we get the more true that will be, with only a small minority of new articles by newbies actually belonging and persisting. The same applies to newbies who edit existing articles, very few newbies meet all our standards from their first edit. But the few who persist and become active contributors are sufficiently worthwhile that we should not close our community to new editors, better to find a way to welcome, guide and help the goodfaith editors more effectively so that a larger proportion of the people who try editing have a worthwhile experience and stick round. Currently neither AFC nor NPP is working well, I suspect the best solution would be to merge the two and have all unpatrolled new articles be tagged as drafts and set as NoIndex until they've been patrolled as ready for publication. ϢereSpielChequers 04:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I think combining AfC and NPP into one hybrid thing makes a lot of sense. Today we have the AfC carrot and the NPP stick and they are not integrated at all and in a way fight over users. From what I saw articles are either completely not visible off to the side as drafts or they are in mainspace as real articles with a fairly demure warning "this article has not been reviewed". What if instead there was a single "draft" state which had a mainspace URL but which was profoundly different looking from a real article, it was clearly a draft. I'm thinking like a giant yellow banner up to and watermarked "DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT" text in the background. That would give users some of the satisfaction of getting their article into mainspace quickly, while keeping them buffered. From there articles would receive AfC-like mentoring or NPP-like criticisms applied in some unified way, whichever was merited. Until it's ready to be no longer be a draft. Users with enough experience could bypass the draft status.

Long term I think machine learning type evaluation is required to keep up, not letting the machine make the decision but as input to the process. For instance if you have zero references you are at the bottom of the list, and are told so on your draft page. If you have references and pictures and several long sections of prose you will get looked at very quickly, possibly to be approved immediately. Silas Ropac (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the idea of DRAFT articles is excellent. It gives the article some exposure, which could attract others to help edit and improve it. It also encourages the editor. Provided it is coupled with a timeframe and good feedback. A reviewer saying 'Not Notable' and listing links to Wikipedia rules is of no help to anybody. Especially when you, me and everyone else can easily see so many articles that do not meet the notability standard and never did. The overwhelming and blatant unfairness of it all is really crushing to a new editor. Kiltpin (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor

Have you all been looking at the VisualEditor? The WP:VisualEditor is designed to let people edit without needing to learn wikitext syntax. The articles will look the same (or nearly the same) in the new edit "window" as when you read them (aka WYSIWYG), and changes will show up as you type them, very much like writing a document in a modern word processor. This new editing system is intended especially to help new editors, so anyone who works with new editors will benefit from spending some time with the upcoming WP:VisualEditor now, so you'll be able to answer questions when it's deployed this summer (current target is 01 July 2013 for the English Wikipedia). More than 1,500 editors, including me, have tried this out so far, and feedback overall has been positive.

Right now, the early test version is available only to registered users who opt-in, and it's a bit slow and limited in features. You can do all the basic things like writing or changing sentences, creating or changing section headings, adding wikilinks, and editing simple bulleted lists. It currently can't either add or remove templates (like fact tags), ref tags, images, categories, or tables (and it will not be turned on for new users until common reference styles and citation templates are supported). These more complex features are being worked on, and the code will be updated as things are worked out, but this is where we are with the development and testing so far. Also, right now you can only use it for articles and user pages.

What the developers need from people like you—people who know more about new editors than the average editor—is for you to take it out for a spin and tell them how it worked. Please go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and tick the box at the end of the page, where it says "Enable VisualEditor (only in the main namespace and the User namespace)". Save the preferences, and then try fixing a few typos or copyediting a few articles by using the new "VisualEditor" tab instead of the section [Edit] buttons or the old "Edit" tab (which will still be present and still work for you). Fix a few typos or make some changes, and then click the new 'save and review' button (at the top of the page). We really need people who will try this out on 10 or 15 pages and then leave a note Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback about their experiences: Did it work for you? Did it screw up something simple? (Give a diff, please!) Did you try something complicated and it worked unexpectedly? Did something not work, but you think it should be a high-priority item because new editors are likely to encounter it?

This upcoming change is probably going to affect the Teahouse more than anyone else, so please try it out. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you know to what extent they're acting on anything in the feedback? There's been no communication. A couple months ago I mentioned that it was impossible to pipe links, but I don't know if they're doing anything with that. Ryan Vesey 01:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the workings in the background, but I used VE to pipe a link this evening, so clearly someone got that message. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh cool! Ryan Vesey 03:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

RFC

There is an ongoing request for comment in the host lounge, considering the addition of a link to #wikipedia-en-help ^connect in the Teahouse header. nerdfighter 20:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Why is the question page "upside down" ?

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

Good luck getting a good answer. I've been asking that since the Teahouse opened; as having a page that works backwards from the rest of Wikipedia seems very confusing to new and experienced users alike. I believe someone patted me on the head and said "go on, let the grownups handle this" or something like that. I gave up trying to fight that battle a long time ago. --Jayron32 04:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I hope I wasn't the one being patronizing, Jayron. If so, I apologize. I was the one who came up with the top-posting feature in the first place, so here's my answer (you can decide if it's good or not): I did some research in summer 2011 on where & how new editors looked for help. Some of the common pitfalls I observed were: new editors didn't seem to know where to go to get help, how to tell whether a page was active or not, or whether someone answered a question they asked, and they frequently made mistakes when they tried to edit markup on talk pages. These findings mirrored findings from the Wikimedia Usability Initiative a few years prior. So a lot of the features of the Teahouse were designed to reduce confusion and intimidation: minimal visual clutter in the interface, talkback notifications, automatic invites, featured content on the main page, a WYSIWYG gadget for posting questions, a simplified workflow for creating a profile. I felt (and still do) that putting new questions at the top was an important part of the experience we were creating. As a new user, seeing that your question is prominently placed (as opposed to shoved to the bottom of a loooong page) may give you more reason to hope that someone will answer you, and also makes it easier to check back and see. And other users who visit will see the most recent questions, not ones from days or weeks ago, so they know that the page is active. So far, I haven't seen any evidence that new editors who have used the Q&A board are more likely to get confused or make mistakes in other forums. And no one mentioned being confused in my surveys. It would kind of surprise me if they did, frankly: the Q&A board doesn't look or act like any other talk pages on Wikipedia, including their own user talk page, so it should be clear that other pages work differently. I'll also note that LiquidThreads and the upcoming Flow discussion module both put newer threads on top of older ones. Hope that makes the rationale more clear, and doesn't sound like head-patting. It's not meant to. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 22:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

the world is going top posting. newbies tend to expect it. they even try to top post on user talk. bottom post is so 90's = aol message board. i don't see any newbies asking; merely the confused veterans. (there's a lot of grumbling in the archives [4]) if you think it's so bad, wait for the hustle and flow, that will liquid threads it; that will really raise your hackles. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 22:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no preference for top posting or bottom posting per se. I have a preference for consistency. What you have to say on the matter is a good reason to support top posting across all of Wikipedia, and I agree with every word you said; however unless and until we have instituted top posting across all Wikipedia, having a page like this be top posted, where nearly every other page at Wikipedia that a user encounters is bottom posted is unnecessarily confusing. You've explained why implementing top posting is good for all of Wikipedia. You have not sufficiently explained why having one page out of millions operate differently helps new users get acclimated to Wikipedia. If they come here first and find it top posting, then they expect the rest of Wikipedia to work that way, and when it doesn't, they will be frustrated. If they have some experience at Wikipedia and have gotten used to the bottom posting, then come here, where it runs backwards from every other page, they will be frustrated. The issue is the lack of consistency. I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment as a reason to change all of Wikipedia, but not just this one page among all of the millions of pages here. --Jayron32 04:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

i kinda agree, however, you do understand the drama that would ensue a top post roll-out wikipedia-wide? look as the whinging at Flow. consistency at wikipedia, why start now? the process of change and consensus means that there will always be inconsistency, as the warring camps vote for their preferred solutions. maybe we have to have a trial demo, to demonstrate that the world won't come to an end. hey - they are already frustrated, i don't see comments here that they are frustrated about top posting, rather about the klunky wikicode, and policy. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 12:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

I've seen that in some instances as well and my guess is that it is because the Teahouse encourages people who ask questions to answer them too. Ryan Vesey 17:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Like who? Just asking  Miss Bono (zootalk) 18:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I deliberately worded my post to avoid drawing attention and embarrassing individuals. If you browse around the questions page and it's archives you'll see sub-optimal advice appear quite regularly. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that all "new hosts" be advised to undergo a adoption or similar mentorship/guidance under an experienced editor before trying to answer any questions. That way we can ensure minimum level competence from everyone who answers our questions.

A less feasible alternative will be to become somewhat restrictive in who we allow to be a host, and request "new hosts" to register as guests unless they demonstrate a reasonable degree of understanding of Wikipedia and its guidelines. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

no problem. I was just making sure that I am not one of those you have mentioned. Kind Regards.  Miss Bono (zootalk) 18:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Well said, Tommy. Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 23:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Shout out in Forbes!!

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

Time to phase out the maitre d'?

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

Eyes wanted at Help:Searching

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

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

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

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

Previous discussions for reference:

• Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Archive 5#Merge
• Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Archive 5#Change from NCHQ to here
• Wikipedia talk:New contributors' help page/questions#Closing this question page?

• Support merge as before. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Another thing which is confusing for new users is for the Teahouse questions page to put new questions at the top, when other talk pages in wikipedia put them at the bottom. I'm also not convinced by the Teahouse reluctance to give relevant links; spelling things out from square one can often be lengthy and still not give the whole answer that the questioner needs. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Reply Hi David, no one has ever produced any proof that it is confusing for new editors, and there is evidence that the way we do it has many benefits (intending to create a page about this but haven't had the time). Also, giving a relevant link or two has always been completely fine. What we want to avoid is an answer like, "Read link" and yup, sometimes answers are lengthy. If you don't have time, or feel up to the length, then by all means feel free to leave the answering to someone else or wait until you do. Thank you, :) heather walls (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support merge - Moxy (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support merge as before. --Jayron32 17:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support heather walls (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support with caveat - as long as anyone who still works NCHP is all right with it, exactly as before. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support merge with caveat - updating my !vote after seeing Writ_Keeper's caveat. I agree: we need full approval on both ends for a merge like this. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 21:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support merge. It's impractical to keep both when they are so similar in scope. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support with the aforementioned caveat. Andrew³²⁷ 23:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support merge --Ushau97 (talk) 11:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support with Writ Keeper's caveat. Having just (as an experiment) tried to locate Wikipedia:New contributors' help page/questions whilst pretending to be a newbie, I can see why it gets less activity than here or the Help desk - it's appallingly hard to track down. The scope of both projects is so similar that it makes sense to merge them; since the Teahouse is substantially more easy to find, this seems like the best location. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support This just makes sense. Technical 13 (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Having seen how quite NCHP has been recently, I was rather expecting this proposal. --ColinFine (talk) 22:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - as a long-term NCHPQ responder, this makes sense to me to reduce forum overload. I'll be sorry to see the old girl go though. [stifles a tear].--ukexpat (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support I'm no ColinFine or Ukexpat but I do try to answer NCHP questions if I see them early enough; if the main responders are on board then it's hard to oppose, plus the Teahouse project seems to be pretty successful thus far Jebus989^✰ 14:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• Last minute support Someone could probably close this. MJ94 (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support for (what I think are) apparent and obvious reasons. smtchahal^(talk) 13:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support, with the caveat that David Biddulph's initial comment is worth the consideration of an answer. My76Strat (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Reply Hi My76Strat, those comments have been addressed many times and are a total aside from this discussion, by which I mean, if you want to discuss them at length again we should probably start a new section. I have intended to create a "why we do the things we do" page, but have not had enough time. heather walls (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

  Thank you for that response Heatherawalls. I had a feeling this would be the case. Little harm was done in asking. My76Strat (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Yes please! heather walls (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

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

It's off the bot's list. —Steve Summit (talk) 18:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I have removed some links to the page. --Ushau97 (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Show navbox

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

Hi Jim.henderson: because we're trying to avoid overwhelming users with TMI on the page, because we want to encourage them to ask questions if they need help, and because the help portal is listed in the left-hand nav (and in lots of other places on wiki). Cheers - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 19:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse Notification

Can't we make a gadget which can give notifications to all the host users?--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 03:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi anon, what kind of notifications did you have in mind? (and don't forget to sign your talk page posts with four tildes '~~~~' so that we know you wrote it). Cheers, - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 19:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

J-Mo I said when there is a new section at the teahouse it'll give notification to the hosts. So the hosts can respond easily and quickly to the question.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 03:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Would the bot also inform Junior Wranglers of the new question? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Please, no! If it isn't already there stick the Question page on your watch list and monitor it from there. Last thing I want is to log in and find loads of notifications which are by then probably out of date. NtheP (talk) 10:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Respond to this discussion

What happened to that feature? nerdfighter 23:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Ich weiss nicht, but I also miss it. Go Phightins! 23:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It had to do with MW changing the class name for the [edit] link that caused the script to quit working. The script has been updated and should again work. Technical 13 (talk) 10:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Formatting issues

I've just discovered the Teahouse and, although as an experienced editor I probably won't be using it that much, I was alarmed by a couple of formatting issues. I suspect they are browser-specific, I'm using IE9 and have not tried it on any other browser. On Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions I see this [5], note the way the "Ask a question" button overlays the text, the words "Live help chat" sit over the picture of the cat and the words "Respond to this discussion" are half-obscured. Then when I click the "Ask a question" button I see this [6], just a huge white space sitting on top of everything, presumably for asking questions although I can't click inside it. Not great, all in all. I don't care particularly but someone should probably look at this. --Viennese Waltz 08:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't have IE9 to test it with... Are those screenshots with "compatibility mode" (that is a feature in 9, right?)? Technical 13 (talk) 11:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I never knew that there was such a thing as "compatibility mode" in IE9, but you are quite right. When I turned it off, everything looked fine again. Thanks very much, --Viennese Waltz 07:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

'Respond to this discussion'

I don't think that the link text 'Respond to this discussion' in every question thread is quite right. One doesn't respond to a discussion, since that implies that the discussion is already over and done with. 'Join this discussion' would be better. Just my 2c, --Viennese Waltz 15:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

For those who don't know what this is about, it refers to a feature from MediaWiki:Gadget-teahouse/content.js. The gadget can be enabled with "Ask a question" feature for the Wikimedia Foundation's "Teahouse" project at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. I'll let Kaldari know since I have requested some other modifications to that script as well that he said he would take a look at sometime this week if he had a moment. No promises anything will come of it as I quote from the discussion on his talk page, "If I get some time next week, I'll try to take a look at it though." Technical 13 (talk) 16:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

No need; I've changed it to "Join this discussion". May take some time for the cache to refresh, unless y'all bypass it yourself. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for so kindly taking up my suggestion. Appreciate it. --Viennese Waltz 19:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)